Federer Task to be the GOAT

Status
Not open for further replies.

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Oh come on. A 30 year old Pete ending the near of his run in 2001 with a 35-16 record and 0 TITLES. Dont make me post the pitiful h2h records Roger had against players when he was not in his prime

Sampras won the US Open the following year, and he served awesome in the match against Fed, so don't give me any BS.

As for their record against other players, not that it matters>> but since you want to go their>>>> Sampras has a losing record against Roddick, hewitt, and safin>> all players that Fed owns.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Sampras won the US Open the following year, and he served awesome in the match against Fed, so don't give me any BS.

As for their record against other players, not that it matters>> but since you want to go their>>>> Sampras has a losing record against Roddick, hewitt, and safin>> all players that Fed owns.

So are u implying Sampras at 30 years old was in his prime and at the top of his game? LOL And Sampras even the following year was out of his prime. Pete's true prime ended probably at 28 years old at least in terms of playing on a week in-week out level. He still could play well but his consistency and focus decreased. He even said this HIMSELF in 2007. Sampras put the beatdown on Roddick at the US OPEN when all pete cared about were the slams at that point in his career even by his own admission. Just as Fed today, caring more about the slams than the rinky dink tournaments. Hewitt... Again.. PEte was 30 years old. Pete lost to Safin in 00 and returned the favor destroying Safin in straight sets the following year the US OPEN. Rogers win over pete carry as much weight as his wins over old crippled sciatica,, Passed his prime Agassi bottom line. There is a 10-11 year difference between Pete,Andre and Roger. So it doesnt mean a DAMN THING. And no conclusion can be drawn. Prime Roger never played Pete and Andre at their peaks.
 
Last edited:

David L

Hall of Fame
All 8 wins over Andre were after Andre's 33rd birthday I believe. and how about Rafter's dominance over Roger?
I think I already addressed these in my comment. Federer was 17-19 and far from what he would become when he played Rafter, yet their last match went to 3 sets and ended with Rafter winning 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(4) in Halle. Federer would have owned him later on. Federer was 17 the first time they played and a late developer to boot.

Everyone knows Agassi stayed around longer, but he was playing at his best level, by his own admission, in his 30s. Only when he started to have health problems in his last couple of years did things became more difficult for him and even then he could still reach his best if his body would allow. He won 5 of his 8 Slams between 29-32 and was still making Slam finals upto 35.
 

pepe01

Rookie
So are u implying Sampras at 30 years old was in his prime? LOL And Sampras even the following year was out of his prime. Pete's true prime ended probably at 28 years old. Sampras put the beatdown on Roddick at the US OPEN when all pete cared about were the slams at that point in his career even by his own admission. Just as Fed today, caring more about the slams than the rinky dink tournaments. Hewitt... Again.. PEte was 30 years old. Pete lost to Safin in 00 and returned the favor destroying Safin in straight sets the folling year the US OPEN

But also Roger was not on his prime when he defeated Sampras (i am trying to be realistic), also Pete was defending champion ( we can not put aside this fact), if he won one year ago and then won USA open at that moment he had a lot of tennis to spread.

Comments please....
 

GameSampras

Banned
But also Roger was not on his prime when he defeated Sampras (i am trying to be realistic), also Pete was defending champion ( we can not put aside this fact), if he won one year ago and then won USA open at that moment he had a lot of tennis to spread.

Comments please....

True he wasnt.. But I always said that Roger played closer to his prime and year ahead of himself during THAT MATCH than usual at the time. He played better that match then alot of the matches I seem him playing even now. But anyways.. How much conclusion can be drawn from one match? Thats like saying, Petes win over Roger in 07 in Macau meant a alot.
 

GameSampras

Banned
I think I already addressed these in my comment. Federer was 17-19 and far from what he would become when he played Rafter, yet their last match went to 3 sets and ended with Rafter winning 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(4) in Halle. Federer would have owned him later on. Federer was 17 the first time they played and a late developer to boot.

Everyone knows Agassi stayed around longer, but he was playing at his best level, by his own admission, in his 30s. Only when he started to have health problems in his last couple of years did things became more difficult for him and even then he could still reach his best if his body would allow. He won 5 of his 8 Slams between 29-32 and was still making Slam finals upto 35.

I will disagree with what Andre said. He certainly wasnt playing at the level in his 30s as he was at 29 in 1999 or even at 25 in 1995 for that matter. He reached the finals of Wimbeldon in 99 . Won RG and the US OPEN and reached the finals of the YEC then won the 00 Australian. His biggest feat before reaching 30 years of age
 
Last edited:

pepe01

Rookie
True he wasnt.. But I always said that Roger played closer to his prime and year ahead of himself during THAT MATCH than usual at the time. He played better that match then alot of the matches I seem him playing even now. But anyways.. How much conclusion can be drawn from one match? Thats like saying, Petes win over Roger in 07 in Macau meant a alot.

Agree with you, one match is not enough to know it, but if you refer about Macau match meant to me Pete is amazing, he has been retire for about more than 4 years and he is playing very well, may be Roger was not taking so seriously but does not metter, just to see how Pete played all three matches.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
I will disagree with what Andre said. He certainly wasnt playing at the level in his 30s as he was at 29 in 1999 or even at 25 in 1995 for that matter. He reached the finals of Wimbeldon in 99 . Won RG and the US OPEN and reached the finals of the YEC
Yes, but as he, Sampras, McEnroe and Laver say, the competition was getting better. In the comment I posted, Agassi says he got better, he hit bigger, had a bigger serve, could handle pace better, but the game got faster and players were too strong to push around as he had in the past. His words; 'It's a different game than in the past.'
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
So are u implying Sampras at 30 years old was in his prime and at the top of his game?

When did I say this????

However, since you want to talk about primes, Sampras was much more seasoned and much ***CLOSER to his prime***, than Federer was>>> yet still lost. Additionally, as I already pointed out>>> won the US Open the following year.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
I think I already addressed these in my comment. Federer was 17-19 and far from what he would become when he played Rafter, yet their last match went to 3 sets and ended with Rafter winning 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(4) in Halle. Federer would have owned him later on. Federer was 17 the first time they played and a late developer to boot.

