Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim

[nadal_slam_king]

I wonder what does Sampras think now that Nadal has been beaten on the biggest stage to his rival at every slam? How does that change the claim that one needs to have a positive H2H to all of his rivals (as opposed to slam count, weeks at No.1, etc) in order to be the best of generation?

2 things:

Dj has beaten Nadal on hardcourt and grass slams, but never clay slam.

Nadal leads Dj head2head overall and in slam matches too.

Whereas if you look at the Federer vs Nadal head2head:

Nadal has beaten Federer on hardcourt, grass and clay slams.

Nadal leads Federer head2head overall and in slam matches too.

So I doubt Sampras would change his mind.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

2 things:

Dj has beaten Nadal on hardcourt and grass slams, but never clay slam.

Nadal leads Dj head2head overall and in slam matches too.

Whereas if you look at the Federer vs Nadal head2head:

Nadal has beaten Federer on hardcourt, grass and clay slams.

Nadal leads Federer head2head overall and in slam matches too.

So I doubt Sampras would change his mind.

Correct. But, Nadal is dominated in slam finals by Djokovic, that is a telling stat, considering he lost three straight.

 

[reversef]

I've not read many posts from this thread. But Sampras is certainly not the right person to challenge Federer's goat claim based on that. I think he avoided that kind of problem by losing against nobodies on clay. Had he played more against some of his rivals on that surface, his H2H could have been different.

 

[Deleted member 60695]

So I doubt Sampras would change his mind.

Sampras' mind is quite, shall we say, limited, so I am not too concerned if he changes it or not.

 

[reversef]

I wonder what does Sampras think now that Nadal has been beaten on the biggest stage to his rival at every slam? How does that change the claim that one needs to have a positive H2H to all of his rivals (as opposed to slam count, weeks at No.1, etc) in order to be the best of generation?

It doesn't change anything for Sampras because at this stage, his problem is not Nadal, but Federer. I've watched him talk about the subject, and it's clear that he's just very sore and tries to find something because Federer has put him out of the goat competition.
I'm not into Sampras and I'm not into Federer, but I just find Sampras' comments incredibly hypocritical. He praises the other guy just to introduce some doubts. It would not look that bad if he had not sucked so much on one surface, which certainly helped him to avoid some losses against his main rivals.

 

[Tenez101]

Come on, it's all quite obvious Pete's just sore because Federer superseded his claim to GOAT. The overwhelming majority of tennis fans consider Federer as GOAT (as of now).

 

[Bobby Jr]

When people talk about the whole who beat who and on what surface and if it was in finals or not etc... they should be reminded of the true benchmark for achievement:

Slam performances against all players on any surface.

The results are quite interesting (for current players):
Federer, 16
Nadal, 10
Djokovic, 5
Del Potro, 1
Roddick, 1
Murray, 0

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras is such a smart*ss. I wonder how he would fare against Nadal if he played more than half of the matches on clay, in an era where hard courts are slower than clay and the speed of grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than in the 90's. Against a guy who is 5 years younger than him and steadily gets better every year while Pete himself would get only worse since 26/27 years of age. Against a guy who would totally **** his backhand 99 % (I mean Fed has 10x the backhand Sampras had and he still has issues) of the time and pass him left and right if he dared to attack the net on today's conditions.

Instead of Agassi who was at his peak for less than a year (first 9 months of 1995), virtually dissappeared for another 4 years. Who was a 1,5 year older than Pete with his best surface being hard courts which also happens to be a surface Pete likes to play on (next to grass courts). A player who was a good match-up for him instead of a horrible one that Nadal would be.

Sampras can now go clean up his 14 major titles as he wouldn't get close to that number if he played nowadays. He'd have to go through Djokovic, Nadal AND Federer to win an Australian Open title today instead of freaking clay courters like Muster, Moya, Costa or a mental giant Todd Martin in the final. He would be absolutely spanked at the French by virtually any top 30 player these days including Troicki and Verdasco. I'm sure he'd also love the new grass courts at Wimbledon and hard courts at the US Open.

