History repeats itself with Federer and Sampras match

[Gut Reaction]

The Federer vs. Sampras match is very similar to Borg vs. Newcombe.

Old man Newcombe was able to beat the young upstart Bjorn Borg.
Both Borg and Federer were 5 time Wimbledon winners and both were the most dominant players of their day.

They also both lost to the older generation. Borg the baseliner was beaten by old man Newcombe the serve and volleyer. While Federer was also beaten by the serve and volleyer old man Pete Sampras.

In fact the only difference is that Newcombe beat Borg three times. I doubt highly that those matches were fixed and it should shed light on the Fed Sampras matches.

 

[Ripper]

Back when I started to hear about the Federer - Sampras thing, I predicted Federer was going to let Sampras win. Back then, I didn't know it was 3 exhibitions instead of 1. Had I known, I would have predicted, exactly, what happened (yes, I know...). I'm sure Federer played hard, but not his best. I'm sure he could have won the the last match, too.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Back when I started to hear about the Federer - Sampras thing, I predicted Federer was going to let Sampras win. Back then, I didn't know it was 3 exhibitions instead of 1. Had I known, I would have predicted, exactly, what happened (yes, I know...). I'm sure Federer played hard, but not his best. I'm sure he could have won the the last match, too.

Except when Borg played Newcombe three times the opposite was true. Old man Newcombe won all three matches. Clearly that could not be fixed .

So why would fed vs. Sampras be different. It wasn't fixed back then why would it ne fixed now?

 

[FedForGOAT]

This is a quote from a different thread about the exos

In 1992 and early 1993 there were actually 2 exhibitions between Graf and Seles. One was on grass and Seles won 7-5, 6-2. Again this is on "grass" where Graf pummeled Seles 6-2, 6-1 in the 92 Wimbledon final, and were Seles only once made it past the quarters, and also lost to her 6-1, 6-0 the only other time they played on grass (granted Seles was 15 but still good enough to take Graf to 3 sets at the French Open on clay already just before that).

Another was a fast indoor court and Seles won 6-2, 6-0. Seles most one-sided win over Graf in any of their 7 official WTA meetings from 90-early 93 was 6-3, 6-4. Fast indoor court is the 2nd fastest court after Graf which favors Graf. Again do you really think as well is believable for a serious match.

So have you lost your respect for Graf and Seles (particularly Graf by the sounds of it) too?

Also Federer losing to Roddick and Haas at Koyoong the last 2 years. Players who will probably never beat him again on the ATP tour, and havent done so for many years, however were mystersiously able to do it at the Koyoong exhibition. Federer also with a 6-4, 6-2 loss to Andre Agassi at the Koyoong exhibition in 2004, the same Agassi he went 8-0 against from 2003-2005 with Agassi at the tail end of his career.

Any more questions?

That pretty much summarizes the weight (or lack thereof) of exhibitions.

 

[Gut Reaction]

Well......

Just because Seles beat Graf at an exhibition match on grass and never dis before does not mean the match was fixed.

First of all Federer had never beaten Nadal on clay and beat him for the first time at Hamburg. That was a real match....do you think that match was fixed as well.

Secondly Seles was dominating Graf and was the #1 player in the world until she was stabbed in the back at the very height of her career. At that point in time Seles was not only dominating Graf but she was dominating everyone.

As far as Roddick well many of his matches against Federer have been VERY close. Didn't you see the US Open? Federer barely won in a tiebreaker.

Finally you have ignored my point. Newcombe an older retired champion beat Borg.... the Federer of his day three times on grass. Borg and Federer are the only ones to ever win Wimbledon 5 times in a row. Do you think that Borg and Newcombe fixed those matches? Why on earth would Borg do that? That would be like Federer losing all three times to Sampras.

 

[barbadosan]

GutReaction, that's a great "cats=animals; dogs=animals; therefore cats=dogs" argument

 

[Gut Reaction]

GutReaction, that's a great "cats=animals; dogs=animals; therefore cats=dogs" argument

hmmmm....you must be taking logic 101. Because its untrue. Lets follow your logic.

Federgoats logic is:

1. All exhibitions are fixed
2, The federer vs. Sampras matches were exhibitions
3. Therefore the Federer sampras matches were fixed.

