Why Roger Federer owned Pete Sampras, even before he won the FO

[valiant]

No, Pete was owned by virtually every clay courter on the planet, and therefore rarely made it far enough to actually face a good clay courter. Weren't three of those Nadal-Federer slam finals on clay at the French Open? What's the record outside of the French Open... 2-2? Hmmm. You're silly. Pete was simply not good enough on all surfaces to amass a losing H2H record. When you're owned by #100, how can you say anything about your record against #10, who you rarely ever play?

Interesting way to look at things. Thats a clear ownage. I dont want to downgrade Pete just to make my favourite player look. He was good at his time and Fed is doing well in his time. Lets just be happy

 

[sh@de]

The most brilliant post I've seen from you

I think we should all just drop the GOAT discussion. Seriously, it's getting quite old. You just can't compare because of the one hundred kazillion different variables. So don't.

 

[vtmike]

No, Pete was owned by virtually every clay courter on the planet, and therefore rarely made it far enough to actually face a good clay courter. Weren't three of those Nadal-Federer slam finals on clay at the French Open? What's the record outside of the French Open... 2-2? Hmmm. You're silly. Pete was simply not good enough on all surfaces to amass a losing H2H record. When you're owned by #100, how can you say anything about your record against #10, who you rarely ever play?

Those are some good points...

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Sorry.... i am not trashing Sampras..... i am trashing game Sampras becuase ive seem him on at least 3 threads today with the words "Federer" and "cakewalk" within 1 sentence of eachother

you just gave me an idea... im going to end each of my posts with:

Federer - my opinion - Cakewalk...


starting right now!


Federer - my opinion - Cakewalk

 

[Azzurri]

OK lets go through Pete's 14 slam wins

1. Young choking Agassi who went 0-3 in his first 3 slam finals including a loss to 30 year old career pretender Andres Gomez in the French Open final

2. Jim Courier on GRASS where Courier has a lifetime 19-11 record and advanced past the 3rd round only three times his whole career.

3. Cedric Pioline

4. Todd Martin, a player in the first of his career two slam finals (both which he would lose)

5. Goran Ivanisevic who isnt anymore accomplished a player than Roddick or Hewitt (arguably less)

6. a well past his prime Boris Becker in his first slam final in 4 years.

7. Agassi

8. Michael Chang, a player who won his only slam title in 1989 on clay, and who is generally looked at a poor mans Hewitt

9. Carlos Moya on hard courts, a mostly clay court specialist in 1 of his only 2 career slam finals (and that even includes his prefered clay).

10. Cedric Pioline again.

11. a past his prime Ivanisevic who had gone 1-5 in his last 5 slams going into that Wimbledon and was ranked #25.

12. Agassi on grass where he is less accomplished overall than young Nadal already is, the player Federer beat in 2 Wimbledon finals already.

13. Rafter who had a 17-7 lifetime record at Wimbledon before that that year and was ranked #21 at the time.

14. Agassi who was even older than 31 year old Pete at 32.

1. Pete was 19 and so was Andre...what are you smoking??
2. Dude..c'mon, Courier won AO and made the finals of FO and W that year. he was the best player...clueless.
3. agree on this one
4. agree...
5. Goran...much more dangerous than Hewitt and Roddick. He was feared.
6. Becker was 27, still young and oh he won ANOTHER MAJOR the next year.
7. Agassi...all-time great.
8. Poor man's Hewitt?? He was better and he is a HOF'er. give him due respect.
9. its obvious you don't know anything about Moya. Consider he made the final at AO and SF at USO he was more than a cc specialist..you don't know what that is.
10. again..Pioline...i agree.
11. Goran WON Wimbledon after this..so how is he past his prime PRIOR to winning his only major???
12. Agassi was in his prime and he won W on fast, true grass unlike Nadal. Please you are so ignorant.
13. Rafter was in his prime in terms of W at that time..he made it to the final again the following year.
14. are you serious?? you are beyond clueless.

let's be honest, you don't know much or just trying to stir the pot.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Interesting way to look at things. Thats a clear ownage. I dont want to downgrade Pete just to make my favourite player look. He was good at his time and Fed is doing well in his time. Lets just be happy

I think Sampras was a great player. I think he may have been the best serve and volleyer of all time (and this coming from someone who's favorite player is Edberg). I enjoyed watching him play.

I don't think, if you seriously look at the facts, that you can discount the fact that Sampras was simply not a good player on clay, and I get sick of Sampras fans continually bringing up the Federer H2H with Nadal as evidence that Pete was better. If you don't make it to the big show very often, you can't lose very often. Pete rarely faced his top competitors on clay, because he was rarely deep enough in tournaments to do so. Not a knock on Sampras. One of my other favorite players, sans behavior, is McEnroe. He also couldn't get it done on clay, though he certainly came closer than Sampras.

Horses for courses. It should not count against Federer that he happens to be a presence on all court surfaces.

