Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim

Does Nadal's GS H2H have any affect on Fed's goat claim?

  • Total voters
    120
380pistol said:
You do realize that Nadal is 3-1vs Federer on outdoor hardcourts, with his only loss was him at 18 blowing 6-2,7-6,4-1 lead. And he has beaten Federer on clay, gras and hard in slam finals.
Click to expand...

And if Federer was awful on clay, then it would be 5-4 Federer.
 
380pistol said:
It was an interview he did with Dick Ennberg for NBC, a ono on one sit down, I believe after the French Open.

Collins was referring he and Nadal to Sa,pras and Agassi, where Sampras said Agassi made him a better player. When asked if Nadal has made him a better player, he said.....

"No. Maybe cuz of the lefty thein, cuz he's a lefty, but no, not really. If anything I've made him and everyone else better players. They had to catch up to me". (Paraphrasing)

He flat out said no. Then said maybe cuz Nadal plays lefthanded and then said no. He even went on to say the rest of the field hasn't made him, better, that he made them better.
Click to expand...

It's nowhere near as bad as when Sampras said, "At my best I can beat anyone in the world dead or alive, and would've won everything under the sun had it not been for my thalassemia." (paraphrasing :-|)
 
JeMar said:
lol, that's taking quite some liberties in the paraphrasing.
Click to expand...

It's almost verbatim. I didn't wanna say verbatim, but look it up. I told you where it came from and see how many liberties I took. Federphiles will come up with any excuses won't you???

So Enberg did not refernce Sampras and Agassi. Fed did not say "no". Fed did not say "maybe cuz he's a lefty, but no, I fell like I've made everyone else better". That's me taking liberties. He did not say "I made everyone catch up to me" or "keep up with me".

You're right I did take liberties. I said "catch up", when it could have been "keep up". Federphiles make me laugh.

JeMar said:
It's nowhere near as bad as when Sampras said, "At my best I can beat anyone in the world dead or alive, and would've won everything under the sun had it not been for my thalassemia." (paraphrasing :-|)
Click to expand...

Read what I told icedevil, personal feeling not a fact. Like Curt Schilling in 2001 with Arizona down 3-2. If we win gm 6 I'll pitch and win game 7. After Arizona won game 6, they asked if he still thinks they'l win, his response.

"Yes. What am I supposed to say, we're gonna lose".

That's a personal feeling. Not saying you don't have to raise you r leel or the competition of players around you have done nothing for you.
 
Last edited:
nikdom said:
Somebody please slaughter this mythical GOAT discussion!!! Haven't we discussed this to death already? Sampras/Laver/Federer.... this is getting pretty sick. Just pick who you like and they're the GOAT.
Click to expand...

Laver/Federer, fine.

Sampras is no longer relevant, though.
 
Another factor is that Roger keeping reaching those clay finals(only to lose) brought him lots of ranking points to keep extending his #1 ranking.
 
380pistol said:
It's almost verbatim. I didn't wanna say verbatim, but look it up. I told you where it came from and see how many liberties I took. Federphiles will come up with any excuses won't you???

So Enberg did not refernce Sampras and Agassi. Fed did not say "no". Fed did not say "maybe cuz he's a lefty, but no, I fell like I've made everyone else better". That's me taking liberties. He did not say "I made everyone catch up to me" or "keep up with me".

You're right I did take liberties. I said "catch up", when it could have been "keep up". Federphiles make me laugh.
Click to expand...

And when Sampras says that he was unbeatable when he was on, he's speaking the truth. When Sampras says that he'd be able to compete with today's players (at 40 years old), he's speaking the truth.

If you look at Nadal's and Federer's game, the fact that Nadal is left-handed has a HUGE impact on how their matches are decided. Cross-court forehand to Federer's (weaker) backhand is the standard play. What do you think the outcome would be if those Nadal forehands were going to Federer's forehand?

On forcing everyone to "keep up" with him, take a look at my longer post in this thread. The top 10 is a much more complete bunch of players than we've ever seen in the past. One or two big weapons aren't enough to keep somewhere near the top, as was the case in the past. But nope, Federer doesn't speak the truth. He's just an arrogant asswipe.
 
Jchurch said:
And if Federer was awful on clay, then it would be 5-4 Federer.
Click to expand...

