Why Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer ?

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


  • Total voters
    102
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
Federer was more talented and skilled and consistent on ALL surfaces regardless of speed, bounce ect.

Sampras though had the better 2nd serve, Federer's first serve is highly underrated.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Thanks to all the voters and your feedback.

The poll result has the most votes for more versatile and more all-around. Federer won with a combination of variety and superb anticipation. He can adapt better than any player on all surfaces and conditions(e.g. windy, blue clay). Federer's variety gives his opponents different looks to exploit his weaknesses.

The poll has fewest vote for the option - more drive and determination and less mental lapse between matches. The former may not much different since during Sampras prime when he wasn't married, tennis was his life, and hates to lose(even more than Federer). I think the difference in mental lapse between matches is more significant. During their prime, Federer had much fewer bad losses, and even when he loses, the score is very tight, and most of the time, the players that beat him were the eventual winner. OTOH, Sampras have lost many in straight set, and his losses are more often from early rounds while Federer went deeper.



If you haven't vote, please do so we can have a larger sample size.
 
Last edited:

AngieB

Banned
Roger Federer holds the distinction of being the only generational champion in men's tennis history who was dominated by his chief rival.

Pete Sampras wasn't.
Bjorn Borg wasn't.
Rod Laver wasn't.
Bill Tilden wasn't. etc. etc.

Roger Federer was perhaps the most consistent, but never the most dominant generational champion.

The premise of this poll is severely flawed because of Roger Federer's 10-23 record against Rafael Nadal. If Federer couldn't get past Nadal, he shouldn't discussed in the same sentence as Sampras and the word dominance. Add that Federer will likely end his career with a losing record against Novak Djokovic. Both Novak and Rafael defeated Roger in Wimbledon finals, Federer's most won grand slam. Roger could never defeat Rafael in a French Open final, Rafael's most won grand slam.

Federer was never able to master the grand slam events by winning the coveted CYGS, a distinction that only Rod Laver holds both pre and post Open Era. Don Budge pre-Open Era. The CYGS a distinct measure of dominance in grand slam events.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

Legend
Roger Federer holds the distinction of being the only generational champion in men's tennis history who was dominated by his chief rival.

Pete Sampras wasn't.
Bjorn Borg wasn't.
Rod Laver wasn't.
Bill Tilden wasn't. etc. etc.

Roger Federer was perhaps the most consistent, but never the most dominant generational champion.

The premise of this poll is severely flawed because of Roger Federer's 10-23 record against Rafael Nadal. If Federer couldn't get past Nadal, he shouldn't discussed in the same sentence as Sampras and the word dominance. Add that Federer will likely end his career with a losing record against Novak Djokovic. Both Novak and Rafael defeated Roger in Wimbledon finals, Federer's most won grand slam. Roger could never defeat Rafael in a French Open final, Rafael's most won grand slam.

Federer was never able to master the grand slam events by winning the coveted CYGS, a distinction that only Rod Laver holds both pre and post Open Era. Don Budge pre-Open Era. The CYGS a distinct measure of dominance in grand slam events.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
Little bit inspired from GOAT's wife:



Up to end of the Universe!
 

MTF07

Semi-Pro
Roger Federer holds the distinction of being the only generational champion in men's tennis history who was dominated by his chief rival.

Pete Sampras wasn't.
Bjorn Borg wasn't.
Rod Laver wasn't.
Bill Tilden wasn't. etc. etc.

Roger Federer was perhaps the most consistent, but never the most dominant generational champion.

The premise of this poll is severely flawed because of Roger Federer's 10-23 record against Rafael Nadal. If Federer couldn't get past Nadal, he shouldn't discussed in the same sentence as Sampras and the word dominance. Add that Federer will likely end his career with a losing record against Novak Djokovic. Both Novak and Rafael defeated Roger in Wimbledon finals, Federer's most won grand slam. Roger could never defeat Rafael in a French Open final, Rafael's most won grand slam.

Federer was never able to master the grand slam events by winning the coveted CYGS, a distinction that only Rod Laver holds both pre and post Open Era. Don Budge pre-Open Era. The CYGS a distinct measure of dominance in grand slam events.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
Federer dominated Sampras' chief rival better than Sampras ever did (8 straight wins over Agassi). And sure, you'll retort about that being 'old' Agassi, but that old Agassi was much more consistent than the drug addict Agassi Sampras faced during much of his prime years.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
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.
....are you serious? Sampras at 33 was a senior tour caliber player. Federer at 33 almost won Wimbledon. He should receive plaudits rather than criticism, for doing that. Sampras at 33 wouldn't be able to make the SECOND WEEK of Wimbledon.