In order to defeat that logical formula all I need to prove is that #1 is wrong.

Everyone would agree that the Newcombe vs. Borg matches were NOT fixed and therefore Federgoats logical argument fails. Since not all exhibitions are fixed there is a fallacy in the argument.

 

[hopeless]

hmmmm....you must be taking logic 101. Because its untrue. Lets follow your logic.

Federgoats logic is:

1. All exhibitions are fixed
2, The federer vs. Sampras matches were exhibitions
3. Therefore the Federer sampras matches were fixed.

In order to defeat that logical formula all I need to prove is that #1 is wrong.

Everyone would agree that the Newcombe vs. Borg matches were NOT fixed and therefore Federgoats logical argument fails. Since not all exhibitions are fixed there is a fallacy in the argument.

Well, actually I feel that FedForgoats logic is:
1. You cant read too much into exhibitions
2. Exhibitions are not a true reflection of either players' abilities
3. Its just an EXHIBITION

That is very different from exhibitions being fixed, did he say they were fixed? I only see you saying that FedForgoat said it was fixed.

 

[veritech]

there's a difference between a match being fixed and the players not giving their all.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

what about this logic:

Some people become insecure if Federer loses
Federer lost, some people became insecure.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

what about this logic:

Some people become insecure if Federer loses
Federer lost, some people became insecure.

Isn't both these statement the same thing? I still don't see the logic though...

 

[barbadosan]

hmmmm....you must be taking logic 101. Because its untrue. Lets follow your logic.

Federgoats logic is:

1. All exhibitions are fixed
2, The federer vs. Sampras matches were exhibitions
3. Therefore the Federer sampras matches were fixed.

In order to defeat that logical formula all I need to prove is that #1 is wrong.

Everyone would agree that the Newcombe vs. Borg matches were NOT fixed and therefore Federgoats logical argument fails. Since not all exhibitions are fixed there is a fallacy in the argument.

Actually I was delineating YOUR logic. I suggest it would be more useful to use Fed's exho history as an indicator

 

[barbadosan]

Isn't both these statement the same thing? I still don't see the logic though...

That's not an illogical statement.. it's just plain silly. If I didn't become "insecure" when he lost in pro competition matches, I can't imagine any earthly reason to become thus at the loss of an EXHIBITION match. Jeez. Reality check needed!!!

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

That's not an illogical statement.. it's just plain silly. If I didn't become "insecure" when he lost in pro competition matches, I can't imagine any earthly reason to become thus at the loss of an EXHIBITION match. Jeez. Reality check needed!!!

I think "TheNatural", likes ruffling a few feathers and I don't think he means much by making such statements.

Federer lost to Roddick last year in an exhibition in Australia, and the same talk was going around. Hopefully it will al die down, because I am getting a lil tired of the whole topic of Sampras vs Federer.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Sampras is the reigning world champ now. Next years winner of the masters cup gets to face Sampras again..lol

 

[JRstriker12]

The Fed/Sampras matches weren't fixed in the terms of having a pre-determined winner, but they were "fixed" in the sense that Fed was going to keep the match close.

No body pays large $$$ to watch a beatdown in an tennis exhibition. If you notice, during the match, fed didn't even bother to take off his Rolex, so I doubt he was playing all-out.

If you read Tignor at Tennis.com (http://tennisworld.typepad.com/thewrap/2007/11/goat-war-fed-vs.html), he pretty much agrees with the point that while Pete' serve is still amazing, it was up to Fed to keep the match as competative as he wanted it. If you want to add more speculation to the pot, Pete and Fed have a exhibition match coming up in Madison Square Gardens, so that last win could add to the excitement around that match - no?

Tignor did a great article on some other Legend vs. Number 1 player matches here: http://tennisworld.typepad.com/thewrap/2007/11/deep-tennis-the.html

Here's a quick higlight:

1941: Tilden, 48 and 10 years past his prime, plays 25-year-old Don Budge, who had won the Grand Slam two years earlier, in a 58-match tour. Tilden loses 51, but wins seven.

1957: Budge, 41, beats the No. 1 pro in the world, Pancho Gonzalez, 29, in straights in L.A.

1971: Gonzalez, 43, beats 19-year-old Jimmy Connors in three sets, also in L.A.

