Comparing Federer and Sampras

[TennisEnvy]

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

Yeah it's hard to imagine Sampras even losing a match without his heart problems.

 

[jg153040]

You should try reading what people actually state.

Me starting the very original post with ''He could'' 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.

People should be more clear I guess. Not our fault. But usually when people state things they don't specify if they are saying it like it's a fact or like it's an opinion.

Because a lot of fans here mistake their opinions with facts. I guess I didn't have enough information.

I don't invent intentions, just that intentions are vague a lot of times can have different interpretations. Yes, I sometimes use incorrect interpretation because I don't have enough data.

Yes, I really thought that you are stating it as a fact and making excuses for Sampras, since I have this experience with fans here. A lot of fans actually believe that if scenarios are facts.

Yeah, I didn't know what you knew or what you didn't know . You didn't tell me till now. Now I know.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

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!!!!

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.

I make some general assumptions that could be right or wrong:

- That Nadal was bound to have significant breaks from the game with his gruelling style and therefore to not have injuries throughout his career would have meant him compromising his game and it probably being less effective overall.

- Even supposing Nadal could have maintained his style and been as consistently fit as as, Roger Federer -- a combination I find to be quite ludicrous and unrealistic -- that he would have been forced to play through his periods of bad form or slightly affected health more often, and taken more key losses to rivals in Slams and burn out quicker in general because the sheer idea of someone playing like that without injuries or significant breaks seems about as alien to me as Sampras winning Roland Garros.

Nadal might have won more Slams had he not suffered with injuries and been able to maintain his exact same style (a ridiculous ask) but 2 of his 3 most dominant and awesome stretches of play and winning came after 2 significant lay-offs in 2009 and 2012. Would have he been able to produce this without taking extended breaks, injury or not? I have my doubts that Nadal definitely wins more Slams without the injuries but more to the point doubt it was even possible for him to have them with his style of play. He's paid for his style of play with having to take time off and suffering with more injuries, genetic conditions or not -- that's my impression.

The only realistic way I see Nadal having more consistent fitness involves seeing a retooled Nadal from the earlier stages of his career, which probably leads to a player with more consistency but less dominance.

In short, I don't think Nadal is unlucky at all for his injuries or that he gets bonus points for winning so many Slams despite having significant chunks off time out off the tour. That's part of his package.. part of his deal.

 

[helloworld]

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.

This is a very interesting information, but then Fa-rds are probably too thick to understand these numbers. The truth is Fed's serve is not anywhere close to Sampras or Goran, yet the fanatics are delusional enough to compare them. :?

 

[Steve0904]

I make some general assumptions that could be right or wrong:

- That Nadal was bound to have significant breaks from the game with his gruelling style and therefore to not have injuries throughout his career would have meant him compromising his game and it probably being less effective overall.

- Even supposing Nadal could have maintained his style and been as consistently fit as as, Roger Federer -- a combination I find to be quite ludicrous and unrealistic -- that he would have been forced to play through his periods of bad form or slightly affected health more often, and taken more key losses to rivals in Slams and burn out quicker in general because the sheer idea of someone playing like that without injuries or significant breaks seems about as alien to me as Sampras winning Roland Garros.

Nadal might have won more Slams had he not suffered with injuries and been able to maintain his exact same style (a ridiculous ask) but 2 of his 3 most dominant and awesome stretches of play and winning came after 2 significant lay-offs in 2009 and 2012. Would have he been able to produce this without taking extended breaks, injury or not? I have my doubts that Nadal definitely wins more Slams without the injuries but more to the point doubt it was even possible for him to have them with his style of play. He's paid for his style of play with having to take time off and suffering with more injuries, genetic conditions or not -- that's my impression.

The only realistic way I see Nadal having more consistent fitness involves seeing a retooled Nadal from the earlier stages of his career, which probably leads to a player with more consistency but less dominance.

In short, I don't think Nadal is unlucky at all for his injuries or that he gets bonus points for winning so many Slams despite having significant chunks off time out off the tour. That's part of his package.. part of his deal.

Of course all this is very obvious except to a select few bitter Sampras trolls.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

People should be more clear I guess. Not our fault. But usually when people state things they don't specify if they are saying it like it's a fact or like it's an opinion.

Because a lot of fans here mistake their opinions with facts. I guess I didn't have enough information.

I don't invent intentions, just that intentions are vague a lot of times can have different interpretations. Yes, I sometimes use incorrect interpretation because I don't have enough data.

Yes, I really thought that you are stating it as a fact and making excuses for Sampras, since I have this experience with fans here. A lot of fans actually believe that if scenarios are facts.

Yeah, I didn't know what you knew or what you didn't know . You didn't tell me till now. Now I know.

Then be more careful, given that you often feel you don't have enough data in the first place.

