competition of sampras much tougher than for federer, look at head to heads!!!

[Kevin T]

and the top players from the mid-late 90s were multi-dimensional:

Jim Courier-nothing but a forehand
Goran Ivanisevic-nothing but a serve
Chang-nothing but defense and fight
Krajicek-nothing but a serve and volley game
Rafter-nothing but a serve and volley game
Muster-clay court specialist, 1 time past quarters of other majors
Bruguera-clay court specialist, no quarterfinals of other majors
Rusedski-nothing but a serve

Yep tons of multi-dimensional talent there.



Didnt a past his prime Andres Gomez win a slam in the 90s. Didnt Mark Edmonston beat John Newcombe in the final to win a slam in the golden period of mens tennis in the 70s. Didnt Chris Lewis reach a Wimbledon final in the 80s, and Malivia Washington in the 90s. Hey stuff happens.



Just like Petr Korda accepted a gift slam trophy in 98 from Rios in one of the most pathetic tank jobs ever seen in a slam final. Just like Moya received a gift trophy from his best buddy Corretja in that lame "buddy buddy played" 98 French Open final. Just like Andre Agassi received a gift trophy from choking Andrei Medvedev in the 99 French final.



Yes, Srichaphan spent a grand total of 13 weeks of his career at #9 or #10 in the World. Hey didnt Jonas Bjorkman reach #4 in the World during the 90s era. Didnt Greg Rusedski reach #5 in the World during the 90s era. Didnt Karol Kucera, Alberto Berasetegui, Nicolas Lapentti, all end a year ranked in the top 10? Didnt Moya and Kafelnikov both reach #1. Yep I thought so.
Oh Kafelnikov winning 2 slams to boot, that must have been some super era.



Yeah they should learn instead from the mental giants like choke masters Rios, Korda, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Stich, Medvedev that presided in the top grouping of the wonderous 90s.



Yevgeny Kafelnikov was the 3rd most successful player of the 90s. That is all you need to know.

These comments let me know you know absolutely nothing about tennis. How was Kafelnikov the 3rd most successful player of the 90's? Didn't Courier win 4 slams and get to the finals of Wimby and the US Open. Courier didn't have a good serve? Didn't Stich win a Wimby and get to the finals of the US and RG? Krajicek won Wimby, right? Everyone here on this board over the age of 15 knows that Rios was the biggest waste of talent, maybe ever, never to win a slam. I believe Goran was at least making Wimbledon finals and managed to win one of them?

How many doubles titles does Bjorkman have, genius? Isn't he still winning them today, old untalented man that he is? What is his doubles rank at the moment? Go look it up. Look at the rest of the top 50. How many players after Fed, Nadal and Roddick have slam titles? Three. That's partly because of Roger (a large part) and partly because no one is stepping up to the plate. By the way, old man Bjorkman, who you like to dog, is #31 in the world right now. How can an untalented old timer still be hovering in the top 30?

Why can't your boy Fed beat Nadal in France? He folds like a cheap suit. He is the greatest of all time, right? No one challenges him until Nadal and when he gets a challenge, his lack of, shall we say man jewelry per Mats Wilander, prevents him pulling through.

 

[djsiva]

Beautiful POST

These comments let me know you know absolutely nothing about tennis. How was Kafelnikov the 3rd most successful player of the 90's? Didn't Courier win 4 slams and get to the finals of Wimby and the US Open. Courier didn't have a good serve? Didn't Stich win a Wimby and get to the finals of the US and RG? Krajicek won Wimby, right? Everyone here on this board over the age of 15 knows that Rios was the biggest waste of talent, maybe ever, never to win a slam. I believe Goran was at least making Wimbledon finals and managed to win one of them?

How many doubles titles does Bjorkman have, genius? Isn't he still winning them today, old untalented man that he is? What is his doubles rank at the moment? Go look it up. Look at the rest of the top 50. How many players after Fed, Nadal and Roddick have slam titles? Three. That's partly because of Roger (a large part) and partly because no one is stepping up to the plate. By the way, old man Bjorkman, who you like to dog, is #31 in the world right now. How can an untalented old timer still be hovering in the top 30?

