My First Thread-My thoughts on Sampras/Federer

[sampras13]

Well to begin Id like to say hello to everyone on this board and let all u guys know ive bin reading this forum for a good year now but only decided to post something out of my irritation at the opinions of some of the users here. Im 18 and played tennis since I was seven playing very seriously from around the ages of 9 to 15. I played at a considerably high level playing usta national tournaments and achieving a top 10 ranking in the eastern section for a while. I also have been a huge fan of watching the sport since I was 10 and have been obsessed with its history and story.

Now my take on Sampras vs. Federer. Federer might end up winning the French, he'l probablly surpass the grand slam record but those statistics and his dominance the last few years does not matter at the end of the day. Watching Federer i do not see a true champion and that is most evident when watcing his matches against Nadal and probably against Djokovic in the future. His inability to defeat Nadal on clay will always be the greatest strike against his legacy and one that is too strong to put him above Sampras. Even if Federer breaks every record in the book he will never overcome his greatest rival and this is something that a true winner and champion always does. For those that watched Sampras closely during his career something was always very clear to me and that was his willingness to not accept defeat. After losing an important match to either Rafter, Krajicek or Safin he would always make sure he took revenge on his opponent. Whether it was the Wimbledon final with, a us open quarterfinal against krajicek, or a us open semi against Safin. All these victories came in close proximity after bitter defeats against these players. Federer has come very close to beating Nadal a few times on clay revealing that it is a psycholigical issue rather than a skills competition. It is clear that Federer is capable of doing it but he does not have the champion's nature to do it. 20 years from now Federer will be remembered for his inability to overcome the #2 of his generation and that is unaccepatable for his legacy to be considered greater than Petes.

In addition to these things I find it funny how even now after his career can be seen with greater scope Sampras is still not respected fully for all his talent and accomplishment. Besides all the records he set, all the memorable moments he produced go unnoticed as well. He probably had more storybook moments in his career than any other athlete in any other sport. The crying Australian open match against Courier, the davis cup victory by himself against russia on clay, the '96 french open, the match to save his year against Corretja, the match that ended Agassi's career for a few years in '95, the '99 hannover victory after 3 months of injury, breaking the slam record on one ankle, the '01 quarter against agassi at the open, and obviously shutting everybody up in '02 at open. Sampras was a constant producer of Hollywood moments in pro tennis and he did this all with an incredibly stylish and indivual game that no one had seen before and looks like no1 will see after.

Federer on the other hand is an incredibly talented player and one that got very lucky. His era included one other great player and a hanful of nobodys. Who did Sampras have to face throughout his career?
agassi-arguably top 10 of all time
becker-6 slams
rafter-2 slams, 2 finals-easily a hall of famer
kafelnikov-2 slams, hall of famer
ivanisevic-grand slam contender for 10 years
courier-4 slams
not to mention muster, bruguera, kuerten, krajicek, chang
All these guys were competing for slams every year and most won at least one. Federer is playing with two other grand slam contenders. Does anybody really think Davydenko, Ferrer, or Blake will ever win slams? I mean Blake has been in the top 10 now for the last 3 years. Look up a top 10 list from the 90's youre not going to see a Blake there for that consistent of a period. Does this have to do with Federer's domination? I dont think so. The game has come down to physicality and power with a real lack of true athletes in the sport. There biggest evidence of this is the lack of serve and volleyers in tennis. Since the invention of the sport tennis was ruled by offensive net charging players from Tilden to Laver to McEnroe to Sampras. There were baseliners and grinders here and there but the majority of true champions were s&v's. Who is Federer? He's a true #2 that is lacking a real #1 to beat him. He is the Agassi of his generation with no Sampras. Andre may have dominated the way Federer has starting from '94 or '95 but Pete was always there to remind his whos boss. Agassi once said that the scariest thing about playing Pete was that he could come out with his best tennis and still lose. And if Pete came out and played his best tennis against Fed's best, the results would have been similar.

 

[superman1]

Interesting perspective, but Andre never could have dominated quite as much as Federer. Andre was at his peak in '95, but he was human and couldn't be at his physical best every day, like at the French against Kafelnikov, and he still had matches like at Wimbledon against Becker where he was leading and should have won but somehow found a way to lose. Federer is just scary, scary dominant. As of now it's a little hard to judge his career. If he goes away with a whimper, we might have to reconsider his greatness. But if he continues winning Slams like this in the face of new competition, you've got to put him above Sampras. Maybe his competition isn't as great, maybe it is, we'll never know.

 

[zagor]

Agassi once said that the scariest thing about playing Pete was that he could come out with his best tennis and still lose.

Your Agassi also said that Federer is the best player he ever played.Disagree with the rest of your post as well,Sampras didn't actually had his revenge against Krajicek as he had a losing H-to-H with him troughout his career and lost to him in straght sets in his own house(Wimbledon).Also it is somehow a stain on Fed's legacy because he can't beat one of the best claycourters ever on CLAY while Sampras is somehow excused for losing to hacks in his prime at FO? LOL,you're beyond ridicilous.If Sampras was as mentally tough as you describe him(I'm not saying he isn't one of the mentally toughest players ever but you sound like he's a God,he is human and had his faults as Federer) why didn't he dig dip and get to the FO final(or two) to show that he is a slam contender on surface that made his serve less effective?

Federer is Agassi of this generation but without Sampras!?!? LMAO,you're just too much.Agassi would never dominate the way Fed did(the way no one ever dominated for a 4 year span)because that's just the way he is,he was never focused and motivated enough and had other interests beside tennis.

As for saying Federer won this many slams because he is VERY lucky(not only lucky)and is actually #2(any who got to the number one spot in his career deserves it let alone a player who has held it for the record 220+ consecutive weeks)I gotta say that's one of the most hilarious things I heard in this forum.

Also saying that if Federer wins the FO and passes Pete's slam record it doesn't matter?!? Do you realize what it means to have a career slam(what made Agassi so special) and to have 15 slams on top of that? It is obvious you have a very strong bias towards Sampras(who is actually a legend IMO but fans like yourself don't do him any good,he deserves better)so conversation with you is probably pointless.

The way Federer is underrated in this forum is ridicilous.According to "wise knowledgeble tennis gurus" here Federer apparently won all of his slams due to luck(most important factor probably),rain,easy draws and easy competition,it is beyond hilarous(do tell these things to yourself before you go to sleep if it makes it easier for you though).

