Federer vs. Sampras
- Thread starter mnguyen8
- Start date
arosen
Hall of Fame
Dude, Pete got his butt kicked by Roger right there in Pete's house at Wimby when Pete was still on top and Roger was just a kid. You can buy a tape of that match, it was very competitive but Roge was not even quite as good as he is today, and he still beat Pete. Roger said later many times that that was a win that made him BELIEVE.
shawn1122
Professional
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=69805
This thread links to some highlights from their match at WImbledon in 2001.
This thread links to some highlights from their match at WImbledon in 2001.
P
Paul Hayman
Guest
Federer has got to be the best player, and would beat Sampras. That's not to say Fed is the greatest however. That remains to be seen. The next test, as he is aware I think, is to be consistant throughout his career. That was Sampras' key, and the reason many say he was the greatest; and also the reason he has the most slam titles.
The question then is how many records can Fed take, not would he beat Sampras at his best.
The question then is how many records can Fed take, not would he beat Sampras at his best.
FedererUberAlles
Professional
How Original!
dennis10is
Banned
what if Sampras and Fed were to....
both snort a line of coke before the match.
drink a can of beer after each game, a shot of vodka during each change over, and play with their left hand...
Discuss among yourselves
I don't think this has been discussed yet, correct me if I'm wrong
oh, yeah, Racket throwing at your opponent is legal and encouraged.
both snort a line of coke before the match.
drink a can of beer after each game, a shot of vodka during each change over, and play with their left hand...
Discuss among yourselves
I don't think this has been discussed yet, correct me if I'm wrong
oh, yeah, Racket throwing at your opponent is legal and encouraged.
VGP
Legend
dennis10is said:
Whoa, that's a toss-up.
As far as playing goes, I think Sampras would hold up better in a best of five set match. I bet he's got a higher tolerance than Federer.
Federer would race to a quick lead and take the first set, but as the booze sets in, he'd fade. But, he could take the fourth set to even the match to go to a fifth. He'd ensure the set because he'd revert back to his early days of throwing his racket and really peg Pete across the forehead with a lucky toss.
Pete would then definitely take the fifth because he'd be so pissed from getting beaned in the noggin that he'd just belch his way through some major serving.
Roger would just be demoralized by that point and become a blubbering sloppy drunk laying all covered in terre battue (YUP!) crying in the fetal position.
After the match Mirka and Brigette settle the score in an improptu Jell-O wrestling match.
doriancito
Hall of Fame
ude i have the whole 5 set match on my computer when fed beats sampras.
Phil
Hall of Fame
arosen said:
A close five setter is not a "butt kicking" by any stretch of the immagination. In their only match Pete was 29 and was in the midst of a 2-year slump that didn't let-up until he won the 2002 USO. This match proves nothing, really, except to highlight that Pete was basically on his way out and Roger was going to be a player to be reckoned with.
Pete at 24 playing Roger at 19 OR the Roger of today, at 24 is a different story altogether. I say Pete wins that match-up 7 of 10 times. One can only speculate on this, but I'm pretty sure that as great as Roger is, he's still not faced anything like the full-fledged take-no-prisoners assault on the physical and mental senses that was Pete Sampras in his prime.
The younger dudes on this forum seem to only know the "later" Sampras, and have absolutely no idea how dominating this guy was. Roger is so good that it sometimes seems like he humiliates his opponents, without breaking a sweat. Sampras went beyond the humiliation stage, passed "Go" and collected $200 on his way to BRUTALIZING his opponents.
nobody will ever know
Phil is right to a point that nobody remembers Pete in the mid 90's however, when Pete lost to Safin at the US open in 2000 he was still playing his good tennis might not be his best but he was still playing well and he got killed by him. And Safin lead their series of 4 to 3. Where Roger beats Safin 3 out of 4 times so right there Roger that is a huge plus to Roger. Same thing happened in 2001 US where he lost to Hewitt and Hewitt can't even come close to beating Roger in the past few years, and Hewitt has only improved.
The legend will grow between these 2 players, but I think the only grand slam that Pete would win is Wimbledon of the 90's with the fast low bouncing grass courts. On hard courts Fed has a definite advantage and clay speaks for itself.