1989: Connors, 36, beats Sergi Bruguera, a future French Open champion, in Germany

2000: Bruguera, 29, rolls an 18-year-old Federer 6-1, 6-1

So the only thing we can really learn about history here is even the best can lose a match or two to an aging master. I don't think we can draw too much of a conclusion or parallel between Newk vs. Borg and Fed vs. Pete, other to say that other than to say Sampras can still serve hard. I also don't think that the Fed/Borg comparison is acurate as I wouldn't call Fed as much as of a baseline as Borg.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

rolex watch? that says it all.

The insecurity logic is the most valid one.

 

[BreakPoint]

what about this logic:

Some people become insecure if Federer loses
Federer lost, some people became insecure.

Or this:

Some people become insecure if Federer loses

When Federer loses, people start making all kinds of excuses.

Sometimes I think half the people posting here are really Serena Williams. :shock:

 

[BreakPoint]

Federer lost to Roddick last year in an exhibition in Australia, and the same talk was going around. Hopefully it will al die down, because I am getting a lil tired of the whole topic of Sampras vs Federer.

Do you seriously think Federer respects Roddick as much as he does Sampras? Have you ever heard Federer claim that Roddick is his "idol"?

Federer has way too much respect for Sampras not to try his best. OTOH, he has little respect for Roddick so he made their exhibition matches into serve and volley practice for himself, thereby denying Roddick of a proper win. It's only when you don't respect your opponent that you do things in a match that you would never do against someone you actually respect. It's like when I play a 3.0 player, I would do things that I would never do against a 5.0 player because I know how much harder it would be to beat the 5.0 player.

 

[AndrewD]

The Federer vs. Sampras match is very similar to Borg vs. Newcombe.

Old man Newcombe was able to beat the young upstart Bjorn Borg.
Both Borg and Federer were 5 time Wimbledon winners and both were the most dominant players of their day.

If you're talking about the matches Newcombe and Borg played in 1974, when Borg was 18 years old (not a 5 time winner of Wimbledon) and Newcombe was only 30, still active on the tour, coming off a year when he won 9 titles and would go on to win one more major then there's absolutely no comparison to a player in their absolute peak (Federer) playing someone who has been off the tour for 6 years (Sampras). That year, Connors was the most dominant player and Newcombe was the #2. If you're talking about their match in 1978, Newcombe was still playing on tour so still match tough but would have been man enough and sane enough to admit that he only won because Borg was injured (default after losing the first set 6-0). All of the matches were on the main tour - not exhibitions.

Nah mate, absolutely no comparison at all.

 

[ksbh]

It's gotta be said ... The *******s are the easiest to wind up!

No wonder, these kind of threads spring up often. Good entertainment though!

Or this:

Some people become insecure if Federer loses

When Federer loses, people start making all kinds of excuses.

Sometimes I think half the people posting here are really Serena Williams. :shock:

 

[timeisonmyside]

Back when I started to hear about the Federer - Sampras thing, I predicted Federer was going to let Sampras win. Back then, I didn't know it was 3 exhibitions instead of 1. Had I known, I would have predicted, exactly, what happened (yes, I know...). I'm sure Federer played hard, but not his best. I'm sure he could have won the the last match, too.

I agree with you Ripper. The fact that Sampras won the last one fuels the speculation that he may still be able to compete on the tour. It also leaves a good cliffhanger in the event that they want to do another exhibition.

I actually watched the first and third matches in their entirety. Federer was not playing his hardest (or even that hard for that matter). Anytime Sampras approached the net, Fed would hit the return right to him and not go for a pass. Sampras didn't help the matter by making so many unforced errors, especially in the first match. These weren't errors going for winners, they were errors on routine backhand slice rally shots.

Sampras is one of my favorite players of all time, but to me it's clear from the exhibitions that his time is past. I'll be content to watching him in on DVD in the classic matches.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

It cant get much better than this for Sampras, beating Fed at the peak of his powers. Not only is Fed in his prime, but he was in his best possible form ever, having just dominated the masters cup. No one in his last 4 matches at the masters cup could take more than 7 games off him in a match, including the 3 set final. The he rests up a bit and gets primed for Sampras. Then Sampras comes and shows Fed a whole different level to his shanghai opponents.