It's a joke, really. Sampras is dissing an almost 31-year old Federer for losing more often than not to peak Djokovic and Nadal on slow surfaces while Sampras himself got spanked on fast grass/hard courts by a teenage Hewitt and would continue to be owned if he decided to keep playing after 2002.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Sampras is such a smart*ss. I wonder how he would fare against Nadal if he played more than half of the matches on clay, in an era where hard courts are slower than clay and the speed of grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than in the 90's. Against a guy who is 5 years younger than him and steadily gets better every year while Pete himself would get only worse since 26/27 years of age. Against a guy who would totally **** his backhand 99 % (I mean Fed has 10x the backhand Sampras had and he still has issues) of the time and pass him left and right if he dared to attack the net on today's conditions.

Instead of Agassi who was at his peak for less than a year (first 9 months of 1995), virtually dissappeared for another 4 years. Who was a 1,5 year older than Pete with his best surface being hard courts which also happens to be a surface Pete likes to play on (next to grass courts). A player who was a good match-up for him instead of a horrible one that Nadal would be.

Sampras can now go clean up his 14 major titles as he wouldn't get close to that number if he played nowadays. He'd have to go through Djokovic, Nadal AND Federer to win an Australian Open title today instead of freaking clay courters like Muster, Moya, Costa or a mental giant Todd Martin in the final. He would be absolutely spanked at the French by virtually any top 30 player these days including Troicki and Verdasco. I'm sure he'd also love the new grass courts at Wimbledon and hard courts at the US Open.

It's a joke, really. Sampras is dissing an almost 31-year old Federer for losing more often than not to peak Djokovic and Nadal on slow surfaces while Sampras himself got spanked on fast grass/hard courts by a teenage Hewitt and would continue to be owned if he decided to keep playing after 2002.

Maybe you should note this thread was started in 2009, and was based on comments back in 2009. Federer at that point was only 27 or 28. Djokovic was barely in the picture back then.

 

[Swissv2]

Did you ever heard of the search function?

Not GooD, Engrish! But I digress.

Simply put, Nadal's is Federer's Achilles Heel, though the argument still stands that why would someone have to beat 100% of your opponents to be the GOAT? One could simply say Sampras is not in that category due to the fact he never won a FO.

 

[tennis_pro]

Maybe you should note this thread was started in 2009, and was based on comments back in 2009. Federer at that point was only 27 or 28. Djokovic was barely in the picture back then.

I don't think Sampras has changed his opinion at all since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYOHgbgKMw#t=43m6s

"He's a great player, he's got all these record but I feel like he has to figure out how to beat these guys"

In 2012+

Aged 31+

When he's got virtually nothing to prove.

At the same age when Sampras retired from tennis, Pete feels like Fed has to figure out how to beat prime Nadal and Djokovic. Is this a joke? If there's anything that Sampras has no right to do is to judge another player's career from the age of 31+

 

[nadal_slam_king]

I don't think Sampras has changed his opinion at all since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYOHgbgKMw#t=43m6s

"He's a great player, he's got all these record but I feel like he has to figure out how to beat these guys"

In 2012+

Aged 31+

When he's got virtually nothing to prove.

At the same age when Sampras retired from tennis, Pete feels like Fed has to figure out how to beat prime Nadal and Djokovic. Is this a joke? If there's anything that Sampras has no right to do is to judge another player's career from the age of 31+

Federer claims he's playing better than ever. And he did win 26 matches in a row before losing to Nadal at the 2012 AO. So age 31 is perhaps no different to age 27. Agassi was in the same situation don't forget.

 

[BeHappy]

I don't think Sampras has changed his opinion at all since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYOHgbgKMw#t=43m6s

"He's a great player, he's got all these record but I feel like he has to figure out how to beat these guys"

In 2012+

Aged 31+

When he's got virtually nothing to prove.

At the same age when Sampras retired from tennis, Pete feels like Fed has to figure out how to beat prime Nadal and Djokovic. Is this a joke? If there's anything that Sampras has no right to do is to judge another player's career from the age of 31+

Sampras had a winning record over his grandslam rivals though.

