Why Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer ?

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


  • Total voters
    102

AngieB

Banned
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
"To be the best, you have to beat the best"

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/10901358/andre-agassi-said-rafael-nadal-greatest-tennis-player-ever-not-roger-federer

Andre Agassi tabs Nadal No. 1

SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer.

Forget Roger versus Rafa, how about Andre Agassi against Pete Sampras. Who was the better player of his era? Story

Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher competition.

Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 13, although the Spaniard leads his Swiss rival 23-10 in head-to-head meetings.

Agassi is quoted as saying that "I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2," adding that "it's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."

"Nadal had to deal with Federer, [Novak] Djokovic, [Andy] Murray in the golden age of tennis," said Agassi.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
"To be the best, you have to beat the best"

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/10901358/andre-agassi-said-rafael-nadal-greatest-tennis-player-ever-not-roger-federer

Andre Agassi tabs Nadal No. 1

SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer.

Forget Roger versus Rafa, how about Andre Agassi against Pete Sampras. Who was the better player of his era? Story

Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher competition.

Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 13, although the Spaniard leads his Swiss rival 23-10 in head-to-head meetings.

Agassi is quoted as saying that "I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2," adding that "it's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."

"Nadal had to deal with Federer, [Novak] Djokovic, [Andy] Murray in the golden age of tennis," said Agassi.
Ok, so Nadal is greater than Fed.. doesn't make a case for Sampras. Can the fed-hating ninc0mp00ps make a coherent argument for once?
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
If you beat the best, how come the later was best?

Do I have a problem if any of Nadal/Fed/Sampras is rated best/goat/dinosaur, etc. Absolutely NO.

SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer.
What about the majors? I mean those 3 extra slams should still prevent you, AngieB, to overrule Agassi opinion :twisted:
Forget Roger versus Rafa, how about Andre Agassi against Pete Sampras. Who was the better player of his era? Story
Agassi is Tier II and not Tier I like Nadal. Even in any case of Nadal beating 23-10, how does that make a 3 slam less holder, read #major, more dominant?

Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher competition.
Do you then accept Agassi's comments rating Fed over Sampras in 2004/5 when he was nearly 10 slams lesser than Pete that Fed was better than Pete:confused: because you seem to buy Agassi's opinion though Nadal has 3 less majors than Fed?
Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 13, although the Spaniard leads his Swiss rival 23-10 in head-to-head meetings.
When did the h2h became a #major criteria? If you breath by majors, you should also analyze by them, isn't it?
Agassi is quoted as saying that "I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2," adding that "it's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."
Thats a good opinion really, and I don't have a problem in accepting Agassi's opinion. Where is AngieB's?

You know that Agassi always had a great sense of humor. He still jokes that Fed is in prime :twisted: like how all of those Krajicek/Phillippoussis/Stich/Ivansevic/Agassi/Becker/Courier/Lendl/Edberg were in prime during 94-97 despite many of them winning zilch slams. Astounding logic there
"Nadal had to deal with Federer, [Novak] Djokovic, [Andy] Murray in the golden age of tennis," said Agassi.
Its truly a golden age :)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Phillippoussis never won a slam either and peaked at 2003 Wimbledon, so technically he was moreso competition in finals for Federer.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Didn't have you down as a troll but the poll makes me wonder.
It's crystal clear that Federer is more dominant than Sampras, except a few Fed-haters keep spewing nonsense. The topic is to access the reasons why Federer was more dominant than Sampras, who has the same physical built as Federer. I'm not saying that you have to fully agree with all 8 options from the poll that differentiate these two great players, but at least some are downright obvious, while the others are to a certain extend. Some say "more talented" is the obvious reason, while some say "more vesatile". Anyone in their right mind would pick at least a few options that separate these two players except the Fed haters.
 
Last edited:

AngieB

Banned
Prabhanjan
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 138

Your prose looks familiar to me. Do you participate in this forum under another name?


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
"To be the best, you have to beat the best"

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/10901358/andre-agassi-said-rafael-nadal-greatest-tennis-player-ever-not-roger-federer

Andre Agassi tabs Nadal No. 1

SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer.

