Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I said many, not all. Learn to read.
Fact: Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters more times than Federer
- Thread starter Blocker
- Start date
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I was about to raze this post to the ground but then read zagor's response:
Btw I'm sure Sampras would have a far better shot at beating "FO champions" if Nadal played in the 90's and kept winning every single edition for 10 years. Good on ya.
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Sampras is the greatest clay courter of all time, and by far. Nadal is way overrated, as he dominated in most of his finals this Fed guy who, it has been brilliantly demonstrated, is not much of a tennis player.
Feel like sampras just didnt really care or just never really wanted it that bad to win on clay. I think there were a couple of years where he really tried but that was it.
Also clay to hard/grass was a big transition in his day esp for 2 weeks RG to wimby. Now hard courts are slower and grass plays much closer to clay now.
Also clay to hard/grass was a big transition in his day esp for 2 weeks RG to wimby. Now hard courts are slower and grass plays much closer to clay now.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
How could the Clay Court Giant Killer that was Sampras not bag one FO title?
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
So essentially: Federer has benifittied from a weaker clay era than Sampras had to deal with? Of course, any honest person would admit as much! Especially considering that in Sampras' day there were clay court specialists and much more varied surfaces than in Federer's era.
Actually, Federer's entire era is characterized by lack of depth and relatively weaker competition (particularly pre 2008...)
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, and if Federer had not been around, it would suddenly be a stronger era with lots of multiple slam winners. And Nadal as the leading player would be goat because he was the leader in this stronger without Federer field.
Last edited:
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
How did Federer benefit from lack of clay courters? He won one RG title. Nadal on the other hand has won 7, so he's benefitted even more right? Yeah..
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Federer has beaten Nadal on clay, Kuerten on Clay, peak-Coria on Clay, peak-Djokovic on Clay. That's pretty crazy. This thread is a bad joke.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I refuse to believe someone who slides on hardcourts can't slide on freakin' clay.
gregor.b
Professional
He can slide okay. The problem is he can't get back if he does. He's such a retriever he makes Nadal look lame at times (even though he actually has been the last couple of months).
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
And yet, Sampras made a grand total of one semifinal in his whole career.
Federer has made 7 FO semifinals.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Here goes the moron again
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, best to ignore him.
Sometimes I wonder who sits at his chair and types what is typed.. what their thought process is.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Ok, and...
obviously Nadal has benefitted as well.
You state the obvious as if its profound
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Truth hurts huh...
NatF
Bionic Poster
No. It was against the guy who beat him.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
who then got demolished the very next year when Nadal was healthy and not preoccupied...
forgot about that part!
Feather
Legend
DRII
G.O.A.T.
sure, but not at Rolland Garros!
NatF
Bionic Poster
I don't care about that part...I could just as easily say most of Nadal's big wins over Federer were handed to him by the poor mentality Federer has when he plays Nadal. It's easy to add an asterix. Soderling was playing very well in that match versus Nadal, who's to say Nadal couldn't have lost anyway? A determined Federer might have won the final against Nadal anyway unlikely as that may be.
Goosehead
Legend
You have got big problems if you REALLY think Sampras on clay trumps Federer :shock:
what are you trying to do..become the world record holder for the daftest non-reality thread ever on TT..??
Federer won the 2009 french open because he won 7 matches in a row..thats how major championships work..Nadal hasnt got a right to win the french open every year, federers biggest tests were having to go on court vs tommy haas knowing nadal had just lost..thats going to mess with anyones head''the opportunity of a lifetime to complete the career slam.
then Federer is losing two sets to zero, and being pushed hard in the third..fed serving to fend off break point at 4-4 if haas had broken he be serving for match..fed turns that around,
then..think just as difficult is Del Potro (arriving at the top level of world tennis), in mega-nuclear-weapon-groundstrokes-mode..again fed comes through from 2 sets to 1 down..maybe sampras should have tried winning some matches for you then we wouldnt have you being so upset on his behalf 15 years later.