With your lack of data, you basically told me that I was suggesting that Sampras reached 14 Slams without motivation or rivals. It's one or the other. Before then, you basically read a post dedicated to Sampras' level of motivation and told me I was making an argument about where Federer derived his motivation from, as though Federer is actually Sampras in disguise. I can't be bothered to state every single tiny little caveat and detail for you just to avoid these sort of completely insane responses (that's how I see them, as nobody else on the board actually does this to this extreme extent). Just deal with the information that has been handed to you. Not being as maximally motivated as possible doesn't have to mean that someone won everything without motivation or was not suitably motivated to a rather high level to begin with. Sampras clearly was motivated to do very well on tour and it meant a lot to him to end the year as the world number 1 as often as possible.

 

[jg153040]

I make some general assumptions that could be right or wrong:

- That Nadal was bound to have significant breaks from the game with his gruelling style and therefore to not have injuries throughout his career would have meant him compromising his game and it probably being less effective overall.

- Even supposing Nadal could have maintained his style and been as consistently fit as as, Roger Federer -- a combination I find to be quite ludicrous and unrealistic -- that he would have been forced to play through his periods of bad form or slightly affected health more often, and taken more key losses to rivals in Slams and burn out quicker in general because the sheer idea of someone playing like that without injuries or significant breaks seems about as alien to me as Sampras winning Roland Garros.

Nadal might have won more Slams had he not suffered with injuries and been able to maintain his exact same style (a ridiculous ask) but 2 of his 3 most dominant and awesome stretches of play and winning came after 2 significant lay-offs in 2009 and 2012. Would have he been able to produce this without taking extended breaks, injury or not? I have my doubts that Nadal definitely wins more Slams without the injuries but more to the point doubt it was even possible for him to have them with his style of play. He's paid for his style of play with having to take time off and suffering with more injuries, genetic conditions or not -- that's my impression.

The only realistic way I see Nadal having more consistent fitness involves seeing a retooled Nadal from the earlier stages of his career, which probably leads to a player with more consistency but less dominance.

In short, I don't think Nadal is unlucky at all for his injuries or that he gets bonus points for winning so many Slams despite having significant chunks off time out off the tour. That's part of his package.. part of his deal.

That's the problem with hypothetical situations. Fans only think that changing some parameters would only improve their game, they don't dare to think that maybe that could compromise their game and they would even win less. Fans can't be objective.

For example, Federer lost a lot of close matches. So, his fans claim that without this he wins 24 majors. But what about close matches that he won?
Without winning those Federer has 12 majors instead of 17.

But no, fans don't want to think in objective ways.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It's easy to spot the objective posters. They stick out like a sore thumb because they only comprise about 0.5% of the forum.

 

[jg153040]

Then be more careful, given that you often feel you don't have enough data in the first place.

With your lack of data, you basically told me that I was suggesting that Sampras reached 14 Slams without motivation or rivals. It's one or the other. Before then, you basically read a post dedicated to Sampras' level of motivation and told me I was making an argument about where Federer derived his motivation from, as though Federer is actually Sampras in disguise. I can't be bothered to state every single tiny little caveat and detail for you just to avoid these sort of completely insane responses (that's how I see them, as nobody else on the board actually does this to this extreme extent). Just deal with the information that has been handed to you. Not being as maximally motivated as possible doesn't have to mean that someone won everything without motivation or was not suitably motivated to a rather high level to begin with. Sampras clearly was motivated to do very well on tour and it meant a lot to him to end the year as the world number 1 as often as possible.

I did deal with incomplete info and I made a bad assumption. But mostly my assumptions are correct. So, I won't change a strategy only because I was wrong here.

Maybe you should have known that when most people write IF scenarios, they don't mean it like you did. They are bashing Fed and praising their own guy. So, you should have taken this into an account and be more clear.

If all fans here were like you, I would probably made a correct assumption, but they are not. So, maybe it's also your fault by not giving me enough information, when you knew how most people here would have reacted.

Also you really like to complicate things too much. Why are we even having this discussion?

You weren't clear. You gave this vague hypothetical statement. I gave you my answer.

 

[jg153040]

It's easy to spot the objective posters. They stick out like a sore thumb because they only comprise about 0.5% of the forum.

See, this is the problem. You assume that you are objective and that you can even spot objective posters .

You made an assumption in advance. That you are objective and that you know what objectivity is.

That's not how science works.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

See, this is the problem. You assume that you are objective and that you can even spot objective posters .

You made an assumption in advance. That you are objective and that you know what objectivity is.

That's not how science works.

No. You've made an assumption that I've made assumptions (which I have, but not all the ones you have stated). The only assumptions made in my post is that objective posters comprise about 0.5% of the board and that they are easy to spot because they are rare. The rest are things you invented in your own mind and were not actually stated. I haven't actually stated directly that I myself can spot objective posters or that I am an objective poster.

