Rago
Hall of Fame
Because Sampras was beating giants of the game like Pioline, Martin and Chang and getting straight setted by weak era clowns like Hewitt and Safin. Makes sense.How about Fed played in weaker era.
Because Sampras was beating giants of the game like Pioline, Martin and Chang and getting straight setted by weak era clowns like Hewitt and Safin. Makes sense.How about Fed played in weaker era.
both physically and mentally sampras is stronger as wellFederer is basically Sampras except with better everything but serve
ROTFL at this thread and the poll options. This is designed to be nothing more than a glorified Fed as* kissing thread.
Sampras lost less Grand Slam finals, ergo he is mentally stronger according to TTW logic.both physically and mentally sampras is stronger as well
The first 5 basically mean the same thing though.But...are any of those options wrong?
And that's why he made it to zero French Open finals right?both physically and mentally sampras is stronger as well
The first 5 basically mean the same thing though.
But really Fed would roflstomp Sampras, it wouldn't be funny.
no, i wasn't even thinking about finals lost or won,, but trust me that he was mentally stronger indeedSampras lost less Grand Slam finals, ergo he is mentally stronger according to TTW logic.
no not because of thatAnd that's why he made it to zero French Open finals right?
There's really no evidence for this besides Federer's first return being a good matchup against Pete. Still, Fed hasn't ever played anyone close to peak Sampras' caliber on a fast court. I could see Fed getting a slight edge in h2h meetings, but nothing extreme either way.But really Fed would roflstomp Sampras, it wouldn't be funny.
Nope. Federer's great serve is complemented with a fairly good baseline game. Can't say the same about Pete Sampras. Clay is the surface where the serve is less relevant and the baseline game is more important. Federer made 5 Roland Garros finals, Sampras 0.Both players are similar.
Federer 1st serve returnThere's really no evidence for this besides Federer's first return being a good matchup against Pete. Still, Fed hasn't ever played anyone close to peak Sampras' caliber on a fast court. I could see Fed getting a slight edge in h2h meetings, but nothing extreme either way.
Nope. Federer's great serve is complemented with a fairly good baseline game. Can't say the same about Pete Sampras, who adopted serve and volley as a strategy to avoid being exposed from the baseline. Clay is the surface where the serve is less relevant and the baseline game is more important. Federer made 5 Roland Garros finals, Sampras 0.
Peak Sampras held up in baseline rallies vs Agassi on slow hard court just fine. I guess Agassi ain't no Murray though, so what does that matter huh.Federer 1st serve return
Sampras 2nd serve overrated
Sampras can't do jack vs Federer from the back of the court. What's he gonna do, chip and charge?
But...are any of those options wrong?
The first 5 basically mean the same thing though.
But really Fed would roflstomp Sampras, it wouldn't be funny.
It also depends on how you look at it though. Sampras held his main rivals to single digit slams. Nadal/Nole may end with more slams than Fed when its all said and done. So was he "more dominant?"
If Fed would have took care of business years ago when he should have, he wouldn't have to worry about Nadal/Nole these days and still be playing until he's 40. LOL
90's Clay approved choiceMissing option: Federer's competition was not as strong as Sampras'.
I have a different view now. I stand by my original comment, but Pete Sampras played in an era of specialists, in his own case, grass. Federer's and the subsequent generations, although they have individual preferences, play well on all surfaces. The great players don't have to contend with specialists as Sampras did. That means each surface no longer has a subset of (mostly different) players who are just too good for the field. Only the great players are in that category. The situation, for the past 15 years, has been a small number of unbeatable great players, and a large number of journeymen.90's Clay approved choice
Anyway he did not on clay.Pete had to impose his will more.
Peak Sampras held up in baseline rallies vs Agassi on slow hard court just fine. I guess Agassi ain't no Murray though, so what does that matter huh.
You can't just dismiss Sampras' serve because of Fed's first serve return and because you think his 2nd serve was overrated. The 90s stats on serve (besides hold%) are all wrong anyways. Any player as good as Sampras on serve who can actually move is an absolute handful.
