Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Cyan, Dec 1, 2007.
That depends on if you believe Roger Federer's own mouth is a "credible source". He said it during the live on-air interview right after the 2nd match.
Man, I wish people who never saw all 3 matches in their entirety, including all the interviews, would refrain from posting in these threads. You have so many guys say that there's no way that Sampras could get remotely close to ever beating Federer, and then you find out that they never saw all 3 of the matches.
Ok then under these circumstances Fed is not credible then, he has to obviously be political and also promote interest in the event, let alone the simple fact that hes not gonna bash his idol and say, he wouldn't even sniff the top 100. And as for the matches, I wrote my main points in the "History repeats itself again" thread, I made my main points there and would rather not retype them, and seeing as your the GOAT and all i respect your opinion so could you please read my post there and respond here? thanks
actually i got it here for you...
"The fact Sampras beating Federer is even a discussion is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the matches are fixed, I'm saying that Federer just didn't care. Lets not forget Roddick also beat Federer in an exabition a week before the Aussie Open...we all know how that turned out. If Federer didn't care about embarrasing his idle, whcih he did obviously, he would have won all those sets in the 6-2/6-1 range. I don't know if your in a dream world or if you have just had too much Kool-Aid to drink today to suggest that Sampras for one, acctually beat Fed, and second that he is any where close to the Masters Cup Field, ok I get it Sampras is your god, but if he was really good enough to legitimatley beat Federer he would still be playing and in the top ten, hes not and he never will be, its called aging it happens to everyone. The series of exibitions was just purly fun and entertainment from two era's best players, don't make the mistake of taking it at more than face value."
there it is word for word.
My question for you is still - did you watch all 3 of the matches in their entirety? Every point and every interview?
Please get back to use once you have.
BTW, in that exhibition with Roddick, Federer served and volleyed on every first AND second serve for practice. It was nothing but a practice session for him. Against Sampras, he hardly served and volleyed and he played his normal game.
I feel your pain . You're upset that Pete can beat any of the top 5 including Nadal. Don't take it personal dude. Fed just called it like it is and no amount of whining can change it. So just be happy and chill:wink:
Yeah I agree. Fed was right. Samprass can beat a top five player every once in a while... in a tiny tournament on indoor carpet. He would not be able to win anything important on a different surface (nowadys, grass is as fast as HC).
he said he's be a top 5 player also- as if it wasnt already obvious enough, so he'd dominate everyone basically, .
I watched almost all the matches, I missed the first set of the second match, if you don't think you know what im talking about your mistaken, can you please respond to the points i made...also if Sampras, i know hes not, were to come back how would he do and why do you say so
ok look TNI, your brainless, nadal would dominate Sampras on grass, Nadal outplayed federer in his prime on grass and federer beat Pete when Fed was just a not fully developed talent, you don't think about anything you say and you back it up with no facts, you forgot to pull your head out of you know where...get to that, then get back to me, until then you have no merit
if he were to return hed do as well as he wants depending on how hard he wants to train because hes more talented than anyone around. He just makes it look so effortless. Top 5 is a starting point and he'd work his way up from there depending on his fitness and training.
No Sampras would feast on them at wimbledon, if he just played 1 match versus them now.
fed was much too defensive at the wimbledon final this year, that wouldnt get the job done v Sampras. And Nadal would struggle v Sampras. Nadal is excellent but he barely got past that tall guy in 5 sets, and sampras' grass courts skills aremany classes above that tall guy who Nadal just beat. Nadal is still a grasscourt rookie, but hes just one of the best in this era.
Now youre really saying ridiculous things. I guess you think that Roddick would dominate Nadal on clay as well:roll:
Ok these are prolly the best points I have seen you make yet, still your basing your entire platform on three exhibitions, second as for nadal and the tall guy 5 sets thing, did you ever wonder if it was more that he played best of fives almost everyday for a weak before that final and that might have more to do with it than the tall guys thing, because i don't think the best athlete ever to pick up a tennis racket gets worn out by a tall guy, your still looking at it with a bias, i agree that in his prime sampras beats nadal on grass, but not now, sampras would break down after about two matches at wimbledon if he made it that far, for a tennis player hes ancient, hes not superman
also nadal and federer are both 6'1"
I didnt say Sampras would play for 2 weeks at wimbledon then beat Nadal in the final. I just mean if they played a match at wimbledon Sampras would most likely win.
I remembert that match with that tall guy vividly, I just forget his name..lol. And I don't even know if that guy has ever played on grass much, he was standing back all of the time for a big server, and thats how Nadal got out of it by a hair. He didnt once threaten Nadal at the net. Sorry but Sampras is in a whole different class to that guy and Nadal would really have to ramp up his game at least as high as his level in the first 4 sets at wimbledon Final v Fed to have a chance v Sampras. I think Sampras would feel at home and would be controling the pace of the match and would have way more chances on return than Nadal.
