Greatest USO player of all time?

[helloworld]

If he's so superior on grass to Rodgey, then why couldn't he beat him when he was defending champion and facing a baby Federer on this home fast grass?

There is no excuse. Fed was on fire in that match, and Pete was already on his way out of the top 10 ranking! That should explain how much he was already in a decline. :shock:

 

[Steve0904]

During Fed's prime, his main rivals on grass were 2 guys; Nadal the dirtballer, and Roddick the ball basher. :lol:

Pete has the most perfect serve of all time. That's why he is superior on grass to Rodgey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYa1bSRoOzs

Don't downplay Nadal's talent just to give Pete the arbitrary edge. I hate when people do that. Nadal has won Wimbledon twice and made 3 other finals. He's not exactly a dirtballer, nor is a guy with 3 Wimbledon finals to his name plus a SF, (losing all those matches to Federer) simply a ball basher.

 

[Steve0904]

There is no excuse. Fed was on fire in that match, and Pete was already on his way out of the top 10 ranking! That should explain how much he was already in a decline. :shock:

Oh how convenient. You say there is no excuse, then you proceed to give one. Nice self ownage there.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Don't downplay Nadal's talent just to give Pete the arbitrary edge. I hate when people do that. Nadal has won Wimbledon twice and made 3 other finals. He's not exactly a dirtballer,.

Nadal managed to do it only because surface is slowed

 

[DropShotArtist]

There is no excuse. Fed was on fire in that match, and Pete was already on his way out of the top 10 ranking! That should explain how much he was already in a decline. :shock:

If there is no excuse, then you must stop your words after that and simply say Roger is superior on grass to Pete. That's what the facts show.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Facts such a head to head based on one match with both players outside their primes. By that logic the facts show Nadal is a superior player to Federer since he owns their head to head (yet according to ****s H2H is meaningless yet a 1-0 head to head vs Sampras on grass proves his superiority, ROTFL!!!) More Planet TW comedy **** style.

 

[Steve0904]

Nadal managed to do it only because surface is slowed

And your point is? That doesn't change the fact that he's made 5 Wimbledon finals on the grass of today and is far from a dirtballer. I could just as easily say someone from the 90's only had success because the grass was faster.

 

[Gonzo_style]

And your point is? That doesn't change the fact that he's made 5 Wimbledon finals on the grass of today and is far from a dirtballer. I could just as easily say someone from the 90's only had success because the grass was faster.

Just kidding of course, but the problem is that some *******s (not you), when discussion is about Nadal's achievements, says that he is dirtballer who was lucky that grass is slowed, but when we talk about Federer and Sampras, Nadal is a great grass courter. :???: I was joking few days ago with Prisoner of Birth on that and he was pissed off for nothing

 

[Towser83]

I give Pete the nod over Fed at wimbledon mainly because the grass field at the time during Pete's prime was superior Fed's grass court competition and Pete still manage 7 wimbledon's in the process.

Older Becker, Goran, Dre, Krajicek, Courier, Rafter among others is vastly superior to Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Nole, Young-in Nadal

Sure Fed has no control over it.. But it makes Pete's 7 wimbledon's look more impressive IMO then Fed's. Also, I believe Pete's highest level on grass was superior Roger's

But I dont think Sampras should win a 40 some to 9 vote on grass either, like some ****s here think Fed should have over Pete at the USO. Thats ludicrous.

See there's always some reason to give sampras the edge of Federer, the shifting of importance from conversion rate to most finals to competition is some brilliant display of dancing for sure. There are of course less grass court specialists today than in the early to mid 90s... but then again grass doesn't even play that much like grass anymore - hence a lot more players are decent on it. As long as they can deal with the slippery bad bouncing nature of it, they're ok. It isn't lightning fast anymore. Homogenised surfaces have made better competition than lets say the later part of Pete's wimbledon dominance when he was the only world class player who was good on grass. Even earlier on, the last world class players who were good on grass were people like Becker and Edberg who were not threatening Pete for much of his reign at all.

Sampras's competition - Goran (good player on grass but headcase who won ONE slam) Courier (very good player but not even on a Djokovic level, plus he played on old grass which made him less competitive than Djokovic is today, because like Djokovic he wasn't that great on grass) Krajicek was also a good grass player, but not a world class player at all. Roddick and Hewitt are much bigger threats, especially hewitt on slower grass, A-Rod with that serve is a threat on any grass on his day. phillipossis is no pushover, he beat Sampras in 2 slams and was giving him a nightmare at Wimbledon until he retired.

Also, is this a case of people thinking Federer should win 40 votes to 9? You're aware of the way voting works here, we all get one vote which goes 100% to someone, it's not like assigning a percentage per vote. So 40 people could all think Federer wins by a nose, but that will still be a landslide to Federer in the results. That doesn't mean people think it's hugely in Federer's favour.

 

[DropShotArtist]

When both players have won the same number of slams on grass, i.e. 7, then H2H comes into play. With Federer and Nadal, they both played in the same era. Federer has won more slams so far. Case closed.