First match Sampras played just as well as any Fed Shanghai opponent, then from there he just went up a level and put on a serve and volley masterclass to stun Federer.

This will be talked about for decades.

 

[catspaw]

hmmmm....you must be taking logic 101. Because its untrue. Lets follow your logic.

Federgoats logic is:

1. All exhibitions are fixed
2, The federer vs. Sampras matches were exhibitions
3. Therefore the Federer sampras matches were fixed.

In order to defeat that logical formula all I need to prove is that #1 is wrong.

Everyone would agree that the Newcombe vs. Borg matches were NOT fixed and therefore Federgoats logical argument fails. Since not all exhibitions are fixed there is a fallacy in the argument.

But you can't prove #1 is wrong by using the Newcombe/Borg example because you are making an assumption for these matches that, though the results might imply a non-fix (and I agree that they do), they are just that, an implication. Only Newcombe and Borg can give the yay or nay on that one, not you or any one of us. Plus, it was aeons ago - times and priorities have changed, and it's arguably irrelevant to the present argument.

Conversely, of course, the reverse is true - it can't be proved that all exhibitions are fixed, so it's all a bit of a non-starter, really. No premise is valid unless it's irrefutable, and any conclusion drawn from them (#3 in this case) doesn't hold water. Doesn't mean it's not the case (either way), but it can't be proved or disproved.......

.......the upshot of all this being that we just don't know, and I so wish this subject would be dropped. :|

 

[Federer's pet goat Leanne]

who the **** cares? they're different players

 

[flyer]

It cant get much better than this for Sampras, beating Fed at the peak of his powers. Not only is Fed in his prime, but he was in his best possible form ever, having just dominated the masters cup. No one in his last 4 matches at the masters cup could take more than 7 games off him in a match, including the 3 set final. The he rests up a bit and gets primed for Sampras. Then Sampras comes and shows Fed a whole different level to his shanghai opponents.

First match Sampras played just as well as any Fed Shanghai opponent, then from there he just went up a level and put on a serve and volley masterclass to stun Federer.

This will be talked about for decades.

The fact Sampras beating Federer is even a discussion is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the matches are fixed, I'm saying that Federer just didn't care. Lets not forget Roddick also beat Federer in an exabition a week before the Aussie Open...we all know how that turned out. If Federer didn't care about embarrasing his idle, whcih he did obviously, he would have won all those sets in the 6-2/6-1 range. I don't know if your in a dream world or if you have just had too much Kool-Aid to drink today to suggest that Sampras for one, acctually beat Fed, and second that he is any where close to the Masters Cup Field, ok I get it Sampras is your god, but if he was really good enough to legitimatley beat Federer he would still be playing and in the top ten, hes not and he never will be, its called aging it happens to everyone. The series of exibitions was just purly fun and entertainment from two era's best players, don't make the mistake of taking it at more than face value.

 

[catspaw]

The fact Sampras beating Federer is even a discussion is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the matches are fixed, I'm saying that Federer just didn't care. Lets not forget Roddick also beat Federer in an exabition a week before the Aussie Open...we all know how that turned out. If Federer didn't care about embarrasing his idle, whcih he did obviously, he would have won all those sets in the 6-2/6-1 range. I don't know if your in a dream world or if you have just had too much Kool-Aid to drink today to suggest that Sampras for one, acctually beat Fed, and second that he is any where close to the Masters Cup Field, ok I get it Sampras is your god, but if he was really good enough to legitimatley beat Federer he would still be playing and in the top ten, hes not and he never will be, its called aging it happens to everyone. The series of exibitions was just purly fun and entertainment from two era's best players, don't make the mistake of taking it at more than face value.

What you said. If Federer cared about losing face, or making a twit of himself, or felt that a loss would threaten his so-called legacy, he wouldn't have done these exos in the first place, let alone be the one to suggest them. I get the impression that, win or lose, he just wanted to play Pete for the sheer pleasure and thrill of it....you know, the idol thing. I'm sure he'd like to play Edberg and Becker for the same reason (though I guess they really are a bit past it...).

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed hit 14 aces in game 3 ,his average ace count for 2 sets of tennis this year is only almost 7. Fed really turned up the heat for these matches!

