What happened to Sampras will happen to Federer

[mxmx]

Sampras left the scene as the best ever...to me, he and Federer still remains the best and it's hard to choose between the two.

When the likes of Federer came on the scene and destroyed Sampras' records, it didn't make Federer greater to me than Sampras.
Now Federer is getting the same medicine from Nadal and then Djokovic.

Now do I believe this makes Nadal and Djokovic the best I've ever seen? No. Their games seem more flawed to me than Sampras and Federer. Even Agassi and some others impressed me more. But I must too admit that the style of both Nadal and Djokovic isn't that appealing and that has some contributing factor.

Are they great? Of course. Are they looking greater due to a weak era? Yes.

EDIT: what bugs me is that Federer fans won't admit that when Sampras was seen as lesser, he now too is lesser by the exact same arguments due to Nadal and Djokovic.

They cannot move the goalposts if Sampras fans couldn't do the same thing.

 

[aman92]

How are Nadal and Djokovic's game more flawed compared to Sampras? Sampras's backhand was a huge liability in slower surfaces and part of the reason why he could never do well at RG. There are no tangible weaknesses in Nadal or Djokovic's game at all

 

[Deleted member 775898]

If that helps you sleep at night ...

 

[terribleIVAN]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final.
Never lost either in slams after having match points.

Enough said.

 

[mxmx]

If that helps you sleep at night ...

Good idea! I am at the "sleepless" thread...thanks for the tip!

 

[Deleted member 771911]

I would watch Agassi over any of the Big 3. Probably Sampras, too.

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

Huh?

 

[GoldenMasters]

Sampras left the scene as the best ever

This is not how Federer will leave the scene.

 

[Realfan]

I love watching all of these ATGs and I don’t get those who say that Nadal or Djokovic aren’t fun to watch. They are master tacticians and every ball they hit is with some purpose. For example, the way that Djokovic handled Medvedev at the AO2021 Final this year was a clinic in not allowing Medvedev to get into his comfort zone.

I think Nadal has a great game to watch as well in terms of angles. I love watching Federer from a stylistic perspective although I don’t find him to be as strategic as Djokovic and Nadal.

As for the past, I loved watching Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors and a few select others.

At the end of the day, the data is the data and long after we age, the numbers will tell the stories to future generations. Those numbers are still being written so we shall see where it all ends up.

 

[Forehanderer]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final.
Never lost either in slams after having match points.

Enough said.

Sampras also never won a RG title and skipped the clay season in his prime

 

[heninfan99]

Sampras would have left already. Right after Aussie 2017.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Sampras also never won a RG title and skipped the clay season in his prime

Sampras also dominated all his close rivals.

And never cried because he lost, or threw a match on purpose because he feared his next rivals.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

OP, you are incorrect: the similarity is between Sampras/Agassi and Nadal/Djokovic.

Both their generations had unusual amount of time before being challenged by the next gens.

In the case of Nadal/Djokovic the period is becoming laughably long. Unprecedented in the OE.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final.
Never lost either in slams after having match points.

Enough said.

Sampras never lost a French open finals either. Mr Smith from my club also never lost in slams after having match points.

By citing such examples, we are not doing justice to a champion like Sampras.
He's an excellent player and has his place in tennis history. Probably not at the position he wanted ( goat) but still high enough.

 

[TMF]

Sampras left the scene as the best ever...to me, he and Federer still remains the best and it's hard to choose between the two.

When the likes of Federer came on the scene and destroyed Sampras' records, it didn't make Federer greater to me than Sampras.
Now Federer is getting the same medicine from Nadal and then Djokovic.

Now do I believe this makes Nadal and Djokovic the best I've ever seen? No. Their games seem more flawed to me than Sampras and Federer. Even Agassi and some others impressed me more. But I must too admit that the style of both Nadal and Djokovic isn't that appealing and that has some contributing factor.

Are they great? Of course. Are they looking greater due to a weak era? Yes.