Phil is right to a point that nobody remembers Pete in the mid 90's however, when Pete lost to Safin at the US open in 2000 he was still playing his good tennis might not be his best but he was still playing well and he got killed by him. And Safin lead their series of 4 to 3. Where Roger beats Safin 3 out of 4 times so right there Roger that is a huge plus to Roger. Same thing happened in 2001 US where he lost to Hewitt and Hewitt can't even come close to beating Roger in the past few years, and Hewitt has only improved.
The legend will grow between these 2 players, but I think the only grand slam that Pete would win is Wimbledon of the 90's with the fast low bouncing grass courts. On hard courts Fed has a definite advantage and clay speaks for itself.
VGP
Legend
The thing is, Marat and Lleyton played out of their freakin' minds in those finals. It's still hard to make the correlation.
The fact that Federer and Sampras met only once in a TIGHTLY contested match on their best surface, is a "changing of the guard" type of moment and it serves only to tease the speculators.
The fact that Federer and Sampras met only once in a TIGHTLY contested match on their best surface, is a "changing of the guard" type of moment and it serves only to tease the speculators.
hopeless said:
I think its a toss up, but I wonder how the "evolution" of racquets and strings can be the reason for Federer winning?
Ask all the people in here, and they will tell you that racquet technology really hasn't improved that much in the past 20 years. A lot of people like Sampras' racquet even today, go on the auction site and see how much they go for. And Fed happens to play with a racquet similar to the specs of Sampras racquet, they just put those candy NCODE colors on them.
As a matter of fact, when they met 5 years ago, they looked so similar in their demeanor and playing styles, and I would swear their racquets were both Wilson and similar head sizes
VGP said:
They only appeared to be playing out of their minds, because they were facing a hopelessly overwhelmed opponent.
The fact that they played a tightly contested match is tribute to Federer, but not to Pete. Pete was not "over the hill." He was in the heart of his human athletic physical prime, at 29 years old. The whole, "he was mired in a slump" thing rings hollow as well. He was on record as saying that all that mattered to him was Wimbledon, and he kept backing that up, year after year, till he ran into the FedEx. He was at his physical peak, and playing a tournament he leveraged his entire year's worth of dominating will in an attempt to capture...
...and he lost to a teenager years before the kid hit his stride.
This was not an anomaly. Pete was the self-proclaimed best grasscourter in the world at the time of this defeat, and lost. The only reasonable conclusion is that Federer was already, hands down, BETTER than Sampras when they met in '99. The rest of the tour season, you can argue about. Sampras claimed not to care. But at Wimby, to claim that at 29 years of age, he was playing weaker or trying less, or psychologically out-of-it any more than he was while he was winning it every year...well, it's revisionist history. The past is trying to be kind to a hero, but the hero was overmatched by the young guns, and the results are right there in black and white.
Sampras was monarch over a down period in tennis history. The legend is greater than the reality was. When the modern era of players arrived, Pete was still young and athletically hale. And they handed him his ass.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Grimjack,
I think your obvious hate of Sampras makes it hard to take what you say seriously. 29 is not your "athletic prime." Check out the link at the bottom. It provides data on the oldest slam winners/finalists in the open era. Sampras circa '00-'02 is on that list. The age difference between Sampras & Safin/Hewitt is among the largest in the open era among slam finalists. And what do you know, most of the time the younger player wins!
Check out Sampras win/loss record in '00/'01 & his ranking compared to '93-'98. Only a blind man could think he wasn't on the decline. Hell, do you even know that Hewitt was ranked higher than Sampras in that '01 US Open Final? Sampras was in the longest title drought of his career when he played Federer in '01. Yeah, "athletic prime," my ass.
Funny how you think these "modern players" showed him how inferior his game is, at precisely the age when virtually all great players(Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Laver) decline. What a coincidence, you start to decline in your late 20s. When Federer wins his last slam at 28, I'd love to hear your theory why. Safin beat Sampras soundly at the 2000 US Open. And then Sampras beat Safin soundly at the 2001 US Open. The Sampras of 2001 was a shadow of his former self. That he was still capable of that tennis that late in his career is pretty impressive. And shows what he would have been able to do on a more regular basis had he been younger, fresher, fitter like he was in the mid to late 90s.