And what would the H2H if they met when both were in their primes??? Remember Nadal didn;t even rach a HC SF til 2008, and the 2006 Wimbledon final was what?? The 4th grasscourt tournament of his life??
 
380pistol said:
It's almost verbatim. I didn't wanna say verbatim, but look it up. I told you where it came from and see how many liberties I took. Federphiles will come up with any excuses won't you???

So Enberg did not refernce Sampras and Agassi. Fed did not say "no". Fed did not say "maybe cuz he's a lefty, but no, I fell like I've made everyone else better". That's me taking liberties. He did not say "I made everyone catch up to me" or "keep up with me".

You're right I did take liberties. I said "catch up", when it could have been "keep up". Federphiles make me laugh.



Read what I told icedevil, personal feeling not a fact. Like Curt Schilling in 2001 with Arizona down 3-2. If we win gm 6 I'll pitch and win game 7. After Arizona won game 6, they asked if he still thinks they'l win, his response.

"Yes. What am I supposed to say, we're gonna lose".

That's a personal feeling. Not saying you don't have to raise you r leel or the competition of players around you have done nothing for you.
Click to expand...


isn't what fed said also a personal feeling?
 
Federer leads the non-clay head to head 5-4

Even Federer fans concede that Nadal is the better Clay Court player. In fact most would believe that Nadal is one of the two greatest clay courters ever (along with Borg). Federer's problem is that he is too good on clay. He keeps getting to finals and meeting Nadal and losing most of the time. If he was like Sampras he would make hardly any finals on clay and rarely meet Nadal on that surface.

In their head to head record the majority of meetings have been on clay. If you exclude the clay meetings Federer leads the head to head 5-4.

The real problem is that Nadal doesn't make enough Grand Slam finals on Hard court (only 1 Australian Open 2009). If they had as many encounters at the US Open as the French Open the head to head would like quite different.

Hence, because of the majority of their meetings have been on clay (11 times versus 9 times for all other surfaces), this skews the results.
 
JeMar said:
And when Sampras says that he was unbeatable when he was on, he's speaking the truth. When Sampras says that he'd be able to compete with today's players (at 40 years old), he's speaking the truth.

If you look at Nadal's and Federer's game, the fact that Nadal is left-handed has a HUGE impact on how their matches are decided. Cross-court forehand to Federer's (weaker) backhand is the standard play. What do you think the outcome would be if those Nadal forehands were going to Federer's forehand?

On forcing everyone to "keep up" with him, take a look at my longer post in this thread. The top 10 is a much more complete bunch of players than we've ever seen in the past. One or two big weapons aren't enough to keep somewhere near the top, as was the case in the past. But nope, Federer doesn't speak the truth. He's just an arrogant asswipe.
Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to with it. Nadal is bad match up for Federer for a myriad of reasons, I've said that numerous times.

He said "no" twice. "Maybe cuz he lefty, but no". What's that?? And then he went onto say he's made everyone better, possibly has. Like GameSampras said, he made everyon have to be better, but did they actually get better.

Roddick after 20003-05 actually dipped. We've seen Djokovoci's present state. And Hewitt, he fell of harder than Mase!! This comment I feel is arrogant. If Nadal actully made him better 7-13 and 2-5 wouldn't be #'s haunting him. If all the issues you just spoke on shouldn't it have made him better???

And if they didn't what does that say about Roger??? Still an arrogant thing to say. Pancho (Hoad), Laver (Rosewall), Sampras (Agassi) and others said teir rival made them netter, but Fed, his rival possibly couldn't.
 
"It would bother me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors," Sampras said. "Does it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest? The greatest of all time is (a label) we want to pin it on someone. With the numbers you have to give it to Roger; with (Federer's) record against Nadal you might not give it to him. If I was 7-13 against Andre it would be hard to say I was the best of my generation."
Click to expand...

So its ok to suck on clay, as long as he has a H2H advantage over Agassi? What a crock. I thought someone like Sampras who has been there, done that would have better things to say than this interview.
 
JeMar said:
And when Sampras says that he was unbeatable when he was on, he's speaking the truth. When Sampras says that he'd be able to compete with today's players (at 40 years old), he's speaking the truth.

If you look at Nadal's and Federer's game, the fact that Nadal is left-handed has a HUGE impact on how their matches are decided. Cross-court forehand to Federer's (weaker) backhand is the standard play. What do you think the outcome would be if those Nadal forehands were going to Federer's forehand?

