Hypothetical Matchup: Sampras vs Federer

[cc0509]

Federer barely squeaked a win against Sampras, while Sampras had multiple breakpoints that he didn't convert. So, saying Federer was very comfortable against Sampras is just strange.

A win is a win. Federer won the last point, that is all that matters. It is not strange to say Federer was comfortable. He was a 19 year old kid playing on W Centre Court for the first time vs the then Wimbledon King. He did pretty well. It would have been a pretty good rivalry on grass and hc if both players played each other in their primes.

 

[tennis_pro]

1999-2001 or 2002 Agassi, and 92- 95 Agassi.

Certainly not the one that wasn't winning any tourneys across all surfaces like the younger Agassi was.

Since Sampras wasn't doing a lot of winning after 1998 I'm not sure how he had to "consistently deal with Agassi". Federer has faced Djokovic (who you don't consider a part of Federer's generation at all) more often in Slams than Sampras had to face Agassi AND also in a 13-year Span.

Between 1993 Wimbledon and 1999 Wimbledon they played exactly TWICE (TWICE!) in Slams - both on hard courts in 1995 with Agassi winning in Australia and Sampras the US Open.

Sampras just wasn't good enough to dominate the field like Federer, period. And he wasn't good enough to dominate because FEDERER WAS BETTER. Don't even bring me tough competition. Wanna hear the names who beat Sampras in his prime years in non-clay Slams? I cut out clay on purpose so that you're not totally humiliated here:

1993 - Edberg in AO (Edberg's last decent Slam showing). Lost in straight sets
1994 US Open - Yzaga. Yzaga who?
1995 AO - Agassi
1996 AO - teenage Philippoussis. The same you laugh at cause Federer took on him in one of his Wimbledon finals. Well a teenage Scud owned peak Sampras in straight sets in a hard court Slam, thank you very much.
1996 Wimbledon - Krajicek. The Thomas Berdych of the 90's owned prime Sampras in straight sets in his backyard.
1997 US Open - Kodra
1998 AO - Kucera. Kucera who?
1998 US - Rafter

I guess Sampras was so humbled that he decided to skip both HC Slams in 1999.

Anyway, I don't see no "big names stopping Sampras from GS glory in his prime days". What was the problem?

Also, for comparison. Federer and Nadal played almost as many matches in Slams in 2005-early 2009 as Sampras and Agassi in Slams.

You wanna compare Sampras' stats to Federer in 2003-2010, anyway? Or is it enough humiliation in one thread for you?

 

[90's Clay]

Since Sampras wasn't doing a lot of winning after 1998 I'm not sure how he had to "consistently deal with Agassi". Federer has faced Djokovic (who you don't consider a part of Federer's generation at all) more often in Slams than Sampras had to face Agassi AND also in a 13-year Span.

Between 1993 Wimbledon and 1999 Wimbledon they played exactly TWICE (TWICE!) in Slams - both on hard courts in 1995 with Agassi winning in Australia and Sampras the US Open.

Sampras just wasn't good enough to dominate the field like Federer, period. And he wasn't good enough to dominate because FEDERER WAS BETTER. Don't even bring me tough competition. Wanna hear the names who beat Sampras in his prime years in non-clay Slams? I cut out clay on purpose so that you're not totally humiliated here:

1993 - Edberg in AO (Edberg's last decent Slam showing). Lost in straight sets
1994 US Open - Yzaga. Yzaga who?
1995 AO - Agassi
1996 AO - teenage Philippoussis. The same you laugh at cause Federer took on him in one of his Wimbledon finals. Well a teenage Scud owned peak Sampras in straight sets in a hard court Slam, thank you very much.
1996 Wimbledon - Krajicek. The Thomas Berdych of the 90's owned prime Sampras in straight sets in his backyard.
1997 US Open - Kodra
1998 AO - Kucera. Kucera who?
1998 US - Rafter

I guess Sampras was so humbled that he decided to skip both HC Slams in 1999.

Anyway, I don't see no "big names stopping Sampras from GS glory in his prime days". What was the problem?

Also, for comparison. Federer and Nadal played almost as many matches in Slams in 2005-early 2009 as Sampras and Agassi in Slams.

You wanna compare Sampras' stats to Federer in 2003-2010, anyway? Or is it enough humiliation in one thread for you?

Sampras wasn't doing alot of winning after 1998? Did you see his level in 1999? maybe the BEST of his career turing the time he wasn't injured. Won Wimbledon in 2000, and USO in 2002. If you are arguing Sampras wasn't doing a lot of winning after '98, Fed hasn't been doing a lot of winning since 2009 or so.

And your hero Federer isn't even good enough to beat his main career rival at a slams

And to sift through this nonsense

1993 - Edberg in AO (Edberg's last decent Slam showing). Lost in straight sets (Edberg was ranged #2 in the world in '93. Still awesome at the USO Still a better player than Roddick. Wayy better and far greater as was older Becker.


1994 US Open - Yzaga. Yzaga who? (Pete was injured in this match. You of course FAILED to mention this)

1995 AO - Agassi (losing to perhaps the greatest ever at his peak at AO is a bad loss?) your hero is 0-3 vs. Nadal there. ROFLMAO
1996 AO - teenage Philippoussis. The same you laugh at cause Federer took on him in one of his Wimbledon finals. Well a teenage Scud owned peak Sampras in straight sets in a hard court Slam, thank you very much. Bad loss for sure for Pete. Im not arguing that.
1996 Wimbledon - Krajicek. The Thomas Berdych of the 90's owned prime Sampras in straight sets in his backyard. (And Fed has lost to Berdych as well at BOTH wimbledon and the USO. Krajicek like Berdych can get hot in a match and down anyone
1997 US Open - Kodra (Korda was juicing most likely as he was caught the year after and the dude was actually a solid player)
1998 AO - Kucera. Kucera who? (Bad loss, but Fed has had some bad losses at slams too. Stakhovsky ring a bell? Huh? )
1998 US - Rafter (Isn't Fed like 0-3 vs. this guy? Pete was also injured in this match as well. And Rafter is a better player at the USO at his peak than MOST guys Fed has played there at their respective Peaks. Losing to Rafter isn't a bad loss, especially when you're injured on hard courts