It's even more comical that you choose to believe that the one match Fed & Sampras proves how much better Fed is. Do you realize that Sampras was pushed to 5 sets by Barry Cowan earlier in Wimbledon '01? Was Barry freaking Cowan too much for poor Pete to handle in his athletic prime? And Fed lost his next match to Henman after beating Sampras. Henman was Sampras' ***** in his prime. Yeah, Sampras could never be a match for these modern players in his prime. Ditto Lendl vs Courier/Agassi/Sampras or Laver/Rosewall vs Connors. Keep dreaming.
http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_finalists.html#agediff_large
I think your obvious hate of Sampras makes it hard to take what you say seriously. 29 is not your "athletic prime." Check out the link at the bottom. It provides data on the oldest slam winners/finalists in the open era. Sampras circa '00-'02 is on that list. The age difference between Sampras & Safin/Hewitt is among the largest in the open era among slam finalists. And what do you know, most of the time the younger player wins!
Check out Sampras win/loss record in '00/'01 & his ranking compared to '93-'98. Only a blind man could think he wasn't on the decline. Hell, do you even know that Hewitt was ranked higher than Sampras in that '01 US Open Final? Sampras was in the longest title drought of his career when he played Federer in '01. Yeah, "athletic prime," my ass.
Funny how you think these "modern players" showed him how inferior his game is, at precisely the age when virtually all great players(Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Laver) decline. What a coincidence, you start to decline in your late 20s. When Federer wins his last slam at 28, I'd love to hear your theory why. Safin beat Sampras soundly at the 2000 US Open. And then Sampras beat Safin soundly at the 2001 US Open. The Sampras of 2001 was a shadow of his former self. That he was still capable of that tennis that late in his career is pretty impressive. And shows what he would have been able to do on a more regular basis had he been younger, fresher, fitter like he was in the mid to late 90s.
It's even more comical that you choose to believe that the one match Fed & Sampras proves how much better Fed is. Do you realize that Sampras was pushed to 5 sets by Barry Cowan earlier in Wimbledon '01? Was Barry freaking Cowan too much for poor Pete to handle in his athletic prime? And Fed lost his next match to Henman after beating Sampras. Henman was Sampras' ***** in his prime. Yeah, Sampras could never be a match for these modern players in his prime. Ditto Lendl vs Courier/Agassi/Sampras or Laver/Rosewall vs Connors. Keep dreaming.
http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_finalists.html#agediff_large
if any of you guys would like to watch the match between sampras n federer in wimbledon then here is the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2524351194056183803&q=sampras
just a short little clip
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2524351194056183803&q=sampras
just a short little clip
VGP
Legend
I still don't get why people dump on Sampras so much.
They guy's record speaks for itself and he didn't come off as too much of a jerk......
Having been into tennis through the duration of Sampras' pro career, it's not legend, it's fact.
(taken from the Sampras picture thread)
One of several examples as to why Sampras was one to watch.
Roger Federer in a lot of ways is more talented than Pete Sampras, in some ways not.
They're games are more different than a lot of people think.
It will be a while (maybe not a long while) before he can top Pete, but while Sampras was a pro and even years after his retirement, he doesn't get the respect he deserves.
They guy's record speaks for itself and he didn't come off as too much of a jerk......
Having been into tennis through the duration of Sampras' pro career, it's not legend, it's fact.
(taken from the Sampras picture thread)
One of several examples as to why Sampras was one to watch.
VGP said:
Roger Federer in a lot of ways is more talented than Pete Sampras, in some ways not.
They're games are more different than a lot of people think.
It will be a while (maybe not a long while) before he can top Pete, but while Sampras was a pro and even years after his retirement, he doesn't get the respect he deserves.
The consecutive U.S. Opens where Sampras lost did represent the changing of the guard, but that makes his final title there that much more impressive.
At the time Roger beat Pete at Wimbledon he was beginning to show flashes of his future brilliance but would still founder in tournaments for quite a while. During this time I thought Federer was always quite capable of beating himself mentally. The fact that he beat Pete was a triumph, but more like a fluke at that time.
Also, to say Sampras was dominant during a weak time competitively for men's tennis is just a complete load of crap. He defined the standard for 10 years, and some people hated him for it. He won Wimbledon in straight sets over Ivanisevic and people called it boring. He failed to berate linesman at any point during his career ala Mac and so he became the "quiet, reserved champion".