The-Champ
Legend
This is really strange.
Federer fans claim, Nadal ("the clay GOAT") is federer's contemporary and has been the major obstacle for Federer on clay. Nadal is the reason why Fed didn't win 6 FOs. On the other hand, Nole's fans brag about how the serb beat peak Nadal on clay twice. Who is lying? Federer is way past his prime, yet his contemporary Nadal is still in his prime?
Federer fans claim, Nadal ("the clay GOAT") is federer's contemporary and has been the major obstacle for Federer on clay. Nadal is the reason why Fed didn't win 6 FOs. On the other hand, Nole's fans brag about how the serb beat peak Nadal on clay twice. Who is lying? Federer is way past his prime, yet his contemporary Nadal is still in his prime?
Last edited:
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
Federer- The clay goat
Sampras- Several RG winners
IMO a clay goat is harder to overcome than several smaller slam winners. Just to put it into perspective somebody like Agassi was able to win the french through pure ability, not because he's a clay specialist. I seriously doubt he would have bagged one in this era with Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal always in the way.
Sampras- Several RG winners
IMO a clay goat is harder to overcome than several smaller slam winners. Just to put it into perspective somebody like Agassi was able to win the french through pure ability, not because he's a clay specialist. I seriously doubt he would have bagged one in this era with Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal always in the way.
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
There is ground for this argument. Back when Sampras was playing there was a genuine difference in clay and grass and there were surface specialists. Sampras had very much a fast court game and his best results were at Wimbledon and the US Open. If you look at the French Open champions of the 90s, Gomez, Courier, Brugera, Kuerten, Moya, Muster, Kafelnikov, Agassi, all of them bar Agassi, and Courier only had other significant slam success on the slower hard courts in Australia.
In Federer's slam winning years, 2003-2012, these were the men winning at the French: Ferrero, Gaudio, Nadal, Federer himself. Both Federer and Nadal have career slams which suggests that having success on all surfaces is easier now that they are more similar. There are no clay specialists now but the same players doing well at all the majors.
So, yes, Sampras did beat people who could be described clay specialists and have better clay credentials because now so few players specialise in clay. There are only two men who play now with clay credentials of any kind: Nadal and Federer. Federer has two wins over Nadal on clay but one of those wins was in Hamburg, the other in Madrid, where it could be argued, particularly the latter that they are about as clay as the US Open.
In Federer's slam winning years, 2003-2012, these were the men winning at the French: Ferrero, Gaudio, Nadal, Federer himself. Both Federer and Nadal have career slams which suggests that having success on all surfaces is easier now that they are more similar. There are no clay specialists now but the same players doing well at all the majors.
So, yes, Sampras did beat people who could be described clay specialists and have better clay credentials because now so few players specialise in clay. There are only two men who play now with clay credentials of any kind: Nadal and Federer. Federer has two wins over Nadal on clay but one of those wins was in Hamburg, the other in Madrid, where it could be argued, particularly the latter that they are about as clay as the US Open.
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
Players Federer has beaten at RG who have reached RG semi-finals (Clay specialists in bold):
Del Potro
Djokovic
Soderling
Gonzales
Nalbandian
Moya
Players Sampras has beaten at RG who have reached semi-finals. (clay specialists in bold)
Bruguera
Courier
Albert Costa
Thomas Muster
What does this tell us? Not a lot other than in his career Sampras beat two RG champs and two future champs while Federer beat none but beat more guys with very good RG records which would be the case considering he typically plays 6 or 7 matches every RG while Sampras would play 3 maybe 4, and 6 being his absolute best.
Del Potro
Djokovic
Soderling
Gonzales
Nalbandian
Moya
Players Sampras has beaten at RG who have reached semi-finals. (clay specialists in bold)
Bruguera
Courier
Albert Costa
Thomas Muster
What does this tell us? Not a lot other than in his career Sampras beat two RG champs and two future champs while Federer beat none but beat more guys with very good RG records which would be the case considering he typically plays 6 or 7 matches every RG while Sampras would play 3 maybe 4, and 6 being his absolute best.
