Sampras Vs. Federer Exhibition:Neccessary?

[PRADEEPKUMAR MANI]

You just restated the same nonsense as your first post. How do you justify/reason that he would lose to anyone in the top 500 because of his current state? HE HAS BEEN PLAYING COMPETITIVE TENNIS FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. He is not out of shape and although WTT is not the actual tour it is competitive and it does have tour level players on it. Have you seen any of the players that are below rank 200? Have you ever watched a challenger event or even lower level events than that? To say Pete Sampras could lose to anyone in the top 500 is not only foolish but retarted. Maybe it would be easier to belive if you said top 200 or more realistically top 50 but top 500? LOL.

You have shown that you are incapable of putting forth your POV in a civilized manner. All that stands out in your post is your name calling (foolish, nonsense, ********, etc.). If you believe that Sampras can be competitive against a ranked pro, then so be it. I refuse to engage in any further arguments with you - Nothing meaningful will ever come out of it.

 

[cknobman]

You have shown that you are incapable of putting forth your POV in a civilized manner. All that stands out in your post is your name calling (foolish, nonsense, ********, etc.). If you believe that Sampras can be competitive against a ranked pro, then so be it. I refuse to engage in any further arguments with you - Nothing meaningful will ever come out of it.

Or you could just admit that you were wrong to say he couldnt win against any top 500 player in is current "state" which you never gave any valid reasoning for.

 

[superman1]

After reading about the Sampras/Querrey exhibition, it appears that Sampras is not taking this seriously. Sounds like he's still in pretty poor shape physically. The new racquet allows him to hit the ball harder than ever, but not if he can't even get to it.


Querrey did say that he'd be surprised if Sampras didn't beat Federer in one of these exo's, though.

 

[astrorocks]

I wonder if Federer has a grudge for Sampras disparaging the current era of players. It would be kind of fun to see Federer ripping BH passing shots past Pete or hitting returns like he did against Roddick. Fed knows these are just for fun and entertainment, and is too smart to waste energy on an exhibition. The level of tennis from the grass/clay exhibition w/ Nadal seemed to be "do not risk injury."

 

[Polaris]

If they paid Fed or Pete enough, they would play you. Let's not make this out to be more than it is, which is just an opportunity to make major $$$. They aren't doing this for charity.

Yep. I'm inclined to agree with that.

 

[astrorocks]

OMG! Some people go overboard to paint a rosy picture of Sampras' game. On reading these threads from sampras fans, one gets the (wrong) impression that Sampras never lost a match in his lifetime, and his serve was never broken. Truth is, even in his prime years, he lost something like 15 matches in a year (thats how much Fed loses in a span of 2-3 yrs).

A retired pro having "as good a chance" to beat the current world # 1 as anyone else playing today? Are you kidding me? Lets be realistic here - If sampras were to play against anyone in the top 500, he would lose badly. And even if he were in his prime, he would lose tons of matches if he adopted S & V. There is no incentive to S & V now-a-days (thanks to court surfaces, string technology AND fitter players who can return better and track down volleys), its as simple as that. Any one who thinks otherwise is in denial, IMO.

Pretty good point. I don't see the point in holding Sampras above Fed. Obviously Pete was never as dominant as Fed, no one has been (Graf in 87-90 or 93-96 is the closest ... and I'm not forgetting that Seles might have had more to say about that second period of dominance). It seems very likely that Fed will get past 14 grand slams, so that won't be an argument for long. This leaves Sampras supporters with two arguments:

1. The players in Pete's era were better: Agassi (off and on), Chang, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Muster, Rafter, Petr Korda. Note that Edberg, Becker and Courier were past their primes by 93 (94 for Courier) with no GS except for Becker's 96 Aussie.

So I think the current era certainly is comparable with the likes of Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Djokovic, Blake, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Safin, Ljubicic plus the Spanish and Argentinian armadas and more big hitters like Berdych. Plus time will tell what Gasquet, Murray and maybe Baghdatis are capable of.

2. Sampras would win h2h in his prime (and 2001 Wimby doesn't count even though Pete was the reigning Wimbledon champion). Well noone knows what would have happened over more matches, but I'd argue for Fed since (a) he got much better and confident than he was in 2001 (b) Fed hasn't had much problem with big servers, it's the grinders (Nadal, Canas, and Nalbandian) who give him more trouble. Fed's return and passing shots are among his stronger points.

