What do Sampras, Krajicek and Ivanisevic have in common??

[fed_rulz]

They were all the biggest servers in history who were taken to the cleaners by baby Fed on their favorite surfaces!!

Federer vs Sampras (1 - 0):
2001 Wimbledon R16 -- 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5

Federer vs Ivanisevic (2 -0):
2001 Milan Carpet QF -- 6-4 6-4
2000 London Hard R16 -- 7-5 6-3

Federer vs Krajicek (2 - 0)
2002 s-Hertogenbosch Grass R32 -- 6-2 7-5
2000 vienna hard QF -- 6-4 6-3

The evidence is compelling (considering his record against other big servers like Roddick, Karlovic, Isner etc.) -- Federer is the GOAT of handling big servers.

 

[kiki]

They were all the biggest servers in history who were taken to the cleaners by baby Fed on their favorite surfaces!!

Federer vs Sampras :
2001 Wimbledon R16 -- 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5

Federer vs Ivanisevic:
2001 Milan Carpet QF -- 6-4 6-4
2000 London Hard R16 -- 7-5 6-3

Federer vs Krajicek
2002 s-Hertogenbosch Grass R32 -- 6-2 7-5
2000 vienna hard QF -- 6-4 6-3

The evidence is compelling (considering his record against other big servers like Roddick, Karlovic, Isner etc.) -- Federer is the GOAT of handling big servers.

Laver had to face the serve of Gonzales,Hoad,Tanner ,Ashe and Newcombe.Rosewall handled the serve of Hoad,Kramer,Gonzales,Newcombe,Ashe,Smith....

 

[helloworld]

They were all the biggest servers in history who were taken to the cleaners by baby Fed on their favorite surfaces!!

Federer vs Sampras (1 - 0):
2001 Wimbledon R16 -- 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5

Federer vs Ivanisevic (2 -0):
2001 Milan Carpet QF -- 6-4 6-4
2000 London Hard R16 -- 7-5 6-3

Federer vs Krajicek (2 - 0)
2002 s-Hertogenbosch Grass R32 -- 6-2 7-5
2000 vienna hard QF -- 6-4 6-3

The evidence is compelling (considering his record against other big servers like Roddick, Karlovic, Isner etc.) -- Federer is the GOAT of handling big servers.

I wouldn't call a 7-5 victory in the fifth set against the old guard "taken to the cleaners" by any means.

 

[ManFed]

Federer is arguably the Best Returner of this era (2000-Present).

 

[roberttennis54]

I wouldn't call a 7-5 victory in the fifth set against the old guard "taken to the cleaners" by any means.

Either would I, but Federer was a brilliant returner of first serves back in the day. This is alongside his great defence is why he had a great record aginst big servers.

 

[SLD76]

Of course it goes without saying that no doubt those surfaces were probably worlds faster than surfaces today.

Imagine if Fed had been an early bloomer like Hewitt....

 

[Russeljones]

Federer is arguably the Best Returner of this era (2000-Present).

Not even close to being true. He is particularly good at returning big serves, but what he does with his returns doesn't quite pace him in the 'best returners today' category.

 

[roberttennis54]

Not even close to being true. He is particularly good at returning big serves, but what he does with his returns doesn't quite pace him in the 'best returners today' category.

Would not go as far as saying he was not even close. He is probably the best returner of big serves in that period, but he does not do enough against average first serves and second serves to be top of the list. Overall Hewitt is the best in that time period for me. Followed by Old Agassi, Davydenko and Murray.

 

[helloworld]

He is one of the best defensive returner, but not quite the best in the offensive return department. That's why Nadal is able to get away with mediocre serve in their matches.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Federer is arguably the Best Returner of this era (2000-Present).

Yes and no. Sadly more no than yes. While Federer can create fantastic returns, he became comfortable merely starting the point rather than being agressive with it. For years, the only person that could top him off the ground was Nadal. If you can just start a point and have a high probability of winning the point while using less energy, you'd be a fool to not play that approach.

