Article: Fed best of an era, but not better than Sampras

luckyguy

Rookie
Roger Federer: The Best Of an Era, But Not Better Than Pete Sampras
by Amar Panchmatia (Scribe)


A befallen Andy Roddick gazed through teary eyes on Centre Court of Wimbledon on Sunday before looking up at the parade of past champions that had congregated on tennis' biggest stage. He looked at Pete Sampras, the last great American player, and pleaded, "Sorry Pete, I tried to hold him off."

No worries, Andy. You had actually done just fine. Because although numbers will say one thing, Roddick's epic 5-7, 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (7-5), 3-6, 16-14 loss was the latest evidence to show the assembly of legends that Roger Federer may not be the best player of all time.

Sure, there is the argument that Federer has won 15 Grand Slams, more than any man to walk the planet. But before Sampras broke the old mark in 2000, it as held by one Roy Emerson. While casual fans know the names Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver—and even Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Andre Agassi—Emerson never registered a blip on the radar of tennis greats. So until Sampras took the mark less than a decade ago, holding the Grand Slam record had never meant anything when it comes to deciding who is the best ever.

And while Laver, when asked that very question in the wake of Federer's record-setting victory, wanted to be reserved in his statements, even he suggested that you can only compare players to others in his era and not those before or after him.

But we can certainly compare eras. And when compared to Sampras, Federer's era is far weaker.

Some may attribute the fact that only one man: Rafael Nadal—has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam final as proof that Federer is the most dominating player in history. But over the course of six years, from 2003 to today, the fact that not one other player has been able to even sniff Federer on any surface is truly alarming and more of a testament to the state of men's tennis today.

While Nadal has been glorified as the "kryptonite" to tennis' Superman from Switzerland, the Spaniard is simply the Agassi of this generation. Just as Agassi dominated the slower hardcourts of the Australian Open, Nadal has been a monster on the clay courts of Roland Garros. Both men have career Grand Slams, both are known for being flamboyant and marketable off the court, and both proved to be the biggest rivals for the best players of their respective generations.

Except Sampras beat Agassi like a drum. Sampras burst on to the scene as a 19-year old in 1990 by picking Agassi apart, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 at the U.S. Open final, his first Slam. The man known as "Pistol Pete" was 6-3 against Agassi in Grand Slams, including 4-1 in finals. Instead of being the one being demoralized, Sampras was doing the demoralizing, as his win over Agassi in the 1995 U.S. Open final sent the latter into a downward spiral that took him to 141st in the world and a free fall into temporary oblivion.

Federer, on the other hand, is 7-13 all-time against Nadal, including 2-6 in Grand Slams and 2-5 in Slam finals. That includes a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 demolition in the finals of the 2008 French Open finals that was hardly befitting of a player being dubbed "The Best Ever."

How can Federer be the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet when he is not even the best player of this current decade? How can he think of being the best when he knows that there is another man alive right now that he just cannot beat?

While Sampras had some cupcakes in his era, he had to get past some Grand Slam champions to accumulate his 14 Grand Slams. Other than Agassi, Sampras had to drop two-time U.S. Open champion Patrick Rafter to win his record-setting seventh Wimbledon in 2000. When he first broke through in 1990, Sampras also had to beat Ivan Lendl—who had made eight consecutive U.S. Open finals going into that tournament -- in the quarterfinals.

Two-time French Open champion Jim Courier also showed the strength of American tennis at the time, but Courier was a prop to Sampras whenever the two butted heads. Carlos Moya was a 1998 French Open champion, but he was assaulted by Sampras in the 1997 Australian Open finals. Even German legend Boris Becker—a six-time Grand Slam champion and three-time Wimbledon champion -- was mowed down in four sets at the lawn of the All England Club in 1995.

Federer, on the other hand, has had a blast beating the likes of Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, Robin Soderling, and a washed-up Mark Philippoussis in Slam finals. The best American player of his generation—Andy Roddick—would be well behind Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and even Michael Chang in the American pecking order if he was born 10 years earlier.

Yet here was Roddick, giving Federer the match of his life, a struggle that Sampras never encountered as he rolled to seven All England Club titles. Outside of one hiccup at the quarterfinals of the 1996 Wimbledon against Dutchman Richard Krajicek, Sampras was 53-1 at Wimbledon over an eight-year span and never lost a final there, a distinction Federer failed to earn after losing to Nadal at the All England Club a year ago.

