Yup........
Yup........
I think it would be a pretty even match up in they're primes. I just don't see Federer breaking Sampras's serve in his prime. Sampras would definitely have to come to the net to have any chanceagainst Federer. I think whoever broke serve first would win the match.
Huh? Maybe Federer is a champion because Sampras wasn't around to beat him?If player A regularly beats player B then player B is not a champion
In the history of tennis, no player has ever, never, regularly beaten a champion.
Federer is a champion.
Ergo..
c.
Huh? Have you broken Sampras' serve?Sampras' serve is breakable. just b/c its hard, doesn't mean its impossible. And I don't see Sampras breaking Fed's serve when Fed is playing his best.
Huh? Have you broken Sampras' serve?
Ask the greatest returner who has ever lived, Andre Agassi, how many times he has broken Sampras' serve on a fast surface.
I think it would be a pretty even match up in they're primes. I just don't see Federer breaking Sampras's serve in his prime. Sampras would definitely have to come to the net to have any chanceagainst Federer. I think whoever broke serve first would win the match.
Would have been the greatest tennis ever produced, though.
Let me guess, he would have also obliterated Nadal on clay.:roll:
take Federer out of the equation, and Sampras would dominate this thin crop of players... Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake. etc.
infact, Agassi would dominate these guys too.
Huh? Have you broken Sampras' serve?
Ask the greatest returner who has ever lived, Andre Agassi, how many times he has broken Sampras' serve on a fast surface.
Are you claiming that Sampras could not lose on a fast service? Results suggest otherwise.
I'm starting to think you never played nor followed tennis before 2002.Keep dreaming. How often did Agassi dominate the field outside Sampras? Pretty much never. He was unable to dominate quite a few players not as good as Nadal, and not much better then Djokovic or Roddick.
Nope! Sampras sucked on clay. Nadal is a clay god! Nadal would have easily beaten Sampras on clay like he easily beats Fed on clay.
VAMOS!
No, but ask Agassi, the best returner who ever lived, how many times he has beaten Sampras at either Wimbledon or the US Open (both fast surfaces)?
I'll save you the trouble. The answer is ZERO. He's 0-6.
I'm starting to think you never played nor followed tennis before 2002.
Sampras certainly owned Agassi on the fast courts, but you know who he didn't? Lleyton Hewitt. Hewitt has a 2-1 record against Pete on grass, and a 3-3 record against Samp on hard-courts. Including that spanking in the 01' USO final.
I would say that Fed would hold a slight advantage over Pete if they were the same age. Fed's all around game would overcome the advantage in the service department.
Agassi said Federer is better than Sampras, and Federer said Agassi was not lying
http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Tennis/0,,2-9-1517_1768884,00.html
You mean like this post of yours above? ^^^^I am starting to think you have no goal in life except to post whatever crap comes into your head just with the goal to reach 20, 000 posts and prove yourself the biggest loser in history. You are well on your way, keep it up.
Huh? That's proves how little you know about tennis.In fairness matches in 2001 or after Hewitt would have the advantage, he was in his prime then and Pete clearly was not. However matches in 1999 and 2000 are another story and Hewitt was trouble for Pete even then. So you do have a valid point.
Huh? That's proves how little you know about tennis.
Sampras beat Hewitt the first 3 times they played in '98, '99, and 2000. Then later at the 2000 US Open, Sampras beat Hewitt in straight sets in the semis.
I believe the comment was "giving Sampras trouble". Which he was. In 99' Hewitt took a set off Samp at Queens. Alot more than your almighty Agassi could do at Wimbledon a few weeks later. Sampras only has one other straight sets victory over Hewitt and it was when he was 18 years old.
The point is that Sampras's serve was great, but nothing is perfect, and Hewitt with his great return and movement showed that it could be challenged. Something that Fed would have no problem doing if they peaked at the same time.
I believe the comment was "giving Sampras trouble". Which he was. In 99' Hewitt took a set off Samp at Queens.
Yup........
You mean like the way Sampras was "giving trouble" to Federer in the match that went to two tiebreaks in Kuala Lumpur?Exactly. Someone does not neccessarily have to beat someone to be giving them trouble, although I would advise you to not try and explain this to BreakPoint as even simple logic such as that is far too much for his pea brain to handle without exploding. Hewitt took Sampras to 3 sets two of the first three times they played, and even that U.S Open match which went to two tiebreaks and had Hewitt with a set point in the first set was definitely "giving trouble".
Who are you kidding, Sampras had one huge weapon, his serve as we all know. And what is regularly anyway, until he would play him on clay or any other semislow surface? Listen Im not all that big a Fed fan, Nadal is my favorite player but I can give him his just due, there is nothing that man can't do, he has no weaknesses, i know a lot of people may lose their marbles over this but guess what...Sampras was one dimensional!!! On grass in both their primes Sampras probably wins I can agree with that, but to say regularly is just out of the question I take Federer on any other surface, and if I remeber correctly Federer does not lose to big serves, example: Andy Roddick no matter how well he plays, when Federer loses its to the great defenders, example: Nadal, Canas. I think this discussion is just another case of people getting a little to excited about a couple of exhibitions in which Federer didn't want to make his idol looks bad and considering them legit matches, lets not forget Roddick beat Fed a week before the Aussie Open in an exo... how'd that go?
You mean like the way Sampras was "giving trouble" to Federer in the match that went to two tiebreaks in Kuala Lumpur?
Sampras managed to win a biggertitle on clay than Federer has so far and he did it playing some of the best claycourt tennis ever seen
You mean like the way Sampras was "taking it easy on Hewitt" the way Federer was "taking it easy" on Sampras?Actually the match I was referring to was instead a competitive match on something called the ATP Tour. You might want to look into the difference between that and an exhibition, again if your pea brain can handle such information without exploding.
ok tni, your just a joke, still think that sampras legitly beat Fed about a week ago and that sampras is better than this years shanghai field? or how about that federer's aces were a product of Fed turning it up and not Sampras being slow on returns because hes old, and if Sampras played some of the best clay court tennis ever, being the natural and all, not play it at Roland Garros, do yourself a favor and please pull your head out of Sampras'......
If you look at the grand slam titles that both have won at age 26, they are tied right now:
Sampras won 1998 Wimbledon (6/22/1998 - Born 8/12/1971)
Federer won 2007 US Open (9/9/2007 - Born 8/8/1981)
Chances are Federer is going to win more grand slam titles at age 26 than Sampras before he turns 27 in August 2008
have a bad day today eh?
“I think if he was still playing he would be a top five player.” Federer confessed to public on how weak his competition is after a straight sets lost to a much better player Pete Sampras.