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

GameSampras said:
Thats just your opinion. At what point does some blame go on the field for not answering the challenge? I guess never..
Click to expand...

And who are you to say that?

Do you really think that these men that have spent their ENTIRE LIVES toward achieving one goal are comfortable sitting in the second tier? Do you think that they spent their nights as children thinking about how wonderful it would be to be a Roland Garros semi-finalist one day? At some point, you just hit a wall and motivation, hard work, guts, etc. has nothing to do with it.
 
GameSampras said:
Thats just your opinion. At what point does some blame go on the field for not answering the challenge? I guess never..
Click to expand...


So when Nadal loses once in 5 years at the RG, he loses to a clown.

When Nadal wins 4 years straight others are clowns because they are not answering the challenge?

You must try harder.

How can anyone win clay masters and titles having in mind that Nadal is probably the greatest clay courter in history and a certain Federer guy would have been a multiple RG champion if it weren't for Nadal.

What were Agassi's draws at some of the AO's he won? Did the competition fail to answer there as well?
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure.. as if al those guys were in Sampras' quarter of the draw or something.. besides those weren't the guys Sampras was losing to in all those second and third rounds he lost in. You make it sound as if Sampras his draw, was something like Moya (1st rd), Costa (2nd rd), Berasategui (3d rd) courier (4th rd), Muster (quarter), Bruguera (semi), Kuerten (final). This of course is just bogus.

Face it.. Sampras sucked bigtime on clay, no matter what argument you bring. And that takes nothing away from Sampras his achievements.
 
People want to sit there and say, " If Roger wasnt around so and so would have more, blah blah"..



The fact of the matter is.. 1 OTHER PLAYER in the whole era of the 00s has stepped up, rised to the challenge, and has defeated Roger, relentlessly at the slams and overrall. That is Nadal..


Outside of Nadal.. It gets very thin.. very very thin. No one has stepped up, (despite everyone trying to suggest otherwise), no one has proven to be a legitimate champion and proven they even have what it takes to be champions.


Go ahead... sit there and say all these guys have stepped up against Roger and Nadal? Have they really? Who exactly.. Djoker has regressed.. Murray hasnt proven himself. Roddick is still sitting on his one sole slam from 6 years ago and when he gets an opportunitiy at Wimbeldon he chokes it all away on big points.

Its amazing the only one other player in this era has proven himself.. And he cant stay healthy. LOL


So when people say the field has stepped up... I will ask you who?
 
Last edited:
GameSampras said:
People want to sit there and say, " If Roger wasnt around so and so would have more, blah blah"..



The fact of the matter is.. 1 OTHER PLAYER in the whole era of the 00s has stepped up, rised to the challenge, and has defeated Roger, relentlessly at the slams and overrall. That is Nadal..


Outside of Nadal.. It gets very thin.. very very thin. No one has stepped up, (despite everyone trying to suggest otherwise), no one has proven to be a legitimate champion and proven they even have what it takes to be champions.
Click to expand...
Which speaks just as much about Roger's dominance as it does the field.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
JeMar said:
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.
Click to expand...

JeMar, it's a useless exercise to repeat something as OBVIOUS to the Pete-worshippers over and over again. They will refuse to admit it, though they very well know the truth in your bolded comment.

Bottomline: Pete was not as good as Fed. they can throw in all the weak competition you want, but it is based on hypothetical what-ifs and wishful thinking, rather than hard, cold facts. And boy, they do a good job of building up sampras into some super-human being, when clearly he had a lot of holes and deficiencies in his game.
 
GameSampras said:
People want to sit there and say, " If Roger wasnt around so and so would have more, blah blah"..



The fact of the matter is.. 1 OTHER PLAYER in the whole era of the 00s has stepped up, rised to the challenge, and has defeated Roger, relentlessly at the slams and overrall. That is Nadal..


Outside of Nadal.. It gets very thin.. very very thin. No one has stepped up, (despite everyone trying to suggest otherwise), no one has proven to be a legitimate champion and proven they even have what it takes to be champions.
Click to expand...

And here comes the "I'm beat, so I'm ready to bow out of this thread" post. This is how all GameSampras arguments end.

It's no players' fault that Federer and Nadal are such great athletes, and you know this.
 
GameSampras said:
People want to sit there and say, " If Roger wasnt around so and so would have more, blah blah"..