I myself always marveled at how perfect his serve and volley game was - the best ever. Typical point - 118 mile an hour kick second serve, insane half volley from no man's land still lands passed the opponents service line, opponent attempts passing shot down the line, Sampras hits perfect cross-court stop volley that bounces 4 times before opponent can reach it.
It was just this over and over again and I never got sick of it.
At the time Roger beat Pete at Wimbledon he was beginning to show flashes of his future brilliance but would still founder in tournaments for quite a while. During this time I thought Federer was always quite capable of beating himself mentally. The fact that he beat Pete was a triumph, but more like a fluke at that time.
Also, to say Sampras was dominant during a weak time competitively for men's tennis is just a complete load of crap. He defined the standard for 10 years, and some people hated him for it. He won Wimbledon in straight sets over Ivanisevic and people called it boring. He failed to berate linesman at any point during his career ala Mac and so he became the "quiet, reserved champion".
I myself always marveled at how perfect his serve and volley game was - the best ever. Typical point - 118 mile an hour kick second serve, insane half volley from no man's land still lands passed the opponents service line, opponent attempts passing shot down the line, Sampras hits perfect cross-court stop volley that bounces 4 times before opponent can reach it.
It was just this over and over again and I never got sick of it.
That's easy - he went about his work like an assassin: mowing down guys left, right and centre without any watchable style or flair - just pure power.VGP said:
In fact, I remember watching him at Wimbledon back in 1999 and my then-girlfriend said that she and all her friends preferred Agassi any day of the week.
f*ukcing mooks. :mrgreen:
Mattle
Rookie
Remember: Pete has been in his prime! So the question is: Can PETE break FEDERER? and the answer: of course not. Pete had such an tennis potential so if he were born the same day as Federer, and began his tennis atm, he would be todays genious. But he learned another type of tennis, and it's not possible for him to beat Federer with his impressive skills
Its always amazing to me how people think that today's players is always better than yesteryears. Agassi is still playing today and is 35 years old, hurt and ranked number 8 or so. And who has he played against? Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras, Courier. Guys who have beaten him. Oh yeah, Andre learned a different brand of tennis, right.
That is why McEnroe at 47 years old is back playing in the ATP, cause we all know that Johnny Mac cant play todays game. As a matter of fact, I think if you made these guys 20 years old again, the likes of Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, and specially Pistol Pete, can you imagine what kind of tennis we can see today and what kind of rivals Fed will have.
They got old in tennis years. That is why Mike Tyson, the most feared boxer sometime ago, is now routinely knocked out by opponents. They are better than him now, but give me a 20 year old Tyson and I'll pick him against almost anybody. I know lots of you are below 20 years old so you think everything that came before is inferior. So wrong...you will see this in the years to come when its Feds time...it happens to all of us
That is why McEnroe at 47 years old is back playing in the ATP, cause we all know that Johnny Mac cant play todays game. As a matter of fact, I think if you made these guys 20 years old again, the likes of Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, and specially Pistol Pete, can you imagine what kind of tennis we can see today and what kind of rivals Fed will have.
They got old in tennis years. That is why Mike Tyson, the most feared boxer sometime ago, is now routinely knocked out by opponents. They are better than him now, but give me a 20 year old Tyson and I'll pick him against almost anybody. I know lots of you are below 20 years old so you think everything that came before is inferior. So wrong...you will see this in the years to come when its Feds time...it happens to all of us
mnguyen8 said:
I take Sampras. It will go down to who holds their service game
better especially in the long run. I'm pretty convinced Pete will
hold more serving games. So Sampras on grass, carpet and hard courts.
Federer on clay courts...
I know Federer has resilient games and people might say he'll
figure it out and stuff but there's nothing to figure out in
Sampras' serving games. You know what you'll get.
It's simple and deadly efficient.
There's nothing you can do about it, pretty much.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
fastdunn said:
No, in their only match, Sampras got broken more than Federer did.
jasonbourne
Professional
The tennis guy said:
Right! Grass is by far the most challenging surface for any player to break Sampras serve. Federer also beat Sampras (who has one of the best winning tie-break records) in their first tie-break, which appeared nearly impossible to do at Wimbledon.
In other surfaces outside of grass, Federer's game is more effective because Sampras style, though efficient, would not pose a challenge for Federer as on grass. Federer's defense and speed is also better than Sampras'.