So celebrate Roger Federer if you must, especially in a sports world that has become so dominated by numbers. Fifteen may be larger than 14, but it's also easy to stockpile Grand Slams when only one man in the world has the tools to even compete with you.

The numbers may say that Roger Federer is the best of all time, but after looking at who he has had to beat, he is simply the best of a poor and washed-up generation.

And if Nadal has even one more say in the U.S. Open this September, Federer may not even be the best of this generation, either.
 

ESP#1

Professional
This guy doesn't really know what he is talking about, pretty poor article, a couple facts but his points are bs
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Roger Federer: The Best Of an Era, But Not Better Than Pete Sampras
by Amar Panchmatia (Scribe)


A befallen Andy Roddick gazed through teary eyes on Centre Court of Wimbledon on Sunday before looking up at the parade of past champions that had congregated on tennis' biggest stage. He looked at Pete Sampras, the last great American player, and pleaded, "Sorry Pete, I tried to hold him off."

No worries, Andy. You had actually done just fine. Because although numbers will say one thing, Roddick's epic 5-7, 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (7-5), 3-6, 16-14 loss was the latest evidence to show the assembly of legends that Roger Federer may not be the best player of all time.

Sure, there is the argument that Federer has won 15 Grand Slams, more than any man to walk the planet. But before Sampras broke the old mark in 2000, it as held by one Roy Emerson. While casual fans know the names Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver—and even Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Andre Agassi—Emerson never registered a blip on the radar of tennis greats. So until Sampras took the mark less than a decade ago, holding the Grand Slam record had never meant anything when it comes to deciding who is the best ever.

And while Laver, when asked that very question in the wake of Federer's record-setting victory, wanted to be reserved in his statements, even he suggested that you can only compare players to others in his era and not those before or after him.

But we can certainly compare eras. And when compared to Sampras, Federer's era is far weaker.

Some may attribute the fact that only one man: Rafael Nadal—has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam final as proof that Federer is the most dominating player in history. But over the course of six years, from 2003 to today, the fact that not one other player has been able to even sniff Federer on any surface is truly alarming and more of a testament to the state of men's tennis today.

While Nadal has been glorified as the "kryptonite" to tennis' Superman from Switzerland, the Spaniard is simply the Agassi of this generation. Just as Agassi dominated the slower hardcourts of the Australian Open, Nadal has been a monster on the clay courts of Roland Garros. Both men have career Grand Slams, both are known for being flamboyant and marketable off the court, and both proved to be the biggest rivals for the best players of their respective generations.

Except Sampras beat Agassi like a drum. Sampras burst on to the scene as a 19-year old in 1990 by picking Agassi apart, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 at the U.S. Open final, his first Slam. The man known as "Pistol Pete" was 6-3 against Agassi in Grand Slams, including 4-1 in finals. Instead of being the one being demoralized, Sampras was doing the demoralizing, as his win over Agassi in the 1995 U.S. Open final sent the latter into a downward spiral that took him to 141st in the world and a free fall into temporary oblivion.

Federer, on the other hand, is 7-13 all-time against Nadal, including 2-6 in Grand Slams and 2-5 in Slam finals. That includes a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 demolition in the finals of the 2008 French Open finals that was hardly befitting of a player being dubbed "The Best Ever."

How can Federer be the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet when he is not even the best player of this current decade? How can he think of being the best when he knows that there is another man alive right now that he just cannot beat?

While Sampras had some cupcakes in his era, he had to get past some Grand Slam champions to accumulate his 14 Grand Slams. Other than Agassi, Sampras had to drop two-time U.S. Open champion Patrick Rafter to win his record-setting seventh Wimbledon in 2000. When he first broke through in 1990, Sampras also had to beat Ivan Lendl—who had made eight consecutive U.S. Open finals going into that tournament -- in the quarterfinals.

Two-time French Open champion Jim Courier also showed the strength of American tennis at the time, but Courier was a prop to Sampras whenever the two butted heads. Carlos Moya was a 1998 French Open champion, but he was assaulted by Sampras in the 1997 Australian Open finals. Even German legend Boris Becker—a six-time Grand Slam champion and three-time Wimbledon champion -- was mowed down in four sets at the lawn of the All England Club in 1995.