Why can't your boy Fed beat Nadal in France? He folds like a cheap suit. He is the greatest of all time, right? No one challenges him until Nadal and when he gets a challenge, his lack of, shall we say man jewelry per Mats Wilander, prevents him pulling through.

I agree 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[carol4832]

so was the competition that much better in sampras' day or is fed just that much more dominant than pete? i say federer is just more dominant and people can't swallow that fact. today's players are just better than they were in the 90's.

Im guessing, you must have never really seen those guys compete !! the only player who is dominate today is Fed and of couse Nadal on Clay.

I know... It's hard to accept, the top 10 used to be more solid than it is now. just more competitive.

 

[federerfanatic]

These comments let me know you know absolutely nothing about tennis.

So now a deluded Sampras fanatic who just posted the biggest collection of drivel imaginable is telling others they know nothing about tennis. The laugh I got out of that one just made my day. You are a great comedian if nothing else. In fact your entire followup post is quite comedic.

How was Kafelnikov the 3rd most successful player of the 90's? Didn't Courier win 4 slams and get to the finals of Wimby and the US Open.

My apologies, I meant the mid-late 90, the Sampras reign basically. Kafelnikov was the 3rd most successful player during the Sampras reign of 1993-2000. That really speaks so highly to the grand competition of the 90s.

Courier didn't have a good serve?

If your second best shot after your biggest weapon only has to be "good" most players today could fit that simple requirement as well.

Didn't Stich win a Wimby and get to the finals of the US and RG?

Yes and his performance in both the French Open and U.S Open final does not nothing to disprove what a master choker he was, along with many of the other matches in his career.

Krajicek won Wimby, right?

Indeed, with a weak return game, mediocre court coverage, and a suspect ground game just like I said. Your point?

Everyone here on this board over the age of 15 knows that Rios was the biggest waste of talent, maybe ever, never to win a slam.

So this goes against my referring to him as a big time choker and tanker often how? Next...

I believe Goran was at least making Wimbledon finals and managed to win one of them?

Yes, with nothing but a great serve. The rest of his game makes even Roddick look complete. Way to prove how multi-dimensional you had to be to have success then compared to now.

How many doubles titles does Bjorkman have, genius? Isn't he still winning them today, old untalented man that he is? What is his doubles rank at the moment? Go look it up.

So now someone is qualified as a top quality singles player by their doubles achievements. Gee I guess if the Bryan Brothers were in the top 10 one would say it is a tough field due to their doubles greatness. Many top ranked doubles players dont even play singles. So your best attempt at justifying Bjorkman being year end #4 as possible in this grand 90s competition is pointing out his doubles success.

Look at the rest of the top 50. How many players after Fed, Nadal and Roddick have slam titles? Three.

Top 50 players today with Grand Slam titles-Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, Moya, Safin. So actually 4 more, after those 3.

By the way, old man Bjorkman, who you like to dog, is #31 in the world right now. How can an untalented old timer still be hovering in the top 30?

So now it is I like to dog him? I said he is a weak player to reach World #4, especialy end a year World #4, which he is. So that is somehow dogging him. That is an amusing theory.

Why can't your boy Fed beat Nadal in France? He folds like a cheap suit. He is the greatest of all time, right? No one challenges him until Nadal and when he gets a challenge, his lack of, shall we say man jewelry per Mats Wilander, prevents him pulling through.

Why cant your boy Sampras get to a French Open final. Or better yet not avoid losing in the 3rd round or earlier at the French Open 5 times in a 6 year stretch he was was ranked either #1 or #2 at the time. Of course maybe you could argue it was the scintillating competition, the same scintillating competition that you poorly attempt to argue existed in the 90s. It was grand competition like Roman Delgado and Gilbert Schaller and Mark Phillipousis on clay that cause those frequent early defeats.

Yes indeed Federer has nothing to be ashamed of reaching French Open finals and losing to Nadal, as compared to Sampras getting humiliated by the grand Yevgeny Kafelnikov his one trip to the semis, and taking numerous embarassing early exits while at the very top of the game.

 

[stormholloway]

Competition stronger in the Sampras era? ROTFL!! Please. Moya and Kafelnikov even reached #1 during the Sampras era. Year end #2s behind Sampras included Chang, Stich, and Rios. Bjorkman was a year end #4 once. Some grand competition.