Everyone knows Agassi stayed around longer, but he was playing at his best level, by his own admission, in his 30s. Only when he started to have health problems in his last couple of years did things became more difficult for him and even then he could still reach his best if his body would allow. He won 5 of his 8 Slams between 29-32 and was still making Slam finals upto 35.

Agassi has been quoted, qualifying that self-assessment, as something he "told himself".

Sampras also "told himself that". However while in the depths of the deepest slump of his career the then self describe "better" Sampras went 3-2 vs. "the best" Agassi going 1-0 on clay and 2-0 in their only meeting in Majors, both of which were played AFTER the US Open implemented the first of two slow downs of playing conditions in three years and that is all before AA's string of limiting injury.

5
 

David L

Hall of Fame
True he wasnt.. But I always said that Roger played closer to his prime and year ahead of himself during THAT MATCH than usual at the time. He played better that match then alot of the matches I seem him playing even now. But anyways.. How much conclusion can be drawn from one match? Thats like saying, Petes win over Roger in 07 in Macau meant a alot.
Yes, you cannot draw huge conclusions from one match, but given how much better Federer got, you can see Sampras would have had his hands full with a mature Federer. Federer was not close to his prime in this match. He played well, yes, but this was not a shot out of the blue. He displayed this kind of level on many occasions, but just could not win matches for a long time. You cannot just produce quality out of nowhere. He became much better later on. Even in his next round match against Henman, which he lost, his quality is evident. Henman himself had become a better player and may well have beaten Sampras had they played. He had won their last meeting in 2000, but never got to play Sampras again.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wQTMUryA_7A
 

David L

Hall of Fame
Agassi has been quoted, qualifying that self-assessment, as something he "told himself".

Sampras also "told himself that". However while in the depths of the deepest slump of his career the then self describe "better" Sampras went 3-2 vs. "the best" Agassi going 1-0 on clay and 2-0 in their only meeting in Majors, both of which were played AFTER the US Open implemented the first of two slow downs of playing conditions in three years and that is all before AA's string of limiting injury.

5
A source would be good here. I'm sure players tell themselves all kinds of things, but there will also be other things amongst those thoughts which are genuinely true. Just from watching Agassi and Sampras in their late 20s and 30s, you can see they were hitting very high levels. They do not need to say anything. You do not make Slam finals unless you are playing at the highest level and still have the capacity to play at the highest level.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
A source would be good here. I'm sure players tell themselves all kinds of things, but there will also be other things amongst those thoughts which are genuinely true. Just from watching Agassi and Sampras in their late 20s and 30s, you can see they were hitting very high levels. They do not need to say anything. You do not make Slam finals unless you are playing at the highest level and still have the capacity to play at the highest level.
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.
 

GameSampras

Banned
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

You really believe that? You really believe Sampras 00,01,02 was the same player he was 93-99? Sad thing is I cant believe Sampras would even think that. Look at the result differential. Look at the differences in championships. Hell look at his overrall game from 93-98 or 99 as opposed to the tail end of his career. His Movement slowed big time which affected his overrall game. Not to mention the herniated disc
 
Last edited:

fastdunn

Legend
I think the herniated disk injury was pretty serious blow to Sampras' career.

If Federer stays injury-free, he can stay as much as Agassi did.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

I'll get the AA quote later:

June 26, 2002, Wimbledon
G. Bastl/P. Sampras 6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4
An interview with: PETE SAMPRAS

Q. What were you reading between the points?

PETE SAMPRAS: Just some notes. Just some thoughts and a letter that I was reading just to keep me positive and, you know, just to -- you get your mind set on what's happening out there. It's nice to have something else to look at, think about. So it was something that I pulled out and read it and made me feel a little better.

Q. Your own notes? Notes you wrote yourself?

PETE SAMPRAS: My wife did.

Q. You used to do that?

PETE SAMPRAS: I've never done that.

Q. As Becker said, "If I go to a Slam, I cannot win it, I will stop." Is that also a moment for you now, or do you think there's still a Slam in you?

PETE SAMPRAS: ... to come up pretty empty here for the first six months is pretty, pretty discouraging. You know, still feel like I can go out there and do it. Not maybe as dominant as I once was, but when it comes to majors, I believe I can win here, the US Open, or the others.

*****
Q. Coaches like Bob Brett say you might have to pay the price now for having improved the game -- not having improved the game while you were still leading from the others. Now that they've caught up, they are in front of you, they are better, because you haven't got that in your game.

PETE SAMPRAS: Well, I still feel like my game is very dangerous, you know. Always will have my serve. You know, players are better today and, you know, like I said, I'm not as intimidating as I was five years ago. ...

Q. How much do you look at your legacy and think about it in terms of whether it's being diminished by these losses, and how much do you think, "I'm not going to give in to the critics"?

PETE SAMPRAS: Well, I'm not going to give in to the critics. I'm going to stop on my own terms, not on when someone else thinks I should stop. What I've done here and what I've done in the game is always going to stick, no matter what happens over the next couple years. But it's not fun losing. I still believe I have a major in me, you know. ...

Q. How much of your tennis right now is a fight against age as opposed to the guy on the other side of the net?

PETE SAMPRAS: It's a little bit of both. Like I said, guys are a little bit more confident against me. I'm maybe not, you know, quite as sharp as I used to be. And, you know, you lose a little bit of confidence, and it's been showing all year. You know, I'm just going to have to stop here and just kind of reflect a little bit but also not, you know, get too down. I mean, I still want to continue to play. And there is the US Open in another month or so. I just hope I can find it pretty soon.

http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/Quotes_from_Pete_and_his_Colleagues.html

5
 

SpaceCadet

New User
A true GOAT excels in Singles AND Doubles!!! Each requires a unique set of skills, and if you've won GS titles in both disciplines, then you've got some mad skills.

