Fact: Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters more times than Federer

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.


:lol:

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%
 
While overall Federer is obviously better than Sampras on clay the OP is in fact quite right. At RG Sampras does have bigger individual wins than Federer has had, clearly. Not surprised to see the ****s going all lunatic about it, lol, so easy to rile the lovesick orgy up.

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.
 
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%

Roughly equivelant to Murray's RG record

/end thread.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
^^ 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.
 
...and Federer will retire knowing he was not dominant or talented enough to win the Grand Slam.

Fitting.

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.
 
^^ 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.

I'll take Fed's constant stylish play over 1-2 slam dunks per match. Besides Fed gives us the slam dunks too.
 
I'll take Fed's constant stylish play over 1-2 slam dunks per match. Besides Fed gives us the slam dunks too.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
It is inconceivable to compare Sampras who faced the toughest clay competition of all time except Nadal, to Federer who at his clay peak was thoroughly humiliated by hip busted Kuerten and near-retired Costa.
 
Many experts have ranked Roger at around #7 best clay courter of all time. Saying Pete is better than Roger on clay is like saying Serena is better than Justine on clay.
 
Many experts have ranked Roger at around #7 best clay courter of all time. Saying Pete is better than Roger on clay is like saying Serena is better than Justine on clay.

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).
 
This thread is up there with the other tt classics, which posters can take a set off Ferrer, and can a 5.0 beat Mac, this place is awesome.
 
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.

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.
 
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).

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?
 
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.
 
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).

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.
 
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'.
 
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...

..along with his only FO victory handed to him by not having to face his generation's greatest clay court player.
 
Best clay courter of all time*. Federer made 4 FO finals in a row and 5 in total, that's not luck.

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.
 
..along with his only FO victory handed to him by not having to face his generation's greatest clay court player.

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:
 
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?
 
Last edited:
SAMPRAS_LEJOUROU_TENNISMAJORS.jpg


Pete did make a FO semi in a very strong era of clay court tennis. I like Nadal but he really had an easier time from the 1st to 4th rounds to make his French finals.
 
Well Fed HAS beaten Nadal (but hell I would like Pete's chances vs. Nadal too if hes on, on any given day.) Nadal HAS struggled with big servers and Pete was THEE big server of his time.) If Isner can play Nadal tough, I have NO DOUBT Pete couldn't as well.

But you are correct, In terms of quantity, Pete has conquered more great clay courters then Federer.

But its no surprise. the 90s had some of the best clay depth we have seen.. FAR greater then any we have seen since. On any given day, Pete could beat anyone on clay courts. But hes dismissed as some "mug" but thats not surprising here on FedererismyGODwarehouse.com
Bring him back
 
Back
Top