If Fed wins AO, and ties Sampras?

GameSampras

Banned
LOL... This is a bit off topic. But good lord are they hyping the Fed-Roddick match.

"17 times Roddick and Federer squared off and 15 times Roddic was the loser." LOL... And now the GS hype wagon has pulled up again.. Good call Cyborg. The minute u said it was a media born creation, I see ESPN beginning to hype it. LOL
 

380pistol

Banned
lol @ bold part, If Medvedev,Stitch,Norman etc could make it to a FO final in the 90s , I don't see any reason why its 'plausible' that federer couldn't have . In fact I think he would have had a decent chance of winning a couple of RGs in the 90s .

Well, Bo Jackson Hipped Guga, Nalbandian 2006, and even Monfils say it's plausible. Not definite, plausible. Learn to comprehend Emglish!!!!

Medvedev won 4 masters on clay, and from 1992-99 lost to 6 of the eventual 8 champions at the French. The year he made the final he beat Sampras and Kuerten to get there, and was up 2 sets in the final.

Shall we talk about Monfils this year?? Didn't think so.


The difference in their clay-court abilities and results is VAST, that's why ! Unlike the difference b/w them on the other surfaces.

The difference is VAST, based upon Fed gets to the French Open finals be beating QF'ists, Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez while Sampras gets foiled by Agassi, Bruguera and Courier twice.

And yes Federer is better on clay, but Sampras has beaten Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. While Roger claims his VAST superirity with wins over a gassed Nadal, a chicken pox'd out Ferrero, Bo Jackson hipped Guga as well as those brilliant claycourters, Davydenko, Robredo and Ferrer.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Well, Bo Jackson Hipped Guga, Nalbandian 2006, and even Monfils say it's plausible. Not definite, plausible. Learn to comprehend Emglish!!!!

Medvedev won 4 masters on clay, and from 1992-99 lost to 6 of the eventual 8 champions at the French. The year he made the final he beat Sampras and Kuerten to get there, and was up 2 sets in the final.

Shall we talk about Monfils this year?? Didn't think so.




The difference is VAST, based upon Fed gets to the French Open finals be beating QF'ists, Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez while Sampras gets foiled by Agassi, Bruguera and Courier twice.

And yes Federer is better on clay, but Sampras has beaten Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. While Roger claims his VAST superirity with wins over a gassed Nadal, a chicken pox'd out Ferrero, Bo Jackson hipped Guga as well as those brilliant claycourters, Davydenko, Robredo and Ferrer.



Actually Davydenko in 2007 should have been up 2 sets to 0, considering how bad he choked.
 

380pistol

Banned
I love how you leave out big names like oh lets say Coria, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Moya, Ferrero, Davydenko and Guadio. You took 3 subpar and compared it with the 3 best? Second Courier was done with French Open winning in 92, he went deep in 93 and 94 but Sampras I believe beat him in 96? (could be wrong check on that) However the clay depth allowed guys like Kalfenikov to win a French Open. Kalfenikov was not an outstanding clay court player, hence the reason he was constantly beaten by guys like Guga and other ones with clay court talent. Agassi played awful at the French Open in Sampras's prime from 93-98 nothing higher than a QF? So really from 93-98 Agassi not so bad, and from 95 onward Courier Sampras had no problem with either. Brugera yes, Muster only in 95 the rest of the time he was a flake, Kalfenikov as I said Sampras should have beat in 96, Guga in 97 was nothing like Guga in 00 and 01. I mean really the depth was not huge, the only reason there appears to have been huge clay court depth is they lacked a dominating clay court force, which Federer has Nadal. Sampras would do no better on clay now than back in the 90s. He would do the same as he did in the 90s. Though I do maybe see him getting to one final tops, but I could see Fed from 95-98 winning a French Open. Especially in 1996. Place Fed from 04-08 in between the years 93-97 he gets one french open title. Sampras would never be able to handle Nadal.

Coria - he had a run in 2003-04 and has been where since???

Nalbandian -Has he don something great on clay I'm missing??? His 2 SF in Paris up to 1998, and no QF, while Pete had a SF and 3 QF. And the only top 20 players NalFATian beat in Paris were Davydenko and Ancic, who els of consequence. What makes him so special on clay???

Djokovic - Got to the SF in 2007 and the highest ranked player he beat was.... wait for it... #51!!!! A great improvement in 2008 as it went up to #19, the bext hishest ranked player he beat was #80. In Novak's 2 SF runs in Paris 8 of 10 players he beat ere #64 or lower. Impressive I must say. Outside of his Rome win where he didn't beat anyone ranked higher than #21 (and 2 of them retired!!!) has a stellar 11-7 record in clay masters events.

Moya Look that this a Sampras era holdover!!!!

Ferrero Feel free to enlighten me on what he's don on clay after his excellent 2003. Jan 1st 2004 to present, let me know??? I'm all ears.

Davydenko Our boy Davystinko has 2 SF and QF in Paris. Not bad until you see... the only top 10 players he's beaten we're a flailing Coria(#9) and Gaudio (#10). Only 2 othe top 20 players in RG lifetime. And that 28-19 record in Masters on clay, don't make me point out the garbage players he beat to reach his SF, cuz without those he's 20-17!!!! Barely .500

Gaudio - Outside of French Open title (how he won that I'll never know) is an excellent 14-8 in Paris, without a victory over a top 20 player!!!

And yo wanna comare these guys with Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Kafelnikov and Moya. These guys can barely hang with Medvedev. Rison 1997-99 is more accomplished than some of these clowns are in their natural lives!!!!! Come on let's get it together.
 
He's already on my GOAT line. There is no one GOAT IMO. All a player can do is dominate his own era, his own competition in the environment and prevailing conditions of his/her day.

They can't play each other in their respective primes and no one can say with any certainty who was or would be "better" than who, and every career has been and will be different in its length, scope and individual achievements.

Too many differences as it stands and just because the next guy comes along, as there will inevitably be another, it doesn't diminish the legacy of the earlier GOATs.

So no, IMO, Fed doesn't rise to THE GOAT. He already is one of them.

5

I like your philosophy here. It shows the due appreciation for each of those rare and special players who reach that level, and also stays away from alot of the dissing and disrespecting of each of these greatest ever players when they are being compared and argued vs each other by their rabid fan bases.
 

380pistol

Banned
Actually Davydenko in 2007 should have been up 2 sets to 0, considering how bad he choked.

And Ivanisevic would have don this that and the 5th he didn't choke. Rios could have done that and more if he wasn't a headcase. Safin could've....

Let's play Jeopardy. Let's take "Choking for $300 Alex....."


And the Answer is...
Roddick 2004 Wimbledon
Baghdatis 2006 Aus Open
Nadal 2007 Wimbledon
Djokovic 2007 US Open



No response. Well. "What Is...."
Players who choked away leads/oportunities vs Federer in slam finals.

You know things we're not allowed to talk about.
 

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
I think he'll be a lively and energetic young man... with a titanium hip.

That's funny.

I look at Nadal as a robot already, he has been so when he was first abused by his uncle's tennis ambitions. He will break down way before Federer wins his last slam. It's sad, in a way.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Coria - he had a run in 2003-04 and has been where since???

Nalbandian -Has he don something great on clay I'm missing??? His 2 SF in Paris up to 1998, and no QF, while Pete had a SF and 3 QF. And the only top 20 players NalFATian beat in Paris were Davydenko and Ancic, who els of consequence. What makes him so special on clay???

Djokovic - Got to the SF in 2007 and the highest ranked player he beat was.... wait for it... #51!!!! A great improvement in 2008 as it went up to #19, the bext hishest ranked player he beat was #80. In Novak's 2 SF runs in Paris 8 of 10 players he beat ere #64 or lower. Impressive I must say. Outside of his Rome win where he didn't beat anyone ranked higher than #21 (and 2 of them retired!!!) has a stellar 11-7 record in clay masters events.

Moya Look that this a Sampras era holdover!!!!

Ferrero Feel free to enlighten me on what he's don on clay after his excellent 2003. Jan 1st 2004 to present, let me know??? I'm all ears.

Davydenko Our boy Davystinko has 2 SF and QF in Paris. Not bad until you see... the only top 10 players he's beaten we're a flailing Coria(#9) and Gaudio (#10). Only 2 othe top 20 players in RG lifetime. And that 28-19 record in Masters on clay, don't make me point out the garbage players he beat to reach his SF, cuz without those he's 20-17!!!! Barely .500

Gaudio - Outside of French Open title (how he won that I'll never know) is an excellent 14-8 in Paris, without a victory over a top 20 player!!!

And yo wanna comare these guys with Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Kafelnikov and Moya. These guys can barely hang with Medvedev. Rison 1997-99 is more accomplished than some of these clowns are in their natural lives!!!!! Come on let's get it together.

Note we are talking in Sampras's prime if you want to say Ferrero has done nothing defend the following?

Okay what did Agassi do on clay in Sampras's prime? Hmm nothing.

Courier made a good run for the first two years of Sampras' prime at France other than that squat.

