thejoe
Hall of Fame
I think you're seriously overrating the clay court opposition. I don't know how you can't see that Courier and Agassi just weren't as great as you think on clay.
Why Roger Federer owned Pete Sampras, even before he won the FO
- Thread starter clayman2000
- Start date
I think you're seriously overrating the clay court opposition. I don't know how you can't see that Courier and Agassi just weren't as great as you think on clay.
thejoe
Hall of Fame
But Lendl's pitiful grand slam final rate is easy to dismiss?
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Andre is about Federer's level on clay maybe a touch lower but Courier was a beast better clay courter than Federer and anyone else in this era apart from Nadal.
Azzurri
Legend
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
I clearly stated that Fed is the better all-surface player. odd how you then make the Pete vs. Nadal comparison...you are obviosuly a kid since you cannot make a solid arguement nor can you read/recall information.:neutral:
thejoe
Hall of Fame
IMO Federer is way, way above Agassi and still above Courier.
Compared to the best clay courters of the 90s I would rater peak Courier, peak Muster, and peak Kuerten ahead of Federer. I would rate Federer about even with peak Bruguera. I would rate Agassi, Moya, or Kafelnikov below Federer on clay without hesitation. However Courier and Muster never had anywhere near as long a near top level on clay as Federer. They only lasted 2-3 years at that level. Federer has already lasted around 5 years at that level. That is a big difference. Even if Federer was the same age he would end up with winning records over both on clay for that reason IMO.
vtmike
Banned
Yes but you cannot disregard the fact that Nadal has always been a bad match-up for Federer's game and is 4 years younger than Fed...I think these are important factors too...
Azzurri
Legend
way, way?? I can only assume you never watched Andre and Courier play. This has to be the least competitive clay era ever. Andre and Jim played with some tough CC specialists and won the FO. Agassi also made it to 3 finals. to say "way, way" only shows how little you know about tennis.
Azzurri
Legend
4 years...that only makes it worse. a very young Nadal was taking it to Fed then. you just made things worse. A top level Fed could not handle a very young player in Nadal...thanks for the extra ammunition.
I agree match-ups do matter, but Nadal has been the #2 and #1 player for years, so he is obviously at Fed's level (I think above).
Match-ups do matter (see Sampras vs Stich, Kraijek and Hewitt), but none of those guys dominated like Nadal does..so its more than a simple match-up.
you guys are too easy...
abmk
Bionic Poster
Roddick won queens that year beating agassi along the way
P'sis was playing pretty well in the tournament serving esp. well
hewitt - who owned him at that time, beat him in the davis cup previous year
nalbandian - owned him at that time
roddick who played pretty well in the finals
blew away hewitt who hadn't lost a set till the finals
gonzalez was on fire that aussie open and put up a near flawless performance against haas in the SF, but hey why would you care ?
outtoughed nadal mentally, clutch play
haas played pretty well and del potro was real good ,blew away soderling in the finals ....
Just showing the way you under-mine fed, pete had the tougher path in his wins , but you wayyyyyy overblow it ....
Also no path is "easy" in a slam --> latest example ( rafael nadal found out when he met soderling in this years FO ) .. its all relative ! Fed's 20 consec. slam semis is a great achivement considering all this .
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Prime fed ( 2k4-2k7) was 5-2 outside clay against nadal ..
abmk
Bionic Poster
that was aussie open 2004 ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
6 slams actually ... but outside clay its 2-2
you are also under-estimating the mental aspect in tennis ; those wins of nadal on clay would've taken their toll on fed mentally
pete didn't have to deal with that, meeting with his rivals mainly on his "non-worst" surfaces ( grass,decoturf and rebound ace in that order )
Last edited:
vbranis
Professional
Well said, remember that Pete often crashed out early on clay, meaning he never got the chance to have a bad H2H record against some top clay-courters. He was playing them on hard and grass, and obviously winning. Fed, OTOH, had to play Nadal more times on clay than on any other surface because he consistently made it to the finals. Nadal himself crashed out early at some of the hard-court events, taking away some Fed opportunities for a win, which would've made their H2H closer.
as great as Fed is i still think the top 10 the last 10 years has been weaker then the years just before that. The top 100 is better now but then(1985-2000) you had so many great players at the same time, and there was much more variety AND serve and volley players! Players i think are much better than the top players now(apart from Fed and Nadal): Kraijcek, Stich, Rios, Rafter, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi of course, Courier, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Pioline, Forget, Larson...the list goes on, i even think Todd Martin would easily make the top 10 today...
