Why Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer ?
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Impossible to know what kind of player Fed would have turned into if he had grown up and played during another time.
He simply had to adapt to the slower courts of the modern era, but when he came out he was the most comfortable on faster courts. No reason to think he wouldn't thrive on fast courts in the 90's too.
Bertie B
Hall of Fame
I see no difference between then and now - Faster surfaces in the '90s, slower surfaces today. The thing was when Pete had to play slower surfaces he couldn't compete. Federer adapted.
Also, this could mean that Agassi was more talented than Pete, just that Sampras was a nightmare matchup for him - on faster surfaces, which was everywhere.
90's Clay
Banned
Courts have been slowing down since 2001.. Hell, I read an article just the other day they began using different rye/grass at wimbledon in 2001 which made the grass easier to maintain thus making it slower even then.
Really Fed has never played on the true fast courts of the older days. At least prime Fed hasn't. Since he didn't even hit his prime until 2003-2004. Courts were already slowing down year or two even before that
Really Fed has never played on the true fast courts of the older days. At least prime Fed hasn't. Since he didn't even hit his prime until 2003-2004. Courts were already slowing down year or two even before that
90's Clay
Banned
And Actually there was a difference between the Wimbledon surface in 2000/2001. It was a bit slower in 2001 compared to the year before. And by 2002 it was way different. I believe even Henman commented on how slowed down it became.
Courts during Fed's peak/prime were probably right in his comfort zone and optimal condition. Not so slow (Like they are now) not too fast (like they were in the 90s). For someone with Fed's game, you want a medium speed.
His game isn't as potent (as has shown) with too slow conditions. And Probably wouldn't be as potent with much faster conditions as he likes to be a point constructor.
Courts during Fed's peak/prime were probably right in his comfort zone and optimal condition. Not so slow (Like they are now) not too fast (like they were in the 90s). For someone with Fed's game, you want a medium speed.
His game isn't as potent (as has shown) with too slow conditions. And Probably wouldn't be as potent with much faster conditions as he likes to be a point constructor.
Last edited:
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Wimbledon began in 2001, true. But not all courts did so early. US open was fast for a while, for instance. And it's impertinent to the matter at hand anyways: Federer was clearly relatively stronger on fast courts when he emerged in his youth compared too slower courts. He won the junior title at Wimbledon on 90's grass. Oops.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It started after the awful 1994 Wimbledon final between Sampras and Ivanisevic, after which Wimbledon started using softer balls from 1995. From 1997, carpet courts started to be fazed off the tour slowly over the next decade. Wimbledon's change to 100% Rye grass was in the autumn of 2001.
Then there's the fact that since 2000, there have been compulsory tournaments for the top players to play in throughout most of the year. The biggest change of all, IMO, has been the strings on the racquets. Poly strings mean that a lot of balls from big servers are put back into play, and grinding rallies from the baseline predominate on all surfaces.
At the same time, we can also say that the 1990s had something that previous eras didn't have, i.e. the power.
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
In part, due to Pete's main focus on the Majors, and his reluctance to ever properly prepare or train on clay for RG - something he only regrets now.
His focus was always Wimbledon at mid-year.
As others have alluded to, he did meet Agassi at the AO - but that was only part of the reason he only won 2 titles in Melbourne, as many of Andre's titles there were after Pete's peak. Just not quite as good there as on faster courts. (although it was Rebound Ace and not Plexicushion back then)
He still had 6 YE#1's though, so overall dominance is on a par.
His focus was always Wimbledon at mid-year.
As others have alluded to, he did meet Agassi at the AO - but that was only part of the reason he only won 2 titles in Melbourne, as many of Andre's titles there were after Pete's peak. Just not quite as good there as on faster courts. (although it was Rebound Ace and not Plexicushion back then)
He still had 6 YE#1's though, so overall dominance is on a par.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
The rest of your reasons are basically just a long way of saying "weak era", but you may actually have a point with this one.
Sampras had a high-risk, high-reward game.
