Sampras and Federer's H2H's against their peers ON CLAY

JennyS

JennyS

Hall of Fame
Sampras on clay versus his peers:
Andre Agassi: 2-3
Jim Courier: 1-2
Sergi Brugera:1-2
Goran Ivanisevic:0-1
Michael Chang: 0-2
Michael Stich: 1-2
Todd Martin: 3-0
Andre Medvedev: 0-2
Thomas Muster: 1-0
Cedric Pioline: 2-0
Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 2-2
Richard Krajicek: 0-0
Patrick Rafter: 0-1
Alex Corretja: 2-0
Petr Korda: 0-2
overall record: 15-19


Federer on clay versus his peers:
Andy Roddick: 1-0
Juan Carlos Ferrero: 3-0
Guillermo Coria: 2-0
Carlos Moya: 3-0
David Nalbandian: 3-1
Marat Safin: 3-0
Lleyton Hewitt: 1-0
Gaston Gaudio: 2-0
Nicholay Davydenko: 3-0
David Ferrer: 3-0
Fernando Gonzalez: 5-0
Tommy Robredo: 3-0
Ivan Ljubicic: 0-1
Mario Ancic: 2-0
James Blake: 1-0
35-2

Now if you throw in the young guns....

Rafael Nadal: 2-9
Novak Djokovic: 2-1
Juan Martin Del Potro: 2-0
Gael Monfils: 3-0
Andy Murray: 0-0

His overall record would then be 44-12, still much better than Sampras.

Interesting that even against players that Sampras dominated (Agassi, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter) he had a losing record against them on clay.
 
JennyS said:
Sampras on clay versus his peers:
Andre Agassi: 2-3
Jim Courier: 1-2
Sergi Brugera:1-2
Goran Ivanisevic:0-1
Michael Chang: 0-2
Michael Stich: 1-2
Todd Martin: 3-0
Andre Medvedev: 0-2
Thomas Muster: 1-0
Cedric Pioline: 2-0
Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 2-2
Richard Krajicek: 0-0
Patrick Rafter: 0-1
Alex Corretja: 2-0
Petr Korda: 0-2
overall record: 15-19


Federer on clay versus his peers:
Andy Roddick: 1-0
Juan Carlos Ferrero: 3-0
Guillermo Coria: 2-0
Carlos Moya: 3-0
David Nalbandian: 3-1
Marat Safin: 3-0
Lleyton Hewitt: 1-0
Gaston Gaudio: 2-0
Nicholay Davydenko: 3-0
David Ferrer: 3-0
Fernando Gonzalez: 5-0
Tommy Robredo: 3-0
Ivan Ljubicic: 0-1
Mario Ancic: 2-0
James Blake: 1-0
35-2

Now if you throw in the young guns....

Rafael Nadal: 2-9
Novak Djokovic: 2-1
Juan Martin Del Potro: 2-0
Gael Monfils: 3-0
Andy Murray: 0-0

His overall record would then be 44-12, still much better than Sampras.

Interesting that even against players that Sampras dominated (Agassi, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter) he had a losing record against them on clay.
Click to expand...

Great post,thank you. Really impressive stuff from Roger.
 
Great now post rivalries. Post Pete's h2h all around and his slam h2h vs. Andre, opposed to Roger's with Nadal.


Post Roger's h2h with Murray as well. LOL


This frigging Federer shrine and Sampras attcking, TT has turned into.


While you are at it, why dont u post Sampras' draws en route the RG finals from 92-96 while youre at it. Opposed to Roger's ridiculous RG draws over the years.. Nahh you wont do that..
 
You forgot Santoro and all the other "nobodies" that Sampras lost to.

GameSampras, just face it, Sampras kinda sucked on clay. He got lucky to win the Italian Open and won a few matches against Russia, and that was pretty much it. It's not that big of a deal. Even Albert Portas won a Super 9 on clay once.
 
JeMar said:
You forgot Santoro and all the other "nobodies" that Sampras lost to.

GameSampras, just face it, Sampras kinda sucked on clay. He got lucky to win the Italian Open and won a few matches against Russia, and that was pretty much it. It's not that big of a deal. Even Albert Portas won a Super 9 on clay once.
Click to expand...