 

[edberg505]

Sampras had a winning record over his grandslam rivals though.

Unfortunately, not at the French!

 

[BeHappy]

Unfortunately, not at the French!

True, but he didn't have someone like Nadal with only 6 less majors than Federer. If it wasn't for Djokovic Nadal would have 13 now.

 

[cc0509]

Sampras had a winning record over his grandslam rivals though.

Yes but Sampras was never able to win the FO. In fact he lost in early rounds at the FO to nobodies. Should Sampras really be talking about Federer's flaw in his eyes when he himself had is own big flaw that Federer did not have? It is hypocritical. Funny how Sampras does not mention his losing to nobodies at the FO and never being able to win it when he is criticizing Federer.

 

[BeHappy]

Yes but Sampras was never able to win the FO. In fact he lost in early rounds at the FO to nobodies. Should Sampras really be talking about Federer's flaw in his eyes when he himself had is own big flaw that Federer did not have? It is hypocritical. Funny how Sampras does not mention his losing to nobodies at the FO and never being able to win it when he is criticizing Federer.

Sampras briefly concentrated on clay in the toughest clay court era in tennis history, he got to 3 FO QF's, a FO semi final, and won Rome. Hardly a bad record in an era of Muster and Brugera - how do you think Federer's backhand would fare against these guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoMBxY7hgcQ

Not to mention Courier, Chang, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc. I'd count Keurten too but by the time he'd arrived on the scene Sampras had long lost interest in clay.


Federer on the other hand has had to face literally one (1!!!!!!!!) clay court specialist, who he ALWAYS loses to. He lost to Keurten who was on one leg with his bad hip only shortly before Keurten retired in 2004 (the year Federer won 3 slams). I think that result is very revealing of Federer's true level on clay.

Sampras had to beat 7 to win the French Open.

 

[cc0509]

Sampras briefly concentrated on clay in the toughest clay court era in tennis history, he got to 3 FO QF's, a FO semi final, and won Rome. Hardly a bad record in an era of Muster and Brugera - how do you think Federer's backhand would fare against these guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoMBxY7hgcQ

Not to mention Courier, Chang, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc. I'd count Keurten too but by the time he'd arrived on the scene Sampras had long lost interest in clay.


Federer on the other hand has had to face literally one (1!!!!!!!!) clay court specialist, who he ALWAYS loses to. He lost to Keurten who was on one leg with his bad hip only shortly before Keurten retired in 2004 (the year Federer won 3 slams). I think that result is very revealing of Federer's true level on clay.

Sampras had to beat 7 to win the French Open.

Please! Fact is Sampras did not do well on clay and was never even close to winning a FO. His era of clay was not the hardest clay era by any means. What about Borg and Vilas' era? Plus Nadal on clay is a lot better than all of those guys you mention in Pete's era combined!

The point is Sampras has a weakness in his resume just as all great champions do. Nobody has a perfect resume yet Pete is going on and on about Federer and his losing h2h against Nadal as if his resume is perfect. Federer surpassed him. Deal with it.

 

[edberg505]

Sampras briefly concentrated on clay in the toughest clay court era in tennis history, he got to 3 FO QF's, a FO semi final, and won Rome. Hardly a bad record in an era of Muster and Brugera - how do you think Federer's backhand would fare against these guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoMBxY7hgcQ

Not to mention Courier, Chang, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc. I'd count Keurten too but by the time he'd arrived on the scene Sampras had long lost interest in clay.


Federer on the other hand has had to face literally one (1!!!!!!!!) clay court specialist, who he ALWAYS loses to. He lost to Keurten who was on one leg with his bad hip only shortly before Keurten retired in 2004 (the year Federer won 3 slams). I think that result is very revealing of Federer's true level on clay.

Sampras had to beat 7 to win the French Open.

