Assessing Federer and Sampras

Slightly tricky article to write as Federer's career is not over, but the bulk of it has been completed so I thought I would give it a go, they have a lot of similarities yet a lot of differences. Read on....

The last 20 years have been a very interesting period for men’s tennis with two of the most prolific champions of the 1990s and 2000s overlapping each other. Both players had significant rivals and set many records along the way. With Roger Federer breaking yet another record at the year end ATP World Tour finals a couple of weeks ago, it will be interesting to assess how both players have helped to define their eras.

http://burnstennis.blogspot.com/2011/12/assessing-federer-and-sampras.html

I think you miss it somewhat with your analysis. Sampras was a lot more of a flawed player (relatively speaking) compared to Federer as his game was largely dependent on the serve with significant vulnerability to lesser players, particularly on clay (see Blanco, Galo). By every metric, Federer has been both a higher level and more consistent player to some degree in an era with a higher overall level and more demanding style of play.

Sampras won Paris Indoors twice (1995 and 1997), not 3 times. Just thought I'd point that out

Edit: Also, Muster is 2-9 against Sampras, the two wins coming at 1995 Essen Indoors and 1998 Indian Wells.

Nice write up

Both Pete and Roger are players cut from the same cloth, an extremely rare one.

You also say about the Sampras era that "Grass was hard, fast and low bouncing and clay slow and high bouncing, fast balls were used on grass"

Grass in that era was soft, not hard. Hence the lower more skiddy bounces.

Also, "Federer’s trademark has been his forehand and serve, and exceptional movement which has allowed him to stay relatively injury free.." > I'm not sure his exceptional movement has contributed to him remaining injury free - in fact it's certainly the other way around: his ability to remain injury free has enabled him to have exceptional movement. He's just very lucky genetically and has his training techniques/amount down to a fine art, plus a dose of luck no doubt. His forehand may be a reason - since it has saved him a lot of extra running over the course of his career.

Bobby Jr said:

You also say about the Sampras era that "Grass was hard, fast and low bouncing and clay slow and high bouncing, fast balls were used on grass"

Grass in that era was soft, not hard. Hence the lower more skiddy bounces.

Also, "Federer’s trademark has been his forehand and serve, and exceptional movement which has allowed him to stay relatively injury free.." > I'm not sure his exceptional movement has contributed to him remaining injury free - in fact it's certainly the other way around: his ability to remain injury free has enabled him to have exceptional movement. He's just very lucky genetically and has his training techniques/amount down to a fine art, plus a dose of luck no doubt. His forehand may be a reason - since it has saved him a lot of extra running over the course of his career.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I based my thoughts on the fact that 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997 had unusually hot early summers during those Wimbledons and the court was playing harder, aiding baseliners like Courier, Agassi, Malavai Washington and Chang who all made good Wimbledon runs in those years. (Chang got to the quarters or semis in 1994?) The centre court was also taking a good kick off the serve, Pat Cash mentioned that a lot during his time as commentator for the BBC, that helped the serving of Andre Agassi and Pat Rafter in particular who relied on kick serves, Pat Cash said that was because the court was hard. The courts were also more chopped up then than now so you got more bad and skiddy bounces as well.

I would say that the courts in 1999, 2000 and 2001 were at its best because the weather wasn't as hot and there was more rain, we got some great matches at Wimbledon in those 3 years, attackers and baseliners did well during this period.

Mustard said:

Sampras won Paris Indoors twice (1995 and 1997), not 3 times. Just thought I'd point that out

Edit: Also, Muster is 2-9 against Sampras, the two wins coming at 1995 Essen Indoors and 1998 Indian Wells.

Click to expand...

Cheers, I knew it was 9-2 so thanks for reminding me.

Laurie said:

(Chang got to the quarters or semis in 1994?).

Click to expand...

Yes, Chang lost to Sampras in the Wimbledon quarter finals in 1994.

Great article, Laurie.

Federer and Sampras are two truly amazing talented players that have defined these last two decades.

I watched last week the following five matches: Courier-Sampras Australian Open'94 SF, Courier-Sampras Miami'94 SF, Sampras-Korda Indian Wells' 94 Final, Agassi-Sampras Miami'94 Final, and Agassi-Sampras Miami'95 Final.

I almost had forgotten how much more of a baseliner Pete was back then. He almost never did serve and volley on second serves, so about 75% of the points in those matches were baseline rallies. And he was good at it (much much better than, say, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Forget, Ivanisevic....these players being not bad at all from the baseline in their own).