Forget Roger versus Rafa, how about Andre Agassi against Pete Sampras. Who was the better player of his era? Story

Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher competition.

Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 13, although the Spaniard leads his Swiss rival 23-10 in head-to-head meetings.

Agassi is quoted as saying that "I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2," adding that "it's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."

"Nadal had to deal with Federer, [Novak] Djokovic, [Andy] Murray in the golden age of tennis," said Agassi.

You're off topic, as usual. Anyway, between Sampras/Federer, Agassi have stated that Federer is better than Sampras years ago.

"Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played."

"Pete Sampras was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger," Agassi said.
Federer the best ever, says Agassi




This thread is about DOMINANT so let's get back to the topic. Sampras clearly stated that Federer is not only more dominant than him, but the most dominant player that he has ever seen.

Pete Sampras: Roger was a very tough match for me. He moved great. When I played him, I knew he was special. I would do my best to impose my will...but he does everything great. There's not many holes in his game. He moves great, he serves well. He's the most dominant player I think I've ever seen. I was certainly the player of my time, but I wasn't as dominant as Roger I stopped at 31...he's 33...he almost became No 1 again. The hardest thing to do in sports is to get to No. 1 and stay at No. 1 and he has done it better than anybody else.
 

mccarthy

Banned
Phillippoussis never won a slam either and peaked at 2003 Wimbledon, so technically he was moreso competition in finals for Federer.
Philippoussis isn't good enough to qualify as real competition anyway, so it doesn't really matter which era he is for. I mean you have said Krajicek wasn't real competition (I guess having a winning lifetime head to head vs Sampras isn't enough to qualify as tough competition in your view, lol), and Krajicek is without question a much better player than Philippoussis.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K214&oId=P338
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The poll was created to create divisiveness and its "multiple choice" option proves just that.
You don't have to choose all options but a few that you believe have impacted the major difference in their career achievements.

Please vote.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
^lol, don't expect any nuanced exchanges with her. You make a ton of salient points and she accuses you of being a banned user. Typical.

Just a steady diet of hash tags and immature comments.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
1. Federer is a superior clay court player as he's from Switzerland where they all play on clay courts.
Yes and no. It helped him be prepared to play on clay - footwork/sliding and strategy. But he still didn't have a great BH until he got to the pros and Nalbandian made the (in)famous "beat Federer? It's easy. Hit to his BH". Fed then put the work in and the rest was history.

2. Sampras happened before Federer. I highly doubt Federer would have 17 GS titles today if Pete didn't win 14. Pete showed that 14 and beyond was possible.
Then you added this and went downhill fast. Why? It's not like Bannister beating the 4 minute mile (people actually thought the heart and lungs couldn't stand up). It's just a number. If Emmerson's 12 was the standard, there's no reason to think Fed wouldn't have 17 today - and still be competing. He loves the game (and gets paid pretty well to hang around).
 

encylopedia

Semi-Pro
^^ 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.
First, you misunderstand - that was NOT a list of "players for Sampras". That was a list of greats who competed in eras of where more than one great was present. Any combination of them would have been tough competition for Fed, of course there are dozens more from all eras, but I only listed a few form more recent eras. If you prefer, for the sake of Clarity, add Connors, Mcenroe, Borg, Newk, etc

Note however, that Courier was only "done" in terms of his tennis (and I believe that largely attributable to Sampras), but not in terms of age. And if you say "Becker was mostly a force indoors", you reveal yourself to be lacking in knowledge of the era. Many experts would disagree with you and have explicitly stated differently in public including people like: Flink, Bolletierri, Tiriac, Collins, and none other than Sampras.

I could easily list Nadal/Djokovic/Agassi/Hewitt/Murray/Roddick/Safin/Del Potro and so on.
Again, you misunderstood the nature of the list.