The most impressive aspect of Federer's return is his ability to redirect pace. I haven't seen anyone else who is able to diffuse what should be an opponent's strongest weapon and use it in their favor. I am happy that Federer has become more aggressive. I'm not going to sit here and say that had Federer gone with Annacone from and earlier age he would have been a much better returner, but when Federer's return is in God Mode, it's hard to deal with. Andy Roddick is the best example. 2009 Wimbledon was just about the only time Federer couldn't get a read on Roddick's serve. Roger was able to diffuse one of the strongest serves ever with relative ease.

 

[ChrisRF]

Either would I, but Federer was a brilliant returner of first serves back in the day. This is alongside his great defence is why he had a great record aginst big servers.

Exactly! And I'll never understand why so many people say that Sampras was "old" at the 2001 Wimbledon. He was the defending champion and not even 30! Or would they also say "No wonder that Federer lost to Tsonga 2011. He was just too old"? Federer was born exactly 10 years after Sampras.

Pete just played a mediocre Wimbledon in 2001 and a crappy Wimbledon in 2002. That's all.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

He is one of the best defensive returner, but not quite the best in the offensive return department. That's why Nadal is able to get away with mediocre serve in their matches.

I'd say that's more tied to Nadal's spinny serves to Federer's backhand.

 

[MTF07]

He is one of the best defensive returner, but not quite the best in the offensive return department. That's why Nadal is able to get away with mediocre serve in their matches.

I agree with this. The thing that has frustrated me over the years is that he has shown he can be a very good offensive returner, but he seldom goes to that tactic. I LOVED how he attacked Murray's second serve though (hit a few clean winners, ran around and hit forehands in the deuce court, chipped and charged, flattened a couple backhands out and charged the net).

 

[90's Clay]

Ohh that proves so much.. A 7-5 victory in the 5th over a 30 year old Sampras at the end of his career who went 35-16 for the season and retired just a year afterwards.

Krajicek wayyy past his prime.. Goran wayyy past his prime..


I guess we can count a 36 year old Sampras victory over a peak Fed in 2007 at Macau too then? Fed loses to a guy 5 years retired on a fast surface ROFL.. No to mention he was down 2-5 in the final set vs. Pete at Madison Square Garden as well

 

[psYcon]

Laver had to face the serve of Gonzales,Hoad,Tanner ,Ashe and Newcombe.Rosewall handled the serve of Hoad,Kramer,Gonzales,Newcombe,Ashe,Smith....

However I doubt those players had serves anywhere comparable to Sampras, Ivanisevic or Krajicek.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLVnrUKL8yY

The above shows a Tanner serve, his first serve is nowhere near as impressive as even a Sampras second serve.

 

[roberttennis54]

Ohh that proves so much.. A 7-5 victory in the 5th over a 30 year old Sampras at the end of his career who went 35-16 for the season and retired just a year afterwards.

Krajicek wary past his prime.. Goran wayyy past his prime..


I guess we can count a 36 year old Sampras victory over a peak Fed in 2007 at Macau too then? Fed loses to a guy 5 years retired on a fast surface ROFL.. No to mention he was down 2-5 in the final set vs. Pete at Madison Square Garden as well

No watch the matches. Federer returned their serves very well. When players age their skills decline, but the serve is not usually one of them. Pete later on in his career was serving even better than in his prime. Of course this does not make up for what he had lost and he was not as good, but it is telling Federer returned so well on grass.

Goran and Krajicek were both serving big, but they were still struggling. Federer was simply a fantastic returner of great first serves.

Exactly! And I'll never understand why so many people say that Sampras was "old" at the 2001 Wimbledon. He was the defending champion and not even 30! Or would they also say "No wonder that Federer lost to Tsonga 2011. He was just too old"? Federer was born exactly 10 years after Sampras.

Pete just played a mediocre Wimbledon in 2001 and a crappy Wimbledon in 2002. That's all.

Simply, because Pete was old. Sampras of 01 had a bigger serve and that's it, but was worse than his prime. His backhand had gone, his speed, his running forehand was not the same etc.

Same goes with Federer in 011. Peak Federer does not lose that match.

 

[PSNELKE]

And all of them were past 30 and way past their prime.

Thanks for sharing your fanboy thoughts tho.

