Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim

[jelle v]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final at his best he was unbeatable on grass.

Sampras played on quicker grass than Federer.. i wonder how Sampras would fare against Nadal on the slower grass. Sampras has this idea of grasstennis being about serve and volley. Guess what.. it isn't anymore. I would love to see Sampras playing serve and volley against Federer on this slower grass even in his prime. We all know how that ended by the way.

 

[FiveO]

Guys,

Some here are engaging in the same sort of witch-hunt nonsense that those questioning Federer's character because of an article of clothing.

Sampras has himself said Federer is the GOAT. In the interview immediately following Fed's Wimbledon title he had a harder time saying it unequivocally because he was standing there with Fed, Borg and Laver, stating that Laver had two Grand Slams in his resume.

The title of the e-article is to me the irresponsible media doing what the do best, in this case, a terrible paraphrase of Sampras's answer of another question he seems to have felt back into a corner on, just like being asked if Fed was the GOAT with the two time GS winner and idol standing right there.

"Tough question to answer. I do understand the argument as being the best ever you have to be the best of your generation and he has come up short against Nadal," Sampras said. "I can see the point and it's hard to answer it. It's not done yet. Roger's careeer isn't done yet and he has to beat (Nadal) and he's got to beat him in the final of majors. In my book he is (the greatest of all time), but he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. You've gotta be the man of your generation. Roger certainly is the man of his generation, but he's got to figure out how to beat Nadal."

The question exists and is kind of an elephant in the room for some because it's never happened before, not to anyone on the GOAT level, in the Open Era, not to Laver, not to Borg, nor to Sampras. It's not unusual. It's singular.

Does it mean that it blocks Federer from GOAT induction. For some I suppose, but not for most and in this case particularly not for Sampras.

Sampras was asked a question, on an obvious topic, and what he conceded was that the circumstance (the h2h) exists, that he could "see the point" of either THE REPORTER or un-named OTHER(S), but even while conceding the perceived issue existing. IOW he Sampras didn't bring the issue up the author did. After conceding that he is aware of the issue, he is quoted as saying "Roger's career isn't done yet". He then follows that with "In my book he [Federer] already is [the GOAT]."

Sampras goes on to say that Fed's got to beat Nadal. I don't see that as qualifying his opinion of who he thinks the GOAT is or that he is ready to withdraw his opinion if Fed doesn't even the h2h down the road, but I concede the rest is conjecture. Given the above, I would think that Sampras says that so even that issue on OTHERS minds is rendered moot. That there is no mental "*" placed on Roger's career.

As far as Sampras believing his grass court game.

Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure, I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. Roger probably feels unbeatable now. He'd be a tough guy to break, especially if he was hitting 50 aces. It would be a great match up."

Yeah Sampras believes he could beat Fed on grass in his prime and what I take from the rest of it is that Sampras knows Fed feels the same way. What would you expect a Champion to say? "Nah, I'd show up but I'd have no chance." Uh, uh, that's
"the little man" on the shoulders of everyone else is whispering in THEIR ears. Laver has said that he would like his chances against anyone with a wood racquets. I'm sure Borg has similar feelings about how he would beat the other guys too. It's part of being a champion.

But to color these responses to direct questions as "bitterness" and "delusional" coming from an "old man" is as paranoid as those trying to build a character profile of a guy based on a sweat suit jacket. You're also grouping the author's words (the bulk of the article) in with Sampras's quotes. It was obviously the premise of the author, he formed his questions around his point, Sampras said Fed was the GOAT, conceded he was aware issue of the Fed/Nadal h2h, said Fed was the GOAT again, said he believed in his prime he could beat Fed on grass (a sentiment the author claims Laver shares), that he suspects Federer would feel the same way and finally that it would be a great match-up which is pretty much the consensus of the majority of reasonable minded followers of the sport.

C'mon fellas.

We'll never see prime Sampras play prime Federer but I'll tell you what, if Fed and Pete are as friendly as they say in public I'd leap at the chance to sit a the same table as them as they shared thoughts on how they would go about beating each other and other contenders in their respective eras.