But here's the deal, you keep throwing out all these names but Federer has only lost to 1 person in the last 8 years at the FO who wasn't a FO champion. Robin Soderling. Let's count the number of players that Sampras lost to at the FO that wasn't a former or current champ. We have the great Ramon Delgado, Gilbert Schaller, Magnus Norman, Mark Philippoussis, Andrei Medvedev. And I'm sure your response will be, oh but Norman and Medvedev made the final, so freakin what? Excuses, why didn't he just man up and beat those guys like he's saying Federer should be Nadal on clay. Excuses are like a*$holes, everybody has one and they all stink!

 

[Sentinel]

Nadal is the undisputed GOAT.

Discussing Federer at this point is totally irrelevant and a waste of time.

 

[niff]

Sampras is such a smart*ss. I wonder how he would fare against Nadal if he played more than half of the matches on clay, in an era where hard courts are slower than clay and the speed of grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than in the 90's. Against a guy who is 5 years younger than him and steadily gets better every year while Pete himself would get only worse since 26/27 years of age. Against a guy who would totally **** his backhand 99 % (I mean Fed has 10x the backhand Sampras had and he still has issues) of the time and pass him left and right if he dared to attack the net on today's conditions.

Instead of Agassi who was at his peak for less than a year (first 9 months of 1995), virtually dissappeared for another 4 years. Who was a 1,5 year older than Pete with his best surface being hard courts which also happens to be a surface Pete likes to play on (next to grass courts). A player who was a good match-up for him instead of a horrible one that Nadal would be.

Sampras can now go clean up his 14 major titles as he wouldn't get close to that number if he played nowadays. He'd have to go through Djokovic, Nadal AND Federer to win an Australian Open title today instead of freaking clay courters like Muster, Moya, Costa or a mental giant Todd Martin in the final. He would be absolutely spanked at the French by virtually any top 30 player these days including Troicki and Verdasco. I'm sure he'd also love the new grass courts at Wimbledon and hard courts at the US Open.

It's a joke, really. Sampras is dissing an almost 31-year old Federer for losing more often than not to peak Djokovic and Nadal on slow surfaces while Sampras himself got spanked on fast grass/hard courts by a teenage Hewitt and would continue to be owned if he decided to keep playing after 2002.

Let it out bro, let it out <3

 

[Swissv2]

Nadal is the undisputed GOAT.

Discussing Federer at this point is totally irrelevant and a waste of time.

Congrats on your post superman.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h70/u2george/********-superman.jpg

 

[DeShaun]

Maybe you should note this thread was started in 2009, and was based on comments back in 2009. Federer at that point was only 27 or 28. Djokovic was barely in the picture back then.

I really like this post.
My opinion is that Pete just wants to be remembered.
He's asking people to consider what if he could get into a time machine, and somehow bring his peak-game to bear upon today's stars.

How intriguing **phfff** Rafa would (stand well back and) break Pete as Pete had never been broken before. . .Pete would have to earn his points from the baseline, and it would not be pretty nor swashbuckling for him.

But he should not be dissing on the one in Roger who's surpassing many of Pete's records, because then it just looks like Pete's trying to inhibit or stifle current greatness; instead of encouraging it, and this makes Pete look very small.

 

[Wangtang1]

Using head to head is stupid. According to some people, if Federer won FO 2009 and lost in the first round of every other clay tournament he ever played, that would make him the undisputed GOAT. He'd have a winning record against Nadal.

 

[Feather]

Sampras is such a smart*ss. I wonder how he would fare against Nadal if he played more than half of the matches on clay, in an era where hard courts are slower than clay and the speed of grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than in the 90's. Against a guy who is 5 years younger than him and steadily gets better every year while Pete himself would get only worse since 26/27 years of age. Against a guy who would totally **** his backhand 99 % (I mean Fed has 10x the backhand Sampras had and he still has issues) of the time and pass him left and right if he dared to attack the net on today's conditions.

Instead of Agassi who was at his peak for less than a year (first 9 months of 1995), virtually dissappeared for another 4 years. Who was a 1,5 year older than Pete with his best surface being hard courts which also happens to be a surface Pete likes to play on (next to grass courts). A player who was a good match-up for him instead of a horrible one that Nadal would be.