And :lol: @ Federer getting 4 slams if Nadal and co were the same age as him. He's 5 since 2008 anyway...
First, I said it's conceivable, and I certainly believe it is, in fact, 0 is conceivable. Please put aside any fanboy bias you may have and realize that history would play out quite differently. Federer has not done particularly well against those players and this is WITH the confidence that should be there with so many wins under his belt. Had they all flowered simultaneously, I believe Fed's pysche would be damaged considerably (to what degree nobody can say), and the truth is, that was always his weakest area. In fact, when he first played the juniors, many of us, myself included, would refer to him as a "baby Sampras", but for many, this faded in his first years on the tour, when it became apparent that he had psychological weaknesses. It was questionable whether he would EVER win a slam. To his great credit, he overcame that (though the lack of competition at his talent level aided greatly) - however, in an era where he would have taken beatdowns from Nadal/Djoko/Murray in those earlier years, he may well have become a total basket case. I think this VERY possible. Now it's also possible that it could have played out in some other way, but I stand by my assertion that ONLY 4, is very possible - as I said, 0 is conceivable. I think anyone who saw him play the juniors and transition to the pros would know that to be true - it was openly wondered even among people who knew him well.

But you can certainly continue to just "LOL" all you wish. That is your opinion, I have mine, others can decide what they think, and judge who is more informed and reasoned.
 

encylopedia

Semi-Pro
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).

First, I'm not here to "help" Sampras. I'm not a fanboy. Second, he indeed was (though he also had revenge matches on both).

It is clear to me from the nature of your postings that you're very emotional about the issue, but I doubt very much that anybody with a modicum of objectivity would consider Sampras to have been at his peak. In fact - in both finals of the USO, he looked considerably worse than he did in the earlier rounds - in Hewitts case, it was even quantifiable in terms of serve statistics - probably due to Sampras verified health issue.

In any case, you are only agreeing with my statement that Hewitt was indeed an interim champion - glad we are on the same page. There is no way that Hewitt would win consistently against Sampras (OR Fed...there...feel better?) when they were at their best. As to Safin, again, he was a mental midget - everyone knows that. As I said, he should have been Fed's true era rival, and would have been a potent challenger for any of the greats had he even an average amount of heart.
 

encylopedia

Semi-Pro
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.
It's complete bollocks coming from the Pete t-a-r-d-s.
.
Ah....ridiculous. I'm sorry I took the time to reply to both of you above. Sorry guys, I'm not 12-15 years old, and I am not in love with any of these players. I'm not interested in fanboy name-calling.....or ridiculous statements ie. any rational person would see that Krajicek/Stich are worse than Roddick/Hewitt...... absurd of course. Even sillier: those players DID tag Federer on occasion, even with all the limitation of both the era, and those particular players - which I already elaborated on.

Again, however, these posts are revealing of your mentalities, and I don't consider "discussion" with you a good use of my time. Sorry. I wish you both well - you may someday reconsider your words.
 
J

John6239

Guest
"To be the best, you have to beat the best"

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/10901358/andre-agassi-said-rafael-nadal-greatest-tennis-player-ever-not-roger-federer

Andre Agassi tabs Nadal No. 1

SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer.

Forget Roger versus Rafa, how about Andre Agassi against Pete Sampras. Who was the better player of his era? Story

Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher competition.

Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 13, although the Spaniard leads his Swiss rival 23-10 in head-to-head meetings.

Agassi is quoted as saying that "I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2," adding that "it's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."

"Nadal had to deal with Federer, [Novak] Djokovic, [Andy] Murray in the golden age of tennis," said Agassi.

i don't see how anyone let alone Agassi can say nadal is the goat when he has won 5 slams outside of clay. Nadal is no doubt the clay goat but Federer completely dominated the two other surfaces with 7 and 9 slams on grass and hardcourt. As unfortunate as Federer was having to play during the clay goat era, he still won the french open (having lost 4 finals to the clay goat) and won 6 clay masters including two final wins against nadal. If it hadn't been for nadal fed would have won at least 7 more masters on clay and 4 french opens. All but two of nadal's harcourt and grass slams came against players not named Federer.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Ah....ridiculous. I'm sorry I took the time to reply to both of you above. Sorry guys, I'm not 12-15 years old, and I am not in love with any of these players. I'm not interested in fanboy name-calling.....or ridiculous statements ie. any rational person would see that Krajicek/Stich are worse than Roddick/Hewitt...... absurd of course. Even sillier: those players DID tag Federer on occasion, even with all the limitation of both the era, and those particular players - which I already elaborated on.

