Which Big 3 AO redemption story was the greatest?

[Federev]

Well, you insisted that Fed didn't face the real Pete in 2001 and he was only 30.

Pete Sampras was still 29 and more importantly he was the defending champ who would still win the next years USO. Federer was a teenager and years away from his own best tennis and slam winning level.

Roger still took him down.

Peter is fortunate Federer was born so much later. Federer’s all court game would have been too much for him. He was the transition player Sampras could not be. Peter could not even get past a SF at Rolland Garros in his whole career. Made it that far once… and only had 2 AO’s.

 

[PRS]

self imposed? follow our new rules of getting a vacks put in your body otherwise it's you doing this to yourself...? strange rhetoric

That's why I said somewhat self-imposed. Yeah, Australia decided to make the vaccine mandatory, but djokovic could have easily just taken the vaccine and avoided the whole thing. It may not have been his choice to make it mandatory, but it was 100% his choice to not take it knowing the restrictions. I respect him for standing up for his beliefs, but that doesn't negate the fact that all he had to do was get a shot and he could've played with no issue.

 

[Permitlady]

That's why I said somewhat self-imposed. Yeah, Australia decided to make the vaccine mandatory, but djokovic could have easily just taken the vaccine and avoided the whole thing. It may not have been his choice to make it mandatory, but it was 100% his choice to not take it knowing the restrictions. I respect him for standing up for his beliefs, but that doesn't negate the fact that all he had to do was get a shot and he could've played with no issue.

but there is an issue.

Australia self imposes a restriction upon players. a restriction that requires something invasive and in hindsight arbitrary and even rectified. other countries did not take this position. Australia self imposed it.

the nurses in the United States were forced out of their jobs for a policy that changed overnight and something they never agreed to. lawyers are having a field day with this behavior

having a medical intervention is not passive request.

 

[PRS]

but there is an issue.

Australia self imposes a restriction upon players. a restriction that requires something invasive and in hindsight arbitrary and even rectified. other countries did not take this position. Australia self imposed it.

the nurses in the United States were forced out of their jobs for a policy that changed overnight and something they never agreed to. lawyers are having a field day with this behavior

having a medical intervention is not passive request.

I'm not saying it was right for Australia to do what it did. I think the whole situation was handled terribly actually. But he still could have taken the shot and avoided the whole thing. That's why it was SOMEWHAT self-imposed. Not completely, but somewhat.

 

[Holmes]

Pete Sampras was still 29 and more importantly he was the defending champ who would still win the next years USO. Federer was a teenager and years away from his own best tennis and slam winning level.

Roger still took him down.

Peter is fortunate Federer was born so much later. Federer’s all court game would have been too much for him. He was the transition player Sampras could not be. Peter could not even get past a SF at Rolland Garros in his whole career… and only had 2 AO’s.

Pete could never have predicted the poly strings that would enable Roger's clay court game to thrive on all surfaces, especially given how he was BOUNCED out first round in the prior years on actual fast grass.

 

[Razer]

Peter is fortunate Federer was born so much later. Federer’s all court game would have been too much for him. He was the transition player Sampras could not be. Peter could not even get past a SF at Rolland Garros in his whole career… and only had 2 AO’s.

It is the other way round, it is Roger who is fortunate to have not been born in Peter's same age peer group as far as Grass as the fast US open court is concerned.

Boris Becker says he himself could beat Roger if they were of the same age, Boris literally proved what he claimed by coaching Novak to 3 wimbledon wins over Roger.

 

[Federev]

It is the other way round, it is Roger who is fortunate to have not been born in Peter's same age peer group as far as Grass as the fast US open court is concerned.

Boris Becker says he himself could beat Roger if they were of the same age,

We don’t need hypotheticals tho.

We saw what even a teenage Fed did to defending champ Sampras in his 20s. We see how bad Peter did on clay at the RG - kind of terrible for a guy of his supposed stature - one SF.

We see how even a post prime Federer fared against peak years Novak in 2011-2012, holding his own even tho past his best.

But we’ll never agree, right? So why go on and on?

Peace!

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

That's why I said somewhat self-imposed. Yeah, Australia decided to make the vaccine mandatory, but djokovic could have easily just taken the vaccine and avoided the whole thing. It may not have been his choice to make it mandatory, but it was 100% his choice to not take it knowing the restrictions. I respect him for standing up for his beliefs, but that doesn't negate the fact that all he had to do was get a shot and he could've played with no issue.

All you have to do is inject a very sketchy vaccine created by greedy companies who don't care about you and your health. Great!

 

[Razer]

We don’t need hypotheticals tho.

