why not? they're much closer than their respective BHs or FHs.
on one hand you lament how the surfaces have slowed down, but never acknowledge the advantage that Pete had due to faster surfaces.
Comparing Federer and Sampras
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
why not? they're much closer than their respective BHs or FHs.
on one hand you lament how the surfaces have slowed down, but never acknowledge the advantage that Pete had due to faster surfaces.
Sampras was mentally tougher by far. Federer is a bit flashier game wise and better marketed.
Sampras is almost at Nadal levels of mental toughness. He was just hard to rattle. Federers mental strength is more equivalent to Agassi. It kind of comes and goes. prime federer was a very good player though.
Sampras is almost at Nadal levels of mental toughness. He was just hard to rattle. Federers mental strength is more equivalent to Agassi. It kind of comes and goes. prime federer was a very good player though.
I guess it depends how you define mental tougness. Federer seems to bounce back from losses the best.
But, I guess on court in tough points Sampras seemed mentally stronger.
But then Sampras got mentally burned out. It took too much out of him. He said that he didn't have a normal night sleep his entire career. He also had to retire because he was drained.
I guess Federer has toughness of a marathon runner, Sampras has more of a toughness of a sprinter. Both are important, I guess. Because that mentallity allowed Federer to maintain all those streaks and records.
But I don't mind that about Federer. He compensates for his mentality on big points with superior skills.
It wouldn't be fair if Federer also had crazy mental toughness. 25 majors?
But, Federer's mentality is by no means weak. He is no midget. He is a mental rock, just not compared to Nadal.
But just because Nadal is tougher, that doesn't make Federer weak. I mean nobody is that tough as Rafa.
But, I sometimes wonder if having higher margins can add to mentality. Because in big points Rafa can rely on higher net clearance. Even if he is mentally weak, he won't miss. So, maybe that is just related to style. Or his superior defense. If you have defense it's a bit easier to be tougher, because you don't need to play low margins with defense too.
The same with Sampras. He had godly Serve to bail him out, so this gives you more confidence. Karlovic is not generally that tough, but he comes up with the goods on big points too.
Just wondering if mentality can also be related to safer style.
good post. Actually had some thought in it.
i am not sure if hitting aces goes along with with safer style though. especially the. Monster second serves Pete could come up with.
I think federer is fairly mentally strong i just dont put him in with the greats in that area.
flashy is where Roger stands out. In terms of great players he may be the best of the flashy ones. maybe throw agassi in there as well.
nadal is the strongest player i have ever seen mentally. I am not sure who you can even put above him besides maybe Sampras or Laver. Guys like conners, Hewitt, Rafter were supreme competitors similar to Nadal but what I speak of with mental strength is Focus. There I would have to say Nadal, Sampras, and Laver. I am sure there a few others as well.
Yeah, I didn't actually disagree. I just a raised a good question. Something to discuss about. If mentality can be related to safer style too.
I agreed that you can't put Federer out there with Sampras and Nadal. But he is still among the best in mentality. I mean you don't win that much without. I would probably put Federer with Djokovic in mental department. They both seem very strong, just slightly weaker than Nadal and Sampras.
But, I said that in certain aspects of mentality, Federer is the best among the greats. Like bouncing back from tough losses. Also pressure of nr.1. He seems to thrive being nr.1. And Federer had all those extra pressure, all people hyping him and calling him goat.
Nadal actually falters when he is nr.1, he can't handle it for a long time. Also, he was always the underdog, having nothing to lose, he could hide behind Federer shadow a bit. So, it's easier to be strong if you are the underdog.
Nadal didn't defend a single title off clay. That says a lot about mentality to me. And his failure to maintain those finals/semis streaks.
Yes, on big points those guys are better mentally. But there are aspects of mentally where Federer is better and are often overlooked.
gotcha, I think off court federer hands the pressure very well. maybe the best. Laver seemed pretty relaxed in everything I have seen but Tennis is much bigger now. I also agree he is very good at dealing with tough losses.
Federer seems to really love the game and just being on the tour. Sampras seemed to be consumed with winning. Once off the tour he pretty much disapeared. I will be suprised if federer does the same. I can see him commentating. Nadal....might be more like Pete. That or have an academy.
Pete is kind of interesting though. He basically just disappeared and settled into fatherhood. No davis cup, no commentating etc. he comes out and plays the senior tour thing but thats about it. Petes kind of old school....hang it up and retire LOL. I was never a monster Pete fan but i find his path kind of interesting now. i would like to hear him commentate a match as he was kind of underrated in terms of intelligence. sometimes. wish they would release classic matches on DVD and have the players commentate. that Corretja US Open quarterfinal would be interesting. Not sure if Corretja could handle reliving it though.