Again, however, these posts are revealing of your mentalities, and I don't consider "discussion" with you a good use of my time. Sorry. I wish you both well - you may someday reconsider your words.
I find your first post appalling to say the least. All would/have beat Krajicek, Stich and all the other players you mentioned as "tough".

It seems as though your rationale didn't stop you from implying Phillippoussis, Rafter and the like are better than Hewitt/Roddick (which is actually pretty "silly"). And now you go back on your word? How quaint.

Hewitt's H2H with Phillippoussis is 3-1. Hewitt's H2H with Rafter is also 3-1. Roddick's H2H with Hewitt is/was 7-7 and you're saying they would put up more of a fight/take more wins off Federer?

Did you even watch Federer take apart peak Phillippoussis on grass before his own peak?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
First, I'm not here to "help" Sampras. I'm not a fanboy. Second, he indeed was (though he also had revenge matches on both).

It is clear to me from the nature of your postings that you're very emotional about the issue, but I doubt very much that anybody with a modicum of objectivity would consider Sampras to have been at his peak. In fact - in both finals of the USO, he looked considerably worse than he did in the earlier rounds - in Hewitts case, it was even quantifiable in terms of serve statistics - probably due to Sampras verified health issue.

In any case, you are only agreeing with my statement that Hewitt was indeed an interim champion - glad we are on the same page. There is no way that Hewitt would win consistently against Sampras (OR Fed...there...feel better?) when they were at their best. As to Safin, again, he was a mental midget - everyone knows that. As I said, he should have been Fed's true era rival, and would have been a potent challenger for any of the greats had he even an average amount of heart.
Hewitt wasn't an "interim champ" (I was taking the p1ss because that statement is so vague, yet so "silly"). I'd say Pete was quite lucky not to face Hewitt during his peak. His matches against Hewitt while he was still in his prime and Hewitt was a 17-18 year old prove this. Even at Queens in '99 Hewitt was a few points away from beating Sampras on grass and you expect me, or anybody else to believe your drivel?

Of course he conveniently looked worse to you - perhaps Hewitt was just playing that much better than Safin, Rafter and Agassi? But that isn't an option to someone as unobjective as you.

"Health issues" being tossed around as excuses now? Were his "health issues" ailing him in '99 or '00 when Hewitt was a few points away from beating Sampras on one of his favorite surfaces, or in '00 when he straight setted Sampras on grass and bageled him indoors? What are your excuses for those ones?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
First, you misunderstand - that was NOT a list of "players for Sampras". That was a list of greats who competed in eras of where more than one great was present. Any combination of them would have been tough competition for Fed, of course there are dozens more from all eras, but I only listed a few form more recent eras. If you prefer, for the sake of Clarity, add Connors, Mcenroe, Borg, Newk, etc

Note however, that Courier was only "done" in terms of his tennis (and I believe that largely attributable to Sampras), but not in terms of age. And if you say "Becker was mostly a force indoors", you reveal yourself to be lacking in knowledge of the era. Many experts would disagree with you and have explicitly stated differently in public including people like: Flink, Bolletierri, Tiriac, Collins, and none other than Sampras.



Again, you misunderstood the nature of the list.



First, I said it's conceivable, and I certainly believe it is, in fact, 0 is conceivable. Please put aside any fanboy bias you may have and realize that history would play out quite differently. Federer has not done particularly well against those players and this is WITH the confidence that should be there with so many wins under his belt. Had they all flowered simultaneously, I believe Fed's pysche would be damaged considerably (to what degree nobody can say), and the truth is, that was always his weakest area. In fact, when he first played the juniors, many of us, myself included, would refer to him as a "baby Sampras", but for many, this faded in his first years on the tour, when it became apparent that he had psychological weaknesses. It was questionable whether he would EVER win a slam. To his great credit, he overcame that (though the lack of competition at his talent level aided greatly) - however, in an era where he would have taken beatdowns from Nadal/Djoko/Murray in those earlier years, he may well have become a total basket case. I think this VERY possible. Now it's also possible that it could have played out in some other way, but I stand by my assertion that ONLY 4, is very possible - as I said, 0 is conceivable. I think anyone who saw him play the juniors and transition to the pros would know that to be true - it was openly wondered even among people who knew him well.

