So now that Pete and Roger have 7 Wimbledons..
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
powerangle
Legend
Pete has a better winning percentage in Wimbledon finals, but Roger has reached more finals, and has better overall winning percentage at the event...close call, but slight edge to Roger, sucess-wise, imo.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Now that both have 7 it is completely subjective really and all depends on who you think is better on the surface, especialy those who watched both. If Roger wins 8 it will become a more closed debate, but right now it is just down to personal preference. Personally I still think Sampras. More dominant serve, more all court game for grass, as much or more explosive athleticsm, just a bit more of a grass court game, and I think prime to prime Sampras would win more often if they met at Wimbledon, atleast on the old fast grass.
One cant discount Laver though who was forced to miss Wimbledon for 5 years in his prime.
After seeing his play at Wimbledon this year though I think Federer will probably manage an 8th at some point in the next 4 years (I think he will play to the 2016 Olympics, unlike his fans, Olympics are a big thing for Roger and most top players today) and make it a more close debate.
One cant discount Laver though who was forced to miss Wimbledon for 5 years in his prime.
After seeing his play at Wimbledon this year though I think Federer will probably manage an 8th at some point in the next 4 years (I think he will play to the 2016 Olympics, unlike his fans, Olympics are a big thing for Roger and most top players today) and make it a more close debate.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
If not Roger, has to be:
That dude and Bruce Jenner must be having some trans-Atlantic competition to see who can have the most work done to their face...
That dude and Bruce Jenner must be having some trans-Atlantic competition to see who can have the most work done to their face...
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
How is grass not real grass?
That's like saying hardcourt is not real hardcourt.
IE, nonsense.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Cliff is an entertainer so his face is his fortune.
If not Roger, has to be:
That dude and Bruce Jenner must be having some trans-Atlantic competition to see who can have the most work done to their face...
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
A fine, loyal Sampras Jock Sniffer you are. No reason to let a 1-0 record get in the way of a good story. And please spare the 'end of career' stuff - if you're entered it counts - and he won a USO after it happened. Roger did fine on the previous grass and would have if it had never changed. Sampras would be lucky to get to the 2nd week consistently on this stuff with these rackets and strings.
İt is slow Fed didnt win a single Wimbledon title like the grass of 90s.Still humilated with the likes Berdeych and Tsonga even it is no where near as fast as 90s.He would be journey man on 90s type of grass.
BigServer1
Legend
LOL. I see you're super objective.
Federer beat Pete Sampras in 2001, the year before the grass was slowed down. Pete had won 4 straight Wimbledon titles leading up to that match, and Fed was 19 years old.
But I'm sure you're right...Fed would just be a grass journeyman 10-15 years ago.
Maybe this is real grass and all grass before 2002 was fake grass. :shock:
psYcon
Semi-Pro
Overall Federer has had better results than Sampras at Wimbledon, since he has reached semis and finals more consistently.
But to be honest, the level of dominance that Sampras displayed during his peak at Wimbledon, it cannot be rivaled by anyone in history.
I have to give Sampras an edge here.
But to be honest, the level of dominance that Sampras displayed during his peak at Wimbledon, it cannot be rivaled by anyone in history.
I have to give Sampras an edge here.
BigServer1
Legend
I agree with this. I think Sampras at his peak displayed the absolute highest grass level ever, but I do think the matches between these two in their primes would have been mighty close.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
wow.
A 7 time wimbledon champion is considered a journeyman.
You have no credibility now, leave the thread.
Pete was old already past his prime,also never forget surprise affect.He wasnt well prepared for Roger.Who was Roger at that time.Nobody.
psYcon
Semi-Pro
There is only ONE exception to this, and that was perhaps the biggest anomaly in tennis history. Richard Krajicek in 1996 , in the zone, the way he dismantled Sampras in straights and then everybody else. I recall seeing that match live and that guy was massacring everyone like no tomorrow!
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
A nobody ranked 15 in the world. Clueless.
I dont know ı learned from this forum that the grass is so slow it is like green clay thats why Nadal reached 5 Wimbledon finals and won twice beat Fed as well.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
A toss up IMO.
