GOAT by surface

[Towser83]

One year is a long period in tennis, Fed was the defending Wimbledon champion in 2010 but in his first round against Falla played the worst grasscourt tennis I've ever seen from him, I really mean it, he looked better in his losses to Kafelnikov and Ancic.

Fed was still green no doubt, he would reach another slam QF until 2 years after but Sampras was also on his way out and way past his best tennis.

To be honest Federer wasn't great at Wimbledon 2010 and Sampras had an easy draw in 2000. Sampras losing in 2000 was no surprise, but he still should have had the upperhand against someone like Federer who was a few years of discovering his potential. Sampras should have lost against another grass court great (although I'm struggling to think of any.. oh well Goran should have beaten him)

 

[PSNELKE]

Here you go muchachos

p.s. Borg was younger when he won his final FO.

Source. Give me that fact.

 

[BrooklynNY]

To be honest Federer wasn't great at Wimbledon 2010 and Sampras had an easy draw in 2000. Sampras losing in 2000 was no surprise, but he still should have had the upperhand against someone like Federer who was a few years of discovering his potential. Sampras should have lost against another grass court great (although I'm struggling to think of any.. oh well Goran should have beaten him)

Um...didn't he? He lost to Federer, the next generation's premier player, including on grass. I think most people consider Fed to be a grass court great, you just didn't know it then - Similar to Sampras in 1990.

I liken that loss to Federer to Pete winning his first USO at 19. Pete was a young child on the rise and happen to beat some great players and went on to win the tournament.

Federer could have possibly won in 2001 after beating Sampras, he just wasn't quite ready yet and ran into Henman in his prime, who is not a slouch on grass. It was to be fate that Goran would win as all the pieces fell into place for him, but it's really not insane to think Federer could have made Wimbledon 2001 identical to the 1990 US Open.

Fed was still green no doubt, he would reach another slam QF until 2 years after but Sampras was also on his way out and way past his best tennis.

Nice post(s) ZAGOR, I know you think I am a Pete-**** or Fed-hater, but I am a Fed fan too, it is just fun picking on him sometimes. I always knew there would be a day that what happened to Pete would eventually happen to Federer with people downplaying his greatness and picking at minor facts and a reason for someone not being as good, and now it is slowly happening again as Federer is in his twilight, and it is a shame, imagine in 10 years after he retires.

 

[Towser83]

Um...didn't he? He lost to Federer, the next generation's premier player, including on grass. I think most people consider Fed to be a grass court great, you just didn't know it then - Similar to Sampras in 1990.

I liken that loss to Federer to Pete winning his first USO at 19. Pete was a young child on the rise and happen to beat some great players and went on to win the tournament.

Federer could have possibly won in 2001 after beating Sampras, he just wasn't quite ready yet and ran into Henman in his prime, who is not a slouch on grass. It was to be fate that Goran would win as all the pieces fell into place for him, but it's really not insane to think Federer could have made Wimbledon 2001 identical to the 1990 US Open.

Well yeah, what I mean is Sapmras was probably there for the taking by another player who was a proven contender at the time, Federer was inexperienced and not a grass great at that time. Henman was actually a bad match up for Federer even after he won Wimbledon - I think at Rotterdam 2004 Henman won and made it 6-1 in the H2H before Federer won 6 in a row.

What I mean though, is Sampras was not in his prime, but neither was Federer so it wasn't a big surprise Pete lost, but most people wouldn't have said Federer would have been the one to do it.

 

[fed_rulz]

Well I guess but c'mon it's just too stupid, 2000s Sampras who was lumbering around court, missing slam dunks and having complete fail of a BH isn't the only version of Sampras, the guy was a terrific all-court player in his peak/prime.

I mean while I clash often with Sampras fanboys due to their hatred of Fed, lately I do kinda get how it's infuriating that people just look at player's twilight years, mock his losses in that period and use them to bolster your argument. The reason being because the same thing is happening to Fed and you have all these internet experts claiming how the guy hasn't declined one iota, it's just ridiculous.

i don't know why you assume that I'm referring to 2000's Sampras. I am referring to Prime Sampras.I don't see him hurting Federer at all; you make Sampras sound like he's Karlovic or something, in the serve dept, which he clearly is not. Sampras is a terrific all court player,no doubt, but Fed is a bad matchup for him. Prime Fed ate attacking players for breakfast. Only those playing the backboard style tennis and forcing Federer into fed-error mode tasted success against him. Pete Sampras just wasn't that style. Sorry.

 

[Forehand Avenger]

Here you go muchachos

p.s. Borg was younger when he won his final FO.

Since age is so important to you and Nadal had achieved 9 slams by the same age your hero Djokovic could only achieve 4 slams I guess that reflects poorly on your boy, no?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Since age is so important to you and Nadal had achieved 9 slams by the same age your hero Djokovic could only achieve 4 slams I guess that reflects poorly on your boy, no?

Age was never important to me. I keep mentioning it because it was the *********s Mantra before they realized that Nadal's 5 years on Federer will not allow him to catch up.

 

[Benhur]

I never look at the winning percentage as be and of all, sure Pete's worst on clay is comparable to the worst of Roddick and Stepanek but they never reached his highs on that surface (again Rome title, 3 QFs and SF at RG, neither Roddick nor Radek can come close to matching that) which is what is really important when we're discussing potential prime meetings between Federer and Sampras as Pete would have to be playing very well to reach later rounds to even have a chance to meet Fed.

Stepanek, Roddick and Volandri don't have a single FO QF between them, they're far worse performers on clay compared to Sampras at the most important CC tourney (FO).

I do have a lot of respect for winning percentages. Sure, you cannot use them for comparison between open era and pre-open era players, because the top players in the old days played each other much more often. But among open era players I just don't see any other statistic that reflects day-in day-out performance against the filed better than this number; it's like a lifetime league result, and it's no wonder that the main top players in the current era have the highest winning percentages on all surfaces. No matter how you cut it, Sampras winning percentage on clay is ridiculously low when compared with his peers, and by "peers" I mean the main top players in the last 40 years: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Federer and Nadal. Given his huge game, the fact that he could make a few good runs, overpower anyone on a given day, or even win Rome once, just doesn't cut it.

