10 facts which conclude that Sampras is greater than Federer

How can they people respect a man who trembles and plays with self doubt everytime he faces djoko/nadal. A real man doesn't do that let alone a goat candidate.
 
Blocker said:
How can they people respect a man who trembles and plays with self doubt everytime he faces djoko/nadal. A real man doesn't do that let alone a goat candidate.
Click to expand...
Sampras had same doubts against modern baseliners like Hewitt, Safin and Roddick
 
Blocker said:
How can they people respect a man who trembles and plays with self doubt everytime he faces djoko/nadal. A real man doesn't do that let alone a goat candidate.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you on Federer/Nadal actually. I do hold that as a mark against Federer for sure. He also does fear Nadal somewhat IMO, or atleast did for a period of time.

Djokovic? Sorry but that is ridiculous. Federer has never "feared" Djokovic, and doesn't even today where he is the likely loser of each match. Plus that even at ages 31-34 he still held his own with peak/prime Djokovic and won about a quarter of their matches.
 
Blocker said:
I have mentioned some of these facts before but now I will bunch them altogether in this thread to conclude why Sampras is greater than Federer.

Fact 1:
Sampras won slams in 3 different decades, the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, Federer has only won in 2 different decades. Sampras clearly has longevity on his side.

Fact 2:
Sampras won slams at different phases of his life, his teens, his 20s and his 30s. Federer did not.

Fact 3:
On average, Sampras has won more slams than Federer. Federer has more slams overall but he's played alot longer so of course he's gonna have more slams.

Fact 4:
In an era where the dirt rats stayed away to make way for the grass court specialists, Sampras always had to negotiate a tricky minefield en route to the final of Wimbledon. But once there, he is the all time undisputed king. Federer carves a swathe through a draw featuring nothing but creampuffs and once in the final, these days anyway, gets bounced out. Final losses on Wimbledon Centre Court: Nadal 2008, Murray 2012, Djokovic 2014 and 2015. For so long he had Roddick to contend with (lol) and then the big 3 come along and bang, he's 4 times the bridesmaid.

Fact 5:
Sampras beat 4 FO champions at the one FO. Federer was used as a stepping stone for one man to become the FO champion multiple times.

Fact 6:
Sampras never got pawned 9-2 in slam H2H matches.

Fact 7:
Sampras won the YE#1 6 years in a row. Federer has only ever won it 5 times. Sampras 6 times the WORLD CHAMPION, Federer 5 times the WORLD CHAMPION. And let's not forget that Federer has played longer so he has had more opportunities to eclipse the 6.

Fact 8:
Sampras played and won in alot tougher conditions, where the grass suited one style and the clay suited another and different variants of hard favoured anything in between. Federer has played in an era where one size fits all so if you can hit a good ball, the career slam will eventually come your way.

Fact 9:
Sampras was the catalyst for the USA's most dramatic ever Davis Cup win over Russia in Russia. To beat a FO champion on clay away from home will probably go down as the most dramatic DC win in history, on par with Pat Cash beating Pernfors at Kooyong in 1986 when Cash was 2 sets down.

Fact 10:
For Sampras to come out of a 5 year retirement and beat Federer who was at his peak must make you wonder what Sampras would have done to Federer in a prime v prime match.

That is all.
Click to expand...


Sampras' 6 straight year end #1 is still record to beat in open era. (Djkovic has a chance). his slam count happens to be 14.

A few guys in pre-Open: Laver 6 straight YE#1 happens to have 11 slams (and pro titles).
Pancho Gonzales' 7 or 8 YE#1, happens to have 3 slam counts (with many pro titles)
 
ultradr said:
Sampras' 6 straight year end #1 is still record to beat in open era. (Djkovic has a chance). his slam count happens to be 14.
Click to expand...