 

[billnepill]

Facts such a head to head based on one match with both players outside their primes. By that logic the facts show Nadal is a superior player to Federer since he owns their head to head (yet according to ****s H2H is meaningless yet a 1-0 head to head vs Sampras on grass proves his superiority, ROTFL!!!) More Planet TW comedy **** style.

Aren't the facts that Rafi owns the h2h on clay where he is clearly superior? Your comparison doesn't work.
This one match doesn't do much to prove anything but the one thing it does suggest is that if baby Federer has enough game to take down Sampras as a defending and 7-time WB champion on old grass, he cannot be that inferior as helloworld and yourself claim him to be.

 

[TMF]

Also, is this a case of people thinking Federer should win 40 votes to 9? You're aware of the way voting works here, we all get one vote which goes 100% to someone, it's not like assigning a percentage per vote. So 40 people could all think Federer wins by a nose, but that will still be a landslide to Federer in the results. That doesn't mean people think it's hugely in Federer's favour.

And not every federer fans vote anyway, which anti-fed fans believe they vote in every poll in favor of Federer.

There was a list of top greatest clay court player of all time, and most experts have Nadal at #1 and Borg #2. Despite Nadal had most of the votes, that doesn't mean Nadal is head and shoulder greater than Borg.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Aren't the facts that Rafi owns the h2h on clay where he is clearly superior? Your comparison doesn't work.
This one match doesn't do much to prove anything but the one thing it does suggest is that if baby Federer has enough game to take down Sampras as a defending and 7-time WB champion on old grass, he cannot be that inferior as helloworld and yourself claim him to be.

The H2H facts would say that Nadal is light years better than Federer on clay, much better than him on outdoor hard courts where he leads 5-2 (which is of course where both the hard court slams and most of the tour are played), and only barely weaker on grass, and much weaker indoors, and overall would be the better player. However we know that is not the case, except the clay part.

So drawing a conclusion who is better on one surface based on a match that ended 7-5 in the 5th where both players are clearly far from their prime levels (and if you think Sampras wasnt at the time of Wimbledon 2001 you are even more delusional but then again that is typical ****ism) is plain ridiculous, and with no basis in logic. Add to that ****s are the same one who try and insist he is better than Kuerten on clay despite that he was straight setted by a 30% of his old self hip butchered Kuerten in their only meeting at Roland Garros, and that Kuerten has triple the # of RG titles to boot.

I also did not say Federer was vastly inferior than Sampras on grass and at Wimbledon, just that in my opinion Sampras is a bit better. One is free to argue otherwise of course, but trying to insist on others believing it must be Federer based on his win over Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 is **** comedy at its finest once again.

 

[MTF07]

See there's always some reason to give sampras the edge of Federer, the shifting of importance from conversion rate to most finals to competition is some brilliant display of dancing for sure. There are of course less grass court specialists today than in the early to mid 90s... but then again grass doesn't even play that much like grass anymore - hence a lot more players are decent on it. As long as they can deal with the slippery bad bouncing nature of it, they're ok. It isn't lightning fast anymore. Homogenised surfaces have made better competition than lets say the later part of Pete's wimbledon dominance when he was the only world class player who was good on grass. Even earlier on, the last world class players who were good on grass were people like Becker and Edberg who were not threatening Pete for much of his reign at all.

Sampras's competition - Goran (good player on grass but headcase who won ONE slam) Courier (very good player but not even on a Djokovic level, plus he played on old grass which made him less competitive than Djokovic is today, because like Djokovic he wasn't that great on grass) Krajicek was also a good grass player, but not a world class player at all. Roddick and Hewitt are much bigger threats, especially hewitt on slower grass, A-Rod with that serve is a threat on any grass on his day. phillipossis is no pushover, he beat Sampras in 2 slams and was giving him a nightmare at Wimbledon until he retired.

Also, is this a case of people thinking Federer should win 40 votes to 9? You're aware of the way voting works here, we all get one vote which goes 100% to someone, it's not like assigning a percentage per vote. So 40 people could all think Federer wins by a nose, but that will still be a landslide to Federer in the results. That doesn't mean people think it's hugely in Federer's favour.

LMAO

Complete distruction.

 

[billnepill]

The H2H facts would say that Nadal is light years better than Federer on clay, much better than him on outdoor hard courts where he leads 5-2 (which is of course where both the hard court slams and most of the tour are played), and only barely weaker on grass, and much weaker indoors, and overall would be the better player. However we know that is not the case, except the clay part.

So drawing a conclusion who is better on one surface based on a match that ended 7-5 in the 5th where both players are clearly far from their prime levels (and if you think Sampras wasnt at the time of Wimbledon 2001 you are even more delusional but then again that is typical ****ism) is plain ridiculous, and with no basis in logic. Add to that ****s are the same one who try and insist he is better than Kuerten on clay despite that he was straight setted by a 30% of his old self hip butchered Kuerten in their only meeting at Roland Garros.

I also did not say Federer was vastly inferior than Sampras on grass and at Wimbledon, just that in my opinion Sampras is a bit better. One is free to argue otherwise of course, but trying to insist on others believing it must be Federer based on his win over Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 is **** comedy at its finest once again.

Well, it doesn't help that you have established pattern of conjuring up what the other party believes. Are you talking to me or to the broad "audience"( so called ****s whose image is an amalgamate of the most extreme beliefs of not more than 10 posters). If it's the former, you make some invalid assumptions.