Muster won a single clay court slam and like 30 other odd small clay court titles. Gaudio might not have 30 small clay court titles but if we are talking French Open wise they both provide same threat to said person bunch of early exits and one really good one. 1995 Muster was dominate on clay I will give you that but nothing compared to four years of Nadal.

Bruguera good but for only 1993-1994...Nadal equals that.

Kafelnikov luck win Sampras should have won that slam.

You talk Agassi like he threatened Sampras on clay? He was a dud during that time span. Here is a fact for you Agassi went without a clay court title for nearly 7 years. From 1992- his french open in 1999. So please not once was Sampras in his prime worrying about flakey Agassi on clay

Jim Courier won the Italian open in 1993 than did not win another clay court title until 1998..with only one runner up in 1994 at the nice open..hmm real threat.

From 1993-1998 Sampras had 3 years of clay court opponents who dominated and probably 3 years of average competition. 1996-1998 what stopped him from winning it? Kalfenikov won it in 1996, same level of clay court as Sampras. Guga won it in 97, but was far from his dominate era, Guga did not even have a title prior to his 97 win..where was Sampras that year out in the third round as a comeback injury Bruguera titleless for 3 years at that point lost to a young Guga, who would not go on to be dominate for another 3 years. Than Moya won in 98 who him too outside of that slam win had more consistent better clay court tennis in 00-04, but couldn't go deep in slams than. Base it on that point in time not overall career. 93-95 Sampras had it tough, but outside of that it was his lack of clay court power on the surface.

Btw..from 2003-2008
Davydenko from 2003-2008 7 clay court titles, 4 clay court runner ups, 2 semis and a quarter at France.
Djokovic from 2003-2008 Clay court masters, SF twice losing both times to the man who won France 4 times in a row Nadal
Nalbandian 2 FO semis, 3 or 4 clay court titles and a runner up at Rome.
Moya- Clay master series, 4 clay court titles
Coria- 7 clay court titles, 2 MS, French open SF+F, 4 MS runner ups on clay.
Gaudio- 1 FO win, 6 clay court titles
Robredo- 5 clay court titles, 1 MS.

There is competition, also note these guys all have to deal with the following besides Federer
Nadal- 4 FO wins, 8 clay masters, 22 clay titles.

The fact that those other guys from 2003-2008 could put up numbers dealing with Nadal and Federer who own clay (Fed having 3 FO finals, 4 clay masters and 7 clay titles) should note them as decent enough competition. Also you are judging guys like Monfolis on unfinished careers. Believe what you want but Federer does actually have to beat people on clay he is not playing against a bunch of incompetent idiots and he loses to someone who is far greater than any of Sampras' clay court threats.
 
Last edited:

egn

Hall of Fame
And Ivanisevic would have don this that and the 5th he didn't choke. Rios could have done that and more if he wasn't a headcase. Safin could've....

Let's play Jeopardy. Let's take "Choking for $300 Alex....."


And the Answer is...
Roddick 2004 Wimbledon
Baghdatis 2006 Aus Open
Nadal 2007 Wimbledon
Djokovic 2007 US Open



No response. Well. "What Is...."
Players who choked away leads/oportunities vs Federer in slam finals.

You know things we're not allowed to talk about.

wait what classifys a choke? There was no moment in 2007 wimby or 2007 Us Open Fed was down by a set? So did Becker choke in 1995 Wimby and Ivansevic choke in 1998 wimby? What about Rafter in 2000 wimby? Agassi must have choked in 1990 US Open? Agassi had clearly destroyed Sampras recently on hard courts and then failed to deliver there and he was favored? When you say choke I think Coria v. Gaudio FO 2004. Thats choke? none of those you listen are chokes. None of the ones I listed are chokes either, those are all well played tennis matches. Besides everyone has opportunities in a tennis match, the winner is the one who actually made them happen.
 

380pistol

Banned
Note we are talking in Sampras's prime if you want to say Ferrero has done nothing defend the following?

Okay what did Agassi do on clay in Sampras's prime? Hmm nothing.

Courier made a good run for the first two years of Sampras' prime at France other than that squat.

Muster won a single clay court slam and like 30 other odd small clay court titles. Gaudio might not have 30 small clay court titles but if we are talking French Open wise they both provide same threat to said person bunch of early exits and one really good one. 1995 Muster was dominate on clay I will give you that but nothing compared to four years of Nadal.

Bruguera good but for only 1993-1994...Nadal equals that.

Kafelnikov luck win Sampras should have won that slam.

You talk Agassi like he threatened Sampras on clay? He was a dud during that time span. Here is a fact for you Agassi went without a clay court title for nearly 7 years. From 1992- his french open in 1999. So please not once was Sampras in his prime worrying about flakey Agassi on clay

Jim Courier won the Italian open in 1993 than did not win another clay court title until 1998..with only one runner up in 1994 at the nice open..hmm real threat.

From 1993-1998 Sampras had 3 years of clay court opponents who dominated and probably 3 years of average competition. 1996-1998 what stopped him from winning it? Kalfenikov won it in 1996, same level of clay court as Sampras. Guga won it in 97, but was far from his dominate era, Guga did not even have a title prior to his 97 win..where was Sampras that year out in the third round as a comeback injury Bruguera titleless for 3 years at that point lost to a young Guga, who would not go on to be dominate for another 3 years. Than Moya won in 98 who him too outside of that slam win had more consistent better clay court tennis in 00-04, but couldn't go deep in slams than. Base it on that point in time not overall career. 93-95 Sampras had it tough, but outside of that it was his lack of clay court power on the surface.

Btw..from 2003-2008
Davydenko from 2003-2008 7 clay court titles, 4 clay court runner ups, 2 semis and a quarter at France.
Djokovic from 2003-2008 Clay court masters, SF twice losing both times to the man who won France 4 times in a row Nadal
Nalbandian 2 FO semis, 3 or 4 clay court titles and a runner up at Rome.
Moya- Clay master series, 4 clay court titles
Coria- 7 clay court titles, 2 MS, French open SF+F, 4 MS runner ups on clay.
Gaudio- 1 FO win, 6 clay court titles
Robredo- 5 clay court titles, 1 MS.

There is competition, also note these guys all have to deal with the following besides Federer
Nadal- 4 FO wins, 8 clay masters, 22 clay titles.

The fact that those other guys from 2003-2008 could put up numbers dealing with Nadal and Federer who own clay (Fed having 3 FO finals, 4 clay masters and 7 clay titles) should note them as decent enough competition. Also you are judging guys like Monfolis on unfinished careers. Believe what you want but Federer does actually have to beat people on clay he is not playing against a bunch of incompetent idiots and he loses to someone who is far greater than any of Sampras' clay court threats.

You're just being pendantic and silly. Agassi had 2 F and a SF (beat Pete in QF) and was in the QF again in 1995.

JIM COURIER
did squat, well French Open....
1991 - CHAMP
1992 - CHAMP
1993 - F (Bruguera)
1994 - SF (Bruguera)
1996 - QF (Sampras)

But after winning Italian Open in 1993 was no longer a threat. WOW!!!!


THOMAS MUSTER
-won 6 masters on clay (Monte Carlo and Rome 3 times) and at Roland Garros.....
1990 - l. Gomez (who won title)
1991 - l. Sampras
1992 - l. Courier (who won title)
1993 - l. Courier (def. champ who made the final)
1995 - CHAMP
1996 - l. Stich (who made final)
1997 - l. Kuerten (enough said)

You're a clown. You talk about Davydenko's 7 claycourt titles, but chastise Muster for his 30 titles on clay. You just contradicted yourself!!!!


SERGI BRUGUERA

French Open
1993 - CHAMPION
1994 - CHAMPION
1995 - SF
1996 - l. Sampras
1997 - F

But to you this is only 1993-94. His 13 clay titles 1991-94 almost doubles the 7 you praised Davydenko for, and his include 2 French Opens and 2 Masters in Monte Carlo. How about Musters other 16 claycourt finals from 1990-97 which include Roland Garros and Masters in Monte Carlo and Rome.


But I have to listen to nonsense about....

-Davydenko and 7 SMALL TITES and 4 SMALL finals

-Djokovic and his Rome title, spare his two SF in Paris, in 2007 the highest ranked player he beat was #51 and the other 4 were ranked 123, 306, 129 and 125, in 2008 the highest ranked player Djokovic beat was #19 MAthieu and the rest were rk 64, 264, 106 and 80. ONE top 50 player and 6 of 10 were 100 or lower and 9 of 10 were outside the top 50!!!!

-Nalbandian and his one masters series final on clay, and 3 small titles on clay warrant him what?? To mentioned alongside Bruguera and Muster on clay. Be serious????

-Moya who won Monte Carlo and Roland Garros in... wait for it.... 1998!!!!!!!! Who won 9 of his 15 claycourt titles before 2003. So this era of claycourters is so strong you need to include a Sampras era holdover???

-Coria..... you asked what did Agassi do in Sampras' prime, well what did Coria do in Federer's prime. Got injured and choked in the French Open F, win ONE masters and make 3 masters finals. Since 2005 has on claycourt title, and ZERO in last 3 years!!!!!

-Gaudio... benefitted from Coria's tank job in 2004 French Open final ZERO masters finals, and has not won a claycourt title since 2005!!!!

