Now I know how Sampras fans feel

  • Thread starter Deleted member 307496
  • Start date

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Just today someone used it on the forum saying Federer would lose in 4 at RG if not for the wind. Others more radical even say Federer would have defeated Nadal without the wind. Seems like ad hoc excuses to rationalize the loss in 3.
@SaintPetros
24. If Federer won that match in Rome 2006, Federer would have dominated Rafa on clay.
Created a mental block.
Several Fed fans thinks this is the case.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
He didn't say it, but Federer is better than Sampras, especially on clay and slow/medium hardcourts.
Pete's competition on grass is not even close as tough as the one Fed had.Murray, 2004, 2009 Roddick, Nadal and especially Djokovic are greater competition than Sampras ever had.Krajicek 1996 might be better that Arod and Murray, but anyway Pete never beat him on grass.
I've seen you biased towards Sampras, that why I told you these things.
Pete played grasscourters and won. Fed played claycourters on grass and lost. You do the math.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Haha. Are you still sore that your guy lost to a pony-tailed teenager at his own backyard and never won there again? And yes, the number 20 is 6 slams greater than 14. I am afraid you have to live with it. No amount of rationalization will help you get over basic facts.
Inflation. 100 bucks now is a higher number than 80 bucks in the 60s but we know which is more valuable.

 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
He didn't say it, but Federer is better than Sampras, especially on clay and slow/medium hardcourts.
Pete's competition on grass is not even close as tough as the one Fed had.Murray, 2004, 2009 Roddick, Nadal and especially Djokovic are greater competition than Sampras ever had.Krajicek 1996 might be better that Arod and Murray, but anyway Pete never beat him on grass.
I've seen you biased towards Sampras, that why I told you these things.
Superb post! Fully agreed except the bias part (y) I don't get a commission from Sampras.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
ROFL X 10,000! In less than 20 words, this man has crushed to fine powder any argument the opposition may offer :-D Take a bow, Petros :)
You say ? Instead of appreciating what he said, you should have realized that he was trolling because his arguments are not valid and pure BS.
Fed lost only one time to a clay courter, in the 2008 final, but Nadal is much more than a clay courter; he showed an impressive level on grass, especially in 2007-2008.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
You say ? Instead of appreciating what he said, you should have realized that he was trolling because his arguments are not valid and pure BS.
Fed lost only one time to a clay courter, in the 2008 final, but Nadal is much more than a clay courter; he showed an impressive level on grass, especially in 2007-2008.
Sorry, but I'm simply going off the feedback I've received from Federer fans. Pretty much every one of them claimed Nadal won because of 'green clay'. One fool went to the extent of calling him a topspin monkey.

So question is- is Nadal a claycourter or more? Federer fans have to make up their minds :)
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
You say ? Instead of appreciating what he said, you should have realized that he was trolling because his arguments are not valid and pure BS.
Fed lost only one time to a clay courter, in the 2008 final, but Nadal is much more than a clay courter; he showed an impressive level on grass, especially in 2007-2008.
And to add further, Djokovic is an indefatigable baseline grinder who has no game but retrieves every ball. These are not my claims but Federer lovers. Considering that, I dont see how @SaintPetros is wrong about Federer losing to claycourters.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
And to add further, Djokovic is an indefatigable baseline grinder who has no game but retrieves every ball. These are not my claims but Federer lovers. Considering that, I dont see how @SaintPetros is wrong about Federer losing to claycourters.
Federer has been called in many ways too, but what others think is not relevant to our discussion.Then again, you can enjoy his anti Fed agenda if it's entertaining for you.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Federer has been called in many ways too, but what others think is not relevant to our discussion.Then again, you can enjoy his anti Fed agenda if it's entertaining for you.
First part- agreed, thanks! (y)

Second part- I won't blame @SaintPetros because Federer fans themselves have been denigrating Federer's oppposition for years.
 
I KNOW that the overwhelming majority of people have no capacity to distinguish the fine nuances that differ one achievement from the next within the same category and even those that do (extremely small number even within the tennis fans) are riddled with prejudices that will corrupt their opinion.

I hope that that answers your question.

:cool:
Sounds like you think there is no way to prove who the GOAT is, since people will bring their biases into the argument. Rather than there being no GOAT at all.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Sounds like you think there is no way to prove who the GOAT is, since people will bring their biases into the argument. Rather than there being no GOAT at all.
If you can't think it, it doesn't exist, but I am actually not saying that. I am saying that, for comparisons to have merit, there have to be a universal measuring stick, and there isn't due to the nature of the sport. Really, the people that talk about GOATs are looking for validation of their own thoughts more than anything else. I have proposed the solution to the problem: don't try to reach conclusions, focus on the facts only. As many as possible. There is another problem there, but that is after the said approach is adopted. Of course, you will see me frivolously use the term here and there, but that is more akin to having fun at the expense of the really invested in that serious business folk.

