Compare Federer vs. Agassi; SAMPRAS is in FIELD of HiS OWN

Tennis Dude · Nov 15, 2007

Good Point, Davidson ... Controlled Environs

A.Davidson said:
True.

However, despite the implications of it as being something for a weaker player who scrounged where he could, doesn't it more brightly illuminate the fact that Agassi played an incredibly consistent game for more years than most players play period?

Don't knock Agassi - that would be the same as calling Nadal a weakling because he couldn't win on surfaces besides clay. In both cases, these guys played against truly phenomenal competition. That shouldn't take away from their accomplishments.

For the record, I personally believe that if Sampras, Federer, and Agassi were to all play each other in a controlled environment (surface, age, technology, etc.), Sampras would win because he could dictate with his serve and players of the 2000's (Federer included) are becoming increasingly uncomfortable when FORCED to net, rather than coming in. Short volleys by Sampras would be winners for the most part.

Agassi certainly shouldn't be underestimated either.

That's an excellent point, Davidson. That's why if they all played indoors or on clay or something, the true talent will come out: Sampras would prevail.

But it's not just talent, it's an oppty to equalize everything. This is why I think Roddick and Nalby are so good indoors. Roddick might even take Shanghai. Too bad Nalby's not there.

Fed is king when it comes to adjust, but he can't adjust immediately. He's certainly not the best.

In an indoor court or carpet, Sampras would probably prevail, if he played tightly and didn't have a horrible no-good day.

All being equal, Agassi, Fed, Sampras, MacEnroe in an indoor or carpet setting DURING EACH OF THEIR PRIME, I would, however choose .....

..........................keep scrolling ....................

.............keep scrolling .........

believe it or

....................................................not.......................

...........................................

I'd.............................................

.................................................pick.............................

McEnroe.

Yes. He'd probably prevail.

This is why McEnroe (I think) plays so well on carpet--it's the great neutralizer.

Chopin · Nov 15, 2007

I'd encourage people not to waste their times in threads like this. Another classic example of why these boards are becoming a joke and driving away people who are interested in having sophisticated discussions.

Tennis_Bum · Nov 16, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
That's an excellent point, Davidson. That's why if they all played indoors or on clay or something, the true talent will come out: Sampras would prevail.

But it's not just talent, it's an oppty to equalize everything. This is why I think Roddick and Nalby are so good indoors. Roddick might even take Shanghai. Too bad Nalby's not there.

Fed is king when it comes to adjust, but he can't adjust immediately. He's certainly not the best.

In an indoor court or carpet, Sampras would probably prevail, if he played tightly and didn't have a horrible no-good day.

All being equal, Agassi, Fed, Sampras, MacEnroe in an indoor or carpet setting DURING EACH OF THEIR PRIME, I would, however choose .....

..........................keep scrolling ....................

.............keep scrolling .........

believe it or

....................................................not.......................

...........................................

I'd.............................................

.................................................pick.............................

McEnroe.

Yes. He'd probably prevail.

This is why McEnroe (I think) plays so well on carpet--it's the great neutralizer.

Man, you are annoying as hell. I agree with Chopin.

Tennis Dude · Nov 16, 2007

Agassi hit a lot harder than Fed - He would've overwhelmed FED

Agassi would've overwhelmed Fed during his prime.

Too powerful.

Also, when Agassi played Fed, Fed may have had poly strings on (didn't he?). When Agassi played Samp, Samp didn't have poly strings. This may be why Agassi feels Fed is a lot more better or powerful than Samp.

There you have it. The technology is the huge variable, here. Had Sampras had the poly strings, he would've blown both Agassi and Fed and Nadal together.

Samp now can harness poly strings, and he may thus have that needed edge.

If anyone says, technology doesn't do anything, go tell this to Nadal, Fed, Roddick, Sampras, Agassi. Go tell them not to use poly strings, and see where their rankings will go ... nowhere but DOWN, DOWN, DOWN.

Even for yourself, if y'all are poo-poo'ing technology as if a player's talent is EVERYTHING, then y'all should go back to using prince synthetic or something like that and see if it makes a difference.

of course it does.

give me a break.

Don't tell me that technology has nothing to do with it--it may have EVERYTHING to do with why everyone thinks Fed's so good.

Let's wait till the exhibs.

hyogen · Nov 16, 2007

Tennis_Bum said:
Man, you are annoying as hell. I agree with Chopin.

You are calling yourself annoying now. Nice pointless response...Nice disguise. It's clear that you're Tennis Dude.

Tennis Dude · Nov 16, 2007

No, I'm Tennis Dude

hyogen said:
You are calling yourself annoying now. Nice pointless response...Nice disguise. It's clear that you're Tennis Dude.

You guys are weird. I don't have to do anything, and simply participate in this forum, and y'all create conspiracies, self-concocted.

No! I'm Tennis Dude. Who is Tennis Bum?

This is quite funny actually. But if you want to believe in your self-made conspiracies, go ahead.

I'm not stoppin' ya!

Neither is Tennis Bum!

caesar66 · Nov 16, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
Agassi would've overwhelmed Fed during his prime.

Too powerful.

Also, when Agassi played Fed, Fed may have had poly strings on (didn't he?). When Agassi played Samp, Samp didn't have poly strings. This may be why Agassi feels Fed is a lot more better or powerful than Samp.

There you have it. The technology is the huge variable, here. Had Sampras had the poly strings, he would've blown both Agassi and Fed and Nadal together.

Samp now can harness poly strings, and he may thus have that needed edge.

If anyone says, technology doesn't do anything, go tell this to Nadal, Fed, Roddick, Sampras, Agassi. Go tell them not to use poly strings, and see where their rankings will go ... nowhere but DOWN, DOWN, DOWN.

Even for yourself, if y'all are poo-poo'ing technology as if a player's talent is EVERYTHING, then y'all should go back to using prince synthetic or something like that and see if it makes a difference.

of course it does.

give me a break.

Don't tell me that technology has nothing to do with it--it may have EVERYTHING to do with why everyone thinks Fed's so good.

Let's wait till the exhibs.

All the technology in the world can't transform a 36 year old into superman. We've seen pete hit with poly on the champion's tour against other champions using poly. He does well most of the time in champions tour tennis not because of technology, but because hes sampras. but he's not superman and all the poly, etc, while keeping him in control of the champions tour, won't make him anywhere close to fed's level.

Also, regarding fed vs. agassi, agassi was a powerful baseliner, but not the most powerful ever. Fed plays people like Gonzales who have the capacity to hit 100 mph forehand winners, and still routinely beats them (a notable exception being his loss to Gonzo in Shanghai this year). You're forgetting that Federer is incredibly powerful too, which isn't as obvious because he moves so well and makes it look like he hits everything leisurely. Fed's variety counters a power game, and he brings his own heat when needed.

Tennis_Bum · Nov 16, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
You guys are weird. I don't have to do anything, and simply participate in this forum, and y'all create conspiracies, self-concocted.

No! I'm Tennis Dude. Who is Tennis Bum?

This is quite funny actually. But if you want to believe in your self-made conspiracies, go ahead.

I'm not stoppin' ya!

Neither is Tennis Bum!

The guy is stupid as hell for claiming that you and I are the same person, but you are still annoying as hell though.

caesar66 · Nov 16, 2007

Tennis_Bum said:
The guy is stupid as hell for claiming that you and I are the same person, but you are still annoying as hell though.

I'm vouching for Tennis Bum, in other threads its clear that he is not Tennis Dude

superman1 · Nov 18, 2007

Tennis_Bum said:
You can throw footwork in there too.

Agassi's footwork was very good, and he was a good mover when he was younger. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBqWpQXGBvw

But yeah, Federer is better.

lambielspins · Nov 18, 2007

Footwork and court coverage dont always go hand in hand. Seles for example had mediocre court coverage but great footwork, while the Williams have great court coverage and sloppy footwork (court coverage more excellent in their prime then now, and footwork a bit less sloppy then compared to now, but still true to a large extent at any given time). I wish I could have used ATP examples but those were the 2 that came up as most obvious in my mind.

I think Agassi in his prime had pretty good court coverage, but better footwork then court coverage.

illkhiboy · Nov 18, 2007

stormholloway said:
By "still in the works" you mean he hasn't retired? So what?

Agassi never had to deal with such a dominant clay court player as Rafael Nadal. This has nothing to do with Roger's ability. Federer has met Nadal in the last 3 French Opens.

Again, so what? He's been more dominant than Sampras and has won nearly as many slams in far fewer years. What does this number have to do with ability? Rod Laver said that he didn't even think of total slams at the time he was playing.

You are talking out of your ass. Federer has won 3 of the 4 slams in a calendar year 3 different times. Sampras never once even won 3 of 4 in a single year. Federer's reign is far more dominant than Sampras'. What does winning a couple extra slams and beating Sampras' record have to do with ABILITY?

So lemme get this straight... 12 slams in a span of 5 years and he hasn't proven himself? He had one of the single most dominant years of all times, losing maybe 3 matches. Even after all this, you say he's not that good yet?

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is even watching tennis. This is the biggest load of BS I've read in a while.

Why do you bother wasting your energy on lowlife trolls?

Maestro Nalbandian · Nov 18, 2007

CEvertFan said:
Federer is a better, more dominant player than both Agassi and Sampras, even if he retired tomorrow.