Great competition was in the 70s and 80s. It maybe doesnt exist now so much, but it certainly did not exist during the Sampras era either.

Kafelnikov was a great competitor. And Moya, though now much older just made the semis of the French and lost to the eventual champion, so what does that say about the competition of today if this weak player (as you say), in his twilight, was able to make the semis of a grand slam?

Why can't we just admit it's two things: Federer is awesome, AND the competition sucks. It's unfortunate for tennis fans, and it isn't Federer's fault.

Let's face it, Nadal is the only other truly tough competitor in the top tier of the field these days.

 

[federerfanatic]

Kafelnikov was a great competitor.

Yes Kafelnikov was so great his biggest wins to win his 2 slam titles were Stich on clay in the French Open final, Sampras in the French Open semi, Haas in the Australian Open semi, and Enqvist in the Australian Open final. He was such a great champion he did not even win a Masters title, probably the only 2 time slam Champion you will see for many years without even a Masters title. Not to mention his reaching #1 by virtue of 6 straight first round losses. In addition to the fact he has received tanking fines in his career. His 6 match losing streak to Thomas Johansson is also extremely impressive. You are right what a great champion compared to the bums that make up todays top players.

And Moya, though now much older just made the semis of the French and lost to the eventual champion, so what does that say about the competition of today if this weak player (as you say), in his twilight, was able to make the semis of a grand slam?

He made the quarters, not the semis. If you think a 1-time Slam Champion sneeking into a slam quarter at 30 is an extremely rare occurence you have not been following mens tennis very long.

 

[Phil]

Phil: You forgot to mention that Agassi himself said many times when asked which player was a tougher to play against, either Sampras or Federer. Agassi repeatedly said Federer was a tougher opponent to play against.

I didn't "forget" to mention this-I just didn't, because it's irrelevant to the thread subject and the points I made, i.e. that Federer's competition today is absolute crap compared with Sampras' competition in HIS prime. This is why a great player such as Federer will come out looking even GREATER...because he's got a line-up of tomato cans to beat on.

So your comments are irrelevant to the discussion, which is not who is better...

Don't even bother telling me that Agassi was over the hill when he played Federer because he was #1 when he was 33 or so. He was in the best shape of his tennis career then.

I'm gonna bother and tell you that Agassi was over the hill. He may have been in the best shape, but he was not the tennis player at 33 that he was at 29. And, don't forget, at 33 he had much weaker competition...poor little Andre apparently couldn't even HANG in the mid-90's, and basically dropped out from the mainstream of the tour for a couple years.

You all can say anythinng you want but I am just stating the facts from Agassi's point of view.

That's not the "facts"; it is Agassi's opinion, and no matter how expert his opinion is, it's still an opinion that is not universally accepted.

It's not Fed's fault that Roddick suck, Nalbandian can't win crap, and the rest.

No one said it is...why don't you bother to READ my post...I said this same thing. Not his fault, but he IS lucky to benefit from such weak competition, which, you ADMIT is the case.

You all talk but Fed did get to the French Final twice. Where was Sampras? 1 meager semifinal and got blown away by Kafenikov. Don't even bother me with the name spelling; that's not the point.

Yes, it IS the point because Fed, great all-court player that he is, hasn't faced ANYONE in at RG...his draw was DISMAL. Sampras, on the other hand, though not a great clay court player, won 72% of his matches on clay and had to face BEASTS...Muster, Bruegerra, Chang, Courier, Kafelnikov (I think you actually spelled the name correctly!), etc. And most of those guys he beat on CLAY...while Nadal has made Fed his prison punk...he can't touch Nadal at RG. Nadal shoos him away, much as you would a mosquito buzzing around your head. It's becoming an embarassment.

Sampras had a hell of a serve, great running forehand but that's about it. Sampras lost a lot of matches to high rank players during his playing days and would blame those losses to either sicknes, or the distraction from his then girlfriend and now wife.

Another one who's never seen Sampras play...you don't win 14 slams with just a serve and a running F/H! Talk to Goran, Greg and Andy about that...ask THEM why they haven't won more than one slam each...Sampras was an incredible ATHLETE. There's no need to further justify his achievements to a tennis cretin such as yourself.