But you can certainly continue to just "LOL" all you wish. That is your opinion, I have mine, others can decide what they think, and judge who is more informed and reasoned.
Hewitt and Safin beat Federer around for much of his earlier career, and he didn't end up as a "basket case". Keep trying to defend your absurd, biased "theory" (if it can even be called that), NadalAgassi.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NatF

Bionic Poster
First, you misunderstand - that was NOT a list of "players for Sampras". That was a list of greats who competed in eras of where more than one great was present. Any combination of them would have been tough competition for Fed, of course there are dozens more from all eras, but I only listed a few form more recent eras. If you prefer, for the sake of Clarity, add Connors, Mcenroe, Borg, Newk, etc

Note however, that Courier was only "done" in terms of his tennis (and I believe that largely attributable to Sampras), but not in terms of age. And if you say "Becker was mostly a force indoors", you reveal yourself to be lacking in knowledge of the era. Many experts would disagree with you and have explicitly stated differently in public including people like: Flink, Bolletierri, Tiriac, Collins, and none other than Sampras.
Define any combination, because Federer has faced many combinations of great players during his slam winning years of 03-12.

For the sake of discussion which combination of great players did Sampras coexist with prime for prime? Not Becker, not Edberg, barely Courier. There's only Agassi really and his level of play fluctuated wildy in the 90's.

Do I really lack knowledge? Since 93 when Sampras began his domination Becker only had roughly 9 top 10 wins outside of indoor conditions in 4 years. He had losing records against the top 10 every year IIRC up until the indoor season where he'd get loads. Not to mention his win loss record never went above 75% in any year from 93-96.

So yes, aside from some deep runs at Wimbledon Becker was largely an indoors guy in the mid 90's. Even at Wimbledon his level was clearly below his best years there.

Again, you misunderstood the nature of the list.
If you didn't want me to misunderstand you shouldn't have included only players Pete competed against. I mean really Stich/Krajicek? Good players when they were hot but hardly consistent world beaters.

The list tells us relatively little in any case, yes in some era's you had several greats playing at once at near their best. But not since the late 80's has that been the case really. It certainly wasn't that way for Sampras.


First, I said it's conceivable, and I certainly believe it is, in fact, 0 is conceivable. Please put aside any fanboy bias you may have and realize that history would play out quite differently. Federer has not done particularly well against those players and this is WITH the confidence that should be there with so many wins under his belt. Had they all flowered simultaneously, I believe Fed's pysche would be damaged considerably (to what degree nobody can say), and the truth is, that was always his weakest area. In fact, when he first played the juniors, many of us, myself included, would refer to him as a "baby Sampras", but for many, this faded in his first years on the tour, when it became apparent that he had psychological weaknesses. It was questionable whether he would EVER win a slam. To his great credit, he overcame that (though the lack of competition at his talent level aided greatly) - however, in an era where he would have taken beatdowns from Nadal/Djoko/Murray in those earlier years, he may well have become a total basket case. I think this VERY possible. Now it's also possible that it could have played out in some other way, but I stand by my assertion that ONLY 4, is very possible - as I said, 0 is conceivable. I think anyone who saw him play the juniors and transition to the pros would know that to be true - it was openly wondered even among people who knew him well.
Why do you keep mentioning Murray, the guy needed Federer to be 31 years old before he could best him in a slam. Murray is no better than Hewitt.

Speaking of Hewitt, he and Nalbandian owned Federer in his early career. He overcame his demons and bested them. Your view that Federer would be scarred mentally is not based in reality. Being the chaser rather than the chased and having to develop his game in response to likely already developed rivals would probably help him.

These hypotheticals are nonsense. It's also conceivable Federer develops into his peak level just fine. Who's to say Nadal and Djokovic would even be as good as they are now without Federer raising the bar? Perhaps meeting Nadal less on clay at first would boost the emerging Federer's confidence, especially when Nadal might not be so well versed on the plays and tactics to use.

