Federer - 2009-2014 Grand Slam match wins nearly equals Sampras - 1993-1998

drm025 said:
Hewitt and Roddick? You realize that is equivalent to Nadal having to beat Berdych right? They just can't mentally handle beating Fed or Nadal. Hewitt and Roddick took their slams before any of the big 4 were around. I'm sure Berdych could have done the same. I mean he made a GS final beating Federer and Djokovic, and then had to beat Nadal. Hewitt and Roddick wouldnt stand a chance there either.

The best there was to offer during his peak (2004-2007) was less than the best there is to offer after. Not his fault, but true.
Click to expand...

Did someone tell you that are clueless for equating the mental strengths of roddick/hewitt and berdych ?

Oh wait , I just did !

They are light years different ..Hewitt and Roddick are far far tougher mentally than berdych

Of course both hewitt and roddick have better game than berdych as well. Its a no-contest overall.

berdych beat a playing cr*p federer and even more crappier djokovic. Not easy and commendable, but nowhere as difficult as the names make it sound considering both federer and djokovic played crappily ...
 
abmk said:
Did someone tell you that are clueless for equating the mental strengths of roddick/hewitt and berdych ?

Oh wait , I just did !

They are light years different ..Hewitt and Roddick are far far tougher mentally than berdych

Of course both hewitt and roddick have better game than berdych as well. Its a no-contest overall.

berdych beat a playing cr*p federer and even more crappier djokovic. Not easy and commendable, but nowhere as difficult as the names make it sound considering both federer and djokovic played crappily ...
Click to expand...

The point was that Fed playing Hewitt and Roddick is equivalent to Nadal playing Berdych. Not that Berdych is necessarily equivalent to them. They were just easy for Fed to play. You are using their "names" to make it sound hard for Federer.
 
drm025 said:
The point was that Fed playing Hewitt and Roddick is equivalent to Nadal playing Berdych. Not that Berdych is necessarily equivalent to them. They were just easy for Fed to play. You are using their "names" to make it sound hard for Federer.
Click to expand...
Yes they were easy for Fed. But at least they were champions. Berdych is nowhere near a champion. He has never been
 
helloworld said:
Berdych spanked Fed twice in grand slam, and came very close to doing it 3 times in a row.
Click to expand...
Yes. When Fed was nearing 29. The same age Sampras was getting his behin handed to him by Safin. And later on by Hewitt.

And let's not forget 19 year old Phillipoussis, who defeated peak Sampras in straight sets in a HC slam.

What you said proves nothing.
 
mike danny said:
Yes. When Fed was nearing 29. The same age Sampras was getting his behin handed to him by Safin. And later on by Hewitt.

And let's not forget 19 year old Phillipoussis, who defeated peak Sampras in straight sets in a HC slam.

What you said proves nothing.
Click to expand...

It proves that Berdych is good enough to beat Fed on a regular basis at the biggest stage in tennis.
 
helloworld said:
It proves that Berdych is good enough to beat Fed on a regular basis at the biggest stage in tennis.
Click to expand...
Now that Fed is past 30 obviously. It's more Fed getting worse than Berdych being good.

Just like it happened with Safin and Hewitt in Pete's case. But Pete didn;t keep playing to obtain more losses to them
 
mike danny said:
Now that Fed is past 30 obviously. It's more Fed getting worse than Berdych being good.

Just like it happened with Safin and Hewitt in Pete's case. But Pete didn;t keep playing to obtain more losses to them
Click to expand...

Or he didn't keep playing because he held the record for most slams, most Wimbledons, and most time at #1, and no one else was close. The idea of people not playing to preserve records is absurd.
 
drm025 said:
Or he didn't keep playing because he held the record for most slams, most Wimbledons, and most time at #1, and no one else was close. The idea of people not playing to preserve records is absurd.
Click to expand...