If they played a winner take all 3 setter at wimbledon tomorrow would you bet against Sampras? Im a fan of both, but I wouldnt be so stupid to bet agaisnt the grass court master v Nadal.
Remember last year a guy name Kendrick or something almost beat Nadal at Wimbledon. Even a low class serve and volley can trouble Nadal that much. Imagine Sampras, one of the best serve and volley of all time up against Nadal...
Another great thread.
Until the off season is over, the mods really should open a section for all the threads that fall under the heading of "If-a, coulda, shoulda, and woulda" :evil:
I find it amazing that since Sampras beats Federer 1 out of 3 times, in an Exhibition with an non-typical extremely fast surface no less, that suddenly gives Sampras the ability to beat Federer "all the time".?!
The logic of some people on these boards amazes me.
Aside from Rogers 9 losses this year, his girlfriend, there isn't much more for people to pick on, so until Federer beats Pete on American soil next year in another exhibition, there will be all talk... :???:
The tall guy was Robin Soderling, and he actually won the match in 3 set but his ball was called out on match point, it was not. And ok I agree with you that Sampras is a better grass court player than Nadal, and in his prime I would have my money on Sampras too, but look the grass is a lot slower than it used to be, John McEnroe even suggested it was slower than the Decoturf at the US Open, but right not. Remember Sampras' trouble returning Fed's serve, he would also have a really hard time returning on grass, so he would get almost no looks at a break and all Nadal would have to do is get Sampras' serve back then he could undo him from the baseline, and when Sampras served and volleyed he would def win a few points but eventually Nadal would put a couple passes together and get his breaks, but don't forget Nadal's got no idols, hes not afraid to pound a legend, he did beat Pat Cash when he was 14 if Im not mistaken, so if it got a little rough for Sampras it could be a long day and a taste of reality.
sampras trolls are amazing.
lets remember than federer at 19 beat sampras at wimbledon when pete was going for his 5th.
pete serving much bigger then than he is now. he was hitting 136 mph on the first serve, and 120 mph second serve.
still with all the guts, experience and courage, pete lost to 19 year old federer in a match that ACTUALLY MATTERED.
the only real idiots are the ones who wish to make anything out of this exhibition with regards to the matchup of federer-sampras.
what we do know is that pete is capable of playing well to this day and serving well for a set or two max.
Nice story, but it sounds a little more like a fairytale than reality
Good win over Cash, and Soerling, but theyre no Sampras.
Nadals serve is a LOT easier to return than Feds, thats why he gets so many break points agaisnt him and ussually has to play incredible to save them all. Often he ends up with 15 break points against him or something and 13 saved. If it comes down to who can save more break points, I would back sampras' big serve v Nadal's. ANd Sampras returns a lot better then Fed on grasss, unlike Fed, Sampras moves foreward a lot on the return and cuts it off at the service line on his way to net, and his more classical shots make it easier for him to take the ball earlier on grass. Do you remember that return at at 6-6-8-9 1st set macau, and the shots at 4-4 15-40? Watch them again, the first is how Sampras puts pressure on the return,and the 2nd is a typical grass court point for sampras. They're the type of points Sampras engages in, not points where hes made to run like rabbit, he's ussually the one dictating play, Nadal would be sitting back hitting his loopy shots. Although Nadal played well in the WImbledon final, his forehand is still too loopy, sometimes he had to hit 6 or 7 excellent forehands just to win a point. I was thinking that he was playing incredibly attacking at times, but he wasnt putting the ball away and had to hit waaayy too mnay good forehands in a row sometimes! Sampras' big classical forehand just takes a couple of big strikes to win the same type of point. I think it would come down to a game of skill on grass not to a game of running, so you'd have to favour the grass court master. In fact I thinbk It coud be a routine victory. Something like 6-4 6-4 7-6.
sampras would beat federer at getting the ladies.
1/3 but its much closer to 2/3 when you consider has had no competitive match play and would likely take those extra coupe of points wiin the 2nd match had he had a little match play. Ita also the dominating style in which he played and the winning attitude. He just showed all of the atp how to WIN!
It looked to me like Sampras was trying his hardest during the exhibitions, while Federer looked to be taking it easy. I'm sure it looked different to you.
When you talk about a "dominating style" wouldn't that apply to both players?
