Sampras' Peers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer's Peers

[TheMusicLover]

Oh thank God.

Someone gets it.

Hallelujah.

+1.

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.

What's new.

 

[bembi_a]

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.

The argument that Sampras is allegedly better than Federer will always remain in the Subjective level.

Objectively, Federer is clearly better.
- He has the better tour record.
- They already met (on grass) and Federer beat Sampras.

 

[sunny_cali]

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.

The bolded parts are all bull IMHO. Sampras' serve is better, and thats about it. He would have been competitive at Wimbledon, and maybe even have a positive h2h there. He does'nt stand a chance elsewhere.

 

[fed_rulz]

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.

Or instead of the convoluted complex argument to support why Sampras does not have the same stellar record as Fed ("sampras is better tennis wise, more off days, fed lucky in some wins,not unlucky in some defeats, etc..."), may be, just may be, a much simpler reason is Fed > Sampras in both tennis ability and achievements? And achievements do reflect one's ability, more often than not... Most of the tennis world agrees that Fed's tennis is one of the best ever, if not THE best... I don't recall pundits waxing eloquent on Pete's game. Sure, he had a very effective game, but had glaring weaknesses which many players could expose (ask Agassi). Fed plays offense as well or better than Pete, and it's not even close on defense. Sorry, there's not much to support that Pete could play better tennis..

If Sampras is indeed the better player (ability and tennis-wise), he'd be cleaning up the tour like Fed was doing. Plus save the serve & volley, Fed is miles ahead of sampras in almost any category you can imagine. And fed's serve is not that far behind (he hit 50 aces, ffs!!).

 

[Wilander Fan]

Personally, I thought Sampras and his era was the most boring colorless brand of tennis. I completely lost interest in the men's game during this time and slowly resumed interest after hearing about this guy Federer. I think many people were turned off by the matches. I dont have numbers to back me up but I would guess viewership dropped during that time and is slowly. IMO, the Sampras age is kind of a dark ages for tennis. I think it was during this time that women started receiving equal prize money as WTA ratings driven by Graf, Seles, etc..were beating the men's matches.

It was difficult to know who to root for during this time. Colorless and painfully boring Sampras or the annoying Agassi of long flowing dyed blond locks...though I did start to like Agassi better after he shaved his head.

 

[davey25]

Sampras has much superior first and second serve, far superior forehand and backhand volleys, superior overhead, superior athletic ability, more raw speed although arguably slightly inferior overall movement, a comparable or only slightly worse overall forehand with more power than Federer's, a slightly worse backhand, and a slightly worse return of serve, along with a stronger mental game. That is why I feel Sampras had more overall ability. Plus Sampras at his best was virtually unbeatable. Federer is not.

 

[smack that]

Sampras has much superior first and second serve, far superior forehand and backhand volleys, superior overhead, superior athletic ability, more raw speed although arguably slightly inferior overall movement, a comparable or only slightly worse overall forehand with more power than Federer's, a slightly worse backhand, and a slightly worse return of serve, along with a stronger mental game. That is why I feel Sampras had more overall ability. Plus Sampras at his best was virtually unbeatable. Federer is not.

feds forehand could be considered better

 

[sunny_cali]

Sampras has much superior first and second serve, far superior forehand and backhand volleys, superior overhead, superior athletic ability, more raw speed although arguably slightly inferior overall movement, a comparable or only slightly worse overall forehand with more power than Federer's, a slightly worse backhand, and a slightly worse return of serve, along with a stronger mental game. That is why I feel Sampras had more overall ability. Plus Sampras at his best was virtually unbeatable. Federer is not.

Sheesh :shock:

Obviously, you are not talking about the same Sampras I know. He lost to all sorts of players, even in slams, when he was supposed to be at his best.

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras has much superior first and second serve, far superior forehand and backhand volleys, superior overhead, superior athletic ability, more raw speed although arguably slightly inferior overall movement, a comparable or only slightly worse overall forehand with more power than Federer's, a slightly worse backhand, and a slightly worse return of serve, along with a stronger mental game. That is why I feel Sampras had more overall ability. Plus Sampras at his best was virtually unbeatable. Federer is not.

The "superior overhead" always cracks me up. What's superior about Pete's overhead? the fact that he slam-dunks it? needless theaterical non-sense, IMO. Fed & nadal have equally effective overheads.