-Robredo... his only performance of significance on clay was winning Hamburg in 2006...... when Nadal and Federer didn't show up!!!!!!


Get it together. You're making it worse. Now I'm convinced it's Nadal and a bunch of clowns!!!!!!!!!!
 

GameSampras

Banned
What did Andre do in Pete's prime? Nothing much just won the career Grand Slam along with 6- 7 slams and quite a few slam finals which probably would have given him another 4-5 slams if it wasnt for Pete.. Theoretically, Andre MAY have had the GS record had it not been for Pete. After 95 he went AWOL mostly until 99 at the RG. Imagine if he didnt. He still managed around 6- 7 slams in that time period even not winning a slam from Jan 95-May 99. As Nadal has taken some slams away from Roger. Pete took his share of slams away from Andre or Andre would be a 1st Tier HOF mentioned with the likes of Laver, Fed Rosewall etc
 
Last edited:

380pistol

Banned
wait what classifys a choke? There was no moment in 2007 wimby or 2007 Us Open Fed was down by a set? So did Becker choke in 1995 Wimby and Ivansevic choke in 1998 wimby? What about Rafter in 2000 wimby? Agassi must have choked in 1990 US Open? Agassi had clearly destroyed Sampras recently on hard courts and then failed to deliver there and he was favored? When you say choke I think Coria v. Gaudio FO 2004. Thats choke? none of those you listen are chokes. None of the ones I listed are chokes either, those are all well played tennis matches. Besides everyone has opportunities in a tennis match, the winner is the one who actually made them happen.

When you go up 15-40 twice in the 5th set, and in both games you get a 2nd serve to look at, and can't put either in play. Nadal said after the match he was nervous. OK then.

2007 US Open final serve for the set at 6-5 40-0 and have 7 set points on YOUR serve, can't convert, and make how many errors and then blow a 4-1 lead in the 2nd set.

1990 US Open - Agassi could not even see duece on Pete's serve til the 3rd set, that's getting out played.

1995 Wimbledon, Sampras hit 68 winners, 7 unforced errors, 23 aces and never faced a break point. Now tell me what Becker could have done.

1998 Wimbledon, Goran had 2 set points for a 2 set to love lead, and had to do it against.... the best 2nd serve ever. And someone who was actually coming in behind it, forcing you to something with the return.

Rafter did choke away the 2nd set in 2000. But what everyone forgets is that Pete choked away the 1st set with 2 double faults in the tie breaker, and one coming on set point. So if you give Rafter the 2nd set, cuz he choked, just to be sure to give Pete the 1st set as he choked, and Sampras would still take the title nin 4 sets.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
You're just being pendantic and silly. Agassi had 2 F and a SF (beat Pete in QF) and was in the QF again in 1995.

JIM COURIER
did squat, well French Open....
1991 - CHAMP
1992 - CHAMP
1993 - F (Bruguera)
1994 - SF (Bruguera)
1996 - QF (Sampras)

But after winning Italian Open in 1993 was no longer a threat. WOW!!!!


THOMAS MUSTER
-won 6 masters on clay (Monte Carlo and Rome 3 times) and at Roland Garros.....
1990 - l. Gomez (who won title)
1991 - l. Sampras
1992 - l. Courier (who won title)
1993 - l. Courier (def. champ who made the final)
1995 - CHAMP
1996 - l. Stich (who made final)
1997 - l. Kuerten (enough said)

You're a clown. You talk about Davydenko's 7 claycourt titles, but chastise Muster for his 30 titles on clay. You just contradicted yourself!!!!
That i will give you, convincing arguement for Muster.


SERGI BRUGUERA

French Open
1993 - CHAMPION
1994 - CHAMPION
1995 - SF
1996 - l. Sampras
1997 - F

But to you this is only 1993-94. His 13 clay titles 1991-94 almost doubles the 7 you praised Davydenko for, and his include 2 French Opens and 2 Masters in Monte Carlo. How about Musters other 16 claycourt finals from 1990-97 which include Roland Garros and Masters in Monte Carlo and Rome.


But I have to listen to nonsense about....

-Davydenko and 7 SMALL TITES and 4 SMALL finals

-Djokovic and his Rome title, spare his two SF in Paris, in 2007 the highest ranked player he beat was #51 and the other 4 were ranked 123, 306, 129 and 125, in 2008 the highest ranked player Djokovic beat was #19 MAthieu and the rest were rk 64, 264, 106 and 80. ONE top 50 player and 6 of 10 were 100 or lower and 9 of 10 were outside the top 50!!!!

-Nalbandian and his one masters series final on clay, and 3 small titles on clay warrant him what?? To mentioned alongside Bruguera and Muster on clay. Be serious????

-Moya who won Monte Carlo and Roland Garros in... wait for it.... 1998!!!!!!!! Who won 9 of his 15 claycourt titles before 2003. So this era of claycourters is so strong you need to include a Sampras era holdover???

-Coria..... you asked what did Agassi do in Sampras' prime, well what did Coria do in Federer's prime. Got injured and choked in the French Open F, win ONE masters and make 3 masters finals. Since 2005 has on claycourt title, and ZERO in last 3 years!!!!!

-Gaudio... benefitted from Coria's tank job in 2004 French Open final ZERO masters finals, and has not won a claycourt title since 2005!!!!

-Robredo... his only performance of significance on clay was winning Hamburg in 2006...... when Nadal and Federer didn't show up!!!!!!


Get it together. You're making it worse. Now I'm convinced it's Nadal and a bunch of clowns!!!!!!!!!!

Your point is the threatened pete sampras right? If Courier did his French Open winning in 91-92 before Sampras was in his prime how were they a threat to him? So basically your saying an guy who has ever won a grand slam is a huge threat or at least made it to a semi final in that slam is a threat. Talk in relative time periods. Than Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, I said Bruguera was valid competition also..but Courier I am sorry I am not going to praise a guy who threatened Sampras on clay for two years. Courier played his best clay court tennis from 90-93..Sampras' prime was from 93-98. If you are going to say Courier was a threat to Sampras I can say Ferreo and Moya are threats to Federer along with Coria and easily compare. Ferreo and Moya had a GS each and a few clay court masters. Yet I can't say Ferrero and Moya because you said what did Ferreo do after 2003? well what did Courier do after 1993? or fine if you think that SF at France is so important what did he do after 1994? Please I didn't chastise Muster I said his 30 clay court titles is huge but a ton are just small little ones, and I didnt praise Davydenko you said he was horrible on the surface. 7 titles would beg to differ. And you have yet to prove to me anything that Agassi did on clay in his prime. His F and SF were before Sampras' best days. Note I simply said Courier did nothing in Sampras' prime after 1993 on clay. Argue that but look at the facts, his clay court accomplished from 1994-1998 equal my whole field of players. You are saying he is tougher because he had been great on clay, you judge someone's prime on relative competition not on what their competition used to be and if you argue with that well than it is pointless. And what is with all the personal attacks? By the way pendantic is pedantic. Please if you are going to use a word that basically means to try to use a word that means to show off spell it right. There is my sole personal attacks since I am not going to insult your character since I don't knwo anything about you outside of Sampras fanboy.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
You mean up to 2nd, behind Laver?

Yes, of course behind Laver, but no not second, but higher than Sampras.

Sorry, my GOAT list does involve slams count, but it involves other factors as well. I'm just saying that right now I place Sampras higher than Fed because of the 14 vs. 13. But once they become tied, then the comparison becomes easier and the three FO finals act as a tie-breaker.

And yes, I also would take Pete on grass (even though Fed beat in that one match).
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I already have Fed higher.

Scissors beats rock.

Rock beats paper.

Cockroach beats nuclear bomb.

Peak beats longevity.

These are the rules to live by.
You forgot scissors beats paper.

Peak beats longevity.? Really? Probably. (I'll have to ponder this one.)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Well, Bo Jackson Hipped Guga, Nalbandian 2006, and even Monfils say it's plausible. Not definite, plausible. Learn to comprehend Emglish!!!!

Medvedev won 4 masters on clay, and from 1992-99 lost to 6 of the eventual 8 champions at the French. The year he made the final he beat Sampras and Kuerten to get there, and was up 2 sets in the final.

Shall we talk about Monfils this year?? Didn't think so.

Oh please , YOU of all people talking about comprehension.Ha ha:)
You said it is plausible that he would not make it to a single RG final . VERY VERY unlikely given that he is very good on clay unlike sampras. So I wouldn't use the word plausible in that case.


The difference is VAST, based upon Fed gets to the French Open finals be beating QF'ists, Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez while Sampras gets foiled by Agassi, Bruguera and Courier twice.

And yes Federer is better on clay, but Sampras has beaten Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. While Roger claims his VAST superirity with wins over a gassed Nadal, a chicken pox'd out Ferrero, Bo Jackson hipped Guga as well as those brilliant claycourters, Davydenko, Robredo and Ferrer.

I guess coria and gaudio don't count. Why ? Want to know their H2H vs roger on clay ? 2-0 to federer in both cases .

Sampras getting bagelled by kafelnikov in the only RG SF he reached doesn't count . Ouch !

