Best US Open player of the open era?

[devila]

Incidentally, Fedthief is 12-0 against Ferrer. Maybe you didn't mean him..typos happen, totally understandable.

i give you a b- for trying to be funny. you couldn't dispute that ferrer is top 4 and still beating top 10 opponents and winning 3 titles in 2 months,
while the number 2 player of 2005, roddick, um...well...went away.

where's safin if he's beating nobodies? oh yeah, in retirement, which is what roddick soon will be. they both went away after getting a rare win against federer.

a physically damaged hewitt clearly mentally destroyed roddick this australian open. kind of like in the 2005 australian open, when
the tourney promoter dragged the wimpy roddick back out of the locker room after roddick lost the 3rd set lead.
you'd never see del potro choking against hewitt and totally lose his ability to hit forehands.

ferrer, a weaker player than tsonga and del potro, still remained a better all surface player than roddick. ferrer rarely choked.
berdych and tsonga beat a solid federer, but you'll never see them choke with 4 set points and 0-40 chances against federer in wimbledon.

 

[tennis_pro]

djoker has more quality opponents than players from federer's age group.
if hewitt, roddick and safin are age 21 or 23, none of them would
own more than 1 or 2 masters titles, and none would win a slam. roddick scraped by a less than fully fit nalbandian at the 2003 us oopen.
djoker's big slam losses came when he was age 21, not age 24.

berdych, tsonga and del potro have remained good players who can win
titles, if not masters titles now.
tipsarevic reached the top 10 finally.

the only very good opponent in the top 10 that is federer's age is ferrer.
of course, federer has no problem with the weak players.

Apparently Nadal (lost twice in hard court majors against Ferrer) and Djokovic (who even at his peak has huge problems against him on clay and to lesser extent on hard courts) do.

 

[joeri888]

Apparently Nadal (lost twice in hard court majors against Ferrer) and Djokovic (who even at his peak has huge problems against him on clay and to lesser extent on hard courts) do.

Devila's reasoning is ******** anyway. Because Federer outlasts his peers, and thus there are no Federer contemporaries in the top 10 now, Federer had weaker competition?

Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Henman, Agassi, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Ferrero were Federer contemporaries and many of them greater than Ferrer (and everyone below Ferrer for that matter), and Fed has great records against them.

 

[devila]

read carefully: players aged 30-31 either retired 2-4 years ago or rarely won a mickey mouse title.

rafter handled federer well in 1999, but 41 yr. olds are not playing.
only multiple slam winner, 35 yr. old agassi was close to beating federer in 2005 us open final.
henman was not an all surface player, & did nothing against federer in his last 5 yrs. on tour.
roddick? ljubicic who? top 3 in 2006, and blake was number 4. LOLOLOL
hewitt was humiliated by karlovic in 2003 after 2002 wimbledon, then got bagelled in 2004 us open final, and damaged his hip/leg a year later.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Federer is made to fight NOW because he is playing guys 5-6 years younger than him. You're asking Federer to play guys a generation younger than him to prove himself? Some different kind of logic here.

Nadal didn't exactly become a factor on hard courts until very recently, yet he was playing the same guys Federer was playing for much of his career. Djokovic only just became a factor everywhere. Why were these two being held back so much by supposedly inferior players?

If Federer isn't the best Open Era player (to you) despite having much of the data and accomplishments pointing to him, then who do you think is the best Open Era player?

If playing with young players is the issue for Federer, I cannot buy that story.I dont wanna repeat....but how can see off Murray, Tsonga, Delpo on a consistent basis? Heck he even beats Tomic in Straight sets. So that is not a valid argument.

Whom do I consider best....I think I answered it before....just by slam counts I consider fedex to be the greatest. But in my opinion he has over achieved due to lack of competition. If he were at his prime now, there is no way he could won that many slams due to stiffer fight from the like of Djokodal.....but its no point comparing player from a previous decade to current(you just cannot quantify the quality!)

 

[abmk]

didn't Korda almost rip 3 clean return winners off Sampras' first serve to get the break back? I remember Mac going nuts after some of those passes('We are watching Rod Laver in 1997'), there were some unreal shots in that game. you consider that a choke? losing a set after being up a break doesn't always have anything to do with 'choking,' there is another guy across the net who has a say in what happens. But I do recall Pete playing a poor tiebreak to end it.