For Djokovic to beat Sampras's YE#1 record he would need to be YE#1 in 2016, 2017, and 2018. I think it is possible but wow it would be a feat. At the very least he has a decent chance to tie and to break the ITF record by getting 7.
 
mattosgrant said:
For Djokovic to beat Sampras's YE#1 record he would need to be YE#1 in 2016, 2017, and 2018. I think it is possible but wow it would be a feat. At the very least he has a decent chance to tie and to break the ITF record by getting 7.
Click to expand...

I know. But I think Djokovic can match 6.

6+ would be monumental, we are talking about exclusive group of players like Sampras, Laver and Pancho Gonzales.
An it is free of homogeneous surface controversy on slam count records IMHO.

I would put it next to Nadal's 9 French (over Federer;s 17) in the list of biggest achievement in post-2003 modern power baseline era.
 
Last edited:
ultradr said:
I know. But I think Djokovic can match 6.

6+ would be monumental, we are talking about exclusive group of players like Sampras, Laver and Panch Gonzales.
An it is free of homogeneous surface controversy on slam count records IMHO.

I would put it next to Nadal's 9 French (over Federer;s 17) in the list of biggest achievement in post-2003 modern power baseline era.
Click to expand...

I agree and I do think he has a really good shot at 6 atleast.

How I see it:

2016- no way Djokovic doesn't end this year at #1 IMO. I don't know how dominant he will be, especialy seeing him struggling now, but regardless he will be #1 for sure.

2017- quite likely Djokovic will be #1, but it isn't as certain at this year. A lot can still happen in 20 months.

2018- this is really when it starts to become questionable with age and who might have risen by then. Already we are finally seeing some younger players starting to make their move, and hopefully that continues and just builds and builds.
 
Blocker said:
I have mentioned some of these facts before but now I will bunch them altogether in this thread to conclude why Sampras is greater than Federer.

Fact 1:
Sampras won slams in 3 different decades, the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, Federer has only won in 2 different decades. Sampras clearly has longevity on his side.

Fact 2:
Sampras won slams at different phases of his life, his teens, his 20s and his 30s. Federer did not.

Fact 3:
On average, Sampras has won more slams than Federer. Federer has more slams overall but he's played alot longer so of course he's gonna have more slams.

Fact 4:
In an era where the dirt rats stayed away to make way for the grass court specialists, Sampras always had to negotiate a tricky minefield en route to the final of Wimbledon. But once there, he is the all time undisputed king. Federer carves a swathe through a draw featuring nothing but creampuffs and once in the final, these days anyway, gets bounced out. Final losses on Wimbledon Centre Court: Nadal 2008, Murray 2012, Djokovic 2014 and 2015. For so long he had Roddick to contend with (lol) and then the big 3 come along and bang, he's 4 times the bridesmaid.

Fact 5:
Sampras beat 4 FO champions at the one FO. Federer was used as a stepping stone for one man to become the FO champion multiple times.

Fact 6:
Sampras never got pawned 9-2 in slam H2H matches.

Fact 7:
Sampras won the YE#1 6 years in a row. Federer has only ever won it 5 times. Sampras 6 times the WORLD CHAMPION, Federer 5 times the WORLD CHAMPION. And let's not forget that Federer has played longer so he has had more opportunities to eclipse the 6.

Fact 8:
Sampras played and won in alot tougher conditions, where the grass suited one style and the clay suited another and different variants of hard favoured anything in between. Federer has played in an era where one size fits all so if you can hit a good ball, the career slam will eventually come your way.

Fact 9:
Sampras was the catalyst for the USA's most dramatic ever Davis Cup win over Russia in Russia. To beat a FO champion on clay away from home will probably go down as the most dramatic DC win in history, on par with Pat Cash beating Pernfors at Kooyong in 1986 when Cash was 2 sets down.

Fact 10:
For Sampras to come out of a 5 year retirement and beat Federer who was at his peak must make you wonder what Sampras would have done to Federer in a prime v prime match.

That is all.
Click to expand...
You have copied boris Becker arguments
 
mattosgrant said:
I agree and I do think he has a really good shot at 6 atleast.