Yea Sampras deep runs were just all "luck" as well. He didnt have to perform well to win a rome title, davis cup title, a few quarterfinals appearances, and semis at the French, losing out to the players who would eventually win the slam..

Yep all luck.. Thats what it was.

Sampras didnt suck on clay. You dont suck on clay and acheive what Sampras did. He didnt accell on clay, but he didnt suck
 
GameSampras said:
Yea Sampras deep runs were just all "luck" as well. He didnt have to perform well to win a rome title, davis cup title, a few quarterfinals appearances, and semis at the French, losing out to the players who would eventually win the slam..

Yep all luck.. Thats what it was.

Sampras didnt suck on clay. You dont suck on clay and acheive what Sampras did. He didnt accell on clay, but he didnt suck
Click to expand...

He didn't excel with any sort of consistency and most definitely sucked when you compare him to Federer and Laver.
 
He could lose to any player at any time on clay. I posted his clay court loses in a thread two weeks ago. I don't feel like looking for it, but you're more than welcome to. Aside from a few good players, the list reads like a veritable "Who's this?" of the tennis word.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Lol at showing Federer has a winning record against Roddick on clay I'd probably beat Roddick on clay.
Click to expand...

Roddick would beat you on clay serving underhanded, tied to a baby goat, while holding his racquet with his left hand, and talking to Brooke on the cell phone he holds on his right hand. Oh, and wearing an eye patch too.
 
GameSampras said:
Yea beating Roddick on clay is a great achievement. LOL
Click to expand...

Going 1-3 against Santoro is not.

One time he was so befuddled by Santoro after getting his butt whooped once again that he could only call him a "Magician," and so his nickname was born.
 
JeMar said:
Roddick would beat you on clay serving underhanded, tied to a baby goat, while holding his racquet with his left hand, and talking to Brooke on the cell phone he holds on his right hand. Oh, and wearing an eye patch too.
Click to expand...

You know what I meant Roddick is terrible on clay.
 
GameSampras said:
And when did they play? Sampras at the tail end of his career, a slamless event, that he could have gaven two craps about?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure someone as proud as Sampras didn't appreciate all the "passing of the torch" headlines that were circulating around those days. I know he was out there to prove himself against Roddick.
 
Sampras HIMSELF said, he only cared about winning slams when his career began to wane down. After Wimbeldon 00, Sampras said he only hung to win one more slams.


Yea you guys want to choose Sampras at the tail end of his career when he was on his last leg and almost retired. Young sampras prime early-mid 90s> Roddick all day every day.



Hell even Roger doesnt even compare non slam events these days. How many has he entered and actually won this year?? Not many.
 
GameSampras said:
And when did they play? Sampras at the tail end of his career, a slamless event, that he could have gaven two craps about?
Click to expand...

It must be really useful for you to justify every loss with this line of crap. Sampras won the US Open that year. He got to the final of the damn tournament, why would he just surrender it there? This "he didn't care line" is becoming old, and makes you look like an idiot for posting it constantly.

EDIT: Why is Sampras allowed excuses for everything (it's the same with Nadal) but Federer isn't allowed any? How insecure are you about Pete's legacy? Far more than you care to admit, I would imagine.
 
JeMar said:
I'm pretty sure someone as proud as Sampras didn't appreciate all the "passing of the torch" headlines that were circulating around those days. I know he was out there to prove himself against Roddick.
Click to expand...

Sampras really passed the torch to Roddick at the USO didnt he? Blew him right out of the stadium and him look like a joke. hell you even had Becker on commentary laughing at Roddick, telling him to get the hell out of the stadium
 
GameSampras said:
Sampras really passed the torch to Roddick at the USO didnt he? Blew him right out of the stadium and him look like a joke. hell you even had Becker on commentary laughing at Roddick, telling him to get the hell out of the stadium
Click to expand...

Yeah, he really did. Proved he was still capable of playing very well.

Makes Roddick's win over Sampras on clay even more impressive, doesn't it?

Or did Pete just suck on clay?
 
thejoe said:
It must be really useful for you to justify every loss with this line of crap. Sampras won the US Open that year. He got to the final of the damn tournament, why would he just surrender it there? This "he didn't care line" is becoming old, and makes you look like an idiot for posting it constantly.