The fact of the matter is.. 1 OTHER PLAYER in the whole era of the 00s has stepped up, rised to the challenge, and has defeated Roger, relentlessly at the slams and overrall. That is Nadal..


Outside of Nadal.. It gets very thin.. very very thin. No one has stepped up, (despite everyone trying to suggest otherwise), no one has proven to be a legitimate champion and proven they even have what it takes to be champions.
Click to expand...

Maybe because HE'S REALLY GOOD! THIS JUST IN....Roger Federer is a REALLY GOOD TENNIS PLAYER! He wins. A lot. 15 slams, I think? So maybe he should have tanked some matches to make guys look good, is that what you're saying? You're making a circular argument.
 
GameSampras said:
People want to sit there and say, " If Roger wasnt around so and so would have more, blah blah"..



The fact of the matter is.. 1 OTHER PLAYER in the whole era of the 00s has stepped up, rised to the challenge, and has defeated Roger, relentlessly at the slams and overrall. That is Nadal..


Outside of Nadal.. It gets very thin.. very very thin. No one has stepped up, (despite everyone trying to suggest otherwise), no one has proven to be a legitimate champion and proven they even have what it takes to be champions.
Click to expand...

Listen to what jibberish you are saying. In order to Federer to have greater competition he'd have to lose more? Stepping up means beating him? Would Federer be the same player if he lost couple of finals to Roddick, Safin and Murray? With 10 slams he'd be better right now, cause he lost 5 due to superior competition?

All that is pure bollocks if you ask me.

Did the competition sucked when McEnroe had 82-3 w/l season? Did the competition sucked when Connors lost 4 matches and won 93 in a single season? Did the competition respond to Borg when he had 84-6 season?
 
JeMar said:
And here comes the "I'm beat, so I'm ready to bow out of this thread" post. This is how all GameSampras arguments end.

It's no players' fault that Federer and Nadal are such great athletes, and you know this.
Click to expand...




Im sorry we'll just agree to disagree then.. I dont believe that its all just Fed and Nadal being these unbeatable forces. I do think some blame needs to go on the field as well..

People want to sit there and say so and so and stepped up and I will provide proof they havent like Djokers regression. Murray getting defeated en route to finals by inferior players talent wise. Fed is just too unbeatable? we take Murray and Djoker for instance, these guys arent even getting through their own draws to get to Roger. So it isnt Roger taking these guys out. They are just plain flat out underperforming. Roddick is just Roddick. No comment on that. He was never all that great to begin with IMO.

I just dont like the statements, such " Players stepping up" NO PLAYER outside of Nadal has stepped up. NONE!!
 
GameSampras said:
Im sorry we'll just agree to disagree then.. I dont believe that its all just Fed and Nadal being these unbeatable forces. I do think some blame needs to go on the field as well..

People want to sit there and say so and so and stepped up and I will provide proof they havent like Djokers regression. Murray getting defeated en route to finals by inferior players talent wise. Fed is just too unbeatable? we take Murray and Djoker for instance, these guys arent even getting through their own draws to get to Roger. So it isnt Roger taking these guys out. They are just plain flat out underperforming. Roddick is just Roddick. No comment on that. He was never all that great to begin with IMO.

I just dont like the statements, such " Players stepping up" NO PLAYER outside of Nadal has stepped up. NONE!!
Click to expand...
Um... you do realize that there's a difference between best of 3 at some small tournament, and best of 5 at a grand slam, right?

You even excused Sampras's loss to Roddick because it wasn't at a grand slam (LOL), but you claim that guys like Djokovic and Murray don't "step up" at grand slams.

Newsflash, Djokovic and Murray DID step up at the US Open last year. They got stomped.
 
ChanceEncounter said:
Um... you do realize that there's a difference between best of 3 at some small tournament, and best of 5 at a grand slam, right?

You even excused Sampras's loss to Roddick because it wasn't at a grand slam (LOL), but you claim that guys like Djokovic and Murray don't "step up" at grand slams.

Newsflash, Djokovic and Murray DID step up at the US Open last year. They got stomped.
Click to expand...

No, players only put effort into matches they win. Didn't you know?
 
JeMar said:
The 90s were so weak, guys. EVERYONE and their mother had a RG title. It was like today's WTA.
Click to expand...