You can word it differently. Pete did not like the idea of losing . He found comfort in quitting.
 
tennisaddict said:
You can word it differently. Pete did not like the idea of losing . He found comfort in quitting.
Click to expand...

What else did he have to prove? Nothing. And he didn't have anyone close to him like Fed does. I don't know how you can criticize someone for retiring at 31. What do you think about Borg then?
 
drm025 said:
What else did he have to prove? Nothing. And he didn't have anyone close to him like Fed does. I don't know how you can criticize someone for retiring at 31. What do you think about Borg then?
Click to expand...

He doesnt have to prove anything.

But what is wrong in saying he couldnt take the heat like Fed or Connors ?
 
drm025 said:
There's a difference between couldn't and wouldn't. We don't really know the answer to that, and you didn't give your opinion on Borg.
Click to expand...

Several people think that Sampras quit right after winning USO 2002.

That is far from the truth.

He was hitting the practice courts there after for close to an year and when he could see that his level was no where near what the competition was there at that time , he said "writing on the wall is clear" .

He did not retire till USO 2003.

So, i dont buy that argument that he "wouldnt".


Borg's circumstances were different though one could draw some parallels.
 
tennisaddict said:
Several people think that Sampras quit right after winning USO 2002.

That is far from the truth.

He was hitting the practice courts there after for close to an year and when he could see that his level was no where near what the competition was there at that time , he said "writing on the wall is clear" .

He did not retire till USO 2003.

So, i dont buy that argument that he "wouldnt".


Borg's circumstances were different though one could draw some parallels.
Click to expand...

Don't care when he officially retired, he didn't play a single competitive match after the US Open. So he wins a slam and then decides he can't compete anymore? I'm sure that was part of it, but again where is his motivation to continue pushing hard against a new crop of players?

Do you label Borg as a quitter?
 
drm025 said:
Don't care when he officially retired, he didn't play a single competitive match after the US Open. So he wins a slam and then decides he can't compete anymore? I'm sure that was part of it, but again where is his motivation to continue pushing hard against a new crop of players?

Do you label Borg as a quitter?
Click to expand...

If he was going to win more majors he would not have quit. Would he ?
 
drm025 said:
Or he didn't keep playing because he held the record for most slams, most Wimbledons, and most time at #1, and no one else was close. The idea of people not playing to preserve records is absurd.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. He reaches 3 straight USO finals and all of a sudden he lost motivation?

I don't buy it
 
mike danny said:
Oh come on. He reaches 3 straight USO finals and all of a sudden he lost motivation?

I don't buy it
Click to expand...

Well your version is he reached 3 straight USO finals then couldn't compete anymore?

He won that last one didn't he? I mean your version would make sense if he won the first, then lost 2 finals. It would seem like he was losing it. But he won the last one, giving him a cushion of 3 slams over Borg, and, in his mind, sealing the deal on that record for a while. Not possible?
 
tennisaddict said:
If he was going to win more majors he would not have quit. Would he ?
Click to expand...

Unless he didn't have the motivation to train hard every day. You don't just waltz into a slam and expect to win. You need motivation to work at the highest level. He didn't have anything to give him that extra push. Of course it was going to be harder for him since he was older and new players were coming onto the scene, that's why he would have needed an extra push to keep competing. He didn't have that. He didn't have anyone on his heels.
 
drm025 said:
Well your version is he reached 3 straight USO finals then couldn't compete anymore?

He won that last one didn't he? I mean your version would make sense if he won the first, then lost 2 finals. It would seem like he was losing it. But he won the last one, giving him a cushion of 3 slams over Borg, and, in his mind, sealing the deal on that record for a while. Not possible?
Click to expand...
I meant that he lost the first 2 before winning the 3rd.

He was doing amazingly to reach those finals and when he lost them he simply didn't have motivation?