 

[samprasbackhand]

Nice post, I agree. I don't think Federer has consistently been fully challenged to win a slam, seems like he just blows through everybody.

 

[1970CRBase]

Without Nadal, Federer would have won 3 French. As it is, he is still a close #2 on clay behind Nadal.

People purposefully keep underestimating Nadal for whatever the reason. IMO, he's the greatest on clay, in my book at least.

Sampras was never close to being a real contender for clay #1. Probably outside top 10 clay specialists in his time time.

 

[merovingian]

rafter-2 slams, 2 finals-easily a hall of famer
kafelnikov-2 slams, hall of famer
ivanisevic-grand slam contender for 10 years

You can't talk these guys up as being competition for Sampras but dismiss the likes of Hewitt, Safin and Roddick out of hand when it comes to Fed. All three of those goes are former number 1s, and all 3 have played in 4 slam finals.

Like you, I'm also a long-time reader and occasional poster, and one thing that continually irks me are the crazy double standards that people use to dismiss Fed's opponents, but talk Pete's up.

 

[zagor]

and one thing that continually irks me are the crazy double standards that people use to dismiss Fed's opponents, but talk Pete's up.

Trust me,you're not alone in that regard.Yes to mention and hype up Ivanisevic and Rafter while undermining Hewitt and Roddick is ridicilous.

 

[superman1]

Without Nadal, Federer would have won 3 French. As it is, he is still a close #2 on clay behind Nadal.

People purposefully keep underestimating Nadal for whatever the reason. IMO, he's the greatest on clay, in my book at least.

Sampras was never close to being a real contender for clay #1. Probably outside top 10 clay specialists in his time time.

Definitely, but you could say that the fact that we have Nadal on clay makes up for the fact that we don't have as much competition on other surfaces for Federer, i.e. no fast surfaces and serve and volleyers who can shut you out on a great day. Federer just hasn't had to play big guys who can serve big and come in and dominate the net. We don't have any more fast surfaces where an Ivanisevic can come in and blow you off the court, regardless of how well you're playing.

 

[sampras13]

well in response to your post Zagor, what Agassi said does not really matter because the amount of times I heard that Agassi was actually a better player than Sampras during their career's including from his own coach Brad Gilbert is inconcievable. Sampras did have his revenge on Krajicek when he came back from a set down and 6-2 in the second set tiebreak at the us open to beat him the head-to-head is much less important as Pete had a losing h-h against a lot of players. Its not a stain on Fed's legacy that he cant beat Nadal because Nadal is so amazing but because of the tightness of their matches. Federer has consistently lost in very close matches to Nadal something that Sampras never did to anybody. Sampras beat the greatest clay courters of his day at many times. In '96 he beat Courier and Bruguera in 2 5-setters in a row before running out of steam. Sampras' game was completely not suited for clay and he still battled out there winning the Italian Open, reaching the quarters 3 times, and least remembered winning the Davis Cup against Russian back when most players took the Davis Cup very seriously. Federer grew up playing on clay and has the defense and strokes to win on clay but cant overcome Nadal. Petes entire game was an offensive minded, finish the point as quickly as possible strategy that is almost impossible to pull off for 2 weeks at the French Open. Also, it is impossible to say whether Agassi could have dominated or not because having the understanding that Sampras is out there and can always beat you is something the can crumble someones mental strenght. Everytime Agassi was on top of the tennis world he was quickly brough down to earth which most likely became something constant in the back of his mind.

Now about Federer I respect his game and his accomplishments a great amount. In fact I was a fan of his when he was 18 years old before there was any hype. I saw him play before any big wins or real fame and I told my coach and parents I thought he would be #1 in the world one day. He is still my favorite player today and watching him play in real life is really a thing of beauty. Saying that he is underrated is absolutely a joke because Ive never heard more hype about a tennis player as I did about Federer. He had 5 slams and people were already saying that he was going to be the greatest player of all time.

To those criticizing my comments about the comparison of their competitions. You can compare Safin and Hewitt at their best with Rafter and Roddick but look at the years of production. Safin does not have probably a 3 month period where he was consistently a top player since 2000 and Hewitt dropped off substantially from being a top ten talent since '04; Federer's first year of domination. Rafter was a top player from '97 to '01 and Ivanisevic was a top ten player and threat to win any tournament for almost a decade. Roddick on the other hand is nowhere near the talent of the players I mentioned in the 90's. Comparing him to any great grass court player of the 90's is just funny because being a grass court player is about your athleticism and anticipation not just a big serve.

The fact that Sampras was never a real contender for #1 on clay is not important to the point I was making. The fact is that Federer is but cannot will his way too victory against Nadal. If Sampras had Federer's game on clay he would have beat Nadal at the French a while ago through his champions will. And how ironic will it be if after all of Federer's success on clay he will end up having the same fate as so many of the greats before him(Mcenroe, Connors, Becker,Sampras).

 

[Iced_jacob]

well in response to your post Zagor, what Agassi said does not really matter because the amount of times I heard that Agassi was actually a better player than Sampras during their career's including from his own coach Brad Gilbert is inconcievable. Sampras did have his revenge on Krajicek when he came back from a set down and 6-2 in the second set tiebreak at the us open to beat him the head-to-head is much less important as Pete had a losing h-h against a lot of players. Its not a stain on Fed's legacy that he cant beat Nadal because Nadal is so amazing but because of the tightness of their matches. Federer has consistently lost in very close matches to Nadal something that Sampras never did to anybody. Sampras beat the greatest clay courters of his day at many times. In '96 he beat Courier and Bruguera in 2 5-setters in a row before running out of steam. Sampras' game was completely not suited for clay and he still battled out there winning the Italian Open, reaching the quarters 3 times, and least remembered winning the Davis Cup against Russian back when most players took the Davis Cup very seriously. Federer grew up playing on clay and has the defense and strokes to win on clay but cant overcome Nadal. Petes entire game was an offensive minded, finish the point as quickly as possible strategy that is almost impossible to pull off for 2 weeks at the French Open. Also, it is impossible to say whether Agassi could have dominated or not because having the understanding that Sampras is out there and can always beat you is something the can crumble someones mental strenght. Everytime Agassi was on top of the tennis world he was quickly brough down to earth which most likely became something constant in the back of his mind.