Federer, on the other hand, has had a blast beating the likes of Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, Robin Soderling, and a washed-up Mark Philippoussis in Slam finals. The best American player of his generation—Andy Roddick—would be well behind Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and even Michael Chang in the American pecking order if he was born 10 years earlier.

Yet here was Roddick, giving Federer the match of his life, a struggle that Sampras never encountered as he rolled to seven All England Club titles. Outside of one hiccup at the quarterfinals of the 1996 Wimbledon against Dutchman Richard Krajicek, Sampras was 53-1 at Wimbledon over an eight-year span and never lost a final there, a distinction Federer failed to earn after losing to Nadal at the All England Club a year ago.

So celebrate Roger Federer if you must, especially in a sports world that has become so dominated by numbers. Fifteen may be larger than 14, but it's also easy to stockpile Grand Slams when only one man in the world has the tools to even compete with you.

The numbers may say that Roger Federer is the best of all time, but after looking at who he has had to beat, he is simply the best of a poor and washed-up generation.

And if Nadal has even one more say in the U.S. Open this September, Federer may not even be the best of this generation, either.

Contradiction much? Interesting article but I disagree with most points.I also don't think Fed is GOAT but Sampras sure as heck isn't GOAT for me either.

As for Fed's struggles at Wimbledon,while I do consider Pete to be the best grasscourter ever he doesn't get a free pass from me(like he apparently does from the author) for his "hiccup"(an insult to Krajicek to call it that)loss to Krajicek in straights simply because "it wasn't the final".He lost just the same and unlike Fed whose only loss since winning Wimbledon was in 5 sets Sampras went down in straights.

As for Nadal and Agassi,aside from the fact that both are baseliners their games are quite different and while fast HC is Nadal's worst surface it was Agassi's best and while Nadal's best surface is clay it was Agassi's worst so again 2 different players with different strengths.

Also Nadal doesn't have a career slam,the author should follow tennis more before writing about it.
 
Last edited:

Enigma_87

Professional
Lol, love it.

If some player is straight setted by Federer - then he's not good enough, weak era, etc.
When some player pushes Federer to the limit - it's a better era and Federer is not that dominant, not that strong GOAT contender etc.

When Federer is beaten by someone - it's a strong era and Federer is not even the best of his generation.

When Nadal is taken out by Tsonga,Del Potro, Gonzo, Soderling, nobody mentions the weak era and how less a player Nadal is to lose to some guy.

Catch 22 anyone?
 
Last edited:

sdont

Legend
While Nadal has been glorified as the "kryptonite" to tennis' Superman from Switzerland, the Spaniard is simply the Agassi of this generation. Just as Agassi dominated the slower hardcourts of the Australian Open, Nadal has been a monster on the clay courts of Roland Garros. Both men have career Grand Slams, both are known for being flamboyant and marketable off the court, and both proved to be the biggest rivals for the best players of their respective generations.

This is enough to discredit the whole article.
 

TonyB

Hall of Fame
Of course, the author conveniently leaves out the fact that even at (almost) age 28 compared to Nadal at 22, Federer beat Nadal ON CLAY this year. He also beat Nadal TWICE in Wimbledon finals, in addition to taking Nadal to 9-7 in the 5th set last year when you could hardly see the ball because it was so dark.

And that's basically the only point the author makes: that Federer isn't the best because he can't beat Nadal. Which is in fact untrue. He also conveniently omits the fact that Nadal is quite possibly the best OF ALL TIME on clay and Federer's 4 of 6 slam losses to Nadal came on clay.

I think this guy should go back to reviewing kitchen floor tile.
 
This was written by GameSampras, 380pistol, Cenc, Cesc Fabregas. Samp ****s are so stuck in the past that they don't want to recognize Fed will soon blow by their man's record and leave him as an afterthought in the GOAT discussion.
 

TonyB

Hall of Fame
Lol, love it.

If some player is straight setted by Federer - then he's not good enough, weak era, etc.
When some player pushes Federer to the limit - it's a better era and Federer is not that dominant, not that strong GOAT contender etc.

When Federer is beaten [by] someone - it's a strong era and Federer is not even the best of his generation.



Awesome points!
 

Ultra2HolyGrail

Hall of Fame
For federer to be the best of his generation he would have had to beat NAdal at the french. No dice.