This was the game in which Korda broke back vs Sampras in the final set ...

sampras - makeable volley missed
Korda BH passing shot - comment about rod laver like BH
sampras forehand volley winner
2nd serve - sampras - missed BH slice
2nd serve - sampras- missed BH slice

Then of course the poor tie-break to end it.....Hence I used the work "choke" .

Its there on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIl04Kgb7XA&t=6m20s


Some of Korda's returns and passes in that match were absolutely phenomenal , no doubt .....

 

[Djokodal Fan]

So basically what you are saying is, if Federer loses = there is competition.

If Fed wins = no competition.

So he can't win either way :lol:

Not really... I give it to fedex for handing over SF defeat to Novak at french and being so close to Finals @ US open.

Not sure why....but Novak & Murray always struggle against Fedex even now. They just simply could not decode him comprehensively like Nadal did.

 

[joechiang]

I dont know what these guys wud get on today's US Open court,as it has become a middle-speed hard court.

 

[abmk]

Not really... I give it to fedex for handing over SF defeat to Novak at french and being so close to Finals @ US open.

Not sure why....but Novak & Murray always struggle against Fedex even now. They just simply could not decode him comprehensively like Nadal did.

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Federer is that good, Nadal's game matches up very well with his ( apart from Nadal himself being very good ), that's why ....

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Not really... I give it to fedex for handing over SF defeat to Novak at french and being so close to Finals @ US open.

Not sure why....but Novak & Murray always struggle against Fedex even now. They just simply could not decode him comprehensively like Nadal did.

Because they aren't lefties with insane amounts of spin.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Federer is that good, Nadal's game matches up very well with his ( apart from Nadal himself being very good ), that's why ....

Come on ABMK, you can't use the truth with Jokedull.

 

[abmk]

His mph was considerably lower vs Hewitt than it was vs Rafter, Agassi, Safin in '01(these stats are available), I don't know what other evidence there can be that he was tired. Did Sampras decide to serve 10 mph less vs Hewitt as a strategy or something?
Can we agree that that was the toughest path to a USO final in history? it was unpredented to play 3 former champs in a row. Not an easy turnaround after all those matches, physically or mentally.

That post mentioned two USO finals .....

What about USO 2000 ? It was just a Safin blitz , how was Sampras tired in that final ?

Tough path in 2001 USO no doubt ....He was serving ~5 mph slower than usual in the match vs hewitt. Maybe some slight signs of fatigue, but not too much that showed up in the match....Anyways Hewitt was zoned in that match ( the last 2 sets ) and very rarely seems to get credit/mention for that .....Hewitt zoning in and playing flawless tennis in the last 2 sets IMO seemed a much bigger factor than the toll that the 3 matches took on Sampras .....

The point was about the SF and F being back to back hindering Sampras .I don't think that really was the case as neither of the semi matches were draining ....

 

[Djokodal Fan]

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Federer is that good, Nadal's game matches up very well with his ( apart from Nadal himself being very good ), that's why ....

I never claimed Fedex was bad in any of my previous posts....I just told he never faced stiff competition.

Because they aren't lefties with insane amounts of spin.

Come on ABMK, you can't use the truth with Jokedull.

Yeah.... what ever Goldbiscuit.There is no point arguing with you either.Fedex simply cannot win over Nadal when Djoker can (right handed if you didn't know)

 

[Mustard]

Which means I don´t understand the seedings then.Gorman and Connors met at the Masters just 3 month after the end of Forest Hills.They all should have been seeded at the USO, since were members of the top 10...how comes they played their USO match in the round of 32?

Gorman went on to reach the semi finals of the 1972 US Open, so that got his ranking up quite a bit.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

I never claimed Fedex was bad in any of my previous posts....I just told he never faced stiff competition.




Yeah.... what ever Goldbiscuit.There is no point arguing with you either.Fedex simply cannot win over Nadal when Djoker can (right handed if you didn't know)

Well I am ecstatic that your eyes work! You might also notice one other difference between Federer and Djoker, mainly that he has a two hander that takes spin higher, but it's ok Jokedull.

Also, it's clear stiff competition to you is when you lose. I guess the fact Nadal had 11 losses make his 2008 the best year in tennis then. The competition he faced was the greatest ever.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Well I am ecstatic that your eyes work! You might also notice one other difference between Federer and Djoker, mainly that he has a two hander that takes spin higher, but it's ok Jokedull.