 

[Azzurri]

No, Pete was owned by virtually every clay courter on the planet, and therefore rarely made it far enough to actually face a good clay courter. Weren't three of those Nadal-Federer slam finals on clay at the French Open? What's the record outside of the French Open... 2-2? Hmmm. You're silly. Pete was simply not good enough on all surfaces to amass a losing H2H record. When you're owned by #100, how can you say anything about your record against #10, who you rarely ever play?

I understand what you are saying, but I mean that Fed is owned by ONE single player and that player has taken 6 majors (or 5) from him. He has a much better h2h...NADAL. That is pure and simple..OWNED. But who owned Pete? Who defeated him more than one time at any major final? Who has a better record h2h after 20 matches? Even 15? only ONE player has a better record h2h against Pete in 10 matches and it was 6-4..hardly owned. Is Fed a better all-around player, maybe. But the surfaces are so even compared to Pete's era that is is a difficult arguement. But one thing cannot be argued..Nadal owns Fed. Fed is owned by a player that has won 5 or 6 majors directly from him. If you think that can be ignored then you are as clueless as I thought you were.

 

[Azzurri]

Those are some good points...

so someone has a 2-1 record against Pete they own him? :shock:

 

[Azzurri]

I think Sampras was a great player. I think he may have been the best serve and volleyer of all time (and this coming from someone who's favorite player is Edberg). I enjoyed watching him play.

I don't think, if you seriously look at the facts, that you can discount the fact that Sampras was simply not a good player on clay, and I get sick of Sampras fans continually bringing up the Federer H2H with Nadal as evidence that Pete was better. If you don't make it to the big show very often, you can't lose very often. Pete rarely faced his top competitors on clay, because he was rarely deep enough in tournaments to do so. Not a knock on Sampras. One of my other favorite players, sans behavior, is McEnroe. He also couldn't get it done on clay, though he certainly came closer than Sampras.

Horses for courses. It should not count against Federer that he happens to be a presence on all court surfaces.

you are too much. so Nadal beating Fed at Wimbledon and AO does not count? You are trying too hard and are totally missing/omitting facts. One cannot be the GOAT if they are not GOAT within their own generation. How hard is that to understand.

Pete is NOT the greatest S&V tennis player...Mac is at the top followed closely by Edberg. I give the nod to Mac because he had a much better serve...but volleys were nearly identical.

 

[MichaelH]

I don't often visit here, so I'm not "up to date" on the ongoing debate. Here are some facts, though, that might be worth y'all considering:
1. Tennis at this level is a bigtime money sport.
2. The world's #1 will get preferential treatment each and every time he/she enters a tournament, and at each-and -every tournament. Believe not? Think back through the decades at how people like McEnroe, Conners, and the like were allowed to be absolute jerks by officials. Think "Joe Shmuck -- number 29 in the world" would have been allowed to stand there and call a chair umpire names?
3. The preferential treatment extends "preferentially" (whether consciously or not) to the draw, as well. Thus it can be reasonably argued that Sampras had some "cakewalks"...Agassi had some...Federer had some...Borg had some...on and on.
4. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of draws, is nonsense. They all have been "issued" cakewalks to the finals, at one time or another.
5. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of just plain ability is FUN FUN FUN, but don't get too dedicated to it...it's too problematical to get your panties in a twist over it.

 

[scineram]

No ****! LOL!

 

[MichaelH]

Watching this airheaded jerk, scineram, spam the board is a good reason to not visit again. Have fun, children.

 

[Azzurri]

I don't often visit here, so I'm not "up to date" on the ongoing debate. Here are some facts, though, that might be worth y'all considering:
1. Tennis at this level is a bigtime money sport.
2. The world's #1 will get preferential treatment each and every time he/she enters a tournament, and at each-and -every tournament. Believe not? Think back through the decades at how people like McEnroe, Conners, and the like were allowed to be absolute jerks by officials. Think "Joe Shmuck -- number 29 in the world" would have been allowed to stand there and call a chair umpire names?
3. The preferential treatment extends "preferentially" (whether consciously or not) to the draw, as well. Thus it can be reasonably argued that Sampras had some "cakewalks"...Agassi had some...Federer had some...Borg had some...on and on.
4. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of draws, is nonsense. They all have been "issued" cakewalks to the finals, at one time or another.
5. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of just plain ability is FUN FUN FUN, but don't get too dedicated to it...it's too problematical to get your panties in a twist over it.

4. true to a point. but what we have not discussed is who Pete beat on the way to all of those finals. Pete played in an era with better competition. The last four/five years has one guy in every final and the other in most others and that one guy beats the other guy who is in every final. Basically, every one of Pete's opponents was a better player than Bag's, Soderling, Gonzo, Murray and Scud. None of those players are anything special. I realize Murray is a good player, but he has done NOTHING thus far.

 

[Chadwixx]

Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Thats because the other guys and their fans have to class to let fed have the spotlight while in his prime. They arent graveytraining his fame like pete does.

 

[Mada]

exactly...now Fed is really making it tough to call him GOAT because he is still dominated by another player in his era that has defeated him in 5 grand slams...NADAL. Pete was NEVER owned in that manner by anyone in his era.

