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

[fed_rulz]

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...

Comparable or better:

return like Agassi -- Murray, Davydenko, Hewitt, Djoker ...
a forehand like Courier -- Nadal, Tsonga, Safin, Soderling, Pre-05 Roddick, JMDP
net game of Rafter -- none
groundstrokes of Bruguera -- LOL.. literally everyone in the top 15
speed of chang -- Hewitt, Nadal, Murray, Djoker, Davydenko
the serve of Ivanisevic and Krajicek -- Karlovic, Roddick, Ljubicic, Soderling, Ancic, JMDP

resilience of Martin --- WTF?? nadal, any one?

...it could be quite interesting...

Apparently it's not for some, despite having players with comparable or better qualities you had listed...

 

[Surecatch]

Federer is undeniably superior to "Sampras' peers," so really....end of discussion.

 

[soyizgood]

Federer is undeniably superior to "Sampras' peers," so really....end of discussion.

Federer's pigeons, oops school children, oops I mean peers, are way weaker than Sampras' peers.

 

[Surecatch]

Federer's pigeons, I mean peers, are way weaker than Sampras' peers.

Nadal himself is better than any of Sampras' peers, including Agassi (who I am a huge fan of, btw)

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

im glad youre not taking anything away from him. lol.

 

[luckyboy1300]

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...

if fed were to face those players he would've won the CYGS 2 or 3 times already. end of story.

 

[edberg505]

Federer's pigeons, oops school children, oops I mean peers, are way weaker than Sampras' peers.

So by this assumption you say Sampras is better than Federer, correct?

 

[soyizgood]

So by this assumption you say Sampras is better than Federer, correct?

No, I've never said that. If you read one of my earlier post (granted this thread is quite long), I said I gave Federer the nod over Sampras. I did say that along with stating my claim that Federer's competition hasn't really been all that great. This thread was supposed to support or refute my claim over their competition, not Federer vs Sampras.

 

[anointedone]

If Federer played the field Sampras faced from 93-98 all those players would be his schoolchildren too, maybe even moreso. Does anyone really think the likes of Rafter, Kafelnikov, Moya, Martin, Chang, headcase Ivanisevic, Krajicek, were going to deny Federer many or any slams, LOL! Nadal alone is tougher than facing all those guys put together already. Pit Sampras up against the 93-2000 field instead of 2003-2010 and he is probably atleast as dominant at Australia, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open, if not moreso. If anything it would probably be a challenge for that less than stellar group to deny him at the Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open a combined 7 times as Federer's peers have during the same time even if Federer wins both Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year. Federer also now wins the French Open multiple times if he were playing then instead without Nadal around, even though the clay court field then probably had more depth.

As for the overstated so called rivals of Sampras, which for the most part didnt even really exist in the true form. Edberg and Courier each had maybe about half a year of top level tennis left at best once Sampras began his reign, and after that both were fairly average themselves. They were great players at one point in time, but little to none of the time Sampras was on top. Becker was still fairly strong, but he wasnt the same Becker as 85-91, or even significantly better than a 1 or 2 slam winner who was actually still in their prime as opposed to strong but clearly past their prime as he was. Agassi was playing tennis at an inferior level most of the Sampras reign to even what Davydenko and Roddick have been playing consistently the last 5 or more years. Of course those few times Agassi did peak like late 94-95 it was far superior to someone like Roddick, hence all the slam titles, in addition to even moreso how lucky he was to find that 2nd wind from 99-2003 when the field was even worse than either the Sampras or Federer eras, and where he scalped almost all his slams by beating guys like Kafelnikov, Martin, Schuettler, Clement, Ferreira. Still doesnt change the fact most of the Sampras reign he was actually mediocre at best.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I mentioned this in the Federer legacy thread, but I'll mention it again here. The same could easily be said when comparing the guys from the 90s to the field of the 80s.

Just think how many slams Lendl could have won in the 90s had he been able to play the likes of Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov in slam semis and Finals instead of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, prime Becker, prime Edberg, etc.

 

[anointedone]

I mentioned this in the Federer legacy thread, but I'll mention it again here. The same could easily be said when comparing the guys from the 90s to the field of the 80s.

Just think how many slams Lendl could have won in the 90s had he been able to play the likes of Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov in slam semis and Finals instead of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, prime Becker, prime Edberg, etc.