We saw what even a teenage Fed did to defending champ Sampras in his 20s. We see how bad Peter did on clay at the AO - kind of terrible for a guy of his supposed stature - one SF.

We see how even a post prime Federer fared against peak years Novak in 2011-2012, holding his own even tho past his best.

But we’ll never agree, right? So why go on and on?

Peace!

By that logic we know Federer has lost in Slams and has losing slams h2h to Corretja, Rafter, Tsitsipas, Kevin Anderson, Arnaud Clement..... sad isn't it ? ....

 

[fedfan24]

It is the other way round, it is Roger who is fortunate to have not been born in Peter's same age peer group as far as Grass as the fast US open court is concerned.

Boris Becker says he himself could beat Roger if they were of the same age, Boris literally proved what he claimed by coaching Novak to 3 wimbledon wins over Roger.

absolute garbage

 

[Holmes]

2017 brought fuzzy feelings home

 

[Holmes]

By that logic we know Federer has lost in Slams and has losing slams h2h to Corretja, Rafter, Tsitsipas, Kevin Anderson, Arnaud Clement..... sad isn't it ? ....

So sad

 

[Federev]

By that logic we know Federer has lost in Slams and has losing slams h2h to Corretja, Rafter, Tsitsipas, Kevin Anderson, Arnaud Clement..... sad isn't it ? ....

I don’t think so, because Roger and Peter’s overall records show that they aren’t flukes. They also knew going into their match there was a story line. Peter was the great champion, Federer was supposed to be the next big thing.

I think Peter was great on quick courts and on grass, but he’s not at Federer’s level - or Djokdal at their peak either.

He did not have the all court game of the big 3 at their very best.

Even in 2001 Federer showed he had the ability to play a very different game than he would play years later. The guys adaptability and tool box had a much greater range than Sampras. He could ply the SV serve centric points and hang with Pete. But his baseline in his clay game and slower hardcourt game we’re better too. This is especially - on clay - where Pete’s limitations compared to the Big 3 shone through - beyond the tech and the era.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

It is the other way round, it is Roger who is fortunate to have not been born in Peter's same age peer group as far as Grass as the fast US open court is concerned.

Boris Becker says he himself could beat Roger if they were of the same age, Boris literally proved what he claimed by coaching Novak to 3 wimbledon wins over Roger.

Djokovic is not Spassky lol, he already had his best year beating nadal and federer in 2011 way before Becker... And any all time greats can defeat each other sometimes but Federer is better than Becker. Becker could beat Djokovic too

 

[NoleFam]

I think Peter was great on quick courts and on grass, but he’s not at Federer’s level - or Djokdal at their peak either.

Errr...Pete Sampras is the greatest fast court player of all time. Facts.

 

[Federev]

Errr...Pete Sampras is the greatest fast court player of all time. Facts.

Eh.

He was great. But I think Federer had the tools to be as good and better.

Grass did change, but that also hurt Fed too. Fed had a great quick surface game, he just also had a great all around game,

Sampras certainly has nothing on Fed’s accomplishments on grass records wise, but regardless, I think Fed in the 90s holds his own against Peter and matches up quite well. Teenage Fed certainly did.

 

[Holmes]

Errr...Pete Sampras is the greatest fast court player of all time. Facts.

You're talking to someone who beats their chest at a 1-0 Federer-Sampras h2h while dismissing actual losing h2hs Federer holds to Djokovic and Nadal. Hopefully this sets appropriate expectations for your conversation

 

[NoleFam]

Eh.

He was great. But I think Federer has the tools to be as good and better.

Grass did change, but that also hurt Fed too. Fed had a great quick grass game, he just also had a great all around game,

Sampras certainly has nothing on Fed’s accomplishments on grass records wise, but regardless, I think Fed in the 90s holds his own against Peter and matches up quite well. enage Fed certainly did.

While Federer was not liking carpet and advocating for its removal, years prior Sampras was a wrecking ball on it. Won 3 of his WTF/Masters/ATP Finals on it and took down giants of the game in the process. This doesn't include his pure dominance on the grass of his era and how good he was in the fast conditions of the USO.

Federer is great on fast courts of course but because of the reasons listed above, Sampras is a notch above him imo.

 

[NoleFam]

You're talking to someone who beats their chest at a 1-0 Federer-Sampras h2h while dismissing actual losing h2hs Federer holds to Djokovic and Nadal. Hopefully this sets appropriate expectations for your conversation level

Lol. I will give the benefit of the doubt here since he's a reasonable poster imo.

 

[Razer]

Eh.