The fact that bruguera was coming back from injury that year in 96 and that he had a losing record on CLAY that year before coming into RG doesn't matter.

That sampras said this doesn't count :

The only missing piece in the Sampras collection is the French Open. He never reached a final. "I don't know if I totally believed I was good enough on the clay," he says. "The year I got to the semis [1996] I did start to believe but I ran into Yevgeny Kafelnikov on a hot day after three long five-set matches and hit the wall. As I got older, doubts crept in."

Those doubts seldom surfaced anywhere else. "Staying at No 1 six years in a row was the toughest thing to do in my tennis," Sampras asserts. "My approach to life helped me through that, not getting too high on the wins or too low on the losses. For someone like John McEnroe, who was so up and down in his emotions, it can be quite draining. I just tried to keep everything in check."



http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html

The difference is vast not just because of federer's far better results on clay, but also their skills on clay. ( which of course reflects to an extent in their claycourt resumes )

Oh and IMO, agassi, though he has better results ( because of his RG win ) is not better than federer on clay,skillwise.

Oh and please lets not get into pete losing in the initial few rounds at RG on quite a few occasions.

Pete could play on clay, but nowhere close to federer on clay. Federer is better on clay than quite a few 1-time RG champions.
 
Last edited:

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
For the open era, Fed's the best for me. Before that I really can't judge, nor can I judge Laver and Rosewall and Roche etc. Federer will tie Sampras, and therefore maybe he's equally as good. Sampras won more year end no. 1's, Fed's longer consecutively no. 1, Federer's better at the French, Sampras won more wimbledon's etc.Fed needs 15 to get me to say he's the best of the open era. His insane high level of play occassionally IS the highest level of tennis I've seen though. It's hard to compare that to guys with wooden raquets however
 

380pistol

Banned
Oh please , YOU of all people talking about comprehension.Ha ha:)
You said it is plausible that he would not make it to a single RG final . VERY VERY unlikely given that he is very good on clay unlike sampras. So I wouldn't use the word plausible in that case.

"PLAUSIBLE".... define the damn word!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm all ears.....

2005 (1995) - I see Muster,, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Chang and Agassi all in the final 8

2006 (1996) - Was getting served 6-3,3-0 by Nalbandian before david got hurt, so who's to say he gets out of SF with Kafelnikov or QF with Courier, hell he would have his hands full getting out of the 2nd rd with Bruguera in the #1 spot

2007 (1997) - Fed will be swimming a pool of sharks that consist of Kuerten, Bruguera, Muster and Kafelnikov

2008 (1998) - Look at the problems he had with Monfils, before winning FOUR games in the F, not to mention Gonzalez, and with Moya, Corretja, Rios, and even Kuerten in the mix, good luck.

Now define "plausible" and restate your point.


And don't make me put Sampras in Roger's shoes!!!


I guess coria and gaudio don't count. Why ? Want to know their H2H vs roger on clay ? 2-0 to federer in both cases .

Sampras getting bagelled by kafelnikov in the only RG SF he reached doesn't count . Ouch !

The fact that bruguera was coming back from injury that year in 96 and that he had a losing record on CLAY that year before coming into RG doesn't matter.

That sampras said this doesn't count :

The only missing piece in the Sampras collection is the French Open. He never reached a final. "I don't know if I totally believed I was good enough on the clay," he says. "The year I got to the semis [1996] I did start to believe but I ran into Yevgeny Kafelnikov on a hot day after three long five-set matches and hit the wall. As I got older, doubts crept in."

Those doubts seldom surfaced anywhere else. "Staying at No 1 six years in a row was the toughest thing to do in my tennis," Sampras asserts. "My approach to life helped me through that, not getting too high on the wins or too low on the losses. For someone like John McEnroe, who was so up and down in his emotions, it can be quite draining. I just tried to keep everything in check."



http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html

The difference is vast not just because of federer's far better results on clay, but also their skills on clay. ( which of course reflects to an extent in their claycourt resumes )

Oh and IMO, agassi, though he has better results ( because of his RG win ) is not better than federer on clay,skillwise.

Oh and please lets not get into pete losing in the initial few rounds at RG on quite a few occasions.

Pete could play on clay, but nowhere close to federer on clay. Federer is better on clay than quite a few 1-time RG champions.

Federer was no threat for a French titl until 2005. What have Gaudio and Coria done 2005 to present???

Sampras bagelled, during a heatwave after going 5 sets with Bruguera, Martin and Courier. Federer bagelled after dealing with who??? Monfils and Gonzalez??? And Sampras won twice as many games as Roger if you wanna go down that road.

As he got older. What did Sampras do in in Paris and why(yes why?? Mr. "Explanation boy"), and then 1998 after.

I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of your stupidity!!!!
 

Blade0324

Hall of Fame
THere are way too many stats and general crap in this thread to read it all. Bottom line is that neither Fed. or Sampras are the GOAT in my book. I would put at least 2-3 ahead of them both, including Lavar, Agassi, and Bjorg.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
"PLAUSIBLE".... define the damn word!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm all ears.....

2005 (1995) - I see Muster,, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Chang and Agassi all in the final 8 Roger would have at least made it to the big 8 here not getting bounced as early as Sampras did...you make it sound like Sampras actually lost to one of them look who sampras lost too, Roger makes it to big 8, yes trouble there against Bruguera...but qf beats what 1R sampras.

2006 (1996) - Was getting served 6-3,3-0 by Nalbandian before david got hurt, so who's to say he gets out of SF with Kafelnikov or QF with Courier, hell he would have his hands full getting out of the 2nd rd with Bruguera in the #1 spot I feel Fed performs same as Sampras and could possibly win this.

2007 (1997) - Fed will be swimming a pool of sharks that consist of Kuerten, Bruguera, Muster and Kafelnikov Where was Muster in 1997? Fed woudl have been on cruise control to the semifinals. Then he runs into Kureten..a young Kurten mind you...iffy here but that would have been a good match and could go either way and Fed could have easily handled Bruguera that year

2008 (1998) - Look at the problems he had with Monfils, before winning FOUR games in the F, not to mention Gonzalez, and with Moya, Corretja, Rios, and even Kuerten in the mix, good luck. Fed would get to QF before running into troubles with Muster..than there it would be difficult but 1998 Muster was out of form I would say he beats Muster he wins the whole thing, He had no problem handling Moya in his prime and Moya was playing top tier tennis in Federer's prime on Clay so what makes you think he struggles there and Corretja couldn't damage Moya at all..so its safe to say if Fed handles Muster I think he could win the whole thing.

Okay so we should pat Sampras in Rogers shoes it is really easy look at who Sampras lost to in those..compare to Roger's run I doubt Dampras gets as far.
 

380pistol

Banned
You're just being pendantic and silly. Agassi had 2 F and a SF (beat Pete in QF) and was in the QF again in 1995.

JIM COURIER
did squat, well French Open....
1991 - CHAMP
1992 - CHAMP
1993 - F (Bruguera)
1994 - SF (Bruguera)
1996 - QF (Sampras)

But after winning Italian Open in 1993 was no longer a threat. WOW!!!!


THOMAS MUSTER
-won 6 masters on clay (Monte Carlo and Rome 3 times) and at Roland Garros.....
1990 - l. Gomez (who won title)
1991 - l. Sampras
1992 - l. Courier (who won title)
1993 - l. Courier (def. champ who made the final)
1995 - CHAMP
1996 - l. Stich (who made final)
1997 - l. Kuerten (enough said)

You're a clown. You talk about Davydenko's 7 claycourt titles, but chastise Muster for his 30 titles on clay. You just contradicted yourself!!!!


SERGI BRUGUERA

French Open
1993 - CHAMPION
1994 - CHAMPION
1995 - SF
1996 - l. Sampras
1997 - F

But to you this is only 1993-94. His 13 clay titles 1991-94 almost doubles the 7 you praised Davydenko for, and his include 2 French Opens and 2 Masters in Monte Carlo. How about Musters other 16 claycourt finals from 1990-97 which include Roland Garros and Masters in Monte Carlo and Rome.


But I have to listen to nonsense about....

-Davydenko and 7 SMALL TITES and 4 SMALL finals

-Djokovic and his Rome title, spare his two SF in Paris, in 2007 the highest ranked player he beat was #51 and the other 4 were ranked 123, 306, 129 and 125, in 2008 the highest ranked player Djokovic beat was #19 MAthieu and the rest were rk 64, 264, 106 and 80. ONE top 50 player and 6 of 10 were 100 or lower and 9 of 10 were outside the top 50!!!!

-Nalbandian and his one masters series final on clay, and 3 small titles on clay warrant him what?? To mentioned alongside Bruguera and Muster on clay. Be serious????

-Moya who won Monte Carlo and Roland Garros in... wait for it.... 1998!!!!!!!! Who won 9 of his 15 claycourt titles before 2003. So this era of claycourters is so strong you need to include a Sampras era holdover???

-Coria..... you asked what did Agassi do in Sampras' prime, well what did Coria do in Federer's prime. Got injured and choked in the French Open F, win ONE masters and make 3 masters finals. Since 2005 has on claycourt title, and ZERO in last 3 years!!!!!