How I see it:

2016- no way Djokovic doesn't end this year at #1 IMO. I don't know how dominant he will be, especialy seeing him struggling now, but regardless he will be #1 for sure.

2017- quite likely Djokovic will be #1, but it isn't as certain at this year. A lot can still happen in 20 months.

2018- this is really when it starts to become questionable with age and who might have risen by then. Already we are finally seeing some younger players starting to make their move, and hopefully that continues and just builds and builds.
Click to expand...

Novak supposedly consulted Sampras on long term dominations.
Novak is noticeably crafting his "peaking-at the-right-time" skills, reducing body wear, more reducing exposure of his A+ game and so on...
 
mattosgrant said:
Djokovic? Sorry but that is ridiculous. Federer has never "feared" Djokovic, and doesn't even today where he is the likely loser of each match. Plus that even at ages 31-34 he still held his own with peak/prime Djokovic and won about a quarter of their matches.
Click to expand...

Federer never feared Novak because he knows that he is superior in every way against him. He misses some big shots but mainly that's because of fatigue. And he knows it. That's why he can still go up against him toe to toe.
 
Fed ended his streak at 5 on the surface of his preference. It would be worse on slow courts.

After that match people said fed is the best player to ever use a 85" pro staff. Pete was no longer saint vincent
 
Blocker said:
I have mentioned some of these facts before but now I will bunch them altogether in this thread to conclude why Sampras is greater than Federer.

Fact 1:
Sampras won slams in 3 different decades, the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, Federer has only won in 2 different decades. Sampras clearly has longevity on his side.

Fact 2:
Sampras won slams at different phases of his life, his teens, his 20s and his 30s. Federer did not.

Fact 3:
On average, Sampras has won more slams than Federer. Federer has more slams overall but he's played alot longer so of course he's gonna have more slams.

Fact 4:
In an era where the dirt rats stayed away to make way for the grass court specialists, Sampras always had to negotiate a tricky minefield en route to the final of Wimbledon. But once there, he is the all time undisputed king. Federer carves a swathe through a draw featuring nothing but creampuffs and once in the final, these days anyway, gets bounced out. Final losses on Wimbledon Centre Court: Nadal 2008, Murray 2012, Djokovic 2014 and 2015. For so long he had Roddick to contend with (lol) and then the big 3 come along and bang, he's 4 times the bridesmaid.

Fact 5:
Sampras beat 4 FO champions at the one FO. Federer was used as a stepping stone for one man to become the FO champion multiple times.

Fact 6:
Sampras never got pawned 9-2 in slam H2H matches.

Fact 7:
Sampras won the YE#1 6 years in a row. Federer has only ever won it 5 times. Sampras 6 times the WORLD CHAMPION, Federer 5 times the WORLD CHAMPION. And let's not forget that Federer has played longer so he has had more opportunities to eclipse the 6.

Fact 8:
Sampras played and won in alot tougher conditions, where the grass suited one style and the clay suited another and different variants of hard favoured anything in between. Federer has played in an era where one size fits all so if you can hit a good ball, the career slam will eventually come your way.

Fact 9:
Sampras was the catalyst for the USA's most dramatic ever Davis Cup win over Russia in Russia. To beat a FO champion on clay away from home will probably go down as the most dramatic DC win in history, on par with Pat Cash beating Pernfors at Kooyong in 1986 when Cash was 2 sets down.

Fact 10:
For Sampras to come out of a 5 year retirement and beat Federer who was at his peak must make you wonder what Sampras would have done to Federer in a prime v prime match.

That is all.
Click to expand...

George-Bush-Didnt-Read-It-Dance.gif
 
Blocker said:
Yea when he was in decline, not in beast mode when he was king of the castle. At his peak, he'd give them all a tennis lesson. Tennis 101 with Pete Sampras.
Click to expand...
Teenage Hewitt was schooling prime Sampras on grass and at the WTF.
 
Sabratha said:
Teenage Hewitt was schooling prime Sampras on grass and at the WTF.
Click to expand...

