Pete Vs. Roger - Trivia

[daddy]

Pete Sampras, 14 times slam winner born 1971
Roger Federer, 12 times slam winner born 1981

Up to 1998 samras won 52 titles in his career including 10 GS wins
Up to 2008 federer won 53 titles in his career including 12 GS wins

Samras began his winning streak much earlier winning his firs GS at 19 - US open. Federer needed to wait until Wimbledon 2003 when he was 22 while his first tournament and only that year was Milan at 20 years old. Samras won slams and tournament in great span of 13 years. Federer got his tournament winning streak up to 7.

From the 1998 sampras won 4 GS titles including 3 wimbledons and one us open late in his career 2002, only tournament in last two years of his career since wimbledon 2000. unlike Federer's career, his was interupted by injuries here and there.

Federer is in 2008. He needs just two slams to tie Samprase's achivement. If he was to match what Sampras did at the same part of his career he would have 16 slams and 65 titles in total, 2 slams and 1 tournament more than Pete at 64 and 14.

The real decline for Sampras who was known as fit player, began in 1998. In 1996&1997 he won 8 titles per year, while the 1998 he won only 4. he came back at 1999 with 5 only to drop to 2 in 2000 and 1 career ending in 2002 USO.

Losses wise - Samras had a pretty good record here, losing just 24 finals to 64 titles in his career, which of whom 10 losses came after the 1998 turning point year. After that year he also went on to lose 2 GS finals. Prior to that he lost only 2 other GS finals totaling the lost GS finals to 4. He played in 18GS finals and lost 4.

Federer - has 17 loses in finals to his credit as opposed to saprases 14 up until the same point in their careers. They both lost two grand slam finals until this same stage in their careers. Federer played in 14 GS finals and lost two.

These are just information. I myself have absolutely no idea if this is going to be same or similar or totally different for Roger Federer, I just thought that I should do a little research for the people on this forum and give them insight in careers of the two most likely GOAT's of the game so far.

Thanks !

 

[David L]

Pete Sampras, 14 times slam winner born 1971
Roger Federer, 12 times slam winner born 1981

Up to 1998 samras won 52 titles in his career including 10 GS wins
Up to 2008 federer won 53 titles in his career including 12 GS wins

Samras began his winning streak much earlier winning his firs GS at 19 - US open. Federer needed to wait until Wimbledon 2003 when he was 22 while his first tournament and only that year was Milan at 20 years old. Samras won slams and tournament in great span of 13 years. Federer got his tournament winning streak up to 7.

From the 1998 sampras won 4 GS titles including 3 wimbledons and one us open late in his career 2002, only tournament in last two years of his career since wimbledon 2000. unlike Federer's career, his was interupted by injuries here and there.

Federer is in 2008. He needs just two slams to tie Samprase's achivement. If he was to match what Sampras did at the same part of his career he would have 16 slams and 65 titles in total, 2 slams and 1 tournament more than Pete at 64 and 14.

The real decline for Sampras who was known as fit player, began in 1998. In 1996&1997 he won 8 titles per year, while the 1998 he won only 4. he came back at 1999 with 5 only to drop to 2 in 2000 and 1 career ending in 2002 USO.

These are just information. I myself have absolutely no idea if this is going to be same or similar or totally different for Roger Federer, I just thought that I should do a little research for the people on this forum and give them insight in careers of the two most likely GOAT's of the game so far.

Thanks !

Federer was 21 when he first won Wimbledon.

 

[daddy]

^^^ Sampras just turned 19 when he won US open and Federer was justa bout to turn 22 in a couple of weeks when he won the Wimbledon. I wasn't expecting picking up details, I was pointing to similarities. I am a bit dissapointed noone picked up on this, I will edit and add some more information.

 

[David L]

^^^ Sampras just turned 20 when he won US open and Federer was justa bout to turn 22 in a couple of weeks when he won the Wimbledon. I wasn't expecting picking up details, I was pointing to similarities. I am a bit dissapointed noone picked up on this, I will edit and add some more information.

Okay fine, but Federer won during the period when he was still 21. I think it's better to stick to the facts, than round things up or down. It's better to say he was 21 and however many months, than just add a whole year. Also, Sampras won the US Open when he was 19.

If you want more comparisons, check out the link below.

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

 

[daddy]

The whole point of this thread is - in my mind - is this or can this be possibly the turning point in Federers career or is he going to see off and go thru what seems like a storm. Signs were here and there during the 07 year that he is not his usuall best, he said once during the clay court season he is overweight, but really he was not as dominant as in 2006 but very dominant. Those were two most dominant years in mens tennis, similarly to Samrases 1996and 1997 so thre is aa valid question being asked here.

Btw - sampras being born on 12-Aug-71 in deed took his first USO at barely 19 years old.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

more trivia.

Sampras won 13 of the first 15 slam finals he played in. Fed is 12 of 14 now so they' ll both be 13 of 15 if Fed wins his next slam final.

Sampras then lost his next 2 and won his last to end up with 14 of 18 slam final wins.

 

[David L]

Okay fine, but Federer won during the period when he was still 21. I think it's better to stick to the facts, than round things up or down. It's better to say he was 21 and however many months, than just add a whole year. Also, Sampras won the US Open when he was 19.

If you want more comparisons, check out the link below.

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

Also, I see in you first post you say Sampras was 19, which he was, then add a year for Federer, when Sampras was much closer to his next birthday than Federer was.

 

[daddy]

Just for the record I see you are based in London and will assume you are English. Stick to facts is allright, but I would really liked if I got some insight on what you think about the point rather than correcting mistakes I made. Again slightly dissapointed with the reaction.

 

[David L]

The whole point of this thread is - in my mind - is this or can this be possibly the turning point in Federers career or is he going to see off and go thru what seems like a storm. Signs were here and there during the 07 year that he is not his usuall best, he said once during the clay court season he is overweight, but really he was not as dominant as in 2006 but very dominant. Those were two most dominant years in mens tennis, similarly to Samrases 1996and 1997 so thre is aa valid question being asked here.