-Gaudio... benefitted from Coria's tank job in 2004 French Open final ZERO masters finals, and has not won a claycourt title since 2005!!!!

-Robredo... his only performance of significance on clay was winning Hamburg in 2006...... when Nadal and Federer didn't show up!!!!!!


Get it together. You're making it worse. Now I'm convinced it's Nadal and a bunch of clowns!!!!!!!!!!

Your point is the threatened pete sampras right? If Courier did his French Open winning in 91-92 before Sampras was in his prime how were they a threat to him? So basically your saying an guy who has ever won a grand slam is a huge threat or at least made it to a semi final in that slam is a threat. Talk in relative time periods. Than Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, I said Bruguera was valid competition also..but Courier I am sorry I am not going to praise a guy who threatened Sampras on clay for two years. Courier played his best clay court tennis from 90-93..Sampras' prime was from 93-98. If you are going to say Courier was a threat to Sampras I can say Ferreo and Moya are threats to Federer along with Coria and easily compare. Ferreo and Moya had a GS each and a few clay court masters. Yet I can't say Ferrero and Moya because you said what did Ferreo do after 2003? well what did Courier do after 1993? or fine if you think that SF at France is so important what did he do after 1994? Please I didn't chastise Muster I said his 30 clay court titles is huge but a ton are just small little ones, and I didnt praise Davydenko you said he was horrible on the surface. 7 titles would beg to differ. And you have yet to prove to me anything that Agassi did on clay in his prime. His F and SF were before Sampras' best days. Note I simply said Courier did nothing in Sampras' prime after 1993 on clay. Argue that but look at the facts, his clay court accomplished from 1994-1998 equal my whole field of players. You are saying he is tougher because he had been great on clay, you judge someone's prime on relative competition not on what their competition used to be and if you argue with that well than it is pointless. And what is with all the personal attacks? By the way pendantic is pedantic. Please if you are going to use a word that basically means to try to use a word that means to show off spell it right. There is my sole personal attacks since I am not going to insult your character since I don't knwo anything about you outside of Sampras fanboy.

Did I say who threatend Pete. We were talking about the quality of claycourters during Sampras and Federer's era. When you obviously couln't compare Coria, Gaudio, Nalbandian, Davydenko with the likes of Courier, Agassi, Bruguera and Muster, you started reaching. Stuff like Courier did nothing after 1993. So I asked what did Coria and Gaudio do after 1995???

To an extent yes, if you haven't gone deep (somewhat consistently) then how are you a threat??? The point I made is thatthe battlecry from Federphiles like yourself is that "Nadal is so dominant......." but the #'s tell a different story. It's not that these players today don't have the results/performances on clay due to Nadal, half the time they can't even get out of their own way. And the #'s I posted illustrate that.

Ferrero and Moya to Federer as Courier is to Sampras......PATHETIC!!!!!!

Who beat Sampras in 1994 French Open QF and who did Sampras beat in 1996 French Open QF??? Was Courier a top 8 player in both meeteing.

When post 2004 did Federer play (much less beat) a top 10 Juan Carlos Ferrero on clay??? And yes Moya... the Sampras era holdover,. You're a joke.

Courier was a top 8 player up until 1996 (when an injury knocekd him out), Ferrero hasn't been in the top 10 or anywhere near it since when???
1994 Courier French Open SF (eventual champ) and 1996 QF (Sampras) top 8 both times, care to tell wme what Ferrero did in Paris 2004-06??? He went out 2nd rd, 3rd rd and 3rd rd. Impressive!!!!

Muster had smaller clay titles. He also wo the French Open and 6 masters on clay, you conspicuously forgot about that. What the hell have Nalbandian, Davydenko, Robredo etc. done. All small titles,wait... Robredo won Hamburg... when Nadal and Federer didn't show up!!!!!

Davydenko 7 titles on clay. Muster 30+ small ones, so what the hell is your point??? Does his title count not trail Muster, Bruguera and Courier???

I said pedantic and silly, cuz that's how you are resoning. You take a certain premise and apply it to today's claycourters, but when it comes up short vs 90's claycourters, you switch and change up. How in your right mind can you say 30+ of Musters claycourt titles were smaller ones, and then talk about Davydenko, Nalbandin, Ferrer etc., and ALL their claycourt titles are SMALL ONES????

Attck me, feel free. But if typo is all you have, please, That's as soft as you non compelling arguements. If you're gonna attack me, please hit me harder than that. You're giving me love taps, and calling it your attack on me. Here let me respond... you want a hug??? You want a kiss???

All you knw about me is that I'm a Sampras fanboy. All I know is you're a Federphile, so that leaves us where exactly??
 

GameSampras

Banned
Pete I would love to know your opinion on this, though it may open up a whole new can of worms or already leave the can open. You said in a different thread that Sampras is the best player-greatest player in the Open Era.

Just wondering your thoughts on why you believe this. You mentioned Pete, just didnt give an explanation why. I would love to hear.. Why do you choose Pete over Roger

Love your insightful and factual posts btw
 

380pistol

Banned
Okay so we should pat Sampras in Rogers shoes it is really easy look at who Sampras lost to in those..compare to Roger's run I doubt Dampras gets as far.

How do you PAT Sampras in Roger's shoes exactly???

1992 (2002) - Instead of Agassi, Pete gets Costa or Canas. I'd take 2002 Ferrero over Pete, but this could be a SF or even a F.

1993 (2003) -Instead of 1993 champ Bruguera in QF, Sampras gets Robredo. Pete gets to SF, where I think he loses to 2003 champ Ferrero.

1994 (2004) -No Courier in QF or Brugera in F, 30 year old Tim Henman
and his stellar 9-8 record at Roland Garros up to 2003 made the SF. Where the final 4 included Gaudio (I've posted his clay #'s), and Coria who choked and got injured in the F. Could it be?? A French Open title for Pete.

1995 (2005) - Sampras lost in 1st rd so can't give him anything here

1996 (2006) No Bruguera or Courier. Kafelnikov becomes Nalbandian. Nalbandian was playing well, so was Kafelnikov 6 months prior in DC final on watered down slower clay, and what happened?? Kafel won all of 7 pts on Pete's serve in the 1st 2 sets. I don't think Pete beats Nadal in the final.

Any questions. Now you can tabulate the results. And if you don't like them, I know, I know, I'm a Sampras fanboy.
 

380pistol

Banned
Pete I would love to know your opinion on this, though it may open up a whole new can of worms or already leave the can open. You said in a different thread that Sampras is the best player-greatest player in the Open Era.

Just wondering your thoughts on why you believe this. You mentioned Pete, just didnt give an explanation why. I would love to hear.. Why do you choose Pete over Roger

Love your insightful and factual posts btw

I mean it's close between Pete and Roger. I remove Laver from the open era as his career crossed over between pre and post open era.

If we talk head to head, I take Sampras in a fair one. Outside of clay I would favour Pete on every other surface (not by large margins though). If you analyze they're games, and really listen to what players and experts have said, Pete's game/style is the better match up.

Also at his highest level, Sampras is better that anyone I've seen or know. At his pinnacle, I don't know who can play the game better. Not to say others have never produced a high level, I think Pete's is the highest.

Then it becomes subjective. I was someone who never (even before Roger) claimed Pete the king based on his 14 slams. If I did I can't regard Jordan or Patrick Roy as the greatest in their respective fields cuz their #'s won't put them there it goes deeper.

I keep saying that old adage "You're only as good as what you come up against". Now you can only play who's in front of you, but beating certain players (who I feel are less impressive than others), mean that translates to this and the 5th. If Fed (who I beleive will surpass Sampras' 14) makes him the GOAT over everyone else, then you'd have to convince me that he's gonna walk in Sampras', Borg's, Laver's, Gonzalez's, Kramer's, Budge's shoes, and produce the same, and honestly I don't se it. Yes he's still #1 and winning slams but 5 and 5 in a row at London and Flushing, and 3 slams a year 3 out of 4 years, in their shoes, I can't honestly see it.

Now in my eyes Laver is a better grasscourter than Roger, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Rod's 2 French titles. As the same way I've made Roger walk in other's shoes, Laver must walk in Fed's. And I don't see Laver over Nadal on the crushed red brick. Just don't.

Too summarize, if I tried to honestly factor everything in I possibly could about all the players in the open era, Sampras is more than likely to top my list.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
How do you PAT Sampras in Roger's shoes exactly???

1992 (2002) - Instead of Agassi, Pete gets Costa or Canas. I'd take 2002 Ferrero over Pete, but this could be a SF or even a F.I have to give this as a qf for pete I take Costa over Pete, Costa won it that year and is far better than samp on clay. My personal opinion

1993 (2003) -Instead of 1993 champ Bruguera in QF, Sampras gets Robredo. Pete gets to SF, where I think he loses to 2003 champ Ferrero. Shouldn't you compare Sampras' draw to Federer's draw..cause I think Sampras gets to then only second round and goes down to Verkerk there, because Verkerk was on a role there and beat tons of great clay court players in that draw..just saying draw for draw. If not he still has Costa in the qf...and just like year prior I pick Costa again. Costa once again was playing like a workhouse wearing his opponents down and winning..don't neglect that. I put samp at another qf.

1994 (2004) -No Courier in QF or Brugera in F, 30 year old Tim Henman
and his stellar 9-8 record at Roland Garros up to 2003 made the SF. Where the final 4 included Gaudio (I've posted his clay #'s), and Coria who choked and got injured in the F. Could it be?? A French Open title for Pete. Does Sampras actually make it past Kureten? I would pick Gaudio over Sampras in that specific tournament Gaudio was playing great clay court tennis. THough yes I do agree this might be his best chance at a win. So that makes the Samp Fed even one to one. Though its iffy but samp probably gets at least SF

1995 (2005) - Sampras lost in 1st rd so can't give him anything here

1996 (2006) No Bruguera or Courier. Kafelnikov becomes Nalbandian. Nalbandian was playing well, so was Kafelnikov 6 months prior in DC final on watered down slower clay, and what happened?? Kafel won all of 7 pts on Pete's serve in the 1st 2 sets. I don't think Pete beats Nadal in the final.I like the comparasion to Nalbandian and Kalenikov, but just as Klafenikov beat Samp I think Nalby would too, but than thats my opinion, but either way its a SF or F


Any questions. Now you can tabulate the results. And if you don't like them, I know, I know, I'm a Sampras fanboy.

i have
qf-qf-1r-sf/f/w-f

I say he makes more quarters and semis but only 1, 2 finals tops.

I do agree Samp probably has a clay court final in this mix but I doubt he wins one and has more finals than Fed. However its all speculation nothing can be proved as GameSampras said without a time machine.

380pistol said:
I mean it's close between Pete and Roger. I remove Laver from the open era as his career crossed over between pre and post open era.

If we talk head to head, I take Sampras in a fair one. Outside of clay I would favour Pete on every other surface (not by large margins though). If you analyze they're games, and really listen to what players and experts have said, Pete's game/style is the better match up.

Also at his highest level, Sampras is better that anyone I've seen or know. At his pinnacle, I don't know who can play the game better. Not to say others have never produced a high level, I think Pete's is the highest.

Then it becomes subjective. I was someone who never (even before Roger) claimed Pete the king based on his 14 slams. If I did I can't regard Jordan or Patrick Roy as the greatest in their respective fields cuz their #'s won't put them there it goes deeper.

I keep saying that old adage "You're only as good as what you come up against". Now you can only play who's in front of you, but beating certain players (who I feel are less impressive than others), mean that translates to this and the 5th. If Fed (who I beleive will surpass Sampras' 14) makes him the GOAT over everyone else, then you'd have to convince me that he's gonna walk in Sampras', Borg's, Laver's, Gonzalez's, Kramer's, Budge's shoes, and produce the same, and honestly I don't see it. Yes he's still #1 and winning slams but 5 and 5 in a row at London and Flushing, and 3 slams a year 3 out of 4 years, in their shoes, I can't honestly see it.

Now in my eyes Laver is a better grasscourter than Roger, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Rod's 2 French titles. As the same way I've made Roger walk in other's shoes, Laver must walk in Fed's. And I don't see Laver over Nadal on the crushed red brick. Just don't.

Too summarize, if I tried to honestly factor everything in I possibly could about all the players in the open era, Sampras is more than likely to top my list.

I like your points here, everyone flourishes in their era. Like I think if Roger played in the era of Borg we have Roger ending up with 12 but not as condensed because he probably would skip Australia but I think he has a more well balanced slam thing. I could see Roger winning a french open in Borg's era, actually quite a few. Sampras' era I would see Roger probably doing better on hardcourts (which I still feel is Fed's best surface.) However its all interesting. Yet at the same time if we put Sampras or Borg in Federer's era for as great as they are could they dominate the way Fed did? Or we would Borg accomplish what he did in Sampras? Would Sampras do what he did in Borg? Would Fed do what he did in Sampras? You get all these confusing questions and frankly its hard to ever know the answers. I agree in Sampras' era I doubt he wins 3 slams in a year for 3 years but at the same time I could see him winning 3 slams in a year (94 and 97, the years I thought Sampras would.) Yet I could see Sampras winning 3 slams in Feds era in (03, 06) However we will never know...
 
Last edited:

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
In my opinion, if Federer wins the AO, then Sampras will no longer have a claim to the GOAT. Federer, would have won the majors in a shorter period of time, accomplished as much as Pete did on hard courts and grass at a younger age, and did much better than Pete on clay.

If Roger wins the Australian, then he's greater than Pete. No question.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Lol I just realized I spent the whole time arguging the clay court field that I never answered the question...Fed wins the AO he is still level with Sampras.

Note Fed fans have been saying # of slams does not matter all this time claiming Fed better than Sampras but somehow they claim when he hits 14...he is suddenly better cause they have the same number..(weird how this double standard works). Fed and Sampras excelled in similar areas and in different ways..Fed was extremely dominate but in a shorter time frame...Sampras was an endurace man who was dominate at point...To get to the point, before it can easily be declared Fed is far better than Sampras either he gets to 16 slams or he wins that French Open if he never does that and ends with 15 it is still a toss in the air. Hell Borg has 11 and is still in the running with Samp and Fed, so if Fed gets I figure 17 or 18 then yes it will be hard to fight the arguement for Sampras and especially if one of those is a French Open..However it might be nice to see some more human years of Fed to help the arguement. Note I think what will be better for Fed is winning 2 slams this year and 2 slams the following year and then one more..it will show some more intense competition..However 3 this year will show he can beat his competition..but who sees that happening (outside of R_Federer though.) Lets face it this AO win doesn't put Federer leaps and bounds ahead of Sampras..so that makes the count on hard for Fed 9 in favor of 7 for Samp but Samp still leads in grass 7 to 5 and both are still in a dead heat on clay 0 TO 0..Fed can only really attempt to claim greatness if he beats RAFAEL NADAL AT THE FRENCH OPEN FINAL.. or WIN THE FRENCH OPEN WITH A VICTORY OVER NADAL IN EITHER A SEMIFINAL OR FINAL (that of course being he slips to 3 or 4 and wins it in the next 2 years...) outside of that it is impossible to put one ahead of the other cause there is a counter for every arguement.
 
Last edited:

TopShelf

Rookie
Lol I just realized I spent the whole time arguging the clay court field that I never answered the question...Fed wins the AO he is still level with Sampras.

Note Fed fans have been saying # of slams does not matter all this time claiming Fed better than Sampras but somehow they claim when he hits 14...he is suddenly better cause they have the same number..(weird how this double standard works). Fed and Sampras excelled in similar areas and in different ways..Fed was extremely dominate but in a shorter time frame...Sampras was an endurace man who was dominate at point...To get to the point, before it can easily be declared Fed is far better than Sampras either he gets to 16 slams or he wins that French Open if he never does that and ends with 15 it is still a toss in the air. Hell Borg has 11 and is still in the running with Samp and Fed, so if Fed gets I figure 17 or 18 then yes it will be hard to fight the arguement for Sampras and especially if one of those is a French Open..However it might be nice to see some more human years of Fed to help the arguement. Note I think what will be better for Fed is winning 2 slams this year and 2 slams the following year and then one more..it will show some more intense competition..However 3 this year will show he can beat his competition..but who sees that happening (outside of R_Federer though.) Lets face it this AO win doesn't put Federer leaps and bounds ahead of Sampras..so that makes the count on hard for Fed 9 in favor of 7 for Samp but Samp still leads in grass 7 to 5 and both are still in a dead heat on clay 0 TO 0..Fed can only really attempt to claim greatness if he beats RAFAEL NADAL AT THE FRENCH OPEN FINAL.. or WIN THE FRENCH OPEN WITH A VICTORY OVER NADAL IN EITHER A SEMIFINAL OR FINAL (that of course being he slips to 3 or 4 and wins it in the next 2 years...) outside of that it is impossible to put one ahead of the other cause there is a counter for every arguement.

I agree with most of that except if Federer wins tomorrow and then caps out at GS's those three French finals have to speak pretty loud for him.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
2005 (1995) - I see Muster,, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Chang and Agassi all in the final 8

I would take fed over chang,kafel,agassi ,bruguera of that year

2006 (1996) - Was getting served 6-3,3-0 by Nalbandian before david got hurt, so who's to say he gets out of SF with Kafelnikov or QF with Courier, hell he would have his hands full getting out of the 2nd rd with Bruguera in the #1 spot

I didn't see that 2006 match. Courier was clearly past his best. pete did very well to come back in that match. But I think federer would've had the advantage against courier of 96. Bruguera was coming back from injury and had a losing record on clay before he came into RG that year, come on ! Fed would've had a fair shot at winning this, if he played the way he did in the finals.

2007 (1997) - Fed will be swimming a pool of sharks that consist of Kuerten, Bruguera, Muster and Kafelnikov

I would take fed over kafel as I said before. Kuerten at his best is better than fed at his best on clay, but he was inconsistent. Fed could've had him on an off-day. Ex : Kuerten-safin 2nd round, next year. Muster and Bruguera though still good, were not at their 'best'. It'd would've been tough for federer I agree, but he was in pretty good form in 2007.

2008 (1998) - Look at the problems he had with Monfils, before winning FOUR games in the F, not to mention Gonzalez, and with Moya, Corretja, Rios, and even Kuerten in the mix, good luck.

Ok,fine. he wasn't in good form in this FO.

Kuerten who was taken out by a young safin in the 2nd round ??????

Federer was no threat for a French titl until 2005. What have Gaudio and Coria done 2005 to present???

He was "no threat" for french in 2004 because guga played a brilliant match and took him out. You think he couldn't have won the title that year if not for guga ? Who'd have stopped him ? coria ? gaudio ? Both of whom had lost their previous encounters to him on clay ? Henman ? come on.

Plus federer's career is still going on. How about 2009 ? Let's see how it goes. He would've had a pretty good chance of winning the RG in 99, not just making it to the finals if he were in good form.

And last but not the least, while it may be 'fun' spectulating here putting one in place of the other, in reality doesn't work out that way.

Form could change depending on the opponents. What you really gotto look at it is their level of play and skills on clay and federer is clearly superior on clay than sampras .


I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of your stupidity!!!!

Oh yes, pete's interview doesn't count and me quoting it is stupidity. ROFL :)
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
1994 (2004) -No Courier in QF or Brugera in F, 30 year old Tim Henman
and his stellar 9-8 record at Roland Garros up to 2003 made the SF. Where the final 4 included Gaudio (I've posted his clay #'s), and Coria who choked and got injured in the F. Could it be?? A French Open title for Pete.

You need a wake-up call as to what happened to federer in 2004 FO. Seriously.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I

If we talk head to head, I take Sampras in a fair one. Outside of clay I would favour Pete on every other surface (not by large margins though). If you analyze they're games, and really listen to what players and experts have said, Pete's game/style is the better match up.

You would favour pete over federer at the AO on rebound ace/plexicushion ? Come on. While I can understand you favouring pete on grass ( close for me, pete slightly ahead as of now, I would like to see how federer performs in wimbledon in the future for this ) and on decoturf ( I would take federer by a slight margin), I don't see how you can favour pete at the AO.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
You would favour pete over federer at the AO on rebound ace/plexicushion ? Come on. While I can understand you favouring pete on grass ( close for me, pete slightly ahead as of now, I would like to see how federer performs in wimbledon in the future for this ) and on decoturf ( I would take federer by a slight margin), I don't see how you can favour pete at the AO.


Sampras never beat Agassi at the AO, and Federer put a massive beatdown on Agassi in the QF of the AO 2005. I don't think Sampras is going to beat Federer at the AO. 8 out of 10 times Federer would win on this surface.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Sampras never beat Agassi at the AO, and Federer put a massive beatdown on Agassi in the QF of the AO 2005. I don't think Sampras is going to beat Federer at the AO. 8 out of 10 times Federer would win on this surface.

Well agassi was 35 years that time and he didn't play that well that day. While I would take federer over agassi on rebound ace, using that 2005 AO match as an example is a bit unfair IMO.
 

380pistol

Banned
I would take fed over chang,kafel,agassi ,bruguera of that year

The same Fed who was beaten by Gasquet in Monte Carlo. The same Fed who could get any of Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov and Agassi as early as QF.

The same Fed who's 2005 draw was Sela, Almagro, Gonzalez, almost 30 yr old Moya and Hanescu. But now he's just beating Chang, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Bruguera, and Muster. Wow!!!


I didn't see that 2006 match. Courier was clearly past his best. pete did very well to come back in that match. But I think federer would've had the advantage against courier of 96. Bruguera was coming back from injury and had a losing record on clay before he came into RG that year, come on ! Fed would've had a fair shot at winning this, if he played the way he did in the finals.

Of course Courier was past his best though he was ranked #7 in the world. Not at his pinnacle but tell me who on clay the last 3-4 years is better than Courier 1996??? Ferrer, Davydenko, Nalbandian??? Who?? Nadal and....???

Federer couldn't handle Nalbandian in SF, yet you having him skating thorough Bruguera and Courier. Oh yeah then Kafelnikov after that. I said it's possible he could not make it out of the 2nd rd, is that not a fair statement?? If not for Sampras, the 1996 QF could have easily been Bruguera/Courier, then what would you be saying about Sergi.


I would take fed over kafel as I said before. Kuerten at his best is better than fed at his best on clay, but he was inconsistent. Fed could've had him on an off-day. Ex : Kuerten-safin 2nd round, next year. Muster and Bruguera though still good, were not at their 'best'. It'd would've been tough for federer I agree, but he was in pretty good form in 2007.

Yeah I'd take Fed over Nalbandian on clay, how'd that work out for him in 2006???
I'd take Fed over a Bo Jackson hipped Guga, how'd that work out for Roger.

Federer could get Kuerten on an off day, do you want the list of 90's claycourters who can get Fed on an off day?? Don't tell me anything, cuz I will post the list of miscreants he's beaten on clay the last 4 years, and we both know you don't want that.

Look at the struggles he had with Davydenko, and the chances Davydenko blew in in 2007. 1997, put Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten or Kafelnikov in that position, and now how comfortable do you feel. You'd take Fed over Kafel and??? I'd take Roger over Davystinko, how'd that work out.

Roger may be lucky it was Davystinko and not one of the aforementioned 4.


Ok,fine. he wasn't in good form in this FO.

Kuerten who was taken out by a young safin in the 2nd round ??????

Moya, Corretja and Rios. "And even Kuerten", meaning after thought.


He was "no threat" for french in 2004 because guga played a brilliant match and took him out. You think he couldn't have won the title that year if not for guga ? Who'd have stopped him ? coria ? gaudio ? Both of whom had lost their previous encounters to him on clay ? Henman ? come on.

Plus federer's career is still going on. How about 2009 ? Let's see how it goes. He would've had a pretty good chance of winning the RG in 99, not just making it to the finals if he were in good form.

And last but not the least, while it may be 'fun' spectulating here putting one in place of the other, in reality doesn't work out that way.

Form could change depending on the opponents. What you really gotto look at it is their level of play and skills on clay and federer is clearly superior on clay than sampras .

Guga played abrilliant match in 2004, and I guess Safin played like trash in 1998 then, Safin went on to defeat Agassi as well, and Bo Jackson hipped Guga did what??? Kuerten was in such great physical condition he would end up having his 2nd hip surgery 3 months ater.

Would Coria, Henam and Gaudio stopped Fed in 2004?? Who cares??? he couldn't even get passed Bo Jackson hipped Guga. That's not a good look no matter how you spin it. Also Fed lost to Costa in Monte Carlo prior to French.

Clearly the rest of your post is a waste, cuz you don't even know the point I was trying to address, and you just talk out of your ass as usual.

You need a wake-up call as to what happened to federer in 2004 FO. Seriously.

He got spanked by Guga and his granny hip. What am I missing???



You would favour pete over federer at the AO on rebound ace/plexicushion ? Come on. While I can understand you favouring pete on grass ( close for me, pete slightly ahead as of now, I would like to see how federer performs in wimbledon in the future for this ) and on decoturf ( I would take federer by a slight margin), I don't see how you can favour pete at the AO.

Did I say I would favour Pete or Roger at Aus Open. You look at records when it suits you and circumstance when it suits you. What if.....
-Gullickson didn't get brain cancer in 1995
-Pete went to Melbourne in 1999
-Pete didn't TEAR his hip flexor in 1st set of 2000 SF

... the what??? At their respective points in their career it's 3-2 Roger and Pete didn't play,while Roger is in the final. And look at what Pete dealt with.

You take Federer over Pete on DecoTurf, but if you ask me PEAK Roger needs to deal with BROKE BACK Agassi more cormfortably before worrying about Pete.
 

380pistol

Banned
Sampras never beat Agassi at the AO, and Federer put a massive beatdown on Agassi in the QF of the AO 2005.

So this ideolgy gives us......

34 and 35 year old broke back Agassi giving a PEAK Fed all he could handle in Flushing, yet Sampras......

-b!tchlapped Agassi who was ranked 8 places higher in 1990
-if not for a bad service game in 3rd set (double faulted twice and unforced errors) would ahve blown a #1 peak Agassi right out of Queens
-took 55 winners, 19 unforced, 18 aces, didn't break a #2 Andre and still sent him home
-at 31 and in his 5th match in 7 days made Dre look like a statue for 2.5 sets, before starting to tire


So based on you ideology how does Fed do vs Sampras in Flushing, Queens??? Enlighten me???


I don't think Sampras is going to beat Federer at the AO. 8 out of 10 times Federer would win on this surface.

LOL!!!!!!!!
 

saram

Legend
If Fed wins the AO, and ties Sampras, then I will place Fed higher on my all-time GOAT list.

IMO, Fed is a much better clay-court player. He has made it to several FO finals. Once Fed and Sampras are tied in overall GS majors, that will indicate that Fed is the better player.

Move him on up. Do you agree?


I really don't care one bit.....
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
So this ideolgy gives us......

34 and 35 year old broke back Agassi giving a PEAK Fed all he could handle in Flushing, yet Sampras......