I like Federer's style of play better than Sampras, but lets not get carried away by that one match they had
In that year, Sampras had an 18 and 10 record, very disappointing for somebody like Sampras. And before he met Federer, he was broken twice and taken to 5 sets by an unknown qualifier, Barry something or other. The same number of breaks Fed had. And Pete broke Fed twice also.
If you watch this very close match, the first set had some really close line calls, if they had gone one way or another the story could well be different. Also, how many slam dunk overheads does Pete miss in a year? In this match, he missed 2. Plus he wasnt very fast in to the net for volleys. And he was pressing with his serve, as if he knew the rest of his game wasnt up to par.
All of this leads me to believe Pete wasnt himself at this match. And Fed was still developing at the time. So we have a not so great anymore Sampras playing a not yet so great Federer. The match means nothing in my opinion as to how the best Pete would play against the best Roger. I still like Roger, but please lets be realistic
In that year, Sampras had an 18 and 10 record, very disappointing for somebody like Sampras. And before he met Federer, he was broken twice and taken to 5 sets by an unknown qualifier, Barry something or other. The same number of breaks Fed had. And Pete broke Fed twice also.
If you watch this very close match, the first set had some really close line calls, if they had gone one way or another the story could well be different. Also, how many slam dunk overheads does Pete miss in a year? In this match, he missed 2. Plus he wasnt very fast in to the net for volleys. And he was pressing with his serve, as if he knew the rest of his game wasnt up to par.
All of this leads me to believe Pete wasnt himself at this match. And Fed was still developing at the time. So we have a not so great anymore Sampras playing a not yet so great Federer. The match means nothing in my opinion as to how the best Pete would play against the best Roger. I still like Roger, but please lets be realistic
Did you know that Kwame Brown was able to hold Shaquile O' Neil in a game earlier this year? Is it is because Kwame Brown, a dissapointing scrub by any other name in today's NBA, is an incredible example of the improved awesomeness of today's NBA? OR...is it just that Shaquille O' Neil, whilst still dangerous, is CLEARLY on the downswing of his career? Every career has it, it's a pendulum like time, like the scathe of the grim reaper carving out it's niche as he may.
That's how Sampras was when he played Federer that Wimbledon, that's how close Barry Cowan, an absolute nobody, came to beating him just before that match. Sampras was thinking, gee, where I do fall on that pendulum? Where is it in its course? How much higher can it go, how much longer before it falls?
I saw that Federer-Sampras match, and I won't say the Sampras was a shadow of himself because that would be misleading. What I will say is that Sampras by that age was starting to notice the shadow CREEPING up on him. It's called the grim reaper. Sooner or later, we'll all imagine him there; whether he's actually standing there or not is not actually as important as the fact that you're thinking about it. It's what's in our minds that counts, and mentally there is no clearer indication that Sampras had begun to "lose it" by then than what he said after the match.
He said, he saw it coming. He said, he knew that sooner or later, he was going to lose a close match at Wimbledon. He said that sooner or later the ball wouldn't bounce his way. And you know what? It happened. When you think it, you will it. When the leader of the pack, the top dog, sneaks a peak behind him; you know the end is sooner than later. The other dogs, the pack; nothing escapes them. They can sense that fundamental MENTAL weakness that begins to spell the end, it doesn't have to come today; but there is a certain soothing serenity of mind that comes from realizing the end is sooner than later.
In sports, where "that psyche edge" can mean so much; nothing is a more favorable MENTAL matchup than the one where a star closer to the end than the beginning faces the "future star" in a hyped match at a big event with all the world watching. Why? Because the only two times in life, when people really get excited is the day you are born, and the day you die. The moments in between are there as the present, to pass the time. What happens in that moment of truth, however, is when the air grows more still, and the older guy looks over his shoulder and sees a younger version of himself...with wide eyes. It's the grim reaper, and you realize then you've got everything to lose. Meanwhile, the younger guys looks forward, because he's got nowhere else to look. Do you know how that feels? It's nerve-wracking, but glorious. It's the light at the end of the tunnel, it's heaven's gate with the pad lock removed and the gate half-open. Do you dare? You do, you DO. It's like starting a video game at the final stage with the boss who just happens to have a half meter of life left thanks to that Game Pro code...and with no threat of getting knocked down to the beginning without having saved the game? Man, opportunity doesn't come a knocking louder than that.