Don't come at me with this "Pete wasn't good enough to dominate the field" when Fed wasn't even good enough to beat his main rival at a slam and with a PATHETIC 10-23 h2h. Clownage of EPIC proportions. BWAHAHAHAH

 

[mike danny]

Look at all the Fedantics getting defensive in this thread. As they always do when Pete's name is brought up. They're like a pack of hyenas


If you truly Feel Fed is the greatest things since slice bread. The greatest ever on every surface supposedly, you wouldn't act so INSECURE and defensive when competition is brought up, Pete's name is brought up, Nadal's domination for a decade is brought up etc.


I still find it extremely ironic they have the cajones to bring up PEte's competition, as if 2004-2007 (When Fed accumulated the majority of his title counts) was the golden age of men's tennis or something:lol::lol::lol:

I forgot Gonzales, Baghaditis, SHow up once every HALF a decade Safin, NEVER show up doughnuts boy Nalbandian, Washed up Hewitt, Not so talented Roddick who can't even volley, Broke Back Retirement home SLOW Agassi who was 11 years older than Federer at the time, Ljubicic, Chicken Pox Ferrero, Coria etc. is the true GOLDEN AGE of men's tennis right?

First of all Hewitt was not washed up. Without Federer he would have reached 3 slam finals in 2005, just like Djokovic in 2013. Don't make me repeat this forever. He finished 2005 in the top 4 and only Federer stopped him from reachin 3 slam finals in 2005.

Also, yes, i would gladly like Federer to face a MIA Agassi, a wahsed up Courier and a mentally weak Goran over Nadal anyday of the week. During 1996-1998 his only concerns would have been 2 hot players: Krajicek at W 1996 and Rafter at USO 1997 and 1998.

1996-1998 was weaker than 2004-2007, yet Sampras still could not rack up the slams. He won only 4. Put Federer in that period of time and he win at least 7 or 8 slams. Because there literally was no great player in that 3 year period.

Also i was only talking about their W competition an you now come and talk about the entire competition at all the slams. You are the one who is insecure.

 

[mike danny]

Sampras wasn't doing alot of winning after 1998? Did you see his level in 1999? maybe the BEST of his career turing the time he wasn't injured. Won Wimbledon in 2000, and USO in 2002. If you are arguing Sampras wasn't doing a lot of winning after '98, Fed hasn't been doing a lot of winning since 2009 or so.

And your hero Federer isn't even good enough to beat his main career rival at a slams

And to sift through this nonsense

1993 - Edberg in AO (Edberg's last decent Slam showing). Lost in straight sets (Edberg was ranged #2 in the world in '93. Still awesome at the USO Still a better player than Roddick. Wayy better and far greater as was older Becker.


1994 US Open - Yzaga. Yzaga who? (Pete was injured in this match. You of course FAILED to mention this)

1995 AO - Agassi (losing to perhaps the greatest ever at his peak at AO is a bad loss?) your hero is 0-3 vs. Nadal there. ROFLMAO
1996 AO - teenage Philippoussis. The same you laugh at cause Federer took on him in one of his Wimbledon finals. Well a teenage Scud owned peak Sampras in straight sets in a hard court Slam, thank you very much. Bad loss for sure for Pete. Im not arguing that.
1996 Wimbledon - Krajicek. The Thomas Berdych of the 90's owned prime Sampras in straight sets in his backyard. (And Fed has lost to Berdych as well at BOTH wimbledon and the USO. Krajicek like Berdych can get hot in a match and down anyone
1997 US Open - Kodra (Korda was juicing most likely as he was caught the year after and the dude was actually a solid player)
1998 AO - Kucera. Kucera who? (Bad loss, but Fed has had some bad losses at slams too. Stakhovsky ring a bell? Huh? )
1998 US - Rafter (Isn't Fed like 0-3 vs. this guy? Pete was also injured in this match as well. And Rafter is a better player at the USO at his peak than MOST guys Fed has played there at their respective Peaks. Losing to Rafter isn't a bad loss, especially when you're injured on hard courts


Don't come at me with this "Pete wasn't good enough to dominate the field" when Fed wasn't even good enough to beat his main rival at a slam and with a PATHETIC 10-23 h2h. Clownage of EPIC proportions. BWAHAHAHAH

He did not lose right in the middle of his prime to Berdych.

 

[mike danny]

Sampras wasn't doing alot of winning after 1998? Did you see his level in 1999? maybe the BEST of his career turing the time he wasn't injured. Won Wimbledon in 2000, and USO in 2002. If you are arguing Sampras wasn't doing a lot of winning after '98, Fed hasn't been doing a lot of winning since 2009 or so.

And your hero Federer isn't even good enough to beat his main career rival at a slams

And to sift through this nonsense

1993 - Edberg in AO (Edberg's last decent Slam showing). Lost in straight sets (Edberg was ranged #2 in the world in '93. Still awesome at the USO Still a better player than Roddick. Wayy better and far greater as was older Becker.