EDIT: what bugs me is that Federer fans won't admit that when Sampras was seen as lesser, he now too is lesser by the exact same arguments due to Nadal and Djokovic.

They cannot move the goalposts if Sampras fans couldn't do the same thing.

Federer is better and greater than Sampras, but you had Nadal and Djokovic combined to be better and greater than Federer.

What's next? Sampras and Borg combined is better and greater than Federer ?

 

[GhostofPetros]

Federer is better and greater than Sampras, but you had Nadal and Djokovic combined to be better and greater than Federer.

What's next? Sampras and Borg combined is better and greater than Federer ?

Nadal is already greater than Federer. In a few days the gap will increase substantially. Roger's corporate sponsorships and jets won't change that

 

[TMF]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final.
Never lost either in slams after having match points.

Enough said.

No career slam. Never made 4 slam finals in a year.

 

[TMF]

Nadal is already greater than Federer. In a few days the gap will increase substantially. Roger's corporate sponsorships and jets won't change that

Incorrect.

Base on the criteria I use by the tennis experts in nearly 10 years, Nadal is not better/greater than Federer.

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

 

[ST VINCENT FAN]

Week era was a good friend to Federer and his records, Pete didn't have that luxury. Even in Federer's peak years he was getting schooled by a teenage Nadal on the wrong side of that H2H.

 

[ScottleeSV]

Samples could have won more than 14 if he'd had a target to beat (not sure how many he could have got exactly). 17 minimum though.

 

[GhostofPetros]

Incorrect.

Base on the criteria I use by the tennis experts in nearly 10 years, Nadal is not better/greater than Federer.

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

Nadal has the same number of majors, a winning head to head, and a set of records at a Grand slam that has never been imagined, much less equaled (unlike Federer). He is the greater player. A few more days and it will be official.

 

[GhostofPetros]

Samples could have won more than 14 if he'd had a target to beat (not sure how many he could have got exactly). 17 minimum though.

He could have had 17 if he'd had his exact same career trajectory, but with modern tech and medicine and recovery methods. '94 USO, '99 AO, and '99 USO are all slams he was highly favored to win until injury or health issues got in the way. '97 USO was a match he lost to someone who was found to be a doper a few years later.

Anyways, most serious fans know this about Pete. The argument isn't usually about the level of greatness anymore, but completeness, showing that an emerging truth is starting to change the landscape of the conversation.

 

[TMF]

Nadal has the same number of majors, a winning head to head, and a set of records at a Grand slam that has never been imagined, much less equaled (unlike Federer). He is the greater player. A few more days and it will be official.

Disagree. Nadal has ZERO WTF, the 5th most important tournament of the year. He has far less weeks at #1, less single titles, much fewer tennis records, not as dominant as Federer during their peak/prime years.

 

[augustobt]

Only if Shapovalov beats Federer in a Wimbledon 5 setter.

 

[BGod]

The Federer brand has been very strong from 2005-now.

The Sampras brand? Perhaps 97-03?

How strong are the Novak/Nadal brands? I see Nadal advertising poker stars and some watches.....

 

[T007]

Week era was a good friend to Federer and his records, Pete didn't have that luxury. Even in Federer's peak years he was getting schooled by a teenage Nadal on the wrong side of that H2H.

Weakasses like you bring that weak era theory. Federer started facing Nadal in slams from 2005. From 2005-2008 he faced him in 7 slam finals. So nadal was a weak era opponent for you. In his post 30s Federer faced peak wawrinka,murray and ATG Djokovic in slams. Federer lost to djokovic in 4 finals and 2 semifinals which were close. Had it been otherway he could have had 25+ slams by now.

No to take Anything from sampras but he faced a servebot Ivanisevic mostly at SW19 and beat him 3 times in Final and lost krajeck in semifinal. Atleast Federer never lost a servebot. Federer has to make transition from fast grass to reduced speed of grass which resulted in his decline at WImbledon or else he could have won 10-12 wimbledons by now.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final.
Never lost either in slams after having match points.