Btw - sampras being born on 12-Aug-71 in deed took his first USO at barely 19 years old.

When did he say he was overweight?

 

[daddy]

Also, I see in you first post you say Sampras was 19, which he was, then add a year for Federer, when Sampras was much closer to his next birthday than Federer was.

NOw I am going to correct you mr uptight. Sampras JUST turned 19 when he won in 1990, cause he is born 12-Aug-71. Federer was just about to turn 22 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 as he was born 8-Aug-81. Okay ? We all make mistakes. But rarely have I seen a person so eager to take the thread away from its original point correcting what seem to be meaningless mistakes, a month here or there.

Ok ?

:shock:

 

[daddy]

When did he say he was overweight?

He took a couple of weeks off after Aussie open, then lost to Canas twice and then after a while he said he is feeling slower and he thinks he has around 10 pounds more than he should have but he will do his best to sort that before RG. Interview, mid clay court season 2007.

 

[David L]

Just for the record I see you are based in London and will assume you are English. Stick to facts is allright, but I would really liked if I got some insight on what you think about the point rather than correcting mistakes I made. Again slightly dissapointed with the reaction.

The similarities are uncanny. However, I do not place much stock in Sampras' career being a predictor of Federer's career, because they are not cut from the same cloth, but are two separate individuals playing during different periods. The rest of Federer's career is going to be determined by his health, his own exploits and the rest of the field. Everything is possible at this stage. He may follow a similar path to Sampras or outstrip him completely. It's impossible to predict from here.

 

[daddy]

Okay fine, but Federer won during the period when he was still 21. I think it's better to stick to the facts, than round things up or down. It's better to say he was 21 and however many months, than just add a whole year. Also, Sampras won the US Open when he was 19.

If you want more comparisons, check out the link below.

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

Ok sergent uptight, Ill give you more info your web site does not have. At the time Federer won wimby he was 21 y 11 months , at the time sampras won uso he was 19 years 1 month, I would say I did the right thing to say they were 19 and 22, because instead of 3 years the real difference was 2 years 10 months.

Then Sampras played with the Wilson ProStaff 6.0 (St. Vincent) - Correct. head size 85sq inches, not mentioned on your web page. Also not mentiones he had guy to strung his racquets at exactly 32 kg which was and I believe is tightest stringing I can remember. The guy travelled with him everywhere. Both Roger and Pete are 186cm not 185 cm as it says there. I could edit that page you gave me anyday.

 

[David L]

NOw I am going to correct you mr uptight. Sampras JUST turned 19 when he won in 1990, cause he is born 12-Aug-71. Federer was just about to turn 22 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 as he was born 8-Aug-81. Okay ? We all make mistakes. But rarely have I seen a person so eager to take the thread away from its original point correcting what seem to be meaningless mistakes, a month here or there.

Ok ?

:shock:

Alright, calm down.

 

[daddy]

The similarities are uncanny. However, I do not place much stock in Sampras' career being a predictor of Federer's career, because they are not cut from the same cloth, but are two separate individuals playing during different periods. The rest of Federer's career is going to be determined by his health, his own exploits and the rest of the field. Everything is possible at this stage. He may follow a similar path to Sampras or outstrip him completely. It's impossible to predict from here.

OMG - this is all I wanted to hear from you and others. Simply what do you think. Thank you very much. :-|

 

[laurie]

The whole point of this thread is - in my mind - is this or can this be possibly the turning point in Federers career or is he going to see off and go thru what seems like a storm. Signs were here and there during the 07 year that he is not his usuall best, he said once during the clay court season he is overweight, but really he was not as dominant as in 2006 but very dominant. Those were two most dominant years in mens tennis, similarly to Samrases 1996and 1997 so thre is aa valid question being asked here.

Btw - sampras being born on 12-Aug-71 in deed took his first USO at barely 19 years old.

Hi. I'll try to help with my perspective. What happened over the last two days has really set up the Tennis year beautifully, with the number 1 and 2 player losing in the semifinals and two talented youngesters in the Australian Open final.

As for the questions you pose, it was also something I posed in my forum last November. Despite the fact that both players have accumulated their career titles in slightly different fashion, the number of titles and weeks at number 1 is incredibly similar at this stage.

Linking in what happened yesterday with your question - as Pat cash said yesterday, he's looking to see how Federer will respond throughout this year. The defeat by Novak is vastly different to his defeat to safin in 2005, this time he lost to someone 6 years younger than him who has given him tough matches in Canada and the US Open, so Federer will know taking liberties with Novak will be very difficult - this will present new challenges and a bit of doubt in Federer's mind as to what the future holds.

Also I think that Indian Wells and Miami has a good deal of significance, Federer would want to do well in these events to re-establish himself against his rivals, otherwise the media will ask questions in a way they didn't last year.

Sampras' response to his advancing years was to cut down on the baseline rallies and adopt an even more aggressive style of play (although that didn't really manifest itself until 2000 when he served and volleyed everywhere all the time). So it will be interesting to see if Federer tries to modify his gameplan by trying to come in more than he usually does for instance.

My personal view is that Federer will now find it more difficult to accumulate lots of titles with the younger players gaining more and more confidence. What I also find interesting is that the young guys have a technically better game than Roddick, Blake, Ferrer, Ferrero, Davydenko, Robredo, Youzny etc; and that's because these guys technicall volley well and have good transition games, so they have more confidence and thus will not be afraid to play at the top level.

If Federer breaks the record this year it will be the best ear of his career, but I think the young guys are ready to challenge now so it will be more difficult for Federer this year, but of course we'll see - it's an opinion, not a prediction.

 

[daddy]

^^^ Thanks. The similarities is what struck me. Wierd.

 

[tHotGates]

I disagree with the notion that Pete was known as a "fit" player (he had his injuries in the early to mid 90s but nothing heavy like we saw later especially in 99) & lets not forget he had his blood disorder. I think Roger's footwork will be the key difference in his ability to break Pete's record. While I see other players closing the gap as Roger slows down I think Roger's (b/c of his footwork) will finish healthier & stronger than Pete's & to close his career. I agree about 1998 as the key year where Pete started his serious decline & of course as Laurie describes shortly after his all court game transitions to a very aggressive S&V game.