 

[90's Clay]

No watch the matches. Federer returned their serves very well. When players age their skills decline, but the serve is not usually one of them. Pete later on in his career was serving even better than in his prime. Of course this does not make up for what he had lost and he was not as good, but it is telling Federer returned so well on grass.

Goran and Krajicek were both serving big, but they were still struggling. Federer was simply a fantastic returner of great first serves.



Simply, because Pete was old. Sampras of 01 had a bigger serve and that's it, but was worse than his prime. His backhand had gone, his speed, his running forehand was not the same etc.

Same goes with Federer in 011. Peak Federer does not lose that match.

Krajicek's prime was over way before 2000-2001.. Goran's prime was over way before 2000-2002. I dunno how much weight a match or two can carry anyways.. Now that were on the subject of h2h's doesn't Rafter have a h2h advantage over Federer? Beating some guys at the very end of their careers, doesn't carry a ton of weight anyways in my book.

And as you said, Pete still had his serve but the rest of his game declined pretty big if you compare it to his early-mid 20s.

But by the end of their careers, Sampras, Richard, Goran were losing to ALOT Of guys during that time. Thats generally what happens at the end of your career. The serve is generally the last to go, but losing the rest of your game in other eras doesn't help you any

 

[PSNELKE]

Federer is arguably the Best Returner of this era (2000-Present).

What's with Agassi and Djokovic?? Just to name 2 of them.

 

[roberttennis54]

Krajicek's prime was over way before 2000-2001.. Goran's prime was over way before 2000-2002. I dunno how much weight a match or two can carry anyways.. Now that were on the subject of h2h's doesn't Rafter have a h2h advantage over Federer? Beating some guys at the very end of their careers, doesn't carry a ton of weight anyways in my book.

And as you said, Pete still had his serve but the rest of his game declined pretty big if you compare it to his early-mid 20s.

I never said either of those guys were in their prime. However, you can go and find highlights and the entire matches on youtube now. They served big in those matches, Federer just returned very well.

I did not say Pete still had his serve. I said his serve was actually better than in his prime. However, I agree there was a big decline in the rest of his game.

This topic is not about how they would much up in their prime it is about returning skills. Hewitt, Federer and Safin could all return Sampras' serve much better than even Agassi.

Federer's head to head with Rafter is hardly something to bash over his head. They played three times. The first time they played he was 17 and took a set. The last time was on grass and he lost on a final set tiebreaker. This if anything indicates he was returning pretty well.

 

[TMF]

Laver had to face the serve of Gonzales,Hoad,Tanner ,Ashe and Newcombe.Rosewall handled the serve of Hoad,Kramer,Gonzales,Newcombe,Ashe,Smith....

You don't know if their serve are as good as Serena. Watch Wimbledon 2012 and you'll be in awe !

 

[90's Clay]

I never said either of those guys were in their prime. However, you can go and find highlights and the entire matches on youtube now. They served big in those matches, Federer just returned very well.

I did not say Pete still had his serve. I said his serve was actually better than in his prime. However, I agree there was a big decline in the rest of his game.

This topic is not about how they would much up in their prime it is about returning skills. Hewitt, Federer and Safin could all return Sampras' serve much better than even Agassi.

Federer's head to head with Rafter is hardly something to bash over his head. They played three times. The first time they played he was 17 and took a set. The last time was on grass and he lost on a final set tiebreaker. This if anything indicates he was returning pretty well.

The question was about Fed being the "GOAT" of handling big servers and people go by that just because he won those matches? At least thats what the OP is trying to convey with posting the match wins.. But that could also have everything to do with the overall games of Goran, Pete, and Richard declining as to why the may have lost the match. There is more to tennis then just the serve.

If there wasn't, guys like Roddick and Karlovic would be GOAT's many times over

 

[roberttennis54]

The question was about Fed being the "GOAT" of handling big servers and people go by that just because he won those matches? At least thats what the OP is trying to convey with posting the match wins.. But that could also have everything to do with the overall games of Goran, Pete, and Richard declining as to why the may have lost the match. There is more to tennis then just the serve

The question may have been a bit of bait to draw people into a discussion, but the point about returning is a fair one.

