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

[JeMar]

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.

Yes, he was better than Roddick, who admittedly sucks on clay. Sampras, too, sucked on clay when you compare him to the other GOAT contenders.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

The wins most point to when trying to hype Sampras' clay court resume are Muster in 1991, Bruguera and Courier in 1996, his Rome title in 1994 over Becker, and his DC win over Kafelnikov in 1995. Admittedly good wins.(But not the great wins most make them out to be) But in sports, it is often not only who you can beat,but who you can lose to that is just as important.

Let's look at who he managed to lose to during his world #1 years on clay (1993-1998 )

1993-lost to Jacco Eltingh (World #87)

1994-Didn't beat a top 10 player for his Rome title. Beat a good, but not great Boris Becker(World #13) in the finals. Outside of that, no one top 30 for the title. Beat opponents ranked #109, #283, #226, and #25 Paul Haarhuis to make the QF, where he lost to Jim Courier (World #7). This was probably his best CC season, and even still, nothing to write home about.

1995-lost to Olivier Gross (World #84), Fabrice Santoro (World #39) in warm up tourneys, before losing to Gilbert Schaller (World #24) in FO 1st Round.

1996-lost to Bohdan Ulhrich (World #38 ). Beat Bruguera (World #23) and Courier (World #8 ) to make FO SF, where he was smoked by Kafelnikov.

1997-lost to Magnus Larsson (World #43), Jim Courier (World #23), and then Magnus Norman (World #67) in the FO 3rd round.

199eat Agassi (World #21) in Monte Carlo, but subsequently got double breadsticked by Santoro (World #25) the next match. Won Atlanta on clay, but beat no one ranked above #40 to win that title. Lost to Ramon Delgado (World #97) in FO 2nd Round.
____________________________________________


So, I think that judging from Pete Sampras' career on clay, it is obvious to any objective person that he just did not have what it takes, as some others have mentioned, to win 7 consecutive matches against high level opposition on clay, no matter the era. The bad losses he has on clay far outweigh the good wins he has on clay.

 

[GameSampras]

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.

And Pete ALSO had some big wins on clay.. I didnt say he was consistent.. He was kind of hit and miss on clay many times sure .. BUT HE COULD WIN. Wins over Muster (not primed of course but not bad either), Bruguera, and Courier, and Kafelnkov at the Davis Cup I believe.


Ok Roddick won.. He beat Pete at the tail end of his career on clay in a non slam event .. Yayy for Roddick, he is such a better dirtballer than Pete. Roddick has achieved so much more on clay..


Ridiculous

 

[JeMar]

And Pete ALSO had some big wins on clay.. I didnt say he was consistent.. He was kind of hit on clay.. BUT HE COULD WIN. Wins over Muster (not primed of course but not bad either), Bruguera, and Courier, and Kafelnkov at the Davis Cup I believe.


Ok Roddick won.. He beat Pete at the tail end of his career on clay.. Yayy for Roddick, he is such a better dirtballer than Pete. Roddick has achieved so much more on clay..


Ridiculous

But he sucked compared to Federer and Laver, yes?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Everybody said, Pete was capable of losing to anyone inside the top 100 on clay. Sure he beat the guys mentioned, but he also lost to some pretty **** poor guys on clay during 1993-1998.

You say that Pete in his prime on clay was 92-96. Ok, let's see.

1992-lost to Gabriel Markus (World #78, Carl Uwe Steeb (World #40), Petr Korda twice (World #9) and Michael Stich (World #5) in warm up tourneys. Defeated no opponent ranked in the top 30 before losing to Agassi (#12) in the FO QF. Best win: Aleksandr Volkov (World #15). Worst Loss: Gabriel Markus (World #78

1993-lost to Jacco Eltingh (World #87) in warm ups. Beat Stich (#10) in warm up. Beat all top 40 opponents to make FO QF, where he lost to Bruguera (World #11). Best Win : Stich (World #10) Worst loss: Jacco Eltingh (World #87)

1994-Didn't beat a top 10 player for his Rome title. Beat a good, but not great Boris Becker(World #13) in the finals. Outside of that, no one top 30 for the title. Beat opponents ranked #109, #283, #226, and #25 Paul Haarhuis to make the QF, where he lost to Jim Courier (World #7). This was probably his best CC season. Best Win: Becker (World #13), Rome Title

1995-lost to Olivier Gross (World #84), Fabrice Santoro (World #39) in warm up tourneys, before losing to Gilbert Schaller (World #24) in FO 1st Round. Bad Losses: Gross (world #84), Santoro (World #39), Schaller 1st round FO.