Now about Federer I respect his game and his accomplishments a great amount. In fact I was a fan of his when he was 18 years old before there was any hype. I saw him play before any big wins or real fame and I told my coach and parents I thought he would be #1 in the world one day. He is still my favorite player today and watching him play in real life is really a thing of beauty. Saying that he is underrated is absolutely a joke because Ive never heard more hype about a tennis player as I did about Federer. He had 5 slams and people were already saying that he was going to be the greatest player of all time.

To those criticizing my comments about the comparison of their competitions. You can compare Safin and Hewitt at their best with Rafter and Roddick but look at the years of production. Safin does not have probably a 3 month period where he was consistently a top player since 2000 and Hewitt dropped off substantially from being a top ten talent since '04; Federer's first year of domination. Rafter was a top player from '97 to '01 and Ivanisevic was a top ten player and threat to win any tournament for almost a decade. Roddick on the other hand is nowhere near the talent of the players I mentioned in the 90's. Comparing him to any great grass court player of the 90's is just funny because being a grass court player is about your athleticism and anticipation not just a big serve.

The fact that Sampras was never a real contender for #1 on clay is not important to the point I was making. The fact is that Federer is but cannot will his way too victory against Nadal. If Sampras had Federer's game on clay he would have beat Nadal at the French a while ago through his champions will. And how ironic will it be if after all of Federer's success on clay he will end up having the same fate as so many of the greats before him(Mcenroe, Connors, Becker,Sampras).

Don't forget the fact that Sampras suffered from mediterranean anaemia which means he was getting tired easily. So basically clay was a done deal for him and he couldn't do anything about that

 

[alfa164164]

I'd like to see Sampras in his prime play Nadal on clay. It would be pretty entertaining to watch the Pistol "will his way" to victory - NOT!
I'm thinking Pete would be lucky to get a couple of sets over the course of 8 clay court matches.
If Federer hadn't won 12 of the last 19 Slams, guys like Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin would have many Slam titles to their credit, thereby making them better competition. So, if Federer would have lost more Slam titles to these guys, he would then have better competition - nice reasoning.
The reason there are so few serve and volleyers is because they've slowed down the courts (Wimbledon) and balls. Pete (as well as Boris and Goran) would have a much harder time imposing his game under current conditions.
All in all, pretty weak logic IMO.

 

[sampras13]

wel alfa you obviously dont know how to read. I said if sampras had federers game he would will his way to victory against nadal, something federer cannot do. And using the logic of competition you used Agassi would have the record for slams, Ivanisevic would have 4 Wimbledons, and Courier would have stayed #1 for a few more years. And the fact theyve slowed down the courts and balls does not account for the lack of volleying skills on the tour and lack net rushing players. Maybe it is natural that serve and volleying is much harder now but for this type of game to die off is a good picture of which way tennis is going. VVVVVVVVV

 

[ksbh]

Well Federer at least got to 2 finals at Roland Garros which Sampras never managed. Between them, Federer may have the edge because of his performance at the French Open.

One thing is for sure ... neither of those guys is G.O.A.T no matter what their fans say!

 

[CyBorg]

It's one of these amusing fallacies again.

"Pete Sampras is a great player - look at his contemporaries; this one won a major; this one won two majors; this one also won two majors; this one won four majors... Federer's contemporaries didn't win as many majors as Sampras' contemporaries."

Well, no ****, numbnuts. Federer has been winning all of them.

 

[alfa164164]

The fact that they've slowed down conditions DOES precisely account for the lack of volleying skills and net rushers on tour. If there was a big payoff for getting to the net, players would perfect those skills. Unless, your point is that the tennis community as a whole has fewer players blessed with the "volleying gene". Apart from the few truly gifted volleyers like McEnroe and Edberg, most of that skill can be developed and perfected through practice. When they convert 3 of the 4 Slams to the slick old-school grass of days gone by, you will see the S&V game resurrected over time. IMO your cause and effect are screwed up. Say all 4 Slams are converted to super slow clay, will the S&V game be developed? Conversely if all tournaments are played on slick grass or super fast hard courts, I guarantee you there will be plenty of net rushers. Players with all that money on the line, will develop the skills necessary to win under the prevailing conditions. In that sense, you could argue that Sampras was lucky that the faster conditions of the 90s existed during his career because his record shows that he did not have either the skill set to win consistently, let alone dominate, under slower conditions!

 

[CyBorg]

The fact that they've slowed down conditions DOES precisely account for the lack of volleying skills and net rushers on tour. If there was a big payoff for getting to the net, players would perfect those skills.

Lame and unsupported argument.

Red clay surfaces have gotten faster, not slower. Yes in the 70s we had the likes of Panatta and Pecci serving and volleying on the surface. Today we don't. Why?

 

[raiden031]

Let me get this straight. Because ONE guy (Nadal) stands in the way of Federer and two straight calendar slams, he is not as good as Sampras who simply could not play well on clay at all? If Sampras could compete on clay, he would've beat Nadal. Amazing logic there. :shock:

 

[nikdom]

To the OP-
I'm assuming you're from an English speaking country; if not, ignore what I'm about to say.

Forget about Federer and Sampras, they'll both live the rest of their lives millionaires and exalted as great athletes. At 18, you need to work on your grammar, spelling and reasoning abilities. Otherwise your legacy will be nothing to crow about.

 

[alfa164164]

CyBorg

Panatta and Pecci weren't serving and volleying on clay in the era of Babolat and Luxilon, otherwise they would've been watching their serves and approach shots that were going to their opponents backhands wiz by them for winners instead of having time to react and punch away a winning volley. It was easier to impose a net rushing game with wood rackets. Even Gerulaitis made the French Final attacking the net. Is it your contention that Panatta would beat Nadal on clay by attacking the net with current equipment and conditions?
The pace and angles that modern equipment and strings allow passing shots and returns to be hit with, give a decided edge to backcourt play, hence the lack of S&V development.

 

[sampras13]

nikdom, you need to post something in regards to the topic and not about me as a person.

 

[alfa164164]

sampras13

It is hard for me to imagine an objective post on Pete Sampras from someone who has "sampras" as part of their moniker. Regardless of the differences in our OPINION (extreme emphasis on opinion), I appreciate your post and effort to make a rational arguement. Even though I don't agree with your reasoning, it is certainly up for debate as to which generation (Federer or Sampras) had the better competition. Not sure if that could be proved with stats, but it does and has made for lively debate on this board. For me the beatings that Safin and Hewitt gave Pete do weigh in on my evaluation. Regardless, you have managed to stir the pot up nicely, so well done mate.