For Nadal to be the best of his gen he would had to beat fed at wimbledon. He did.. Case closed.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
So you think his win over sampras in the quarterfinals, his ONLY grand slam ever, is enough for him to be even considered a rival to sampras? Like nadal is to federer?

didn't you say that in order for Federer to be better than Nadal he has to beat him at the French and Nadal has to beat him at SW19. Well according to your logic Krajicek won against Sampras at SW19, so he's better, right?

Federer has 15 GS titles, Nadal has 6. You do the math who is better in his generation.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
nah, it just shows how weak this era was :razz:

KING OF ACES;

That is the biggest stupidity you have wrote so far, and that says alot because of your previous avatar thread count...

Care to see the Head to Head on Nadal and Hrbaty?....
 

JennyS

Hall of Fame
Nadal is better than Federer? Head to Head yes, but overall no. Last time I checked there is no such tournament as the Nadal Only Open. Also, numbers don't lie.

15>6

6 Wimbledons>1 Wimbledon
1 French Open < 4 French Opens
3 Australian Opens> 1 Australian Open
5 US Opens > 0 US Opens
 

Ultra2HolyGrail

Hall of Fame
didn't you say that in order for Federer to be better than Nadal he has to beat him at the French and Nadal has to beat him at SW19. Well according to your logic Krajicek won against Sampras at SW19, so he's better, right?

?. So do you think tosonga is better than nadal because he beat him at the australian? Obviously every pro loses. Even federer. Fact is nobody besides Nadal is considered a real rival to federer. Maybe roddick though now. :)

Federer has 15 GS titles, Nadal has 6. You do the math who is better in his generation.


Wow. Great logic. Nadal beat the living crap out of fed at the french open. Do the math on how bad the beatdown was. Let me know when fed destroyed nadal in a grand slam final. I could care less on the amount of numbers fed has won, clearly nadal owns him and makes him cry.
 

luckyguy

Rookie
age doesn't lie also, nadal is just 22 with six slams..

Nadal is better than Federer? Head to Head yes, but overall no. Last time I checked there is no such tournament as the Nadal Only Open. Also, numbers don't lie.

15>6

6 Wimbledons>1 Wimbledon
1 French Open < 4 French Opens
3 Australian Opens> 1 Australian Open
5 US Opens > 0 US Opens
 

Enigma_87

Professional
?. So do you think tosonga is better than nadal because he beat him at the australian? Obviously every pro loses. Even federer. Fact is nobody besides Nadal is considered a real rival to federer. Maybe roddick though now. :)
Your logic not mine. Controversy much?

Wow. Great logic. Nadal beat the living crap out of fed at the french open. Do the math on how bad the beatdown was. Let me know when fed destroyed nadal in a grand slam final. I could care less on the amount of numbers fed has won, clearly nadal owns him and makes him cry.

Who said that Federer is better on clay? If you take out their clay meetings its 5-4 in favor of Federer. Mind Nadal may very well end up as the greatest CC player.


age doesn't lie also, nadal is just 22 with six slams..

Yes, but peaked earlier than Federer. He turned pro in 01. He has been on top level for how many years now? 5? He's also a grinder, that doesn't apply much longitivity, still one of the greatest to play the game, mind.
 
Last edited:

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
KING OF ACES;

That is the biggest stupidity you have wrote so far, and that says alot because of your previous avatar thread count...

Care to see the Head to Head on Nadal and Hrbaty?....

I thought the ":razz:" at the end pointed out my sarcasm...

I think h2h-comparisons are overrated. I don't think it's a "proove" of weakness if somebody has a bad h2h.
 
Last edited:

Ultra2HolyGrail

Hall of Fame
Who said that Federer is better on clay? If you take out their clay meetings its 5-4 in favor of Federer. Mind Nadal may very well end up as the greatest CC player.


Who said federer is better on grass? Well he probably is but Nadal has beat him. So do the Math. Nadal beats fed on grass and clay. Fed can only win on grass vs nadal. You decide who's better.
 

luckyguy

Rookie
wow, now tendinitis is a career threatening injury?

well, how many 22 year olds achieved what nadal has achieved so far tennis-wise?

err.. how many 22 yr olds are out with a career-threatening knee injury? tennis-wise, nadal is much older than 22
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Nadal is better than Federer? Head to Head yes, but overall no. Last time I checked there is no such tournament as the Nadal Only Open. Also, numbers don't lie.