On forcing everyone to "keep up" with him, take a look at my longer post in this thread. The top 10 is a much more complete bunch of players than we've ever seen in the past. One or two big weapons aren't enough to keep somewhere near the top, as was the case in the past. But nope, Federer doesn't speak the truth. He's just an arrogant asswipe.
Click to expand...

OTOH, Federer has to adjust to that lefty topspin to his backhand. Which btw is something he did very nicely in Madrid. The next time he plays Nadal, I hope he pulls out that video on what are correct tactics.
 
380pistol said:
This has absolutely nothing to with it. Nadal is bad match up for Federer for a myriad of reasons, I've said that numerous times.

He said "no" twice. "Maybe cuz he lefty, but no". What's that?? And then he went onto say he's made everyone better, possibly has. Like GameSampras said, he made everyon have to be better, but did they actually get better.

Roddick after 20003-05 actually dipped. We've seen Djokovoci's present state. And Hewitt, he fell of harder than Mase!! This comment I feel is arrogant. If Nadal actully made him better 7-13 and 2-5 wouldn't be #'s haunting him. If all the issues you just spoke on shouldn't it have made him better???

And if they didn't what does that say about Roger??? Still an arrogant thing to say. Pancho (Hoad), Laver (Rosewall), Sampras (Agassi) and others said teir rival made them netter, but Fed, his rival possibly couldn't.
Click to expand...

Have you seen any noticeable change in Roger Federer's game since 2004? Aside from the drop shot, he plays exactly the same as he had in the past, before Nadal was as dominant as he's been lately. His game, if anything, has actually gotten worse.
 
It has the following effect: Federer has less slams that he would if he had a better record against Nadal. Digest this carefully. This means that Federer's "only" 15 GS titles already account for his poor record against Nadal. Otherwise, he would have had 16 17 18 19.. already.
 
icedevil0289 said:
I mean now. I know he has twice, but he hasn't since 2007 and since then, nadal has beaten federer 3 times in slam finals. I'm hoping for a fedal final at the USO, and that feddie beats nadal, or that safin gets to the final and wins, hoping for the latter is kind of pointless.
Click to expand...

Right, because we should expect that, as Federer leaves his prime and Nadal enters his, Federer's record against Nadal will improve?

There is no question that Nadal is a difficult match-up for Federer, especially on clay. However, in his prime, Federer beats Nadal in GS outside of clay. And it likely wouldn't have been any different if Nadal made the USO and AO finals from '04-'07, as grass was Nadal's 2nd best surface (hard his worst), and he couldn't beat Federer there.

It boggles the mind how some people can say that Federer isn't the greatest player of this decade. He has 15 slams. Nadal has 6. That's Federer with almost 3 times as many slams as Nadal this decade. Clearly, Federer is the best player of this decade, it isn't even a question. #1 ranking too, 4 straights years #1, now adding to # non-consecutive weeks #1. No-one has spent more time as #1 in this decade.

Nadal is an incredible player, and it's really remarkable that 6 of his 6 Major wins have come over Federer. However, the reason he's such a difficult matchup for Federer is also the reason his knees are betraying him. So it isn't "unfair" that he has to deal with the consequences of his style of play. It wasn't "unfair" that he lost at the FO or couldn't play at Wimbledon. It was a consequence of his style of play. Now, look, it's too bad that he got injured, of course. But it isn't like it was something that was bestowed upon him by random chance.
 
If Nadal hadn't sucked so hard on anything but clay near the beginning of his career, the H2H would be quite different. The game is largely mental, and you can tell that Federer's history with Nadal has a huge impact on how well he plays when he has to go against Nadal.
 
Having a negative H2H with Nadal does hurt Federer's claim as GOAT, but not to the extent that he isn't. People have to realize that Nadal's game counters Federer's naturally. Federer's one handed backhand is particularly vulnerable to a high, loopy, lefty forehand with massive topspin. However, most other players aren't as susceptible to this as Federer is, so they have a relatively easier time against Nadal, whereas Federer crushes these same players.
 
JeMar said:
If Nadal hadn't sucked so hard on anything but clay near the beginning of his career, the H2H would be quite different. The game is largely mental, and you can tell that Federer's history with Nadal has a huge impact on how well he plays when he has to go against Nadal.
Click to expand...

Federer sucked on everything till he was 22.
 