 

[akv89]

Well to begin Id like to say hello to everyone on this board and let all u guys know ive bin reading this forum for a good year now but only decided to post something out of my irritation at the opinions of some of the users here. Im 18 and played tennis since I was seven playing very seriously from around the ages of 9 to 15. I played at a considerably high level playing usta national tournaments and achieving a top 10 ranking in the eastern section for a while. I also have been a huge fan of watching the sport since I was 10 and have been obsessed with its history and story.

Now my take on Sampras vs. Federer. Federer might end up winning the French, he'l probablly surpass the grand slam record but those statistics and his dominance the last few years does not matter at the end of the day. Watching Federer i do not see a true champion and that is most evident when watcing his matches against Nadal and probably against Djokovic in the future. His inability to defeat Nadal on clay will always be the greatest strike against his legacy and one that is too strong to put him above Sampras. Even if Federer breaks every record in the book he will never overcome his greatest rival and this is something that a true winner and champion always does. For those that watched Sampras closely during his career something was always very clear to me and that was his willingness to not accept defeat. After losing an important match to either Rafter, Krajicek or Safin he would always make sure he took revenge on his opponent. Whether it was the Wimbledon final with, a us open quarterfinal against krajicek, or a us open semi against Safin. All these victories came in close proximity after bitter defeats against these players. Federer has come very close to beating Nadal a few times on clay revealing that it is a psycholigical issue rather than a skills competition. It is clear that Federer is capable of doing it but he does not have the champion's nature to do it. 20 years from now Federer will be remembered for his inability to overcome the #2 of his generation and that is unaccepatable for his legacy to be considered greater than Petes.

In addition to these things I find it funny how even now after his career can be seen with greater scope Sampras is still not respected fully for all his talent and accomplishment. Besides all the records he set, all the memorable moments he produced go unnoticed as well. He probably had more storybook moments in his career than any other athlete in any other sport. The crying Australian open match against Courier, the davis cup victory by himself against russia on clay, the '96 french open, the match to save his year against Corretja, the match that ended Agassi's career for a few years in '95, the '99 hannover victory after 3 months of injury, breaking the slam record on one ankle, the '01 quarter against agassi at the open, and obviously shutting everybody up in '02 at open. Sampras was a constant producer of Hollywood moments in pro tennis and he did this all with an incredibly stylish and indivual game that no one had seen before and looks like no1 will see after.

Federer on the other hand is an incredibly talented player and one that got very lucky. His era included one other great player and a hanful of nobodys. Who did Sampras have to face throughout his career?
agassi-arguably top 10 of all time
becker-6 slams
rafter-2 slams, 2 finals-easily a hall of famer
kafelnikov-2 slams, hall of famer
ivanisevic-grand slam contender for 10 years
courier-4 slams
not to mention muster, bruguera, kuerten, krajicek, chang
All these guys were competing for slams every year and most won at least one. Federer is playing with two other grand slam contenders. Does anybody really think Davydenko, Ferrer, or Blake will ever win slams? I mean Blake has been in the top 10 now for the last 3 years. Look up a top 10 list from the 90's youre not going to see a Blake there for that consistent of a period. Does this have to do with Federer's domination? I dont think so. The game has come down to physicality and power with a real lack of true athletes in the sport. There biggest evidence of this is the lack of serve and volleyers in tennis. Since the invention of the sport tennis was ruled by offensive net charging players from Tilden to Laver to McEnroe to Sampras. There were baseliners and grinders here and there but the majority of true champions were s&v's. Who is Federer? He's a true #2 that is lacking a real #1 to beat him. He is the Agassi of his generation with no Sampras. Andre may have dominated the way Federer has starting from '94 or '95 but Pete was always there to remind his whos boss. Agassi once said that the scariest thing about playing Pete was that he could come out with his best tennis and still lose. And if Pete came out and played his best tennis against Fed's best, the results would have been similar.

You made the mistake of judging Federer's career before he even finished it. Firstly, it is still possible that Federer can overturn the H2H between him and Nadal. I also don't think anyone has even beaten Nadal as many times as Federer has.
Secondly, tennis is all about matchups. Let's say Federer was as good as Sampras on clay. In that case, he wouldn't have made as many finals against Nadal on clay and wouldn't have lost as many times against him. Remember, the majority of the matches between Federer and Nadal are on clay. I don't think Sampras would have had as dominating a H2H against Agassi if they met more on clay or on the hard courts of the Australian Open where Agassi was king.
Thirdly, your definition that a player needs to have a better record than his closest rival to be considered great is completely arbitrary. I could just as easily say that a player needs to be extremely skilled on all surfaces to be considered great. You have to take everything into consideration when assessing greatness.
Finally, I'm getting tired of the lack of competition argument. I see that you are claiming that competition during Sampras' time was greater than Federer's time because of the number of GS champions Sampras had to face. Guess what, Federer doesn't have to face a lot of GS champions since he and Nadal were the only ones winning them. And again, Federer hasn't finished his career yet and the competition he's having to face is getting even tougher. Either way, I'm going to show the competition Federer's had to face:
Agassi: that's right; Agassi's career extends into Federer's career as well.
Roddick: 2 time GS champion and year end #1
Lleyton Hewit: 2 time GS champion and 2 time year end #1
Marat Safin: 2 time GS champion
Rafael Nadal: 3 time GS champion, perhaps the greatest clay courter ever on his way to win 5+ majors at least
Novak Djokovic: won the AO at 20 years of age and has the capability to win many more.
And there will be more too...

 

[sampras13]

Thank-you very much and Id also like to say that I posted this to see what people think of my opinion not to put my words in definate terms but even though I prefer Pete over Roger I look at this objectively. My first love in tennis was actually Pat Rafter and then Guga followed by Federer. I never saw myself as a huge Sampras fan until very recently when I started rewatching his matches with fresher eyes. I also began to dislike Federer more and more as it seems clear to me how unexciting he is as a personality. Pete might have been called boring but his career was far from it while Rogers has been a snoozefest the last few years with no real excitement besides a two or three matches with Nadal. Whatever his fate will be in tennis history it is hard to compare the high amount of drama Sampras gave the tennis world compared with Federer.

