The reason we can use W 2001 as proof of Fed's greatness!

J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Because Sampras was actually playing at a very high level. He was the defending champion and was still nr.1 on grass at the time. He also won USO a bit after.

It's not as Pete was washed out. So, this speaks volumes of Fed's ability. Also his net game and his return game. So, he would do great in the 90s.

Also Pete himself said he was playing at a high level. If Pete's level sucked, I would agree, that this match doesn't mean a lot, but it didn't.

Just saying!
 
R

Ramesh848

Banned
man there is no need to give anymore evidences of his greatness. you're looking insecure!

numbers tells the true story-

17
6
302
21
237
23
34
10
3*3

a truly endless list..... undisputed goat!
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
But some people say, Fed doesn't have great net game and all-court game and he wouldn't do great in the past.

I still think Fed is underrated on this boards.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Federer wins almost every poll the board has going. This board considers Federer to be a better basketball player than LeBron James.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Nathaniel_Near said:
Federer wins almost every poll the board has going. This board considers Federer to be a better basketball player than LeBron James.
Click to expand...

Not true. There was a poll if him and Rafa both win 17 majors, and the poll was 50 vs 50 %.

And I don't see Fed winning polls as greatest net game of all time. Or backhand polls. Or mental tougness polls.

Also he lost polls him vs Borg on clay. Or vs Pete on carpet or fast grass.

And for the most beautiful wife/girlfriend, Fed doesn't win polls.

So, you are wrong.
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
jg153040 said:
Ok, I will bring a match with Rafa vs Zeballos of how a great clay courter Rafa was.

Have some sense, people.
Click to expand...
Huh? Federer played awesome in that match. Had Rafter down match point. 2 weeks later, he beat Sampras on Centre Court at Wimbledon. This match against Rafter really displayed what a great serve and great volleys Federer had. He was a natural serve and volleyer.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
Huh? Federer played awesome in that match. Had Rafter down match point. 2 weeks later, he beat Sampras on Centre Court at Wimbledon. This match against Rafter really displayed what a great serve and great volleys Federer had. He was a natural serve and volleyer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my bad. Because people here bring Rafter and his h2h with Fed as an example actually how Fed sucks at the net.

I didn't see you meant it as a positive.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
jg153040 said:
Not true. There was a poll if him and Rafa both win 17 majors, and the poll was 50 vs 50 %.

And I don't see Fed winning polls as greatest net game of all time. Or backhand polls. Or mental tougness polls.

Also he lost polls him vs Borg on clay. Or vs Pete on carpet or fast grass.

And for the most beautiful wife/girlfriend, Fed doesn't win polls.

So, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Way to take me so literally. Let's get down to the real point, Roger is popular on this forum. That's really all I was saying.
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
jg153040 said:
Sorry, my bad. Because people here bring Rafter and his h2h with Fed as an example actually how Fed sucks at the net.

I didn't see you meant it as a positive.
Click to expand...
Federer should have won that match. Federer had Rafter down match point in the 2nd set when Rafter went for broke and hit the most ridiculous kick serve I have ever seen to save himself. Federer was also unlucky in the 3rd set TB when his half-volley just clipped the tape and that was the difference between winner and loser. I actually thought Federer played better than Rafter but Rafter just won a couple of more critical points. Pretty incredible considering Federer was only 19 and Rafter was a multiple Slam champion and one of the best serve and volleyers and best grass court players of that era.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I guess the Nadal fan-base got bigger plus the bitter Sampras fans started crawling out of the woodwork. ;)
 
chjtennis

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Federer would've been a serve and volleyer with sick ground strokes if he was playing in 90s. It's no secret he built his game using Sampras as the model. The new era and new technology pushed him back to the baseline but he has very good feel at the net and he is a natural there.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
Federer should have won that match. Federer had Rafter down match point in the 2nd set when Rafter went for broke and hit the most ridiculous kick serve I have ever seen to save himself. Federer was also unlucky in the 3rd set TB when his half-volley just clipped the tape and that was the difference between winner and loser. I actually thought Federer played better than Rafter but Rafter just won a couple of more critical points. Pretty incredible considering Federer was only 19 and Rafter was a multiple Slam champion and one of the best serve and volleyers and best grass court players of that era.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Fed really is the master of all trades and more people need to realize this.

Didn't Connors say that in an era of specialists there are specialists and there is Roger Federer.