It's no coincidence. They don't call it, you've got nothing to lose for no reason. It's because the other guy's got everything to lose.
Put it this way: When a star walking down the street stops to think, what is he?
1) You can't be a star if you're one of the pack. Meet your muse; his name is Barry Cowan. 2) He's a sitting duck wearing a gold necklace and diamond earings.
Can you say, BLING-BLING?
Safe to say, Federer was closer to his best that match than Sampras in my opinion. More important than that, I think he was mentally advantaged in that match whereas Sampras was burdened with the anchor of achievement...tough I know, but hey, everyone human has to go through it sometime, shrug.
Btw, Bruguera beat Federer 6-1, 6-1 in by far the sorriest state I've ever seen him in. He was literally just coming off shoulder surgery that was supposed to end his career, and played about as crisply and confidently as a dead fish on a slab. He was an absolute pittance and shadow of say the Bruguera that destroyed Medvedev in the 93 French semis, which looked like someone who was walking on water. So, if Bruguera at his absolute worst can beat Federer at his absolute worst that bad, what does that say about Federer being human or not? It tells me that Federer, just like everyone else, would caution you to make black or white judgements based on...IT WAS JUST ONE MATCH.
Without a doubt, the level of play between this generation and the last is a lot closer than people recognize. Players go up and down, but a top player in the zone from the last generation would STILL be in the zone today. They could play, just as today's top players can play. Don't sell the old guys short just because they're too old and holding their walking stick upright now for an overhead SMASH too protest...right, Mr. McEnroe, lol?
That's how Sampras was when he played Federer that Wimbledon, that's how close Barry Cowan, an absolute nobody, came to beating him just before that match. Sampras was thinking, gee, where I do fall on that pendulum? Where is it in its course? How much higher can it go, how much longer before it falls?
I saw that Federer-Sampras match, and I won't say the Sampras was a shadow of himself because that would be misleading. What I will say is that Sampras by that age was starting to notice the shadow CREEPING up on him. It's called the grim reaper. Sooner or later, we'll all imagine him there; whether he's actually standing there or not is not actually as important as the fact that you're thinking about it. It's what's in our minds that counts, and mentally there is no clearer indication that Sampras had begun to "lose it" by then than what he said after the match.
He said, he saw it coming. He said, he knew that sooner or later, he was going to lose a close match at Wimbledon. He said that sooner or later the ball wouldn't bounce his way. And you know what? It happened. When you think it, you will it. When the leader of the pack, the top dog, sneaks a peak behind him; you know the end is sooner than later. The other dogs, the pack; nothing escapes them. They can sense that fundamental MENTAL weakness that begins to spell the end, it doesn't have to come today; but there is a certain soothing serenity of mind that comes from realizing the end is sooner than later.
In sports, where "that psyche edge" can mean so much; nothing is a more favorable MENTAL matchup than the one where a star closer to the end than the beginning faces the "future star" in a hyped match at a big event with all the world watching. Why? Because the only two times in life, when people really get excited is the day you are born, and the day you die. The moments in between are there as the present, to pass the time. What happens in that moment of truth, however, is when the air grows more still, and the older guy looks over his shoulder and sees a younger version of himself...with wide eyes. It's the grim reaper, and you realize then you've got everything to lose. Meanwhile, the younger guys looks forward, because he's got nowhere else to look. Do you know how that feels? It's nerve-wracking, but glorious. It's the light at the end of the tunnel, it's heaven's gate with the pad lock removed and the gate half-open. Do you dare? You do, you DO. It's like starting a video game at the final stage with the boss who just happens to have a half meter of life left thanks to that Game Pro code...and with no threat of getting knocked down to the beginning without having saved the game? Man, opportunity doesn't come a knocking louder than that.
It's no coincidence. They don't call it, you've got nothing to lose for no reason. It's because the other guy's got everything to lose.
Put it this way: When a star walking down the street stops to think, what is he?
1) You can't be a star if you're one of the pack. Meet your muse; his name is Barry Cowan. 2) He's a sitting duck wearing a gold necklace and diamond earings.
Can you say, BLING-BLING?