 

[CityHeightsTennis]

these are all nice information.....but i have a feeling that couple of people are bias against Federer and is a little bit more giving to Pete. Is it because because Pete is American? I believe Federer will definitely break Pete's record, no doubt about that, and I strongly believe Federer is a better player than Pete overall. Records doesn't mean much because the time was different, and all the players were different. Like in b-ball, Wilt Chamberlain may have scored 100 points, so? he was the only tall guy in the game therefore he scored easily. Jordan may only have scored 63, but in the playoffs against the Celtics, the best team. I am comparing Wilt to Pete b/c Pete was the only person with that kind of a serve, with that much weight in it. Federer has more rivalries than Pete right now. Anyway, this all might all be a strong opinion...but I believe Fed wins in many ways against Pete. I may be bringing some mobs here.

 

[CityHeightsTennis]

I disagree with the notion that Pete was known as a "fit" player (he had his injuries in the early to mid 90s but nothing heavy like we saw later especially in 99) & lets not forget he had his blood disorder. I think Roger's footwork will be the key difference in his ability to break Pete's record. While I see other players closing the gap as Roger slows down I think Roger's (b/c of his footwork) will finish healthier & stronger than Pete's & to close his career. I agree about 1998 as the key year where Pete started his serious decline & of course as Laurie describes shortly after his all court game transitions to a very aggressive S&V game.

i agree with you. Pete got injured because of his own fault. It's not like someone just pushed him from a 3 story building. Fed in the other hand, like all us agree, has the best footwork in the game. So smooth, and no one can say Federer has a bad footwork. So Fed is more unlikely to get an injury. Many people say Pete could have done better without the injuries..... I don't understand that. Athletes have to take care of themselves...it's common sense. If they have bad footwork and get hurt, it's their fault, not the coaches, not the fans and definitely not the guy who pushed him from a 3 story building. It's unfortunate that Pete got injured, but he has to deal with it and it shouldn't be affected in deciding Pete VS Federer.

 

[laurie]

i agree with you. Pete got injured because of his own fault. It's not like someone just pushed him from a 3 story building. Fed in the other hand, like all us agree, has the best footwork in the game. So smooth, and no one can say Federer has a bad footwork. So Fed is more unlikely to get an injury. Many people say Pete could have done better without the injuries..... I don't understand that. Athletes have to take care of themselves...it's common sense. If they have bad footwork and get hurt, it's their fault, not the coaches, not the fans and definitely not the guy who pushed him from a 3 story building. It's unfortunate that Pete got injured, but he has to deal with it and it shouldn't be affected in deciding Pete VS Federer.

That's interesting because a friend of mine phoned me yesterday and she was talking about Federer's injury or alleged injury throughout the tournament. I said to her in my eye's that's no reason or excuse why he lost, he lost because Novak stood up to him and took the game to him. Indeed I remember in 2000 Sampras winning Wimbledon whilst hobbling on one leg, plus in 1996 after the Corretja match been put on a drip in hospital but still winning the tournament. Whilst in 1999 missing the US Open because of a bad back, so these things happen and that's that- injuries are unfortunate but all players have to deal with it.

It seems that Federer is a very private man. I would suggest that Federer is actually nowhere near the fitness and shrapness he would like and is probably carrying a lot more niggles than the public will ever find out unless one turns into a major injury - this is probably a combination of him playing an incredible amount of winning Tennis over a short period of time (4 years), and mental fatigue of accomplishing so many records and trying to break so many records whle he is still in his prime.

This is precisely why this is a key year. We all expect him to break the records but are all wondering whether he can do it before the younger players are not only challenging but ready to take over.

 

[urban]

That Sampras declined after 1998, is simply not true. Actually, in the summer of 1999, he played some of the best tennis of his career, comparable to spring 1994, and much better than in all 1998. He had great wins over an resurrected Agassi, and Rafter, who had his number in 1998. He injured himself shortly before the USO.

 

[laurie]

That Sampras declined after 1998, is simply not true. Actually, in the summer of 1999, he played some of the best tennis of his career, comparable to spring 1994, and much better than in all 1998. He had great wins over an resurrected Agassi, and Rafter, who had his number in 1998. He injured himself shortly before the USO.

That's very true, that summer was incredible and I was more than happy to put on youtube his Cincinnati matches and ATP finals from 1999. But actually in the first half of 1999 he missed the Australian Open due to mental fatigue, and played poorly for the first half of the year and didn't win his first title until Queens, where he needed a third set tiebreak to beat Henman after losing the first set. You will also find that a large part of the media were also speculating that Sampras was no longer the player of the past - which made the Wimbledon final performance against Agassi completely surprising and stunning as it was totally unexpected, Agassi was actually seen as slight favourite going into the final (not by me by the way). And going into that final Sampras didn't play very well against either Phillipousis or Henman in the previous rounds whilst Agassi played amazingly well against Kuerten and Rafter.

Also, Sampras was number one throughout the whole of 1996 and 1997 whilst in 1998 lost his number 1 ranking more than once to Rios throughout the year.

So, I'm just going on my memory of how things were interpreted at the time and I can safely say before the summer of 1999, a lot of people were thinking and saying Sampras might be coming to the end of his domination.

 

[laurie]

I should also add that Sampras had split from his girlfriend in 1999 which also added to his miserable mood. As Becker described in his autobiography, he and Sampras played doubles at Queens and at one change of ends, Sampras told Becker he doesn't know how much longer he could go on so his motivation was certainly waning during that period. Players personal lives always are a factor to their performance which we the public are not usually aware of and don't acknowledge, we are just programmed to think forehands and backhands when we talk about players.