Its an illusion because Sampras hits the ball so much harder. His big classical strokes travel through the air deceptively fast and faster than Feds. So whereas Feds game, especially his forehand, ussually looks look big compared to his regular opponents, Sampras' game is even bigger. I remember how Even Agassi's shots used to look noticeably slower when he played Sampras, but they looked super fast compared to others when he played other guys. He just generates easy power a lot more effortlessly than anyone.
Sampras wouldn't qualify for a slam if he were born to play in Federer's era.
And Federer wouldn't qualify for a local club tournament if he played in the 90's. :roll:
Um...you've got that backwards. Sampras is serving bigger NOW than he did when he was on tour, probably due to the bigger racquet. In the 3 exhibitions, he was serving consistently in the low 130's mph on first serves, with many reaching 136mph. When he was on tour he was serving in the mid-to-high 120's, and not breaking 130mph very often.
Federer had an easier time returning Sampras serve at Wimbledon in 2001 than he did last week in the exhibition matches. Even Sampras has mentioned a few times that he's serving better now then he ever did before.
OK, now this takes the cake as the dumbest post I've seen in any of these Sampras-Federer theads.
gotta agree, that one was way over that guys head. he has no clue what hes talking about.
it woul definately be a fed sampras rivavlry, then still the nadal domination on clay though.
lolz. watch the match before you actually comment. I rewatched their 2001 match and sampras was still serving huge. He was serving consistently at 130+ mph. he was hitting his second serve at 121 mph...faster than he was now. He was seriously smoking it with the serve.
anybody who tries to make sense of federer- sampras matchup of these exhibitions is a dumbass, period. If you are that person, please refrain from responding to my posts. You will save yourself a lot of trouble.
Sorry, but I have seen all 3 exhibition matches and I own the Wimbledon 2001 DVD (which, BTW, I was responsible for getting it released on DVD) and Sampras never served consistently in the low-to-mid-130's as he does now. His serves were more in the high-120's. In that Wimbledon match, you rarely saw Federer leaping to get his racquet on the return as he was doing in the exhibition matches.
I have that match as well...and I think the reason Federer wasn't leaping is because Sampras was not having that great of a day on serve. He had a bunch of doubles, and poorly placed "unsampras-like" serves.
As for the serve speed, I think radar technology has a lot to due with it. Early in his career Sampras serves were clocked 115-120....and 125 was a WOW. Later on it gradually got consistently over 125+ on first serves...
Good posts Breakpoint and good observations on this subject.
It might also have to do with the increases in both his weight and strength as he matured. When he first came on tour, he was just a scrawny, skinny kid. As he matured physically and gained both weight and muscle, his serve speed went up. Now that he's gained even more weight, his serve speed went up again. Makes sense, as the extra weight allows you to hit the ball harder as long as your service motion remains the same. The commentators during the exhibitions also mentioned the same thing.
holy shi#, what a dumb post.
sampras served at 69% for crying out loud and hit 26 aces. what do you want? 40 aces and 80 % 1st serve.
Let's not forget that these matches were only best of three played on a super fast surface which favored Sampras heavily because of his big serve. He will have many free points because of that and he won't get so tired.
Sampras would still be one of the best on fast surfaces i'm sure but if it's slower and he has to run and can't rely on his serve than Federer is superior. Now and ten years ago as results of both on clay showed.
i suggest you go rewatch it then.
Sampras was hitting 129 pretty consistently and juiced it upto 136 when he needed it.
watch the 4th set TB for the best effect to see how many sick bombs pete threw down or the whole match for that matter.
Again, you are trying to make sense of an exhibition match? are you stupid?
of course federer is leaping for serves. He is making sampras look good. Why do you think he hit so many shots to his fh. why do you think federer was hitting so many aces? Because sampras was passed it and couldnt return well when he was in his prime and sure cant now.
even sampras said that ppl shouldn't take the result seriously.
does anyone have stats from the exos?
yep he probably would
but i think he would have had to switch from his old wilson to a babolat for sure......that would allow him to beat Federer:grin:
To paraphrase Mae West, logic has nothing to do with this. Try "wishful thinking" if you want a more appropriate category.
I'm pretty sure Sampras served better than that (pro-rated) in the 2nd and 3rd exhibition matches.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Federer out-aced Sampras in that 2001 Wimbledon match, which is almost unheard of for Sampras at Wimbledon.
He didn't. Re-watch the 2nd exhibition match. Federer was hitting the ball mostly to Sampras' backhand and kept it away from his running forehand as much as he could.
right...so sampras was taking it easy and federer taking it serious.
lmao. ive heard it all.
and thats not the first thing you have been wrong about
So how many aces did Federer hit during that 2001 Wimbledon match? Because it sure seemed like he was hitting more aces than Sampras was.
Separate names with a comma.