Being a pure serve/volleyer doesn't automatically make you a greater player than a baseliner. Total Grand Slam titles isn't an automatic indicator of greatness, or Roy Emerson with his 12 majors would have been considered the best ever (which he wasn't) until Sampras broke the record. Federer is a very good net player but he is more comfortable at the baseline. However, he knows that if he needs to come to net that he has it within himself to do so and that is the definition of an all court player.

The ONLY thing that might give prime Federer trouble if he played a prime Sampras would be Pete's serve, which gave EVERYONE fits, including Agassi who is considered to have one of the best returns of serve in the game EVER. If Federer could handle the Sampras serve that would also considerably help Roger to prevent Pete from coming to net so much and he would then win hands down. Agassi would give him a fight from the baseline but Federer's superior footspeed and variety would allow him to prevail. What Federer does better than almost anyone else that I've ever seen play is his ability to force his opponents out of their comfort zone, and he would do the same thing to both prime Agassi and prime Sampras.

People complain about how Fed is slipping and he's no longer dominating, but his 3 Slams and his finalist showing at the French again this year prove otherwise. In order for one of the other top men (most likely Nadal if his body can hold up) to move up to the #1 ranking, Federer will HAVE to have slipped past his prime. I just don't see anyone else taking the #1 ranking until he does. Federer's dominance of the men's tour is unprecedented, and I don't think that people appreciate what an extremely difficult task that really is. This isn't the women's tour where comparable domination is much more commonplace among the very best women players of all time ie Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Court etc.

Yes, agreed. This is exactly why to say Fed has not proved himself is total BS. Even if he retires now he will be regarded as the best tennis player in history.

Maestro Nalbandian · Nov 18, 2007

caesar66 said:
I'm vouching for Tennis Bum, in other threads its clear that he is not Tennis Dude

Point of the thread is Tennis Bum and Tennis Dude are not the same person. Tennis Dude thinks both Sampras and Agassi are better then Federer but Tennis Bum has proved him wrong.

counterpunchingrules · Nov 19, 2007

thalivest said:
Sampras or Agassi in their primes would probably crush Federer. Look at how much Roger struggled vs old geezer Agassi with a gimpy back at the 2004 and 2005 U.S Opens. Also look at how much he struggles with great clay courter Nadal at Wimbledon on grass. Sampras did everything better then Federer, better serves and volleys, better groundstrokes off both wings, more athletic and returned more solidly. Agassi had a weaker volley then Federer but was better in every other way too, more mobile, much better groundstrokes and returns, better serve and mentally much tougher.

this post is flawed in many aspects, but ill quickly post regarding the issue that bugged me the most

- quit saying how rafa (a clay court specialist) should never touch fed on wimbeldon. are you aware wimby is the second slowest GS playing surface(second only to roland garros)? it makes SENSE for rafa to do well there, compared to AO and USO where he cant even breach the quarters....MEANWHILE you have fed winning wimbledon year in and year out, and making finals of the french.

Fee · Nov 19, 2007

Look who got banned.

EZRA · Nov 20, 2007

Federer is a great player - no doubt about it. The only problem is that there's not so many people out there that can challenge him right now except for a few people. If you were to critically check the field right now in Men's tennis - there's only a few who can CONSISTENTLY pose a threat to Roger.. the ones that stands out is Nadal and Nalbandian.. and maybe Djokovic. Safin was once a threat but Lord knows what's up with him.

Whereas with Sampras, it's amazing that he got a record number of Grandslam titles with the company he was competing against. He's got Agassi, Chang, Martin, and Courier on his ass.... and that's only from the American side. That doesn't include the Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Moya, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster, Rios, Medvedev, etc.... The depth was just too deep and for him to win that much slams is pretty incredible.

I recognize Federer's greatness but I think Sampras is simply a champion amongst Champions. We could only wish that these players came out at the same time so we can really tell who's better.

As far as Agassi vs Federer with both in their prime. This is a toss-up. But if you look at their head-to-head results, an old Agassi dominated a young Federer and an even OLDER Andre gave Roger some problems (on occasions) during his prime. That's something to think about.

Steve132 · Nov 20, 2007

EZRA said:
Federer is a great player - no doubt about it. The only problem is that there's not so many people out there that can challenge him right now except for a few people. If you were to critically check the field right now in Men's tennis - there's only a few who can CONSISTENTLY pose a threat to Roger.. the ones that stands out is Nadal and Nalbandian.. and maybe Djokovic. Safin was once a threat but Lord knows what's up with him.

Whereas with Sampras, it's amazing that he got a record number of Grandslam titles with the company he was competing against. He's got Agassi, Chang, Martin, and Courier on his ass.... and that's only from the American side. That doesn't include the Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Moya, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster, Rios, Medvedev, etc.... The depth was just too deep and for him to win that much slams is pretty incredible.

I recognize Federer's greatness but I think Sampras is simply a champion amongst Champions. We could only wish that these players came out at the same time so we can really tell who's better.

As far as Agassi vs Federer with both in their prime. This is a toss-up. But if you look at their head-to-head results, an old Agassi dominated a young Federer and an even OLDER Andre gave Roger some problems (on occasions) during his prime. That's something to think about.

Here we go again. Yet another paean to the alleged glories of the 1990's. If you believe that Chang, Martin, Moya, Rios and Medvedev would have beaten Federer regularly you are in a very small minority.

There is, however, no way to resolve that issue definitively. Let's instead look at the actual evidence rather than reciting a list of Great Names. The evidence to be examined is the list of players who beat Federer and Sampras in their prime at Slams - that is, the players who actually prevented them from winning more than they did.

The following players defeated Federer in Slams from 2004 to 2007 (16 Slams):

Kuerten
Nadal (3 times)
Safin

Kuerten and Nadal, both three time French Open champions, defeated Federer at Roland Garros. Safin, a two-time Slam champion, defeated him in the Australian Open.

The following players defeated Sampras in Slams between 1994 and 1997 (also 16 Slams):

Courier
Yzaga
Agassi
Schaller
Philippoussis
Kafelnikov
Krajicek
Norman
Korda

Agassi is one of the great players of the Open era, and Courier was very good, though certainly not the equal (at Roland Garros, where he beat Sampras) to Kuerten and Nadal. As for the others... can you imagine Schaller and Yzaga beating Federer in a Slam? Federer simply does not lose to players of this calibre at major events.

During the Golden Age of the 1990's (1993 to 1997) Berasategui reached the French Open final, Washington the Wimbledon final and Cedric Pioline both the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals. Are they more accomplished than the Slam finalists of the past few years?

I suggest that you review the information available on the ATP and ITF web sites before posting on this issue. Both sites are excellent cures for nostalgia.

FedForGOAT · Nov 20, 2007

great post, steve! I agree with you that Sampras did not have tougher competition, but even if he did, there would be no way to know this based on the number of times they defeated him. If Sampras lost to his rivals more Fed did to his, that just shows that the difference between Fed and his competition is greater. This could mean Federer is better, his competition is weaker, or both. There's no way to know anything except for that Fed outdistances his contempararies by more than sampras did. The only way to compare their competition is to eyball it, which steve did nicely.

Tennis_Bum · Nov 21, 2007

Steve132 said:
Here we go again. Yet another paean to the alleged glories of the 1990's. If you believe that Chang, Martin, Moya, Rios and Medvedev would have beaten Federer regularly you are in a very small minority.

There is, however, no way to resolve that issue definitively. Let's instead look at the actual evidence rather than reciting a list of Great Names. The evidence to be examined is the list of players who beat Federer and Sampras in their prime at Slams - that is, the players who actually prevented them from winning more than they did.

The following players defeated Federer in Slams from 2004 to 2007 (16 Slams):

Kuerten
Nadal (3 times)
Safin

Kuerten and Nadal, both three time French Open champions, defeated Federer at Roland Garros. Safin, a two-time Slam champion, defeated him in the Australian Open.

The following players defeated Sampras in Slams between 1994 and 1997 (also 16 Slams):

Courier
Yzaga
Agassi
Schaller
Philippoussis
Kafelnikov
Krajicek
Norman
Korda

Agassi is one of the great players of the Open era, and Courier was very good, though certainly not the equal (at Roland Garros, where he beat Sampras) to Kuerten and Nadal. As for the others... can you imagine Schaller and Yzaga beating Federer in a Slam? Federer simply does not lose to players of this calibre at major events.

During the Golden Age of the 1990's (1993 to 1997) Berasategui reached the French Open final, Washington the Wimbledon final and Cedric Pioline both the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals. Are they more accomplished than the Slam finalists of the past few years?

I suggest that you review the information available on the ATP and ITF web sites before posting on this issue. Both sites are excellent cures for nostalgia.

Nice job, I knew that Sampras lost to low caliber players but I couldn't sum up this as well as you did. Man, you went all out. I still don't know why Sampras's fans insist that Fed has not proven himself. But I guess I will never know because I don't think the same way as they do. I am not sure if Sampras's fans still believe that he can return to ATP after the first EXO.

Sampras is smart but from what I saw from the interview, Sampras himself still believes that he can challenge players on grass. Current grass condition is slower than those of his playing days; he can possibly thinks that he can play now on grass. Man, for a minute I thought he was humbled, but he again proved me wrong.

Deleted member 21996 · Nov 21, 2007

OK;

Sampras and Agassi thru out their carrers faced peers like Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Jim Courrier, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Chang, Wilander, Muster, Kuerten, Rafter, Safin...

Federer? who does he face in his time?