Sampras can now go clean up his 14 major titles as he wouldn't get close to that number if he played nowadays. He'd have to go through Djokovic, Nadal AND Federer to win an Australian Open title today instead of freaking clay courters like Muster, Moya, Costa or a mental giant Todd Martin in the final. He would be absolutely spanked at the French by virtually any top 30 player these days including Troicki and Verdasco. I'm sure he'd also love the new grass courts at Wimbledon and hard courts at the US Open.

It's a joke, really. Sampras is dissing an almost 31-year old Federer for losing more often than not to peak Djokovic and Nadal on slow surfaces while Sampras himself got spanked on fast grass/hard courts by a teenage Hewitt and would continue to be owned if he decided to keep playing after 2002.

I agree completely with this post, 100 % You spoke my mind. Very well true

 

[Feather]

True, but he didn't have someone like Nadal with only 6 less majors than Federer. If it wasn't for Djokovic Nadal would have 13 now.

So what? If it wasn't for Novak, Roger should have had 18 Grand Slams, two more AO in 2008 and 2011..

Well, Novak is more closer to Rafa than Rafa is to Fedex. Sooner Novak would be having more slams than Rafa :neutral:

 

[Feather]

But here's the deal, you keep throwing out all these names but Federer has only lost to 1 person in the last 8 years at the FO who wasn't a FO champion. Robin Soderling. Let's count the number of players that Sampras lost to at the FO that wasn't a former or current champ. We have the great Ramon Delgado, Gilbert Schaller, Magnus Norman, Mark Philippoussis, Andrei Medvedev. And I'm sure your response will be, oh but Norman and Medvedev made the final, so freakin what? Excuses, why didn't he just man up and beat those guys like he's saying Federer should be Nadal on clay. Excuses are like a*$holes, everybody has one and they all stink!

Yeah, I second that. And that guy who beat Roger Federer at FO also defeated Rafael Nadal the very previous year. So in short Roger lost to someone who has also beaten Rafa. It's not like Pete losing to every tom, dick and harry at FO

 

[The Bawss]

Sampras is such a smart*ss. I wonder how he would fare against Nadal if he played more than half of the matches on clay, in an era where hard courts are slower than clay and the speed of grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than in the 90's. Against a guy who is 5 years younger than him and steadily gets better every year while Pete himself would get only worse since 26/27 years of age. Against a guy who would totally **** his backhand 99 % (I mean Fed has 10x the backhand Sampras had and he still has issues) of the time and pass him left and right if he dared to attack the net on today's conditions.

Instead of Agassi who was at his peak for less than a year (first 9 months of 1995), virtually dissappeared for another 4 years. Who was a 1,5 year older than Pete with his best surface being hard courts which also happens to be a surface Pete likes to play on (next to grass courts). A player who was a good match-up for him instead of a horrible one that Nadal would be.

Sampras can now go clean up his 14 major titles as he wouldn't get close to that number if he played nowadays. He'd have to go through Djokovic, Nadal AND Federer to win an Australian Open title today instead of freaking clay courters like Muster, Moya, Costa or a mental giant Todd Martin in the final. He would be absolutely spanked at the French by virtually any top 30 player these days including Troicki and Verdasco. I'm sure he'd also love the new grass courts at Wimbledon and hard courts at the US Open.

It's a joke, really. Sampras is dissing an almost 31-year old Federer for losing more often than not to peak Djokovic and Nadal on slow surfaces while Sampras himself got spanked on fast grass/hard courts by a teenage Hewitt and would continue to be owned if he decided to keep playing after 2002.

c
Great post. This is yet more evidence that Sampras is delusional and has major issues accepting that Federer has surpassed in in pretty much every way. Sampras giving Federer advice to S&V more, please. Old man is clutching at straws.

 

[Rhino]

Federer had one player whom he found hard to beat. Sampras had an entire surface.

Anyway all the arguements about the Fed/Nadal H2H are sound. Where was Nadal during Federer's 5 US Open finals?

