Now I know how Sampras fans feel

  • Thread starter Deleted member 307496
  • Start date

ibbi

Hall of Fame
Shouldn't he have fans? Is that exclusive to big 3 only?

Murray has fans too.
I mean tennis had players before the big 3 came along. As someone who grew up a Double A fan that thought Petros was sinfully boring I still just find it remarkable that anybody much liked the guy while he was actually playing (in hindsight obviously he is easy to appreciate). No big deal, not that serious :p
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Federer’s power + precision combination is second to none.
Novak, Rafa, Pete and Boris were all more powerfull than Roger.
Nalbandian was equal/more powerfull than Roger.

Fed got defeated by power and endurance. He reigns in the talent department, but certainly not in the physical one.
 

Sport

Legend
I am not saying anyone is done. And to be honest, it seems only Djokovic is winning as he should. In other words, both Federer and Nadal have to wait for an opportunity to win a slam (minus RG where Nadal still remains supreme) whereas Djokovic doesn't have to wait for that. He wins regardless minus RG. And when it comes to Federer vs Nadal, it seems Federer has the upper hand on other slams while Nadal has the upper hand at RG but Nadal is more dominant because he has full authority over RG, unlike Federer - Wimbledon, for example, or even AO. But then again Federer is older than both so that should be taken into consideration as well. I don't think either Nadal or Djokovic will play as long as Federer has played, because they both have a bit more going on in life then Federer. Federer seems to be completely taken by tennis. He clearly loves tennis the most, in other words. Whatever happens, it needs to happen within the next 2/3 years time. That's all they are all left with. 2022 at best I am guessing. Even that feels tight even though we saw both Nadal and Djokovic splitting slams this year. Both Tsitsipas and Medvedev are looking more and more dangerous as cocky players.
Nadal is the 4th player with most US Open titles in the Open Era history, and the best US Open player of the 2010s decade with 4 titles. Nadal has won more US Open titles than Djokovic and even leads the H2H over Djokovic at the US Open, so your idea that Djokovic is the dominator of the US Open and Nadal a player who needs luck to win the US Open is not based on objective facts. Nadal defeated Medvedev in the USO final, the man who defeated Djokovic in Cincinnati. Medvedev also destroyed Wawrinka (Djokovic's kryptonita) in 3 sets this USO. So no, it does not look like Nadal "has to wait for an opportunity to win the US Open", nor does it look like "Federer has the upper hand over Nadal at the US Open", especially when Federer has not won the US Open since 2008. It is a fact that Nadal is substantially better at the USO than the AO or WB, and you are suggesting Nadal's situation in all Slams outside clay is equal, which is not the case.

Djokovic also does not look like the most in form player outside clay right now, as you are implying. Post-Wimbledon Djokovic has won 0 Masters 1000 and 0 Slams, while Nadal won 1 Slam and 1 Masters 1000 and Medvedvev 2 Masters 1000 and 1 Slam final.
 
Last edited:

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Novak, Rafa, Pete and Boris were all more powerfull than Roger.
Nalbandian was equal/more powerfull than Roger.

Fed got defeated by power and endurance. He reigns in the talent department, but certainly not in the physical one.
I said that in combination of power and precision Federer is the best. Of course there were people who could hit the ball harder or just took more risks than him.

However, I don’t think Djokovic has more pure power than Federer. He is mainly a precision player (which by the way doesn’t mean "pusher").
 

ForehandRF

Professional
This combination failed him as soon as Rafa, Novak and Andy came around.

His records were mainly built in the weak era, and after 2008 it all came crashing down.
What ? I am tired with that narrative.From 2004 AO till 2010 AO Fed played in all but 4 slam finals, winning 16 slams.Fed's results and consistency fell after the AO 2010, but he is not a robot no ?
 
Last edited:

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Come on, if you call Federer’s era weak and at the same time want to glorify Sampras’ opposition, then a real debate is over.
People pointed out that Pete won no other slam than W after 1995.

Between 1989 and 1995, there were Lendl, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Courier, Chang, Muster, Bruguera, Ivanisevic.

Compare them with old Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Philippoussis, Safin, Davydenko, Roddick, Rusedski.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
People pointed out that Pete won no other slam than W after 1995.