5

 

[Rippy]

He's 5 years younger and is much further ahead of where Federer was at the same age. Continue the denial...

That's why I said we have to wait until both players are retired. Fed's knees also weren't wrecked at Nadal's age.

I don't know who'll end up more titles. What I DO know, is proclaiming Nadal better than Fed cos of H2H is stupid. If Nadal wins more GSs than Federer, and a career slam, I'll say Nadal is better. Bookmark this post and dredge it up whenever Nadal wins more GSs if you want.

 

[Bud]

That's why I said we have to wait until both players are retired. Fed's knees also weren't wrecked at Nadal's age.

I don't know who'll end up more titles. What I DO know, is proclaiming Nadal better than Fed cos of H2H is stupid. If Nadal wins more GSs than Federer, and a career slam, I'll say Nadal is better. Bookmark this post and dredge it up whenever Nadal wins more GSs if you want.

Well, at least we agree on some things... truce

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

He seems to be pretty rational and clear minded with little to no bias.


I'm liking it, even if he thinks that Sampras was better.


By the way BorisBeckerfan, Edberg > Becker (teeheeteeheee)

Unfortunatley Edberg, despite a bad overall head to head with Boris, did get the best of Becker at Wimbledon and was number one longer so I won't argue (not that I don't have one) but not sad about it as Edberg was one classy guy.

 

[bluetrain4]

I think Fed has a legit claim to GOAT, but you have to admit it is a weird situation for a GOAT contender to have a losing record against his/her primary rival.

Yeah, there was always the argument that the record is so lopsided because (1) Fed is good enough to get to the finals on Nadal's best surface (clay), but (2) Nadal isn't good enough to get to the finals on Fed's best surfaces, so fed doesn't have the opportunity to even out the record.

But, that argument sort of died with 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian (which if Fed would have won, their Slam head to head would have been 4-4).

Even forgetting all of the Masters series clay losses to Nadal, His Slam record against Nadal is 2-6 (2-5 in Slam finals). On non-clay surfaces, the Slam record is even (2-2). True, Nadal is one of best clay courters ever (if not the best), but you can't just discount all those Slam clay losses just because its Nadals best surface. It could be argued that if Fed was truly the GOAT, he would at least be able to win one of those matches. He's hardly inept on clay.

Again, I'm fine with Fed as GOAT, but I understand the Nadal argument that Pete and others make.

Right now I think it's a salient argument since he's so close to Sampras. I wonder what Sampras will say if Fed beats his record signifcantly (18 or more Slams), but still has a losing record against Nadal.

 

[Rippy]

I think Fed has a legit claim to GOAT, but you have to admit it is a weird situation for a GOAT contender to have a losing record against his/her primary rival.

Yeah, there was always the argument that the record is so lopsided because (1) Fed is good enough to get to the finals on Nadal's best surface (clay), but (2) Nadal isn't good enough to get to the finals on Fed's best surfaces, so fed doesn't have the opportunity to even out the record.

But, that argument sort of died with 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian (which if Fed would have won, their Slam head to head would have been 4-4).

Even forgetting all of the Masters series clay losses to Nadal, His Slam record against Nadal is 2-6 (2-5 in Slam finals). On non-clay surfaces, the Slam record is even (2-2). True, Nadal is one of best clay courters ever (if not the best), but you can't just discount all those Slam clay losses just because its Nadals best surface. It could be argued that if Fed was truly the GOAT, he would at least be able to win one of those matches. He's hardly inept on clay.

Again, I'm fine with Fed as GOAT, but I understand the Nadal argument that Pete and others make.

Right now I think it's a salient argument since he's so close to Sampras. I wonder what Sampras will say if Fed beats his record signifcantly (18 or more Slams), but still has a losing record against Nadal.

Sampras even now says Fed is the GOAT.