Sampras clay results are the most glaring one-surface deficiency among those peers of his that I've mentioned. McEnroe's worst surface by far was clay, and he is 10 points ahead of Sampras on clay winning percentage. Lendl's worst surface by far was grass and his winning percentage on grass is 14 points higher than Sampras on clay. Those are HUGE differences. Sampras on clay would just lose every year to players ranked 30 or 50 or 90 spots below him. Of course if you compare him with journeymen he looks okay, but that's kind of an insult to Sampras. Better just acknowledge that, on clay, he was just nowhere near the other top players in the open era. And certainly far, far below Federer.

 

[abmk]

Not nearly as strange as people like ranking Federer over Sampras on grass. Now that is majorly hilarious!

LOL, what a load of cr*p. Fed was more dominant in his grass court wins than sampras . He made seven finals in a row ( including 5 wimbledons in a row ) - his only loss in that period was a 5-setter to nadal. Sampras on the other hand lost in STRAIGHTS to krajicek which is a mark against him on that regard. The fact that he couldn't take a set off a hot opponent.

Of course fed has the record of most consecutive wins on grass and was better in the smaller tourneys ( small factor, but not completely irrelevant )

As for Becker, given that Sampras denied him 3 Wimbledon titles which would have put him on par with Federer's 6 (and the only top player who denied Federer one was Nadal once who ****s say is a mug on grass anyway), that his longevity as a top grass courter is many years more than Federer's, and that he played on real grass against much tougher overall grass competition and still made 7 finals just like Federer, and this his serving and volleying was far superior to Federer, I have no problem ranking him over Federer taking all into account.

sampras denied becker 3 titles ? really ?

94 goran demolished becker in the semis. 95 , goran was playing just as well, if not better . I'd probably favour goran over him again if there was no sampras .

97, becker was pretty old. No lock really.

93 , again there is quite a bit of chance that others like agassi, courier, edberg in the draw take becker out.

becker had tougher grass court competition, but he actually lost more often than won against the better competition .

That's a mark against him, not a point in his favour !

 

[Forehand Avenger]

Age was never important to me. I keep mentioning it because it was the *********s Mantra before they realized that Nadal's 5 years on Federer will not allow him to catch up.

Perhaps Nadal will never catch up to the best player to ever play the game of tennis. But your boy will never catch up to Nadal (which by your own admission is a unidimensional grinder.) Do you need a glass of water to swallow that one?

 

[abmk]

I never look at the winning percentage as be and of all, sure Pete's worst on clay is comparable to the worst of Roddick and Stepanek but they never reached his highs on that surface (again Rome title, 3 QFs and SF at RG, neither Roddick nor Radek can come close to matching that) which is what is really important when we're discussing potential prime meetings between Federer and Sampras as Pete would have to be playing very well to reach later rounds to even have a chance to meet Fed.

Stepanek, Roddick and Volandri don't have a single FO QF between them, they're far worse performers on clay compared to Sampras at the most important CC tourney (FO).

I agree, sampras is way better than the likes of stepanek, roddick and volandri on clay.

 

[NadalAgassi]

LOL, what a load of cr*p. Fed was more dominant in his grass court wins than sampras .

ROTFL what a joke. Federer was close to losing in 3 of his 6 Wimbledon final wins. Well atleast 2 of 6, but many people feel he would have lost the 2004 final to Roddick if it werent for the rain delay as well. Sampras was never close to losing in any of his Wimbledon finals, he was a few times in earlier rounds but it is sure better to dominate finals the way he has than several of Federer's unconvincing efforts.

Fact is Sampras won more Wimbledons, was much more dominant in his wins at Wimbledon (totally contrary to what you wrongly state), against better competition and on real grass. Sampras >>> Federer on grass. Imagine Sampras of 93-96 being in danger of losing 2 different Wimbledon finals to Roddick, please. Cue the *******s milking 19 year old Federer beating 30 year old Sampras in one match on grass again though. 17 year old Nadal beat the snot out of 22 year old Federer in their first ever meeting on hard courts. Nadal >>>>>>> Federer on hard courts now too I guess.

No neutral (non major Federer fan) would even try and argue Federer against Sampras on grass. It is purely laughable.

 

[abmk]

ROTFL what a joke. Federer was close to losing in 3 of his 6 Wimbledon final wins. Well atleast 2 of 6, but many people feel he would have lost the 2004 final to Roddick if it werent for the rain delay as well. Sampras was never close to losing in any of his Wimbledon finals, he was a few times in earlier rounds but it is sure better to dominate finals the way he has than several of Federer's unconvincing efforts.

Fact is Sampras won more Wimbledons, was much more dominant in his wins at Wimbledon (totally contrary to what you wrongly state), against better competition and on real grass.

sampras had close shaves more no of times overall, lost more sets than federer at his peak. That is what being more dominant means. Get a clue.

sampras did not dominate in 93,98 and 2000 finals.

Also while the grass court field was a bit better in the 90s, it does not/did not mean better competition for sampras per se

 

[abmk]

Imagine Sampras of 93-96 being in danger of losing 2 different Wimbledon finals to Roddick, please.

LOL, why 93-96 ? why not say 94-99, since that was the corresponding period for fed-roddick ... Hell yeah, pretty good chance that roddick gives sampras 2 tough matches at wimbledon out of 4.

 

[piece]

s.

Fact is Sampras won more Wimbledons, was much more dominant in his wins at Wimbledon (totally contrary to what you wrongly state), against better competition and on real grass.