How is sampras more athletic when he lacked the endurance to compete on slower surfaces? sorry, that doesn't fly

agree on the serve & volley.

disagree on the FH and BH. Fed is miles ahead in both. Fed is miles ahead in the ROS too.

LOL on mental ability. I can see why you'd think sampras is strong mentally, but I don't see why you'd give the edge to sampras vs fed? what exactly reflects sampras' superior mental strength? his ability to hit clutch serves? Just in this AO, Fed's serve bailed him out many times. All great champions are strong mentally. there's no means of quantifying and ranking one over the other.

 

[akv89]

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.

You don't make 23 straight semis in majors just by getting "a bit lucky in some of the wins"

 

[fed_rulz]

Sheesh :shock:

Obviously, you are not talking about the same Sampras I know. He lost to all sorts of players, even in slams, when he was supposed to be at his best.

true that. looks like the sampras-hyperbole bandwagon is in full swing .

 

[drakulie]

Sampras has much superior first and second serve, far superior forehand and backhand volleys, superior overhead, superior athletic ability, more raw speed although arguably slightly inferior overall movement, a comparable or only slightly worse overall forehand with more power than Federer's, a slightly worse backhand, and a slightly worse return of serve, along with a stronger mental game. That is why I feel Sampras had more overall ability. Plus Sampras at his best was virtually unbeatable. Federer is not.

sampras had a better seve and volleys. That's it.

His ground game, which includes the FH is no where near in the same league as Fed's. One of the reasons he did not do well at the French was because his ground game could not hold up against the field. In fact, Courier's FH blows Sampras' away. It was just as powerful, more consistent, and he was able to win 4 slams primarily with that one stroke.

To add, as far as being "unbeatable", give me one year that comes anywhere near as fed's 3 straight unbelievable years. Sampras had 4 years where he won 2 slams. fed has 4 years where he has won 3, and 3 years where he made the finals of every slam.

You have no clue what you are babbling on about.

 

[BigServer1]

This thread is out of control.

I loved Sampras back in the day, but people are nuts if they think that he is better than Federer. There was more variety in competition, but that is the only thing in Sampras' favor.

The spin machine is out of control, and I think even if Federer retires with 20 slams while Nadal has 8, DelPo 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 2 and all the other guys that win one here and there people will still be talking about Sampras' competition and achievements as far more impressive.

 

[davey25]

I didnt say I felt Sampras's competition overall was tougher. I feel Sampras fans often overrate his competition to more than it really was or dont analyze it closely enough. I feel overall their competition was about the same and Federer still achieved more. However I still feel Sampras's game and abilities were more. Achievements alone even if one deems the competition a wash, does not mean you have to consider that player better. One example would be Navratilova vs Evert. Navratilova and Evert won the same # of slams and had virtually the same competition as they were contemporaries (or if anything Navratilova easier competition considering when she peaked), and yet people still consider Navratilova clearly superior it seems.

People say only serve and net game of Sampras was better. Well one could say on the other hand if you simplify it that way only Federer's groundstrokes were better which is even less better than, since their return of serve was very similar. Also the difference in their serve and net games were more in Sampras's favor than Federer's edge in groundstrokes. Many people start threads or topics or discussions comparing the forehand or backand of Sampras to Federer, but you almost never see that done for the first serve, second serve, forehand volley, backhand volley, or overhead of Sampras vs Federer. Looking beyond just shots, Sampras also had more overall athletic ability, more leaping ability, more raw speed even if Federer was the slightly better overall mover considering all factors, and probably has the stronger mental game of the two.

 

[drakulie]

People say only serve and net game of Sampras was better.

Because it was, in the same way fed ground game is superior to Sampras's.

However, the difference between Fed and Sampras' groundies is much greater than the difference between their serves and volleys.

as for movement, sampras was a better forward mover, but laterally, his movement is not in the same league as feds.

And you are nuts if you think their return games are on par. Sampras' return game was garbage compared to feds.

 

[davey25]

The difference between their forehands (the stronger side of both) and their backhands (the less great side of both) is only a bit. That is why there are threads comparing their forehands and backhands popping all over here, and why experts and writers compare their groundstrokes to who is better. However the difference between their forehand volleys, backhand volleys, and overhead is significant. I dont see how any can say their groundstrokes are further apart than their forehand volleys, backhand volleys, or overheads.