Not prime Sampras, decline Sampras. Teenage Sampras schooled declining Lendl but do you ever see anyone ever make note of this? The difference is, Sampras came back to win the USO. In fact, between Sampras and Hewitt, Sampras was the more recent to win a slam. Go figure. Prime Sampras mutilates prime Hewitt, that's the bottom line.
 
Blocker said:
I have mentioned some of these facts before but now I will bunch them altogether in this thread to conclude why Sampras is greater than Federer.

Fact 1:
Sampras won slams in 3 different decades, the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, Federer has only won in 2 different decades. Sampras clearly has longevity on his side.

Fact 2:
Sampras won slams at different phases of his life, his teens, his 20s and his 30s. Federer did not.

Fact 3:
On average, Sampras has won more slams than Federer. Federer has more slams overall but he's played alot longer so of course he's gonna have more slams.

Fact 4:
In an era where the dirt rats stayed away to make way for the grass court specialists, Sampras always had to negotiate a tricky minefield en route to the final of Wimbledon. But once there, he is the all time undisputed king. Federer carves a swathe through a draw featuring nothing but creampuffs and once in the final, these days anyway, gets bounced out. Final losses on Wimbledon Centre Court: Nadal 2008, Murray 2012, Djokovic 2014 and 2015. For so long he had Roddick to contend with (lol) and then the big 3 come along and bang, he's 4 times the bridesmaid.

Fact 5:
Sampras beat 4 FO champions at the one FO. Federer was used as a stepping stone for one man to become the FO champion multiple times.

Fact 6:
Sampras never got pawned 9-2 in slam H2H matches.

Fact 7:
Sampras won the YE#1 6 years in a row. Federer has only ever won it 5 times. Sampras 6 times the WORLD CHAMPION, Federer 5 times the WORLD CHAMPION. And let's not forget that Federer has played longer so he has had more opportunities to eclipse the 6.

Fact 8:
Sampras played and won in alot tougher conditions, where the grass suited one style and the clay suited another and different variants of hard favoured anything in between. Federer has played in an era where one size fits all so if you can hit a good ball, the career slam will eventually come your way.

Fact 9:
Sampras was the catalyst for the USA's most dramatic ever Davis Cup win over Russia in Russia. To beat a FO champion on clay away from home will probably go down as the most dramatic DC win in history, on par with Pat Cash beating Pernfors at Kooyong in 1986 when Cash was 2 sets down.

Fact 10:
For Sampras to come out of a 5 year retirement and beat Federer who was at his peak must make you wonder what Sampras would have done to Federer in a prime v prime match.

That is all.
Click to expand...
U jelly, bro?
 
Blocker said:
Not prime Sampras, decline Sampras. Teenage Sampras schooled declining Lendl but do you ever see anyone ever make note of this? The difference is, Sampras came back to win the USO. In fact, between Sampras and Hewitt, Sampras was the more recent to win a slam. Go figure. Prime Sampras mutilates prime Hewitt, that's the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Sampras was in his prime in 2000, which is when Hewitt started to dismantle him. He was even pushing him on grass in 1999.

Prime Sampras would always struggle with Hewitt due to the matchup problems between them, not to mention guys like Rafa and Djoker are basically better versions of Hewitt..
 
Sabratha said:
Sampras was in his prime in 2000, which is when Hewitt started to dismantle him. He was even pushing him on grass in 1999.

Prime Sampras would always struggle with Hewitt due to the matchup problems between them, not to mention guys like Rafa and Djoker are basically better versions of Hewitt..
Click to expand...

He was not in his prime in 2000. His absolute prime was 93-97, 93-97 Sampras would beat up on any version of Hewitt. You think because he won W in 2000 he was in prime mode? He was injured all the way through W2000 I might add and basically did not have the legs from 2000 onwards. And like I said, he is still the most recent slam winner between the 2. He showed he can comeback from a beating.
 