Also, it's clear stiff competition to you is when you lose. I guess the fact Nadal had 11 losses make his 2008 the best year in tennis then. The competition he faced was the greatest ever.

Which simply means that Djoker has what it takes to counter Nadal whereas Fedex doesn't have one. Try better goldbiscuit.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Which simply means that Djoker has what it takes to counter Nadal whereas Fedex doesn't have one. Try better goldbiscuit.

I guess that means Federer has what it takes to counter the field whereas Nadal doesn't wouldn't you agree Jokedull?

 

[Djokodal Fan]

I guess that means Federer has what it takes to counter the field whereas Nadal doesn't wouldn't you agree Jokedull?

no....djoker has learnt and modified his game to beat Nadal at his own game whereas fedex could still not do it after years and years of trying.

if only fedex fangirls were more mature to accept the fact....well it looks like they can't!

 

[kiki]

Gorman went on to reach the semi finals of the 1972 US Open, so that got his ranking up quite a bit.

...but not before 1972 US Open started, right? that is why I cannot understand both met in the round of last 32.It would be, more or less like Fish and Tsonga facing in the round of 32.Their rankings wouldn´t allow that to happen.

 

[TMF]

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Connors
4. Lendl

 

[Mustard]

...but not before 1972 US Open started, right? that is why I cannot understand both met in the round of last 32.It would be, more or less like Fish and Tsonga facing in the round of 32.Their rankings wouldn´t allow that to happen.

Connors and Gorman met in the R128 at the 1972 US Open. That tournament had 16 seeds, Connors being the number 15 seed and Gorman wasn't seeded. Since 2001 Wimbledon, the majors have had 32 seeds.

 

[kiki]

Connors and Gorman met in the R128 at the 1972 US Open. That tournament had 16 seeds, Connors being the number 15 seed and Gorman wasn't seeded. Since 2001 Wimbledon, the majors have had 32 seeds.

Ok.Gorman not being seeded is still a mistery to me.But at least I know how 2 top tenners could play the first round of a non exhibitional event.

 

[wimble10]

This was the game in which Korda broke back vs Sampras in the final set ...
sampras - makeable volley missed
Korda BH passing shot - comment about rod laver like BH
sampras forehand volley winner
2nd serve - sampras - missed BH slice
2nd serve - sampras- missed BH slice
Then of course the poor tie-break to end it.....Hence I used the work "choke"
Its there on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIl04Kgb7XA&t=6m20s
Some of Korda's returns and passes in that match were absolutely phenomenal , no doubt .....

The guy was on steroids. What do you expect ?

 

[Mustard]

The guy was on steroids. What do you expect ?

You do realise that the failed test was at 1998 Wimbledon, yes?

 

[sandy mayer]

I voted for Connors. He has won as many US Opens as Federer and Sampras but won more matches there.

 

[FlashFlare11]

If playing with young players is the issue for Federer, I cannot buy that story.I dont wanna repeat....but how can see off Murray, Tsonga, Delpo on a consistent basis? Heck he even beats Tomic in Straight sets. So that is not a valid argument.

Whom do I consider best....I think I answered it before....just by slam counts I consider fedex to be the greatest. But in my opinion he has over achieved due to lack of competition. If he were at his prime now, there is no way he could won that many slams due to stiffer fight from the like of Djokodal.....but its no point comparing player from a previous decade to current(you just cannot quantify the quality!)

Federer didn't face stiff competition because he was better than everyone else. Nadal never had this kind of domination, even though he was playing the same guys Federer was. Nadal beats most players his age, but loses to Federer, Davydenko, (lost to Roddick as late as 2010). It's only now that Djokovic has provided a match-up disadvantage for Nadal.

That's your opinion, and I respect it. But Federer is still making slam SFs and finals (most of the time dropping less sets than Nadal along the way), so the fact that he's still super-competitive with players a generation after his shows that he was an absolute monster in his prime, not just that he faced weak competition.

 

[Limpinhitter]

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Connors
4. Lendl

Laver
Sampras
Federer
Connors

 

[Towser83]

If playing with young players is the issue for Federer, I cannot buy that story.I dont wanna repeat....but how can see off Murray, Tsonga, Delpo on a consistent basis? Heck he even beats Tomic in Straight sets. So that is not a valid argument.