Federer > Sampras.

 

[Steve132]

I understand what you are saying, but I mean that Fed is owned by ONE single player and that player has taken 6 majors (or 5) from him. He has a much better h2h...NADAL. That is pure and simple..OWNED. But who owned Pete? Who defeated him more than one time at any major final? Who has a better record h2h after 20 matches? Even 15? only ONE player has a better record h2h against Pete in 10 matches and it was 6-4..hardly owned. Is Fed a better all-around player, maybe. But the surfaces are so even compared to Pete's era that is is a difficult arguement. But one thing cannot be argued..Nadal owns Fed. Fed is owned by a player that has won 5 or 6 majors directly from him. If you think that can be ignored then you are as clueless as I thought you were.

Why is it worse for Federer to lose in Slam finals to a Nadal than it is for Sampras to lose in the first or second rounds to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado?

 

[jukka1970]

And I dont deny that Pete had some cakewalks in his later years.


This is how I look at it.



During Pete's rise to the top, he had much much tougher opposition particular at the top then Fed to his. Pete had Edberg, Becker, Chang, Goran, Courier, Andre, etc to overcome in his rise to the top. Where Fed had Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Old Brokeback Agassi, Davydenko etc. Pete had a tougher hill to climb during his rise say early-mid 90s. Whereas Fed didnt have it as tough I feel until about 2008 where Nadal finally primed, and you had Djoker and Murray come on the scene (though both are really impressing me slam wise but still feel they are a tougher rivals overrall during the course of the season then Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nabandian were). Late 90s, competition leveled off a bit for Pete and it definitely wasnt what it was early to mid 90s. I feel Sampras' clay court competition was far superior depth wise to Roger's


Yes both had some cakewalk draws at slams. But why cant I comment on a cakewalk draw Roger had without you bringing pete into the equation. What I said about Roger's cakewalk at RG, really cant be disputed. I mean its obvious thats what it was as soon as Djoker and Nadal went out (two players who would have given Fed fits and its very doubtul Fed would have got through both). Yes a win is a win. A slam is a slam. But a cakewalk is a cakewalk as well

Now, for as much as I couldn't stand Sampras, I do have to back some of this up. I completely agree that Sampras didn't play in a weak era, just as Federer hasn't.

As far as who Sampras played. Goran and Agassi, I agree completely, both very dangerous especially Goran who could ace his way out of anything when he was on. For the most part I agree with Edberg and Becker, though Edberg's game by this point had started to fall as his serve and volley techniques were becoming less effective with the change of the racquet. Becker, I'd say about 90-95%, he was still playing well and his style would keep him in a few more years then Edberg. Chang, I think was a bit overrated, and was best on clay which was Sampras worst surface, so I wouldn't put Chang on that list. And Courier, I don't know, his peak was such a short one, along with injuries and retiring early, I'd say he was outside of Sampras' time.

Now for Federer. Roddick and Safin definitely, was like having 2 Gorans that Sampras had. Roddick with his powerful serve, and Safin with his unpredictablility. I think Agassi wasn't broke down, he was still playing quite well, and I felt that he had 2 careers. I think he was in better shape during Federer's time, by working out etc, but his back was breaking down. Djokovic definitely, he's was number 3 for a while. Murray is just starting to be a factor.

 

[Conquistador]

do you realize not a single poster that knows who you are would ever, ever take you seriously?

Are you kidding me? Look at Bud Collins, he made an idiot out of himself by trying to downgrade Federer as much as he did. I hope you're not Bud Collins.

 

[Winners or Errors]

you are too much. so Nadal beating Fed at Wimbledon and AO does not count? You are trying too hard and are totally missing/omitting facts. One cannot be the GOAT if they are not GOAT within their own generation. How hard is that to understand.

Pete is NOT the greatest S&V tennis player...Mac is at the top followed closely by Edberg. I give the nod to Mac because he had a much better serve...but volleys were nearly identical.

Laughable as usual. Do I have to spell it out completely every post? Without the dominance on clay at the FO, the Wimbledon and AO wins don't happen because he doesn't get into Federer's head. [edit: He also doesn't gain the confidence to improve his hard and grass court games.] Sampras never, and I mean never, had to deal with anything remotely like the Nadal-Federer rivalry. He was, once more for the record, pathetic on clay. Had he made it to four consecutive FO finals, or even consistently deep in clay court tournaments, he would likely have had the opportunity to be "owned" by a few top 10 players. Instead, he just lost to journeyman X or Y that week, a guy he probably wouldn't play again, and rarely got to play top rivals on that surface.

It's so easy to say he wasn't "owned" by a single player, but let's be honest... he didn't give himself much of a chance to be "owned" with a career 62.5% (90-54) winning percentage on clay. To this point, Federer's record is 76.8% (139-42) on that surface, so he's given himself a lot more chances to meet up with quality competition late in tournaments on his worst surface. Of course, who is possibly the best player in history on that surface? Nadal. How many times has he beaten Federer on that surface? 9. Are you seriously saying that had Pete met a Nadal frequently on clay he'd have done better than 2-9? No way. His lack of a losing H2H is just the result of seeding, which meant he'd play and be beaten by someone way down the totem pole in the first or second round of most clay court tournaments and rarely get owned by good claycourters later.