To answer the OPs intentionally provocative thread, Federer was more dominant because he was better. Simple. Better as a young man than Sampras. Better as an old man than Sampras. Better at his peak. Better in his twilight. Better at his best. MUCH BETTER when hes having an off day.

Now, let's start 2848593939 identical threads, for good measure.
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

Legend
....are you serious? Sampras at 33 was a senior tour caliber player. Federer at 33 almost won Wimbledon. He should receive plaudits rather than criticism, for doing that. Sampras at 33 wouldn't be able to make the SECOND WEEK of Wimbledon.

To answer the OPs intentionally provocative thread, Federer was more dominant because he was better. Simple. Better as a young man than Sampras. Better as an old man than Sampras. Better at his peak. Better in his twilight. Better at his best. MUCH BETTER when hes having an off day.

Now, let's start 2848593939 identical threads, for good measure.
+1

/Thread.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Roger Federer holds the distinction of being the only generational champion in men's tennis history who was dominated by his chief rival.

Pete Sampras wasn't.
Bjorn Borg wasn't.
Rod Laver wasn't.
Bill Tilden wasn't. etc. etc.

Roger Federer was perhaps the most consistent, but never the most dominant generational champion.

The premise of this poll is severely flawed because of Roger Federer's 10-23 record against Rafael Nadal. If Federer couldn't get past Nadal, he shouldn't discussed in the same sentence as Sampras and the word dominance. Add that Federer will likely end his career with a losing record against Novak Djokovic. Both Novak and Rafael defeated Roger in Wimbledon finals, Federer's most won grand slam. Roger could never defeat Rafael in a French Open final, Rafael's most won grand slam.

Federer was never able to master the grand slam events by winning the coveted CYGS, a distinction that only Rod Laver holds both pre and post Open Era. Don Budge pre-Open Era. The CYGS a distinct measure of dominance in grand slam events.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
11 of 16 majors over a 4 year span. Sampras, over his best 4 year span, won 7.

Your definition of dominance is a tad warped. If you're gonna use that line ("its just my opinion"), try not to speak in absolutes, lol. Otherwise you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You argue fervently and then when someone questions your logic you say "its just my opinion".

Anyways, by most conventional definitions of 'dominance', I'd say Federer absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence. Federer's 4th best year is leaps and bounds better than Sampras' best one. Sampras could never string together consecutive tournament and major victories the way Federer could. Even in his waning years, his results nearly stack up to Sampras in his mid to late 20's, despite his two main rivals being much, much better than any of Sampras' career rivals.

And don't give me Agassi lol, love the guy, but at this point it is a formality; Djokovic will surpass Agassi in accomplishments, and already has in peak play. Ask any player who they would rather have as their chief rival and they would all say Agassi, because he was far too mercurial to be the week-in week-out monster that Djokovic is.
 

AngieB

Banned
Federer was more dominant because he was better. Simple. Better as a young man than Sampras. Better as an old man than Sampras. Better at his peak. Better in his twilight. Better at his best. MUCH BETTER when hes having an off day.

Now, let's start 2848593939 identical threads, for good measure.
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer won an identical number of Wimbledon and US Opens. Their weeks at number one are similar. In no way was Roger ever better than Pete Sampras at the two most visible grand slam tournaments.

Even if you #major in #minors, Pete was in more grand slam finals at Wimbledon and US Open combine than Roger (15>14).

And then you have Roger's 10-23 record against his primary rival, which is the worst of any generational champion in tennis history.

No, Roger Federer was never better than Pete Sampras at the US Open and Wimbledon. No, Roger Federer wasn't the most dominant generational champion because he was dominated by his chief rival, Rafael Nadal.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Roger Federer holds the distinction of being the only generational champion in men's tennis history who was dominated by his chief rival.

Pete Sampras wasn't.
Bjorn Borg wasn't.
Rod Laver wasn't.
Bill Tilden wasn't. etc. etc.

Roger Federer was perhaps the most consistent, but never the most dominant generational champion.

The premise of this poll is severely flawed because of Roger Federer's 10-23 record against Rafael Nadal. If Federer couldn't get past Nadal, he shouldn't discussed in the same sentence as Sampras and the word dominance. Add that Federer will likely end his career with a losing record against Novak Djokovic. Both Novak and Rafael defeated Roger in Wimbledon finals, Federer's most won grand slam. Roger could never defeat Rafael in a French Open final, Rafael's most won grand slam.