Blocker said:
He was not in his prime in 2000. His absolute prime was 93-97, 93-97 Sampras would beat up on any version of Hewitt. You think because he won W in 2000 he was in prime mode? He was injured all the way through W2000 I might add and basically did not have the legs from 2000 onwards. And like I said, he is still the most recent slam winner between the 2. He showed he can comeback from a beating.
Click to expand...
Yes, he was in his prime in 2000. Sampras has even alluded to this by saying "players generally have a prime spanning from 22 to about 29". He basically flat out stated he was in his prime in 2000 and he was Hewitt's whipping boy.

Yeah, 1997 Sampras who had to contend with weak era mugs like Moya (who was actually a good player in the end, but that came in the very late 90s and early 2000s; not '97) and freaking Pioline.

Who did he lose to a the USO? Korda? You're essentially saying freaking Korda is a better player than Hewitt? Lol. If Korda could beat Sampras at the USO in '97, Hewitt could too.
 
And Sampras should thank Agassi for taking Hewitt out, otherwise he'd only have 13 slams to his name right now.
 
Another argument that could never be settled.

I've had the luck of being on earth long enough to watch both great champions and I'd rank Federer ahead. Sampras was a big champion but he was the biggest rope-a-dope tennis player I've ever seen. He'd drag himself around on the court with that hang dog expression, outserving his opponent until it got to 4-3 or 4-4, then he'd suddenly out of nowhere turn it on and break the opponent and then hold to win the set 6-4.
But most of the match he'd look like his mom had died and he'd rather be elsewhere.
 
nowhereman said:
Fact 1:
Sampras has won slams in 2 different decades not 3. When did he ever win a slam in the 80's?

Fact 2:
I don't see how this is relevant to greatness.

Fact 3:
What do you mean by on average? Fed has more slams in total, that's the only stat that matters.

Fact 4:
He didn't lose to Murray in 2012.

Fact 5:
1 FO > 0 FO's. But only in the mind of a delusional fanboy like you would it be better to beat a couple of tough opponents and lose than to actually win the title.

Fact 6:
True. But then again, has Sampras ever had a rival as tough as Nadal to deal with?

Fact 7:
I actually agree completely with this.

Fact 8:
I agree with this too. But it's not like Pete gets bonus points or something.

Fact 9:
Yeah, I'm sure something like this outweighs something like Federer's 237 straight weeks at #1 lol.

Fact 10:
Yes, I'm sure Federer was trying really hard in an exo match.
Click to expand...


Aha good deconstruction
 
Sabratha said:
Yes, he was in his prime in 2000. Sampras has even alluded to this by saying "players generally have a prime spanning from 22 to about 29". He basically flat out stated he was in his prime in 2000 and he was Hewitt's whipping boy.

Yeah, 1997 Sampras who had to contend with weak era mugs like Moya (who was actually a good player in the end, but that came in the very late 90s and early 2000s; not '97) and freaking Pioline.

Who did he lose to a the USO? Korda? You're essentially saying freaking Korda is a better player than Hewitt? Lol. If Korda could beat Sampras at the USO in '97, Hewitt could too.
Click to expand...

Korda was enhanced by illegal drugs so don't even go there whilst Sampras was inhibited by a blood illness. I reiterate that Sampras prime was 93-97, Sampras 2K was still good but not on par with 93-97.
 
Dartagnan64 said:
Another argument that could never be settled.

I've had the luck of being on earth long enough to watch both great champions and I'd rank Federer ahead. Sampras was a big champion but he was the biggest rope-a-dope tennis player I've ever seen. He'd drag himself around on the court with that hang dog expression, outserving his opponent until it got to 4-3 or 4-4, then he'd suddenly out of nowhere turn it on and break the opponent and then hold to win the set 6-4.
But most of the match he'd look like his mom had died and he'd rather be elsewhere.
Click to expand...

All Sampras needed was a break to clinch the set. Once he broke you, it was set over. So you thinking rope a dope makes him less of a player? That's funny because I've seen Federer hang his head against certain players throughout his career, even as early as half way through the first set of a match, that look that no matter how well he plays, he still knows he's gonna lose. Sampras never had that look of resignation on his face. Never.
 
