Fed: Can you believe, what that 18th Slam wonder just said about you?
Pete: Arrrggggghh.
^^
If Federer were like Sampras in 2 respects...
- Thread starter The_18th_Slam
- Start date
Fed: Can you believe, what that 18th Slam wonder just said about you?
Pete: Arrrggggghh.
^^
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Fed lost to Nadal in their first meeting. He lost again at Dubai.
Nadal had no wins on HC in 2004 or 2005. Two M1000 wins in 2006.
One HC Masters1000 win in 2007.
Before 2007 you have two great players almost not meeting. Nadal was already King of Clay, but he was not threatening much of anyone on HC.
5 years difference in age between two players who dominated on completely different surfaces gives very strange results.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
There will be several contextual subtleties and variables present in every match-up.
Having losing records to young Hewitt and Roddick hardly looks much more impressive than Fed having one to Nadal given that match-up's specific context.
Now, I'm not saying we should demote Sampras as a player for those h2h's -- it's not material from which we can draw those inferences. But the same goes to a large extent for Nad-Fed.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Federer: 17>14, 6>5, 302>286, 23>11, 86>64
Sampras: 20-14>10-23?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
And I like Sampras, Fed and Nadal. To my mind they are simply the greatest players I've seen since the beginning of the 90s.
Some people just like to start fights. It is what trolls do.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Nadal won two HC masters in 2005, and won in China also. In 2006, his only HC title came at Dubai.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
How is this starting fights? It's just another perspective. If Federer never faced Nadal on clay and retired at 31, the H2H would be 8-6.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
What is with the Sampras hate?
Sampras was a tremendous champion, and he was the changed the game forever. He set the standard, he set the goal post for Federer to succeed. No matter what anyone says about, or if both Federer and Nadal surpass him, he has cemented his name and legacy in this sport. Yes, it is a shame he could not win the FO, but still take a look at what he did, it is nothing to laugh at.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
10 years difference in age is a lot more extreme than 5 years difference. Fed and Nadal had years where their peaks arguably crossed. Not true for Sampras vs Hewitt and Roddick.
Again, we have to use some common sense. If you pick older players, it's obvious that Gonzales and Rosewall overlapped about 6 years, Rosewall and Laver about 4 years, but Gonzales and Laver about 10. Most of the greatest players had, at most, 3-4 years of total dominance. In rare cases maybe 5.
If you are comparing a 10 year difference you get into a potential match-up between guys like KG and Wawrinka, or Coric and Novak. And so on.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
How am I hating on Sampras?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
No one who knows anything about tennis is laughing at Pete.
Are those the lottery numbers predict by them? ^^
You are talking to a fan of BigMac, Becker and Edberg in the first place dude, like I have mentioned a couple of times. Yet, you failed to make Sampras look weak anyway since none of those guys you mentioned owned Sampras, esp. not at Slams. I can deal with people saying Fed is the GOAT but I can´t deal with fan boys posting false h2h records and not even considering the circumstances at all. ;-)
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Look, I have been there and seen this argument thrown around here many times. I would much rather Federer have the career he had, than think about some H2H with a player. If he had that attitude, he would never have won the FO, and gotten the career slam. 23-10 is a small thing, when you look at Federer's trophy cabinet. Even Nadal said that while everyone is envious of his trophy cabinet, it is no where near as good as Federer's and ultimately, it is winning titles that counts the most.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Your humor is so weak, I'm actually embarrassed for you.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Of course, and that is obvious. This thread was merely in response to those to criticize Federer for his H2H. Because the H2H is actually a reflection of how much better he is than Sampras.
encylopedia
Professional
WAAAAHHHHH......
Hmm.....if I try to play around with the numbers....and eliminate swaths of results, maybe I can make people think that:
1.Sampras didn't kick the tar out of his greatest rival...and never had a nemesis that kept beating him in big matches.
2.Federer has gotten the better of the rivalry.
Oops...didn't work....even most people who love Fed know #2 simply isn't true (regardless of what one thinks about the importance of that), and anyone who lived through the era knows full well that Sampras was undisputed in his prime.
Trolling fail.....or else....severe failure in reasoning....
Hmm.....if I try to play around with the numbers....and eliminate swaths of results, maybe I can make people think that:
1.Sampras didn't kick the tar out of his greatest rival...and never had a nemesis that kept beating him in big matches.
2.Federer has gotten the better of the rivalry.