I guess loving the game is good for mental toughness. Yes, Pete was strange. He seems very anti social. Like he doesn't like this attention and sees it just as necessary evil. He just loves tennis and winning and wants a quiet life.
Pete seemed to lost motivation after he has broken the slam record. He was very business like, motivated by records. He also didn't have anyone chasing him. But I don't think this motivates Federer. Federer had 16 majors and Nadal 6 and Federer was still playing the same way with motivation.
Yeah, your idea of top guys commentating is great. Pete seems very intelligent. I love to hear guys like that.
I think Rafa knows a lot about tennis, but it's the language barrier, he can't seem to speak intelligently in English. And my Spanish is too average to understand that fast pace.
Rafa may seem uneducated, but I always had this feeling that he has this street smarts. That kind of intelligence is very high. This is my perception.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Fed played far longer than Sampras, so it's not surprising that he will have greater record even in the ace department. I'm sure if we count average aces per match, Sampras would still lead Federer by far.
Are you talking to me? I never claimed Fed has better serve than Sampras.
TMF also didn't claim that. He just said Fed will beat Sampras in total aces. Nobody even made any arguments.
So, why are you responding to me?
It was easy for Agassi, who has golden slam. And Agassi is considered a lesser player then Pete.
So, if Agassi can do it, then it must be easy for Pete, who is greater than Agassi.
and Sampras had the luxury of playing on slick surfaces to aid his aces per match record - a fact you conveniently seem to avoid. Btw, Federer holds the greater record for max aces in a given match on both grass and hard court.
That is brilliant point. Yes in an era when it's harder to hit aces due to slower courts. Also returners are much better today too.
I can't believe, I missed this. Thanks.
90's Clay
Banned
I don't know if Sampras got mentally burned out as much as there was no one around to really challenge his GOAT-ness back then like Fed has.
I always said, fed HAS to stick around and continue on because he couldn't keep Nadal at bay all those years. Sampras did a much better job at holding down his main competition than Fed did on the big stage. Fed has allowed Nadal to garner 14 slams (and counting). PEte held Agassi to single digits.
And I know someone will try to shoot back with "Well Agassi was disappeared in the late 90s yada yada". That was a large part due to Sampras however. Sampras broke Agassi's spirits a few times. If not for PEte Agassi would have EASLILY have had the slam record and probably wouldn't have had that MIA session from 96-98 either
Devilito
Legend
LOL it was EASY for Agassi? Agassi is one of the best players of all time and what he did at the time was considered a HUGE achievement. Just because Pete didn't do it doesn't mean anything. There's a good chance that Nadal, Novak and Fed would have had the same issues Pete did in the 90s. Nadal and Novak wouldn't have won anything on grass and Fed would be questionable at the French which was slower and dominated by clay court specialists. People need to stop judging past players in modern contexts.
The same goes for Fed, who is the goat and what he did is considered a huge achievement.
Of course it's a huge deal if Agassi did it and Pete didn't. This just proves that it wasn't impossible to do it, since lesser player than Pete did it. Unless you try to argue Agassi is greater.
Hey, there is a good chance Sampras wouldn't be consistent in Fedal era. You need to stop judging modern players in past contexts.
I mean you argue it was hard for Sampras when his lesser peer did it.
But then you argue that it was easy for Fed to do what he did, when none of his peers came even close of doing it.
Doesn't make sense.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
LOL!!!!! Brilliance!
Sampras didn't hold Agassi to single digits, Agassi held himself to single digits. Agassi was hardly the consistent rival in the mould of a Nadal or Djokovic. That is just the reality.
Sampras didn't hold Agassi to single digits, Agassi held himself to single digits. Agassi was hardly the consistent rival in the mould of a Nadal or Djokovic. That is just the reality.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Yep, Fed basically handed Nadal 8-10 slams at his own hand, while Pete only handed Agassi 1 slam(AO 1995).
Well, Fed is the goat, he has plenty to spare and still have enough for himself
.But Pete handed only 1 slam to Agassi, and it is still costing him too much.
I guess that is the difference between Fed, who is rich and Pete who isn't. Sampras was always known as being cheap.
Fed can hand out plenty and still have plenty left
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Sampras could have won more Slams had Agassi been a consistent force like Djokovic and Nadal have clearly been but he just lacked the appropriate rivals to really push him towards greatness, so he ended up having to compete against history rather than against contemporaries (concerning overall tennis legacy). I always felt that Sampras could have won a couple more Slams in the 2000's but yeh, he was done after the 2002 US Open. He had the big game that could come through when everything clicked at places like Wimbledon and the US Open but was tired of the game, which is more or less backed up by what Annacone and Sampras have said themselves about the end of his career. He was hardly old when he retired... 31???
He doesn't get bonus points for this, though.
He doesn't get bonus points for this, though.
