What's with the Fed hate?

davey25

Banned
LOL. there's no argument for Sampras being superior.
There are plenty:

1. At this moment more year end #1s (though I expect they will be tied after this year)

2. At this moment more Wimbledons

3. Slam titles over a 12 year span

4. A vastly superior first and second serve, forehand volley, backhand volley, overhead, combined with a comparable ground game, return game, and overall movement, making him the greater overall player.

Clay & clay alone is sufficient to disqualify sampras from the GOAT talk
This is ridiculous. Clay is only one surface. Sampras isnt the best clay courter but he is a master of all other surfaces. The gap between Borg or Nadal and Federer on clay is arguably just as huge as the gap between Federer and Sampras on clay. By your logic we should say clay disqualifies Federer from the GOAT talk.

especially after Fed's achievements.
You mean getting his ass kicked in repeatedly by Nadal on clay, never winning Roma or Monte Carlo up to now, which gives him less combined Rome/Monte Carlo/French Open titles than Agassi or Costa. Federers achievements on clay are superior to Sampras, but they are nothing amazing by any stretch at this point.

Sampras has an inferior overall game when compared to Fed. At their respective peak forms, Fed wins IMO.
You have obviously never seen Sampras at his best. Would Federer ever beat the Sampras the day of the 99 Wimbledon final. The obvious answer is no, especialy when Federer playing his best lost to even Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008, and nearly did in 2007 in a match most acknowledge Federer was outplayed despit ewinning.

Attitude towards olympics? WTF are you smoking? He just won the gold medal for doubles.
His last 2 Olympics in singles he played two of his 4 or 5 worst matches ever and lost to Blake and Berdych, two guys he is something like 20-0 against combined outside of the Olympics, and who have a combined maybe 4 sets against him outside the Olympics. It can happen once sure, but one is to believe 2 such all time horrific performances by him (for his standards) happened at this same event that only happens once every 4 years and that is he really sincere about his efforts to perform here regardless what he states. Please. As for doubles who cares about doubles these days, certainly not the top singles players as their participation rate in the doubles draws shows.
 
D

Deleted member 22147

Guest
I agree with most things you've just said there but Federer at his best at Wimbledon 2008? Are you having a laugh? He was god awful in that final compared to even the previous year. Peak Federer at Wimbledon is from 2003-2007.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
There are plenty:

1. At this moment more year end #1s (though I expect they will be tied after this year)

2. At this moment more Wimbledons

3. Slam titles over a 12 year span

4. A vastly superior first and second serve, forehand volley, backhand volley, overhead, combined with a comparable ground game, return game, and overall movement, making him the greater overall player.
To counter your argument:

1. Federer hold a record of 237 weeks at #1
2. He has only one more SW19, but Federer has 16 GS, a career slam. FAR more ahead of Sampras!
3. Federer has 23 consecutive GS semi., 19 out of 20 slam finals, winning 3 out of 4 GS in a year. FAR more ahead of Sampras!
4. Formulate an opinions doesn’t prove anything. Sampras won less and lost to many inferior players. FACTS!


This is ridiculous. Clay is only one surface. Sampras isnt the best clay courter but he is a master of all other surfaces. The gap between Borg or Nadal and Federer on clay is arguably just as huge as the gap between Federer and Sampras on clay. By your logic we should say clay disqualifies Federer from the GOAT talk.
How you compare Fed to Pete on clay doesn’t hold any water. Fact is Roger is a great clay courter and Pete isn’t good. His resume proved it. Stick with the fact!

You mean getting his ass kicked in repeatedly by Nadal on clay, never winning Roma or Monte Carlo up to now, which gives him less combined Rome/Monte Carlo/French Open titles than Agassi or Costa. Federers achievements on clay are superior to Sampras, but they are nothing amazing by any stretch at this point.
You mean Pete getting his ass kick by Delgado, Yzaga, Norman, Schaller, Phillippoussis, Blanco? Besides RG, Fed made 4 yrs straight finals + won multiple MS on clay. Pretty dam amazing to me.

You have obviously never seen Sampras at his best. Would Federer ever beat the Sampras the day of the 99 Wimbledon final. The obvious answer is no, especialy when Federer playing his best lost to even Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008, and nearly did in 2007 in a match most acknowledge Federer was outplayed despit ewinning.
Sampras play an Agassi who was serving 44% in the final. Nothing amazing about his apponent. Nadal would have straight set Agassi too.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
There are plenty:

1. At this moment more year end #1s (though I expect they will be tied after this year)
fair enough -- but in pointing this out, you've contradicted yourself. You claim sampras faced tougher competition, but in 98, sampras played a few mm tournaments to end as #1, ahead of, guess who??? Marcelo Rios

2. At this moment more Wimbledons
BS. 1 extra wimbledon is not sufficient to put Pete OVERALL ahead of Federer. Sorry, fed has a better record in one of the slams, and a much better record in the other two. Sampras has a marginally better record at wimby.

