Quite obvious Sampras would dominate Federer on non-clay surfaces

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
AgassisGoneEndOfAnEra :( said:
The Fact is NADAL has beaten Federer more then once Feds prime of primes, with that being the case...there's NO WAY Federer does not get dominated by Andre and Pete in their primes.
You are a moron!
 

avmoghe

Semi-Pro
War said:
I agree - but what happens if, during that time, Nadal still has a winning streak against him?

Even if Nadal had a winning streak against Federer on his way to 12 Grand Slams including the French.. it would mean absolutely nothing.

As I said, the GOAT ranking is the only one that matters, and only player accomplishments matter for that ranking. Head to head records are pretty much irrelevant. Nadal would have to win 13 grand slams himself to be considered a better player than Federer.
 

oberyn

Professional
avmoghe said:
As I said, the GOAT ranking is the only one that matters, and only player accomplishments matter for that ranking. Head to head records are pretty much irrelevant. Nadal would have to win 13 grand slams himself to be considered a better player than Federer.
I'll always point to the statistical anomaly heading into the 1995 U.S. Open in which Paul Annacone and Brad Gilbert had winning records against Pete Sampras.
 
lambielspins said:
If it was not on clay-Federer. The 2-1 edge Nadal has on hard courts would not convince me to pick Nadal if they played. Nadal's first win came in 2004 when Federer was sick and should not have even played. Since then Federer won a match Nadal should have won(Nasdaq finals)and Nadal won a match Federer should have won(Dubai finals). I dont see reason to favor Nadal on hard courts yet and if they play more often on it I expect Federer to take the edge in their head to head. The 6-2 head to head is slanted by 4 meetings on clay.

Great more excuses:rolleyes: What a loser:mrgreen:
 
I think that a Sampras-Federer match in their primes would probably look alot like the 2001 Wimbledon match. Chances would be few and far between, and lapses or errors in judgement would be expensive. Except on clay where Federer would romp.
 

Prod

New User
just stop, people. just stop. there's no point in arguing. fed did beat sampras when sampras was dominating wimbledon. that was the only match between the two. until fed and sampras play against each other repeatedly, then we will never know who can dominate whom. you can dream of what could happen and make your own opinion, but you can't judge what you haven't seen. to post the same thing on the same topicis frivolous and pointless. so just stop the nonsense.
 
Lol Fed Has A Losing Record Against Nadal On HardcourtK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND HE'S THE BEST PLAYER EVER?????????

HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH,,,,,,HAHAHAAHA,,HAHA


Sampras Would Never Ever Have Lost To Nadal On Hardcourt In His Prime, Neither Would Andre


You People Are Really Delusional
 

Grimjack

Banned
AgassisGoneEndOfAnEra :( said:
Lol Fed Has A Losing Record Against Nadal On HardcourtK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND HE'S THE BEST PLAYER EVER?????????

HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH,,,,,,HAHAHAAHA,,HAHA


Sampras Would Never Ever Have Lost To Nadal On Hardcourt In His Prime, Neither Would Andre


You People Are Really Delusional
Some players Sampras lost to in Miami/Key Biscane, on hard:

Christian Bergstrom
Jay Berger
Rodolphe Gilbert
Michael Chang
Andre Agassi
Goran Ivanisevic
Sergi Bruguera
Wayne Ferreira
Richard Krajicek
Andy Roddick
Fernando Gonzalez

Want to re-evaluate your sentiment?
 
Nadal is not a hardcourt player, for him to beat Federer twice says alot.


Federer is approaching his decline at a rapid rate, and he will never be considered the greatest historically, mark my words.


Agassi = Greatest Of All Time
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
AgassisGoneEndOfAnEra :( said:
Lol Fed Has A Losing Record Against Nadal On HardcourtK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND HE'S THE BEST PLAYER EVER?????????

HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH,,,,,,HAHAHAAHA,,HAHA


Sampras Would Never Ever Have Lost To Nadal On Hardcourt In His Prime, Neither Would Andre


You People Are Really Delusional
Doesn't Agassi have a losing record against Federer on hardcourts, too?
And, FOR YOU, he's the best ever!