Off the top of my head, I can only name Laver, McEnroe and Edberg (there's more, right?).

McEnroe has a GS title in Singles, Doubles, and Mixed Doubles. Can Federer say the same?
 

380pistol

Banned
you seem to have conveniently forgotten to date some of the quotes??

anyway the one that matters the most:

I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.

Jack Kramer

I didn't bother to date them as they're not the be all and end all. Take Laver for instance, why does Kramer matter the most?? I wonder.

Laver the man of two calendar slam called Sampras the greatest in 1994 and 2000. He said Federer could have better #'s than anyone and has too much talent for one body. then he said hold off on crowning Roger, and let's wait. I don't recall him doing that for Pete.

The point was bring anyone, Pete, Roger, Pancho, Laver etc. and I can find you quotes on each. In 2006 or 2007 Bud Collins gave his top 5 of all time to MSNBC... in order of appearance Tilden, Pancho, Laver, Borg and Sampras. Now how much weight does that hold to you?? Not much, but I'm sure if a certain players name was on there then you'd give it more merit.

They're opinions.
 

380pistol

Banned
The point is you have Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and Laver saying the competition was getting better at the turn of the century, not worse. Are they all wrong? Do the people on here know more than those who were right in the midst of it? You even have McEnroe and Laver saying it's too competitive for anyone to dominate or accumulate double digit Slams. This was all before Federer started racking them up. Those were the facts then. They did not change because Federer started to dominate.

The only one of the the four who said it was getting better was Agassi. McEnroe, Becker, Stich, Sampras, Kuerten and many more have been crtical of the competition (top players) during Roger's reign.

Wait ferrero was excellent in 2003. So Ferrero in 2006, that didn't change, it just couldn't happen. Was Federer 2006 the same Federer in 2000?? Be serious.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
I think it's self-evident Sampras was not as dominant in his latter years, the weekly results speak for themselves. The motivation would not have been there for the smaller events, competition was also improving, as he mentions. However, when he was interested, such as at the Slams, he could still play at the highest level. After his career and in retirement, when he has been able to reflect more, he has had this to say. He clearly sites 1999-2002 as producing some of his best performances, in addition to saying he was a better player, when it mattered, than in the mid 90s. He played at a great level on many occasions in his later years.

REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN CHAMPIONSHIPS MEDIA CONFERENCE

January 15, 2009

Q. What is the best match that you ever participated in? What is your favorite?

PETE SAMPRAS: I think the highest level that I played was when I beat Andre for my sixth Wimbledon. I think it was 2000 or '99. I think that was probably -- probably it's harder to get in the zone in a major just because of nerves. But that one from 3-All, Love-40 in the first, to the rest of the match. I was in the zone. It's hard to do in that situation, but everything clicked at the right time.
You know, he was playing probably the best tennis of his career, and I just sort of steam rolled him. I can do that sometimes in practice, but on the final of Wimbledon, it's not easy to do. I think that one from the level-wise, was probably the highest level just as far as purely I felt untouchable that day.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_conference.php?id=53770
Tuesday, 23 December 2003

Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 - when he collected nine of his majors - as his prime. But Sampras contends: "The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn't as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open - my last match ever - was the highest level I have ever played.

"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html
 

380pistol

Banned
David L if you think 1999-2002 Pete posted some of his best performances, please let me (and us know) which ones please???
 

David L

Hall of Fame
The only one of the the four who said it was getting better was Agassi. McEnroe, Becker, Stich, Sampras, Kuerten and many more have been crtical of the competition (top players) during Roger's reign.

Wait ferrero was excellent in 2003. So Ferrero in 2006, that didn't change, it just couldn't happen. Was Federer 2006 the same Federer in 2000?? Be serious.
McEnroe and Sampras clearly state, in the examples I provided, the level had improved from the period when Sampras dominated. Do you have any sources where they contradict this? It's no good saying the level is worse when someone comes along to dominate. They already said the level was better before. Also, do you have sources of Becker, Stich or Kuerten saying the level is worse today?

Regarding Ferrero, who says he was worse in 2006? Maybe he just could not put in the same commitment on a weekly basis. Is it also not possible others stepped up?

Levels do not drop amongst whole populations just like that. A few players may not keep up with the tour, but the standard always remains very high. And even if a player cannot keep up week in week out as they used to, it does not mean they cannot find their best level when it matters to them most. There's a difference between enduring the grind of the tour on a weekly basis and producing your best at the right moments.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
David L if you think 1999-2002 Pete posted some of his best performances, please let me (and us know) which ones please???
Sampras himself says the 1999 Wimbledon final and the 2002 US Open final were the highest levels he ever obtained. The 2000 Wimbledon against Rafter also gets memorable mention. Then you have the 2000 and 2001 US Opens, the 2000 Australian Open or 1999 World Championships. Basically, anywhere where he was a contender making finals and giving himself a chance at the big prize. He also did very well at some of the Masters Series tournaments during this period, Davis Cup and some other tournaments. It's not only about winning, but also about playing at the highest level. You can play crap but still win or play great and lose.
 
Last edited:

aphex

Banned
I didn't bother to date them as they're not the be all and end all. Take Laver for instance, why does Kramer matter the most?? I wonder.

Laver the man of two calendar slam called Sampras the greatest in 1994 and 2000. He said Federer could have better #'s than anyone and has too much talent for one body. then he said hold off on crowning Roger, and let's wait. I don't recall him doing that for Pete.

The point was bring anyone, Pete, Roger, Pancho, Laver etc. and I can find you quotes on each. In 2006 or 2007 Bud Collins gave his top 5 of all time to MSNBC... in order of appearance Tilden, Pancho, Laver, Borg and Sampras. Now how much weight does that hold to you?? Not much, but I'm sure if a certain players name was on there then you'd give it more merit.

