My First Thread-My thoughts on Sampras/Federer

[zagor]

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

So it's better if he loses in straights like Pete did to Krajicek and Scud? It showes you what it takes to beat Federer in big tournies that,meaning that he doesn't go down easily but if you insist on drama matches that Federer won,Fed-Nadal Miami 2005 and last year Wimbledon final were good thrilling matches in which Fed prevailed in the end,also AO this year when he played Janko(10-8 in fifth the final score,that's drama and Fed was even sick).Fed actually did dominate Nadal on somewhat faster indoor surfaces at TMC,he beat him in straigths in both of their meetings there(in the last one he took the second set 6-1),on grass obviously Nadal is very hard for Federer but he did beat Nadal on grass both times.

P.S Sorry I was a little harsh in my first post in this thread,I was wrong about that cause you're entitled to your opinion and it is interesting to view things from a different angle sometimes.You have a right to state your opinion without being atacked.

 

[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.

This is, of course, nonsense. Serving and volleying would be an effective way to play on clay for a number of guys. That's how Stich beat Muster at RG - by being aggressive and attacking the net.

The serve and volley is dying because it isn't being taught. Not because of racquets and definitely not because of surfaces.

As for Panatta, he would have much more of a chance of beating Nadal today by being aggressive, rather than staying back.

 

[akv89]

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.

Well Federer thrashing of Roddick was much more severe than Pete's thrashing of Agassi, although Pete was simply flying that day. But that was not my point. My point was that you seem to be basing how great Pete is in comparison to Roger on how "interesting" his career was. Think about how subjective that sounds. Mcenroe's career was also "interesting" and so was Ivanisevic's. My point about considering Ivanisevic as one of the greatest was tongue-in-cheek if you did not notice, and it was made to show how subjective your argument is.
And my biggest point is thus: Sampras' professional rivalry with Agassi began around 1990. It finished in 2002. Federer's and Nadal's rivalry began in 2005. It is currently 2008. You do the math.

 

[zagor]

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.

Sampras could trash Agassi a couple of times because he's a bad match-up for him and better player on top of that,why didn't Sampras trash players like Ivanisevic(his main rival on grass),Krajicek(who trashed Pete at Wimbledon),Ferreira,Stich etc. he couldn't because those guys were tough match-ups for him.Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer from the baseline so it's tough for Fed to give him a beating.

 

[alfa164164]

CyBorg

How many French Opens did Stich win? Even his best year he lost to a baseliner (Kafelnikov). Even Llorda won some matches this year serve and volleying, but no one is doing it consistently over 7 matches.
Henman's semi-final run was the closest in recent history.
There is a reason why serve and volley isn't being taught.
As to what that reason is, we obviously have different opinions.
Your insistence that is has nothing to do with equipment, strings, and surfaces doesn't seem right to me.
I do agree that an attacking game is entertaining to watch and also necessary to try and beat Nadal on clay.

 

[woody88]

I am a Sampras' fan as much as the next guy, but I find the OP's initial comment lacking. The times are not the same. It would be interesting to see how Pete competes with Rafa. But we will never find out. And Rafa's top spin forehand will give Pete a lot of problem on his backhand. Keep in mind that Fed does have a better back hand than Pete. Plus the OP's argument about beating your rivals is not 100% accurate either. Pete simply did not face anyone that dominant on clay. Who can you use in Pete's day? Muster and Bruguera I think. Both have had success on clay. Muster however, hit with a one-handed backhand, Bruguera hits a good topspin, but he is a righty. Come to think of it, Nadal is kind of like a hybrid of Muster/Bruguera. Pete can beat Rafter, Andre and the likes, but it's not the same competition. And in the days of Luxilon, we have to ask ourselves, can Nadal generate that much spin in the 90s? I am sure it will still be hell to handle his shots, but the strings these days does help. We have to keep our minds open, that is what a discussion board is about right?

ok, I am done in this thread. I am now going to argue with that dude about how he thinks Djokovich has great sportsmanship....