 

[flyer]

Fed hit 14 aces in game 3 ,his average ace count for 2 sets of tennis this year is only almost 7. Fed really turned up the heat for these matches!

I really hope your just joking, just cause Sampras couldn't get a racket on Fed's serve doesn't mean a Nadal, Ferrer, Djokovic, etc. couldn't. Your letting your obsession fog the reallity, please just stop, your making yourself look bad.

 

[JRstriker12]

Fed hit 14 aces in game 3 ,his average ace count for 2 sets of tennis this year is only almost 7. Fed really turned up the heat for these matches!

Or Sampras is a step slow on returns... which he was.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

BreakPoint

Do you seriously think Federer respects Roddick as much as he does Sampras? Have you ever heard Federer claim that Roddick is his "idol"?

Federer has way too much respect for Sampras not to try his best. OTOH, he has little respect for Roddick so he made their exhibition matches into serve and volley practice for himself, thereby denying Roddick of a proper win. It's only when you don't respect your opponent that you do things in a match that you would never do against someone you actually respect. It's like when I play a 3.0 player, I would do things that I would never do against a 5.0 player because I know how much harder it would be to beat the 5.0 player.

Over the past 2 weeks, you have given a lot in backing up your argument that Sampras “defeated” Federer. I have said before that a couple of exhibitions don’t prove much, just a great promotion for the game. I would be a little disappointed in anyone who claims Roddick is their idol, but to each his own. :?

Federer might have way to much respect for Sampras to not try his best, but if you believe that Federer at his best, would still lose to Sampras. Then I can’t change you or anyone else’s mind, but let’s just be realistic about it.

 

[catspaw]

Over the past 2 weeks, you have given a lot in backing up your argument that Sampras “defeated” Federer. I have said before that a couple of exhibitions don’t prove much, just a great promotion for the game. I would be a little disappointed in anyone who claims Roddick is their idol, but to each his own. :?

Federer might have way to much respect for Sampras to not try his best, but if you believe that Federer at his best, would still lose to Sampras. Then I can’t change you or anyone else’s mind, but let’s just be realistic about it.

Agreed. One could also argue that he has "way too much respect" to want to demolish him..... which I think he could have done if he'd had a mind to (just IMHO, of course).

 

[whistleway]

There are quite a bunch of fools who think that Sampras at 2007 can beat Federer, when he lost to baby-Fed in 2001 as a Wimby defending champion riding on a streak of 30 or so wins.

haha.. Agassi said it best when he mentioned, it is gonna be as close as Roger wants it to be. And I guess we all now know the answer to that.

 

[BreakPoint]

haha.. Agassi said it best when he mentioned, it is gonna be as close as Roger wants it to be. And I guess we all now know the answer to that.

Agassi is just still sore at Sampras for all the times Pete spanked him at the US Open and at Wimbledon. Can you imagine how many Grand Slams Agassi would have if he never had to play Sampras? Sounds to me he just wanted to take a dig at Sampras and knock him down a notch.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Agassi is just still sore at Sampras for all the times Pete spanked him at the US Open and at Wimbledon. Can you imagine how many Grand Slams Agassi would have if he never had to play Sampras? Sounds to me he just wanted to take a dig at Sampras and knock him down a notch.

Something similar to what Sampras is trying to do to Federer; weak era..etc.

 

[FedForGOAT]

Fed hit 14 aces in game 3 ,his average ace count for 2 sets of tennis this year is only almost 7. Fed really turned up the heat for these matches!

That's because of Sampras' return. whenever Fed served out wide Sampras wasn't quick enough to get it so he got aced a lot. numbers by themselves do not mean anything.

 

[FedForGOAT]

Well, actually I feel that FedForgoats logic is:
1. You cant read too much into exhibitions
2. Exhibitions are not a true reflection of either players' abilities
3. Its just an EXHIBITION

That is very different from exhibitions being fixed, did he say they were fixed? I only see you saying that FedForgoat said it was fixed.

thanks for interpreting my post and spelling my username correctly (unlike some others). Hope is not lost for this forum!

I'm sorry, I don't want to come off as the sarcastic guy, but it bugs me so much when people try putting words in my mouth.
anyways, thanks again.