Safe to say, Federer was closer to his best that match than Sampras in my opinion. More important than that, I think he was mentally advantaged in that match whereas Sampras was burdened with the anchor of achievement...tough I know, but hey, everyone human has to go through it sometime, shrug.
Btw, Bruguera beat Federer 6-1, 6-1 in by far the sorriest state I've ever seen him in. He was literally just coming off shoulder surgery that was supposed to end his career, and played about as crisply and confidently as a dead fish on a slab. He was an absolute pittance and shadow of say the Bruguera that destroyed Medvedev in the 93 French semis, which looked like someone who was walking on water. So, if Bruguera at his absolute worst can beat Federer at his absolute worst that bad, what does that say about Federer being human or not? It tells me that Federer, just like everyone else, would caution you to make black or white judgements based on...IT WAS JUST ONE MATCH.
Without a doubt, the level of play between this generation and the last is a lot closer than people recognize. Players go up and down, but a top player in the zone from the last generation would STILL be in the zone today. They could play, just as today's top players can play. Don't sell the old guys short just because they're too old and holding their walking stick upright now for an overhead SMASH too protest...right, Mr. McEnroe, lol?
thewisteron
New User
Geez Tym, how long did it take you to write that?!? I agree with Arnz's post. You cannot compare them based on that match. If only we could have seen them play each other while they were both in their prime. *sigh*
Polaris
Hall of Fame
Arnz, here are a few things to ponder over. Probably you have missed something in the argument that some people on the board are making when they say that today's brigade of tennis players is better than that of a decade ago. Sorry if I completely missed your point and ramble on a tangent below.
I agree with you that, with their incredible talent, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras and company would be great rivals (even nemeses) for Federer today. However (and this is the point that people sometimes conveniently miss), the hypothetical McEnroe of today would play the game differently than the actual McEnroe did in the 1970s and 1980s. Likewise, if Sampras were a talented youngster today, surveying the playing field and trying to find the best way to win in 2007, it is reasonable to assume that he might serve-and-volley a little less and try to play all-court a little more because serve-and-volley does not pay the dividends it used to when courts/balls were faster. Who knows, he might not have abandoned his two-hander at all! Very few people, if any, are saying that the Federer of 2006 would easily defeat this hypothetical teenage Sampras of 2007. What most of them are saying is that Federer playing his 2006 game would pretty much defeat Sampras playing his 1994 game. The only argument here is that a 1960s game is inadequate to win in 1980, which in turn is inadequate to win in 2006. Surely, you find that reasonable, don't you?
Borg, McEnroe, Sampras are all assured of their place in the pantheon and I for one would not haggle about their talent. Their results are too good to even merit an argument.
Your point about McEnroe's comeback is not quite valid since the great left-hander has entered the doubles field, not the singles. And yes, Agassi has really had an amazing time at the top of the rankings, and he throws my (above) argument out of the window. However, he is the exception that strengthens the rule.
Sure enough, as you say, the same thing will happen to Federer. As Tym mentioned, sooner or later he will start losing, and we will say that he lost to a better player. But "better" must be understood in the correct context.
I agree with you that, with their incredible talent, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras and company would be great rivals (even nemeses) for Federer today. However (and this is the point that people sometimes conveniently miss), the hypothetical McEnroe of today would play the game differently than the actual McEnroe did in the 1970s and 1980s. Likewise, if Sampras were a talented youngster today, surveying the playing field and trying to find the best way to win in 2007, it is reasonable to assume that he might serve-and-volley a little less and try to play all-court a little more because serve-and-volley does not pay the dividends it used to when courts/balls were faster. Who knows, he might not have abandoned his two-hander at all! Very few people, if any, are saying that the Federer of 2006 would easily defeat this hypothetical teenage Sampras of 2007. What most of them are saying is that Federer playing his 2006 game would pretty much defeat Sampras playing his 1994 game. The only argument here is that a 1960s game is inadequate to win in 1980, which in turn is inadequate to win in 2006. Surely, you find that reasonable, don't you?
Borg, McEnroe, Sampras are all assured of their place in the pantheon and I for one would not haggle about their talent. Their results are too good to even merit an argument.
Your point about McEnroe's comeback is not quite valid since the great left-hander has entered the doubles field, not the singles. And yes, Agassi has really had an amazing time at the top of the rankings, and he throws my (above) argument out of the window. However, he is the exception that strengthens the rule.
