T
TennisandMusic
Guest
This is the other mentality that needs to be ditched.
Prime Sampras (Wimbledon 1999) VS Prime Federer (You choose) at Wimbledon, who wins?
- Thread starter gold soundz
- Start date
This is the other mentality that needs to be ditched.
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
Fed, Laver, Sampras, Borg, etc>>>>>=GOAT candidates.
I honestly don't see any of them dominating each other.
I honestly don't see any of them dominating each other.
vortex1
Banned
Laver shouldn't be on the GOAT list. Dominating pre open era doesn't mean anything.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Says who? So you get to pick and choose what records are going to be allowed. I say we can't count half of Roger's slams since it was a weak era, and he did not use a wooden racket, and recieved way more money than those palyer form the past, etc.
Goes both ways buddy
Using weak era argument is pointless. It only support by a very minor people who are fan of old school tennis, nothing else. Logic say every sports gets better over time b/c of the growing population. It doesn’t regress! So stop your nonsense about the weak competition.
Atleast part of vortex1 comment was true...laver was dominating during the playing field that was divided into 2 leagues(amateur and pro).
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Your argument is totally difference. It’s a fact the Laver’s field was divided into two(pro and amateur). Care to dispute that dumbass?
Where is your fact about the current era is WEAK???
Bunch of ******** *******. You must be born with an extra pair of chromosome.
Why are we just looking at the top level? It is pretty ridiculous. But the fact that many here think that multiple Federer performances at Wimbledon could have beat Sampras' alleged best final performance in 1999 suggests that Federer is at least as good a grasscourt player as Sampras was, in the minds of many people here.
It would be more reasonable to just ask the question, if they met 10 times (or 100 times, doesn't matter), how many matches would each win? I think it would be close to 50-50. But honestly, if I'm going to pick who has the edge, I'm gonna say Federer, because Federer would threaten Sampras' serve more than vica-versa. This is not to say that it would be easy to break Sampras' serve -- heck, most of their sets would probably go to tie-break. However, imo Federer's return would do better vs. Sampras' serve than Sampras' return vs. Federer's serve, on average and that would be the difference.
imo, on all surfaces, the breakdown would be like this:
Surface : % Federer wins : % Sampras wins
Grass : 50 : 50
Fast HC : 60 : 40
Slow HC : 70 : 30
Clay : 95 : 5
Overall: 68 : 32
It would be more reasonable to just ask the question, if they met 10 times (or 100 times, doesn't matter), how many matches would each win? I think it would be close to 50-50. But honestly, if I'm going to pick who has the edge, I'm gonna say Federer, because Federer would threaten Sampras' serve more than vica-versa. This is not to say that it would be easy to break Sampras' serve -- heck, most of their sets would probably go to tie-break. However, imo Federer's return would do better vs. Sampras' serve than Sampras' return vs. Federer's serve, on average and that would be the difference.
imo, on all surfaces, the breakdown would be like this:
Surface : % Federer wins : % Sampras wins
Grass : 50 : 50
Fast HC : 60 : 40
Slow HC : 70 : 30
Clay : 95 : 5
Overall: 68 : 32
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Ok, so he dominated pre open era, pro era, and open era. You do understand that he did in fact play in the open era where he achived a Calendar grand slam right?
In fact Laver achieved 3 Calendar Grand Slams in each and every era, with more slams than Federer as well!
You ****s are brainless to agrue Laver had it easy and Federer had it hard, prove that!
Like I said, you are ignorant beyond belief.
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
Laver did not win 3 calendar GS.
Go back and learn your tennis carefully, and slowly since you have that extra pair of chromosome!!!
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Amature; 1962 Laver became only the second male player after Don Budge in 1938 to win all four Grand Slam singles titles in the same year and won an additional 17 titles = amature calendar grand slam
Pro; Laver turned pro in 1962. In1967, Laver won 19 titles, including the Wimbledon Pro, the U.S. Pro Championships, the Wembley Pro Championship, and the French Pro Championship, which gave him a clean sweep of the most important professional titles = pro calendar grand slam
Open; Joined in 1968. In 1969, Laver won all four Grand Slam tournaments in the same calendar year = opend calendar grand slam
Deal with it!
World Beater
Hall of Fame
many players generally come forward a step or two when trying to return at the point of impact. this was not something unique to borg.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I know, I was just pointing out how borg returned
abmk
Bionic Poster
You and your half-baked knowledge.
62 - the best players were in the pro circuit. The next year when rod joined it, rosewall and hoad caned him serveral times over.
67 - pro slam , he beat the best players ( in the pro-circuit ) , but he had to play only a few rounds ( not 7 rounds with a 128 man draw ) ( pro slams were more like a Year ending championship, but fully elimination format, no round robin )
69 - the greatest of em' all
abmk
Bionic Poster
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You are joking, right?
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Half baked??? Are you that stupid? Those are the facts, deal with it. The guy has 1 calendar slam from each and ever era. Only a fool would make excuses and try to diminish those accomplishments, with ****s the excuses never end so I am not suprised LOL.
Each time I prove you fools wrong you come back with yet another excuse.
3 CGS DEAL WITH IT!
And stop the excuses as they can be applied to Roger and others as well
You are part of the same morons the believe Roger's FO and Wim doesn't count because he didn't face Nadal and because the grass is slower LOL Loser!
powerslave
Rookie
Well it is ridiculous to even compare Laver and Roger and pit them against each other for GOAT ; Laver achieved great things during his time , different era, different equipment and obviously different level of play it cannot get more clearer than that.
Coming to Federer vs Pete :
1. Serve : Equal
2. Return of serve: Advantage Federer
3. Net approaches: Advantage Pete
4. Baseline rallies/passing shots: Advantage Federer
5. Court coverage/ retrieving skills: Advantage Federer
5. Stamina (5 setter): Advantage Federer
However given the complexity of the game of tennis I would back Federer to win at least 6/7 matches out of 10 played between the two.
Coming to Federer vs Pete :
1. Serve : Equal
2. Return of serve: Advantage Federer
3. Net approaches: Advantage Pete
4. Baseline rallies/passing shots: Advantage Federer
5. Court coverage/ retrieving skills: Advantage Federer
5. Stamina (5 setter): Advantage Federer
However given the complexity of the game of tennis I would back Federer to win at least 6/7 matches out of 10 played between the two.
gold soundz
Professional
No way. It's pretty obvious that whilst Federer's serve is excellent, Sampras' was still a bit better.
TennisKid1
Semi-Pro
Federer on the current grass and Sampras on the old grass
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Everything about Sampras' game is built for grass. As long as the grass surface is pretty fast, Sampras may even beat Fed today if Sampras trained a bit and if he used his new bigger racket and new technology strings like he did when he was 5 years retired and beat Fed in Macau - note Fed could not break Sampras for 2 matches in a row in those asia exos, and you'd expect similar difficulties on the grass. Sampras looked very comfortable with Feds game. Fed would have a better chance if Sampras had to use his old outdated 85" racket and strings.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Actually, I don't agree. Pete's serve and return of serve were better than Roger's. Especially since Roger just slices the serve, if it comes to his backhand. He rarely, if ever will attack it.
hyperwarrior
Professional
It's pretty unfair creating this thread expecting Sampras to win the votes. I mean we're in the Federer era now with a lot of Fedfans...To the OP, do you really think that the new gens who has never seen a lot of Sampras, will vote for him? There is nothing objective about the results and I bet many of them only votes for their favorite player...
FlamEnemY
Hall of Fame
I'm not that much into history (though I read stuff about the older players I didn't go into detail about the different circuits), I'd like to ask, were the "Pro Slams" played alongside the "Amateur" Slams before '68 by, of course, different crops of players?
The Baseline
Professional
sampras with that big serve was impossible to beat.
Sampras and Roger have played against each other at Wimb 2001. Both attacking the net. And it was a close match.
So I say an educational guess would be that if they faced off more, it will be pretty even. Luck and other factors will play more into who would win more.
Roger can attack on the return if he has to, but he doesn't because the slice is a more high % play. And he can usually outplay the opponent from that point on.
You usually go for high % play, and only risk it when the risk is worth it.
1.) exos don't really count. Because usually exos are played to entertain, while competitions are played to win.
2.) if Sampras couldn't adjust well enough when he was young, the chances of him adjusting now is much lower. Just like how a child can learn something new much easier (generally speaking, like say a language) then an adult.
3.) i'm sure Sampras can probably still manage a win or 2 here and there against anyone with some conditioning. I mean any former pro that is in decent physical condition should be able to win a match or 2 here and there against most pros. But he would not be able to handle a tournament.
well same thing can be said of the older gen who are die hard Sampras fans, and who will always find some way to pick on federer's record, but doesn't apply the same standards to Sampras.
any results from comparing players will contain basis. The only way to be unbasised is to compare data/statistics alone.
So I say an educational guess would be that if they faced off more, it will be pretty even. Luck and other factors will play more into who would win more.
Roger can attack on the return if he has to, but he doesn't because the slice is a more high % play. And he can usually outplay the opponent from that point on.
You usually go for high % play, and only risk it when the risk is worth it.
1.) exos don't really count. Because usually exos are played to entertain, while competitions are played to win.
2.) if Sampras couldn't adjust well enough when he was young, the chances of him adjusting now is much lower. Just like how a child can learn something new much easier (generally speaking, like say a language) then an adult.
3.) i'm sure Sampras can probably still manage a win or 2 here and there against anyone with some conditioning. I mean any former pro that is in decent physical condition should be able to win a match or 2 here and there against most pros. But he would not be able to handle a tournament.
well same thing can be said of the older gen who are die hard Sampras fans, and who will always find some way to pick on federer's record, but doesn't apply the same standards to Sampras.
any results from comparing players will contain basis. The only way to be unbasised is to compare data/statistics alone.
abmk
Bionic Poster
sampras' return is nowhere close to roger's ...As for roger's capabilities of attacking the serve , watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFf8szWA3t8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gACAMv9cJyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LdjiF9TKO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtUfzP5lOco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LARt3_KMWFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpnUjSZ7R6w
many times, he doesn't need to do as he can just get the return into play and outplay the other player from the baseline ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
and with all due respect, as you are unaware of the real facts ( and haven't watched any of laver's matches as you yourself said ) , you shouldn't be the one talking about my arguments making/not making sense ....
I have the highest regard for laver and have actually watched a few of his matches , but those are the facts. Laver was phenomenal without a shadow of doubt. But his 62 and 67 slams whilst excellent, were not against the full competition on the tennis circuit at that time. The 69 one was and remains one of, if not THE greatest achievements in tennis.
laver was great in every circuit he played- amateur,pro,open. But IMO there is no way that one should put the 62 and 67 slams in the same pedestal as the 69 one ( or any of the other "grand slams" - budge). That was my point.
P.S. I don't claim to be that knowledgable on laver, but these are the facts ....
Last edited:
Azzurri
Legend
I agree the grass is slower today and it does help Fed, but its still a servers surface for the most part (Nadal is the exception). Look at Roddick, his serve is mostly the reason he ever even got to a W final and he should/could have won last year. Yes on Sampras old grass, but its much closer on new grass, but not necessarily towards Fed winning in 3 sets.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
He was ? .
Comments like this, if people didnt know history, would think Sampras never lost a match.
Sampras is very very beatable. May be memory might be escaping some posters but Sampras is a zero on clay. And it isnt like he had won every major every year. In fact Sampras never won more than two majors in a year? and you call that "impossible to beat" ?
If that is your barometer, Federer is never beaten! {ofcourse we all know Federer is beatable too just that he is much better player than Sampras and also knows how to win on clay}
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, am not surprised an ignoramus like you would say this.
I'll give this piece of advice: Go and read more about laver- the amateur circuit & the pro circuit before spewing your half-baked knowledge around. You could start by reading by reply to ksbh
Oh and one more thing, there is a difference b/w an entire set of players missing the slams laver played ( pros were not there in his 62 slam and amateurs were not there in the 67 slam {it was a shorter draw }) and b/w one player (nadal) missing one slam
Last edited:
federerGOAT
Rookie
There, corrected it for you. Pete Sampras is an inferior player to Federer in all aspects. Prime Sampras would never make the top 10 in this era.
davey25
Banned
His 1962 slam is to be taken with a huge grain of salt I agree. However his 1969 slam was stellar vs the best of the best and an incredibly deep field of top players. His 1967 pro slam was likely to have happened even had 1967 been an Open field as nearly all the best guys were actually pro, with the best of the amateurs Emerson being someone prime Laver would own in big matches once the Open Era commenced in a year.
abmk
Bionic Poster
There is a chance that he'd have won the Grand Slam in 67, but its no lock.
cliff drysdale beat him at the USO in 68 ...The possibility of an upset exists and is more when it is a full fledged draw.
rosewall beat him @ roland garros in 68 ( 63-67 french open was held indoors ) [ I am thinking if there was no pro-amateur split they'd be playing at roland garros ]
as far as emerson is concerned, he didn't meet rod in any GS in 68, but he was 5-5 vs him that year wasn't he ?
To beat the best players in the world was phenomenal no doubt, but the pro slams were like I said more like the YECs ( with all top players playing, except no round robin, only elimination ) ....
As far as the 69 slam goes, well I already said it was/is one of the, if not the greatest achievements in tennis.
Last edited:
Azzurri
Legend
still, Pete's serve is the key. I am thinking personally on this. when my serve is on, my doubles team wins..when its not we are in a battle and we win some/lose some. I just think Pete can hold serve easier (not much bit all it takes is one break). But I agree...it would be a great close match.
slice serve ace
Rookie
absolutely
he repeated brilliant performance from 2nd round against barry cowan
great player from great britain
69 % first serve, stat wise one of the best matches of his life
beat cowan, ranked 265, easy in straight sets, never went to deuce
also, he came in wimbledon with fantastic record of 13-9 for the year, exactly what is to be expected of such player, no slump at all
in the same period, young talented roger federer, however, really struggled to win 39 matches, only 2nd most for the year
I agree. The match against Barry Cowan matched Pete's brilliant straight set performances during his peak/prime: against Neil Borwick in R1 1993, Karsten Braasch R1 (1995), Jared Palmer R3 (1995), Richy Reneberg (R1, 1996), Karol Kucera (R3 1996), Petr Korda (R4 1997).
Against B.Cowan, Pete converted a superb 5/19 break points, while saving 3/5 BPs on his serve and despite winning a measly 56% of the total points (161/290) points, he some how managed to win it in straights, after winning the first 2 sets.
The Federer match was quite the same; Pete served at 69%, converted 2/11 BPs, saved 11/14 on his own serve, and won 10 points less than Federer, and despite being in the lead when he was down 2 sets to 1, he lost in 5. I can clearly see why you think both matches were the same. However, after the match, Sampras was a sore loser when he said "i thought I played well enough to win against anyone..." -- how dare he, when there is overwhelming evidence that he sucked? Not only that, he went on to call Federer "special" (LMAO).
The stellar 13-9 record coming into wimbledon is not surprising, as the tennis season till the end of the FO has always been Pete's strongest part of the year; he pretty much sucked after that -- Evidence: Pete's US open run a few weeks following the wimbledon. he played arguably his worst match ever in the QF (the infamous "no-breaks-at-all" sucky quality match vs. Agassi), somehow managing to reach the finals.
I can clearly see where you're coming from....
Last edited:
Who exactly did Federer play against in 2006 that is comparable to Sampras at his best?
Since the answer is nobody, there is no basis for your statement.
You could also say that Sampras never played anyone comparable to Federer at his best.
That´s why I think it´s reasonable to suppose it would be too close to call on any surface other than clay, where Federer would indeed have a clear edge.
your "digs" are getting pretty tiresome, and without basis. the vast majority of the polls don't agree with your opinions (or for that matter, of some of the "historians" on the board). Yes, Federer comes out on top in many of those, mainly because he has as good a case for winning the poll as anyone else on the list (he did not win polls for which he didn't have a good case -- case in point, recent poll on the "most effective returner in the top 10").
Somehow, you and some of the "historians" on the board act as ultimate authorities on tennis; you simply dismiss any notion that disagrees with your views as being that of a "12-yr old's". You grew up watching and idolizing certain players; what is to say that your views aren't biased and slanted towards those whom you idolized? and why are yours more "valid" and "objective" than those who could only watch the past greats on youtube?
Unlike you, many realize that the game has progressed tremendously since the time of your idol, and if you pit your idol or any other old timer against a current top player, the current player would most likely win. You construe this as a slight against the old timer (and needlessly so); most simply consider it as a consequence of evolution of the game (there are some who even dispute that the game has evolved!!!). A few years down the line, Federer will be "dissed" similarly; I'm sure some of the Fed-****s/fans will throw a similar tantrum, but there will be many who realize that the game has changed and more "optimized".
If you really wish that your favorites win the polls, then you should exclude the current crop and just stick to using retired players in your poll options.
I respect your knowledge of tennis, and am sorry about this rant -- I had to tell get this off my chest. You are a much better poster when you do not indulge in cheap digs....
AAAA
Hall of Fame
fed_rulz,
Have a look as this match between Laver and Rosewall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU
Gasp and marvel at how hard and fast Rosewall is serving. He's the right handed player. HIs serve is faster and harder than Del Potro's and Soderling's.
Note the first point in particular, Rosewall is serving, see how fast Laver had to move to return that serve. I'm amazed by the speed of it all.
This match was in 1970, one year after Laver achieved the Grand slam, beating the same Rosewall in the FO final. Rosewall was 35.
Have a look as this match between Laver and Rosewall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU
Gasp and marvel at how hard and fast Rosewall is serving. He's the right handed player. HIs serve is faster and harder than Del Potro's and Soderling's.
Note the first point in particular, Rosewall is serving, see how fast Laver had to move to return that serve. I'm amazed by the speed of it all.
This match was in 1970, one year after Laver achieved the Grand slam, beating the same Rosewall in the FO final. Rosewall was 35.
JeMar
Legend
God, I love me some Rod Laver.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
When Federer for 3 different years was winning 3 of 4 Majors and losing the FO final, he had Nadal to stop him whereas Laver has Rosewall in 1969.
I look at how physical Rosewall is compared to Nadal and yeah well....
gold soundz
Professional
You're joking right?
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Of course but if want to read posts made by posters how genuinely believe the oldies hit as fast and hard as modern players check out the 'former players forum'.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
