tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
And complete nobodies en route to the final as opposed to, say, Djokovic or Ferrer.
Fact: Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters more times than Federer
- Thread starter Blocker
- Start date
And complete nobodies en route to the final as opposed to, say, Djokovic or Ferrer.
Feather
Legend
Rafael Nadal was NOT there during the entire career of Pete Sampras. Why Pete didn't even make a French Open final let alone win it?
Feather
Legend
Very true!
RG
Roger Federer - One win, five finals, seven SF, nine QF
Pete Sampras - Zero win, zero finals, one SF, four QF
Win %
Pete Sampras 24-13, 65%
Roger Federer 54-13, 81%
zagor
Bionic Poster
And using OP's logic then Fed has bigger individual wins than Sampras had, clearly.
Fed beat:
Sampras - 7 Wimbledons
Nadal- 2 Wimbledons
Hewitt- 1 Wimbledon
Djokovic- 1 Wimbledon
Sampras beat:
Becker - 3 Wimbledons
Agassi - 1 Wimbledon
Goran - 1 Wimbledon
Stich - 1 Wimbledon
Let's compare:
Fed- 11 Wimbledons among people he beat.
Sampras- 6 Wimbledons among people he beat.
This is all without taking into account the very strong possibility that:
-Nadal will win another Wimbledon.
-Murray will win Wimbledon at some point.
-Novak will win another Wimbledon (smaller chance then the above but still hardly a negligible one).
You can see now how flawed this way of thinking is, yes? 1996 FO QF was to be Courier's last slam QF overall, Bruguera was coming off an injury layoff and when Sampras beat Muster he was hardly a monster on clay he would become for a short period though he already had some excellent results on clay so the biggest win for Sampras overall of those mentioned.
Again, OP and other Sampras fanatics can twist things all they want, Fed will always be plain better than Sampras on clay.
Is Sampras a "mug" on the surface? For pro standards of course not, he had some solid results on clay overall but for all-time tennis great/GOAT standards? Arguably yes.
batz
G.O.A.T.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Got be said that Murray's better than Sampras on clay.
That should end this thread :twisted:
N
nikdom
Guest
These is no department of the game where Roger has not exceeded Sampras. If anything, Roger had to play stronger athletes on a less favorable surface (slower than in Sampras' day).
Sampras can chew on his irrelevant slam count now for the rest of his life.
Sampras can chew on his irrelevant slam count now for the rest of his life.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
...and Federer will retire knowing he was not dominant or talented enough to win the Grand Slam.
Fitting.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
It's not so much the fact that Sampras won less slams and didn't win the French Open. It's the fact that Federer is known for playing the most stylish brand of tennis ever and Sampras is remembered as utterly boring.
DavaiMarat
Professional
Is is the most redundant argument ever! Who let this OP post?!
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
^^ Sampras boring! Perhaps a bit. But he was, in large part, responsible for popularizing the reverse finish FH and then there was his flashy signature shot -- the "air" overhead -- the slum dunk of tennis.
N
nikdom
Guest
No matter. No one else since Laver could do it either. (which might I remind you was on pretty much all grass other than FO)
Still way better than Sampras.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Your mancrush didn't even come close to winning 4 in one year.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It means Federer outpreformed Nadal at the FO that year.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
I'll take Fed's constant stylish play over 1-2 slam dunks per match. Besides Fed gives us the slam dunks too.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
But it was Pete who gave us the slam dunk. Roger might not be doing them at all if not for Pete. Ditto for the reverse finish -- it might not be as popular today if Pete hadn't made it more respectable.
Absolutely stupid argument. Sampras never even made a final at RG, Federer made 6(?). And those guys are absolute nobodies compared to Nadal on clay. The only person that can even be considered in relatvely the same league is Borg. The fact that Fed has beat him twice on Clay is amazing.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
But never at Monaco, Rome or Roland Garros. Only at Hamburg & Madrid when Nadal was dead tired from having played the MAX # of claycourt matches to that point.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
How is this thread still going strong?
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
ROFL..I was just going to post , why is this nonsense thread still going on?
Great minds eh
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Why do you care? Obviously, you disagee with the premise, so you can avoid it. Easy enough to do.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
No, it means Federer was lucky to face anyone other than the best clay courter of the era, otherwise, Federer's fluke win would not exist.
Disgruntled Worker
Professional
The Australian Open REALLY needs to get here
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
DAFQ DID I JUST READ
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Except nobody said Sampras is better than Federer on clay. Only pointed out Sampras has bigger wins at Roland Garros than Federer has, which is a very interesting fact, and also proof while not better than Federer on clay, Sampras is far from the clay court mug he is potrayed on this forum. After 1996 he gave up on clay, and yes he was a total joke on clay from 1997 onwards, but from 1992-1996 he was actually pretty good, and his consistently strong results on the surface those years reflect this.
Most experts also do not have Federer top 10 all time on clay, although Planet Federer worship Warehouse has Federer as the best or second best clay courter of all time (70% or more the best).
