Federer losing to Samprass

I wonder if Fed losing that match to Sampras (a player well out of the game, in a real sense - although evidently not in ability terms) played any part in his loss to Djokovic today?

Could it have undermined his confidence a little? Perhaps he was, in part, playing Sampras's ghost when he went behind?

There's no way to know, of course, but I wonder.

What do you think?
 

MichaelChang

Hall of Fame
Just leave Fed alone, or leave his loss out of your mind. Don't think more. It is just one game. He lost so he lost. Sooner or later he has to lose a game in a slam, so it is today, so be it. There is no ghost, and there is no need to think more, or GUESS more.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I wonder if Fed losing that match to Sampras (a player well out of the game, in a real sense - although evidently not in ability terms) played any part in his loss to Djokovic today?

Could it have undermined his confidence a little? Perhaps he was, in part, playing Sampras's ghost when he went behind?

There's no way to know, of course, but I wonder.

What do you think?
I think it played an important role. Fed lost in straight sets in the last exo. His service returns were sometimes jokes. It must have planted seeds of doubt in his mind. If a guy 10 years his senior and retired can blow him off the court, how about a young lion with a powerful 2 handed backhand and hungry to win?
 

2 Cent

Rookie
i don't care what people say about "oh it was only an exhibition match" ********.
the majority of people never thought Sampras would win a match against Federer.
and guess what, Sampras pushed Federer to 2 close sets in the 2nd match, and wins it in straights in the 3rd match!
Yes ofcourse it rattles Federer's confidence.
people say "oh, Federer wasn't even trying his hardest"... that's a scapegoat!!
if you really know Federer, you know he wouldn't fathom the thought of losing to Sampras on purpose! never!
Fed's been trying his whole career of making a statement by trying to beat all of Pete's records.
i'm sure he was shocked and surprised when Sampras beat him in straights.
it tarnishes Fed's greatness, and glorifies Pete's greatness even more.
it's a testament to how Great of a player Pete Sampras really was in his prime. if he, in his 5-year absence from the sport in his advanced age of 35, can still play at a high enough level to beat Federer in his prime, then wow... that tells the world that Pete Sampras in his prime would've been able to beat Federer quite a good number of times. i'm not saying either one would dominate the other, but it just shows just how great Sampras really is and was.
i'm sure, afterwards, Federer now knows that he's lucky as hell to not have had to face Sampras more than that 1 time in 2001 throughout his career.
so now it's a combo of Fed's confidence being shaken, and him getting older and losing a half-step, and more players are starting to have better success against Fed.
 

sramirez77

Rookie
Just leave Fed alone, or leave his loss out of your mind. Don't think more. It is just one game. He lost so he lost. Sooner or later he has to lose a game in a slam, so it is today, so be it. There is no ghost, and there is no need to think more, or GUESS more.
This is the beginning of the end of his reign at number 1. Just watch; it will be between Nadal and Novak by the middle of the summer with Fed at 3rd.
 
Just leave Fed alone, or leave his loss out of your mind. Don't think more. It is just one game. He lost so he lost. Sooner or later he has to lose a game in a slam, so it is today, so be it. There is no ghost, and there is no need to think more, or GUESS more.

Shirley, relax. I like Federer. I believe he is the best player to ever play the game. And I hope he wins his next Slam; but I find the psychology of tennis interesting, that's all. I reserve the right to think!
 
L

laurie

Guest
I wonder if Fed losing that match to Sampras (a player well out of the game, in a real sense - although evidently not in ability terms) played any part in his loss to Djokovic today?

Could it have undermined his confidence a little? Perhaps he was, in part, playing Sampras's ghost when he went behind?

There's no way to know, of course, but I wonder.

What do you think?
I think this.

Sampras continually stated when asked during 2007 how to play Federer, that you have to take Federer's time away, you have to go for your shots and strategy (within reason).

One of the reasons Sampras was so successful was because he was a master at taking advantage of the opponents second serve, to take control of the match, he did that by agressive returns, or deep returns which allowed him to get into an offensive position in the rallies. In the 3rd exhibition in particular, Sampras was really going after Federer's second serve with success.

I've always said that Federer's second serve is extremeley attackable because he continually drops the ball short. Today Noval Djokovic went after Federer's second serve in a way I haven't seen other players do, not even Nadal, and had success.

Now I believe Novak says Sampras is an idol. So maybe Novak looked at a strategy on how do play Federer in a slightly different way than he did at the US Open final, he was more able to take his opportunities today.

I also heard Novak wants Sampras to be his mentor. I don't know how true that speculation is.
 

iradical18

Professional
I wonder if Fed losing that match to Sampras (a player well out of the game, in a real sense - although evidently not in ability terms) played any part in his loss to Djokovic today?

Could it have undermined his confidence a little? Perhaps he was, in part, playing Sampras's ghost when he went behind?