Federer has a significantly better percentage of sets won in his Wimbledon victories than Sampras in his.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Perhaps Nadal will never catch up to the best player to ever play the game of tennis. But your boy will never catch up to Nadal (which by your own admission is a unidimensional grinder.) Do you need a glass of water to swallow that one?

LOL, PERHAPS Nadal won't catch up to Fed, but for sure Djoker won't catch Nadal? You're a joke dude, and frankly you surprised me with your uber ********* mentality.

 

[zagor]

i don't know why you assume that I'm referring to 2000's Sampras. I am referring to Prime Sampras.I don't see him hurting Federer at all; you make Sampras sound like he's Karlovic or something, in the serve dept, which he clearly is not. Sampras is a terrific all court player,no doubt, but Fed is a bad matchup for him. Prime Fed ate attacking players for breakfast. Only those playing the backboard style tennis and forcing Federer into fed-error mode tasted success against him. Pete Sampras just wasn't that style. Sorry.

You say that like it's a fact when the fact is we can only speculate how they would have done against each other in a series of match-ups in their peak&prime, one match (which is too small of a sample anyway) with neither one of them at their best is not something we can draw conclusions from.

Fed ate attacking baseline bashers for breakfast because of his anticipation, ability to handle pace, short slice which he used to draw them to the net , his ability to vary pace etc. but Sampras was a different breed of agressive player who would always look to finish points at the net (had a great attacking instinct, knew exactky when to approach the net), his gameplan would be to try to take time away from Fed and not allow him to settle into rhytm, not just try to overpower Fed.

I used 2000s Sampras because it seemed to me like that the version you were describing(ie no weapons to hurt Fed) but I realize I sounded like a former pro tennis historian (by implying you didn't watch xy player if you disagree with my view)so I'll drop that.

We can agree to disagree but keep in mind that I consider Fed to be a better player than Pete(and I did already when Fed was at "only" 11-12 slams) but that doesn't mean I don't think you're selling prime Sampras short.

 

[zagor]

I do have a lot of respect for winning percentages. Sure, you cannot use them for comparison between open era and pre-open era players, because the top players in the old days played each other much more often. But among open era players I just don't see any other statistic that reflects day-in day-out performance against the filed better than this number; it's like a lifetime league result, and it's no wonder that the main top players in the current era have the highest winning percentages on all surfaces. No matter how you cut it, Sampras winning percentage on clay is ridiculously low when compared with his peers, and by "peers" I mean the main top players in the last 40 years: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Federer and Nadal. Given his huge game, the fact that he could make a few good runs, overpower anyone on a given day, or even win Rome once, just doesn't cut it.

Which is my entire argument about, I didn't disagree with you on Fed being a far better CC player than Sampras but rather that it would be doubtful he could get one win out of ten against Fed on that surface when on his (Pete's) best day he could get win over Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc. and Fed on his worse days could lose to say Stepanek (a somewhat similar style of player as Sampras).

Sampras clay results are the most glaring one-surface deficiency among those peers of his that I've mentioned. McEnroe's worst surface by far was clay, and he is 10 points ahead of Sampras on clay winning percentage. Lendl's worst surface by far was grass and his winning percentage on grass is 14 points higher than Sampras on clay. Those are HUGE differences. Sampras on clay would just lose every year to players ranked 30 or 50 or 90 spots below him. Of course if you compare him with journeymen he looks okay, but that's kind of an insult to Sampras. Better just acknowledge that, on clay, he was just nowhere near the other top players in the open era. And certainly far, far below Federer.

I don't disagree with this at all, that was not really my argument. Compared to the upper echelon of tennis greats Sampras results on his worst surface pale compared to the others in that department no doubt (Lendl's record at Wimbledon, Borg's at USO, not to mention Fed and Agassi who won a slam on their worst surface) and is a knock on his greatness, a hole in his (of course still amazing regardless) resumee.

 

[zagor]

Nice post(s) ZAGOR, I know you think I am a Pete-**** or Fed-hater, but I am a Fed fan too, it is just fun picking on him sometimes. I always knew there would be a day that what happened to Pete would eventually happen to Federer with people downplaying his greatness and picking at minor facts and a reason for someone not being as good, and now it is slowly happening again as Federer is in his twilight, and it is a shame, imagine in 10 years after he retires.

No offense but I still don't buy that, weren't you claiming Fed hasn't declined this year but competition is just better? If I for examploe claimed Sampras was as good as ever in 2000 and 2001 but he just couldn't handle Hewitt and Safin in those USO finals (or young Fed at Wimbledon), ie Hewitt clowned Sampras at his best in front of his home crowd would you believe me afterwards if I said I was a Sampras fan?

We all have our biases.

 

[TMF]

The Reason I didn't mention Federer for clay is because yes, clay is a slow surface and it's already assumed that Federer is better than Pete on slower surfaces, including slow hardcourts, and clay, which I didn't mention because there really isn't a reason to. Yes, Fed is better than Pete on clay, but this thread is about GOAT on surface, and Fed is not the clay GOAT, that's all.

That was not the reason why the other members are on your case. If you are going to make a distinction between fast and slow hc, then do the same for fast and slow grass, where Pete has the edge on fast grass and Fed has the edge on the slow. How about separate between slow and fast clay? Madrid is fast and MC is slow where Fed has the edge on both. See my point?

 

[Towser83]

ROTFL what a joke. Federer was close to losing in 3 of his 6 Wimbledon final wins. Well atleast 2 of 6, but many people feel he would have lost the 2004 final to Roddick if it werent for the rain delay as well. Sampras was never close to losing in any of his Wimbledon finals, he was a few times in earlier rounds but it is sure better to dominate finals the way he has than several of Federer's unconvincing efforts.

Fact is Sampras won more Wimbledons, was much more dominant in his wins at Wimbledon (totally contrary to what you wrongly state), against better competition and on real grass. Sampras >>> Federer on grass. Imagine Sampras of 93-96 being in danger of losing 2 different Wimbledon finals to Roddick, please. Cue the *******s milking 19 year old Federer beating 30 year old Sampras in one match on grass again though. 17 year old Nadal beat the snot out of 22 year old Federer in their first ever meeting on hard courts. Nadal >>>>>>> Federer on hard courts now too I guess.