Whom do I consider best....I think I answered it before....just by slam counts I consider fedex to be the greatest. But in my opinion he has over achieved due to lack of competition. If he were at his prime now, there is no way he could won that many slams due to stiffer fight from the like of Djokodal.....but its no point comparing player from a previous decade to current(you just cannot quantify the quality!)

True, but if Federer were in his prime now there's probably no way Djokovic would have won 4 of the last 5 slams, probably no way Nadal wins 3 slams in 2010. They both have or have had a chance to benifit from Federer declining a bit just like he had the benefit of being in his prime when they were younger. If they all have their primes at the same time they ALL lose.

 

[Fate Archer]

It's very debatable right now I guess, though if Federer wins one more it would seal the deal me thinks. Only Tilden has won more than 5 times afaik and he wasn't playing in the Open era.

Winning a Slam 5 times in a row is also a huge accomplishment that only a few have in their careers.

Not even Nadal has won Roland Garros, his best Slam 5 times in a row (and he most likely never will).

 

[wimble10]

I don't mind saying Federer's the best US Open player but I still think Sampras era was tougher competition.

 

[magnut]

Jimmy Conners is the Elvis Presley of Flushing Meadows. Always was and always will be. It doesnt matter if another player has more titles there. Jimmy is the King in New York. His working class attitude is just that of a New Yorker. Which is funny because he is not even from there. I guess he was adopted.

 

[tennis_pro]

Laver
Sampras
Federer
Connors

What is Laver doing there?

 

[TMF]

Laver
Sampras
Federer
Connors

Laver isn't even nominated to be the best US Open player to begin with. He only won 2 US Open and one of the two was during the amateur.

 

[TMF]

What is Laver doing there?

Limin has no idea how many USO Fed/Sampras/Connors have won.

 

[fed_rulz]

I don't mind saying Federer's the best US Open player but I still think Sampras era was tougher competition.

Yes, sampras losing to Yzaga and Korda is proof that his era was tougher competition.

Also, this is how the finals of the US open under tougher competition looks like:

1993: Sampras vs Pioline
1994: Agassi vs Stich
1995: Sampras vs Agassi
1996: Sampras vs Chang
1997: Rafter vs Rusedski
1998: Rafter vs Scud

Compare that to the weaker era of Federer:
2004: Federer vs Hewitt
2005: Federer vs Agassi
2006: Federer vs Roddick
2007: Federer vs Djoker
2008: Federer vs Murray
2009: Federer vs Delpo

 

[Devilito]

Wtf people keep bringing up Yzaga and Korda. They were both good players that had played well on one day. If Korda was on he’d beat anybody. This was the era of shotmakers. It’s a lot harder now to create upsets on slow surfaces with nothing but a field of baseliners. In the 90s upsets happened more often and if the current crop played in the 90s they’d have lost more often to lesser ranked players given the vastly different surfaces and game styles. The only people that think things are black and white are the ignorant. Tennis is not Baseball where the equipment and playing fields have stayed the same for 100000 years. You can’t even compare stats from 5 years ago. I know Americans are crazy about STATS but Tennis is the last sport you can compare things like that. All things being said i'd put guys like Connors, Sampras, Federer and Lendl about equal at the US Open. Saying one is vastly superior than the other is ridiculous

 

[fed_rulz]

Wtf people keep bringing up Yzaga and Korda. They were both good players that had played well on one day. If Korda was on he’d beat anybody. This was the era of shotmakers. It’s a lot harder now to create upsets on slow surfaces with nothing but a field of baseliners. In the 90s upsets happened more often and if the current crop played in the 90s they’d have lost more often to lesser ranked players given the vastly different surfaces and game styles. The only people that think things are black and white are the ignorant. Tennis is not Baseball where the equipment and playing fields have stayed the same for 100000 years. You can’t even compare stats from 5 years ago. I know Americans are crazy about STATS but Tennis is the last sport you can compare things like that. All things being said i'd put guys like Connors, Sampras, Federer and Lendl about equal at the US Open. Saying one is vastly superior than the other is ridiculous

you should take it up with morons who claim Federer had it easy when compared to Sampras...

wait a min, now that I think about it, given that Federer is more capable and more well-rounded than Sampras tenniswise, it is understandable that he had it easier than Sampras (ergo, more dominant).

 

[magnut]

you should take it up with morons who claim Federer had it easy when compared to Sampras...

wait a min, now that I think about it, given that Federer is more capable and more well-rounded than Sampras tenniswise, it is understandable that he had it easier than Sampras (ergo, more dominant).