-b!tchlapped Agassi who was ranked 8 places higher in 1990
-if not for a bad service game in 3rd set (double faulted twice and unforced errors) would ahve blown a #1 peak Agassi right out of Queens
-took 55 winners, 19 unforced, 18 aces, didn't break a #2 Andre and still sent him home
-at 31 and in his 5th match in 7 days made Dre look like a statue for 2.5 sets, before starting to tire


So based on you ideology how does Fed do vs Sampras in Flushing, Queens??? Enlighten me???




LOL!!!!!!!!



34 Agassi had the benefit of a hurricane blowing into town. Agassi was affected less than Federer. Had the hurricane not been there, and they did not start at an odd hour of the day, Federer would have won this match in 4 probably.


2006 final slightly overrates what Agassi did. Federer's level significantly dropped off in the 2nd set and early in the 3rd. Yes, Agassi stepped up his game, but if Federer was playing at maximum 100%, there's no way Agassi is even competing. See the 4 times where Federer completely blew Agassi out of the water.




Also, Sampras was never that great at the Australian Open anyways, and benefited greatly from beating up on second tier players in the final, Moya and Martin. He benefited from fairly easy draws, too. In 94, he really only beat one notable player, Jim Courier in the SF. In 1997, he played 3 consecutive clay court specialists (Costa, Muster, Moya) to win his title.



So yeah, Sampras is a little overrated on the Rebound Ace. Stick some stiff competition in his face like Agassi, and he'll lose the majority of the time.
 
Last edited:

380pistol

Banned

i have
qf-qf-1r-sf/f/w-f

I say he makes more quarters and semis but only 1, 2 finals tops.

I do agree Samp probably has a clay court final in this mix but I doubt he wins one and has more finals than Fed. However its all speculation nothing can be proved as GameSampras said without a time machine.

That's all I am trying to say. I believe Federer is the better claycourter, but it all has to be taken in context. Many hold no F appearances, against Pete, while praisng Roge for his 3 without delving deeper. But if we were to interchange them into the thers era, Pete may have 1 or 2 French finals, while Roger may come up empty. Now does that mean Pete > Roger on clay??? No.

The only shot Pete has of French in this era is 2004, 2005-present, Nadal has it in stranglehold, and I'd take 2003 Ferrero over 1993 Sampras. 2004 was appalling, no nadal, Guga and his hip and Ferrero was chicken pox'd out. Henman was 30 years old for Christ's sake with a 8-7 lifetime record at RG and got to to the SF!!!!! So why not Sampras???

Let's be honest, Gaudio is nothing special on clay (I've posted his #'s),and Coria with his Kournikova/Dementieva serve, and choked the final way and got hurt late in that final if recall, how does Pete not have a chance??? That doesn't mean he's now some outstanding claycourter, it meant he played well (or well enough) and things went right for him.


I like your points here, everyone flourishes in their era. Like I think if Roger played in the era of Borg we have Roger ending up with 12 but not as condensed because he probably would skip Australia but I think he has a more well balanced slam thing. I could see Roger winning a french open in Borg's era, actually quite a few. Sampras' era I would see Roger probably doing better on hardcourts (which I still feel is Fed's best surface.) However its all interesting. Yet at the same time if we put Sampras or Borg in Federer's era for as great as they are could they dominate the way Fed did? Or we would Borg accomplish what he did in Sampras? Would Sampras do what he did in Borg? Would Fed do what he did in Sampras? You get all these confusing questions and frankly its hard to ever know the answers. I agree in Sampras' era I doubt he wins 3 slams in a year for 3 years but at the same time I could see him winning 3 slams in a year (94 and 97, the years I thought Sampras would.) Yet I could see Sampras winning 3 slams in Feds era in (03, 06) However we will never know...

As far as interchanging players in eras. Fed in Borg's shoes. The French Open is going to be tough cuz of Vilas and Panatta. Nadal gives Fed problems, Vilas is so similar to Nadal it's not funny. The only reason he didn't win more French Opens is Borg. At Wimbledon I still see him ruling, and at the US Open he'll pick up a few. But I feel Connors (even Vilas) and posibly Mac could steal one or 2. You take his struggles with Dre in 2004-05 and Djokovic's choke job in 2007, Mac or Connors would fare better.

In Sampras' shoes it gets interesting. Agassi on hardcourts will bother Fed. As I tried to explain (and only krosero understood), tennis is like boxing and styles make fights. It's not a question about who is the superior player between the 2, it's how their games match up head to head. And there are certain aspects where Dre wil bother Roger. In Sampras' shoes I still see Roger #1, and winning the most slams of that era. But I also see things like 2004 Wimbledon final Federer was broken 4 times in 2.5 sets by Roddick. Against 1994 Goran (who blew away Becker in SF and fired 27 winners, 7 unforced and 16 aces in opening set of 1994 final) you don't have that luxury). Federer would not have the luxury of going down 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0 to 1995 Agassi US Open final.

As far Sampras he would have won 3 slams in 1994 if not for leg injury(he didn't play a tournament that summer), and Korda just played out of his mind in 1997. Things are different, 1993 Pete likely takes the Aus Open in 2003, this has nothing to do with Roger, but the fact there isn't a #2 Edberg like there was in 1993.

All of this is just speculation and we'll never truly know, but I just try to consider everything the best I can. So my lips aren't firmly implanted on Roger's ass, I just state my peace. I say Sampras walking in Lendl's shoes is still #1 and winning slams, but I think hos road would be tougher than the one he had in the 90's.

But acoording to many.....
90's vs 00's - CAN'T COMPARE ERAS
80's vs 90's - NOW YOU CAN AND THE 80'S TAKES IT

You gotta luv it!!!!!!!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ChoXI-HWsFM
 

Rhino

Legend
It took Sampras until his 52nd Grand Slam tournament to reach 14 titles...
Federer is contesting just his 39th major!
 

380pistol

Banned
34 Agassi had the benefit of a hurricane blowing into town. Agassi was affected less than Federer. Had the hurricane not been there, and they did not start at an odd hour of the day, Federer would have won this match in 4 probably.

Break out the violin. Agassi had the benefit of a hurricane blowng into town, like there was nowind on Agassi's side just Federer. Federer had the benefit of Agassi donating the 3rd set with a horrible serve game at 5-5.... but we don't mention that.

Federer had the benefit of Roddick playing 3 sets on Saturday before the 2004 Wimbledon F.... but we don't mention that.

Federer had the benefit of Nadal playing 5 consecutive days in 2007 Wimbledon.... but we don't mention that.

Yeah the odd hour of the day, Oh the rain delay causing them to play the match the next day bothered, Roger, but the rain delay effecting Roddick 2 months earlier in Wimbledon F, that's right..... we don't mention that.

About you Sampras/Federer Aus Open post, cancer, missing 1999, torn hip flexor..... we don't mention that.

But we mention... wind, odd time of day though!!! You kill me.

2006 final slightly overrates what Agassi did. Federer's level significantly dropped off in the 2nd set and early in the 3rd. Yes, Agassi stepped up his game, but if Federer was playing at maximum 100%, there's no way Agassi is even competing. See the 4 times where Federer completely blew Agassi out of the water.

I don't recall Agassi playing in the 2006 final, but if you're talking about the 2005 fina, it reminds me of something Hov said.....

"If I shoot you, you're brainless
Different toilet, same ****, and I'm sick of explaining it"


When Fed does well -it's due to his high level of play
When Fed does poorly - it's due to his poor level

I know how the story goes. We'll ignore the fact that Roger was playing so badly in the 2nd set that he served at.... hold on.... wait for it....... 70%!!!!!!!
And was still in the mid 60's when he went down 4-2 in the 3rd set. But when Dre started making erros, it wasn't Dre, it was Roger masterfully rasining his level. When broke back Dre coming of 3 consecutive setters was running out of gas, it was really Roger stepping it up.

Seee the 4 times Fed belw 33+ yr old out of the water. NO!!!!!!!! Why don't you see the the 7 of 11 career meetings where Agassi beat or tremendously bothered Roger???? How about that???

Also, Sampras was never that great at the Australian Open anyways, and benefited greatly from beating up on second tier players in the final, Moya and Martin. He benefited from fairly easy draws, too. In 94, he really only beat one notable player, Jim Courier in the SF. In 1997, he played 3 consecutive clay court specialists (Costa, Muster, Moya) to win his title.

Sampras never that great benefitting from weak draws, Yet chicken pox Ferrero, 86th rk Safin, Baghdatis, Davydenko, Kiefer, Robredo and Gonzalez are the cream of the crop?!? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

But you know the hook to the song by now...... "When it comes to Federer... we don't mention that!!!

He destroyed Courier in 1994, as well as Muster who had what... 2 previous SF where he lost to whom??? Edberg and Lendl???


So yeah, Sampras is a little overrated on the Rebound Ace. Stick some stiff competition in his face like Agassi, and he'll lose the majority of the time.

2 titles, one F and 2 SF overrated. His losses to Agassi came when gGullickson had cancer and he tore his hip flexor in the 1st set, And Dre still need that (Pete was out for a month after that match), 5 sets, and a crucial net cord in 4th set F to prevail. But as usual.... we don't mention that!!! We talk about wind and odd start times.
 
Top