I agree their overall games decline may have been why the lost a match, but that has nothing to do with the standard of the return. This is why I believe it's important to watch the match. Federer was handling the big serves very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN1Vh0WA
I am sure you have seen the Federer vs Sampras match.

Even Federer has a better second serve now than in his prime. So Murray being able to get so many returns into play is telling about his ability to return Federer's serve.

Admittedly the sample could be bigger, but he returned Roddick's, Ljubocic's, Ancic's, Karlovic's and Isner's serve just as well.

EDIT

This is about the return alone. Of course there is more to tennis than just the serve.

 

[pistolPete2012]

Well it was obvious OP started this thread to get a response from me. How did Fed do in the next round againt Tiger Tim's mighty serve and volley game? Mario Ancic blasting him off the court.

 

[fed_rulz]

Krajicek wayyy past his prime.. Goran wayyy past his prime..

Krajicek's prime was over way before 2000-2001.. Goran's prime was over way before 2000-2002.

Good to hear it straight from the "horse"'s mouth. So what you're effectively saying is that Pete's win over Krajicek in the 2000 USO does not count as well, which makes their h2h 6-3. Oh, and past-prime Krajicek did beat Pete in 2000 (in miami). A 1-time slam winner truly pwns Sampras?? how sad!! at least Federer is pwned by a fellow GOAT.

As for Goran, wayyyyy past-prime Goran won wimby?? must've been a really weak field then. sounds like he's not as formidable on grass as the Pete fanbois make it out to be?

And all of them were past 30 and way past their prime.

Thanks for sharing your fanboy thoughts tho.

these three accounted for the 9 wimbledon titles from 93 - 2001; and baby Fed was 5 -0 against them. this piece of stat gotta hurt morons that think the field from the 90s was super strong and crappy now.

Well it was obvious OP started this thread to get a response from me. How did Fed do in the next round againt Tiger Tim's mighty serve and volley game? Mario Ancic blasting him off the court.

wow, you think you're really that important in my scheme of things? hell no.

LOL, one can only marvel at Pete-**** hypocrisy. they insist that a 29 yr old or 31 yr old becker (who was a shadow of his former self) was Pete's greatest opponent on grass, yet dismiss Federer's wins over the big servers (who were in a similar stage of their careers as Becker) because they were old and past their prime. make up your mind!!

 

[PSNELKE]

fed_rulez.. what's wrong with you dogg??

They were all past their fcking prime!!!

Is that something to ignore???

 

[pistolPete2012]

wow, you think you're really that important in my scheme of things? hell no.

LOL, one can only marvel at Pete-**** hypocrisy. they insist that a 29 yr old or 31 yr old becker (who was a shadow of his former self) was Pete's greatest opponent on grass, yet dismiss Federer's wins over the big servers (who were in a similar stage of their careers as Becker) because they were old and past their prime. make up your mind!!

Yeah sure you didn't start this troll thread to start a flamewar with me, but keep denying it. Obviously because Becker was 31 in 1993 and 1995 when he was ranked no.3 in the world. Ivanisevic was past his prime in 2001. He played Pete in the final in 94 and 98 you fool. Says a lot about the unpredictability of grass back then that a wildcard could go all the way, it 'll never happen again.

 

[Mustard]

Good to hear it straight from the "horse"'s mouth. So what you're effectively saying is that Pete's win over Krajicek in the 2000 USO does not count as well, which makes their h2h 6-3. Oh, and past-prime Krajicek did beat Pete in 2000 (in miami). A 1-time slam winner truly pwns Sampras?? how sad!! at least Federer is pwned by a fellow GOAT.

Krajicek wasn't even in the top 1,000 in the world at 2002 s'Hertogenbosch. And then he reached the quarter finals of 2002 Wimbledon.

As for Goran, wayyyyy past-prime Goran won wimby??

