So are you trying to tell me Federer tanked?

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

So are you trying to tell me all this talk is because of an exho? -_-

 

[Mainad]

So are you trying to tell me all this talk is because of an exho? -_-

A 10 year old exho to boot!

 

[Blocker]

Just as I thought, no evidence to prove that Federer tanked. Who cares if it was an exho, they still played a match of tennis and Sampras, who was 13 years past his prime, beat peak and primed world number 1 Federer in straight sets. Therefore Sampras won the last match these two played.

Maybe if they play again in years to come, when both will be discussed on the former players board, Sampras might touch him up again.

Keep on trolling you deluded lot.

Thank you.

That is all.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

We have never really gotten to the bottom of this. So I’m getting to the bottom of it.

In 2007 Sampras defeated Federer in an exhibition match in Macau. Yes it was just an exhibition, but so was the Drako v Rocky fight in Moscow. Notwithstanding, no current professional tour player in their right mind, least of all the world number 1 at the time, would want to lose to a player who was 5 years retired.

Sampras won the match 7-6 6-4.

The match has been referred to on here every now and again, and every time it is, Federer fans dismiss it by asserting that Federer did not try 100 per cent or he outright tanked. These claims of tanking have never been proved nor have they really been challenged. So I’m challenging them. IMO, if you’re not playing 100 per cent, you’re tanking, unless the reason is due to injury. Some conspiracy theorists have even suggested that it was part of the contractual arrangement that Federer give a match to Sampras. This flies in the face of everything Federer stands for with respect to his professionalism, ethics and values, ie soliciting himself to tank a match for a pay cheque. So I do not believe that for a second.

By rights, Federer should have swept the three match series 3 and 0, swept the sets 6 and 0 and there should have been 1 or 2 bagels amongst that 6 and 0 set scoreline. Remember, not only was Sampras 5 years retired, he was also 12-13 years past his prime.

So, did Federer tank or not? If you believe he tanked, which includes not giving 100 per cent, what evidence do you have to support this?

If your tanking claim cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is just that, a claim, then I’m calling b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t on your claim.

First, Sampras was not "12-13 years past his prime"-- more like 10 years past his peak. He was five years retired, but went out winning a Major title in his last tournament before retirement. He was still in shape and playing regularly, even if no longer on the main tour, and I strongly suspect that for single-match purposes, he might very well still have been a top-five-in-the-world-level player at that moment-- just no longer able to muster the sustained performance necessary to win big tournaments.

They were, I believe, playing on a fast hard court, which was a favorable surface for Sampras. I think that Federer was trying, but probably not as focused and motivated as he would have been for an actual ATP match with money and ranking points on the line, and Sampras may have been the more invested of the two. It was a close match, and Sampras won, though Federer won the majority of their exhibition matches as one would expect. I don't think there was anything particularly out-of-place about any of it.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Just as I thought, no evidence to prove that Federer tanked. Who cares if it was an exho, they still played a match of tennis and Sampras, who was 13 years past his prime, beat peak and primed world number 1 Federer in straight sets. Therefore Sampras won the last match these two played.

Maybe if they play again in years to come, when both will be discussed on the former players board, Sampras might touch him up again.

Keep on trolling you deluded lot.

Thank you.

That is all.

Sampras was maybe a little over 5 years past his prime, not 13.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

At least one can try to derail obnoxious threads, no?

For sure.

The Gary Anderson and Stan comparison is spot on, even if Gary first world title win wasn't as surprising. He was always a ''he should be a world champion'' player. Something to like about the flying Scots -man.

If Pernell Whitaker could punch. wow. If Gary Anderson could find doubles as consistently. wow. Still had a great career, though. Glad he finally won those world titles.

Nobody can touch MVG right now. Think he has to be the highest level I've seen. Phil Taylor the greatest. Dennis Priestley the goat theme.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Dunno what's funnier : So many taking OP's bait(s) or OP really trying to convince something he cannot...

 

[Fedfan34]

Nothing but crap in this thread.

Nothing but clap at this thread.

 

[smoledman]

Fed knew that IW quarter was going to be insane, so he tanked Dubai. GOAT is GOAT.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

Fed knew that IW quarter was going to be insane, so he tanked Dubai. GOAT is GOAT.

So that's why he made sure he got MPs against Donskoy to show he could easily win if wanted to

Fedr GOAT.

 

[mxmx]

First, Sampras was not "12-13 years past his prime"-- more like 10 years past his peak. He was five years retired, but went out winning a Major title in his last tournament before retirement. He was still in shape and playing regularly, even if no longer on the main tour, and I strongly suspect that for single-match purposes, he might very well still have been a top-five-in-the-world-level player at that moment-- just no longer able to muster the sustained performance necessary to win big tournaments.

They were, I believe, playing on a fast hard court, which was a favorable surface for Sampras. I think that Federer was trying, but probably not as focused and motivated as he would have been for an actual ATP match with money and ranking points on the line, and Sampras may have been the more invested of the two. It was a close match, and Sampras won, though Federer won the majority of their exhibition matches as one would expect. I don't think there was anything particularly out-of-place about any of it.

Exactly...Which means the one off wimbledon win by Federer could have gone the other way if Sampras was not caught off guard by Federer.Funny how Federer fans always look at the one head to head they had but when Nadal owns Federer with head to head's, there are all sorts of excuses...

Fact is...Sampras has the ideal game to own Federer with head to head. Attacking the backhand of Federer much like Nadal did with his much much weaker serve...

 

[6-3 6-0]

Fact is...Sampras has the ideal game to own Federer with head to head. Attacking the backhand of Federer much like Nadal did with his much much weaker serve...

Just LOL at the implication that Sampras was as good baseliner as Nadal

In reality, 29 years old Sampras got beaten by a 19 years old Federer at his own backyard.

 

[mxmx]

Just LOL at the implication that Sampras was as good baseliner as Nadal

In reality, 29 years old Sampras got beaten by a 19 years old Federer at his own backyard.

*Rolls eyes* I was refering to the Sampras serve to the backhand. Look how much Federer almost hard-headedly struggled with the Nadal serve at AO 2009 and did nothing about it for years. Only AO 2017 has Federer let go of his stubborness to deal with it.

 

[6-3 6-0]

*Rolls eyes* I was refering to the Sampras serve to the backhand. Look how much Federer almost hard-headedly struggled with the Nadal serve at AO 2009 and did nothing about it for years. Only AO 2017 has Federer let go of his stubborness to deal with it.

And why won't Federer serve to Sampras' BH which was even weaker than Fed's own BH? Do you realize how dumb you're sounding. Go have a drink and watch their Wimbledon 2001 encounter. Sampras was 6 years younger than Federer is now.

 

[mxmx]

And why won't Federer serve to Sampras' BH which was even weaker than Fed's own BH? Do you realize how dumb you're sounding. Go have a drink and watch their Wimbledon 2001 encounter. Sampras was 6 years younger than Federer is now.

Federer does not have the same quality putaway volley coming in after the serve.

 

[Luckydog]

Even reading the first 3 sentences is an exercise in patience.

I've tried hard,but can't continue at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph.What an agressive post,like a fire ball, so hot that cannot hold in my hand for one more second !

 

[TheMusicLover]

Exactly...Which means the one off wimbledon win by Federer could have gone the other way if Sampras was not caught off guard by Federer.Funny how Federer fans always look at the one head to head they had but when Nadal owns Federer with head to head's, there are all sorts of excuses...

Fact is...Sampras has the ideal game to own Federer with head to head. Attacking the backhand of Federer much like Nadal did with his much much weaker serve...

Start-da-Fail Alert.
(..........)

 

[-NN-]

I love me a coin toss.

 

[killerboi2]

Doesn't really tell us much, just like Fed's Wimbledon win over Pete doesn't tell us much. Pete's worst year on tour, Fed losing to Henman in the next round tells us neither were in their prime. I reckon Pete would have lead the head to head though. He was mentally stronger than Fed, who in the past has shown clear mental weakness against his main rivals numerous times.

 

[Zara]

First, Sampras was not "12-13 years past his prime"-- more like 10 years past his peak. He was five years retired, but went out winning a Major title in his last tournament before retirement. He was still in shape and playing regularly, even if no longer on the main tour, and I strongly suspect that for single-match purposes, he might very well still have been a top-five-in-the-world-level player at that moment-- just no longer able to muster the sustained performance necessary to win big tournaments.

They were, I believe, playing on a fast hard court, which was a favorable surface for Sampras. I think that Federer was trying, but probably not as focused and motivated as he would have been for an actual ATP match with money and ranking points on the line, and Sampras may have been the more invested of the two. It was a close match, and Sampras won, though Federer won the majority of their exhibition matches as one would expect. I don't think there was anything
particularly out-of-place about any of it.

Only a few posters stuck to the main subject whereas others went on to ridicule OP as they normally do quite often. Ganging up seems like a typical thing around here.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Thread Derail Attempt #2.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

 

[-NN-]

Thread Derail Attempt #2.

Spectacular music. Thanks.

 

[chjtennis]

We have never really gotten to the bottom of this. So I’m getting to the bottom of it.

In 2007 Sampras defeated Federer in an exhibition match in Macau. Yes it was just an exhibition, but so was the Drako v Rocky fight in Moscow. Notwithstanding, no current professional tour player in their right mind, least of all the world number 1 at the time, would want to lose to a player who was 5 years retired.

Sampras won the match 7-6 6-4.

The match has been referred to on here every now and again, and every time it is, Federer fans dismiss it by asserting that Federer did not try 100 per cent or he outright tanked. These claims of tanking have never been proved nor have they really been challenged. So I’m challenging them. IMO, if you’re not playing 100 per cent, you’re tanking, unless the reason is due to injury. Some conspiracy theorists have even suggested that it was part of the contractual arrangement that Federer give a match to Sampras. This flies in the face of everything Federer stands for with respect to his professionalism, ethics and values, ie soliciting himself to tank a match for a pay cheque. So I do not believe that for a second.

By rights, Federer should have swept the three match series 3 and 0, swept the sets 6 and 0 and there should have been 1 or 2 bagels amongst that 6 and 0 set scoreline. Remember, not only was Sampras 5 years retired, he was also 12-13 years past his prime.

So, did Federer tank or not? If you believe he tanked, which includes not giving 100 per cent, what evidence do you have to support this?

If your tanking claim cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is just that, a claim, then I’m calling b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t on your claim.

That kind of performance is not called tanking, but a entertainment show, AKA according to script, much like WWE.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Spectacular music. Thanks.

Old Swedisch friends of mine.
Hence my username.

 

[smoledman]

*Rolls eyes* I was refering to the Sampras serve to the backhand. Look how much Federer almost hard-headedly struggled with the Nadal serve at AO 2009 and did nothing about it for years. Only AO 2017 has Federer let go of his stubborness to deal with it.

You talk about it as though it's the simplest thing in the world for Fed to have 'figured out' what to do with his backhand in time for 2017 AO. To me it's 3 years in the making.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Just as I thought, no evidence to prove that Federer tanked. Who cares if it was an exho, they still played a match of tennis and Sampras, who was 13 years past his prime, beat peak and primed world number 1 Federer in straight sets. Therefore Sampras won the last match these two played.

They played one more exho later at MSG which was not won by Pete, unless you mean Sampras won the last match between them of the matches won by Pete

Maybe if they play again in years to come, when both will be discussed on the former players board, Sampras might touch him up again.

Don't see Pete tarnishing his exho legacy

Keep on trolling you deluded lot.

Yeah, thats the point! Trolling should be the privilege of less deluded and not "deluded lot"

Thank you.

You are welcome

That is all.

No, please don't stop. The forum will be in ruins. Who will save us mortals from the deluded lot trolls. Please, don't stop. We beg of you! Please! Please!! Please !!!

 

[Enga]

I'm not here to weigh in on the debate. I'd just like to point out that any debate is pointless due to the fact that any attempt to suggest Sampras could possibly, even remotely, be competitive with Federer will be met with ridicule and barking. After all, its not about tennis, and love of the game to the people of the forum. Its about whos the best in the world, and wouldnt you know it, Sampras is a major threat to Federer in terms of records. But the same can be said could be said in reverse.

 

[shankster]

Entertaining thread. Still a long way to match the high standards set by your fellow Sampras fan 60's weed.

 

[shankster]

Fed knew that IW quarter was going to be insane, so he tanked Dubai. GOAT is GOAT.

Tankerer?

 

[6-3 6-0]

Tankerer?

He isn't a Fed fan by any means. Ever since the AO ended, he has put Fed in his avatar and trolling non-stop.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Start-da-Fail Alert.
(..........)

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nice signature, btw!

 

[Sereger]

So it's not about his match with Don*key in Dubai? *A slight disappointment went by*