federer_15
Rookie
Thats an interesting thread. Although I think Fed should be compared with people of his time not age.
Sampras' Peers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer's Peers
- Thread starter soyizgood
- Start date
forthegame
Hall of Fame
The only reason we have all this debate about Federer is simply because he WON so many of his matches.
If he had lost quite a bit, no one would have grounds to question his ability etc.
If he can win a few more slams now that he is losing more and more matches, maybe this debate will finally die and he will be recognised as truly great.
My 2p...
If he had lost quite a bit, no one would have grounds to question his ability etc.
If he can win a few more slams now that he is losing more and more matches, maybe this debate will finally die and he will be recognised as truly great.
My 2p...
thalivest
Banned
Stupid logic all around. Hingis won her final slam before Serena even won her 1st. She reached her last slam final and had her last true stint as a top player before Serena even won her 2nd of 11 slams, and she was officialy retired after Serena's only 4th slam (before a brief joke of a comeback many years later). Some contemporaries they are, LOL!
If Serena didnt suck on clay (for great players standards) and didnt have a half assed commitment to her own career then players like Mauresmo, Myskina, and possibly even Clijsters could easily have 0 slams, while Henin and Venus could both have less than 7. If you dimwittingly believe that the womens field currently is in anyway deeper and stronger than the mens then try hitting your head with a rock a few times. In most eras Serena would have won alot less than she has with her half assed commitment to the game outside of an 18 month span. Of course other women win more majors; Serena, Henin, and Venus, all have many career flaws and provide much more opportunitity to others to win them then do Federer and Nadal.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Thread equals epic fail.
If Federer was as dominant as Sampras was, no way he wins Wimbledon 04, Wimbledon 07, Us Open 08, Wimbledon 09, French Open 09
Why? Because Sampras wasnt as good at winning matches while stuggling as Federer is. In situations previously mentioned, Federer has come upon opponents playing some amazing tennis, and Federer was able to raise his game each time when it mattered.
Yes Sampras did have some occasions where he raised his game when it mattered, but for Federer it seems like every slam he wins, there is someone who forces him to raise his game
If Federer was as dominant as Sampras was, no way he wins Wimbledon 04, Wimbledon 07, Us Open 08, Wimbledon 09, French Open 09
Why? Because Sampras wasnt as good at winning matches while stuggling as Federer is. In situations previously mentioned, Federer has come upon opponents playing some amazing tennis, and Federer was able to raise his game each time when it mattered.
Yes Sampras did have some occasions where he raised his game when it mattered, but for Federer it seems like every slam he wins, there is someone who forces him to raise his game
thalivest
Banned
The WTA currently has the worst field in womens tennis history. Even past womens great ridicule the current field (other than BJK who tries to buff it up in her never ending efforts to further liberate the womens tour). Graf or Navratilova in their primes would have probably won 3 or 4 Calender Slams in the last 6 years, including this year, without breaking a sweat.
soyizgood
G.O.A.T.
I criticize Serena quite a bit here, but let's look at the numbers. Serena's career win % is #6 all time on the women's tour. In fact, her winning % is higher than Federer's. 82.2% Serena, 80.8% Federer. She's intimidated the heck out of the tour, yet several woman had the guts to face her on and come out on top. ALL of Federer's peers come with a white flag in the bag, strap on their tampons, and are content to just look for tourneys Fed won't play.
Federer has destroyed his immediate peers mercilessly. But when these guys have a chance to make their own mark in Master's, these guys come up short and have been dusted aside by Nadal's peers. Serena has demoralized her peers, but Henin/Venus/Hingis got under her skin at times (including majors) and got to the finish line. Federer's dominated his group more than Sampras did, but the sum of Federer's group leaves much to be desired.
Last edited:
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Wow, another Sampras/Federer thread *YAWN*
How many days until the AO again? Heck at this point, I'm asking how many days until Hopman Cup. Something, anything my god.