 

[pame]

He's 5 years younger and is much further ahead of where Federer was at the same age. Continue the denial...

Well since we're dealing with tennis matches played on the ATP tour, and since the basis for comparisons and stats is the pro players' performances, let's look at Federer's and Nadal's.

Federer turned pro at 17 in 1998, Nadal turned pro at 15 in 2001. I've started from their 4th year as a pro, since that was the first year either had won a GS

Pro Year........ GS Running totals
.................Federer....... Nadal

4th.........0 [2002]...... 1 [2005]
5th.........1 [2003]...... 2 [2006]
6th.........4 [2004]...... 3 [2007]
7th.........6 [2005]...... 5 [2008]
8th.........9 [2006]...... 6 [2009] (USO?)
9th........12 [2007]...... ?
10th.......13 [2008]...... ?
11th.......15 [2009]...... ?
.............(USO?)

 

[Bud]

I think Fed has a legit claim to GOAT, but you have to admit it is a weird situation for a GOAT contender to have a losing record against his/her primary rival.

Yeah, there was always the argument that the record is so lopsided because (1) Fed is good enough to get to the finals on Nadal's best surface (clay), but (2) Nadal isn't good enough to get to the finals on Fed's best surfaces, so fed doesn't have the opportunity to even out the record.

But, that argument sort of died with 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian (which if Fed would have won, their Slam head to head would have been 4-4).

Even forgetting all of the Masters series clay losses to Nadal, His Slam record against Nadal is 2-6 (2-5 in Slam finals). On non-clay surfaces, the Slam record is even (2-2). True, Nadal is one of best clay courters ever (if not the best), but you can't just discount all those Slam clay losses just because its Nadals best surface. It could be argued that if Fed was truly the GOAT, he would at least be able to win one of those matches. He's hardly inept on clay.

Again, I'm fine with Fed as GOAT, but I understand the Nadal argument that Pete and others make.

Right now I think it's a salient argument since he's so close to Sampras. I wonder what Sampras will say if Fed beats his record signifcantly (18 or more Slams), but still has a losing record against Nadal.

Excellent and objective post!

 

[FedFan_2009]

Basically Nad-****s say that:

* 2-5 in slam finals is disgustingly bad, no matter it makes Nadal to be a clown

* Federer winning the Channel Slam w/o beating Nadal has no legitimacy whatsoever

They'll keep bleating these 2 points to the end of time. Count on it.

 

[Bud]

Well since we're dealing with tennis matches played on the ATP tour, and since the basis for comparisons and stats is the pro players' performances, let's look at Federer's and Nadal's.

Federer turned pro at 17 in 1998, Nadal turned pro at 15 in 2001. I've started from their 4th year as a pro, since that was the first year either had won a GS

Pro Year........ GS Running totals
.................Federer....... Nadal

4th.........0 [2002]...... 1 [2005]
5th.........1 [2003]...... 2 [2006]
6th.........4 [2004]...... 3 [2007]
7th.........6 [2005]...... 5 [2008]
8th.........9 [2006]...... 6 [2009] (USO?)
9th........12 [2007]...... ?
10th.......13 [2008]...... ?
11th.......15 [2009]...... ?
.............(USO?)

Sorry, I don't buy the when they turned pro argument. Did you see Nadal when he was 15? He was a little porker and was at least 6 inches shorter than he is now

Let's go by age and keep it fair.

 

[boojay]

The fact that Fed would be considered better if he went out in the first round of every French Open except this year's is laughable.

Well said. It's another way of saying it's not Fed's fault that Nadal's not good enough to make it to the finals of surfaces other than clay on a consistent basis like Federer, but I like the angle you viewed it from.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Well said. It's another way of saying it's not Fed's fault that Nadal's not good enough to make it to the finals of surfaces other than clay on a consistent basis like Federer, but I like the angle you viewed it from.

Nad-****s insist that Rafa was not obligated to make hard-court slam finals until he turned 22.