 

[jg153040]

No. You've made an assumption that I've made assumptions. The only assumption made in my post is that objective posters comprise about 0.5% of the board. The rest are things you invented in your own mind and were not actually stated.

Now you are trolling lol.

No, you've made and assumption that I've made an assumption about you making assumptions.

You said 0.5%. It's not and assumption, you actually said 0.5%.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think Federer is better than Sampras for one simple reason: consistency. Sampras was a great player during his best, but he has never had the same level of consistency across all surfaces that Federer, or even Nadal have shown. Federer, even at his old age, is not being dominated by the up and coming players either (like Sampras was when he was younger than Federer is now, he was getting beaten by the likes of Hewitt before he was even 30) so longevity is more in Federer's favor too.

Hewitt, Roddick and Safin weren't weak players during their peak either, which is a common misconception that is thrown around on this forum. If half the people who stated this nonsense watched them play, especially Safin at his absolute peak, they wouldn't be spouting this tripe. Federer didn't just have to deal with them either, he also had Nadal on his heels and we all know how great he is.

And if we look past Nadal even, he had to deal with prime Djokovic and Murray in majors, and by the time they were at their peak they were both formidable forces on all surfaces (besides Murray on clay). He also managed to beat both of these guys (Murray's best surface is grass too) for his Wimbledon title in 2012. I do not see 31 year old Sampras beating Hewitt and Roddick back to back for a title anywhere. He would have been annihilated (like he was at the USO in 2000 and 2001).

Federer also didn't have a gulf in time where he had nobody of any name to challenge him like ironically Sampras did (between 96-98 he had journeyman in slam finals). He's always had Nadal around, and when he didn't have Hewitt or Roddick playing at their best anymore, he had prime Murray and Djokovic to deal with instead.

I'd even argue that Nadal is greater than Sampras considering the kind of competition he's had to go through to win his slams..

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Now you are trolling lol.

No, you've made and assumption that I've made an assumption about you making assumptions.

You said 0.5%. It's not and assumption, you actually said 0.5%.

''You made an assumption in advance. That you are objective and that you know what objectivity is.''

Don't argue semantics when you stated this just a moment ago. These are things that I actually didn't state in the post. That's the point -- you were inaccurate to begin with.

The only things I ''stated'' (since you're going to try and annoy me as severely as possible and pick on words specifically) were that objective posters comprise about 0.5% of the board and that they are easy to spot because they are rare. I may or may not think certain things or have a certain belief about my own objectivity as a poster, but you invented your own assumptions and imaginings on what I was assuming of others or myself before I've even gone there, and it's what you do day in and day out with other people's posts.

 

[90's Clay]

I think Federer is better than Sampras for one simple reason: consistency. Sampras was a great player during his best, but he has never had the same level of consistency across all surfaces that Federer, or even Nadal have shown. Federer, even at his old age, is not being dominated by the up and coming players either (like Sampras was when he was younger than Federer is now, he was getting beaten by the likes of Hewitt before he was even 30) so longevity is more in Federer's favor too.

Hewitt, Roddick and Safin weren't weak players during their peak either, which is a common misconception that is thrown around on this forum. If half the people who stated this nonsense watched them play, especially Safin at his absolute peak, they wouldn't be spouting this tripe. Federer didn't just have to deal with them either, he also had Nadal on his heels and we all know how great he is.

And if we look past Nadal even, he had to deal with prime Djokovic and Murray in majors, and by the time they were at their peak they were both formidable forces on all surfaces (besides Murray on clay). He also managed to beat both of these guys (Murray's best surface is grass too) for his Wimbledon title in 2012. I do not see 31 year old Sampras beating Hewitt and Roddick back to back for a title anywhere. He would have been annihilated (like he was at the USO in 2000 and 2001).

Federer also didn't have a gulf in time where he had nobody of any name to challenge him like ironically Sampras did (between 96-98 he had journeyman in slam finals). He's always had Nadal around, and when he didn't have Hewitt or Roddick playing at their best anymore, he had prime Murray and Djokovic to deal with instead.

I'd even argue that Nadal is greater than Sampras considering the kind of competition he's had to go through to win his slams..

But by the same token you can argue, Pete is better because he didn't let his main rival/s abuse him time and time again on the big stage. And didn't let main contemporaries snatch double digit slams on his time there like Fed allowed Nadal to do.


Fed to essentially AVOID his main rival (yes.. AVOID, at all slams if he expected himself to win). That doesn't sit well with Fed fans (just as Pete not winning the French doesn't sit well with Sampras fans) but its the truth
Fed's got things over Pete, Pete has things over Fed. Both all time greats.


Nadal and Fed are both "greater players" than Pete as far the as the resumes goes, but that doesn't make me believe they are "better" per say.