No neutral (non major Federer fan) would even try and argue Federer against Sampras on grass. It is purely laughable.

Not saying Federer was better on grass, but who were Sampras's wonderful grass competition? Lol in 2000 he didn't face a top 40 opponent til the final and even then his opponent was ranked outside the top 20. That's probably the weakest route to a Wimbledon title I can think of. Let's face it, Federer has had not that much competition due to lack of grass court players, but Sampras had little competition too and he had the biggest decline in it as his career was ending when he needed it MOST. Federer has had people like Nadal turn up when he is getting old, making it harder for him. With a 2000 type draw even crappy 2011 Federer who looks uncomfortable on grass would be winning Wimbledon. Plus the slowing of the court has probably allowed more people to play on it, to a decent degree. The last truly great grasscourt era was the 80s. When Sampras was winning he didn't have anyone else who was young, good on grass AND mentally strong enough to win a major.

Also huge LOL at saying Federer was close to losing Wimbledon 2004 to his pigeon Roddick. What cos he was a set down? I suppose Nadal was close to losing RG 2006? He was certainly close to losing W2008 and AO2009. But if anyone said that, your reaction would probably be "but he didn't, nadal beat him in the end, what a champion" etc. Federer winning many titles so easily is often used to show how weak his competition is, so I guess we have the answer as to why Sampras won so easily at Wimbledon.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras tough times at Wimbledon in 1993-2000 is a myth. Every great grass courter was either at the brink of retirement or simply on a decline. McEnroe, Stich, Edberg, you name it, were all done after 1993. The only other champion Sampras faced was Becker but everyone knows Becker played his prime tennis in the late 80's/early 90's, not in 1995 or 1997 LOLZ.

Ivanisevic? It's an older, more 90's version of Roddick at most.
Rafter didn't become a factor at Wimbledon until 2000, Sampras last championships.
Agassi was never that good on fast grass. He'd be a way bigger factor if he was 25 nowadays. Same with Courier.
or maybe should we mention Henman and Philippoussis as Sampras' main opposition on grass as well?

 

[Sid_Vicious]

No offense but I still don't buy that, weren't you claiming Fed hasn't declined this year but competition is just better? If I for examploe claimed Sampras was as good as ever in 2000 and 2001 but he just couldn't handle Hewitt and Safin in those USO finals (or young Fed at Wimbledon), ie Hewitt clowned Sampras at his best in front of his home crowd would you believe me afterwards if I said I was a Sampras fan?

We all have our biases.

Same. When Federer lost to Tsonga and Berdych, Brooklyn was outspoken about Federer's lack of fighting spirit even though Federer only starting having these bizarre losses (2 sets to love up and losing) in 2010.

You are right, Zagor. It is annoying when people nitpick examples from the post-prime years of a great player to trash them.

For example,some posters on this forum claim that Federer has always been "subpar" at net even though in his prime he was rock solid at the net. I am not saying that he was serving and volleying every point, but he did not make silly mistakes that he does now.

 

[Towser83]

Sampras tough times at Wimbledon in 1993-2000 is a myth. Every great grass courter was either at the brink of retirement or simply on a decline. McEnroe, Stich, Edberg, you name it, were all done after 1993. The only other champion Sampras faced was Becker but everyone knows Becker played his prime tennis in the late 80's/early 90's, not in 1995 or 1997 LOLZ.

Ivanisevic? It's an older, more 90's version of Roddick at most.
Rafter didn't become a factor at Wimbledon until 2000, Sampras last championships.
Agassi was never that good on fast grass. He'd be a way bigger factor if he was 25 nowadays. Same with Courier.
or maybe should we mention Henman and Philippoussis as Sampras' main opposition on grass as well?

Exactly what I've been saying. In 1993 Becker was 8 years past winning his first title, in 1997 he was 12 years past and 29 facing a 25 year old Sampras. Apparently 29 was too old for Sampras to beat a novice Federer, apparently also the idea that Federer was a bit past it at 27 is rubbish, so a 25 year old Sampras against a 29 year old becker, that's competition? LOL

 

[IvanisevicServe]

Goran gave Pete some close battles at Wimbledon. If he had taken that set point in the second set in their 98 final, that title is his.

So it's not as though Pete was dominating the top grass court players of his generation anymore than Federer did his. And he lost many more sets to lesser players...the worst players Federer lost sets at Wimbledon to prior to 2010 were Fish, Kiefer, and Kohlschreiber. Those guys were legitimate Top 20-Top 30 players.

 

[TMF]

In my opinion, give Roger the 2000 draw every year he can win 9 straight Wimbledons(2003-2011).

 

[monfed]

LOL@people claiming Sampras is wayy better than Fed on grass.

Let me remind you that from 2003-2009, Nadal is the only man who beat Federer in wimbledon, 9-7 in the fifth no less.
It took one of the greatest matches in wimbledon history to topple Federer, not to mention Nadal was at his absolute peak and Fed was recovering from mono.

A young baby Federer took out defending wimbledon champion Sampras in 2001(on FAST grass) and yet some Sampras fans here think Federer has no chance against Sampras on grass? LOL

The only thing Sampras has over Federer right now is 7 wimbledon titles over Federer's 6.

Nadal has ALWAYS been a nightmare matchup for Federer thus him beating Federer on grass is NOT a knock on Fed's grass court resume.

Please tell me who was Sampras's nightmare matchup? Did Pete ever face a nightmare matchup in ANY wimbledon final at all?
Remember Pete's one handed BH is much worse than Fed's. So who abused Pete's BH like the way Nadal abuses Fed's? Yea ,thats what I thought.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It's probably Roddick on at least several of the surfaces.