I didn't claim you said "vastly" but it's true that my point was more applicable to the other poster. Let me ask you - can you explain why you think Sampras is "a bit" better on grass when the numbers are slightly in favour of Federer? How is the subjective perception of "tougher" opposition less ridiculous than drawing a conclusion based on one match?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Let me ask you - can you explain why you think Sampras is "a bit" better on grass when the numbers are slightly in favour of Federer?

The only number in favor Federer is 1 more final, and that is clearly no dealbreaker, especialy as ****s have established ignoring that Sampras has 2 more U.S Open finals than Sampras, and far more longevity of success at the event, and declaring Federer light years superior despite that. Any other stats that would favor him are things involving his numerous wins at Halle, a freaking 250 event, which is beyond laughable so I wont even entertain. Beyond that both have 7 Wimbledons, Sampras actually played and won Queens (the only semi relevant grass event outside Wimbledon), while Federer never won and rarely attempted, so wont bother giving either an edge there (although if I were a **** I would surely be pumping that up, lol)

I go with Sampras because:

1. With 3 Wimbledons in a row, a 1 year defeat, then 4 Wimbledons in a row, I consider him to have dominated on grass for an 8 year span. A single year defeat in the midst of two long winning streaks is not enough to declare a break of dominance, so roughly an 8 year period of dominance. By contrast Federer did win 5 Wimbledons in a row, but after that while he did win 2 more spaced over 5 years he never won back to back Wimbledons, so his period of dominance was only a 5 year one really.

2. Sampras's grass competition was far stronger IMO. I can see the ****s already going ballistic hearing this again but lets face it considering the stats are virtually identical in every relevant sense lets face it, it pretty much comes down to personal opinion. To clarify though yes Samrpas's grass competition by 2000. However atleast for the first part of his reign there from 1993-1995 it was extremely strong, something it never was at any point for Federer.

3. I have seen both play and Sampras at his peak or in his prime played tennis at a higher level on grass than Federer ever did. In one Wimbledon final Sampras hit 68 winners and 7 unforced errors. Federer has never matched that kind of level, his best was probably 60 winners and something around 12 unforced errors vs Roddick in the 2003 Wimbledon semis, and Roddick has proven to be one of the easiest players to post clean and great stats against (although still not that easy to beat due to all his service winners mostly). Sampras had the much better serve, better volleys, better transition to net and overall net game, was overall more explosive, basically all the things that are most important on grass.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

The only number in favor Federer is 1 more final, and that is clearly no dealbreaker, especialy as ****s have established ignoring that Sampras has 2 more U.S Open finals than Sampras, and far more longevity of success at the event, and declaring Federer light years superior despite that. Any other stats that would favor him are things involving his numerous wins at Halle, a freaking 250 event, which is beyond laughable so I wont even entertain. Beyond that both have 7 Wimbledons, Sampras actually played and won Queens (the only semi relevant grass event outside Wimbledon), while Federer never won and rarely attempted, so wont bother giving either an edge there (although if I were a **** I would surely be pumping that up, lol)

I go with Sampras because:

1. With 3 Wimbledons in a row, a 1 year defeat, then 4 Wimbledons in a row, I consider him to have dominated on grass for an 8 year span. A single year defeat in the midst of two long winning streaks is not enough to declare a break of dominance, so roughly an 8 year period of dominance. By contrast Federer did win 5 Wimbledons in a row, but after that while he did win 2 more spaced over 5 years he never won back to back Wimbledons, so his period of dominance was only a 5 year one really.

2. Sampras's grass competition was far stronger IMO. I can see the ****s already going ballistic hearing this again but lets face it considering the stats are virtually identical in every relevant sense lets face it, it pretty much comes down to personal opinion. To clarify though yes Samrpas's grass competition by 2000. However atleast for the first part of his reign there from 1993-1995 it was extremely strong, something it never was at any point for Federer.

3. I have seen both play and Sampras at his peak or in his prime played tennis at a higher level on grass than Federer ever did. In one Wimbledon final Sampras hit 68 winners and 7 unforced errors. Federer has never matched that kind of level, his best was probably 60 winners and something around 12 unforced errors vs Roddick in the 2003 Wimbledon semis, and Roddick has proven to be one of the easiest players to post clean and great stats against (although still not that easy to beat due to all his service winners mostly). Sampras had the much better serve, better volleys, better transition to net and overall net game, was overall more explosive, basically all the things that are most important on grass.

Federer lost less sets, games, and played a higher average ranking than Pete did.

 

[Towser83]

The only number in favor Federer is 1 more final, and that is clearly no dealbreaker, especialy as ****s have established ignoring that Sampras has 2 more U.S Open finals than Sampras, and far more longevity of success at the event, and declaring Federer light years superior despite that. Any other stats that would favor him are things involving his numerous wins at Halle, a freaking 250 event, which is beyond laughable so I wont even entertain. Beyond that both have 7 Wimbledons, Sampras actually played and won Queens (the only semi relevant grass event outside Wimbledon), while Federer never won and rarely attempted, so wont bother giving either an edge there (although if I were a **** I would surely be pumping that up, lol)

I go with Sampras because:

1. With 3 Wimbledons in a row, a 1 year defeat, then 4 Wimbledons in a row, I consider him to have dominated on grass for an 8 year span. A single year defeat in the midst of two long winning streaks is not enough to declare a break of dominance, so roughly an 8 year period of dominance. By contrast Federer did win 5 Wimbledons in a row, but after that while he did win 2 more spaced over 5 years he never won back to back Wimbledons, so his period of dominance was only a 5 year one really.