You Are Really Delusional
 

Hal

Rookie
Chadwixx said:
"Why" is irrelevant.

I was just stating the fact that his fitness was nearly as good as feds.

Another variable that pushes fed over the top.
If Feds fitness is so good, why does he not win more 5 set matches? He's only at ~50% or lower in 5 set matches. Great player, yes, but his fitness doesn't put him over the top.
 

prosealster

Professional
AgassisGoneEndOfAnEra :( said:
Lol Fed Has A Losing Record Against Nadal On HardcourtK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND HE'S THE BEST PLAYER EVER?????????

HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH,,,,,,HAHAHAAHA,,HAHA


Sampras Would Never Ever Have Lost To Nadal On Hardcourt In His Prime, Neither Would Andre


You People Are Really Delusional
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... AA has a loing record against courier on hardcourt...

AND HE'S THE BEST PLAYER EVER?????

Ever heard of the word LOGIC ... LOL

Geez, computers are so userfriendly these days, even monkeys can get on the internet!!!
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Andres Guazzelli said:
Doesn't Agassi have a losing record against Federer on hardcourts, too?
And, FOR YOU, he's the best ever!

You Are Really Delusional


An Agassi that was well out of his prime. Try playing the late 90s Agassi against Federer and see what happens.


Agassi in his prime was the best baseliner that tennis has ever known, period. The precision and pace with which he hit his balls with was literally insane.


Sampras could, and probably would beat Federer on a non-clay surface pretty soundly. That is, if we are talking about a real surface (such as the U.S. Open) not the wannabe green clay of Wimbledon. Federer has hardly any competition today, only Nadal really.


Plus for those who say Federer hits a faster ball, you are insane. Do realize that radar guns back in the day were extremely inaccurate. How Jmac could go from 90 to 120 in a span of a few years makes no sense. Sampras recorded serves well into the 130s back when radar guns were inaccurate, I'm pretty sure Sampras' serves are faster then Roddick's.


Not only that, but we're talking about a player that not only has an incredible serve and net game, he also had one of the best baseline games too. It wasn't his primary strength, but he could baseline well enough to go toe to toe with the best baseliner the game has ever seen (Andre Agassi) on pretty much any surface.
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
NamRanger said:
Plus for those who say Federer hits a faster ball, you are insane. Do realize that radar guns back in the day were extremely inaccurate. How Jmac could go from 90 to 120 in a span of a few years makes no sense. Sampras recorded serves well into the 130s back when radar guns were inaccurate, I'm pretty sure Sampras' serves are faster then Roddick's.
It's pretty easy to make a point like you do: everything was wrong including radar gun when it doesn't fit into your logic.

By the way, Sampras had played against Roddick several times before Sampras retired, and Roddick served faster than Sampras in those matches. It couldn't be the radar gun, could it?
 
NamRanger said:
An Agassi that was well out of his prime. Try playing the late 90s Agassi against Federer and see what happens.
I will take Federer 8 matches out of 10 atleast thank you. Since Agassi ended 98 ranked below Corretja and Moya, and ended 99 #1 only because Sampras missed the U.S Open with back spasms, and Agassi needs 5 sets to beat Medvedev and Martin in both his slam finals that year I would put all kinds of money on Federer vs Agassi whether Agassi was at his peak or not.

I wonder if Federer in his prime would lose to Vince Spadea at the Australian Open as Agassi did in his best year ever. I wonder if Federer in his prime would lose 6-1, 7-6 to Patrick Rafter on clay as Agassi did in his best year ever. I wonder if Federer would lose sets to 5 different players, and the 5 different people would be Squillari, Clement, Moya, Hrbaty, and Medvedev at any grand slam he played during his best year ever. I wonder if Federer would get crushed by Kafelnikov 6-1, 6-4
in a Masters semi-final on hard courts in his best year ever. I doubt it.