Federer was never able to master the grand slam events by winning the coveted CYGS, a distinction that only Rod Laver holds both pre and post Open Era. Don Budge pre-Open Era. The CYGS a distinct measure of dominance in grand slam events.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
That's because the true champion is Nadal. but he gets injured and skip slams all the time. If Nadal never skips slams like Federer, he would be the one holding the grand slam record right now.
 

MTF07

Semi-Pro
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer won an identical number of Wimbledon and US Opens. Their weeks at number one are similar. In no way was Roger ever better than Pete Sampras at the two most visible grand slam tournaments.

Even if you #major in #minors, Pete was in more grand slam finals at Wimbledon and US Open combine than Roger (15>14).

And then you have Roger's 10-23 record against his primary rival, which is the worst of any generational champion in tennis history.

No, Roger Federer was never better than Pete Sampras at the US Open and Wimbledon. No, Roger Federer wasn't the most dominant generational champion because he was dominated by his chief rival, Rafael Nadal.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
Well, since you are only using the US Open and Wimbledon to make your argument here, Federer leads Nadal 2-1 in those two grand slams.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer won an identical number of Wimbledon and US Opens. Their weeks at number one are similar. In no way was Roger ever better than Pete Sampras at the two most visible grand slam tournaments.

Even if you #major in #minors, Pete was in more grand slam finals at Wimbledon and US Open combine than Roger (15>14).

And then you have Roger's 10-23 record against his primary rival, which is the worst of any generational champion in tennis history.

No, Roger Federer was never better than Pete Sampras at the US Open and Wimbledon. No, Roger Federer wasn't the most dominant generational champion because he was dominated by his chief rival, Rafael Nadal.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

Literally didn't respond to a thing I said. I'm bowing out of this one because you're

#majoring in #logicalfallacies

and

#nonsequiturs

and


#beingfacetious

and

#postingunintelligiblestuffoninternetforums

and

#trolling



/TFS out!




(Happy Holidays folks :) )
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
I used wins & losses in my argument. My point about the TC top 100 list was to examine how the players discussed were regarded by informed experts given their accomplishments. If you like, you can throw that out and use your own evaluations based on wins & losses. But you're still going to have to use career accomplishments and not unsupported "I feel that this is the case" statements.

It's going to boil down to a logical fallacy: Federer will have had to outclass his contemporaries despite not being much better than they were. If he was significantly better, then he played in a weak era, since each player in that era is to be judged against the top player. If his era was strong, why are so many of his contemporaries' records against him so weak? You can't have it both ways.
how does one player being significantly better than his contemporaries make the era weak?

Then:
- Nadal played against incredibly weak clay competition
- Pete played in an incredibly weak grass-court field

What is perceived as "weak" for Federer looks incredibly strong for the rest of his opponents. How do you reconcile that? you cannot qualify "weak" or "strong" in vacuum for an era; its always in comparison to another era
(comparing Pete's and Fed's era, it's plainly evident that Fed's competitors were more capable than Pete's; despite that, Pete achieved less, which simply means Pete wasn't as capable as Federer).
 
Last edited:

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Roger Federer holds the distinction of being the only generational champion in men's tennis history who was dominated by his chief rival.

Pete Sampras wasn't.
Bjorn Borg wasn't.
Rod Laver wasn't.
Bill Tilden wasn't. etc. etc.

Roger Federer was perhaps the most consistent, but never the most dominant generational champion.

The premise of this poll is severely flawed because of Roger Federer's 10-23 record against Rafael Nadal. If Federer couldn't get past Nadal, he shouldn't discussed in the same sentence as Sampras and the word dominance. Add that Federer will likely end his career with a losing record against Novak Djokovic. Both Novak and Rafael defeated Roger in Wimbledon finals, Federer's most won grand slam. Roger could never defeat Rafael in a French Open final, Rafael's most won grand slam.

Federer was never able to master the grand slam events by winning the coveted CYGS, a distinction that only Rod Laver holds both pre and post Open Era. Don Budge pre-Open Era. The CYGS a distinct measure of dominance in grand slam events.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
who cares? dominance is not measured against Nadal. it's measured against the field. you're full of epic fail..
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
who cares? dominance is not measured against Nadal. it's measured against the field. you're full of epic fail..
Dominance also include having at least a positive H2H against your greatest rival. How can you call someone who loses 75% of the time against his chief rival a dominant champion?
 