 

[tennis_hand]

competition doesn't speak anything about a player's ability, which is relative.
u just need to be the best among your generation and you'll become the GOAT of your generation. How would you judge absolute ability? Is Federer better than Sampras? Is Sampras better than Rod Laver? Is Federer better than Laver?

 

[federerfanatic]

I think if you want to talk about the guys who had toughest general competition one should talk about the 70s and 80s. In the mid-late 70s Nastase(earlier on) Borg, Vilas(one of the very best players to have so few slams), Connors, and McEnroe(later on) all had to face off vs each other in their primes. In the early-mid 80s you then had Borg(for a bit), McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Lendl, Becker(later on), all at the top level of the game facing off with each other.

Quite frankly neither Federer or Sampras have very impressive quality competition, and nothing compared to the 70s and 80s competition.

 

[TheTruth]

These comments let me know you know absolutely nothing about tennis. How was Kafelnikov the 3rd most successful player of the 90's? Didn't Courier win 4 slams and get to the finals of Wimby and the US Open. Courier didn't have a good serve? Didn't Stich win a Wimby and get to the finals of the US and RG? Krajicek won Wimby, right? Everyone here on this board over the age of 15 knows that Rios was the biggest waste of talent, maybe ever, never to win a slam. I believe Goran was at least making Wimbledon finals and managed to win one of them?

How many doubles titles does Bjorkman have, genius? Isn't he still winning them today, old untalented man that he is? What is his doubles rank at the moment? Go look it up. Look at the rest of the top 50. How many players after Fed, Nadal and Roddick have slam titles? Three. That's partly because of Roger (a large part) and partly because no one is stepping up to the plate. By the way, old man Bjorkman, who you like to dog, is #31 in the world right now. How can an untalented old timer still be hovering in the top 30?

Why can't your boy Fed beat Nadal in France? He folds like a cheap suit. He is the greatest of all time, right? No one challenges him until Nadal and when he gets a challenge, his lack of, shall we say man jewelry per Mats Wilander, prevents him pulling through.

Excellent post! Especially the last part. Let's not forget, that at just turned 21, Nadal is still tweaking his game and becoming the real Nadal. What kind of excuse can you possibly have for not seeing this? Federer with his many years of experience on tour has played everyone. Nadal still hasn't, but that doesn't stop him from having a superior h2h over the "GOAT." Laughable! Then, Roger, simpleton that he is, finally wins one match on clay over an exhausted Nadal and thinks he has finally conquered Nadal. Two hours in his shoulders were slumped in defeat. What happened to the "I am stronger and fitter than Nadal" then? Noooo. He actually comes out and calls it a long final (3 hrs.) and has to take a week to rest. Pitiful!

 

[Bassus]

On what surface?

If Federer had to play the Pistol of '99 Wimbledon, Pete would have broken him off a piece.

On what surface would this whipping take place?

Prime Federer is far and away better than Sampras ever was on clay.

On the old, faster grass of Wimbledon, I would give an edge to Sampras, but on the newer, slower grass I'd favor Federer.

On fast hard courts I don't know that I could choose, while on slower, Australian Open-style hard courts, I'd give th edge to Federer.


Its too bad they didn't play a few more times and on different surfaces. I don't know what we can take from their one match; Sampras was the four-time defending Wimbledon champion, but clearly past his prime at that point, while Federer was still two years from finally achieving his potential and putting his talent to work on a consistent basis. I do think that match proved that Federer would have been just fine had he been older and played a more accomplished set of grass courters.

 

[federerfanatic]

On what surface would this whipping take place?

Why that is easy. On the imaginary surface within the minds of the Sampras fanboys. The same minds who believe an era that saw Kafelnikov, Moya, and the underachieving Rios all reach #1 was some stupendous era in tennis history which puts todays field to complete shame somehow.

 

[Bassus]

Why that is easy. On the imaginary surface within the minds of the Sampras fanboys. The same minds who believe an era that saw Kafelnikov, Moya, and the underachieving Rios all reach #1 was some stupendous era in tennis history which puts todays field to complete shame somehow.