 

[sampras13]

akv89, my definition is not arbitrary it is simply the way I believe true champions are defined. If Sampras had lost some of those matches against Andre at the US open where there rivaly was usually at its peak Agassi would have come out the dominant player of his era. It is important for a player of Federer's status to overcome his demons and battle through his most difficult challenges but Federer has not been able to do that. Federer may be a legendary tennis player but I will never consider him a legendary athlete like Sampras, Jordan, Ali and Brady.

 

[alfa164164]

Isn't winning 12 out of 14 Grand Slam Finals and like 18 or 19 consecutive Slam semi-finals or better (and counting) considered rising to the occasion?

 

[akv89]

akv89, my definition is not arbitrary it is simply the way I believe true champions are defined. If Sampras had lost some of those matches against Andre at the US open where there rivaly was usually at its peak Agassi would have come out the dominant player of his era. It is important for a player of Federer's status to overcome his demons and battle through his most difficult challenges but Federer has not been able to do that. Federer may be a legendary tennis player but I will never consider him a legendary athlete like Sampras, Jordan, Ali and Brady.

The fact that you say that YOUR definition is the way to assess greatness is evidence that it is arbitrary. I have nothing against Sampras and I believe that he is one of the greatest. But I see a lot of bias in your post. Sampras had the advantage of competing against someone of his own age, Agassi. His abilities grew in coordination with those of Agassi's, which made for a rivalry rare in any kind of sport. Federer on the other hand has to face someone 5 years his junior who is only getting better as Federer ages.
There are also players that Sampras was never able to take revenge on like Lleyton Hewitt. I urge you to wait until Federer's career is over to make such judgements about his career. Everything looks better when you look back on it. A lot of people thought Sampras was boring when he was playing too.

 

[akv89]

And also, Federer is a great example of someone exacting revenge on the people who reguarly beat him. Just ask Agassi, Hewitt, Henman, and Nalbandian in addition to some newer players like Berdych, Gasquet, Canas, and even Djokovic to an extent.

 

[luckyboy1300]

akv89, my definition is not arbitrary it is simply the way I believe true champions are defined. If Sampras had lost some of those matches against Andre at the US open where there rivaly was usually at its peak Agassi would have come out the dominant player of his era. It is important for a player of Federer's status to overcome his demons and battle through his most difficult challenges but Federer has not been able to do that. Federer may be a legendary tennis player but I will never consider him a legendary athlete like Sampras, Jordan, Ali and Brady.

yeah fed had not been able to do that, winning 3/4 slams in 3 years says it all. no wait! federer has been playing a lot weaker players! look at roddick, nadal, djokovic, safin or hewitt? are they any better than rafter, ivanisevic, chang, kafelnikov, etc. seesh

and yeah i agree too that being number 1 for 220+ consecutive weeks (and counting) is not legendary. reaching 10 straight GS finals is a very small thing that a prime agassi can do. winning 12 slams and 13 masters series titles in 4 years are not marks of a true champion too.

look at sampras! he had been overcoming his demons by reaching the FO semis once and winning a single atp title on clay.

 

[sampras13]

His revenge on those guys was not really the kind that Sampras dealt out. He just kind figured out those players and never lost to Agassi, Hewitt or Henman again while Sampras' victories were more based on pure will and not a strategy adjustment (ex. rafter, krajicek).

And I think those people that thought Sampras was boring back then think hes boring now.

Rising to the occassion means overcoming your opponent and yourself. Federer is usually head and shoulders above his opponent but when hes not such as in the case against Nadal he falters.

 

[sampras13]

luckyboy, I dont need to hear statistics I already know. You gave me a bunch of accomplishments that mean nothing when comparing athletes at such a high level. Karl Malone has more career points than Jordan and Wilt and Russell have more championships but are they greater players? I dont think so.

 

[alfa164164]

Sampras' winning based on "pure will" as you put it (IMO) was due to his lack of a Plan B.
All the guy could do was serve huge on 1st AND 2nd serves and try to pick up a loose break. What was he going to do, spin his second serve in and try to outfox his opponent from the baseline? I think his will to win is overrated, he had some huge weapons, swung for the fences and usually pulled it off.
I think it is ironic that when he lost to someone employing the same go for broke tactic, he usually diminished his opponents feat by saying they had nothing to lose and just swung for the fences, in essence saying they got lucky. He was not the most gracious loser (except when it came to Agassi, I think he is the one opponent he thought could beat him even if he played great).

 

[luckyboy1300]

luckyboy, I dont need to hear statistics I already know. You gave me a bunch of accomplishments that mean nothing when comparing athletes at such a high level. Karl Malone has more career points than Jordan and Wilt and Russell have more championships but are they greater players? I dont think so.

well i only thought of that as a fun way to take you out of your delusions but yeah i failed. you are purely subjective in your reasoning. overcoming demons and fighting by will? federer was 2 sets down in miami finals in 2005 against nadal but was able to win. tipsarevic was playing out of his mind, yet a federer with mono carried on and won that match. federer has also his fair share of tough matches where his opponent is playing the tennis of his life but fed was able to win. posting some stats does not hurt eh? at least i posted mine and reasoned my beliefs on an objective basis rather than forming opinions out of one's delusions.

 

[fastdunn]

you just can't compare competitions.

maybe competition of 2005-2006 was pretty weak. then again there were a few weak years in 90's too.

compared to 90's tennis of extreme polarizations on playing styles and surface speed,
today's tennis is easier because of variety of match-ups, surface speeds, for the lack of them, i mean.

but today's tennis is harder because it's much more physical now and you have to play more tournaments now and so on. so you can't even compare nature of competitions objectively.

it always comes down to # of slams and # of years as #1.

if federer exceed these two, he will be considered better than sampras.
(being considered better than guys like laver and gonzales is different matter though. probably it's kinda meaningless to compare with pre-open era.).