My favourite country is the moon.

 

[fed_rulz]

You say that like it's a fact when the fact is we can only speculate how they would have done against each other in a series of match-ups in their peak&prime, one match (which is too small of a sample anyway) with neither one of them at their best is not something we can draw conclusions from.

We're all guilty of passing around our opinions as facts, including you (e.g.,what you said about no one being able to neutralize Pete's serve).

Fed ate attacking baseline bashers for breakfast because of his anticipation, ability to handle pace, short slice which he used to draw them to the net , his ability to vary pace etc. but Sampras was a different breed of agressive player who would always look to finish points at the net (had a great attacking instinct, knew exactky when to approach the net), his gameplan would be to try to take time away from Fed and not allow him to settle into rhytm, not just try to overpower Fed.
We can agree to disagree but keep in mind that I consider Fed to be a better player than Pete(and I did already when Fed was at "only" 11-12 slams) but that doesn't mean I don't think you're selling prime Sampras short.

I wasn't simply referring to attacking baseline bashers. I was referring to attacking players, Period. Pete's prowess at the net largely came from the excellent setup his great serve gave him. A great returner like Federer (now he has declined), can blunt that advantage just slightly enough by putting a lot of balls in play, and combined with his abilities to retrieve and pass, i'd say it's advantage Fed.

Great servers troubled Pete (Krajicek, Stich...); great ball retrievers and steady baseliners troubled Pete (hewitt, ferreira); great returners troubled Pete (Agassi, hewitt), most of these were in Pete's prime. You can place federer in the top 5 in his era of each of these categories in his prime, and definitely in the top 10 of all time. The only thing that has troubled Fed in his prime is Nadal.

Here's my summary: Federer can attack as well as Pete, but defend MUCH better, and that is a telling advantage. Based on that, I disagree that Sampras has any edge over Federer on grass or carpet. As you said, we can only speculate, and agree to disagree.

 

[money_ball]

This discussion can only be greatly enhanced by extensive stats, which I will be providing to you all very soon...

 

[MichaelNadal]

LOL@people claiming Sampras is wayy better than Fed on grass.

Let me remind you that from 2003-2009, Nadal is the only man who beat Federer in wimbledon, 9-7 in the fifth no less.
It took one of the greatest matches in wimbledon history to topple Federer, not to mention Nadal was at his absolute peak and Fed was recovering from mono.

A young baby Federer took out defending wimbledon champion Sampras in 2001(on FAST grass) and yet some Sampras fans here think Federer has no chance against Sampras on grass? LOL

The only thing Sampras has over Federer right now is 7 wimbledon titles over Federer's 6.

Nadal has ALWAYS been a nightmare matchup for Federer thus him beating Federer on grass is NOT a knock on Fed's grass court resume.

Please tell me who was Sampras's nightmare matchup? Did Pete ever face a nightmare matchup in ANY wimbledon final at all?
Remember Pete's one handed BH is much worse than Fed's. So who abused Pete's BH like the way Nadal abuses Fed's? Yea ,thats what I thought.

Talking about having your stuff together to make yourself feel better lol....

 

[zagor]

Same. When Federer lost to Tsonga and Berdych, Brooklyn was outspoken about Federer's lack of fighting spirit even though Federer only starting having these bizarre losses (2 sets to love up and losing) in 2010.

Yup, I don't mind him(or anyone) being a Sampras fan, I mind him saying he's a Fed fan when it's obvious he isn't or even holds a certain grudge against him for "eclipsing" Pete's career in many fans's eyes (and media of course but that has more to do with Fed just being more recent than Sampras).

You are right, Zagor. It is annoying when people nitpick examples from the post-prime years of a great player to trash them.

For example,some posters on this forum claim that Federer has always been "subpar" at net even though in his prime he was rock solid at the net. I am not saying that he was serving and volleying every point, but he did not make silly mistakes that he does now.

Yeah, not saying Fed wasn't mainly a baseliner since around 2004 but he was still very solid at finishing points at the net, you knew if he gets you out of position he'll sneak up to the net instead of staying glued to the baseline.

These days he has more brainfarts in general, not just volleys, he misses more sitters with his FH, messes up more 2nd serve returns(not saying about Nadal, he was always a special case). The fact that this year for the first time ever he lost after a 2-0 lead in a slam (twice) is telling, of course that has something to do with the wear and tear on his body as well but some of it is just mental burnout, especially in today's conditions you have to keep your concentration from start to finish.

 

[zagor]

We're all guilty of passing around our opinions as facts, including you (e.g.,what you said about no one being able to neutralize Pete's serve).

Fair point.

I wasn't simply referring to attacking baseline bashers. I was referring to attacking players, Period. Pete's prowess at the net largely came from the excellent setup his great serve gave him. A great returner like Federer (now he has declined), can blunt that advantage just slightly enough by putting a lot of balls in play, and combined with his abilities to retrieve and pass, i'd say it's advantage Fed.

True in a way, however keep in mind that against someone like Sampras(especially on faster surfaces) you have to go for more on your ROS because he's always backing up his big serve by coming in.

Great servers troubled Pete (Krajicek, Stich...); great ball retrievers and steady baseliners troubled Pete (hewitt, ferreira); great returners troubled Pete (Agassi, hewitt), most of these were in Pete's prime. You can place federer in the top 5 in his era of each of these categories in his prime, and definitely in the top 10 of all time. The only thing that has troubled Fed in his prime is Nadal.

Some good points, however I view Hewitt situation sort of similar to Michael Chang against Sampras, before his prime and after his prime I could see him troubling Sampras a great deal but during his prime I wouldn't see Hewitt as someone prime/peak Pete would overly struggle with, now I consider Hewitt be a much better player than Chang but still that's how I view it.

Somewhat similar to how Hewitt troubled Fed before he put his game together, IMO say 2004-2005 Hewitt would have an excellent chance to beat Fed of 2010-2011.