Ljubucic? Ancic? "Chokovic", Rafa Nadal and the "Sleevettes*", Blake, Ferrer, EL Fatso argentino?, Leyton "Weak-it", NIk "always a safe bet" davidenko, robredo, gasquet...

who the hell in his perfect sense who dare to compare one era 90's to the other 2000's?

*please include monfils and other "1992 agassi" wannabies

EZRA · Nov 21, 2007

Steve - I totally believe that those guys can challenge Federer. Especially Chang, Rios, and Moya on clay where Federer is vulnerable. Look... how much different is Chang's game to Nadal's? Chang's got more pop and variety in his serve and he can at least play the net.

And about Pete losing to Yzaga.. well, Jaime Yzaga is no push-over. He is actually an incredible player for someone being so short. Schaller on the other hand.. well he caught Pete in a bad day I guess.

hey, everyone gets bad days.. even Steffi, regardless how great she was.. she still lost first round in Wimbledon as a 3-time defending champion.

As far as your comparisons to Grandslam results - it only makes you realize the depth of today's game where only a handful of players can challenge the top player. And seriously - other than Nadal - who else is out there that can seriously pose a threat to Federer? I can see Nalbandian and maybe Djokovic .. but the rest of the field? who else is out there to really push him to the limits? Ferrer? Roddick? Baghdatis? Gasquet? Gonzales? Davydenko? We all recognize and acknowledge Federer's greatness.. he is a tremendously brilliant and talented champion - but I seriously think that he needs more of a challenge than what today's tennis has to offer.

---

Comparing Pioline and Berasetegui to recent finalists -other than Nadal, we only have a few other GS finalists. Gonzales isn't really all that accomplished as well as Baghdatis. Djokovic hasn't proven himself yet - and his results at the ATP Championships didn't really validate his potential. IMO Pioline is a far better player than you think he is.. and is a far better player than those three mentioned above. Berasategui , on the other hand, was a one-sided (surface) player.

---

By the way: try not to act too overbearing and aloof and start messages like "here we go again" .. I mean, is it really necessary when we're trying to have a friendly discussion here?

Steve132 · Nov 21, 2007

Gorecki said:
OK;

Sampras and Agassi thru out their carrers faced peers like Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Jim Courrier, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Chang, Wilander, Muster, Kuerten, Rafter, Safin...

Federer? who does he face in his time?

Ljubucic? Ancic? "Chokovic", Rafa Nadal and the "Sleevettes*", Blake, Ferrer, EL Fatso argentino?, Leyton "Weak-it", NIk "always a safe bet" davidenko, robredo, gasquet...

who the hell in his perfect sense who dare to compare one era 90's to the other 2000's?

*please include monfils and other "1992 agassi" wannabies

Your list of Great Names that represented competition for Sampras and Agassi contains several players who do not belong there. Lendl was a player of the 1980's, not the post-1993 era when Sampras became No. 1. He never reached a Slam quarter final after 1992 and won only 2 of his 94 titles after that year. Wilander did not reach a Slam quarter final or win an ATP singles tournament after 1990. Edberg won only five minor titles after 1992. Even Courier - who was certainly Sampras' contemporary - reached no Slam or Masters event finals after 1993.

On the other hand, you list Safin (born in 1980) as a contemporary and rival of Sampras and Agassi (b. 1971 and 1970 respectively) but not Federer (born 1981). Why?

While you list Lendl as one of Sampras' rivals, you do not list Agassi as one of Federer's, although Agassi accomplished far more from 2003 on (winning Masters series events, reaching the U.S. Open final against Federer) than Lendl did after 1993. Why?

If the competition in the 1990's was so severe, why did players like Berasategui, Washington and Pioline reach Slam finals - twice in Pioline's case? Can you identify any players of that calibre who have reached Slam finals since 2004?

It is true that Federer's rivals do not beat him very often, at least in Slam events. There are at least two possible explanations for this. One is that they are not very good, and another is that Federer is great.

One problem with the first explanation is that the players of the current decade (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc.) have very good records against players of the 90's, Sampras included. Another problem is that many experienced and knowledgeable observers with no ax to grind - Jack Kramer, Nick Bolletieri, Cliff Drysdale, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Tim Henman, etc. - have described Federer as the best or most talented player they have ever seen. You are free to disagree with them, but you need additional evidence or arguments in order to eliminate the second explanation.

One last point. You appear to believe that it is self-evident that competition in the 1990's was tougher than it is today. This "truth" is not quite so obvious to most tennis analysts. The only people who view the 1990's as a Golden Age for men's tennis are (a) some of the players of that era; and (b) Sampras fans who wish to preserve their hero's GOAT claims. If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be most interested in seeing it. Note that statements to this effect by Sampras or Becker or Ivanisevic do not count. We need testimony by independent and impartial sources - e.g. the players of the 60's or 70's.

BradBaughman · Nov 21, 2007

one fact for sure is fed definatley struggled with agassi and aggi was 35,, that says alot when you take any other sport say boxing and you put a 35 yr old ex champ shooting his back up even to fight i garantee the fighter in his prime 25 would KO him early ,,
as you watch the open final with aggi an roger watch with and open mind and you will see aggi dictating that baseline (yes give roger his credit great defence)but to have and old man dictating the baseline

what would he have done had he focused early on in his career the best ever no dout

Steve132 · Nov 21, 2007

EZRA said:
Steve - I totally believe that those guys can challenge Federer. Especially Chang, Rios, and Moya on clay where Federer is vulnerable. Look... how much different is Chang's game to Nadal's? Chang's got more pop and variety in his serve and he can at least play the net.

And about Pete losing to Yzaga.. well, Jaime Yzaga is no push-over. He is actually an incredible player for someone being so short. Schaller on the other hand.. well he caught Pete in a bad day I guess. hey, everyone gets bad days.. even Steffi, regardless how great she was.. she still lost first round in Wimbledon as a 3-time defending champion.

As far as your comparisons to Grandslam results - it only makes you realize the depth of today's game where only a handful of players can challenge the top player. And seriously - other than Nadal - who else is out there that can seriously pose a threat to Federer? I can see Nalbandian and maybe Djokovic .. but the rest of the field? who else is out there to really push him to the limits? Ferrer? Roddick? Baghdatis? Gasquet? Gonzales? Davydenko? We all recognize and acknowledge Federer's greatness.. he is a tremendously brilliant and talented champion - but I seriously think that he needs more of a challenge than what today's tennis has to offer.

---

Comparing Pioline and Berasetegui to recent finalists -other than Nadal, we only have a few other GS finalists. Gonzales isn't really all that accomplished as well as Baghdatis. Djokovic hasn't proven himself yet - and his results at the ATP Championships didn't really validate his potential. IMO Pioline is a far better player than you think he is.. and is a far better player than those three mentioned above. Berasategui , on the other hand, was a one-sided (surface) player.

---

By the way: try not to act too overbearing and aloof and start messages like "here we go again" .. I mean, is it really necessary when we're trying to have a friendly discussion here?

Ezra:

Let me start by saying that I did not meant to offend you or anyone else and I apologize if I did so. I did feel some exasperation because this type of argument has been made on this and other forums many times before and answered just as often.

With respect to the substance of your reply, we clearly disagree about the relative merits of Federer and Nadal on the one hand and Chang, Rios and Moya on the other. I'm not sure how we can resolve it except by reviewing the records of these players. Nadal has lost only once (to Federer) on clay in the past two years. Federer's clay court record over the past three years against players not named Nadal is 45-2. With Nadal it is a more than respectable 46-8. Chang, Rios and Moya all lost far more often to players who were and are not regarded as exceptional clay court performers.

My purpose in reviewing Federer's and Sampras' Slam records was to move beyond the list of Great Names to see the actual competition that the two players faced. One of my main contentions is that Sampras' draws were not nearly as formidable as the list suggests, and when he lost in Slams it was rarely to a great player. I could have added players such as Kucera and Delgado, who defeated Sampras in Slams in 1998.

Federer has bad days like everyone else, but even on his bad days he gets through, rarely losing even a set. Only multi-Slam winners have beaten Federer in a Slam since 2004.

I don't see much evidence of a lack of competition in today's game. I think that it only looks that way because Federer is so dominant. In fact, the logic of the "weak competition" argument seems to me to be flawed, because in this argument players are considered to be strong competition only if they beat Federer - or win Slams, which they can only do if they or someone else beats him. This gives rise to an all too familiar paradox. If Federer wins, his competition is weak. If he loses, he is not so great after all because Canas or Djokovic or Nalbandian can beat him.

I mentioned the records of some of the Slam finalists in the 90's to illustrate the gap between the picture of a Golden Age and the reality of what actually occurred in this period. Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Djokovic are all in mid-career, but I think that most tennis analysts would consider them to be collectively far superior to Berasategui, Washington and Pioline. In particular, if you think that Pioline is a better player than Djokovic you are very much in a minority.

Steve132 · Nov 21, 2007

BradBaughman said:
one fact for sure is fed definatley struggled with agassi and aggi was 35,, that says alot when you take any other sport say boxing and you put a 35 yr old ex champ shooting his back up even to fight i garantee the fighter in his prime 25 would KO him early ,,
as you watch the open final with aggi an roger watch with and open mind and you will see aggi dictating that baseline (yes give roger his credit great defence)but to have and old man dictating the baseline

what would he have done had he focused early on in his career the best ever no dout

Agassi is one of the greats of the Open era, and he played some of his best and most consistent tennis in this decade. However,

He never beat Federer after 2002
He does not believe that competition in this decade is weaker than it was in the 90's.
He considers Federer to be the greatest player he has seen.