That's not true. Fed when he had multiple majors already didn't have any peers who pushed him.
Even in 2010 he had 16 slams and Rafa had 6 slams. Still nobody to push him. Your theory is wrong, Fed was motivated no matter what. He has intrinsic motivation.
Fed also had the slam record in 2009 and nobody was close to him at the time and he still didn't stop.
I have to say it, you are wrong about this one.
We can argue the opposite. Fed wasn't being pushed and that's what halted his greatness.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Your response doesn't even relate to my post. I have not inferred anything about Federer's motivation, only Sampras'. In short, the post states that had Sampras had consistent rivals who threatened him in Slams more regularly, he would have played on for longer and might have won more. Sampras had no such determined and consistent peer in his career such as Nadal or Djokovic.
I'm not sure Sampras caused Agassi to use meth.
So, Sampras won 14 majors without being pushed or motivated? That is a crazy theory.
Hey Sampras was consistently challenged at the end of his career by Hewitt, Agassi, Safin. Those guys were consistent at the time. And Sampras retired.
So, he showed that when having opposition, he goes away. But Fed when faced opposition still continues to go on and takes his beating and also become nr.1 and win more slams.
The same with Borg. So, don't give me arguments that competition motivates Sampras, competition demotivated him cuz he was used to win. No when things got harder he walks away. He could have easily played for years. But he couldn't take it being past his prime and having competition.
droliver
Professional
Kind of a weird definition of "toughness". Sampras would fall off the map for large parts of the schedule in the spring clay court season, skipping many of the masters events over his career. Go look at his schedule and results from 1994-2000 on the dirt. He pretty much avoided his weakest surface like the plague. It's smart scheduling, but it's not really someone I'd call mentally tougher then his peers
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
It is really always extremely difficult for me to even begin discussing things with you because you take things in an extraordinarily black and white manner.
None of those guys were in the running for challenging Sampras' legacy by the time he was 30/31, where as Nadal was in double digit Slams.
Me stating something = the part of your post I bolded = I'm too tired to bother. I'm just not even going to begin to rationalise that. Too big a habit to argue against someone that if one argues one thing then they must mean that entirely the opposite is true. Even the first response was extremely frustrating given that I inferred nothing about Federer's own motivational levels. Federer is a man who I think just adores the game and was always going to play on for a long time. He loves the game maybe as much as Connors loved the game.
You put words into other people's mouths.
Yes, I still stand by that number of aces/match is more important.
So what's your point ?
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Ok, maybe you didn't understand, that I did understand your argument. I just didn't agree. I don't agree that Sampras would win more slams if he was pushed more. Maybe he would win less slams, since more competition means less wins.
And in 2010, Federer had 16 slams vs Nadal 6 slams. So, Nadal didn't have double digit slams.
What is the evidence that if you have a tougher rival, that you win more? Don't you win less if your rival is tougher?
Sampras didn't retire out of boredom of not having rivals. He was drained. He found the last motivation for his last slam to break 13 majors, then he was done.
So, are you saying if the record was 8 majors, that Sampras would only win 9 majors and then retire? Or he would want to win as much as possible, no matter what?
Safin, Roddick, Hewitt also had a rival that pushed them. That didn't help them.
No it's not !
It's still part of many tennis stat that will be recorded in the record book.
How many aces does Nadal have so far?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I'm going to make the assumption that most greats won't retire before 30. Federer turned 30 in 2011, by which point Nadal had 10 Slams, which is just enough to make Federer think a little, but I don't think it matters much because Roger just loves the game.
I don't care if you agree or not. If you notice, I had no problem with your stated opinions later on in your last post, only the misinterpretations of my own posts and your habit to read between lines that are between imaginary lines that were written on a different page of a different book that then sometimes doesn't even exist.
As for your questions, I'm sure different players would react differently to the circumstances. If Emerson's Slam record was 15 instead of 13, Sampras would have probably carried on longer. If he had generational peers who could threaten such records too, he might have played longer and that's my belief. They can take away from somebody elses accomplishments but also fuel someone to work harder and play longer and give them the fire and motivation to improve. It wouldn't have this affect on everybody and it comes down to where those rivals excel and the mentality of those involved.
Sampras didn't love the game like Federer does, and different circumstances may have fuelled his motivation later on in his career, rather than feeling like he had hit the pinnacle after Wimbledon 2000, having a mediocre couple of years and not training as hard and then summoning one great last hurrah at the 2002 US Open. Sampras felt he was safe and shut it down, which may not have happened if he had rivals that could have taken a little from him earlier on in his career and kept things closer with him, forcing Sampras into a situation in his early 30's where he may decide to rededicate himself to the game with the utmost focus. You disagree, which is good for you.
As for Safin et al, they weren't good enough to still be great with top level rivals like Federer and Nadal are and Sampras likely would have been.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fed also hit more backhand flicks than Sampras. This stat is very important too.
If I add the most number of aces for my stat list of the, he'll go crazy?
But of course I'm not going to because I only include the significant one.
I see your point, I really do. But I claim he just wasn't good enough and that motivation wasn't a factor.
What stopped him from winning FO? He had plenty of competition there and surely he wanted to win all the majors like any all-time great.
How do you even know what motivated him? Maybe having it easy is what motivated him and having it tough demotivates him. Like clay. Him having it tough on clay, he skipped clay season, not working more.
slice serve ace
Rookie
yes, for the matches that have stats. their actual totals are higher, and federer trails there much more. i'll explain
the totals from the ATP site do not include all matches that a player played in his career - simply because they don't have all the stats. here is what they don't have stats for
for sampras
- all the matches he played prior to 1991
- all grand slam cup matches
- all davis cup matches
- all olympics matches
- world team cup matches prior to 1994
- some grand slam rounds like 1996 wimbledon 3rd round or 1997 australian open 3rd round
for federer
- all davis cup matches
- all olympics matches
there is grand total of 176 such matches for sampras and 60 for federer. matches that sampras played before 1991 didn't go into ATP's total for him (836 matches). this means he scored his 8858 aces in a 785 matches, which is 11.3 per match. federer scored his 8723 in 1094 matches which is 8 per match.
if we add those averages per match for missing matches, federer probably scored around 500 aces more, and sampras around 1500 more ( he probably didn't serve as many aces prior to 1991, but he served a lot in dc and grand slam cup matches).
so their actual totalls are probably closer to 9300 for federer and 10400 for sampras. goran probably hit way over 12000.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Yeah maybe it did or maybe it didn't. I haven't claimed to know.
And I don't think Sampras wins RG regardless of what rivals are around him.
I'm also not convinced that Nadal avoiding injuries would have led to him winning more Slams.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
-Won the most Slams at any single venue.
I'm a massive Nadal fan, so please just give him some credit.
I'm a massive Nadal fan, so please just give him some credit.
Sorry, it seemed that you claimed that you knew.
I mean, look, let's assume that it's true. That Sampras plays more if he has a rival. That doesn't guarantee that he will win more. Playing more doesn't mean winning more. He had problems with lesser players at the end of his career.
Also even if it's true, why is it important? Ironically Sampras wins more with a tougher rival, but Fed would have won more with a weaker rival.
It's still an if scenario.
Also I'm not convinced that tougher guys push you more. Tougher guys challenge you more, so they take a lot of titles away from you.
slice serve ace
Rookie
TennisEnvy
Banned
If you want to factor in those uncounted aces then you'd also have to factor in how much easier it was to hit an ace on the faster surfaces of Sampras' time. You could calculate avg aces per surface and get a normalized ace count in which Federer would be laughably ahead of Sampras.
90's Clay
Banned
Sampras of 92-96 wouldn't have won any french open titles if Bruguera, Courier, Agassi didn't stand in his way? Not sure about that. Sampras during his prime years went out to some great clay court players and all eventual winners of the tourney.
Nadal avoiding injuries wins most if not ALL the slams in 2009.. 2008-2010 was Nadal's peak as a player (especially mid 08-09).. Who in the hell would have stopped him exactly? Federer? ROFLMAO!!!! Fed couldn't deal with off form Nadal not at his best, never mind peak Nadal firing on all cylinders
Thats not to mention injuries stopped Nadal a few other times from winning 1-2 slams outside of that time period
Injuiries have stopped Nadal from being the slam record holder at this moment or at least being tied for 17 with Fed.
Last edited:
I did. But I count AO and USO as a different venue. Those surfaces and conditions are very different.
But sorry, I can't give him more credit than he deserves with his records.
TennisEnvy
Banned
Don't forget that if Sampras didn't have his health issues he would have likely won 25 slams.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
You should try reading what people actually state.
Me starting the very original post with ''Sampras could have'' says it all. There are many things that could have happened. You invent the intentions of other posters on a very regular basis. As for the rest of your post, I do wonder if you think I genuinely didn't know those things or that I made the assumption that playing more automatically means winning more as though it's a sort of math problem. I don't disagree with anything you've stated in the post, except that for the last statement I think it can work either way rather than only have to work in one way.
90's Clay
Banned
Thats another good point of contention.. Thalassemia wreaked havoc on Pete's cardiovascular system at times especially in a best of 5 format on very slow clay. Which IMO is a big reason why he didn't win the french. (Since it is already established he beat most of the big great 90s clay court player during his run in the 90s on clay)
If Sampras had no limits on his cardio brought on by Thalassemia, 20 slams at least is very possible for Pete