Sampras Biggest Rival

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by zagor

Or maybe you fail to understand the circumstance in which I claimed what I did (like say purposely parodying you and your fellow Sampras fanboys), I'd try to explain it further but I'm afraid you'd get confused again.

Oh and using TW polls as proof of anything is quite hilarious, I could find you polls conducted on this forum in which Fed won by an overwhelming margin (while having a far bigger sample size of voters) over your mancrush Sampras (who's the better grasscourter, who's the better USO player etc.) and somehow I doubt you'd accept their results as the gospel truth.

Yea those were overwhelmingly Biased and ****ish for sure

[zagor]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yea those were overwhelmingly Biased and ****ish for sure

More or less agree (though I doubt you'd have the same view if Sampras came on top in those) which is why as I said I find using polls as proof of anything quite hilarious.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

I notice you forgot to mention (probably conveniently) that this match was on clay in spain. Yes Nadal was only 18, but even at that point he was much better than Roddick on clay. I also notice you've mentioned some matches where Federer beat Nadal, but see here's the problem. Nadal was tired at 07 Hamburg and 09 Madrid, the wind was a problem in IW, Nadal was a baby at Wimbledon in 06 and the scheduling was the problem at 07 Wimbledon. And mentioning the TMC is laughable. It's only an exho. It counts for nothing.
As for Sampras's biggest rival, obviously it's Agassi, but it just shows that Federer's had a tougher rival. I've noticed a lot of people like to pump up Sampras's era, but if you take a closer look it's at least no better than Federer's era. Agassi had a late surge in his career, but he was so mentally tough that his ranking dropped to the point where he was playing challengers at 26 years of age because he couldn't handle the mental blow dealt to him by Sampras at the 1995 USO.

Courier couldn't handle Sampras when he hit his prime. Won 4 slams in between 1990 and 1993 before Sampras really hit his prime, and 2 of those on clay where Sampras was well below average anyway. Didn't beat Sampras at the Aussie when Sampras was heartbroken for his coach. That was probably his best chance.

I've also seen people that like to talk about Becker and Edberg. That's fine, but I don't believe Sampras ever had to beat Edberg at any point to win any of his slams. Edberg was past his prime by the time Sampras peaked, as was Becker, although to a slightly lesser extent.

My point is that if you dominate of course it will look like you have no competition, when in fact the more likely idea is that both Sampras and Federer are really really good.

And an exhibition is apart of the ATP tour now? Talk about excuses, you're making quite a few right now. It's nice to know that you have double standards.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yea those were overwhelmingly Biased and ****ish for sure

You know 90's Clay, at least you can be proud in knowing that at his peak/prime, Pete was never beaten by a moonballing clay court pusher

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

And an exhibition is apart of the ATP tour now? Talk about excuses, you're making quite a few right now. It's nice to know that you have double standards.

He was being sarcastic.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by NatF

He was being sarcastic.

And his sarcasm covers the defense of his other points, right?

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Please. Nadal didnt even make the semis of any hard court slam until 2008. He has still never won a set vs Federer indoors. Agassi in one of his worst years ever took Sampras to 5 sets at Wimbledon in 1993, and he had numerous top showings at all the Australian, Wimbledon, U.S Open, and WTFs Sampras was winning from 1993-1998, unlike Nadal who had none at the Australian, U.S Open, or WTF until atleast 2008 when Federer's dominance was already over forever.

That's funny cause in a 3,5-year span Federer faced Nadal as many times as Sampras met Agassi in majors in 12 years. A gazillion times at the French Open, 3 times at Wimbledon and once at the Australian Open. Federer and Nadal haven't met a lot since then but Murray and Djokovic have already been established since then so it didn't matter. Sampras, besides Agassi, didn't have any other real threats (at least on non-clay surfaces - he sucked there anyway), it's only his problem that guys like Yzaga, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Kodra, Kucera etc. could take him out.

Who cares Agassi was "mature" enough to win all the majors and be a contender everywhere if he didn't face Sampras at all? They met exactly 9 times in majors in a 13-year span which isn't even an average of 1 match per year. This is quite hilarious if you take into consideration that
-Sampras was roughly the same age as Agassi - so they could play each other often compared to Federer being 5 years older than Nadal (and despite that they still played each other very often)
-both Sampras and Agassi specialized on faster surfaces - whereas Nadal loves clay courts/slow courts en general while Federer prefers more pace (but is still excellent on clay courts)