So I don't have any interest in knocking Sampras, but it's not a knock to say Fed's career (even if it ends today) is slightly more impressive b/c of a more complete dominance and more all court play.

 

[fastdunn]

So I don't have any interest in knocking Sampras, but it's not a knock to say Fed's career (even if it ends today) is slightly more impressive b/c of a more complete dominance and more all court play.

Higher degree and more complete dominance I agree although current tour's homogeneous conditions help Federer. In 90's, tennis on each surfaces were much more polarized and harder to dominate on all surfaces. Sampras essentially dominated 1-2 year strongly on all surfaces and then for the rest of his career, he basically dominated grass, carpet and shared hard court with Agassi...

"More all court play" I disagree. 99% of tour plays predominantly power baseline game.
Net play used to be pretty big part of the game, you know.
Sampras is still the best player I've ever seen in terms of balance between S&V and baseline.
Federer is the best player I've ever seen in terms of balance between offense and defense. But he is a baseliner and he and eveybody stays mostly at the baseline. Just look at the Wimbledon grass' wearing out patterns... In my dictionary, 'all court player' is someone use "all part of the tennis courts".

 

[Moose Malloy]

After reading about the Sampras/Querrey exhibition, it appears that Sampras is not taking this seriously. Sounds like he's still in pretty poor shape physically. The new racquet allows him to hit the ball harder than ever, but not if he can't even get to it.

was just watching some sampras matches from '98 & his recent senior tour matches, he looks so much stronger in '98. His calves were huge back then, now there is very little muscle at all.

Its kinda silly for him to adopt his training routine when he was #1 at this stage of his life, just for some exos. Guy does have a life, you know.

 

[daddy]

was just watching some sampras matches from '98 & his recent senior tour matches, he looks so much stronger in '98. His calves were huge back then, now there is very little muscle at all.

Its kinda silly for him to adopt his training routine when he was #1 at this stage of his life, just for some exos. Guy does have a life, you know.

I just watched 2 kafelnikov vs federers mathces. He really got to him then when fed was not the fed of these days did he. I almost forgot the russian, he was awesome. He used to slow down the abll if needed and then generate pace and deptha nd then all over again. Federer threw raquet and then hit it with his leg and into that stands

Anyways yes sampras is usrely stronger than that now. No doubt. He let him self go for a while. Do you think he can get in shape in lets say 6 months, decent shape not pro tour but good tennis shape to beat good players qf-yers and maybesome pros in top 100 ? Just asking dont bash me pls.

 

[astrorocks]

By all court play I just meant that Fed plays (almost) equally well on all surfaces. He does have a decent net game, though obviously not close to the S&V of Sampras. And with the angles he plays and the way he finishes points, Fed uses pretty much all the court. I'd like to see Fed volley more, but (I guess) he has to respect today's passing shots.

I also agree that Sampras was pretty dominant in 93 (Sf,Qf,W,W in GS and 8 tournaments) & 94 (W,Qf,W,4r and 10 tourneys). [Were those the 1-2 years you meant? Others were close.] Still that's obviously not quite Federereque, and that 4R loss at the USO was to Jaime Yzaga, a pretty big upset. Fed is amazing for almost never suffering a big Grand Slam upset for so long.

An interesting question is what's the biggest upset of Fed in GS or regular tournament? In a GS I guess it's either Kuerten 3R 2004 FO (maybe doesn't count as a big upset) or Nalbandian 4R 2003 USO. For a regular tournament, I'm guessing the loss to Fillipo Vollandri in Rome, but the second loss to Canas in Miama was rough too.

Higher degree and more complete dominance I agree although current tour's homogeneous conditions help Federer. In 90's, tennis on each surfaces were much more polarized and harder to dominate on all surfaces. Sampras essentially dominated 1-2 year strongly on all surfaces and then for the rest of his career, he basically dominated grass, carpet and shared hard court with Agassi...

"More all court play" I disagree. 99% of tour plays predominantly power baseline game.
Net play used to be pretty big part of the game, you know.
Sampras is still the best player I've ever seen in terms of balance between S&V and baseline.
Federer is the best player I've ever seen in terms of balance between offense and defense. But he is a baseliner and he and eveybody stays mostly at the baseline. Just look at the Wimbledon grass' wearing out patterns... In my dictionary, 'all court player' is someone use "all part of the tennis courts".