They're opinions.

it matters the most because he is himself one of the greatest ever, the manager of some of the greatest ever and was playing before laver...so he has arguably the greatest frame of reference+tennis knowledge than any other man i can think of...

as to the 2nd bolded part...you are kinda proving my point-laver said that about sampras BEFORE federer appeared.

as to your last point, i don't know who mr collins is...is he a great player from the past??
 

380pistol

Banned
it matters the most because he is himself one of the greatest ever, the manager of some of the greatest ever and was playing before laver...so he has arguably the greatest frame of reference+tennis knowledge than any other man i can think of...

as to the 2nd bolded part...you are kinda proving my point-laver said that about sampras BEFORE federer appeared.

as to your last point, i don't know who mr collins is...is he a great player from the past??


Laver TWICE called Sampras the greatest and never went back. Said Federer "could be" the greates and then said to wait. Funny how he didn't need to wait for Pete.

That speaks for itself.
 

380pistol

Banned
McEnroe and Sampras clearly state, in the examples I provided, the level had improved from the period when Sampras dominated. Do you have any sources where they contradict this? It's no good saying the level is worse when someone comes along to dominate. They already said the level was better before. Also, do you have sources of Becker, Stich or Kuerten saying the level is worse today?

Regarding Ferrero, who says he was worse in 2006? Maybe he just could not put in the same commitment on a weekly basis. Is it also not possible others stepped up?

Levels do not drop amongst whole populations just like that. A few players may not keep up with the tour, but the standard always remains very high. And even if a player cannot keep up week in week out as they used to, it does not mean they cannot find their best level when it matters to them most. There's a difference between enduring the grind of the tour on a weekly basis and producing your best at the right moments.

McEnroe told his comment to the BBC. He said "there really isn't that much" when asked about the top players surrounding Roger.

Sampras said his here...
"Roger is head and shoulders above everyone, and there are many good players today," Sampras said. "But I think there are fewer great players than there were 10 years ago. Down to 50 to 70 (in the rankings), it's probably deeper, but the guys two through seven aren't as strong as the players I was having to beat to win Slams."
http://216.194.87.192/20060407a.htm

Gustavo Kuerten called Federer's direct competition "a vaccum".

Others like Becker and Sttich have sounded off as well.

And if Ferrero can go week in and week out like he did in 2003 then he wasn't that much of a threat in 2006 then was he. Federer must have been excelent in 2001-02, he just couldn't bring it consistently but he was still as good as he would become later. See how asinine you sound??

Sampras himself says the 1999 Wimbledon final and the 2002 US Open final were the highest levels he ever obtained. The 2000 Wimbledon against Rafter also gets memorable mention. Then you have the 2000 and 2001 US Opens, the 2000 Australian Open or 1999 World Championships. Basically, anywhere where he was a contender making finals and giving himself a chance at the big prize. He also did very well at some of the Masters Series tournaments during this period, Davis Cup and some other tournaments. It's not only about winning, but also about playing at the highest level. You can play crap but still win or play great and lose.

So this is your response to....

And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

And you come up with this!!!! From a man who played 984 professional matches this is what you come up with???

1999 Wimbledon F
1999 YEC F
2001 US Open 4th, QF SF
2002 US Open F

I see 6 matches there and some refernces to Masters (which ones???) and Davis Cup. Did you you see Sampras in his prime. Bring me one DC performance 1999-2002 that can even come close to what Pete did to Australia(P'sis and Rafter) in 1997???

You're a joke. He had some great performances 1999-02, but if you are trying to suggest those are more than he had prior to that, or never reached (or surpassed) it prior to 1999, I'd advise you to leave "Tina" alone.

Have you even seen Pete's highest level???
 
Last edited:

Dilettante

Hall of Fame
Regarding Ferrero, who says he was worse in 2006? Maybe he just could not put in the same commitment on a weekly basis. Is it also not possible others stepped up?

Ferrero just went down the hill after losing US Open final for various reasons and the 2003 Ferrero was not seen again on tour. His peak was sadly short-timed. And although I'm saying this, he was one of my very favorite players to watch (such a beautiful game back then) but he just didn't get back his X factor.
 

SirBlend12

Semi-Pro
Gustavo Kuerten called Federer's direct competition "a vaccum".

Hahaha. "Hello.. Kettle? It's pot. You're black." If Fed's competition is a vacuum then Guga's was a damn black hole.

And you come up with this!!!! From a man who played 984 professional matches this is what you come up with???

1999 Wimbledon F
1999 YEC F
2001 US Open 4th, QF SF
2002 US Open F

He played at an inhuman level in that match. It was just like Becker in '96, but even more ruthless.
10 characters, Colonel.
 

380pistol

Banned
10 characters, Colonel.

You may have missed....
-1990 US Open F
-1995 Wimbledon F vs Becker (68 winners, 7 unforced, 23 aces, no break points allowed)
-1997 Davis Cup SF vs Rafter (62 winners [at least 10 from each serve, forehand, backhand, volley], 15 unforced, no break pts allowed, and was better with his 2nd serve than Rfater was with hs 1st)

That's only 3 but do I have to continue?? How about the 1994 YEC F where Pete struck 66 winners to 12 unforced errors?? Did I say Sampras did not ha great performances 1999-2002???

Don't make me start brining Pete's performance pre 1999, just don't.
 

380pistol

Banned
Ferrero just went down the hill after losing US Open final for various reasons and the 2003 Ferrero was not seen again on tour. His peak was sadly short-timed. And although I'm saying this, he was one of my very favorite players to watch (such a beautiful game back then) but he just didn't get back his X factor.

The guy's a clown. Ferrero 2006 is the same as Ferrero 2003. JCF was a beast in 2003, the first since Lendl to win 30 on hard and clay in same year, if not for bad weather and him playing 4 matches in 5 days (or whatever it was) may have taken the US Open in 2003. He contracted chicken pox as well as some other health issues and has never been the same, unfortunately.

Next thing you know this guy is gonna tell us how Safin has been a model of consistency from 2000-2008?!?
 