Exactly. Neither Sampras or Federer faced the toughest fields in history, so trying to build up Sampras by using the competition argument is a bit of a joke. It is not like either one faced the competition that Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, or even Laver when he won his 69 slam faced for instance. Sampras and Federer competition wise is basically a wash. It is not like either one played in the Golden Era of tennis. Only someone like Hewitt when he was on top faced signfiicantly less competition.

The vast majority of greats would have won more slams than they did facing the field Sampras dif from 93-98 minus Sampras himself, not less. Only a Sampras fanatic could surmise that was a stronger than typical field when guys like Pioline, Moya, Rios, and Kafelnikov were even able to make such a strong mark on it.

 

[akv89]

Everybody likes talking about competition, but no one seems capable of putting forth a reasonable definition of what "competition" is and how to measure it for a given era.

 

[edberg505]

No, I've never said that. If you read one of my earlier post (granted this thread is quite long), I said I gave Federer the nod over Sampras. I did say that along with stating my claim that Federer's competition hasn't really been all that great. This thread was supposed to support or refute my claim over their competition, not Federer vs Sampras.

Ok, so lemme get this straight. You agree that Federer is better than Sampras yet you think his Sampras' competition was better? Why's that? Because there are more slam winners in Sampras' era? Or they were just better skill wise? Why couldn't it be that Federer is so good that there aren't many slam winners because he is directly responsible for making it so? Empirically there's just no way to prove that Sampras' peers were better than Federer's. By your own admission Federer is better than Sampras. It's essentially circular logic. Now, had you said that Sampras was better than Federer then you would have somewhat of an argument.

 

[lawrence]

Everybody likes talking about competition, but no one seems capable of putting forth a reasonable definition of what "competition" is and how to measure it for a given era.

The die-hard Sampras-fan definition of competition is number of slams each competitor had.
But if number of slams counts so much, then well. You know the rest :twisted:

 

[anointedone]

Ok, so lemme get this straight. You agree that Federer is better than Sampras yet you think his Sampras' competition was better? Why's that? Because there are more slam winners in Sampras' era? Or they were just better skill wise? Why couldn't it be that Federer is so good that there aren't many slam winners because he is directly responsible for making it so? Empirically there's just no way to prove that Sampras' peers were better than Federer's. By your own admission Federer is better than Sampras. It's essentially circular logic. Now, had you said that Sampras was better than Federer then you would have somewhat of an argument.

Kafelnikov is essentialy a weaker and less powerful version of Davydenko's game and yet he won 2 slams in that era.

 

[sh@de]

Everybody likes talking about competition, but no one seems capable of putting forth a reasonable definition of what "competition" is and how to measure it for a given era.

I think you'll actually find that people have come up with tonnes of definitions already

"weak era": the era in which a player, who is threatening your favourite's GOAT claims, plays in.

"strong era": the era in which your favourite player plays in.

Quite simple really

 

[deltox]

By peers, I'm referring to players at or around the same age (+/- 2 years).

Sampras vs peers:
Agassi (20-14)
Courier (16-4)
Rafter (12-4)
Bruguera (2-3)
Chang (13-8 )
Ivanisevic (12-6)
Krajicek (4-6)
Martin (18-4)

Federer vs peers:
Hewitt (14-7)
Safin (10-2)
Roddick (19-2)
Ferrero (9-3)
Nalbandian (10-8 )
Davydenko (12-0)
Haas (10-2)
Ferrer (8-0)
Robredo (8-0)
Gonzales (12-1)
Ljubicic (12-3)
Karlovic (9-1)
Blake (9-1)
Verdasco (3-0)
Youzhny (10-0)

Not taking anything away from Federer, but his class of peers are just a bunch of Fed-loving/worshiping clowns. Even Nalbandian and Hewitt have been pathetic against him the past few years.

• The four slam winners in Federer's age group have won a total of 14 matches against him. Agassi has 14 against Sampras.
• None of Federer's class have won more than 2 majors. Agassi (8 ) and Courier (4) trump that.

Federer's class is a huge group of underachievers, headcases, and injured (physically and mentally) souls. Most on that list show up with a white flag facing Federer and some (*cough*Blake*cough*) actually enjoy losing to him. Put a prime Sampras/Agassi/Courier against this competition and they'd have 15+ slams as well. In Courier's case, he'd own the French Open.

