helloworld
Hall of Fame
I wonder who cries more, him or his twin daughters. :lol:
Federer - 2009-2014 Grand Slam match wins nearly equals Sampras - 1993-1998
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
I wonder who cries more, him or his twin daughters. :lol:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Actually, that's not a bad way of crying. It was a result to the already major injury issues he had in his career piling up and mentally that's really tough to deal with in a major final. Still, he kept his tears to himself and didn't take anything away from the winner.
Unlike sooky la la Fed who cried on the podium showing what a real attention seeking ***** he is. He spoiled Nadal's victory by making everyone feel sorry for him and why did he cry? Because he couldn't play well enough to win. What a shame.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
It is a shame that you guys think that players crying after losing a final is something to be ashamed about.
No one is robbing attention of the winner. Nadal's speech was not cut out unlike Delpo's after the USO.
Did Fed say he deserved to win more than Nadal ? No. All even the worst of haters can get was that it was tough loss to swallow for Fed.
And Fed cried because of the incessant crowd support when he came to speak and the crowd chanting 'We love you Fed no matter what'.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Like this ?
Nadal kept his tears during the ceremony. He showed Fed how a real man should take a tough loss.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
What is "real man" ? Fed has 4 kids - 2 boy twins and 2 girl twins.
That is as good a "real man" you can get.
McEnroeisanartist
Hall of Fame
Real man. That is funny. When I think of a real man, I think of a man who at least shows up and gives it his all. Makes an effort. I think we know who that is. Afterall, he has played 60 consecutive grand slams.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Real men should say "Writing is on the Wall" at age 30 and quit without a fight ?
He won the 2002 USO at 31, at least get the age right.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Big deal. One month into age 31.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
The weak era players like Robredo, Haas , Hewitt are still defeating the Novak's, Murray's and Delpo's.
So 30 is the more accurate description?
rodrigo_palacio88
Rookie
federer at 33 is doing a much better performace than sampras at 29 or 30 years old...
fed when won wimbledon had 31 ( a difference of a month!! aha) and he was n°1 at 31.
and if we talk of eras , sampras faced very good players , but his main rival was a headcase and drug problems.
fed is not only considerated goat but titltes or rivals.
he is by his game , he won everything playing beatiful game
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Only with Sampras. With Federer, you would've been more accurate if you said he was 45 this year :lol:
Hahaha, I agree. You would think Federer has been 33 for at least 6 months now.
So, Sampras won his last slam at an older age than when Fed won his last slam (so far). Got it. And his last slam win was against an all-time great who was strong competition for Fed 3 years later (2005 USO). Fed's last 5 slam wins were actually against Murray (3x), Roddick, and Soderling. Not all-time greats.
Last edited:
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
You really are dense. Federer has been ranked #1 at an older age then Sampras.
For sure, Fed has always been more consistent and had more longevity in his consistency, but still the ultimate goal is to win slams, no? I understand Federer has more slams and he is clearly greater than Sampras. It just never occurred to me that Sampras was actually older than Fed for their last slam wins (unless Fed wins another, which will be hard since hes already approaching 34).
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Which he has done better than Sampras.
17* > 14
* bonus points for winning the French Open
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Nobody is arguing that Federer is having a greater overall career than Sampras, but there are too many things/records that Federer failed to Surpass Sampras. For example, Federer's failure to surpass Sampras at Wimbledon will always be a topic up for debate for several years to come. Both men excel in winning the same tournament(Wimbledon/USO), yet they are tied with the same number of titles...
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yep, Djokovic also had to face Nishikori.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
SpicyCurry is back to heavily overrating Djokovic.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Show me one metric other than YE#1 where Sampras is BETTER than Fed ? You can't. So just shut.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic also didn't have "tougher competition". Facing Murray is equal to facing Hewitt, facing Nishikori is also below facing either of these players..
Djokovic can't even "convert" his finals into titles because he isn't as good a big match player as Nadal or Federer. Whining about the competition is basically saying "I have no real argument, so I'll say that the competition was harder for my favorite player and I'll throw out some names to make it seem that way".