Bertie B

Professional
Both are talented players who dreamed of becoming Greatest of all Time. However, I believe Federer approached the game with a love that allowed him to innovate and think outside the box. Sampras was concerned primarily with scoring points and padding his numbers, and he payed dearly for this.

Federer had a better work ethic, with a professional approach to things. Sampras coasted on his serve...his effort at Roland Garros is proof of this. He couldn't win with his game there so he stopped trying, yet he still wanted to be GOAT.

Bottom Line: Pete Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer because he was flat out lazier than Fed.

re: H2H, it should be pointed out that Pete was more than a year YOUNGER than his main rival. Roger is FIVE years OLDER than his main rival. Apples and Oranges. Anyway, this thread isn't about that.

Tangent: It takes two to tango. It could be argued that Agassi robbed Sampras of a greater legacy by not providing consistent opposition. This is in contrast to what Nadal did for Federer.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Dominance also include having at least a positive H2H against your greatest rival. How can you call someone who loses 75% of the time against his chief rival a dominant champion?
So dominating your rival is more important than winning titles?

Nonsense. Especially when not all rivals are created equal...
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
No, you are constructing a straw man and misconstruing what I said. I never said that I personally sit on the correct definitions of words, or that I am representative for a population. That's just straw men from your side.

It is obvious, though, that the meaning of words isn't just trivial and something that is completely up to each person. That would create anarchy, and communication would be impossible. Meaning is created by use and in an interplay between communicators. And the fact is that very few on here would say that the main criterion for dominance in tennis is to dominate one single main rival. In tennis one is rewarded for beating the field on various terms. My point is then that to make an argument from a definition of dominance that very few here really adheres to is a pointless exercise. That would simply result in everyone shouting over each other's heads.

Try to go into a math class and argue that you simply define the numbers differently than others do. I don't think that would get you very far.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Dominance also include having at least a positive H2H against your greatest rival. How can you call someone who loses 75% of the time against his chief rival a dominant champion?
It's easy when he achieves the objective in tennis which is to dominate the field. The fact that his detractors are so desperate that they construct their own measures of accomplishment that are not officially rewarded in tennis, and somehow claim that these fantasy-accomplishments supersede the real ends in tennis.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Dominance also include having at least a positive H2H against your greatest rival. How can you call someone who loses 75% of the time against his chief rival a dominant champion?
that's your manufactured definition of dominance; there are no special considerations or rewards that ATP provides for h2h "dominance". h2h is only important to Fed-hating, Pete-worshipping m0r0ns, as that is the only place they get to parade Pete's "superiority" over Federer, hiding behind flawed analysis (Pete's "chief rival" has 8 slams; Fed's "chief rival" has 14 slams, and counting..), so it's hard to take you seriously.
 
J

John6239

Guest
Sampras was a bit robotic in his shots and relied on his serve. Federer is more fluid and has versatility in his ground strokes more than sampras. Federer looks more at ease while sampras was a bit tight.
 

AngieB

Banned
I've never in the history of tennis heard of a player who had a 10-23 record against any other player EVER described as being dominant. EVER.

This MYTH that Roger Federer has been the most dominant player in men's tennis history is just that...a MYTH.

Couple that with Rogers inability to win the coveted CYGS, tennis' highest feat that proves concentrated dominance in grand slam events.

Yet, some unfortunate individual begins a thread comparing Roger Federer's dominance with Pete Sampras, the man he shares equal amounts of Wimbledon and US Open titles. It's just rubbish. Clearly, there is a good amount of insecurity among Federer's fans which would support a thread of this nature. The type of insecurity that was heaped upon the head of Roger Federer by Rafael Nadal. It's very reminiscent of watching one of the Rafael's vs Roger's matches. You knew what the outcome would be, all you had to do is just wait around for Rafael to dominate Roger's backhand and the match. No difference here.



#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
I've never in the history of tennis heard of a player who had a 10-23 record against any other player EVER described as being dominant. EVER.
So, in other words, you've never heard RF being called dominant. Cool story:lol:

Whatever you're on, I want some of it.

:D
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
how does one player being significantly better than his contemporaries make the era weak?