Nickognito · Nov 21, 2007

You're right, but in the particular case I think that Kucera was more dangerous that Canas today.

Kucera in his head-to-heads career is 4-3 vs. Agassi, 4-0 vs. Bruguera, 2-1 vs. Chang, 1-0 vs. Ferrero, 4-3 vs. Ferreira, 2-1 vs. Haas, 4-1 vs. Ivanisevic, 3-2 vs. Kafelnikov. 2-1 vs. Muster.

Sampras is 6-1 with him, and Kucera was a really good player, so we have not to blame Sampras' loss, I suppose

Anyway, I think the exception is Sampras, not Federer. Maybe all the great champions of the past were consistent like Roger and didn't lose with 'normal' opponents. In 1985-86, Lendl won 160 matches while losing only once with a non grand-slam-champion: Henri Leconte, doublefinalist of grand slam tournaments, in any case.

Maybe the same for Borg, Laver and all the great plaeyers that did not suffered from Thalassemia Minor ;-)

c.

zagor · Nov 21, 2007

Nickognito said:
You're right, but in the particular case I think that Kucera was more dangerous that Canas today.

Kucera in his head-to-heads career is 4-3 vs. Agassi, 4-0 vs. Bruguera, 2-1 vs. Chang, 1-0 vs. Ferrero, 4-3 vs. Ferreira, 2-1 vs. Haas, 4-1 vs. Ivanisevic, 3-2 vs. Kafelnikov. 2-1 vs. Muster.

Sampras is 6-1 with him, and Kucera was a really good player, so we have not to blame Sampras' loss, I suppose

Anyway, I think the exception is Sampras, not Federer. Maybe all the great champions of the past were consistent like Roger and didn't lose with 'normal' opponents. In 1985-86, Lendl won 160 matches while losing only once with a non grand-slam-champion: Henri Leconte, doublefinalist of grand slam tournaments, in any case.

Maybe the same for Borg, Laver and all the great plaeyers that did not suffered from Thalassemia Minor ;-)

c.

Sampras always paced himself for the slams,whether it was because of Thalassemia or not I don't know.I always thought that he needed a big stage like the slam to pump himself-up and he played a higher risk game than Federer so it is expected that he had more losses.He is very different from Lendl IMO,Lendl was much more dominant thorought the whole year but Sampras was a much better big match player.

rosenstar · Nov 21, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
Yes, agreed. This is why Fed has not proved himself at net, yet. He's only proved himself as the world #1. He's proved himself at net only on selective occasions, but far from even hinting or thinking about initiating an anlysis of his net game. He doesn't do it enough, and so his tennis play doesn't quite merit the volley analysis as it would with his baseline play.

To say that Fed is a great volleyer, makes Becker and Edberg look like they just volley all the time just for the sake of doing it. No.

Becker and Edberg volley, and volley well. They volleyed all the time. Fed on the other hand is a baseliner, so we can really look into his volleys, other than those seldom times he does come to the net.

soooo why does fed need to volley more to be the GOAT? Not saying that fed is the GOAT, just don't understand your logic here...

lambielspins · Nov 21, 2007

EZRA said:
Whereas with Sampras, it's amazing that he got a record number of Grandslam titles with the company he was competing against. He's got Agassi, Chang, Martin, and Courier on his ass.... and that's only from the American side. That doesn't include the Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Moya, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster, Rios, Medvedev, etc.... The depth was just too deep and for him to win that much slams is pretty incredible.

I got a good laugh out of reading your post. Yeah Agassi was a big threat when he was a serious player, which from 93-2000 when Pete had almost all his biggest success he was for about 3 of those 8 years only. Becker was still a threat for a few of the early years of that span, but still a shadow of the player he was. Remember Becker was not some late bloomer like Agassi. Edberg was pretty good in 93 and 94, then not even a top 10 calibre player his final years in 95 and 96. Courier was burnt out for good by midway through 94.

As for the others:

Chang- just a weaker or atleast no better version of Hewitt, and Federer had Hewitt as a main competitor in 2003-2005 similar to Sampras had Chang from 1995-1997 in that role; then both burnt out for good in a similar way.

Martin- You have got to be kidding me.

Ivanisevic- one trick pony (serve) similar to how people talk about Roddick today. Unlike Roddick, was only a major threat at 1 slam, Wimbledon, while Roddick is a major threat at 3 and faces Federer much more late in various slams then Ivanisevic did Sampras.

Krajicek- he was a very good volleyer atleast, which makes him more multi-dimensional then serve-only Ivanisevic. Still only a handful of even reasonable quality slam results to show for his injury plagued and erratic career. Not a consistent threat anywhere, not even at Wimbledon where he has more early round flameouts then 2nd week appearances.

Bruguera- just a threat on clay, were Sampras was not a threat to win anyway. Never even made it past the round of 16 of any slam event outside the French Open.

Muster- again just a threat on clay, only 1 time past the quarters of a hard court slam, 1 lonely Australian Open semi very late in his career. Often skipped Wimbledon altogether.

Rios- ROTFL! A guy who only 1 made it past the quarters of a slam event, that being a final appearance 1 time at the Australian Open where he lost in one of the most embarassing displays in recent slam final history in his tank resembling 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 loss to Korda.

Medvedev- again you have got to be kidding. A guy who was a marginal top 10 player in 93-94, although highly touted for his future potential, and instead fell off the radar screen, only briefly reemerging for one miracle French Open run in 1999.

Kuerten- again only a threat in the slams at the French, Pete by then even more of a no factor at the French anyway, and as it turned out, likely because of what I just mentioned, the two didnt even play once in a grand slam event ever.

Moya- ok now this is just getting ridiculous.

Stich- so you dismiss Safin for his inconsistency and being injury-prone yet bring up this guy.

You belittle Roddick yet he is more of a threat then almost of the players you listed. I love how people always seem to develop some newfound fascination for players in the last generation once the game moves onto to a new generation and somehow balloon them into something they never were.

For the records lets look who Pete lost to in slams from 1993 to 2000:

1993 Australian Open- Edberg
1993 French Open- Bruguera
1994 French Open- Courier
1994 U.S Open- Yzaga
1995 Australian Open- Agassi
1995 French Open- Schaller
1996 Australian Open- Phillipousis
1996 French Open- Kafelnikov
1996 Wimbledon- Krajicek
1997 French Open- Norman
1997 U.S Open- Korda
1998 Australian Open- Kucera
1998 French Open- Delgado
1998 U.S Open- Rafter
1999 Australian Open- volunteerily did not play
1999 French Open- Medvedev in 2nd round
2000 Australian Open- Agassi
2000 French Open- Phillipousis
2000 U.S Open- Safin

Funny how 10 of his 18 losses did not even come out of your list of mostly exagerrated players. Pretty hard to put Sampras not being even more dominant down to just competition when he lost out on chances for some of those slam titles to players like Yzaga, Schaller, Norman, Kucera, Delgado.

lambielspins · Nov 21, 2007

BradBaughman said:
one fact for sure is fed definatley struggled with agassi and aggi was 35,, that says alot when you take any other sport say boxing and you put a 35 yr old ex champ shooting his back up even to fight i garantee the fighter in his prime 25 would KO him early ,,
as you watch the open final with aggi an roger watch with and open mind and you will see aggi dictating that baseline (yes give roger his credit great defence)but to have and old man dictating the baseline

what would he have done had he focused early on in his career the best ever no dout

I have never heard of aggi. Is that some new type of TV reality series, or some new junior player nobody has heard of. Anyway back to reality:

-Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams between turning 29 and just before turning 33. That was arguably the prime of his career. So a 33-35 year old Agassi, while not in his absolute prime, is not really that old.

-Federer dominated the 33-35 year old Agassi. Federer won all 8 matches, Agassi won 0. Federer won some of the matches in lopsided and embarassing fashion too, the year end Masters final in 2003, the Dubai semis in 2005, the Australian Open quarters in 2005.

-Agassi in his 20s would be dominating Federer? Do you mean the 26 year old Agassi who was beaten by Chris Woodruff at the French Open, someone named Doug Flach at Wimbledon, and destroyed by Michael Chang in both the Australian and U.S Open semis? Or do you mean the 27 year old Agassi who posted a 10-12 record on the ATP tour, while dropping to #141 in the World? Or do you mean the 28 year old Agassi who while coming back up to #6 in the World based on good performance in lesser tournaments, lost in the 4th round or sooner of all 4 slams. Yeah I am sure that Agassi would have had the great Roger Federer sleeping with his nightlight on.

Like I said there are some years younger Agassi was great, but most years he was actually playing worse tennis then he was in his 30s. Also here is something for a trivia buff, Mr. Doug Flach 2-0 head to head with Agassi from 96-98.

emerckx53 · Nov 21, 2007

thalivest said:
Sampras or Agassi in their primes would probably crush Federer. Look at how much Roger struggled vs old geezer Agassi with a gimpy back at the 2004 and 2005 U.S Opens. Also look at how much he struggles with great clay courter Nadal at Wimbledon on grass. Sampras did everything better then Federer, better serves and volleys, better groundstrokes off both wings, more athletic and returned more solidly. Agassi had a weaker volley then Federer but was better in every other way too, more mobile, much better groundstrokes and returns, better serve and mentally much tougher.

:shock: clearly delusional...Sampras would have had a decent record against the fed..Agassi one in ten..