:cool:
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Otha Omala ... as Nadal & Djokovic get closer to breaking Federer's records, are the Federer fans losing their already unstable minds?

For years, they have been telling us that Nadal & Djokovic are just mindless clay court ball bashers and nowhere remotely close to Federer's talents yet when @SaintPetros essentially says the same thing that Federer has been losing to clay-courters on grass, they become all upset and attack him like a swarm of angry bees. You folks really do need a psychiatric evaluation :rolleyes: I tip my hat to Petros for tolerating you fools.
 

Zara

Legend
Thread is a fun read especially the last two pages :-D I must admit.

But @Sabratha has left the building, folks.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Lol at the anti-Fed turds. Have been saying Fed is the "third-wheel" since 2013. Still at the top at 38. Its ok to feel that way.

Some talk about Fed collecting "Silver Plates". A quick reminder for the turds below.

Silver Plates Count:

Fed -11
Djoko - 9
Nadal - 8

Again, not too bad for a 38 yr old.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Lol at the anti-Fed turds. Have been saying Fed is the "third-wheel" since 2013. Still at the top at 38.

Some talk about Fed collecting "Silver Plates". A quick reminder for the turds below.

Silver Plates Count:

Fed -11
Djoko - 9
Nadal - 8
Fully agree. Anyone who says Fed is collecting Silver plates is a turd, a moron and just WRONG
Dude's been collecting bronze plates
 
Last edited:

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
And to add further, Djokovic is an indefatigable baseline grinder who has no game but retrieves every ball. These are not my claims but Federer lovers. Considering that, I dont see how @SaintPetros is wrong about Federer losing to claycourters.
The difference between now and the 90s is that now you have to beat the overall best players everywhere, and almost the same style is played everywhere as well. When Sampras only had to beat a few specialists in the 90s (while being one himself) he actually had it easier of course.

I agree that Sampras had it more difficult on clay against the specialists when he himself was a non-specialist there. But he cannot have it more difficult on grass as well then. His worshippers cannot have it both ways.

In contrast, it is impossible to call Nadal just a claycourter today if it is possible to play everywhere with this same style. Of course he is even better on clay than elsewhere though.

And with Djokovic it gets ridiculous when only because he plays baseline tennis he is identified with a "claycourter" as well. Also it is very easy to blame Federer for losing to those guys compared to Sampras when the latter never had to play against them. However, I wonder if anyone honestly thinks that Sampras could have beaten Djokovic in Wimbledon with modern grass and (even more important) modern equipment.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
The difference between now and the 90s is that now you have to beat the overall best players everywhere, and almost the same style is played everywhere as well. When Sampras only had to beat a few specialists in the 90s (while being one himself) he actually had it easier of course.

I agree that Sampras had it more difficult on clay against the specialists when he himself was a non-specialist there. But he cannot have it more difficult on grass as well then. His worshippers cannot have it both ways.

In contrast, it is impossible to call Nadal just a claycourter today if it is possible to play everywhere with this same style. Of course he is even better on clay than elsewhere though.

And with Djokovic it gets ridiculous when only because he plays baseline tennis he is identified with a "claycourter" as well. Also it is very easy to blame Federer for losing to those guys compared to Sampras when the latter never had to play against them. However, I wonder if anyone honestly thinks that Sampras could have beaten Djokovic in Wimbledon with modern grass and (even more important) modern equipment.
Petros played specialists EVERYWHERE, unlike Fsd who mostly beats goobers and loses to greats
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Petros played specialists EVERYWHERE, unlike Fsd who mostly beats goobers and loses to greats
Come on, you know that this is nonsense. Compared to the Federer era where you play against every great player on every surface of course it is easier in an era of specialists AND if you are a specialist on the surface yourself.

Because in the end at least the fields were mostly the same. Sampras didn’t play against 127 clay specialists in Paris and against 127 grass specialists in London. If there were some top specialists everywhere, then it means the field mainly included non-specialists. So of all world-class players only a few could be a danger for Sampras at Wimbledon.

On clay it was the other way around of course, and immediately he failed big time. But all in all he was lucky to be in exactly the era he needed for his success. Nothing wrong with it though, because that can be said of almost any ATG.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
The difference between now and the 90s is that now you have to beat the overall best players everywhere, and almost the same style is played everywhere as well. When Sampras only had to beat a few specialists in the 90s (while being one himself) he actually had it easier of course.

I agree that Sampras had it more difficult on clay against the specialists when he himself was a non-specialist there. But he cannot have it more difficult on grass as well then. His worshippers cannot have it both ways.

In contrast, it is impossible to call Nadal just a claycourter today if it is possible to play everywhere with this same style. Of course he is even better on clay than elsewhere though.