380pistol
Banned
Is Wimbldeon Queens???
Has Roddick ever beaten a top 10 player at SW19???
Who are the top 20 players he's beaten at SW19???
Hewitt was starting to fall hence he was losing to El Anayoui, Robredo and Karlovi in slams in 2003. He didn't pick it up til mid 2004. He was outside the top 10, and they met as ealy as the 4th rd, and it wasn't as if Hewitt had injuries, or personal problems that dropped his rank. It was his play.
Nalbandian was a good win. Nalbandian has always been more of a nemesis to Roger than a great player.
Are we gonna mention that Roddick played almost 3 sets on Saturday, while Roger played a handful of gamesvs Grosjean??
Roddick played well in the 1st half of the match, but again Roddic (see above and answer those 3 questions).
Who the highest seeded player he beat was #30. He played well, but come on, call a psade a spad. Shall we recall Fed's 5 set struggle over 34 yr old Dre in QF, which conspicously failed to address. Or the Sampras era holdover iin the SF (never got this far in Pete's time... ironic isn't it).
He played extremely well against Haas. I can pull a match for damn near any player and say they played flawless on this day.
He beat.....
-Hewitt (who was falling since 2005 US Open, if hadn't fallen already)
-Blake (and his horrendeous career slam record
-Nadal (who not reaching a HC slam SF was par for the course for him then)
-Haas
What has Gonzalez done in slams prior and pist. 5 QF (or better) in 33 career slams. Mighty impressive. Well I guess it's better than Blakes 3 in what 27,28?? Oh look, he beat Blake.
Are you serious??? Who was damn near in ters about turning off hawk eye?? Fed was outplayed that day, but he served extremely well.... and also served well in clutch moments, which made the difference. If you watched the match you'd know. His serve carried him to that title.
Shall we talk about Nadal wgho at 15-40 at 1-1 and 2-2 in the 5th failed to put 2nd serves in play???
Please?? What does it tell you when Roger played better in Paris in years he didn't win the title??? But produced a very good performance in the final.
Undermine what, by stating my opinion based on facts?? Read how I summed it up, I said Sampras had a tougher time in his day, but of course to you that's undermining Fed, wayyyyyyyyyy overblowing it. Federerphile in peak form.
Now it's the typical war cry no "easy" roads in slams, but are they all exactly the same?? And should they not be discussed??
380pistol
Banned
Was Nadal (2k4-2k7) prime Nadal???
380pistol
Banned
This is true. I've said on many occasions, if Federer were to chang positions with Sampras, Lendl, Norg or Laver, he's still at the top and winning slams. At what pace and what frequency can be debated.
Along with the variety you mentioned, the top level players. With Safin bing as inconsistent as he his, Ferrero MIA after his excellent 2003, you were left with Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal. Many cite the best of Federer as 2004-07, Nadal failed to make HC slam SF during that period. Other than that the top players weren't as strong as thsose from previous eras.
Now the game is deeper down the line. Laver once said he didn;t have to show up during the 1st weeks of slams, but the 2nd week he could see any of Rosewall, Emerson, Necombe, Ashe, Fraser to see the title. Now would he trade those players for Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Baghdatis, Kiefer, Robredo etc., and take Roger's tougher 1st week?? Likely.
It's not a slight against Roger, that's just how it is. I fell if Federer played in Laver's shoes he'd still be #1 and winning slams, but his road would be more difficult than the on he had in this era.
I gotta be impressed with the scholarship so many of you display here. Really good information provided about both players. I'm not at all sure that the number of slams played v number won is too significant, though, since the level of the competition varies from year to year. When Sampras was trying to win the French, for example, he was being ousted with regularity by a long line of great dirt players...including a valid claimant to the title of #1, Thomas Muster.
Azzurri
Legend
6?? You mean 3 FO, one W and one AO..that would be 5. Yes, he beat him in the SF a few years back at the FO, but that does not count since we are discussing finals.
The rivals Pete faced that were FO winners and CC specialists he did quite well against. I am not talking about 2-3 matches, but a good 10 or more.
You can deny all you want, but it **DOES** make him the better player.
Sampras at his peak (1995 and 1998 respectively) lost to Schaller in the first round and to Delgado in the second round at Roland Garros. Do you consider them to be "great dirt players"?