15>6

6 Wimbledons>1 Wimbledon
1 French Open < 4 French Opens
3 Australian Opens> 1 Australian Open
5 US Opens > 0 US Opens

All that is true,of course Fed is by far the best player of his generation but his H2H with Nadal is hurting his GOAT case for me.Not saying he isn't one of the best ever(he clearly is)but not the undisputed GOAT(in my opinion anyway).

The fact remains that Nadal was able to get Fed at Wimbledon and even at AO while Fed didn't get Nadal at the FO.Of course part of the story is that Nadal wasn't good enough to reach AO and USO finals during Fed's peak years while Fed was constantly reaching clay finals and playing Nadal all the time but nevertheless IMO the fact that Nadal is 5-2 in slam finals hurts Fed's case for being the GOAT.

Maybe Fed will meet Nadal at USO or maybe at Wimbledon again and he'll have a chance to even that H2H a bit.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Who said federer is better on grass? Well he probably is but Nadal has beat him. So do the Math. Nadal beats fed on grass and clay. Fed can only win on grass vs nadal. You decide who's better.

Erm? Am I missing something isn't Federer 2-1 against Nadal on grass. Nadal hasn't proved exactly he's better on grass than him, especially when his win came in 5 sets 9-7.
 

Ultra2HolyGrail

Hall of Fame
Erm? Am I missing something isn't Federer 2-1 against Nadal on grass. Nadal hasn't proved exactly he's better on grass than him, especially when his win came in 5 sets 9-7.


True, i give the edge to fed on grass. But head to head it's clear nadal has gotten the better of him, you can try to deny it and hope it's not true, but it is. Sorry about that.
 
Make this GOAT thread #379...just think, we may have 4 more years of threads EXACTLY LIKE THIS, depending on how much longer Fed plays. After every slam he wins...this shouldn't get old at all...
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
wow, now tendinitis is a career threatening injury?

well, how many 22 year olds achieved what nadal has achieved so far tennis-wise?

count the number of times in the past 3 yrs that nadal has had to miss tournaments on account of his knee. Nadal's achievements are impressive; his age is a non-factor because you cannot extrapolate his achievements into the future, given that he is prone to the knee injury
 

Djumex

Rookie
Roger Federer: The Best Of an Era, But Not Better Than Pete Sampras
by Amar Panchmatia (Scribe)


While Sampras had some cupcakes in his era, he had to get past some Grand Slam champions to accumulate his 14 Grand Slams. Other than Agassi, Sampras had to drop two-time U.S. Open champion Patrick Rafter to win his record-setting seventh Wimbledon in 2000. When he first broke through in 1990, Sampras also had to beat Ivan Lendl—who had made eight consecutive U.S. Open finals going into that tournament -- in the quarterfinals.

Two-time French Open champion Jim Courier also showed the strength of American tennis at the time, but Courier was a prop to Sampras whenever the two butted heads. Carlos Moya was a 1998 French Open champion, but he was assaulted by Sampras in the 1997 Australian Open finals. Even German legend Boris Becker—a six-time Grand Slam champion and three-time Wimbledon champion -- was mowed down in four sets at the lawn of the All England Club in 1995.

Federer, on the other hand, has had a blast beating the likes of Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, Robin Soderling, and a washed-up Mark Philippoussis in Slam finals. The best American player of his generation—Andy Roddick—would be well behind Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and even Michael Chang in the American pecking order if he was born 10 years earlier.

.

Descent point...IMO
 

tintin

Professional
don't remember Pete Sampras ever making the finals in Paris for 4 straight years and losing to the same opponent every single time and finally winning one:roll:
 

rwn

Semi-Pro
All that is true,of course Fed is by far the best player of his generation but his H2H with Nadal is hurting his GOAT case for me.Not saying he isn't one of the best ever(he clearly is)but not the undisputed GOAT(in my opinion anyway).

The fact remains that Nadal was able to get Fed at Wimbledon and even at AO while Fed didn't get Nadal at the FO.Of course part of the story is that Nadal wasn't good enough to reach AO and USO finals during Fed's peak years while Fed was constantly reaching clay finals and playing Nadal all the time but nevertheless IMO the fact that Nadal is 5-2 in slam finals hurts Fed's case for being the GOAT.

Maybe Fed will meet Nadal at USO or maybe at Wimbledon again and he'll have a chance to even that H2H a bit.