David L

Hall of Fame
McEnroe told his comment to the BBC. He said "there really isn't that much" when asked about the top players surrounding Roger.

Sampras said his here...
"Roger is head and shoulders above everyone, and there are many good players today," Sampras said. "But I think there are fewer great players than there were 10 years ago. Down to 50 to 70 (in the rankings), it's probably deeper, but the guys two through seven aren't as strong as the players I was having to beat to win Slams."
http://216.194.87.192/20060407a.htm

Gustavo Kuerten called Federer's direct competition "a vaccum".

Others like Becker and Sttich have sounded off as well.

And if Ferrero can go week in and week out like he did in 2003 then he wasn't that much of a threat in 2006 then was he. Federer must have been excelent in 2001-02, he just couldn't bring it consistently but he was still as good as he would become later. See how asinine you sound??

So this is your response to....

And you come up with this!!!! From a man who played 984 professional matches this is what you come up with???

1999 Wimbledon F
1999 YEC F
2001 US Open 4th, QF SF
2002 US Open F

I see 6 matches there and some refernces to Masters (which ones???) and Davis Cup. Did you you see Sampras in his prime. Bring me one DC performance 1999-2002 that can even come close to what Pete did to Australia(P'sis and Rafter) in 1997???

You're a joke. He had some great performances 1999-02, but if you are trying to suggest those are more than he had prior to that, or never reached (or surpassed) it prior to 1999, I'd advise you to leave "Tina" alone.

Have you even seen Pete's highest level???

Sampras has never been one to shirk from blowing his own trumpet ever since Federer started to threaten his records. In 2003 he says the competition was better at the turn of the century than during his period of domination, then the moment someone comes along to threaten his records, he tries to take it back. Sampras' later comments cannot be taken seriously because it clearly threw him a bit that everyone was talking about Federer being the greater player. It's apparent Sampras' ego felt a little bruised by all the favourable comments Federer was getting over him from past players, so he had to make a case for himself. Now he's making a desperate attempt not to be forgotten by playing all these exos. Sampras was a great player, in the top 5 of all-time greats, but his fragile ego is a little embarrassing. He does'nt need to defend himself, he should be proud of what he achieved and accept what others achieve without trying to diminish them. The reason why there were not more Slam winners during Federer's domination was because he was beating them to the punch.

Kuerten made his comments back in 2005 or somewhere around that time, before some could realize the full extent of Federer's talent. I doubt he would make the same comments now. Plus you have players like Rios and Bruguera saying Federer is much better or 10x better than Sampras, so you have to be able to distinguish between sensible, considered opinions and hyperbole. Kuerten's are hyperbole, just as Rios' and Bruguera's were. I think Federer is better than Sampras too, but not 10x better.

I'm still waiting for your sources on Becker and Stich.

Just because you are not consistent on a weekly basis, does not mean you are not a threat or cannot reach your best level at various times. I mean, there are hundreds of examples of this in tennis. Any number of players can turn it on at any random time in an event.

I'm not going to list every single tournament Sampras played in during this period. It's enough to see a selection of the quality he was capable of during this time. If you go to the ATP website you can see some of his deep runs for yourself. He was competing in the finals of Cincinnati, Indian Wells and Miami or otherwise getting to the semis and quarters. He was also making appearances in the finals of Houston, Long Island, Los Angeles, Queens etc, having to deal with the likes of Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter, Kafelnikov etc, players in the top 5 or 10. He himself was in the top 5 for much of this period and only momentarily ventured outside the top 10, which was understandable considering he was not interested in killing himself playing all the small tournaments to maintain his ranking. The fact that he might have been ranked 10, does not mean he was 10 in terms of the hierarchy of his ability, when it mattered, compared to the rest of the tour. He was obviously better than that, but prioritized for the big events.

Sampras looks stronger than ever in these clips and you also have his own words saying he was a better player during this period, if not as consistent or interested on a weekly basis. What's important is the level Sampras had in him for the big events, not what he did in all the little tournaments which held little interest for him.

2001 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY&fmt=18

2002 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_oizEjkreZw&feature=related&fmt=18

1999 Wimbledon
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRv4TC73Ro&feature=related&fmt=18
 
Last edited:

David L

Hall of Fame
Just to add, Agassi made 8 Slam finals between 1999 and 2005 (winning 5 of them) more than he made in his entire career before that. Agassi was hot and playing at his best level at the turn of the century, so if Sampras was so past it by this stage, what was he doing routining Agassi whenever they met at a Slam? For an experienced commentator to say their 2001 US Open quarter final was the best match he ever saw up to that point, not some previous Sampras match, there must have been some serious tennis being played in that match, and there was.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Just to add, Agassi made 8 Slam finals between 1999 and 2005 (winning 5 of them) more than he made in his entire career before that. Agassi was hot and playing at his best level at the turn of the century, so if Sampras was so past it by this stage, what was he doing routining Agassi whenever they met at a Slam? For an experienced commentator to say their 2001 US Open quarter final was the best match he ever saw up to that point, not some previous Sampras match, there must have been some serious tennis being played in that match, and there was.

it is always funny for me to see posters on here disagree with players' own admissions of their performances, and competition.

its just laughable really...

i remember agassi clearly favored sampras over federer early on but then switched over and is not so much impressed as he is AWED by federer's game.

kuerten has made some comments recently about how easy federer makes the game look and that he's on his way to becoming the GOAT
 

380pistol

Banned
Sampras has never been one to shirk from blowing his own trumpet ever since Federer started to threaten his records. In 2003 he says the competition was better at the turn of the century than during his period of domination, then the moment someone comes along to threaten his records, he tries to take it back. Sampras' later comments cannot be taken seriously because it clearly threw him a bit that everyone was talking about Federer being the greater player. It's apparent Sampras' ego felt a little bruised by all the favourable comments Federer was getting over him from past players, so he had to make a case for himself. Now he's making a desperate attempt not to be forgotten by playing all these exos. Sampras was a great player, in the top 5 of all-time greats, but his fragile ego is a little embarrassing. He does'nt need to defend himself, he should be proud of what he achieved and accept what others achieve without trying to diminish them. The reason why there were not more Slam winners during Federer's domination was because he was beating them to the punch.