Becker said Fed would be the only one from this era who would do great in the 90s.

And some all-time great said, can't remember who. He said that he watched guys who have some top shots and wondered is Fed as good as them? Is Fed at the top in all areas? Watching best returners saying, could be be right there? Watching best serves saying Fed is right there. Watching best movers or forehand saying Fed is right there.
 
B

Blocker

Professional
jg153040 said:
Because Sampras was actually playing at a very high level. He was the defending champion and was still nr.1 on grass at the time. He also won USO a bit after.

It's not as Pete was washed out. So, this speaks volumes of Fed's ability. Also his net game and his return game. So, he would do great in the 90s.

Also Pete himself said he was playing at a high level. If Pete's level sucked, I would agree, that this match doesn't mean a lot, but it didn't.

Just saying!
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at it from the other side of the fence, how good was old man Sampras to take a 7 time W winner in the making, with much fresher legs, and who would have had much more to prove, to 5 sets? When you get to a 5th, it's as much about fitness as it is ability. I think Sampras did remarkably well to go the distance with a guy over 10 years younger and who was much hungrier. In fact, to see retired Sampras acing Federer in those exos makes you realise just how good Sampras was.
 
Chico

Chico

Banned
Federer is the greatest and we all know it. No need to repeat it all the time.
 
Last edited:
Steve0904

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Dedans Penthouse said:
Connect the dots: it's not so much Fed (why would anyone want to diss him?) so much as it's the childish obnoxiousness of the Fedfanboy trolls (see the fanboy douchebaggery below) vvv
Click to expand...

He's right though. The Nadal fanbase probably got bigger as he won more, and there are some bitter Sampras fans here mostly because Federer broke the slam record. Only a fool would deny it.

NN is the last person I would accuse of being a fanboy.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Blocker said:
Actually, if you look at it from the other side of the fence, how good was old man Sampras to take a 7 time W winner in the making, with much fresher legs, and who would have had much more to prove, to 5 sets? When you get to a 5th, it's as much about fitness as it is ability. I think Sampras did remarkably well to go the distance with a guy over 10 years younger and who was much hungrier. In fact, to see retired Sampras acing Federer in those exos makes you realise just how good Sampras was.
Click to expand...

Also true.
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
jg153040 said:
Yeah. Fed really is the master of all trades and more people need to realize this.

Didn't Connors say that in an era of specialists there are specialists and there is Roger Federer.

Becker said Fed would be the only one from this era who would do great in the 90s.

And some all-time great said, can't remember who. He said that he watched guys who have some top shots and wondered is Fed as good as them? Is Fed at the top in all areas? Watching best returners saying, could be be right there? Watching best serves saying Fed is right there. Watching best movers or forehand saying Fed is right there.
Click to expand...
Federer served and volleyed on every first and every second serve in that match against Rafter, and he was darn good at it and was very rarely ever broken. Rafter was very fortunate to get out of that match alive.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
Yea... Sampras 35-16 for the year with ZERO titles, and needed 5 sets before Federer to beat some bum I never even heard of. (Barry Cowen? Huh?)


Unbelievable Level:shock::shock::shock: Peak Sampras for sure.


Delusional Fed Fanatics as always. Don't be stupid
 
Last edited:
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Didn't Sampras win 0 tournament in 2001? I mean is it really fair to use this match as a sample when Sampras was already wayy past his prime?
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
helloworld said:
Didn't Sampras win 0 tournament in 2001? I mean is it really fair to use this match as a sample when Sampras was already wayy past his prime?
Click to expand...

Yep he didn't win anything. Hell outside of the USO I don't think he played well anywheres that year. 2001-2002 was clearly Pete's last hurrah with remininse of his prime level only played at Flushing
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
90's Clay said:
Yea... Sampras 35-16 for the year with ZERO titles, and needed 5 sets before Federer to beat some bum I never even heard of. (Barry Cowen? Huh?)
Click to expand...

Poor Barry will be very hurt to hear you say that. He now commentates on tennis for Sky Sports and taking Pete to 5 at Wimbledon was the highlight of his tennis career! :)
 
B

Blocker

Professional
90's Clay said:
Yep he didn't win anything. Hell outside of the USO I don't think he played well anywheres that year. 2001-2002 was clearly Pete's last hurrah with remininse of his prime level only played at Flushing
Click to expand...