It wasnt just Sampras that had it rougher it was everyone. One only need look at the ranking point spread across those years. Getting into the top ten was a big deal. Now its a revolving door. Win one tournament and your almost in. As opposed tot the old days where you would need to pocket 3-5 tournys a year to stay in the top 10 unless you won a major.

The surface manipulation is the biggest change..... Not the strings. Grinding it out at the French and then baselining your way through Wimbledon was almost impossible back in the old days.

Put it this way....Imagine Djokavic winning the French and then having to go serve and volley 100% of the time for Wimbledon. Thats how the game was back then and thats how much they have manipulated the surface conditions to influence the outcomes for the top players.

 

[Mustard]

Here are Sampras' and Federer's US Open matches, so you can compare them yourselves:

Pete Sampras
1988 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-7, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2)

1989 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Agustin Moreno (6-3, 5-7, 6-4, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Mats Wilander (5-7, 6-3, 1-6, 6-1, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jaime Yzaga (4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Jay Berger def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-2, 6-1)

1990 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Dan Goldie (6-1, 7-5, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Peter Lundgren (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jakob Hlasek (6-3, 6-4, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Muster (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-3)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Ivan Lendl (6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 4-6, 6-2)
SF: Pete Sampras def. John McEnroe (6-2, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)

1991 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Christo Van Rensburg (6-0, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Wayne Ferreira (6-1, 6-2, 2-2 ret.)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Stephane Simian (7-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-3)
R16: Pete Sampras def. David Wheaton (3-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
QF: Jim Courier def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 7-6, 7-6)

1992 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. David Dilucia (6-3, 7-5, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Martin Damm (7-5, 6-1, 6-2)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (7-6, 2-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Guy Forget (6-3, 1-6, 1-6, 6-4, 6-3)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Alexander Volkov (6-4, 6-1, 6-0)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (6-1, 3-6, 6-2, 6-2)
FR: Stefan Edberg def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2)

1993 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Fabrice Santoro (6-3, 6-1, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Vacek (6-4, 5-7, 6-2, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Arnaud Boetsch (6-4, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Enqvist (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-7, 7-6, 6-1, 6-1)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Alexander Volkov (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)

1994 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Kevin Ullyett (6-2, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Vacek (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Roger Smith (4-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-3)
R16: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 7-6, 7-5)

1995 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Fernando Meligeni (6-0, 6-3, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Jaime Yzaga (6-1, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (7-6, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (7-6, 6-4, 6-0)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (7-5, 4-6, 6-4, 7-5)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)

1996 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jimy Szymanski (6-2, 6-2, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Jiri Novak (6-3, 1-6, 6-3, 4-6, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Alexander Volkov (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (6-3, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Alex Corretja (7-6, 5-7, 5-7, 6-4, 7-6)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)

1997 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Todd Larkham (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Baur (7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Alex Radulescu (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Petr Korda def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6)

1998 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Marc-Kevin Goellner (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Paul Goldstein (7-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-2, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Marat Safin (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Karol Kucera (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
SF: Patrick Rafter def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3)

2000 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Martin Damm (7-6, 7-5, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Justin Gimelstob (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Agustin Calleri (7-6, 7-6, 6-3)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Hyung-Taik Lee (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Richard Krajicek (4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Lleyton Hewitt (7-6, 6-4, 7-6)
FR: Marat Safin def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)

2001 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Julien Boutter (6-4, 7-6, 7-6)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Andre Sa (7-6, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Rafter (6-3, 6-2, 6-7, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Marat Safin (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
FR: Lleyton Hewitt def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-1, 6-1)

2002 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Albert Portas (6-1, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Kristian Pless (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Greg Rusedski (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Tommy Haas (7-5, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Andy Roddick (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Sjeng Schalken (7-6, 7-6, 6-2)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)


Roger Federer
2000 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Peter Wessels (4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 3-4 ret.)
R64: Roger Federer def. Daniel Nestor (6-1, 7-6, 6-1)
R32: Juan Carlos Ferrero def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 1-6, 7-6)

2001 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Lars Burgsmuller (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Robby Ginepri (6-2, 7-5, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Sjeng Schalken (6-4, 7-5, 7-6)
R16: Andre Agassi def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-2, 6-4)

2002 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Jiri Vanek (6-1, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
R64: Roger Federer def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R32: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (4-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Max Mirnyi def. Roger Federer (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)