Then:
- Nadal played against incredibly weak clay competition
- Pete played in an incredibly weak grass-court field

What is perceived as "weak" for Federer looks incredibly strong for the rest of his opponents. How do you reconcile that? you cannot qualify "weak" or "strong" in vacuum for an era; its always in comparison to another era
(comparing Pete's and Fed's era, it's plainly evident that Fed's competitors were more capable than Pete's; despite that, Pete achieved less, which simply means Pete wasn't as capable as Federer).
I agree that Nadal has played in a weak clay era relative to him. He has not had to spend the past 10 years playing against Borg at RG, for example. Since 2010, Djokovic has been nearly equal to Nadal on clay though. Sampras on grass is another story. In 1990, Sampras won the USO, but earlier lost in the first round at Wimbledon, as he also did the year before. In 1991, he lost in the second round, and in 1992 he lost in the semis to Ivanisevic. He lost again, in his prime, in 1996 to Krajicek. He lost 2 more times later on. That's not comparable to the Nadal clay era.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the rest of it. It sounds like a word salad to me. Use real evidence, not crazed statements you pulled out of thin air like "it's plainly evident". That's not an argument.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
Dominance also include having at least a positive H2H against your greatest rival. How can you call someone who loses 75% of the time against his chief rival a dominant champion?
How was Pete dominant by any angle then? Even in his best run of 4 years 1994-97, he won 7/16 slams. He lost 9 slams on the offer. How is that dominant really?

In the open era, neither Borg and Sampras had a Tier I great as rival. They all had tier II greats like Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi for rivals and not somebody as awesome as Nadal. Even against a player half as good as Nadal in Agassi, Pete had an ordinary 20-14 h2h. If Agassi was Tier I great level players, his losses would be halved and wins doubled which makes it 10-28, and that Pete is also having lousy dominance by your criteria. Pete's having 20-14 h2h against Agassi and it looks way better than 10-23 only in part because Tier II <<<< Tier I. So, there is nothing really logical about Pete or Borg not being dominated by their prime rival. So, you can easily see that it was Pete whose competition sucked and not Fed.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
Won't be commenting on Tilden and Laver as I don't know much about them.

#major = slams
#minors = everything else, finals of slams including and all other players too ;)

I've never in the history of tennis heard of a player who had a 10-23 record against any other player EVER described as being dominant. EVER.
And then there are supposed dominant players like Pete/Borg who don't win 1/2 number of slams on offer during their best peak period of 3-4 years. Take Pete, he won only 7/16 slams during 94-97. For Nadal too, the numbers will be 7 at max depending on whether you consider 2008-11 or some other combination. Borg never won AO and USO, so he can be winning a max of 50% slams during his peak period. Fed has 11/16 and among these four, if he is not dominant, a case for any of the other 3 ceases to exist.

The problem is one is not dominant if the win % does not exceed 50%, and we are looking at #majors and not making any lame attempt at #minor.

This MYTH that Roger Federer has been the most dominant player in men's tennis history is just that...a MYTH.
If Fed was not dominant, the case ceases for players like Nadal, Pete and Borg. Thanks to #majors

Couple that with Rogers inability to win the coveted CYGS, tennis' highest feat that proves concentrated dominance in grand slam events.
So neither did Nadal, Pete and Borg. Hence forth, these three names should never be mentioned in GOAT/dominant category.
Yet, some unfortunate individual begins a thread comparing Roger Federer's dominance with Pete Sampras, the man he shares equal amounts of Wimbledon and US Open titles. It's just rubbish. Clearly, there is a good amount of insecurity among Federer's fans which would support a thread of this nature. The type of insecurity that was heaped upon the head of Roger Federer by Rafael Nadal. It's very reminiscent of watching one of the Rafael's vs Roger's matches. You knew what the outcome would be, all you had to do is just wait around for Rafael to dominate Roger's backhand and the match. No difference here.
Yes, there are insecure fans whose existing can't be denied like one who keep the delusion that somehow Nadal, Pete, and Borg are dominant #minors.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer won an identical number of Wimbledon and US Opens. Their weeks at number one are similar. In no way was Roger ever better than Pete Sampras at the two most visible grand slam tournaments.

Even if you #major in #minors, Pete was in more grand slam finals at Wimbledon and US Open combine than Roger (15>14).

And then you have Roger's 10-23 record against his primary rival, which is the worst of any generational champion in tennis history.