Well when an inept claycourter like Kafelnikov wins there, one shot Moya, #100 ranked Medvedev almost beats Agassi and one flash in the pan Berasategui makes the run of his life shows you how many great clay courters there were in the 90's.

And when the greatest CCer at RG - Bruguera was completely owned by Muster on clay, who on the other hand was the biggest choker on the big stage, tells you all about the great clay competition there.
 
ChanceEncounter said:
Um... you do realize that there's a difference between best of 3 at some small tournament, and best of 5 at a grand slam, right?

You even excused Sampras's loss to Roddick because it wasn't at a grand slam (LOL), but you claim that guys like Djokovic and Murray don't "step up" at grand slams.

Newsflash, Djokovic and Murray DID step up at the US Open last year. They got stomped.
Click to expand...


Newsflash: Where have they been since the USO? Lets see Djoker losing to roddick at AO as the defending champ? Kohlschreiber the French. Losing to Haas at Wimbeldon. huh?

Murray? Losing to Verdasco at the AO, Some bum at the French I dont even know. Losing to Roddick at Wimbeldon in front of his HOME CROWD..


Yepp lots of stepping up going on there. These guys would be seeing slam finals and maybe even taking out Fed in the finals at the likes of the AO, French, maybe Wimbeldon.. But they cant reach a final
 
Enigma_87 said:
Well when an inept claycourter like Kafelnikov wins there, one shot Moya, #100 ranked Medvedev almost beats Agassi and one flash in the pan Berasategui makes the run of his life shows you how many great clay courters there were in the 90's.

And when the greatest CCer at RG - Bruguera was completely owned by Muster on clay, who on the other hand was the biggest choker on the big stage, tells you all about the great clay competition there.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, Moya. The guy that could only serve, hit forehands, and move to his left. He too won Roland Garros under Pete's watch.
 
GameSampras said:
Newsflash: Where have they been since the USO? Lets see Djoker losing to roddick at AO as the defending champ? Kohlschreiber the French. Losing to Haas at Wimbeldon. huh?

Murray? Losing to Verdasco at the AO, Some bum at the French I dont even know. Losing to Roddick at Wimbeldon in front of his HOME CROWD..


Yepp lots of stepping up going on there. These guys would be seeing slam finals and maybe even taking out Fed in the finals at the likes of the AO, French, maybe Wimbeldon.. But they cant reach a final
Click to expand...
You're backtracking.

First you say that players never step up in slam finals (claiming that they are inferior players). But when I pointed out where they do step up, they got beat. Now you're claiming they have to step up in every grand slam to be decent players?

You do realize Sampras didn't beat the same exact rivals for each of his slams either, right?

So I guess every time he didn't go through Becker, Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov, and Ivanisevic, his competition failed to step up too?

That must mean... Sampras played in a weak era?!
 
GameSampras said:
Newsflah: Where have they been since the USO? Lets see Djoker losing to roddick at AO? Kohlschreiber the French. Losing to Haas at Wimbeldon. huh?

Murray? Losing to Verdasco at the AO, Some bum at the French I dont even know. Losing to Roddick at Wimbeldon in front of his HOME CROWD..


Yepp lots of stepping up going on there
Click to expand...

Gonzalez. The guy that would smoke Pete on clay. Shows how much you really watch tennis...:roll:

Honestly, you've backed yourself into a corner. You say Federer has beaten nobodies on clay, that no one has stepped up, yet if he'd lost a few more times, you'd be talking about all the losses he has to the jokes of this era on clay and hold it over him. Just like you hold the loss to Guga over him, though that was 5 years ago and before his prime.

Yet we bring up all of Sampras' embarrassments on clay, and you run and hide and change the topic. You're a Sampras fan. You can't degrade anyone's CC record, considering Sampras probably isn't top 50 on clay all time. Heck, maybe not top 100.
 
GameSampras said:
Newsflah: Where have they been since the USO? Lets see Djoker losing to roddick at AO? Kohlschreiber the French. Losing to Haas at Wimbeldon. huh?

Murray? Losing to Verdasco at the AO, Some bum at the French I dont even know. Losing to Roddick at Wimbeldon in front of his HOME CROWD..


Yepp lots of stepping up going on there
Click to expand...

Um, Murray lost to Gonzalez at the RG(who is certainly better CCter than Sampras and made it to the QF's of all slams), Roddick is multiple slam finalist, yet you're bashing Djoker for losing to him?