 

[Rhino]

Sampras is such a smart*ss. I wonder how he would fare against Nadal if he played more than half of the matches on clay, in an era where hard courts are slower than clay and the speed of grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than in the 90's. Against a guy who is 5 years younger than him and steadily gets better every year while Pete himself would get only worse since 26/27 years of age. Against a guy who would totally **** his backhand 99 % (I mean Fed has 10x the backhand Sampras had and he still has issues) of the time and pass him left and right if he dared to attack the net on today's conditions.

Instead of Agassi who was at his peak for less than a year (first 9 months of 1995), virtually dissappeared for another 4 years. Who was a 1,5 year older than Pete with his best surface being hard courts which also happens to be a surface Pete likes to play on (next to grass courts). A player who was a good match-up for him instead of a horrible one that Nadal would be.

Sampras can now go clean up his 14 major titles as he wouldn't get close to that number if he played nowadays. He'd have to go through Djokovic, Nadal AND Federer to win an Australian Open title today instead of freaking clay courters like Muster, Moya, Costa or a mental giant Todd Martin in the final. He would be absolutely spanked at the French by virtually any top 30 player these days including Troicki and Verdasco. I'm sure he'd also love the new grass courts at Wimbledon and hard courts at the US Open.

It's a joke, really. Sampras is dissing an almost 31-year old Federer for losing more often than not to peak Djokovic and Nadal on slow surfaces while Sampras himself got spanked on fast grass/hard courts by a teenage Hewitt and would continue to be owned if he decided to keep playing after 2002.

I would love Sampras to actually respond to this. He is so jealous of Federer.

You can just imagine that he figured his 14 slam record would last decades. He must've been so frustrated to see it gone 7 years after he set it.

Awesome post tennis_pro.

 

[tennis_pro]

c
Great post. This is yet more evidence that Sampras is delusional and has major issues accepting that Federer has surpassed in in pretty much every way. Sampras giving Federer advice to S&V more, please. Old man is clutching at straws.

That's a very wise move from Sampras as he knows it's a suicidal tactic in the current era. He's so butthurt that not only Federer beat all his records but also added some of his own leaving Sampras with nothing.

Looking how Fed's still playing in 2012 (he has lost, what, 4 times in the last 6 months) it's only gonna get worse for Pete in that matter.

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras briefly concentrated on clay in the toughest clay court era in tennis history, he got to 3 FO QF's, a FO semi final, and won Rome. Hardly a bad record in an era of Muster and Brugera - how do you think Federer's backhand would fare against these guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoMBxY7hgcQ

Not to mention Courier, Chang, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc. I'd count Keurten too but by the time he'd arrived on the scene Sampras had long lost interest in clay.


Federer on the other hand has had to face literally one (1!!!!!!!!) clay court specialist, who he ALWAYS loses to. He lost to Keurten who was on one leg with his bad hip only shortly before Keurten retired in 2004 (the year Federer won 3 slams). I think that result is very revealing of Federer's true level on clay.

Sampras had to beat 7 to win the French Open.

Federer would murder muster or bruguera, and they'll be the first one to admit. Please stop potraying Sampras as a warrior on clay who fell because he had to face one gladiator after the next. So Ramon Delgado or gilbert schaller as clay court specialists were > David Ferrer or Robin Soderling??

Federer's loss to Kuerten reveals as much as Pete's loss to Yzaga -- the year he won 2 slams. Here's how hypocritical you sound:

Borg 5 wimbledons, 6 FO -- super strong era
Sampras 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO -- super strong grass, hard court era
Federer 6 Wimbledons, 5 USO -- weak era
Nadal 6 FO -- weak clay-court era

 

[kiki]

Federer would murder muster or bruguera, and they'll be the first one to admit. Please stop potraying Sampras as a warrior on clay who fell because he had to face one gladiator after the next. So Ramon Delgado or gilbert schaller as clay court specialists were > David Ferrer or Robin Soderling??

Federer's loss to Kuerten reveals as much as Pete's loss to Yzaga -- the year he won 2 slams. Here's how hypocritical you sound:

Borg 5 wimbledons, 6 FO -- super strong era
Sampras 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO -- super strong grass, hard court era
Federer 6 Wimbledons, 5 USO -- weak era
Nadal 6 FO -- weak clay-court era

I agree on eras.Sampras played a tougher era than Federer.Borg played a tougher era than Sampras...so, it never ends...