2003 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Jose Acasuso (5-7, 6-3, 6-3, 2-0 ret.)
R64: Roger Federer def. Jean-Rene Lisnard (6-1, 6-2, 6-0)
R32: Roger Federer def. James Blake (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
R16: David Nalbandian def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-3)

2004 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Albert Costa (7-5, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Marcos Baghdatis (6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Fabrice Santoro (6-0, 6-4, 7-6)
R16: Roger Federer def. Andrei Pavel (Walkover)
QF: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3)
SF: Roger Federer def. Tim Henman (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-0, 7-6, 6-0)

2005 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Ivo Minar (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
R64: Roger Federer def. Fabrice Santoro (7-5, 7-5, 7-6)
R32: Roger Federer def. Olivier Rochus (6-3, 7-6, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Kiefer (6-4, 6-7, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. David Nalbandian (6-2, 6-4, 6-1)
SF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 7-6, 4-6, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-6, 6-1)

2006 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Jimmy Wang (6-4, 6-1, 6-0)
R64: Roger Federer def. Tim Henman (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
R32: Roger Federer def. Vincent Spadea (6-3, 6-3, 6-0)
R16: Roger Federer def. Marc Gicquel (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer def. James Blake (7-6, 6-0, 6-7, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Nikolay Davydenko (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1)

2007 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Scoville Jenkins (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Paul Capdeville (6-1, 6-4, 6-4)
R32: Roger Federer def. John Isner (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Feliciano Lopez (3-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (7-6, 7-6, 6-2)
SF: Roger Federer def. Nikolay Davydenko (7-5, 6-1, 7-5)
FR: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (7-6, 7-6, 6-4)

2008 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Maximo Gonzalez (6-3, 6-0, 6-3)
R64: Roger Federer def. Thiago Alves (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
R32: Roger Federer def. Radek Stepanek (6-3, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Igor Andreev (6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer def. Gilles Muller (7-6, 6-4, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-2)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Murray (6-2, 7-5, 6-2)

2009 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Devin Britton (6-1, 6-3, 7-5)
R64: Roger Federer def. Simon Greul (6-3, 7-5, 7-5)
R32: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Robredo (7-5, 6-2, 6-2)
QF: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-0, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (7-6, 7-5, 7-5)
FR: Juan Martin del Potro def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2)

2010 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Brian Dabul (6-1, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Andreas Beck (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Roger Federer def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R16: Roger Federer def. Jurgen Melzer (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-4, 7-5)
SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5)

2011 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Santiago Giraldo (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Dudi Sela (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Marin Cilic (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Juan Monaco (6-1, 6-2, 6-0)
QF: Roger Federer def. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5)

 

[wimble10]

Top 6 of Federer/Sampras eras

2011: Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga
2010: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, Berdych
2009: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Davydenko
2008: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Tsonga
2007: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Ferrer, Roddick
2006: Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Blake, Ljubicic, Roddick
2005: Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian
2004: Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Moya, Henman
2003: Roddick, Federer, Ferrero JC, Agassi, Coria, Schuettler
2002: Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Ferrero, Moya, Federer
2001: Hewitt, Kuerten, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ferrero, Grosjean
2000: Kuerten, Safin, Sampras, Norman M, Kafelnikov, Agassi
1999: Agassi, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Enqvist T, Kuerten, Kiefer N
1998: Sampras, Rios, Corretja, Rafter, Moya, Agassi
1997: Sampras, Rafter, Chang, Bjorkman J, Kafelnikov, Rusedski
1996: Sampras, Chang, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Muster, Becker
1995: Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Becker, Chang, Kafelnikov
1994: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, Chang
1993: Sampras, Stich, Courier, Brugera, Edberg, Medvedev A
1992: Courier, Sampras, Edberg, Chang, Korda, Lendl
1991: Edberg, Courier, Becker, Stich, Lendl, Sampras
1990: Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Gomez A
1989: Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Chang, Gilbert B
1988: Wilander, Lendl, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Carlsson K

 

[agentaviles]

I don't mind saying Federer's the best US Open player but I still think Sampras era was tougher competition.

Amen to that. Although it's pretty tough for Federer right now with Nadal and Djokovic, even though he's past his prime.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Yes, sampras losing to Yzaga and Korda is proof that his era was tougher competition.