No, Roger Federer was never better than Pete Sampras at the US Open and Wimbledon. No, Roger Federer wasn't the most dominant generational champion because he was dominated by his chief rival, Rafael Nadal.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
Federer has 9 Wimbledon finals and 6 US open finals (adding up to 15)
Sampras has 7 Wimbledon finals and 8 US open finals (adding up to 15 as well). :confused:

Not that it matters though. Your whole argumentation makes no sense:oops:
 

AngieB

Banned
Federer has 9 Wimbledon finals and 6 US open finals (adding up to 15)
Sampras has 7 Wimbledon finals and 8 US open finals (adding up to 15 as well). :confused:

Not that it matters though. Your whole argumentation makes no sense:oops:
And Roger Federer is more dominant than Pete Sampras in those events how?


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
 

AngieB

Banned
Dominance also include having at least a positive H2H against your greatest rival. How can you call someone who loses 75% of the time against his chief rival a dominant champion?
The above highlights the illegitimacy of this this thread, created by an individual who doesn't have a responsible or knowledgeable grasp upon tennis history whose only goal is to create division and hostility.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
 
J

John6239

Guest
I've never in the history of tennis heard of a player who had a 10-23 record against any other player EVER described as being dominant. EVER.

This MYTH that Roger Federer has been the most dominant player in men's tennis history is just that...a MYTH.

Couple that with Rogers inability to win the coveted CYGS, tennis' highest feat that proves concentrated dominance in grand slam events.

Yet, some unfortunate individual begins a thread comparing Roger Federer's dominance with Pete Sampras, the man he shares equal amounts of Wimbledon and US Open titles. It's just rubbish. Clearly, there is a good amount of insecurity among Federer's fans which would support a thread of this nature. The type of insecurity that was heaped upon the head of Roger Federer by Rafael Nadal. It's very reminiscent of watching one of the Rafael's vs Roger's matches. You knew what the outcome would be, all you had to do is just wait around for Rafael to dominate Roger's backhand and the match. No difference here.



#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB

Aside from clay the h2h is pretty close. Nadal leads 10-8. Take into account that fed and nadal hardly met in their primes and usually a player federer's age five years ago wouldn't have advanced to sfs and finals to lose against the prime player of the period.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
Federer has 9 Wimbledon finals and 6 US open finals (adding up to 15)
Sampras has 7 Wimbledon finals and 8 US open finals (adding up to 15 as well). :confused:

Not that it matters though. Your whole argumentation makes no sense:oops:
IIRC, by some of her earlier comments, finals in the slams is taking the #minor league and that can't be used legitimately for discussing #majors, see Pete loses that edge in Wimbledon to 2 extra finals which is not meaningful. I didn't really understand how Angie went off lane and entered the #minor lane. The logic was something like this:
  • Fed is not greater than Pete at Wimbledon because #7majors = #7majors
  • Fed is not greater than Pete at USO since #5majors=#5majors.
  • Fed is not dominant than Pete at Wimbledon because 2finals = #2minors
  • #15major finals > #14minor finals. Or Petes #15majorfinals > Feds #15minorfinals

Thats the logic. Don't worry, even I did not get it myself.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer has 9 Wimbledon finals and 6 US open finals (adding up to 15)
Sampras has 7 Wimbledon finals and 8 US open finals (adding up to 15 as well). :confused:

Not that it matters though. Your whole argumentation makes no sense:oops:
It's the typical, card-board-cut-out logic that Sampras is somehow better than Federer at Wimbledon because he didn't make as many finals, and greater than Federer due to making more finals at the US Open. The logic in this only exists in the minds of the haters who try so very hard to cut down Federer's achievements.

In the real scheme of things, players like Laver, Tilden and Rosewall aren't regarded as the "greatest ever" due to their own lack of competition and many circumstantial issues, like equipment, surface and even the fitness of the players.

That is why I laugh when people suggest (or try to, rather) that Rosewall or Laver are greater than the likes of Federer. Overblown usage of "CYGS" ensues every single time someone tries to state the truth and as such it is kept under meager wraps.

All in all, Sampras competed against less than desirable competition (Washington, Pioline and players like Enqvist in GS finals) and he also allowed some of the "less than desirable" competition to capture several Grand Slam trophies/and or become the #1 player in the world (Rafter, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov and Agassi come to mind).

During Federer's reign, only two players have managed to become the #1 player in the world. In Sampras' time, a total of 8 did. There's the contrast in strength.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
In the minor lane, Fed lost each of those finals in 5 setters, one of which (2008) is considered as one of the greatest match in the history, 14 as match of year for many people, and 2009 also in a fairly good match.

Pete's three final loses included a 4-setter to Edberg, and 2 straight sets beating by Safin and Hewitt.

