Why Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer ?

Why Federer was more dominant than Sampras? (select multiple options)


  • Total voters
    102
Dont be foolish.. All three guys are a DECADE Younger than Pete. :???: Thats a lifetime in tennis

Sampras would completely tear all 3 a new one (Well actually he did tear all 3 a new one anyways, 2000 USO Hewitt, 2001 USO Safin, 2002 USO ARod) as contemporaries
Thats damn right and correct too. Now, go ahead and get a set 3 players a decade younger than Fed who have even as much as 6 wins against him :D:twisted:
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Dont be foolish.. All three guys are a DECADE Younger than Pete. :???: Thats a lifetime in tennis

Sampras would completely tear all 3 a new one (Well actually he did tear all 3 a new one anyways, 2000 USO Hewitt, 2001 USO Safin, 2002 USO ARod) as contemporaries
He didn't tear Hewitt a new one at the '00 USO (two sets went to tiebreaks that Hewitt should have won) and the Safin he beat convincingly was not in the same form he showed the year previous. Also 2003 Roddick >> 2002 Roddick.
 
Poor poll.

Sampras was clearly more dominant. Sampras never had a dismal record against his primary rival, as Federer did with Nadal (10-23). Besides, Sampras never lost in a Wimbledon final to his primary rival ever, like Federer lost to Nadal. In fact, Sampras never lost in a Wimbledon final to anyone. THAT'S dominance.


#PTL #JC4Ever #MerryChristmas

AngieB
 
I picked Fed in all but Mental Lapses and Weaknesses.

I think Fed is the most talented ever, better on all surfaces overall, skilled and more determined than Sampras

But Sampras was great in finals and Federers backhand has been shown to be a weakness via Nadal, I don't feel Sampras had a weakness per se.
 
That great logic of losing in straights to Krajicek in quarters being more dominant than losing to Nadal in the finals is dominance. That great logic that picking retirement after losing in 4th round and 2nd round of Wimbledon is being more dominant than a 2nd and finals rouund. Serious dominance there :p
 
Poor poll.

Sampras was clearly more dominant. Sampras never had a dismal record against his primary rival, as Federer did with Nadal (10-23). Besides, Sampras never lost in a Wimbledon final to his primary rival ever, like Federer lost to Nadal. In fact, Sampras never lost in a Wimbledon final to anyone. THAT'S dominance.


#PTL #JC4Ever #MerryChristmas

AngieB
You are making up your own definitions of what dominance means and consists of that do not converge with how others actually use the term. That's rather unfruitful for any discussion, is it naawt?? It's actually just poor use of language.
 
Thats damn right and correct too. Now, go ahead and get a set 3 players a decade younger than Fed who have even as much as 6 wins against him :D:twisted:

Hewitt/Roddick/Safin are far better players than anyone of the guys coming up. So why compare them to **** bums like raonic, Tomic, Dimitrov etc? :shock:


If This Fed was going up against a peak 20-23 year old Hewitt, I wouldn't like his chances most of the time. Or going up against a peaking Safin. Marat would completely blow him off the court.
 
Hewitt/Roddick/Safin are far better players than anyone of the guys coming up. So why compare them to **** bums like raonic, Tomic, Dimitrov etc? :shock:


If This Fed was going up against a peak 20-23 year old Hewitt, I wouldn't like his chances most of the time. Or going up against a peaking Safin. Marat would completely blow him off the court.
QFT.

Fed has less power in his strokes and is more error prone these days, Hewitt would happily grind him out 7/10 times, plus more aggressive net play against a man with one of the best passing shots ever would not end well.
 
Lol, that is assuming the conclusion. For this to be meaningful, you must assume that sampras is ≥ Federer. You only know something about the relative strength between Sampras and his era compared to Federer vs his era. This says nothing about the absolute strength of the eras. Logic abc.

And btw, the quality or strength of an era (terms you use) is just as meaningless to the universe as notions of fairness (which Sabratha used). So that's probably not the rebuttal you should go for.
I never said anything about the absolute strength of the eras. That can't be objectively judged. I don't know if a player from Sampras era is "better" than a player from Federer's. I only know that Federer seems to have had an easier time defeating Federer's contemporaries than Sampras had defeating Sampras' contemporaries. I word it that way so no one can intentionally misread it, as happens so bloody often on this board. The original question was, why was Sampres less dominant than Federer. It was undoubtedly a troll post, trying to start a tiresome flame war over the impossible-to-resolve question of Federer vs. Sampras. Nevertheless, the best answer I can come up with is, because although Sampras was the most accomplished, and therefore best player of his era, his contemporaries were closer to him in talent or however you want to put it, than Federer's contemporaries were to Federer. If there's a better way of judging a particular era, I'd like to know what it is.
 