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
I am only counting clay as Rome, Monte Carlo and RG.
At Rome and Monte carlo, Sampras beat the following clay-courters or former RG winners or finalists:
Andre Agassi
Magnus Norman
Alex Corretja
Slava Dosedel
Renzo Furlan
It should also be noted that in 1992 Sampras beat Rosset at RG. Rosset would of course go on to win Olympic Gold that year on clay.
Players of note who Federer beat in Rome or Monte Carlo:
Nalbandian
Djokovic
Ferrer
Ferrero
Gonzales
Zabaleta
Chang
Canas
Almagro
Chela
Robredo
Safin
At Rome and Monte carlo, Sampras beat the following clay-courters or former RG winners or finalists:
Andre Agassi
Magnus Norman
Alex Corretja
Slava Dosedel
Renzo Furlan
It should also be noted that in 1992 Sampras beat Rosset at RG. Rosset would of course go on to win Olympic Gold that year on clay.
Players of note who Federer beat in Rome or Monte Carlo:
Nalbandian
Djokovic
Ferrer
Ferrero
Gonzales
Zabaleta
Chang
Canas
Almagro
Chela
Robredo
Safin
Al Czervik
Hall of Fame
The difference between Fed and Sampras is in the losses and consistency. Fed doesn't have many George Bastls and Galo Blancos in the majors.
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
But I will include Hamburg/Madrid, too.
Sampras:
Carlos Costa
Federer:
Soderling
Ferrer
Nadal
Moya
Robredo
Coria
Davydenko
Gaudio
Lappenti
Gonzales
Moya
Kuerten
Safin
What you notice is a lot of the same names come up for Federer and they are players he beats or used to beat regularly on whatever surface he played them. Mostly because, and this is the key point, he progressed further in clay tournaments because he developed a more all round game than Sampras in part due to the surface homogenisation.
I would even argue that had the surfaces been more similar in Sampras' day, Pete might also have changed his game to a more back court one, and he played a brilliant back court game, much like Federer did, and have won RG, too.
What we can surmise is that Sampras beat players who had better credentials at Roland Garros while Federer beat a greater number of players who might not have had their career highlights on clay but had performed excellently on the surface and that he beat them more often outside of Roland Garros.
Sampras:
Carlos Costa
Federer:
Soderling
Ferrer
Nadal
Moya
Robredo
Coria
Davydenko
Gaudio
Lappenti
Gonzales
Moya
Kuerten
Safin
What you notice is a lot of the same names come up for Federer and they are players he beats or used to beat regularly on whatever surface he played them. Mostly because, and this is the key point, he progressed further in clay tournaments because he developed a more all round game than Sampras in part due to the surface homogenisation.
I would even argue that had the surfaces been more similar in Sampras' day, Pete might also have changed his game to a more back court one, and he played a brilliant back court game, much like Federer did, and have won RG, too.
What we can surmise is that Sampras beat players who had better credentials at Roland Garros while Federer beat a greater number of players who might not have had their career highlights on clay but had performed excellently on the surface and that he beat them more often outside of Roland Garros.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
The point is, Federer beat better players on Clay. Doesn't matter whether the Clay was slow or blue or pink. He beat better players, period. There's noone with better clay court credentials than Nadal and Federer beat him twice. This, alone, proves the OP ridiculously wrong.
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
True. Federer was a better player than Sampras on clay and there were less RG champs to beat in Federer's day than in Sampras'.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
That's because there was one guy twice as good as the 90s' Claycourt champions who was piling on one FO after the other.
PCXL-Fan
Hall of Fame
Let me get this straight these 3 guys from the 1990's ranked 65, 97, and 100 are better or equal clay players to guys ranked (lets just make a random number ->) in the top 18 today....?
These are still Sampras's prime years.