2. Sampras's grass competition was far stronger IMO. I can see the ****s already going ballistic hearing this again but lets face it considering the stats are virtually identical in every relevant sense lets face it, it pretty much comes down to personal opinion. To clarify though yes Samrpas's grass competition by 2000. However atleast for the first part of his reign there from 1993-1995 it was extremely strong, something it never was at any point for Federer.

3. I have seen both play and Sampras at his peak or in his prime played tennis at a higher level on grass than Federer ever did. In one Wimbledon final Sampras hit 68 winners and 7 unforced errors. Federer has never matched that kind of level, his best was probably 60 winners and something around 12 unforced errors vs Roddick in the 2003 Wimbledon semis, and Roddick has proven to be one of the easiest players to post clean and great stats against (although still not that easy to beat due to all his service winners mostly). Sampras had the much better serve, better volleys, better transition to net and overall net game, was overall more explosive, basically all the things that are most important on grass.

7 finals in a row, losing the 6th 9-7 in the 5th set and then winning your 7th equals 7 years of dominance. Still not as good as 8, but also better to be beaten by Nadal in the final than Krajicek in the quarters(?) Main point is though, you're trying your best to push Federer down to 5 instead of 7 even though Pete is ahead anyway. There really is no need. The fact that he didn't win 2 back to back after losing in 2008 doesn't really matter, he was stil the guy to beat for a span of 7 years, his only defeat in that time being a very close loss in the final vs the second best player of the last decade

 

[MTF07]

Everyone admits that grass was slowed down in the 2000's, therefore making it harder to hit a ton of winners (and also easier to make errors due to longer rallies) yet NadalAgassi wants to point out one match to indicate that Sampras' highest level was higher?

Never mind the fact that everyone was serving and volleying back then and the statisticians virtually never counted a shanked passing shot as an "unforced error" even if it was a wide open pass. A lot easier to post huge winners/unforced errors differentials back then than it is now.

 

[90's Clay]

See there's always some reason to give sampras the edge of Federer, the shifting of importance from conversion rate to most finals to competition is some brilliant display of dancing for sure. There are of course less grass court specialists today than in the early to mid 90s... but then again grass doesn't even play that much like grass anymore - hence a lot more players are decent on it. As long as they can deal with the slippery bad bouncing nature of it, they're ok. It isn't lightning fast anymore. Homogenised surfaces have made better competition than lets say the later part of Pete's wimbledon dominance when he was the only world class player who was good on grass. Even earlier on, the last world class players who were good on grass were people like Becker and Edberg who were not threatening Pete for much of his reign at all.

Sampras's competition - Goran (good player on grass but headcase who won ONE slam) Courier (very good player but not even on a Djokovic level, plus he played on old grass which made him less competitive than Djokovic is today, because like Djokovic he wasn't that great on grass) Krajicek was also a good grass player, but not a world class player at all. Roddick and Hewitt are much bigger threats, especially hewitt on slower grass, A-Rod with that serve is a threat on any grass on his day. phillipossis is no pushover, he beat Sampras in 2 slams and was giving him a nightmare at Wimbledon until he retired.

Also, is this a case of people thinking Federer should win 40 votes to 9? You're aware of the way voting works here, we all get one vote which goes 100% to someone, it's not like assigning a percentage per vote. So 40 people could all think Federer wins by a nose, but that will still be a landslide to Federer in the results. That doesn't mean people think it's hugely in Federer's favour.

Name on ONE year at wimbledon where Roddick was impressive then Krajicek was at wimbledon in '96? Hewitt in '02 in the Crumby Wimbledon year" was more impressive then Richard in '96? Gimme a break. Djokovic would be on the level of say Courier on the old grass (maybe worse) since Djokovic is just as bad or worse on faster surfaces. Yea Goran had his issues with some mental hangups but hes still a superior grass player then Roddick or Hewitt were and challenge Sampras more on grass in his prime then they other two ever could.

Even an older Becker in the mid-late 90s is a more formidable opponent then Roddick even in his prime was on grass. You're building up someone with ZERO wimbledon titles

 

[MTF07]

LOL @ blatantly disrespecting Hewitt like that. Hewitt is/was a GREAT grass player and feasted on serve and volley players. Need I remind you, SetSampras, of how he absolutely demolished Pete in the 2001 US Open finals?

 

[90's Clay]

LOL @ blatantly disrespecting Hewitt like that. Hewitt is/was a GREAT grass player and feasted on serve and volley players. Need I remind you, SetSampras, of how he absolutely demolished Pete in the 2001 US Open finals?