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Where does it say so?
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Funny, I thought Federer was unlucky to face 5 times the best clay courter of the era, otherwise, Federer would be the best clay courter of the era.
Feather
Legend
Can you name one Roger Federer fan here who said Federer is the best or second best clay courter of all time?
Instead of playing victim, making sweeping generalizations and exaggerated claims, can you please answer this?
sdont
Legend
Circular argument for the win!
Fact: had Sampras been a better player on clay, he would not have beaten better credentialled clay courters.
Sampras being in the draw every year those players won RG, he could have prevented them to have better credentials had he beaten them more often. In particular, he lost to Bruguera in 93 and to Kafelnikov in 96.
Fact: had Sampras been a better player on clay, he would not have beaten better credentialled clay courters.
Sampras being in the draw every year those players won RG, he could have prevented them to have better credentials had he beaten them more often. In particular, he lost to Bruguera in 93 and to Kafelnikov in 96.
I've posted a link in the past and on average the experts have Roger at #7. EVery experts have Nadal and Borg at #1 and #2 respectively. The resource you got from kiki/bobbyone/hoodjem/Limpin in the former pro talk forum(The Laver Forum) don't have Roger in the top 20, but everyone know they have always put down Roger.
And who said Federer is the #2 greatest cc of all time in here? Please list the names because other people are anxious to know.
Give him a chance to list all the posters. If he doesn't respond, that means there isn't any.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, making up accusations just to have something to moan about, pathetic.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Best clay courter of all time*. Federer made 4 FO finals in a row and 5 in total, that's not luck.
If peak Sampras played peak Federer 10 times on clay, Federer would win 6-8 times. Clay hurts Sampras' biggest weapon - his serve which sets up his volley and forehand. Federer would handle his serve very well on clay. Federer's movement, backhand, and forehand would be far superior to Sampras'.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
..along with his only FO victory handed to him by not having to face his generation's greatest clay court player.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Of course it is luck (more of a fluke) that the one time Federer could win the FO, it was against anyone other than the greatest clay court player of his generation.
Feather
Legend
Federer was lucky to win RG without facing Nadal.. I accept that
Let us leave that aside.
Federer has four runner up plates and made it to the SF seven times.
How come Sampras could never make a final or reached SF only once? So even if you leave the trophy aside, there is HUGE difference between them :wink:
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
Sampras in his peak beat some well credentialled clay courters is a pretty valid statement.
But that is not really what the thread argues. It compares him to Federer. And therein lies the problem. There is no doubt who is the better clay court player of the two when we compare records etc. But there are some factors to consider before dismissing the thread.
Most top players now do well at all the slams. It is also the same players always doing well due to the surface homogenisation. So Federer is beating the same players across all surfaces and it is making little difference what surface due to his all court game and his opponents lack of variety. His supreme talent is always going to overcome them at his peak.
Also with Nadal taking all the clay prizes it has been nigh impossible for any player the last seven years to make any sort of clay credentials.
I think what makes this thread interesting is two ideas.
One. If Nadal had not been dominating, would Federer necessarily have won all those RGs or would the other decent clay court players like Ferrer, Amalgro, Verdasco, Gonzales, have been able to win more tournaments and honed their clay skills, build up confidence. Would it have been Fed to necessarily fill the void?
Second. If the surfaces had not been so homogenised, would Federer play the way he does now, or would he, like Sampras, have focused on his fast court skills and so not have adapted so well to clay out of fear of putting his Wimbledon chances at risk?
But that is not really what the thread argues. It compares him to Federer. And therein lies the problem. There is no doubt who is the better clay court player of the two when we compare records etc. But there are some factors to consider before dismissing the thread.
Most top players now do well at all the slams. It is also the same players always doing well due to the surface homogenisation. So Federer is beating the same players across all surfaces and it is making little difference what surface due to his all court game and his opponents lack of variety. His supreme talent is always going to overcome them at his peak.
Also with Nadal taking all the clay prizes it has been nigh impossible for any player the last seven years to make any sort of clay credentials.
I think what makes this thread interesting is two ideas.
One. If Nadal had not been dominating, would Federer necessarily have won all those RGs or would the other decent clay court players like Ferrer, Amalgro, Verdasco, Gonzales, have been able to win more tournaments and honed their clay skills, build up confidence. Would it have been Fed to necessarily fill the void?
Second. If the surfaces had not been so homogenised, would Federer play the way he does now, or would he, like Sampras, have focused on his fast court skills and so not have adapted so well to clay out of fear of putting his Wimbledon chances at risk?
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Federer grew up on clay.
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
I think Murray did too, right?
Djokovic too.
I'm not sure what you are debating here. Fed is clearly a better clay court player than Sampras. There is nothing to discuss here.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Federer has beaten Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, Kuerten and Wawrinka.
Bring him back
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Hall of Fame
No, clay isn’t a common surface in the UK. It’s hardcourt.
Similar threads