Kuerten made his comments back in 2005 or somewhere around that time, before some could realize the full extent of Federer's talent. I doubt he would make the same comments now. Plus you have players like Rios and Bruguera saying Federer is much better or 10x better than Sampras, so you have to be able to distinguish between sensible, considered opinions and hyperbole. Kuerten's are hyperbole, just as Rios' and Bruguera's were. I think Federer is better than Sampras too, but not 10x better.

I'm still waiting for your sources on Becker and Stich.

Just because you are not consistent on a weekly basis, does not mean you are not a threat or cannot reach your best level at various times. I mean, there are hundreds of examples of this in tennis. Any number of players can turn it on at any random time in an event.

I'm not going to list every single tournament Sampras played in during this period. It's enough to see a selection of the quality he was capable of during this time. If you go to the ATP website you can see some of his deep runs for yourself. He was competing in the finals of Cincinnati, Indian Wells and Miami or otherwise getting to the semis and quarters. He was also making appearances in the finals of Houston, Long Island, Los Angeles, Queens etc, having to deal with the likes of Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter, Kafelnikov etc, players in the top 5 or 10. He himself was in the top 5 for much of this period and only momentarily ventured outside the top 10, which was understandable considering he was not interested in killing himself playing all the small tournaments to maintain his ranking. The fact that he might have been ranked 10, does not mean he was 10 in terms of the hierarchy of his ability, when it mattered, compared to the rest of the tour. He was obviously better than that, but prioritized for the big events.

Sampras looks stronger than ever in these clips and you also have his own words saying he was a better player during this period, if not as consistent or interested on a weekly basis. What's important is the level Sampras had in him for the big events, not what he did in all the little tournaments which held little interest for him.

2001 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY&fmt=18

2002 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_oizEjkreZw&feature=related&fmt=18

1999 Wimbledon
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRv4TC73Ro&feature=related&fmt=18

Sampras said the competiton today is not as strong as what it used to be, as Federer approaches his records. The what would McEnroe,Wilander, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Kuerten etc. excuses be??? They're trying to protect Sampras as well??? First you claim Sampras said it was better, and when proven wrong "Pete can't be taken seriously". You're a clown!!!!

You agree with Bruguera, but not 10X, I agree with Keurten, Moya etc. Bruguera (where's your source???) said "the only thning Sampras does better than Roger is serve". So there goes Sergi's credibilty. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

As for Becker and Stich....
http://insidetennis.com/YB08_first_serve.html
#7 Lady Luck. Inside Tennis Magazine January-February 2008
They reference the comments.

"On a grander scale, some voices of the past claim Fed’s fortunate to have played in an era with a relatively soft field. Boris Becker contended, “He hasn’t got any competition. In the days of McEnroe, there was Borg. I had Lendl, Agassi and Sampras. Now, on grass, do you see anyone who can beat him?” Sampras sounded a similar theme: “No one is looking to come in and put any pressure on him, so he’s able to dominate...He’s playing in a generation where I don’t see as many great players...He’s not up against three or four serious threats. The game is probably stronger across the board. But at the top, outside of Nadal...it is a little bit thinner...I was facing multiple Grand Slam winners..."

Kuerten's comment came in fall of 2006, after Federers best Year. Sampras "much better". Moya said "not in Pete's league". What about Ferrero??? Kafelnikov said no ones highest levels above Pete and Wilander said at the height of your boy's dominance he "couldn't fathom anyone being better than Pet at his best". So leave it alone.

Those were 3 great matches from Sampras. And you're point would be???

1999 Wimbledon was an excellent match from Pete.

The 2002 US Open he was brilliant for the 1st 2.5 sets, and then he started to tire, do you consider that??? Did you forget his 46 unforced errors??? What about his 13 double faults and 12 break points allowed compared with 6 doubles and 6 break chances in the 1995 final. What about the 1990 final??? 1double and didn't face a break point til the 3rd set!!!!


You said.....
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

And you have done nothing to show that his performances from 1999-2002 are better than his pre 1999 perfomances, or show he had more outstanding performances 1999-2002 than he did prior to 1999. All you're doing is talking out of your ass.

Federer beat Sampras in 2001,and called his performance vs Safin in 2002 Hamburg final one of his finest performances. Oh my according to you Federer's best performances must have come 2001 and 2002 then. You're an idiot.
 
Last edited:

aphex

Banned
please try to understand:
the notion that ANY of sampras' contemporaries could have stopped federer
in any of his GS victories is laughable...
had he had sampras' field, he'd have multiple calendar slams.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
well sampras ****s can do nothing about federer's way to GOATness other than demerit his acheivements by belittling his competition.

Well that's been mostly true since I joined these boards.However Fed's achievements speak for themselves and it's really telling that some(not all)Sampras fans feel the need to constantly belittle Fed's achievements/competition/game etc..It shows their insecurity but it also shows that Fed is still very much a threat to Pete's records,otherwise they wouldn't bother.

Some people who feel that the Fed was the best they ever seen are Jim Courier,Andre Agassi,Henman,Kramer,Bruguera,Rios,Marat Safin etc.even Wilander said that Federer is better than Sampras and that he hits the ball harder after AO 2007 although he changes his mind a lot so I don't buy that much into what he says.Then again some others(Kafelnikov,Moya,Kuerten,Becker,Stich etc.) feel that Sampras is the better and that's fine,those are just educated opinions from former or current pros,they can't know for sure just like the rest of us can't as well.Personally out of all that bunch the opinion that I respect the most is Agassi's as he has played many great champions in his long career but that's my personal preference.