How convenient
 
drm025 said:
Unless he didn't have the motivation to train hard every day. You don't just waltz into a slam and expect to win. You need motivation to work at the highest level. He didn't have anything to give him that extra push. Of course it was going to be harder for him since he was older and new players were coming onto the scene, that's why he would have needed an extra push to keep competing. He didn't have that. He didn't have anyone on his heels.
Click to expand...

But he didnt retire the day he won, did he ?

Why did he keep trying and retire a year later ?
 
tennisaddict said:
But he didnt retire the day he won, did he ?

Why did he keep trying and retire a year later ?
Click to expand...

To see if the motivation and desire was still there??? If he was legitimately trying why didn't he enter a single tournament?

"The writing on the wall" doesn't have to mean he can't physically keep up. It could also mean the motivation just isn't there.
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
I meant that he lost the first 2 before winning the 3rd.

He was doing amazingly to reach those finals and when he lost them he simply didn't have motivation?

How convenient
Click to expand...

What do you mean when he lost them? I'm talking about after winning 2002 USO. He didn't lose anything after that, cause he retired.

I'm not saying anything about the 2000 and 2001 finals.
 
drm025 said:
What do you mean when he lost them? I'm talking about after winning 2002 USO. He didn't lose anything after that, cause he retired.

I'm not saying anything about the 2000 and 2001 finals.
Click to expand...
Those were the finals I am talking about.

You claim Fed was in his prime when at the same age Pete was losing to Safin and Hewitt in slams. And you associate those losses to lack of motivation.

But when Fed lost to Djokovic in 2010-2011 it was because the competition was too strong

These double standards are aspects I can't stand
 
drm025 said:
What do you mean when he lost them? I'm talking about after winning 2002 USO. He didn't lose anything after that, cause he retired.

I'm not saying anything about the 2000 and 2001 finals.
Click to expand...
But you didn't answer my question. Why was 2007 part of the weak era when Nadal and Djokovic pushed Federer hard at his favorite slams and Djokovic had better results than in 2010, a "strong era" year
 
drm025 said:
To see if the motivation and desire was still there??? If he was legitimately trying why didn't he enter a single tournament?

"The writing on the wall" doesn't have to mean he can't physically keep up. It could also mean the motivation just isn't there.
Click to expand...

If motivation was not there, he wouldn't have hit the practice courts.

All of this does not matter. For a guy whose sole ambition was to win majors and cross Laver, Borg and Emerson , he should have known 14 majors was not sufficient enough.
 
I see Sampras made much more efficient use of his opportunities in his GS finals.. Too bad Federer didn't win some more finals or other close matches
 
merwy said:
I see Sampras made much more efficient use of his opportunities in his GS finals.. Too bad Federer didn't win some more finals or other close matches
Click to expand...

Federer's losses in 8 major finals were to Nadal / Delpo/ Novak. 4 of those losses were 5 setters.

However what counts is Fed gave himself the opportunity to win 25 times while Sampras could do it only far lesser - 18 times.
 
mike danny said:
Those were the finals I am talking about.

You claim Fed was in his prime when at the same age Pete was losing to Safin and Hewitt in slams. And you associate those losses to lack of motivation.

But when Fed lost to Djokovic in 2010-2011 it was because the competition was too strong

These double standards are aspects I can't stand
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying the 2000 and 2001 losses were due to lack of motivation, haha, where did I say that? I said his retirement was due to lack of motivation.
 
tennisaddict said:
If motivation was not there, he wouldn't have hit the practice courts.

All of this does not matter. For a guy whose sole ambition was to win majors and cross Laver, Borg and Emerson , he should have known 14 majors was not sufficient enough.
Click to expand...

Again, you hit the practice courts to evaluate your motivation. If you don't have the will to practice at a high level day in, day out, you won't be able to. The players at the top are there because of their will to succeed. You need to push through a lot of pain.

I think many tennis experts thought it would hold for a while.... But Sampras should have known he needed more?
 
drm025 said:
What else did he have to prove? Nothing. And he didn't have anyone close to him like Fed does. I don't know how you can criticize someone for retiring at 31. What do you think about Borg then?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Sampras had nothing to prove with his 5 French Open titles... oh, wait!
 
