Sampras: I could've beaten Federer on grass.

So who do you think would win?

  • Pistol Pete

    Votes: 61 41.8%

  • Fed

    Votes: 73 50.0%

  • Charlyn/Myla

    Votes: 12 8.2%
  • Total voters
    146
JoshDragon said:
I guess Pete is still in denial over his loss to Krajicek in 1996. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Soderling_04.jpg
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Double standards? You seem to pop up in every single Sampras thread, you feeling insecure about something?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one making new quotes every day, like Pete's old bitter ass. Mad b/c Federer broke his record, now he has to devalue him at every turn. That's insecurity.

Cesc Fabregas said:
Federer isn't versatile thats one of his problems he can't change his tactics based on the situation in a match.
Click to expand...

Federer isn't versatile? Do you watch matches?
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
The real question is: Why does Sampras feel the need to keep making statements like this? It devalues Federer's accomplishments and only makes Pete look like a bitter old man since Fed just broke his record.
Click to expand...

Because Sampras based his whole legacy on being GOAT -- which he defined as the having the most slams. That way, people couldn't devalue him b/c he was subpar on clay, and couldn't criticize him for the many times he didn't play up to par for Masters level events b/c, "hey, only the Slams matter". He started this at around 93-94, when it looked like no one would ever equal Connors record of weeks at #1 -- "only the Slams matter; I'd rather win 2 slams a year and be #2 than end the year #1" -- once it became clear he would break Connors' record in 1998, then he started acknowledging the importance of longevity at #1.

Pete was a very classy player -- not in the league of Edberg or Chang -- but classy, especially considering how great he was. However, whenever he was threatened, you started to see some immaturity -- i.e. Rafter beating him in 98 -- "ten grand slams", and now with Federer.

Because Federer has now surpassed Sampras on the one stat he used to justify that he was GOAT despite his not showing up at many Masters level events and not being a force on clay -- Grand Slams -- and because he has won all four majors (taking away the argument that "well if I were playing now, I could do what Roger is doing, b/c he never won at the French either"), I think Sampras is taking some time to adjust. He always believed that his record would never be broken in his lifetime, and it only lasted 9 years.

Plus the person who broke the record actually treats the media well (unlike Sampras, whose jealousy of the attention Agassi and lesser-accomplished players got showed in condescending passive-aggressiveness), so that's yet another thing for Sampras to deal with -- he can't bash Federer b/c everyone knows Federer has always been Edberg-like in class off the court, so he has to take these subtle digs.

I hope that Sampras will be able to find a comfortable medium now that he's no longer GOAT -- he always wanted to just live a quiet, unbothered life in retirement with everyone talking about how he was GOAT. Now that that's not going to happen, he's having a hard time with it, and its showing, even though Pete still has a lot of class.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Double standards? You seem to pop up in every single Sampras thread, you feeling insecure about something?
Click to expand...

Someone could just say the same thing about you lol.

I doubt either of you are insecure, however, and just want to voice their opinion, which is the point of a forum...
 
It's always fun to speculate. Sampras wouldn't be the great champion that he is if he didn't believe he could anyone in his prime. I suppose push comes to shove I would pick peak Sampras over peak Federer on Wimbledon grass, let's say around 1994 Wimbledon grass.
 
Rippy said:
Someone could just say the same thing about you lol.

I doubt either of you are insecure, however, and just want to voice their opinion, which is the point of a forum...
Click to expand...
Plain and simple:)
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
Federer isn't versatile? Do you watch matches?
Click to expand...

Federer is versatile in terms of having alot of variety of shots to use. He isnt versatile as far as tactics and adapting to opponents. He does what he wants, and if he is having trouble or it isnt working he keeps doing it. It is one of his big problems vs Nadal, Murray, and to a lesser degree Djokovic of late.
 
Gorecki said:
he comes here talking dirt on Sampras shock loss to Krajicek 96 and forgets about Soderling! wich was imo much more shamefull!
Click to expand...
Im sure he got a nasty reminder when he saw your pic of "the fish" as we call Robin in Sweden:twisted:
 
flying24 said:
Federer is versatile in terms of having alot of variety of shots to use. He isnt versatile as far as tactics and adapting to opponents. He does what he wants, and if he is having trouble or it isnt working he keeps doing it. It is one of his big problems vs Nadal, Murray, and to a lesser degree Djokovic of late.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Fed is very versatile! The problem is that a change of tactics doesn't always work against the top guys...and the bad matchup with Nadal doesn't help much either...
 
Sampras could beat Federer on grass but it would be damn close. Federer himself would be able to beat sampras on grass. Federer did it in 2001. In 2005 and 2006, Pete would have gotten his ass passed at the net.
 