1994 US Open - Yzaga. Yzaga who? (Pete was injured in this match. You of course FAILED to mention this)

1995 AO - Agassi (losing to perhaps the greatest ever at his peak at AO is a bad loss?) your hero is 0-3 vs. Nadal there. ROFLMAO
1996 AO - teenage Philippoussis. The same you laugh at cause Federer took on him in one of his Wimbledon finals. Well a teenage Scud owned peak Sampras in straight sets in a hard court Slam, thank you very much. Bad loss for sure for Pete. Im not arguing that.
1996 Wimbledon - Krajicek. The Thomas Berdych of the 90's owned prime Sampras in straight sets in his backyard. (And Fed has lost to Berdych as well at BOTH wimbledon and the USO. Krajicek like Berdych can get hot in a match and down anyone
1997 US Open - Kodra (Korda was juicing most likely as he was caught the year after and the dude was actually a solid player)
1998 AO - Kucera. Kucera who? (Bad loss, but Fed has had some bad losses at slams too. Stakhovsky ring a bell? Huh? )
1998 US - Rafter (Isn't Fed like 0-3 vs. this guy? Pete was also injured in this match as well. And Rafter is a better player at the USO at his peak than MOST guys Fed has played there at their respective Peaks. Losing to Rafter isn't a bad loss, especially when you're injured on hard courts


Don't come at me with this "Pete wasn't good enough to dominate the field" when Fed wasn't even good enough to beat his main rival at a slam and with a PATHETIC 10-23 h2h. Clownage of EPIC proportions. BWAHAHAHAH

Don't even compare the Kucera loss with the Stakhovski one. Fed did not have a bad loss in slams in 2008 in his prime. The stakhovski loss took place in 2013 when Fed was nearing 32 and Sampras was retired at that age.

So what if he was 0-3 vs Rafter? It took Rafter to save MP in order to beat 19 year old Fed at Halle. Had they met a bit later Fed would have had him solved

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras wasn't doing alot of winning after 1998? Did you see his level in 1999? maybe the BEST of his career turing the time he wasn't injured. Won Wimbledon in 2000, and USO in 2002. If you are arguing Sampras wasn't doing a lot of winning after '98, Fed hasn't been doing a lot of winning since 2009 or so.

Sampras won exactly 8 titles since the beginning of 1999 (when he was 27) until the end of his career. Once again, to not humiliate Sampras completely let's compare him with Federer since the beginning of 2010. Federer has won 17 titles since then which is more than twice of what Sampras won despite Sampras having another year.

1999 - Sampras played great in patches. 3 tournaments stand out - Wimbledon, Cincinnati and the Masters Cup. That's cool. But he did nothing else in the entire season.

And your hero Federer isn't even good enough to beat his main career rival at a slams

I'm sure the clay God Sampras would do so much better against Nadal if every second match was played on clay. That's 0-5 in Slams to start with. If Pete bothered to go that far at the French that is.

And to sift through this nonsense
1993 - Edberg in AO (Edberg's last decent Slam showing). Lost in straight sets (Edberg was ranged #2 in the world in '93. Still awesome at the USO Still a better player than Roddick. Wayy better and far greater as was older Becker.

I thought that prime Sampras was better than that and could avoid getting straight setted by a player at the very end of his prime.

1994 US Open - (Pete was injured in this match. You of course FAILED to mention this)

Not my problem that Sampras was injured. If he wasn't fit in any tournament I guess all would be forgiven, right? If he bothered to play and even win 3 matches then he was fine.

1995 AO - Agassi (losing to perhaps the greatest ever at his peak at AO is a bad loss?) your hero is 0-3 vs. Nadal there. ROFLMAO

Since you're so eager to compare Sampras with Federer let's go year by year in AO's Nadal beat Federer - 2009, 2012, 2014.

Sampras:
1999 - didn't play
2002 - owned by Safin
2004 - long retired. I'm sure he'd find a way to get owned in the 1st round, though.

Owned indeed.

1996 AO - teenage Philippoussis. The same you laugh at cause Federer took on him in one of his Wimbledon finals. Well a teenage Scud owned peak Sampras in straight sets in a hard court Slam, thank you very much. Bad loss for sure for Pete. Im not arguing that.

If a teenage nobody beat prime Federer in a Slam I'm sure you'd bring it out every time. So...TOO BAD FOR PETE.

1996 Wimbledon - Krajicek. The Thomas Berdych of the 90's owned prime Sampras in straight sets in his backyard. (And Fed has lost to Berdych as well at BOTH wimbledon and the USO. Krajicek like Berdych can get hot in a match and down anyone

On the other hand prime Federer would never get owned in straight sets at Wimbledon. 2003-2009 he lost 1 single match, an epic against Nadal 9-7 in the 5th, a match he could've won, anyway.

1997 US Open - Kodra (Korda was juicing most likely as he was caught the year after and the dude was actually a solid player)

I watched the replay of the match and no juice would help Krajicek beat Sampras in those conditions. Kodra was hitting one-handed backhand passes like crazy, nothing Sampras could do. Other than lose of course since he didn't have an idea how to play other than serve and volley and had no plan B.

1998 AO - Kucera. Kucera who? (Bad loss, but Fed has had some bad losses at slams too. Stakhovsky ring a bell? Huh? )

Sampras was 26 years old. Federer nearly 32. Nice try.

1998 US - Rafter (Isn't Fed like 0-3 vs. this guy? Pete was also injured in this match as well. And Rafter is a better player at the USO at his peak than MOST guys Fed has played there at their respective Peaks. Losing to Rafter isn't a bad loss, especially when you're injured on hard courts

Yes, 17-19 year old Federer is 0-3 against someone on tour. Boo hoo.

Don't come at me with this "Pete wasn't good enough to dominate the field" when Fed wasn't even good enough to beat his main rival at a slam and with a PATHETIC 10-23 h2h. Clownage of EPIC proportions. BWAHAHAHAH

Mature comment. I expected nothing less since you're running out of arguments.

 

[eldanger25]

Career retrospective, Federer is better, but the matchup also favors Federer. He beat Sampras in his backyard playing attacking tennis. Using Nadal to compare with Roger is irrelevant because Nadal is worst matchup problem for Roger on slow, high bounce surface. The dynamic matchup is completely difference for Federer vs. Sampras, which Federer is very comfortable.

Was just making a point that arguing that Pete would lose to Roger because he lost to more journeymen over the course of his career was irrelevant - wasn't claiming the matchup was the same.