Put Federer in Sampras' era and he'd be playing into his 30s just to get to 10 slams, if he could even get there.

*******s don't need to soak their panties and cry. Federer is one of the greats, but he had a MUCH easier time with his defeated rebels than the warriors Sampras faced.

my only problem in this comparison is that you have folks like ivanisevic and krajicek in bold like they are actually better in any way than some of the names on rogers list that arent in bold such as.

ivanisevic = dr ivo, the grass is just slower now with better competition otherwise ivo would be just as much a threat as ivan
davydenko and hass and verdasco. you cant claim because they won a slam they are better, that actually shows they are worse in era. scrubs should never win slams right?

 

[drakulie]

Here is what some of Federer's "weak" peers did to Sampras:


Roddick: 2-1
Hewitt: 5-4 (including a US Open Final win)
Safin 4-3 (including a US Open Final win)

2-0 in grand slam finals, and a overall 11-8 record.

 

[larlarbd]

Good Thread , Agreed.

 

[sdont]

By peers, I'm referring to players at or around the same age (+/- 2 years).

Sampras vs peers:
Agassi (20-14)
Courier (16-4)
Rafter (12-4)
Bruguera (2-3)
Chang (13-8 )
Ivanisevic (12-6)
Krajicek (4-6)
Martin (18-4)

Federer vs peers:
Hewitt (14-7)
Safin (10-2)
Roddick (19-2)
Ferrero (9-3)
Nalbandian (10-8 )
Davydenko (12-0)
Haas (10-2)
Ferrer (8-0)
Robredo (8-0)
Gonzales (12-1)
Ljubicic (12-3)
Karlovic (9-1)
Blake (9-1)
Verdasco (3-0)
Youzhny (10-0)

Obviously, Sampras wasn't good enough to dominate his peers like Fed does. Bruguera even owned Pete! :lol:

 

[Azzurri]

Obviously, Sampras wasn't good enough to dominate his peers like Fed does. Bruguera even owned Pete! :lol:

why is Nadal missing? 2-3 h2h is ownage? so what is 13-7, 5-2 in major finals (6-2 overall in majors)? Is that not OWNAGE? If Sergi owned Pete, then what would you call Nadal's record against Fed??

 

[soyizgood]

my only problem in this comparison is that you have folks like ivanisevic and krajicek in bold like they are actually better in any way than some of the names on rogers list that arent in bold such as.

ivanisevic = dr ivo, the grass is just slower now with better competition otherwise ivo would be just as much a threat as ivan
davydenko and hass and verdasco. you cant claim because they won a slam they are better, that actually shows they are worse in era. scrubs should never win slams right?

I put in bold for the players that won slams. They at least got the job done at a slam at least once.

Scrubs can and occasionally do have their day. At least they play with nothing to lose. On the other hand Verdasco goes to GREAT lengths to lose to ANY top 10 player (1-14 vs top 10 in 2009). Davydenko ALWAYS crumbles against Federer though the YEC was an anomaly indeed. Haas has all of 1 Master's title and a slam semi-final for his whole career despite being #2 at one point. I would put Davydenko as a poor Chang clone because both hated coming to the net and preferred grinding, but even then Chang wasn't scared silly of the top players (embarrassing to lose 12 in a row to somebody, though Hewitt, the other poor Chang clone is on a 15 match losing streak to Federer).

 

[akv89]

The die-hard Sampras-fan definition of competition is number of slams each competitor had.
But if number of slams counts so much, then well. You know the rest :twisted:

Even by that definition, the 2001-2002 era would be considered one of the strongest in recent memory because we had so many past and future slam winners playing at the same time. Of course, nobody except a couple were in their prime, so most people, especially Sampras fans, claim that it was one of the weakest eras in recent history.
In fact, it was because there was so much parity in 2001-2002 that many people considered at the time that the competition was too great for one person to dominate. And then Federer dominated, and people call that era a weak one in hindsight.
If we want to compare eras, perhaps we should come up with an idea of what makes up a great era that is consistent for all times.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

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...

Actually I was trying to say that it would be interesting if Federer met someone with the COMBINED above skills, some people seem to have missed that... Sorry for the confusion.

 

[davey25]

I have been hard on soyizgood in the past but this is a good thread actually.