That 1993-95 and 1997-1999 Sampras @ Wimbledon was Epic. A bit like the Nadal of grass.
That 1993-95 and 1997-1999 Sampras @ Wimbledon was Epic. A bit like the Nadal of grass.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
First off, spell it right. Berdych. Secondly, George Bastl. Berdych/Tsonga are top 10 players. Bastl, not so much.
He was way past his prime in that time.What are we arguing ?
Federer's old and past his prime as well and he still consistently goes deep and even won it just now.
In terms of the surprise effect, playing people you've never played before is part of the game so you can't use it to justify his loss. Federer's had to win against all sorts of people in all sorts of form. He's won 850 matches since 1998 and he's had to win against all sorts of players who were in rare form. To win his slams, he's had to beat plenty of "nobodies" who were on fire.
Last edited:
Federer wasn't in the top 10 in 2001 either.
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
If pete had to play Novak or Nadal today he would probably not play very well. He was more of a serve/volley player. Today's game you can't just rely on s/v to win and hold serve. I think he would be hard pressed to go up against nadal and the spin he generates. It's hard to say, but I think fed has adapted to both serve/volley as well as a ground game, he can do both. I don't know if I can say the same for pete, especially with his backhand. His backhand is a bit of a weakness more so than fed.
He didnt win 90s grass this grass is slow which makes the game predictable.Anyway he never looked dominant as much as Sampras.His biggest rival in Wimbledon is clay courter he manage to lose to him that says it all.
Well Sampras didn't win of oo's grass either which would make his serve and volley less effective. Federer can play from all parts of the court well.
So to be on the same league as Sampras, Federer can't lost to a 3 time Wimby finalist and 2 time champion? By that definition Sampras shouldn's lose to guys like Bastl etc. At least past prime Federer only goes down to top 10 players. Just because clay is Nadal's best surface doesn't mean he sucks on grass. fed's also a 30 yr old still beating the defending champ in his prime.
Last edited:
dudeski
Hall of Fame
Federer has 1 more W finals as well as more overall grass titles. Here is your conclusive answer.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Nadal is no claycourter, he's proven more versatile than Sampras ever was... and has 11 majors. Compare that to Kraijeck, who beat Sampras in straights while it took Nadal a 9-7 5th set to upset Fed during his run..
actually, stats prove that federer has been more dominant than sampras at wimbledon (less sets/games lost, higher % of 2nd serve pts won, around same % of 1st serve pts won, etc.). plus, in their primes, federer won 5 wimbys to pete's 4. pete also had the luxury of playing "giants" like pioline in his wimby finals, something that federer does not have!
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Ba Dum Tss
Can you name the #15 in the world without looking it up?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Interesting opinion. As an equally big fan of both players I am not sure I agree. It is very impressive Nadal has shown he can win on all 3 major slam surfaces, and has won multiple slams on each (with the added benefit of 2 hard court slams, and slowed grass courts of today). Nadal however has shown thus far he cant even win big on indoor hard courts, I cant imagine how useless he might be on indoor carpet. Probably worse than prime Sampras was on clay. Sampras dominated on fast hard courts, grass, medium hard courts, and indoors/carpet. Nadal only dominates on clay.
BullDogTennis
Hall of Fame
federer had more success before they slowed it down like 4 years ago. nadal is the one who benefited from them slowing it down.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
Rodge also has the h2h win against Sampras at Wimbly.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I still feel Sampras is better on grass but it bugs me that his last great performance at Wimbledon was when he was still only 28. He should have had that one last great run at Wimbledon after that Bastl debacle, he was still able to win slams as evidenced by the fact that he won USO later that year, I mean Fed at the same age manage to win the tourney beating current #1 and a talented player like Murray (also a crowd favourite) which is very impressive in comparison.
I remember Sampras saying after that loss something to the effect of that it won't end like this and he'll definitely be back and sadly he never was.
Who knows though, maybe Pete's thalassemia minor made it harder for him to stay a contender as he was 30 and beyond and he didn't have someone closing in on his records while still an active player like Fed does with Nadal.
zagor
Bionic Poster
It's just one match in which neither were at their best, not relevant to the topic IMO.
