Federer 2015 vs. Sampras 2001

[Nadalgaenger]

Sampras' winning percentage at age 29 was 69% for the year. He only made it past the 4R at one slam, the USO, where he was beaten down by Hewitt in the final.
Of course, he famously lost in 5 sets to teenage Federer on his best surface.

Federer in 2001 did not make it past the QF at any slam (he lost to Henman after the Sampras victory) and his winning percentage for the year was right at 70%.

People always say that Sampras was "old" in 2001, but Federer in 2015 posted the following numbers at age 34/35:
2 GS finals where he met a player far superior to Hewitt and a true GOAT candidate and played respectably.
An 85% win percentage for the year!!
Runner up at WTF
A dominant performance at Wimbledon in which he only dropped one set in route to the final.

So if Federer could beat Sampras as a teenager in 2001, then what would he have done to 2001 Sampras last year?

 

[CYGS]

Technological advancement. 29 was old in 2001, but it is prime age in 2015. True story.

 

[Tenez!]

Technological advancement. 29 was old in 2001, but it is prime age in 2015. True story.

Another crock of nonsense from the king of dumb arguments.
All that talk about "Laver was the best ever because he won the Grand Slam at 31" but then when Federer reaches a final at 34 it's because of technological advances. And yet Sampras, between the two, gets a pass for failing at 29 even though many have done better in their later years?
You don't make sense.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

And there lies a tale as to how much tennis has changed. Slow as f*** youngsters like top 10 Tomic who can't push the big dinosaurs into extinction. Apart from the uncharacteristic loss to Martin in AO, Sampras was still beating his contemporaries. Beat Rafter, Agassi and Safin en route to the final but lost to Hewitt. At Wimbledon too, he lost to Fed. The 2001 USO draw had great depth. Only one tier 1 great and one tier 2 in the field but lots of players who could take out champions on their day, making it much more unpredictable. I think ultimately the decline of tennis in US has also been bad for the game as a whole. It was masked by the greatness of the Big Three but it is becoming apparent more and more as promising young players are simply not coming through the way they once used to. Arguably even in Europe it is not a good situation. Maybe it's the Great Recession biting. Investing in such a financially brutal sport in tough times is not a good idea so maybe those college players just got jobs and quit tennis.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I counted four players - Fed, Youzhny, Haas and Robredo - who are still playing. One more - Hewitt - just retired at the AO and one another - Fish - retired last year. Maybe I missed but I didn't see a single player from the 1986 US Open draw in the 2001 draw. And - I just quickly glanced through but - I don't think that changes even if I compared 99 to 86. You can attribute phenomenal cosmic powers to Fed but what gives re Haas or Robredo. Robredo is still ranked a respectable no.39. Youzhny is at no.70. Only Haas has slid way down. To put that in perspective, future Djokovic Borna Coric is still ranked below Robredo, albeit just one spot, in spite of the latter having really slowed down through 2015. Hewitt, only a few months older then than Coric is now, was the champion in 2001 USO. I do love this sport, warts and all, but if the organisers are just going to play see, speak and hear no evil, then it's going to get f***ed big time. Much ridiculed 'weak era mug' Roddick was 19 at the 2001 USO and finished the year ranked 14. I could go on....

 

[Lord Anomander]

As I have not really followed tennis back then: Why is it that Sampras declined so quickly in his late 20s? His style of play in my eyes wasn't that physical, he lived by his big serve and volley/smash and furthermore, he skipped quite a lot of masters tournaments (or lost "early"). So, I don't see any reason why he couldn't keep up a few years longer as Agassi (or Federer/Laver in other eras) did. To me it seems that his motivation wasn't just there anymore.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Yup, you said it, basically his motivation was gone. He had to struggle through injuries just to win the 2000 Wimbledon title and that seemed to drain him so much that he kind of lost interest.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Technological advancement. 29 was old in 2001, but it is prime age in 2015. True story.

Weak era!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yup, you said it, basically his motivation was gone. He had to struggle through injuries just to win the 2000 Wimbledon title and that seemed to drain him so much that he kind of lost interest.

He broke Emerson's record and that was his goal. I think he was staying on a little past that because he knew he could get one more, and he did.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/wimbledon2000/827498.stm