 

[astrorocks]

I just watched 2 kafelnikov vs federers mathces. He really got to him then when fed was not the fed of these days did he. I almost forgot the russian, he was awesome. He used to slow down the abll if needed and then generate pace and deptha nd then all over again. Federer threw raquet and then hit it with his leg and into that stands

Anyways yes sampras is usrely stronger than that now. No doubt. He let him self go for a while. Do you think he can get in shape in lets say 6 months, decent shape not pro tour but good tennis shape to beat good players qf-yers and maybesome pros in top 100 ? Just asking dont bash me pls.

Can you tell me where to find old matches like that?

And I'm sure Sampras could have a chance against a low-level pro (or possibly even better). He was a great "big match" player, and still has an aura that would intimidate guys. Of course the only way to know is if he rejoined the ATP tour. Kind of like Jordan with the Wizards, it would be fun.

 

[BeHappy]

A retired pro having "as good a chance" to beat the current world # 1 as anyone else playing today? Are you kidding me? Lets be realistic here - If sampras were to play against anyone in the top 500, he would lose badly. And even if he were in his prime, he would lose tons of matches if he adopted S & V. There is no incentive to S & V now-a-days (thanks to court surfaces, string technology AND fitter players who can return better and track down volleys), its as simple as that. Any one who thinks otherwise is in denial, IMO.

Please make educated responses and think about what your typing before you post. As stated earlier in this post Sampras has been playing World Team Tennis and Outback Champions Tour the last year to year and a half. World Team Tennis frequetnly has top 500 even 100 and on occassion top 10 tour players. To say he would lose badly against anyone in top 500 is not founded on any valid sane reasoning. Also stating serve and volley is a always a losing strategy shows a complete lack of knowledge about tennis. Have you ever actually played tennis or do you just watch it and make short sighted judgements?

what, like robby ginepri?

'****

 

[daddy]

Can you tell me where to find old matches like that?

And I'm sure Sampras could have a chance against a low-level pro (or possibly even better). He was a great "big match" player, and still has an aura that would intimidate guys. Of course the only way to know is if he rejoined the ATP tour. Kind of like Jordan with the Wizards, it would be fun.

I will post a few youtube clips but for matches you wil have to wauit for me to contactmy mentoar and advocate and he has thema ll on dvd so he will land me those and Ill copy them and express them to you if interested. Just cover my shipping costs, from Serbia ? Okay ?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=roger+federer+2000&search=Search

Quality is low but if you like tennis you will see the young fe making similar mistakes like djoko now and being beaten by experience and good solid 2hbh. Short around 10 mins in all but just goes to show you.

YOu can also search on youtube - type in federer 2001 or whatever you thinkof and there you go !

Okay friend ???



Glad to have been able to help.

 

[alwaysatnet]

I'm not bold enough, or crazy enough, to claim Pete can beat Federer.
But...if the surface is right for Pete and his serve is right on a one time basis I can see Pete pushing Fed to his limits.
You know Pete doesn't want to be shown up and Fed definitely doesn't either so this is about money but it's also about more.
It might be like Fed playing Roddick because what Pete lacks due to age he makes up (vis a vis Roddick's game) with his talent and all around game.
Who knows what the exhibition setup will be but I predict nothing but tiebreakers. We'll see.

 

[daddy]

If you want to download this, there are freee programs that can allow you to, but I dont do this because they are alwasy on. Ask others to help you eioth this, I would but Im no expert in this.

 

[callitout]

Higher degree and more complete dominance I agree although current tour's homogeneous conditions help Federer. In 90's, tennis on each surfaces were much more polarized and harder to dominate on all surfaces. Sampras essentially dominated 1-2 year strongly on all surfaces and then for the rest of his career, he basically dominated grass, carpet and shared hard court with Agassi...

Sure Wimbledon has slowed down...but clay is still slow and the Americans cant play nearly as well on it...Roddick, Blake, and yes Sampras. But Fed is great on clay. Not as good as Nadal, but by any account an excellent clay courter who can also play very well on every other court. Fed is much more versatile in his game than Sampras ever was.

 

[daddy]

Sure Wimbledon has slowed down...but clay is still slow and the Americans cant play nearly as well on it...Roddick, Blake, and yes Sampras. But Fed is great on clay. Not as good as Nadal, but by any account an excellent clay courter who can also play very well on every other court. Fed is much more versatile in his game than Sampras ever was.

It weas always like this 0 europeans growing on clay, then going to usa to learn fast courts. US people growing on hard and never bothering too much to learn the clay and its unique thinkgs which have to be analised, top spin, bouce, not so hard hitting and spin all over the place , slides and grinds etc.