Can't argue with any of this especially when you consider the fact that Pete during his time was having rivalries with ATGs like Yzaga and Korda.Because Sampras didn't have the luxury of playing in the weakest era of all time (2003-2007).
The only one Sampras held back from being a double digit slam winner was Agassi. He might have stopped Becker near the end of his career from winning 1 more Wimbledon or something, but that is it. Courier he might have denied a slam or two, but again that is it. Ivanisevic would be a Kuerten RG type mini legend at Wimbledon without Sampras, but virtually irrelevant everywhere else. There would be nobody from his era (including Agassi) who would have been as successful as Djokovic or Nadal (or Federer) even without Sampras. So while I think you make a lot of good points in your post, this part I find flawed.
Both PETE and Fraud won 7 Wimbys in 14 years... with Fraud winning more matchesUmmm....none of the above?
Outside clay which very few top players on hard transferred to, Sampras did dominate.
7 of 8 Wimbledons>6 of 7 or 7 of 10
Not even talking competition or surface speed.
AO wasn't as prestigious and still Sampras won 2 out of 4 and 3 finals losing to Agassi.
USO Sampras won 5 over the span of 12 years while making a still record 8 finals in 12 appearances. I'm not saying Fed winning 5 straight isn't a better run but he also choked 3 editions in a row. Sampras got clobbered by Safin but then came back to destroy him. He never let up on his pigeon Agassi going 4-0.
2009-2011 Sampras isn't losing like Fed.
Because Sampras didn't have the luxury of playing in the weakest era of all time (2003-2007).
Exactly thisBecause Sampras didn't have the luxury of playing in the weakest era of all time (2003-2007).
And skipping the AO 8 times (his best slam) didn't help matters. He might have been in the conversation for the most accomplished player in Melbourne today along with Novak; one can only guess.All good points, and I think it was more so Agassi wasting away precious opportunities to win 10+ majors than Sampras denying him.
And skipping the AO 8 times (his best slam) didn't help matters. He might have been in the conversation for the most accomplished player in Melbourne today along with Novak; one can only guess.
Speaking of Connors, Borg and Mac, each of them missed multiple opportunities to add to their trophy cabinets. Wasn't the AO played on grass in the 70s and 80s?Nonetheless, I ultimately agree...can’t single out one or even a few players for derailing Agassi’s early-to-mid 20’s. Guy did that on his own. Of course if we remove his greatest rival, he could have won double digit majors, but you can say the same thing for Lendl, Connors and Mac. They played amongst each other (and Borg, until ‘81) yet still ended with 8, 8 and 7 majors.
Speaking of Connors, Borg and Mac, each of them missed multiple opportunities to add to their trophy cabinets. Wasn't the AO played on grass in the 70s and 80s?
Australian Open happened during Pete’s 6-month annual vacation.Two close careers.
The only big differences are:
- Masters 1000
- Australian Open
where Pete's performance was poor, very poor.
They are NOT similar. Federer is much much more talented and better all around player than Sampras. Sampras was great player but he had weaknesses. Federer has no weakness. When he was good and in his prime, he could beat the #2 player in the world with his backhand only.Both players are similar. They have the same weight, height and built. Grass and hard court are their best surfaces and clay is their worst. Both players serve are about placement and disguise. Both play 1-handed backhand and the forehand is their primary weapon. Both didn't need to exert much extra effort to win points. So what is it that separate them since Federer is more dominant and accomplished more ?
And skipping the AO 8 times (his best slam) didn't help matters. He might have been in the conversation for the most accomplished player in Melbourne today along with Novak; one can only guess.
Cliffs: Should have taken tennis a bit more seriously in his early 20s.
don't think so. He wouldn't have been favored to win any of the AOs he skipped except 02.
92/93 had Courier who was better in their rivalry back then.
94 had Sampras/Courier.
97 - he was in no position to win.
Nope. Federer's great serve is complemented with a fairly good baseline game. Can't say the same about Pete Sampras. .
Because Sampras didn't have the luxury of playing in the weakest era of all time (2003-2007).
All the times when Sampras beat Pioline or Martin in multiple Slam finals.Missing option: Federer's competition was not as strong as Sampras'.