From 2004 to 2009 Federer lost at Roland Garros only to Kuerten (once) and Nadal (four times). His record against all other players over this period is 32-0.
Tell me again, who faced the tougher clay court competition?
380pistol
Banned
Sampras QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Bruguera
1994 - Courier
1995 - Bruguera (potentially)
1996 - Courier (after getting passed Bruguera)
1997 - Dewulf (potentially, but would have had the Guga Kafelnikov winner in SF and Bruguera in F)
1998 - Muster (potentially, then Moya the eventual champ in SF)
Federer QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
2004 - Nalbandian
2005 - Hanescu
2006 - Ancic
2007 - Robredo (Davidenko in SF)
2008 - Gonzalez (Monfils in SF)
2009 - Monfils
Sampras lost to Schaller and Delgago. Federer lost to Bo Jackson hipped Kuerten and was down a set and 2 breaks to Nalbandian in 2006 SF (6-3,3-0 before David got hurt). So your point would be???
Who's road was harder???
thejoe
Hall of Fame
Federer is a much better clay courter than Agassi. End of.
I think the Steve132 is trying to point out that Sampras did not always lose to great dirt ballers, while Federer since his dominance began, always lost to the top gun(s). That's all.
OTOH, What exactly are you arguing? You show two lists:
List 1: A (Sampras) Vs B (his opposition) and
List 2: C (Federer) Vs. D (his opposition)
and you want to argue that A had a tougher time in beating B, when compared to C Vs. D. If that were true, then A - B differential in terms of playing ability is negative, while C - D is positive. That's all it says. It does not tell anything about B - D or A - C.
Care to elaborate on your rationale?
are you an idiot? no no my apologies. you are an idiot.
Fed has beaten Nadal in two Wimbledon finals.
I love how people compare the records. Nadal is so much younger then Fed not in number but how just 2-3 years is such a big difference in professional tennis. They are almost in different "eras" cause in two years its possible that Fed will no longer be high in the ranking, or possibly retire.
The identity of a player's "potential quarter final opponents" does not matter in the slightest. What matters is whom the player actually met in a tournament and what the results of those matches were. All too often Sampras fans present Lists of Great Names of players who are supposed to constitute "tough competition" without discussing whether Sampras actually faced these players.
The fact is that during the six years in which he ended as world No. 1 Sampras failed to reach even the quarter finals at Roland Garros on three occasions. He won only one of his three quarter final matches, and was then promptly beaten in straight sets by Kafelnikov, a good but not great clay court player.
The highest ranked player that Sampras ever defeated at RG was Courier (no. 8 in 1996). The highest ranked players that he ever met were Courier and Kafelnikov (ranked no.7 in 1994 and 1996 respectively). Sampras lost both matches.
That is not an especially impressive resume. It is not as though Sampras was regularly facing the clay court elite on his trips to Roland Garros. He usually lost before he could meet them.
Kuerten, a three time French Open champion, was ranked no. 30 in the world when he defeated Federer in 2004. Norman and Delgado were ranked at 65 and 97 when they defeated Sampras in 1997 and 1998 respectively. I think that most ATP players would have preferred to face "Bo Jackson hipped Kuerten" rather than the Delgado of 1998.
In all Slams played between 1994 and 1998 Sampras lost to Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado and Rafter.
In Slams played between 2004 and 2008 Federer lost only to Kuerten, Safin, Nadal (six times) and Djokovic - all Slam winners.
Federer is the only player, male or female, amateur or Open eras, to have won 11 Slams in a four year period. He holds the all-time male record of reaching 10 consecutive Slam finals, and the all-time record of reaching 20 consecutive Slam semi-finals. Sampras never reached the semi finals of any major for five years in a row - much less doing so for all four in the same period, as Federer has done.
These comparisons do not favor Sampras. You need to do better in order to maintain his GOAT claims.
Conquistador
Banned
Federer played much better clay court specialists than Sampras. Look at the rivals. Sampras never did much at Roland Garros. You look at his resume and don't see a final appearance, and that says that he just wasn't good enough to be in the GOAT discussion. IMO Agassi has a strong argument for having a better career than Sampras did. Winning the Grand Slam means that you excelled on 3 of 3 surfaces. Sampras's career was 2 for 3 and half of his slam wins came on grass and the other half on hardcourts. When you break down everything, all 3 surfaces matter equally. Winning on clay to me is extremely hard to do for people like Federer and Sampras, and thats what makes Federer the best ever.