Yes, Fed mainly struggled only against Nadal throghout his career but still Henman could give him some trouble even in 2004 (when Fed really started kicking ***) and old Agassi gave him some tough matches at USO. Also I don't like to use this argument and it's not Fed's fault but he didn't play against net rushers enough for us to what degree he would(or would not)struggle with them, I mostly blame the slow conditions but it is what it is.

Here's my summary: Federer can attack as well as Pete, but defend MUCH better, and that is a telling advantage. Based on that, I disagree that Sampras has any edge over Federer on grass or carpet. As you said, we can only speculate, and agree to disagree.

I disagree, I wouldn't say Fed attacks as well as Sampras, he likes to work the point a lot more(not to say that Sampras just blasted the ball, on some points he liked to keep the ball in play and play with margin but talking in general) and just isn't as fast going forward as Sampras was and has worse volleys (though he's talented in that department and could have been better in different conditions/era). Fed has a very big and versatile FH(overall the best I've ever seen) but as far as outright ending the point with a FH winner out of nowhere I'd still give Sampras the edge(which doesn't mean Fed isn't phenomenal in that department but IMO Pete's a bit better).

In short, I don't think Fed has best ever offense or defense, what he has IMO is the best combination of defense/offense (atleast that I'd ever seen) with the defense being especially the underrated part (Fed's game was never just about blasting winners and shotmaking, there are more dimensions to it), Fed's defense was a marvelous sight to behold in his peak, how hard it was to get the ball past him when he was 100% dialed in and focused was amazing.

 

[TMF]

Yes he couldnt even beat Berdych or Tsonga in 2010 and 2011 and yet he was going to beat Rafter at his best, a MUCH better player than those two.

Yet Sampras double faulted 12 times but Rafter fail to capitalize those mistakes.

Fed ate s/v players for breakfast, so I don't think Rafter would be any different against Fed. He beat Flip in 2003 W, who has a bigger serve than Rafter..

 

[urban]

And did he beat Rafter?

 

[TMF]

And did he beat Rafter?

I'm talking about Fed from 2003-2011. I know what you're trying to say....Rafter beat Fed but that was a young Fed against an informed Rafter.

 

[Towser83]

Rafter at his BEST? LOOOOOL is that why he had slipped to 21 in the world? Is that why he didn't play the AO, lost in the second round of the French and the first round of the US Open?

Rafter at his best lost pretty easily to Henman at Wimbledon, Henman was a good player but had a problem beating the top guys in big events. Rafter in 2001 just about beat a rookie Federer at Halle 4-6 7-6 7-6. I mean it was Federer who won a set actually WITH a break. So this was rafter at his best against a rookie Federer.

And lets be realistic here, getting a draw where you win Wimbledon by not having to face a single top 20 player, and not even a top 40 player until the final is shockingly bad, only a Samptard would deny it. His last few titles were helped by poor competition no doubt, and that's when he needed it the most. If you argue that Federer had easy competition from 2003 onwards, you can trace that further back to Sampras's last titles, which is when he really needed help.

Also I keep asking who are these wonderful grasscourt players Sampras had to deal with?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Rafter at his BEST? LOOOOOL is that why he had slipped to 21 in the world? Is that why he didn't play the AO, lost in the second round of the French and the first round of the US Open?

Rafter at his best lost pretty easily to Henman at Wimbledon, Henman was a good player but had a problem beating the top guys in big events. Rafter in 2001 just about beat a rookie Federer at Halle 4-6 7-6 7-6. I mean it was Federer who won a set actually WITH a break. So this was rafter at his best against a rookie Federer.

And lets be realistic here, getting a draw where you win Wimbledon by not having to face a single top 20 player, and not even a top 40 player until the final is shockingly bad, only a Samptard would deny it. His last few titles were helped by poor competition no doubt, and that's when he needed it the most. If you argue that Federer had easy competition from 2003 onwards, you can trace that further back to Sampras's last titles, which is when he really needed help.

Also I keep asking who are these wonderful grasscourt players Sampras had to deal with?

Rafter took awhile to adapt to grass. Rafter's best at Wimbledon by far was 1999-2001, not 97-98 when his ranking best was. Everyone who followed tennis at the time would know this.

Yes it is true in Sampras's later Wimbledon the competition was poor, while in all of Federer's Wimbledon the competition was poor. Sampras atleast beat top quality players to win Wimbledon from 93-95. Federer beat nobody that formidable except Nadal in 2007 (Nadal in 2006 was a green rook on grass and it was embarassing to the abysmal grass field that they somehow allowed him to reach the final that year). Sampras still won more.

By the way anyone who thinks for a moment Roddick is better than Ivanisevic on grass is clueless on tennis period.

 

[purge]

LOL at ****s thinking Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Absolutely delusional. Sampras won 1 more Wimbledon and was more dominant by far overall on grass, while facing a much tougher grass court field and actually playing on real grass. Sampras had a much better 1st serve, 2nd serve, forehand volley, backhand, volley, overhead, was just as good at first strike tennis from the baseline (not as good at rallying but that isnt important on grass, atleast not when men play it properly unlike todays players), and was overall just as athletic or more. Federer only returns slightly better, that would be his only edge on grass.

Their lame argument is already predictable though. Federer barely won one match over 30 year old Sampras at Wimbledon when both were far out of their primes. Yawn....

you say lol at them wanting to put fed over sampras on grass but you want to put sampras over fed on HC? based on what exactly?
and your stronger weaker field argument has always been and will always be bollocks.

its obvious that some people on here just try anything to put fed on top of every possible chart. just like its obvious that you try to anything to put others infront of him. both is equally "delusional" i guess.

so everytime you lol at them dont forget to also lol at yourself at the same time ;D

sorry for quoting something from page 1 btw but i only just read this -.-

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

LOL@people claiming Sampras is wayy better than Fed on grass.

Let me remind you that from 2003-2009, Nadal is the only man who beat Federer in wimbledon, 9-7 in the fifth no less.
It took one of the greatest matches in wimbledon history to topple Federer, not to mention Nadal was at his absolute peak and Fed was recovering from mono.

A young baby Federer took out defending wimbledon champion Sampras in 2001(on FAST grass) and yet some Sampras fans here think Federer has no chance against Sampras on grass? LOL

The only thing Sampras has over Federer right now is 7 wimbledon titles over Federer's 6.

Nadal has ALWAYS been a nightmare matchup for Federer thus him beating Federer on grass is NOT a knock on Fed's grass court resume.

Please tell me who was Sampras's nightmare matchup? Did Pete ever face a nightmare matchup in ANY wimbledon final at all?
Remember Pete's one handed BH is much worse than Fed's. So who abused Pete's BH like the way Nadal abuses Fed's? Yea ,thats what I thought.

The most intelligent post in this thread quoted for truth.

 

[TMF]

By the way anyone who thinks for a moment Roddick is better than Ivanisevic on grass is clueless on tennis period.

If you're saying fast grass, fair enough. But on slow grass, it's Roddick.

Since both guys has a big serve, Goran benefitted from playing on a fast grass(and ligher ball and low bounce) since it's harder to return. And Roddick faced Fed who is a much better returner than Sampras, better from the baseline. Rafter never faced a superior mover, better court coverage, defense than Fed.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

you say lol at them wanting to put fed over sampras on grass but you want to put sampras over fed on HC? based on what exactly?
and your stronger weaker field argument has always been and will always be bollocks.

its obvious that some people on here just try anything to put fed on top of every possible chart. just like its obvious that you try to anything to put others infront of him. both is equally "delusional" i guess.

so everytime you lol at them dont forget to also lol at yourself at the same time ;D

sorry for quoting something from page 1 btw but i only just read this -.-

That guy is a complete moron. Don't even pay attention to him. He has absolutely zero tennis insight.

 

[TMF]

That guy is a complete moron. Don't even pay attention to him. He has absolutely zero tennis insight.

Well i don't expect him to be around if he continue with his old habit of trolling in here. There's a limit for everything.

 

[Towser83]

Rafter took awhile to adapt to grass. Rafter's best at Wimbledon by far was 1999-2001, not 97-98 when his ranking best was. Everyone who followed tennis at the time would know this.

Yes it is true in Sampras's later Wimbledon the competition was poor, while in all of Federer's Wimbledon the competition was poor. Sampras atleast beat top quality players to win Wimbledon from 93-95. Federer beat nobody that formidable except Nadal in 2007 (Nadal in 2006 was a green rook on grass and it was embarassing to the abysmal grass field that they somehow allowed him to reach the final that year). Sampras still won more.

By the way anyone who thinks for a moment Roddick is better than Ivanisevic on grass is clueless on tennis period.

Well Rafter won Manchester on grass in 1994 and in the Netherlands in 98, 99 and 2000, so he could always play on grass, maybe the standard dropped enough in 2000 for him to go further at Wimbledon cos everywhere else he was pretty bad. However at his best (as you say) in 2001 he still barely beat a novice Federer at Halle (Federer hadn't even made his breakthrough at Wimbledon yet) so really that's not that much of a claim for Rafter beating a more seasoned Federer, or any Federer over 5 sets on grass. Federer might have been bad at last year's Wimbledon but given the players Sampras beat in 2000 to get to the final, Federer would have ample time to get into shape. This year he wasn't even that bad against Tsonga. Plus Rafter really never had the belief to win Wimbledon.

2006 was a weak route to the final? 2000 was an utter joke. I notice now Pete's strong grass competition now narrows to a mere 3 years. Again WHO are these players that made these 3 years so strong?

Federer at his best could deal with all of them, sadly for him Nadal came along and made things tougher in his later years, where as Pete had things EASIER later on. In their primes Sampras and Federer could beat anyone, but it's late on you need the easy draws. Sampras had things easier, Federer had them tougher. The fact that the grass slowed down actually made Nadal a huge contender on grass, and gave other people the chance to do well too. In 2002 Hewitt was killing a classic serve volley player like Henman.

And Roddick may be no great player, but with a serve like his, he is always a tough guy to play on grass. At least federer didn't lose to him like Sampras lost to honey moster Krajicek.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Again WHO are these players that made these 3 years so strong?

1993 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Courier, and Edberg. Sampras quarterfinal victim was Agassi.
1994 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Martin
1995 the semifinalists were Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Ivanisevic

Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Ivanisevic (on grass) >>>>>> Hewitt, Roddick, Grosjean, and Schalken, the main Federer rivals on grass during his dominance (other than Nadal in 2007). Federer never had any period of time with overall competition like that on grass, doesnt even play on real grass but instead the fake grass of today which favors baseliners like Federer and Nadal, and still won fewer Wimbledons.

 

[tennis_pro]

1993 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Courier, and Edberg. Sampras quarterfinal victim was Agassi.
1994 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Martin
1995 the semifinalists were Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Ivanisevic

Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Ivanisevic (on grass) >>>>>> Hewitt, Roddick, Grosjean, and Schalken, the main Federer rivals on grass during his dominance (other than Nadal in 2007). Federer never had any period of time with overall competition like that on grass, doesnt even play on real grass but instead the fake grass of today which favors baseliners like Federer and Nadal, and still won fewer Wimbledons.

You sound as if it was Federer's fault that the grass is slower.

Don't forget that Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon back in 2001 playing serve-and-volley, he won his first Wimbledon in 2003 doing tons of s-v so it's not like he benefitted all that much. In fact, I think Federer would love grass to be faster than it is and Nadal would only dream of sniffing a Wimbledon title. Djokovic as good as he is on hard courts and clay, he would do nothing on 90's grass.

 

[purge]

You sound as if it was Federer's fault that the grass is slower.