Federer is my favorite player now, but before him it was Sampras, so its not like I have anything against Sampras. Its just that I think prime Federer is an overall better player than prime Sampras. I don't think the difference is all that great, however, as I think Sampras is the second best player I've ever seen. If we had some time machine and could have prime Federer play prime Sampras ten times on all the surfaces, I think the results would be close on all but clay.

 

[stormholloway]

What about Courier, Edberg, and Lendl? Were these players not threats to any of Sampras' grand slam titles?

Federerfanatic acts like achieving number one for a brief time means everything to his argument, but with the number of clay court tournaments one can play, a specialist can reach number one simply by beating his fellow specialists consistently one year.

In fact, none of those players you mention even were runner ups in the year end rankings EVER (Kafelnikov only in computer rankings, and none other). So your point is moot.

 

[danb]

Well, the volleying skills of today's players is by far the best it's ever been. Just look at Andy Roddick as the perfect example of volleying technique and of putting slice on volleys. I also think the 2nd serves of those guys mentioned above is absolutely marvellous and gets them out of trouble time and again. Also, the mental strength of these guys mentioned is fantastic - when the going gets tough they really hang in there well and you see lots of 4 hour 5 set matches as a result - just like at this year's French Open.

It's also nice to see that top 10 players like Nalbandian are overweight and out of shape - that shows a fantastic commitmment to his profession and the paying public. I also really like how Fernando Gonzalez hits 130mph 1st serves and well, 85 mph second serves - that makes it real hard to attack him right? Also Fernando has a fantastic slice, it always sits up so high after landing - he really knows how to knife the slice well.

I also really like how James Blake never changes strategy during the course of a match - his refusal to use the slice backhand under any circumstances shows he's always thinking out there about how to break up the rythm of his opponent. Great stuff. Plus it's lovely to see that Davydenko tries never to venture the net to finish a point, preferring to wait on the mistakes of his more aggressive opponents.

So on reflection, this is by far the best top 10, well of all time.

I have to oblige and come with some corrections:
1) Davydenko does come at the net every match: at the end to shake hands.
2) Gonzales is a real fighter - like the whole generation. He has given #1 lots and lots of fights. The head to head record proves that:
Gonzalez, Fernando 0-10 Federer, Roger
3) Another fighter, whose mental toughness scares Federer is Robredo (#7):
Robredo, Tommy 0-8 Federer, Roger
AND SO ON
This generation of dwarfs just LIE DOWN AND LOSE. That's it.
There is only one guy that is ALWAYS ready for a fight - Nadal. Cannas fights only at times.
With this illustrious competition I feel that #1 is pushed beyond any mortal's limit.

 

[federerfanatic]

What about Courier, Edberg, and Lendl? Were these players not threats to any of Sampras' grand slam titles?

Lendl was even more washed up and less of a threat by the time Sampras got to #1 and started his frequent compiling of slams, then Agassi was when Federer started doing this. So if one is going to discount Agassi, Lendl who was even less of a factor at that point certainly should be.

Edberg and Courier were both pretty good still in 1993, then began to really go downhill fast after that. Edberg reached his last ever slam semi at the 94 Australian Open, then would lose in the early rounds at every single slam event in 1994 and 1995, before retiring at end of 1996. Courier dropped out of the top 10 late in 1994, after never being ranked outside of 1-3 from late 91-early 94, and reached his last ever slam quarterfinal at the 96 French Open. The highest he would ever reach again was briefly #7 late in 1995.

Federerfanatic acts like achieving number one for a brief time means everything to his argument, but with the number of clay court tournaments one can play, a specialist can reach number one simply by beating his fellow specialists consistently one year.

Kafelnikov is definitely not a clay court specialist despite his French Open title, and had hardly any good clay court results on his counting points(last 12months) when he became #1. Your point is moot.

In fact, none of those players you mention even were runner ups in the year end rankings EVER (Kafelnikov only in computer rankings, and none other). So your point is moot.

Actually Kafelnikov and the underachieving/erratic Rios both ended a year ranked #2.