H2H Edberg-Becker 10-25. Does anybody even remember this ? Nobody does. And that basically proves the point that people are searching for something negative about Federer and this totally irrelevant thing is all they have.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
True, i give the edge to fed on grass. But head to head it's clear nadal has gotten the better of him, you can try to deny it and hope it's not true, but it is. Sorry about that.
Nadal worst surface is the US - it's the fastest out there. Last 2 times Federer met Nadal on super fast courts it was the TMC and dismantled Nadal on both occasions 2 straight sets to love.

Federer was clearly in a slump(due to mono back or whatever physical reasons) and lost his #1 spot when he was beaten at the AO - again in 5 tough sets and it would have gone either way. He also got the better of him twice at CC masters - Hamburg and Madrid, and came pretty close in Rome,having match points. Their H2H is massively skewed exactly by the fact that Nadal wasn't making EVERY top HC tournament as Federer. Their H2H implies that there would've been quite tough matches, but doesn't imply that Nadal would get the better of Federer on every occasion outside clay(it's the opposite in fact).

Make this GOAT thread #379...
Busy week, eh?
 
Last edited:

rwn

Semi-Pro
Roger Federer: The Best Of an Era, But Not Better Than Pete Sampras
by Amar Panchmatia (Scribe)


A befallen Andy Roddick gazed through teary eyes on Centre Court of Wimbledon on Sunday before looking up at the parade of past champions that had congregated on tennis' biggest stage. He looked at Pete Sampras, the last great American player, and pleaded, "Sorry Pete, I tried to hold him off."

No worries, Andy. You had actually done just fine. Because although numbers will say one thing, Roddick's epic 5-7, 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (7-5), 3-6, 16-14 loss was the latest evidence to show the assembly of legends that Roger Federer may not be the best player of all time.

Sure, there is the argument that Federer has won 15 Grand Slams, more than any man to walk the planet. But before Sampras broke the old mark in 2000, it as held by one Roy Emerson. While casual fans know the names Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver—and even Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Andre Agassi—Emerson never registered a blip on the radar of tennis greats. So until Sampras took the mark less than a decade ago, holding the Grand Slam record had never meant anything when it comes to deciding who is the best ever.

And while Laver, when asked that very question in the wake of Federer's record-setting victory, wanted to be reserved in his statements, even he suggested that you can only compare players to others in his era and not those before or after him.

But we can certainly compare eras. And when compared to Sampras, Federer's era is far weaker.

Some may attribute the fact that only one man: Rafael Nadal—has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam final as proof that Federer is the most dominating player in history. But over the course of six years, from 2003 to today, the fact that not one other player has been able to even sniff Federer on any surface is truly alarming and more of a testament to the state of men's tennis today.

While Nadal has been glorified as the "kryptonite" to tennis' Superman from Switzerland, the Spaniard is simply the Agassi of this generation. Just as Agassi dominated the slower hardcourts of the Australian Open, Nadal has been a monster on the clay courts of Roland Garros. Both men have career Grand Slams, both are known for being flamboyant and marketable off the court, and both proved to be the biggest rivals for the best players of their respective generations.

Except Sampras beat Agassi like a drum. Sampras burst on to the scene as a 19-year old in 1990 by picking Agassi apart, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 at the U.S. Open final, his first Slam. The man known as "Pistol Pete" was 6-3 against Agassi in Grand Slams, including 4-1 in finals. Instead of being the one being demoralized, Sampras was doing the demoralizing, as his win over Agassi in the 1995 U.S. Open final sent the latter into a downward spiral that took him to 141st in the world and a free fall into temporary oblivion.

Federer, on the other hand, is 7-13 all-time against Nadal, including 2-6 in Grand Slams and 2-5 in Slam finals. That includes a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 demolition in the finals of the 2008 French Open finals that was hardly befitting of a player being dubbed "The Best Ever."

How can Federer be the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet when he is not even the best player of this current decade? How can he think of being the best when he knows that there is another man alive right now that he just cannot beat?

While Sampras had some cupcakes in his era, he had to get past some Grand Slam champions to accumulate his 14 Grand Slams. Other than Agassi, Sampras had to drop two-time U.S. Open champion Patrick Rafter to win his record-setting seventh Wimbledon in 2000. When he first broke through in 1990, Sampras also had to beat Ivan Lendl—who had made eight consecutive U.S. Open finals going into that tournament -- in the quarterfinals.