 

[urban]

My correction point was aimed at a previous post, not Yours, Laurie. What i mean, is, numbers don't always tell the whole truth. I for my part, take Federer's wins at Wim 2003, and Masters 2003, and his 2004 season, over his numerical better seasons. I think, he was more in command then in all court flexibility, and simply played a more fascinating and risky style.

 

[laurie]

My correction point was aimed at a previous post, not Yours, Laurie. What i mean, is, numbers don't always tell the whole truth. I for my part, take Federer's wins at Wim 2003, and Masters 2003, and his 2004 season, over his numerical better seasons. I think, he was more in command then in all court flexibility, and simply played a more fascinating and risky style.

I agree with you 100%!

I really enjoyed watching Federer in 2003 I thought he was incredible. The more he retreated to the baseline all the time, the less I enjoyed watching him play. In think 2003 and 2004 was his best play.

 

[tHotGates]

I go back & forth about 98/99 with Sampras. The effort to stay # 1 in 98 took a lot out of Pete. In 99, Pete misses the AO, gets to the 2R of the FO & then catches fire between Wimby & the USO where he suffers the back/disc injury which forces him to withdraw from the USO & miss almost the remaining calender year of tour events. I guess what I should have said it started in 1998 & culminated in 1999. IMO, despite the sizzling summer of 99, Pete seemed a step or so slower from 94-96 & his S&V game is becoming a bigger part of his game. Post 99, Pete was notably slower.

 

[daddy]

I agree with you 100%!

I really enjoyed watching Federer in 2003 I thought he was incredible. The more he retreated to the baseline all the time, the less I enjoyed watching him play. In think 2003 and 2004 was his best play.

Okay I will write more on this. Results are what counts in the end , dont they ? I mean I loved the way federer was playing back in 2003/04 season,but he really mentally and physiclly dominated the game in 2006/07 resultswise, maybe not so with the beauty of game, but I think he was awesome.

Sampras may have played excellent remainder of the 1999 season after returning, but no doubt in my mind that 1998 was the turning point. Why ? well all his effort to stay nr1 took a lot of him, he was trying not always succesfully ( Rios thing ) and on the other hand he suffered thru 1999 season until he came back to play that and 2000 season. Be fore that he was undisputed champ and world nr1 for sure every year notching around 8 titles per season.

I am not talking about decline in terms of playing better or worse, I am talking about decline in overall dominance on tennis world and resultswise. He definitly never had the results he had before even if he played better.

 

[laurie]

You know what's the most interesting thing about the summer of 1999 in Los Angeles and Cincinnati, that's the most I've seen Sampras smile on a Tennis court, he was really having fun (especially against Agassi literally in the Cincinnati semi where he was performing trick shots and interacting with the crowd!)

So I really don't know what turned Sampras around in July 1999, but it's probably my favourite period of watching him play.

 

[tHotGates]

The springboard for the summer turn around was Pete's Wimby performance (I remember thinking, finally, he has found his form that had been missing for what seemed like an eternity & then the disc injury happens: grumble.). One indelible memory from that summer was when Pete's serve punched a whole through Rafter's racket (iirc, it was at Cincy).

 

[tHotGates]

i agree with you. Pete got injured because of his own fault. It's not like someone just pushed him from a 3 story building. Fed in the other hand, like all us agree, has the best footwork in the game. So smooth, and no one can say Federer has a bad footwork. So Fed is more unlikely to get an injury. Many people say Pete could have done better without the injuries..... I don't understand that. Athletes have to take care of themselves...it's common sense. If they have bad footwork and get hurt, it's their fault, not the coaches, not the fans and definitely not the guy who pushed him from a 3 story building. It's unfortunate that Pete got injured, but he has to deal with it and it shouldn't be affected in deciding Pete VS Federer.

I agree. I love Pete but his fitness regime could have been a lot better.

 

[laurie]

Indeed that wonderful Wimbledon final, nice point.

I read an interview Paul Annacone did not so long ago, he revealed something Sampras said to him before the final. He told Annacone, "it's going to be fun!"

He basically had plans for Agassi that day, he was going to have fun, at Agassi's expense. Seeing Agassi on the other side of the net somehow got Sampras fired up in a way other guys didn't, certainly not Henman in the semifinal, Sampras did just enough to win the match in 4 after losing the first set, but played nothing like he would just 24 hours later (the semis were played on saturday due to raiin delays all week).

 

[Azzurri]

I disagree with the notion that Pete was known as a "fit" player (he had his injuries in the early to mid 90s but nothing heavy like we saw later especially in 99) & lets not forget he had his blood disorder. I think Roger's footwork will be the key difference in his ability to break Pete's record. While I see other players closing the gap as Roger slows down I think Roger's (b/c of his footwork) will finish healthier & stronger than Pete's & to close his career. I agree about 1998 as the key year where Pete started his serious decline & of course as Laurie describes shortly after his all court game transitions to a very aggressive S&V game.

I was wondering about this. You say he had a serious decline in 1998. But he won 3 W titles (98-00), made 2 SF and 1 F in the majors (6 times he made it past the Semi's in 10 total majors and that inlciudes 3 FO, where we all know he sucked). Don't forget he skipped AO and USO in 99 because of injury. So lets toss out the FO and he made 6/7 major tourney's past the semi-finals...is that decline to you?

I think his "serious" decline started in 2000. The guy won nothing between W and his last GS the 02 USO. Pete won 9 titles in 98 & 99...I just don't agree he had this decline in 98. But I saw it after 00 Wimbledon. I remember whenever I watched him play I was always frustrated with him. Hard to see his skills decline so quickly and watching Agassi still play at a high level.

 

[Azzurri]

I go back & forth about 98/99 with Sampras. The effort to stay # 1 in 98 took a lot out of Pete. In 99, Pete misses the AO, gets to the 2R of the FO & then catches fire between Wimby & the USO where he suffers the back/disc injury which forces him to withdraw from the USO & miss almost the remaining calender year of tour events. I guess what I should have said it started in 1998 & culminated in 1999. IMO, despite the sizzling summer of 99, Pete seemed a step or so slower from 94-96 & his S&V game is becoming a bigger part of his game. Post 99, Pete was notably slower.

