Sampras: Federer is playing better now, than 10 years ago.

[USPTARF97]

At 38 he is still in the discussion to contend for titles.

 

[SaintPetros]

Not when he was 25 years old lmao. Pete could have gotten blown off the court by the likes of Anderson if they played peak for peak.

And RFed WOULD have been shattered to the winds by Kracijek.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

And RFed WOULD have been shattered to the winds by Kracijek.

Otha, if Petros is having such a good time now, I cannot even imagine what he'll be doing here the day Djokovic breaks Federer's records, LOL!

 

[SaintPetros]

But your boy lost to scrubs (your label, not mine) in back to back years at the "Open". How can he have a case, and better yet, why have all you Sampras trolls come out of the woodwork after it came to fruition years ago just how weak the period was that Sampras dominated? Even for a layman they can see Pete had it far easier than any of the Big 3.

How can Fed have a case? Depending on how you define Fed's generation (another one of those mythical creatures), he's either King of the Ants or 3rd Musketeer.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And RFed WOULD have been shattered to the winds by Kracijek.

ROFL. Krajicek was a mug who beat Washington for his lone slam title, and overrated weak era king Sampras along the way (proving how overrated he really is).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

How can Fed have a case? Depending on how you define Fed's generation (another one of those mythical creatures), he's either King of the Ants or 3rd Musketeer.

But ALL you damn Sampras fans were fine with the age and injury excuse when it favored you, don't forget the "Pete didn't care about this tournament" shtick either. Truth is towards the end of his career (and even during his LATE PRIME) he was owned by none other than Lleyton freaking Hewitt.

You want to talk about Novak's wins over a mid to late 30s Federer so we'll attribute ALL the beatdowns Pete suffered at the hands of Lleyton (including the 2000 Tennis Masters Cup where he ate a freaking bagel ROFL).

 

[SaintPetros]

ROFL. Krajicek was a mug who beat Washington for his lone slam title, and overrated weak era king Sampras along the way (proving how overrated he really is).

I wonder what that makes slamless Berdych and Tsonga, who defeated Primerer back to back years on his own turf? Wait sorry, I guess it wasn't his turf anymore - he'd already been dethroned by the Clay GOAT just a few years earlier! ROFLMAO!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I wonder what that makes slamless Berdych and Tsonga, who defeated Primerer back to back years on his own turf? Wait sorry, I guess it wasn't his turf anymore - he'd already been dethroned by the Clay GOAT just a few years earlier! ROFLMAO!

Sampras lost to Krajicek at 25 YEARS OF AGE ROFLMAO!!!! Pete didn't even win a HC major from 1996 until 2002, a total of 6 years. He relied upon the fast surface of Wimbledon to keep his No. 1 ranking -- and even then he lost it to toilet tier mugs like Rios, Kafelnikov and Moya. And how old was he then? Like 27?

When Pete was Fed's current age his weight struggles and hair loss were the main focal points people made in regard to him and his legacy, even by then Federer had come into the equation and toppled his records.

By the way when Pete was 29/30 he couldn't even make it past the 4th round at Wimbledon.

 

[SaintPetros]

But ALL you damn Sampras fans were fine with the age and injury excuse when it favored you, don't forget the "Pete didn't care about this tournament" shtick either. Truth is towards the end of his career (and even during his LATE PRIME) he was owned by none other than Lleyton freaking Hewitt.

You want to talk about Novak's wins over a mid to late 30s Federer so we'll attribute ALL the beatdowns Pete suffered at the hands of Lleyton (including the 2000 Tennis Masters Cup where he ate a freaking bagel ROFL).

Pete has winning records over Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe.
Roger has winning records over Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzales, and Baghdatis.

 

[SaintPetros]

Sampras lost to Krajicek at 25 YEARS OF AGE ROFLMAO!!!! Pete didn't even win a HC major from 1996 until 2002, a total of 6 years. He relied upon the fast surface of Wimbledon to keep his No. 1 ranking -- and even then he lost it to toilet tier mugs like Rios, Kafelnikov and Moya. And how old was he then? Like 27?

When Pete was Fed's current age his weight struggles and hair loss were the main focal points people made in regard to him and his legacy, even by then Federer had come into the equation and toppled his records.

By the way when Pete was 29/30 he couldn't even make it past the 4th round at Wimbledon.

We've discussed this before Sabs, have a look through past posts to review the material.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Pete has winning records over Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe.
Roger has winning records over Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzales, and Baghdatis.

Pete has losing records to Hewitt, Safin and Roddick. Most embarassingly of all he WAS UNABLE TO DEFEAT HEWITT after the USO in 2000. Not even once. Heck, guy didn't even come close. The same guy you compare to an absolute mug like Baghdatis (not ashamed to admit it). But even still, is Baghdatis really that much worse than the garbage Sampras beat for most his slams? (Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Washington, etc)?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

We've discussed this before Sabs, have a look through past posts to review the material.