FedForGOAT · Nov 21, 2007

emerckx53 said:
:shock: clearly delusional...Sampras would have had a decent record against the fed..Agassi one in ten..

agassi is 3-8 vs. Fed. I don't know how they'd match up in their primes, but 1 in 10 sounds about right.

Jack the Hack · Nov 21, 2007

lambielspins said:
I have never heard of aggi. Is that some new type of TV reality series, or some new junior player nobody has heard of. Anyway back to reality:

-Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams between turning 29 and just before turning 33. That was arguably the prime of his career. So a 33-35 year old Agassi, while not in his absolute prime, is not really that old.

-Federer dominated the 33-35 year old Agassi. Federer won all 8 matches, Agassi won 0. Federer won some of the matches in lopsided and embarassing fashion too, the year end Masters final in 2003, the Dubai semis in 2005, the Australian Open quarters in 2005.

-Agassi in his 20s would be dominating Federer? Do you mean the 26 year old Agassi who was beaten by Chris Woodruff at the French Open, someone named Doug Flach at Wimbledon, and destroyed by Michael Chang in both the Australian and U.S Open semis? Or do you mean the 27 year old Agassi who posted a 10-12 record on the ATP tour, while dropping to #141 in the World? Or do you mean the 28 year old Agassi who while coming back up to #6 in the World based on good performance in lesser tournaments, lost in the 4th round or sooner of all 4 slams. Yeah I am sure that Agassi would have had the great Roger Federer sleeping with his nightlight on. Like I said there are some years younger Agassi was great, but most years he was actually playing worse tennis then he was in his 30s. Also here is something for a trivia buff, Mr. Doug Flach 2-0 head to head with Agassi from 96-98.

Somebody just got owned with that post! :shock:

(Good stuff.)

Deleted member 21996 · Nov 22, 2007

Steve132 said:
Your list of Great Names that represented competition for Sampras and Agassi contains several players who do not belong there. Lendl was a player of the 1980's, not the post-1993 era when Sampras became No. 1. He never reached a Slam quarter final after 1992 and won only 2 of his 94 titles after that year. Wilander did not reach a Slam quarter final or win an ATP singles tournament after 1990. Edberg won only five minor titles after 1992. Even Courier - who was certainly Sampras' contemporary - reached no Slam or Masters event finals after 1993.

On the other hand, you list Safin (born in 1980) as a contemporary and rival of Sampras and Agassi (b. 1971 and 1970 respectively) but not Federer (born 1981). Why?

While you list Lendl as one of Sampras' rivals, you do not list Agassi as one of Federer's, although Agassi accomplished far more from 2003 on (winning Masters series events, reaching the U.S. Open final against Federer) than Lendl did after 1993. Why?

If the competition in the 1990's was so severe, why did players like Berasategui, Washington and Pioline reach Slam finals - twice in Pioline's case? Can you identify any players of that calibre who have reached Slam finals since 2004?

It is true that Federer's rivals do not beat him very often, at least in Slam events. There are at least two possible explanations for this. One is that they are not very good, and another is that Federer is great.

One problem with the first explanation is that the players of the current decade (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc.) have very good records against players of the 90's, Sampras included. Another problem is that many experienced and knowledgeable observers with no ax to grind - Jack Kramer, Nick Bolletieri, Cliff Drysdale, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Tim Henman, etc. - have described Federer as the best or most talented player they have ever seen. You are free to disagree with them, but you need additional evidence or arguments in order to eliminate the second explanation.

One last point. You appear to believe that it is self-evident that competition in the 1990's was tougher than it is today. This "truth" is not quite so obvious to most tennis analysts. The only people who view the 1990's as a Golden Age for men's tennis are (a) some of the players of that era; and (b) Sampras fans who wish to preserve their hero's GOAT claims. If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be most interested in seeing it. Note that statements to this effect by Sampras or Becker or Ivanisevic do not count. We need testimony by independent and impartial sources - e.g. the players of the 60's or 70's.

"If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be most interested in seeing it"

lets see it then... show me i'm wrong...

remember to prove it with facts, scientific ones and not opinions fron idiots like Jmac and "Kourkikova the amazing player" coach who always goes wrong in his guessings Nick Bollitieri

EZRA · Nov 22, 2007

Steve: Apology accepted.

Federer is a superb claycourt player, if Nadal wasn't around - he'd probably have 2 successive career slams right now. And it's really depressing to see that no one else can step up and challenge Roger. You're may be right... it's probably that Federer is way above everyone else - or maybe we have a shortage of talent in the men's tour right now. It's just sad - Federer is dominating men's tennis so much that tournament outcome are so predictable (unless if it's played on Clay - then it is still predictable if Nadal is on the draw).

But back during Sampras' days - there were too many good clay courters around. Chang, Moya, and Rios are only a few of those who were chasing after claycourt trophies - they had other guys like Courier, Muster, Bruguera and others trying to get their share of claycourt titles.... and this is only on Clay.

On grass, they had Henman (in his prime), Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Pioline, Scud, Martin, Stich, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, etc... All these people mentioned has enough game to beat Federer on grass. Today - who is out there who's got enough game to give Federer trouble on grass? The last Wimbledon championships, we had a claycourter play Roger in the finals.

By the way - you shouldn't focus on who Sampras lost to in the slams - you should check who he won against when he got his record number of titles. People will lose and people will have bad days, even the best of them (Federer lost to Murray last year - I have no idea how someone with Murray's game could beat Roger). But what really counts is who the player faced against all the way to winning the title. And this is my point: Back then, Sampras' main competition is too good compared to the top contenders of today. Taking an ATP title is already a feat in itself - how much more a Grandslam.

Let's see Federer's TOP competition - the ones who consistently faces him in the later part of the draw in the tournaments:

Nadal - Baseliner with looping shots, mediocre serve
Djokovic - all around game - lacks experience
Nalbandian - excellent all around game, needs to lose that beer belly
Blake - booming groundstrokes - needs patience since he simply wants to end the point with one single shot
Roddick - Big serve, Big forehand.. and that's about it
Davydenko - pusher
Gonzales - big forehand, weak serve, weak backhand
Ferrer - nice groundstrokes..
Haas - solid all around player .. inconsistent with his performance

And we have the younger squad who needs more experience under their belt:

Gasquet - lots of weapons.. great backhand ..
Baghdatis - another guy with solid groundstrokes..
Robredo - and another guy with solid groundstrokes
Murray - pusher
Berdych - Big game but slow on the court

I just hope these young up and comers steps up and challenge Federer in the near future `cause right now, Rafael Nadal is the only one who's consistent with putting pressure on Federer. There's just not enough depth. Nalbandian's back to form now, he was way off his game earlier this season. Safin is no where to be found. Nadal can only perform do too much outside of clay where he loses to players of lower caliber.

EZRA · Nov 22, 2007

Lambielspins:
Compare the contenders back then to the contenders today? You don't think Todd Martin is a serious contender but he has more game than Roddick who was once ranked #1 in the world.

You really can't compare Goran to Roddick - Goran's got ALL of Andy's weapons (better serve as a matter of fact) and he's got sound footwork and a good net game. Roddick's got terrible footwork and less than mediocre net game. Mentally it's a toss-up.. Goran is a known Schizo and Roddick is a brat on the court.

I brought Stich up because he was a major contender back then - an all courter and all-surface player and most importantly,he was consistent when he was healthy and he had a winning record against Pete. He also had titles from 90-96 and was a finalist in 2 slams and a champion in one. And yes, SAFIN is inconsistent.

I mentioned MOYA because he was contending for the #1 spot in the late 90's... same as Rios and Muster. Although, I do wonder how these guys got to be number 1 even only briefly.

Kuerten wasn't only a factor on Clay - although he only won the F.O., he also had titles on hard courts and had wins against Agassi, Rafter, and Safin on those surfaces.
--------------

I really can't understand why some people holds much regard on Roddick's game. What else does he have other than a serve and a big forehand? What's his record against people with exceptional return of serve?

By the way: Sampras' losses to lower caliber players in Grandslams were majority on clay. We all know that Clay is his weakest surface - and for the record, Yzaga and Kucera were good players.

lambielspins · Nov 22, 2007

EZRA said:
Lambielspins:
Compare the contenders back then to the contenders today?

You don't think Todd Martin is a serious contender but he has more game than Roddick who was once ranked #1 in the world.

Martin has no one weapon in his game nearly as devasting as Roddick's serve. He was very slow covering court, much slower then Roddick in fact. He never had a champions mentality either, Roddick was much more of a fighter and much more determined.

You really can't compare Goran to Roddick - Goran's got ALL of Andy's weapons (better serve as a matter of fact) and he's got sound footwork and a good net game.

:lol: at the "good net game" comment on Goran. The biggest difference between Goran and Roddick was Roddick really applied himself and gave his full effort at atleast 3 of the 4 slams while Goran dogged it everywhere but Wimbledon as his record shows. It does not matter what you think of their games, the reality is neither are even close to complete players, and Goran was almost always a total non-threat everywhere but Wimbledon while Roddick is a major threat at 3 of the 4 slams, Goran losses to a string of journeymen early at the Australian and U.S Opens, you cant put that down to competition.

Roddick's got terrible footwork and less than mediocre net game. Mentally it's a toss-up..

Mentally Roddick is far tougher then Goran Ivanisevic.