 

[boojay]

Sorry, I don't buy the when they turned pro argument. Did you see Nadal when he was 15? He was a little porker and was at least 6 inches shorter than he is now

Let's go by age and keep it fair.

Here's the problem, Nadal will retire by age 25 or earlier. I don't see him winning another 9 slams within that timeframe.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Here's the problem, Nadal will retire by age 25 or earlier. I don't see him winning another 9 slams within that timeframe.

Not according to Nad-****s. They insist he will win 9-10 more slams easily. They say his knee troubles "are over and done with", and he'll "dominate Federer at the US Open, just you wait and see!".

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Unfortunatley Edberg, despite a bad overall head to head with Boris, did get the best of Becker at Wimbledon and was number one longer so I won't argue (not that I don't have one) but not sad about it as Edberg was one classy guy.

Haha, actually i'm only 16, so I never saw them play. I'm just a fan of Edberg's play style and fluidity. Supposedly he was a great guy too, so it doesn't hurt.

My comment was just mean to jerk your chain a bit. That is an interesting argument though (Becker leads like 25-10 in the H2H), but we could save that for another thread in another section.

 

[Bud]

Not according to Nad-****s. They insist he will win 9-10 more slams easily. They say his knee troubles "are over and done with", and he'll "dominate Federer at the US Open, just you wait and see!".

He suffered the same problems a few years ago... and was out alot... then came back and won a bunch of Masters and GS titles... so don't discount him so quickly.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Becker/Edberg H2H in slam finals matters because they both finish with 6 slams. However if Becker had won some of those OTHER Wimbledon finals not featuring Edberg, I'd say Becker > Edberg.

 

[FedFan_2009]

He suffered the same problems a few years ago... and was out alot... then came back and won a bunch of Masters and GS titles... so don't discount him so quickly.

He never had to miss Wimbledon and give up his #1 ranking. Nad-****s aren't willing to admit that he's done. Stick a fork in him.

 

[boojay]

He suffered the same problems a few years ago... and was out alot... then came back and won a bunch of Masters and GS titles... so don't discount him so quickly.

I haven't been. I've been saying for years that Nadal's legs are done, it just finally happened this year. Credit to the guy for being able to make it this long, but his downfall has begun and will only get worse as he ages at an accelerated pace.

 

[Rippy]

He never had to miss Wimbledon and give up his #1 ranking. Nad-****s aren't willing to admit that he's done. Stick a fork in him.

I wouldn't write off Nadal like that.

 

[pame]

Sorry, I don't buy the when they turned pro argument. Did you see Nadal when he was 15? He was a little porker and was at least 6 inches shorter than he is now

Let's go by age and keep it fair.

I'm sorry you don't go by their pro careers, because that's what I understood to be under discussion at any point: ATP tour records - that's where the stats on tournaments come from... even people like Laver who missed out chunks. I have never seen anyone include his non-ATP tour years as part of his stats.

 

[FedFan_2009]

I haven't been. I've been saying for years that Nadal's legs are done, it just finally happened this year. Credit to the guy for being able to make it this long, but his downfall has begun and will only get worse as he ages at an accelerated pace.

Yes the Nad-****s just don't understand Nadal's ballistic style of movement can't last more then 2 more years MAX before he has to retire. Do they think he'll win 8 slams in 2 years? Talk about delusional...

 

[JeMar]

Sorry, I don't buy the when they turned pro argument. Did you see Nadal when he was 15? He was a little porker and was at least 6 inches shorter than he is now

Let's go by age and keep it fair.

Yeah, and he was beating grand slam champs at 14 or something else ridiculous.

His growth was very peculiar.

 

[Bud]

He never had to miss Wimbledon and give up his #1 ranking. Nad-****s aren't willing to admit that he's done. Stick a fork in him.

He wasn't well enough to play the FO or Wimbledon in 2004 (stress fracture in his ankle).

 

[Haas_is_GOAT]

Nad-****s insist that Rafa was not obligated to make hard-court slam finals until he turned 22.