Sampras who just played Safin, Agassi, and Rafter back to back to back? Yea I remember that. Brutal draw. Would Fed have got through that at 30s year old? I have my reservations on that.


And what does beating a gassed Sampras at 30 who just got through 3 USO title winners have any barring on Hewitt at wimbledon?

Hewitt was a GOOD grass court player, but he wasn't as good as Goran.. You can quit with that nonsense.

 

[helloworld]

Boris Becker on grass alone is probably tougher than anything that silver-spoon-fed Federer has to face in his life.

 

[90's Clay]

Boris Becker on grass alone is probably tougher than anything that silver-spoon-fed Federer has to face in his life.

Even an older Becker in the early-mid 90s is superior to a prime Roddick on grass. No doubt

 

[NadalAgassi]

Even an older Becker in the early-mid 90s is superior to a prime Roddick on grass. No doubt

That Becker managed to beat Agassi at Wimbledon 1995 is proof of that. No way does the Roddck beat the Agassi of 1995 in a slam on any surface. That is even before considering what an awful matchup Agassi is for Becker.

 

[90's Clay]

That Becker managed to beat Agassi at Wimbledon 1995 is proof of that. No way does the Roddck beat the Agassi of 1995 in a slam on any surface. That is even before considering what an awful matchup Agassi is for Becker.

Absolutely.. Roddick could only manage 1 win in 6 matches vs an OLD Agassi much less a peak one in '95

 

[MTF07]

Sampras who just played Safin, Agassi, and Rafter back to back to back? Yea I remember that. Brutal draw. Would Fed have got through that at 30s year old? I have my reservations on that.


And what does beating a gassed Sampras at 30 who just got through 3 USO title winners have any barring on Hewitt at wimbledon?

Hewitt was a GOOD grass court player, but he wasn't as good as Goran.. You can quit with that nonsense.

Yeah, Fed probably could have gotten through that because he didn't become a mediocre player in his thirties like Sampras did.

You can make all the excuses you want, but Hewitt feasted on players like Goran and Pete. He would have been better off playing his career in the 90s than he was in the 2000's.

 

[90's Clay]

Yeah, Fed probably could have gotten through that because he didn't become a mediocre player in his thirties like Sampras did.

You can make all the excuses you want, but Hewitt feasted on players like Goran and Pete. He would have been better off playing his career in the 90s than he was in the 2000's.

Fed lost to Djokovic at 30 at Flushing and he had a cakewalk draw prior to that. .. You really think he would have beaten Rafter, Andre playing some awesome tennis (Who btw creamed Fed that year) , and Safin back to back to back, then Hewitt in the finals?

. STOP


Sampras actually looked better at 30-31 at Flushing, then Fed is looking at that age IMO.

Heck Fed barely got by a 34 year old Agassi at the USO.. never mind a 30 year old Agassi who was playing much better at flushing in 2001

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

The greatest American player of all time was Bill Tilden neither Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Connors, are ever going to have the cultural or historical importance as Big Bill.

Tilden was the first American to win Wimbledon and he's the only tennis player to have won the US OPEN seven times I think.

Tilden also was very popular he crossed over into Hollywood and brought tennis to the masses.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

The greatest American player of all time was Bill Tilden neither Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Connors, are ever going to have the cultural or historical importance as Big Bill.

Tilden was the first American to win Wimbledon and he's the only tennis player to have won the US OPEN seven times I think.

Tilden also was very popular he crossed over into Hollywood and brought tennis to the masses.

He also did some other things that we can't look back upon fondly.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

He also did some other things that we can't look back upon fondly.

True, Sid Vicious, but the context of the time period is important in relation to Tilden being an ephebophile. Elvis Presley and Rob Lowe slept with teenagers too but I don't recall anyone giving them a hard time because they had sex with teenage girls. Guess, it all depends on the gender doesn't it in relation to how society treats adults who have an attraction to teens.

 

[abmk]

7 finals in a row, losing the 6th 9-7 in the 5th set and then winning your 7th equals 7 years of dominance. Still not as good as 8, but also better to be beaten by Nadal in the final than Krajicek in the quarters(?) Main point is though, you're trying your best to push Federer down to 5 instead of 7 even though Pete is ahead anyway. There really is no need. The fact that he didn't win 2 back to back after losing in 2008 doesn't really matter, he was stil the guy to beat for a span of 7 years, his only defeat in that time being a very close loss in the final vs the second best player of the last decade

its just NadalAgassi's way of trying to delude others ( & maybe himself ? ) ......

federer was the one to beat for the stretch for 7 years from 2003-09 at wimbledon ....the only loss he had was a close 5-setter , in contrast to sampras who got straight-setted by krajicek right in the middle of his peak ...

 

[abmk]

That Becker managed to beat Agassi at Wimbledon 1995 is proof of that. No way does the Roddck beat the Agassi of 1995 in a slam on any surface. That is even before considering what an awful matchup Agassi is for Becker.

yes, except the becker that turned up in the finals vs sampras was a much much weaker version than the one who turned up in the semis vs agassi ..... so that argument falls flat on its face ....

roddick of 2004/2009 was easily superior to the becker that turned up in the 95 finals ....

