When will Roger have his own Sampras moment?
- Thread starter Speranza
- Start date
Tennis_Hands
Banned
When Nadal drops enough in the rankings, to play him in R2 at RG.
:shock:
:shock:
augustobt
Legend
Honestly, me either. But the point - and I really like Goffin - is he the future? I don't see him as the future best player in activity, simple based on his height. It doesn't suit the actual, and the probable future way the game is played. He can be a top player, bot not the top one, I think.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
It's too late now. He's 31,5 and past his prime. When Sampras lost to Federer at Wimbledon he was the 4-time defending champion and still capable of playing prime tennis.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Just because Federer is 31 years old does not mean he is further from his prime than Sampras was in 2001. People do age differently, otherwise, everyone would die at the same age.
borg number one
Legend
When Pete Sampras lost to Federer at the 2001 Wimbledon, he hadn't won a tournament in a year. His last title before that loss was the 2000 Wimbledon tournament. He was definitely hitting a rough patch. The 2001 Wimbledon was his 15th tournament in a row without a title. Then, after his loss to Federer at that tournament, he went on to lose in another 22 more tournaments, before securing his last major at the 2002 US Open, with his win in the final over Andre Agassi. So, he won 1 title during his last 38 tournaments. Lots of players were able to beat Sampras during that period in his career.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Federer isn't the 4-time defending champion in any tournament.
dominikk1985
Legend
fed is actually the defending Wimbledon Champion and while being a Little past his prime he is still a lot better than sampras was at this time.
forzamilan90
Legend
I want to see Dimitrov do it
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
But he won his previous major 2,5 years before. Sampras despite not being in his actual prime in 2001 was still the outright favorite for the title in 2001, he won 7 of the previous 8 editions and was the 4-time defending champion at the time. He was THE man to beat. Federer is "just" a part of the top 4, besides he's older and he doesn't have a firm grip on any of the majors that's why beating him would at least seem less impressive, despite Federer playing at a higher level than Sampras was at the time.
dominikk1985
Legend
yes. but this is because that era sucked. the 90s stars were gone or old and fed was still not in his prime.
fed might only be like 85-90% of his prime but he is still a top Player in a super tough era. this Version of federer would have still won tons of slams if he had played from like 97-04 even past his prime.
I think that past prime sampras would be abused by nole, nadal and old fed. in fact I even think prime pete would stand no Chance against 31 yo fed, let alone prime fed.
frinton
Professional
Federer is still very impressive in a lot of ways. Very fit, very committed, highly concentrated. Now he decided to play less tournaments to have more time to recover between tournaments and to work out. Like this he could stay a force for several years to come, maybe not being one of the main favorites in the Grand Slams, but always with an outsider chance. So there might be an upcoming youngster sooner or later that beats him and that will be remembered like Federer is remembered as the beginning of Sampras' end. But maybe not.
Either way, I am looking forward to Federer mixing up the young kids for a while longer, even if one day, probably sooner rather than later his QF-streak will come to an end...hopefully not tomorrow against Raonic.
Either way, I am looking forward to Federer mixing up the young kids for a while longer, even if one day, probably sooner rather than later his QF-streak will come to an end...hopefully not tomorrow against Raonic.
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
Hopefully this....
underground
G.O.A.T.
I thought the Goffin match was it. Given the fact that it was the fourth round of a major as well.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
WHAT? I'm no Sampras fan, but come on.
90's Clay
Banned
Hes came close to losing to up and comers a TON of times. Benneateau should have beaten him at wimbledon if not for that monumental choke. Rest assured it will happen like it did to Pete
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Federer wasn't losing in the 1st and 2nd rounds of Roland Garros when he was 26.
Benneteau is the same age as Fed and hardly an up and comer..........
90's Clay
Banned
thats the thing.. hes more susceptible to losing (has been for a few years now).. And people think Fed won't be put to rest by some younger guys? Its just of a matter of time.
Thats the natural order of tennis. Old guys retire, young guys take over
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
But Sampras was humiliated at the French Open by nobodies in his prime :lol:
It might happen, or he might retire after winning a slam like Sampras did before it does, either way you cited Benneteau as your example, a player that if he did lose to wouldn't be Fed's Sampras moment.
90's Clay
Banned
He had some bad losses but for his "clay prime" going out to Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov and Agassi aren't exactly horrible losses. please..
Post 96, his clay prime was over after Gullickson died and that useless crap coach took over
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Did Gullickson play the matches for poor Pete? LOL Quit your excuses. Sampras sucked on clay for a player of his standards. 5 wins 6 losses? ROFLMFAO
yzaga or benneteu --- make your choice!
90's Clay
Banned
Pete was injured vs. Yzaga. Fed had no injury vs. Benneateau.
lol, that's your excuse?? Was Pete injured when Krajicek was b!tch slapping him at Wimbledon too?
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
Back injury Fed had against Benny
Pete lost, Fed didn't.
Goosehead
Legend
look at that easy draw for wimbledon 2000..no one in the top 20 even..not really a major win at all..have been Tougher challenger events than that :twisted:
C U P C A K E.
SO????? All I hear are you making excuses for Sampras.
Pete's record going into USO 2002 wasn't any better, yet he won that tournament. Oh wait, that's because he is great. Of course, when he loses in the biggest stage in tennis as the defending champion, no less, must be because he was playing so bad that everybody could beat him.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Federer was number 1 last year. He won 6 titles last year; not even remotely comparable.
90's Clay
Banned
Nadal going out in the summer (not to return the rest of the year) and Nole's level dropping dramatically helped that happen though.
Its not like Fed was playing peaking unbeatable tennis.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Actually Fed had back issues/injury against Benneteau and Malisse, plus he was 30-31 not at his peak like Pete.
90's Clay
Banned
Fed won Wimbledon.. I doubt his back issues could have been that bad. If there were any at all. I know Fed always has an excuse as to why he loses.. But still..
zagor
Bionic Poster
Bad or not he still had them (especially against Malisse it was very obvious), Sampras won 2000 Wimbledon even though he was injured, those guys are great at keeping points short and adapting, it happens.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
There's always an excuse, isn't there? You can't stand that he did it. It doesn't matter how. I could just as easily say the only reason Nadal was number 1 in 2010 was a drop in from Federer, and he didn't really do it himself. Same in 2011. I mean, if I was a pathetic **** I would do that.
90's Clay
Banned
I dont care if he did it.. Hell I figured he would do it.. Thats been your boy's career in a nutshell the "Oh please Rafa get injured so I can reclaim my crown since I can't beat you on the big stage" career
Nadal was still active when Roger managed to reach #1.
AGain, Nadal was playing Wimbledon and after that tournament Roger became #1. He wasn't inactive due to injury. Roger outperformed both Nole and Nadal in a span of 12 months.
No, you reply to Cup8489 that Nadal was injured is the reason why Roger reach #1, which is incorrect. He was still active when Roger became the new #1.
And Roger won only Cinci. after Wimbledon, so whether Nadal was playing or not throughout the year isn't going to change roger's 2012 season.
Similar threads