 

[slice serve ace]

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.

lets compare them on clay and hard then, no grass and carpet

on clay

federer 1454 aces in (244 - 14 dc) 230 matches = 6.3
sampras 979 aces in (133 - 4 dc - 7 wtc - 3 olympics) 118 matches = 8.3
if we remove world team cup altogether (it was an event as serious as kooyong exhibition) we get 866 aces in 100 matches, 8.66 per match.


on hard

federer 5301 aces in (704 - 15 dc - 12 olympics) 687 matches = 7.7
sampras 4965 aces in (445 - 11 dc - ao 1997 3rd rnd) 433 matches = 11.5


so, in total sampras avg 41% more aces (11.3 to 8)
on clay sampras avg 32% more aces (37% without wtc)
on hard sampras avg 49% more aces


those are big advantages, both absolutely or relatively

 

[6-3 6-0]

But by the same token you can argue, Pete is better because he didn't let his main rival/s abuse him time and time again on the big stage.

Fed's got things over Pete, Pete has things over Fed. Both all time greats

The difference is that RFederer got more things over PSampras. All important records which PSampras held was broken by the GOAT except for 6 consecutive YE #1 (which is impressive)

Not saying PSampras is some scrub, but at this point of time RFederer is regarded greater than PSampras. There's a freaking difference of 3 slams which is many player's career if you think about it...

 

[jg153040]

''You made an assumption in advance. That you are objective and that you know what objectivity is.''

Don't argue semantics when you stated this just a moment ago. These are things that I actually didn't state in the post. That's the point -- you were inaccurate to begin with.

The only things I ''stated'' (since you're going to try and annoy me as severely as possible and pick on words specifically) were that objective posters comprise about 0.5% of the board and that they are easy to spot because they are rare. I may or may not think certain things or have a certain belief about my own objectivity as a poster, but you invented your own assumptions and imaginings on what I was assuming of others or myself before I've even gone there, and it's what you do day in and day out with other people's posts.

Ok, you are complicating things again. Yeah, I do make assumptions. I can't read your mind. But we humans do this. But why are you picking on me for this? You make assumptions too. We all have incomplete data, so we have to do it to function in life.

I can as well claim you made up your own assumptions about my assumptions. And we don't go anywhere. It's relative.

What exactly do you want? Can you be more clear and don't complicate? Tell me directly what you want.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

But by the same token you can argue, Pete is better because he didn't let his main rival/s abuse him time and time again on the big stage. And didn't let main contemporaries snatch double digit slams on his time there like Fed allowed Nadal to do.


Fed to essentially AVOID his main rival (yes.. AVOID, at all slams if he expected himself to win). That doesn't sit well with Fed fans (just as Pete not winning the French doesn't sit well with Sampras fans) but its the truth
Fed's got things over Pete, Pete has things over Fed. Both all time greats.


Nadal and Fed are both "greater players" than Fed as far the as the resumes goes, but that doesn't make me believe they are "better" per say.

I assume you meant than Sampras. You think Nadal already has a greater resume than Sampras?

 

[jg153040]

lets compare them on clay and hard then, no grass and carpet

on clay

federer 1454 aces in (244 - 14 dc) 230 matches = 6.3
sampras 979 aces in (133 - 4 dc - 7 wtc - 3 olympics) 118 matches = 8.3
if we remove world team cup altogether (it was an event as serious as kooyong exhibition) we get 866 aces in 100 matches, 8.66 per match.


on hard

federer 5301 aces in (704 - 15 dc - 12 olympics) 687 matches = 7.7
sampras 4965 aces in (445 - 11 dc - ao 1997 3rd rnd) 433 matches = 11.5


so, in total sampras avg 41% more aces (11.3 to 8)
on clay sampras avg 32% more aces (37% without wtc)
on hard sampras avg 49% more aces


those are big advantages, both absolutely or relatively

But I can claim that those stats are skewed because this era has better returners. Also Fed was playing more top guys on clay, since he got deeper and it's harder to serve aces vs top guys. So, the stats are skewed.

I'm not arguing that Federer has a better serve, just that stats can be skewed.

 

[President]

I make some general assumptions that could be right or wrong:

- That Nadal was bound to have significant breaks from the game with his gruelling style and therefore to not have injuries throughout his career would have meant him compromising his game and it probably being less effective overall.

- Even supposing Nadal could have maintained his style and been as consistently fit as as, Roger Federer -- a combination I find to be quite ludicrous and unrealistic -- that he would have been forced to play through his periods of bad form or slightly affected health more often, and taken more key losses to rivals in Slams and burn out quicker in general because the sheer idea of someone playing like that without injuries or significant breaks seems about as alien to me as Sampras winning Roland Garros.