Enough said.

Your criteria is crap.

 

[GhostofPetros]

The Federer brand has been very strong from 2005-now.

The Sampras brand? Perhaps 97-03?

How strong are the Novak/Nadal brands? I see Nadal advertising poker stars and some watches.....

Unlike Federer, Pete, Nole and Nadal have not tried to turn themselves into "brands" because they realize there is more to life than being worshipped by the masses for hitting a ball with a string paddle.

 

[Sunny014]

Unlike Federer, Pete, Nole and Nadal have not tried to turn themselves into "brands" because they realize there is more to life than being worshipped by the masses for hitting a ball with a string paddle.

They tried but failed.

Federer is classy and polished, the whole world worships him because he deserves it.

Thats why he is a billionaire as well ...

 

[GhostofPetros]

Your criteria is crap.

Your criteria is crap.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Your criteria is crap.

Recite it.

 

[Sunny014]

@GhostofPetros

The more you try to bash Federer you will find that Pete also gets bashed, because Federer is like an upgraded version of Pete.

Believe it or not, the fans of Pete left today are all Fed fans.

The Nadal-Djokovic fans born after 1987 all consider Federer to be 3rd wheel and as a result consider Pete to be the 4th or 5th wheel, for them Pete is even below Agassi since Agassi won all 4 slams but Pete failed.

Based on the modern era Tennis Pete is barely in the top 5 and people believe that modern day players would be passing him all day

So choose your friends and rivals properly, Fed fans are your friends, believe it or not.

 

[BeatlesFan]

At least Federer never lost a servebot.

Fed lost to Anderson at Wimbledon in 2018.

 

[Kuclas]

How are Nadal and Djokovic's game more flawed compared to Sampras? Sampras's backhand was a huge liability in slower surfaces and part of the reason why he could never do well at RG. There are no tangible weaknesses in Nadal or Djokovic's game at all

I’m no Sampras fan. I’m an Agassi and Lendl fan for the most part during the 1980s and 1990s era.
But the court surfaces have slowed. I have a hard time imagining Novak or Rafael winning on grass if the surface were faster.
So we can only compare players to their own cohort. Sampras vs Agassi vs courier vs Chang. With a little crossover from Becker and Edberg

 

[Winners or Errors]

How are Nadal and Djokovic's game more flawed compared to Sampras? Sampras's backhand was a huge liability in slower surfaces and part of the reason why he could never do well at RG. There are no tangible weaknesses in Nadal or Djokovic's game at all

It wasn't his backhand, but his lack of patience. Agassi was right.

 

[sredna42]

What happened to Sampras will happen to Federer

What happened to Lance Armstrong will happen to Nadal

 

[Sunny014]

How are Nadal and Djokovic's game more flawed compared to Sampras? Sampras's backhand was a huge liability in slower surfaces and part of the reason why he could never do well at RG. There are no tangible weaknesses in Nadal or Djokovic's game at all

Sampras could never do well at RG because his game plan was horrible and unfit for clay, doing SNV on clay is tad suicidal.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

It's OK though. Like Sampras, Federer will have his hardcore fans, plenty of respect and most importantly never be short of the dirty cash. It's not a bad position to be in!

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Roger not winning the big matches has caught up
to him. Since turning 28 he only managed to win 5 slams. His other two rivals have more slams since turning 28.

 

[GuyForget]

I would watch Agassi over any of the Big 3. Probably Sampras, too.

totally agree, or Becker. Not as good, but biomechanically much more aesthetic than the Big 3

 

[Ray Mercer]

Roger not winning the big matches has caught up
to him. Since turning 28 he only managed to win 5 slams. His other two rivals have more slams since turning 28.