1996-lost to Bohdan Ulhrich (World #38 ) in warm up event. Beat Bruguera (World #23) and Courier (World #8 ) to make FO SF, where he was smoked by Kafelnikov.

What was Jacco Elting's great clay court resume? How about Olivier Gross? Bohdan Ulrich? Carl Uwe Steeb? Give me these guy's great clay court credentials, yet they were able to beat Pete in his "prime years" on clay.

 

[GameSampras]

But he sucked compared to Federer and Laver, yes?

Laver yes...

I dont believe Federer is an all time great on clay either

 

[jelle v]

I don't understand how there can even be a debate about whether Sampras sucked on clay.. not even did he suck on clay, he sucked bigtime. His French Open record for example is hilariously bad. Don't get me wrong, Sampras was a great tennis player with a lot of game, but his game just wasn't made for clay. Of course there will be the occasional succes, we're talking Sampras after all, but in general, Sampras just sucked on clay.

 

[thejoe]

Laver yes...

I dont believe Federer is an all time great on clay either

Whatever, mate. His accomplishments still put him miles ahead of Sampras. Multiple clay court masters shields, 4 RG finals, and most importantly, a RG tital.

Also, you made me laugh big time when you said you thought that Sampras would have a RG title in this era. He wouldn't even make a final.

And how is Laver so far ahead in your eyes? He only won one more French Open than Federer did.

 

[Sound]

But he sucked compared to Federer and Laver, yes?

Laver was much better on clay compared to Sampras, but im still not convinced about Federer.

 

[GameSampras]

Whatever, mate. His accomplishments still put him miles ahead of Sampras. Multiple clay court masters shields, 4 RG finals, and most importantly, a RG tital.

With a years and years of clown draws and only have to deal with one other legit clay court player in this era.

Ive listed many of Roger's draws on clay en route to Nadal and some of his biggest conquests. They are a JOKE!!


Roger doesnt stack up against the all time great clay courters. guys like Wilander, Guga (who did with no hip), Lendl, Borg, Vilas, Bruguera,could just put the smackdown on Roger on clay.

I think with 2-3 more greats like these in this era, roger may not see an RG final either. Definitely no RG title IMO

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Whatever, mate. His accomplishments still put him miles ahead of Sampras. Multiple clay court masters shields, 4 RG finals, and most importantly, a RG tital.

Also, you made me laugh big time when you said you thought that Sampras would have a RG title in this era. He wouldn't even make a final.

This era is lacking great claycourters though in Sampras' era you beat Courier then along comes Bruguera you beat him then pops up Muster etc.

 

[thejoe]

With a years and years of clown draws and only have to deal with one other legit clay court player in this era.

Ive listed many of Roger's draws on clay en route to Nadal and some of his biggest conquests. They are a JOKE!!


Roger doesnt stack up against the all time great clay courters. guys like Wilander, Guga (who did with no hip), Lendl, Borg, Vilas, Bruguera,could just put the smackdown on Roger

As much of a joke as some of the players Sampras lost to? You've got NO argument here whatsoever. Sampras would not make a final at RG in any era. If some of Federer's draws at RG have been full of jokes/clowns, what does that make Sampras? He lost to far worse players.

 

[GameSampras]

This era is lacking great claycourters though in Sampras' era you beat Courier then along comes Bruguera you beat him then pops up Muster etc.

I do believe with 2-3 other great clay court players in this era, I dont think Roger sniffs an RG title. Roger has been lucky to have some joke draws en route to the finals. But when he had to go up a legit like Nadal, he was embarrasseed off the court for almost half a decade. 2-3 more players, maybe not as tough as Nadal, but great in their own right, Fed doesnt see a French Open title IMO

 

[GameSampras]

As much of a joke as some of the players Sampras lost to? You've got NO argument here whatsoever. Sampras would not make a final at RG in any era. If some of Federer's draws at RG have been full of jokes/clowns, what does that make Sampras? He lost to far worse players.