Let me ask you this: what do you think the outcome would've been at the 2004 and 2009 Wimbledon finals had Roddick had an ounce of Sampras or Nadal's mental toughness? Or even their 2006 and 2007 matches at the US Open? And Roddick didn't have half the weapons Pete had, and was completely demoralized by Fed in the mid-2000s (see: Agassi 1995, Courier 1993).

This concept that Roger just swallowed firepower in best of 5 matches as a matter of course doesn't ring true to me outside of AO and RG - sometimes, yes, but not every title run.

 

[eldanger25]

Sampras would lead 3-2 at W and it would be a toss-up at USO IMO.

Fed also had stones. Do you think it does not take stones to come back from 2 sets down in 2008 vs his biggest nemesis?

Pete would not pose the same match-up issues to Fed like Nadal. I can see Federer randomly winning 2 matches at W. Let's say he wins the first match, Pete wins 3 in a row afterwards and Fed wins the last meeting. The H2H would still be 3-2 Pete

I agree with a lot of this. Fed absolutely has stones, he's one of the mentally toughest I've ever seen - just those subtle differences b/w a Top 5 or 10 mental game and a Top 2 or 3 mental game. It's not enough on surfaces where Fed's matchup advantages would overwhelm Pete, but it's meaningful on grass/fast hard.

 

[90's Clay]

I agree with a lot of this. Fed absolutely has stones, he's one of the mentally toughest I've ever seen - just those subtle differences b/w a Top 5 or 10 mental game and a Top 2 or 3 mental game. It's not enough on surfaces where Fed's matchup advantages would overwhelm Pete, but it's meaningful on grass/fast hard.

Fed has been a JOKE of an all time great in terms of wins in the deciding sets (maybe the WORST ever? I would like to see the numbers. He has to be among the worst anyways in terms of winning the deciding 3rd or 5th set ) . And Nadal has also exposed Fed's mental frailty for the past decade. Where Fed has spent the last 6-7 years walking onto the court vs. Nadal and already with a defeatist attitude. Fed is one of the mentally weakest all time greats in history. Most of his wins have came from just beating down opponents and being a front runner. Not pressure matches. He runs through the guys he should beat ( I agree, hes probably the best ever at that) but when hes had to face the big dog that provide resistance and pressure is record is abysmal ESPECIALLY in the deciding sets

How can you say Fed is mentally tough? The guy can't even go blows on the big match with his main rival without self destructing mentally time and time again

Oh I forgot.. On this board Fed has no faults. Hes a perfect 10/10 player in all categories

 

[eldanger25]

I think as of about a year ago, Fed was 22-17 in fifth sets, 131st of all time. Pete was 33-15, 26th of all time.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Performance-Zone/Performance-5th-Set-Record-Career-List.aspx

 

[eldanger25]

Fed has been a JOKE of an all time great in terms of wins in the deciding sets (maybe the WORST ever? I would like to see the numbers. He has to be among the worst anyways in terms of winning the deciding 3rd or 5th set ) . And Nadal has also exposed Fed's mental frailty for the past decade. Where Fed has spent the last 6-7 years walking onto the court vs. Nadal and already with a defeatist attitude. Fed is one of the mentally weakest all time greats in history. Most of his wins have came from just beating down opponents and being a front runner. Not pressure matches. He runs through the guys he should beat ( I agree, hes probably the best ever at that) but when hes had to face the big dog that provide resistance and pressure is record is abysmal ESPECIALLY in the deciding sets

How can you say Fed is mentally tough?

Oh I forgot.. On this board Fed has no faults. Hes a perfect 10/10 player in all categories

Pete's tougher, but Fed's tough as well. There's a mental toughness in intimidating someone before they even step on court. And, he did show a lot in the 2008 Wimbledon final, as someone said, great play in high pressure moments.

No need to get worked up, I'm generally on your side.

 

[90's Clay]

If Fed had the mental toughness to match his talent against his top opposition , he should have something like 110-120 titles with close to 30 slams.

Fed is more pure talent and ability. More of a frontrunner that liked to steamroll the less talented opposition. I look at Fed like Lebron James. All the talent in the world but hates dealing with the pressure the big stage presents vs. the TOP dogs. Whereas I look at Sampras, Nadal etc. more like Jordan where their level RAISES on the big stage.

 

[cc0509]

If Fed had the mental toughness to match his talent against his top opposition , he should have something like 110-120 titles with close to 30 slams.

Fed is more pure talent and ability. More of a frontrunner that liked to steamroll the less talented opposition. I look at Fed like Lebron James. All the talent in the world but hates dealing with the pressure the big stage presents vs. the TOP dogs. Whereas I look at Sampras, Nadal etc. more like Jordan where their level RAISES on the big stage.

He doesn't hate dealing with the pressure the big stage brings. He has never run away from the challenge of meeting Nadal even though Nadal has the upper hand in the match-up. He could have been a sissy and run away from that but he never did. Also, how has he shied away from Murray or Djokovic? If anything he is still beating them in important matches even though he is five years + older. They both should be beating the pants off Federer all of the time, but they don't do they?

Enough with your bs already. No matter what you say and how much you b*tch about it, Federer has surpassed Sampras and is a tier above. That's life, deal with it already.

 

[90's Clay]

He doesn't hate dealing with the pressure the big stage brings. He has never run away from the challenge of meeting Nadal even though Nadal has the upper hand in the match-up. He could have been a sissy and run away from that but he never did. Also, how has he shied away from Murray or Djokovic? If anything he is still beating them in important matches even though he is five years + older. They both should be beating the pants off Federer all of the time, but they don't do they?

Enough with your bs already. No matter what you say and how much you b*tch about it, Federer has surpassed Sampras and is a tier above. That's life, deal with it already.