 

[World Beater]

I didnt say I felt Sampras's competition overall was tougher. I feel Sampras fans often overrate his competition to more than it really was or dont analyze it closely enough. I feel overall their competition was about the same and Federer still achieved more. However I still feel Sampras's game and abilities were more. Achievements alone even if one deems the competition a wash, does not mean you have to consider that player better. One example would be Navratilova vs Evert. Navratilova and Evert won the same # of slams and had virtually the same competition as they were contemporaries (or if anything Navratilova easier competition considering when she peaked), and yet people still consider Navratilova clearly superior it seems.

People say only serve and net game of Sampras was better. Well one could say on the other hand if you simplify it that way only Federer's groundstrokes were better which is even less better than, since their return of serve was very similar. Also the difference in their serve and net games were more in Sampras's favor than Federer's edge in groundstrokes. Many people start threads or topics or discussions comparing the forehand or backand of Sampras to Federer, but you almost never see that done for the first serve, second serve, forehand volley, backhand volley, or overhead of Sampras vs Federer. Looking beyond just shots, Sampras also had more overall athletic ability, more leaping ability, more raw speed even if Federer was the slightly better overall mover considering all factors, and probably has the stronger mental game of the two.

sampras did not move better than federer. It is not that close. Federer's speed and footwork together makes for better movement than sampras.

Federer has a better ground game, better slice, better defense, more margin for error, more consistent, better return, better fitness, more heart (sampras gave up on RG. federer kept fighting despite all the tough losses to Nadal).

Sampras edge on the serve and the volley is not that big. Having a superior overhead, eh? I have seen sampras goof up many overheads especially on critical pts. He goofed up against federer at wimbledon on breakpoint, against corretja at the usopen. Sampras has more theatrics, thats it.

Sampras was a poor man's federer.
btw...even sampras serving at 69% full tilt as the defending wimbledon champion still lost to baby federer at wimbledon. Sampras hardly served that big and that consistent against anyone.

 

[davey25]

I think some of you forget Sampras outplayed Agassi from the baseline in many of their matches. Federer was sometimes being outplayed from the baseline by an old Agassi. So how can Federer's baseline game be lights years ahead? Anyway to each their own.

 

[drakulie]

The difference between their forehands (the stronger side of both) and their backhands (the less great side of both) is only a bit.

If this were true, Sampras, having arguably the greatest serve, awesome volleys, and great movement as you put it, would have at least made it to one French final. Whereas Fed, according to you, with inferiror first and second serves, inferior movment, mental strength, and a tiny bit better ground game has made 4 FO finals, and won 1.

Fact is, Sampras ground game wasn't even near the best of his own generation.

 

[drakulie]

I think some of you forget Sampras outplayed Agassi from the baseline in many of their matches.

Uhmmm, No. It's very apparent you never saw their matches. Sampras, rarely if ever won the ground war against AA. This includes matches AA lost.

 

[KAndersonFan]

I think some of you forget Sampras outplayed Agassi from the baseline in many of their matches. Federer was sometimes being outplayed from the baseline by an old Agassi. So how can Federer's baseline game be lights years ahead? Anyway to each their own.

Yeah? And Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon with S&V, so the difference between their respective forward movement and volleying skills is not as great as you claim.

 

[TMF]

I think some of you forget Sampras outplayed Agassi from the baseline in many of their matches. Federer was sometimes being outplayed from the baseline by an old Agassi. So how can Federer's baseline game be lights years ahead? Anyway to each their own.

There's no way Federer would ever lost 14 times agains Andre. It doesn't matter if they play on any surface, Federer has the upperhand. There's no point in even bringing up Agassi's name b/c he's already stated that Roger's is better than Sampras.

 

[bruce38]

I've watched Sampras and Fed through both of their peaks. Sampras was nowhere near the talent Fed is. Fed's serve and volley would be much better that it is if it was necessary to use it in today's game. Sampras' groundstokes would not be much better as proven by his poor results at the FO.

 

[KAndersonFan]

I'm not even why Sampras is even in this discussion.. he was never to my knowledge acknowledged as GOAT over both Laver AND Borg in any list or rating except TENNIS mag's 40 players of the tennis era, which didn't count Lavers pro results...one or the other of Borg and Laver have always been rated above him.

Not so for Federer, who seems to be a pretty popular pick for GOAT among many analysts and former players..I don't think Sampras is really in the discussion anymore.

 

[World Beater]

I think some of you forget Sampras outplayed Agassi from the baseline in many of their matches. Federer was sometimes being outplayed from the baseline by an old Agassi. So how can Federer's baseline game be lights years ahead? Anyway to each their own.

give me what you are smoking.

