tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
And Roger Federer was not lucky to get Boris Becker in a clay court Masters final at Rome..
And complete nobodies en route to the final as opposed to, say, Djokovic or Ferrer.
And Roger Federer was not lucky to get Boris Becker in a clay court Masters final at Rome..
Which means nothing, other than the fact Federer needed Nadal to be absent from a FO final in order to win.
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:
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.
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.
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.
...and Federer will retire knowing he was not dominant or talented enough to win the Grand Slam.
Fitting.
...and Federer will retire knowing he was not dominant or talented enough to win the Grand Slam.
Fitting.
Which means nothing, other than the fact Federer needed Nadal to be absent from a FO final in order to win.
^^ 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.
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.
How is this thread still going strong?
How is this thread still going strong?
Your mancrush didn't even come close to winning 4 in one year.
It means Federer outpreformed Nadal at the FO that year.
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.
Where does it say so?Planet Federer worship Warehouse has Federer as the best or second best clay courter of all time (70% or more the best).
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.
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).
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).
Where does it say so?
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?
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.
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...
Best clay courter of all time*. Federer made 4 FO finals in a row and 5 in total, that's not luck.
..along with his only FO victory handed to him by not having to face his generation's greatest clay court player.
Federer grew up on clay.
Djokovic too.I think Murray did too, right?
Bring him backWell 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
No, clay isn’t a common surface in the UK. It’s hardcourt.I think Murray did too, right?