3. Slam titles over a 12 year span
another bogus statistic. Let's make up criteria as we go along. When sampras was winning, according to him, only # of slams mattered.

btw, these are perhaps the only 3 "statistics" that favor sampras over Fed. There are at least 10 other ones (more important ones too, one might add), that favor Federer. Of course, you'll bring up the h2h with one's "nearest" rival. fortunately for sampras, his "nearest" rival was absent through a significant part of Sampras' prime, and he was not as "near" to sampras as Fed's "nearest" rival is. But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you want, make it 4 "stats" that favor Sampras over Fed.

4. A vastly superior first and second serve, forehand volley, backhand volley, overhead, combined with a comparable ground game, return game, and overall movement, making him the greater overall player.
a superior second serve, volleys and a marginally better first serve is all Pete has over federer. What do you mean by a better over head? Seriously, what does that even mean? Are you implying that sampras is better at putting away overheads than federer? If so, you're wrong. Federer seldom misses overheads and he puts them away with equal efficiency. In terms of needless histrionics during the overhead, yeah, sampras has a big edge there.

LOL -- greater overall player? based on what? the one time they met, Fed won. Fed has better numbers on all surfaces. All this, despite Fed facing a much better adversary than Sampras ever did.

This is ridiculous. Clay is only one surface. Sampras isnt the best clay courter but he is a master of all other surfaces. The gap between Borg or Nadal and Federer on clay is arguably just as huge as the gap between Federer and Sampras on clay. By your logic we should say clay disqualifies Federer from the GOAT talk.
Fact: Sampras was mediocre on clay. You can twist it all you want, but Roman Delgado begs to differ. You cannot be superior to another player if the other player has comparable or better achievements on 3/4 surfaces, and MUCH better ones on the last one.

You mean getting his ass kicked in repeatedly by Nadal on clay, never winning Roma or Monte Carlo up to now, which gives him less combined Rome/Monte Carlo/French Open titles than Agassi or Costa. Federers achievements on clay are superior to Sampras, but they are nothing amazing by any stretch at this point.
You're clutching at straws here. LOL. I like how you cherry pick Rome/Monte carlo, while excluding Hamburg, where Fed has had most of his success. Fed at worst is a Top-15 all time on clay, and has a legitimate argument for being top-10. If that's not amazing, then boy, you have very high standards :)

You have obviously never seen Sampras at his best. Would Federer ever beat the Sampras the day of the 99 Wimbledon final. The obvious answer is no, especialy when Federer playing his best lost to even Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008, and nearly did in 2007 in a match most acknowledge Federer was outplayed despit ewinning.
I've seen sampras at his very best. There is no obvious answer as to what would have happened in the 99 wimby final. Agassi served at 44%. Your arguments make no sense. You want to extrapolate on how Fed would've performed against sampras in the 99 wimby finals based on how Fed performed against nadal in 08/07? OK..... Here's something to chew on: they did meet in 2001...

I could turn it around and say that Pete would never beat Fed, especially if Fed plays like USO 04 against Hewitt. Especially given that sampras lost to jamie yzaga in 97... Doesn't make sense now, does it?

Pete-****s have just 1 match to cite where sampras performed his best. It's always the 99 wimby finals. That itself tells me that that match was not indicative of his usual level. It perhaps had more to do with the fact that his opponent didn't put up much of a fight (serving at 44%? at wimby?)

His last 2 Olympics in singles he played two of his 4 or 5 worst matches ever and lost to Blake and Berdych, two guys he is something like 20-0 against combined outside of the Olympics, and who have a combined maybe 4 sets against him outside the Olympics. It can happen once sure, but one is to believe 2 such all time horrific performances by him (for his standards) happened at this same event that only happens once every 4 years and that is he really sincere about his efforts to perform here regardless what he states. Please. As for doubles who cares about doubles these days, certainly not the top singles players as their participation rate in the doubles draws shows.
Sorry you lost me there. Again, WTF are you smoking? 2008 was one of his worst years. He had lost to roddick, fish (lol), karlovic prior to that. So it wasn't entirely surprising. And in olympics, a gold is a gold, regardless of whether you win it in singles or doubles.
 

Docalex007

Hall of Fame
I LOL'd too at Sampras fans in extreme denial... this davey25 guy is definitely trying to argue from a weaker side. It shows.

Give it a rest. Federer's achievements (and he's not even done!) already outshine Sampras' achievements = Fed +1

The only time they met, post-prime Sampras vs. pre-prime Federer, Federer won = Fed + 1

On talent, well this is largely subjective. I watched both play. Both have/had crazy amounts of talent. Although I have to say, Federer has hit shots that I never saw Sampras hit, and I got into tennis in '95. Federer's talent IMO surpasses Sampras' talent by a marginal amount.

