Federer/Sampras - Sets lost at Wimbledon en route to the Championship title
- Thread starter Revenant
- Start date
rodrigo_palacio88
Rookie
sorry but no.
is not the same losing in early rounds with nobodys , than lost in the final with a goat player.
Losing ahainst is GOAT is logic for other GOAT CANDIDATE , but losing against mugs in early rounds is not the same.
Losing in early round with many players only proof than you aren`t a regular goat candidate.
NADAL BEAT FED BECAUSE A MATCH UP ADVANTAGE , but nadal lost many more times with other players than federer.
nadal last defeats were against brown (WC) , kyrgios (WC) and klizan (Q).
and he ihasn`t even 30 years old.
rodrigo_palacio88
Rookie
mmm....
I don`t think so.
nadal 2010 or 2013 versions on hardcourts is above agassi.
nadal`s level on grass is superior than agassi too , TALKING OF NADAL`s peak on grass not the last years who he lost against nobodys.
nadal LIKE A COMPLETE PLAYER , is superior than agassi., talking not only of tennis quality , talking too of mental forces , head , motivation and more factors.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Where was his grass level when he lost to Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown? Agassi was beating players like Goran and Becker on grass consistently. Agassi's level was just better than Nadal on grass throughout his career. He just was in a wrong era and got hammered by the monster servers of his time.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Agassi was in a lucky era (not as lucky as Hewitt's). If he was in the Federer era he wouldn't be beating Federer at Wimbledon and he'd finish with 0 Wimbledon titles.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Agassi snuck 1 Wimbledon right before the Sampras Era began. He would have most likely won in 2002 if he was playing in this era. Once Federer reached his prime, I don't see Agassi beating him there at Wimbledon, but he can sneak at least 1-2 right before and after Federer's prime most likely.
Easy Rider
Professional
Prime Federer would beat prime "any1" on grass ... fact
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Sorry, he's not beating Prime Sampras on real grass. And prime Federer already lost to Nadal by the way.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And peak Sampras lost to a 1 slam wonder. Your point?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
You say I overrate Hewitt, but you always underrate the man. If Rafter could take out Agassi on grass, Hewitt could too, and probably easier. Heck even Phillipoussis did.
Hewitt is probably > Agassi on grass, and I know for sure Nadal is too...
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
You didn't see the previous post I had highlighted (made by drm025). Getting to the finals is proof of good form and conditioning. Everyone knows that the best way to beat a top guy is to ambush him in the early rds. Once they get into the later rounds, it's that much harder to beat them.
So, no, getting to the finals and then losing to YOUR RIVAL on your favoured surface is worse than losing a random match, ESPECIALLY when all other factors are very close (which they are, in the case of Sampras, Fed - number of titles, win-loss record). Grass is a surface that is much more aligned to Fed's strengths (serves, net game, variety etc.), and so he had no business losing to Nadal there.
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
Let's see if Fed gives himself the opportunity to lose to a mug at age 39 like Connors. At some point, every one quits.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Losing to Nadal is better than losing to a 1 slam wonder, which Pete did at his very peak.
By your logic Pete is better than Fed at RG since he never lost a final there to a rival
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So Pette gets credit for quitting earilier
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
No, it's not because a case cannot be made to claim that that 1-slam wonder is a better player than Sampras (14 slammer) because of 1. the disparity in the number of slams, and 2. It wasn't a F - which is when you expect two players to be well grooved and match ready.
OTOH, losing to your rival in the biggest match of the year means a claim can be made that your best level is not as good as that of your rival's. Because getting to the F means both players are in good form, are match ready, and are expected to bring their best form. This is further enhanced by the fact that you are losing to multi-slammers on YOUR BEST SURFACE (grass is much more suited to Fed than to Nadal).
By your logic Pete is better than Fed at RG since he never lost a final there to a rival
Irrelevant because Sampras never even made the F. The context here is Wim (and grass) which are both Sampras' and Fed's best surface.
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
No, he doesn't get discredited either, that's my point.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
If we are talking about the disparity in slams, thanFed has 7 W titles to Nadal's 2. Which mean that he wins
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
Fair enough. I think what gives Sampras the edge, IMO, is he was more focussed and kept his cool better during the big points than Fed was/is able to do. At that level, the games are very, very close and the mindset makes all the difference.
Yes! Thank you so much, nobody else seems to be willing to even consider this. A grand slam final is the one match where you go all out, put everything on the line, try everything possible to win. You have to save something during the earlier rounds and are possibly playing people whose games are foreign to you. If you are playing your rival in a GS final, then you know his game style, and you have no reason to hold back. If you are a champion, this is the match that you choose to play your best possible tennis.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think Federer is underrated in terms of mental toughness. It's only Nadal that seems to expose him and that's mostly due to the lefty serve to his backhand he can't seem to return. Against Pete it would be different IMO as he wouldn't locked into a losing pattern of play so much. Either way their matches would be fantastic.