Instead of writing crap about how many slams Federer wouldn't win if he was 5 years younger. Maybe you should stick to talking about what great competition Sampras faced.

But you can certainly continue to just "LOL" all you wish. That is your opinion, I have mine, others can decide what they think, and judge who is more informed and reasoned.
No doubt certain members of this forum will side with you, but no one sane would think Federer is a 0-4 slam caliber player in a different era.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Why do you keep mentioning Murray, the guy needed Federer to be 31 years old before he could best him in a slam. Murray is no better than Hewitt.
.
Don't tell me this guy is another one who puts Hewitt and Ferrer in the same bracket. :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Ah....ridiculous. I'm sorry I took the time to reply to both of you above. Sorry guys, I'm not 12-15 years old, and I am not in love with any of these players. I'm not interested in fanboy name-calling.....or ridiculous statements ie. any rational person would see that Krajicek/Stich are worse than Roddick/Hewitt...... absurd of course. Even sillier: those players DID tag Federer on occasion, even with all the limitation of both the era, and those particular players - which I already elaborated on.

Again, however, these posts are revealing of your mentalities, and I don't consider "discussion" with you a good use of my time. Sorry. I wish you both well - you may someday reconsider your words.
All you posted were names without context and hypotheticals.

I can only reply politely to that rehashed drivel so many times in one week.

If you feel like actually discussing the era's that actually happened and not some fantasy where Federer wins only 4 slams then be my guest. Otherwise you're inadvertently saving me the hassle.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
^lol, don't expect any nuanced exchanges with her. You make a ton of salient points and she accuses you of being a banned user. Typical.

Just a steady diet of hash tags and immature comments.
So very true. Even the previous one, she only reads Agassi and brings all about how Nadal is better than Fed while ignoring the entire post. To each their own one :D
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It's mind-boggling that there are posters still insist that Sampras is greater than Federer, let alone more dominant. There's no debate, no doubt, because it's a given that Federer > Sampras. You can't change/twist FACT.

The question is what Federer has in him that Sampras don't(or lacking) made him a more dominant tennis player. I'm convinced that everyone has an answer, but a few don't want to admit(give in) simply because they don't like Federer.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
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 ?
Poly strings have a far great tendency to hit topspin balls. Because of this, players can dictate rallies with a power and authority that they never could in the past, and with a greater margin for error. This is why the variation in playing styles is a lot less today, and why play predominates so much around the baseline. It's silly when some people describe tennis today, with more power than ever, as "slow".

It's also easier to master all aspects of tennis today than it was in the 1990s, due to the fact that baseline play predominates across the board, and the only serious variations are to do with things like focusing on the importance of serve, greater patience, standing closer to the baseline etc. It's no longer a case of dealing with a baseline grinder in one match, and then a constant serve and volleyer in the next match. With poly strings, you can pass the serve and volley players at will, with a big margin for error.
 
Why SAMPRAS was not as dominant as Federer ?

Threads started by TFM:

- "WHY Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer."

- "WHY Federer is better than Sampras."

- "If Sampras had Nole rather than Agassi."

- "Federer and Sampras performance/results at the masters series."

- "Nadal vs. Sampras who's the greater player."

- "Agassi picked Federer over Sampras."

- "Is Sampras closer to Federer than Lendl is to Borg?"

- "Is Agassi closer to Sampras than Nadal to Federer?"



Sampras-obsessed much?

Pete Sampras retired from tennis over a decade ago.

And here you are, starting yet another of your 'Sampras as 2nd fiddle' threads.


Clearly you're struggling with homo-erotic feelings for Pete but even still, such an obsession after a decade later is not only getting fanboy/troll stale, it's getting creepy. Look TFM, the guy's long since retired and besides, he's happily married. So why don't you leave him alone, get on with your own life and maybe find a man of your own? Seriously, why are you still obsessed with a long-sinced-retired (and happily married) man?

__________________
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Poly strings have a far great tendency to hit topspin balls. Because of this, players can dictate rallies with a power and authority that they never could in the past, and with a greater margin for error. This is why the variation in playing styles is a lot less today, and why play predominates so much around the baseline. It's silly when some people describe tennis today, with more power than ever, as "slow".