 

[federerfanatic]

I have to oblige and come with some corrections:
1) Davydenko does come at the net every match: at the end to shake hands.
2) Gonzales is a real fighter - like the whole generation. He has given #1 lots and lots of fights. The head to head record proves that:
Gonzalez, Fernando 0-10 Federer, Roger
3) Another fighter, whose mental toughness scares Federer is Robredo (#7):
Robredo, Tommy 0-8 Federer, Roger
AND SO ON
This generation of dwarfs just LIE DOWN AND LOSE. That's it.
There is only one guy that is ALWAYS ready for a fight - Nadal. Cannas fights only at times.
With this illustrious competition I feel that #1 is pushed beyond any mortal's limit.

There are top players Sampras would have also had a perfect record against if he didnt struggle so much on clay.

Sampras is 6-0 vs Medevedev on non clay matches, but 6-2 because of his 2 clay court losses. If he was anywhere near as good as Federer on clay that could easily be 8-0 instead.

Sampras is 9-0 vs Kafelnikov on non clay matches, but 11-2 because of his 2 clay court losses. Again if he had Federers clay court ability he probably would be 13-0 instead.

There are other top players Sampras has a perfect record against. 9-0 vs Pioline, a 2 time slam finalist during that time.

To say just because Federer regularly beats other top players they arent fighting is ridiculous logic, but typical of a Federer hater.

 

[stormholloway]

Actually Kafelnikov and the underachieving/erratic Rios both ended a year ranked #2.

Those runner up rankings were disputed. They were only number two in the computer.

 

[laurie]

Federerfanatic reminds me of a previous poster called Davey 25 aka federerhoogendbandfan. How many of you remember that guy? I wonder if there is a link there?

This chap has racked up over 1,500 posts since February 2007. I've done around 1,300 posts since February 2004!

That's clearly a lot of argiung with a lot of posters in such a short space of time. Ineteresting chap.

 

[AAAA]

If your research is correct thanks for posting the data. Just goes to show how many of the lesser players from the 90s have been misrepresented as worthy competition for Sampraz when in actual fact they were not.

Kafelnikov was the guy who publicly thanked Pete 'for letting me win' in his Aus Open winners acceptance speech. With mentality like that I doubt he was a fighter when playing Sampras, but still his fans will say otherwise. All part of the illusion.

There are top players Sampras would have also had a perfect record against if he didnt struggle so much on clay.

Sampras is 6-0 vs Medevedev on non clay matches, but 6-2 because of his 2 clay court losses. If he was anywhere near as good as Federer on clay that could easily be 8-0 instead.

Sampras is 9-0 vs Kafelnikov on non clay matches, but 11-2 because of his 2 clay court losses. Again if he had Federers clay court ability he probably would be 13-0 instead.

There are other top players Sampras has a perfect record against. 9-0 vs Pioline, a 2 time slam finalist during that time.

To say just because Federer regularly beats other top players they arent fighting is ridiculous logic, but typical of a Federer hater.

 

[laurie]

Well, I would be surprised if people say Kafelnikov was a rival to Sampras because that clearly wasn't the case. And I do remember in the press conference him thanking Pete for not coming to play the Australian Open in 1999.

 

[keithchircop]

why is it that the two most annoying people on these boards have the word "Nadal" and "federer" at the beginning of their nicknames?

 

[Kevin T]

why is it that the two most annoying people on these boards have the word "Nadal" and "federer" at the beginning of their nicknames?

That's the quote of the week, IMHO. Fedfanatic can't get off his boy's jock, it seems. Hey Fedfan, Sampras' reign was the 90's, not just the mid to late 90's. If you don't know that Goran was a solid, solid baseliner, then once again, you know nothing about tennis. And oops, I forgot that Ferrero won a slam title. How could I forget such a solid, dominating player (tongue firmly in cheek)? And I'm no Sampras fanboy, I'm an Ivanisevic fanboy. I accept and embrace the beauty that was/is Goran. He actually has a personality, you know? His and Sampras' wives are also much, much hotter than Mirka. Don't worry, one day you'll get over the fact that Nadal is the New York Yankees to Federer's Atlanta Braves. The Braves were the winningest team of the 90's but they just couldn't beat the Yanks. Fed will be the GOAT, with the most slams, with a LOSING record against his greatest contemporary, Nadal. Ouch.