Never ran away from it huh? Tommy Robredo says hi. (Fed knew he didn't have a chance in hell of beating Nadal at Flushing, and knows Nadal would have completed the Federer slam at the USO, So Fed took his ball and went home before) Im sure it happened COUNTLESS other times too. Not like Fed will admit it however.

 

[sunny_cali]

Never ran away from it huh? Tommy Robredo says hi. Im sure it happened COUNTLESS other times too. Not like Fed will admit it however.

That explains why Sampras retired so early. He ran away from the first good competition he had :twisted:

 

[eldanger25]

He doesn't hate dealing with the pressure the big stage brings. He has never run away from the challenge of meeting Nadal even though Nadal has the upper hand in the match-up. He could have been a sissy and run away from that but he never did. Also, how has he shied away from Murray or Djokovic? If anything he is still beating them in important matches even though he is five years + older. They both should be beating the pants off Federer all of the time, but they don't do they?

What Federer did to Novak and Andy on the final weekend of Wimbledon 2012 is one of the most impressive moments of his career, in my opinion. Just took the children to school.

 

[90's Clay]

What Federer did to Novak and Andy on the final weekend of Wimbledon 2012 is one of the most impressive moments of his career, in my opinion. Just took the children to school.

With a closed Wimbledon roof? Yea.. Fed knows he can beat both of them on indoor grass since neither of them really have much of a game for faster indoor conditions

 

[cc0509]

Never ran away from it huh? Tommy Robredo says hi. Im sure it happened COUNTLESS other times too. Not like Fed will admit it however.

That is your comeback? That 32 year old Federer lost to Robredo. What does that have to do with Federer/Sampras or Federer running away from Nadal/Djokovic/Murray, something which he has never done, not even close.
And why aren't Djokovic and Murray beating old man Fed all of the time? They should be, just like Federer beat old man Sampras or Hewitt beat old man Sampras. When Sampras started to lose left and right he quit but has Federer quit yet?

 

[90's Clay]

That is your comeback? That 32 year old Federer lost to Robredo. What does that have to do with Federer/Sampras or Federer running away from Nadal/Djokovic/Murray, something which he has never done, not even close.
And why aren't Djokovic and Murray beating old man Fed all of the time? They should be, just like Federer beat old man Sampras or Hewitt beat old man Sampras. When Sampras started to lose left and right he quit but has Federer quit yet?

No that is the way it is. Fed doesn't lose to Robredo if someone else other than Nadal stands in his way? What was Fed's h2h vs. robredo prior to that Flushing Match?

Anyone with a brain would tell you Fed threw that match to avoid the "Nadal 4 slam sweep"

Like I said, Fed doesn't lose to a mug like Robredo at slams involuntarily who was a lifetime 0-3000 player in the h2h vs. Fed.

 

[sunny_cali]

No that is the way it is. Fed doesn't lose to Robredo if someone else other than Nadal stands in his way? What was Fed's h2h vs. robredo prior to that Flushing Match?

Anyone with a brain would tell you Fed threw that match to avoid the "Nadal 4 slam sweep"

Like I said, Fed doesn't lose to a mug like Robredo at slams involuntarily who was a lifetime 0-3000 player vs. Fed.

Why did Sampras lose to Yzaga and Krajicek or baby Fed in his prime ? Was he running away too from 0-miliion players ?

 

[cc0509]

No that is the way it is. Fed doesn't lose to Robredo if someone else other than Nadal stands in his way? What was Fed's h2h vs. robredo prior to that Flushing Match?

Anyone with a brain would tell you Fed threw that match to avoid the "Nadal 4 slam sweep"

Like I said, Fed doesn't lose to a mug like Robredo at slams involuntarily who was a lifetime 0-3000 player in the h2h vs. Fed.

He had a back issue and was suffering a confidence crisis just as Nadal is now. These things happen. I do not believe Federer threw that match, that is not the champion's mentality. Federer has never run away from Nadal although he probably should have.

Man your sour grapes are too funny.

 

[sunny_cali]

He had a back issue and was suffering a confidence crisis just as Nadal is now. These things happen. I do not believe Federer threw that match, that is not the champion's mentality. Federer has never run away from Nadal although he probably should have.

Man your sour grapes are too funny.

He is fomenting and frothing from the mouth.. All the pent-up rabid hatred.

Sad sorry troll.

 

[90's Clay]

Why did Sampras lose to Yzaga and Krajicek or baby Fed in his prime ? Was he running away too from 0-miliion players ?

He was injured vs. Yzaga. He destroyed Yzaga the following year at Flushing when he wasn't injured. . . And Kraijceck was red hot all tourney in '96.

Robredo did nothing special like Kraijcek did to beat Federer. Rich was ON FIRE all tournament long.

 

[mike danny]

With a closed Wimbledon roof? Yea.. Fed knows he can beat both of them on indoor grass since neither of them really have much of a game for faster indoor conditions

You just can't give credit to Federer at all, can you?

 

[cc0509]

He is fomenting and frothing from the mouth.. All the pent-up rabid hatred.

Sad sorry troll.

It is hard to believe some of these crazy fans. Meanwhile he has to realize no matter what he says 50 years from now, people are going to look at the slam record and weeks at number one and determine Federer > Sampras. They are not going to care about all of this petty stuff like whom Federer lost to at age 32. It is a done deal.

 

[90's Clay]

You just can't give credit to Federer at all, can you?

Credit to him Fed for beating Murray/Nole on indoors grass. But HUGE credit for beating these two indoors? No.

They aren't fast court aggressive players. They are slow court counter pushers. The aggressive player that goes for More (like Fed) SHOULD destroy those types of players indoors under a faster condition 9 times out of 10

 

[sunny_cali]

He was injured vs. Yzaga. He destroyed Yzaga the following year at Flushing when he wasn't injured. . . And Kraijceck was red hot all tourney in '96.