 

[JRstriker12]

Agassi is just still sore at Sampras for all the times Pete spanked him at the US Open and at Wimbledon. Can you imagine how many Grand Slams Agassi would have if he never had to play Sampras? Sounds to me he just wanted to take a dig at Sampras and knock him down a notch.

Agassi needed to take a dig at Pete? Whatever. Why would he need to do that?

I think Agassi would admit that he wasted a lot of his time and talent. I think Agassi would have won a few more grand slams if he was a more focused player - but he wasn't.

Truth is, you can't take too much away from an exhibition, which was more about creating and competitive game for the crowd to enjoy than playing all out.

 

[Gut Reaction]

But you can't prove #1 is wrong by using the Newcombe/Borg example because you are making an assumption for these matches that, though the results might imply a non-fix (and I agree that they do), they are just that, an implication.

Why on earth would Borg have lost to Newcombe three times? Borg was simply beaten. In fact you agree that match was not fixed either. In fact is there anyone on this board that believes the Newcombe Borg matches were fixed?

 

[catspaw]

Why on earth would Borg have lost to Newcombe three times? Borg was simply beaten. In fact you agree that match was not fixed either. In fact is there anyone on this board that believes the Newcombe Borg matches were fixed?

I've no idea why Borg lost to Newcombe 3 times. That's the whole point - nobody does except Borg and, perhaps, Newcombe. Perhaps it didn't go according to plan, perhaps it was the plan, perhaps he had toothache, perhaps he couldn't be arsed. And I didn't agree that it wasn't fixed, just that the results suggest it wasn't. But, because we can't definitively know, this example doesn't disprove the notion that all exhibitions are fixed. People have been using logic formats here to draw what they consider to be irrefutable arguments based on premises that are not in themselves irrefutable - can't be done; "belief" on its own is not enough (and the pedant in me felt compelled to point that out - forgive me).

 

[BreakPoint]

I've no idea why Borg lost to Newcombe 3 times. That's the whole point - nobody does except Borg and, perhaps, Newcombe. Perhaps it didn't go according to plan, perhaps it was the plan, perhaps he had toothache, perhaps he couldn't be arsed. And I didn't agree that it wasn't fixed, just that the results suggest it wasn't. But, because we can't definitively know, this example doesn't disprove the notion that all exhibitions are fixed. People have been using logic formats here to draw what they consider to be irrefutable arguments based on premises that are not in themselves irrefutable - can't be done; "belief" on its own is not enough (and the pedant in me felt compelled to point that out - forgive me).

Did you guys consider the possibility that maybe Newcombe just beat Borg fair and square? That Newcombe was just better than Borg, at least in those 3 matches? Borg always had trouble with serve and volleyers. In fact, that was really the only way to beat him since very few people could ever beat him from the baseline. Some guy named John McEnroe used to also give Borg lots of problems. In fact, Borg quit pro tennis because he couldn't beat McEnroe. Borg also only lost twice at the French Open during his entire career - both times to the same guy - Adriano Panatta, a serve and volleyer. Oh, and yes, Newcombe was a very good serve and volleyer.

This is why some believe Sampras could beat Federer even though Federer is almost unbeatable by all the baseliners. Just because someone can destroy almost all the baseliners does not mean that they will also destroy a great serve and volleyer. I think the Newcombe/Borg matches were great evidence of that.

 

[Gut Reaction]

Did you guys consider the possibility that maybe Newcombe just beat Borg fair and square? That Newcombe was just better than Borg, at least in those 3 matches? Borg always had trouble with serve and volleyers. In fact, that was really the only way to beat him since very few people could ever beat him from the baseline. Some guy named John McEnroe used to also give Borg lots of problems. In fact, Borg quit pro tennis because he couldn't beat McEnroe. Borg also only lost twice at the French Open during his entire career - both times to the same guy - Adriano Panatta, a serve and volleyer. Oh, and yes, Newcombe was a very good serve and volleyer.

This is why some believe Sampras could beat Federer even though Federer is almost unbeatable by all the baseliners. Just because someone can destroy almost all the baseliners does not mean that they will also destroy a great serve and volleyer. I think the Newcombe/Borg matches were great evidence of that.