At Roland Garros why would Sampras lose to
At age 25 In year 1997 R32 Magnus Norman (SWE) Rank 65 L 2-6, 4-6, 6-2, 4-6
At age 26 In year 1998 R64 Ramon Delgado (PAR) Rank 97 L 6-7(6), 3-6, 4-6
At age 27 In year 1999 R64 Andrei Medvedev (UKR) Rank 100 L 5-7, 6-1, 4-6, 3-6
Why after 2003 when Federer got his game in together, why was he never even slightly threatened at RG by guys ranked less than top 10? Why other than Tommy Haas was post2003 Federer never even been taken to 5 sets by someone ranked outside the top 10? Why why why?
How can Sampras even be in the same galaxy as Federer on clay?
These are still Sampras's prime years.
At Roland Garros why would Sampras lose to
At age 25 In year 1997 R32 Magnus Norman (SWE) Rank 65 L 2-6, 4-6, 6-2, 4-6
At age 26 In year 1998 R64 Ramon Delgado (PAR) Rank 97 L 6-7(6), 3-6, 4-6
At age 27 In year 1999 R64 Andrei Medvedev (UKR) Rank 100 L 5-7, 6-1, 4-6, 3-6
Why after 2003 when Federer got his game in together, why was he never even slightly threatened at RG by guys ranked less than top 10? Why other than Tommy Haas was post2003 Federer never even been taken to 5 sets by someone ranked outside the top 10? Why why why?
How can Sampras even be in the same galaxy as Federer on clay?
Last edited:
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
sliding on clay is a beautiful thing. granted djokovic doesn't slide into shots as well as nadal and federer, i was merely commenting on how misinformed of an argument it was to discredit djokovic/this clay era because of the poster's belief that djokovic can't slide properly on clay, as opposed to using clay results.
on a side note, it is a stretch to consider sliding on hc a technical art, especially since it isn't as essential to movement as it is on clay. however, it does enhance footwork and positioning to a degree for quick movers like djokovic and monfils when on the extreme defensive.
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
I agree that Sampras is not in the same galaxy as Federer on clay. However, Norman would go on to beat Kuerten in a Masters clay final and play a competitive RG final against him and the mercurial Medvedev would make the final that year and was one of the very good clay courts of the 90s.
Also, the reason i think Federer was never threatened by anyone out of the top ten is because of surface homogenisation. Federer changed his game from the early 2000s to a more aggressive baseline oriented game to adapt to the slowing down of all the surfaces. He did not need to adapt his game to the Clay so considering he has one of the top three games ever and that game could work on clay as well as hard and grass he was never vulnerable on any surface. So, if he was beating the competition handily in NYC, he could do it at RG, too.
Whereas for Sampras, playing when the fast courts would not have been liable to prosecution for false advertising, he would have to greatly adapt his game for clay, a process that he admittedly was not willing to do, fearing the effects it might have on his chances at Wimbledon.
