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
Wha wha whaaaat??????????

Cesc Fabregas said:
Forgetting Becker or Agassi? And Fed gets to meet clowns like Soderling in slam finals who have never been past the 3rd round of slams before.
Click to expand...

It's always amusing to read confused logic. If Soderling is a "clown", what does that say about Rafa??? Less than a clown??? I think not. Respect is due and should be given, otherwise it devalues everything your fav player does also.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:
 
ksbh said:
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!
Click to expand...
Ever heard of a bad match-up. Federer plays right into Nadal's hands every time they play. Exactly the same when nadal was up against players who could hit flat and hard (Berdych, Blake, Nalbandian, Monfils, Soderling etc....) Its all about match-ups the difference is that there are more players in today's game that can upset nadal than Federer. Care to name me another player that is a bad match-up for federer apart from nadal
 
ksbh said:
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!
Click to expand...



federer is not my hero and I don't think he is goat. I don't really particular care for all this goat talk, but you have to admit nadal is simply a bad match up for federer.
 
Last edited:
Cesc Fabregas said:
Forgetting Becker or Agassi? And Fed gets to meet clowns like Soderling in slam finals who have never been past the 3rd round of slams before.
Click to expand...
You really shouldnt call Soderling a clown!! Every player has their breakthrough slam some time, Soderling had it in the FO, he will be a solid top 10 player from now on
 
Since I didn´t have to face sampras, I can say ¨I could have beaten Sampras¨ too!... It´s stupid to say something like that, sampras and fed didn´t face each other on their primes. Sampras can´t predict ¨the past¨...even if he´s so sure about that.
 
ksbh said:
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!
Click to expand...

The H2H isn't 20-0. It's 13-7. 11 meetings were on clay. Federer leads 5-4 on grass and hard. Not disastrous against potentially the clay GOAT. Federer is basically being penalised for being the 2nd best claycourter. Whereas, if he'd lost in the semis of RG 08, RG 07 etc, you'd consider him better?

Anyway, who do you think is the GOAT? You seem to have rather high standards lol.
 
He just said he felt unbeatable in his prime. Hardly surprising, I'm pretty sure Federer felt unbeatable in his prime too. Like he said, it would have been a great match.
 
I will stick with my favourite player though, as much as I like Sampras, and hate these hypothetical match ups, Federer is by far the most talented player to have graced tennis, and just because he's not facing serve and volleyers a lot now, doesn't mean he couldn't adapt to it if he did have to face them.

Sampras was brilliant though, so I think it would definitely have been close, but I would still pick Federer.
 
I believe him, and also think Pete (in his prime) could definitely have beaten Federer (in his prime) on grass: he had the confidence and the serve.

I do not think using 1 match that was ridiculously close, going to 5 sets, is proof enough to say that Federer would have never lost to Pete...

However, that is not to say that I believe Sampras would have a winning record over Federer, or even one that was close to 1:1. Federer just places his return balls too well too consistently, and he would see a lot more looks on Sampras's serve than the other way around.. in time, he may even have done to Sampras what he did to Roddick.
 
ubel said:
I believe him, and also think Pete (in his prime) could definitely have beaten Federer (in his prime) on grass: he had the confidence and the serve.

I do not think using 1 match that was ridiculously close, going to 5 sets, is proof enough to say that Federer would have never lost to Pete...

However, that is not to say that I believe Sampras would have a winning record over Federer, or even one that was close to 1:1. Federer just places his return balls too well too consistently, and he would see a lot more looks on Sampras's serve than the other way around.. in time, he may even have done to Sampras what he did to Roddick.
Click to expand...

amazing prespective on this one. i like it. i cringe though about the backlash over comparing roddick's serve to sampras' samptards are gonna have a nervous breakdown over this
 
ksbh,
you really need to take a chillpill, or take to meditation.
Everytime some **** starts a goat thread, or mentions the G-word, you take a swig/shot of Nadalandrolone ;-), and come charging in here to demolish them :-D

1. If Pete feels he could have beaten Roger or Nadal or King Kong, then great. I even believe Pete slew all the dinosaurs with his Prostaff 65 million years ago.

2. The Almighty Federer Himself says He is not the G***. All we is sayin' is that there's Federer, then there's God. That's a humble, fairly reasonable statement if there ever was one.

Cheers! :-D
 
Federer would win because he has already beaten Sampras on grass, the 2001 Wimbledon 4th round where Federer won in 5 sets on Center court. Federer was only 19 at the time and Sampras was coming off 4 straight Wimbledons and he played really well against Federer. I actually have this match, its a great match.
 
quest01 said:
Federer would win because he has already beaten Sampras on grass, the 2001 Wimbledon 4th round where Federer won in 5 sets on Center court. Federer was only 19 at the time and Sampras was coming off 4 straight Wimbledons and he played really well against Federer. I actually have this match, its a great match.
Click to expand...