I never said anything about the absolute strength of the eras. That can't be objectively judged. I don't know if a player from Sampras era is "better" than a player from Federer's. I only know that Federer seems to have had an easier time defeating Federer's contemporaries than Sampras had defeating Sampras' contemporaries. I word it that way so no one can intentionally misread it, as happens so bloody often on this board. The original question was, why was Sampres less dominant than Federer. It was undoubtedly a troll post, trying to start a tiresome flame war over the impossible-to-resolve question of Federer vs. Sampras. Nevertheless, the best answer I can come up with is, because although Sampras was the most accomplished, and therefore best player of his era, his contemporaries were closer to him in talent or however you want to put it, than Federer's contemporaries were to Federer. If there's a better way of judging a particular era, I'd like to know what it is.
Yes. That's really a tautology though. Fed was more dominant because he won more <--> Fed won more because he was more dominant. But I agree, we can't really say anything meaningful about the absolute strength of eras. The best we usually can achieve on this board and regarding such a topic is conjecture and guesswork; in this instance perhaps about which qualities of Fed that allowed him to be more dominant.
 
Hewitt/Roddick/Safin are far better players than anyone of the guys coming up. So why compare them to **** bums like raonic, Tomic, Dimitrov etc? :shock:


If This Fed was going up against a peak 20-23 year old Hewitt, I wouldn't like his chances most of the time. Or going up against a peaking Safin. Marat would completely blow him off the court.
So, in short, if Fed does well, he is damned. And if fails (like against Nadal, probably his only failure), he is doomed. You have a different metric for Fed and Sampras. Where Pete succeeds, it is because he could keep the competition at bay, and when Fed does it to a decade younger generation than himself, it is the fallacy of the younger generation. There is absolutely no room for Fed to succeed in your world altogether.
 
That great logic of losing in straights to Krajicek in quarters being more dominant than losing to Nadal in the finals is dominance. That great logic that picking retirement after losing in 4th round and 2nd round of Wimbledon is being more dominant than a 2nd and finals rouund. Serious dominance there :p
I think Krajicek at his best is a better grass player than Nadal. He was playing his best at that years Wimbledon. Actually that he would beat a peak Sampras in straight sets on fast grass just proves that, as on no planet would Nadal beat peak Sampras in straight sets on fast grass.
 
So, in short, if Fed does well, he is damned. And if fails (like against Nadal, probably his only failure), he is doomed. You have a different metric for Fed and Sampras. Where Pete succeeds, it is because he could keep the competition at bay, and when Fed does it to a decade younger generation than himself, it is the fallacy of the younger generation. There is absolutely no room for Fed to succeed in your world altogether.
Fed's resume speaks for itself. Hes a great player. But Pete just had it tougher is all Im merely point out.

The guys 10 years younger than Pete at the time, are better players than the guys 10 years younger than Fed is now.



If Pete only had to worry Raonic at the end of his career instead of Andre, Hewitt, Safin etc. Im sure he would like those odds better :)
 
I think Krajicek at his best is a better grass player than Nadal. He was playing his best at that years Wimbledon. Actually that he would beat a peak Sampras in straight sets on fast grass just proves that, as on no planet would Nadal beat peak Sampras in straight sets on fast grass.
And then what happens to Sampras's Wimbledon legacy if Krajicek had excellent fitness? If Sampras is dismantled in straights, and yet one wants to go ahead and rate his performance as dominant, what about Fed who was a mere 2 points away from 7 straight Wimbledons? Fed still lost in that 5th set of final in 08 and 14, and is still supposed to be not dominant?

In a bid to undermine Fed, please don't diminish Nadal's achievements. Was there ever a single player as consistent at Wimbledon as Nadal during Pete era? If Krajicek was knocking 5 finals out of 6 years, would Pete even have a Wimbledon legacy? So, overall Fed did better against Nadal than Pete did in his era. However, you can continue to turn that blind eye.
 
2006 Wimbledon Nadal was nothing special to watch.. I think it was only his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever. 2007 Nadal was much better but choked in the finals, didn't he have a pretty joke draw to the final too? 2008 Nadal was peak and would definitely a lot grass greats a run for their money. 2009 nadal didn't play. 2010- Rafa was still pretty dang. 2011 Nadal? Ehhhh.. Beatable. Consistent sure.. But Ive seen better grass performances in my day than Nadal.