Robredo did nothing special like Kraijcek did to beat Federer. Rich was ON FIRE all tournament long.

bwhaaha.. Sampras lost to all manner of bums on his preferred surfaces and let's not even talk about clay. So, the moment someone is on fire Sampras gets his tail down ? What happened to all the fighting spirit, the unbreakable first serve ?

And what about the mighty Karol Kucera ? Weak troll is weak.

 

[cc0509]

Credit to him Fed for beating Murray/Nole on indoors grass. But HUGE credit for beating these two indoors? No.

They aren't fast court aggressive players. They are slow court counter pushers. The aggressive player that goes for More (like Fed) SHOULD destroy those types of players indoors under a faster condition 9 times out of 10

Djokovic and Murray should be beating Federer everywhere. They should not be losing to six years older grandpa Fed. Sorry but credit to Federer here.

 

[sunny_cali]

It is hard to believe some of these crazy fans. Meanwhile he has to realize no matter what he says 50 years from now, people are going to look at the slam record and weeks at number one and determine Federer > Sampras. They are not going to care about all of this petty stuff like whom Federer lost to at age 32. It is a done deal.

Pretty much. Both Federer and Nadal (not too far from now) have obliterated Sampras from the record books. And we have our resident P-ta-rds in perpetual denial. Its fun if it were not so sad really to watch them burn

 

[cc0509]

Pretty much. Both Federer and Nadal (not too far from now) have obliterated Sampras from the record books. And we have our resident P-ta-rds in perpetual denial. Its fun if it were not so sad really to watch them burn

I think that is coming. How funny will it be to watch the crazed Sampras fans in denial when that happens. :twisted:

At least I know that it is possible that Nadal could surpass Federer, I am not in denial.

 

[Chanwan]

No that is the way it is. Fed doesn't lose to Robredo if someone else other than Nadal stands in his way? What was Fed's h2h vs. robredo prior to that Flushing Match?

Anyone with a brain would tell you Fed threw that match to avoid the "Nadal 4 slam sweep"

Like I said, Fed doesn't lose to a mug like Robredo at slams involuntarily who was a lifetime 0-3000 player vs. Fed.

The Robredo loss was a strange loss. However, so was Stakhovsky. And his back wasn't right for Robredo.
What you - again - fail to mention is that both of these loses happened at a time in Fed's career, where Pete, in his respective career, was long retired.
Odd losses start happening at a certain point in time. They did to Pete too even though he didn't hang around as long

 

[mike danny]

What 90's clay totally ignores is that Sampras an Agassi met only 3 times in slams during Pete's prime years (1993-1998). When Agassi finally got his head straight in 1999, Pete was already at his 11th slam. Andre was not a part of Pete's competition for most of his slam wins.

The same in Fed's case with Djokovic. He was at his 11th slam the moment Djokovic became a top player and started challening the top dogs consistently (which happened at Montreal 2007).

You can't just ignore Djokovic against whom Fed played 34 matches, same as Agassi-Sampras. Might as well ignore Agassi since he was missing for a big chunk of Pete's prime years

 

[forehand fan]

Pretty much. Both Federer and Nadal (not too far from now) have obliterated Sampras from the record books. And we have our resident P-ta-rds in perpetual denial. Its fun if it were not so sad really to watch them burn

federer have surpassed sampras but not obliterated him.nadal is a long way off even to surpass sampras

 

[captainbryce]

IMO,

3-2 Federer at AO
4-1 Federer at RG
4-1 Sampras at Wimby
4-1 Sampras at USO

So, 11-9 for Pete.

Discuss.

4-1 Federer AO
5-0 Federer RG
3-2 Sampras WIM
3-2 Sampras USO

Federer 13
Sampras 7

Caveat: The Wimbledon results would largely depend on WHICH type of grass they were using that year. Pre-2002 Wimbledon, I'd give a bigger edge to Sampras (4-1) - making it possibly 12-8 in favor of Federer.

No way Sampras beats Federer at the French Open! In his entire career, Sampras only ever made the semifinals of the French one time, and he failed to advance past the 3rd round 9 times in 13 appearances. Federer has one the tournament before, made 4 finals, 2 semifinals, and 3 quarterfinals (losing 5 of those to the greatest claycourt player of all time). He's only failed to advance past the 3rd round 4 times in 15 appearances. Their respective records at the French Open isn't even close to being comparable. Andre Agassi's results in Paris (1 time Champion, 2-time finalist, 2-time semifinalist, 4 time quarterfinalist) was much more comparable to Federer's than Sampras.

 

[mightyrick]

IMO,

3-2 Federer at AO
4-1 Federer at RG
4-1 Sampras at Wimby
4-1 Sampras at USO

So, 11-9 for Pete.

Discuss.

4-1 Federer at AO
5-0 Federer at RG
5-0 Sampras at Wimbledon
4-1 Sampras at USO

10-10. Dead even heat.

 

[eldanger25]

What 90's clay totally ignores is that Sampras an Agassi met only 3 times in slams during Pete's prime years (1993-1998). When Agassi finally got his head straight in 1999, Pete was already at his 11th slam. Andre was not a part of Pete's competition for most of his slam wins.

That's true, but you have to acknowledge that Pete had something to do with that. That '95 US Open final contributed to Agassi disappearing for a few years there (just as the 1993 Wimbledon final chipped away at Courier's self-belief against Sampras).

Roger did this too: he famously took up residence in Roddick's head, and (in my opinion) intimidated Safin from putting in the work to be his true generational rival. Pete doing it to Andre is most impressive of all (besides what Mac did to Borg in 1981), but Roger did it too - those guys didn't slump/disappear in a vacuum.

 

[mike danny]

That's true, but you have to acknowledge that Pete had something to do with that. That '95 US Open final contributed to Agassi disappearing for a few years there (just as the 1993 Wimbledon final chipped away at Courier's self-belief against Sampras).