Actually Sampras did just everything in those matches: forehand lobs winners, backhand lobs winners, drop-shot winners, forehands, backhands, volleys, aces......just everything.

He truly changed his game around 1998, and started playing much like Rafter, Rusedski or Edberg, serve and volleying even on second serve and chip and charge on the return.

And more, yesterday I watched Ivanisevic-Sampras Indianapolis'96 Final, on fast hardcourt, and neither did serve and volleys on second serve, so about 50% of the points were baseline rallies as well.

It is amazing that so many people say that in the 90s there were no baseline rallies.

Most players were baseline players back then, and even players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich, Philippoussis....only did serve and volley on second serve when playing on grass or on a very fast indoor carpet. If they were playing on hardcourt, and against a baseliner, 75% of the points were baseline rallies (that ended with a baseline winner or with one the players coming in after serveral baseline shots).

There's more, on clay, many of them stayed back even on first serve.

So that saying of "in the 90s there were no baseline rallies" is just completely untrue. Most of the season were played on hardcourt and on clay, and most players played baseline rallies and/or all-court game there.

Only on grass and some indoor carpet tournament, some players (and they were a minority even back then) did serve and volley on first and second serve.

I've been re-watching many matches from the 80s and first half of the 90s the last few months, and now I realize how much more fun tennis was in that period. There were all kind of games, styles, and finesse and touch.

I truly believe it started to look bad only at the end of the 90s, when too much power on serve and baseline shots started to change tennis into some kind of "gambling game", "hit or miss", and all that beautiful tennis from past years slowly disappeared.

Federer, with his extremely beautiful game, has been the savior of the last decade.

When he actually leave tennis, I don't know what will happen, but it can look very ugly.

I love tennis, but I miss profoundly that period of mid-80s-to-mid 90s where the variety of players like McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Cash, Noah, Mecir, Becker, Edberg, Leconte, Gomez, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Agenor, Perez-Roldan, Mancini, Muster, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Novacek, Korda, Forget, Rafter,... was truly amazing.

mattennis said:

Federer, with his extremely beautiful game, has been the savior of the last decade.

When he actually leave tennis, I don't know what will happen, but it can look very ugly.

Click to expand...

Strap yourself in for the wild and exciting ride that will be the “Nadal / Djokovic Rivalry’” consisting of match after match of 40 ball rallies and the winner decided by who dies first on court due to exhaustion. Great eh?

It was always at Wimbledon and that we would hear the "big serves, no rallies" criticisms in the 1990s, and to a lesser extent on carpet. If I recall correctly, John Lloyd advocated around the year 2000 that Wimbledon should get rid of grass altogether.

Agree with Mattennis, Sampras was originally more of a baseliner in the Lendl mode, although with softer hands. He could outrally people like Courier and Agassi on medium hard courts in long baseline duels. In his prime year 1994 he dominated the hard court circuit in the US and Asia. Wasn't there a record rally on set point in the Sampras-Agassi USO final 1995.
The indoor game was a different matter: I recall some matches with Becker and Goran, or Sampras and Becker or Stich at Frankfurt or Hannover, when the rallies consisted only of one or two points, the serve and serve game dominated and almost all sets ended in tiebreakers. And some Wim matches like the 1994 Wim final were no fun to watch, they should have begun in the tiebreaker, would have been more interesting to watch.

urban said:

Agree with Mattennis, Sampras was originally more of a baseliner in the Lendl mode, although with softer hands. He could outrally people like Courier and Agassi on medium hard courts in long baseline duels. In his prime year 1994 he dominated the hard court circuit in the US and Asia. Wasn't there a record rally on set point in the Sampras-Agassi USO final 1995.
The indoor game was a different matter: I recall some matches with Becker and Goran, or Sampras and Becker or Stich at Frankfurt or Hannover, when the rallies consisted only of one or two points, the serve and serve game dominated and almost all sets ended in tiebreakers. And some Wim matches like the 1994 Wim final were no fun to watch, they should have begun in the tiebreaker, would have been more interesting to watch.

Click to expand...

Hi Urban

Sampras and Becker played some great matches on indoor carpet which had lots of rallies, Sampras liked to stay back on 2nd serve on indoor carpet during that period. As this last point of the 96 ATP final illustrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8lo1SFxyIA

mattennis said:

Great article, Laurie.