Largely because they have beat up on weak competition. Djokovic has had it better than anybody. He literally has nobody younger pushing him. Federer was struggling against a prime Nadal and Djokovic as he was getting older. If a 2004-2007 Fed came along now he would murder Djokovic and Nadal.

 

[GuyForget]

Pete still the best fast gras

@GhostofPetros

The more you try to bash Federer you will find that Pete also gets bashed, because Federer is like an upgraded version of Pete.

Believe it or not, the fans of Pete left today are all Fed fans.

The Nadal-Djokovic fans born after 1987 all consider Federer to be 3rd wheel and as a result consider Pete to be the 4th or 5th wheel, for them Pete is even below Agassi since Agassi won all 4 slams but Pete failed.

Based on the modern era Tennis Pete is barely in the top 5 and people believe that modern day players would be passing him all day

So choose your friends and rivals properly, Fed fans are your friends, believe it or not.

Pistol still the GOAT on fast grass

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Largely because they have beat up on weak competition. Djokovic has had it better than anybody. He literally has nobody younger pushing him. Federer was struggling against a prime Nadal and Djokovic as he was getting older. If a 2004-2007 Fed came along now he would murder Djokovic and Nadal.

Get out of here with that nonsense. It’s about consistency and Federer lacked it after turning 28.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Largely because they have beat up on weak competition. Djokovic has had it better than anybody. He literally has nobody younger pushing him. Federer was struggling against a prime Nadal and Djokovic as he was getting older. If a 2004-2007 Fed came along now he would murder Djokovic and Nadal.

Roger is gonna be Sampras soon. This result was a bad one for him.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Roger is gonna be Sampras soon. This result was a bad one for him.

Its not a bad result at all. Nadal would have thrashed Tsitsipas. Most people believe Tsitsipas at least has a chance against Djokovic. Nadal’s probably done winning slams after today and Djokovic is likely going to break 20 anyway because the competition is pure garbage right now. There’s nothing wrong with Sampras either. He was a beast of a fast court player and would murder Djokovic on fast grass.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Its not a bad result at all. Nadal would have thrashed Tsitsipas. Most people believe Tsitsipas at least has a chance against Djokovic. Nadal’s probably done winning slams after today and Djokovic is likely going to break 20 anyway because the competition is pure garbage right now. There’s nothing wrong with Sampras either. He was a beast of a fast court player and would murder Djokovic on fast grass.

I think you’re underestimating Novak’s greatness. The guy’s an all time great and if he wins on sunday all eyes will be on him at Wimbledon.

 

[Sunny014]

Pete still the best fast gras

Pistol still the GOAT on fast grass

For common public Grass is Grass and Federer is the greatest grass courter ever.

Thats the notion which everyone has

 

[Ray Mercer]

I think you’re underestimating Novak’s greatness. The guy’s an all time great and if he wins on sunday all eyes will be on him at Wimbledon.

Of course he is but I don’t think he’s a lock to win Sunday or Wimbledon. He won today but Nadal was garbage. It was a great win but Nadal is a shadow of his former self.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Of course he is but I don’t think he’s a lock to win Sunday or Wimbledon. He won today but Nadal was garbage. It was a great win but Nadal is a shadow of his former self.

Yeah sure the guy was just coming off winning 4 in a row. We can’t talk about roger’s competition being great until nadal came along . Roddick was his pet. Hewitt?

 

[Sunny014]

Roger not winning the big matches has caught up
to him. Since turning 28 he only managed to win 5 slams. His other two rivals have more slams since turning 28.

In My Opinion Federer should have kept his grip on wimbledon as strong as Nadal kept his grip on french for 15-16 years, but then Federer allowed Novak to win 5 times and Murray to win 2 times, those slams should have been Roger's, at least 5 out those 7 he should have poached.

Sadly he could not and that is what has hurt him, on HCs I dont see a chance vs Novak from 2011 onwards though he did have his chance once or twice... but that was not gonna work.

Grass was his best shot at keeping the slams record till the end.