Goran was a top 10 player for many years in the 1990s, and reached a career high world number 2 when he reached the 1994 Wimbledon final, and he got back that high in 1997. When he won 2001 Wimbledon, he was ranked 125 in the world and needed a wildcard to get into the tournament. Earlier that year, Goran travelled out to Melbourne for the qualifiers of the Australian Open (a 22 hour flight), lost his first qualifying match to Petr Luxa, and then travelled back to Europe on a 22 hour flight. Trust me when I say that Goran had been down in the dumps for well over 18 months until he walked through those gates at SW19 in June 2001.

these three accounted for the 9 wimbledon titles from 93 - 2001; and baby Fed was 5 -0 against them. this piece of stat gotta hurt morons that think the field from the 90s was super strong and crappy now.

Not at all. Goran was losing to all sorts of players at that time. At 2000 Brighton, he had to retire against Hyung-Taik Lee after smashing all the racquets in his bag.

 

[10is]

No one is saying they were in their "prime" "overall". However their "serves" were as powerful as ever. The thread is about how lethal a returner of big first serves Federer used to be "back in the day". Also Federer used to be very much an "offensive" returner in his prime -- not the defensive returner many have insinuated. I suggest some youtube footage for people with short-term memories. He only started slicing/chipping the ball back regularly from 2007 onwards.

 

[ThePro101]

What do Sampras, Krajicek and Ivanisevic have in common??

Here are a list of just a few other things they have in common:

- born in 1971
- won Wimbledon
- dark hair
- more than 7,500 career aces
- more than 2,000 double faults
- earned more than $10,000,000 in prize money
- taller than 6"
- highest singles ranking in the top 5
- highest doubles ranking in the top 50
- won doubles in a tournament
- greater than 50% winning, when playing a 5th set
- greater than 80% winning, having won the 1st set
- greater winning % vs lefties than righties
- etc...

*Source - www.atpworldtour.com

 

[The-Champ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki
Laver had to face the serve of Gonzales,Hoad,Tanner ,Ashe and Newcombe.Rosewall handled the serve of Hoad,Kramer,Gonzales,Newcombe,Ashe,Smith....

You don't know if their serve are as good as Serena. Watch Wimbledon 2012 and you'll be in awe !

What about those who are taller than Serena?

 

[Deleted member 21996]

And all of them were past 30 and way past their prime.

Thanks for sharing your fanboy thoughts tho.

this.

10 *******s,,,,

 

[zagor]

Not at all. Goran was losing to all sorts of players at that time. At 2000 Brighton, he had to retire against Hyung-Taik Lee after smashing all the racquets in his bag.

Heh I remember reading about that at the time, Goran's a legend I wonder if anything similar ever happened to any other player?

Anyway, yes Goran was way past his best at that point in time, 2001 Wimbledon was his swan song but his results were so bad overall he needed a wildcard to get in (he then afterwards went on to beat Rusedski and Henman after ) and soon afterwards IIRC had a shoulder surgery he has been postponing for quite a while (he was under painkillers in 2001 Wimbledon).

That said, I do think Fed is one of the best I've seen at getting big 1st serves into play, however his 2nd serve return always left a lot to be desired.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Heh I remember reading about that at the time, Goran's a legend I wonder if anything similar ever happened to any other player?

Anyway, yes Goran was way past his best at that point in time, 2001 Wimbledon was his swan song but his results were so bad overall he needed a wildcard to get in (he then afterwards went on to beat Rusedski and Henman after ) and soon afterwards IIRC had a shoulder surgery he has been postponing for quite a while (he was under painkillers in 2001 Wimbledon).

That said, I do think Fed is one of the best I've seen at getting big 1st serves into play, however his 2nd serve return always left a lot to be desired.

I think that's a bit harsh. Federer for most of his career just had to put the 2nd serve back deep and get to neutral in the rally then take over with his forehand and every now and then he runs round a 2nd serve a hits a big foreheand.

 

[Mustard]

Heh I remember reading about that at the time, Goran's a legend I wonder if anything similar ever happened to any other player?

Not that I recall. LOL

When Goran embarrassingly said that he had no racquets left in his bag, the officials asked Goran if he could borrow one of Ivan Ljubicic's racquets, but Ljubicic used Wilson (I think) while Goran had a sponsorship contract to always use Head racquets, so he was forced to retire.