Between 1989 and 1995, there were Lendl, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Courier, Chang, Muster, Bruguera, Ivanisevic.

Compare them with old Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Philippoussis, Safin, Davydenko, Roddick, Rusedski.
Some of the "great" names you mentioned won less than Hewitt, Safin and Roddick despite not facing peak Federer. And now imagine what all of those so-called "weak era guys" would have won without Federer, except maybe Philippoussis and Rusedski (who were rather part of the Sampras era anyway).

Also Sampras isn't criticized for what he has done until 1995 (at least not by me), but for the years after with less competition and yet less success.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
If people are to accept Fed as the GOAT, then one needs to explain them the drop in dominance from pre-2008 with no Andy, Novak and mature Rafa, to past-2008 where Andy, Nole and mature Rafa were present.

They need to explain Fed's obvious failure in the H2H vs Rafa.

If they can't, then the argument for GOAT cannot be made.

It doesn't mean automatically that Pete is GOAT, but that the GOAT issue remains very much a question mark.

2020 will bring a lot of answers.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
If people are to accept Fed as the GOAT, then one needs to explain them the drop in dominance from pre-2008 with no Andy, Novak and mature Rafa, to past-2008 where Andy, Nole and mature Rafa were present.

They need to explain Fed's obvious failure in the H2H vs Rafa.

If they can't, then the argument for GOAT cannot be made.

It doesn't mean automatically that Pete is GOAT, but that the GOAT issue remains very much a question mark.

2020 will bring a lot of answers.
I am not talking about GOAT now, but here are my thoughts.
Fed had to lose at some point no ? You can't keep on winning like that forever.It's amazing that his body allowed him cause he could have skipped slams had there been serious injuries in the equation.As I said, Fed's dominance dropped only after the 2010 AO.Losses at WB and the AO were perfectly normal.

Keep in mind that Djokovic's dominance took a "pause" right after 2011, after just one year.

Failure in the H2H vs Rafa ? It took the absolutely worst case scenario of a matchup to stop him even at RG.No one can lead in every metric.
 

Zara

Legend
I mean tennis had players before the big 3 came along. As someone who grew up a Double A fan that thought Petros was sinfully boring I still just find it remarkable that anybody much liked the guy while he was actually playing (in hindsight obviously he is easy to appreciate). No big deal, not that serious :p
No worries. Agassi was a pr!ck and cocky and his fans dug that. Can’t say his fans fell far from the tree either and most probably are now fans of Federer.

I focused far more on the game Sampras played than his demeanour. And I find it difficult to believe that anyone could find his game boring especially against that flashy Agassi.

Agassi was just very mainstream so he attracted more casual fans while Sampras was one of a kind and picked up real tennis fans.

Not that I don’t appreciate Agassi btw.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Failure in the H2H vs Rafa ? It took the absolutely worst case scenario of a matchup to stop him even at RG.No one can lead in every metric.
Yeah, exactly. If Federer allegedly cannot be GOAT because of some small details, then another one has to be it instead, which means that one needs to bring arguments in favour of this other player. And then good luck finding someone without these "holes".

It’s impossible to just dismiss someone as GOAT without presenting a better candidate. Some people seem to think that a GOAT cannot have any weakness. That’s nonsense, it just means the greatest of them all, and not "the perfect one".
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nadal is the 4th player with most US Open titles in the Open Era history, and the best US Open player of the 2010s decade with 4 titles. Nadal has won more US Open titles than Djokovic and even leads the H2H over Djokovic at the US Open, so your idea that Djokovic is the dominator of the US Open and Nadal a player who needs luck to win the US Open is not based on objective facts. Nadal defeated Medvedev in the USO final, the man who defeated Djokovic in Cincinnati. Medvedev also destroyed Wawrinka (Djokovic's kryptonita) in 3 sets this USO. So no, it does not look like Nadal "has to wait for an opportunity to win the US Open", nor does it look like "Federer has the upper hand over Nadal at the US Open", especially when Federer has not won the US Open since 2008. It is a fact that Nadal is substantially better at the USO than the AO or WB, and you are suggesting Nadal's situation in all Slams outside clay is equal, which is not the case.

Djokovic also does not look like the most in form player outside clay right now, as you are implying. Post-Wimbledon Djokovic has won 0 Masters 1000 and 0 Slams, while Nadal won 1 Slam and 1 Masters 1000 and Medvedvev 2 Masters 1000 and 1 Slam final.
Dang, come through with the heat :D
 

Bertie B

Professional
Pete's TENNIS was boring. It had gotten to the point where he literally tanked his return games save for one. If he couldn't break then he'd save himself for the tiebreak. As a spectator it was a terrible product, and not worth the time or money. There was very little pleasure in watching Sampras play tennis.

Since his tennis wasn't the showcase Pete was basically selling his personality, which was quite dull.

Pete Sampras was an arrogant, foolish, under-skilled numbers chaser. I am supremely contented with how history has dealt with him and his numbers.
 

Zara

Legend
Pete's TENNIS was boring. It had gotten to the point where he literally tanked his return games save for one. If he couldn't break then he'd save himself for the tiebreak. As a spectator it was a terrible product, and not worth the time or money. There was very little pleasure in watching Sampras play tennis.

Since his tennis wasn't the showcase Pete was basically selling his personality, which was quite dull.

Pete Sampras was an arrogant, foolish, under-skilled numbers chaser. I am supremely contented with how history has dealt with him and his numbers.
Jealous Agassi fan spotted?

And history has dealt with him just fine. He will always be regarded as the best player in the 90s. You won't be able to dispute that no matter how you spin it.
 
Last edited:

Bertie B

Professional
And history has dealt with him just fine.
It has. He spent his golden 20s chasing records that were eclipsed within seven years of retirement. Ten years to acquire, seven to lose.

He will always be regarded as the best player in the 90s.
Nah, he just had the best numbers. Agassi was the real star!! Sampras never demonstrated true dominance. See Federer/Nadal/Djokovic for examples.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Pete's TENNIS was boring. It had gotten to the point where he literally tanked his return games save for one. If he couldn't break then he'd save himself for the tiebreak. As a spectator it was a terrible product, and not worth the time or money. There was very little pleasure in watching Sampras play tennis.

Since his tennis wasn't the showcase Pete was basically selling his personality, which was quite dull.

Pete Sampras was an arrogant, foolish, under-skilled numbers chaser. I am supremely contented with how history has dealt with him and his numbers.
Bertie ... Okkali omala otha ! Please add an IMO at the end because it's just that. It has no basis in reality. OTHA!
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
Corretja a claycourt specialist? :unsure::unsure:

I mean, it was his best surface, but he was no slouch on the blue/teal stuff.
You have to remember that a lot of the posters on here didn't watch tennis back then or now, and are only on here for trolling purposes.

The person may have just looked at the surname "Corretja" and assumed a clay-only game.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
It has. He spent his golden 20s chasing records that were eclipsed within seven years of retirement. Ten years to acquire, seven to lose.



Nah, he just had the best numbers. Agassi was the real star!! Sampras never demonstrated true dominance. See Federer/Nadal/Djokovic for examples.
Otha but isn't that how it is with every record breaker? Federer spent his 20s as well as his 30s to set the current record only to see it on the verge of being broken.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
If people are to accept Fed as the GOAT, then one needs to explain them the drop in dominance from pre-2008 with no Andy, Novak and mature Rafa, to past-2008 where Andy, Nole and mature Rafa were present.

They need to explain Fed's obvious failure in the H2H vs Rafa.

If they can't, then the argument for GOAT cannot be made.

It doesn't mean automatically that Pete is GOAT, but that the GOAT issue remains very much a question mark.

2020 will bring a lot of answers.
mono
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Did he have mono during the W 2007 final too ?
He was well on his way to lose it until a knee injury to Rafa.
It's funny how you criticize the mono thing, just like many others, but then you talk about that Rafa had a knee injury.For Fed there is no room for excuses or injuries or whatever, but for his rivals always is plenty of room for that.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
As a diehard Sampras and Fed fan who believes 2001 Wimbledon R16 to be the greatest match of all time, I doubly know. That being said, I stand by my boys no matter what, the pushers can win as many mickey mouses against the special ed contingent all they want ROFLMAO
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Sampras will always have the best serve of all time, being the GOAT of his era and a legacy of being clutch.

What will Fed be left with after he gets passed in the slam count and retires with 40-15 hanging over his head as being the last slam final he was able to reach?
Real slams, back to back REAL CYGS in 2014 and 2015, pretty strokes, arrogant quotes, a lot to remember.

But yeah it is a bit cruel that the legacy of Fed's FH and footwork has disappeared a bit among the casual knowledge base. Sampras was serving like a possessed demon up to the last point of his career so that will always stay with us.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Pete's TENNIS was boring. It had gotten to the point where he literally tanked his return games save for one. If he couldn't break then he'd save himself for the tiebreak. As a spectator it was a terrible product, and not worth the time or money. There was very little pleasure in watching Sampras play tennis.

Since his tennis wasn't the showcase Pete was basically selling his personality, which was quite dull.

Pete Sampras was an arrogant, foolish, under-skilled numbers chaser. I am supremely contented with how history has dealt with him and his numbers.
Yeah a 6'1" guy who could hit howitzer serves up the ass of an insect sure was boring. One of the best pure athletes to ever play was boring. Extreme risk taking was boring. Yeah, sure. Just admit you love baseline tennis instead of taking digs at the guy who didn't have to resort to 15 stroke trench warfare to win.
 

Zara

Legend
As a diehard Sampras and Fed fan who believes 2001 Wimbledon R16 to be the greatest match of all time, I doubly know. That being said, I stand by my boys no matter what, the pushers can win as many mickey mouses against the special ed contingent all they want ROFLMAO
Are you also 90s Clay? If yes, then Shalom.
 

BGod

Legend
Dude, Nadal had already won 16 Slams at age 31, including the Career Grand Slam (while Sampras never won Roland-Garros), Olympics (which Agassi won in Sampras era), and 16 more Masters 1000 than Sampras (which were relevant in Sampras era, as Agassi was the King of Masters 1000 before the arrival of the Big 3).

Also, their difference is 14 vs. 18/19, not 14 vs 16. If Sampras retired at age 31 that's his problem, he didn't have the necessary competitive mentality to keep winning Majors and playing tennis after 31.

Following your logic, Borg is the perpetual GOAT because he retired at age 25 with 11 Grand Slams.
Borg was my #2 until recently where I put Djokovic ahead. I value concentration of dominance and although longevity does count for something it is generally agreed upon by most historians that concentration of dominance is greater legacy-wise. In tennis this applies to the likes of Budge, Tilden and Borg. Where Novak overtook and got my #2 is because of his concentration periods of dominance coupled with legacy moments like saving match points and longevity. Nadal has none of that. Nadal's career is propped up by dominance on a particular surface and at 1 of 4 Slams. Now that dominance is fantastical but can't go beyond that 1 area. It's like in team sports looking at regular season and playoff season accomplishments. You can keep padding your regular season numbers all you want but it doesn't affect playoff resume. When Nadal won his 7th French Open supplanting Borg in that area, he became the best at that Slam but it didn't affect his weeks at #1, 3 other Slams or the WTF.

Anybody who at this point puts Sampras ahead of Nadal (doesn't matter if Nadal wins this title or not) is a pathetic troll who doesn't deserve any attention.
I can say the same about people who choose to ignore the many categories that exist in tennis other than total Slam title tally.

Weeks at #1: Sampras over Nadal
Wimbledons: Sampras over Nadal
USOs: Sampras over Nadal
AOs: Sampras over Nadal
WTF: Sampras over Nadal

But Nadal beats Sampras at the French and total Slam titles. And that's it then? Olympics and Masters are far secondary criteria but even still it's Sampras over Nadal. I haven't even covered periods of dominance over peers.
 
Borg was my #2 until recently where I put Djokovic ahead. I value concentration of dominance and although longevity does count for something it is generally agreed upon by most historians that concentration of dominance is greater legacy-wise. In tennis this applies to the likes of Budge, Tilden and Borg. Where Novak overtook and got my #2 is because of his concentration periods of dominance coupled with legacy moments like saving match points and longevity. Nadal has none of that. Nadal's career is propped up by dominance on a particular surface and at 1 of 4 Slams. Now that dominance is fantastical but can't go beyond that 1 area. It's like in team sports looking at regular season and playoff season accomplishments. You can keep padding your regular season numbers all you want but it doesn't affect playoff resume. When Nadal won his 7th French Open supplanting Borg in that area, he became the best at that Slam but it didn't affect his weeks at #1, 3 other Slams or the WTF.



I can say the same about people who choose to ignore the many categories that exist in tennis other than total Slam title tally.

Weeks at #1: Sampras over Nadal
Wimbledons: Sampras over Nadal
USOs: Sampras over Nadal
AOs: Sampras over Nadal
WTF: Sampras over Nadal

But Nadal beats Sampras at the French and total Slam titles. And that's it then? Olympics and Masters are far secondary criteria but even still it's Sampras over Nadal. I haven't even covered periods of dominance over peers.
LOL, such nice cherry picking. Sampras has 1 more AO and 1 more USO title. Nadal on the other hand has 12 more RG titles than Sampras (the greatest ever player on a specific surface against a player who was totally irrelevant on clay), but you are trying to put that differences as equal? The only category where Sampras is really much better is WTF titles. Doesn't make up for 5 extra slams by any means. If we ask whose career would each person prefer to have then I'm pretty sure you are the only one who would say Sampras.
Anyway, aren't you the troll who once wrote that Nadal's 11th and 12th RG titles did not add anything to his legacy? Rofl. Looks like you are just a Nadal hater and try to bring him down at all cost.
 
Last edited:

topher

Professional
You have to remember that a lot of the posters on here didn't watch tennis back then or now, and are only on here for trolling purposes.

The person may have just looked at the surname "Corretja" and assumed a clay-only game.
People who claim to watch tennis now still do that with current players. They see a Spanish-sounding name and assume clay courter. I've certainly seen people make that mistake with Verdasco, Lopez and RBA a few times, which is crazy considering they are top 10 level players.
 

Zara

Legend
People who claim to watch tennis now still do that with current players. They see a Spanish-sounding name and assume clay courter. I've certainly seen people make that mistake with Verdasco, Lopez and RBA a few times, which is crazy considering they are top 10 level players.
Add Moya who was very good on hard courts. Conchita won Wimbledon in the 90s too. Ferrero was good too.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Pete's TENNIS was boring. It had gotten to the point where he literally tanked his return games save for one. If he couldn't break then he'd save himself for the tiebreak. As a spectator it was a terrible product, and not worth the time or money. There was very little pleasure in watching Sampras play tennis.

Since his tennis wasn't the showcase Pete was basically selling his personality, which was quite dull.

Pete Sampras was an arrogant, foolish, under-skilled numbers chaser. I am supremely contented with how history has dealt with him and his numbers.
Lol

I suppose that's a way to look at it.

But if he was such terrible tennis product, how come he moped the floor with Boris in every important match they played ?

No other player, Agassi included, dominated Boris in such fashion. He even threw him out of tennis.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Pete's TENNIS was boring. It had gotten to the point where he literally tanked his return games save for one. If he couldn't break then he'd save himself for the tiebreak. As a spectator it was a terrible product, and not worth the time or money. There was very little pleasure in watching Sampras play tennis.

Since his tennis wasn't the showcase Pete was basically selling his personality, which was quite dull.

Pete Sampras was an arrogant, foolish, under-skilled numbers chaser. I am supremely contented with how history has dealt with him and his numbers.
Probably the most handsome slam winner ever. A beautiful serve. That’s it.
 
Did he have mono during the W 2007 final too ?

He was well on his way to lose it until a knee injury to Rafa.
And he was well on his way to beat Djokovic this year in the Wimbledon final, in a LONG fifth set. Look, I never count moral or hypothetical wins but if you want to play that game, we can too. Just STFU and stop whining.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
WOW!!! After all these years the truth comes out. Sunny & Anita were the same person. WOW!!! What's it been, 20 years?
Otha Baadu Bertie ... you took my moniker out of your reply so I did not get a notification, so the late reply :)

Anyways, who the otha is Anita? :rolleyes: No, we're not the same person because I don't know anyone by the name Anita (except for an actress in the porn industry who I don't know personally)
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Nah you have no clue how we feel since you know PETE ended as top of his time while Bronze Fed will be numerous tres in his. You've got it in even tougher. Condolences
If someone needs a proof that some people just need to vent and have no intention to actually lead a normal conversation this is it. How else would one explain the hilarity of "talking" to an account that has already been deleted, and with attitude no less. What a circus!

:cool:
 
Top