I agree with you on this. He did win Wimbledon, but He seemed slow after the US Open. so I could see this as the period of decline.

 

[zagor]

The way Sampras played against Agassi in Wimbledon final 1999 was unreal.That was the best single performance I've ever seen and I was dead sure Sampras would win 1999 USO but then that horrible back injury happened(I think I remember he hurt his back while he was practising with Kuerten,can someone confirm this?),but atleast something good came out of that situation because he met Bridgette.

 

[laurie]

I was wondering about this. You say he had a serious decline in 1998. But he won 3 W titles (98-00), made 2 SF and 1 F in the majors (6 times he made it past the Semi's in 10 total majors and that inlciudes 3 FO, where we all know he sucked). Don't forget he skipped AO and USO in 99 because of injury. So lets toss out the FO and he made 6/7 major tourney's past the semi-finals...is that decline to you?

I think his "serious" decline started in 2000. The guy won nothing between W and his last GS the 02 USO. Pete won 9 titles in 98 & 99...I just don't agree he had this decline in 98. But I saw it after 00 Wimbledon. I remember whenever I watched him play I was always frustrated with him. Hard to see his skills decline so quickly and watching Agassi still play at a high level.

I appreciate what you are saying. The only thing I would say is that in 2008, it's easy to say that 9 titles in 1998 and 1999 looks a pretty good return for someone who's in their late 20s.

But i distictly remember as I said before, that serious questions were asked about Sampras in the first half of 1999, the fact he missed the Aussie Open because he wanted a break alone started the speculation. And I remember during the grass season Pat Cash saying it's a question why Sampras is out there playing.

So until that Wimbledon final, a lot of commentators were questioning his desire to continue. And in fact, when Sampras won the Wimbledon final, David Mercer actually said that he thought Sampras had passed his peak performance, then he said "not today".

So up until that Wimbledon final performance, Sampras was under serious pressure from the media.

The real noticeable decline was of course the defeat to Safin at the 2000 US Open, but as with everything, it doesn't happen overnight, it was building up to that - it happens to all great players, sampras did well to keep going after such a hammering by Safin.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

NOw I am going to correct you mr uptight. Sampras JUST turned 19 when he won in 1990, cause he is born 12-Aug-71. Federer was just about to turn 22 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 as he was born 8-Aug-81. Okay ? We all make mistakes. But rarely have I seen a person so eager to take the thread away from its original point correcting what seem to be meaningless mistakes, a month here or there.

Ok ?

:shock:

lol you got him there. This same idea this thread is based on was the same thing I was thinking. I think it began late last year, when he lost twice to Nalbandian in a 2 week span. Yes he did win the Masters, but it was a big blow to lose back to back to the same person. I was told that many were saying Federer wouldn't do that great in the Australian. I think he was just having a rough start, like in 2005. its not like he lost in the 2 round or something (ironically, thats the round the 2005 champion Marat Safin lost in). I just hope he can do well for the rest of the year and hopefully win the French. (Not that I have anything against Rafa, he's awesome, but Federer needs it.)

Also, anyone notice the birthdays of the two? So close together.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

these are all nice information.....but i have a feeling that couple of people are bias against Federer and is a little bit more giving to Pete. Is it because because Pete is American? I believe Federer will definitely break Pete's record, no doubt about that, and I strongly believe Federer is a better player than Pete overall. Records doesn't mean much because the time was different, and all the players were different. Like in b-ball, Wilt Chamberlain may have scored 100 points, so? he was the only tall guy in the game therefore he scored easily. Jordan may only have scored 63, but in the playoffs against the Celtics, the best team. I am comparing Wilt to Pete b/c Pete was the only person with that kind of a serve, with that much weight in it. Federer has more rivalries than Pete right now. Anyway, this all might all be a strong opinion...but I believe Fed wins in many ways against Pete. I may be bringing some mobs here.

I think Federer is better and will be better than Sampras.

That's interesting because a friend of mine phoned me yesterday and she was talking about Federer's injury or alleged injury throughout the tournament. I said to her in my eye's that's no reason or excuse why he lost, he lost because Novak stood up to him and took the game to him. Indeed I remember in 2000 Sampras winning Wimbledon whilst hobbling on one leg, plus in 1996 after the Corretja match been put on a drip in hospital but still winning the tournament. Whilst in 1999 missing the US Open because of a bad back, so these things happen and that's that- injuries are unfortunate but all players have to deal with it.

It seems that Federer is a very private man. I would suggest that Federer is actually nowhere near the fitness and shrapness he would like and is probably carrying a lot more niggles than the public will ever find out unless one turns into a major injury - this is probably a combination of him playing an incredible amount of winning Tennis over a short period of time (4 years), and mental fatigue of accomplishing so many records and trying to break so many records whle he is still in his prime.

This is precisely why this is a key year. We all expect him to break the records but are all wondering whether he can do it before the younger players are not only challenging but ready to take over.

The younger players are hurting him, especially because his biggest rival and obstacle, Rafael Nadal, is the guy keeping him from a career grand slam and happens to be leading the new age. I think that Novak was playing well, but Federer was out of his element that day.

 

[Azzurri]

I appreciate what you are saying. The only thing I would say is that in 2008, it's easy to say that 9 titles in 1998 and 1999 looks a pretty good return for someone who's in their late 20s.

But i distictly remember as I said before, that serious questions were asked about Sampras in the first half of 1999, the fact he missed the Aussie Open because he wanted a break alone started the speculation. And I remember during the grass season Pat Cash saying it's a question why Sampras is out there playing.

So until that Wimbledon final, a lot of commentators were questioning his desire to continue. And in fact, when Sampras won the Wimbledon final, David Mercer actually said that he thought Sampras had passed his peak performance, then he said "not today".

So up until that Wimbledon final performance, Sampras was under serious pressure from the media.

The real noticeable decline was of course the defeat to Safin at the 2000 US Open, but as with everything, it doesn't happen overnight, it was building up to that - it happens to all great players, sampras did well to keep going after such a hammering by Safin.

I agree with everything you said. I also remember the "chatter" in 99. But I am looking at the "seriouis" decline statements and he did not have it until after 99. Safin..hmm..not sure. Safin played incredible. But none the less, Pete was not in a serioius decline until at least the Safin match. But I agree with your statements

 

[Azzurri]

I think Federer is better and will be better than Sampras.



The younger players are hurting him, especially because his biggest rival and obstacle, Rafael Nadal, is the guy keeping him from a career grand slam and happens to be leading the new age. I think that Novak was playing well, but Federer was out of his element that day.

what do you mean? not sure you are saying this correctly. Major championships IS Federer's element.

 

[tHotGates]

I was wondering about this. You say he had a serious decline in 1998. But he won 3 W titles (98-00), made 2 SF and 1 F in the majors (6 times he made it past the Semi's in 10 total majors and that inlciudes 3 FO, where we all know he sucked). Don't forget he skipped AO and USO in 99 because of injury. So lets toss out the FO and he made 6/7 major tourney's past the semi-finals...is that decline to you?

I think his "serious" decline started in 2000. The guy won nothing between W and his last GS the 02 USO. Pete won 9 titles in 98 & 99...I just don't agree he had this decline in 98. But I saw it after 00 Wimbledon. I remember whenever I watched him play I was always frustrated with him. Hard to see his skills decline so quickly and watching Agassi still play at a high level.

I posted later in this thread the following clarification:

I go back & forth about 98/99 with Sampras. The effort to stay # 1 in 98 took a lot out of Pete. In 99, Pete misses the AO, gets to the 2R of the FO & then catches fire between Wimby & the USO where he suffers the back/disc injury which forces him to withdraw from the USO & miss almost the remaining calender year of tour events. I guess what I should have said it started in 1998 & culminated in 1999. IMO, despite the sizzling summer of 99, Pete seemed a step or so slower from 94-96 & his S&V game is becoming a bigger part of his game. Post 99, Pete was notably slower.

You quoted the last sentence in another post but IMO my point remains consistent. The decline started in 1998 (the injury at the USO, the struggle to finish number # 1, the Slam drought & chatter up through Wimby 99, no AO in 99) & snow bald after his disc injury not only in Slam wins but physical deterioration. Yes, Pete was productive in 98 & 99 in so far as titles go but he was physically slipping. This is how I see Pete:

88-92: Pre -peak
93-97: Peak
98-00: Post-peak
00-02: Twighlight

 

[Azzurri]

I posted later in this thread the following clarification:




You quoted the last sentence in another post but IMO my point remains consistent. The decline started in 1998 (the injury at the USO, the struggle to finish number # 1, the Slam drought & chatter up through Wimby 99, no AO in 99) & snow bald after his disc injury not only in Slam wins but physical deterioration. Yes, Pete was productive in 98 & 99 in so far as titles go but he was physically slipping. This is how I see Pete:

88-92: Pre -peak
93-97: Peak
98-00: Post-peak
00-02: Twighlight

I just don't think Pete the player was in serious decline in 1998. Was he in serious physical? That would depend. While he did miss some time, he still won 2 more majors after this serious physical decline. I still think after the 00 USO is when he began his decline, not anywhere near 98. You mention physical, but not sure what that really means? that he is human? He still won majors AFTER the supposed physical decline. I provided you with FACTS. From 19998 to 2000, Pete made at least the semi-final in 6-7 majors not called the French Open (we most likely all agree he was pretty bad on the clay by 1996).

So, please answers this question: How can Pete be in decline when he wins 9 tourneys in 98-99 and makes 6/7 semi-finals in a 3 year period from 98-00??? Was he getting older..yes, was he a little slower...yes, was he thinking of starting a family...yes. But did this cause a serious decline (you used the word serious)? NO. This serious decline started in 00.

Please look at the facts and not your own opinion. The facts are he was still winning. If anyone were to look at his decline, then you have to look at the 2 year winless drought until he won the 02 USO. How can 98-99 and part of 00 be his serious decline when he was winning MAJORS?

One more point. I remember the announcers woiuld ask or say Pete is not playing at his level, but the same exact question popped up about Federer last year. People were questioning his dominance, uet he won 3 majors. While I agree he began to slip, it was NOT a serious decline. That happened in 00. Also, with Fed dominating men's tennis, you realize he could have lost his #1 ranking if Nadal won and he did n ot get to the 2nd round. For all his majors and winning tourney's, Fed was still barely hanging on, even after he dominated. So holding on to the #1 title is hard. Just cuz Rios claimed it for a little while is not Pete's serious decline.

 

[daddy]

^^^ I was the first to say his decline began in 1998. What that ment ? Well I did not say he lost it completely and went out of the game. I said it in the context of him being very good and dominant thruout 1996 and 1997, then in 1998 some signs were starting to pop up. He finished on top at the end of that year also managing to play great tennis and winning slams thru 1998/99/00 but the decline I am talking about is that although his game was excellent, arguably better than pre 1998 - he was unable to produce all the time as he was before. He began to have lapses and he was in a "mild" decline, I am not talking stats only.

The real decline - you are talking about after the year of 2000, thats not a decline thats a complete dissapearance of Pete Sampras as the world knew him before, excaplt for that one USO 2002, his one and only title after the 2000 season, in which btw he only took 2 tournament wins.

To sum up - he played best up until 1998, then slowly, not so obviously but slowly started to wonder off ( what I consider declining ) whether mentally or physiclly, and began to lose more and win less - although his winning ways were not completely gone and he won another 12 tournaments from 1998 on, but he won 52 before so ..

 

[Azzurri]

^^^ I was the first to say his decline began in 1998. What that ment ? Well I did not say he lost it completely and went out of the game. I said it in the context of him being very good and dominant thruout 1996 and 1997, then in 1998 some signs were starting to pop up. He finished on top at the end of that year also managing to play great tennis and winning slams thru 1998/99/00 but the decline I am talking about is that although his game was excellent, arguably better than pre 1998 - he was unable to produce all the time as he was before. He began to have lapses and he was in a "mild" decline, I am not talking stats only.

The real decline - you are talking about after the year of 2000, thats not a decline thats a complete dissapearance of Pete Sampras as the world knew him before, excaplt for that one USO 2002, his one and only title after the 2000 season, in which btw he only took 2 tournament wins.

To sum up - he played best up until 1998, then slowly, not so obviously but slowly started to wonder off ( what I consider declining ) whether mentally or physiclly, and began to lose more and win less - although his winning ways were not completely gone and he won another 12 tournaments from 1998 on, but he won 52 before so ..[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. This is a different statement than the "serious" decline, so thanks for calrification. The word slow or mild would have been appropriate. Yes, after the 00 USO he had a SERIOUS decline..lol. His 02 USO victory made it that much sweeter. It showed everyone if his desire was there, he could still be the best. I completely understand Pete's little desire once he got married and had a baby. He is a human being after all, so for him to give one last shot is what made him special.

 

[daddy]

I agree with you. This is a different statement than the "serious" decline, so thanks for calrification. The word slow or mild would have been appropriate. Yes, after the 00 USO he had a SERIOUS decline..lol. His 02 USO victory made it that much sweeter. It showed everyone if his desire was there, he could still be the best. I completely understand Pete's little desire once he got married and had a baby. He is a human being after all, so for him to give one last shot is what made him special.

Yep. But I must say Pistol Pete Sampras, one of my all time favourite players in any sports so I am not cheering for Djoko or against Federer. I really did not dislike Aggasi either, but thinking someone will depose my hero from the throne, well I used to curse Aggasi although now that years have passed I am pretty aware of how great he is and how good was he for the world of tennis. Same now, with Roger, I know he is a truly great guy with what looks like almost perfect record thus far but I dont know, I would like if he could only tie the 14 slams.

Then again - thats why I started this thread - is this year MAYBE the year that Federer's slight decline will begin ? And AO proved me no wrong for sure, its too early to tell but I want to be the first one to predict something based on facts and not just immature cheering for my fellow countrymen hero Novak. Thats why the comparison and everything, thanks for contributing.

 

[Azzurri]

Yep. But I must say Pistol Pete Sampras, one of my all time favourite players in any sports so I am not cheering for Djoko or against Federer. I really did not dislike Aggasi either, but thinking someone will depose my hero from the throne, well I used to curse Aggasi although now that years have passed I am pretty aware of how great he is and how good was he for the world of tennis. Same now, with Roger, I know he is a truly great guy with what looks like almost perfect record thus far but I dont know, I would like if he could only tie the 14 slams.

Then again - thats why I started this thread - is this year MAYBE the year that Federer's slight decline will begin ? And AO proved me no wrong for sure, its too early to tell but I want to be the first one to predict something based on facts and not just immature cheering for my fellow countrymen hero Novak. Thats why the comparison and everything, thanks for contributing.

you could be right. maybe this is the year that Fed begins his decline. But if he wins W and USO, then we will have to. I like Fed, so I hope he breaks Pete's record. but it does seem the competition is getting closer.

I liked Agassi before Pete. In fact, I was not a fan of Pete's until 1993. I followed Agassi from 1987 on, so it was hard to root for one of them when they played.

 

[tHotGates]

I just don't think Pete the player was in serious decline in 1998. Was he in serious physical? That would depend. While he did miss some time, he still won 2 more majors after this serious physical decline.


Again, the physical decline (from peak to post peak) began in 1998 & accelerated in 1999. You can hold onto the word "serious" which I used just once in thread, despite my later attempt at clarification which you seem to be ignoring. It's real simple, Pete's slam production from 98-99 or 00-02 do not match 93-97 production levels. Single title wins at Philadelphia, Atlanta, & Vienna are nice (Wimbledon is expected) but the slide started in 1998 (more in latter 1998 despite his win in Vienna). You can go on YouTube & pull out some the documentaries on Pete where he describes just how difficult 1998 was for him so much so he has withdraw from the 99 AO. Yes, Pete was even laboring in his 1998 USO loss to Rafter. Sure, Pete has a strong summer in 99 (keep in mind the critics/concerns were getting louder until Pete beats AA in the 99 Wimbledon) but he gets injured again & has to withdraw from the 99 USO (that's two slams in one calender year he has to withdraw from) as he misses a good chunk of the remaining tour events between summer & fall 1999. Pete again injuries himself in the loss to AA at the 00 AO which forces him to pull out of the upcoming Davis Cup event in Zimbabwe.


I still think after the 00 USO is when he began his decline, not anywhere near 98.

No doubt about it, 00-02 Pete was fading fast but the start time was earlier. Call me silly, but after 10-12 years on the tour & not being the fittest player by any stretch, to slip in physical ability should not come as a surprise especially when you've just finished 6 years consecutive at # 1.


You mention physical, but not sure what that really means? that he is human? He still won majors AFTER the supposed physical decline. I provided you with FACTS. From 19998 to 2000, Pete made at least the semi-final in 6-7 majors not called the French Open (we most likely all agree he was pretty bad on the clay by 1996).

But he was winning those matches not even a few years earlier & even his FO runs were deeper. One more time, Pete was slipping & that's not surprising given his time on the tour & his career long physical issues which after a decade's worth of playing were exacting their toll more & more.



So, please answers this question: How can Pete be in decline when he wins 9 tourneys in 98-99 and makes 6/7 semi-finals in a 3 year period from 98-00???


See earlier reply.

Was he getting older..yes, was he a little slower...yes, was he thinking of starting a family...yes. But did this cause a serious decline (you used the word serious)? NO. This serious decline started in 00.


I made a clarification to my "SERIOUS" statement long before you chimed in on this thread. If you want to hang yourself on that one appended statement well enjoy. This is getting absurd.

Please look at the facts and not your own opinion. The facts are he was still winning. If anyone were to look at his decline, then you have to look at the 2 year winless drought until he won the 02 USO. How can 98-99 and part of 00 be his serious decline when he was winning MAJORS?