As for the title of S&V king, I think Sampras-Mac-Edberg are fairly equal. Very different players, even though they all played S&V. Hard to compare.

 

[Azzurri]

Why is it worse for Federer to lose in Slam finals to a Nadal than it is for Sampras to lose in the first or second rounds to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado?

lack of competition...thought I made this clear.

 

[Azzurri]

Are you kidding me? Look at Bud Collins, he made an idiot out of himself by trying to downgrade Federer as much as he did. I hope you're not Bud Collins.

again...not able to read what you wrote.

 

[Azzurri]

Laughable as usual. Do I have to spell it out completely every post? Without the dominance on clay at the FO, the Wimbledon and AO wins don't happen because he doesn't get into Federer's head. [edit: He also doesn't gain the confidence to improve his hard and grass court games.] Sampras never, and I mean never, had to deal with anything remotely like the Nadal-Federer rivalry. He was, once more for the record, pathetic on clay. Had he made it to four consecutive FO finals, or even consistently deep in clay court tournaments, he would likely have had the opportunity to be "owned" by a few top 10 players. Instead, he just lost to journeyman X or Y that week, a guy he probably wouldn't play again, and rarely got to play top rivals on that surface.

It's so easy to say he wasn't "owned" by a single player, but let's be honest... he didn't give himself much of a chance to be "owned" with a career 62.5% (90-54) winning percentage on clay. To this point, Federer's record is 76.8% (139-42) on that surface, so he's given himself a lot more chances to meet up with quality competition late in tournaments on his worst surface. Of course, who is possibly the best player in history on that surface? Nadal. How many times has he beaten Federer on that surface? 9. Are you seriously saying that had Pete met a Nadal frequently on clay he'd have done better than 2-9? No way. His lack of a losing H2H is just the result of seeding, which meant he'd play and be beaten by someone way down the totem pole in the first or second round of most clay court tournaments and rarely get owned by good claycourters later.

As for the title of S&V king, I think Sampras-Mac-Edberg are fairly equal. Very different players, even though they all played S&V. Hard to compare.

again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

 

[Steve132]

lack of competition...thought I made this clear.

So Schaller and Delgado represent tougher competition than the players Federer has beaten over the past five years (Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick, etc.)?

 

[Conquistador]

again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

Pete Sampras played inferior competition..he never won at roland garros-thats a fact. Nadal is a once in a lifetime player,like Fed..You cannot say that anybody in Petes era had anything on Nadal. You are again missing the point..Federer has done more in the history books than Sampras ever did. Federer's accomplishments are regarded a lot higher than Sampras's because Sampras was 31 when he won his 14th slam. Federer is only 27. You see, Federer holds the record of aPPEARING in last 15 of 16 slam finals. Thats dominating his peers, Sampras never accomplished anything like that.

 

[fed_rulz]

again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

Please do not let facts come in the way of your blind fanboyism. I got a good laugh out of this

Do you honestly believe that Pete dominated more than Fed? Then why is it that in his best year he recorded 16 losses, while Fed only recorded 4. Oh wait, it is the weak competition in Fed's era. But if the competition was weak, and fed dominated them more than sampras dominated his competition, how could "But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not" be true?? <head spinning>

 

[Winners or Errors]

again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

One last time, since you missed it. The two things, being a better all-surfaces player and being dominated by a peer who happens to be one of the best on clay of all time, are related. That's why Pete dominated his peers. He was never in a position to be dominated by them because he wasn't good enough on all surfaces. Pretty painful discussing this with you, but I didn't really expect you to be rational where Sampras is concerned, so I'm not really sure why I tried. :???:

 

[Azzurri]

So Schaller and Delgado represent tougher competition than the players Federer has beaten over the past five years (Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick, etc.)?

i am sure i can find a few no-names too.

 

[Azzurri]

Pete Sampras played inferior competition..he never won at roland garros-thats a fact. Nadal is a once in a lifetime player,like Fed..You cannot say that anybody in Petes era had anything on Nadal. You are again missing the point..Federer has done more in the history books than Sampras ever did. Federer's accomplishments are regarded a lot higher than Sampras's because Sampras was 31 when he won his 14th slam. Federer is only 27. You see, Federer holds the record of aPPEARING in last 15 of 16 slam finals. Thats dominating his peers, Sampras never accomplished anything like that.

i may need someone to translate...

 

[Azzurri]

Please do not let facts come in the way of your blind fanboyism. I got a good laugh out of this

Do you honestly believe that Pete dominated more than Fed? Then why is it that in his best year he recorded 16 losses, while Fed only recorded 4. Oh wait, it is the weak competition in Fed's era. But if the competition was weak, and fed dominated them more than sampras dominated his competition, how could "But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not" be true?? <head spinning>

no one dominated pete..nadal owns fed...odd you still don't get it.