Not to say Nadal isn't an extremely grass court player (well used to be) but hes not one of the greats on grass.

Especially if he went up against some of those heavy hitters in the 90s (The guys who have been a menacing nightmare for Nadal over the past few years)
 
Last edited:
And then what happens to Sampras's Wimbledon legacy if Krajicek had excellent fitness? If Sampras is dismantled in straights, and yet one wants to go ahead and rate his performance as dominant, what about Fed who was a mere 2 points away from 7 straight Wimbledons? Fed still lost in that 5th set of final in 08 and 14, and is still supposed to be not dominant?

In a bid to undermine Fed, please don't diminish Nadal's achievements. Was there ever a single player as consistent at Wimbledon as Nadal during Pete era? If Krajicek was knocking 5 finals out of 6 years, would Pete even have a Wimbledon legacy? So, overall Fed did better against Nadal than Pete did in his era. However, you can continue to turn that blind eye.
It isn't Sampras's fault Krajicek isn't more consistent. As for your question if he made 5 or 6 finals Sampras would probably have gotten angry after losing to Krajicek in 96, raised his game even more, and won all the remaining meetings. That was Sampras for you.

Nadal isn't that great on grass. Look at the bums he lost to the last 3 years. I know Krajieck had terrible losses at Wimbledon too, but everyone knows Krajieck is a crazy inconsistent player. Nadal is not an inconsistent player at all. He is probably one of the most consistent in history, even if overshadowed by Federer's historic consistency in that area. So if he loses often in early rounds to weak players, as he clearly does at Wimbledon, it just means he isn't that good and did so well at Wimbledon due to the weak grass field today with no good grass courters but Federer.
 
Fed's resume speaks for itself. Hes a great player. But Pete just had it tougher is all Im merely point out.

The guys 10 years younger than Pete at the time, are better players than the guys 10 years younger than Fed is now.

If Pete only had to worry Raonic at the end of his career instead of Andre, Hewitt, Safin etc. Im sure he would like those odds better :)
And my point is that if Fed competition is crap, Pete's is no different. I have repeatedly proved how outside of having big names, 94-97 competition was not any great than 04-07. Pete did not really had it tougher, its a mere illusion of the big names.

See, you see Raonic when you should be really looking at Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. If Pete struggled against Andre, Hewitt, and Safin, he would be trashed even badly by Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Unlike Pete, Fed will more or less have a single blemish: Nadal. For players like Pete and Fed, it does not matter whether they have Andre, Hewitt, Safin, or Raonic. What matters is winning slams, and I don't see how Fed benefits by playing Raonic.


P.S.: Pete is as awesome as any all time great player can be. These arguments are only existing because we need to have fun too :p
 
You are making up your own definitions of what dominance means and consists of that do not converge with how others actually use the term. That's rather unfruitful for any discussion, is it naawt?? It's actually just poor use of language.
Syssy,

Everyone has their individual definition of what dominance means in the sport of tennis. I reserve the right to voice my definition of dominance when comparing Sampras and Federer during discussion in spite of others (like you) who disagree. Civil disagreement during discussion is never wrong, Syssy.


#PTL #JC4Ever #MerryChristmas

AngieB
 
It isn't Sampras's fault Krajicek isn't more consistent. As for your question if he made 5 or 6 finals Sampras would probably have gotten angry after losing to Krajicek in 96, raised his game even more, and won all the remaining meetings. That was Sampras for you.
NO. Until Krajicek had serious injuries, Pete was not beating him. The consistent Krajicek only means Sampras loses his Wimbledon legacy. And you are kidding yourself if you think Sampras was not angry after being a set or 2 set down in that 96 encounter. Or you want to tell us he never got angry after all those early exits at FO? Or that he did not get angry after losing so many times at AO except on two occassions?

Nadal isn't that great on grass. Look at the bums he lost to the last 3 years. I know Krajieck had terrible losses at Wimbledon too, but everyone knows Krajieck is a crazy inconsistent player. Nadal is not an inconsistent player at all. He is probably one of the most consistent in history, even if overshadowed by Federer's historic consistency in that area. So if he loses often in early rounds to weak players, as he clearly does at Wimbledon, it just means he isn't that good and did so well at Wimbledon due to the weak grass field today with no good grass courters but Federer.
That is my point. There was no body as good as Nadal during Sampras time. Nadal lost to Rosol in 12, and early exits at 13 and 14 too. Pete lost to, cough, cough, Bastl in 02 and stopped playing in 13 and 14. So, please compare Nadal's FO performance to Sampras Wimbledon for that.
 