It's also easier to master all aspects of tennis today than it was in the 1990s, due to the fact that baseline play predominates across the board, and the only serious variations are to do with things like focusing on the importance of serve, greater patience, standing closer to the baseline etc. It's no longer a case of dealing with a baseline grinder in one match, and then a constant serve and volleyer in the next match. With poly strings, you can pass the serve and volley players at will, with a big margin for error.
But all players in any era access to the same equipment, it's not like one has the advanced tennis racket/string over his peers. You can't judge which era is more tougher based on technology. Today's players hit more power/pace than the past generations, except that the courts are now sandy and slow which compensate the power/pace. Volley, and net-rush is rare because the ball bounce high, which makes it harder than in the 90s which the conditions are tailored-made for serve/volley. If you watch Dubai or Basel(although not fast compare to the 90s but considered fast relative to this era), there's more attacking tennis, offensive-minded and more winners.

Easier to master today than in the 90s is pure subjective. Even if one can prove that an era is harder to master than the other doesn't equate to more difficult to dominate. I can argue that Roddick had it tougher than Sampras. I mean Sampras rely the most is the serve, but so do Roddick. The big difference is Sampras played in the environment that aided his serve but unfortunately for Roddick, the slow courts is to his disadvantage.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
another option: sampras's had way hotter gf/wife so was always more distracted than fed.
To be honest, Federer was more distracted than Sampras during their tennis career. Federer spent time/effort in his Roger Federer Foundation. Besides having family, he also played charity matches to raises money for the needy children in Swiss and Africa. Plus with all the endorsement, Federer had to invest time in commercials and other public appearance. I would say Roger is one of the busiest tennis player, if not the most.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
But all players in any era access to the same equipment, it's not like one has the advanced tennis racket/string over his peers.
That's certainly true. The point I was making, however, is that in the 1990s, mastering all aspects of tennis in order to dominate, was harder than what it is today. This was the case because of the different strings, and that this in turn meant more variations in playing styles back then. Sampras was an aggressive, attacking player, who took risks. On clay, that sort of an approach was more of a disadvantage, and other players were better at the grinding, more patient, style of tennis.

In today's tennis, it's all from the baseline for the most part. The variation on different surfaces is based on things like standing closer to the baseline on grass, putting more emphasis on your serve on hardcourt/grass, while being more patient and more of a grinder on clay. In the 1990s, there were a lot of variations in playing styles on top of this, precisely because gut strings meant more flatter balls being hit during rallies, and thus a greater chance of unforced errors being made, meaning variation in style.

The improved string technology today has meant that tennis' variation in styles has gone well down, meaning it's easier to dominate tennis by mastering the baseline game. I think this era is tailor made for a young Muster, without so many net rushers.

You can't judge which era is more tougher based on technology. Today's players hit more power/pace than the past generations, except that the courts are now sandy and slow which compensate the power/pace.
There's no carpet courts today, as they were fazed out slowly over a decade from 1997 onwards. But contrary to a lot of people's beliefs, the different string technology, is a far greater factor in tennis play predominating around the baseline today than any surface speed. Poly strings have a far greater tendency towards topspin balls, meaning more margin for error during rallies, while having greater power. As a result, players are forced back to the baseline, and play predominates in the back court.

If you watch tennis in the 1990s, it clearly has less power, but the gut strings have a far greater tendency towards flatter balls, meaning less margin for error during rallies. This means, compared to today, that the chances of making unforced errors by rallying from the baseline were much higher. It was also harder to dictate during rallies with the necessary power and authority. Therefore, there is greater variation in playing styles in the 1990s. Therefore, tennis was a harder sport to master so completely in the 1990s.

Volley, and net-rush is rare because the ball bounce high, which makes it harder than in the 90s which the conditions are tailored-made for serve/volley. If you watch Dubai or Basel(although not fast compare to the 90s but considered fast relative to this era), there's more attacking tennis, offensive-minded and more winners.
What's clear about a tournament like Dubai, like in 1997 when Muster won the title, is that the players are hitting flatter shots during the rallies than what they do today, because of the gut strings that were used back then. The amount of power is greater in today's game, however, despite all the topspin on the balls.