 

[Azzurri]

One last time, since you missed it. The two things, being a better all-surfaces player and being dominated by a peer who happens to be one of the best on clay of all time, are related. That's why Pete dominated his peers. He was never in a position to be dominated by them because he wasn't good enough on all surfaces. Pretty painful discussing this with you, but I didn't really expect you to be rational where Sampras is concerned, so I'm not really sure why I tried. :???:

thanks for your input.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Azzuri has a point, I'm ok with fed getting beaten on clay by nadal..but
there's no question nadal recent defeats of federer off clay must be a
knock on fed's legacy.....sure I know some poster will bring up Korda,krajicek
safin hewitt etc but in the biggest stages pete generally got the better of boris and andre, and Jimmy.......

OK, now I'll get falmed for discrediting fed's roland win..but the point i'm
making is that things are going to get interesting off clay if fed and nadl meet again.

still alot to happen in the future I think...

If fed can get another win over nadal somewhere, say USOpen, he'll get
less posters on his case about that head to head currently 6-2 to rafa

 

[vbranis]

Every great player had troubles against certain opponents, not just Federer. Sampras had a losing record to Stich and Krajicek. Connors was 11-13 against Nastase. Yet who was the better player?

The point is that Federer has a career slam, and (will have) more Slams than Sampras. It's that simple. We could go on and on comparing the competition of different eras, which IMO is impossible. Numbers are all we are able to compare, and Fed's numbers are better. Period.

 

[MichaelH]

Every great player had troubles against certain opponents, not just Federer. Sampras had a losing record to Stich and Krajicek. Connors was 11-13 against Nastase. Yet who was the better player?

The point is that Federer has a career slam, and (will have) more Slams than Sampras. It's that simple. We could go on and on comparing the competition of different eras, which IMO is impossible. Numbers are all we are able to compare, and Fed's numbers are better. Period.

Sure, his numbers are (will be) better, but the problem is still that a scientific comparison can't be made between the decades in which they played. If numbers are the only thing in play, here, one has to go back to Laver and try to factor in the years in which he wasn't able to record "grand slam" wins due to the restrictions on professionals. For the record, I never did like Sampras much but that doesn't allow me to degrade his performance vis a vis Federer. We'll just have to be grateful for the incredible ability both of them had, in their own time-slots. Also for the record, my fav alltime player still remains Andre. He did more for the sport, overall, than either Sampras or Federer.

 

[vbranis]

Sure, his numbers are (will be) better, but the problem is still that a scientific comparison can't be made between the decades in which they played. If numbers are the only thing in play, here, one has to go back to Laver and try to factor in the years in which he wasn't able to record "grand slam" wins due to the restrictions on professionals. For the record, I never did like Sampras much but that doesn't allow me to degrade his performance vis a vis Federer. We'll just have to be grateful for the incredible ability both of them had, in their own time-slots. Also for the record, my fav alltime player still remains Andre. He did more for the sport, overall, than either Sampras or Federer.

Good point, and I agree it is impossible to compare different eras. For example, many players didn't even play the Australian Open because of its distance and scheduling. Impossible to tell how many additional Slams Borg would've had if he played the AO.

 

[380pistol]

Oh you know I had to get in this....

FEDERER

2003 Wimbledon - Roddick (who had 4-2 record coming in and has never beat a top 10 player at SW19 to date... in fact the top 20 players he beat were T. Johansson, Schrichapan and Coria), and P'sis (after ACL knee surgery, a Sampras era holdover

2004 Aus Open -Hewitt (who lost in 2003 lost in slams to El Anayoui, Robredo and Karlovic), Feerero (who was fell off after 2003) and Safin... ranked 86th

2004 Wimbldeon Hewitt (the only yop 20 player he beat to his Wim title was that Sampras era holdover... Henman) and Roddick (see above)

2004 US Open - struggled through 5 sets with 34 yr old Dre (a Sampras era holdover), 30 yr old Henman (another Sampras era holdover) and Hewitt

2005 Wimbledon - that dynamic duo Hewitt and Roddick again

2005 US Open -impressively blew threw Nalbandian, Hewitt play him well, but then was caught up in a dog fight with 35 yr broke back, cortizone shot getting, coming of 3 consecutive 5 setters Agassi

2006 Aus Open - 5 sets with Haas, 4 ctough sets with Davydenko, Kiefer, and Baghdatis

2006 Wimbledon - Gasquet (rk 50 - whatever), Henman (Sampras era holdover at 32 this time), Mahut, s Berdych, Ancic, grandpa Bjorkman (yet another Sampras era holdover), and Nadal (in his 4th career grasscourt tourney)

2006 US Open -Blake (who in 16 HC slam appearances has 3 QF to his name), Davydenko and Roddick (who beat 2 top 10 players in his life in HY, gassed Ferrero from the t'storm of 2003, and Berdych???)