How many days until the AO again? Heck at this point, I'm asking how many days until Hopman Cup. Something, anything my god.
anointedone
Banned
Haha what a joke. It is so like those women always had to beat Serena to win their slams. Lets look at Serena's slam results from late 2003 to 2006:
2003 U.S Open- DNP
2004 French Open- lost in quarters to Capriati (Capriati then would be destroyed by Myskina in the semis)
2004 Wimbledon- destroyed by Sharapova in final.
2004 U.S Open- lost in quarters to Capriati again (Capriati then lost in the semis to Dementieva, who then herself lost in the final to Kuznetsova)
2005 Australian Open- won
2005 French Open- DNP
2005 Wimbledon- lost to Jill Craybas 3rd round.
2005 U.S Open- lost to Venus in 4th round, Venus would lose next round.
2006 Australian Open- lost 3rd round to Hantuchova.
2006 French Open- DNP
2006 Wimbledon- DNP
2006 U.S Open- lost 4th round to Mauresmo who then was bageled twice by Sharapova in semis.
Since you mention Hingis and Venus lets look at Serena's slam results from 1997 to early 2002:
1997- not even on tour yet when Hingis wins 3 of 5 slams.
1998 Australian Open- first ever pro slam at only 16. lost to Venus easily in 2nd round, who then lost to Davenport in quarters, who then lost to Martinez in semis, who then lost to Hingis in easy final. Hingis wins 4th of her 5 slams.
1998 French Open- lost to Sanchez Vicario in 4th round.
1998 Wimbledon- lost 3rd round to Ruano Pascaul
1998 U.S Open- lost 3rd round to Spirlea
1999 Australian Open- lost 3rd round to Testud. Still only 17 and had not yet won her first WTA title. Hingis won her final of 5 slams here. So all of Hingis's slams before Serena even won a small WTA tournament, LOL!
1999 French Open- lost 3rd round to nearly retired Mary Joe Fernandez
1999 Wimbledon- DNP
1999 U.S Open- won
2000 Australian Open- lost 4th round to Likhovtseva
2000 French Open- DNP
2000 Wimbledon- lost to Venus in semis
2000 U.S Open- crushed by Davenport in quarters (by easier scoreline than she beat young Dementieva in the semis, then Davenport lost final to Venus in straight sets)
2001 Australian Open- lost to Hingis in quarters, Hingis herself would go on to be crushed in final
2001 French Open- lost to Capriati in quarters
2001 Wimbledon- lost again to Capriati in quarters, Capriati would go on to lose to pre prime Henin on worst surface in semis
2001 U.S Open- lost to Venus in final
2002 Australian Open- DNP
Sorry but your desperate spin on reality is not fooling anyone. The road to the title for these women did not continously go through Serena Williams, in fact the only ones it did some of the time were Venus and Henin for about half their slams, and beating Serena at the French as Henin did twice, and beating a pre prime Serena as Venus did twice, is no stupendous feat.
If Federer wasted 3 years of his prime, if Nadal and Federer both didnt exist on clay and were replaced by the male equivalent of Serena on the surface, was continously out of shape and injured, and allowed himself in his prime to lose to the equivalent of Jill Craybas, Daniela Hantuchova, and other clowns in slams, while skipping a bunch with fitness related injuries, then alot more men would luck out and win slams too.
Last edited:
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Ok, that's a fair post but just remember that Federer's rivalry with Nadal started in 2004 and even though Rafael is 5 years younger than Roger he's still in many ways Roger's peer.
Djokovic and Murray (although not Roger's peers) have also been huge threats to Roger so it's not like Roger hasn't had equally tough competitors.
Last edited:
thalivest
Banned
HAHAAHAAHAA I hadnt even noticed this part. Thanks for the laughs. Agassi would have 15 slams vs todays field when he won half of his 8 slams were over a choking way past his prime Medvedev (still took 5 sets), Todd Martin in the twilight of his career (still took 5 sets also), Rainer Schuettler, and Arnaud Clement. Semifinal and quarterfinal victims in those 4 slams were Dominik Hrbaty, something Filliponi, Kafelnikov at the U.S Open, Escude, Wayne Ferreira in the twilight of his career, Grosjean, a cramping Rafter in his only time ever past round of 16 of rebound ace (still took 5 sets), and fellow old man Martin again. Not that the other 4 slams he won were vs murderor rows lineup for the most part either.
Courier would own the French Open!?!? How would he do that, break Nadal's legs with a crowbar? Or is Sergei Bruguera who Courier couldnt beat in two tries at the French Open somehow a much tougher opponent than Nadal, ROTFL!