Two-time French Open champion Jim Courier also showed the strength of American tennis at the time, but Courier was a prop to Sampras whenever the two butted heads. Carlos Moya was a 1998 French Open champion, but he was assaulted by Sampras in the 1997 Australian Open finals. Even German legend Boris Becker—a six-time Grand Slam champion and three-time Wimbledon champion -- was mowed down in four sets at the lawn of the All England Club in 1995.

Federer, on the other hand, has had a blast beating the likes of Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, Robin Soderling, and a washed-up Mark Philippoussis in Slam finals. The best American player of his generation—Andy Roddick—would be well behind Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and even Michael Chang in the American pecking order if he was born 10 years earlier.

Yet here was Roddick, giving Federer the match of his life, a struggle that Sampras never encountered as he rolled to seven All England Club titles. Outside of one hiccup at the quarterfinals of the 1996 Wimbledon against Dutchman Richard Krajicek, Sampras was 53-1 at Wimbledon over an eight-year span and never lost a final there, a distinction Federer failed to earn after losing to Nadal at the All England Club a year ago.

So celebrate Roger Federer if you must, especially in a sports world that has become so dominated by numbers. Fifteen may be larger than 14, but it's also easy to stockpile Grand Slams when only one man in the world has the tools to even compete with you.

The numbers may say that Roger Federer is the best of all time, but after looking at who he has had to beat, he is simply the best of a poor and washed-up generation.

And if Nadal has even one more say in the U.S. Open this September, Federer may not even be the best of this generation, either.

Federer would be really afraid of Yzaga, Schaller, Delgado or Kucera. Guys Sampras actually lost to at the slams. :-?
 

prosealster

Professional
EVEN if nadal is better than fed (which I dont think that's the case).. it does not make sampras better than fed....what flawed logic some people have..
 

Ultra2HolyGrail

Hall of Fame
Nadal worst surface is the US - it's the fastest out there. Last 2 times Federer met Nadal on super fast courts it was the TMC and dismantled Nadal on both occasions 2 straight sets to love.

Wimbledon is still the fastest surface. Why do you think roddicks serve is so deadly there?

Federer was clearly in a slump(due to mono back or whatever physical reasons) and lost his #1 spot when he was beaten at the AO - again in 5 tough sets and it would have gone either way. He also got the better of him twice at CC masters - Hamburg and Madrid, and came pretty close in Rome,having match points. Their H2H is massively skewed exactly by the fact that Nadal wasn't making EVERY top HC tournament as Federer. Their H2H implies that there would've been quite tough matches, but doesn't imply that Nadal would get the better of Federer on every occasion outside clay(it's the opposite in fact).

We can go on for days, but to me roger is not the goat simply because of the abuse nadal has given to him, and also because, i hate to say it he made him cry and looked bad when he lost at the AO. He just seems to lack something when he really is tested and has a real challenge. Like he was just a little brat or something that crys when he does not get his way. I'm guessing he had a real bad temper problem growing up.
 

anantak2k

Semi-Pro
Sure Nadal got Fed at Wimby. That's a fact. But tennis at the highest level and at the biggest matches doesn't just come down to skills. It's all about confidence at that point. Wimbledon is literally right after a long clay season where Nadal gains an enormous amount of confidence every year. Every year Nadal beats Federer in a couple of clay tournament finals before coming in for wimbledon. What do you think that does to a players confidence? If you are not confident in your shots, you are not going to win. Its hard to come back an win a slam against a guy who just killed you like 62 63 60 in the last final you played against him. At that point surface does not even matter. I thought Fed was going to lose that final in straight sets but he fought hard and was very determined and even came very close to winning. Nadal was just better in the end. That's all there is to it. Nadal is amazing on clay and it is unfair to judge how good Fed is based on his h2h record against nadal because most of those losses are on clay.

All that is true,of course Fed is by far the best player of his generation but his H2H with Nadal is hurting his GOAT case for me.Not saying he isn't one of the best ever(he clearly is)but not the undisputed GOAT(in my opinion anyway).

The fact remains that Nadal was able to get Fed at Wimbledon and even at AO while Fed didn't get Nadal at the FO.Of course part of the story is that Nadal wasn't good enough to reach AO and USO finals during Fed's peak years while Fed was constantly reaching clay finals and playing Nadal all the time but nevertheless IMO the fact that Nadal is 5-2 in slam finals hurts Fed's case for being the GOAT.