 

[PRADEEPKUMAR MANI]

So I don't have any interest in knocking Sampras, but it's not a knock to say Fed's career (even if it ends today) is slightly more impressive b/c of a more complete dominance and more all court play.

Couldn't agree with you more. To me, the major difference between Sampras and Federer is that the surface played had a major say in Sampras' performance (his record on clay was rather poor for a GOAT candidate), where as Fed's dominance on all surfaces is pretty even (barring Nadal on Clay). That is why I think he should win FO beating Nadal, otherwise there will always be people who bring that up to tarnish his achievements. Fed has the possibility of doing something that has never been done before: going an entire year undefeated! Winning everything in sight.. He has been quite close to it a couple of years, but not quite. I don't know if he will ever do it, but the possiblity does exist.. I think that is why I would put Fed over Sampras. That possibility never existed with Sampras. However, the way Fed has been playing of late, I think he is farther from achieving it, than he ever was.

I do not mean to put down Sampras' achievements. It was tremendous, and when he retired, he seemed to have set the bar very high. Fed came along, and pushed the bar higher.. Fed seems to be an improved version of Sampras. He is just like sampras, but does most things better than him. I don't see why that is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, a few years (decades) down the line, there will a few tennis players who will push the bar even higher. It is only natural. So I believe there is nothing for Sampras fans to feel offended about. But what is offensive is putting down today's competition to make Fed's achievements look lesser than Sampras'!

Higher degree and more complete dominance I agree although current tour's homogeneous conditions help Federer. In 90's, tennis on each surfaces were much more polarized and harder to dominate on all surfaces.

The only difference between 90s and the present in terms of surfaces is wimbledon. I don't see how that has helped Federer any more than it has helped Nadal or other clay courters. Fed has already shown that he dominates lightning fast surfaces - he has completely dominated the year end Master's tourney at shangai. he's yet to lose a round robin match! So I don't see how he would not dominate wimby today, if wimby had retained the surface of the 90s.

"More all court play" I disagree. 99% of tour plays predominantly power baseline game.

Well, Sampras faced lots of S & V and good net players in his time, and he did well against most of them. Given that Fed has a superior baseline and return game than sampras, I don't see why Fed would have a problem in dealing with players of the caliber that sampras faced. Grinders are the ones that give him the most trouble, not aggressive attacking players. He usually out-attacks the aggressive players.

 

[astrorocks]

Thanks! That's pretty cool video. Obviously Fed wasn't there yet, either with the head or the footwork.

Kafelnikov's outfit is funny, with the tucked in shirt and JCPenny (cheap) shorts. His strokes look stiff but he could hit hard and close at the net. And he hits pretty flat for a FO champion. (I have seen him play before, but forgot his game.)

In this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zyw7zqybW0
Kafelnikov beats Fed at 1R Wimbledon (7-5,7-5,7-6) when he was the youngest player in the draw. The announcer does say that Fed "could have been quiate a lot of trouble." And Fed looks funny in a cap. Classic.

I think I'll pass on the full DVD for now. I'm just too lazy. Thanks for the offer though.

I will post a few youtube clips but for matches you wil have to wauit for me to contactmy mentoar and advocate and he has thema ll on dvd so he will land me those and Ill copy them and express them to you if interested. Just cover my shipping costs, from Serbia ? Okay ?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=roger+federer+2000&search=Search

Quality is low but if you like tennis you will see the young fe making similar mistakes like djoko now and being beaten by experience and good solid 2hbh. Short around 10 mins in all but just goes to show you.

YOu can also search on youtube - type in federer 2001 or whatever you thinkof and there you go !

Okay friend ???



Glad to have been able to help.

 

[David L]

Can you tell me where to find old matches like that?

And I'm sure Sampras could have a chance against a low-level pro (or possibly even better). He was a great "big match" player, and still has an aura that would intimidate guys. Of course the only way to know is if he rejoined the ATP tour. Kind of like Jordan with the Wizards, it would be fun.

http://www.tennistorrents.com/

http://www.tennisvideos.fr/

 

[wangs78]

I don't think Sampras can beat anyone in the top 10, even after working out and getting fit for a while. There's a reason why retired more than five years ago, because even at that stage he realized that his game was in decline. He got lucky that he met Agassi in that final US Open. He knows how to beat Agassi in a Slam final just like Fed can whip Roddick at will.