President said:
Having a negative H2H with Nadal does hurt Federer's claim as GOAT, but not to the extent that he isn't. People have to realize that Nadal's game counters Federer's naturally. Federer's one handed backhand is particularly vulnerable to a high, loopy, lefty forehand with massive topspin. However, most other players aren't as susceptible to this as Federer is, so they have a relatively easier time against Nadal, whereas Federer crushes these same players.
Click to expand...

That's really weird isn't it? That Rafa struggles with Blake, but Fed crushes him every time.
 
icedevil0289 said:
isn't what fed said also a personal feeling?
Click to expand...

Could be taken that way. I agree. But if you believe you can win, that's self belief. If I'm going into any battle, competition and you ask me am I gonna win, my answer will always be "yes". if I don;t feel I can win, I might as well stay my ass at home. Comfidence, self belie is one thing.

But when referenced how another player though an opponent made them better (for eg Pete said, he knew he had to play against Agassi, or watch the 1995 US Open, where Pete scientifically took Dre apart, by doing certain things).

Fed flat out said no. Which is basically saying there's nothing this guy has done to make me change, tweak or improve certain aspects of my game. No this guy does not have bring out a different level. Sampras may feel he can win, but he didn;t (or not to my recollection) said he wouldn't have to change, raise his game etc.

Like 1996 YEC, he said Becker's play forced him to play better. After that 1st set he had to knuckle down. He may have believed he was gonna win, but something Becker did brought out somethin in him. He said Nada's game (and everyone else) has done nothing to his game, while then saying he's done things for them. Which is somehwat speaking on what he beielves is a fact. Then again that's his belief. Personal feeling on what he believes is a fact.
 
Haas_is_GOAT said:
This was posted by babbette, but it got last in a thread about mono and knees :cry:
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this,I liked the interview,some interesting points Sampras made.

I mean if Fed said something similar he'd be torn to shreds in this forum but regardless it was a nice honest interview,something I like to see(copy paste interviews bore me to death).

I do think if Fed wants to be GOAT he needs to get Nadal a few time in slam finals in the next few years.Although for me honestly,I just enjoy his tennis and hope he'll play as long as possible.He doesn't have to GOAT or similar for me to enjoy his beautiful(for me) game.
 
JeMar said:
If Nadal hadn't sucked so hard on anything but clay near the beginning of his career, the H2H would be quite different. The game is largely mental, and you can tell that Federer's history with Nadal has a huge impact on how well he plays when he has to go against Nadal.
Click to expand...

If Nadal had peaked during Fed's prime.......

well you don't wanna talk about that do you??
 
Last edited:
dh003i said:
Right, because we should expect that, as Federer leaves his prime and Nadal enters his, Federer's record against Nadal will improve?

There is no question that Nadal is a difficult match-up for Federer, especially on clay. However, in his prime, Federer beats Nadal in GS outside of clay. And it likely wouldn't have been any different if Nadal made the USO and AO finals from '04-'07, as grass was Nadal's 2nd best surface (hard his worst), and he couldn't beat Federer there.

It boggles the mind how some people can say that Federer isn't the greatest player of this decade. He has 15 slams. Nadal has 6. That's Federer with almost 3 times as many slams as Nadal this decade. Clearly, Federer is the best player of this decade, it isn't even a question. #1 ranking too, 4 straights years #1, now adding to # non-consecutive weeks #1. No-one has spent more time as #1 in this decade.

Nadal is an incredible player, and it's really remarkable that 6 of his 6 Major wins have come over Federer. However, the reason he's such a difficult matchup for Federer is also the reason his knees are betraying him. So it isn't "unfair" that he has to deal with the consequences of his style of play. It wasn't "unfair" that he lost at the FO or couldn't play at Wimbledon. It was a consequence of his style of play. Now, look, it's too bad that he got injured, of course. But it isn't like it was something that was bestowed upon him by random chance.
Click to expand...


I don't think I said anything about it being unfair.
 
zagor said:
Thanks for posting this,I liked the interview,some interesting points Sampras made.

I mean if Fed said something similar he'd be torn to shreds in this forum but regardless it was a nice honest interview,something I like to see(copy paste interviews bore me to death).

I do think if Fed wants to be GOAT he needs to get Nadal a few time in slam finals in the next few years.Although for me honestly,I just enjoy his tennis and hope he'll play as long as possible.He doesn't have to GOAT or similar for me to enjoy his beautiful(for me) game.
Click to expand...

great post. Agree with everything you said.
 