I brought Stich up because he was a major contender back then - an all courter and all-surface player and most importantly,he was consistent when he was healthy and he had a winning record against Pete. He also had titles from 90-96 and was a finalist in 2 slams and a champion in one. And yes, SAFIN is inconsistent.

He also lost in the 3rd round or earlier (not even making the round of 16 for crying out loud) in 15 of the 29 slam events he entered in 1990-1996. If you put down Safin to being inconsistent and injury-prone Stich was every bit as bad in this regard. Stich was never consistent, in late 1993-mid 1994 when fully healthy and up to #2 in the World he went a pathetic 1-4 in the grand slams, losing 1st round, 1st round, 2nd round, 1st round.

I mentioned MOYA because he was contending for the #1 spot in the late 90's... same as Rios and Muster. Although, I do wonder how these guys got to be number 1 even only briefly.

Gee, and I thought you were trying to argue the strength of the field then. Rios and Moya getting to #1. :roll:

Kuerten wasn't only a factor on Clay - although he only won the F.O., he also had titles on hard courts and had wins against Agassi, Rafter, and Safin on those surfaces.

What did he do in the slams other then the French Open? He NEVER made a semifinal out of any of the Australian, Wimbledon, or U.S Opens; and made a total of only 3 quarterfinals his whole career at those 3 slams combined. He never made it past the 3rd round of the Australian Open, which is supposed to be his 2nd best slam. Due to his own lack of success at non-French Open slams and Sampras's lack of success especialy late in his career at the French Open they never once played in a grand slam. Some opposition and threat that makes him.

I really can't understand why some people holds much regard on Roddick's game. What else does he have other than a serve and a big forehand? What's his record against people with exceptional return of serve?

The serve is the most important shot in tennis. When you have an amazing serve you only need a bit of game to go with it, and some consistency and mental strength and you go very far (think Krajicek and Ivanisevic despite your delusions of their "complete" games, LOL, but Roddick is less injury prone, tougher mentally, and more consistent then both). Most of the so called great players you are referring to from the last decade did not have complete games either, and relied mostly on their own major strength(s) as well.

By the way: Sampras' losses to lower caliber players in Grandslams were majority on clay. We all know that Clay is his weakest surface - and for the record, Yzaga and Kucera were good players.

Right so you are going to argue Yzaga and Kucera are somehow the real deal as opponents while most of todays top 10 is a joke? What a crock of an argument is that. How long did either Kuerten or Yzaga spend in the top 10? Do you honestly think Yzaga would be in the top 10 today. Please.

The bottom line is even todays "weak" top players if you feel that way are better then Yzaga or even Kucera ever were. So you cant put Sampras being less dominant then Federer possibly on just competition when some of his losses in slams in his prime were to players like that.

lambielspins · Nov 22, 2007

EZRA said:
On grass, they had Henman (in his prime), Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Pioline, Scud, Martin, Stich, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, etc... All these people mentioned has enough game to beat Federer on grass.

Phillipousis made only the 2nd slam final of his career at Wimbledon 2003 and was completely outclassed by Federer. He looked like a much easier opponent then Roddick does for Federer at Wimbledon, the score majorly flatters Phillipousis since the last set really ought to have been another 6-2 set like the 2nd set, Roger missed an extremely easy forehand on break point on 1 game with the whole court, and a double fault for Phillipousis was overuled on break point in another game, the tiebreak was a breeze, Roger was never remotedly worried in the match. Pioline or Martin enough game to beat Federer at Wimbledon, ROTFL, you are beyond funny.

Today - who is out there who's got enough game to give Federer trouble on grass? The last Wimbledon championships, we had a claycourter play Roger in the finals.

Considering were Edberg and Becker where in their careers by the time Sampras began his dominance, Nadal is a much tougher opponent then every single one of those guys on the current "slowed down" grass, except possibly Ivanisevic and Krajicek, and Richard "early round loss" Krajicek only played Sampras 1 time ever at Wimbledon (and won of course).

Nadal - Baseliner with looping shots, mediocre serve

To say Nadal only hits looping shots, especialy when he is confident, is beyond ignorant.

Davydenko - pusher

You really need to watch him play more.

Murray - pusher

Again pretty obvious you need to watch him play more.

Steve132 · Nov 22, 2007

Gorecki said:
"If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be most interested in seeing it"

lets see it then... show me i'm wrong...

remember to prove it with facts, scientific ones and not opinions fron idiots like Jmac and "Kourkikova the amazing player" coach who always goes wrong in his guessings Nick Bollitieri

Um... YOU have not provided any facts. You simply supplied a list of Great Names and asserted as a self-evident truth that these players were better than the current generation. You did not even identify any experienced and knowledgeable observers who shared your opinion. If you consider John McEnroe and Bolletieri to be "idiots" please let us know who are the real experts.

In my reply I provided evidence that your list of Great Names was both tendentious and misleading. To recapitulate: Lendl, Wilander and Edberg were not Sampras' contemporaries. Safin is Federer's contemporary, not Sampras'. Courier was finished after 1993. Even Agassi and Becker were competitive for less than half of the period when Sampras was No. 1. Lambielspins in another post showed how exaggerated are the claims made for most of the other Great Names on your list.

I also pointed out that relatively undistinguished players such as Berasategui, Washington and Pioline reached Slam finals during this alleged Golden Age, and that players of the current decade (such as Hewitt, Roddick and Safin) had excellent head-to-head records against players of the 1990's, including Sampras.

And your argument is?

lambielspins · Nov 22, 2007

There was a golden age in mens tennis. It sure as heck was not the 90s however. That would be the late 70s and early 80s when you had first Borg, Connors, Vilas, Nastase all in their primes, later on Borg, Connors, McEnroe, all at the height of their games, then still later McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander all close to their best. Federer's competition indeed pales in comparision to that field, but so does Sampras's.

The entire 60s would have been as well had it been the Open Era then, unfortunately due to the Pro Game back then we only saw what it could be for a few years at the end of the decade. That field had the potential to even be better then Golden era of mens tennis in the late 70s-
early 80s.

Steve132 is right. Listing Lendl and Wilander as contemporaries of Sampras is laughable, Agassi was much more a contempary of Federer then they were to Sampras (not I did not say Agassi was a real contempary of Federer, I said he was close to one then Lendl or Wilander were to Sampras contemparies). Even Edberg was at the tail end of his peak when Sampras just began his climb to the #1 ranking for the first time. Safin is also a Federer contemporary, much more then a Sampras contemporary.

EZRA · Nov 22, 2007

Lambiel: Roddick have a champion's mentality? so what's with the body language after everytime he gets his serve broken? You saw how he slumped his shoulders while playing Ferrer during the master's semis?

Martin was never a mobile player - I never claimed he was .. BUT he had a good serve, a decent forehand, an amazing backhand, an excellent return of serve, and a decent net game. By saying that, yes - he had more game than Roddick.
-----
You deny Goran having a good net game? I'm not saying he's great at the net but he's pretty competent. We all know how Goran is on the court - his being a schizo isn't a secret. In-fact, even Goran himself flaunts it. Roddick, on the other hand, has the tendency to get discouraged when things don't go as planned. I've seen him give up right after losing the first 2 sets badly.
----
About Michael Stich - if you take the focus out of his G.S. performance - during late 93 til mid 94: he won 5 titles including the Tennis Masters with the Finals against Sampras.
----
Moya and Rios were good players.. but IMO, they're not #1 material. Actually, ATP restructured their system because of RIOS' rise to the #1 spot. Moya, on the other hand, had good results months before rising to #1 (Major win, Master series win, Runner up at the Masters Finals and Indian Wells) .. but didn't hold the spot for too long.
-----
I never claimed Ivanisevic and Krajicek having complete games.. so why are you calling me delusional?

Actually, having a great serve is good but you do need something else to support that serve. That's why when Roddick faces a great returner, he's got nothing else to work with but his serve. And most of the time, it's just not enough. At least with Goran, he's got a surprisingly decent record against great returners like Agassi and Chang.
-----
Would Yzaga be in the top 10 of today? I don't know - I don't think he was ever at the top 10 back then. But still, he was a good player. Look at the top 10 now. How many one-dimensional players are out there?

EZRA · Nov 22, 2007

Lambiel:
Yes, Pioline and Martin has enough game to win against Federer in Wimbledon. Both Pioline and Martin roughly had the same game as that of Tim Henman - and Henman, in his prime, handled himself pretty well against Federer - not only on grass
----
Nadal has looping shots - yes? Sometimes he does flatten it but most of the time, he loops his shots with heavy topspin.
----
Yes, Davydenko is a counter-punching pusher. But of course, if given the opportunity, he can creat winners. Same as with Andy Murray - we always see him pushing the ball back but he does have the ability to hit bigger shots. He seems to be content being in the back court and trading groundies.

----

by the way Labielspins - you really don't have to be insulting to deliver your responses to me. Calling me delusional and ignorant doesn't solidify your statements. I am easy to talk to and I'm rarely disrespectful - I sure hope you treat me (and others) as just some other tennis player/enthusiast who has different opinions about things.

lambielspins · Nov 22, 2007

EZRA said:
Lambiel:
Yes, Pioline and Martin has enough game to win against Federer in Wimbledon. Both Pioline and Martin roughly had the same game as that of Tim Henman - and Henman, in his prime, handled himself pretty well against Federer - not only on grass.