Oops...didn't work....even most people who love Fed know #2 simply isn't true (regardless of what one thinks about the importance of that), and anyone who lived through the era knows full well that Sampras was undisputed in his prime.
Trolling fail.....or else....severe failure in reasoning....
Then just re-read your posts again, you will get an even bigger laugh. ^^
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course, but Nadal is clearly a player of a different caliber than Hewitt and Roddick. Besides, Hewitt and Roddick (and Safin) were rather young in most of those matches with Sampras, and Sampras wasn't that old himself (and not done winning slams). On top of that, there are other factors than age that make the Fed-Nad anything but a clear case for inference. And such is the case with almost any match-up.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yes, he did. I hate the new ATP site. It is much harder to read. I put those two Masters in the wrong year, because of the way the list is divided.
And don't mistake me for someone who is putting down Nadal. But only Dubai was against Fed. My only point was that the two did not meet often before 2008, and never in a slam on HCs.
Up until 2008 it was as if for the most part they were in two different worlds. It was already clear that Fed could not beat Nadal most of the time on clay, but no one else could either.
My personal view has always been that Fed and Nadal are the greatest of this time, and I'm content to leave it at that.
Novak may or may not be able to challenge these two in slams. If he does, he has to have the Agassi-like longevity and Laver-like success in slams in the next few years. Possible, but it's a long shot.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Sampras against his biggest rival: 20-14 (59%)
Federer against Sampras's biggest rival: 8-3 (73%)
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Sampras was the king in his day, in an era where conditions and even racquet technology is vastly different from what we saw when he left. And Federer is the king of his time, and that is saying something considering he had Nadal and Djokovic, two massive ATGs to deal with. We should respect them all, and not try to pit them against each other all the time.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Nadal is of a different caliber than anyone I have seen other than Borg. He dominated on clay when he was so young, and 9 FOs pretty much says everything, right? But to say that it is a weakness for Sampras to have lost to Hewitt and Roddick, for example, just does not seem logical to me. It's a bit like saying that because Brown has beaten Nadal twice on grass, his former W wins are not valid. Which, by the way, is what I am reading right now.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
I respect Sampras highly enough. I consider him the 2nd greatest player of the Open Era. I'm not pitting them against each other, and, frankly, there is no need to. It's obvious who is better. I still don't understand what exactly you find so problematic about this thread. You're making assumptions about me which have no basis in reality.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
When you have players that have won 14 or more slams, such as Sampras, Nadal and Federer, their place is cemented for good. I just don't like it when they are constantly crapped upon. As for Djokovic, he has done remarkably well, and I don't think he will slow down just yet, if he gets it together, he should end up with double digit slams, and that is saying something, since he fought against two of the greatest icons in sporting history.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Problematic? Well, take a look. Federer and Sampras fans fighting yet again. No need.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Exactly, and that's why I said I don't hold those h2h's against Sampras. There are too many variables to make that assumption.
And that's my attitude towards the Fedal h2h as well, if not for the exact same reasons.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
It's just a discussion.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
This is a very boring thread.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
I agree, I'm going to go watch some Tennis.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
You cannot even hope to hold any sort of discussion with 90's Clay, one of the most pathetic mug trolls around, who very occasionally produces some valid points.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Only since Federer passed the age at which Sampras RETIRED.
ARKustom93
Professional
Reaching? That there was straight up Fantastic Four territory, ... you know, like 'Rubberman'??
"What if ..." is a great concept for safe driving and many other things, but in this context?? ... Not so much; mostly just stupid.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Stop what?
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Just stop. This whole topic: Stop. Do us the favor. Please.
ARKustom93
Professional
Forget about the 'faces', for a sec ... What do you make of the fact, that both of 'em are covering their balls during this brief, but nevertheless intimate moment between two GOATS??
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Why?
Complete Trash
Rookie
Suck it Sampras american fan boys.
Complete Trash
Rookie
I lolled at the "since 90s"And I like Sampras, Fed and Nadal. To my mind they are simply the greatest players I've seen since the beginning of the 90s.
Some people just like to start fights. It is what trolls do.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I don't either. These three are three of the best we have ever seen. That's good enough for me.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Here is what I see: Pete lost only once to Hewitt through the US Open of 2000. Sampras started to slip a lot in 1999, right at the age I keep talking about, the wall. Some players push through that wall, but they are never quite the same again (think of Fed right now).
Roddick first beat Sampras in 2001, Safin in 2000. Hewitt, Roddick and Safin were all amazing young players, but with 9-10 years difference in age we'll never know what they would have don against each other if their peaks had coincided.