JeMar said:
Have you seen any noticeable change in Roger Federer's game since 2004? Aside from the drop shot, he plays exactly the same as he had in the past, before Nadal was as dominant as he's been lately. His game, if anything, has actually gotten worse.
Click to expand...

And since 2004 his ecord against Nadal is.....??? Maybe if he became a better player due to Nadal 7-13 and 2-5 wouldn;t follow him around like they do.
 
Let me just say that this is total and complete B.S.

It's possible to have a "bad matchup" without losing your GOAT status. Everyone matches up poorly with SOMEONE. Nadal has been beaten a couple of times recently by Murray, so that matchup might be a bad one for him. Time will tell.

Anyways, Federer's dominance is a matter of history now. He has rewritten the history books already and he's still competing. He has made the finals of the last 6 straight Slams and has won 3 of them. I'm not sure what more you can ask from the guy. He's a God. Period. Get over it.

What amazes me is that Sampras dares to question the quality of Federer's opponents, yet Sampras gladly accepted Slam victories over an aging Agassi at the USO and an over-the-hill Pioline at the A.O. Not only that, but Sampras consistently LOST in the quarters and semis of Slam events throughout his career, losing to powerhouses like Karol Kucera (WHO???) and George Bastl (WHO???).

Federer has beaten ALL comers and has absolutely DOMINATED everyone outside of the top 5, while Sampras routinely lost to players outside the top 50.

There is no question in my mind who has the GOAT title. And I'm afraid there's no question in Sampras' mind, either. He just won't admit it publicly.
 
OK, people who have voted "yes": who do you think is the GOAT?

Because even with the H2H, nobody can surpass Federer's other achievements.
 
zagor said:
Thanks for posting this,I liked the interview,some interesting points Sampras made.

I mean if Fed said something similar he'd be torn to shreds in this forum but regardless it was a nice honest interview,something I like to see(copy paste interviews bore me to death).

I do think if Fed wants to be GOAT he needs to get Nadal a few time in slam finals in the next few years.Although for me honestly,I just enjoy his tennis and hope he'll play as long as possible.He doesn't have to GOAT or similar for me to enjoy his beautiful(for me) game.
Click to expand...

I agree with the poster who said that Federer's matchup problem with Nadal is already reflected in his # GS wins. Wimbledon 2008, AO '09, all those French Opens... Yet he still has 15. So I don't really see much need to look beyond his # of grand slam wins.

What if Sampras was a little bit better on clay? He would have went further in many clay-court tournaments, only to lose to the top clay guys of his time. Thus, he'd have a number of significantly bad H2H's against these guys. But it would have still been ridiculous to claim any of them were better than Sampras.
 
You see the problem for Sampy fans is he has all those horrible losses to no-names and Fed hasn't had one in over 6 years. Fact is that Sampras isn't even close to Fed in overall greatness.
 
Also Sampy/Nad-****s want to create some mythical-perfect-standard of GOATness that no player could ever achieve, just to disqualify Roger.
 
This is where the article loses almost all credibility.

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.
Click to expand...

I have always felt Pete excelled in a soft era...once Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Mac faded. Guga, Muster - specialists. Chang - Nowhere near as good as Hewitt or probably even Roddick. Courier - two hot years and mentally soft v. Pete. Goran - Mentally soft one trick pony. Other than Andre when he was hot like '95 and '99, Pete had no real competition. The rest are hardly worth mentioning. And we all know the Pioline, Moya, Martin arguments.
 
Last edited:
Rippy said:
OK, people who have voted "yes": who do you think is the GOAT?

Because even with the H2H, nobody can surpass Federer's other achievements.
Click to expand...

I voted yes - it does affect it. But Fed is GOAT anyway because this effect isn't enough to prevent Fed from winning 15 GS.
 
FedFan_2009 said:
You see the problem for Sampy fans is he has all those horrible losses to no-names and Fed hasn't had one in over 6 years. Fact is that Sampras isn't even close to Fed in overall greatness.
Click to expand...

I was thinking this exact thing today. Pete could never match that 21 straight semifinal run. His A+ game may have been better than Roger's, but his bad days were significantly worse.
 