Pete's statement doesn't say much. Of course he "could've" beaten Federer on grass. He is arguably the greatest player on grass. I don't see anything bitter/insecure about his statements.
 
ksbh said:
You may not be one of them but a lot of them are. Just read their posts dude, and you just might agree with me! LOL!
Click to expand...

I agree, some do give too little credit to Pete. But the same happens to Fed when people call this a "clown era" and say Pete would have won a FO, of all things, in this era.
 
ksbh said:
You may not be one of them but a lot of them are. Just read their posts dude, and you just might agree with me! LOL!
Click to expand...

perhaps, but it seems a lot of the samprastards and even some *********s are insecure, when they continue to discredit federer.
 
ksbh said:
But Federer did, and the result: 2-5 in slam finals against his chief rival Rafa Nadal! LOL X 100!
Click to expand...

LOL x1000. Nadal is the antithesis of sampras, and so NO, they don't possess the same skill set.

And LOL x 10000 about Fed-****s being insecure. It doesn't even make sense. Do *******s go around claiming that "IF" fed had played against X/different era, he'd have done this or that? No, its the pete-****s who do that. So may be you should provide your thoughts on insecurity to them.
 
drwood said:
Because Sampras based his whole legacy on being GOAT -- which he defined as the having the most slams. That way, people couldn't devalue him b/c he was subpar on clay, and couldn't criticize him for the many times he didn't play up to par for Masters level events b/c, "hey, only the Slams matter". He started this at around 93-94, when it looked like no one would ever equal Connors record of weeks at #1 -- "only the Slams matter; I'd rather win 2 slams a year and be #2 than end the year #1" -- once it became clear he would break Connors' record in 1998, then he started acknowledging the importance of longevity at #1.

Pete was a very classy player -- not in the league of Edberg or Chang -- but classy, especially considering how great he was. However, whenever he was threatened, you started to see some immaturity -- i.e. Rafter beating him in 98 -- "ten grand slams", and now with Federer.

Because Federer has now surpassed Sampras on the one stat he used to justify that he was GOAT despite his not showing up at many Masters level events and not being a force on clay -- Grand Slams -- and because he has won all four majors (taking away the argument that "well if I were playing now, I could do what Roger is doing, b/c he never won at the French either"), I think Sampras is taking some time to adjust. He always believed that his record would never be broken in his lifetime, and it only lasted 9 years.

Plus the person who broke the record actually treats the media well (unlike Sampras, whose jealousy of the attention Agassi and lesser-accomplished players got showed in condescending passive-aggressiveness), so that's yet another thing for Sampras to deal with -- he can't bash Federer b/c everyone knows Federer has always been Edberg-like in class off the court, so he has to take these subtle digs.

I hope that Sampras will be able to find a comfortable medium now that he's no longer GOAT -- he always wanted to just live a quiet, unbothered life in retirement with everyone talking about how he was GOAT. Now that that's not going to happen, he's having a hard time with it, and its showing, even though Pete still has a lot of class.
Click to expand...

good points here.

i liked the way pete conducted himself on the court for the most part in his career. But his ego is not allowing himself to completely let go and this is due to his arrogance as a champion.
 
My conclusion that *******s are insecure is based upon the fact that they've been starting Federer GOAT threads practically every day. And not surprisingly, someone comes along with the Nadal factor and Federer's losing 2-5 record in slam finals. Next thing you know, there's another thread with the same subject but a different argument. If not insecure, very immature!

I myself drag Nadal into it quite often because in simple terms, someone who has been beaten on all surfaces by the same player on the biggest stages (a grand slam final) simply cannot be a GOAT! Pete Sampras was never dominated in the way Federer is by a top-5 player, much less so by his chief rival on tour!

Federer among the GOATs? No question about it. Federer the absolute GOAT? A laughable claim!

fed_rulz said:
LOL x1000. Nadal is the antithesis of sampras, and so NO, they don't possess the same skill set.

And LOL x 10000 about Fed-****s being insecure. It doesn't even make sense. Do *******s go around claiming that "IF" fed had played against X/different era, he'd have done this or that? No, its the pete-****s who do that. So may be you should provide your thoughts on insecurity to them.
Click to expand...
 
ksbh said:
My conclusion that *******s are insecure is based upon the fact that they've been starting Federer GOAT threads practically every day. And not surprisingly, someone comes along with the Nadal factor and Federer's losing 2-5 record in slam finals. Next thing you know, there's another thread with the same subject but a different argument. If not insecure, very immature!