Federer and Sampras are two truly amazing talented players that have defined these last two decades.

I watched last week the following five matches: Courier-Sampras Australian Open'94 SF, Courier-Sampras Miami'94 SF, Sampras-Korda Indian Wells' 94 Final, Agassi-Sampras Miami'94 Final, and Agassi-Sampras Miami'95 Final.

I almost had forgotten how much more of a baseliner Pete was back then. He almost never did serve and volley on second serves, so about 75% of the points in those matches were baseline rallies. And he was good at it (much much better than, say, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Forget, Ivanisevic....these players being not bad at all from the baseline in their own).

Actually Sampras did just everything in those matches: forehand lobs winners, backhand lobs winners, drop-shot winners, forehands, backhands, volleys, aces......just everything.

He truly changed his game around 1998, and started playing much like Rafter, Rusedski or Edberg, serve and volleying even on second serve and chip and charge on the return.

And more, yesterday I watched Ivanisevic-Sampras Indianapolis'96 Final, on fast hardcourt, and neither did serve and volleys on second serve, so about 50% of the points were baseline rallies as well.

It is amazing that so many people say that in the 90s there were no baseline rallies.

Most players were baseline players back then, and even players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich, Philippoussis....only did serve and volley on second serve when playing on grass or on a very fast indoor carpet. If they were playing on hardcourt, and against a baseliner, 75% of the points were baseline rallies (that ended with a baseline winner or with one the players coming in after serveral baseline shots).

There's more, on clay, many of them stayed back even on first serve.

So that saying of "in the 90s there were no baseline rallies" is just completely untrue. Most of the season were played on hardcourt and on clay, and most players played baseline rallies and/or all-court game there.

Only on grass and some indoor carpet tournament, some players (and they were a minority even back then) did serve and volley on first and second serve.

I've been re-watching many matches from the 80s and first half of the 90s the last few months, and now I realize how much more fun tennis was in that period. There were all kind of games, styles, and finesse and touch.

I truly believe it started to look bad only at the end of the 90s, when too much power on serve and baseline shots started to change tennis into some kind of "gambling game", "hit or miss", and all that beautiful tennis from past years slowly disappeared.

Federer, with his extremely beautiful game, has been the savior of the last decade.

When he actually leave tennis, I don't know what will happen, but it can look very ugly.

I love tennis, but I miss profoundly that period of mid-80s-to-mid 90s where the variety of players like McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Cash, Noah, Mecir, Becker, Edberg, Leconte, Gomez, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Agenor, Perez-Roldan, Mancini, Muster, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Novacek, Korda, Forget, Rafter,... was truly amazing.

Click to expand...

Indeed, Sampras' game really did go through some stages, three stages as I identified in the article.

And as for Federer, even non Federer fans will concede that when he retires, tennis is in danger of just becomming a physical game where natural talent is no longer the most important factor. Flair players like Tsonga and Gasquet haven't been able to break through, Dmitrov so far looks not to have the inner belief to become one of the best, maybe that may change in the next year or two who knows.

Hi Laurie,
yes i recall this point. But in the other 4 sets, serve prevailed, and there were very few breaks of serve or break points at all. Not that those serve contests were not electric. The Boris-Goran semi in 1991 or so at Frankfurt, had the public on their feet. It was a brutal war of wills, with Boris excelling in front of his public.

urban said:

Hi Laurie,
yes i recall this point. But in the other 4 sets, serve prevailed, and there were very few breaks of serve or break points at all. Not that those serve contests were not electric. The Boris-Goran semi in 1991 or so at Frankfurt, had the public on their feet. It was a brutal war of wills, with Boris excelling in front of his public.

Click to expand...

I watched the 1996 Hanover final a few weeks ago for the first time since 2006 when I transferred it to DVD and I was pleasantly surprised by the level of tennis from the backcourt and the forecourt by both players. For some reason I always preferred the 1994 final in Frankfurt, probably because that match had no tiebreaks. I prefer lots of breaks in matches and had forgotten that even though there were hardly any breaks, the tennis was amazing - much like the 2001 US Open quarterfinal.

Devilito said:

Strap yourself in for the wild and exciting ride that will be the “Nadal / Djokovic Rivalry’” consisting of match after match of 40 ball rallies and the winner decided by who dies first on court due to exhaustion. Great eh?