Also, this is how the finals of the US open under tougher competition looks like:

1993: Sampras vs Pioline
1994: Agassi vs Stich
1995: Sampras vs Agassi
1996: Sampras vs Chang
1997: Rafter vs Rusedski
1998: Rafter vs Scud

Compare that to the weaker era of Federer:
2004: Federer vs Hewitt
2005: Federer vs Agassi
2006: Federer vs Roddick
2007: Federer vs Djoker
2008: Federer vs Murray
2009: Federer vs Delpo

I don't understand. I thought Sampras played in a tough era. Doesn't this prove he played in the weakest era of all?

 

[magnut]

I don't understand. I thought Sampras played in a tough era. Doesn't this prove he played in the weakest era of all?

Not at all. Look at the ranking point spread during the 90s. Particularly the early and late 90s. Sampras was in a very tough era of tennis. Mid 90s were not as bad but still tough.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Not at all. Look at the ranking point spread during the 90s. Particularly the early and late 90s. Sampras was in a very tough era of tennis. Mid 90s were not as bad but still tough.

How does ranking point spread help? Couldn't that simply mean Sampras was not as good to dominate more than he did?

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Not at all. Look at the ranking point spread during the 90s. Particularly the early and late 90s. Sampras was in a very tough era of tennis. Mid 90s were not as bad but still tough.

Distribution of ranking points isn't a good way to judge how tough an Era was. You can run into numerous problems such as a greater prevalence of clay and grass specialists. Someone can easily make the argument that since Federer played only major winners(sans murray) in his USO finals that his Era was tougher. Conversely you'd probably argue that Sampras era was loaded with dangerous players because the top of the game was less consistent. Mats Willander has said that the depth(outside of top 10) of today's game is greater than when he played. I'm more inclined to side with players and what I have witnessed from Federer and co. I don't see anyone on that list besides Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, and Stich that Federer and co would be seriously challenged by.

 

[fed_rulz]

It wasnt just Sampras that had it rougher it was everyone. One only need look at the ranking point spread across those years. Getting into the top ten was a big deal. Now its a revolving door. Win one tournament and your almost in. As opposed tot the old days where you would need to pocket 3-5 tournys a year to stay in the top 10 unless you won a major.

The surface manipulation is the biggest change..... Not the strings. Grinding it out at the French and then baselining your way through Wimbledon was almost impossible back in the old days.

Put it this way....Imagine Djokavic winning the French and then having to go serve and volley 100% of the time for Wimbledon. Thats how the game was back then and thats how much they have manipulated the surface conditions to influence the outcomes for the top players.

I could easily imagine Agassi winning french and then S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final.

Or Edberg slugging out in the baseline on his way to a FO final, and winning wimbledon S & V.

Or Stich playing grinding baseline tennis to reach the FO final, and winning wimbledon later.

Or Jim courier S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final...

But wait, none of these players ever did this, yet were quite successful in their pursuits across different surfaces.

I think you get my drift...

 

[fed_rulz]

How does ranking point spread help? Couldn't that simply mean Sampras was not as good to dominate more than he did?

No, in Petetard world, failure of Pete to remain consistent throughout the year implies Federer's era is weak.

 

[magnut]

I could easily imagine Agassi winning french and then S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final.

Or Edberg slugging out in the baseline on his way to a FO final, and winning wimbledon S & V.

Or Stich playing grinding baseline tennis to reach the FO final, and winning wimbledon later.

Or Jim courier S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final...

But wait, none of these players ever did this, yet were quite successful in their pursuits across different surfaces.

I think you get my drift...

You seem to have some sort of selective memory. Did you ever watch any of those matches?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

No, in Petetard world, failure of Pete to remain consistent throughout the year implies Federer's era is weak.

Yeah that's what I meant. A more even point spread could simply mean was Pete not as consistent or good enough to rival other players. In other words if a number #1 player is weak then the lower ranked player will accumulate more points. Sounds like a classic case of what happened in the Pete era.

 

[magnut]

No, in Petetard world, failure of Pete to remain consistent throughout the year implies Federer's era is weak.

You have to understand how drastic the surface change was, specialty type players, playing styles etc. etc.

Tennis was a completly different game then.

What has happened now is everthing has been adjusted to suite a paticular style of play. Therefor you have to be the best at that style. That style is also played on ever surface exclusively. If they would have done this in the 90s with the surfaces the spanish players would have dominated the game. Guys like Moya probably would have won 4 majors. Agassi maybe would have won more majors than Pete.