Don't go stating the truth too much you may be labelled as 'bitter'.
 
Vcore89

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed is a better serve and volleyer than Sampras ever was, they just never had the chance to meet in their respective primes. A one-off doesn't do justice to either Sampras or Federer.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
90's Clay said:
Yea... Sampras 35-16 for the year with ZERO titles, and needed 5 sets before Federer to beat some bum I never even heard of. (Barry Cowen? Huh?)
Click to expand...

We are talking about grass, not clay. And Sampras had plenty of 5 sets during his younger years. Sampras was the best grass court player in 2001 and heavily the favorite to win Wimbledon. He was going for his 5th straight title. Had the young Federer wasn't in his way, he's very likely to have won that year.

To discredit Federer's win is like taking away JMac's win over Borg in 1981 Wimbledon.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
90's Clay said:
Yep he didn't win anything. Hell outside of the USO I don't think he played well anywheres that year. 2001-2002 was clearly Pete's last hurrah with remininse of his prime level only played at Flushing
Click to expand...

Again, it's about grass, who cares about other tournaments outside of grass. Sampras was 29 who was closer to his prime than a young 19 years old Federer. Plus, Sampras was well experienced, played many years on center court(his backyard), but for Federer, everything was new to him.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
TMF said:
Again, it's about grass, who cares about other tournaments outside of grass. Sampras was 29 who was closer to his prime than a young 19 years old Federer. Plus, Sampras was well experienced, played many years on center court(his backyard), but for Federer, everything was new to him.
Click to expand...



Even worse for Sampras and makes my argument even more valid. Grass was always Pete's best surface yet needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowen before Fed in 2001?

Yet Fed fans have tried to recreate history over the years to suit their agenda sighting claims like "Pete's level was great at wimbledon that year, he was the defending champ etc."

Even the commentators said Pete was due for an upset at Wimbledon that year because his level was AWFUL compared to years prior at Wimbledon.

Pete last solid year on grass was 2000. His last GREAT year on grass was 1999. His level sucked after that.

If he didn't lose to Fed he would have lost to Rafter, Henman, Safin, Roddick or peaking Goran that year if he played any of them
 
Last edited:
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
90's Clay said:
Yep he didn't win anything. Hell outside of the USO I don't think he played well anywheres that year. 2001-2002 was clearly Pete's last hurrah with remininse of his prime level only played at Flushing
Click to expand...

I know, that it is a futile excercise, but nevertheless.

Could you possibly tell me, which of the weapons, Sampras was known for on grass didn't click well in that particular match?

Please stay with the question, as I am not keen on reading how poor or good Sampras was at the time. I am asking about that particular match. Thank You.
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Tennis_Hands said:
I know, that it is a futile excercise, but nevertheless.

Could you possibly tell me, which of the weapons, Sampras was known for on grass didn't click well in that particular match?

Please stay with the question, as I am not keen on reading how poor or good Sampras was at the time. I am asking about that particular match. Thank You.
Click to expand...

Sampras did serve well in that match, but his return and reflexes were just completely poor by his standards. Pete never had to worry about his so called GOAT serve. It is his return and reflexes that he needed to worry about. If Pete was half as good at returning as he once was in his peak years, Federer would have been wiped out in straight sets. Federer was not ready to face peak Sampras that year, but he was ready to face the old Sampras.
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
90's Clay said:
Even worse for Sampras and makes my argument even more valid. Grass was always Pete's best surface yet needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowen before Fed in 2001?

Yet Fed fans have tried to recreate history over the years to suit their agenda sighting claims like "Pete's level was great at wimbledon that year, he was the defending champ etc."

Even the commentators said Pete was due for an upset at Wimbledon that year because his level was AWFUL compared to years prior at Wimbledon.

Pete last solid year on grass was 2000. His last GREAT year on grass was 1999. His level sucked after that.

If he didn't lose to Fed he would have lost to Rafter, Henman, Safin, Roddick or peaking Goran that year if he played any of them
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure if Pete would lose to those guys. If Pete were to beat Federer that year, he would have gone on to face Henman, Goran and Rafter. These guys have and always have been his favorite pigeons. It is very likely, in my opinion, that Pete would have gotten his 8th Wimbledon if not for the young Federer.
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
helloworld said:
Sampras did serve well in that match, but his return and reflexes were just completely poor by his standards. Pete never had to worry about his so called GOAT serve. It is his return and reflexes that he needed to worry about. If Pete was half as good at returning as he once was in his peak years, Federer would have been wiped out in straight sets. Federer was not ready to face peak Sampras that year, but he was ready to face the old Sampras.
Click to expand...