Because Fed was making finals on his least favourite service at 22, right?

 

[Bud]

Yeah, and he was beating grand slam champs at 14 or something else ridiculous.

Over the hill GS champs... not current

 

[FedFan_2009]

Because Fed was making finals on his least favourite service at 22, right?

You're a well known Fed-hater on these boards.

 

[boojay]

Yes the Nad-****s just don't understand Nadal's ballistic style of movement can't last more then 2 more years MAX before he has to retire. Do they think he'll win 8 slams in 2 years? Talk about delusional...

Nadal's style of play, while effective, does not lend itself to longevity. Anyone who denies that is obviously clueless. Unlike Federer, who's always thinking long-term (years at a time even), Nadal lays his body on the line with every shot. He lives in the here-and-now and unfortunately for him that was then-and-gone. I do not see him getting better in level of play or health. His body will continue to deteriorate and his results will suffer as a result.

 

[wangs78]

Pete makes very fair points. But look, every player has losing records against someone. Somebody go check Sampras' career H2H's and I'm sure there were players that gave Pete trouble. It just so happens that for Roger, that player is the #2 best player during his era, which creates the inconvenient argument that Roger can't be the greatest when he has a losing record against another top player. It's hard to ignore but look, I think it's clear to everyone that Roger is the more talented player between him and Rafa. Rafa has the mental edge. And that's how he beat Roger at Wimby and AO. Roger by all rights should have won those which would give Roger a 4-3 edge in GS finals against Rafa. But he choked. But I think it counts for something that Roger's losses to Rafa outside of the FO have all been 5 setters. Meaning that Rafa has not really mastered Roger on surfaces other than clay. But I agree with Sampras, Roger needs to beat Rafa a couple of times in GS finals (IMO) to erase this asterisk. Actually, this is probably the only meaningful goal that Roger has left in his career.

 

[clayman2000]

Yes the Nad-****s just don't understand Nadal's ballistic style of movement can't last more then 2 more years MAX before he has to retire. Do they think he'll win 8 slams in 2 years? Talk about delusional...

Dude, do you have a brain. Im sure Nadal will learn, as time goes on, how to better schedule events to he can still compete. Agassi from 04 - 06 did that. He took himself out of the clay and grass seasons to prepare himself for the HC.

Nadal will do that more as he gets older. And also if you see Nadal now, he is a far more agressive player than he was in 05 and 06 (maybe not 04). His serve is better, and he hits flatter when he needs to

 

[JeMar]

Over the hill GS champs... not current

Moya's said that Nadal's always played him tough, even when he was very young.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Dude, do you have a brain. Im sure Nadal will learn, as time goes on, how to better schedule events to he can still compete. Agassi from 04 - 06 did that. He took himself out of the clay and grass seasons to prepare himself for the HC.

Nadal will do that more as he gets older. And also if you see Nadal now, he is a far more agressive player than he was in 05 and 06 (maybe not 04). His serve is better, and he hits flatter when he needs to

Keep deluding yourself. Nadal blew his knees out to win those 2 non-clay majors and will never win another.

 

[All-rounder]

Dude, do you have a brain. Im sure Nadal will learn, as time goes on, how to better schedule events to he can still compete. Agassi from 04 - 06 did that. He took himself out of the clay and grass seasons to prepare himself for the HC.

Nadal will do that more as he gets older. And also if you see Nadal now, he is a far more agressive player than he was in 05 and 06 (maybe not 04). His serve is better, and he hits flatter when he needs to

Time is ticking people was saying this every year and nothing has changed even if nadal changes his schedule I still think he may not be 100%

 

[Bud]

Keep deluding yourself. Nadal blew his knees out to win those 2 non-clay majors and will never win another.

May we call you an idiot when he wins another Masters or GS title?