Federer won all those matches after 2003 masters cup btw. Agassi was still reaching finals and playing well, so he was still pretty good.

Agassi was undefeated against sampras at the AO. Federer gave him a shellacking at the AO including 20+ aces in three sets.

 

[lawrence]

Sampras had a better serve, better volleys, and better forward movement (as drakulie said) due to his play style.

If you think Sampras had a better ground game than Federer, you either don't watch tennis now or you didn't watch it back when Sampras was playing.

 

[petetheileet]

Because it was, in the same way fed ground game is superior to Sampras's.

However, the difference between Fed and Sampras' groundies is much greater than the difference between their serves and volleys.

as for movement, sampras was a better forward mover, but laterally, his movement is not in the same league as feds.

And you are nuts if you think their return games are on par. Sampras' return game was garbage compared to feds.

The truth has been spoken

Spot on mate!!

 

[decades]

murray nadal djok and delpo not on your list?

 

[decades]

The difference between their forehands (the stronger side of both) and their backhands (the less great side of both) is only a bit. That is why there are threads comparing their forehands and backhands popping all over here, and why experts and writers compare their groundstrokes to who is better. However the difference between their forehand volleys, backhand volleys, and overhead is significant. I dont see how any can say their groundstrokes are further apart than their forehand volleys, backhand volleys, or overheads.

the way to solve this is look at the French Open records. Fed has been the second best clay courter in the world for the last 6 - 7 years. Yes better than all the Spanish, French,and Argentine dirtballers save for Rafa. And Fed has beaten rafa on clay two or three times as I recall. Fed is the better player. Sampras made the semis once or twice at the French and never came close to winning it.

 

[davey25]

the way to solve this is look at the French Open records. Fed has been the second best clay courter in the world for the last 6 - 7 years. Yes better than all the Spanish, French,and Argentine dirtballers save for Rafa. And Fed has beaten rafa on clay two or three times as I recall. Fed is the better player. Sampras made the semis once or twice at the French and never came close to winning it.

I didnt realize clay was the only surface that existed. If it were Nadal would be the greatest or 2nd greatest player of all time.

 

[davey25]

There's no way Federer would ever lost 14 times agains Andre. It doesn't matter if they play on any surface, Federer has the upperhand. There's no point in even bringing up Agassi's name b/c he's already stated that Roger's is better than Sampras.

I agree Federer would have dominated Agassi more than Sampras as far as the final head to head tally. However Sampras also probably would not be 7-13 vs Nadal.

 

[abmk]

And you are nuts if you think their return games are on par. Sampras' return game was garbage compared to feds.

true, that .

 

[bembi_a]

The only forehand of sampras that was awsome was the "running forehand". Thats about it. Fed's forehand could dazzle you in all parts of the court.

 

[SLD76]

However Sampras also probably would not be 7-13 vs Nadal.

Ok..so if Fed's ground game suffers b/c of Rafa's heavy top...and Sampras's ground game is weaker than Fed's....


And while Rafa isnt the best returner, he is one of the deadliest passer's in the game.

Im not seeing how Sampras dominates Nadal...in fact..i think Sampras would have a worse record...2 of those Fed wins agaisnt Nadal are on clay. Another 2 on a much slower Wimbly surface than was played in Pete's day.

The only forehand of sampras that was awsome was the "running forehand". Thats about it. Fed's forehand could dazzle you in all parts of the court

.

Truth. Altho to be fair..he could hit some awesome fh shots...but he never found corners and angles the way FEd could(off both wings, in his prime..he is more conservative with his BH nowadays.). However, results of the AO may give Fed the confidence to go back to his aggressive dominating style.

 

[Agassifan]

However Sampras also probably would not be 7-13 vs Nadal.

Pete won't be good enough to make the finals that Rafa makes and vice-versa.
So their head 2 head will be like 2-2 or something.

 

[Polaris]

...

.

sampras had a better seve and volleys. That's it.

His ground game, which includes the FH is no where near in the same league as Fed's. One of the reasons he did not do well at the French was because his ground game could not hold up against the field. In fact, Courier's FH blows Sampras' away. It was just as powerful, more consistent, and he was able to win 4 slams primarily with that one stroke.