Nadal might have won more Slams had he not suffered with injuries and been able to maintain his exact same style (a ridiculous ask) but 2 of his 3 most dominant and awesome stretches of play and winning came after 2 significant lay-offs in 2009 and 2012. Would have he been able to produce this without taking extended breaks, injury or not? I have my doubts that Nadal definitely wins more Slams without the injuries but more to the point doubt it was even possible for him to have them with his style of play. He's paid for his style of play with having to take time off and suffering with more injuries, genetic conditions or not -- that's my impression.

The only realistic way I see Nadal having more consistent fitness involves seeing a retooled Nadal from the earlier stages of his career, which probably leads to a player with more consistency but less dominance.

In short, I don't think Nadal is unlucky at all for his injuries or that he gets bonus points for winning so many Slams despite having significant chunks off time out off the tour. That's part of his package.. part of his deal.

Just a small disagreement; Djokovic and Ferrer have both not had any significant injuries and both play roughly as physical a style as Nadal does (especially these days, Nadal is arguably less physical than either of them) without incurring any serious injuries. I wouldn't say that it was inevitable. As I understand it, a lot of Nadal's problems (especially the knee problems) stem from a congenital defect in the foot that he was born with, forcing him to wear special shoe inserts and which result in added stress on other body parts like the knees.

 

[slice serve ace]

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.

so he was at disadvantage in his return games, yes?

 

[90's Clay]

I assume you meant than Sampras. You think Nadal already has a greater resume than Sampras?

I would give the nod to Nadal over Sampras. Mainly because:

1. Masters Record
2. Career Slam
3. Destroying another GOAT candidate in Fed for a decade
4. Needing to down Fed/Djoker to win damn near ALL of his slams. (While Pete did avoid Agassi for a while, And Fed couldn't beat Nadal at the slams)
5. h2h advantage over all main rivals (including the top 30 in the world or something?)
6. Was able to overcome a matchup issue with his other main rival Nole (Something Fed couldn't do with Nadal)
7. More dominant on his best surface than Fed/Sampras ever were

The only thing keeping Nadal from open era GOAT IMO is 1-2 more slams off of clay. Still very attainable considering he has a good 2-3 more years to do it.


Even if Nadal wins one more Australian that will give him at least 2 slams won at every slams. Fed couldn't achieve this either

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Ok, you are complicating things again. Yeah, I do make assumptions. I can't read your mind. But we humans do this. But why are you picking on me for this? You make assumptions too. We all have incomplete data, so we have to do it to function in life.

I can as well claim you made up your own assumptions about my assumptions. And we don't go anywhere. It's relative.

What exactly do you want? Can you be more clear and don't complicate? Tell me directly what you want.

Eh? You put intentions into my mouth that weren't stated. Nobody else on this forum actually does that to me except you and it seems you don't realise how chronic you are for it, so I responded again by saying actually no, that's not what I stated, because having so many intentions shoved in my mouth is kinda reaaaaaaaaaally annoying (just sayin').

I have no problem with your views on Sampras and how he was, that's all cool with me. I enjoy reading different opinions. My problems lay elsewhere, as I've already explained.

You offered another antagonising post to a short comment about objective posters and shoved some things in my mouth which were WTFish so I responded, it's that simple. There's nothing complicated about it. Simply, you said some things that I found annoying and antagonising and I responded. This happens with very few people here (very few people annoy me) but it does with you for whatever reasons.

Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

But by the same token you can argue, Pete is better because he didn't let his main rival/s abuse him time and time again on the big stage. And didn't let main contemporaries snatch double digit slams on his time there like Fed allowed Nadal to do.


Fed to essentially AVOID his main rival (yes.. AVOID, at all slams if he expected himself to win). That doesn't sit well with Fed fans (just as Pete not winning the French doesn't sit well with Sampras fans) but its the truth
Fed's got things over Pete, Pete has things over Fed. Both all time greats.


Nadal and Fed are both "greater players" than Pete as far the as the resumes goes, but that doesn't make me believe they are "better" per say.

Federer doesn't intentionally avoid Nadal, it just so happens that Nadal is injured for that particular tournament so he does not get a chance to play him. Nadal does have Federer's number but that is beside the point.

And Sampras didn't let his main rivals abuse him because for most of his prime he technically didn't even have any main rivals. His best competition was half assing Agassi, Rafter and Rios. Nadal was there for all of Federer's prime and all of his peak. Federer couldn't avoid Nadal when he was making slam finals on his weakest surface, he couldn't avoid him when he was also making slam finals on Nadal's best surface. Only today is it possible to actually avoid Nadal, due to him consistency getting injured.

I don't see anything Sampras has over Federer besides an extra year at #1. That's it.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I would give the nod to Nadal over Sampras. Mainly because:

1. Masters Record
2. Career Slam
3. Destroying another GOAT candidate in Fed for a decade
4. Needing to down Fed/Djoker to win damn near ALL of his slams. (While Pete did avoid Agassi for a while, And Fed couldn't beat Nadal at the slams)
5. h2h advantage over all main rivals (including the top 30 in the world or something?)
6. Was able to overcome a matchup issue with his other main rival Nole (Something Fed couldn't do with Nadal)
7. More dominant on his best surface than Fed/Sampras ever were

The only thing keeping Nadal from open era GOAT IMO is 1-2 more slams off of clay. Still very attainable considering he has a good 2-3 more years to do it.

Even if Nadal wins one more Australian that will give him at least 2 slams won at every slams. Fed couldn't achieve this either

I don't read too much into the Masters discrepancy but the other factors form a strong argument. All Sampras really has over Nadal is his #1 records (which are significant) and his record at the YEC's.

 

[jg153040]

Eh? You put intentions into my mouth that weren't stated. Nobody else on this forum actually does that to me except you and it seems you don't realise how chronic you are for it, so I responded again by saying actually no, that's not what I stated, because having so many intentions shoved in my mouth is kinda reaaaaaaaaaally annoying (just sayin').

I have no problem with your views on Sampras and how he was, that's all cool with me. I enjoy reading different opinions. My problems lay elsewhere, as I've already explained.

You offered another antagonising post to a short comment about objective posters and shoved some things in my mouth which were WTFish so I responded, it's that simple. There's nothing complicated about it. Simply, you said some things that I found annoying and antagonising and I responded. This happens with very few people here (very few people annoy me) but it does with you for whatever reasons.

Carry on.

Ok, fine, I guess. It's relative. You have different perceptions about this. I thought you like this sort of humor. Weren't we having fun before in the past with this sort of humor and sarcasm?

You seemed fine in the past and were doing the same to me and we were laughing.

I didn't know this was a serious debate. Why didn't you say anything before in the past that this bothers you? You were even laughing with me .

 

[TJKTennis]

Difficult to compare until the day Federer retires. He's still got everything chance to add to his career.

 

[slice serve ace]

But I can claim that those stats are skewed because this era has better returners. Also Fed was playing more top guys on clay, since he got deeper and it's harder to serve aces vs top guys. So, the stats are skewed.

I'm not arguing that Federer has a better serve, just that stats can be skewed.

true, you can argue that. and they probably are somehow but now you are in a subjective teritory, basically an eye test proof. you can't prove it really. how do you prove that an era has better returners? one can always say that theey seem better because of slower conditions

anyway, i think the difference is too big even if we accept all that as a fact.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Just a small disagreement; Djokovic and Ferrer have both not had any significant injuries and both play roughly as physical a style as Nadal does (especially these days, Nadal is arguably less physical than either of them) without incurring any serious injuries. I wouldn't say that it was inevitable. As I understand it, a lot of Nadal's problems (especially the knee problems) stem from a congenital defect in the foot that he was born with, forcing him to wear special shoe inserts and which result in added stress on other body parts like the knees.

I've always found Nadal's style to be more brute forcish than those guys. Ferrer perhaps has equally as bullish movement (Djokovic has much more flexibility and looks easier, but the stress he puts on his ankles is quite ridiculous), but also regarding stroke production and explosion, Nadal's style is considerably more rugged and brutal. It's possible that without his genetic defects that he would have maintained the same style without serious injury, but could have he done it without significant burnout? Personally, I think the overall package of his style is the most brutal on tour including those guys when also considering not just movement and will to fight but also stroke production and therefore, although I can't discount the possibility, I still imagine his body would have succumbed to those pressures.

Regardless of the answers, it is true that 2 of his 3 dominant stretches on tour did come after significant time out and/or injury problems and worries so it probably is legitimate to at least question the assumption that a lot of people here do make, that Nadal definitely would win more were it not for his injuries. Of course, he could have, but there are intriguing arguments against that necessarily being the case.

 

[90's Clay]

Federer doesn't intentionally avoid Nadal, it just so happens that Nadal is injured for that particular tournament so he does not get a chance to play him. Nadal does have Federer's number but that is beside the point.

And Sampras didn't let his main rivals abuse him because for most of his prime he technically didn't even have any main rivals. His best competition was half assing Agassi, Rafter and Rios. Nadal was there for all of Federer's prime and all of his peak. Federer couldn't avoid Nadal when he was making slam finals on his weakest surface, he couldn't avoid him when he was also making slam finals on Nadal's best surface. Only today is it possible to actually avoid Nadal, due to him consistency getting injured.

I don't see anything Sampras has over Federer besides an extra year at #1. That's it.

Like the USO last year? Fed doesn't want any of Nadal anywheres. Never has. Except indoors (which even there he lost)


Sampras beat the best the 90s had to offer on the big stage at one point or another. Fed hasn't been able to manage this since he was at the very peak of his career, and Nadal was still fresh out of grade school.

I don't think Sampras would have allowed to Nadal to destroy him the big stage (regardless of where it was) year after year after year.

Thats a big difference between Pete and Roger. You could bet you're butt Sampras would have taken a few big matches at the slams away from Nadal. Either pre prime, Past Prime, Peak or whatever. He wouldn't have laid down to Nadal everywhere.


Pete was a MUCH better big match player than Fed could ever hope to be.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Ok, fine, I guess. It's relative. You have different perceptions about this. I thought you like this sort of humor. Weren't we having fun before in the past with this sort of humor and sarcasm?

You seemed fine in the past and were doing the same to me and we were laughing.

I didn't know this was a serious debate. Why didn't you say anything before in the past that this bothers you? You were even laughing with me .

Sure, because sometimes you are a lot of fun too. It's a love hate relationship, bro.

 

[TennisEnvy]

Like the USO last year? Fed doesn't want any of Nadal anywheres. Never has. Except indoors (which even there he lost)

How would you then explain AO2014 which came after USO of last year?

 

[jg153040]

Sure, because sometimes you are a lot of fun too. It's a love hate relationship, bro.

Sorry, you feel this way. From my side it was always love-love.

Sorry, if I'm the only poster here who brings you such pain.
Also sorry, if I made an incorrect assumption of you claiming that I'm the only one here who you have problems with.

 

[President]

I've always found Nadal's style to be more brute forcish than those guys. Ferrer perhaps has equally as bullish movement (Djokovic has much more flexibility and looks easier, but the stress he puts on his ankles is quite ridiculous), but also regarding stroke production and explosion, Nadal's style is considerably more rugged and brutal. It's possible that without his genetic defects that he would have maintained the same style without serious injury, but could have he done it without significant burnout? Personally, I think the overall package of his style is the most brutal on tour including those guys when also considering not just movement and will to fight but also stroke production and therefore, although I can't discount the possibility, I still imagine his body would have succumbed to those pressures.

Regardless of the answers, it is true that 2 of his 3 dominant stretches on tour did come after significant time out and/or injury problems and worries so it probably is legitimate to at least question the assumption that a lot of people here do make, that Nadal definitely would win more were it not for his injuries. Of course, he could have, but there are intriguing arguments against that necessarily being the case.

With regard to the stroke production, I think a large part of that is that he grunts when he hits, unlike Djokovic, and uses a reverse forehand (people see it as an unconventional shot and therefore think it's much less efficient). His strokes are actually pretty efficient IMO, he has great weight transfer and body rotation, doesn't really muscle the ball. It's a cosmetic difference, IMO. The movement thing again is probably largely cosmetic, either way both Djokovic and Nadal are covering huge amounts of ground over their matches, and Nadal's foot defect is IMO a good explanation of his knee problems (by far his most significant issue over his career, apart from that he has been relatively healthy actually).

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Sorry, you feel this way. From my side it was always love-love.

Sorry, if I'm the only poster here who brings you such pain.
Also sorry, if I made an incorrect assumption of you claiming that I'm the only one here who you have problems with.

Thanks for the love, now I feel evil and callous.. and I love it.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

With regard to the stroke production, I think a large part of that is that he grunts when he hits, unlike Djokovic, and uses a reverse forehand (people see it as an unconventional shot and therefore think it's much less efficient). His strokes are actually pretty efficient IMO, he has great weight transfer and body rotation, doesn't really muscle the ball. It's a cosmetic difference, IMO. The movement thing again is probably largely cosmetic, either way both Djokovic and Nadal are covering huge amounts of ground over their matches, and Nadal's foot defect is IMO a good explanation of his knee problems (by far his most significant issue over his career, apart from that he has been relatively healthy actually).

It's only Nadal's efficiency that allows him to carry on as he has with his forceful and powerful style. I believe that Nadal's whole package is more demanding to maintain based not just on what I'm seeing, but some stats such as average spin on the forehand while retaining amazing power -- this shows just how powerful and explosive he is in general, and it's a gift, and I'm not judging anything based on how much noise the players are making at impact. I don't think Nadal's backhand is efficient at all, but his forehand is brutish, explosive, but indeed efficient and it's his wonderful footwork combined with his power that at least gives him a good ability to last IMO. Compare his efficiency of technique overall to Murray, who clunks around the court heavily and is so jarring with many of his lateral transitions. It's hardly surprising that Andy ran into serious fitness issues to me.

 

[jg153040]

Thanks for the love, now I feel evil and callous.. and I love it.

Great for you. I'm happy.

But I really have hard time determining who the problem is. Myself, or the other guy.

Do I have problems with understanding some people, or they just don't have the ability to express themselves correctly and translate their thoughts into words.

It's a constant struggle .

Am I nuts or are you nuts. It's hard to know

 

[helloworld]

How would you then explain AO2014 which came after USO of last year?