Somehow, if it was Fed who lost the three finals in Pete way, and Pete in Fed way, it would be indicator of how great Pete is.
 

AngieB

Banned
The common cold is viral, so I don't know why you're on antibiotics.
Because it manifested itself into a upper respiratory infection, Dr. Inquisitor. Jesus has already healed me of all viral illness. Praise be and hallelujah!

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
Because it manifested itself into a upper respiratory infection, Dr. Inquisitor. Jesus has already healed me of all viral illness. Praise be and hallelujah!

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
Is Jesus your doctor's name?
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
If Federer did it as Sampras did during the clay season, his H2H against Nadal wouldn't be as bad as it is, because he would hardly be meeting him, similar to how Rafa rarely met Fed on the big stages of tennis on hard court during Fed's prime.

If reaching all Slam finals in a year and winning three of them more than once is not dominance, then no player was ever dominant in the open era.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Both players are similar. They have the same weight, height and built. Grass and hard court are their best surfaces and clay is their worst. Both players serve are about placement and disguise. Both play 1-handed backhand and the forehand is their primary weapon. Both didn't need to exert much extra effort to win points. So what is it that separate them since Federer is more dominant and accomplished more ?
Didn't have you down as a troll but the poll makes me wonder.
 

encylopedia

Semi-Pro
A few reasons.

1. More depth across all surfaces during Pete's day. (Petes early-mid 90s competition was insanely good riddled with great champions and talent)
2. More high risk game which leads a game thats not going to be consistent day in day out
3. Main focus was on the slams an YE#1. Didn't focus as much on the lesser tourneys because he knew where the real resume builders was (Slams and time at #1)
4. Kept most of the main competition at bay so he didn't have to worry about some guy breathing down his neck in the slam count and achievement count (Ala Nadal to Fed). Sampras got the best of his main contemporaries more times than not and stopped Agassi from winning a buttload more Slams at wimbledon, Flushing. Fed has allowed Nadal to win 14 and counting. Agassi would have managed 14 slams or more if not for Pete
5. The importance of certain tourneys have changed.
6. The seeding system at the tournament used to be different so you had tougher draws and more threats littered throughout the tourneys
Good list - as well as other reasons some have pointed out.

The real key is twofold

1.the lack of variety in the game now. Everyone played the same game - their game on every surface - a power baseline game....for a long time Federer was the best at it....when you're the best at it...even by a small margin...you'll win almost all the time. ESPECIALLY when it's a baseline game - a SV game is higher risk for both, and thus, even a relatively inferior SV'er has a chance of blitzing a better baseliner on an off day.....an inferior baseliner may initially start wining....but over the long haul, the better baseliner has plenty of time to find his groove.

Could any informed person not think that a Richard Krajicek or Mark Phillippoussis, or Michael Stich, or Goran Ivansevic, might tag Federer on a hard court/indoors/grasss on any given day? Of course they would....the same day Fed starts a little off, and Nalbandian gets a bit of ahead and in control....before Fed finally finds his groove....well those same days, the guys I mentioned would have blown him right off the court and into the lockeroom.


2.Yes, there was a drought of top competition. Fed got lucky in that sense...the greats of the 90's were dropping off.....HEWITT was the best for goodness sakes (I always said he was an interim champ - and that's no discredit to him - he made the most of what he had). Again, I doubt any informed person would think Fed would have had it quite so easy had say...Marat Safin actually trained as hard as Roddick/Hewitt/Nadal etc. and shown up to play hard every day.....Safin was MEANT to be his main rival. Nor would he have had it so easy if Nadal/Djoko/Murray had come into their prime 5 years earlier..... in those cases...it's quite possible Fed would have ended up with 4 slams, and 5 runner ups......the same would apply if Fed had been facing Sampras/Agassi/Becker/Courier/Lendl/Edberg/Stich/Krajicek etc.

None of those are Fed's fault...he did his job....but that is the real truth of the situation.

And yes...the poll is just silly....a poll isn't very enlightening when the only options are like-minded opinions.....when that's the case, it is just emotional self-gratification for the creator.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
^^ Your list of players for Sampras is misleading. Most of those players didn't peak in the same era. Edberg, Lendl, Courier were virtually done less than halfway into Sampras's prime. Becker was mostly a force indoors.

I could easily list Nadal/Djokovic/Agassi/Hewitt/Murray/Roddick/Safin/Del Potro and so on.

And :lol: @ Federer getting 4 slams if Nadal and co were the same age as him. He's 5 since 2008 anyway...
 
