Federer head to heads vs Sampras and Agassi in their primes

[fed_rulz]

We can't compare eras...because the game has changed, so while I agree
with a lot of what grafselesfan says, i agree we should bring these kinda
GOAT/era threads to an end(of course I've gone and bumped this threadLOL)

OTFD, some things for you to consider: First: you state that numbers don't mean anything, because you cannot compare eras. Fair enough.

But then you contradict yourself by claiming that players today do not play the style that players in the 90s played, and all over your post (and even in the past) you insinuate that the players and the playing style of the 90s was better (e.g. players now don't S & V, do not take the ball on the rise, etc.)

Are you suggesting that the playing style today would have not reaped much success in the 90s? Or do you think the playing style of the 90s would have the same success today as in the 90s? What exactly is it?

Here's the deal: if Fed's numbers cannot be compared to Sampras', then clearly you believe that Fed has not surpassed Sampras or you still think Sampras is better or you think Sampras accomplished his success in a harder environment. By suggesting that today's players (read: Fed, Nadal) are having it easy, you are effectively trashing today's players, by comparing them to the players of the past, and yet you jump in time and again and preach that "eras should not be compared".

If you really are not into comparing eras (and hence the weak-era crap), go direct your lecture to GSF (who seems to make a living out of comparing eras), instead of "agreeing" with a lot of what he says.

 

[TMF]

OTFD, some things for you to consider: First: you state that numbers don't mean anything, because you cannot compare eras. Fair enough.

But then you contradict yourself by claiming that players today do not play the style that players in the 90s played, and all over your post (and even in the past) you insinuate that the players and the playing style of the 90s was better (e.g. players now don't S & V, do not take the ball on the rise, etc.)

Are you suggesting that the playing style today would have not reaped much success in the 90s? Or do you think the playing style of the 90s would have the same success today as in the 90s? What exactly is it?

Here's the deal: if Fed's numbers cannot be compared to Sampras', then clearly you believe that Fed has not surpassed Sampras or you still think Sampras is better or you think Sampras accomplished his success in a harder environment. By suggesting that today's players (read: Fed, Nadal) are having it easy, you are effectively trashing today's players, by comparing them to the players of the past, and yet you jump in time and again and preach that "eras should not be compared".

If you really are not into comparing eras (and hence the weak-era crap), go direct your lecture to GSF (who seems to make a living out of comparing eras), instead of "agreeing" with a lot of what he says.

obsessedtennisfandisorder is a funny character. For him to strongly believe it's impossible to compare different era(which is nothing wrong), he's in no position to question players lack of varietites, or to suggest players aren't as good than the past. What stupid is he then disregard by saying "numbers means nothing"(b/c Roger #'s is better than Pete).

 

[mental midget]

In your dream, boy.

i think these numbers are entirely plausible.

 

[edmondsm]

grafseles fan calls Hewitt a poor mans Chang. If that's true, then a poor man's Chang completely dominated Pete Sampras in the 2001 USO final.

 

[T1000]

vs Sampras
clay - Federer 9-1
old grass - sampras 6-4
current grass - federer 6-4
carpet - sampras 7-3
slow hard court - federer 7-3
fast hard court - even 5-5

total federer - 34
total sampras - 26

I think it would be pretty even except on clay

vs Agassi
clay - federer 7-3
old grass - federer 8-2
current grass - federer 8-2
slow hard court - Agassi 6-4
fast hard court - federer 7-3
carpet - federer 7-3

total Federer - 41
total agassi - 19

not really sure about this one as I never really watched agassi in his prime

 

[Chadwixx]

completely dominated Pete Sampras in the 2001 USO final.

This is what happens when pete makes you play his game and you dont want to

 

[TheFifthSet]

Ref highlighted: Federer is a baseliner, so a slow court will always favor him. One of Goran's biggest strengths was his serve, so needless to say, a slow surface works to his detriment.

. . . . . and it's not as if Federer has one of the best serves on tour or anything . . . .

 

[World Beater]

This is a common problem when people talk about goran. They base him on his peak preformance instead of how did consistently did. He lost to more nonames than safin.

goran's peak performance isnt all that great, even then.

safin's peak performance is far far superior.

 

[World Beater]

In your dream, boy.

His dream, your nightmare.

LOL.

 

[NamRanger]

grafseles fan calls Hewitt a poor mans Chang. If that's true, then a poor man's Chang completely dominated Pete Sampras in the 2001 USO final.

How is Hewitt a poor man's Chang when he has 2 slams, was the world #1, won multiple masters titles, etc. ?

 

[JeMar]

How is Hewitt a poor man's Chang when he has 2 slams, was the world #1, won multiple masters titles, etc. ?

Hewitt didn't have Pete standing in his way at any of his slams.

Oh wait.

Oops.

 

[Agassifan]

Federer vs Sampras:

Rebound ace- 5 wins each
Clay- Federer wins 7 out of 10
Old 90s grass- Sampras wins 8 out of 10
current grass- Sampras wins 6 out of 10
Decoturf- Sampras wins 8 out of 10
Carpet- Sampras wins 8 out of 10

Sad part is... you're not even kidding about it.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

Federer-Sampras.
Rebound Ace: Federer wins 7 out 10.
Clay: Federer wins 9 out of 10.
1990s Grass: Sampras wins 9 out 10. (I would dare to say 10 out of 10 if he was in the zone, see example of 1999).
Current Grass: 5-5 tie.
Carpet: Sampras 6 out 10.
Slow HC: Federer 6 out of 10.
Fast HC: Sampras 6 out of 10.

 

[ksbh]

Roddick is considered one of the biggest servers and Federer had more aces than him in the Wimbledon final.

Federer in fact out aces most of his opponents, so I have to disagree with you. He doesn't have one of the best serves ever but clearly has the best serve in this current field. All of this assuming you weren't being sarcastic, that is!

. . . . . and it's not as if Federer has one of the best serves on tour or anything . . . .

 

[ksbh]

That's a great point, something I cannot disagree with, no matter how hard I try!

This is a common problem when people talk about goran. They base him on his peak preformance instead of how did consistently did. He lost to more nonames than safin.

 

[ksbh]

Alright, now you make sense. That's why I tell folks ... read before you click!

Whoops I meant to say how is it an advantage for Goran

 

[ksbh]

Mike Chang made more money than Hewitt did, that's how!

How is Hewitt a poor man's Chang when he has 2 slams, was the world #1, won multiple masters titles, etc. ?

 

[World Beater]

Sampras only had two years where his carpet W-L was 80% . . . . those two years he was 80% and 82%. His career Carpet W-L is 76%. In his prime ('93-'97) it was 79%.

Do you HONESTLY think Sampras will have more success against Federer on carpet than against the average player? 8 out of 10 times my ass.

Oh, and he didn't even beat Agassi 80% of the time on Deco. And now he's beating a 5 time USO champion (and 6 finals running) 80% of the time?

hahahahah

pure ownage.

yes sampras will be more successful against federer than against the field.

some of the other hypothetical h-hs on other surfaces are pretty ridiculous too.

 

[abmk]

Mike Chang made more money than Hewitt did, that's how!

LOL, this one cracked me up !

 

[ksbh]

abmk! So we agree on at least 1 thing! LOL!

LOL, this one cracked me up !