Federer to many, and to me, is the most talented human being to pick up a racquet.
 

reversef

Hall of Fame
It goes both ways.Internet forums are just that-A medium to voice one's opinions.If some random posts on an internet forum get on your nerves to the extent that you dislike someone then that's ...well...I don't really get it at all.
My opinion hasn't changed. I've always found the same qualities and flaws in him. I'm just more vocal about his flaws. I'm sure that most people understand that the accumulation of hateful posts get on the nerves since almost everyone is concerned. The forum would be completely different otherwise. You posted some not very nice posts yourself. I don't accuse you of being one of those extreme haters or trolls. But you "sting" here and there if the word makes sense. So, I guess Nadal's fans bother you too.
 

reversef

Hall of Fame
Federer attracts stupid, spoilt Feddie fans who expect too much from him (they do take for granted his dominance) and get pissy and annoyed at him when he doesn't win 3 slams a year.
This is true. Some of the most disrespectful comments towards Federer I've read were from disappointed fans of his in the spring of last year. They probably speak very highly of him again now and spit on the other ones, like they always did.
 

pame

Hall of Fame
There are plenty:

1. At this moment more year end #1s (though I expect they will be tied after this year)

2. At this moment more Wimbledons

3. Slam titles over a 12 year span

4. A vastly superior first and second serve, forehand volley, backhand volley, overhead, combined with a comparable ground game, return game, and overall movement, making him the greater overall player.
This totally ignores all the Fed stats in which he ranks way ahead of Sampras. You know them, I know them so not worth the bother repeating them here.


No. 2: Sampras has one more Wimby than Fed, who did better in achieving 5 consecutive Wimbledon's + 5 consecutive USO's. He also has more AO's than Sampras and more FO's than Sampras... so where does one more Wimbledon stack up against less AO and FO's?


As for No. 3 "Slam titles over a 12-year span": Last time I looked, the genius is the one who gets his PhD at age 21, not the one who gets it at age 75. The fact that it took Fed only 7 years to rack up the most grand slams is to his indisputable credit. He doesn't have to hang around 12 years.

Your conclusion in no 4 is largely subjective, so we'll agree to disagree.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Davey25 is sure taking alot of beating in here for being a ***********. He's listing a few stats that Pete had over Roger to proved that Pete's is > Roger. However, for every one stats Pete has over Roger, there are ten stats that Roger have over Pete!

His argument is equivalent to a 4th grade student!
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
I think Fed > Sampras, but you're being too harsh on Davey25. He was just posting some things at which Sampras has done better than Fed. Nothing wrong with that.
 

KAndersonFan

Semi-Pro
I think Fed > Sampras, but you're being too harsh on Davey25. He was just posting some things at which Sampras has done better than Fed. Nothing wrong with that.
True, except his last point about Sampras's "clearly superior" game has (rightfully) earned the ire of the TW community. :)
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Why is there even a debate with Sampras and Federer. The only guys you could consider as good as Federer are Laver and Borg. Laver simply because he missed a few years and Borg because he retired early.

People can go ahead and say Sampras was a better player, but at the end of the day Federer will be put above Sampras in terms of regards.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Why is there even a debate with Sampras and Federer. The only guys you could consider as good as Federer are Laver and Borg. Laver simply because he missed a few years and Borg because he retired early.

People can go ahead and say Sampras was a better player, but at the end of the day Federer will be put above Sampras in terms of regards.
It was Borg's own choice to retire though. He shouldn't get extra credit for that IMO.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Most accomplished and best are not necessarily the same thing.

I personally think Sampras' A game would beat (in some cases overwhelm) Federer's A game on any surface except clay.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Most accomplished and best are not necessarily the same thing.

.
Very true, but I do think it's always better to refer to "most accomplished" when we are trying to ascertain who is better. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with discussing people who you believe are "better despite lesser accomplishments", but IMO it's too subjective to be used when trying to determine the stronger player.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Most accomplished and best are not necessarily the same thing.

I personally think Sampras' A game would beat (in some cases overwhelm) Federer's A game on any surface except clay.
What you think are not fact but pure subjective. I can say I think Kraijcek at his best can beat Sampras on grass, or Safin at his best can beat Roger in Rebound Ace. However, no one will say Kraijcek and Safin are better than them. Understood?
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
What you think are not fact but pure subjective. I can say I think Kraijcek at his best can beat Sampras on grass, or Safin at his best can beat Roger in Rebound Ace. However, no one will say Kraijcek and Safin are better than them. Understood?
Yes,

I understand you are incredibly naive! I never said what I personally think is fact, otherwise why would I say "I personally think..."

Your ability to state the obvious as if it is profound is truly shocking!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes,

I understand you are incredibly naive! I never said what I personally think is fact, otherwise why would I say "I personally think..."

Your ability to state the obvious as if it is profound is truly shocking!
I just want to make crystal clear to you, in case you believe “thinking” > fact. Notice a lot of your arguments are using “opinion” against other members using “fact” from the thread – Tiger/Roger have done for their sport.

You did not bash Roger this time. I’m shock!:shock:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
OPINION:
Most accomplished and best are not necessarily the same thing.

I personally think Sampras' A game would beat (in some cases overwhelm) Federer's A game on any surface except clay.

FACT: Roger beat Sampras in 01 SW19
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
I think Federer's best is probably the same (if not a little higher) than Sampras' best. However Federer is normally consistently amazing. On any surface i would favour Federer.
 
Top