Not a troll and I'm not dumb. Sampras never lost to the same player at W twice. I don't think Federer has either but I'm tipping if Nadal had been at W the year after he beat Fed in the final, Fed would have. Fed had the benefit of winning a W title when his threat was out injured. At W, Pete had no threats. He was it. Yes he lost to RK at W once but that was sandwiched in between 7 titles. What, you expect him to win W 8 times in a row?
as far as 2009 is concerned, nadal would still have to avoid an early upset, maybe even avoid roddick to even reach federer in the final ( match vs roddick would be a close one ) and even if he managed to reach the final, with the way federer was serving ( and before the finals, he was not just serving, but playing very well overall ), anything less than his best , nadal probably would have lost ....
if nadal , federer's main threat at wimbedon in 2009 was out injured, what about sampras' threats ?
goran, the headcase, krajicek - injured/inconsistent , stich - headcase, agassi - inconsistent , even more so @ wimbledon, becker - well past his best on grass by mid-90s, that lone match vs agassi in 95 notwithstanding ....rafter, only a force @ the end ........
Also I'm not saying, I expected sampras to win W 8 times in a row, just that he should've put up more of a fight vs krajicek ...
you fail and fail big time ...
And let's keep it to slams shall we. I mean that's why Fed is considered the GOAT by most on here isn't it? Because of slams? It's 1-1 between RK and PS in slams. When Sampras beat RK at the USO, he was getting past it too.
it isn't just about the slams, that's just plain simplistic for those who don't understand the nuances of the game ... there's also the domination at peak ( only 24 losses in 4 years ) , surface versatility etc etc ...
As for all the other H2H records you quoted, you know perfectly well what I mean. Can't believe you even bothered to mention some of the names you did. Hewitt, lol. Hewitt racked up his lead when Fed was still in nappies. I'm talking the real threats to Fed, ie Nadal and Djok. I mean Fed even lost to Djok when he held match point on his own serve. Do you think Sampras, with his serve, agression and mental toughness, would lose after holding match point on serve? Never in a zillion years. Once he had you, he had you. There's no coming back.
so agassi, hewitt, murray, nalbandian are nothing players, really ? LOL .......
going 8-0 vs an agassi still very much in the top 5/10 for all those matches is no small feat ...
and beating a tough competitor like hewitt 15 times in a row is nothing to be sneezed at either ...
nalbandian at that stage had federer's number completely and to turn that around wasn't easy ....
yes, I know perfectly well what you mean ..... Your agenda is only just to exaggerate federer's weak points ....all I did was to brutally expose your fail at that ...
just changing it to nadal, djok to suit you argument now ? LOL .... just because that's the only argument you have , isn't it ?
Fact is except for nadal in his later years ( after 2007 ) , whenever federer has had a string of losses to anyone , he's hit back ....
and he did go 5-2 vs nadal after being 1-6 vs him initially ...
I'd take losing to a great player ( or for that matter, any great spell of play from a decent player ) when compared to losing to plain mugs at a slam like sampras did vs schallar or delgado @ RG ....... now that's pathetic mental toughness, not even able to get past players like that at a slam ....
even after that loss @ USO 2011, federer went on a tear in the indoor season, and even after losing @ RG, he did defeat novak @ wimbledon ...