There's no way to know, of course, but I wonder.

What do you think?
This is getting more and more ******** by the thread. It was a f*ckin exo.
 

Ripper

Hall of Fame
I wonder if Fed losing that match to Sampras (a player well out of the game, in a real sense - although evidently not in ability terms) played any part in his loss to Djokovic today?

Could it have undermined his confidence a little? Perhaps he was, in part, playing Sampras's ghost when he went behind?

There's no way to know, of course, but I wonder.

What do you think?
I don't know, I just want Fed to win the FO and 15 GS titles before he retires. The rest doesn't matter. Sounds tough for anyone else, but I Know Fed can, still, do it.
 

PROTENNIS63

Hall of Fame
They were each paid probably a million bucks to pay that match. Fed cares less if he wins or loses. He lost to Roddick last year before the Australian Open.
 

Grimjack

Banned
Fed beats the Sampras of today 6-0 6-0, every set they play, if he wants to. Sampras's win was a bone tossed his way, nothing more. The psychological role this dog and pony show played was less than zero.

The Djokovic of today double bagels ancient Sampras every time out, too.
 

callitout

Professional
Fed beats the Sampras of today 6-0 6-0, every set they play, if he wants to. Sampras's win was a bone tossed his way, nothing more. The psychological role this dog and pony show played was less than zero.

The Djokovic of today double bagels ancient Sampras every time out, too.
You probably think Sugar Ray Leonard would be KO'd by Roy Jones Jr.
if they fought today.
I bet you think that Lebron could take Larry Bird as well.
Some people.
 

leonidas1982

Hall of Fame
i don't care what people say about "oh it was only an exhibition match" ********.
the majority of people never thought Sampras would win a match against Federer.
and guess what, Sampras pushed Federer to 2 close sets in the 2nd match, and wins it in straights in the 3rd match!
Yes ofcourse it rattles Federer's confidence.
people say "oh, Federer wasn't even trying his hardest"... that's a scapegoat!!
if you really know Federer, you know he wouldn't fathom the thought of losing to Sampras on purpose! never!
Fed's been trying his whole career of making a statement by trying to beat all of Pete's records.
i'm sure he was shocked and surprised when Sampras beat him in straights.
it tarnishes Fed's greatness, and glorifies Pete's greatness even more.
it's a testament to how Great of a player Pete Sampras really was in his prime. if he, in his 5-year absence from the sport in his advanced age of 35, can still play at a high enough level to beat Federer in his prime, then wow... that tells the world that Pete Sampras in his prime would've been able to beat Federer quite a good number of times. i'm not saying either one would dominate the other, but it just shows just how great Sampras really is and was.
i'm sure, afterwards, Federer now knows that he's lucky as hell to not have had to face Sampras more than that 1 time in 2001 throughout his career.
so now it's a combo of Fed's confidence being shaken, and him getting older and losing a half-step, and more players are starting to have better success against Fed.
Sampras -- the memories.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
I thought it's already a concensus that the Fed-Sampras match was REAL. Sampras said it himself that the exhibition was not a joke, and they both played for real. So saying that Fed tanked the match and giving no credits to Sampras whatsoever is just disrespectful.
 

leonidas1982

Hall of Fame
I thought it's already a concensus that the Fed-Sampras match was REAL. Sampras said it himself that the exhibition was not a joke, and they both played for real. So saying that Fed tanked the match and giving no credits to Sampras whatsoever is just disrespectful.
It is also the consensus here that whenever Fed loses, he thanked it or was wearing a watch. Could Pete be delighted that his record looks safe at the moment, lets hope.
 

psYcon

Semi-Pro
For all those who think the Sampras vs Federer match was legit , go watch the highlights again. Federer at crucial points of the match threw the point, sometimes too obviously.

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer would have beaten Sampras easily if he were playing at the same level he plays other slams. I'm afraid the only worthwhile comparison between the two still remains that wimbledon match, nothing else.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
For all those who think the Sampras vs Federer match was legit , go watch the highlights again. Federer at crucial points of the match threw the point, sometimes too obviously.

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer would have beaten Sampras easily if he were playing at the same level he plays other slams. I'm afraid the only worthwhile comparison between the two still remains that wimbledon match, nothing else.
ok, i think this is really fishing for proof now..

have you SEEN sampras' serve? it is easily one of the best of all time, and he is hitting it even harder now than he did when he was in his prime, and same with his groundstrokes. the only realy problem sampras has in his game is he's slower now than he was and he doesnt have the stamina he did when he was younger

just because he's 36 you think his stroke mechanics would suddenly start to suck? don't forget, he retired 5 years ago. that's not that long ago, and he was still using the ps 85. now he uses the ncode 90, more stringbed, more power, etc.

so yeah, you're wrong. fed wasnt throwing the match. most people still wouldnt even be able to keep up with sampras, today.
 
Top