Why Federer is clearly greater than Sampras

[stormholloway]

As for your point 3, a 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal looks Bad, Fed needs to start winning slam finals v Nadal.

Would it have been better if he had never reached those finals against Nadal? He'd still have more slams than Sampras but without all the losses to Nadal in slam finals. Maybe Federer's record against Nadal in slams would be better if Nadal would find his way to the final of the US Open once in his life. Both of Nadal's top peers have been there.

I'm going to let you figure out your own failure in logic for yourself.

 

[Sartorius]

Sampras even beat him after being retired for 5 years so forget comparing him to Sampras or people from other eras.

Hahahah, that's cute.

Federer was wearing a watch that match.. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

 

[lawrence]

to the swedes: are all the chicks there blonde and hot? i know its a stereotypical way of thinking but from what ive seen of ladies from sweden it seems true ;p

 

[Andres]

Yes, he should have lost before the final of those slams. Then he'd be a better player.

No, he should have defeated Nadal.

 

[wyutani]

to the swedes: are all the chicks there blonde and hot? i know its a stereotypical way of thinking but from what ive seen of ladies from sweden it seems true ;p

there are more blondes in finland.

 

[Rippy]

No, he should have defeated Nadal.

He's hardly going to beat him every time. And when they've met more often at RG than the US Open... you know who that's going to favour.

 

[lessthanjake]

Your points 1 and 2 are expected due to the less polarized conditions now which make it easier for the best player to be more dominant and the modern equipment/strings which makes it easier to be consistent.The best player under these conditions today SHOULD be more successful and dominant than the Best player under Sampras' playing conditions, but a better record today than players from past eras who played under different conditions doesn't prove anyone is better.Fed can only be compared to his own competition. In fact Fed was fairly average when he played under Sampras' playing conditions in his early years and Sampras even beat him after being retired for 5 years so forget comparing him to Sampras or people from other eras.

As for your point 3, a 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal looks Bad, Fed needs to start winning slam finals v Nadal.

1. Modern equipment/strings makes it easier to be consistent??? That's just embarassingly ridiculous and lacks any logic. Federer is more consistent relative to the players he is playing against ALL OF WHOM ALSO HAVE MODERN EQUIPMENT/STRINGS. Modern stuff allows EVERYONE (not just Federer) to be more consistent in their play, which therefore does NOT make it easier for any one person to be consistently successful because no single person is getting an advantage over their peers.

2. And you talk of less polarized conditions. Again; that is clearly ridiculous when you actually think about it. Yes, surface conditions are less polarized. But what has changed? Grass has gotten slower. That's really it. Has that helped Federer? Not likely. Federer does better the faster the surface is. It is likely that he would have actually done better, and certainly would not have lost to Nadal at Wimbledon, if the grass hadn't been slowed down. And that's the only change. Clay hasn't been made faster; so that cannot explain Federer's success there.

3. Federer was fairly average earlier on in his career not because of the conditions he was playing under, but because he was still a fairly average player who had yet to even approach his prime. Only a fool would think that his lack of success was due to playing conditions.

4. Are you even serious about Sampras beating Federer while in retirement? That was an exhibition. Players do not play anywhere near their hardest in exhibitions. What's more, the players involved in a match like that, PURPOSELY keep the match as close as possible for entertainment value. To even mention those exhibition matches as a legitimate argument as to why Sampras is better than Federer shows a complete lack of understanding of what those matches were.

5. The head to head against Nadal is fine. Read my last point in the original post for an explanation as to why it is not a big deal.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Nadal needs to start reaching finals v Fed.

I just had to say it.

Didnt they already play 8 finals against each other?

 

[JennyS]

Bravo!

Also, Nadal has had another big advantage over Federer in Slams: Federer was almost always going for some kind of big record (either a career Slam, tying Borg's 5 straight Wimbledons, trying to pass Borg the next year, and tying Pete Sampras for 14 majors).

Those are always the hardest wins to get (think Nadal at this year's FO), and when those matches come against a player who is a bad matchup (not to mention mentally tough as nails) it's going to be so hard to win.

From now on, Federer won't be carrying that burden when playing Nadal. That alone, could reverse his fortunes. Nadal, for example will be under more pressure than Federer at this year's US Open. Fed is going for "icing on the cake." and Nadal is going for immortality.

 

[JennyS]

Mmm. Foooood!!!!

 

[Chadwixx]

Are there any Nadal vs. Sampras as greatest ever threads? If so, where? Would be interesting reading. If not, why not?

Why aren't there any exhibition matches (other than promoters worrying if they would sell enough tickets)?

Nadal wouldnt be able to tone down his game without obviously putting on a show. Fed can mess around and go for too much or leave one side open so pete can pass.

Maybe now that rafa is injured he can do a few exo's like fed did last year.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Why Sinner is clearly greater than Federer​