EDIT: Why is Sampras allowed excuses for everything (it's the same with Nadal) but Federer isn't allowed any? How insecure are you about Pete's legacy? Far more than you care to admit, I would imagine.
Click to expand...




Its not excuse.. Its a FACT. Sampras has said countless times that post 00 Wimbeldon, he only hung on to win one more slam until he retired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTBXYgSa6Q&feature=related


Here.. Dont take it from me.. Take it from the man himself.
 
Sampras was terrible in 02 apart from his USO win I mean he was losing to bums left right and centre I mean George Bastl beat Pete at his beloved Wimbledon.
 
GameSampras said:
Sampras really passed the torch to Roddick at the USO didnt he? Blew him right out of the stadium and him look like a joke. hell you even had Becker on commentary laughing at Roddick, telling him to get the hell out of the stadium
Click to expand...



Roddick had a severe foot injury that was hampering him. Unless you want to play "omg it's fake" card, then I can use "omg Sampras injuries are fake too" card.
 
JeMar said:
Yeah, he really did. Proved he was still capable of playing very well.

Makes Roddick's win over Sampras on clay even more impressive, doesn't it?

Or did Pete just suck on clay?
Click to expand...



Not when Pete was at the tail end of his career, and the only reason he stuck was just to win 1 MORE SLAM. He didnt care about smaller tourneys.


I even posted it.. HE SAID IT HIMSELF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTBXYgSa6Q&feature=related


So why in the hell would winning Miami or some smaller clay tourney really matter to pete by that time?
 
GameSampras said:
Its not excuse.. Its a FACT. Sampras has said countless times that post 00 Wimbeldon, he only hung on to win one more slam until he retired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTBXYgSa6Q&feature=related


Here.. Dont take it from me.. Take it from the man himself.
Click to expand...

Why bother playing in any other tournaments then? I don't care if Sampras said it himself, as far as I can see, it's just a cover up for his lack of week in week out consistency and lack of ability on clay.

If Sampras didn't give a crap about the tournament in Houston, then why would he play it, let alone get to the final?

Federer said he had mono and back problems, yet you don't believe that. Why should I believe that this is anything other than an arrogant excuse?
 
JeMar said:
So when Pete says that Roger's the best ever, should we take him at his word?
Click to expand...

And he also said there can be no GOAT, due to the difficulties of comparing eras.

And he also said, Roger needs to prove himself agaiinst Rafa. Why would the "GOAT" Roger need to actually do this? Prove himself against his rival at the slams, when he is already the GOAT. Does that make sense?
 
GameSampras said:
Not when Pete was at the tail end of his career, and the only reason he stuck was just to win 1 MORE SLAM. He didnt care about smaller tourneys.


I even posted it.. HE SAID IT HIMSELF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTBXYgSa6Q&feature=related


So why in the hell would winning Miami or some smaller clay tourney really matter to pete by that time?
Click to expand...

JeMar said:
So when Pete says that Roger's the best ever, should we take him at his word?
Click to expand...

Ahem ahem.
 
GameSampras said:
Not when Pete was at the tail end of his career, and the only reason he stuck was just to win 1 MORE SLAM. He didnt care about smaller tourneys.


I even posted it.. HE SAID IT HIMSELF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTBXYgSa6Q&feature=related


So why in the hell would winning Miami or some smaller clay tourney really matter to pete by that time?
Click to expand...



Because Pete Sampras doesn't like to lose? Like 99.9% of the whole population out there? Or are you saying he is simply the anomaly that doesn't give a crap?
 
GameSampras said:
And he also said there can be no GOAT, due to the difficulties of comparing eras.

And he also said, Roger needs to prove himself agaiinst Rafa. Why would the "GOAT" Roger need to actually do this? Prove himself against his rival at the slams, when he is already the GOAT. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

If Pete contradicts himself when he speaks, why should we believe him when he says that he didn't care about anything but the slams toward the end of his career? He could've coasted on his ranking into all the majors, if that was the case.

If you've ever read his autobiography, you'll find that Sampras was an extremely arrogant and extremely competitive person. The approach that made him successful was thinking that he was a much better athlete than everybody else and that if he played his best, the opposition stood no chance.
 
Pete did have consistency in his early years in the early to mid 90s.


We can ask the same about Roger's week in week out consistency as well cant we? Most of the tourneys he has won this year and last have usually just been slams havent they? What about the smaller tournamants? Its obvious he isnt taking those as seriously as he was a few years ago. Can u deny this?

It happens when your career goes on, heads closer to the end and you start look at just the important tournaments and breaking records. It happened with Pete breaking Emerson, happened with Roger breaking PEte
 
So Pete only cared about the slams. He should have been fined for tanking matches then, not giving his "best effort". You either play to win or don't play at all, none of this "I only care about the slams" crap you Samptards throw out for every bad loss Pete had after 1996.
 
GameSampras said:
Pete did have consistency in his early years in the early to mid 90s.


We can ask the same about Roger's week in week out consistency as well cant we? Most of the tourneys he has won this year and last have usually just been slams havent they? What about the smaller tournamants? Its obvious he isnt taking those as seriously as he was a few years ago. Can u deny this?

It happens when your career goes on, heads closer to the end and you start look at just the important tournaments and breaking records. It happened with Pete breaking Emerson, happened with Roger breaking PEte
Click to expand...

I think he's taking them seriously. He's just not as good as he used to be. It's just part of getting older.
 
GameSampras said:
Pete did have consistency in his early years in the early to mid 90s.


We can ask the same about Roger's week in week out consistency as well cant we? Most of the tourneys he has won this year and last have usually just been slams havent they? What about the smaller tournamants? Its obvious he isnt taking those as seriously as he was a few years ago. Can u deny this?

It happens when your career goes on, heads closer to the end and you start look at just the important tournaments and breaking records. It happened with Pete breaking Emerson, happened with Roger breaking PEte
Click to expand...



I beg to differ.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nSqWGL6K28
 
JeMar said:
He could lose to any player at any time on clay. I posted his clay court loses in a thread two weeks ago. I don't feel like looking for it, but you're more than welcome to. Aside from a few good players, the list reads like a veritable "Who's this?" of the tennis word.
Click to expand...

I just found the list you made. I think this list goes through 1998:
Santoro
Novacek
Champion
Steeb
Stich
Volkov
Ivanisevic
Jacco Eltingh
Gross
Haarhuis
Santoro (lol)
Larsson
Philippoussis
Santoro (lol!)
Delgado
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
So Pete only cared about the slams. He should have been fined for tanking matches then, not giving his "best effort". You either play to win or don't play at all, none of this "I only care about the slams" crap you Samptards throw out for every bad loss Pete had after 1996.
Click to expand...

Sampras between 00-02 had broke the slam record and got married his life was complete he wasn't motivated anymore apart from the slams, not hard to understand.
 
JeMar said:
If Pete contradicts himself when he speaks, why should we believe him when he says that he didn't care about anything but the slams toward the end of his career? He could've coasted on his ranking into all the majors, if that was the case.

If you've ever read his autobiography, you'll find that Sampras was an extremely arrogant and extremely competitive person. The approach that made him successful was thinking that he was a much better athlete than everybody else and that if he played his best, the opposition stood no chance.
Click to expand...

thats the point.. Im not sure if we should believe everythign he says in this regard about the GOAT debate. Because what he is saying to the media, may not be the same thing he is thinking or saying behind closed doors.


Pragmatics maybe? Saying certain things to appease some people so he doesnt acrossed as bitter? Ive heard him say some things about today's era, that wasnt when he had a mic shoved in his face by McEnroe, but just in these small independent interviews, that prolly would make Roger mad.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Sampras between 00-02 had broke the slam record and got married his life was complete he wasn't motivated anymore apart from the slams, not hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. I dunno why its so hard to comprehend this for some people. People by his own admission hung on to win one slam last slam. He already broke the record, and was just playing for one more. Beating Pete in these smaller meaningless tourneys, that had little to more importance for him by that time, and he was already tail end of his career, arent that big of deal IMO. Yet people want to somehow imply thats the same Pete as we saw early to mid 90s. For god sakes, he had already been on the tour for a decade or over at the point. And already spent 6 years on top, maybe even 7 or 8 years of those 10 on top.
 
GameSampras said:
Exactly.. I dunno why its so hard to comprehend this for some people. People by his own admission hung on to win one slam last slam. He already broke the record, and was just playing for one more. Beating Pete in these smaller meaningless tourneys, that had little to more importance for him by that time, and he was already tail end of his career, arent that big of deal IMO. Yet people want to somehow imply thats the same Pete as we saw early to mid 90s. For god sakes, he had already been on the tour for a decade or over at the point. And already spent 6 years on top, maybe even 7 or 8 years of those 10 on top.
Click to expand...



No one ever said he was the same, but it is hard to believe that Sampras did not try at all considering how ultra competitive Sampras is.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Sampras between 00-02 had broke the slam record and got married his life was complete he wasn't motivated anymore apart from the slams, not hard to understand.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the excuse you guys use for his entire career? "He only cared about the slams, that's why he didn't perform in MS events", particularly on clay. Or was he hurt? Or his coach dying? Which excuse is it today?
 
GameSampras said:
thats the point.. Im not sure if we should believe everythign he says in this regard about the GOAT debate. Because what he is saying to the media, may not be the same thing he is thinking or saying behind closed doors.


Pragmatics maybe? Saying certain things to appease some people so he doesnt acrossed as bitter? Ive heard him say some things about today's era, that wasnt when he had a mic shoved in his face by McEnroe, but just in these small independent interviews, that prolly would make Roger mad.
Click to expand...

Okay, so let's not pay attention to what anyone says and let's look at their actions on the court.

Sampras still showed up to play those tournaments and everything about his persona suggests that he does not like losing. So, I think I'm not taking any huge logical leaps when I say that Sampras did try against Roddick, but his game just isn't very well-suited for clay, which was the point of this thread.
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
But isn't that the excuse you guys use for his entire career? "He only cared about the slams, that's why he didn't perform in MS events", particularly on clay. Or was he hurt? Or his coach dying? Which excuse is it today?
Click to expand...

Pete has 11 MS titles quite alot and between 93-97 he was pretty consistant week in week out.
 
JeMar said:
Okay, so let's not pay attention to what anyone says and let's look at their actions on the court.

Sampras still showed up to play those tournaments and everything about his persona suggests that he does not like losing. So, I think I'm not taking any huge logical leaps when I say that Sampras did try against Roddick, but his game just isn't very well-suited for clay, which was the point of this thread.
Click to expand...


Sampras was pretty solid on clay in his early-mid 90s. Moreso than Roddick has been.. You want to deny this now? Again you are comparing two different animals. Pete at the tail end of his career, passed his prime, days of consistency and carrying about week in week out tennis over, has already broken the slam record, and was around 30 years old to Sampras beginning his prime, early 20s, more consistency, cared more about week in week out consistency, and dominating etc.



Im not going to sit there and look at Pete at the tail end of his career ON CLAY and say yes this is Sampras. We look at Pete on clay in his earlier years when he was at his best. ANd he wasnt all that bad and some good results and some strong showing. Better than Roddick.
 
GameSampras said:
Sampras was pretty solid on clay in his early-mid 90s. Moreso than Roddick has been.. You want to deny this now? Again you are comparing two different animals. Pete at the tail end of his career, passed his prime, days of consistency and carrying about week in week out tennis over, has already broken the slam record, and was around 30 years old to Sampras beginning his prime, early 20s, more consistency, cared more about week in week out consistency, and dominating etc.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

We're just going around in circles. I've already stated that Sampras has A FREAKING LARGE NUMBER of bad losses against "nobodies" during his prime, many more than Federer does.

The reason why we went on the Roddick tangent was because you were trying to discount Roddick's win against Sampras on clay by saying that he wasn't trying, which goes against everything that Sampras stood for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JennyS
What would Sampras' h2h w' his peers be w' 11 clay/9 non clay matches?
Replies
6
Views
739
bruce38
B
soyizgood
Sampras' Peers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer's Peers
7 8 9
Replies
424
Views
33K
davey25
davey25
GameSampras
A little something about Fed and Sampras slam wins.
Replies
44
Views
3K
Deleted member 758560
D
Leelord337
Which ATP Players have never Beaten Federer in 3+ meetings?
2
Replies
70
Views
8K
BGod
BGod
D
Strength of the top 10 through the 'eras'
Replies
14
Views
1K
bjsnider
bjsnider
Back
Top