So competition doesn't stepp up, yet when strong players(and on fire) Soderling Kohli, Verdasco and Gonzo are beating the favorites, Murray, Djoko and Nadal suck? Way to double standards.
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
Gonzalez. The guy that would smoke Pete on clay. Shows how much you really watch tennis...:roll:

Honestly, you've backed yourself into a corner. You say Federer has beaten nobodies on clay, that no one has stepped up, yet if he'd lost a few more times, you'd be talking about all the losses he has to the jokes of this era on clay and hold it over him. Just like you hold the loss to Guga over him, though that was 5 years ago and before his prime.

Yet we bring up all of Sampras' embarrassments on clay, and you run and hide and change the topic. You're a Sampras fan. You can't degrade anyone's CC record, considering Sampras probably isn't top 50 on clay all time. Heck, maybe not top 100.
Click to expand...



Ahhh yea.. Gonzales.. More slamless crap players that I should care about somehow.


Im just saying this era has produced some weaker clay court talent than era of the past. And it has.. Thats all Im saying
 
GameSampras said:
Ahhh yea.. Gonzales.. More slamless crap players that I should care about somehow
Click to expand...

You probably don't even watch this era, you couldn't even remember the FO, yet I'm supposed to take your opinion into account about this era, when you don't even watch it?

You're a joke. Can't give credit to anyone of this era, yet everyone Pete played was gods amongst men. Ivanisevic, the constant choker who lost even when Pete tried to give him Wimby and only won one by a grace of God after Pete was beaten already.

Courier? One trick pony, FH and that's it?

Want me to rip the 90s the way you rip the 2000s?
 
ChanceEncounter said:
You're backtracking.

First you say that players never step up in slam finals (claiming that they are inferior players). But when I pointed out where they do step up, they got beat. Now you're claiming they have to step up in every grand slam to be decent players?

You do realize Sampras didn't beat the same exact rivals for each of his slams either, right?

So I guess every time he didn't go through Becker, Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov, and Ivanisevic, his competition failed to step up too?

That must mean... Sampras played in a weak era?!
Click to expand...

Love this post.. great reasoning.. total pwnage 8)
 
Sound said:
More arguing???

It's getting pretty childish...
Click to expand...

Come on, it's fun showing how hypocritical the Samp ****s are. :D

At least GS hangs around and takes it like a man. Where's Cesc at? Run away w/ his tail between his legs?

Let me say this again, on clay, here's Federer...

































....And here's Pete.
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
You probably don't even watch this era, you couldn't even remember the FO, yet I'm supposed to take your opinion into account about this era, when you don't even watch it?

You're a joke. Can't give credit to anyone of this era, yet everyone Pete played was gods amongst men. Ivanisevic, the constant choker who lost even when Pete tried to give him Wimby and only won one by a grace of God after Pete was beaten already.

Courier? One trick pony, FH and that's it?

Want me to rip the 90s the way you rip the 2000s?
Click to expand...


Yea lets compare Couriers career to Gonzales' LOL.. Thats a real winning situation for u isnt it?
 
Courier had way weaker competition than Gonzalez, as proven by the fact that majors were flying off the shelves as if they were on sale!

Due to the fact that no one beat Courier in the 4 slams he won, it's safe to say that no one stepped up against him.

He then flamed out when players started stepping up.
 
Last edited:
JeMar said:
Courier had way weaker competition than Gonzalez, as proven by the fact that majors were flying off the shelves as if they were on sale!

Due to the fact that no one beat Courier in the 4 slams he won, it's safe to say that no one stepped up against him.

He thenm flames out when players started stepping up.
Click to expand...

But Courier was one of the greatest player in all time. I mean he was in the finals of all slams in that competitive era. I mean one year he was battling for immortality in the final against Pete, and the next he was losing in 2nd round to 1 130 ranked Forget.
 
JeMar said:
Courier had way weaker competition than Gonzalez, as proven by the fact that majors were flying off the shelves as if they were on sale!

Due to the fact that no one beat Courier in the 4 slams he won, it's safe to say that no one stepped up against him.

He then flamed out when players started stepping up.
Click to expand...