He was great. But I think Federer had the tools to be as good and better.

Grass did change, but that also hurt Fed too. Fed had a great quick surface game, he just also had a great all around game,

Sampras certainly has nothing on Fed’s accomplishments on grass records wise, but regardless, I think Fed in the 90s holds his own against Peter and matches up quite well. Teenage Fed certainly did.

What "Quick Surface Game" are you talking about ?

Sampras has a better serve than Federer/anyone
Sampras is a better volleyer than Federer
Sampras is a better athlete than Federer, his running forehand, his slam dunks all are more lethal than Federer's is finishing off a point.
Sampras played in a real era of fast courts with fast court specialists and beat them all, he played on carpets which were quicker than current indoor HCs and Roger is the one who removed carpets from the tour because they were too fast for his liking.

You are chest thumping here over a useless 5 set win over a near 30 Pete when that did not even result in even taking him to a final ? He lost to whom? Tim Henman ?

 

[Federev]

What "Quick Surface Game" are you talking about ?

Sampras has a better serve than Federer/anyone
Sampras is a better volleyer than Federer
Sampras is a better athlete than Federer, his running forehand, his slam dunks all are more lethal than Federer's is finishing off a point.
Sampras played in a real era of fast courts with fast court specialists and beat them all, he played on carpets which were quicker than current indoor HCs and Roger is the one who removed carpets from the tour because they were too fast for his liking.

You are chest thumping here over a useless 5 set win over a near 30 Pete when that did not even result in even taking him to a final ? He lost to whom? Tim Henman ?

There are a few people here who can make progress arguing about things like this.

I think we are not those people.
No offense meant.

 

[The Fedfather]

6 months away with a bad knee
Down to #17 in the world for Fed?
3 X 5 setters
Facing 4 top 10s!
Down a break in the 5th to Rafael Nadal who he’d not beaten at a slam in 10 years.

Pretty insane sports story.

It was absolutely movie-like. In fact, if they made it movie, some people who don't know tennis could say it was too cheesy - the way the main character goes through all that and wins. That's how almost unrealistically amazing Roger's comeback was

 

[Federev]

It was absolutely movie-like. In fact, if they made it movie, some people who don't know tennis could say it was too cheesy - the way the main character goes through all that and wins. That's how almost unrealistically amazing Roger's comeback was

True. The “down a break in the 5th” could almost tempt conspiracy theories were it not Rafa and Fed.

And I didn’t mention 35 years old vs a 5 years younger epic ATG who’d had his number.

 

[Holmes]

Lol. I will give the benefit of the doubt here since he's a reasonable poster imo.

Feddyzev is stuck in his/her reactionary anti-troll trolling phase. I'm sure (s)he's quite pleasant outside of it.

 

[NoleFam]

Feddyrev is stuck in his/her reactionary anti-troll trolling phase. I'm sure (s)he's quite pleasant outside of it.

Nah he's alright. I don't mind his type of trolling honestly.

 

[Holmes]

Nah he's alright. I don't mind his type of trolling honestly.

If it didn't seem so downhearted and depressed, I'd enjoy it too. I'm always worried he's actually mad/sad. Having said this, an endorsement from you carries some weight, so I'll give Feddyzev another chance.

 

[Holmes]

While Federer was not liking carpet and advocating for its removal, years prior Sampras was a wrecking ball on it. Won 3 of his WTF/Masters/ATP Finals on it and took down giants of the game in the process. This doesn't include his pure dominance on the grass of his era and how good he was in the fast conditions of the USO.

Federer is great on fast courts of course but because of the reasons listed above, Sampras is a notch above him imo.

Federer is not a fast court player by any means. His game is best suited to conditions of mid-height and speed bounce, and bounce regularity. This suits his rhythm-centered game. Put him on a surface where he either can't line up for, or hit a pretty bouncing backhand, and Roger's title count will drop faster than his poly-struck pretty backhand into the back foot of the court.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer is not a fast court player by any means. His game is best suited to conditions of mid-height and speed bounce, and bounce regularity. This suits his rhythm-centered game. Put him on a surface where he either can't line up for, or hit a pretty bouncing backhand, and Roger's title count will drop faster than his poly-struck topspin backhand into the back foot of the court.

You do have a way with words but nah he's a good fast court player and the best of his era. Better than Djokovic and much better than Nadal. Sampras is just even better than him. What Sampras achieved on carpet, 90s Wimbledon grass and USO conditions proves it imo. I think Federer is good in low bouncing conditions but for some reason, carpet didn't really suit him.