Azzurri
Legend
Thank you for the opinion, but I disagree with it. So hank Aaron is a greater HR hitter than Babe Ruth..according to your logic.
Azzurri
Legend
Thnaks for your opinion..I disagree. Fed is not better. I would rate them about even..IMO.
Azzurri
Legend
odd how someone that completely missed the point calls someone else an idiot.
let me help you; Nadal, in recent times, has owned Fed in the majors (since he has now beaten him at W and the AO) and with all the "backlash" as to Fed maybe not being the GOAT because Nadal owns him, needs to beat Nadal at a major or two to solidify he is the best player in his generation in the near future. he is not taking away's Fed prior wins, but he has been owned by Nadal. If they never play again, Nadal owned him...no question.
Azzurri
Legend
This is exactly why you are the biggest joke on this board. Thank you for the new signature.
Last edited:
Thank you for the opinion, but I disagree with it. So hank Aaron is a greater HR hitter than Babe Ruth..according to your logic.
I'm sorry, I do not know who Aaron or Babe Ruth are. As far as numbers go, Pete's career and Fed's career are exactly 10 years apart, and are very similar in many aspects - in fact their careers had some intersection, and their wimby match kind of signified passing of the torch. So it makes comparing them easier
1. Do you agree that accomplishments-wise, Fed has surpassed Pete by winning the FO? I'd like to hear your reasons if you think otherwise.
2. Fed's h2h with nadal should have no bearing on his achievements. When talking about greatness, you compare achievements, not tennis skill. As of now, Nadal may have Fed's number because some of his "skills" overshadow Fed's; but unless Nadal equals Fed's achievements, he will not be part of the GOAT conversation. The h2h should be considered only when it comes to nadal vs fed for the GOAT discussion (h2h used as a tiebreaker). I'm sorry, that's the way I see it. I'd like your reasoning on that too.
3. If you insist on knocking Fed's competition, I'd like to hear your rationale based on facts/data, and not merely your opinions and visual conclusions.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
So true......
How can Agassi's 8 slams over a longer career beat Sampras' 14....
Dont get me wrong Andre is one the the all time greats, but Pete was better
Azzurri
Legend
1. yes
2. No one dominated Pete, yet Fed is owned by nadal..figure it out
3. disagree with you completely on #3.
Azzurri
Legend
I was a bigger, longer fan of Agassi's then Pete so i say this without subjectivity..Pete is heads above Andre.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Why consider only SW19 record at that point of time ? Roddick won Queens , grass-court event , which means he was good on that surface by that time and in good form coming into the tournament ...
I thought the fed-andre match was discussed and done to death already .... Hewitt didn't face any top player till the finals, I agree, but he was in pretty good form going into the finals, that's what his run to the finals indicated ....
I was discussing his form in that tourney ! That's what matters ....... So if fernando verdasco doesn't do well in the future, does it take away anything from his great performance in the AO 2009 ????? Duh !
He managed to compose himself ....Fed was outplayed for the first 4 sets , not for the whole match ; he had more points than nadal at the end of the match ... And I agree, his serve bailed him out
I already know your so called definition of "choking" >> I already said I disagree with that .
He played better in the previous years - esp 2k5,2k6 and 2k7 , but was facing nadal , the best/or 2nd best claycourter ( depending on how you rate borg with respect to him ) of all times and fell short .
How does it change that acusaso played well above his usual level against fed, haas played a very good match and del potro played an excellent one ?
Read what I said ... I also agreed sampras had the tougher time . Duh !
I showed some of the ways in which you under-mined fed's paths to the slam victories , as simple as that .. That "wayyyyy" was just added for fun
Also I like how you failed to address the 20 consec SFs :twisted:
abmk
Bionic Poster
You missed the main point again. The mental aspect of it . Already 2 ppl ( including me mentioned it )
care to elaborate ???
abmk
Bionic Poster
I didn't say it was ... it was in response to azzurri's statement that fed could not handle a young nadal ... That was to show he handled him alright outside clay ....
Azzurri
Legend
Azzurri
Legend
TennisFan481
Banned
I don't understand these Sampras dickriding arguments.
Does anyone here HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Sampras played Nadal in several French Open finals that he'd EVER beat him? Seriously?