Sampras's return was not what he was known for.

Besides, they had similar return stats (slightly favouring Federer), but guess what, Federer had 12 clean service return winners against 8 for Sampras. That single stat shows clearly, that Federer was reading the serve of the serving out of his mind Sampras better, than Sampras was reading Federer's. Don't get delusional about a debate over that match. I have looked very carefully into it.

I am curious about the reflexes thing.

Have you got anything to prove it or you are just going to speculate based on the fact, that Sampras was not 24 anymore?
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
90's Clay said:
Even worse for Sampras and makes my argument even more valid. Grass was always Pete's best surface yet needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowen before Fed in 2001?

Yet Fed fans have tried to recreate history over the years to suit their agenda sighting claims like "Pete's level was great at wimbledon that year, he was the defending champ etc."

Even the commentators said Pete was due for an upset at Wimbledon that year because his level was AWFUL compared to years prior at Wimbledon.

Pete last solid year on grass was 2000. His last GREAT year on grass was 1999. His level sucked after that.

If he didn't lose to Fed he would have lost to Rafter, Henman, Safin, Roddick or peaking Goran that year if he played any of them
Click to expand...

Great players are due for an upset. JMac snapped Borg's 5 straight Wimbledon, Soderling shocked the world by beating Nadal at the FO who was going for his 5th straight FO title. Recently Wawrinka stop Nole from winning 4 straight AO. These players including Federer will always be remember as the one who upset the great one on their best surface.

Sampras has never loss to Henman and Goran at Wimbledon. Goran barely edged Rafter in the final so I see Pete is likely to beat him. If Roger didn't play, Sampras would have won 2001 Wimbledon.
 
dudeski

dudeski

Hall of Fame
90's Clay said:
Yep he didn't win anything. Hell outside of the USO I don't think he played well anywheres that year. 2001-2002 was clearly Pete's last hurrah with remininse of his prime level only played at Flushing
Click to expand...

So you are saying that we also shouldn't count any of Fed's loses at the same age as Sampras was 2001+ i.e. we should never ever take into account any Fed loses past 2010? For once I completely agree with you.
 
D

dh003i

Legend
Neither player was in their prime; it was a great match to watch and a great match in general; and it was only one match.

It doesn't prove anything other than that a 19-year old Federer demonstrated himself capable of beating a 29-year old Sampras.

On average, Sampras is probably highly under-rated here. Federer is probably rated fairly on average. Of course for both there are those who over- and under-rate them.

Had they played in their primes, they would have split matches for the most part, except on clay (dominated by Federer, but not completely) and fast carpet (more wins to Sampras, but not dominating imo).
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Backspin1183 said:
Pete's 2001 = Fed's 2013

Federer in 2001 was as good against Pete as Delbonis was against Fed in 2013.
Click to expand...

You are a funny man. Comparing clay event(Hamburg) to Wimbledon is a joke.

Let me know when that hamburg match is rank in the top 10 greatest match of all time. OTOH, Sampras/Federer match is one of the greatest match which many people have owned this DVD.
 
Backspin1183

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
TMF said:
You are a funny man. Comparing clay event(Hamburg) to Wimbledon is a joke.

Let me know when that hamburg match is rank in the top 10 greatest match of all time. OTOH, Sampras/Federer match is one of the greatest match which many people have owned this DVD.
Click to expand...

If you want a Wimbledon match, you got a 4 set epic between R Federer and S Stakhovsky in Rd2 of Wimby '13.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Greatness Formula!
2 3
Replies
117
Views
6K
Povl Carstensen
P
mike danny
So how exactly is it established that Pete is mentally tougher than Roger?
10 11 12
Replies
561
Views
9K
Herald
H
mike danny
Why is fed's domination being used against him?I
2
Replies
62
Views
2K
Indio
I
jones101
We Should Be Happy As We Are Lucky.
Replies
27
Views
2K
Povl Carstensen
P
Zardoz7/12
Are we entering a version of the 2001-2003 ATP Era?
Replies
16
Views
780
NedStark
N
Top