2007 Aus Open -Robredo, destroyred Roddick, and Gonzalez (who's impressive slam resume includes 5 QF or ebetter in 33 slam appearances, that's 1 QF evey 6.6 slams a year and half... and one of those QF was the 2002 US Open won by Sampras)

2007 Wimbledon -Ferrero, Gasquet, and Nadal (who choked away break pts at 15-40 and 1-1 and 2-2 in 5th set)

2007 US Open -Roddick (who actuallt played well), Davydenko (again!!!) and Djokovic (I'll just leave that one alone

2008 US Open -best match came vs Djokovic and Murray put up that outstanding 16 winner, 28 unforced error performance in the final

2009 French Open -Haas, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling

Stay tuned for Sampras.....

 

[bakla]

If you ask me, the most telling statistic is how many slams played vs how many slams won.

Federer has played 52 slams and won 14 of them.

Sampras has played 64 slams and won 14.

That's a big difference. Federer will have to lose the next 12 straight slams to come back down to Pete's level. That is 3 straight years of losing.

 

[380pistol]

SAMPRAS

1990 US Open - at 19 took out #6 Muster, #3 Lendl (who had 8 consecutive US Open finals and was #1 until Aug 1990), McEnroe and #4 Agassi (French finalist and 1988 and 89 US Open SF losing to Lendl)

1993 Wimbledon def. champ Agassi, 3 time Wim champ #4 Becker, and Couireir (who beat 2 time champ and #2 Edberg in SF)

1993 US Open - easy for Pete as upsest opened the draw up, oblitterated Chang in last 2 sets and set aside Pioline (who beat #1 Courier)

1994 Aus Open - eaily beat reigning Rebound Ace king Couier in SF and Martin (who took out #4 Edberg in SF)

1994 Wimbledon - nothing special with Chang (on grass), Martin (who beat Agassi that year, and Ivanisevic (who had claimed Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Sampras on grass at that point played in a F and SF and would add Krajicek, Henman, Rafter and Fed contemporaries Roddick and Safin to his list)... Pete only lost a set and held 103/106 serve games (and 20 of 22 sets he played)

1995 Wimbledon Ivanisevic and Becker.... his 9.71 winner to every unforced error (68 winners to 7 unforced errors), highest ratio in slam final only to McEnroe in open era, and maybe all time (depending on records)

1995 US Open Martin, Courier and peak Agassi

1996 US Open -Ivanisevic and Chang (straight setted top 5 Agassi in SF) both at their best on hardcourts

1997 Aus Open -struggled in middle rds due to heat wave, destroyed top 5 Muster in SF and Moya (who beat def. champ #6 Becker and #2 Chang in SF) in 87 minutes

1997 Wimbledon - a soft draw with Agassi MIA, Rafter not blossomed, Goran... being Goran, but played sublime vs Becker in QF (70 winners, 10 unforced errors) and Pioline (aprrox. 45-50 winners, 8 unforced erors), held serve 116/118 serve games (incl. 97 straight)

1998 Wimbledon - P'sis, Heman, and Ivanisevic, even in his worst Wimbledon still held 116/121 serve games and put up 63 winners, 19 unforced (50 to10 after 1st set) in F

1999 Wimbledon overblown losing opening set to P'sis, that was the 1st he lost to Mark since 1996 (I believe), and blew away Agassi in F

2000 Wimbledon -severly injuerd shin in 2nd rd, was getting injections prior to matches, yet still held 118/123 serve games including last 85 (which he would extend breaking his own record with 118]

2002 US Open -beat #3 haas (at his best before all the injuries), destroyed Roddcic, and Agassi (who beat wire to wire #1 Hewitt in SF)

I won't even talk about the slams Sampras fell short in due to injuries. Take from it what you will, but I believe Sampras' road was harder. It just is what it is. If not just put each in the other's shoes.

 

[bakla]

If you ask me, the most telling statistic is how many slams played vs how many slams won.

Federer has played 52 slams and won 14 of them.

Sampras has played 64 slams and won 14.

That's a big difference. Federer will have to lose the next 12 straight slams to come back down to Pete's level. That is 3 straight years of losing.

Woops, that should be 40 slams with 14 wins for Federer and 52 slams with 14 for Sampras. The rest is correct, though.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

SAMPRAS

1990 US Open - at 19 took out #6 Muster, #3 Lendl (who had 8 consecutive US Open finals and was #1 until Aug 1990), McEnroe and #4 Agassi (French finalist and 1988 and 89 US Open SF losing to Lendl)

1993 Wimbledon def. champ Agassi, 3 time Wim champ #4 Becker, and Couireir (who beat 2 time champ and #2 Edberg in SF)

1993 US Open - easy for Pete as upsest opened the draw up, oblitterated Chang in last 2 sets and set aside Pioline (who beat #1 Courier)

1994 Aus Open - eaily beat reigning Rebound Ace king Couier in SF and Martin (who took out #4 Edberg in SF)

1994 Wimbledon - nothing special with Chang (on grass), Martin (who beat Agassi that year, and Ivanisevic (who had claimed Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Sampras on grass at that point played in a F and SF and would add Krajicek, Henman, Rafter and Fed contemporaries Roddick and Safin to his list)... Pete only lost a set and held 103/106 serve games (and 20 of 22 sets he played)