I am a major Federer fan and am not a Sampras fan but this is flawed reasoning for a number of reasons:

1. Federer was not in his prime but neither was Sampras. He would drop as low as #17 in the World that year at one point and end the year without a title.

2. A one match example is not sufficient enough evidence to go by. Multiple matches need to be played to really determine much.

3. There are so many variables in the first match between a relative newcomer and an established champion. Sometimes it favors the older player and sometimes the younger. In the case of a round of 16 matchup one thing that favors the younger player is likely being more familiar with the longtime champions game, having seen them on TV or even live many times, while the newbie's game and their patterns are probably quite a bit less known.
 
sampras probably got the idea he could beat federer after watching the wimbledon final. he's thinking roddick had a big serve but no net game yet, roddick nearly pulled it off before he ran out of bullet serve. and surely, a man with a big serve and a superb net game would have a much better chance in taking down federer :)
 
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 the sporting media continue to ask him these questions...

it's getting pretty lame now really...the media continue to ask this question:

"so who is the goat?" ala mac at wimbledon....
 
NadalandFedererfan said:
I am a major Federer fan and am not a Sampras fan but this is flawed reasoning for a number of reasons:

1. Federer was not in his prime but neither was Sampras. He would drop as low as #17 in the World that year at one point and end the year without a title.

2. A one match example is not sufficient enough evidence to go by. Multiple matches need to be played to really determine much.

3. There are so many variables in the first match between a relative newcomer and an established champion. Sometimes it favors the older player and sometimes the younger. In the case of a round of 16 matchup one thing that favors the younger player is likely being more familiar with the longtime champions game, having seen them on TV or even live many times, while the newbie's game and their patterns are probably quite a bit less known.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's about all there is to say on the topic.
 
NadalandFedererfan said:
I am a major Federer fan and am not a Sampras fan but this is flawed reasoning for a number of reasons:

1. Federer was not in his prime but neither was Sampras. He would drop as low as #17 in the World that year at one point and end the year without a title.

2. A one match example is not sufficient enough evidence to go by. Multiple matches need to be played to really determine much.

3. There are so many variables in the first match between a relative newcomer and an established champion. Sometimes it favors the older player and sometimes the younger. In the case of a round of 16 matchup one thing that favors the younger player is likely being more familiar with the longtime champions game, having seen them on TV or even live many times, while the newbie's game and their patterns are probably quite a bit less known.
Click to expand...

1. who was closer to his prime? federer or sampras? btw sampras served at 69% for five sets - extremely high given that sampras chases the lines with power on the serve. that is pete's greatest weapon firing on all cylinders for five sets. he still lost!

2. one match is a small sample but you can still make conclusions as to how they would matchup. Plus federer is much better today than he was back then.

3. Sampras played the same way he always did - serve big and come to net. He isnt changing his strategy against federer nor should he.
 
nfor304 said:
better than losing to some claycourter in his prime
Click to expand...

lmao. krajicek the one slam wonder? or nadal the 6 time slam champion with wins at the australian, wimbledon etc.

i guess everyone nadal beats on grass is a clown.

better to lose 9-7 going down fighting than to get destroyed in straights in his prime. LOL.
 
nfor304 said:
better than losing to some claycourter in his prime
Click to expand...

lmao. krajicek the one slam wonder? or nadal the 6 time slam champion with wins at the australian, wimbledon etc.

i guess everyone nadal beats on grass is a clown.

better to lose 9-7 going down fighting than to get destroyed in straights in his prime. LOL.
 
World Beater said:
lmao. krajicek the one slam wonder? or nadal the 6 time slam champion with wins at the australian, wimbledon etc.

i guess everyone nadal beats on grass is a clown.

better to lose 9-7 going down fighting than to get destroyed in straights in his prime. LOL.
Click to expand...

Nope that great grass court player Ivanisevic who has 2 grass titles in career, choker on big points and who got spanked twice on fast HC's and carpet by baby Federer....in straights...
 
ROFL x 1030, Herr Sentinel! Not only are you firing on all cylinders, but you'd make the inventor of the 612 Scaglietti, a v12 , proud! :)

Nadalandrolone - Outstanding! I must confess, ashamedly, that it won't be long before you see me brandishing the Federolone term, with due acknowledgement to it's inventor!

Your post was the perfect chill pill I needed. Alternately, a thread about Zeeshan Ali will be the perfect medicine! ROFL!

Sentinel said:
ksbh,
you really need to take a chillpill, or take to meditation.
Everytime some **** starts a goat thread, or mentions the G-word, you take a swig/shot of Nadalandrolone ;-), and come charging in here to demolish them :-D

1. If Pete feels he could have beaten Roger or Nadal or King Kong, then great. I even believe Pete slew all the dinosaurs with his Prostaff 65 million years ago.

2. The Almighty Federer Himself says He is not the G***. All we is sayin' is that there's Federer, then there's God. That's a humble, fairly reasonable statement if there ever was one.
Cheers! :-D
Click to expand...
 
He could have beaten Mirka on grass, but not the GOAT himself.

There is no way Sampras in his prime could have beaten the Federer between 04 and 06/07 on grass.
 
Rod Laver.

If you think my standards are high, it only lends credibility to my opinion that Laver is the greatest of them all because his achivements far outstrip my expectations of a GOAT!

By the way, did Federer lose at Wimbledon & the Australian open because of the backhand as well? Strange because he won the previous 2 Wimbledons against the same opponent! LOL!

Rippy said:
The H2H isn't 20-0. It's 13-7. 11 meetings were on clay. Federer leads 5-4 on grass and hard. Not disastrous against potentially the clay GOAT. Federer is basically being penalised for being the 2nd best claycourter. Whereas, if he'd lost in the semis of RG 08, RG 07 etc, you'd consider him better?

Anyway, who do you think is the GOAT? You seem to have rather high standards lol.
Click to expand...
 
ksbh said:
Rod Laver.

If you think my standards are high, it only lends credibility to my opinion that Laver is the greatest of them all because his achivements far outstrip my expectations of a GOAT!

By the way, did Federer lose at Wimbledon & the Australian open because of the backhand as well? Strange because he won the previous 2 Wimbledons against the same opponent! LOL!
Click to expand...

I never mentioned anything about backhands.

But ok, each to their own opinion. It just seems odd you think Federer CANNOT be the goat cos of negative H2H against Nadal, but you think Laver CAN be the goat even though he has less slams than Federer. (And did Laver not have losing records against a rival? I thought he did, definitely at one stage, but maybe he turned them around.)
 
Last edited:
Well you make some good points but I think it eventually comes down to personal opinions. GOAT is subjective, at best.

Rippy said:
I never mentioned anything about backhands.

But ok, each to their own opinion. It just seems odd you think Federer CANNOT be the goat cos of negative H2H against Nadal, but you think Laver CAN be the goat even though he has less slams than Federer. (And did Laver not have losing records against a rival? I thought he did, definitely at one stage, but maybe he turned them around.)
Click to expand...
 
Fed did beat Pete... But he beat Pete the same year the changed the surface at Wimbeldon.. I do think that had some bearing Pete's game. IT sure did Henman's. He was even wondering what they did with the surface
 
GameSampras said:
Fed did beat Pete... But he beat Pete the same year the changed the surface at Wimbeldon.. I do think that had some bearing Pete's game. IT sure did Henman's. He was even wondering what they did with the surface
Click to expand...

In 2001 Wimbledon was won by a serve-volleyer again another serve-volleyer in the final. The surface was MILES quicker than it is now. Henman complained in 2002 about the speed of the surface.
 
GameSampras said:
Fed did beat Pete... But he beat Pete the same year the changed the surface at Wimbeldon.. I do think that had some bearing Pete's game. IT sure did Henman's. He was even wondering what they did with the surface
Click to expand...

Sampras also got taken to 5 sets the round before by Barry Cowan a complete bum, Pete was obviously past his prime.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Sampras also got taken to 5 sets the round before by Barry Cowan a complete bum, Pete was obviously past his prime.
Click to expand...

Oh yea a few passed it by that point no doubt IMO. He went 35-16 for the year in 01..


Petes prime ended probably in 99 where he had the last of that drive, motivation, and all around peak game. Pete even said himself, there was nothing left for him to really prove to himself after the 00 Wimbeldon.. He said this on the legends of Wimbeldon dvd. When youve been on top for 6 years and even more by that point, you accomplished everything could, aside from the French, which I think Pete eventually gave up on, he was never the same player. You could get some great tennis out of Pete after 99 occasionally but you didnt get a whole lot of week in week out play and that desire to be the best, wasnt it as strong as it was in the early to mid 90s
 
GameSampras said:
Fed did beat Pete... But he beat Pete the same year the changed the surface at Wimbeldon.. I do think that had some bearing Pete's game. IT sure did Henman's. He was even wondering what they did with the surface
Click to expand...

Another clueless post , henman complained about it in 2002, not 2001 ... He was beating ivanisevic in the semis till the rain delay !

The courts were fast that year ... Anything to justfiy pete's defeat , eh ??? Face it >> he got beat by pre-prime federer who played well while he himself was playing well
 
CyberShot said:
"I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass is a true serve-and-volleyer, someone that's willing to come in and put pressure on him, make him pass, return," Sampras said during a recent conference call.
Click to expand...

Just wondering, who did Fed beat to win his 1st Wimby title?
 
GameSampras said:
Fed did beat Pete... But he beat Pete the same year the changed the surface at Wimbeldon.. I do think that had some bearing Pete's game. IT sure did Henman's. He was even wondering what they did with the surface
Click to expand...
No they slowed down the grass in 2002 not 2001 it sounds like your pulling a 'Federer fan excuse'
 
rocket said:
Just wondering, who did Fed beat to win his 1st Wimby title?
Click to expand...

yeah, people tend to forget that fed beat scud, who was playing decent/good tennis, to win his first wimby title. He returned well , passed amazingly in that match ...
 
Last edited:
Comparing Pete & Fed Overall

Top 10 Seeds on the road to the Slam for Pete Sampras:

US Open 1990
1. Final Agassi Seeded 4
2. QF Lendl* Seeded 3
3. Last 16 Muster Seeded 6

Wimbledon 1993
4. Final Courier* Seeded 3
5. QF Agassi* Seeded 8
US Open 1993
6. QF Chang* Seeded 7

Australian Open 1994
7. Final Martin Seeded 9
8. SF Courier* Seeded 3
9. QF Gustafsson Seeded 10

Wimbledon 1994
10. Final Ivanisevic Seeded 4
11. SF Martin Seeded 6
12. QF Chang* Seeded 10

Wimbledon 1995
13. Final Becker* Seeded 3
14. SF Ivanisevic Seeded 4

US Open 1995
15. Final Agassi* Seeded 1

US Open 1996
16. Final Chang* Seeded 2

Australian Open 1997
17. SF Muster* Seeded 5
18. QF Costa Seeded 10

Wimbledon 1997
19. QF Becker* Seeded 8

Wimbledon 1998
None out of top 10 seeds.

Wimbledon 1999
20. Final Agassi* Seeded 4
21. SF Henman Seeded 6
22. QF Philippoussis Seeded 7 (withdraw after winning 1st Set)

Wimbledon 2000
None out of top 10 seeds.

US Open 2002
23. Final Agassi* Seeded 6
24. Last 16 Haas Seeded 3

Played top 10 seeds in 9 of 14 he won the Slam finals.
Won against 7 top 3 seeds on the road to the title.
Played 13 times a prior Grand Slam Champion* on the road to the titles.
Average Seeds Met: 5,5

Top 10 Seeds on the road to the Slam for
ROGER FEDERER:

Wimbledon 2003
1. SF Roddick Seeded 5
2. QF Schalken Seeded 8

Australian Open 2004
3. SF Ferrero* Seeded 3
4. QF Nalbandian Seeded 8

Wimbledon 2004
5. Final Roddick* Seeded 2
6. SF Grosjean Seeded 10
7. QF Hewitt* Seeded 7

US Open 2004
8. Final Hewitt* Seeded 4
9. SF Henman Seeded 5
10. QF Agassi* Seeded 6

Wimbledon 2005
11. Final Roddick* Seeded 2
12. SF Hewitt* Seeded 3

US Open 2005
13. Final Agassi* Seeded 7
14. SF Hewitt* Seeded 3

Australian Open 2006
15. QF Davydenko Seeded 5

Wimbledon 2006
16. Final Nadal* Seeded 2
17. QF Ancic Seeded 7

US Open 2006
18. Final Roddick* Seeded 9
19. SF Davydenko Seeded 7
20. QF Blake Seeded 5

Australian Open 2007
21. Final Gonzalez Seeded 10
22. SF Roddick* Seeded 6
23. QF Robredo Seeded 7

Wimbledon 2007
24. Final Nadal* Seeded 2

US Open 2007
25. Final Djokovic Seeded 3
26. SF Davydenko Seeded 4
27. QF Roddick* Seeded 5

US Open 2008
28. Final Murray Seeded 6
29. SF Djokovic* Seeded 3

French Open 2009
30. SF Del Potro Seeded 5

Wimbledon 2009
31. Final Roddick* Seeded 6

Played top ten seeds in 11 of 15 Slam finals he won
Won against 9 top 3 seeds on the road to the title.
Played 16 times a prior Grand Slam Champion* on the road to the titles.
Average Seeds Met: 5,32

VERY CLOSE!!!!
 
sampras is the best "true" grasscourt player ever. there's no denying it. he would have owned federer back in the 90's on the fast grass.
 
gsquicksilver said:
sampras is the best "true" grasscourt player ever. there's no denying it. he would have owned federer back in the 90's on the fast grass.
Click to expand...

there will always be denials because it's a matter of opinion. Why do you say pete would have "owned" Fed in the 90s? what part of Pete's game would give Fed the most trouble?
 
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