To add, as far as being "unbeatable", give me one year that comes anywhere near as fed's 3 straight unbelievable years. Sampras had 4 years where he won 2 slams. fed has 4 years where he has won 3, and 3 years where he made the finals of every slam.

You have no clue what you are babbling on about.

Pwnage, pure and simple. I like it when I agree with drak.

 

[edmondsm]

I saw the title of this thread. Then I saw the number of posts. Then I decided to write this..................

 

[TennisVeritas]

You make a good point. Never did Federer face the career-long focus and work ethic of someone like Agassi, the backhand of Courier, the confidence of Rafter, the all-surface dominance of Bruguera, the sheer power of Chang, the mental toughness of Ivanisevic, the dedication of Krajicek, or the movement and agility of Martin. Federer is really just lucky.

One of the best post ever LOL: SO TRUE..Come on!! Chang, Ivanisevic and Courier !

 

[fed_rulz]

Ok..so if Fed's ground game suffers b/c of Rafa's heavy top...and Sampras's ground game is weaker than Fed's....


And while Rafa isnt the best returner, he is one of the deadliest passer's in the game.

Im not seeing how Sampras dominates Nadal...in fact..i think Sampras would have a worse record...2 of those Fed wins agaisnt Nadal are on clay. Another 2 on a much slower Wimbly surface than was played in Pete's day.

.

Truth. Altho to be fair..he could hit some awesome fh shots...but he never found corners and angles the way FEd could(off both wings, in his prime..he is more conservative with his BH nowadays.). However, results of the AO may give Fed the confidence to go back to his aggressive dominating style.

Rafa & Pete would seldom meet on clay (assuming #1 & 2 seeds), so it would appear that Sampras "owned" nadal if they mostly met on surfaces favoring Pete.

 

[Markov]

lol, people just don't get that federer's the reason there aren't so many slam winners in his age group

 

[J_R_B]

Rafa & Pete would seldom meet on clay (assuming #1 & 2 seeds), so it would appear that Sampras "owned" nadal if they mostly met on surfaces favoring Pete.

I agree. How many of those 13 losses were in finals on clay (French or otherwise)? How many of those would Sampras have even made it to (hint: 0)?

I'm as big of a fan of Sampras as there is, and the Sampras-Agassi rivalry has shaped a large part of my tennis fandom. However, Fed is clearly the best I've ever seen. No doubt about it.

 

[decades]

I didnt realize clay was the only surface that existed. If it were Nadal would be the greatest or 2nd greatest player of all time.

no but it is a an obvious and supreme test of who has better ground strokes.

 

[fed_rulz]

no but it is a an obvious and supreme test of who has better ground strokes.

not just that; it's the only surface that remains comparable across eras because not much has changed on clay.

 

[yellowoctopus]

Not taking anything away from Federer, but his class of peers are just a bunch of Fed-loving/worshiping clowns....

I never understood why using the phrase 'Not taking anything away from...' or 'Not trying to be...' can mitigate someone for taking the responsibility of their statement that follows.

The fact is, you are taking something away from Federer, otherwise you would not have post this on the forum. And this is perfectly ok because you have as much right as others on the forum to voice out your opinion.

Although I enjoy the fact that an interesting point was raised , I wish that the owner would be a little more bold and take ownership of the point raised.:-?

 

[Azzurri]

I think some of you forget Sampras outplayed Agassi from the baseline in many of their matches. Federer was sometimes being outplayed from the baseline by an old Agassi. So how can Federer's baseline game be lights years ahead? Anyway to each their own.

LOL...Pete would not even try to beat Agassi from the ground. You are dead wrong. Could Pete hold his own..yes, but he did not "outplay" Agassi from the ground..you are without a clue.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

You make a good point. Never did Federer face the career-long focus and work ethic of someone like Agassi, the backhand of Courier, the confidence of Rafter, the all-surface dominance of Bruguera, the sheer power of Chang, the mental toughness of Ivanisevic, the dedication of Krajicek, or the movement and agility of Martin. Federer is really just lucky.

of course not. after all he is the goat because he faced the mental Giant Davidenko, the multi-talented Roddick, the All surface monster Ferrer, The naturally gifted Gonzales, the extremly fit workaholic Nalbandian, the never giving up animal Djokovic\Delpo (you pick), the higly focused Safin...

or even better... lets replace it and see how it goes...