Click to expand...

jaja, that reminds me of the third set of this year USOPEN Final.

Don't get me wrong, it was amazing in itself. An incredible feat of human physical endurance. But, as you say, no one can expect players running and fighting like that, with amazing 30-something powerful and extremely heavy shots rallies one after one, for an entire gruelling match, and being able to stay healthy at the same time.

Seriously, I was very worried for Nadal in that fourth set, I saw him so physically empty that I could easily see him falling to the floor unconscious.

Fortunately both players could finish the match, but I think that was a sample of something that is not going well in the whole picture (about the direction tennis is heading).

Laurie said:

Hi Urban

Sampras and Becker played some great matches on indoor carpet which had lots of rallies, Sampras liked to stay back on 2nd serve on indoor carpet during that period. As this last point of the 96 ATP final illustrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8lo1SFxyIA

Click to expand...

While I can appreciate those guys playing high-level tennis, that video makes for very unappealing watching and should remind you why people complained about 1990's tennis on fast courts. Too choppy, like watching a doubles match. As a spectator, this pales in comparison to a slug-fest like this years US OPEN semifinals and finals.

Devilito said:

Strap yourself in for the wild and exciting ride that will be the “Nadal / Djokovic Rivalry’” consisting of match after match of 40 ball rallies and the winner decided by who dies first on court due to exhaustion. Great eh?

Click to expand...

I prefer Federer and Sampras's style of play, but you can't deny that Nadal and Djokovic played some amazing tennis in the final. The crowd was going crazy. Every point was war.

Mustard said:

Sampras won Paris Indoors twice (1995 and 1997), not 3 times. Just thought I'd point that out

Edit: Also, Muster is 2-9 against Sampras, the two wins coming at 1995 Essen Indoors and 1998 Indian Wells.

Click to expand...

another detail: sampras is not 3-5 but 2-3 against bruguera.
3 of those 5 matches were played on clay...
(can't believe bruguera out-aced sampras in their RG match... are the ATP website stats correct for that match ?!)

the sod could be also added to the list of roger's rivals...

Sid_Vicious said:

I prefer Federer and Sampras's style of play, but you can't deny that Nadal and Djokovic played some amazing tennis in the final. The crowd was going crazy. Every point was war.

Click to expand...

That was some sick hitting in that USO match with amazing defense and movement being played point after point. Absolutely beautiful and brutal tennis at the highest level. You really can't imagine Sampras being able or wanting to try and engage in that for long. I'd presume he'd just check out of it at 1st chance (low % winner attempt or chip & charge) to conserve energy and just dig in on his service games to try and steal a set in tie breakers. It worked well for him with such a good serve, but it makes very un-compelling points more often then not.

droliver said:

That was some sick hitting in that USO match with amazing defense and movement being played point after point. Absolutely beautiful and brutal tennis at the highest level. You really can't imagine Sampras being able or wanting to try and engage in that for long. I'd presume he'd just check out of it at 1st chance (low % winner attempt or chip & charge) to conserve energy and just dig in on his service games to try and steal a set in tie breakers. It worked well for him with such a good serve, but it makes very un-compelling points more often then not.

Click to expand...

Sampras v Corretja US Open 1996?

And what about Sampras v Courier coming from two sets down in the 1995 Australian Open? That was brutal hitting and Sampras stayed with it till the end, no matter how long it took, in a stage of his career where chip and charge was not part of his strategy.

I would point out that the US Open final this year was so brutal that both particpants seem traumatised and absolutely knackered 3 months after the match took place. I remember the first 3 games alone took over 30 minutes. That is unsustainable.

Laurie said:

And what about Sampras v Courier coming from two sets down in the 1995 Australian Open? That was brutal hitting and Sampras stayed with it till the end, no matter how long it took, in a stage of his career where chip and charge was not part of his strategy.

Click to expand...

Watch a clip of that 1995 AO match on youtube. Lots of very short points. You can go games or sets and not see a rally of 6-7 shots in a Sampras match. It was an effective strategy for him because he held serve almost 90% of the time, but it doesn't make for very interesting points on TV for the casual fan.

Funny, I remember watching that match on ESPN years ago in the middle of the night thinking how hard it looked like they were hitting. Now it looks like they're playing 3/4 speed in terms of court coverage compared to Novak and Rafa.