 

[anointedone]

Who did Sampras have to face throughout his career?

agassi-arguably top 10 of all time

Basically absent during all of Sampras's 6-year reign at #1 except for late 1994-1995.

becker-6 slams

Already well past his best by then.

rafter-2 slams, 2 finals-easily a hall of famer

Won 2 slams past the midway point in his career at the U.S Open, only interfering with a clearly injured Sampras in one of those. For all we know something Davydenko or Nalbandian could also do (probably wont but in 1996 nobody would have predicted Rafter to ever win a slam either). Did not reach a quarterfinal at Wimbledon until his 3rd last year on tour, or a quarterfinal at the Australian Open until his last year on tour. Hardly a sustained multi-slam threat.

kafelnikov-2 slams, hall of famer

Worst player in atleast 25 years to win 2 slams. Didnt even win a Masters title. Had even more pathetic record vs Sampras then Roddick and Hewitt do vs Federer. Most pathetic #1 since computer rankings came out with 6-first round losses prior to gaining that ranking.

ivanisevic-grand slam contender for 10 years

Only a real contender at Wimbledon. A grand total of 1 semifinal at the other 3 slams. Relied totally on his serve, even more then Roddick does today.

courier-4 slams

Already on the verge of burnout when Sampras began his dominance. 1993 was last year he spent entire year ranked in the top 10.

not to mention muster, bruguera, kuerten, krajicek, chang

Clay courter, clay courter, clay courter, erratic 1-hit wonder, poor mans Hewitt.

Thanks for coming.

 

[veroniquem]

His revenge on those guys was not really the kind that Sampras dealt out. He just kind figured out those players and never lost to Agassi, Hewitt or Henman again while Sampras' victories were more based on pure will and not a strategy adjustment (ex. rafter, krajicek).

And I think those people that thought Sampras was boring back then think hes boring now.

Rising to the occassion means overcoming your opponent and yourself. Federer is usually head and shoulders above his opponent but when hes not such as in the case against Nadal he falters.

But Sampras "faltered" on clay way more than Fed. To me, Fed is as good as Sampras on hard and grass but much better than him on clay.

 

[BkK_b0y14]

Watching Federer i do not see a true champion and that is most evident when watcing his matches against Nadal and probably against Djokovic in the future. His inability to defeat Nadal on clay will always be the greatest strike against his legacy and one that is too strong to put him above Sampras. Even if Federer breaks every record in the book he will never overcome his greatest rival and this is something that a true winner and champion always does.

Federer is not a true champion?!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA OMG WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? So you're saying that him getting 12 slams is all luck? If so, please leave these forums forever. Fed is better than Sampras ever was on clay!

 

[merovingian]

To those criticizing my comments about the comparison of their competitions. You can compare Safin and Hewitt at their best with Rafter and Roddick but look at the years of production.

Get real mate. Rafter's time in the sun was short. Any way you carve up his career, Hewitt has him convered.

Safin does not have probably a 3 month period where he was consistently a top player since 2000

You turkey. Do some basic research. He finished 2002 as #3 and 2004 as #4. He also directly, and obviously, denied Federer a slam title: the 05 Aussie.

and Hewitt dropped off substantially from being a top ten talent since '04; Federer's first year of domination.

You're stuffed, and I'm basting: Hewitt finished 2005 at #4.

Rafter was a top player from '97 to '01

Rafter won a mere 3 titles after 1998. He finished 1999 at #16 and 2000 at #15.

and Ivanisevic was a top ten player and threat to win any tournament for almost a decade.

Ivanisevic finished inside the top 10 in just 6 years, the last of which was 1996. Outside of Wimbledon, he was no realistic threat at any slam. No semi-final appearances at the Aussie or French (in 23 attempts), and only once past the 4th round at the US.

Roddick on the other hand is nowhere near the talent of the players I mentioned in the 90's. Comparing him to any great grass court player of the 90's is just funny because being a grass court player is about your athleticism and anticipation not just a big serve.

Your "nowhere near the talent" comment is merely an opinion, not a fact. Career achievements put Roddick in front of Goran. Not by much, but Roddick's still going.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

I hate seeing these sampras fans.

 

[akv89]

His revenge on those guys was not really the kind that Sampras dealt out. He just kind figured out those players and never lost to Agassi, Hewitt or Henman again while Sampras' victories were more based on pure will and not a strategy adjustment (ex. rafter, krajicek).

That's a double standard if I ever saw one. Why are Sampras' achievements achieved through will and Federer's achieved by "figuring out" the opponent. For the record, Federer didn't figure anybody out. He improved his own game particularly his movement and his mental toughness and beat all of the above at their own game from the baseline.

 

[sampras13]

im going to respond to you merovingian since I am a turkey,

Get real mate. Rafter's time in the sun was short. Any way you carve up his career, Hewitt has him convered.

Rafter would have been much stiffer competition for Federer than Hewitt's embarassing record against Federer since Roger came into his prime. I dont think reaching the semis of all 4 slams is weak and doing it across '97-'01. Mr. Rafter was a heck of a player for anybody on a good day, ask agassi at wimbledon in 2000 and 2001.

You turkey. Do some basic research. He finished 2002 as #3 and 2004 as #4. He also directly, and obviously, denied Federer a slam title: the 05 Aussie.

I said he had no period of consistency. Showing up here and there and winning some huge matches does not equal consistency but it does explain the high ranking. Not to mention '02 is irrelevant since that is neither Sampras' era nor Federers'. And denying Federer a slam is not a feat that makes him a true competitor or rival for Roger since he is m.i.a 90% of the time.

You're stuffed, and I'm basting: Hewitt finished 2005 at #4.

Il give you this '05 was a pretty good year for Hewitt but he has been a nobody since the '05 us open.

Rafter won a mere 3 titles after 1998. He finished 1999 at #16 and 2000 at #15.

Rafter didnt win many titles to begin with but he reached the wimbledon semis in '99 and finals in '00 and '01 and aussie open semis '01 and reached several master series finals during those years. he was definately a top player for the years i mentioned, his ranking suffered due to serious injuries for extended periods of time.


Alright im not going on but at the end of the day the argument of competition is very difficult to prove for either era but Federer's inability to beat Nadal on clay is obvious.

I hate seeing these sampras fans.

Ti shutka ya nad taboy smeyus, go translate that fruitcup.

So you're saying that him getting 12 slams is all luck? If so, please leave these forums forever.