 

[Towser83]

Name on ONE year at wimbledon where Roddick was impressive then Krajicek was at wimbledon in '96? Hewitt in '02 in the Crumby Wimbledon year" was more impressive then Richard in '96? Gimme a break. Djokovic would be on the level of say Courier on the old grass (maybe worse) since Djokovic is just as bad or worse on faster surfaces. Yea Goran had his issues with some mental hangups but hes still a superior grass player then Roddick or Hewitt were and challenge Sampras more on grass in his prime then they other two ever could.

Even an older Becker in the mid-late 90s is a more formidable opponent then Roddick even in his prime was on grass. You're building up someone with ZERO wimbledon titles

Here's the problem. You keep talking about Richard in ONE year, but then using him as an example of supposed regular competition. He was brilliant in 96. And Sampras failed to beat him, so it wasn't as if Pete beat him when he was playing his top game. Aside from 96 he wasn't a consistantly great player. He was an ok player who had a dream 2 weeks in 96 where no one could beat him. That doesn't make him a strong opponent for the whole of Sampras's reign. In all his years he only ever made it past the 4th round THREE times, one of those being his title. It was pretty much a fluke, come on dude let's not act like he was a regular world beater :lol:

In fact Hewitt and Roddick were more consistant than Richard Krajicek. Hewitt with a title and 4 other quarter finals or better. Plus he lost a couple of big matches to Federer. Krajicek was losing to just about anyone. Roddick also way more consistant, with 3 finals and other semis and finals. He almost had a Krajicek moment in 2009 where he maybe should have beaten Federer and with old fast grass, may have. Maybe could have done with a bit more luck, but if he had have won it there's no way it could be called a fluke with his other results backing it up - Krajicek has NOTHING to back up his Wimbledon win with, because it was a fluke.

Courier was never in contention on fast grass. Maybe Djokovic wouldn't be either, but on this grass he is. So still tougher than Courier. Old Becker is debateable. Maybe in 1993 he was still a top player on grass, but later in 95 and 97 he was well past his consistant best.

 

[abmk]

3. I have seen both play and Sampras at his peak or in his prime played tennis at a higher level on grass than Federer ever did. In one Wimbledon final Sampras hit 68 winners and 7 unforced errors. Federer has never matched that kind of level, his best was probably 60 winners and something around 12 unforced errors vs Roddick in the 2003 Wimbledon semis, and Roddick has proven to be one of the easiest players to post clean and great stats against (although still not that easy to beat due to all his service winners mostly). Sampras had the much better serve, better volleys, better transition to net and overall net game, was overall more explosive, basically all the things that are most important on grass.

that's plain ridiculous , even by your standards .... the less no of unforced errors for sampras were in large part because becker was SnVing that much, coming to the net much more, hence most of the errors would be 'forced' and chances for unforced errors were much less ....

federer's performance in matches like the 2003 SF/F, 2005 F, 2006 QF etc were actually cleaner performances if you actually watched and take into account that the chances for unforced errors were far more in this era ....

and actually after the serve, the most important thing on grass is the return, at which federer is quite clearly superior ... and on today's grass, federer's FH and BH ( esp the slice ) are what matter just as much as sampras' volleys ..... I'd take the former over the latter ... Also federer is the better mover on grass ... and movement is a major factor ....

volleys are a part of the overall net game , so really no point in mentioning those separately ...

 

[90's Clay]

Here's the problem. You keep talking about Richard in ONE year, but then using him as an example of supposed regular competition. He was brilliant in 96. And Sampras failed to beat him, so it wasn't as if Pete beat him when he was playing his top game. Aside from 96 he wasn't a consistantly great player. He was an ok player who had a dream 2 weeks in 96 where no one could beat him. That doesn't make him a strong opponent for the whole of Sampras's reign. In all his years he only ever made it past the 4th round THREE times, one of those being his title. It was pretty much a fluke, come on dude let's not act like he was a regular world beater :lol:

In fact Hewitt and Roddick were more consistant than Richard Krajicek. Hewitt with a title and 4 other quarter finals or better. Plus he lost a couple of big matches to Federer. Krajicek was losing to just about anyone. Roddick also way more consistant, with 3 finals and other semis and finals. He almost had a Krajicek moment in 2009 where he maybe should have beaten Federer and with old fast grass, may have. Maybe could have done with a bit more luck, but if he had have won it there's no way it could be called a fluke with his other results backing it up - Krajicek has NOTHING to back up his Wimbledon win with, because it was a fluke.

Courier was never in contention on fast grass. Maybe Djokovic wouldn't be either, but on this grass he is. So still tougher than Courier. Old Becker is debateable. Maybe in 1993 he was still a top player on grass, but later in 95 and 97 he was well past his consistant best.

I'm not trying to use Krajicek as a consistent competition on grass as he obviously wasn't due to injury issues or whatever. But he still played at higher level that one year then most of Roger's contemporaries at wimbledon for most years.

NadalAgassi pointed out that Becker beat Dre in 95 at wimbledon.. Would Roddick or Hewitt do that? Heck Roddick couldn't even beat an OLD Agassi. I fail to see how Hewitt or Roddick would beat a prime Sampras ANY year on his surface during the 90s. Roddick wasn't on the level that Goran was on grass in the mid 90s. He just flat out more formidable on grass while Roddick was more formidable on hard courts. Hewitt the same. He gave Pete trouble in his later years but that was Pete in his later years. Not a Peak Sampras rolling on all cylinders. Attackers gave Pete more issues back then.. Not counterpunchers.