All but 1 of Henman's wins over Federer were when Federer were not in his prime so mean nothing. If you think prime Henman. or players like him, would handle prime Federer "pretty well" just because he was lucky to be playing his best at a time Federer was up and coming then you are crazy. Only 1 win came in 2004, and it was in a very small tournament. In their 2 bigger matches of 2004, Pacific Life final, U.S Open semis, Federer spanked Henman, and Henman had his best year ever in 2004. Many players who are not good enough to beat Federer in his prime, beat the much less developed Federer often in 2001-2003. Hewitt was 7-2 in 2001-2003, then in 2004-2005 when he was still at the peak of his game went 0-9. Nalbandian was 5-1 vs Federer in 2001-2003, 3-7 in 2004-today.

So there goes your Henman-based theory. Pioline or Martin having enough game to win against Federer at Wimbledon, especialy Pioline, is a only a fantasy for someone with a 90s fixation of the highest order.

I am done with you. I will allow you to continue your delusions of the supposably grand 90s field even though alot of it is a fabrication in your own mind.

Katlion · Nov 22, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
Often times, it seems like we all want to compare Fed with Sampras--even the media.

But I say, it may be a better, more correct analogous comparison Fed with Agassi. They are both top baseliners.

It's like when Agassi stormed onto the scene while Lendl was #1.

If you took Agassi & Fed together in their primes, who would win? Armed with the same technology of course. I would say that is tough, but I'd still go with Agassi.

Fed compared to Sampras? Answer: There really is non comparison.

Sampras trumps.

i'm guessing you like the game's old stars beter than the newcomers, am i right?

FiveO · Nov 23, 2007

Steve132 said:
Your list of Great Names that represented competition for Sampras and Agassi contains several players who do not belong there. Lendl was a player of the 1980's, not the post-1993 era when Sampras became No. 1. He never reached a Slam quarter final after 1992 and won only 2 of his 94 titles after that year. Wilander did not reach a Slam quarter final or win an ATP singles tournament after 1990. Edberg won only five minor titles after 1992. Even Courier - who was certainly Sampras' contemporary - reached no Slam or Masters event finals after 1993.

On the other hand, you list Safin (born in 1980) as a contemporary and rival of Sampras and Agassi (b. 1971 and 1970 respectively) but not Federer (born 1981). Why?

While you list Lendl as one of Sampras' rivals, you do not list Agassi as one of Federer's, although Agassi accomplished far more from 2003 on (winning Masters series events, reaching the U.S. Open final against Federer) than Lendl did after 1993. Why?

If the competition in the 1990's was so severe, why did players like Berasategui, Washington and Pioline reach Slam finals - twice in Pioline's case? Can you identify any players of that calibre who have reached Slam finals since 2004?

It is true that Federer's rivals do not beat him very often, at least in Slam events. There are at least two possible explanations for this. One is that they are not very good, and another is that Federer is great.

One problem with the first explanation is that the players of the current decade (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc.) have very good records against players of the 90's, Sampras included. Another problem is that many experienced and knowledgeable observers with no ax to grind - Jack Kramer, Nick Bolletieri, Cliff Drysdale, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Tim Henman, etc. - have described Federer as the best or most talented player they have ever seen. You are free to disagree with them, but you need additional evidence or arguments in order to eliminate the second explanation.

One last point. You appear to believe that it is self-evident that competition in the 1990's was tougher than it is today. This "truth" is not quite so obvious to most tennis analysts. The only people who view the 1990's as a Golden Age for men's tennis are (a) some of the players of that era; and (b) Sampras fans who wish to preserve their hero's GOAT claims. If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be most interested in seeing it. Note that statements to this effect by Sampras or Becker or Ivanisevic do not count. We need testimony by independent and impartial sources - e.g. the players of the 60's or 70's.

Let's forget that throughout the 90's playing conditions were far more polarized than they are today. Slow being a constant shared by the 90's and 2000's but fast being a whole other animal. How does that effect results? For more specialists. Guys who because of those greater speeds posed far greater threats to the best guys at certain venues. Fast was fast.

Also, unique to the majors throughout the 90's there were only 16 seeds. How much impact does that have? Look at the draws. The potential was always that one of those 16 seeds could face the 17th best player in the world in 1R. Those 17-32 best players were relegated as floaters.

Pioline? Be careful here. Look at his results more carefully and look at like players who had similar spikes in performance after 2000 at advanced ages, not one but more than a handful.

Pioline '93 to '99

YEAR..AO..................RG......................W............................USO

'93..1R L Damm...2R L #16 Muster....QF L #3 Edberg........F L to Sampras #3
..........................(Pioline was.....(incl. win over #9......(incl. R16 win over
..........................#21 and today.......Medvedev.............#1 Courier and QF
...........................couldn't have......23 v. 9 in 2R)...........win over #8
............................played #16.......................................Medvedev)
............................until 3R)

'94..1R L Apell....2R L #23 Berasategui.....1R L Brett...........3R L to #23 Yzaga
..........................(#14 vs. #23.......................................(#15 vs. #23)
...........................another 3R
..............................today)

'95..DNP.............2R L Muster #5...........QF L #4 Becker.....2R L to Clavet
.....................................................(incl. wins over
.....................................................#14 Courier and
............................................................Korda)

'96..DNP................QF L Stich...........R16 L Sampras.........3R L #22 Flipper
.........................(Pioline was........................................(1R faced #25,
.........................#19 and again......................................2 rounds early
........................played #32 a.........................................as again Pioline
..........................round earlier....................................... was #17)
........................then beat #35
..........................Berasategui
.........................and #10 Rios)

'97..DNP...........3R L #3 Kafelnikov..........F L Sampras.........R16 L #2 Chang
..........................(the defending...............(wins over
..............................champ)..................#22 Ferreira,
.........................................................#27 Rusedski,
...............................................................Stich)

'98 R16 #7 Korda.....SF L Corretja........1R Marc Rosset....1R #14 Bjorkman
....(win over #13......(wins over #10...............................(two rounds
......Corretja..............Krajicek and..............................early #12 v #17)
..Korda won the..........probably a
........title)................round early
.............................as Pioline was
.............................#17, then beat
.............................a young Safin)

'99 1R Hewitt............1R Clement........QF #6 Henman......SF L Todd Martin
............................................................(win over................(wins over
........................................................#3 Kafelnkov)...............#4 Rafter,
........................................................................................#14 Haas,
.......................................................................................#6 Kuerten
.......................................................................................Pioline was
.......................................................................................#26 when
.................................................................................he met #4 Rafter
........................................................................................in the 1R.)

And no, Pioline wasn't great, dominant or even consistent.

He was very, very good, regarded as a true talent (sound familiar as applied to today?) BUT actually and clearly found his best at the majors. Pioline also won a Master's Shield and finalled at the same event two other times in his career.

I see 2 bad losses at the AO, 1 at RG, 1 or maybe 2 at W and 1 at the USO. What does everyone else see?

That's five or maybe six, (if one fails to acknowledge that Rosset was perfectly capable of serving opponents off the court on fast surfaces) in 25 tries at majors from '93 through '99.

The only year Pioline didn't reach at least one round with the word "final" in it, at least one of the majors was in '94.

Bjorkman and Flipper? I wouldn't go there, when their best efforts at the majors, a Final for the Scud and a SF for Jonas both came at Wimbledon in 2003 and 2006 respectively, during Fed's reign, not in the '90's.

Compare Pioline's results, who I concede was 2nd or even 3rd tier and quintessentially French in his overall performance, to the so-called depth of the next best guys today.

Who? Gasquet? Ljubicic? Ferrer? Who exactly?

Then realize how many guys were more consistent than Pioline at the big events either as out and out specialists or overall.

Pioline an anomoly? How could he reach two finals? Put his results up against today's second/third tiers and you'll see where Pioline actually falls. Then realize there were 20 to 30 guys during the 90's who were better overall or distributed over the polarized playing conditions of the 90's.

While pondering Bjorkman's and Flipper's best performances coming at majors in this generation of player, one can also one can attempt to reconcile Thomas Johansson's win at the AO in '02, Henman and Haas reaching a career high rankings in 2002, Costa's '02 and Gaudio's '04 title at RG. Not finals, Wins. Then one can consider why Agassi's best consecutive six year block at the majors and MS events took place from 2000 to 2005.

Again, this is to cast no doubts on the abilities of either Fed or the surface specific abilities of Nadal. Like other repeat champions in any era they would be champions and great in any era.

anointedone · Nov 23, 2007

FiveO said:
Bjorkman and Flipper? I wouldn't go there, when their best efforts at the majors, a Final for the Scud and a SF for Jonas both came at Wimbledon in 2003 and 2006 respectively, during Fed's reign, not in the '90's.

Not true. Phillipousis actually made another final in the 90s (98 U.S Open) and Bjorkman another semi in the 90s (97 U.S Open).

Compare Pioline's results, who I concede was 2nd or even 3rd tier and quintessentially French in his overall performance, to the so-called depth of the next best guys today.

Who? Gasquet? Ljubicic? Ferrer? Who exactly?

Gasquet is early in his career, Ferrer is in the middle. Makes alot of sense to compare them to a retired player.

Atleast I will say I agree with on Ljubicic, but his 15 minutes are over, just like Bjorkman in 97, Norman in 98, and others in the game had their 15 minutes with a shocking ranking and status which was short lived.

FiveO · Nov 23, 2007

anointedone said:
Not true. Phillipousis actually made another final in the 90s (98 U.S Open) and Bjorkman another semi in the 90s (97 U.S Open).