When did I ever say that? never

Btw, somebody give me a response to my point of the incredible drama Sampras produced during his career compared with Federer. You guys can believe Federer is better, that his competition is tougher and whatever else but I want to see someone disagree with me that Federer has been more interesting to watch than Sampras was. The most exciting matches Federer was part of was two that he both lost, the aussie open semis against Safin and the Rome final against Nadal (maybe the wimbledon final last year also). How many to compare with for Sampras? the count definately favors Pete. The day I see Roger throw-up on court and hit a 97 mph 2nd serve ace is when I say Federer is the g.o.a.t. Someone here said that the only way to compare these players is years at #1 and grand slams won. Why is that? Because tennis has so many ways to count greatness does not mean it should be a number. Like I previously mentioned, Jordan would not be considered the best if you looked at him purely by numbers and neither would Ali. But they are considered the best in their sport because although judged subjectively it was clear through their constant production of miracles and champions will put them above the rest. If we looked at Sampras' career from beginning to end the only man that comes close to matching him is Connors but even he does not fully measure up.

 

[akv89]

Btw, somebody give me a response to my point of the incredible drama Sampras produced during his career compared with Federer. You guys can believe Federer is better, that his competition is tougher and whatever else but I want to see someone disagree with me that Federer has been more interesting to watch than Sampras was. The most exciting matches Federer was part of was two that he both lost, the aussie open semis against Safin and the Rome final against Nadal (maybe the wimbledon final last year also). How many to compare with for Sampras? the count definately favors Pete. The day I see Roger throw-up on court and hit a 97 mph 2nd serve ace is when I say Federer is the g.o.a.t. Someone here said that the only way to compare these players is years at #1 and grand slams won. Why is that? Because tennis has so many ways to count greatness does not mean it should be a number. Like I previously mentioned, Jordan would not be considered the best if you looked at him purely by numbers and neither would Ali. But they are considered the best in their sport because although judged subjectively it was clear through their constant production of miracles and champions will put them above the rest. If we looked at Sampras' career from beginning to end the only man that comes close to matching him is Connors but even he does not fully measure up.

Ok. So according to you a player's greatness should be dependent on how dramatic his matches are. So why don't you think Ivanisevic is the greatest player of all time for his unbelievable run in 2001 Wimbledon as a wild card. It is your personal opinion that Federer needs to play in dramatic matches to be a great tennis player. I disagree with basing greatness entirely on such a subjective matter, especially considering how Federer makes it seem as though drama is unnecessary as he dispatches most of his opponents in straight sets. You cite Sampras' 5 setter against Corretja to reveal his greatness, then I can ask you to rewatch the 2007 AO semifinal of Federer against Roddick for perhaps the closest thing to perfection on a tennis court.

 

[obnoxious2]

Just because a player has an arch nemesis doesn't mean he isn't great. Sampras had Agassi as Federer has Nadal (Djokovic hasn't proven himself yet just because he won the AO but against a sick Federer).

 

[Stchamps]

Btw, somebody give me a response to my point of the incredible drama Sampras produced during his career compared with Federer. You guys can believe Federer is better, that his competition is tougher and whatever else but I want to see someone disagree with me that Federer has been more interesting to watch than Sampras was. The most exciting matches Federer was part of was two that he both lost, the aussie open semis against Safin and the Rome final against Nadal (maybe the wimbledon final last year also). How many to compare with for Sampras? the count definately favors Pete. The day I see Roger throw-up on court and hit a 97 mph 2nd serve ace is when I say Federer is the g.o.a.t. Someone here said that the only way to compare these players is years at #1 and grand slams won. Why is that? Because tennis has so many ways to count greatness does not mean it should be a number. Like I previously mentioned, Jordan would not be considered the best if you looked at him purely by numbers and neither would Ali. But they are considered the best in their sport because although judged subjectively it was clear through their constant production of miracles and champions will put them above the rest. If we looked at Sampras' career from beginning to end the only man that comes close to matching him is Connors but even he does not fully measure up.

Federer doesn't have as much drama because he destroys people since he is so good. Also, no one judges Michael Jordan by his numbers since he played a team sport.

 

[deme08]

This thread is a joke.

Sampras' era has ended long ago. The game has moved on, accept it pal. Nadal is the best clay courter ever existed (yes he still need to surpass Borg but its just a matter of time.) he is 10 times the competition Sampras ever had to face on clay and yet Sampras never made to a FO final. Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Davydenko would've crushed any hard court competitors in Sampras's era. Even Nadal so called clay specialist has crushed Agassi (so called Sampras' closest competition) in a hard court master final. In fact Sampras' era ie the 90s was the weakest era in tennis history. Borg's era which precedes Sampras had legends like Lendl, McEnroe, Connors just to name a few. And Federer's era is much stronger too if not the strongest, the world No.2 Nadal alone would take out Laver, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten on clay, basicly 1/3 of legends ever existed.

 

[akv89]

This thread is a joke.

Sampras' era has ended long ago. The game has moved on, accept it pal. Nadal is the best clay courter ever existed (yes he still need to surpass Borg but its just a matter of time.) he is 10 times the competition Sampras ever had to face on clay and yet Sampras never made to a FO final. Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Davydenko would've crushed any hard court competitors in Sampras's era. Even Nadal so called clay specialist has crushed Agassi (so called Sampras' closest competition) in a hard court master final. In fact Sampras' era ie the 90s was the weakest era in tennis history. Borg's era which precedes Sampras had legends like Lendl, McEnroe, Connors just to name a few. And Federer's era is much stronger too if not the strongest, the world No.2 Nadal alone would take out Laver, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten on clay, basicly 1/3 of legends ever existed.

There's no need to go to the other extreme. Sampras' era was difficult in its own way. Never was it more difficult to be successful on all the surfaces due to the great variety in playing styles. And please don't compare Nadal to a 35 year old Agassi. Agassi is and will remain one of the greatest hard courters of all time.

 

[deme08]

There's no need to go to the other extreme. Sampras' era was difficult in its own way. Never was it more difficult to be successful on all the surfaces due to the great variety in playing styles. And please don't compare Nadal to a 35 year old Agassi. Agassi is and will remain one of the greatest hard courters of all time.

I know I know I was just playing his game. Agassi of course remains one of the greatest of all time.

 

[dh003i]

Well to begin Id like to say hello to everyone on this board and let all u guys know ive bin reading this forum for a good year now but only decided to post something out of my irritation at the opinions of some of the users here. Im 18 and played tennis since I was seven playing very seriously from around the ages of 9 to 15. I played at a considerably high level playing usta national tournaments and achieving a top 10 ranking in the eastern section for a while. I also have been a huge fan of watching the sport since I was 10 and have been obsessed with its history and story.

