Saw the discussion on other threads and had a interesting argument with a friend of mine regarding it as well, so here is my go...
I have to say people are being too OTT with Federer.
I read a comment in the French open thread with how competition right now is tougher than it was for Sampras and Fed has just made them look shit. That's not true at all.
I personally ain't a bid fan of Sampras, infact I hate him considering I have been a fan of Agassi since 91. Stupidly, while playing hand tennis with my cousin, I asked him who the no.1 player was he said Aggasi and then I watched him win Wimbledon and started supporting him. Alas, he had a very bad spell after that but I enjoyed him watching during his end of the career with those grandslam wins and re-igniting rivalry with Sampras. Ahem enough of Agassi fan boy talk.
Sampras definitely played in a more competitive era. Let's see other than emergence of Nadal in last couple of years, Fed's closest rival was Roddick, who really isn't that good at all, a poor man's Goran. Then there is Hewitt, who is really a very poor poor man's Agassi. Someone like Safin have not lived up to their potential at all. Don't think it's down to Fed making them look poorer than they are, the level around him just isn't that good.
While Sampras dealt with much harder players. He had to deal with Becker, Edberg, Agassi and Courier early on in his career.While the likes of Martin, Ivanisevic were always around and players like Rafter had couple of really good spells. Frankly, don't really remember all the names now but generally I followed Tennis a lot during 99-05 and men's singles were a lot more competitive then.
Then the Fed vs Nadal thing. Firstly, Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. At the moment Fed is better but it doesn't shows much. They are 8-4 on head to head with 2-2 on hard courts.
People talk about the 10 grandslam wins of Federer, bit ease of those 10 wins I think is testimony both to his greatness and lack of competitiveness. If Federer runs out with 20 slams or so, he would regarded as one of the greats but people will always point out he never had a great rival. There I think, emergence of Nadal might actually him achieve that status. If their rivalry continues and possibly he may not win as much grandslams he would have in absence of someone like Nadal but he IMO would truly attain the greatest status when he overcomes a couple of rivals like Nadal.
I have to say people are being too OTT with Federer.
I read a comment in the French open thread with how competition right now is tougher than it was for Sampras and Fed has just made them look shit. That's not true at all.
I personally ain't a bid fan of Sampras, infact I hate him considering I have been a fan of Agassi since 91. Stupidly, while playing hand tennis with my cousin, I asked him who the no.1 player was he said Aggasi and then I watched him win Wimbledon and started supporting him. Alas, he had a very bad spell after that but I enjoyed him watching during his end of the career with those grandslam wins and re-igniting rivalry with Sampras. Ahem enough of Agassi fan boy talk.
Sampras definitely played in a more competitive era. Let's see other than emergence of Nadal in last couple of years, Fed's closest rival was Roddick, who really isn't that good at all, a poor man's Goran. Then there is Hewitt, who is really a very poor poor man's Agassi. Someone like Safin have not lived up to their potential at all. Don't think it's down to Fed making them look poorer than they are, the level around him just isn't that good.
While Sampras dealt with much harder players. He had to deal with Becker, Edberg, Agassi and Courier early on in his career.While the likes of Martin, Ivanisevic were always around and players like Rafter had couple of really good spells. Frankly, don't really remember all the names now but generally I followed Tennis a lot during 99-05 and men's singles were a lot more competitive then.
Then the Fed vs Nadal thing. Firstly, Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. At the moment Fed is better but it doesn't shows much. They are 8-4 on head to head with 2-2 on hard courts.
People talk about the 10 grandslam wins of Federer, bit ease of those 10 wins I think is testimony both to his greatness and lack of competitiveness. If Federer runs out with 20 slams or so, he would regarded as one of the greats but people will always point out he never had a great rival. There I think, emergence of Nadal might actually him achieve that status. If their rivalry continues and possibly he may not win as much grandslams he would have in absence of someone like Nadal but he IMO would truly attain the greatest status when he overcomes a couple of rivals like Nadal.
Well she's still doing alright at doubles.