We will never know how Fed and Sampras would match-up in their primes,they played only one match in which a still very green but talented Federer beat a past his prime but still a defending champion Sampras in Wimbledon.It was a good high-quality match(both of them served great,especially Sampras with 70% first serve in and averaging 110 mph on a second serve)but neither of them was in his prime(although I would say that Sampras was closer to his since he won the USO next year while Fed wouldn't get past the quarters of another slam until Wimbledon 2003)and it wasn't really changing of the guard since Fed didn't win Wimbledon until 2 years after in 2003.Also one match is too small of a sample too conclude anything other than that it would have probably been a great rivalry(although GOAT condidates don't tend to coexist with one another,otherwise they wouldn't be GOAT candidates).

My opinion is that people should wait before Fed's career is over before comparing him to Sampras or other greats.He's 27 years old and reached 3 slam finals last year,winning the last one of them so I say let's be fair to Fed and allow him to finish his career and then compare his achievements to any other past player whose career is completely finished and done with long ago.

One more thing,while I consider Sampras's prime to have been 1993-1997 period,the best I've ever seen him play was in '99 Wimbledon and TMC final,just my opinion.He also did reach 3 consecutive USO finals in 2000-2002 period(something he never did in the 90s)so while he was past his prime he could still turn it on and play well at majors(his 2001 USO match with Agassi is one of the best matches I've ever seen).
 
Last edited:

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
But also Roger was not on his prime when he defeated Sampras (i am trying to be realistic), also Pete was defending champion ( we can not put aside this fact), if he won one year ago and then won USA open at that moment he had a lot of tennis to spread.

Comments please....

Roger was not in his prime, just played the match of his career to that point. He promptly went out in the next round to Henman.

Just because Pete won a slam the next year does not denote he was still in his prime. How many players won a grand slam one year and didn't do well the next year? Too many to count. Not a lot of conclusions can be drawn from one match.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Laver TWICE called Sampras the greatest and never went back. Said Federer "could be" the greates and then said to wait. Funny how he didn't need to wait for Pete.

That speaks for itself.

actually..after laver called sampras the best, he then called federer the best...and after that he has never ever referred to sampras as the best, but perhaps one of the best.

the PC answer is that laver, federer, sampras, borg, lendl etc were the best answer of their era and this is what laver believes currently until perhaps federer does the amazing, which is not likely and win the GS.

laver has also subtlely belittled sampras when he said "you cant blame pete for the others not returning his serve".

whereas with federer he has said multiple times "he has every shot in the book".

so it goes both ways. however, the majority of players have hailed federer ever since he was winning his 4th or 5th slam...with sampras there was no glorification until the record was near. sampras did not garner anywhere near the level of adulation that federer did.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. I like to think of myself as fair, and while I'm a fan of Federer, I'm no Nadal hater. Being called that annoys me. While I sometimes say unfavourable things about Rafa's game, I also have bad things to say about Federer, which if you look in the Pro Match Results section, you will see.

No sarcasm implied. You have your favorites, but you tend to see both sides of the coin without trying to shove your opinion down people's throats. I'm being sincere.

P.S.-pay no attention to some on this board who will try to say otherwise. The Truth is a fair poster too!
 

thejoe

Hall of Fame
No sarcasm implied. You have your favorites, but you tend to see both sides of the coin without trying to shove your opinion down people's throats. I'm being sincere.

P.S.-pay no attention to some on this board who will try to say otherwise. The Truth is a fair poster too!

Well thank you, and I extend the same compliment your way.

I'm bored of discussing something that can never be resolved. I'm one for saying that the stats don't tell you everything, and I don't believe that the issue will be resolved if Federer passes Sampras, because it is such a personal statement.

Subconsciously, those who watched Sampras during the 90's will want to pick fault in the other GOAT candidates, in the same way that those who watched Federer or Laver will for Sampras. I doubt you will find anyone impartial who has the required knowledge to answer the question, because tennis is full of such endearing characters, that it is impossible not to be partisan, if you know enough.

I have my opinion, and I've stated it enough times. I've never seen anyone play like Federer, and due to my fanaticism, I subconsciously pick fault with Sampras or Laver etc. If you tell me you are a fan of player x, and your opinion is without bias, you are lying. Thats my two cents.
 

ksbh

Banned
Agony ... that was a breathtaking array of backhands from Federer. Thanks for the link. Despite all the Federer-bashing that I engage in, I have admitted several times that he is a brilliant player par excellence!

However I'm yet to see a 'complete' tennis player with absolutely no weaknesses. Such a player would be unbeatable. Has Federer been unbeatable? Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.

 

David L

Hall of Fame
No he didn't. He was on the receiving end of an adolescent rant that had little to do with tennis.
It wasn't a rant and there was quite a bit of tennis in it. Just my own humorous response to his abusive posts. It made me laugh anyway.:lol:
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Agrre and disagree. Quotes and opinions hold weight, but aren't the be all and end all. As I said earlier I can find quotes from players, experts (so-called) whatver in favour of many players. People just took the quotes and ran with it whichever way they felt.

Yes but they still remain opinions,an educated opinions since they come from former or current players but it's not like pros can't make mistakes.I also heard players like Andre Agassi,Jim Courier,Kramer,Rios,Bruguera,Wilander(the biggest flip flopper),Henman,Safin,Roddick etc. say Fed is best ever or similar,I even remember Mcenroe saying before FO 2006 that if Fed wins it,he's the GOAT.I will find you the links of the ones I read on internet later if you want.But while I respect their opinion(s)I can still from my own.I think both Federer and Sampras are obviously amazing players(although as I said I'll wait before Fed is completely done with his career before comparing them as I think that's fair)but I'm personally most impressed by Borg's achievements,the guy went from winning clay by grinding people down to playing serve and volley at Wimbledon.Back then those surfaces were complete polar opposites(unlike now)so that was the ultimate test of player's adaptability and nobody passed that test as well as Borg.To holds such dominating records like 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 overall FOs on such opposite surfaces is nothing short of spectacular for me so I personally put him above both Sampras and Federer(for nowsince Fed isn't done yet but I dout that'll change in the future).Sure he didn't win USO but he reached 4 finals there and lost to some of the best USO players ever in Jimbo and Mcenroe,that's a great resume in your worst slam as far as I'm concerned.Another blemish(sp?) on his career is that he also retired early but what most people here don't seem realize is that Borg was an early bloomer and won a major each year since 1974-1981,that's some solid period of playing at a very high level.Maybe slightly off topic but since we're talking about GOATs,Borg's the one for me.