So yes, Federer is in a different galaxy to Pete on the 2005-2012 clay surface he had his RG success on in an era where the hard court slams are referred to as 'blue clay.' It might be worth noting that when there were more clay court specialists winning RG, such as Kuerten 2001, Costa 2002, Ferrero 2003, Gaudio 2004, these were Roger's results at RG:
Roland Garros, France; 24.05.2004; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Kristof Vliegen (BEL) 110 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-1 Stats
R64 Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 34 W 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(6) Stats
R32 Gustavo Kuerten (BRA) 30 L 4-6, 4-6, 4-6 Stats
Roland Garros, France; 26.05.2003; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Luis Horna (PER) 88 L 6-7(6), 2-6, 6-7(3) Stats
Roland Garros, France; 27.05.2002; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Hicham Arazi (MAR) 45 L 3-6, 2-6, 4-6 Stats
Roland Garros, France; 28.05.2001; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Stefano Galvani (ITA) 239 W 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 Stats
R64 Sargis Sargsian (ARM) 115 W 4-6, 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 9-7 Stats
R32 David Sanchez (ESP) 89 W 6-4, 6-3, 1-6, 6-3 Stats
R16 Wayne Arthurs (AUS) 59 W 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
Q Alex Corretja (ESP) 13 L 5-7, 4-6, 5-7 Stats
Roland Garros, France; 29.05.2000; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Wayne Arthurs (AUS) 106 W 7-6(4), 6-3, 1-6, 6-3 Stats
R64 Jan-Michael Gambill (USA) 69 W 7-6(5), 6-3, 6-3 Stats
R32 Michel Kratochvil (SUI) 120 W 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 6-7(4), 8-6 Stats
R16 Alex Corretja (ESP) 10 L 5-7, 6-7(7), 2-6 Stats
Roland Garros, France; 24.05.1999; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Patrick Rafter (AUS) 3 L 7-5, 3-6, 0-6, 2-6 Stats
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Both Nadal and Federer are out of their prime, but are close enough to it to consistently reach the later rounds/win Roland Garros due to the lack of solid competition.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
All your argument regarding the surfaces homogenization are valid. It was clearly harder to be good both on grass and on clay that it is now.
But someone (I think Bobby jr.) argued that the general level of clay specialist was weaker at the time, and I find this a very interesting idea. As a lot of the stronger player designed their game for the faster surfaces, they had trouble to transition to clay and thus left room for other, more specialized but less talented, to dominate clay.
Today, players who are called clays specialist are thoose who are no threat anywhere for the top players, but rack titles in small clay tournaments (typically Almagro). Maybe it was the same in the 90s, but they were also able to win big because of the absence of the top players.
But someone (I think Bobby jr.) argued that the general level of clay specialist was weaker at the time, and I find this a very interesting idea. As a lot of the stronger player designed their game for the faster surfaces, they had trouble to transition to clay and thus left room for other, more specialized but less talented, to dominate clay.
Today, players who are called clays specialist are thoose who are no threat anywhere for the top players, but rack titles in small clay tournaments (typically Almagro). Maybe it was the same in the 90s, but they were also able to win big because of the absence of the top players.
Feather
Legend
I really doubt whether you yourself believe the nonsense you just typed. You fault Roger for losing in clay prior to 2003 and blame it on the strong clay court. Very funny, I am sure you know very well that Roger was yet to make a mark in slams. He won his first major in 2003, and he became dominant in 2004. Since then the only embarassing defeat he had was to a three time RG champion in RG 2004. One in the last nine years at RG
zagor
Bionic Poster
Oh there's even 1999 when Fed was 17, how very cute.
Before 2003 Fed's results largely sucked (considering his talent) in any slam, if he was doing well in others but doing lousy at FO you would have a point, as it is you have none.
Another thing going against your theory is that the first slam QF Fed ever reached was 2001 FO.
People can twist thing as much as they want, fact remains, Fed is just plain better on any kind of clay than Sampras ever was.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
This thread alone is the proof that a consesus in the debate, who is the best tennis player in the history of the sport, will never be reached, if such a clear-cut case is up for a debate.
It is also a proof that stupidity is endless.
EDIT: For confirmation of the latter see the post next to this one.
:lol:
It is also a proof that stupidity is endless.
EDIT: For confirmation of the latter see the post next to this one.
:lol:
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
I see the mods banned Razoredge--obviously an alternate account of one of the usual haters.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Which means nothing, other than the fact Federer needed Nadal to be absent from a FO final in order to win.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You have got big problems if you REALLY think Sampras on clay trumps Federer :shock:
what are you trying to do..become the world record holder for the daftest non-reality thread ever on TT..??
You must be confused, because the last time anyone checked, the member who started this thread is named Blocker:
Thanks for playing.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
While Sampras needed the entire tour to be absent to be a contender and even then he would definitely lose.
Feather
Legend
And Roger Federer was not lucky to get Boris Becker in a clay court Masters final at Rome..