Sampras wasn't even good enough to get to a French Open final. Tougher clay court era, sure...but losing to guys like Delgado and Schaller suggests that wasn't the reason he wasn't making it deeper. Would Sampras beat Jose Acasuso? I honestly don't think he would. How about Paul-Henri Mathieu? Not unless Mathieu choked. Monfils? Get real.
So Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. And so...why are we bringing this garbage up again?
Nadal "owned him?" He only "owns him" on clay. Their non-clay head-to-head is 5-4 in favor of Federer. In 3 of those 4 Nadal wins, the matches went the distance. Two 5-set Grand Slam finals and a 3 setter at 06 Dubai.
Yeah, that's really "owning." Federer got "owned" 9-7 in the 5th set at Wimbledon last year.
Nadal has lost just 4 times in the past 100-something matches on clay. 2 of them were to Roger Federer. Obviously, though...if PETE SAMPRAS were here...he'd be showing Rafael Nadal a thing or two on clay, yo.
But yeah, what's this Federer talk? Sampras is where it's at, yo. He has 2 AO titles to Federer's 3 and counting. He had 5 US Open titles in his career. Federer has FIVE IN A ROW and counting. He never won the FO. Never even reached a final. Federer has won it. Federer has been in 4 finals. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles, with 4 in a row being his longest streak. Federer's streak snapped at 5 in a row (and made the record-tying 6th finals appearance in a row), and he's now looking like the favorite to win a 6th total.
Federer has made 20 SFs in a row at the GSs and counting. Sampras' career long? 3. THREE.
Heck, Federer made 10 GS FINALS in a row.
Does anyone here HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Sampras played Nadal in several French Open finals that he'd EVER beat him? Seriously?
Sampras wasn't even good enough to get to a French Open final. Tougher clay court era, sure...but losing to guys like Delgado and Schaller suggests that wasn't the reason he wasn't making it deeper. Would Sampras beat Jose Acasuso? I honestly don't think he would. How about Paul-Henri Mathieu? Not unless Mathieu choked. Monfils? Get real.
So Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. And so...why are we bringing this garbage up again?
Nadal "owned him?" He only "owns him" on clay. Their non-clay head-to-head is 5-4 in favor of Federer. In 3 of those 4 Nadal wins, the matches went the distance. Two 5-set Grand Slam finals and a 3 setter at 06 Dubai.
Yeah, that's really "owning." Federer got "owned" 9-7 in the 5th set at Wimbledon last year.
Nadal has lost just 4 times in the past 100-something matches on clay. 2 of them were to Roger Federer. Obviously, though...if PETE SAMPRAS were here...he'd be showing Rafael Nadal a thing or two on clay, yo.
But yeah, what's this Federer talk? Sampras is where it's at, yo. He has 2 AO titles to Federer's 3 and counting. He had 5 US Open titles in his career. Federer has FIVE IN A ROW and counting. He never won the FO. Never even reached a final. Federer has won it. Federer has been in 4 finals. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles, with 4 in a row being his longest streak. Federer's streak snapped at 5 in a row (and made the record-tying 6th finals appearance in a row), and he's now looking like the favorite to win a 6th total.
Federer has made 20 SFs in a row at the GSs and counting. Sampras' career long? 3. THREE.
Heck, Federer made 10 GS FINALS in a row.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, take a chill pill .... If Fed beats nadal in a slam again, that'll make all his doubters quiet ...
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Amen........
abmk
Bionic Poster
so now Fed can't handle a seasoned Nadal..oh yea, Fed has to be GOAT.
I already said he needs to beat nadal at a slam ..... should try to keep the H2H outside clay in his favour ... but to expect him to change the H2H overall to make it closer would be a tad unreasonable ....
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Wimbledon 06 and 07 are slams are they not....
zagor
Bionic Poster
Good analysis on the the advantages Fed has over Sampras at the moment when comparitn their careers but aren't you the guy that said Fed would go down to Monfils and that he isn't talented or something? Why the change of heart?
abmk
Bionic Poster
Nadal beating him frequently on clay where they've met the majority of the times taking a mental toll on Fed ....That'd carry over to the other surfaces eventually with fed declining, wouldn't it ? As you decline, those doubts get stronger
abmk
Bionic Poster
say what ?????? A 63% winning record on clay , a single RG SF , NO finals, a single CC masters ... That's supposed to impress me ?????
Yes, he's beaten CC specialists ( or those good on clay ) on clay , but you cannot classify that as handling CC specialists well ... H2H with them on clay combined is still negative by some margin
Last edited:
Similar threads