Revenant said:
Yeah, Sampras had nothing to prove with his 5 French Open titles... oh, wait!
Click to expand...

Only Agassi had the career slam at the time and Sampras had the advantage head to head and in slam total. If he wasn't going to be successful on clay during his peak, he certainly wasnt going to be successful after turning 31. Again, I am nowhere close to being a Sampras fan.
 
drm025 said:
Only Agassi had the career slam at the time and Sampras had the advantage head to head and in slam total. If he wasn't going to be successful on clay during his peak, he certainly wasnt going to be successful after turning 31. Again, I am nowhere close to being a Sampras fan.
Click to expand...

Why do Agassi and his career even matter? You said Sampras had nothing to prove. He did have something to prove, because he had never even made a French Open final. Beating Agassi doesn't give him Agassi's career achievements.
 
Revenant said:
Why do Agassi and his career even matter? You said Sampras had nothing to prove. He did have something to prove, because he had never even made a French Open final. Beating Agassi doesn't give him Agassi's career achievements.
Click to expand...
Winning the career slam was not a goat criteria or a hole at that time, because only two people had achieved it in the open era. His slam titles, weeks at number 1, and positive head to head against the one player who was a contemporary, meant he had nothing to prove.
 
Last edited:
drm025 said:
Winning the career slam was not a goat criteria or a hole at that time, because only one person had achieved it in the open era. His slam titles, weeks at number 1, and positive head to head against that one player, meant he had nothing to prove.
Click to expand...

Two players, actually. Rod Laver and Andre Agassi. And while Sampras was always ahead of Agassi, it wasn't as clear with Laver. Either way, GOAT criteria or not, he had something to prove. And he didn't.
 
Revenant said:
Two players, actually. Rod Laver and Andre Agassi. And while Sampras was always ahead of Agassi, it wasn't as clear with Laver. Either way, GOAT criteria or not, he had something to prove. And he didn't.
Click to expand...
Every goat condidate has something to prove, he was the closest to open era goat at the time.
 
drm025 said:
Every goat condidate has something to prove, he was the closest to open era goat at the time.
Click to expand...

He was the Open Era GOAT. But not the overall GOAT, necessarily, because Laver arguably achieved more and definitely had smaller holes. Either way, not winning a Slam is about as big a hole as you could have. Which meant he did have something to prove. That's not to say, of course, that you can't be the GOAT with a hole in your resume. Everybody has holes in their resume, without exception. But again, some holes are bigger than others.
 
Revenant said:
He was the Open Era GOAT. But not the overall GOAT, necessarily, because Laver arguably achieved more and definitely had smaller holes. Either way, not winning a Slam is about as big a hole as you could have. Which meant he did have something to prove. That's not to say, of course, that you can't be the GOAT with a hole in your resume. Everybody has holes in their resume, without exception. But again, some holes are bigger than others.
Click to expand...

You can probably even be GOAT without ever winning a certain major if all your other career stats are up to scratch.
 
Revenant said:
He was the Open Era GOAT. But not the overall GOAT, necessarily, because Laver arguably achieved more and definitely had smaller holes. Either way, not winning a Slam is about as big a hole as you could have. Which meant he did have something to prove. That's not to say, of course, that you can't be the GOAT with a hole in your resume. Everybody has holes in their resume, without exception. But again, some holes are bigger than others.
Click to expand...
For sure, I agree, but he wasnt going to fill that hole by continuing at 31
 
Djokovic2011 said:
You can probably even be GOAT without ever winning a certain major if all your other career stats are up to scratch.
Click to expand...

I agree. For instance, if a player came up that wins 25 Slams but never the US Open, he'd be the GOAT. But he also leaves room for dispute, because it then becomes a discussion if someone else comes up with 6 titles at each of the Slams.
 
drm025 said:
For sure, I agree, but he wasnt going to fill that hole by continuing at 31
Click to expand...