I myself drag Nadal into it quite often because in simple terms, someone who has been beaten on all surfaces by the same player on the biggest stages (a grand slam final) simply cannot be a GOAT! Pete Sampras was never dominated in the way Federer is by a top-5 player, much less so by his chief rival on tour!

Federer among the GOATs? No question about it. Federer the absolute GOAT? A laughable claim!
Click to expand...

Federer wouldn't have been dominated by Nadal in slam finals if, like Sampras, he wasn't that good on clay. You would then consider federer MORE of a GOAT, cos he never reached FO Finals to be beaten by Nadal? That's absurd, and why most people realise the H2H is skewed in favour of clay, and so is not a very good method of judgement. (If Nadal made some US Open finals, the H2H in slam finals would most likely look very different.)

Pete never won 15 slams, never won the French Open, never won 5 consecutive US Opens, never won 5 consecutive Wimbledons. I could quite easily, copy you and say that "therefore sampras cannot be a goat"........ but that would be stupid.

Who do you think is GOAT if you set such ridiculously high standards that they cannot get beaten by their rival in finals a few times?

And anyway, I'd say roddick is more Fed's rival than Nadal. he was the same era, and they played more times. Nadal is 5 years younger, and of a different generation. He's basically the only player Federer loses to consistently. Sampras had negative H2Hs against some players. The fact that Nadal is a great player in his own right doesn't make him having a positive H2H over Federer any more signifcant that the players who had a postiive H2H over Sampras.
 
Last edited:
GameSampras said:
Numbers are numbers.. Different era's, different circumstances. Whos to say Fed would have the same domination in Pete's era or vice versa? I dont think this proves beyond a reasonable doubt who is the better player
Click to expand...

Yikes! You just totally undermined your entire argument on this thread with this one post!
 
Why should any self respecting Federer fan have to justify why he's better than Sampras or any other great...
I think I'd rather enjoy watching him play for the remainder of his career, and let that speak for itself...
 
I somewhat agree with Pete. I think he'd win most of their matches on the fast grass, due to his superior serve and net game. Federer in his prime was a great passer however, and his serve is amazing too, so I think it'd be close each time, but out of 6 maches on fast grass Pete would win 4, and Roger 2.

However I think Roger would completly dominate Pete on clay and lead the H2H on HCs.
 
P_Agony said:
I somewhat agree with Pete. I think he'd win most of their matches on the fast grass, due to his superior serve and net game. Federer in his prime was a great passer however, and his serve is amazing too, so I think it'd be close each time, but out of 6 maches on fast grass Pete would win 4, and Roger 2.

However I think Roger would completly dominate Pete on clay and lead the H2H on HCs.
Click to expand...

While I think Sampras would have the upper hand on serve and volleys, Federer will easily handle Pete's serve. Look at how he handles big servers like Karlovic and Roddick today. Federer's serve is all about placement as well and the faster grass would only benefit his serve. 90's grass would also be kind to his backhand aswell, no wicked high bounces like clay..I mean grass today.
 
ksbh said:
My conclusion that *******s are insecure is based upon the fact that they've been starting Federer GOAT threads practically every day. And not surprisingly, someone comes along with the Nadal factor and Federer's losing 2-5 record in slam finals. Next thing you know, there's another thread with the same subject but a different argument. If not insecure, very immature!

I myself drag Nadal into it quite often because in simple terms, someone who has been beaten on all surfaces by the same player on the biggest stages (a grand slam final) simply cannot be a GOAT! Pete Sampras was never dominated in the way Federer is by a top-5 player, much less so by his chief rival on tour!

Federer among the GOATs? No question about it. Federer the absolute GOAT? A laughable claim!
Click to expand...

If you can find one GOAT thread started everyday since the wimby finals and post them, then I'm inclined to belive this... till then your argument has more holes than a Uwe Boll movie.
 
ksbh said:
My conclusion that *******s are insecure is based upon the fact that they've been starting Federer GOAT threads practically every day. And not surprisingly, someone comes along with the Nadal factor and Federer's losing 2-5 record in slam finals. Next thing you know, there's another thread with the same subject but a different argument. If not insecure, very immature!

I myself drag Nadal into it quite often because in simple terms, someone who has been beaten on all surfaces by the same player on the biggest stages (a grand slam final) simply cannot be a GOAT! Pete Sampras was never dominated in the way Federer is by a top-5 player, much less so by his chief rival on tour!

Federer among the GOATs? No question about it. Federer the absolute GOAT? A laughable claim!
Click to expand...

ksbh, NO *******s don't start GOAt threads everyday, most threads are about Pete Vs Fed, to counter weak-era claims by Pete-****s. how is that insecure?

in your eyes Fed may not be GOAT, and you're fully entitled to your opinion, and seems like you have a valid reason to hold your opinion. Fair enough.