 

[kiki]

Borg would have been 29-30 going into 1985-1986.

Now, imagine that field:

Borg ( still young enough to grabb a major)

Wilander ( peaked at 85)

Connors ( just coming off 2 major finals and 3 major semis )

Lendl ( needless to say)

Mac ( needless to say)

Becker ( W winner and Masters Finalist)

Edberg (AO champion beating both Lendl and Wilander)

Cash ( coming off W and USO semis, just 2 years before winning London major)

Mecir ( R/U Phily and Rome, one year jsut away from exploding his best tennis)

Curren ( 1985 W/AO runner up)

Noah ( 2 years from his FO win, lets´hope no drugs at all)

Leconte ( he could have won a major, in 1985 he played the W semis)

Kriek ( 2 AO recently won, and just 27 by then )

Doesn´t it look absolutely Golden Era?
Gomez ( he belonged there)

 

[NadalAgassi]

I agree on eras.Sampras played a tougher era than Federer.Borg played a tougher era than Sampras...so, it never ends...

In terms of the quality of their competition and eras I would say: Laver > Borg = McEnroe = Connors > Lendl = Sampras >> Agassi (since alot of him success came sort of after the Sampras era) >>>> Federer = Nadal = Djokovic. It is good that the latter three are able to do their career slams and 3 slam years, they would have to royally suck to not do in this clown ATP era we have been in since 2002 now. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic didnt even have each other as competition much as none of them peaked at the same time, I guess Nadal had Federer some (not vice versa as prime Federer winning all those hard and grass titles occured during non clay mug Nadal time and he won almost none of his slams beating Nadal anyway) and Djokovic and Nadal had each other some, but that is it. Of course it doesnt mean all 3 arent great players who would do well in any era, but it would be interesting to see how close they could come to their current dominance against some more real competition.

 

[NamRanger]

Sampras had a winning record over his grandslam rivals though.

Sampras had a losing record to Agassi at the FO and the AO.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras had a losing record to Agassi at the FO and the AO.

Sampras is 0-2 against Edberg in major matches with only 1 set won in both matches. Funny how Sampras really started to dominate in majors when Edberg was past his prime.

Sampras had to rely on a massive Krajicek choke in their 2000 US encounter (6-2 in the second set breaker) to beat him in a major for the very first time.

 

[BrooklynNY]

Sampras is also 2-1 against Dominik Hrbaty - The GOAT Slayer.

Federer is 1-2

Nadal 1-3.


Hrbaty is the true test of greatness

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras also had an epic rivalry at the US Open with Yzaga, standing at 2 wins each.

Yzaga was such a monster in his day.

 

[Leto]

Statistically speaking, I think the most current era will always be the most difficult to dominate if trends continue with the money, ease of travel, and global population increases in more and more viable countries.

The Sampras era (with the strength of US players at the time) was too dismissive when it came to clay overall, so the excuse boils down to some kind of super era of clay specialists.

But of all of the surface, I think clay has probably been the most consistent over the decades...at least at RG. (Yes it has sped up at RG a little bit with strings and ball changes, but not as much as WO/USO have slowed down).

 

[SLD76]

Sampras is 0-2 against Edberg in major matches with only 1 set won in both matches. Funny how Sampras really started to dominate in majors when Edberg was past his prime.

Sampras had to rely on a massive Krajicek choke in their 2000 US encounter (6-2 in the second set breaker) to beat him in a major for the very first time.

not just edberg. Samras won a slam in 1990. But didnt dominate til 93 onward when guys like edberg, becker, wilander, mac, and connors were past their prime or approaching past their prime.

meanwhile courier would be burnt out by 94.

and chang and agassi were very good match ups for pete. and the guys who were bad match ups for him werent consistent enough to continually meet him at majors.

Pete was a dominant champ, but facts is facts. how many random nobodies has fed lost to in majors since 2003?

