Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jg153040, Apr 5, 2014.
notice the word "almost" he used.
What? It was a fourth round match between 1 all time great who was past his prime and another all time great who hadn't yet reached his prime. The winner didn't go on to win the tournament or even reach the semis. To top it off, it wasn't even the best or most exciting match of THAT TOURNAMENT! Agassi vs. Rafter was better, as was Ivanisevic vs. Rafter. So was Ivanisevic vs. Brennan when you get right down to it. As someone else said, historical footnote is what first comes to mind when I think of that match. Great win for Federer, but top 10 slam match of all time is something I just can't agree with.
Well.. Pete played far better at wimbledon in the 90s in which he played Goran and SQUEAKED Out a match (One he admits he SHOULD have lost to Goran in 1998 I believe). And his 2001 level was farr below his level in 1998 and Goran was peaking in 2001.
Doubt he would have beat Goran that year. I don't think people seem to remember how BAD Pete was playing at wimbledon in 2001. And for damn near the whole year outside of the USO for that matter.
I don't believe Pete (playing well below his 90s wimbledon level) would have beaten Goran that year.
I dont take a lot of Fed's losses (Unless its to Nadal because Nadal has been destroying him from the get go ) too seriously actually. Just as I didn't take Pete's losses to guys 10 YEARS Younger than him hugely serious in the early 2000s. Like some do. Players age and their levels drop as they reach the end of their careers.
Ok, maybe we shouldn't take this match between Pete and Fed too seriously, but I still think Federer deserves the credit for dethroning Sampras. At that time, no one was even remotely close to Sampras' success at Wimbledon. You have to be something really special to beat the guy who dominated Wimbledon in an era full of grass court specialists! I have a feeling same thing will happen to Nadal. The great one will appear and dethrone Nadal at the French Open. It is bound to happen, but probably not this year.
Clearly, a lot of Pete's fans didn't watch the match, or if they did, they made everything possible to forget how Pete played in it.
I recommend watching that one more time and see for yourself (if Pete was playing to his strengths or not)
sell this to donkeys and muggies friend!
you sir an idiot!
One of the most sold tennis DVD should tell you this match is one of the best.
I don't understand this argument. So what if Sampras needed 5 sets to beat Cowen? Wasn't Pete at his very peak in 1997? Yet didn't he need 5 sets to beat Korda in the 4th round and where he just barely pulled out the 5th set 6-4? So what?
No, DVD sales alone don't tell me that it's "one of the best." It tells me that people are naturally interested in seeing the only official match between these two all-time greats. That says nothing about the actual quality of the match itself.
The match itself has taken on greater significance, in hindsight, due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the actual quality of play
It's the movie equivalent of 2 stars from different eras in the one film in which they appear together on-screen. That fact might make it interesting for movie buffs and fans of the respective actors, but it doesn't, in and of itself, speak to the actual quality of the movie.
I thought it was an entertaining, but not great, match when I watched it as it happened in 2001. Again, the fact that Federer went on to become an all-time great and that it’s the only non-exhibition match that he and Sampras ever played, increases its historical significance but can’t increase the quality of play.
Just my $.02.
All this match tells us is that Federer was very talented even at 19. None of them were in their prime, so the best data we can extract from this match is that any match between them would be close on any surface other than clay.
In 2001 the grass was still fast (having it slowed down in 2002)so if both were in their prime on fast grass, none would dominate the other. It would be a hell of a match and they would split their W meetings.
This match was simply the changing of the guard. Federer took over from Sampras after this match
Exactly. Changing of the guard. No more, no less. Top 10 grand slam match all time? No way.
Now, if someone tells me it's one of their top 10 favorite matches of all time (for the “changing of the guard” factor), I’d completely understand. But, like I posted earlier, it wasn’t even the best match in terms of quality, drama, etc. of that tournament.
I can understand your argument.. But what if Barry Cowen beat old past prime Sampras that year in 2001 (which he very well could have) would that have made him a special player? Is George Bastl a special player? What did he do after that?
Hell, Fed just lost wimbledon to some no namer last year.. Was that guy special? Whats he done since? What will he EVER do again?
No.. Its pretty much just that great ones aging and their level dropping which enables upsets like that where guys like Pete and Fed lose on their best surfaces.. grass
The Fedites put so much stock into one lousy match. Its no different than Fed losing wimbledon to Stakvosky or Pete losing to Bastl.
Fed even wins the greatest jockstrap poll.
Yep, in the next round Fed went on to . . . lose to Tim Henman. Huh?
But the next year in 2002, Fed won the whole . . . lost in the first round to Ancic. Huh?
lol are you sure?
It was the changing of the guard at Wimbledon and on the top in general.
Deal with it, Bierman.
Mirka the cow is hotter than Bridgette and Brooklyn Decker combined!
Mirka, the cow, would have made a mince meat from you on a tennis court, when she was still active.
Who knows, maybe she can still do it.
Quality is subjective, but popularity is not. You may think it's not high quality tennis, but other fans beg to differ. I personally think it's higher than Rafter/Ivanisevic 2001 final, and that match is also a classic, or one of the best slam match. In my opinion, I can name numerous matches that aren't high quality as this one, but deserve to be a classic. Plus, history is in the making for Sampras if he wins his 5th straight Wimbledon, not just like another normal match in the way you put it.
Guys it is just 1 match with neither player in his prime.
Fed's greatness is not revolved around that match. There are a hundred things that prove fed's greatness. No need to stick at 1 particular match
I've watched this match a couple of times over the years, it's a personal favorite of mine because it features 2 of my favorite players, but I don't think it belongs in the "classic" match list. It pales in comparison when you bring it up against some of the epic matches Fed-Nadal-Djokovic had over the years, or even between Agassi-Sampras-Rafter. As you said, neither players were in they're prime at the time. The match grew in importance over the years because Federer went on to have one of the best careers a tennis player could dream of and because he beat a lot of Sampras record. It's no secret that to a lot of people, Sampras/Federer are the best players of they're mutual generation 90/00, so when you go back and look at the match considering who both of these guys are today, it's certainly special.
Sure it's great Federer beat Sampras at the time, but last I recall, he didn't do much after that until 2003, so I wouldn't say this match "made" Federer. Federer's victory over Mark Philippoussis at Wimby 2003 was a lot more significative in his career as he showed he could win on the big stage and from that point on, he was always a contender.
I completely agree with you. Great post.
Separate names with a comma.