Maybe Fed will meet Nadal at USO or maybe at Wimbledon again and he'll have a chance to even that H2H a bit.
 

anantak2k

Semi-Pro
Oh and I want to add that if there were actually more grass court events, I am sure their head to head would be a lot more even.
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
This was written by GameSampras, 380pistol, Cenc, Cesc Fabregas. Samp ****s are so stuck in the past that they don't want to recognize Fed will soon blow by their man's record and leave him as an afterthought in the GOAT discussion.

lol
1) im not samprasfan at 1st lol
2) i dont need to use another names or write such articles to state my opinion
ur a total moron

also fun part is that EVERYONE who doesnt think that fed is the greatest must be either "***********" or "*********"
fedfans are like football fans, always need to insult and attack everyone who doesnt think the same
its just unbelievable

somehow feds arrogance and his fans' obsession suit each other really well REALLY WELL
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Wimbledon is still the fastest surface. Why do you think roddicks serve is so deadly there?
Bounce, irregular surface, sliding.

We can go on for days, but to me roger is not the goat simply because of the abuse nadal has given to him, and also because, i hate to say it he made him cry and looked bad when he lost at the AO. He just seems to lack something when he really is tested and has a real challenge. Like he was just a little brat or something that crys when he does not get his way. I'm guessing he had a real bad temper problem growing up.

Nadal abused him in CC slams and finals, apart from their CC meetings Federer's H2H is positive 5-4, or on par 2-2 at slams.

I saw Sampras crying back in the days(yes it wasn't exactly the same case) but Federer is an emotional guy, it's his personality, it has nothing to do with his playing abilities IMO.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Sure Nadal got Fed at Wimby. That's a fact. But tennis at the highest level and at the biggest matches doesn't just come down to skills. It's all about confidence at that point. Wimbledon is literally right after a long clay season where Nadal gains an enormous amount of confidence every year. Every year Nadal beats Federer in a couple of clay tournament finals before coming in for wimbledon. What do you think that does to a players confidence? If you are not confident in your shots, you are not going to win. Its hard to come back an win a slam against a guy who just killed you like 62 63 60 in the last final you played against him. At that point surface does not even matter. I thought Fed was going to lose that final in straight sets but he fought hard and was very determined and even came very close to winning. Nadal was just better in the end. That's all there is to it. Nadal is amazing on clay and it is unfair to judge how good Fed is based on his h2h record against nadal because most of those losses are on clay.

Look I understand your points and I do think Fed's H2H with Nadal is skewed because most of their meetings were on clay which benefited Nadal tremendously and Fed's my favourite player of all time but If we're gonna judge him by GOAT standards which should be harsh(we're talking about the undisputed best ever here)then he needs to improve his record in slam finals against Nadal IMO.

For the record I don't consider Sampras to be the GOAT either,he never had a 3 slam year and mediocre(for a GOAT standard) result on clay(which is one of the major surfaces in tennis)and I do think Fed will end up as a greater player than Sampras(maybe he already is)when all is said and done.
 

Ultra2HolyGrail

Hall of Fame
I saw Sampras crying back in the days(yes it wasn't exactly the same case) but Federer is an emotional guy, it's his personality, it has nothing to do with his playing abilities IMO.



I don't mind seeing emotion when one wins, but losing and crying does not sit well with me.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
I saw Sampras crying back in the days(yes it wasn't exactly the same case) but Federer is an emotional guy, it's his personality, it has nothing to do with his playing abilities IMO.


yeah.. is coach was diagnosed terminally ill with cancer... and he was crying while acing Lumber jack Jim... almost the same as fed crying form being ***** at the AO final! almost.. but not quite!
 

Enigma_87

Professional
I don't mind seeing emotion when won wins, but losing and crying does not sit well with me.

Well that's why we should make a difference between his playing abilities and his personality. Every player has his outbursts, here and there.

yeah.. is coach was diagnosed terminally ill with cancer... and he was crying while acing Lumber jack Jim... almost the same as fed crying form being ***** at the AO final! almost.. but not quite!
yes, as I said it's not the same. My point is that people are emotional. They have their ups and downs, Federer had to deal with personal difficulties as well(losing his personal trainer Peter Carter). Tennis IMO means that much to him. When he lost WImbey and was battered by Nadal at RG, he was thought never to win a slam again, when he lost the AO as well, being the professional he is, wouldn't he feel downbeat?
 
Last edited:
Top