 

[bruce38]

Everyone seems to think Sampras and Fed would have competitive matches on grass. I watched both intently through their primes (I was a big Sampras fan back then). I don't think Pete would stand a chance against Fed. Of course he feels no one could beat him in his prime. That's natural. Fed probably feels the same. But just watch and analyze. There is a world of difference in pure talent between the two. Sampras' era just looked so strong because Pete himself was inconsistent and not at the same level of Fed.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

I actually can't even see why this is a debate.

Splitting apart 2 ways of distinguishing whose game is better.

Overall Tennis Ability

and

Overall Tennis Achievements

Overall Tennis Talent
In terms of tennis ability, i don't think there is much @ all separating Federer and Sampras serving wise, yes Sampras won many more cheaper points using his serve and served a lot more aces with it but the crucial factor many people always miss is the standard of returners in today's game demolishes the standard of returners in last decades. We also need to take in to consideration the fact grass was a slightly faster surface back then, hence the overall greater effectiveness in Sampras's serving.

With all this being Sampras still edges it due to the ability to bang down second serve aces. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt-vdBYeU3A - As highlighted so brightly in this video.

A quote taken from Wikipedia
He was known for producing aces on critical points, even with his second serves.[39][40] He had an accurate and powerful first serve, one of the best of all time;[41] His second serve was nearly as powerful as his first, possibly his most dangerous weapon. He had great disguise on both his first and second serves.

From a groundstroke’s view, Federer absolutely beats Sampras to the wall, the Federer's forehand is probably the greatest shot in the history of the game and anyone that questions that obviously knows nothing about the game.

Sampras couldn't hold his own from the back of the court, he had World class groundies, don't get me wrong, but they weren’t consistently and penetratingly devastating enough.

From a volleying perspective, due to the nature of the game today i don't feel Federer has had to master the shot as well as he potentially could have done. Many will say Sampras's volley was the better of the two, i am one that cannot decide, it is simply too close to call.

Versatility and stamina both go to Federer and for obvious reasons also stated above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall Tennis Achievements
Sampras still holds more Wimbledon crowns to his name than Federer, although I cannot foresee how Federer will not pass level or pass that mark with a minimum of 5 years still left in his career.

As has been well documented by many on this board and around the tennis fan community; Sampras never won the @ the French, Federer has, as well as this he has won French and Wimbledon titles back to back.

Federer has 5 straight Wimbledon and US Open Grandslams, given the field is easier on grass, i'm sure many will agree that is definitely not the case on hard.

Sampras took his grandslam tally to 14 in 2002, aged 33? Federer is on 15 and still going fresh, with the real possibility of now making it to the all amazing landmark of 20.

The only achievement Sampras has which Federer doesn't, to note, is having won a grandslam in his 30s and that is not Federer's fault.

The final verdict is Federer has Sampras comprehensively beaten in all departments. Prior to 2009, those departments were unfullfillied, however now, the answer is clear.

Federer is the greatest player of the last 2 generations and he probably will be the greatest player of our living one as well.

 

[zagor]

Notice how Pete doesn't mention his woeful French Open record(only one semi!) and then bashes Roger for losing to Nadal on clay at the biggest stages.

Comparing Clay records

Fed - Won RG, 3 finals, semi, 5 clay masters and 6 other finals

Sampras - semi at RG, won Rome and NO other finals.

My god Pete, you should just STFU and let Borg do the talking.

Yes,one big advantage Fed has over Sampras is that his FO record is way better,that's true.

But why should Sampras STFU? The guy has 14 slams,he's certainly earned the right to say what he thinks.I'm interested to hear his honest opinion and besides he did say Fed is GOAT in his book but that he can see the other side of the argument as well(H2H against main rival),I agree with a lot of what he says in his interview.

As for saying Sampras saying he felt unbeatable on grass and think he would beat Fed,I'm sure Fed would say that he would beat Pete in his prime if they'd ask him.It's normal for top players,especially ones as dominant as Fed and Sampras to think that way.Yes Fed would have been torn to shreds in this forum if he said the same because will rip Fed here for anything he says or does but that still doesn't mean what Sampras said is wrong or unusual for a top athlete to say(quite the opposite actually).