FedFan_2009 said:
You see the problem for Sampy fans is he has all those horrible losses to no-names and Fed hasn't had one in over 6 years. Fact is that Sampras isn't even close to Fed in overall greatness.
Click to expand...

yea, sure. Look, I think Federer's the greatest player of the Open Era, but it isn't a slam dunk over Sampras. If they played 5 Major finals against eachother in their prime at each of the Majors, my opinion is:

Wimbledon: Sampras wins 3, Federer 2
FO: Federer, 5-0 or 4-1
USO: 3-2, to either player... too close to call
AO: 3-2 to Federer

Outside of the FO, they're really dead even. But at the FO is where the real difference would be. Federer is just significantly better on Sampras fundamentally on clay. Although I figure maybe Sampras would play out of his mind 1 time, and Federer would lose.

It's really too bad these great players didn't play each-other in their primes.
 
Chadwixx said:
I kinda like how fed beating pete means nothing, yet nadal beating fed means everything...
Click to expand...

Well, it meant something, for sure; but it was still just 1 match, with neither in their prime. Although you could argue Federer was further from his.

That said, it was a wonderful match to watch; I much prefer the style of that match vs. many of the matches today.
 
dh003i said:
yea, sure. Look, I think Federer's the greatest player of the Open Era, but it isn't a slam dunk over Sampras. If they played 5 Major finals against eachother in their prime at each of the Majors, my opinion is:

Wimbledon: Sampras wins 3, Federer 2
FO: Federer, 5-0 or 4-1
USO: 3-2, to either player... too close to call
AO: 3-2 to Federer

Outside of the FO, they're really dead even. But at the FO is where the real difference would be. Federer is just significantly better on Sampras fundamentally on clay. Although I figure maybe Sampras would play out of his mind 1 time, and Federer would lose.

It's really too bad these great players didn't play each-other in their primes.
Click to expand...

Its just so hard to say. For example based on matchups, i think Fed would be a nightmare for Pete. He said that he thought S&V would trouble Fed, but i dont think so. While ppl point to their exhibitions and say old man Pete was almost equal to Prime Roger, i cant help but say we dont know how hard Fed was pushing it, we dont know if he was fatigued or w/e
 
dh003i said:
yea, sure. Look, I think Federer's the greatest player of the Open Era, but it isn't a slam dunk over Sampras. If they played 5 Major finals against eachother in their prime at each of the Majors, my opinion is:

Wimbledon: Sampras wins 3, Federer 2
FO: Federer, 5-0 or 4-1
USO: 3-2, to either player... too close to call
AO: 3-2 to Federer

Outside of the FO, they're really dead even. But at the FO is where the real difference would be. Federer is just significantly better on Sampras fundamentally on clay. Although I figure maybe Sampras would play out of his mind 1 time, and Federer would lose.

It's really too bad these great players didn't play each-other in their primes.
Click to expand...


I agree. I said before I think it would have been a great rivalry.
 
The only effect nadal has had on fed's career is that he didnt become the Goat 3-4 years ago, and to not have slams by now. Which means no one can compare to him.
 
fed has a bad match-up with Nadal
Pete had a bad match-up with clay

I don't know which one is worse :confused:

I'm sure sucking on clay is better than sucking against nadal because if you suck on clay, you can be anointed GOAT (Pete), but not if you suck against the clay court GOAT (on clay, for the most part).

Pete is actually bitter. i don't blame him - all his lifetime's work to achieve #1 in history books was shattered in a matter of 7 yrs. I'm glad Fed didn't give this interview; otherwise this board would have ripped him to shreds.
 
No point in comparing peak Sampras vs peak Federer. peak Federer is stronger, faster, better. The only way to know who's better is to compare them against the field. In that department Roger blows Sampras away with all those records that have been listed on TTW many times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim
6 7 8
Replies
364
Views
31K
Talker
Talker
M
Sampras says Nadal remains biggest threat to Federer
2 3
Replies
115
Views
8K
rocket
R
REKX
  • Poll Poll
Prime Nadal vs Prime Sampras at the French Open - Only Sampras Serves - Who Wins?
10 11 12
Replies
588
Views
42K
aman92
aman92
REKX
  • Poll Poll
Prime Nadal on Clay vs Prime Sampras on "fast" Grass
Replies
47
Views
5K
zep
Z
F
Sampras says Nadal could surpass Federer as slams king
2 3
Replies
104
Views
10K
ninman
ninman
Back
Top