...career-long focus and work ethic of someone like Safin, the Forehandhand of Gasquet, the confidence of Davidenko, the all-surface dominance of Ferrer, the sheer power of Hewitt, the mental toughness of Gonzales, the dedication of Nalbandian, or the movement and agility of Karlovic

 

[soyizgood]

of course not. after all he is the goat because he faced the mental Giant Davidenko, the multi-talented Roddick, the All surface monster Ferrer, The naturally gifted Gonzales, the extremly fit workaholic Nalbandian, the never giving up animal Djokovic\Delpo (you pick), the higly focused Safin...

or even better... lets replace it and see how it goes...

...career-long focus and work ethic of someone like Safin, the Forehandhand of Gasquet, the confidence of Davidenko, the all-surface dominance of Ferrer, the sheer power of Hewitt, the mental toughness of Gonzales, the dedication of Nalbandian, or the movement and agility of Karlovic

Add in the world beater yet humble and classy Soderling, the top 10 slayer Verdasco, the groundstroke consistency of Karlovic, the calmness and composure of Youzhny, the looming giant Tursunov, the all-surface wonder called Almagro, and those automatics come slam QF GOATS Blake/Nieminen/Robredo.

 

[ksbh]

ROFL, awesome post!

How about determination to win ... nobody beats Andy "I don't mind losing 8 finals to him" Roddick at that! LOL, such determination and will to win is rarely see in tennis from a top 5 (at that time) player!

of course not. after all he is the goat because he faced the mental Giant Davidenko, the multi-talented Roddick, the All surface monster Ferrer, The naturally gifted Gonzales, the extremly fit workaholic Nalbandian, the never giving up animal Djokovic\Delpo (you pick), the higly focused Safin...

or even better... lets replace it and see how it goes...

...career-long focus and work ethic of someone like Safin, the Forehandhand of Gasquet, the confidence of Davidenko, the all-surface dominance of Ferrer, the sheer power of Hewitt, the mental toughness of Gonzales, the dedication of Nalbandian, or the movement and agility of Karlovic

 

[Povl Carstensen]

You make a good point. Never did Federer face the career-long focus and work ethic of someone like Agassi, the backhand of Courier, the confidence of Rafter, the all-surface dominance of Bruguera, the sheer power of Chang, the mental toughness of Ivanisevic, the dedication of Krajicek, or the movement and agility of Martin. Federer is really just lucky.

Well, if he was to face someone with a return like Agassi, a forehand like Courier, net game of Rafter, groundstrokes of Bruguera, the speed of Chang, the serve of Ivanisevic and Krajicek and resillience of Martin, it could be quite interesting...

 

[davey25]

Well, if he was to face someone with a return like Agassi, a forehand like Courier, net game of Rafter, groundstrokes of Bruguera, the speed of Chang, the serve of Ivanisevic and Krajicek and resillience of Martin, it could be quite interesting...

Federer's forehand is better than Courier's and every other part of his game is too. On the whole there is nothing Courier is superior to Federer at. I like Courier but I think he would be an easy matchup for Federer, though peak Courier on clay could beat Federer there potentially, but nowhere else, and peak Courier on clay only lasted about 2 years anyway.

Agassi I dont think would be too tough a matchup for Federer either, even when Agassi is at his best. Federer has the much superior serve, clearly more dominant and superior forehand, by far the better movement and overall defense, obviously the better volleyer and transition game forward. Agassi has a more offensive return and a more powerful and consistent backhand but that is it. I would add the variety off Federer's backhand even gave Agassi trouble when they played, and the slice especialy seemed to bother him. Not to mention Agassi for most of the Sampras reign was playing worse tennis than he was as an old man playing Federer from 2003-2005.

Rafter was a great volleyer but his overall game would just be too lightweight for a prime Federer IMO.

Bruguera would be roadkill for Federer anywhere outside of clay, and it is not like Federer has won much in his clay anyway in his career because of Nadal so who cares.

Chang is basically a Hewitt clone, and even the best of Hewitt in 2004 and 2005 was not much of a fuss for Federer.

Ivanisevic was only a force at Wimbledon and whenever he was confronted with a true champion there he managed to choke it away, minus one win over a past his prime Becker in the 94 semis. Krajicek was good for one good slam run every half decade or so.

Todd Martin, LOL! You are really scraping the barrel here.


I actually am one of the few it seems who feels Sampras in terms of ability and overall game is superior to Federer, despite that Federer has surpassed him in achievements. I dont concur with any idea that the Sampras competition was significantly or would present much problems for Federer though.