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.

I'm not saying Nadal is better than Fed,if he can't come close to Fed's achievements when all is said and done then Fed's the better player for me.IMO H2H comes into play to decide who's the better player when achievements are comparable but if Fed ends up with say 17-18 slams and Nadal with 10-12 then Fed's still greater for me.

However I do think that H2H against Nadal damages Fed's GOAT claim.He's still one of the best ever regardless but to be the undisputed best ever he needs to get Nadal at slams a couple of more times in the future IMO.

 

[boojay]

Dude, do you have a brain. Im sure Nadal will learn, as time goes on, how to better schedule events to he can still compete. Agassi from 04 - 06 did that. He took himself out of the clay and grass seasons to prepare himself for the HC.

Nadal will do that more as he gets older. And also if you see Nadal now, he is a far more agressive player than he was in 05 and 06 (maybe not 04). His serve is better, and he hits flatter when he needs to

Hypothetically speaking, let's say Nadal does decide to change his playing style, then sure, he can play longer, but it won't be at the same level. I doubt Nadal can make it beyond the early rounds if he tones down his game.

As we all know, habits die hard and Nadal simply does not have the game Federer possesses to win without having to physically sacrifice himself every match.

P.S. I realize you said schedule change, but Nadal can't pull a Fed and only play in the big tourneys. He needs to play and play and play himself into submission in order to keep his level up.

 

[zagor]

Yep, keep telling yourself that. Perhaps, one day... you'll actually believe it.

And how do you know whether he believes it or not? Your opinion isn't the golden standard now is it? He's entitled to his view as much as you are to yours.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Hypothetically speaking, let's say Nadal does decide to change his playing style, then sure, he can play longer, but it won't be at the same level. I doubt Nadal can make it beyond the early rounds if he tones down his game.

As we all know, habits die hard and Nadal simply does not have the game Federer possesses to win without having to physically sacrifice himself every match.

Stop speaking logic and truth! These '****s can't handle it.

 

[JeMar]

Everyone seems to think Sampras and Fed would have competitive matches on grass. I watched both intently through their primes (I was a big Sampras fan back then). I don't think Pete would stand a chance against Fed. Of course he feels no one could beat him in his prime. That's natural. Fed probably feels the same. But just watch and analyze. There is a world of difference in pure talent between the two. Sampras' era just looked so strong because Pete himself was inconsistent and not at the same level of Fed.

Finally! Thank you!

 

[zagor]

Keep deluding yourself. Nadal blew his knees out to win those 2 non-clay majors and will never win another.

Disagree,I think Nadal will win multiple more majors in his career.I see him ending up somewhere between 10 and 12 slams when all is said and done.

 

[boojay]

Stop speaking logic and truth! These '****s can't handle it.

My bad!

Nadal for president!!!..........of the rehab center in mallorca.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Disagree,I think Nadal will win multiple more majors in his career.I see him ending up somewhere between 10 and 12 slams when all is said and done.

Haha, keep up that funny ****.

 

[shakes1975]

I think Sampras was as classy as it is possible for a champion to be in this interview. He just answered questions that were put to him. All those statements about Fed's h2h with Nadal were, IMO, made because some jacka** reporter must have wanted to get some juicy tidbits for quotes, and so must have put those questions to him.

However, I disagree with this notion as to how the Sampras-Fed matches would play out. Most Sampras fans and fans of players in the Sampras era make it appear to be a great offense beats great defense scenario. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Going by how Fed served in the last 3 wim Finals, and going by how Sampras struggled to return Fed's serve in the only match they played (both had nearly the same aces), I would say that Sampras would have as much trouble with Fed's serve as Fed would have with Sampras' serve. So, there would be a lot of tie-breaks and a few points would decide the match.

Who will win the tie-breaks ? Who knows ? Both have excellent tie-break records.