Pete's just lucky he naver ran into the clay court legend Tommy Haas.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Pete's just lucky he naver ran into the clay court legend Tommy Haas.
Click to expand...
0-1 versus Haas on clay. Lets face it, Sampras wasn't awesome on clay. Lots of guys have done as well as him on clay. And by lots, I mean, if we look at the past 15 years, I'm sure 20 or 30 guys have won a Masters and gotten to the semis of the French.

If not for Nadal, Fed would have 3 or 4 French Open titles. He would be an all time great on clay. Unfortunately for him, he is competing against the best clay courter I've ever seen. With Sampras, it wasn't having an all time great foil, it was the surface itself. If clay makes up for 30% of the ATP calendar, it's gotta mean something when determining a player's overall greatness.

Pete was a great player, but he didn't have the consistency or stamina for clay. Really, only Grand Slam matters, but it could be argued a GOAT candidate has to be the best on every surface, if only for one Roland Garros.
 
GameSampras said:
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..
Click to expand...

your stupidity shows NO end and it's sad
this is clay you dumb baffoon when talking about Federer's record versus Murray's
fact is your boy stunk ass on clay and that's why he was NEVER good enough to go deep annually in the French capital and that's why he was NEVER EVER good enough to win more Masters on clay because his Rome title was nothing but a FLUKE
for a former "GOAT" Sampras,ranked world # 1 ;he sure made more annual early exits thany other world #1 in the history of tennis:rolleyes:
now take that and go cry in the corner:rolleyes::lol:
 
GameSampras said:
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
Click to expand...

Federer's record against strong claycourt players:
Juan Carlos Ferrero: 3-0
Guillermo Coria: 2-0
Tommy Robredo: 3-0
David Ferrer: 3-0
Fernando Gonzalez: 5-0
Gaston Gaudio: 2-0
Carlos Moya: 3-0
Nikolay Davydenko: 3-0
David Nalbandian: 3-1
Gael Monfils: 3-0
Juan Martin Del Potro: 2-0
 
I'll make it very simple for you folks. Yes, the '90s had more clay-court greats and specialists than the '00s, and yes, Fed is clearly above Sampras on clay. I don't see why some people can't accept both.
 
Claycourt titles/finals by Federer, Sampras and their peers. The finals count both the title wins AND runners up (so Nadal's 27 finals include 25 tiles and two runners up)

Muster: 40 titles (wow!) 44 finals
Nadal: 25 titles, 27 total finals
Moya: 16 titles, 28 total finals
Brugera: 13 titles, 30 total finals
Corretja: 10 titles, 20 finals
Federer: 9 titles 19 total finals
Ferrero: 9 titles, 16 finals
Medvedev: 9 titles, 14 finals
Gonzalez: 8 titles, 11 finals
Robredo: 8 titles, 13 finals
Coria: 8 titles, 15 finals
Gaudio: 8 titles, 16 finals
Agassi: 7 titles, 12 finals
Davydenko: 7 titles, 11 finals
Courier: 5 titles, 7 finals
Roddick: 5 titles, 7 finals
Djokovic: 4 titles, 7 finals
Chang: 4 titles, 6 finals
Ferrer: 4 titles, 9 finals
Nalbandian: 4 titles, 7 finals
Kafelnikov: 3 titles, 6 finals
Sampras: 3 titles, 5 finals
Ivanisevic: 3 titles, 8 finals
Stich: 3 titles, 8 finals
Safin: 2 titles, 6 finals
Martin: 2 titles, 5 finals
Hewitt: 2 titles, 2 finals
Pioline: 2 titles, 4 finals
Del Potro: 2 titles, 2 finals
Monfils: 1 title, 3 finals
Krajicek: 1 title, 2 finals
Korda: 0 titles, 4 finals
Murray: 0 titles, 0 finals
Rafter: 0 titles, 0 finals
Ljubicic: 0 titles, 0 finals
Ancic: 0 titles, 0 finals
 
Last edited:
JennyS said:
Federer's record against strong claycourt players:
Juan Carlos Ferrero: 3-0
Guillermo Coria: 2-0
Tommy Robredo: 3-0
David Ferrer: 3-0
Fernando Gonzalez: 5-0
Gaston Gaudio: 2-0
Carlos Moya: 3-0
Nikolay Davydenko: 3-0
David Nalbandian: 3-1
Gael Monfils: 3-0
Juan Martin Del Potro: 2-0
Click to expand...



Yea so dang strong. Not ONE OF THEM even has a French Open title besides Moya do they?
 
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