Becker even at an advancing age still showed he could play. (see wimbledon in the mid 90s and that epic year end Masters event vs. pete in 96).

I think the only thing Roddick and Hewitt would have been "consistent" at on grass was losing to Sampras at wimbledon just as they lost to Federer all those times on grass.

If you take, Andre, Becker, Goran, Krajicek, Rafter, Courier alone.. To me that trumps Roddick, Hewitt, Baby nadal, Djoker, Murray Phillipousis on grass.

People severely overrate Roddick's grass abilities.. Hewitt was good on grass. Nothing more. He certainly wasn't as formidable as Goran was in the 90s and neither was Roddick. . Heck I'm not even sure I would put them above Rafter.

Courier would probably be just as good as Djokovic or Murray on current grass with the roof open and slow conditions. Both Murray and Nole kind of suck on grass with faster conditions though.. As was evident when they closed the roof this year.

 

[MTF07]

Fed lost to Djokovic at 30 at Flushing and he had a cakewalk draw prior to that. .. You really think he would have beaten Rafter, Andre playing some awesome tennis (Who btw creamed Fed that year) , and Safin back to back to back, then Hewitt in the finals?

. STOP


Sampras actually looked better at 30-31 at Flushing, then Fed is looking at that age IMO.

Heck Fed barely got by a 34 year old Agassi at the USO.. never mind a 30 year old Agassi who was playing much better at flushing in 2001

Yes, he could have done that. He just beat Djokovic and Murray back to back to win a major at 31. Djokovic is easily superior than anyone of those guys minus Agassi and Murray is clearly better than Rafter, and will probably end up with a better career than Safin and maybe Hewitt.

 

[MTF07]

Hewitt is a nightmare matchup for Sampras, and I feel he would have been even in Pete's prime. Sampras can thank his lucky stars that he got a worn down Agassi in the 2002 US Open final and not Hewitt, who would have certainly clobbered him again if they had met in the final.

 

[90's Clay]

Hewitt is a nightmare matchup for Sampras, and I feel he would have been even in Pete's prime. Sampras can thank his lucky stars that he got a worn down Agassi in the 2002 US Open final and not Hewitt, who would have certainly clobbered him again if they had met in the final.

Agassi managed like 2-3 sets in 4 matches vs. Sampras at the USO. The USO Sampras OWNED Agassi. Hewitt wouldn't have been meeting a gassed Sampras who just got through an ungodly brutal draw in the finals of the 2002 USO.. So I dunno about the other matchup there with Hewitt.

My guess is Sampras would have been looking for revenge and would have CLOBBERED Hewitt in the finals (Much like he did in 2001 vs. Safin at the USO when he was looking for revenge)

 

[TMF]

Everyone admits that grass was slowed down in the 2000's, therefore making it harder to hit a ton of winners (and also easier to make errors due to longer rallies) yet NadalAgassi wants to point out one match to indicate that Sampras' highest level was higher?

Never mind the fact that everyone was serving and volleying back then and the statisticians virtually never counted a shanked passing shot as an "unforced error" even if it was a wide open pass. A lot easier to post huge winners/unforced errors differentials back then than it is now.

Agree. The high winner/UFEs ratio would be in favor of a serve and volley player. A long rally from the baseline are easily to accumulate UFEs, and harder to hit winners from the baseline, especially on a high bounce grass.

 

[TMF]

LOL @ blatantly disrespecting Hewitt like that. Hewitt is/was a GREAT grass player and feasted on serve and volley players. Need I remind you, SetSampras, of how he absolutely demolished Pete in the 2001 US Open finals?

Hewitt also beat Sampras on grass in 2000 when Hewitt was still improving.

 

[MTF07]

Agassi managed like 2-3 sets in 4 matches vs. Sampras at the USO. The USO Sampras OWNED Agassi. Hewitt wouldn't have been meeting a gassed Sampras who just got through an ungodly brutal draw in the finals of the 2002 USO.. So I dunno about the other matchup there with Hewitt.

My guess is Sampras would have been looking for revenge and would have CLOBBERED Hewitt in the finals (Much like he did in 2001 vs. Safin at the USO when he was looking for revenge)

No. Safin didn't present the same matchup issues that Hewitt did for Sampras.

Sampras was almost exclusively playing serve and volley tennis in 2001-02. Him being "gassed" wasn't the reason he couldn't get his racquet on Hewitt's laser passing shots. The fact of that matter is, Hewitt returned his serve better than anyone, including Agassi.

Sampras would have likely been straight setted in the 2002 US Open final with Hewitt. Maybe he pushes it to 4 if he serves like 85% in one set.

 

[TMF]

Sampras who just played Safin, Agassi, and Rafter back to back to back? Yea I remember that. Brutal draw. Would Fed have got through that at 30s year old? I have my reservations on that.

I don't see why not. Federer is also better than Pete at 30.