For me, the thing is, that Sampras' absolute peak will win over Fed. BUT, it has to be his absolute peak. IOW, anything less from Sampras wouldn't cut it. And that means only '99 Sampras would cut it. Not '93-'97 Sampras, because he still played often from the baseline, and, sorry, as good as he is, Sampras cannot beat Fed playing from the baseline. No way. The Sampras that played the 1999 Wim F would win against any Fed.

To put it simply, Sampras at 100 % beats Fed at 100 %, while anything less than that, Fed wins.

Wilander once said that, Sampras playing at 95 or 100 % is the best player he has ever seen, even better than Federer BUT Fed. at 90% is better than Sampras at 90%. And I agree with him.

But if they had come up in the same era and played many matches through the years, how often can Sampras play at his peak, at his 100 % attacking ? I mean, through all of Sampras' career, there were only one year that I could say that he really played his peakest-peak - '99 summer.

So, I think if they played out a series of matches, Fed would end up winning more often than not, BUT Sampras, for a brief period, would hammer Fed for a few matches.

 

[Al Czervik]

The H2H is so biased in favour of clay, it's basically useless. The fact that Fed would be considered better if he went out in the first round of every French Open except this year's is laughable.

Wow, 9-2 on clay. If Fed just loses in the quarters of those tourneys, he is up 5-4 in head to head and the Sampras sycophants would be looking at something else to nitpick.

 

[pame]

And as always, there's the view from the other side of the hill.

Andre Agassi yesterday in Rockland County< new York at an exhibition match for the cause of the fight against breast cancer:

"During Agassi's press conference, he left no doubt who he thought was better, Roger Federer or Pete Sampras. Federer surpassed Sampras' Grand Slam record last July 5 at Wimbledon.

"I played Federer in the finals of the U.S. Open, and strictly from being on the court, what he brings to the table is simply unmatched by anybody I've ever competed against," Agassi said. "Pete got to the semis of the French Open once. Federer would have had five French Open championships if it wasn't for one freak of nature from Majorca (Rafael Nadal). His records and accomplishments are unimaginable for someone like myself."

Agassi also said it was clear how much better today's players are than in his era.

"Every sport that you can measure accomplishments, whether it's how much weight you can lift or how fast you can run or how high you can jump, we've seen athletes get stronger, get better," Agassi said. "I watch these guys play from my living room, and I thank God I don't play anymore."

http://www.lohud.com/article/200907...S02/Agassi-joins-cause-to-fight-breast-cancer

 

[JeMar]

Agassi and Sampras are just such huge *******s.

 

[fed_rulz]

And as always, there's the view from the other side of the hill.

Andre Agassi yesterday in Rockland County< new York at an exhibition match for the cause of the fight against breast cancer:

"During Agassi's press conference, he left no doubt who he thought was better, Roger Federer or Pete Sampras. Federer surpassed Sampras' Grand Slam record last July 5 at Wimbledon.

"I played Federer in the finals of the U.S. Open, and strictly from being on the court, what he brings to the table is simply unmatched by anybody I've ever competed against," Agassi said. "Pete got to the semis of the French Open once. Federer would have had five French Open championships if it wasn't for one freak of nature from Majorca (Rafael Nadal). His records and accomplishments are unimaginable for someone like myself."

Agassi also said it was clear how much better today's players are than in his era.

"Every sport that you can measure accomplishments, whether it's how much weight you can lift or how fast you can run or how high you can jump, we've seen athletes get stronger, get better," Agassi said. "I watch these guys play from my living room, and I thank God I don't play anymore."

http://www.lohud.com/article/200907...S02/Agassi-joins-cause-to-fight-breast-cancer

oops! Petetards will now come in full force claiming that Agassi favors fed out of spite for Pete

Can some one pls answer my question:

If Nadal is the clay court GOAT (or one of the contenders),and more than 50% of the Fedal matches were on clay, how is Fed expected to maintain a positive h2h over Nadal? Fed will become overall GOAT only if he betters the clay court GOAT, and in turn become CC GOAT himself?? Some crazy standards that Fed (and he alone) is expected to meet..