More Impressive Victory: Krajicek 1996 vs Federer 2001

More impressive win?

  • Krajicek

    Votes: 20 83.3%

  • Federer

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Total voters
    24
H

HoyaPride

Professional
Only two men have defeated Pete Sampras at Wimbledon when he was defending his title there: Richard Krajicek in 1996 and Roger Federer in 2001. Which man earned the more impressive victory over Sampras?


 
Krajicek no doubt, Sampras was at his peak that year (8 titles including the US open and Masters cup) 65-9 overall that year
In comparison in 2001 Sampras was 34-17 with 0 title won

+Krajicek won in straight sets
 
Last edited:
Sabratha said:
Um.. how? He was taken to 5 sets by a nobody on route to meeting Federer.
Click to expand...

And he took down Sargis Sargsian in straights before meeting Federer. Thus, it could be argued that Fed took out an equally formidable version of Sampras as Krajicek.
 
You can't judge someone's form by their prior matches at that tournament. Federer didn't drop a set before the 2008 Wimbledon Final but does anyone really think that he was in peak form?
 
IMO Krajicek's win has to be rated higher. He played Sampras when the latter was at his peak and would go on to win the US Open a few months later and 4 more Wimbledons. By 2001, he was starting to decline and won no Slams that year and won no more Wimbledons.
 
Last edited:
HoyaPride said:
You can't judge someone's form by their prior matches at that tournament. Federer didn't drop a set before the 2008 Wimbledon Final but does anyone really think that he was in peak form?
Click to expand...

You do, you made a thread about it being better than Fed's 2006 Wimbledon form.

Is this your only TW account? Baiting trolls like yourself usually have several of them.
 
zagor said:
You do, you made a thread about it being better than Fed's 2006 Wimbledon form.

Is this your only TW account? Baiting trolls like yourself usually have several of them.
Click to expand...
I think they're a Nadal fan. They seem a lot like DRII but I doubt it is them.
 
Sabratha said:
But comparing 1996 Sampras to 2001 Sampras? That's like comparing 2008 Federer to 2013 Federer at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
Yes! Can you believe that same year Sampras lost to Hewitt at the US open? The ultimate evidence
icon_twisted.gif
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Yes! Can you believe that same year Sampras lost to Hewitt at the US open? The ultimate evidence
icon_twisted.gif
Click to expand...
Not as bad as losing to Federer at Wimbledon, really.

Hewitt was still a top 3 or 4 player, Federer was ranked outside the top 10.

Don't forget that Hewitt had been giving Sampras and Agassi tough battles since 1998.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Yes! Can you believe that same year Sampras lost to Hewitt at the US open? The ultimate evidence
icon_twisted.gif
Click to expand...

I'd say in his last years Sampras was better at USO than Wimbledon. Sampras was an absolutely huge favourite before that match with Hewitt despite his year on the whole, he was playing very well and beat 3 USO champs en route to the final. Nobody expected Hewitt to take him apart that easily, it was quite a shock.
 
I am sorry but this must be a troll poll. Sampras was absolute peak and at the height of his dominance of tennis and Wimbledon both in 96. Krajieck whose previous grass performances had been so poor he was unseeded despite being ranked 13th beating him was a monstrous upset nobody saw coming.

Federer after Wimbledon 2001 was ranked higher than Sampras (both outside the top 10 mind you) which gives you the idea the kind of year Sampras was having. Federer beating him wasn't even a huge surprise whatsoever, and most felt that match between the hot up and comer and a badly slumped/struggling Sampras was 50/50.
 
Mainad said:
IMO Krajicek's win has to be rated higher. He played Sampras when the latter was at his peak and would go on to win the US Open a few months later and 4 more Wimbledons. By 2001, he was starting to decline and won no Slams that year and won no more Wimbledons.
Click to expand...

Were you a Sampras fan when he played?
 
According to OP's true agenda, Federer didn't lose a set before 2008 W final, therefore he was peak. By that logic, Sampras didn't lose a set until 2002 W loss to Bastl, therefore Sampras was peak. Sometimes stupidity never ceases to amaze.
 
Tennisanity said:
According to OP's true agenda, Federer didn't lose a set before 2008 W final, therefore he was peak. By that logic, Sampras didn't lose a set until 2002 W loss to Bastl, therefore Sampras was peak. Sometimes stupidity never ceases to amaze.
Click to expand...
Except that Sampras was 2-2 on grass in 2002 compared to 11-1 for Federer in 2008 with a 28 sets straights won on grass heading to the final.

Either he was near his peak or was playing against complete mugs lol

858408Capture.jpg
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Except that Sampras was 2-2 on grass in 2002 compared to 11-1 for Federer in 2008 with a 28 sets straights won on grass heading to the final.

Either he was near his peak or was playing against complete mugs lol

858408Capture.jpg
Click to expand...

Sure no one is saying he completely declined in 2008. But he certainly wasn't peak. Just look at his won-loss record in general. You can't just look at grass, you have to look at his overall confidence level that year. It was quite low. So of course physically he was still prime in 2008, but confidence he was very low as he himself admitted due to loss of lots of practice training blocks from the earlier mono in 2008.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
More Impressive Victory: Krajicek 1996 vs Federer 2001
Replies
1
Views
311
zagor
zagor
skypadq
1996 wimbledon pete sampras vs Richard Krajicek
Replies
8
Views
1K
King No1e
King No1e
skypadq
in tennis history , what era of player can beat 1996 wimbledon Richard Krajicek ??
Replies
34
Views
2K
DSH
DSH
A
2001 Wimbledon: Changing of the Guard
Replies
0
Views
687
Applez
A
Mainad
Wawrinka hires KRAJICEK
2
Replies
68
Views
3K
Laurie
L
Back
Top