Anyway, yes Goran was way past his best at that point in time, 2001 Wimbledon was his swan song but his results were so bad overall he needed a wildcard to get in (he then afterwards went on to beat Rusedski and Henman after ) and soon afterwards IIRC had a shoulder surgery he has been postponing for quite a while (he was under painkillers in 2001 Wimbledon).

Goran was supposed to have left shoulder surgery after 2001 Wimbledon, but with his ranking back in the top 16 after winning Wimbledon, he played on and continued using painkillers. After 2002 Miami, he had no choice but to have surgery. In hindsight, it was a probably a mistake to delay the surgery.

 

[zagor]

I think that's a bit harsh. Federer for most of his career just had to put the 2nd serve back deep and get to neutral in the rally then take over with his forehand and every now and then he runs round a 2nd serve a hits a big foreheand.

I don't know, he just never seemed that comfortable to me being aggressive on 2nd serve as he should have IMO.

I mean sure given that he was facing mostly hardcore baselines just getting the ball in play was enough given his transition from defense to offense and the fact that from a neutral point in rally he had the edge against almost everyone but I still feel in a number of big matches against Nadal in particular he should have been far more aggressive on the 2nd serve return.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

What about Rafter. Took the big Fed to the cleaners 3-0. Rafter beat the Fed on grass, hard court and clay.

 

[Steffi-forever]

They were all the biggest servers in history who were taken to the cleaners by baby Fed on their favorite surfaces!!

Federer vs Sampras (1 - 0):
2001 Wimbledon R16 -- 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5

Federer vs Ivanisevic (2 -0):
2001 Milan Carpet QF -- 6-4 6-4
2000 London Hard R16 -- 7-5 6-3

Federer vs Krajicek (2 - 0)
2002 s-Hertogenbosch Grass R32 -- 6-2 7-5
2000 vienna hard QF -- 6-4 6-3

The evidence is compelling (considering his record against other big servers like Roddick, Karlovic, Isner etc.) -- Federer is the GOAT of handling big servers.

Do you remember Marseille 1999? Fed has played like 5 matches on the pro tour and yet beat Carlos Moya 76 36 63. Carlos was about to become number 1 in march... The next week he lost & Kafel 64 in the third at Rotterdam. Kafel became number 1 in may that year lol

 

[Mustard]

Kafelnikov became number 1 straight after a run which saw him lose 7 matches in a row in singles competition. The authorities were so embarrassed that they officially introduced the "Champions Race" for 2000. I can't imagine how this Talk Tennis board would have been back in May 1999

 

[Steffi-forever]

Kafelnikov became number 1 straight after a run which saw him lose 7 matches in a row in singles competition. I can't imagine how this Talk Tennis board would have been back in May 1999

Yes I know, it was weird... But Sampras was losing points after points in the first half of 1999 while Kafel didn't have a lot points to defend since he was kind of subpar in 98.

 

[fed_rulz]

fed_rulez.. what's wrong with you dogg??

They were all past their fcking prime!!!

Is that something to ignore???

of course they were not in their primes; no one is disputing that. By the same token, Becker was past his prime when he was meeting Sampras at wimbledon; yet that fact seems to be ignored when trumpeting Pete's "superior" grass court competition!!

 

[fed_rulz]

What about Rafter. Took the big Fed to the cleaners 3-0. Rafter beat the Fed on grass, hard court and clay.

hmm.. we're talking about Baby Fed, right??

 

[NLBwell]

Yeah, that Federer guy has potential.

 

[fed_rulz]

Yeah sure you didn't start this troll thread to start a flamewar with me, but keep denying it. Obviously because Becker was 31 in 1993 and 1995 when he was ranked no.3 in the world. Ivanisevic was past his prime in 2001. He played Pete in the final in 94 and 98 you fool. Says a lot about the unpredictability of grass back then that a wildcard could go all the way, it 'll never happen again.

Sampras was 29 and ranked #6 in the world when Federer met him. So why do you dismiss that win as inconsequential?

The bolded sentence is just fluff.. don't skirt the issue by throwing terms as "unpredictability". call it what it is -- a diluted, weak field.

 

[pistolPete2012]

Sampras was 29 and ranked #6 in the world when Federer met him. So why do you dismiss that win as inconsequential?