And what does beating a gassed Sampras at 30 who just got through 3 USO title winners have any barring on Hewitt at wimbledon?

That's part of the sport. Every great players have faced tough situation. It's up to them to find a way to win.

Hewitt was a GOOD grass court player, but he wasn't as good as Goran.. You can quit with that nonsense.

Hewitt is 3-0 against Goran on grass. Yes, I know one victory was in 2004, but still, you disrepect Hewitt.

 

[helloworld]

Agassi managed like 2-3 sets in 4 matches vs. Sampras at the USO. The USO Sampras OWNED Agassi. Hewitt wouldn't have been meeting a gassed Sampras who just got through an ungodly brutal draw in the finals of the 2002 USO.. So I dunno about the other matchup there with Hewitt.

My guess is Sampras would have been looking for revenge and would have CLOBBERED Hewitt in the finals (Much like he did in 2001 vs. Safin at the USO when he was looking for revenge)

Exactly. Sampras only lost to Hewitt when he got old already. Before that, it was all Sampras easily. If Hewitt was such a bad match up to Sampras, the H2H wouldn't be 4-5, since Sampras was already wayyy old by the time he went up against young and fresh Hewitt. Sampras at 30 is much worse than Federer at 30. Federer at 30-31 is still #1 in the world, while Sampras was already like 20 something in the ranking.

 

[abmk]

Hewitt is a nightmare matchup for Sampras, and I feel he would have been even in Pete's prime. Sampras can thank his lucky stars that he got a worn down Agassi in the 2002 US Open final and not Hewitt, who would have certainly clobbered him again if they had met in the final.

sampras' level was already going down by the time of 2 and half sets were over in the final ...

hewitt and agassi ran each other ragged in the semi, but hewitt being younger/fitter would've recovered faster/better than agassi and would've been a far tougher match for sampras in the final

 

[90's Clay]

Exactly. Sampras only lost to Hewitt when he got old already. Before that, it was all Sampras easily. If Hewitt was such a bad match up to Sampras, the H2H wouldn't be 4-5, since Sampras was already wayyy old by the time he went up against young and fresh Hewitt. Sampras at 30 is much worse than Federer at 30. Federer at 30-31 is still #1 in the world, while Sampras was already like 20 something in the ranking.

Overrall, I agree Sampras definitely looked much worse then Fed does at 30-31.. Overrall.. But I'm not sure about the USO though. I think Sampras looked a little better then Fed has looked there the past 1-2 years. Sampras still had that service game that was damn tough to break (while Fed's breaks down easier).. Sampras could also step up the attack and dig deep.. While Fed has shown to be a bit more limited in that department at the USO.

Sampras at 30-31 years of age, had some HUGE wins over some big names at Flushing. Former champs (Safin, Agassi, Rafter, etc).. Fed gets through who he needs to get through.. Some of the garbage guys he draws.. But he hasn't been able to beat the big dogs recently there.

 

[helloworld]

Hewitt also beat Sampras on grass in 2000 when Hewitt was still improving.

Agassi also lost to a 15 year-old Hewitt, yet he destroyed Hewitt when it mattered(2002 USO). By your logic, Hewitt should be a worse match-up to Agassi than to Sampras, since a toddler Hewitt was already beating Andre left and right.

 

[abmk]

Exactly. Sampras only lost to Hewitt when he got old already. Before that, it was all Sampras easily. If Hewitt was such a bad match up to Sampras, the H2H wouldn't be 4-5, since Sampras was already wayyy old by the time he went up against young and fresh Hewitt. Sampras at 30 is much worse than Federer at 30. Federer at 30-31 is still #1 in the world, while Sampras was already like 20 something in the ranking.

lol, what ? hewitt was just 18,19 years old when sampras had most of his wins over him and was by some distance the higher ranked player ...

 

[abmk]

Overrall, I agree Sampras definitely looked much worse then Fed does at 30-31.. Overrall.. But I'm not sure about the USO though. I think Sampras looked a little better then Fed has looked there the past 1-2 years. Sampras still had that service game that was damn tough to break (while Fed's breaks down easier).. Sampras could also step up the attack and dig deep.. While Fed has shown to be a bit more limited in that department at the USO.

Sampras at 30-31 years of age, had some HUGE wins over some big names at Flushing. Former champs (Safin, Agassi, Rafter, etc).. Fed gets through who he needs to get through.. Some of the garbage guys he draws.. But he hasn't been able to beat the big dogs recently there.

fed was playing darn well at the USO in 2011 ... just novak just managed to sneak past him ... he was also playing well in 2010 until the semis .... only in 2012 was his performance not good ....

as far as pete's service 'dominance' is concerned, safin/hewitt tore through it left right in the USO 2000/2001 finals .... far worse than anything federer has experienced at the USO ....

 

[helloworld]

lol, what ? hewitt was just 18,19 years old when sampras had most of his wins over him and was by some distance the higher ranked player ...

Hewitt is an early bloomer like Chang was. He'd get overpowered by players like Federer, Sampras, Becker, etc. who are much stronger than him. Prime Sampras(and Federer) would be a complete nightmare to Hewitt. Remember, Prime Pete was by no means a serve and volleyer.