Driver's Seat
Banned
They would all (, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster for a while etc)) would have their slice of the pie at the French Open. They would be right under Nadal and very well could give him all he could handle. Especially Nadal at the French last year. I mean Soderling took him out. Is Soderling better than these guys mentioned on clay? I dont think so. None of them have to take a backseat to Roger on clay. Overrall most are as accomplished or more accomplished on clay than Roger and a have a better game for the clay.
thalivest
Banned
Agassi better on clay than Federer?! Haha, yet even more comedy. The same Agassi who didnt win a Masters title on clay until he was 32 years old. The same Agassi who couldnt beat an aging Andres Gomez in the French Open final (yeah as if Federer ever loses a French Open final to Gomez), and who from age 23 until age 28 won a grand total of 7 matches at Roland Garros.
Yeah Bruguera could be competitive with Federer on clay, but he is clearly below Nadal on clay, and Courier couldnt even beat Bruguera at the French so that says all you would need to know about how he would fare vs Nadal.
Driver's Seat
Banned
And Yet Nadal couldnt even get by Soderling. So is Soderling better than Courier and Bruguera on clay? Whats his clay court credentials? It all depends on the matchups. For all of Nadal's wins his only major conquest through each has been Federer and obviously not just clay but in all courts in generally Nadal is a bad matchup for Roger. We dont know how Nadal would matchup with Courier, Bruguera, Andre, Muster etc. You could rest assured, Nadal would have more difficult draws and more quality clay court competition against some of the 90s clay era players than he has today where his only real means of competition has been Federer who is a quality clay court player, hardly an all time great and someone who Nadal can easily matchup against as history has shown
Last edited:
thalivest
Banned
So Nadal had one bad loss at the French and you are going to milk that as your own desperate straw? Do you want me to list all the players Courier, Bruguera, Muster, and most easily of all Agassi lost to at the French!? If you think any of those players would have gone nearly 5 years losing only about 5 matches on clay even vs todays field than you are insane. For the record Soderling playing like he did at this years French would have had absolutely no problem beating Agassi the only year he won the French in 1999. After all Agassi was 2 points from losing to little roadrunner Clement in 4 sets, lost 7 games in a row to Hrbaty in his only ever slam semi but scraped through in 4 rugged sets, and was on his way to a 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 defeat to the World #100 in the final before an massive choked gifted Agassi the trophy. If you want to talk about lucky and fluke slam wins, Agassi's lone French Open would take the cake.
The fact you keep tossing Agassi in as some clay court great who would massively trouble Nadal, when Agassi clearly isnt even as good a clay courter as Federer already renders your attempt of an argument pointless.
soyizgood
G.O.A.T.
The only players threatening Federer are those that are 5+ years younger than him (Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro). With the exception of Nadal (who's owned the H2H from the beginning), those guys have age on their side and approaching their peak while Federer is coming off his peak in the very near future. The span of someone's peak in tennis is not that long (maybe 5-6 years), so I don't think it makes sense to throw in Nadal as Federer's peer in that logically prime Federer should have pummeled a pre-prime Nadal before Nadal returned the favor. The span in which both Federer and Nadal would be at their peak would normally be just a few years.
Most eras had at least 2-3 great players with several other players that were in contention. Even breaking down into 4-year sub-groups should result in several consistent, competitive elite players. In Federer's case, he's really the only consistent player in his group. I'm not taking anything away from Federer as it's a testament to his fitness, devotion, and skills. However, nobody really stood up in his group for more than a moment or two (Hewitt stands out, but he lost a ton of time to injuries and lacked weapons as he got older).
Davy_for _GOAT
Banned
You can perhaps make a case that 90's had more great claycourters, but 2000's have Nadal which is the deciding factor. Pete would never win RG with Nadal in his way.
anointedone
Banned
Nor would Agassi, nor would even Bruguera. The only 90s guys to have any chance vs Nadal on clay are 92 Courier, and 95-96 Muster (prime Kuerten was 2000-2001 and would have lasted the first half of the 2000s without his injuries).
Yes and the same goes for Pete. Early in his career he had Mac, Lendl, Wilander, etc.
Although I would say Fed is GOAT, I think Sampras has faced many more accomplished players during his time.
Lets add Becker, Edberg, Muster, Kafelnikov, Guga, Moya, Rios, Stitch, Henman. Haas came up in 96-97. Phillippousis in 94, etc.