1995 Wimbledon Ivanisevic and Becker.... his 9.71 winner to every unforced error (68 winners to 7 unforced errors), highest ratio in slam final only to McEnroe in open era, and maybe all time (depending on records)

1995 US Open Martin, Courier and peak Agassi

1996 US Open -Ivanisevic and Chang (straight setted top 5 Agassi in SF) both at their best on hardcourts

1997 Aus Open -struggled in middle rds due to heat wave, destroyed top 5 Muster in SF and Moya (who beat def. champ #6 Becker and #2 Chang in SF) in 87 minutes

1997 Wimbledon - a soft draw with Agassi MIA, Rafter not blossomed, Goran... being Goran, but played sublime vs Becker in QF (70 winners, 10 unforced errors) and Pioline (aprrox. 45-50 winners, 8 unforced erors), held serve 116/118 serve games (incl. 97 straight)

1998 Wimbledon - P'sis, Heman, and Ivanisevic, even in his worst Wimbledon still held 116/121 serve games and put up 63 winners, 19 unforced (50 to10 after 1st set) in F

1999 Wimbledon overblown losing opening set to P'sis, that was the 1st he lost to Mark since 1996 (I believe), and blew away Agassi in F

2000 Wimbledon -severly injuerd shin in 2nd rd, was getting injections prior to matches, yet still held 118/123 serve games including last 85 (which he would extend breaking his own record with 118]

2002 US Open -beat #3 haas (at his best before all the injuries), destroyed Roddcic, and Agassi (who beat wire to wire #1 Hewitt in SF)

I won't even talk about the slams Sampras fell short in due to injuries. Take from it what you will, but I believe Sampras' road was harder. It just is what it is. If not just put each in the other's shoes.

Good post.

 

[P_Agony]

The way Nadal was playing this year at RG. Muster, Courier or Bruguera would have demolished Rafa no problem. Possibly even Agassi as well. Nadal did not look good at all. Obviously he is far from 100 percent. It showed too.

Didn't look like it when he demolished Hewitt and who won only 5 games. Nadal actaully looked like FO 08 Nadal right there. That made the Soderling upset even more shocking.

 

[cork_screw]

You're right. Budge had something like 14 grandslams, and so did Pancho, and Laver, right? So they're all on even ground with pete right? Most of those guys were playing in a different era, wood racquets. You need to start comparing guys in the modern era of tennis, pete is the closest one in the modern era of tennis and he holds the record for GS's. Also when you start comparing people who played with wood vs. graphite why not say that grass and clay are the same and the players who win clay should be compared to a grass experts. During the woodie period people were hitting 60-80 mph serves, slow enough that you could serve and volley; and make a killing doing so and not worry so much about a 100 mph + passing shot . Now we have different racquets and strings. You can't compare old school tennis with modern tennis. That's why he didn't use those names you mentioned, and did they win 14 grandslams? This is also why we don't compare NASCAR racing to steam engine buggie races during the turn of the century because they are DIFFERENT.

Good logic

Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Even though Laver is highly regarded as the GOAT, (and still is by most) why is it Fed is always being compared to Pete?



Btw.. Are u taking Pete's injury into account against Yzaga? Yea thought not. Another federphile trying to **** me off

 

[cork_screw]

Yeah I guess you're right, sampras just played against some no names like Borg, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Connors, and Courier. Where's the challenge?

You are right. I would list Pete somewhere on my list of best players of all time in the 4-7 range. Sampras played in a weak era, and therefore flourished..when he ran into clay court specialists, he didnt fare well.

 

[cork_screw]

Australian open wasn't that long ago. Djokovic isn't a cakewalk. If he lost to him it's not considered a serious upset, he's a quality player. Losing a few matches doesn't mean you're falling apart, and he's won all the clay court matches except for Madrid. That's not bad at all. And "A player he used to destroy" (soderling), Nadal destroyed him the tournament before just a few weeks before Roland Garros. I wouldn't say nadal is in bad shape, he might not have played an inspired match, but he's still a fantastic player and still dominates, even with his bad knees.

Soderling probably didn't "impress" you because fed is a bad match up against him. Fed is 10-0 against him and couldn't really hit all out because fed was mixing the game around and throwing a lot of junk. Did you see how many times he drop shot him? It doesn't make soderling a bad player, it just is a bad match up. Did you see soderling vs. Gonzalez? He was hitting out of his mind. It's not as black and white as you make it seem.

Ehhh.. nadal has not been "Nadalesque" since the Australian Open I think. I still believe that slam took a bit of starch out of him. He narrowly escape Djoker a few weeks ago and was taken out by Soderling? A player he used to destroy? Thats not the Nadal on clay I know. Hes playing too much tennis and not focusing on smarter scheduling and its caught up with him obviously. Taken out before the quarterfinals? And what I saw of Soderling today, didnt impress me one bit. Horrible serving with crappy movement and terrible return of serve

 

[cork_screw]

Was safin ranked 86th when they played in aussie open 05 ??? I don't think so.