I enjoyed reading this article! Interesting to see that Sampras leads in the head to head against almost everyone that's listed, and is also very close to even against the one's he doesn't, such as Stich.
That's perhaps leads into another possible and interesting section for this article - list of players in their era's that posed most problems to Pete and Fed respectively, and why. Did they ever manage to find solutions and how (e.g. Fed vs Nalbandian early on, but maybe it had more to do with Nalbandian's injuries etc)? Example, in the case of Fed vs Nadal, its the well known high topspin to the 1hbh. You do touch upon this briefly but there can be more meat to it.

Sampras has losing records against a few players. Stich, Bruguera and Krajicek come to mind. And Bastl

Mustard said:

Sampras has losing records against a few players. Stich, Bruguera and Krajicek come to mind. And Bastl

Click to expand...

Wow and those players are not even in the upper echelon of greats.

DjokovicForTheWin said:

Wow and those players are not even in the upper echelon of greats.

Click to expand...

This is very deceiving. The 90s were fraught with what Moose has quite accurately termed "half-time champions."

Stich, Krajicek, and Bruguera were in the upper tier of talent. Don't let Bruguera's extre grips fool you, take that away and you have a man who was for certain up there in terms of raw ability. His passes were at times from another planet. In the 97 Lipton, note that Cliff and Patrick were NOT surprised that Bruguera was taking it to Sampras, or even that he beat him...their comments were more along the lines of, "Don't let his ranking fool you...he's a MUCH better play than that...," and "WHEN fit and healthy, and feeling good about himself, Bruguera can be a GREAT competitor...," but when he's not?

That's how a small but sizeable handful of guys from that generation were. They were NOT *intimidated* by the "legend" type guys like Sampras and Agassi. The question, however, was always were they HEALTHY and/or MOTIVATED. Because, it was truly a half-azzed era. Talent was up there with the best, it really was not that surprising that they could on any given day match the very best in terms of talent...what would be surprising is if they could KEEP IT UP with any consistency.

Basically, it was like a bunch of BJ Penn's running in and out of the ranks...on any given day, they could "call Sampras' bluff," but over a career? NO WAY. They didn't have the day-to-day fortitude that is required, or their bodies simply proved to be too fragile to stand up to the rigors of tour life.

The difference between then and now is that now everyone's afraid of the top guns. They defer to them, pay homage to them, want to be buddy-buddies with them...but try and k.o. their teeth to the moon? Not a chance...they're lacking seriously in chutzppa.

Ask Bruguera and Stich who they think is the best of all time, and they won't hesistate...oh, Rogie is da greatest, I can't stop licking his strawberry shortcake shoelaces...then, ask them, what would you be thinking if you got them on your surface of choice? And, then they immediately start chopming on the shoelaces, and say, "I would be thinking, I would beat him." Without any hesitation, Stich thinks out loud, I would be thinking, I'mmma gonna beat you up on grass.

And you know? That's really a PREREQUISITE if you are to have ANY hope of derailing such greatness. Guys like Rios, Bruguera, Stich, Korda, Krajicek, Medvedeve, so on and so forth, had the mentality that I can beat anyone on any given day. They'll huff and puff, oh, "the guy should consider himself lucky, if even wins a few games," or whatever Rios once said of facing peak Muster on clay. Then, he went out and backed up the talk...*for a day*. That's how it was with those guys. On any given day, they were *quite* confident in their ability to take out ANYONE. The problem with them was always that they had nowhere near the same confidence in themselves to do it day-after-day given the unyielding, grinding, nature of tour LIFE.

It's an entirely different animal when you add that aspect to the equation. Sampras, in particular, was so single-minded that he was able to put up with it better than his "rivals." He actually had quite a few of them, the only problem was that while those guys could never sustain their motivation or stay out of the sick ward...he *could*. ...and so he did. It's no mystery.

The 90s was an exciting time, because there were so many more guys who could act, talk, and play like a real champion...but, unfortunately, not for very long. These days, it's ALWAYS the same guys...and then everybody else. The "other" guys, it almost feels like they're not even there.

Basically, tennis these days feels like it's filled with "jobbers." Guys who don't believe in themselves enough to win a big one, against one of the living "legends" when it matters most. In pro wrestling, you have your "mainstay" "championship caliber" champions like Cena, Hogan, The Rock, Macho Man, or whoever else, etc. The promotion is consistently built around them, but this does NOT mean that you don't have room for the occasional flash of lightning, fresh of breath air, impromptu champion for a day type...who joins the promotion for a few months, wins the belt for a day at a PPV, and it's "believeable" enough, and then they kind of just dissapear back into the woodlands again. They're not really *franchise champions* per say, but they sure are a nice change of pace from the monotony of watching the same big three winning everything in sight until the end of the world. To me, that's boring. REALLY boring.