And Pete also had some big wins as mentioned, and deep runs as well, eventually losing to some greats like Bruguera, Courier, and Andre. Bigger conquests that what Roger has over at the French. Who has Roger beat the French as good as these guys on clay? Care to list them

 

[JeMar]

Laver yes...

I dont believe Federer is an all time great on clay either

Lol, the Fedhate is blinding. Federer may not be a clay court great, but he's still words better than Sampras, who was just "decent" on the surface.

 

[NamRanger]

With a years and years of clown draws and only have to deal with one other legit clay court player in this era.

Ive listed many of Roger's draws on clay en route to Nadal and some of his biggest conquests. They are a JOKE!!


Roger doesnt stack up against the all time great clay courters. guys like Wilander, Guga (who did with no hip), Lendl, Borg, Vilas, Bruguera,could just put the smackdown on Roger on clay.

I think with 2-3 more greats like these in this era, roger may not see an RG final either. Definitely no RG title IMO

None of them had to face Nadal either. That is basically who has stopped Roger for the past 4 years. No one outside of Nadal has beaten Federer at the FO (although a few got close in those 4 years.

 

[JeMar]

This era is lacking great claycourters though in Sampras' era you beat Courier then along comes Bruguera you beat him then pops up Muster etc.

For every Courier that he lost to, there were three journeymen that he lost to on clay.

 

[thejoe]

I do believe with 2-3 other great clay court players in this era, I dont think Roger sniffs an RG title. Roger has been lucky to have some joke draws en route to the finals. But when he had to go up a legit like Nadal, he was embarrasseed off the court for almost half a decade. 2-3 more players, maybe not as tough as Nadal, but great in their own right, Fed doesnt see a French Open title IMO

He's been "embarrassed off the court" on one occasion in an RG final/semi against Nadal.

The semi in 05 should have gone 5 sets, and Federer took Nadal to 4 in 2006 and 2007.

I'll grant you 2008 as an utter humiliation, but do you consider being bagelled by Nadal as humiliating as being bagelled by Kafelinikov on clay?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

You Samp guys are so predictable. It's always the same stuff w/ you. We bring facts, and you guys bring subjective arguments about "weak era"

Just gonna revert to the weak era argument, and if Fed was in the 90s, he wouldn't have done anything on CC, while Pete would have been a better CC and maybe had a FO title during this era. It's the same thing w/ these guys-weak era, bunch of losers, Sampras is god. Lather, rinse repeat.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

I do believe with 2-3 other great clay court players in this era, I dont think Roger sniffs an RG title. Roger has been lucky to have some joke draws en route to the finals. But when he had to go up a legit like Nadal, he was embarrasseed off the court for almost half a decade. 2-3 more players, maybe not as tough as Nadal, but great in their own right, Fed doesnt see a French Open title IMO

Federer's draw last year at the French

R1 Querrery
R2 Montanes
R3 Ancic
R4 Benneteau
OF Gonzalez
SF Monflis
F Nadal

Before getting hammered by Nadal in the final thats a pretty soft draw.

 

[GameSampras]

For every Courier that he lost to, there were three journeymen that he lost to on clay.

Who has Roger beaten at RG that are on par with what Sampras dealt with in Courier, Bruguera, and Agassi..

No one seems to be able to answer that

 

[Sound]

To be quite honest, Federer struggled big time at RG.

First it was a qualifier, lost a set to a nobody. Federer was lucky that Acasuso choked in that match or he would of been knocked out.

Then he faced Haas which was quite mind bogoling how he didn't manage to win that match. Again, Haas choked big time which allowed Federer to win that one too.

Based on how Federer played the tournament, i don't honestly feel that he deserved the title.

To

 

[GameSampras]

Federer's draw last year at the French

R1 Querrery
R2 Montanes
R3 Ancic
R4 Benneteau
OF Gonzalez
SF Monflis
F Nadal

Before getting hammered by Nadal in the final thats a pretty soft draw.

Yep.. Typical clown draw.. Sorry buts its TRUE.. If he didnt received these kind of joke walk in the parks draws, I wouldnt even mention it.