Easier to master today than in the 90s is pure subjective. Even if one can prove that an era is harder to master than the other doesn't equate to more difficult to dominate. I can argue that Roddick had it tougher than Sampras. I mean Sampras rely the most is the serve, but so do Roddick. The big difference is Sampras played in the environment that aided his serve but unfortunately for Roddick, the slow courts is to his disadvantage.
Surely you agree that the 1990s saw the greatest variation in playing styles in tennis? As a result, it was extremely hard to master all those different styles and dominate the tennis world. Sampras was the most successful player of the 1990s, yet he seldom made a big ripple in the clay-court scene, apart from his 1994 Italian Open triumph with Vitas Gerulaitis temporarily coaching him.

What was bad about tennis in the 1990s from a business standpoint, is that all this variation didn't always make for very prominent long-lasting rivalries, that could be constantly marketed, like Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl-Becker-Edberg-Wilander sort of rivalries, or like Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray today. In the 1990s, there were also no compulsory tournaments, unlike today. This is why I think the business brains in tennis like today's era more, because it's made prominent rivalries. Whether it's better for tennis as a sport, is another matter.
 
Last edited:

Bud

Bionic Poster
Missing option: Federer's competition was not as strong as Sampras'.
Sampras was relatively more dominant in his era than Freddy was in his era, probably because he was able to own his greatest rival at slams while Rafa owned Fed at slams.
A number of reasons, many which were not even included on the poll:

1. Sampras had much tougher competition across various surfaces.

2. Sampras's game was higher risk, and was thus prone to more off days and upset losses than Federer's more conservative playing style.

3. Sampras was atleast the equal of Federer on medium to fast surfaces, but significantly weaker on slower surfaces.
So dominant his main rival has managed 14 slams.. and counting:shock:
Sampras had tougher competition
+ he could not be a winning machine all year long since his stamina was greatly affected by a genetic disease
All missing poll options :p
 
To be honest, Federer was more distracted than Sampras during their tennis career. Federer spent time/effort in his Roger Federer Foundation. Besides having family, he also played charity matches to raises money for the needy children in Swiss and Africa. Plus with all the endorsement, Federer had to invest time in commercials and other public appearance. I would say Roger is one of the busiest tennis player, if not the most.
you know why sampras didn't do these things? too busy spending time with his wife / gf. :)
 
What was bad about tennis in the 1990s from a business standpoint, is that all this variation didn't always make for very prominent long-lasting rivalries, that could be constantly marketed, like Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl-Becker-Edberg-Wilander sort of rivalries, or like Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray today. In the 1990s, there were also no compulsory tournaments, unlike today. This is why I think the business brains in tennis like today's era more, because it's made prominent rivalries. Whether it's better for tennis as a sport, is another matter.
well if you are to believe some posters here, Federer vs Nadal is S&V vs baseliner contest.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Well tennis has changed a lot since those days. So many players broke through very early and kind of left the secne early, not all but many did. Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Wilander and others didn't necessarily retire at a very early age, but stopped winning at an age where today they would be considered young players.

In Sampras' case for whatever reason, the consistency I think is the main difference along with motivation and perhaps too many build up of cumulative injuries who knows.

So, from winning his first title in February 1990 against Andres Gomez in Philadelphia to end 1997 when he won the ATP (World Tour final) against Kafelnikov he won a total of 52 tournaments. Then for the remainder of his career he wins only 12 tournaments, and bear in mind 9 of those tournaments came in 1998 and 1999.

So had Sampras remained consistent then clearly he would have continued to post higher numbers in the end. It should aslo be said that throughout the 1990s and up to 2000 he was often quoted as saying he wants to play until the age of 35. Like Borg, Wilander and others, something went wrong somehere.

I've also seen Sampras play a couple of times since retirement and I can also tell his fitness and motivation is not quite there. I can tell by his movement and subsequently his timing.

It could be that for someone like Sampras who was so focused for a period of time, may have literally gone from one extreme to another.
 
Top