Sampras at age 29-30

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

while i like to give credit to Sampras for his wins over Haas and Roddick in 2002 USO, one would have to understand Agassi played second on the super saturday against Hewitt in an extremely tight 4 setter while Sampras lucked out playing against Sjeng Schalken in a straight 3 setter boring serve fest with 0 rallies.

What does that matter.. Sampras had DESTROYED Agassi at the USO his entire career. (Meanwhile Fed needing 5 sets to beat an ailing OLD Agassi)

Andre couldn't beat pete at the USO if you gave him a 2 set lead

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Why can't your boy beat his main rival for 5 years at a slam?

Talk about priceless.. I thought your boy was the HANDS DOWN GOAT? At least Pete could beat his rivals on the big stage. Your boy FLOPS like a fish out of water

Because Nadal is the worst possible match-up to Federer, 5 years younger, and a better player than even Sampras.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Because Nadal is the worst possible match-up to Federer, 5 years younger, and a better player than even Sampras.

here we go with that "matchup issue" again... ROFLMAO.. Talk about priceless

If your boy is supposedly the greatest ever.. Why should that matter?

[tennisaddict]

This thread is not about Federer-Nadal or Pete's records.

Let us stay on topic

Why did Pete lose to so many players outside of top 30 when he was age 29 /30 ? Was it no motivation alone ? Still why would you keep losing half your matches like that ?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

This thread is not about Federer-Nadal or Pete's records.

Let us stay on topic

Why did Pete lose to so many players outside of top 30 when he was age 29 /30 ? Was it no motivation alone ? Still why would you keep losing half your matches like that ?

I already explained that. Even Pete has explained that in interviews.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

here we go with that "matchup issue" again... ROFLMAO.. Talk about priceless

Hey, Kracijek? He whupped Sampras in straights at Wimbledon, didn't he? And what's their career record again? And lest I forget, Federer is 1-0 against Sampras. So much for being "dominant against every player"

[smoledman]

The fact is if Sampras was consistently good on clay he would have gotten to Agassi/Brugera/Muster and got PWNED repeatedly. It's just in this era it was always Nadal waiting in the final.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I already explained that. Even Pete has explained that in interviews.

Yeah, he lost because he didn't care, not because he wasn't good enough

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Yeah, he lost because he didn't care, not because he wasn't good enough

Won 14 slams, Record YE#1, all those YEC titles.. Prevailed over his contemporaries more times then not. Hands down the best of his era without anyone even being CLOSE?

Why wouldn't he have been good enough.. He lost motivation.. He even said so.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....1.Pak2LK9y-pg

Players DO lose motivation, especially when no one is even in their vicinity of greatness out of their contemporaries ya know

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Won 14 slams, Record YE#1, all those YEC titles.. Prevailed over his contemporaries more times then not. Hands down the best of his era without anyone even being CLOSE?

Why wouldn't he have been good enough.. He lost motivation.. He even said so.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....1.Pak2LK9y-pg

Players DO lose motivation, especially when no one is even in their vicinity of greatness out of their contemporaries ya know

Not true, Sampras never ran away with the sport, in terms of total domination ever. He had no excuse to lose motivation except that he knew he was never good enough to win the French Open. Look at Roger even at 31 he's a top favorite to win it.

[Hitman]

90's Clay - Why do you feel you need to defend Sampras so much? This thread is obviously designed to thrash him. Don't you think you are just feeding the bashing?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Not true, Sampras never ran away with the sport, in terms of total domination ever. He had no excuse to lose motivation except that he knew he was never good enough to win the French Open. Look at Roger even at 31 he's a top favorite to win it.

Most feel you can only compare to your contemporaries. And no one even was even CLOSE to Pete. He had played everyone a ton of times and he had the clear advantage over his main rivals at the slams (Becker, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, etc..) all through his prime.

Whats there left to do? He had beaten everyone time and time again.


And Roger isn't a top favorite anymore at any slam other then maybe Wimbledon.. Come back to planet earth

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yawn.


Sampras had already broken the record by 29 year of age, and no one was around him in the slam count or even CLOSE overall to what he accomplished.