 

[danb]

There are top players Sampras would have also had a perfect record against if he didnt struggle so much on clay.

Sampras is 6-0 vs Medevedev on non clay matches, but 6-2 because of his 2 clay court losses. If he was anywhere near as good as Federer on clay that could easily be 8-0 instead.

Sampras is 9-0 vs Kafelnikov on non clay matches, but 11-2 because of his 2 clay court losses. Again if he had Federers clay court ability he probably would be 13-0 instead.

There are other top players Sampras has a perfect record against. 9-0 vs Pioline, a 2 time slam finalist during that time.

To say just because Federer regularly beats other top players they arent fighting is ridiculous logic, but typical of a Federer hater.

Ever heard of Boris Becker?
Becker, Boris 7-12 Sampras, Pete

They went back and forth on hard (fast) courts... Same with Agassi and others. It was not about clay. It was not about one challenger. It was about one generation of real fighters.

In Federer's generation after he beats one guy he always beats him (exception Nadal).

 

[BigServer1]

That's the quote of the week, IMHO. Fedfanatic can't get off his boy's jock, it seems. Hey Fedfan, Sampras' reign was the 90's, not just the mid to late 90's. If you don't know that Goran was a solid, solid baseliner, then once again, you know nothing about tennis. And oops, I forgot that Ferrero won a slam title. How could I forget such a solid, dominating player (tongue firmly in cheek)? And I'm no Sampras fanboy, I'm an Ivanisevic fanboy. I accept and embrace the beauty that was/is Goran. He actually has a personality, you know? His and Sampras' wives are also much, much hotter than Mirka. Don't worry, one day you'll get over the fact that Nadal is the New York Yankees to Federer's Atlanta Braves. The Braves were the winningest team of the 90's but they just couldn't beat the Yanks. Fed will be the GOAT, with the most slams, with a LOSING record against his greatest contemporary, Nadal. Ouch.

I think that's true if the argument is confined to clay court tennis, but if Nadal starts making more fast court finals, we'll see the h2h even out. Other than that I agree with everything you said. I hate these arguments because they are circular and never-ending...as is much of TTW...

 

[carol4832]

I like Federer now, and Sampras the most when he was playing.

IMO if they were both in there prime Federer has the better record on clay and the AO surfaces. Sampras would have the better record on Grass and Hard.

 

[AAAA]

Ever heard of Boris Becker?
Becker, Boris 7-12 Sampras, Pete

They went back and forth on hard (fast) courts... Same with Agassi and others. It was not about clay. It was not about one challenger. It was about one generation of real fighters.

In Federer's generation after he beats one guy he always beats him (exception Nadal).

Boris could and only ever beat sampras on indoor courts. Outdoors, regardless of surface, Becker beat sampras exactly zero times.

 

[slice bh compliment]

Indoors, yeah, but when BB did beat Pete, it was intense, especially in the later years.
Remember the fall of 96. Boris won in Paris, I think, in five. Then won again int he RR stage of the year end championships. Then Pete narrowly qualied for the semi....and they met in the final. Pete won like 7-5 in the fifth. What a match.

Oh, and the first set of the 95 Wimbledon final. Boris won the first set, then looked gased, passed and outclassed the rest of the way.

Two great players there. Miss them both.

 

[Kevin T]

I think that's true if the argument is confined to clay court tennis, but if Nadal starts making more fast court finals, we'll see the h2h even out. Other than that I agree with everything you said. I hate these arguments because they are circular and never-ending...as is much of TTW...

Fed is the more complete player, no doubt. A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you but Nadal has impressed me lately. He's a fighter and can only improve. He gave Fed a good match at Wimby last year, as good as the matches Fed gives Nadal at RG, plus Nadal has already proven he can beat Fed on hard courts. I think Roger has peaked or is in the process of peaking as we speak. Nadal will never match Feds slam count, IMHO, but he's proving to be Fed's kryptonite. I will say this for sure, Nadal has more fight and guts in him than Fed. That's the one thing I don't think Fed has. When Nadal put his foot on the accelerator, Fed folds.