Sure enough, as you say, the same thing will happen to Federer. As Tym mentioned, sooner or later he will start losing, and we will say that he lost to a better player. But "better" must be understood in the correct context.
hopeless
New User
Polaris said:
yep i totally agree. the game has undeniably evolved over time, what worked in the past will probably not work as well now.
as for your point about Agassi, if he claims that Federer is the best he has ever played against, then that certainly adds weight to your argument. Note that in making such a statement, Agassi is NOT saying that Federer is a greater champion than Sampras, he is merely refering to the type and level of tennis which both players play.
The premise of this thread is about who would win at the prime of their games with reference to their era.. not about who is the GOAT, or who has more talent, or who was more dominating, or even about who is a better tennis player, and a lot of people in this thread have missed this subtle point.
chrismaylor
New User
Roger is unstoppable
of course, sampras was great but roger will go down as one of the best athletic greats of our time. no comparison.
Christopher Maylor
http://www.TallTall.com
Serendipity Shoe Lifts ~ Be Taller Now
of course, sampras was great but roger will go down as one of the best athletic greats of our time. no comparison.
Christopher Maylor
http://www.TallTall.com
Serendipity Shoe Lifts ~ Be Taller Now
superman1
Legend
Polaris said:
That's exactly right. 20 years from now there will be some new kid and people will say, "If he played back in Federer's era, it wouldn't have been Federer's era." But maybe the racquets will be twice as powerful, and the courts will be different, and we will be more knowledgable about fitness. Who knows. We can only compare these legends on a technical level, and as everyone knows, that's only a fraction of what wins tennis matches.
raftermania
Banned
fast dial up networking ninja?
You threw me off for a bit.
raftermania
Banned
yup, trying to figure out what fastdunn means.
Nadal leads Federer 2-1 in games played against another.
Nadal whipped Federer 3 sets to 1 in last year's French Open and is five years younger and playing against a Federer in his prime.
Does that make Nadal better?
Anyways, Federer beat an older Sampras.
However, Sampras was still the most dominant grass player at that time despite what his overall record says. But it still is an older Sampras. But then again, its also an inexperienced Federer.
One match doesn't say which is better and head-to-head records don't say which is the greatest.
Sampras is the greatest. Guy has 14 slams.
I think Federer will surpass that but as much as people like to criticize Sampras' competition, Federer's is worse. At least Sampras had Agassi. Their battles were epic although not as epic as the great battles between Borg and McEnroe.
I'm in the camp that believes Federer is more talented than Sampras (IMO McEnroe is the most talented player of all-time) but Sampras is the most dominant player I have ever seen. More dominant than Lendl. As much as Federer has dominated his competition he still has severals year at #1 to go to match Sampras' streak.
Basically it's still too early call Federer the greatest or greater than Sampras. He definitely has the potential to be when its all said and done. A match between a prime Sampras and Federer would wet my pants.
Hopefully Federer will develop a nemesis like Sampras did with Agassi. Federer vs. Nadal for the next decade should be interesting.
Nadal whipped Federer 3 sets to 1 in last year's French Open and is five years younger and playing against a Federer in his prime.
Does that make Nadal better?
Anyways, Federer beat an older Sampras.
However, Sampras was still the most dominant grass player at that time despite what his overall record says. But it still is an older Sampras. But then again, its also an inexperienced Federer.
One match doesn't say which is better and head-to-head records don't say which is the greatest.
Sampras is the greatest. Guy has 14 slams.
I think Federer will surpass that but as much as people like to criticize Sampras' competition, Federer's is worse. At least Sampras had Agassi. Their battles were epic although not as epic as the great battles between Borg and McEnroe.
I'm in the camp that believes Federer is more talented than Sampras (IMO McEnroe is the most talented player of all-time) but Sampras is the most dominant player I have ever seen. More dominant than Lendl. As much as Federer has dominated his competition he still has severals year at #1 to go to match Sampras' streak.
Basically it's still too early call Federer the greatest or greater than Sampras. He definitely has the potential to be when its all said and done. A match between a prime Sampras and Federer would wet my pants.
Hopefully Federer will develop a nemesis like Sampras did with Agassi. Federer vs. Nadal for the next decade should be interesting.
raftermania
Banned
Shaka, when the walls fell down.
Similar threads