And with Djokovic it gets ridiculous when only because he plays baseline tennis he is identified with a "claycourter" as well. Also it is very easy to blame Federer for losing to those guys compared to Sampras when the latter never had to play against them. However, I wonder if anyone honestly thinks that Sampras could have beaten Djokovic in Wimbledon with modern grass and (even more important) modern equipment.
Chris ... are you saying the Federer fans have been misleading us for years? If you continue writing rational & logical posts like this one, you're not going to be popular among your fellow Federer fans :)

Anyways, on a more serious note ... yes, it's a fact that Sampras had it easy on grass. And the simple reason is he was peerless on that surface. There was not a single player who possessed a grass game like Sampras so it's only natural that he strolled to titles there. Soldiers may be many but the Emperor is one.
 
Last edited:

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Come on, you know that this is nonsense. Compared to the Federer era where you play against every great player on every surface of course it is easier in an era of specialists AND if you are a specialist on the surface yourself.

Because in the end at least the fields were mostly the same. Sampras didn’t play against 127 clay specialists in Paris and against 127 grass specialists in London. If there were some top specialists everywhere, then it means the field mainly included non-specialists. So of all world-class players only a few could be a danger for Sampras at Wimbledon.

On clay it was the other way around of course, and immediately he failed big time. But all in all he was lucky to be in exactly the era he needed for his success. Nothing wrong with it though, because that can be said of almost any ATG.
By your reasoning Fed should have it easier against his greats since he plays the similar style of player all year round, unlike Pete who changed his style even from grass to hard and obv to rebound ace unless of course Fed just isn't the best at the baseline game...
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
By your reasoning Fed should have it easier against his greats since he plays the similar style of player all year round, unlike Pete who changed his style even from grass to hard and obv to rebound ace unless of course Fed just isn't the best at the baseline game...
As long as his numbers are the best he is the best. If others will overtake him, I will accept that.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Lol at the anti-Fed turds. Have been saying Fed is the "third-wheel" since 2013. Still at the top at 38. Its ok to feel that way.

Some talk about Fed collecting "Silver Plates". A quick reminder for the turds below.

Silver Plates Count:

Fed -11
Djoko - 9
Nadal - 8

Again, not too bad for a 38 yr old.
Yeah he's at the top - top 3
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Lol at the anti-Fed turds. Have been saying Fed is the "third-wheel" since 2013. Still at the top at 38. Its ok to feel that way.

Some talk about Fed collecting "Silver Plates". A quick reminder for the turds below.

Silver Plates Count:

Fed -11
Djoko - 9
Nadal - 8

Again, not too bad for a 38 yr old.
Ace ... I wouldn't use such abusive language simply because it was your fellow fans that have been saying for years how p*iss poor Nadal & Djokovic are compared to the faultless, high and mighty man with the big nose. Yet when @SaintPetros and @Sport use those very same arguments against Federer, somehow they're anti-Fed? Does that mean every Federer fan is anti-Fed? :-D
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Ace ... I wouldn't use such abusive language simply because it was your fellow fans that have been saying for years how p*iss poor Nadal & Djokovic are compared to the faultless, high and mighty man with the big nose. Yet when @SaintPetros and @Sport use those very same arguments against Federer, somehow they're anti-Fed? Does that mean every Federer fan is anti-Fed? :-D
Don't trouble yourself we're dealing with Fedfan logic here
 

ForehandRF

Professional
@Sunny Ali Why you keep on bringing what others have said years ago ? Don't you think that those claims were already refuted by the Djokodal fans at that time ? Maybe it's time to get over it.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
@Sunny Ali Why you keep on bringing what others have said years ago ? Don't you think that those claims were already refuted by the Djokodal fans at that time ? Maybe it's time to get over it.
RF ... just in the vain hope that Federer fans will stop belittling Nadal & Djokovic because doing so does 2 things-

1. It makes Federer look below par because he can't even deal with 2 brainless ball bashers
2. It makes you folks look silly when the same arguments are used against you
 

ForehandRF

Professional
RF ... just in the vain hope that Federer fans will stop belittling Nadal & Djokovic because doing so does 2 things-

1. It makes Federer look below par because he can't even deal with 2 brainless ball bashers
2. It makes you folks look silly when the same arguments are used against you
This will not stop as long as fanbases will keep on trolling each other.For me it's not entertaining, but there will always be the ones that troll for the sake of trolling or because of the hate they feel for a player.
It's from you that I found out that they were called brainless ball bashers.I didn't read such a thing anywhere else.
Lastly, it will never make rational fans look silly because they have nothing to do with those things.
 
Last edited:

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
This will not stop as long as fanbases will keep on trolling each other.For me it's not entertaining, but there will always be the ones that troll for the sake of trolling or because of the hate they feel for a player.
It's from you that I found out that they were called brainless ball bashers.I didn't read such a thing anywhere else.
Lastly, it will never make rational fans look silly because they have nothing to do with those things.
RF ... brilliant post bhai :) (y)
 
Top