And my point is that if Fed competition is crap, Pete's is no different. I have repeatedly proved how outside of having big names, 94-97 competition was not any great than 04-07. Pete did not really had it tougher, its a mere illusion of the big names.

See, you see Raonic when you should be really looking at Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. If Pete struggled against Andre, Hewitt, and Safin, he would be trashed even badly by Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Unlike Pete, Fed will more or less have a single blemish: Nadal. For players like Pete and Fed, it does not matter whether they have Andre, Hewitt, Safin, or Raonic. What matters is winning slams, and I don't see how Fed benefits by playing Raonic.


P.S.: Pete is as awesome as any all time great player can be. These arguments are only existing because we need to have fun too :p


Pete's only major blemish was the lack of a french. One blemish.. While Fed has one blemish with Nadal. Neither guy have a ton of blemishes on their resume but both have one major one. Soo...
 
Maybe the field looked deep during the Sampras era because he wasn't as dominant a player as Federer. If Federer wasn't playing tennis, the slams would have been distributed between Hewitt, Safin, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic etc....and everyone would be saying how deep the field is, how much variety there is to everyones game etc. etc...

McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg= all past their prime/near retirement when Sampras started to dominate in 1993

Wilander by his own admission was mentally burned out by '88

Courier would be burned out by 1994

Sampras- 0 for 2 agaisnt Edberg in slams.

Weak era only works if you agree that Agassi, Courier, Chang, Pioline, Rios, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek, Stich, Phillipousis, Goran, Moya, Rafter, Norman, Kafelnikov, Muster, Guga, Ferrero, Brugerra, Martin, Henman are demonstrably better than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Murray, Delpo, Cilic, Agassi, Nalbandian, Djoker, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Blake, Ferrer, Ljubicic, Haas, Berdych, Wawrinka

I dont think you can honestly say one group "blows" another group out of the water.

Hewitt in his prime would be a successful player in 90s. He loves play S & V.

How many over 5 hour matches you see in 90s era? The baseline game nowaday is the most gruelling in history of tennis, however Sampras's era was the best mixed of playing style
 
Last edited:
I picked Fed in all but Mental Lapses and Weaknesses.

I think Fed is the most talented ever, better on all surfaces overall, skilled and more determined than Sampras

But Sampras was great in finals and Federers backhand has been shown to be a weakness via Nadal, I don't feel Sampras had a weakness per se.
Clay in general was a huge weakness for Sampras and his backhand was much weaker than Federer's too.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed's resume speaks for itself. Hes a great player. But Pete just had it tougher is all Im merely point out.

The guys 10 years younger than Pete at the time, are better players than the guys 10 years younger than Fed is now.



If Pete only had to worry Raonic at the end of his career instead of Andre, Hewitt, Safin etc. Im sure he would like those odds better :)
Federer has had it harder with Nadal and Djokovic.
 
I'm sorry TMF, but I've noticed a trend from you.

You write articles where your opinion is assumed as fact, and you then start the discussion on why you're right, rather than whether you are right. And you mis-use polls too, they're meant to be for discussions with binary simple answers; not complex discussions where there will be a huge variety in opinion. My answer is not covered fully by your poll options.

Even when I agree with you on some things, I feel frustrated because I know those who disagree with me & you can never debate under the warped format of your threads.

If you continue this, I will contact the admin and moderation team; it may be subtle but I see your behaviour as purposefully inflammatory.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed makes life tough on himself with those guys. Why should be have it difficult with Nadal on hards? Why should be losing Wimbledon to Novak? Nole isn't exactly known for his unstoppable grass court game.
Nadal has 3 HC slams. Djokovic has 2 grass slams. They're better than a lot of the people Pete faced..
 
Surface homogenisation goes both ways. For all the variety he shows in his matches, Federer has for a large part of the last decade, played the same game on every surface, and plays it very well. That's why he does so well in terms of consistency in all the slams - his game transcends surfaces in a way. Compare this with Nadal, who, despite what his detractors delude themselves into thinking, actually has to change the way he plays depending on the surface. Definitely not Borg-level adjustments, but they're pretty obvious, and observable when watching him through untinted glasses.

So I think that when Sampras was playing, actual adjustment in strategy was necessary, with fast grass, slick HCs, slow-ish hard courts, and slow clay. No one denies that surface specialists were a thing back then, in a way they no longer are now. I guess Sampras was unable to change his game drastically enough to be a force on all surfaces, and the surfaces themselves were too different for a Federer-style, "one size fits all"-style game to be possible.