Djokovic can't even "convert" his finals into titles because he isn't as good a big match player as Nadal or Federer. Whining about the competition is basically saying "I have no real argument, so I'll say that the competition was harder for my favorite player and I'll throw out some names to make it seem that way".
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And Sampras having harder competition than Federer?
In what universe is facing Rafter and Pioline harder than facing Roddick and Nadal?
In what universe is facing Rafter and Pioline harder than facing Roddick and Nadal?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Very debatable Saby, especially when the consensus seems to be that Murray's peak> Hewitt's peak.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Not debatable at all when most sensible people (who aren't fans of the Yugoslavian king) see them as equals.. Even The_Order who is traditionally a Nadal fan has said they have an equal peak level of play.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Hand on heart m8, have you ever seen Hewitt play better than Murray did at the 2012 AO and be honest?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You should watch Hewitt matches when he was 19 and 20. It is not yet a slam dunk case who is greater.
Unfortunately people would rate Hewitt higher if he had quit the game in 2005.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yep, Davis Cup 2003.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Have you got a link for the match mate?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
90's Clay
Banned
And Sampras having harder competition than Federer?
In what universe is facing Rafter and Pioline harder than facing Roddick and Nadal?
Facing Rafter is tougher than facing Roddick. .. Pioline in one slam final is like playing Baghaditis or Gonzales once in a slam final.
Playing Courier, Rafter, prime Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Kafelnikov, etc. is just flat out more difficult than playing Young pre-prime Nadal, old Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Blake, Ljbubicic, Safin, Nalbandian etc.
The 90s just flat out had more depth and talent than either the 00's or 10's
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Facing Rafter isn't as hard as facing Roddick. Rafter is the DEFINITION of a transitional champion. He won his slams in the weakest period in the sport, ever, with Sampras playing injured, Agassi MIA and journeyman making slam finals. You kidding me?
PS - Courier, Edberg and Becker were close to being done/done by the time Sampras started dominating. And if you're gonna say half-assing Agassi, Kafelnikov and Rafter are better than Hewitt/Safin/Roddick than you're kidding yourself. Agassi had one peak year in '95 and besides that did next to nothing until '99-2003. It's a joke that you're even mentioning him when you know he performed better overall in Hewitt/Federer's era, at least on a consistent basis.
90's Clay
Banned
No. Hewitt is the definition of a transitional champ. When Rafter won his slam Pete was still in his prime, Beat Agassi in 2000 (which is way the hell tougher than beating Roddick or Hewitt ROFLMAO)
I would say Roddick was a transitional champ but thats probably being too nice to Roddick. He was essentially a LOSER. Shouldn't even have won a slam if Nalbandian didn't get hosed by the linesmen in 2003 at the USO
And Half assed Agassi is still 10 times more talented than even PEAK Roddick and Agassi still had some solid years especially '95 which obviously NONE of Fed's contemporaries could even sniff level wise.
Edberg still #2 or #3 in the world when Pete was playing him. Becker was still a force at places like the AO, Wimbledon and YEC.
Factor in Goran, Kafelnikov and others and Bruguera Pete had it tougher. Sorry
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nope, Hewitt actually beat a healthy Sampras for one of his slams. Rafter beat a Sampras who could barely move in '98.
Who did he beat for his '97 US Open? I know it wasn't Sampras..
And beating Agassi on grass is for sure not as hard as beating prime Sampras on grass, WHICH RAFTER FAILED AT AND HEWITT ACHIEVED.
[QUOTE="90's Clay]
I would say Roddick was a transitional champ but thats probably being too nice to Roddick. He was essentially a LOSER. Shouldn't even have won a slam if Nalbandian didn't get hosed by the linesmen in 2003 at the USO
And Half assed Agassi is still 10 times more talented than even PEAK Roddick and Agassi still had some solid years especially '95 which obviously NONE of Fed's contemporaries could even sniff level wise.
Edberg still #2 or #3 in the world when Pete was playing him. Becker was still a force at places like the AO, Wimbledon and YEC.