Roger did this too: he famously took up residence in Roddick's head, and (in my opinion) intimidated Safin from putting in the work to be his true generational rival. Pete doing it to Andre is most impressive of all (besides what Mac did to Borg in 1981), but Roger did it too - those guys didn't slump/disappear in a vacuum.

Don't forget he did to Hewitt as well before 2006 when injures completely finished him off.

The 2004 USO final was pure humiliation. It sure destroyed Hewitt's confidence vs Roger

 

[mike danny]

That's true, but you have to acknowledge that Pete had something to do with that. That '95 US Open final contributed to Agassi disappearing for a few years there (just as the 1993 Wimbledon final chipped away at Courier's self-belief against Sampras).

Roger did this too: he famously took up residence in Roddick's head, and (in my opinion) intimidated Safin from putting in the work to be his true generational rival. Pete doing it to Andre is most impressive of all (besides what Mac did to Borg in 1981), but Roger did it too - those guys didn't slump/disappear in a vacuum.

While I agree with what you are saying, this actually means Agassi was not a true rival.

Nadal did not dissappear after losing W 2007 to Roger.
Federer did not dissapear after all those slam losses to Nadal in 2008-2009.
Nadal did not dissappear after 3 cons slam losses vs Djokovic.

Nadal did more damage to Federer than Sampras did to Agassi, yet Federer did not go MIA like Agassi. So are you telling me that 1 slam loss, just ONE slam loss (USO 1995) made Agassi go MIA for 3 full years? What kind of rival is that?

You

 

[Chanwan]

That's true, but you have to acknowledge that Pete had something to do with that. That '95 US Open final contributed to Agassi disappearing for a few years there (just as the 1993 Wimbledon final chipped away at Courier's self-belief against Sampras).

Roger did this too: he famously took up residence in Roddick's head, and (in my opinion) intimidated Safin from putting in the work to be his true generational rival. Pete doing it to Andre is most impressive of all (besides what Mac did to Borg in 1981), but Roger did it too - those guys didn't slump/disappear in a vacuum.

Good points. Rivals don't disappear in a vacuum as you say. One of Fed's greatest accomplishments imo is that he made everyone believe he was unbeatable for a few years. He took away their belief completely.

As for the match-up, I don't think you've addressed it, but I tend to think Fed would have an easier time breaking Sampras than the other way around - simply because Fed's deals pretty well with big servers and has a vastly better return in general. Add to that that he would probably be 5-0 at the French and I have a hard time seeing him not coming out on top overall.
The grass we choose for the match is obviously important. One would tend to give each a significant advantage on the grass of their own era (even though young Fed beat Sampras on the grass of Sampras' era), Fed an advantage at the AO and the US could go to either man imo.

 

[eldanger25]

Don't forget he did to Hewitt as well before 2006 when injures completely finished him off.

The 2004 USO final was pure humiliation. It sure destroyed Hewitt's confidence vs Roger

Agreed - good example.

 

[mike danny]

Good points. Rivals don't disappear in a vacuum as you say. One of Fed's greatest accomplishments imo is that he made everyone believe he was unbeatable for a few years. He took away their belief completely.

As for the match-up, I don't think you've addressed it, but I tend to think Fed would have an easier time breaking Sampras than the other way around - simply because Fed's deals pretty well with big servers and has a vastly better return in general. Add to that that he would probably be 5-0 at the French and I have a hard time seeing him not coming out on top overall.
The grass we choose for the match is obviously important. One would tend to give each a significant advantage on the grass of their own era (even though young Fed beat Sampras on the grass of Sampras' era), Fed an advantage at the AO and the US could go to either man imo.

If you go MIA for 3 full years because of 1 slam loss, then you are not a worthy rival. Sorry this is just my opinion

 

[eldanger25]

Good points. Rivals don't disappear in a vacuum as you say. One of Fed's greatest accomplishments imo is that he made everyone believe he was unbeatable for a few years. He took away their belief completely.

As for the match-up, I don't think you've addressed it, but I tend to think Fed would have an easier time breaking Sampras than the other way around - simply because Fed's deals pretty well with big servers and has a vastly better return in general. Add to that that he would probably be 5-0 at the French and I have a hard time seeing him not coming out on top overall.
The grass we choose for the match is obviously important. One would tend to give each a significant advantage on the grass of their own era (even though young Fed beat Sampras on the grass of Sampras' era), Fed an advantage at the AO and the US could go to either man imo.

If they played five times at each major, I think Fed goes 9-1 b/w Australia and France. I think Pete goes 6-4, or 7-3, at Wimbledon and the US Open. Overall advantage Fed.

I think you're underestimating how difficult it would be for even Fed to break Pete's serve on fast surfaces, not just because of the serve itself but because of the pressure Pete tried to put his opponents under in the second and third shots after the serve. The serve-bots of the 2000s aren't comparable in my opinion.

I'd also foresee more than one fifth set at Wimbledon and the US Open - have to give Pete the edge there based on overall records, Roger just doesn't historically respond well to a guy hanging in there that long.

Frankly, in most of their Wimbledon/US Open encounters, I'd assume they split two breakers, Pete runs out one set based on a single bad service game from Roger, and Fed blows Pete out in another as the latter conserves energy. Who're you taking in the 5th? My money's on the Pistol most of the time.

I'd also grant you that there'd be a match or two out of 10 on faster surfaces where Roger just wrecks Pete. But I still say 6-4 or 7-3 Sampras.

 

[Chanwan]

If you go MIA for 3 full years because of 1 slam loss, then you are not a worthy rival. Sorry this is just my opinion

there were probably other reasons contributing to it as well - Agassi wasn't half as focused as Sampras was in general.
Anyhow - I'm with you in terms of Agassi only being a third of the rival in reality as compared to the one he's become in public memory. At the end of 98, Pete had 11 and Agassi was still down at 3. That's comparable to Fed-Nadal at the end of 2007 (11 and 3 as well).
And Fedal met 5 times in a slam in those years. That's the same amount of times Sampras met Agassi in slams in the years 1990-98.