The bolded sentence is just fluff.. don't skirt the issue by throwing terms as "unpredictability". call it what it is -- a diluted, weak field.

Sampras was 29 knocking on 30, his prime was a few years before. Becker on the otherhand was 25 when Sampras was beating him. If you're talking about a weak field then look no further then Federer's first 3 Wimbledon titles.

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras was 29 knocking on 30, his prime was a few years before. Becker on the otherhand was 25 when Sampras was beating him. If you're talking about a weak field then look no further then Federer's first 3 Wimbledon titles.

nice try, Becker wasn't 25 in 1995 and 97. That Sampras' wins came over a weaker set of players has already been established (avg ranking of players that Pete beat vs the ones that Federer beat), and I'm not really interested in making a judgement over how weak or strong a field is based on your opinion. if you have facts, bring it to the table.. do you?

 

[pistolPete2012]

Sampras did play Becker in 93. Also Becker made the SF in 94 getting knocked by Ivanisevich who we all know lost the final to Sampras. Yet you want to portray Becker as past it.

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras did play Becker in 93. Also Becker made the SF in 94 getting knocked by Ivanisevich who we all know lost the final to Sampras. Yet you want to portray Becker as past it.

Becker was an early bloomer a la Borg. He wasn't as good as he was in the late 80s. I know he met Sampras in 93, but my point is (IMO) Roddick of 2003, 2004 and 2009 was a more formidable opponent to Federer than Becker was to Sampras in 93, 95 and 97. What Becker had going for him was his grass court pedigree; but what's that worth? Case in point: Federer is a far more accomplished clay courter than Novak, yet Novak would've been a tougher opponent for Nadal, at least in 2011 at the french.

Look, I have no beef with you; you're an ardent fan of Sampras and I fully get that; and based on whom you ask, Federer or Sampras would be considered the greatest GC players of all time, and I have no issue with that. But what I have an issue with is using purely subjective opinions with complete disregard to facts, to trash Federer's opponents in an effort to make Sampras look better than Federer.

 

[90's Clay]

Becker was an early bloomer a la Borg. He wasn't as good as he was in the late 80s. I know he met Sampras in 93, but my point is (IMO) Roddick of 2003, 2004 and 2009 was a more formidable opponent to Federer than Becker was to Sampras in 93, 95 and 97. What Becker had going for him was his grass court pedigree; but what's that worth? Case in point: Federer is a far more accomplished clay courter than Novak, yet Novak would've been a tougher opponent for Nadal, at least in 2011 at the french.

Look, I have no beef with you; you're an ardent fan of Sampras and I fully get that; and based on whom you ask, Federer or Sampras would be considered the greatest GC players of all time, and I have no issue with that. But what I have an issue with is using purely subjective opinions with complete disregard to facts, to trash Federer's opponents in an effort to make Sampras look better than Federer.

Becker took Pete to the brink though indoors in 96 or so at the end of the year and was good enough to be a legit formidable contender at wimbledon even in the mid-late 90s even though he may have been a bit passéd his best.. And he was CERTAINLY more talented and more formidable then Roddick has ever been and with much prettier resume to look at

 

[helloworld]

Becker was an early bloomer a la Borg. He wasn't as good as he was in the late 80s. I know he met Sampras in 93, but my point is (IMO) Roddick of 2003, 2004 and 2009 was a more formidable opponent to Federer than Becker was to Sampras in 93, 95 and 97. What Becker had going for him was his grass court pedigree; but what's that worth? Case in point: Federer is a far more accomplished clay courter than Novak, yet Novak would've been a tougher opponent for Nadal, at least in 2011 at the french.

Look, I have no beef with you; you're an ardent fan of Sampras and I fully get that; and based on whom you ask, Federer or Sampras would be considered the greatest GC players of all time, and I have no issue with that. But what I have an issue with is using purely subjective opinions with complete disregard to facts, to trash Federer's opponents in an effort to make Sampras look better than Federer.

I can't believe what I just read. Did you really say Roddick was more forbidable than Boris Becker??? Are you talking about one of the greatest grass court player of all time who can go toe-to-toe with Pete on quick surface? Do I need to remind you of how Becker played?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0