Federer hit far more than his fair share of unbelievable winners in his prime, but his GOAT court sense and tennis IQ meant that there wasn't as much risk involved in him doing that as there would have been with other players trying to do the same thing.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
That's a joke.
Apart from Agassi, who is better than Hewitt, Safin and Roddick? Realistically? Rios? Rafter? Henman? Kafelnikov? Hewitt and Safin also had to deal with prime Agassi moreso than Sampras (he had to deal with peak Agassi a few times in the space of 5 years). And both held up well against Agassi..
Sampras had to deal with Goran on and off, same deal with Agassi. Kuerten was never a problem for Sampras as he was a clay-beast.. And the likes of Pioline, Washington and Korda aren't great..
droliver
Professional
WTF? faulty logic award winner there
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
:lol: No he's not.
Peak Hewitt and Roddick would eat Rafter up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ0BrJl4uPw
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Also, the fact that Federer has had to deal with Nadal and Djokovic for much of his career bides into this as well. Murray is also a whole lot better than most of Sampras' competition (apart from Agassi).
Well if we are talking overall greatness (which in some cases, such as this can be overall pointless, which I will get to in a minute) than Becker, Courier, and Kuerten.
You are making a generalization of these players. While I would agree with you overall probably, the thing about the Sampras era is there were so many players who were great on a particular surface. Unlike today where every top player is about the same on each surface.
Muster, Bruguera, and Ferrero for instance are not better overall than Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick. However they sure as hell are a whole lot better on clay than any of those. In fact they are better on clay than Djokovic, who is much greater than those overall AND very good on clay too. Sampras had to face all those on that surface.
Now we move to grass. Ivanisevic and Krajicek are not as good as the players you mentioned overall. However one could easily argue they are better than all those players on grass. Ivanisevic for sure is IMO, while Krajicek is atleast at the same level, and on his best day probably better. However this is where Becker even past his prime was extremely formidable and probably better than all those you mentioned. Agassi was also a great grass court player
On hard courts it is mostly the general top players just like today, so that is the one surface there is no real difference.
There is no such thing as a surface specialist now and that makes competition easier. Nobody rises much about their overall level as a player for specific surfaces.
90's Clay
Banned
Hewitt was completely washed up by 25 years old. So ALOT of guys were better than Hewitt by 2006:shock:.
Wasn't Sampras whipping on Roddick during his final slam? Who's better than Roddick? Chang is as good or better than Roddick, Courier is wayyy better than Roddick, Older Becker is better than Roddick, Early 90s Edberg is better than Roddick. Probably Peak USO 97-98 Rafter is better than Roddick.. Goran is TWICE the player Roddick is on grass. Kafelnikov is just as good if not better than Roddick (Certainly has a better Resume than ARod)
The list goes on of guys better than Roddick.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Becker wasn't at his best and had a poor showing against Sampras in that '95 final. Roddick was better in 2004 in my opinion. 2009 too. Courier was also mostly a force before Sampras. When Sampras came along, he played alright, but then faded to black quite quickly.
Goran is/was slightly above Hewitt and Roddick on grass, but he still isn't as good as Djokovic or Nadal on grass. Surface homogenization or what, Nadal and Djokovic have the better results and Federer had to compete against them a large portion of the time.
Agassi wasn't great on grass. He was poor for a man of his caliber actually. He had quite a few early round losses to nobodies and when he had to face Sampras he folded like a cheap suit. His '92 Wimbledon is impressive though.
And those players being better on clay means what exactly? Sampras never had a real shot at a French Open, bar '96 and he still lost meekly to Kafelnikov. He sure wouldn't be beating Nadal at the French Open today either.
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
Well, let's look at who won majors during Sampras' time. Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Moya, Rafter, Krajicek, Stich.
Take a look at the Tennis Channel top 100 of all time, which includes women, you'll find 10 players Sampras competed against for majors. There are 5 players Federer competed against. There are players who competed and won majors in Sampras' time who do not appear on that list, like Ivanisevic and Bruguera. There are only 3 players roughly Federer's own age: Roddick at 94, Safin at 80, and Hewitt at 64. So, the nearest contemporary of Federer, who is at #1 on the list, is at #64. That's how I define a weak era.
Now, Djokodal would place high on anyone's list of the top 100 today. Both in the top 10 I'd say. Murray might also appear. But, prior to 2010, Federer had an age advantage over those guys (Djokodal's too young), and since then, Djokodal have the age advantage (Federer's too old).
When you look at guys roughly Fed's age -- the 3 already mentioned plus Nalby, Ferrero, Davydenko, Coria, Ferrer, Blake, Gaudio, Stepanek, Haas, Robredo, on and on--Federer mostly wiped the floor with them. When you play against guys you consistently beat, your era is weak.
Sampras and Federer were the best of each of their generations, but Sampras' opponents are far more accomplished.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Imagine if Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, all of which had winning h2hs vs. Sampras, played concorrently with his prime. He'd probably be at 6-7 slams.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Chang better than Roddick? :shock: Come on now, how many years did Chang end #1? How much time did he even spend at #1? He had a real shot too, when slamless players like Rios were making it to #1. Also Chang was done way before Roddick. And even after Roddick declined and lost his serve, he was still a top 15-20 player.
Older Becker isn't better than '04 Roddick or '09 Roddick at Wimbledon.
Early 90's Edberg was basically done. And Sampras wasn't trying his hardest during the '92 final and he let Edberg win. Sampras has even said so himself..
'97 and '98 Rafter isn't better than Roddick of '03.. And Rafter's Wimbledon years are comparable to Roddick's.. I'd say Roddick's 2009 is above all of Rafter's Wimbledon showings though.
Goran isn't twice the player Roddick is on grass, but he is above him. I have said as much already. He wasn't always around though, and Sampras mainly had to deal with jokes like Pioline..
Kafelnikov better than Roddick? Kafelnikov shouldn't have won any slams. He beat a gassed Sampras in the '96 SF (a fresh Sampras would have taken him) and he won the '99 AO without Sampras in the draw. Roddick also had a much higher peak.
Also Hewitt wasn't exactly done in '06. He still made the QFs of Wimbledon and the US Open. His 2006 year is a lot like his 2003 year in my opinion, minus Indian Wells.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Federer wiped the floor with them because he was simply that good..
Before 2004, Hewitt had a winning H2H with Federer.. Only after he peaked (and at his peak nobody could realistically beat Federer) he started to fail. Federer was better than Djokovic in 2011 in 2004. He bageled Hewitt, who was a player who consistently beat him the years before then.
:lol: Seriously? Lendl? He was done by the time Sampras was around and playing Challenger tournaments. A past prime Becker isn't better than Roddick.. Edberg was done and Sampras choked against him anyway.. Chang is a much lesser player when compared to Hewitt/Safin and a slightly lesser player when compared to Roddick..
Courier wasn't at his best level and it's arguable Hewitt/Roddick played at his level anyway..
Bruguera, Muster and Moya are totally irrelevant. Sampras was bad on clay overall and they were clay beasts..
Roddick/Hewitt are also better than Rafter, Stich and Krajicek overall.
Most of the players you listed are below Hewitt/Safin/Roddick on the list or are/were done by the time that time came along. And a Tennis Channel Top 100 list shouldn't define who was the best. Why should it?
90's Clay
Banned
Chang is just as good or better than Roddick yes. They are around equal. Im sure Chang at his peak would probably have a stint at #1 around the early 2000s. Hell he was number 2 in '96. So hes good for a brief run at #1 in a transitional period like the early 00's. . Sampras isn't losing to '04 or '09 Roddick either way so it doesn't matter. Sampras isn;t losing to Roddick PERIOD at Wimbledon.
Edberg was still a top 2-3 player in the world in the early 90s and far more freaking talent than Fed's contemporaries.
97-98 Rafter would definitely beat '03 Roddick at the USO. People forget Roddick shouldn't even have beat Nalbandian that year.
Kafelnikov was a solid 2 time slam winner and very good on 2 surfaces. Very solid clay courter with good ability.
Edberg was still a top 2-3 player in the world in the early 90s and far more freaking talent than Fed's contemporaries.
97-98 Rafter would definitely beat '03 Roddick at the USO. People forget Roddick shouldn't even have beat Nalbandian that year.
Kafelnikov was a solid 2 time slam winner and very good on 2 surfaces. Very solid clay courter with good ability.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nah Chang wouldn't have been #1 with players like Hewitt, Kuerten and Agassi at #1. If he couldn't do it with Rios around, how was he going to do it against them?
Roddick, Ferrero and Federer wouldn't let him win any majors anyway.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Roddick also still beat Nalbandian there. And Rafter is overrated, he beat a pre-prime Philippoussis in the final in '98, and beat an injured Sampras in the SF.
How can Federer be slighted for beating a peak Philippoussis when Rafter is praised for beating a lesser version of him?
How can Federer be slighted for beating a peak Philippoussis when Rafter is praised for beating a lesser version of him?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Chang got very close to the number 1 ranking at the time of the 1996 US Open. Had Chang won the final against Sampras at that tournament, or had Sampras gone out when match point down to Corretja, Chang would have been world number 1.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But that did not happen, and when he had to play Sampras he folded. Chang was a fairly good player, don't get me wrong, but I don't think he is better than Roddick, Safin or Hewitt.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I think Chang is better than Roddick, personally. Safin at his best is a better player, but you could always rely on Chang to give 100% in matches which you can't say with Safin. Hewitt is better, though, just unlucky to hit his playing peak in 2004-2005, the same time that prime Federer arrived on the scene.
triforce defender
Semi-Pro
Chang's victory at the 1989 French Open came against the backdrop of the Tianaman Square Massacre in Beijing. What a timely title to uplift Chinese spirits! They should make a 30 For 30 Special documentary about this occurrence.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with this. Roddick, Safin and Hewitt are superior players to Chang. I suppose we are all biased on some way or another though.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
We can agree to disagree on Chang being better/worse than Roddick. Both are fairly similar in playing level and ability, although personally I'd give the edge to Roddick.
Safin, when on, could beat anybody. But like you have alluded to, that rarely happened. Hewitt though, as you've mentioned, was a consistent force until injuries got him and was better than Chang. Overall I'd give the edge to the trio of Roddick/Safin/Hewitt.
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
I only care about objective evidence, like wins & losses. If you can't use evidence, and must argue using crazed statements, you're not going to get anywhere.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
That isn't "objective evidence". In this sense, it's merely a television program intended for entertainment purposes and thus cannot be taken seriously.
That would be like me buying a poster of the "greatest tennis players" and using that as "objective evidence" in a debate.
Prabhanjan
Professional
The overrating of Agassi is severely high in this forum. Seriously, this player lost his first 3 finals, and over all lost nearly as many as he won. If he was playing in Lendl's era, he would have lost all the 19 of them. Just look at the 8 finalists he beat to win a slam: Ivanišević, Stich, Sampras, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, and Schüttler. I don't have to say much about Goran's fickleness in the finals, Stich, no matter the talent, was a one slam wonder after all losing more finals than winning, and so forth. Accept Sampras there is not even a single name among those who had won 3 or more slams, ever.
And if he had won slams earlier, he would have most likely not done anything post 98/99. Any person can see that he was trying so desperately to add to his slam count once Pete retired, but could not do really more.
And if he had won slams earlier, he would have most likely not done anything post 98/99. Any person can see that he was trying so desperately to add to his slam count once Pete retired, but could not do really more.
That's like saying Navratilova is so dominant(and she IS), but she let another goat candidate Chris Evert won slams.:twisted:
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
I used wins & losses in my argument. My point about the TC top 100 list was to examine how the players discussed were regarded by informed experts given their accomplishments. If you like, you can throw that out and use your own evaluations based on wins & losses. But you're still going to have to use career accomplishments and not unsupported "I feel that this is the case" statements.