JeMar
Legend
This is an oldish thread, so I'm not even sure if I haven't already posted on this.
The argument works two ways. In one view, you can say that Pete fought against better players; in the other, you can say that Federer is just much better than Pete, so he gives up many less matches. Same thing with the number of slams held by his peers.
Parity doesn't always mean better players. They could have all been relatively "mediocre" together.
davey25
Banned
LOL at any idiot who says in his opponent post Courier would own the French Open today when the likes of Nadal (2005-2008 version) and even Federer would spank him silly there. Major fail thread from a fail troll. The so called golden era had Yevgeny Kafelnikov who is basically a poor mans Davydenko with a superior mental game win 2 slams even though he wasnt good enough to win a Masters title, was 0-9 vs Sampras on non clay surfaces, and went on a long losing streak to Tomas Johansson who some consider the worst 1 slam winner ever. Woohoo some era that was.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
D
Deleted member 55539
Guest
16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14
D
Deleted member 55539
Guest
forget EVERY THING.. weak era.. number of slams.. just when u watch roger play against some one.. his movement.. his selection of shots.. his variety of armoury.. His mental toughness.. U can do nothing but to admit.. u cant enjoy ANY ONES match as much as u enjoy watching federer's match when he is on.. its a real treat from the tennis world..
D
Deleted member 55539
Guest
The same is not true for Sampras and laver.. out of 100 people watching there is a good chance that at least 10 get bored.. but when federer plays.. 100/100 would be simply fascinated by his play..
Even here in India where tennis is hardly popular.. people turn up for his macthes by thousands.. not any one else's
Even here in India where tennis is hardly popular.. people turn up for his macthes by thousands.. not any one else's
I agree with this, this is my feeling too. But I disagree with the sense that everyone feels or should feel this way. It's not true. I think there's little things more beautiful than Federer's inside in forehand screaming down the line, or flicking a backhand passing crosscourt after his opponent hits an approach on the baseline, on Federer's feet.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Laver, was actually enjoyable to watch, he had incredible ball placement and he was very fast for a small guy. Pete, wasn't that boring on hard courts but I do agree that Roger, is by far the most entertaining of the 3.
D
Deleted member 55539
Guest
I was talking of prime federer.. who wouldnt enjoy that..
he plays tennis like it is to be played at best.. and frankly i find sampras's serve and volley kinda boring.. It is the same thing getting repeated again and again.. he does not have a lot of variety to offer.. dunno about Laver..But fed can play all text book shots in tennis in a single rally.. and especially against murray.. he does so many things.. u never get bored and federer never runs out of imagination.. so a fresh breeze of perfect tennis strokes awaits u each time he starts rallying..
D
Deleted member 55539
Guest
may be one should ask sampras to not include serve and volley in his armour and play.. i heard he would not even get past 4th round in french open.. is it?? if his serve removed there is hardly any thing sampras can do to beat top players.. but fedex can beat the best even if u take half of his weapons out.. he can win even by running all around the court like a rabbit or nadal with out his genius brush of strokes.. wont u agree??
i heard he would not even get past 4th round in french open.. is it?? if his serve removed there is hardly any thing sampras can do to beat top players.. but fedex can beat the best even if u take half of his weapons out.. he can win even by running all around the court like a rabbit or nadal with out his genius brush of strokes.. wont u agree??
D
Deleted member 55539
Guest
I am a fed fan.. but i really try to be neutral at times.. but even then federer seems to be the obvious choice.. u wouldnt like federer unless u r totally worshipping a different idol in tennis.. like it is happening in TW.. people really like their country men and when they get beaten by federer, they start a federer hate thread.. so fed has enemies all around the world..
so fed has enemies all around the world..
D
Deleted member 55539
Guest
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
No, they're not about the same. Roger, is much more diverse than Sampras, just listen to the interviews from old players like Drugassi, Henman, Spadea, or Santoro, they all say that Roger is the complete package and had a better shot selection than Pete.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
Fed is definetely better than Sampras. What I was talking about is their peers.
People make fun of players like Pioline but then look at Murray choking in slam finals like Pioline did.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
How many slam winners in the first group?
How many slam winners in the second group?