You are trying hard to to subject your love of pete where it screws with actual facts.

Lets go through Federer's slam wins

1. Old past him prime Philippoussis who was part of the Sampras era.
2. 86 ranked Safin.
3. Roddick.
4. Hewitt.
5. Roddick.
6. Old 35 broke back Andre who had played 3 5 setters in a row and was 4-2 up in the 3rd set.
7. Unseeded Baghdatis who had played 3 5 set matches before the final and was leading Federer a set and a break before running out of gas.
8. Young Nadal playing in his 4th grass court tournament of his life.
9. Roddick.
10. Gonzalez playing in his first and only slam final.
11. Nadal who had played 5 days in a row and he bust his knee at the end of the 4th set and blew 4 break points in the 5th.
12. Djokovic playing in his 1st slam final who blew 3 sets points in the 1st set and a 4-1 lead in the 2nd.
13. Murray playing in his 1st slam final and had to play 2 days in a row against Nadal whilst Federer had the Sunday off.
14. Soderling playing in his 1st slam final and before had never been past the 3rd round of a slam.

Yeah Federer's competition was great.

 

[prosealster]

Yeah I guess you're right, sampras just played against some no names like Borg, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Connors, and Courier. Where's the challenge?

sampras played against borg?? didnt know that....and i dont think we can put connors on that list since he was already 40 at the time

 

[prosealster]

some of u guys are citing the fed nadal h2h as an argument that sampras is superior to fed??? how is that an argument....sure i can see why people want to use that against fed for GOAT, but for fed and sampras comparison...nad's h2h shouldnt come into it at all, unless pete played nadal as well.... since pete never played nad, for all we know, he might lose to nad every single time...since the accomplishment of fed can be argued to be better than pete, so by bring nad into the discussion...are we saying nad>fed>pete (this might actually be true by the time nad is done...we just dont know)

since some of u think h2h is that important, disregarding surface, relative prime etc etc... then i guess the real answer is here
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/...ult.asp?player1=Sampras,+Pete&player2=federer

 

[FlamEnemY]

You know, winning a slam doesn't consist in only winning the final...

 

[TennisFan481]

Federer's 2006 Wimbledon draw was incredibly difficult. Any time you have to play Gasquet and Henman in the first 2 rounds, and then Berdych and Ancic in the 4th round and QFs, you have pretty much the toughest grass court draw imaginable. Bjorkman in the SFs was pretty much a reprieve, but at that point, anyone who comes through a draw that far has been playing exceptionally brilliant tennis and has a lot of momentum (though Bjorkman's age kind of cancelled that out). Even Mahut in the 3rd round was a dangerous "floater" (big serve guy).

And what did Federer do? STEAMROLL the competition, not dropping a set (big serving Mahut was the only one to even take him to a tie break until Nadal in the final). Federer played absolutely breathtaking tennis, hitting every shot in the book with perfection.

I think that was Federer's best tournament ever (I know some would give that distinction to AO 07 because he didn't drop even 1 set in that one, but I found his play to be more impressive in Wimbledon 06).

 

[Azzurri]

Azzuri has a point, I'm ok with fed getting beaten on clay by nadal..but
there's no question nadal recent defeats of federer off clay must be a
knock on fed's legacy.....sure I know some poster will bring up Korda,krajicek
safin hewitt etc but in the biggest stages pete generally got the better of boris and andre, and Jimmy.......

OK, now I'll get falmed for discrediting fed's roland win..but the point i'm
making is that things are going to get interesting off clay if fed and nadl meet again.

still alot to happen in the future I think...

If fed can get another win over nadal somewhere, say USOpen, he'll get
less posters on his case about that head to head currently 6-2 to rafa

yes, Fed needs to beat Nadal at a major. Nadal has a 5-2 edge on him and not a single GOAT era player had that type of losing record (Tilden, Laver, Borg, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Sampras) against any peer in majors and h2h. Its too important to dismiss.

 

[Azzurri]

Every great player had troubles against certain opponents, not just Federer. Sampras had a losing record to Stich and Krajicek. Connors was 11-13 against Nastase. Yet who was the better player?

The point is that Federer has a career slam, and (will have) more Slams than Sampras. It's that simple. We could go on and on comparing the competition of different eras, which IMO is impossible. Numbers are all we are able to compare, and Fed's numbers are better. Period.

while your statement is true, you still missed the point. Fed has MAJOR trouble with one guy and that guy has beaten him in 5 slams. That one guy also has a much better h2h record. None of the "troubles" Pete had were of this magnitude. NO ONE owned Pete...I am also thinking comapring era's has nothing to do with the fact that Pete had no one that was at his level, while Fed does and this guy owns him.

Fed's #'s are better, but that does not make him the better player. Hank Aaron hit more HR than Ruth...no way Aaron can touch Ruth. Ruth was a monster in his day and he had NO one in his league (hitting HR's). But the record shows HA as the greatest HR hitter...not true.