It is not that often when we get to see two guys close in age with an incredible rivalry. I think it works with groups like these:
Rosewall/Sedgeman
Ashe/Newcombe
Gerulatitis/Borg
McEnroe/Lendl
Wilander/Edberg
Muster/Becker
Agassi/Courier/Bruguera/Sampras/Ivanisevic/Krajicek/Chang/Rafter (about 2 years difference in this whole group)
Safin/Hewitt/Federer/Nalbandian/Roddick/Ferrer/Coria
Wawrinka/Nadal/Gasquet/Murray/Djokovic (about 2 years difference in this whole group)
But not many of these rivalries will be remembered.
And we remember a lot of the ones like these, where there is a greater age difference:
Rosewall/Laver [4]
Connors/Borg [4]
Borg/McEnroe [3]
Federer/Nadal [5]
That's not to say that there are not famous rivalries with about a year difference, but it doesn't happen so often. Probably the most famous right now is Nadal/Djokovic.
Last edited:
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Really? Then please explain how old man Federer has won 4 of the last 9 matches against Nole, when Djoker is without question the #1 player in the world and in his physical prime? That's "getting Fed's number" when he's 6 years older than Djoker? Connors at 31-33 wasn't winning anything against Lendl, who was 6 years younger than he was. And McEnroe in his 30's won nothing against Edberg/Becker, who were far younger than he was.
encylopedia
Professional
Come on kiddo. You're not going to troll me with something that irrational lol. If you're not purposely being obtuse.....well you don't understand any of this anyways, and life is a very mysterious struggle for which you are ill-prepared.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
They're not in the same generation. Ivan Lendl won his last 17 meetings with Jimmy Connors.
Just because the media paints a picture doesn't make it factual. Federer had a 3-1 record at Master and WTF prior to that Aussie Open loss in 2009 going on age 28. Even still his wins over Nadal in his 30s at the WTF is funny to look at much the same.
Sampras meanwhile does not have any glaring big loss records against players because of his routine skipping of tournaments and losing in earlier rounds. Even still some of his records like 12-8 against Michael Chang or 7-6 against Wayne Ferreira leave a lot to be desired. While he won half his Slams against Goran(2), Pioline(2), Martin, Moya and twilight Becker. He went 5-3 in U.S. Open Finals, winning 3 against Agassi and losing against Safin and Hewitt, convincingly. I love Pete but point is he's far from clean in his resume.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Stating facts is being "obtuse" now?
I'm sorry the facts are not to your liking, but they're still facts!
Another fact is Agassi said Roger is the best player he has ever played against. Agassi is one of a few player who played both Pete and Federer in their prime.Stating facts is being "obtuse" now?
I'm sorry the facts are not to your liking, but they're still facts!
"Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played."
"Pete Sampras was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger," Agassi said.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
The OP has a good point though. Strangely, playing more and better is often translated in being viewed as a lesser player. See Wawrinka with his 100% success rate in slam finals, surely he is better than Murray?
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
1) Tons of FO meetings
2) HC being slowed down
3) the 2 meeting in HC Slams in 2009, 2012, 2014 where Nadal had the age advantage - 2012 and 2014 in particular
4) a 5-year age difference
Need I say more? Sampras only had Agassi who is worse than Nadal, they mostly played on fast hard courts which favored Sampras and Sampras is a year younger. Completely different rivalries. If Fed had Agassi as his main rival, they were the same age and played mostly on fast hard courts their h2h would be ugly for Agassi.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
If Sampras had to play Nadal 14 times on clay, that would've been 0-14 against Pete. I guess it's not too unfair to say Nadal would've done at least as well as Agassi did against Pete on other surfaces. Sampras v Agassi on non-clay h2h is 18-11 for Sampras, but we don't have carpet events any more so take that away(5-2 Sampras), it becomes 13-9 Sampras. Add 14 to Nadal's side from clay, it becomes 23-13 Nadal. How does that look? Quite familiar?
There were simply not enough meetings between them early in Nadal's career on HC. Murray had upper hand against Fed but eventually Federer reversed it, even if he was past his prime by then. Small sample can distort facts and as the sample gets larger, things become more 'normal' or more predictable. Had Federer and Nadal met more on HC in 2004-2007, Federer would've had many more wins. Also, their current H2H on HC has been heavily influenced by the matchup between past prime Federer v near prime Nadal during 2011-2015, including 2013 when Fed was suffering from the back injury.
Last edited:
Similar threads