 

[trebor]

The discussion that keeps on giving

I can't pull enough facts to show which era had more competition, but it does seem that today's players lack grit, fight, and fearlessness. It's like a mental black hole out there, as if Fed cast a mighty insecurity spell and Nadal was the only one inoculated.

 

[Fries-N-Gravy]

today's players are much better than before, sampras was way above everyone else's level but not as much as federer is to his peers now

 

[framebreaker]

even if today's players are better than the old ones. they are still not good enough for a "newer generation".
they should be much better than the old one. maybe the racquet technology made them play a style that is not really good. federer, however, has a more classic style.

 

[The Gorilla]

federer doesn't have a classic style at all, I don't know why people say that.

 

[lethalfang]

Federer has incorporated more "classic" style than most of his peers.
He uses a classic style racquet, instead of Babolat or Prince O3.
He goes to the net to finish points more often than his peers, and rely on placement rather than power more often than his peers, e.g. Andy Roddick, Fernando Gonzalez, etc.
He uses a grip that's less extreme (extreme Eastern) than most of his peers.
He uses a 1-hand backhand.
He rarely grunts.

His style is still more modern than the prevalent styles 2 decades ago, but the most classic about him that makes people say he plays a classic style is his classic on-court demeanor.

 

[The Gorilla]

Federer has incorporated more "classic" style than most of his peers.
He uses a classic style racquet, instead of Babolat or Prince O3.
He goes to the net to finish points more often than his peers, and rely on placement rather than power more often than his peers, e.g. Andy Roddick, Fernando Gonzalez, etc.
He uses a grip that's less extreme (extreme Eastern) than most of his peers.
He uses a 1-hand backhand.
He rarely grunts.

His style is still more modern than the prevalent styles 2 decades ago, but the most classic about him that makes people say he plays a classic style is his classic on-court demeanor.

would you call Ivan lendl a 'classic' player?

He has the most powerful forehand, his game is built around that.

 

[kaiotic]

These comments let me know you know absolutely nothing about tennis. How was Kafelnikov the 3rd most successful player of the 90's? Didn't Courier win 4 slams and get to the finals of Wimby and the US Open. Courier didn't have a good serve? Didn't Stich win a Wimby and get to the finals of the US and RG? Krajicek won Wimby, right? Everyone here on this board over the age of 15 knows that Rios was the biggest waste of talent, maybe ever, never to win a slam. I believe Goran was at least making Wimbledon finals and managed to win one of them?

How many doubles titles does Bjorkman have, genius? Isn't he still winning them today, old untalented man that he is? What is his doubles rank at the moment? Go look it up. Look at the rest of the top 50. How many players after Fed, Nadal and Roddick have slam titles? Three. That's partly because of Roger (a large part) and partly because no one is stepping up to the plate. By the way, old man Bjorkman, who you like to dog, is #31 in the world right now. How can an untalented old timer still be hovering in the top 30?

Why can't your boy Fed beat Nadal in France? He folds like a cheap suit. He is the greatest of all time, right? No one challenges him until Nadal and when he gets a challenge, his lack of, shall we say man jewelry per Mats Wilander, prevents him pulling through.

rezpek!!! ......

 

[ACE of Hearts]

I would love to see the players of the 90s try and play now.Guys like Michael Chang, Krajicek, Ivanisevic whose very overrated and was a choker.U have guys like Nalbandian, Safin when he has his head straight, Hewitt, etc.I would take those guys over Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Chang.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Jim Courier would get his ass handed to him by Fed as well.

 

[kaiotic]

Indoors, yeah, but when BB did beat Pete, it was intense, especially in the later years.
Remember the fall of 96. Boris won in Paris, I think, in five. Then won again int he RR stage of the year end championships. Then Pete narrowly qualied for the semi....and they met in the final. Pete won like 7-5 in the fifth. What a match.

Oh, and the first set of the 95 Wimbledon final. Boris won the first set, then looked gased, passed and outclassed the rest of the way.

Two great players there. Miss them both.

Hanover, GER
CLASSIC! have this DVD.. bust this out for inspiration

Becker opened the match up with 4 straight aces.
boom boom becker... intense match!

I hear their 96 Munich match was at an even higher level of play.
need to get that DVD.