The 90s was a stock market era of ups and downs, big crashes, and arousing areolas...I mean, rises. Lots of up and downs, was cool. What good is watching surfing, if the Joker can't throw us for a loop by winning every once in a while, carrying his own utility built once in a while that can match Batman's tit-for-tat? What good would an ocea be without any waves, and sharks (fate) to randomly take a bite out of the competition? Oh, no, mayday, mayday...Bruguera and Krajicek down, in the waters, one shark has taken a nibble off Bruguera's ankle, the other Krajicek's elbow...good thing they're good buddies, bosom buddies even, where am I going with this? I don't know. But they was injured a lot. It's not talent that they lacked, it was resolve...and bones made out of titanium, not twigs.

droliver said:

in an era with a higher overall level and more demanding style of play.

Click to expand...

Huh? Where do you get this from?

Laurie said:

Sampras v Corretja US Open 1996?

And what about Sampras v Courier coming from two sets down in the 1995 Australian Open? That was brutal hitting and Sampras stayed with it till the end, no matter how long it took, in a stage of his career where chip and charge was not part of his strategy.

I would point out that the US Open final this year was so brutal that both particpants seem traumatised and absolutely knackered 3 months after the match took place. I remember the first 3 games alone took over 30 minutes. That is unsustainable.

Click to expand...

The US Open 2011 Final looks better than it is. Many points could have been ended much earlier and actually Djokovic is so confident in the match-up that he often played a very safe and containing game, constantly aiming to seek the Nadal backhand, and not going after kill-shots with 100% conviction often until very late in rallies. Players like Sampras and Federer offer absolute answers on the court which bypass the need for an extra 10 impressive stroke because ONE super impressive stroke already ended the rally.

It's certainly true about the 1990s. There were plenty of players who would believe on their day that they could beat anybody, but they just didn't have the consistency to get to number 1. I just can't imagine players from the 1990s being as awestruck by the top guys as today's players seem to be. Sampras didn't intimidate them, even though he was achieving far more than them. Players like Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. could and did beat Sampras on the biggest stages.

It's impossible to speak about a player's beliefs without pulling things out of your asss.

DjokovicForTheWin said:

It's impossible to speak about a player's beliefs without pulling things out of your asss.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The point is that people wouldn't be all THAT surprised if say, Bruguera beat Sampras in Miami, like in the 1997 semi finals.

Mustard said:

Nonsense. The point is that people wouldn't be all THAT surprised if say, Bruguera beat Sampras in Miami, like in the 1997 semi finals.

Click to expand...

Who are these 'people'? Did you poll them? Or again pulling things out of your....

DjokovicForTheWin said:

Who are these 'people'? Did you poll them? Or again pulling things out of your....

Click to expand...

The pundits and commentators.

Mustard said:

It's certainly true about the 1990s. There were plenty of players who would believe on their day that they could beat anybody, but they just didn't have the consistency to get to number 1. I just can't imagine players from the 1990s being as awestruck by the top guys as today's players seem to be. Sampras didn't intimidate them, even though he was achieving far more than them. Players like Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. could and did beat Sampras on the biggest stages.

Click to expand...

Two players should be compared only if they're in the same league -- Fed is in a higher one than Pete, so the comparison is moot.

Re: the bolded, Federer raised the bar significantly (IMO, he was the first one to be a great attacker AND a defender), while Sampras did not. For starters, Sampras was not as consistent as Federer, so he provided a lot of opportunities for the lower ranked ones to beat him, and hence the lesser "intimidation" factor. Agassi put it best when he said that there was place to go to when one is playing Pete, but none existed when playing Federer. Safin said Fed = Pete + Agassi, so it's only natural that the lower ranked ones are awestruck by Federer.

Mustard said:

The pundits and commentators.

Click to expand...

LOL, talk about nonsense. example: Didn't Wilander say Fed was not in decline? The only reason those other players could and did beat Sampras on the big stage was because he was not as good as Federer.

Mustard said:

It's certainly true about the 1990s. There were plenty of players who would believe on their day that they could beat anybody, but they just didn't have the consistency to get to number 1. I just can't imagine players from the 1990s being as awestruck by the top guys as today's players seem to be. Sampras didn't intimidate them, even though he was achieving far more than them. Players like Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. could and did beat Sampras on the biggest stages.

Click to expand...

Two words: Surface homogenization. The top 4 will rarely suffer an upset at the slams these days. Murray made at least the SF at all 4 slams this year.:shock:

Sampras was mediocre on clay, though.

celoft said:

Two words: Surface homgenization. The top 4 will rarely suffer an upset at the slams these days.

Click to expand...

That is right, since 2001.

fed_rulz said:

Two players should be compared only if they're in the same league -- Fed is in a higher one than Pete, so the comparison is moot.

Click to expand...

Wow, did you pull that one out of your own a-s-s?

helloworld said:

Wow, did you pull that one out of your own a-s-s?

Click to expand...

wow, didn't know that ATP maintained records in my a-s-s. thanks for the heads-up.

helloworld said:

Wow, did you pull that one out of your own a-s-s?

Click to expand...

Check the data.

fed_rulz said:

wow, didn't know that ATP maintained records in my a-s-s. thanks for the heads-up.

Click to expand...

So winning a couple more slams makes one an entire league higher?? Not a chance.

helloworld said:

So winning a couple more slams makes one an entire league higher?? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

you sure pulled this out of your a-s-s.

One word: CLAY

DjokovicForTheWin said:

Check the data.

Click to expand...

Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete?

droliver said:

I think you miss it somewhat with your analysis. Sampras was a lot more of a flawed player (relatively speaking) compared to Federer as his game was largely dependent on the serve with significant vulnerability to lesser players, particularly on clay (see Blanco, Galo). By every metric, Federer has been both a higher level and more consistent player to some degree in an era with a higher overall level and more demanding style of play.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not!

Samprsas' era had much more depth than Federer's. As a matter of fact Federer won a slew of slams with sub-par competition before Nadal strived on more than just clay, or Nole came of age, or Murray started to play well (even though he's still weak at the slams when it comes to facing Federer).

And there's no way Federer out classes Sampras on every level or metric. I do agree Federer is more of a complete player but his serve and athleticism at the net pale in comparison!

helloworld said:

So winning a couple more slams makes one an entire league higher?? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

I liked Sampras but Federer has reached 5 RG finals, gives him the edge. Plus he won 2 more slams and RG.

celoft said:

I liked Sampras but Federer has reached 5 RG finals, gives him the edge. Plus he won 2 more slams and RG.

Click to expand...

If Fed has won those 5 Finals, I'd have given him a clear edge, but he didn't. He failed to make history. He could have won multiple CYGS, but he didn't. In the end, it's not about what if, what should be. It's what you have won that counts. Federer isn't even as good as Kuerten was on clay. That's the fact that has been proven during one of Federer's best year.

helloworld said:

Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete?

DjokovicForTheWin said:

Check the data.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What DjokovicForTheWin meant was check these data...

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 16
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
4. Rafael Nadal 10
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
7. Rafael Nadal 14
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3

GS semi-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Roger Federer 29
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 15

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Ivan Lendl 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
5. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
= Nadal 5
8. Rod Laver 4
9. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4


All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 48
3. Feliciano Lopez 39
4. David Ferrer 37
5. Fernando Verdasco 34
6. Tomas Berdych 33
7. Albert Montanes 21
8. Philipp Kohlschreiber 29
9. Nicolas Almagro 28
10. Novak Djokovic 28

Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Jimmy Connors 233 wins
2. Roger Federer 228
3. Andre Agassi 224 wins
4. Ivan Lendl 222 wins
5. Pete Sampras 204 wins[/QUOTE]

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

TMF said:

What DjokovicForTheWin meant was check these data...


GS finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
7. Rafael Nadal 14
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3

GS semi-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Roger Federer 29
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 15

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Ivan Lendl 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
5. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
= Nadal 5
8. Rod Laver 4
9. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4



All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Click to expand...

So Now semi finals and finals are records to brag about as well?? Should we have records for being number 2 and number 3 in the world too? I'm sure Nadal would win that one hands down. :lol:

helloworld said:

Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete?

Click to expand...

TMFs post FTW.

Here's the deal: In ALL records that sampras holds, Federer is very close or has equalled him. In MANY records that Federer holds, there's a country mile separating Federer and Sampras.

Oh, and I forgot: CLAY