 

[thejoe]

And Pete also had some big wins as mentioned, and deep runs as well, eventually losing to some greats like Bruguera, Courier, and Andre. Bigger conquests that what Roger has over at the French. Who has Roger beat the French as good as these guys on clay? Care to list them

Name these bigger conquests. You mean a pre-primed Muster, a past it Courier and Bruguera who played RG after 3 months off and only returning in February. What was his record on clay that year? Wasn't great, as I recall.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Federer's draw last year at the French

R1 Querrery
R2 Montanes
R3 Ancic
R4 Benneteau
OF Gonzalez
SF Monflis
F Nadal

Before getting hammered by Nadal in the final thats a pretty soft draw.

Sampras wouldn't have beaten Montanes. Definetly not beating Gonzo on clay. Shut up. You're a Sampras fan. You can't criticize anyone else for being weak on clay. Your guy's CC record is a punchline.

Who has Roger beaten at RG that are on par with what Sampras dealt with in Courier, Bruguera, and Agassi..

No one seems to be able to answer that

Stop it w/ this crap, trying to say Pete only failed to win RG b/c of his competition. Pete Sampras, relatively speaking, sucked on clay. He wasn't even in the top 20 at any time during his career on clay. Not consistent enough, not fit enough, his game just never fit on clay. EVER. Stop w/ the excuses.

 

[thejoe]

You think Sampras would get through that draw on clay?

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

You think Sampras would get through that draw on clay?

Sampras 92-96 on clay could definatley get through that draw.

 

[GameSampras]

Sampras wouldn't have beaten Montanes. Definetly not beating Gonzo on clay. Shut up. You're a Sampras fan. You can't criticize anyone else for being weak on clay. Your guy's CC record is a punchline.



Stop it w/ this crap, trying to say Pete only failed to win RG b/c of his competition. Pete Sampras, relatively speaking, sucked on clay. He wasn't even in the top 20 at any time during his career on clay. Not consistent enough, not fit enough, his game just never fit on clay. EVER. Stop w/ the excuses.

Exactly.. No answer.

Cause the fact of the matter is.. This era, has only produce one legit clay court champion Fed has had to deal with.. nadal.. The depth and overrall field is PATHETIC compared to the 70s, 80s, early to mid 90s. Undisputable

 

[NamRanger]

Federer's draw last year at the French

R1 Querrery
R2 Montanes
R3 Ancic
R4 Benneteau
OF Gonzalez
SF Monflis
F Nadal

Before getting hammered by Nadal in the final thats a pretty soft draw.

He could possibly lose to Montanes, loses to Benneteau most likely, loses to Gonzalez for sure, eats a bagel against Monfils, and gets triple bageled by Nadal.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Ok, let me put it in small words.

On Clay, here's Federer
































and here's Sampras.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Sampras wouldn't have beaten Montanes. Definetly not beating Gonzo on clay. Shut up. You're a Sampras fan. You can't criticize anyone else for being weak on clay. Your guy's CC record is a punchline.



Stop it w/ this crap, trying to say Pete only failed to win RG b/c of his competition. Pete Sampras, relatively speaking, sucked on clay. He wasn't even in the top 20 at any time during his career on clay. Not consistent enough, not fit enough, his game just never fit on clay. EVER. Stop w/ the excuses.

Sampras and could beat Bruguera and Courier on clay why couldn't he beat Gonzo and Montanes?

 

[Enigma_87]

Federer's draw last year at the French

R1 Querrery
R2 Montanes
R3 Ancic
R4 Benneteau
OF Gonzalez
SF Monflis
F Nadal

Before getting hammered by Nadal in the final thats a pretty soft draw.

Montanes, Monfils and Bennetau are clay court specialists. Gonzalez has some good results at the RG(better than a certain Berrasategui guy who made the finals in the 90's). Sampras could easily went out against players like Montanes and Benneteau. Especially when he lost to a certain journeyman like Delgado in straights in 98.

 

[GameSampras]

Sampras 92-96 on clay could definatley get through that draw.

Without a doubt.. Hell he got all the way to the quarters and semis and lossed to far better clay court players, Fed had to deal with en route to the finals. So Sampras 92-96 can get through these draws if he doesnt see a Courier, Bruguera, Agassi on the other end of the net..