 

[Laurie]

Sampras is 0-2 against Edberg in major matches with only 1 set won in both matches. Funny how Sampras really started to dominate in majors when Edberg was past his prime.

Sampras had to rely on a massive Krajicek choke in their 2000 US encounter (6-2 in the second set breaker) to beat him in a major for the very first time.

Here's the 2nd set tiebreak in it's entirety here for everyone to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMHwYfkkYVA

It will be interesting to know where Krajieck choked, it can be explained point by point so no grey area.

 

[Crisstti]

I don't think Sampras has changed his opinion at all since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYOHgbgKMw#t=43m6s

"He's a great player, he's got all these record but I feel like he has to figure out how to beat these guys"

In 2012+

Aged 31+

When he's got virtually nothing to prove.

At the same age when Sampras retired from tennis, Pete feels like Fed has to figure out how to beat prime Nadal and Djokovic. Is this a joke? If there's anything that Sampras has no right to do is to judge another player's career from the age of 31+

Fed didn't figure them out earlier either though.

 

[tennis_pro]

Fed didn't figure them out earlier either though.

By figuring out you mean having a 20-0 h2h?

Also, for the record:
1) Fed was 4-0, 7-2, 13-6 at some stages against Djokovic.
2) At the end of 2007 Fed was 6-8 against Nadal but 5-2 on non-clay surfaces. Right now the h2h stands at a respectable 10-18 and Fed still leads the h2h on both grass and hard courts.

 

[Crisstti]

By figuring out you mean having a 20-0 h2h?

I mean it's just not accurate when people say Fed cannot have a positive h2h (or cannot "figure him out") against Rafa because he's 30. Fact is, he couldn't before either.

I'm not sure how Fed's h2h against Djokovic is... and he used to beat him more often than not before anyway, so the situation with him is different. It's not just now that he is almost 31 though that he's having troubles with him.

 

[kragster]

Here's the 2nd set tiebreak in it's entirety here for everyone to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMHwYfkkYVA

It will be interesting to know where Krajieck choked, it can be explained point by point so no grey area.

Please do not use evidence to refute or back a claim. That is against the nature of this forum. You must accept a claim based on the username of the poster. If his username is tennis pro then he must be right!

 

[tennis_pro]

I mean it's just not accurate when people say Fed cannot have a positive h2h (or cannot "figure him out") against Rafa because he's 30. Fact is, he couldn't before either.

I'm not sure how Fed's h2h against Djokovic is... and he used to beat him more often than not before anyway, so the situation with him is different. It's not just now that he is almost 31 though that he's having troubles with him.

WTF are you talking about? Apart from the 2008 AO win Djokovic had over Federer when Fed was sick, his next major win came at the 2010 US Open, how more "recent" do you want?

Not until 2011 when Federer hit 30 and Djokovic was at the peak of his powers did Novak start to beat Federer on a consistent basis.

 

[Crisstti]

WTF are you talking about? Apart from the 2008 AO win Djokovic had over Federer when Fed was sick, his next major win came at the 2010 US Open, how more "recent" do you want?

Not until 2011 when Federer hit 30 and Djokovic was at the peak of his powers did Novak start to beat Federer on a consistent basis.

I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

 

[fed_rulz]

Here's the 2nd set tiebreak in it's entirety here for everyone to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMHwYfkkYVA

It will be interesting to know where Krajieck choked, it can be explained point by point so no grey area.

He choked at 6-3, letting go of an easy put-away volley, that would have landed him the set. It was an error in judgement which cost him the set, and probably the match. A similar thing happened to Roddick as well, in wimby 2009 vs Federer -- an otherwise easy put-away volley, he misjudged it to be going out, changed his mind at the very last moment, stuck his racquet out, and lost the point.

 

[tennis_pro]

I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

"It's not just now that he is almost 31 though that he's having troubles with him." - using basic logic, you claim that Federer HAD problems with Djokovic before Fed turned 30 and Novak reached his peak. I'm telling you that Fed until early 2011 had a commanding lead in the h2h.

I think you need to read your posts first before you can start an arguement.