A straight sets beatdown is the explanation.

 

[fed_rulz]

so he was at disadvantage in his return games, yes?

No, his opponents were. He was a mediocre returner to begin with. Clay is a great neutralizing surface, and Pete's results there speak for themselves once his serve was blunted.

 

[smoledman]

I don't think I ever bought the idea that Nadal is a mental "rock" compared to Federer. I think the fundamental difference is the amount of average net clearance they play with. Nadal plays a less risky game which is important for big points. Federer relies on not having to win very close matches by his superior skills. I don't see how mental strength figures into it.

 

[TennisEnvy]

A straight sets beatdown is the explanation.

Meaning he didn't avoid him despite knowing a beatdown was coming. This contradicts what 90s Clay claimed, wouldn't you agree?

 

[slice serve ace]

No, his opponents were.He was a mediocre returner to begin with.

so on one hand you say that sampras had the advantage and luxury of playing on faster and slick surfaces which boost his success on serve. i don't see you mention clay here

on one hand you lament how the surfaces have slowed down, but never acknowledge the advantage that Pete had due to faster surfaces.

and Sampras had the luxury of playing on slick surfaces to aid his aces per match record - a fact you conveniently seem to avoid.

but his oponents played against him on those same surfaces. didn't they have the same advantage and luxury to boost their own service games? especially against the mediocre returner sampras on faster and slick surfaces? and you say they were at disadvantage when this mediocre returner played the return games against them on these faster and slick surfaces?

 

[kOaMaster]

Pete was a MUCH better big match player than Fed could ever hope to be.

Perhaps, true. I also think that Federer doesn't have this "extra" gear for a special match. He just didn't need too. Federer is just that good so that he doesn't need to have an extra gear. He's not bad at all in big matches, he likely used to dominate opponents without this "mindset" like perhaps Sampras had. Sampras was never able to obtain a domination like Federer over weeks, months, years.
With Federer I often thought he plays every match as good as he can, no need for an extra gear, no need for some pushing. He's just the way he is. This attitude brought him his incredible consistency which is unseen before him in the world of tennis.

That said - how do you explain Federer winning 24 consecutive finals? Isn't that something like a "big match" player?

 

[chjtennis]

Pete competed against so many legendary tennis players but not one of them came close to being as good as Nadal. I think that is a very important factor that 's often overlooked when comparing Fed and Pete.

 

[jg153040]

I don't think I ever bought the idea that Nadal is a mental "rock" compared to Federer. I think the fundamental difference is the amount of average net clearance they play with. Nadal plays a less risky game which is important for big points. Federer relies on not having to win very close matches by his superior skills. I don't see how mental strength figures into it.

Yes, that's a very good argument and often overlooked. I think this might be a huge deal.

Because in big points, you get nervous and hand shakes. But with higher clearance you won't make errors. Also Nadal game is simpler. His style. He doesn't have that many options, so in tight situations he is less confused about the shot selection.

I also never bought that Fed is a midget compared to Rafa. It's like you said, net clearance and also their styles.

But there is an upside for that. That also means Fed will have higher peak play and less damaging style for his body. Also he would destroy lower rounds faster and save energy.

Also Federer won 24 consecutive finals in his peak. Isn't this great big match player?

 

[NatF]

Sampras was better in big matches, that's why he has less Grand Slams, less finals, less big tournaments and less titles in general :lol:

 

[jg153040]

Sampras was better in big matches, that's why he has less Grand Slams, less finals, less big tournaments and less titles in general :lol:

Fed won 24 consecutive finals across all surfaces and somehow he isn't a big match player.

Who in the history came even close to this?

 

[fed_rulz]

so on one hand you say that sampras had the advantage and luxury of playing on faster and slick surfaces which boost his success on serve. i don't see you mention clay here

I already mentioned clay where his vulnerability was exposed once the serve advantage was blunted a bit. Clay hasn't changed much since the time of Pete, so it provides a framework for relative comparison (our good friend "Helloworld", is usually "opposed" to cross-era comparisons when Federer comes out on top, yet never misses an opportunity to make absolute claims about the superiority of Pete over Federer in areas that favor Pete.

but his oponents played against him on those same surfaces. didn't they have the same advantage and luxury to boost their own service games? especially against the mediocre returner sampras on faster and slick surfaces? and you say they were at disadvantage when this mediocre returner played the return games against them on these faster and slick surfaces?

they did, but so what? He had a better serve than most of his peers, so the faster surfaces accentuated his advantage. Pete was a mediocre returner - as clay would prove it, so the "disadvantage" to Pete really didn't matter.

What does have to do with my initial post? My point is that Pete's serve stats are inflated due to friendlier surfaces. We can debate his return stats when there's a thread about it..

 

[Egoista]

Fed is the best in history nuff said