And as we know.. Fed's draw's en route to the finals certainly had no Brugueras, Couriers or Agassis

 

[VivalaVida]

Sampras 92-96 on clay could definatley get through that draw.

How do you know that? Purely subjective prediction? Sampras's was way inferior on Clay to federer.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

He could possibly lose to Montanes, loses to Benneteau most likely, loses to Gonzalez for sure, eats a bagel against Monfils, and gets triple bageled by Nadal.

I never said Sampras would beat Nadal on clay but you're telling me he can't beat the clay court legends Montanes, Benneteau, Gonzalez and Monflis?

 

[IvanAndreevich]

What's this thread about? Was there ever any doubt that Federer is much better than Sampras on clay?

 

[BallzofSkill]

i get the feeling that samprastards tend to believe in the bible and *******s are more science oriented type guys.

 

[Enigma_87]

Sampras and could beat Bruguera and Courier on clay why couldn't he beat Gonzo and Montanes?

Sampras beat Bruguera and Courier when neither of them was in top form. Their physical condition was pretty bad at those matches as well. Did you see those matches and how Bruguera was struggling after losing the tie-break?

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Funny how nobody has answered GameSampras' question which clay court giant Federer as beaten at the French.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Exactly.. No answer.

Cause the fact of the matter is.. This era, has only produce one legit clay court champion Fed has had to deal with.. nadal.. The depth and overrall field is PATHETIC compared to the 70s, 80s, early to mid 90s. Undisputable

Who's the great CC champion of the 90s? Bruguera? The guy who said he'd have no chance vs. Nadal. On clay this era, he'd be another also ran.

Courier? One trick pony? He'd be lucky to make a final this era, let alone win one over Nadal. On clay, Federer is a better player than Courier.

Chang? The one slam wonder who never even made another RG final after winning it? Please.

This is what you guys do every time. You bash the 2000s, while failing to see that the 90s looks even worse when compared to the 80s.

 

[JeMar]

Who has Roger beaten at RG that are on par with what Sampras dealt with in Courier, Bruguera, and Agassi..

No one seems to be able to answer that

I've tried to be civil, but you guys are just ********. I'm sorry.

Here is your reasoning:

Federer's era is weak -> We know this because nobody has any wins over Federer -> They don't have any wins because the era is weak.

If Federer had lost a few matches to these guys on clay and they had gone on to win Roland Garros, then Federer beat them the next year on his way to the title... all of a sudden this slam is worthwhile because he had to beat Roland Garros champions.

But the problem is that Federer's too good and, outside of one guy that matches up extremely well against him, has no losses to anyone after his first slam.

THERE ARE NO RG CHAMPS BECAUSE FED AND ONE MORE GUY HAVING BEEN HOGGING UP ALL THE SLAMS. Get this through your skull!!!

Federer has many wins over past RG winners, but no one looks at them because they make up **** about them not being in their prime, so there's that.

Even if Federer had lost to a different player in all of those finals he's made, he's already made 4x more RG finals than Pete ever made. Even if you ignore RG, he's already won MANY more clay court titles than Pete.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Sampras and could beat Bruguera and Courier on clay why couldn't he beat Gonzo and Montanes?

He also lost to Schaller, Elking, Santoro, Steeb, Markus, need I continue on clay. Even the sun shines on a dog's arse every once in a while. That's what Sampras' great CC wins are equivalent to.

 

[GameSampras]

I dont think thats true.. Its all about matchups. Bruguera or a Guga say could be a tough matchup for Nadal


Hell Bruguera, Courier, etc see no RG title in the 00s because of Nadal, Yet Nadal loses to the clown Soderling? Huh?

 

[JeMar]

Funny how nobody has answered GameSampras' question which clay court giant Federer as beaten at the French.

No one's answered it because there's no answer that would satisfy you people.

Courier's a clay court giant because he won Roland Garros, but Nadal has been hogging all the titles lately. Pete's era had a lot more parity, which is why you have a lot more fields with slam winners in them. Pete wasn't as dominant as Federer, and there were no ultra-dominant clay courters like Nadal.