Does it matter? He had something to prove, and he didn't. He quit. It would have been easy to say the same for Federer about Monte Carlo or Davis Cup when he turned 31, but he played on and he had a great chance to win Monte Carlo, and still has a chance to win Davis Cup. Federer believes he still has things to prove, and he is working toward them. Despite surpassing Sampras in almost every way. Sampras didn't have the mentality to do the same.
 
Revenant said:
LOL! Can you name me one other player who was in his prime for 10 years? Or is it only Federer? When did Nadal's prime start? And do you think he's still in his prime? It's ridiculous to say Federer was in his prime at the age that Sampras retired.

Blake and Davydenko owned baby Nadal. Can't be too difficult, it seems. Just because Federer couldn't do it doesn't mean it's the toughest thing ever. Some players are just better equipped to do it, and Djokovic is one of them.


Why don't you pick something shorter? Like, you know:
1. Best 2-minute period
2. Best 1-hour period
3. Best 2-week period
4. Best 2-month period

It doesn't work that way.

Federer's 2006 season > Djokovic's 2011 season

3 Slams = 3 Slams
FO Final > FO Semifinal
1 WTF > 0 WTF
4 Masters < 5 Masters
1 500 = 1 500
3 250s > 1 250

92-5 > 70-6
Click to expand...

Wow....now that's how you own someone!!
 
Revenant said:
Does it matter? He had something to prove, and he didn't. He quit. It would have been easy to say the same for Federer about Monte Carlo or Davis Cup when he turned 31, but he played on and he had a great chance to win Monte Carlo, and still has a chance to win Davis Cup. Federer believes he still has things to prove, and he is working toward them. Despite surpassing Sampras in almost every way. Sampras didn't have the mentality to do the same.
Click to expand...

Fed's not continuing to play to win monte carlo or davis cup... He wants to win another slam and, actually, the olympics.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/8721362/roger-federer-limit-schedule-order-play-2016-games

Federer believes he still has things to prove, Sampras didn't. Nadal is also approaching Fed's slam total. Again, no one was close to Sampras.
 
jg153040 said:
Damn, Fed really underachieved past his prime. So, out of all those matches, he has such poor conversion rate. Only 4 resulted in wins.

I think it's due to tougher competition in Nole and Rafa.

Because, how else can he win so less with the same number of matches won? That means he had the same consistency, just Sampras didn't have to deal with the likes of prime Nole/Rafa 5 years younger.

This solidifies Federer's goat status.
Click to expand...

Funny you use this argument. Weren't you the one arguing that you can't determine what eras have tougher competition when people argue Nole/Nadal have it harder than Fed, but now you use the same to compare Sampras vs Federer?

From 04-07 Federer won 90 slam matches between R1-SF
From 11-14 Djokovic also won 90 slam matches from between R1-SF

The exact same level of consistency. The only difference is in the conversion rates in the finals themselves, which is largely due to Djokovic having to face Murray, Nadal, and Federer in all of his finals compared to the lesser competition Federer had to face in many of his finals. Yet you fail to recognize this as tougher competition at the top for Djokovic vs Fed, but now attempt to do the same for Federer vs Sampras :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Federer 2011-2017 - same # of Grand Slam semifinals as Sampras 1992-1998
Replies
1
Views
400
MasturB
MasturB
M
What is record for most QFs reached after winning a Grand Slam but not winning it again?
Replies
5
Views
810
helterskelter
H
M
What stands out more to you: Federer's more Grand Slam quarterfinals/semis/finals or Nadal's "conversion" of winning Grand Slams?
Replies
19
Views
1K
skip1969
skip1969
M
Sampras and Federer After #1
Replies
8
Views
1K
Laurie
L
M
Federer and Records at 2013 Australian Open
Replies
5
Views
2K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
Back
Top