 

[Holmes]

You do have a way with words but nah he's a good fast court player and the best of his era. Better than Djokovic and much better than Nadal. Sampras is just even better than him. What Sampras achieved on carpet, 90s Wimbledon grass and USO conditions proves it imo. I think Federer is good in low bouncing conditions but for some reason, carpet didn't really suit him.

You could break his rhythm on carpet, that's why; the Jazz Maestro had a hard time keepin' the beat.

 

[NoleFam]

You could break his rhythm on carpet, that's why; the Jazz Maestro had a hard time keepin' the beat.

I think you could really pressure and rush him on the backhand side and he didn't like that. I also don't think Federer liked surfaces that skidded low (90s grass and carpet) as much as some of his fans think. He didn't have much success on that type of grass and had marginal success on carpet. I do think the lower bouncing hardcourts suited him more where he got a true bounce. Some people think only Nadal or Djokovic benefitted from the change in conditions in the 2000s but Federer did as well.

 

[Holmes]

I think you could really pressure and rush him on the backhand side and he didn't like that. I also don't think Federer liked surfaces that skidded low (90s grass and carpet) as much as some of his fans think. He didn't have much success on that type of grass and had marginal success on carpet. I do think the lower bouncing hardcourts suited him more where he got a true bounce. Some people think only Nadal or Djokovic benefitted from the change in conditions in the 2000s but Federer did as well.

Correct. Federer is a medium speed, rhythm BASELINE player who has some proficiency up at net. He is not:

1 - A fastcourt genius whose era didn't let him shine
2 - A claycourt genius whose era didn't let him shine
3 - An allcourt genius whose era didn't let him shine

He is primarily a BASELINE player who does many things passably well, and is a joy to watch, hence the silly and overinflated appraisals of his skillset. Put in other eras without his magic axe or strings, the Maestro might indeed struggle to keep the beat.

 

[Razer]

REMEMBER WHEN: The Paris Masters tore up their court, twice, specifically to help Roger Federer win

Carpet courts used to be all the rage in tennis - until tournament directors figured out they wanted Roger Federer more.

tennisbuzz.net

 

[NoleFam]

Correct. Federer is a medium speed, rhythm BASELINE player who has some proficiency up at net.

He can excel in medium fast and fast with medium to low bounce hardcourt though. Look at his records at Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

 

[Holmes]

REMEMBER WHEN: The Paris Masters tore up their court, twice, specifically to help Roger Federer win

Carpet courts used to be all the rage in tennis - until tournament directors figured out they wanted Roger Federer more.

tennisbuzz.net

This is a story that unsurprisingly doesn't get much attention here on TalkFeddy, or is quickly shutdown when brought up.

 

[CoolCoolCool]

Pete Sampras was still 29 and more importantly he was the defending champ who would still win the next years USO. Federer was a teenager and years away from his own best tennis and slam winning level.

Roger still took him down.

Peter is fortunate Federer was born so much later. Federer’s all court game would have been too much for him. He was the transition player Sampras could not be. Peter could not even get past a SF at Rolland Garros in his whole career. Made it that far once… and only had 2 AO’s.

Do you agree @NonP ?

 

[Holmes]

He can excel in medium fast and fast with medium to low bounce hardcourt though. Look at his records at Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

None are truly faster than medium, and none truly have lower than medium bounce. But of course, he is excellent at those tournaments.

 

[NoleFam]

None are truly faster than medium, and none truly have lower than medium bounce. But of course, he is excellent at those tournaments.

Shanghai was really close to fast though. It was in the high 40s cpi. Djokovic won the only reported tournament with 50 cpi (the definition of fast) though in the last decade or decade and a half at least (2021 AO) according to the rating at the time. Just gonna brag on him a bit. Lol. It clearly wasn't low bouncing though.

 

[Holmes]

Shanghai was really close to fast though. It was in the high 40s cpi. Djokovic won the only reported tournament with 50 cpi (the definition of fast) though in the last decade at least (2021 AO) according to the rating at the time. Just gonna brag on him a bit. Lol. It clearly wasn't low bouncing though.

Djokovic can win in almost any condition. The big 3 could all win fast tourneys, Sampras could win slow ones. It's just a matter of preference. Clearly medium is what suits Feddy the besty

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic can win in almost any condition.The big 3 could all win fast tourneys, Sampras could win slow ones. It's just a matter of preference. Clearly medium is what suits Feddy the besty

I think medium to medium fast suit Federer the best so we mostly agree on this. Of course I'm talking about surfaces that give him close to a true bounce though like modern grass and hardcourt. I would have liked to have seen how Djokovic would have dealt with 90s grass though.