 

[GameSampras]

I've tried to be civil, but you guys are just ********. I'm sorry.

Here is your reasoning:

Federer's era is weak -> We know this because nobody has any wins over Federer -> They don't have any wins because the era is weak.

If Federer had lost a few matches to these guys on clay and they had gone on to win Roland Garros, then Federer beat them the next year on his way to the title... all of a sudden this slam is worthwhile because he had to beat Roland Garros champions.

But the problem is that Federer's too good and, outside of one guy that matches up extremely well against him, has no losses to anyone after his first slam.

THERE ARE NO RG CHAMPS BECAUSE FED AND ONE MORE GUY HAVING BEEN HOGGING UP ALL THE SLAMS. Get this through your skull!!!

Federer has many wins over past RG winners, but no one looks at them because they make up **** about them not being in their prime, so there's that.

Even if Federer had lost to a different player in all of those finals he's made, he's already made 4x more RG finals than Pete ever made. Even if you ignore RG, he's already won MANY more clay court titles than Pete.

Thats just your opinion. At what point does some blame go on the field for not answering the challenge? I guess never according to youre logic .. Roger isnt at his peak anymore. and he is much more vulnerable these days. Guys like Djoker and Murray right there who entering the best years of their career, and taking those top spots. Hell Nadal has been injured. Yet Djoker and Murray and others nowehre to be found and taking advantage of this . They are too busy losing en route to the finals before they even get to Roger or nadal

Bottom line is.. Its a mixture of both.. Nadal and Fed are great players, but with a lackluster field as a contemporary

 

[fed_rulz]

Pete has 11 MS titles quite alot and between 93-97 he was pretty consistant week in week out.

Sorry, GameSampras begs to differ with you; according to him Sampras never cared about slams - or at least that's what he said when asked about Sampras' poor record against Wayne Ferreira (that too on carpet!!).

Hey GS, if Pete was such a great Fast court/carpet player, how come he has multiple losses to Wayne Ferreira? Hell, he has 2 carpet victories over Pete, a surface that Pete would supposedly own Fed. I'd argue that most of the top 10 today play a better version of the Wayne ferreira tennis, a style that Pete obviously has trouble with.

Sampras played for the slams.. I think that pretty much sums up his 7 Wimbeldons in 8 years.
Nadal get a Wimbeldon title with Pete around? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH.. GOod stuff..
Yea lets build up Nadal now to where he is an all time great on grass, and could now demolish anyone in the 90s

Of course, now GS maintains that Sampras only cared about the slams after his prime (from 00 - 03)....

 

[JeMar]

Thats just your opinion. At what point does some blame go on the field for not answering the challenge? I guess never..

Just about every single article of any note argues that the game is just getting better. The only people that disagree are delusional fanboys in this website and a few others.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

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.

So Sampras gets a pass for any loss out of a major but Federer's H2H losses against Murray all count against him?

Sampras said he didn't focus on majors, so you can take him at face value. He also said Federer is greater than him, so you can't take him at face value there?

Talk about selective deafness and blindness.

Federer's draw last year at the French

R1 Querrery
R2 Montanes
R3 Ancic
R4 Benneteau
OF Gonzalez
SF Monflis
F Nadal

Before getting hammered by Nadal in the final thats a pretty soft draw.

I highlighted the people that would beat Sampras on clay.

Now, please point out a guy that Sampras beat on clay that's as good as Nadal. I want to see it.

 

[pame]

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..

Umm. JennyS did her bit researching the clay stuff, so if you want other comparisons , why on earth don't YOU research and post them?

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Thats just your opinion. At what point does some blame go on the field for not answering the challenge? I guess never according to youre logic .. Roger isnt at his peak anymore. and he is much more vulnerable these days. Guys like Djoker and Murray right there who entering the best years of their career, and taking those top spots. Hell Nadal has been injured. Yet Djoker and Murray and nowehre to be found. They are too busy losing en route to the finals before they even get to Roger.

Bottom line is.. Its a mixture of both.. Nadal and Fed are great players, but with a lackluster field as a contemporary

At which point do the champions get for being just that good?

I guess Sampras's grass court contemporaries all sucked, because he was hogging all the Wimbledons. LOL