He was winning but was less dominating. He was winning but he was getting slower & the signs of wear of tear of being number were showing going back to 1998.

One more point. I remember the announcers woiuld ask or say Pete is not playing at his level, but the same exact question popped up about Federer last year. People were questioning his dominance, uet he won 3 majors. While I agree he began to slip, it was NOT a serious decline. That happened in 00. Also, with Fed dominating men's tennis, you realize he could have lost his #1 ranking if Nadal won and he did n ot get to the 2nd round. For all his majors and winning tourney's, Fed was still barely hanging on, even after he dominated. So holding on to the #1 title is hard. Just cuz Rios claimed it for a little while is not Pete's serious decline.



One more time, try not get too hung up the word "serious" which I have only used once in thread with an appended correction/clarification. Every athlete is different. I have said earlier (besides Roger being in better physical health than Pete) that Fed's footwork will serve him well (injury wise) as he finishes his career on a stronger note than Pete. Do I think wear & tear is happening to Fed, the answer is yes. Do I think Fed is slipping just a little bit physically, I think so. He doesn't seem as quick (looking at 07/08 ) but IMO that is natural. Is Roger in serious decline, the answer is no. When that happens we will probably know it. It's not uncommon (in fact just the opposite) for athletes to slip & slide physically into their 10th, 11th, or 12th year of play. I've always held this position on Pete & I stick by it.

 

[Azzurri]

I don't want to sound rude, but I just re-read all of your posts and NOWHERE do you "clarify" the serious decline statement. I "chimed" in because this is a forum. You "chime" in too...what is your point?

This is a waste, but I feel you were a tad rude:

This was the intial post I responded to. The "serious" post:

I disagree with the notion that Pete was known as a "fit" player (he had his injuries in the early to mid 90s but nothing heavy like we saw later especially in 99) & lets not forget he had his blood disorder. I think Roger's footwork will be the key difference in his ability to break Pete's record. While I see other players closing the gap as Roger slows down I think Roger's (b/c of his footwork) will finish healthier & stronger than Pete's & to close his career. I agree about 1998 as the key year where Pete started his serious decline & of course as Laurie describes shortly after his all court game transitions to a very aggressive S&V game.

This is your SECOND post. You still say it was 1998. You now use the word NOTABLY. Sorry, but you did not clarify anything. The guy still won 2 more majors:

I go back & forth about 98/99 with Sampras. The effort to stay # 1 in 98 took a lot out of Pete. In 99, Pete misses the AO, gets to the 2R of the FO & then catches fire between Wimby & the USO where he suffers the back/disc injury which forces him to withdraw from the USO & miss almost the remaining calender year of tour events. I guess what I should have said it started in 1998 & culminated in 1999. IMO, despite the sizzling summer of 99, Pete seemed a step or so slower from 94-96 & his S&V game is becoming a bigger part of his game. Post 99, Pete was notably slower.

Then you said this. I thought the real decline was 99? Now you say he was in form...which is it??:

The springboard for the summer turn around was Pete's Wimby performance (I remember thinking, finally, he has found his form that had been missing for what seemed like an eternity & then the disc injury happens: grumble.). One indelible memory from that summer was when Pete's serve punched a whole through Rafter's racket (iirc, it was at Cincy).

Now you mention fitness:

I agree. I love Pete but his fitness regime could have been a lot better.

Now this is where I "chimed" in. Sorry Bub, but you did not clarify anything. You were a bit wishy-washy at best. I was not being rude to you, just making a point and showed respect without using negative words. But I gess it does not matter with you.

I was wondering about this. You say he had a serious decline in 1998. But he won 3 W titles (98-00), made 2 SF and 1 F in the majors (6 times he made it past the Semi's in 10 total majors and that inlciudes 3 FO, where we all know he sucked). Don't forget he skipped AO and USO in 99 because of injury. So lets toss out the FO and he made 6/7 major tourney's past the semi-finals...is that decline to you?

I think his "serious" decline started in 2000. The guy won nothing between W and his last GS the 02 USO. Pete won 9 titles in 98 & 99...I just don't agree he had this decline in 98. But I saw it after 00 Wimbledon. I remember whenever I watched him play I was always frustrated with him. Hard to see his skills decline so quickly and watching Agassi still play at a high level.

 

[laurie]

Well Slappano, I agree no-one would say Sampras was in serious decline in 1998 or 1999, it's just that he wasn't as consistent in a week in week out basis and had some motivation issues but was still playing every now and again a level of Tennis that no-one else could match. So yes, I think you've got it just about right.

I think I also agree with you about fitness, that's been overplayed. An athlete has to be extremely fit to win 7 matches in a row over and over again, and at least playing 7 matches even if he lost a final here and there. Plus his 5 set record is very good. The Corretja moment was indeed dramatic but it was hardly a weekly occurence over a 14 year period.

 

[Azzurri]

Well Slappano, I agree no-one would say Sampras was in serious decline in 1998 or 1999, it's just that he wasn't as consistent in a week in week out basis and had some motivation issues but was still playing every now and again a level of Tennis that no-one else could match. So yes, I think you've got it just about right.

I think I also agree with you about fitness, that's been overplayed. An athlete has to be extremely fit to win 7 matches in a row over and over again, and at least playing 7 matches even if he lost a final here and there. Plus his 5 set record is very good. The Corretja moment was indeed dramatic but it was hardly a weekly occurence over a 14 year period.

Too many threads have people posting about pro's that they have never seen. These posters think they know from reading and watching you tube videos. I am not speaking about anyone in particular, but there are a lot of people that only watched Pete at the end of his playing days or nothing at all except you tube and some old matches. Of course Pete declined...evryone eventually does. But how many pro's retire on top? How many win a major at 31 and retire on that level (Borg)? I have no issue w/people saying he lost a step, but he motivation is probably the real reason for his decline, not so much his skills.

I agree..tired of hearing about his fitness.