Fed vs. Samp, again

[Hops]

updated comparison:

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html


when I started this comp after Wimbledon 2004 Fed was behind Sampras in most categories. That he has caught up for the most part is amazing, considering that Sampras wasn't exactly standing still between Wimb 1994 - AO 1996.

I'd still say the odds are less than 50-50 that Fed catches Pete - not because he isn't good enough, but wildcards like injuries and such are always lurking. But as of now, he's right on track.

[Shabazza]

Way to go!
Keep moving on, Fed!

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by Hops

I'd still say the odds are less than 50-50 that Fed catches Pete - not because he isn't good enough, but wildcards like injuries and such are always lurking. But as of now, he's right on track.

If you're going to talk about injuries then anyone with 13 would be a candidate not to get another.

I think it's a lot better than 50-50. For one reason: the top players still thought they had a shot against Pete if they played well. Except for Nadal's success at the FO and Safin's at the AO last year (and we don't know if either will ever do it again), Fed OWNS the top players. Agassi even said that there's nothing to really attack on Fed.

[Chadwixx]

If they both end up with 14 you gotta give it to federer, he beat sampras in the only match they have played (one for the sampras fans ).

[Hops]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

If you're going to talk about injuries then anyone with 13 would be a candidate not to get another.

I think it's a lot better than 50-50. For one reason: the top players still thought they had a shot against Pete if they played well. Except for Nadal's success at the FO and Safin's at the AO last year (and we don't know if either will ever do it again), Fed OWNS the top players. Agassi even said that there's nothing to really attack on Fed.

Now, yes. In 2-3 years, who knows. Just being conservative; tennis history is rife with seemingly unbeatable players falling off the cliff. Laver won the slam in 1969; he never won another major. McEnroe looked invincible in 1984; he too never won another slam.

Not saying same will happen to Fed, just that there are no guarantees current trends will extend into the future.

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Originally Posted by Hops

Now, yes. In 2-3 years, who knows. Just being conservative; tennis history is rife with seemingly unbeatable players falling off the cliff. Laver won the slam in 1969; he never won another major. McEnroe looked invincible in 1984; he too never won another slam.

Not saying same will happen to Fed, just that there are no guarantees current trends will extend into the future.

You are right. Also 3 years ago Fed was considered to possably be the least likely of the big 5 up and coming prospects-Ferrero, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin, to succeed(Hewitt had already made in fact, and was #1).

[uNIVERSE mAN]

now fed needs to finally play some of the carpet seasons.

[federerforever]

If Federer wins 15 grand slams but zero French Opens then you still won't be able to make undisputed claim that Federer is the greatest of all time. I personally think Federer is a much better tennis player than Sampras and I hated Sampras because his game relied too much on his serve and not on rallies. But at the moment it seems like the 90's was a more competitive decade in Tennis with legendary names like Agassi, Becker, Courier, Rafter all owned by Sampras. I respect Sampras for that. Therefore its only if Federer wins at least 15 grand slams including French Open that he will be the undisputed greatest tennis player of all time and nobody will want to argue against that.

[thejuice]

Originally Posted by federerforever

If Federer wins 15 grand slams but zero French Opens then you still won't be able to make undisputed claim that Federer is the greatest of all time. I personally think Federer is a much better tennis player than Sampras and I hated Sampras because his game relied too much on his serve and not on rallies. But at the moment it seems like the 90's was a more competitive decade in Tennis with legendary names like Agassi, Becker, Courier, Rafter all owned by Sampras. I respect Sampras for that. Therefore its only if Federer wins at least 15 grand slams including French Open that he will be the undisputed greatest tennis player of all time and nobody will want to argue against that.

You make a good point when you mentioned the "others" that played during the Sampras era (mainly the 90's). How many majors did Pete's rivals win? That question makes for a solid argument that he played during a more competitive time. Then the counter-argument could be that, other than Fed, there is a lot more talent and a lot smaller gap between #2 and #100. We all have to agree that it is hard to say one (Fed v. Pete) is better or more great than the other but it sure is fun watching the drama unfold.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by uNIVERSE mAN

now fed needs to finally play some of the carpet seasons.

He had an ankle injury last year - that's why he missed Madrid and Paris. And Sampras only played the bare minimum number of fall carpet events to make sure he kept the #1 ranking - with the lead Fed builds he could take off after the USO and still be the year end #1.

Originally Posted by federerforever

I personally think Federer is a much better tennis player than Sampras and I hated Sampras because his game relied too much on his serve and not on rallies.

Pretty much my sentiments. For those who say "Laver won 2 Grand Slams because he got to play 3 on grass - Pete would have done it too", I say "not with a wooden racket he wouldn't have." To be honest I still think of Laver as #1 and Sampras as #2. Laver had his prime years taken away from him. And he, like Fed, could hit all the shots.

[Alexandros]

The thing is though, that since Federer started his march on history there have been precious few slams to win. He's won 7 of the last 11 grand slams. In comparison, Sampras' first 7 occurred over the span of 17 slams, so there were still plenty of slams to go around for his contemporaries.

There are 3 elements which make up the greatest champion:

• Consistency
• Dominance
• Longevity

Consistency is year after year successes.

Dominance is the level of success in accumulating major titles and years of ranking #1 in the world.

Longevity is putting up great results over an extended number of years.

It still remains to be seen whether Roger Federer will have the longetivity of a Pete Sampras.

[jukka1970]

Originally Posted by federerforever

If Federer wins 15 grand slams but zero French Opens then you still won't be able to make undisputed claim that Federer is the greatest of all time. I personally think Federer is a much better tennis player than Sampras and I hated Sampras because his game relied too much on his serve and not on rallies. But at the moment it seems like the 90's was a more competitive decade in Tennis with legendary names like Agassi, Becker, Courier, Rafter all owned by Sampras. I respect Sampras for that. Therefore its only if Federer wins at least 15 grand slams including French Open that he will be the undisputed greatest tennis player of all time and nobody will want to argue against that.

I have to agree with you, it's all going to hinge on whether Federer can win the French Open, whether it's this year or a different year. I hated Sampras as well, and agree completely on the point that Sampras relied on his serve and not rallies. But as far as I'm concern they can start rewriting the history books now as far as most of Sampras "records" go. Federer is a thinker, and a constructor. It's funny, at first I thought this years Australian Open was one of Federer's toughest times at a slam, but aside from the 5 setter with Haas, where he probably shouldn't have lost the 3rd and 4th set, Federer really stepped up the game when it was needed. I don't think Federer needs to win all of his matches winning every set, the genius of him learning the other players shots is what does it.

I'm not so sure that I agree with the 90's being the more competative decade. There are arguments for both. But the 90's to me were the transition years of players. You had Edberg and Becker exiting, with Federer, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt emerging. As for Agassi, am not really sure where to put him in the exiting or emerging as his time seems to have been split at the very beginning and very end. The 90's seemed to be all about serves, which is one reason why I think Edberg left before Becker. The 2000's seems to be more about returns and construction. Yes it's true that we still have the big servers, but they don't seem as consistent as the servers of the 90's. Well darn, guess I do have to give one compliment to Sampras, being a big server in the 90's, he was a consistent server.

John