Agassi in his prime was the best baseliner that tennis has ever known, period. The precision and pace with which he hit his balls with was literally insane.
No he wasnt. Courier in his prime dominated Agassi head to head winning 6 straight matches. Agassi did not get his first win over Lendl until Lendl was 32, and Lendl at 32 was not as close to his peak as Agassi at 32 considering Agassi had his best year ever at 29 and won 5 of his 8 slams at 29 or older. Lendl won all 6 of their matches in 88 and 89 when Lendl was past his 3-year period of dominance of 85-87 and Agassi was already a top 5 player. Even second tier baseliners were challenging for Agassi. Chang and Kafelnikov gave him their share of trouble even in his prime years. Muster dominated Agassi on clay in baseline duels(Agassi is a good clay courter too). Corretja always was a handful for Agassi even in his good years. Agassi is not even close to being the best baseliner that tennis has ever known and I have seen him play in his prime many times.

Sampras could, and probably would beat Federer on a non-clay surface pretty soundly. That is, if we are talking about a real surface (such as the U.S. Open) not the wannabe green clay of Wimbledon. Federer has hardly any competition today, only Nadal really.
In Agassi's only dominant year of 99, he did not face Sampras at either of the 2 slams he won-French Open and U.S Open, and Sampras would have been heavily favored to win the U.S Open instead of Agassi had he not been forced out with a herniated disc. In winning the French Open Agassi did not have to face either Kuerten or Rios who were upset before he played him. In fact his last 3 opponents were Filippini, Hrbaty, and Medvedev. In winning the U.S Open his last 3 opponents were Escude, Kafelnikov, and Todd Martin. Other then the one Australian Open where he beat Sampras while Sampras was ailing his dying coach, and his first Wimbledon win over Ivanisevic, his wins in slam finals were vs Stitch, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, and Schuettler. Tougher competition? Yeah right.


Not only that, but we're talking about a player that not only has an incredible serve and net game, he also had one of the best baseline games too. It wasn't his primary strength, but he could baseline well enough to go toe to toe with the best baseliner the game has ever seen (Andre Agassi) on pretty much any surface.
Take away Sampras's serve and give him Agassi's serve for example, disallow him coming to the net and see if he gets more then 4 games a set ever off of any of Federer, Agassi, Courier, Nadal, or even Hewitt.

Oh yeah and again Agassi is not even close to being the best baseliner tennis has ever seen.
 
I just remembered you were the same idiot who said Federer played one of his best matches ever in the 2005 Australian Open semis vs Safin. Ok sorry I understand who I am talking to now.
 

prosealster

Professional
capriatifanatic said:
I will take Federer 8 matches out of 10 atleast thank you. Since Agassi ended 98 ranked below Corretja and Moya, and ended 99 #1 only because Sampras missed the U.S Open with back spasms, and Agassi needs 5 sets to beat Medvedev and Martin in both his slam finals that year I would put all kinds of money on Federer vs Agassi whether Agassi was at his peak or not.

I wonder if Federer in his prime would lose to Vince Spadea at the Australian Open as Agassi did in his best year ever. I wonder if Federer in his prime would lose 6-1, 7-6 to Patrick Rafter on clay as Agassi did in his best year ever. I wonder if Federer would lose sets to 5 different players, and the 5 different people would be Squillari, Clement, Moya, Hrbaty, and Medvedev at any grand slam he played during his best year ever. I wonder if Federer would get crushed by Kafelnikov 6-1, 6-4
in a Masters semi-final on hard courts in his best year ever. I doubt it.



No he wasnt. Courier in his prime dominated Agassi head to head winning 6 straight matches. Agassi did not get his first win over Lendl until Lendl was 32, and Lendl at 32 was not as close to his peak as Agassi at 32 considering Agassi had his best year ever at 29 and won 5 of his 8 slams at 29 or older. Lendl won all 6 of their matches in 88 and 89 when Lendl was past his 3-year period of dominance of 85-87 and Agassi was already a top 5 player. Even second tier baseliners were challenging for Agassi. Chang and Kafelnikov gave him their share of trouble even in his prime years. Muster dominated Agassi on clay in baseline duels(Agassi is a good clay courter too). Corretja always was a handful for Agassi even in his good years. Agassi is not even close to being the best baseliner that tennis has ever known and I have seen him play in his prime many times.



In Agassi's only dominant year of 99, he did not face Sampras at either of the 2 slams he won-French Open and U.S Open, and Sampras would have been heavily favored to win the U.S Open instead of Agassi had he not been forced out with a herniated disc. In winning the French Open Agassi did not have to face either Kuerten or Rios who were upset before he played him. In fact his last 3 opponents were Filippini, Hrbaty, and Medvedev. In winning the U.S Open his last 3 opponents were Escude, Kafelnikov, and Todd Martin. Other then the one Australian Open where he beat Sampras while Sampras was ailing his dying coach, and his first Wimbledon win over Ivanisevic, his wins in slam finals were vs Stitch, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, and Schuettler. Tougher competition? Yeah right.




Take away Sampras's serve and give him Agassi's serve for example, disallow him coming to the net and see if he gets more then 4 games a set ever off of any of Federer, Agassi, Courier, Nadal, or even Hewitt.

Oh yeah and again Agassi is not even close to being the best baseliner tennis has ever seen.
excellent post :cool:
 

sarpmas

Rookie
IMO, to be relatively more objective in all these hypothetical A vs B debates (A & B usually from different era), MATCHUP is quite crucial. Analysing their imaginary matchup, rather than breaking down and comparing their strokes individually, can be a better guideline as to how the match would evolve and can yield a more interesting discussion.

In an actual matchup, the one with the better strokes does not necessarily equate winner. It depends whether he is able to take control of the match and execute his better strokes to carve out a winner. If his opponent is able to deprive him from executing his game, the outcome will be different. Just think of all those pusher threads, you will understand what I mean.

Matchup is even more significant when comparing players with different playing styles. For example, baseline vs SV. The former will attempt to take control by getting into more rallies so as to utilise his superior groundstrokes while the later will try to shorten the rallies and finishes a point at the net as soon as possible. Whoever draws first blood more in this matchup on that particular day will most likely be the victor.

Just by comparing strokes for strokes can be quite misleading. Ask yourselves honestly, if Nadal is in another era, not having played Federer before, would any of you sincerely believe that Federer will have so much trouble with Nadal? I'm quite sure most of you will CHOOSE to believe Federer can handle Nadal's heavy topspin to his bh. However, in a real matchup, this will not be the case.

Anywhere, regarding the matchup between Federer and Agassi, my take is Federer will have the advantage. Both are among the best off the ground and both will try to control the middle and put the other on the run as often as possible. The key that gives Federer the advantage is Federer is a better mover and will be able to execute better when put on the run. From the baseline, Agassi needs to control the middle more than Federer, if Federer is able to take that away from Agassi and force Agassi to be on the run more, Agassi will have his hands full.
 

ragnaROK

Professional
capriatifanatic said:
I will take Federer 8 matches out of 10 atleast thank you. Since Agassi ended 98 ranked below Corretja and Moya, and ended 99 #1 only because Sampras missed the U.S Open with back spasms, and Agassi needs 5 sets to beat Medvedev and Martin in both his slam finals that year I would put all kinds of money on Federer vs Agassi whether Agassi was at his peak or not.

I wonder if Federer in his prime would lose to Vince Spadea at the Australian Open as Agassi did in his best year ever. I wonder if Federer in his prime would lose 6-1, 7-6 to Patrick Rafter on clay as Agassi did in his best year ever. I wonder if Federer would lose sets to 5 different players, and the 5 different people would be Squillari, Clement, Moya, Hrbaty, and Medvedev at any grand slam he played during his best year ever. I wonder if Federer would get crushed by Kafelnikov 6-1, 6-4
in a Masters semi-final on hard courts in his best year ever. I doubt it.



No he wasnt. Courier in his prime dominated Agassi head to head winning 6 straight matches. Agassi did not get his first win over Lendl until Lendl was 32, and Lendl at 32 was not as close to his peak as Agassi at 32 considering Agassi had his best year ever at 29 and won 5 of his 8 slams at 29 or older. Lendl won all 6 of their matches in 88 and 89 when Lendl was past his 3-year period of dominance of 85-87 and Agassi was already a top 5 player. Even second tier baseliners were challenging for Agassi. Chang and Kafelnikov gave him their share of trouble even in his prime years. Muster dominated Agassi on clay in baseline duels(Agassi is a good clay courter too). Corretja always was a handful for Agassi even in his good years. Agassi is not even close to being the best baseliner that tennis has ever known and I have seen him play in his prime many times.



In Agassi's only dominant year of 99, he did not face Sampras at either of the 2 slams he won-French Open and U.S Open, and Sampras would have been heavily favored to win the U.S Open instead of Agassi had he not been forced out with a herniated disc. In winning the French Open Agassi did not have to face either Kuerten or Rios who were upset before he played him. In fact his last 3 opponents were Filippini, Hrbaty, and Medvedev. In winning the U.S Open his last 3 opponents were Escude, Kafelnikov, and Todd Martin. Other then the one Australian Open where he beat Sampras while Sampras was ailing his dying coach, and his first Wimbledon win over Ivanisevic, his wins in slam finals were vs Stitch, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, and Schuettler. Tougher competition? Yeah right.




Take away Sampras's serve and give him Agassi's serve for example, disallow him coming to the net and see if he gets more then 4 games a set ever off of any of Federer, Agassi, Courier, Nadal, or even Hewitt.

Oh yeah and again Agassi is not even close to being the best baseliner tennis has ever seen.

It's hard to really pinpoint Agassi's prime, but if you go and look at some previous matches between Agassi and Federer in recent slams, you would see that Agassi has gotten more off him than most other people. And that's an Agassi that's older and slower. Agassi wouldn't own Federer in his prime, but he wouldn't be Fed's whipping boy either. Take what you want from that.

There's some insight into how Federer's more consistant than Agassi and that's fair but please don't go and start taking away main weapons from players and say that they would pale in comparison without those. I'm talking about stuff like "taking Sampras serve, Agassi's Return, Kuerten's backhand." You can say about any of the players. Take away Roddick's serve, Chang's footspeed, Edberg's volley, whatever. It's a common fallacy in these debates around here and it just doesn't hold water.
 
Agassi gave Federer 2 close matches at the U.S Open, but in no way would I suggest that means even an aging and slower Agassi was clearly Fed's toughest opponent, are that on average they were an even matchup by any means. Agassi was whipped by Federer when they played at the Australian Open in easy straight sets right right before Federer lost to Safin. Fed's match with Hewitt at the 2005 U.S Open was closer then his match with Agassi overall. In the year-end Championships final of 2003, the biggest non major final, Federer slaughtered Agassi. If they had played at Wimbledon in recent years I am sure Federer would have whipped him there too. An aging and slower Agassi was not always a struggle for Federer, and he did not usualy give him his toughest matches of anyone, the hostile environment of the U.S Open, which gave the aging great all the support they could muster and seemed to rattle Fed as well, may be the only place he was able to even hang in by that point in time.

Anyway who cares if an older Agassi sometimes took set(s) of Federer when they played at the U.S Open. Medvedev and Todd Martin are light years less the player Federer is and both took Agassi to 5 sets in his 2 slam finals, in his best ever year. In fact Medvedev was crushing Agassi for 2 sets, almost embarassing him. If one tries to conclude an aging Agassi would do well vs Federer since he occasionaly gives him a tough match while older, it is much easier to conclude Fed would get the better of Agassi if he had to go to the full distance in his 2 slam finals of the best year of his career to a couple 2nd string talents who never won a single slam title, and struggled to stay in the top 10 after getting there.
 

prosealster

Professional
capriatifanatic said:
Agassi gave Federer 2 close matches at the U.S Open, but in no way would I suggest that means even an aging and slower Agassi was clearly Fed's toughest opponent, are that on average they were an even matchup by any means. Agassi was whipped by Federer when they played at the Australian Open in easy straight sets right right before Federer lost to Safin. Fed's match with Hewitt at the 2005 U.S Open was closer then his match with Agassi overall. In the year-end Championships final of 2003, the biggest non major final, Federer slaughtered Agassi. If they had played at Wimbledon in recent years I am sure Federer would have whipped him there too. An aging and slower Agassi was not always a struggle for Federer, and he did not usualy give him his toughest matches of anyone, the hostile environment of the U.S Open, which gave the aging great all the support they could muster and seemed to rattle Fed as well, may be the only place he was able to even hang in by that point in time.

Anyway who cares if an older Agassi sometimes took set(s) of Federer when they played at the U.S Open. Medvedev and Todd Martin are light years less the player Federer is and both took Agassi to 5 sets in his 2 slam finals, in his best ever year. In fact Medvedev was crushing Agassi for 2 sets, almost embarassing him. If one tries to conclude an aging Agassi would do well vs Federer since he occasionaly gives him a tough match while older, it is much easier to conclude Fed would get the better of Agassi if he had to go to the full distance in his 2 slam finals of the best year of his career to a couple 2nd string talents who never won a single slam title, and struggled to stay in the top 10 after getting there.
agree again :D
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
ragnaROK said:
It's hard to really pinpoint Agassi's prime, but if you go and look at some previous matches between Agassi and Federer in recent slams, you would see that Agassi has gotten more off him than most other people. And that's an Agassi that's older and slower. Agassi wouldn't own Federer in his prime, but he wouldn't be Fed's whipping boy either. Take what you want from that.
Why do people only remember Agassi gave tough matches to Federer at US Open, but not his demolition by Federer at Australia Open where it is Agassi's best surface?

Could the tough matches at US Open result from Agassi being from US with overwhelming crowd support while Agassi didn't have that huge advantage against Sampras? People who were there to watch Agassi vs Federer at US open in person would tell you that Federer had to be much more superior to Agassi to pull them off playing in that hostile enviroment.
 

35ft6

Legend
From the Mailbag:
Not to denigrate any of Federer's amazing accomplishments, but don't you think Roger's nine Grand Slams are cheapened somewhat by the caliber of his competition? Let's face it, the likes of Marcos Baghdatis, Mark Philippoussis and Roddick will not go down as giants in the history of the sport. On the other hand, Jimmy Connors, for example, had to beat Bjorn Borgs, Ivan Lendls and John McEnroes to bag his eight Slams ... an infinitely tougher task, wouldn't you say? -- Michael, Dubai

This same question always dogged Sampras, and I think it's not only unfair but counterintuitive. If Federer were a lesser player -- and claimed only, say, one or two Slams a year -- we would be holding his opposition in higher esteem. Some of the other guys (James Blake? David Nalbandian? Baghdatis? Ivan Ljubicic?) would have bagged a few majors and we would see them in a different light.

As it stands, Federer only leaves table scraps, so naturally his opposition appears unaccomplished. Again, this held true for Sampras, too, who beat the likes of Cedric Pioline, Goran Ivanisevic-in-headcase-mode and Carlos Moya on hard courts to win some of his Slams. "Who'd he ever have to beat?" brayed the critics. "He never had a rival!" Well, shoot, had Sampras not been so successful, his contemporaries might have been seen in a different light.
I think "infinitely" pretty much gives away about how objective this Sampras nut rider is.
 
Michael, Dubai - is absolutely right


If you can't see that after about 2002 the competition level dropped drastically you're a complete moron, sorry but there's no softer way of putting it.
 

ktownva

Semi-Pro
quest01 said:
You obviously have a biased opinion because your a Sampras fanboy. Federer would dominate Sampras on any surface even grass. Wimbledon 2001 proved who is better on grass. Sampras was playing brilliantly and still lost to Federer who wasnt even close to being at his best. Thats good Federer wasnt in Sampras era, because Sampras would not have won 14 grand slams.
I think this post sums it up. Had Fed and Pete both peaked in the same era, neither of them would have broken Newk's record. BTW - I would pick Fed on any surface against any player ever.
 
Top