With that said, I do think that the surfaces back then were all either very fast, or very slow, with little inbetween. Despite AO being a slower surface, it could have been slightly slower (in my opinion), and USO speeds were a little too close to Wimbledon speeds as well back then. Guess that explains Sampras' stellar record at SW19 and the USO, since he's in my opinion quite literally the same yet simultaneously the opposite of Nadal to an extent - a specialist on one extreme type of court speed, who's managed to find success everywhere else.
 
Last edited:
Syssy,

Everyone has their individual definition of what dominance means in the sport of tennis. I reserve the right to voice my definition of dominance when comparing Sampras and Federer during discussion in spite of others (like you) who disagree. Civil disagreement during discussion is never wrong, Syssy.


#PTL #JC4Ever #MerryChristmas

AngieB
The point in a discussion is to argue from some common premises, something which is a necessity for any sort of fruitful discussion.
If this were not the case, I might just as well say "I define dominance as losing more often, therefore Hewitt is more dominant than Sampras". That is obviously not conducive for any communication at all, and it is just misuse of language. For discussion/communication to happen, we must adhere to a common system of meaning, and you're not doing that when you use the word "domination" for something it doesn't mean.
 
Yes. That's really a tautology though. Fed was more dominant because he won more <--> Fed won more because he was more dominant. But I agree, we can't really say anything meaningful about the absolute strength of eras. The best we usually can achieve on this board and regarding such a topic is conjecture and guesswork; in this instance perhaps about which qualities of Fed that allowed him to be more dominant.
I know Fed's opponents weren't as close to him as in they were in the case of Sampras, but I don't know why. Was it lack of talent? injuries? did they lack pride in their accomplishments? did they lack character? It's going to be a really tough uphill battle to try to figure that out.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I know Fed's opponents weren't as close to him as in they were in the case of Sampras, but I don't know why. Was it lack of talent? injuries? did they lack pride in their accomplishments? did they lack character? It's going to be a really tough uphill battle to try to figure that out.
Or maybe Federer was just better as he's proven time and time again.
 
The point in a discussion is to argue from some common premises, something which is a necessity for any sort of fruitful discussion.
If this were not the case, I might just as well say "I define dominance as losing more often, therefore Hewitt is more dominant than Sampras". That is obviously not conducive for any communication at all, and it is just misuse of language. For discussion/communication to happen, we must adhere to a common system of meaning, and you're not doing that when you use the word "domination" for something it doesn't mean.
+1

We can't all have our own definitions of words, because in that case any discussion would be irrational.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Why was he better?
Look at his record across all surfaces in his prime, Roger has a much higher win/loss record. Pete had bad losses in his prime even on preferred surfaces.

By nearly every conceivable metric Federer did better, not sure how it's even a question.
 
Look at his record across all surfaces in his prime, Roger has a much higher win/loss record. Pete had bad losses in his prime even on preferred surfaces.

By nearly every conceivable metric Federer did better, not sure how it's even a question.
I didn't ask if he was better than his contemporaries. There's more than enough evidence of that. I asked why he was better.
 
The point in a discussion is to argue from some common premises, something which is a necessity for any sort of fruitful discussion.
If this were not the case, I might just as well say "I define dominance as losing more often, therefore Hewitt is more dominant than Sampras". That is obviously not conducive for any communication at all, and it is just misuse of language. For discussion/communication to happen, we must adhere to a common system of meaning, and you're not doing that when you use the word "domination" for something it doesn't mean.
So you think you know the definition of dominance? Each individual has his/her own definition when it comes to being 'dominant' in a sport. You can't tell someone to adhere to your own definition and calling it a 'common system of meaning'. You are exposing yourself to what we call in psychology as the distortion of judgment under the category of Representativeness Heuristics. You don't represent the general population. In fact, none of us do, so stop acting like there is a common definition of 'dominance' in the first place.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I didn't ask if he was better. There's more than enough evidence of that. I asked why he was better.
Surely the evidence for if he is better also covers the why?

Leaving to one side the question of whose very top level was better, it's obvious Federer brought his best more often. Which is why he has won substantially more than Sampras. Any question about competition is largely subjective.

Winning big more often during peak and prime periods should be enough to determine who was better IMO.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Just like towards the end Sampras didn't think he was the best against teenage Safin and Hewitt.
Good comeback. :)
Hilarious that the 90's clay and other Sampras fans continue with their self-defeating behavior since Federer has made it clear that he was a better than Sampras back in 2009 Wimbledon. They all know it, and rather derailing the thread they should stick to the topic, and not one of those posters have participated in the voting.
 
Top