Last edited:

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Good list - as well as other reasons some have pointed out.

The real key is twofold

1.the lack of variety in the game now. Everyone played the same game - their game on every surface - a power baseline game....for a long time Federer was the best at it....when you're the best at it...even by a small margin...you'll win almost all the time. ESPECIALLY when it's a baseline game - a SV game is higher risk for both, and thus, even a relatively inferior SV'er has a chance of blitzing a better baseliner on an off day.....an inferior baseliner may initially start wining....but over the long haul, the better baseliner has plenty of time to find his groove.

Could any informed person not think that a Richard Krajicek or Mark Phillippoussis, or Michael Stich, or Goran Ivansevic, might tag Federer on a hard court/indoors/grasss on any given day? Of course they would....the same day Fed starts a little off, and Nalbandian gets a bit of ahead and in control....before Fed finally finds his groove....well those same days, the guys I mentioned would have blown him right off the court and into the lockeroom.


2.Yes, there was a drought of top competition. Fed got lucky in that sense...the greats of the 90's were dropping off.....HEWITT was the best for goodness sakes (I always said he was an interim champ - and that's no discredit to him - he made the most of what he had). Again, I doubt any informed person would think Fed would have had it quite so easy had say...Marat Safin actually trained as hard as Roddick/Hewitt/Nadal etc. and shown up to play hard every day.....Safin was MEANT to be his main rival. Nor would he have had it so easy if Nadal/Djoko/Murray had come into their prime 5 years earlier..... in those cases...it's quite possible Fed would have ended up with 4 slams, and 5 runner ups......the same would apply if Fed had been facing Sampras/Agassi/Becker/Courier/Lendl/Edberg/Stich/Krajicek etc.

None of those are Fed's fault...he did his job....but that is the real truth of the situation.

And yes...the poll is just silly....a poll isn't very enlightening when the only options are like-minded opinions.....when that's the case, it is just emotional self-gratification for the creator.
Your post doesn't help Sampras' case at all (seeing as he was dominated by a teenage "interim champ" and a man who never trained, according to you).
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
^^ Your list of players for Sampras is misleading. Most of those players didn't peak in the same era. Edberg, Lendl, Courier were virtually done less than halfway into Sampras's prime. Becker was mostly a force indoors.

I could easily list Nadal/Djokovic/Agassi/Hewitt/Murray/Roddick/Safin/Del Potro and so on.

And :lol: @ Federer getting 4 slams if Nadal and co were the same age as him. He's 5 since 2008 anyway...
The weak era BS been rinsed, repeated and thrown around about a million times and it still doesn't make sense.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Any rational person would look past personal bias and see that all the players you listed who "might 'tag' Federer" on their good day as being worse than Hewitt/Roddick/Safin and that the truth of the matter is that Sampras mainly had to play against weak era "greats" like Pioline and Rafter.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The weak era BS been rinsed, repeated and thrown around about a million times and it still doesn't make sense.
It's complete bollocks coming from the Pete t-a-r-d-s.

They talk as if in Pete's prime years of 93-99/00 he had to deal with Edberg and Lendl and Becker in their primes :lol: They were nearly all done by 94 or earlier. Yet Federer didn't compete and win slams against the likes of Djokovic and Nadal?

Even Courier only had on year ranked inside the top 20 after 1993. Agassi spent years ranked outside the top 10 in the 90's as well. But you'll never see them get into the details, they'll just prattle off a list of names without actually examining the part they played in Pete's era.

Similar to how we'll see victories over Muster, Courier etc...on clay when they ranked outside the top 50 paraded around as evidence of great abilities on clay. But when Federer beats Agassi in much later rounds a still top 10 caliber player its dismissed.
 
Last edited:

Prabhanjan

Professional
Looking at Fed's 8-0 straight wins against Agassi, his dismantling of big servers during 2004-7, his handling of Nole during 2011, I don't believe any of Pete's so called tough competition in Krajicek/Phillippoussis/Stich/Ivansevic/Agassi/Becker/Courier/Lendl/Edberg would have troubled Fed much. Instead of 11 he would be having 10 slams at worst, and if Nadal is replaced by Sampras clay field, he has 12 slams, easily. Before you want to tear apart my hypothesis, look at their slam count during 94-97:
Krajicek - 1
Phillippoussis - 0
Stich - 0
Ivansevic - 0
Agassi - 2
Becker - 1
Courier - 0
Lendl - 0
Edberg - 0
 
Top