Now my take on Sampras vs. Federer. Federer might end up winning the French, he'l probablly surpass the grand slam record but those statistics and his dominance the last few years does not matter at the end of the day. Watching Federer i do not see a true champion and that is most evident when watcing his matches against Nadal and probably against Djokovic in the future. His inability to defeat Nadal on clay will always be the greatest strike against his legacy and one that is too strong to put him above Sampras. Even if Federer breaks every record in the book he will never overcome his greatest rival and this is something that a true winner and champion always does. For those that watched Sampras closely during his career something was always very clear to me and that was his willingness to not accept defeat. After losing an important match to either Rafter, Krajicek or Safin he would always make sure he took revenge on his opponent. Whether it was the Wimbledon final with, a us open quarterfinal against krajicek, or a us open semi against Safin. All these victories came in close proximity after bitter defeats against these players. Federer has come very close to beating Nadal a few times on clay revealing that it is a psycholigical issue rather than a skills competition. It is clear that Federer is capable of doing it but he does not have the champion's nature to do it. 20 years from now Federer will be remembered for his inability to overcome the #2 of his generation and that is unaccepatable for his legacy to be considered greater than Petes.

In addition to these things I find it funny how even now after his career can be seen with greater scope Sampras is still not respected fully for all his talent and accomplishment. Besides all the records he set, all the memorable moments he produced go unnoticed as well. He probably had more storybook moments in his career than any other athlete in any other sport. The crying Australian open match against Courier, the davis cup victory by himself against russia on clay, the '96 french open, the match to save his year against Corretja, the match that ended Agassi's career for a few years in '95, the '99 hannover victory after 3 months of injury, breaking the slam record on one ankle, the '01 quarter against agassi at the open, and obviously shutting everybody up in '02 at open. Sampras was a constant producer of Hollywood moments in pro tennis and he did this all with an incredibly stylish and indivual game that no one had seen before and looks like no1 will see after.

Federer on the other hand is an incredibly talented player and one that got very lucky. His era included one other great player and a hanful of nobodys. Who did Sampras have to face throughout his career?
agassi-arguably top 10 of all time
becker-6 slams
rafter-2 slams, 2 finals-easily a hall of famer
kafelnikov-2 slams, hall of famer
ivanisevic-grand slam contender for 10 years
courier-4 slams
not to mention muster, bruguera, kuerten, krajicek, chang
All these guys were competing for slams every year and most won at least one. Federer is playing with two other grand slam contenders. Does anybody really think Davydenko, Ferrer, or Blake will ever win slams? I mean Blake has been in the top 10 now for the last 3 years. Look up a top 10 list from the 90's youre not going to see a Blake there for that consistent of a period. Does this have to do with Federer's domination? I dont think so. The game has come down to physicality and power with a real lack of true athletes in the sport. There biggest evidence of this is the lack of serve and volleyers in tennis. Since the invention of the sport tennis was ruled by offensive net charging players from Tilden to Laver to McEnroe to Sampras. There were baseliners and grinders here and there but the majority of true champions were s&v's. Who is Federer? He's a true #2 that is lacking a real #1 to beat him. He is the Agassi of his generation with no Sampras. Andre may have dominated the way Federer has starting from '94 or '95 but Pete was always there to remind his whos boss. Agassi once said that the scariest thing about playing Pete was that he could come out with his best tennis and still lose. And if Pete came out and played his best tennis against Fed's best, the results would have been similar.

This is a bunch of BS. You don't get to 12 GS without being a real champion. What a load. As for Federer not being able to beat Nadal, he's beat him everywhere except clay, and over the last + year he has dominated Nadal on non-clay surfaces (winning most / all of their matches on grass / HC). Who exactly of any significance did Sampras beat on clay? Did he beat Kuerten on clay? Sampras' best ever at the FO was 1 SF. Fed's had 1 SF and 2 F. He's clearly a better all-around player than Sampras.

 

[sampras13]

Ok. So according to you a player's greatness should be dependent on how dramatic his matches are. So why don't you think Ivanisevic is the greatest player of all time for his unbelievable run in 2001 Wimbledon as a wild card. It is your personal opinion that Federer needs to play in dramatic matches to be a great tennis player. I disagree with basing greatness entirely on such a subjective matter, especially considering how Federer makes it seem as though drama is unnecessary as he dispatches most of his opponents in straight sets. You cite Sampras' 5 setter against Corretja to reveal his greatness, then I can ask you to rewatch the 2007 AO semifinal of Federer against Roddick for perhaps the closest thing to perfection on a tennis court.

Well if your gona cite that for me then I suggest you watch the '99 wimbledon final against Agassi, a thorough beating against one of the greatest of all time, not exactly an Andy Roddick. Has Federer ever thrashed Nadal in a grand slam match the way Pete did to Andre several times. In fact has Federer ever thrashed Nadal in any match besides that one semi in Shanghai.
I never said a players greatness shall be measured by the drama he produced during his career I simply challenged any of you guys to argue that Federer's career has been more interesting than Pete's to watch.

And btw apparently you people dont know how to argue or read since telling me that I should consider Ivanisevic one of the greatest because of his wimbledon run is really not a valid argument in any way. I said during the course of a career and thats why I mentioned Jordan, Ali, and Connors. I also never said this was the way to measure the best or whos better than who.

Federer doesn't have as much drama because he destroys people since he is so good. Also, no one judges Michael Jordan by his numbers since he played a team sport.

Federer does not have drama because he is so rarely challenged and when he is he often loses. i.e. safin aussi semis, nalbandian shanghai finals, nadal rome and french open finals. The only really exciting match he has won was the Wimbledon final in which he should have never been in a 5th set. Whether the grass is slower or not which it obviously is, didnt you guys say that Federer dominates Nadal on faster surfaces. I dont see any form of domination from Federer over Nadal.

And players on team sports are judged by their numbers as much as individual sport athletes. Watch some sportcenter lol

 

[motrengaw]

I loved watching Sampras play, his serve and his volleying were a thing of beauty, but I think Federer's all around game is better, and if he breaks the grand slam record he has to be considered the greatest of all time

 

[Nadal_Monfils]

^^^ He doesn't have to be considered the greatest of all time because he still does not have 2 calendar Grand Slams like Rod Laver.