Gasquet is early in his career, Ferrer is in the middle. Makes alot of sense to compare them to a retired player. Atleast I will say I agree with on Ljubicic, but his 15 minutes are over, just like Bjorkman in 97, Norman in 98, and others in the game had their 15 minutes with a shocking ranking and status which was short lived.

The point was they are holdovers, past their peak, laboring in the deeper new millenium. If the 2000's are deeper than the 1990's how is it possible to have that success now?

You don't like the comparison show someone who compares? Others have critiqued Pioline as a nobody in this thread-name someone with his credentials and then realize how far down the list Pioline actually ranks vs. his peers. THAT is the point.

Please point out someone 1/4, 1/2 or 2/3's of the way there. Isn't that where Fed stands now somewhere between a 1/4 or 2/3's through? Ljubicic is unacceptable? Someone else?

Name someone comparable.

Norman? Well he was on his way up when in 2001 he suffered, for all intents and purposes, the same career ending hip injury that Kuerten did. He won five events in both 1999 and 2000 before suffering that injury. In 2000 he won Rome and finalled at the RG. He had also reached the SF at the AO and later R16 at the USO in 2000. So no, he was no surprise at all.

Another poster brought up Washington and how he possibly reached a Wimbledon final. Well easy, Between '91 and '96 he was a tough out, rarely losing to guys outside the top 10 at big events. He upset an inexperienced grass-courter in Enqvist, benefitted from another chapter of AA questioning his faith, when as the #3 seed he was unceremoniously dumped from the first round and from Washington's 1/4 of the draw. Then the #2 seed in Washington's 1/2, Becker retired with an injury in 3R. In Becker's intended spot in the SF was Todd Martin a consistent 2nd tier guy who pulled the single biggest choke we ever saw from him in an entire career. Even still Washington was #20 and Martin #18 at that moment in time. That's how.

Berasategui? Ask the other devout clay courters why they "LET" him win 7 other clay court GP events and final in an 8th that year. It's not like he should have snuck up on anyone. Just guessing here but 2 retirements in the 7 rounds could have something to do with it along with his bizarre hitting style. Then there's Costa and Gaudio. Hmmmmmmm.

Steve132 · Nov 23, 2007

FiveO said:
The point was they are holdovers, past their peak, laboring in the deeper new millenium. If the 2000's are deeper than the 1990's how is it possible to have that success now?

You don't like the comparison show someone who compares? Others have critiqued Pioline as a nobody in this thread-name someone with his credentials and then realize how far down the list Pioline actually ranks vs. his peers. THAT is the point.

Please point out someone 1/4, 1/2 or 2/3's of the way there. Isn't that where Fed stands now somewhere between a 1/4 or 2/3's through? Ljubicic is unacceptable? Someone else?

Name someone comparable.

Norman? Well he was on his way up when in 2001 he suffered, for all intents and purposes, the same career ending hip injury that Kuerten did. He won five events in both 1999 and 2000 before suffering that injury. In 2000 he won Rome and finalled at the RG. He had also reached the SF at the AO and later R16 at the USO in 2000. So no, he was no surprise at all.

Another poster brought up Washington and how he possibly reached a Wimbledon final. Well easy, Between '91 and '96 he was a tough out, rarely losing to guys outside the top 10 at big events. He upset an inexperienced grass-courter in Enqvist, benefitted from another chapter of AA questioning his faith, when as the #3 seed he was unceremoniously dumped from the first round and from Washington's 1/4 of the draw. Then the #2 seed in Washington's 1/2, Becker retired with an injury in 3R. In Becker's intended spot in the SF was Todd Martin a consistent 2nd tier guy who pulled the single biggest choke we ever saw from him in an entire career. Even still Washington was #20 and Martin #18 at that moment in time. That's how.

Berasategui? Ask the other devout clay courters why they "LET" him win 7 other clay court GP events and final in an 8th that year. It's not like he should have snuck up on anyone. Just guessing here but 2 retirements in the 7 rounds could have something to do with it along with his bizarre hitting style. Then there's Costa and Gaudio. Hmmmmmmm.

I'm not sure what your comparisons are intended to accomplish. I'll just make four points:

1. The Federer era started in 2004, not 2000. Between 2000 and 2003 there was no dominant player. If we are to make comparisons between the Sampras and Federer eras those comparisons must be between 1993-1998 and 2004-2007.

2. Today's players are in the middle of their careers. It is misleading to compare their achievements with the lifetime achievements of players who have finished their careers, such as Pioline. Someone like Gasquet, for example, is viewed as a potential Top 5 player, but as he is only 21 it is not surprising that he has not achieved as much to date as Pioline did in his career.

3. The point about Berasategui, Washington and Pioline is that they reached Slam finals from 1993 to 1997 (Pioline twice) but are not considered among the best players of that era. The obvious question is why they were able to do so if the competition in that period was so severe. Do you consider them to be superior to the Federer era Slam finalists?

4. Please see Lambielspins' first post in this thread for an analysis of the players who are commonly cited as "great competition" in the Sampras era. I agree with his observations and as such there is little point in repeating them.

Steve132 · Nov 23, 2007

EZRA said:
Steve: Apology accepted.

Federer is a superb claycourt player, if Nadal wasn't around - he'd probably have 2 successive career slams right now. And it's really depressing to see that no one else can step up and challenge Roger. You're may be right... it's probably that Federer is way above everyone else - or maybe we have a shortage of talent in the men's tour right now. It's just sad - Federer is dominating men's tennis so much that tournament outcome are so predictable (unless if it's played on Clay - then it is still predictable if Nadal is on the draw).

But back during Sampras' days - there were too many good clay courters around. Chang, Moya, and Rios are only a few of those who were chasing after claycourt trophies - they had other guys like Courier, Muster, Bruguera and others trying to get their share of claycourt titles.... and this is only on Clay.

On grass, they had Henman (in his prime), Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Pioline, Scud, Martin, Stich, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, etc... All these people mentioned has enough game to beat Federer on grass. Today - who is out there who's got enough game to give Federer trouble on grass? The last Wimbledon championships, we had a claycourter play Roger in the finals.

By the way - you shouldn't focus on who Sampras lost to in the slams - you should check who he won against when he got his record number of titles. People will lose and people will have bad days, even the best of them (Federer lost to Murray last year - I have no idea how someone with Murray's game could beat Roger). But what really counts is who the player faced against all the way to winning the title. And this is my point: Back then, Sampras' main competition is too good compared to the top contenders of today. Taking an ATP title is already a feat in itself - how much more a Grandslam.

Let's see Federer's TOP competition - the ones who consistently faces him in the later part of the draw in the tournaments:

Nadal - Baseliner with looping shots, mediocre serve
Djokovic - all around game - lacks experience
Nalbandian - excellent all around game, needs to lose that beer belly
Blake - booming groundstrokes - needs patience since he simply wants to end the point with one single shot
Roddick - Big serve, Big forehand.. and that's about it
Davydenko - pusher
Gonzales - big forehand, weak serve, weak backhand
Ferrer - nice groundstrokes..
Haas - solid all around player .. inconsistent with his performance

And we have the younger squad who needs more experience under their belt:

Gasquet - lots of weapons.. great backhand ..
Baghdatis - another guy with solid groundstrokes..
Robredo - and another guy with solid groundstrokes
Murray - pusher
Berdych - Big game but slow on the court

I just hope these young up and comers steps up and challenge Federer in the near future `cause right now, Rafael Nadal is the only one who's consistent with putting pressure on Federer. There's just not enough depth. Nalbandian's back to form now, he was way off his game earlier this season. Safin is no where to be found. Nadal can only perform do too much outside of clay where he loses to players of lower caliber.

Ezra: I must say that I am disappointed to see your responses to my posts (and to Lambielspins', whose views I share).

This thread began with a comparison between Federer and the A list players of the 1990's, Sampras and Agassi. It then moved onto a discussion of the competition that Sampras faced in the 90's - B list players such as Chang, Ivanisevic and Krajicek - because in your first post you argued that Sampras faced tougher competition than Federer. I then pointed out, among other things, that (a) on several occasions Sampras lost at Slams to journeymen; and (b) C list players reached Slam finals in the Sampras era despite the presence of all the alleged "great competition."

In your replies you seem determined to defend everyone who played in the 90's as a Superman, claiming that Yzaga and Kucera were "good players" and that Pioline and Martin had "enough game to beat Federer on grass." That latter statement is, for me, a conversation stopper. Federer has won five consecutive Wimbledons while losing just 8 sets ( by comparison, Sampras lost 17 sets in the tournaments in which he won his first 5 Wimbledons). He has not been beaten on grass for 5 years. If you really believe that Pioline or Martin would beat Federer on grass, that is not a debate in which I would want to participate.

I would, however, close with a challenge that I made earlier to another poster. If it is so obvious that the mid to late 1990's was a golden age in men's tennis, please identify the tennis analysts or journalists who share that view. In my experience the only people to make that argument are (a) some of the players of that era; and (b) Sampras fans who wish to preserve their hero's GOAT claims.

Compare Federer vs. Agassi; SAMPRAS is in FIELD of HiS OWN

Banned

Hall of Fame

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Professional

Professional

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Rookie

Legend

Rookie

Professional

Professional

Professional

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Rookie

Professional

Banned

Professional

Professional

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Professional

Banned

Banned

Semi-Pro

Professional

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Rookie

Rookie

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

Rookie

Rookie

Banned

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Similar threads