It's going to boil down to a logical fallacy: Federer will have had to outclass his contemporaries despite not being much better than they were. If he was significantly better, then he played in a weak era, since each player in that era is to be judged against the top player. If his era was strong, why are so many of his contemporaries' records against him so weak? You can't have it both ways.
Prabhanjan
Professional
Given the diminutive size, Chang was never a threat for the big players in slams. Courier was done with slams when 1993 started, so how does it really matter if Courier had 4 or 40 slams earlier? Older Becker took only 2 sets of 3 matches against Sampras at Wimbledon, both in tie-breakers. When Becker can never break Sampras and the results is known so much earlier that Sampras will be the winner, how can Becker be ever a competition for Sampras? Early 90's Edberg was done after winning 92 USO and did nothing of relevance starting 1993, so he does not matter among Sampras competition. Goran may be twice the player than Roddick, but he is not winning Wimbledon if Fed did not take Pete out in 01. And finally, about Kafelnikov, ROLMAO. IS he not that very same player who thanked Pete for keeping out of AO which helped him win it. And how many matches he lost in a row as a No.1 player? So, where is EXACTLY the competition for Sampras? Answer: NONE
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
That is an unfair way of evaluating this. How can you expect anybody, except Nadal, to do well against Federer? Players have proven that Sampras wasn't unstoppable, even on grass. Federer's own contemporaries had winning records against Sampras and some of Federer's other contemporaries (Phillippoussis) have proven that Sampras isn't unbeatable on grass even in his prime. Facts show Sampras faced some pretty weak competition in major finals too, way "worse" than the players Federer faced. You can't have it both ways, so why isn't Sampras' time defined as a weak era and Federer's is?
Federer beat Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon, so for sure he would have been just as success if not more in the 90's conditions. The slow courts and balls sitting high actually is against Federer style.
Federer's best surface no doubt is grass and hard court. On clay he ranks 2nd best in his era, but that's obvious because of Nadal who is a clay goat. Had it wasn't for Nadal, Federer would ranked one of all time greatest clay courter because he would have at least 4-5 RG. This is another testament of Roger being well balance across all surfaces, and hence his versatility which most of the voters vote "more versatile" from the poll(82%).
Hewitt/Safin/Roddick has a 11-8 record against Sampras combined. Sampras was lucky that they are not in the 90s.
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
"Unfair" is not a scientific statement. The natural laws that govern this universe don't care about fairness. I don't "expect" anything, I just evaluate results.
The way I'm evaluating eras is -- how do his contemporaries compare to the era's best (most accomplished) player? Comparing the two eras reveals the fact that Sampras' contemporaries have more victories against him in big tournaments than Federer's have against him. If you can define the strength of an era in a better way than that, go ahead and do it.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, that is assuming the conclusion. For this to be meaningful, you must assume that sampras is ≥ Federer. You only know something about the relative strength between Sampras and his era compared to Federer vs his era. This says nothing about the absolute strength of the eras. Logic abc.
And btw, the quality or strength of an era (terms you use) is just as meaningless to the universe as notions of fairness (which Sabratha used). So that's probably not the rebuttal you should go for.
I disagree a past prime Becker isn't better than Roddick. I would agree if he was well past his prime but he just slightly below his old best level when playing Sampras from 93-96 (not 97 of course) which is still better than Roddick.
I think you underrate how dangerous Krajicek was on grass/carpet/fast type courts when he was really playing well, and I hate him since he is a sexist pig and jerk and I found his playing style boring. He was very inconsistent and injury proned but when he was in the zone he could be scary good. Remember he is one of the few players with a winning record over PRIME Sampras (not the old way below his old self version Hewitt and Roddick have a winning record against). Also watch the level he played at in events like Wimbledon, Miami 99, a few other events in his career. I think at his best he was better than Hewitt and Roddick on a fast court, but he didn't play his best very often and was often injured.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Beat him while being teenagers and slam-virgins.
90's Clay
Banned
ANd he whipped on them when he was past his prime and finishing up his career and not even motivated with tennis anymore.
Hewitt owned every serve and volley player he faced. Prime to prime, I think Hewitt would probably have a winning record against Sampras.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