Newcombe was better than borg......on grass! People are going to shoot me in the head , but the truth is that prior to Mcenroe,.... Borg did not have any great serve and vollyers to play at Wimbledon. Newcombe was a very high caliber serve and volleyer. Something that Borg had not faced. In fact later when he was forced to face that type of player (John Mcenroe)....he coincdentally quit tennis at the ripe old age of 25!

By the analogy, Roger Federer has yet to face any great serve and volleyers like Sampras. The court at Macao was the fastest of all three courts. Its been a long time since Federer had to face a serve and volley game as big as Petes.

Both Borg and Federer were force to play a style that was pretty much non-existant during their day.

 

[Gut Reaction]

Fed hit 14 aces in game 3 ,his average ace count for 2 sets of tennis this year is only almost 7. Fed really turned up the heat for these matches!

great point!

 

[pow]

Federer also lost to Roddick in an exhibition... enough said.

 

[FedForGOAT]

great point!

I already answered that point:

That's because of Sampras' return. whenever Fed served out wide Sampras wasn't quick enough to get it so he got aced a lot. numbers by themselves do not mean anything.

 

[BreakPoint]

Federer also lost to Roddick in an exhibition... enough said.

You mean Federer's serve and volley practice session that they sold tickets for people to see? Because that's what his exhibition vs. Roddick was. Against Sampras, he played his normal game and hardly served and volleyed at all. Apparently, Federer took his matches against Sampras much more seriously than his exhibition matches against Roddick.

 

[Gut Reaction]

You mean Federer's serve and volley practice session that they sold tickets for people to see? Because that's what his exhibition vs. Roddick was. Against Sampras, he played his normal game and hardly served and volleyed at all. Apparently, Federer took his matches against Sampras much more seriously than his exhibition matches against Roddick.

and lets not forget that Roddick beat Federer in the masters in Canada on exactly the same type of hardcourt that he played on in his exhibition match.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

The Roddick exhibition was a couple of days before the grand slam and the purpose of them is to warm up a bit for the main event that started a few days later.

After the loss Federer said "you can't expect to peak like crazy yet"

For the Sampras games, the matches themselves were the main event and once in a lifetime events that Fed himself thought of. There was no Grand slam a few days later , he just had to continue his perfect form from a few days earlier. Thats the reason FED HIMSELF scheduled the events on those dates. And Fed was already "peaking like crazy" as he had just thrashed everyone at the masters cup with no one taking more than 7 games in his last 4 matches-they were all quick matchs too. The Sampras matches bagan 2 days later, so he was in perfect form and in match mode and just had to continue the routine he was in.

After the Sampras matches Fed said he pushed as hard as he could, and that he had to bring his best because Sampras was serving incredibly etc. HE didnt give any excuses about not expecting to be peaking like crazy because he knew he was peaking like crazy, and thats why he scheduled the events on these dates, so he would be peaking like crazy v Sampras.

You mean Federer's serve and volley practice session that they sold tickets for people to see? Because that's what his exhibition vs. Roddick was. Against Sampras, he played his normal game and hardly served and volleyed at all. Apparently, Federer took his matches against Sampras much more seriously than his exhibition matches against Roddick.

 

[A.J. Sim]

I agree with much of what Gut Reaction posted; look at Borg-McEnroe, Navratilova-Evert, and Sampras-Agassi. The serve and volleyer came out on top for most of those finals. Borg even had trouble with Roscoe Tanner, who is not in the same class as McEnroe. The point is that a good serve and volleyer can usually beat a good baseliner (the reverse of what Bill Tilden use to say) because a s&v is attacking and pressing while the baseliner, no matter how good is forced to react and defend. Federer struggled in the last match w/Sampras because there are few if any s/v on the tour and he had to play against a style he was not familiar with. Federer can beat any of the baseliners, but I wish he could face a dominant s/v other than a 36 year old Sampras.

 

[Serve and Volley]

You mean Federer's serve and volley practice session that they sold tickets for people to see? Because that's what his exhibition vs. Roddick was. Against Sampras, he played his normal game and hardly served and volleyed at all. Apparently, Federer took his matches against Sampras much more seriously than his exhibition matches against Roddick.

OMG!!! I actually agree with BP.......this is a sign! Armeggedon is here!