Factor in Goran, Kafelnikov and others and Bruguera Pete had it tougher. Sorry[/QUOTE]
Agassi half-assing was NOTHING. He was almost always ranked outside the top 10 during Pete's domination besides the times he actually put effort into the sport, and every time he did he always usurped Sampras for the top spot. I wonder why? :lol:
Also, what about the weakest 2 slam champ in history overtaking Sampras for #1? What about Moya and Rafter stealing the spot too? :lol: Sampras played in a weak era and he couldn't even dominate it.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
What about the 3-1 H2H between Rafter and Hewitt? How come if Hewitt was such a transitional champion/weak era champion, he beat down your supposed "strong era" Rafter as a pre-teen? What about Hewitt having double the amount of titles Rafter has, or Roddick even? Yet Rafter was tougher? What a joke.
NatF
Bionic Poster
That match is a bit overrated IMO. Hewitt has played several matches at that level.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Rafter could hold his own against the best though.
That WIM00 sf was edge of the seat stuff for me, wanted Pat to win so bad but didn't think he had it in him, he surprised me especially after Andre took the 4th set, I was thinking he's gone now. Aussie pride kicked in and he fought back :lol:
In that final against Pete, he should've gone up 2 sets - 0 but he didn't hold his nerve and once Pete sensed that (I got the feeling anyway) the result was never in doubt.
The next year, he proved himself again beating Agassi in 5 in the sf and unfortunately (for him) lost a tight battle to Goran.
2001 AO would've been his though if he didn't cramp up.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Can't go drawing conclusions like that. Otherwise look at Rafter's h2h with Federer...
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yes, in a weak era.
But we both know Agassi wasn't great on the green stuff. Rafter wouldn't have beaten Agassi in a HC slam final or anything.The_Order said:
[QUOTE="The_Order]
In that final against Pete, he should've gone up 2 sets - 0 but he didn't hold his nerve and once Pete sensed that (I got the feeling anyway) the result was never in doubt.
[/QUOTE]
That says more about Sampras' resilient fighting back attitude than anything. I don't think Rafter would have won that final either way..
[QUOTE="The_Order]
The next year, he proved himself again beating Agassi in 5 in the sf and unfortunately (for him) lost a tight battle to Goran.
2001 AO would've been his though if he didn't cramp up.[/QUOTE]
Except he didn't, he cramped up and lost. Philippoussis is another Australian player who took it to Sampras, and even he is behind in the H2H with Hewitt.
I also think we can say Hewitt was the better player when compared to Rafter because he was leading the H2H as a teenage boy, while Rafter was schooling the players that would later end up owning Hewitt. I mean, if both players were in their prime at the same time I'm sure Hewitt would lead the H2H. 2 of his meetings with Rafter came in '99 (Hewitt won them both) and that was the year Rafter made the Wimbledon SF.
Facing Roddick is tougher than facing Rafter. .. Pioline in one slam final is like playing Baghaditis or Gonzales once in a slam final.
Playing Courier, Rafter, meth Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Kafelnikov, etc. is just flat out more easier than playing Nadal, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Blake, Ljbubicic, Safin, Nalbandian etc.
The 90s just flat out had LESS depth and talent than either the 00's or 10's
oberyn
Professional
I don’t see how anyone can make a definitive statement about it one way or the other. It’s not like we’re talking about, for either era, a time period in which the top pros were prevented from competing at the slams or anything remotely similar. I wish both sides of this would just give it a rest and accept that you’re not going to change each other’s minds. Sheesh.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Wawrinka made 1 slam final in his life and he won a slam in this era. He's basically a Pioline or Todd Martin level player, yet he won a slam. The difference is Sampras didn't let these lesser guys win a fluke slam in their finals. Sampras would never let Wawrinka level player win any slam in the 90s. It's just really rediculous.
Despite playing in a weak era, Sampras never won 3 slams/year or even made 4 slam finals/year during his prime years. Of course Sampras wasn't good enough thus letting other players win many slams.
I'm just replying to a bitter troll
The weak era theory was invented by the Sampras fans ever since Roger became a dominant force on the tour.
It's the same nonsense when people attack Navratilova for having a weak competition simply because she was one of the most dominant player on the women's tour.
The weak era theory was invented by the Sampras fans ever since Roger became a dominant force on the tour.
It's the same nonsense when people attack Navratilova for having a weak competition simply because she was one of the most dominant player on the women's tour.
Similar threads