Don't forget that Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon back in 2001 playing serve-and-volley, he won his first Wimbledon in 2003 doing tons of s-v so it's not like he benefitted all that much. In fact, I think Federer would love grass to be faster than it is and Nadal would only dream of sniffing a Wimbledon title. Djokovic as good as he is on hard courts and clay, he would do nothing on 90's grass.

i agree. but its also not fair to kinda turn it around like this. because when people say this it almost sounds like theyre blaming the newer players for developing a game that wouldnt work in the old conditions, and then saying they wouldve never had a chance to win anything back then.
its only natural that the new generation of players would try to develop a game best suited for todays conditions. had nadal or djokovic played 10 years ago when wimbledon was fast as hell they might have been playing a different game as well, who knows.

fact is if you want to win anything these days you have to be a power baseliner. its forced on you by the conditions. then when youve got that down to perfection you may also start to work on your netplay and other stuff to make you more complete but lets face it.. if youre good enough from the baseline you could probably win wimbledon without hitting a volley today.
so what im saying is maybe djokovic or nadal wouldve played different tennis in different conditions. and maybe they wouldve had a chance to win a wimbledon title even back then. we just cannot tell for sure

federer is an entirely unique case in this. he was and is the living transition of the styles, especially considering wimbledon then and now. he is unique in mastering every aspect of it. thats why hes the best ever in my eyes

 

[abmk]

1993 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Courier, and Edberg. Sampras quarterfinal victim was Agassi.
1994 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Martin
1995 the semifinalists were Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Ivanisevic

Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Ivanisevic (on grass) >>>>>> Hewitt, Roddick, Grosjean, and Schalken, the main Federer rivals on grass during his dominance (other than Nadal in 2007). Federer never had any period of time with overall competition like that on grass, doesnt even play on real grass but instead the fake grass of today which favors baseliners like Federer and Nadal, and still won fewer Wimbledons.

becker 93 or 95 vs sampras did not play close to his best at all. You'd have a point if he played like say how he played in his peak or say vs agassi in 95, but not even close.

sampras didn't even play edberg at wimbledon.

agassi in 93 was having injury problems and was serving with a funky motion.

but of course nadal in 2007 becomes an afterthought ( in bracket ). LMAO !

roddick 2004/2009 > strictly the becker that sampras faced in his wimbledon matches ( but not the one in say 95 SF or the indoor matches in 96 )

even hewitt would have a pretty good chance vs the becker in those matches

that leaves goran, more weaponry than say hewitt/roddick, but less mentally strong. Nadal on the slower grass from 2007 onwards, with his mental toughness is more of a competition.

Again, like I said a slightly better grass court field in sampras' does not necessarily mean he faced tougher competition.

For example, without federer this year, the field would be less strong, but tougher competition for nadal having to face djokovic more

 

[NadalAgassi]

The fact you think any version of Roddick was superior to even the 93-96 version of Becker on grass is already enough to not take the rest of your post seriously. Also Becker did play well in his Wimbledon matches with Sampras. He was tired in the 95 final so couldnt play at his best, but even if he did he couldnt have won with Sampras hitting 68 winners and only 7 unforced errors. Becker from 93-97 only lost to Sampras and Ivanisevic once at Wimbledon, excluding a match he retired during with injury (that would see him most of the rest of the year). Roddick from 2004-2009 lost to 18 year old Murray, Gasquet, and Tipsarevic at Wimbledon.

Federer from 2007 onwards has not dominated Wimbledon by any stretch. 2 finals he won in 5 sets, one he probably only won since the World #1, defending Champion, and heavy favorite had to pull out of Wimbledon, a final loss in 5 sets, and 2 quarterfinal losses. In that span Nadal has been the best performer at Wimbledon with 2 titles and 2 other finals the 4 years he played. So in the context of competition Federer dominated Wimbledon against, bracketing down to just 2007 to date is meaningless.

 

[abmk]

The fact you think any version of Roddick was superior to even the 93-96 version of Becker on grass is already enough to not take the rest of your post seriously. Also Becker did play well in his Wimbledon matches with Sampras. He was tired in the 95 final so couldnt play at his best, but even if he did he couldnt have won with Sampras hitting 68 winners and only 7 unforced errors. Becker from 93-97 only lost to Sampras and Ivanisevic once at Wimbledon, excluding a match he retired during with injury (that would see him most of the rest of the year).

demolished by Goran in fact in 94.

he was playing well in 97 , getting breadsticked twice by sampras ? :lol:

he was also playing well in 93, winning only 38% of his 2nd serve points on grass and DF 12 times ( only 13 aces )?

and again in 95, winning only 32% of his 2nd serve points on grass and DF 16 times ( only 17 aces )?

Compare with say a match he actually played well in that period:

agassi 95 wimbledon SF: 22 aces, 10 DFs

Also a most telling fact: he never broke sampras once in three meetings on grass, in 11 sets

a Roddick playing as well as he did in 2004 or 2009 would clearly the edge over those versions of becker

so would a peak hewitt playing well.

All the stats are from the ATP site btw. He did not play that well in either of these 3 matches.

Do you want me to dig up Becker's match stats from the years when he played real well on grass ? 85-90 ?

Roddick from 2004-2009 lost to 18 year old Murray, Gasquet, and Tipsarevic at Wimbledon.

roddick's best years on grass were 2003-2005 and 2009.

Federer from 2007 onwards has not dominated Wimbledon by any stretch. 2 finals he won in 5 sets, one he probably only won since the World #1, defending Champion, and heavy favorite had to pull out of Wimbledon, a final loss in 5 sets, and 2 quarterfinal losses. In that span Nadal has been the best performer at Wimbledon with 2 titles and 2 other finals the 4 years he played. So in the context of competition Federer dominated Wimbledon against, bracketing down to just 2007 to date is meaningless.

All I was pointing out was that nadal post 2006 was a tougher competitor than all those you pointed out for sampras, save maybe krajicek in 96 ...