But, someone putting Sampras ahead of Fed when it comes to GOAT arguments does not make sense to me. To me that screams of rabid fanboyism, with no regard to actual facts. If Pete was one of the GOATs earlier based on achievements, then Fed has pretty much surpassed him in most of the vital stats rendering his inclusion questionable in the GOAT debate, much less put Pete over Fed.

Statements like the bolded ones do not make sense at all!

1. Sampras did not reach 21 consecutive SF in slams to meet the top players consistently.
2. His contemporaries were even more inconsistent, so even if Pete was there waiting, his top-4 would go MIA. So where is the opportunity to build a win-loss record over the top-5 in slams consistently?
3. There was no player good enough to be waiting for Pete in the slam finals in 2/4 slams consistently over a span of 3 years?
4. His nearest rival was not the #2 ranked player.... he was wildly inconsistent over Pete's prime.
5. His nearest rival was not a GOAT (at least one of) on Pete's weakest surface

Even if you disregard all of the above, how does Fed's poor h2h against nadal make Pete the better player than Fed? :confused:

Sampras "spread" his losses against multiple players on his weakest surface. Fed accumulated against just one guy.

Sorry, you're comparing apples and oranges here.
 
flyinghippos101 said:
While I think Sampras would have the upper hand on serve and volleys, Federer will easily handle Pete's serve. Look at how he handles big servers like Karlovic and Roddick today. Federer's serve is all about placement as well and the faster grass would only benefit his serve. 90's grass would also be kind to his backhand aswell, no wicked high bounces like clay..I mean grass today.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree with everything you wrote.
 
flyinghippos101 said:
While I think Sampras would have the upper hand on serve and volleys, Federer will easily handle Pete's serve. Look at how he handles big servers like Karlovic and Roddick today. Federer's serve is all about placement as well and the faster grass would only benefit his serve. 90's grass would also be kind to his backhand aswell, no wicked high bounces like clay..I mean grass today.
Click to expand...
Yes but if the Federer in 2001 had reached his peak around 2005/6 using the serve and volley instead of developing the baseline game he would be a much bigger threat then people think
 
Many folks have responded to me so let me make it clear that I never considered Pete Sampras the GOAT, so Pete isn't a benchmark for Federer to compare against. The point therefore being, if Federer despite having been beaten by Nadal on so many occasions can be considerer a GOAT, why not Pete who was never dominated like this and has very impressive accomplishments himself?

But the reality is neither of these guys is GOAT. Pete for never winning Roland Garros and Federer for looking clueless against the guile & tactical play of Nadal to the point of crying (like a 12 year old, in the words of the great Gorecki!) in front of a stadium full of people after yet another loss to Nadal.
 
ksbh said:
Many folks have responded to me so let me make it clear that I never considered Pete Sampras the GOAT, so Pete isn't a benchmark for Federer to compare against. The point therefore being, if Federer despite having been beaten by Nadal on so many occasions can be considerer a GOAT, why not Pete who was never dominated like this and has very impressive accomplishments himself?

But the reality is neither of these guys is GOAT. Pete for never winning Roland Garros and Federer for looking clueless against the guile & tactical play of Nadal to the point of crying (like a 12 year old, in the words of the great Gorecki!) in front of a stadium full of people after yet another loss to Nadal.
Click to expand...

tactical play? You mean pounding his bh?
 
How about breaking down Federer's serve or making him run all over the court?

Or are you one of the subscribers to the amusing Federer fan theory that the only reason Federer loses is because of the backhand? Which according to Federer fans, if I may add, was only a problem on clay until Nadal started taking it to Federer on every surface!

Wake up and smell the coffee, dear 0289! Nadal wins more often because he's just as gifted as your hero. You actually make your man look bad. A supposed GOAT hasn't figured out a way to counter the attack against his backhand in 20 attempts?! LOL!

icedevil0289 said:
tactical play? You mean pounding his bh?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kimbahpnam
"Pete Sampras says he could have beaten Roger Federer"
Replies
3
Views
963
jukka1970
J
T
Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim
6 7 8
Replies
364
Views
31K
Talker
Talker
A
Andre Agassi says In His Prime on grass sampras Would Beat Federer
9 10 11
Replies
530
Views
42K
reini0100
R
DoubleDeuce
Pete would love to Play Roger on Grass
Replies
37
Views
3K
BallzofSkill
B
M
Federer vs. Sampras
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
serveitup911
serveitup911
Back
Top