So if Pete is that much worse than Federer and played in a worse era how can you even begin to put him down? Don't go back to talking about or using Djokovic or Nadal in this scenario -- if anything if Pete struggled so much with Lleyton freaking Hewitt and was unable to even beat him once when he was a baby, how do you think he's going to do against Novak (who is like an ultra fast Andre Agassi)?

The argument is a joke by this point.

 

[SaintPetros]

So if Pete is that much worse than Federer and played in a worse era how can you even begin to put him down? Don't go back to talking about or using Djokovic or Nadal in this scenario -- if anything if Pete struggled so much with Lleyton freaking Hewitt and was unable to even beat him once when he was a baby, how do you think he's going to do against Novak (who is like an ultra fast Andre Agassi)?

The argument is a joke by this point.

'greed. I bolded the punchlines.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

'greed. I bolded the punchlines.

1996-1999 was so bad you can't even begin to make excuses for it. I can still go on lol. Petr Korda winning a slam is another huge noteworthy joke. People talk about how weak '02 was but 1997 and 1998 were about as bad if not WORSE and guess who was No. 1 then?

Don't run away from Pete beating losers like Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline MULTIPLE TIMES FOR MAJOR TOURNAMENTS. You pick on Fed because he beat Baghdatis once... Pete did this crap several times with several different players. Sampras fans are a joke when it comes to discussing competition because they cannot fathom or are too stubborn to realize how cruddy Pete's competition was most years.

 

[killerboss]

Sampras has the edge in the conversation once again. Big 3 cancelled each other out now. When it was only Federer that had an unhealthy, over inflated slam count, something indeed felt strange but now all 3 are on their way. How can you be GOAT if you aren't even the greatest of your own era?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sampras has the edge in the conversation once again. Big 3 cancelled each other out now. When it was only Federer that had an unhealthy, over inflated slam count, something indeed felt strange but now all 3 are on their way. How can you be GOAT if you aren't even the greatest of your own era?

Pete was the greatest of his own era... but who was in it? Agassi won most of his majors AFTER Pete was relevant. So we're meant to sit around and be in awe of a guy who beat guys like Cedric Pioline, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Malivai Washington, Todd Martin and friends for a huge portion of his slams? Yet we're meant to turn around and penalize Fed (and ONLY Fed, not Novak or anything) for beating inferior competition?

LOL no. Pete isn't even in the discussion anymore.

 

[SaintPetros]

1996-1999 was so bad you can't even begin to make excuses for it. I can still go on lol. Petr Korda winning a slam is another huge noteworthy joke. People talk about how weak '02 was but 1997 and 1998 were about as bad if not WORSE and guess who was No. 1 then?

Don't run away from Pete beating losers like Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline MULTIPLE TIMES FOR MAJOR TOURNAMENTS. You pick on Fed because he beat Baghdatis once... Pete did this crap several times with several different players. Sampras fans are a joke when it comes to discussing competition because they cannot fathom or are too stubborn to realize how cruddy Pete's competition was most years.

Beginning to sound like 2002-2007...the era of "Peak" Federer's dominance. Coincidence?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Beginning to sound like 2002-2007...the era of "Peak" Federer's dominance. Coincidence?

1993 and 1994 were stacked with mugs like Jonas Bjorkman, Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Yevgeny Kafelnikov and friends for him to beat on. I think the whole entire 90s decade is questionable.

Yet you pick on Fed for beating Baghdatis.. you still haven't answered me though. Are the mugs I've listed any worse or better than Baggy? I take your reluctance to answer as a focal point in this argument.

 

[SaintPetros]

Pete was the greatest of his own era... but who was in it? Agassi won most of his majors AFTER Pete was relevant. So we're meant to sit around and be in awe of a guy who beat guys like Cedric Pioline, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Malivai Washington, Todd Martin and friends for a huge portion of his slams? Yet we're meant to turn around and penalize Fed (and ONLY Fed, not Novak or anything) for beating inferior competition?

LOL no. Pete isn't even in the discussion anymore.

Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe...so no one really (Elderly Agassi pushing Peakerer to 5 in 2004)

 

[SaintPetros]

1993 and 1994 were stacked with mugs like Jonas Bjorkman, Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Yevgeny Kafelnikov and friends for him to beat on. I think the whole entire 90s decade is questionable.

Yet you pick on Fed for beating Baghdatis.. you still haven't answered me though. Are the mugs I've listed any worse or better than Baggy? I take your reluctance to answer as a focal point in this argument.