Different scenario with Roger.. Rafa was breathing down his neck for quite a while and DESTROYED him on the big stage on all surface more times then not. He was breathing down his neck in terms of legacy so the drive was there for Roger to continue trying to keep the record out of reach.

Pete had Andre but Pete got the best of Andre more then vice versa when it matter and overall in the h2h count. Rafa has been around pushing Rog to the limit for quite a few years now (with only injuries stopping Rafa from achieving more). Pete had systematically silenced all his main rivals time and time again on the big stage.



Fed's more motivated now then Pete was (mainly after he got married in 2000) but I think Fed HAD to be motivated. Rafa breathing down his neck.

I like how you highlighted the word destroyed by capatalising it, but apparently you have an odd definition of it. The only times Nadal has destroyed Federer are RG 2008 and Miami 2011 and maybe 2004. Even something like MC 2008 (7-5 7-5) is a fairly comfortable win but not a destruction.

I do agree Sampras had a lack of motivation though, but I think even if Federer had no Nadal to deal with, I think he'd still be motivated to deal with the youngsters like Djokovic and Murray. I don't think Federer has tired of the feeling of competing and winning titles. In the 90s the world of tennis was different, it's become insane these days, where the top guys must be playing every evernt and in the semis/finals all the time or something is wrong and they are "finished". There is ever more pressure to win and break records these days.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Won 14 slams, Record YE#1, all those YEC titles.. Prevailed over his contemporaries more times then not. Hands down the best of his era without anyone even being CLOSE?

Why wouldn't he have been good enough.. He lost motivation.. He even said so.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....1.Pak2LK9y-pg

Players DO lose motivation, especially when no one is even in their vicinity of greatness out of their contemporaries ya know

He didn't even make a French Open final. Surely that should be motivation enough? Look at Federer, battling two all-time greats 5/6 years younger at 31. That's a champion.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Hitman

90's Clay - Why do you feel you need to defend Sampras so much? This thread is obviously designed to thrash him. Don't you think you are just feeding the bashing?

Why do ****s like to create these threads? Fed has accomplished a lot. Why do they need to further their own insecurities..

Only insecure fans act this way. And there is no fan base more insecure then the Fed fan base. Sad really.. After all Fed has accomplished

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Most feel you can only compare to your contemporaries. And no one even was even CLOSE to Pete. He had played everyone a ton of times and he had the clear advantage over his main rivals at the slams (Becker, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, etc..) all through his prime.

Whats there left to do? He had beaten everyone time and time again.


And Roger isn't a top favorite anymore at any slam other then maybe Wimbledon.. Come back to planet earth

What about Krajicek? And Sampras lost to Federer on his favorite court.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Towser83

I like how you highlighted the word destroyed by capatalising it, but apparently you have an odd definition of it. The only times Nadal has destroyed Federer are RG 2008 and Miami 2011 and maybe 2004. Even something like MC 2008 (7-5 7-5) is a fairly comfortable win but not a destruction.

I do agree Sampras had a lack of motivation though, but I think even if Federer had no Nadal to deal with, I think he'd still be motivated to deal with the youngsters like Djokovic and Murray. I don't think Federer has tired of the feeling of competeing and winning titles.

I doubt it.. Because Nole or Murray wouldn't have been breathing down Fed's in the slam count like Rafa has been for the past few years. Only injuries probably stopping Nadal from eclipsing Fed in slam count, and total domination in the h2h (worse then it is now)


Had Nadal not been around, I would wager Fed would have lost major motivation (around the same age Pete did). Possibly would have retired a few years ago

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I doubt it.. Because Nole or Murray wouldn't have been breathing down Fed's in the slam count like Rafa has been for the past few years. Only injuries probably stopping Nadal from eclipsing Fed in slam count, and total domination in the h2h (worse then it is now)

And Meth stopped Agassi from being the best of his generation.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

And Meth stopped Agassi from being the best of his generation.

Explain Pete destroying Andre during Andre's non meth years then? Was 'Dre on meth for 12 years from 1990-2002?

[Prisoner of Birth]

KRAJICEK! Why you no talk about Krajicek?