 

[mike danny]

there were probably other reasons contributing to it as well - Agassi wasn't half as focused as Sampras was in general.
Anyhow - I'm with you in terms of Agassi only being a third of the rival in reality as compared to the one he's become in public memory. At the end of 98, Pete had 11 and Agassi was still down at 3. That's comparable to Fed-Nadal at the end of 2007 (11 and 3 as well).
And Fedal met 5 times in a slam in those years. That's the same amount of times Sampras met Agassi in slams in the years 1990-98.

Maybe there were just other factors. Normally it does not take you 3 years to get past a single loss. I doubt it takes more than 2-3 months, so Agassi should have been rejuvenated and refocused at AO 1996

 

[Chanwan]

If they played five times at each major, I think Fed goes 9-1 b/w Australia and France. I think Pete goes 6-4, or 7-3, at Wimbledon and the US Open. Overall advantage Fed.

I think you're underestimating how difficult it would be for even Fed to break Pete's serve on fast surfaces, not just because of the serve itself but because of the pressure Pete tried to put his opponents under in the second and third shots after the serve. The serve-bots of the 2000s aren't comparable in my opinion.

I'd also foresee more than one fifth set at Wimbledon and the US Open - have to give Pete the edge there based on overall records, Roger just doesn't historically respond well to a guy hanging in there that long.

Frankly, in most of their Wimbledon/US Open encounters, I'd assume they split two breakers, Pete runs out one set based on a single bad service game from Roger, and Fed blows Pete out in another as the latter conserves energy. Who're you taking in the 5th? My money's on the Pistol most of the time.

I'd also grant you that there'd be a match or two out of 10 on faster surfaces where Roger just wrecks Pete. But I still say 6-4 or 7-3 Sampras.

Now we're getting somewhere as opposed to many of these: My guy is bigger than your guy posts.
And you're right - I may be underestimating how hard it was to break Pete on a fast court. He was hardly ever broken in the 14 semis and finals he played at Wimbledon iirc. But this is also why I'd give Fed the edge on the new and slower grass and Pete the edge on the grass of the 90's (despite of Fed actually beating him on it).

It's a good point about Fed's poor 5th set record. To the extent that it's physical, it wouldn't be a problem vs. Sampras though because of the shorter points. But I do think part of it is related to the fact that Fed rarely get's in a 5th if he's playing his best. And when he's not playing his best, he's not the best at digging out tough wins.

I guess at the end it comes down to whether you believe Fed's able to break Pete even on the faster courts or not. And whether you give Pete the edge, when it comes to the fifth. I think there are arguments for both cases, but there would be quite a few tiebreaks and quite a few five-setters as well.

I think I ended up with 13-7 or 12-8 in my original comment here, so we agree pretty much on the end result.
US is a toss up for me, but I'm fine with 3-2 to Sampras - given the home advantage and all.
Wimbledon depends on the grass, but I can give Pete a 3-2 here as well and a 7 out of 10 on the 90's grass (I would give Fed a 7 out of 10 on 00's grass though)
AO and FO - at best Pete takes 2 out of 10, but I too tend to go with the 9-1.

 

[Chanwan]

Maybe there were just other factors. Normally it does not take you 3 years to get past a single loss. I doubt it takes more than 2-3 months, so Agassi should have been rejuvenated and refocused at AO 1996

It's been a while since I read his autobiography, but I do remember that as a particular stinging loss. Iirc it was about Agassi finally applying himself 100 %, giving it his all, feeling like the best player in the world. And then he wasn't after all and lost in 4 to that other American guy...
To me, it shares some characteristics with Borg-McEnroe US 81.

 

[90's Clay]

Ayee..

You know Pete was not exactly a mug in AO. Go look at his encounter with Agassi in 2000 for instance or his performance in 1994 or 1997 respectively or even some of his other matches with guys like Courier in '95 etc.

I give Fed at the edge in Australia albeit a slight one. But it certainly wouldn't be some one sided smack down.

 

[NatF]

If they played five times at each major, I think Fed goes 9-1 b/w Australia and France. I think Pete goes 6-4, or 7-3, at Wimbledon and the US Open. Overall advantage Fed.

I think you're underestimating how difficult it would be for even Fed to break Pete's serve on fast surfaces, not just because of the serve itself but because of the pressure Pete tried to put his opponents under in the second and third shots after the serve. The serve-bots of the 2000s aren't comparable in my opinion.

I'd also foresee more than one fifth set at Wimbledon and the US Open - have to give Pete the edge there based on overall records, Roger just doesn't historically respond well to a guy hanging in there that long.

Frankly, in most of their Wimbledon/US Open encounters, I'd assume they split two breakers, Pete runs out one set based on a single bad service game from Roger, and Fed blows Pete out in another as the latter conserves energy. Who're you taking in the 5th? My money's on the Pistol most of the time.

I'd also grant you that there'd be a match or two out of 10 on faster surfaces where Roger just wrecks Pete. But I still say 6-4 or 7-3 Sampras.

I think Federer would match up fairly well with Sampras. The Sampras serve was formidable and better than the Federer serve, but the difference in their service games would be mitigated by the fact that Federer returns better. Plus Federer's serve is very good and would be aided by the fast surfaces too.

Federer also moves and passes as well as anyone Sampras ever played and is going to be beating him off the ground most of the time. There's also the fact that Federer is fitter than Sampras which is also going to be a factor in fifth sets.

 

[NatF]

Ayee..

You know Pete was not exactly a mug in AO. Go look at his encounter with Agassi in 2000 for instance or his performance in 1994 or 1997 respectively or even some of his other matches with guys like Courier in '95 etc.

I give Fed at the edge in Australia albeit a slight one. But it certainly wouldn't be some one sided smack down.

Yes but Federer was a mug at the USO and Wimbledon and would get beaten right?

Hypocrit.