Clarky21
Banned
What a load of crap. They did not slow the grass down "like 4 years ago",which is coincidentally when Nadal won his first Wimby,so I'm not susprised that's the when you decided they supposedly slowed it down. :roll: And Fed won every single one of his Wimby's on the exact same grass Nadal won his on,so Fed sure benefited from it as well.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Cilic, actually.
Mostly because I knew his seeding in Wimbledon and i follow him pretty regularly.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Actually, it wasn't really an anomaly (okay, Krajicek was mighty good in that tournament, but their meetings were almost always bad news for Sampras anyway, so had he played Richard more at Wimbledon, there's a good chance we would have seen more "anomalous" results such as this one, imho...)
Federer has all the stats on his side. I personally consider a 'significant' grand slam run to be reaching the quarters or better. Thus Federer has had 11 signficant Wimbledon runs during his career (7 titles, 1 final and 3 quarter-finals) while Sampras had 9 (7 titles, 1 semi-final and 1 quarter-final).
Also please nobody argue that Sampras winning 7 out of 7 Wimbledon finals is more impressive than Federer winning 7 out of 8, as reaching an additional final is clearly better than losing in an earlier round.
Federer won 40 consecutive matches at Wimbledon (that R4 walkover against Haas in 2007 prevented him from equalling Borg's record of 41) while Sampras won 31.
I know that Sampras didn't care much about winning the title at Queen's (despite going on to do so twice) and the bookmakers knew this and didn't adjust his Wimbledon title odds when he lost to players there that would have no chance of beating him at Wimbledon. He made it clearly that he was only there to get a couple of grass court matches under his belt before the main event. However the other grass court events still count, and Federer has 5 additional grass court titles to Sampras's 3.
Actually Federer's 2006 Halle title could rank as one of the most impressive non-slam titles of his career, given that he went into that tournament on the bank of an RG final loss to Nadal preventing him from holding all 4 slams at the same time, and that he was mentally and physically exhausted. He had so many tight matches but came through a very tough draw beating Gasquet, Rochus, Haas and Berdych along the way.
Also please nobody argue that Sampras winning 7 out of 7 Wimbledon finals is more impressive than Federer winning 7 out of 8, as reaching an additional final is clearly better than losing in an earlier round.
Federer won 40 consecutive matches at Wimbledon (that R4 walkover against Haas in 2007 prevented him from equalling Borg's record of 41) while Sampras won 31.
I know that Sampras didn't care much about winning the title at Queen's (despite going on to do so twice) and the bookmakers knew this and didn't adjust his Wimbledon title odds when he lost to players there that would have no chance of beating him at Wimbledon. He made it clearly that he was only there to get a couple of grass court matches under his belt before the main event. However the other grass court events still count, and Federer has 5 additional grass court titles to Sampras's 3.
Actually Federer's 2006 Halle title could rank as one of the most impressive non-slam titles of his career, given that he went into that tournament on the bank of an RG final loss to Nadal preventing him from holding all 4 slams at the same time, and that he was mentally and physically exhausted. He had so many tight matches but came through a very tough draw beating Gasquet, Rochus, Haas and Berdych along the way.
Last edited:
TennisLovaLova
Hall of Fame
Also Federer as won FO which Sampras never could
The Bawss
Banned
Lol, dumb Petetards. Take off your rose-tinted glasses, wake up and smell Federer's cologne.
-Winning head to head in this very tournament
-Better winning percentage
-1 more final
-Fed has better opposition (Ivanisevic and Pioline are clowns)
-Federer had more respectable losses
-On grass, Federer has more titles
-Fed won 5 in a row which Pete never did
-Since turning 20, Federer hasn't lost in Wimbledon to a player who hasn't been in a slam final.
-Winning head to head in this very tournament
-Better winning percentage
-1 more final
-Fed has better opposition (Ivanisevic and Pioline are clowns)
-Federer had more respectable losses
-On grass, Federer has more titles
-Fed won 5 in a row which Pete never did
-Since turning 20, Federer hasn't lost in Wimbledon to a player who hasn't been in a slam final.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll