Sorry but it blows my mind that Federer's Win/Loss % from 2011 to 2019 is higher than Sampras from 1992-2000

ForehandRF

Professional
No.

RF fans were totally against weak eras a decade ago. They made a 180 since about 5 years ago and try to use the weak era argument to diminish Novak as a player just as they'd worked tirelessly to diminish Rafa. Unfortunately for them, Rafa and Novak diminished RF. Poetic justice.

Weak eras exist. Because if they didn't that would mean that humans are robots. I.e. every generation is factory-produced and hence the same.
The weak era was first used against Federer, then Fed fans started to use this argument against Djokovic or Nadal.

Definitely humans are not robots, but if a period was stronger, that doesn't mean we have to put an asterix on other periods that had less competition, much less putting down a player with these arguments.We had this conversation before.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Fed couldn't even accrue winning records against his rivals despite accruing wins over them for five years before they exited puberty, and has been thoroughly bumped down to bronze status since. Weeeeeaaakkkk
please list all the rivals pete has a winning record over, but only the ones as talented/accomplished as Rafael or Novak. take all the time you need :D
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
please list all the rivals pete has a winning record over, but only the ones as talented/accomplished as Rafael or Novak. take all the time you need :D
I guess 17 year old Rafa was too much of a challenge for world #1 peak Fed to beat on hard court.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Sampras couldn't even accrue winning records over Hewitt, Safin and Roddick :-D People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Didn't Fed struggle against the thundrous volleying of Tim Henman and not secure a winning record over said giant until he was 32?
:laughing:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Didn't Fed struggle against the thundrous volleying of Tim Henman and not secure a winning record over said giant until he was 32?
:laughing:
Interesting how you bring up age when it's convenient for you, it's old Agassi and 32 year old Henman when it suits you but Federer only losing the h2h lead over Djokovic when he's 34+ is dismissed...it's almost as if you have an agenda :unsure:
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Interesting how you bring up age when it's convenient for you, it's old Agassi and 32 year old Henman when it suits you but Federer only losing the h2h lead over Djokovic when he's 34+ is dismissed...it's almost as if you have an agenda :unsure:
Not at all. Federer himself has stated multiple times he has improved with age (like a fine wine I suppose) so his losing h2h against Djokovic over the past 5 years or so is actually more proof of Novak's superiority and a nail in the coffin of Fedfans claiming it would be otherwise if "prime" Fed, which I assume means *young* Fed since *this* Fed has been established as *prime* Fed by THE Fed, played Novak...unless you are disputing Fed's assessment of his level?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not at all. Federer himself has stated multiple times he has improved with age (like a fine wine I suppose) so his losing h2h against Djokovic over the past 5 years or so is actually more proof of Novak's superiority and a nail in the coffin of Fedfans claiming it would be otherwise if "prime" Fed (which I assume means young Fed since THE Fed has established THIS Fed as prime Fed) played Novak...unless you are disputing Fed's assessment of his level?
Older Pete said he was a much better player as he got older with all the players getting better around him, yet he got cleaned out in straights by guys like Safin and Hewitt, at least Federer is going down in five to a top ATG player like Djokovic.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Older Pete said he was a much better player as he got older with all the players getting better around him, yet he got cleaned out in straights by guys like Safin and Hewitt, at least Federer is going down in five to a top ATG player like Djokovic.
I assume you have a quote to back this up?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The weak era was first used against Federer, then Fed fans started to use this argument against Djokovic or Nadal.

Definitely humans are not robots, but if a period was stronger, that doesn't mean we have to put an asterix on other periods that had less competition, much less putting down a player with these arguments.We had this conversation before.
Completely agree, except that some RF fans change their beliefs with the wind, as it suits them.

A weak era is often confused with USELESS ERA, usually by fanboiz, but that is utter nonsense. A weak era is still an ERA of highly competitive pro competition, it is not a hot air balloon. It's just not AS strong as a stronger era. Weak eras exist to explain how a GOAT may have had an EASIER time winning slams/dominating, not an EASY time. There is nothing too easy in winning slams. A weak era isn't there to be misused to make a GOAT seem like a weak GOAT because that is rubbish. It's there to explain how a player may have easiER or toughER competition at the very top, or in the earlier rounds.

Because obviously not every slam win is the same. Rafa winning USO19 and winning FO08 are very different in level.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
We've discussed this before.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-83754.html

"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older..."

Tour got stronger, #145 George Bastl would probably give 1994 Pete hell on the grass :unsure:
You're quoting an article from 2003 LOL? You do realize Sampras has said much about his best level and opponents since 2003, right?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/javascript%3Avoid(0)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
You're quoting an article from 2003 LOL? You do realize Sampras has said much about his best level and opponents since 2003, right?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/javascript:void(0)
No idea what that link is.

Interesting, so you're saying that a players perspective or publicised opinion can change the further they move away from competition? Surely if Sampras is the authority on his own game then his opinion shortly after his retirement is far more relevant than many years after he experienced pro competition?
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
No idea what that link is.

Interesting, so you're saying that a players perspective or publicised opinion can change the further they move away from competition? Surely if Sampras is the authority on his own game then his opinion shortly after his retirement is far more relevant than years after he experienced pro competition?
Not at all, more time gives greater wisdom and perspective, like how 2019erer considers himself a better player now than ever.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not at all, more time gives greater wisdom and perspective, like how 2019erer considers himself a better player now than ever.
I'm yet to see any of these recent Sampras quotes.

Funny, how he could go from thinking he was 10x the player when he was older to thinking what I presume is more in line with conventional wisdom that he peaked in his early to mid 20's with his best results. It almost sounds like he wasn't being totally honest in 2003...
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
I'm yet to see any of these recent Sampras quotes.

Funny, how he could go from thinking he was 10x the player when he was older to thinking what I presume is more in line with conventional wisdom that he peaked in his early to mid 20's with his best results. It almost sounds like he wasn't being totally honest in 2003...
No, he just lacked perspective, like fans of 2004-7erer
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
correct..Rafa is the greatest or second greatest player of all time...and you listed zero names, as expected
Well I did list Henman and Rafter previously so I thought that would be redundant.

Fed played plate bearer for the only two great players he was up against...so not really sure how that enhances his legacy.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
We've discussed this before.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-83754.html

"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older..."

Tour got stronger, #145 George Bastl would probably give 1994 Pete hell on the grass :unsure:
Correction, Pete. You were winning overly fast slams such as W and USO left and right. The slower slams that required a complete skill set, FO and AO, you won twice overall. Twice isn't left and right.

Be thankful, Pete, you played in the super-fast era. How many would RF win under such conditions? A lot more, coz he mastered both fast and slow.

Fortunately, they slowed tennis down so we can finally enjoy real tennis again...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
No, he just lacked perspective, like fans of 2004-7erer
:unsure: I'm starting to smell an agenda here, I mean Federer has reiterated that he's a better player now several times but he's never said it with such conviction as, "I was 10 times the player as I got older..." If Sampras can be so certain of his superior play as an oldie and the increasing standard of play on the tour how can you disagree with him? I thought players were the authority on their own play...
 
The weak era was first used against Federer, then Fed fans started to use this argument against Djokovic or Nadal.

Definitely humans are not robots, but if a period was stronger, that doesn't mean we have to put an asterix on other periods that had less competition, much less putting down a player with these arguments.We had this conversation before.
I dont mind talking about eras being weak or not, but it can be used both ways, and we will never know for sure. Plus, it does not mean they would not win if it was strong. That is why we should still value all wins the same, otherwise it is just one opinion verse another.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
:unsure: I'm starting to smell an agenda here, I mean Federer has reiterated that he's a better player now several times but he's never said it with such conviction as, "I was 10 times the player as I got older..." If Sampras can be so certain of his superior play as an oldie and the increasing standard of play on the tour how can you disagree with him? I thought players were the authority on their own play...
I agree with his more recent quotes that reflect his fuller wisdom and understanding, unless 2013erer is truly the besterer?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I agree with his more recent quotes that reflect his fuller wisdom and understanding, unless 2013erer is truly the besterer?
Federer's comments in 2013 underline why player assessments are unreliable, thanks for bringing it up. Do you think Federer was playing his best tennis thus far in 2013?

You're the one showing double standards here by taking Federer's statements as word of God but ignoring Sampras', because so far you've failed to produce a recent quote or adequately addressed why a more recent quote would be a more accurate assessment of his best play.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Federer's comments in 2013 underline why player assessments are unreliable, thanks for bringing it up. Do you think Federer was playing his best tennis thus far in 2013?

You're the one showing double standards here by taking Federer's statements as word of God but ignoring Sampras', because so far you've failed to produce a recent quote or adequately addressed why a more recent quote would be a more accurate assessment of his best play.
Oh, so the issue is the lack of Sampras quote production from me. I assume then if I produce a more recent Sampras quote that states his highest level was in the 90s and that 90s competition was deeper than 2000s that you'll stop pretending Sampras said the same thing about his level that Fed does about his in order to distract from the disturbing conclusion that Djokovic is better than peak Federer?
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
:unsure: I'm starting to smell an agenda here, I mean Federer has reiterated that he's a better player now several times but he's never said it with such conviction as, "I was 10 times the player as I got older..." If Sampras can be so certain of his superior play as an oldie and the increasing standard of play on the tour how can you disagree with him? I thought players were the authority on their own play...
Self-awareness is a beautiful thing to behold.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Oh, so the issue is the lack of Sampras quote production from me. I assume then if I produce a more recent Sampras quote that states his highest level was in the 90s and that 90s competition was deeper than 2000s that you'll stop pretending Sampras said the same thing about his level that Fed does about his in order to distract from the disturbing conclusion that Djokovic is better than peak Federer?
But Sampras did say the same thing about his highest level. A recent quote won't erase his past ones.

The funny thing is the reason why you'll argue Federer is the best judge of his game is the same reason why Pete's early opinion should be more valid. It's Federer's closeness to his own game that you lot say makes his opinion that much more valid. Therefore it stands to reason that comments made by Sampras closer to his player days have that closer perspective to his playing level that you like flaunt.

I'm also noticing how you're dodging uncomfortable questions BTW.

Self-awareness is a beautiful thing to behold.
I'm sure you're aware of your agenda but it ain't a beautiful thing. To be frank I find you extremely disingenuous. You don't believe Fed is at his best in 2019 anymore than you think Sampras was at his best in 2002. You're just sore about Federer overtaking many of Sampras records.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Well I did list Henman and Rafter previously so I thought that would be redundant.

Fed played plate bearer for the only two great players he was up against...so not really sure how that enhances his legacy.
Wait, you compared Henman and Rafter to Rafa and Novak??

Listen I don't mind handily beating you in this exchange, but at least put forth some effort.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
But Sampras did say the same thing about his highest level. A recent quote won't erase his past ones.

The funny thing is the reason why you'll argue Federer is the best judge of his game is the same reason why Pete's early opinion should be more valid. It's Federer's closeness to his own game that you lot say makes his opinion that much more valid. Therefore it stands to reason that comments made by Sampras closer to his player days have that closer perspective to his playing level that you like flaunt.

I'm also noticing how you're dodging uncomfortable questions BTW.



I'm sure you're aware of your agenda but it ain't a beautiful thing. To be frank I find you extremely disingenuous. You don't believe Fed is at his best in 2019 anymore than you think Sampras was at his best in 2002. You're just sore about Federer overtaking many of Sampras records.
Nah, I already explained why recent quotes are more relevant than older ones. What's more relevant to me is why you're pretending otherwise.

Also, just an observation but for a "fair" poster you tend to make&take things personal...frequently. Could it be because the "untalented, pusher who doesn't play tennis" is nipping on Fed's heels followed closely by the "untalented grinder"? Hmm...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nah, I already explained why recent quotes are more relevant than older ones. What's more relevant to me is why you're pretending otherwise.

Also, just an observation but for a "fair" poster you tend to make&take things personal...frequently. Could it be because the "untalented, pusher who doesn't play tennis" is nipping on Fed's heels followed closely by the "untalented grinder"? Hmm...
Your explanation is yet more double standards. Tripping over your own feet.

There's a difference between fair and nice. Also I've never called Nadal an untalented grinder or Djokovic a pusher.

I don't blame you for trying to discredit me by lying considering how this debate has gone for you.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Your explanation is yet more double standards. Tripping over your own feet.

There's a difference between fair and nice. Also I've never called Nadal an untalented grinder or Djokovic a pusher.

I don't blame you for trying to discredit me by lying considering how this debate has gone for you.
How its gone for me? To avoid the implications of Federer's actual assessment of his own level you had to misrepresent an entirely different player's beliefs about his own. I'd say it went really well.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
How its gone for me? To avoid the implications of Federer's actual assessment of his own level you had to misrepresent an entirely different player's beliefs about his own. I'd say it went really well.
Well you've been dodging questions and showcases little more than double standards so just another day in the office for you I guess.

Also I quoted Sampras' exact words, how is that misrepresenting?
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Well you've been dodging questions and showcases little more than double standards so just another day in the office for you I guess.

Also I quoted Sampras' exact words, how is that misrepresenting?
Your...desire to get the heart of PETE'S true beliefs about his level which in itself was a sad ploy to distract from the implications of Fed's assessment of his own collapsed like a house of cards when I asked if producing more recent quotes would heal your confusion over the apparent disconnect in Pete's assessment of his level and his actual level. Rather than give a straight answer you deflected to the bizarre claim that the validity of a pro's assessment of their level is tied to how close this assessment is to the time in question, which I treated about as seriously as it deserved. Game, set, match, SaintPetros.

At this point, I'll just agree to disagree and leave you to your happy place.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Your...desire to get the heart of PETE'S true beliefs about his level which in itself was a sad ploy to distract from the implications of Fed's assessment of his own collapsed like a house of cards when I asked if producing more recent quotes would heal your confusion over the apparent disconnect in Pete's assessment of his level and his actual level. Rather than give a straight answer you deflected to the bizarre claim that the validity of a pro's assessment of their level is tied to how close this assessment is to the time in question, which I treated about as seriously as it deserved. Game, set, match, SaintPetros.

At this point, I'll just agree to disagree and leave you to your happy place.
You are ridiculous. Must get boring being a full time troll.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Your...desire to get the heart of PETE'S true beliefs about his level which in itself was a sad ploy to distract from the implications of Fed's assessment of his own collapsed like a house of cards when I asked if producing more recent quotes would heal your confusion over the apparent disconnect in Pete's assessment of his level and his actual level. Rather than give a straight answer you deflected to the bizarre claim that the validity of a pro's assessment of their level is tied to how close this assessment is to the time in question, which I treated about as seriously as it deserved. Game, set, match, SaintPetros.

At this point, I'll just agree to disagree and leave you to your happy place.
But you didn't produce more recent quotes :-D You tried to excuse your hypocrisy by making claims about more recent Sampras statements, of which I've seen none, and then by saying that the more recent quotes are more valid. To back this up you resorted to the cliche of "older and wiser", which is a meaningless saying - not everyone is wiser as they got older no?

Tell me why is it that Federer is the best judge of his own game? Let's see if you can come up with a reason that doesn't cause you to trip over your own feet.

You shouldn't go yet, there's still time for more embarrassing double standards. I don't agree to disagree though, I only do that with reasonable posters not trolls that are running away because they can't hold their story together.
 
Last edited:

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
@NatF ... simple question for you and I'd appreciate a direct and precise answer. I consider Pete Sampras a better player than Roger Federer. Do you have a problem with that?

:)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
@NatF ... simple question for you and I'd appreciate a direct and precise answer. I consider Pete Sampras a better player than Roger Federer. Do you have a problem with that?

:)
I disagree but as long as you're not making bogus weak era arguments I don't have a problem with it.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
I disagree but as long as you're not making bogus weak era arguments I don't have a problem with it.
Nice reply (y) So far as weak eras are concerned, I agree. I've said more times than I can count ... weak era arguments have 0 merit :)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
@NatF ... simple question for you and I'd appreciate a direct and precise answer. I consider Pete Sampras a better player than Roger Federer. Do you have a problem with that?

:)
BTW nothing about my conversation SaintPetros had anything to Federer being better than Sampras...
 

NFN

New User
I disagree but as long as you're not making bogus weak era arguments I don't have a problem with it.
They will never leave the forum these days sadly. How anybody call 2005 or 2007 weak is mindblowing. The real big drop is only 2016/17 to now.
 
Last edited:

ForehandRF

Professional
They will never leave the forum these days sadly. How anybody call 2005 or 2007 weak is mindblowing. The real big drop is only 2016/17 to now.
Add to that that 2008 is suddenly considered stronger than 2007 just because Nadal edged Federer in the Wimbledon final.In reality 2008 wasn't stronger but you can't mess with the agendas on this board.

2005 Safin beat Fed at the AO, Nadal stopped him on clay and won tournaments on hard courts, Nalbandian beat Fed at the Masters Cup, but according to some "experts" on this board, that was an weak year.
 
Top