Blocker said:
All Sampras needed was a break to clinch the set. Once he broke you, it was set over. So you thinking rope a dope makes him less of a player? That's funny because I've seen Federer hang his head against certain players throughout his career, even as early as half way through the first set of a match, that look that no matter how well he plays, he still knows he's gonna lose. Sampras never had that look of resignation on his face. Never.
Click to expand...

Okey, guy, let's me settle it down for you.

Sampras is better than Federer.

Now, do you feel better? Can you sleep? Good, go to your bed and sleep and do not have a nightmare about Federer. Get a life.
 
Blocker said:
I have mentioned some of these facts before but now I will bunch them altogether in this thread to conclude why Sampras is greater than Federer.

Fact 1:
Sampras won slams in 3 different decades, the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, Federer has only won in 2 different decades. Sampras clearly has longevity on his side.

Fact 2:
Sampras won slams at different phases of his life, his teens, his 20s and his 30s. Federer did not.

Fact 3:
On average, Sampras has won more slams than Federer. Federer has more slams overall but he's played alot longer so of course he's gonna have more slams.

Fact 4:
In an era where the dirt rats stayed away to make way for the grass court specialists, Sampras always had to negotiate a tricky minefield en route to the final of Wimbledon. But once there, he is the all time undisputed king. Federer carves a swathe through a draw featuring nothing but creampuffs and once in the final, these days anyway, gets bounced out. Final losses on Wimbledon Centre Court: Nadal 2008, Murray 2012, Djokovic 2014 and 2015. For so long he had Roddick to contend with (lol) and then the big 3 come along and bang, he's 4 times the bridesmaid.

Fact 5:
Sampras beat 4 FO champions at the one FO. Federer was used as a stepping stone for one man to become the FO champion multiple times.

Fact 6:
Sampras never got pawned 9-2 in slam H2H matches.

Fact 7:
Sampras won the YE#1 6 years in a row. Federer has only ever won it 5 times. Sampras 6 times the WORLD CHAMPION, Federer 5 times the WORLD CHAMPION. And let's not forget that Federer has played longer so he has had more opportunities to eclipse the 6.

Fact 8:
Sampras played and won in alot tougher conditions, where the grass suited one style and the clay suited another and different variants of hard favoured anything in between. Federer has played in an era where one size fits all so if you can hit a good ball, the career slam will eventually come your way.

Fact 9:
Sampras was the catalyst for the USA's most dramatic ever Davis Cup win over Russia in Russia. To beat a FO champion on clay away from home will probably go down as the most dramatic DC win in history, on par with Pat Cash beating Pernfors at Kooyong in 1986 when Cash was 2 sets down.

Fact 10:
For Sampras to come out of a 5 year retirement and beat Federer who was at his peak must make you wonder what Sampras would have done to Federer in a prime v prime match.

That is all.
Click to expand...
Sampras >>> Federer anyday.
But all these points are lame except for 4,6 and 8
 
Blocker said:
Korda was enhanced by illegal drugs so don't even go there whilst Sampras was inhibited by a blood illness. I reiterate that Sampras prime was 93-97, Sampras 2K was still good but not on par with 93-97.
Click to expand...
Excuses..

If you think Sampras is better than Nadal, why couldn't he beat Korda whereas Nadal smoked Puerta?
 
beltsman said:
To be honest, Sampras had a massive drive to become the best ever. He was chasing 14 and he got it. If he was chasing 20, he would have gotten 20.

If he knew Fed would get to 17 just a short time later, he would have gotten to 18.
Click to expand...
This is why they say records are meant to be broken. Champions like Sampras and Federer have such strong motivation to be the best. If the record was 17 slams, they'd go for at least 18. That's how their minds work. Sampras' 14 record was great in his era, but I have no doubt that he'd go for more if the slam record back then was higher.
 
AngryBirds said:
This is why they say records are meant to be broken. Champions like Sampras and Federer have such strong motivation to be the best. If the record was 17 slams, they'd go for at least 18. That's how their minds work. Sampras' 14 record was great in his era, but I have no doubt that he'd go for more if the slam record back then was higher.
Click to expand...

Very good point which I raised a few years ago. Federer had Sampras' target to chase while Sampras had the target of 11 to chase. If Sampras' target was 17, he would have got it.
 
1/ Laver

2/ Borg

3/ Nadal

4/ Federer

Talk all you like about Grand Slam wins, YE#1's, Title wins, etc. etc.

Only measure of true greatness is showing dominance at the extreme ends of the tennis playing scale.

Laver and Borg appear to be clearly ahead of the rest. Both dominated their eras at extreme ends of the scale.

I continue to be amazed by how little love Borg seems to get on these forums. SIX French open titles in an era where there were plenty of Clay court only specialists. FIVE Wimbledon titles in an era where there were plenty of Grass court only specialists. THREE consecutive "Channel Slam"'s in an era when the differences between the playing conditions at Roland Garros and Wimbledon were extreme. And to top it off, Borg still managed to make Four US Open Finals at the end of long seasons for him.

More importantly, Borg is pretty much the God-Father of the modern Top Spin game. He is one of the few players in the history of Tennis that transcended the sport. Borg is also probably the main link between the traditional game and the modern game. Tennis was a different sport before Borg and became a different sport afterwards because of him.

Sampras was a wonderful tennis player. He achieved some amazing results, esp. at Wimbledon. But I would expect anyone who places him among the greatest of all is either a big fan of American tennis players and / or never saw Laver or Borg play tennis.

Federer is also a wonderful tennis player. He is much more of an All Court Player than Sampras was. If not for Nadal, who knows how many more FO titles Federer would possess. But at least he has one, and that is one more than Sampras has.
 
90's Clay said:
And ROFLMAO!!!! @ Nadal being 35-0 vs. Pete. Troll Post. Jeesh what do you think Sampras is Berdych or Wawrinka. Get the hell out of here with that nonsense.

Pete is an open era GOAT candidate. No one is gonna beat him 35-0
Click to expand...

If Sampras faced Nadal 35 times on clay I'm pretty sure Nadal would lead him 35-0 and like 80-0 in sets.
 
tennis_pro said:
If Sampras faced Nadal 35 times on clay I'm pretty sure Nadal would lead him 35-0 and like 80-0 in sets.
Click to expand...

Sampras has beaten Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster, Bruguera, Courier on clay. He isn't going 0-35 vs. Nadal.

You all talk around here like Pete never did anything or beat anyone on clay. Totally clueless
 
90's Clay said:
Sampras has beaten Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster, Bruguera, Courier on clay. He isn't going 0-35 vs. Nadal.

You all talk around here like Pete never did anything or beat anyone on clay. Totally clueless
Click to expand...

Because Agassi, Kafelnikov and crew are so close to Nadal's standard level on clay LOL. Nadal would've beaten him with his right hand.
 
Actually this piece doesn't do Sampras justice, there are so many more facts out there with equal weight. Just to mention a few left out

11 'fact' - Sampras played in the 90's mostly and 90's are best.
12 'fact' - Sampras is my fav player hence he is the GOAT. Fact.
13 'fact' - Federer may hold records over Sampras but let's face it - he has too big of a nose to be the greatest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Why Federer is clearly greater than Sampras
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
Megafanoftennis100
Megafanoftennis100
B
Sampras' longevity is greater than Federer's
2 3
Replies
114
Views
10K
Steve0904
Steve0904
M
Why Do People Say Sampras is Greater Grass Courter Than Federer
3 4 5
Replies
206
Views
20K
tudwell
T
M
Grand Slam Wins and Losses to Eventual Grand Slam Champion - Federer, Sampras, Nadal
Replies
13
Views
3K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
aman92
Federer is still greater than Sampras in grass
Replies
24
Views
2K
Rago
Rago
Back
Top