I have qualms with you're assertions. In 2001 he started the year #3 and finished #13. Two rounds before federer he went 5 sets with Barry Sanders. Yes... Sanders, cuz Cowan sounds terrible. And Federer played very well that day not to say Sampras played badly. .

Well Pete could have some trouble in early rounds at slams even during his peak years and then raise it up a notch when he played better players,I remember he pushed by that crazy German fellow in 1995 in the first round(Kaarsten Braasch) but then again the last time before that he got pushed to five sets in Wimbledon was back in '98 against Goran so I guess it was telling that Sampras wasn't the same.As for the bolded part,I think they both played well.It's was a quality match and the one I still watch from time to time(it was nice to see Fed serve and volley)bit as I said no matter how much we argue whether Fed was closer to his prime or Sampras,bottom line is that:

a)Neither player was in his prime.

b)One match is too small of a sample to conclide how a whole potential rivalry between 2 GOAT candidates would go.

c)It wasn't changing of the guard(like how it is apparently seen by a lot of people here,wrongly IMO)since Fed didn't win Wimbledon till 2003.

Frankly,I think that for the reasons stated above,that match is somewhat overrated although it was still a high-quality match IMO,both of them served great and had good winner to error ratio.So it was a good match but as I said not really the changing of the guard so I think some people give that match too much importance.

It's somewhat like Sampras/Lendl 1990 US Open. Sampras was playing beyond his prime and Lendl was just 3 weeks removed from the #1 spot despite skipping the French Open. Who would agree that Lendl was at his peak due to the fact he reached the Aus Open F 5 months later. Bad comparison though, cuz Lendl was playing better than Sampras.

I would agree since Lendl was a late bloomer that he was closer to his peak in 1990 than Sampras was in 2001 but then again Sampras was playing better in USO 1990 than Fed in Wimbledon 2001 as Pete went on to win tournament and Fed lost in quarters.But you're right about Lendl,he reached 8 USO finals in a row up until that point so Pete cut Lendl streak there but on the other hand Fed also cut Pete's streak of 4 Wimbledons in a row(and had Borg thank him).It happens even to all-time greats at some point as they get older,they get knocked out by fearless talented young guns,that's just the nature of the sport.

You talk of the 2001 US Open. Outside of that Pete was 29-15 in 2001. In 2002 he was 20-17 going into the US Open. So Sampras still reaching US Open finals isn't a true indicator of how he was playing. he lost to "lucky loser" George Bastl at Wimbledon, so he was fading... and fast. The 33 tournament, 26 month title drought??? Not the hallmark of someone still relatively close to their prime.

Well I never argued that Pete was in his prime,especially in 2001 and 2002.His prime was in 1993-1997 but even in 1999-2002 he could still put "some" great performances in majors(which were all he gave a damn at that point,hardly blame him for that),especially in 1999(which actually could have been a much better year if he didn't injure himself during a training with Kuerten,he was in very good form heading into USO that year) and 2000 when it took some great performances from both Agassi and Safin to stop him at AO and USO respectively and when he won Wimbledon on one leg so to speak,at FO he lost early that year but Pete never got around to being a contender there anyway(might have if Tim stayed alive but that's another topic).I still consider USO QF between Sampras and Agassi 2001 to have been one of the best matches I've ever seen but no week-in,week-out Sampras wasn't the same player he was in 1993-1997,few people will argue that.As any great champion,he could still play great in some matches,but normally as players get older those great performances became rarer and rarer,that's the way things work.Time affects even the greatest champions.

As far as Pete's 1999 performances at Wimbldeon that summer and YEC F,they were excellent. Pete played great in 1999, but the problem was his body didn't hold up. He missed 2 slams, competed in 14 tournaments, only completing 8 (5 of those he won).

Yes,I'm fully aware of injuries Sampras had that year,especially the one that forced him to miss USO,the back injury he sustained while practicing with Kuerten but hey not all was bad,he did meet Bridget during that break :)) so some good came from that atleast.But regadless those 2 performances against Agassi in that year(Wimbledon and TMC final)were still the best I've ever seen Sampras play(along with some others like DC '97 against Rafter and TMC final against Becker in '96,maybe even '96 USO final against Chang).Mind you,I mean those 2 matches,not the whole year obviously.

But when a certain buffoon says "his best" performances came 1999-2002 that clown better be able to show me how Pete's best performances 1999-2002 surpass his best performance prior to 1999, and or that he had more 1999-2002. If not he really should shut the f*** up.

That's an argument with someone else.I already said my stance on that issue but I'll repeat it again,no I do not think Sampras was in his prime in 1998-2002 period.His prime IMO was 1993-1997 period.

P.S. Off topic but I don't really think you need to get that personal over an internet debate.If you call me an idiot or dumbass or whatever it hardly affects me that much since this is just internet and I take in that way but getting personal and insulting people too often can get you banned here.We're all just a bunch of die-hard tennis fans here and both Federer and Sampras are/were amazing player,I personally feel priviliged to have watched them both.
 
Last edited:

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
first of all - Happy Birthday ROTFLx100 (er .. ksbh)
Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.
You mean the guy who plays with TWO right hands. The lefty who is actually a rightie ? :-D
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Agony ... that was a breathtaking array of backhands from Federer. Thanks for the link. Despite all the Federer-bashing that I engage in, I have admitted several times that he is a brilliant player par excellence!

However I'm yet to see a 'complete' tennis player with absolutely no weaknesses. Such a player would be unbeatable. Has Federer been unbeatable? Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.

Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top