Sampras wants to do the exhibitions b/c a) he really does think he still has game and wants to prove it, not by beating Fed, but just by being competitive b) he wants to show the world how to put some pressure on TMF with some S&V tactics c) he obviously doesn't mind distracting TMF from focusing on games that matter

Fed wants to do it b/c a) he does love the sport and truly believes in being an ambassador for it, otherwise why would anyone play against a has-been and risk injury in a meaningless exhibition b) he's tired of the debate of who's the GOAT and while he doesn't intend to destroy Sampras he does want to silence the critics, such as Sampras, who say that Sampras's S&V games would have given Fed trouble.

My view regarding the death of S&V is simply that the game has gotten faster, the players bigger such that S&V just doesn't work as well anymore. This is just an argument for argument's sake, but if you put Edberg or Becker or any of the great S&Vers of yesteryear in front of one of the top baseliners today, and there's a serious chance that they wouldn't be able to handle those screaming groundstrokes. I'm just saying, it's not necessarily true that today's players are not as good as those from the late 80s and 90s. We just happened to have somewhat more parity back then so there SEEMED to be a lot of very good players. Pete didn't dominate the way Roger has so obviously it would seem like his competiton stronger. Anyway, none of this will matter once Roger wins his 17th or 18th Slam along with a French crown. I really hope that happens to settle the GOAT debate once and for all.

 

[wangs78]

Just so that I don't get bashed, Agassi's overall record against Sampras was certainly MUCH better than Roddick's against Federer. I think Agassi was just below 50% lifetime against Sampras. But I think his record in Grand Slam finals against Sampras was like 1-4. So Sampras totally lucked out that year to have faced Agassi. Remember he lost to Hewitt and Safin the previous years, when he was younger and arguably still in his prime. So the 2002 U.S. Open was basically a battle of the geezers.

 

[Toph]

I know the ending, Federer wins by one point in the 10th round.

 

[astrorocks]

I don't think Sampras can beat anyone in the top 10, even after working out and getting fit for a while. There's a reason why retired more than five years ago, because even at that stage he realized that his game was in decline. He got lucky that he met Agassi in that final US Open. He knows how to beat Agassi in a Slam final just like Fed can whip Roddick at will.

Sampras wants to do the exhibitions b/c a) he really does think he still has game and wants to prove it, not by beating Fed, but just by being competitive b) he wants to show the world how to put some pressure on TMF with some S&V tactics c) he obviously doesn't mind distracting TMF from focusing on games that matter

Fed wants to do it b/c a) he does love the sport and truly believes in being an ambassador for it, otherwise why would anyone play against a has-been and risk injury in a meaningless exhibition b) he's tired of the debate of who's the GOAT and while he doesn't intend to destroy Sampras he does want to silence the critics, such as Sampras, who say that Sampras's S&V games would have given Fed trouble.

My view regarding the death of S&V is simply that the game has gotten faster, the players bigger such that S&V just doesn't work as well anymore. This is just an argument for argument's sake, but if you put Edberg or Becker or any of the great S&Vers of yesteryear in front of one of the top baseliners today, and there's a serious chance that they wouldn't be able to handle those screaming groundstrokes. I'm just saying, it's not necessarily true that today's players are not as good as those from the late 80s and 90s. We just happened to have somewhat more parity back then so there SEEMED to be a lot of very good players. Pete didn't dominate the way Roger has so obviously it would seem like his competiton stronger. Anyway, none of this will matter once Roger wins his 17th or 18th Slam along with a French crown. I really hope that happens to settle the GOAT debate once and for all.

I don't think these exhibitions will distract Fed at all. They probably mean more to Sampras, but could help Fed by being good practice and b/c he is motivated by being part of tennis royalty and having all us debate about who is the best and that would drum up that debate pretty loud. I bet Fed doesn't even mind the trash talking by Pete about this era, since he has the best comeback ... he doesn't live in an era with many multi slam winners b/c he is preventing everyone but Nadal from winning other slams.

BTW is Safin the only guy to win different slams beating Sampras and Federer? (Sampras 00 US Final, Federer 05 AO Semi then wins). I don't think Agassi ever beat Fed en route to a GS win. Not that we need another reminder of Safin's potential.

 

[Zets147]

I think 2 of them will be straights (close sets) and the other will be 3 sets.

The one in NY will probably go to 3 sets also

 

[vsdtrek]

Couldn't agree with you more. To me, the major difference between Sampras and Federer is that the surface played had a major say in Sampras' performance (his record on clay was rather poor for a GOAT candidate), where as Fed's dominance on all surfaces is pretty even (barring Nadal on Clay). That is why I think he should win FO beating Nadal, otherwise there will always be people who bring that up to tarnish his achievements. Fed has the possibility of doing something that has never been done before: going an entire year undefeated! Winning everything in sight.. He has been quite close to it a couple of years, but not quite. I don't know if he will ever do it, but the possiblity does exist.. I think that is why I would put Fed over Sampras. That possibility never existed with Sampras. However, the way Fed has been playing of late, I think he is farther from achieving it, than he ever was.

I do not mean to put down Sampras' achievements. It was tremendous, and when he retired, he seemed to have set the bar very high. Fed came along, and pushed the bar higher.. Fed seems to be an improved version of Sampras. He is just like sampras, but does most things better than him. I don't see why that is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, a few years (decades) down the line, there will a few tennis players who will push the bar even higher. It is only natural. So I believe there is nothing for Sampras fans to feel offended about. But what is offensive is putting down today's competition to make Fed's achievements look lesser than Sampras'!



The only difference between 90s and the present in terms of surfaces is wimbledon. I don't see how that has helped Federer any more than it has helped Nadal or other clay courters. Fed has already shown that he dominates lightning fast surfaces - he has completely dominated the year end Master's tourney at shangai. he's yet to lose a round robin match! So I don't see how he would not dominate wimby today, if wimby had retained the surface of the 90s.



Well, Sampras faced lots of S & V and good net players in his time, and he did well against most of them. Given that Fed has a superior baseline and return game than sampras, I don't see why Fed would have a problem in dealing with players of the caliber that sampras faced. Grinders are the ones that give him the most trouble, not aggressive attacking players. He usually out-attacks the aggressive players.

I think you presented really intelligent points in your posts and should not have faced the out of line personal attacks (amazing how some people get worked up). Just like Fed will pass Sampras, it is very likely we will see someone pass Fed and perhaps sooner in the future than we would think. These champions set milestones for others to shoot for and also create a sort of "template" with their style of play and dedication for others to learn what creates success. In a way, it's almost like when the 4-minute mile was broken - once people saw what could be done, they achieved even more.

I think the same can even be said about Tiger Woods. His talent is tremendous and the results are amazing. I hear a lot of talk on how he is a once-in-our-lifetime phenom. I really don't think that is necessarily the case for the above reasons. The same probably is true for any sport - the stakes (i.e., fame, money, etc.) are high and the training is more specialized and intense that better athletes will constantly appear.

 

[cknobman]

what, like robby ginepri?

'****

Nice post you sound like a true genius. You think the only person Pete has played in the last year is Robby Ginepri? Let me restate - Please think about what your posting before you post it. Posting comments like the one above does nothing but prove your idiocy on the toppic.

 

[BeHappy]

Nice post you sound like a true genius. You think the only person Pete has played in the last year is Robby Ginepri? Let me restate - Please think about what your posting before you post it. Posting comments like the one above does nothing but prove your idiocy on the toppic.

you said Sampras wouldn't stand a chance against a top 500 pro, ******
Please think about what your posting before you post it. Posting comments like the one above does nothing but prove your idiocy on the toppic and bad spelling.

 

[daddy]

you said Sampras wouldn't stand a chance against a top 500 pro, ******
Please think about what your posting before you post it. Posting comments like the one above does nothing but prove your idiocy on the toppic and bad spelling.

But one more thing got to me - sampras was a bit bnhoker other than at winby did he ? You know there he won all the slamd and stuff ut otherwise he was in and out and in and out. At RG he hever wss close or close as fed is , enyways lost too many matches against nonsence oponents and played alot of big matches where he choked.

Anyways sam - ginepri ? Why is the g guy ? \

 

[IanRichardson]

I am pretty sure sampras beat andy roddick at this elton john thing recently. (someone please correct me if i am wrong) But he struggled to do that if i recall. Therefore i see him having an extremely hard time with federer.

 

[tHotGates]

OTTOMH, Pete has beaten Roddick, Fish, & Ginepri but he has also lost to some other lower ranked players in recent months. Tough to really gage where Pete's game is at but there are moments where he looks old & others when he looks ok (still slower but competitive). WTT rules/point system are different than ATP. Some of these tie breaker scores are just screwy.

 

[daddy]

Thanks! That's pretty cool video. Obviously Fed wasn't there yet, either with the head or the footwork.

Kafelnikov's outfit is funny, with the tucked in shirt and JCPenny (cheap) shorts. His strokes look stiff but he could hit hard and close at the net. And he hits pretty flat for a FO champion. (I have seen him play before, but forgot his game.)

In this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zyw7zqybW0
Kafelnikov beats Fed at 1R Wimbledon (7-5,7-5,7-6) when he was the youngest player in the draw. The announcer does say that Fed "could have been quiate a lot of trouble." And Fed looks funny in a cap. Classic.

I think I'll pass on the full DVD for now. I'm just too lazy. Thanks for the offer though.

Dont be lay now. you blew the chance mate ! Blew it. Ill never di it for you anytime soonm . LOL

 

[cknobman]

you said Sampras wouldn't stand a chance against a top 500 pro, ******
Please think about what your posting before you post it. Posting comments like the one above does nothing but prove your idiocy on the toppic and bad spelling.

I was quoting what another poster wrote. Did you read the entire post? Have you read any of the other posts? If you read my entire post I was commenting on how foolish it is to say that he could not win agains a top 500 pro. You are the fool, LOL.

 

[boojay]

I'm not trying to make any excuses for Fed as I believe he should/will win no matter what, but Pete has the luxury of going all out for the match as it poses no risk to him. However, Fed certainly doesn't want to go full force and possibly risk injury JUST for an exo. As I said in a previous post a long while ago, Pete has nothing to lose and Roger has nothing to gain.

That said, it'll still be a treat and I look forward to it.

 

[kaiotic]

What do you think, will he make it ? Maybe hell install a hole on one side of the coart and mark it so he could avoid it and let federer to fall into it and injure himself ..

hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell

I am getting muh tix to this event.

 

[djsiva]

Its all good. Its growing the game. Just like Kramer promoted it. Tennis wouldn't be were it is today without promotion.

We need it. Tennis could still in its infancy like squash or badmitton or ping pong.

Be happy that we are getting this attention.

 

[astrorocks]

http://www.tennistorrents.com/

http://www.tennisvideos.fr/

Thanks! (Merci!)

 

[astrorocks]

Really?

OTTOMH, Pete has beaten Roddick, Fish, & Ginepri but he has also lost to some other lower ranked players in recent months. Tough to really gage where Pete's game is at but there are moments where he looks old & others when he looks ok (still slower but competitive). WTT rules/point system are different than ATP. Some of these tie breaker scores are just screwy.

Sampas beat Roddick? Andy or John? I would think Roddick would really want to win just the get the feeling of beating a GOAT.

 

[tHotGates]

Yes, Pete has beaten all three including Roddick. He beat Andy after the USO last year.

 

[MichaelH]

I'm not trying to make any excuses for Fed as I believe he should/will win no matter what, but Pete has the luxury of going all out for the match as it poses no risk to him. However, Fed certainly doesn't want to go full force and possibly risk injury JUST for an exo. As I said in a previous post a long while ago, Pete has nothing to lose and Roger has nothing to gain.

That said, it'll still be a treat and I look forward to it.

You're "on the money" the whole way. It would be interesting to know what the financial arrangements are.

Its all good. Its growing the game. Just like Kramer promoted it. Tennis wouldn't be were it is today without promotion.

We need it. Tennis could still in its infancy like squash or badmitton or ping pong.

Be happy that we are getting this attention.

Sometimes I wonder where the game actually is. Prep and College matches still largely go unwatched by "paying" spectators. Indian Wells is at the point of bankruptcy (has been for a few years, actually). The huge rewards for top-ranked players is inevitably due to TV coverage complete with sporting-goods manufacturers.

I'm not at all sure that's all bad. Been to a hockey game recently? As some wag said a few years ago, "I went to the fights, and a hockey game broke out". I wouldn't wish that kind of thing on tennis FOR ANY REASON. Does the game have to be a commercial success for us to continue to enjoy it? When it gets commercially successful enough, Archie Bunker with a beer ain't gonna be shushed just because someone is serving, I'd bet. The crowd behind the basket trying to distract the foul-shooter will be trying to distract the server. Will be be able, then, to point at the "attention" we're getting?

 

[phoony]

Nothing to prove between 2 of them. Tennis is tennis. Just for fun. Is not about any betting or any slams or trophy. You guys think too much.