I assume you feel there would be a bigger edge to Sampras than I do.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I think a match between '99 Sampras and '06 Federer would be a tossup.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think 2005 and 2003 were even better from Federer. His form in that 2003 SF was out of this world.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
His 2005 SF form was amazing, but I think his 2003 SF form was better and for sure with that level he'd give Sampras a run for his money...
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
No, I never underrate Fed's mental toughness. It's impossible to accumulate that many slams with poor mental strength. It's just my opinion that, only relative to Sampras, Nadal, he's a little behind in this department. Remember, we're only talking about the best of the best here.
Well, with Sampras, I think it's the opposite. I think Fed will find it hard to establish a pattern in the first place as Sampras' greatest ability is to rush his opponents for time, and to not allow them to get into a rhythm.
I agree, their matches at peak would be fantastic to watch. Too bad, life never gave us the chance to watch that spectacle.
Regarding edge, I picked Sampras' winning rate to be about 60% of their matches on grass.
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
So would a match involving '94 and '97 Sampras, IMO.
Man i don't think I can actually pick one. I know 90's Clay would be blue in the face, but peak Fed on grass and Peak Sampras on grass are a complete coin toss IMO.
Serve goes to Pete, at his best he is hitting aces nearly every sniff roger gets on his serve, if Fed got 30/40 - pete would hit an ace, first or second serve. Fed's peak serve was great too, but pete's is in another league.
Return - Federer. He handled the big serves so well in his prime. Stood on the baseline and took a beautiful small backswing block.
Forehand - Ive gotta give it to Fed - Pete's fh was vicious, especially on old grass, but Fed has a very conventional grip and the pace wouldn't worry him, plus he can do a lot more with his forehand than pete could. It's close but peak fed fh is probably the greatest shot ever in our sport.
Backhand - Fed pretty clearly IMO. Not such an advantage though given pete's slice was great and on old grass its a super effective shot for offence and defence.
Volleys - Pete. end of discussion.
Mental - Ok for a career I take Pete's mentality. Especially in the big matches he was clutch. Both at their peak, its even, Federer was so damn confident when he was in his heyday that any one but rafa knew they were gonna be lucky as hell to walk away with a win. Both guys would be brimming with confidence walking out on centre court.
Would be an awesome match, as their 2001 encounter would hint at. A past prime pete and a young up and coming fed played a classic.
Serve goes to Pete, at his best he is hitting aces nearly every sniff roger gets on his serve, if Fed got 30/40 - pete would hit an ace, first or second serve. Fed's peak serve was great too, but pete's is in another league.
Return - Federer. He handled the big serves so well in his prime. Stood on the baseline and took a beautiful small backswing block.
Forehand - Ive gotta give it to Fed - Pete's fh was vicious, especially on old grass, but Fed has a very conventional grip and the pace wouldn't worry him, plus he can do a lot more with his forehand than pete could. It's close but peak fed fh is probably the greatest shot ever in our sport.
Backhand - Fed pretty clearly IMO. Not such an advantage though given pete's slice was great and on old grass its a super effective shot for offence and defence.
Volleys - Pete. end of discussion.
Mental - Ok for a career I take Pete's mentality. Especially in the big matches he was clutch. Both at their peak, its even, Federer was so damn confident when he was in his heyday that any one but rafa knew they were gonna be lucky as hell to walk away with a win. Both guys would be brimming with confidence walking out on centre court.
Would be an awesome match, as their 2001 encounter would hint at. A past prime pete and a young up and coming fed played a classic.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Peak Fed was pretty strong mentally, but he's out of his league here. Fed wins mostly with his skills, not much to do with his mental toughness. This is exposed when we look at his H2H vs his main rivals or guys who are close to his abilities.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
:lol: :lol:
2001 Wimby 4R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSIx60skGJM
Slamless Baby Fed nowhere near his best (2 years from a slam) vs. 4x consecutive defending champ Pete
Peak Federer vs. Sampras on fast grass: 6-4 Federer
Peak Federer vs. Sampras on modern/slow grass: 8-2 Federer or more
And peak Djokovic at Wimbledon wouldn't get a set vs. either of them.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Against anyone other than Nadal, Federer is just fine mentally.
I would still easily give the mental edge to Pete though, yes.
Novak And The Net.
Banned
Not sure I agree with this concept. Grass back then was much slicker, and prone to more upsets. It seems logical that Sampras would lose more sets than Fed, as he faced a whole range of big servers that could easily steal a TB or two.
AngryBirds
Semi-Pro
I've seen both played in their prime at Wimbledon. Sampras was built to play on fast grass. He'd beat Federer more often than not.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
2002 actually. How do you explain serve and volley players reaching the final in 2001 vs baseliners doing it in 2002?
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
I think because of rain , grass played fast on some occasion like 90s but grass was changed after 2000 Wimbledon, it effect started to show clearly from 2002.
Henman gave the interview after seeing 2001 grass and he said that it is playing slow, rain and atmosphere saved the day .
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Do you still think Djokovic wouldn't get a set?
Similar threads