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Still too early to say what's going to happen with Murray, he could still win some slams, he's got most of his career still ahead of him.
anointedone
Banned
Murray is a way better player than Pioline. He is only 22 and has already achieved far more than Pioline ever did. The only area the only 22 year old Murray is currently tied with the retired Pioline in is slam finals, and Pioline making 2 finals is a bit of a fluke, kind of like Kafelnikov winning 2 slams.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
So far he is just like Pioline and Mecir who were the last two players to lose their first two slam finals in straights.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
weak argument, as always. of course the first group would have more slam winners because sampras failed to stop them. federer, along with nadal, were great enough to give their peers almost nothing.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
This is the stupidest argument ever. USE SOME LOGIC please for just a minute.
I will use decades for example here, to try and dumb this down a bit.
Between 1990 and 1999 there will be 40 grand slams, and 40 gs titles given out to players who are playing during that time line.
Between 2000 and 209 there will be 40 grand slams, and 40 gs titles given out to players who are playing during that time line.
SOMEONE had to win those slams; don't people get it? Federer's years of play didn't just skip a few years of slams and hand out less titles, it's the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of slams given out as any other period.
So maybe Sampras had a few people from the generation before his still playing, hence upping the total slam count during his play time. That's irrelevant, because you're doing all this stupid math about age differences blah blah, and don't even realize that the age difference of people from the previous generation is huge.
There may also be more slam winners in Sampras' time because he let them get there. You're playing in Samps time (the greatest of his generation), you still have a shot at the FO, or a moderate shot at any other slam.
You play against Federer, you still can't win the FO because Federer is always going to make the final, and you also have to get past the clay GOAT Nadal. You want to win another slam, sure, but once again you have to get through Federer because he's made the last 23 semi's and 18 out of the last 19 finals.
In terms of being in the finals basically every single year, Sampras was dominating Wimbledon. Federer is dominating every slam.
I will use decades for example here, to try and dumb this down a bit.
Between 1990 and 1999 there will be 40 grand slams, and 40 gs titles given out to players who are playing during that time line.
Between 2000 and 209 there will be 40 grand slams, and 40 gs titles given out to players who are playing during that time line.
SOMEONE had to win those slams; don't people get it? Federer's years of play didn't just skip a few years of slams and hand out less titles, it's the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of slams given out as any other period.
So maybe Sampras had a few people from the generation before his still playing, hence upping the total slam count during his play time. That's irrelevant, because you're doing all this stupid math about age differences blah blah, and don't even realize that the age difference of people from the previous generation is huge.
There may also be more slam winners in Sampras' time because he let them get there. You're playing in Samps time (the greatest of his generation), you still have a shot at the FO, or a moderate shot at any other slam.
You play against Federer, you still can't win the FO because Federer is always going to make the final, and you also have to get past the clay GOAT Nadal. You want to win another slam, sure, but once again you have to get through Federer because he's made the last 23 semi's and 18 out of the last 19 finals.
In terms of being in the finals basically every single year, Sampras was dominating Wimbledon. Federer is dominating every slam.
Last edited:
JeMar
Legend
The objective of this thread obviously is to suggest that Sampras is possibly better than Fed.
Even assuming Sampras plays with today's allegedly "weaker" field, I can't really envision him holding the French Open trophy or runner-up plate or any clay court tournament trophy for that matter.
Even assuming Sampras plays with today's allegedly "weaker" field, I can't really envision him holding the French Open trophy or runner-up plate or any clay court tournament trophy for that matter.
davey25
Banned
I think that is debateable. Federer clearly has the better record and superior achievements now (which will likely only grow from here), but Sampras's overall game is better and his best tennis would beat Federer's best. I find comparing who is better a virtual toss up. Of course by even the end of this year Federer's achievements will probably so far exceed Sampras it will be hard to dispute Federer being the better player, even if in a way Sampras really is probably the better player as far as actual tennis and ability.
I dont buy the competition argument on Sampras so much. I think Sampras had tougher competition from 93-96 than Federer from 2003-2006, but Federer more from 2007-onwards than Sampras 1997-onwards. I think Sampras just had more off days in slams that resulted in losses and prevented him from winning more, while Federer has been a bit lucky in some of his wins while not really unlucky in any of his defeats. Put them together though and the times both play their A games in a grass or hard court slam and Sampras wins most, which would balance out Federer's ability to divert the off days and bad losses which costs him additional slams and would put them even if not Sampras slightly ahead of they were contemporaries IMHO.
Last edited:
Similar threads