The same Baghdatis who in the year of making his career best slam result also lost to a practically immobile, 36 year old Agassi who literally retired from tennis one match later in 5? I'll let you answer the question yourself.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe...so no one really (Elderly Agassi pushing Peakerer to 5 in 2004)

Agassi (who won 3 slams in Pete's era, did meth and won an OG as other career highlights -- whipee).
Edberg (who was finished as a slam contender).
Lendl (who was old and finished as a slam contender).
McEnroe (who was ONCE AGAIN old and finished as a slam contender).

So I guess the guys I talked about, right?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The same Baghdatis who in the year of making his career best slam result also lost to a practically immobile, 36 year old Agassi who literally retired from tennis one match later in 5? I'll let you answer the question yourself.

Or Pat Rafter who lost first round as the defending champ in '99 and was Pete's only real threat at Wimbledon during his last few relevant years on tour. LOL.

 

[SaintPetros]

Or Pat Rafter who lost first round as the defending champ in '99 and was Pete's only real threat at Wimbledon during his last few relevant years on tour. LOL.

Nice pivot!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nice pivot!

What's worse? When you lose early as a slam finalist, or lose first round as the defending champion? Pete's competition is looking worse and worse.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

@SaintPetros and @Sabratha ... why don't you two give it a break. Neither of the players you are speaking up for is gonna go down as GOAT. When all is said and done, Djokovic is the one that will end with most weeks at No. 1 as well as the slam record.

 

[SaintPetros]

What's worse? When you lose early as a slam finalist, or lose first round as the defending champion? Pete's competition is looking worse and worse.

You mean after a shoulder injury that required surgery? I wonder if that version of Rafter would have beaten Baghdatis...would be a great match either way...LOL!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You mean after a shoulder injury that required surgery? I wonder if that version of Rafter would have beaten Baghdatis...would be a great match either way...LOL!

About as great as the 2000 TMC RR match I'm feeling.

 

[SaintPetros]

@SaintPetros and @Sabratha ... why don't you two give it a break. Neither of the players you are speaking up for is gonna go down as GOAT. When all is said and done, Djokovic is the one that will end with most weeks at No. 1 as well as the slam record.

Lol, only because you asked Sunny.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Lol, only because you asked Sunny.

Thank you Petros! You might as well debate with a wall because you'll get nowhere with the Federer lovers

 

[AceSalvo]

1993 and 1994 were stacked with mugs like Jonas Bjorkman, Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Yevgeny Kafelnikov and friends for him to beat on. I think the whole entire 90s decade is questionable.

Yet you pick on Fed for beating Baghdatis.. you still haven't answered me though. Are the mugs I've listed any worse or better than Baggy? I take your reluctance to answer as a focal point in this argument.

Don't expect anything from Fed haters. Just troll back.

 

[SaintPetros]

Thank you Petros! You might as well debate with a wall because you'll get nowhere with the Federer lovers

Lol.
Is your avatar a pic of you btw?

 

[Zara]

Petros - it's completely waste time to talk about Sampras with either Sabratha or Red Rick. They give absolutely no credit to Pete because they are pure haters. But if you're having fun then that's fine.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Petros - it's completely waste time to talk about Sampras with either Sabratha or Red Rick. They give absolutely no credit to Pete because they are pure haters. But if you're having fun then that's fine.

I'm not even a Sampras hater dewde.

 

[SaintPetros]

Petros - it's completely waste time to talk about Sampras with either Sabratha or Red Rick. They give absolutely no credit to Pete because they are pure haters. But if you're having fun then that's fine.

'greed, though I do enjoy my tussles with 'Bratha.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Lol.
Is your avatar a pic of you btw?

Petros ... no, it's Sunny Deol, a famous actor in India, from a movie still

 

[Zara]

'greed, though I do enjoy my tussles with 'Bratha.

Hatred can't be reasoned with.

But I like the sound of 'Bratha.

 

[Zara]

I'm not even a Sampras hater dewde.

Why don't you comfort yourself with some of your Kylie Minogue.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Why don't you comfort yourself with some of your Kylie Minogue.

How about no...?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Agreed. Some RF fans, in their quest to prove RF's invincibility, started a whole plethora of absurd excuses: Mono era, past his prime, clay doesn't count, they are younger hence at an advantage (even when they were 15, it seems), Nadal dopes, Novak probably dopes, the courts/balls are too slow... it goes on and on.

But every single excuse has been proven wrong, either by time or logic.

At least with this new system you can like posts more than once
#silverlining

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Is it my prime or my peak? Wait, don't say! Don't want people saying I took advantage of a weak era later on.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Fed got old at 26, while Djokovic and Nadal are still young at 32-33.

Strange.

Fed's peak ended when his opponents were the Big4 and no more Roddick, Bagdhatis.

Strange too.