Federer vs Sampras..

[vijay]

Greatest player of all time :Pete Sampras.

My Favourite player was Boris Becker also my mom's favourite. As a kid the first time I watched him live was in the Wimbledon final.

Curren had knocked out Connors and McEnroe and many oldies weren't bothered about watching un unseeded German facing a jouneyman.

Getting back to the topic..I hate that fecker Sampras but he is the greatest of all time.

I haven't seen Laver play..

Basically I would say Samparas and Laver are the greatest ever.

In terms of dominating Grand Slams on all surfaces its a toss up between Connors and Agassi and Connors edges Andre out..(I am sure some clueless fecker would try to contradict the argument about Connors)

Federer came to top when Tennis was purely bullshite the likes of Moya, Enquist, Gustavo Kuerten, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin and many other part timers fighting for the number one slot along with a dogshite like Roddick and he made a meal out of them

Had Federer played along with the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander, Ivanesevic etc he wouldn't have won more than three or four grandslams.

Even an aged Sampras showed he was a match to Federer and a spent force like Agassi was returning Federer's server like playing in a practice match when they met few years back in the US open finals.

Dont think Federer could've stood a chance against them had he faced them in their pomp.

As for Nadal...Thomas Muster and Bruguera were as good if not better than him on clay.

 

[vijay]

/Also the argument that Federer has the best all round game is bollocks. If he has a better all round game, then he should have come closer to beating Nadal on clay (Federer's weakness) than losing to Nadal on grass (Federer's strength). But Nadal took the Wimbledon final to 5 sets last time while superiority on clay is only getting better.

Federer has a game similar to Borg and Lendl.. Great groundstrokes and a strong server but not better than those two.

Feck the stats or the grand slam counts. They are all relative to the competition and the competitors.

 

[Merman]

Greatest player of all time :Pete Sampras.

My Favourite player was Boris Becker also my mom's favourite. As a kid the first time I watched him live was in Wimbledon final.

Curren had knocked out Connors and McEnroe and many oldies weren't bothered about watching un unseeded German facing a jouneyman.

Getting back to the topic..I hate that fecker Sampras but he is the greatest of all time.

I haven't seen Laver play..

Basically I would say Samparas and Laver are the greatest ever.

In terms of dominating Grand Slams on all surfaces its a toss up between Connors and Agassi and Connors edges Andre out..(I am sure some clueless fecker would try to contracdict the argument)

Federer came to top when Tennis was purely bullshite the likes of Moya, Enquist, Gustavo Kuerten, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin and many other part timers fighting for the number one slot along with a dogshite like Roddick and he made a meal out of them

Had Federer played along with the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander, Ivanesevic etc he would'nt won more than three or four grandslams.

Even an aged Sampras showed he was a match to Federer and an spent force like Agassi was returning Federer's server like playing in a practice match when they met few years back in the US open finals.

Dont think Federer could've stood a chance against them he he faced them in their pomp.

As for Nadal...Thomas Muster and Bruguera were as good if not better than him on clay.

spot on with the Federer and Nadal points. In my opinion, Rod Laver, Pete Sampras and Borg are the greatest ever. McEnroe would've been there, if not for the injuries

 

[vijay]

spot on with the Federer and Nadal points. In my opinion, Rod Laver, Pete Sampras and Borg are the greatest ever. McEnroe would've been there, if not for the injuries

McEnroe's case was nothing to do with injuires. He married Tatum O' Neal (ex Hollywood slut) and took a break from tennis for eight months.

When he returned with players like Lendl, Becker, Wilander and Edberg the draw proved too much for him.

But McEnroe has beaten all those players at least once after his comeback but he was in the receiving end most of the time.

 

[vijay]

Bjord was/is regarded as the best player ever.

Never won the US or Australian open..(Only played latter once, was not prestigious back then)

Was the only player ever to do the double(win French and Wimbledon back to back), three times in a row.

Another look at stats tells us he has the best win percentage in grandslams, both tournament and matches wise.

And to top it off he had some of the best players ever to compete against: Mcenroe, Connors, Evrert, Villas.

Connors had an affair with Evert...Dont think Borg had anything to do with her. As for that Argentine starting with "V", he was another flawed talent, a player who never reached his potential coz of temperament issues like Nastase, Ivanesevic or Noah.

 

[VP]

Greatest player of all time :Pete Sampras.

My Favourite player was Boris Becker also my mom's favourite. As a kid the first time I watched him live was in the Wimbledon final.

Curren had knocked out Connors and McEnroe and many oldies weren't bothered about watching un unseeded German facing a jouneyman.

Getting back to the topic..I hate that fecker Sampras but he is the greatest of all time.

I haven't seen Laver play..

Basically I would say Samparas and Laver are the greatest ever.

In terms of dominating Grand Slams on all surfaces its a toss up between Connors and Agassi and Connors edges Andre out..(I am sure some clueless fecker would try to contradict the argument about Connors)

Federer came to top when Tennis was purely bullshite the likes of Moya, Enquist, Gustavo Kuerten, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin and many other part timers fighting for the number one slot along with a dogshite like Roddick and he made a meal out of them

Had Federer played along with the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander, Ivanesevic etc he would'nt won more than three or four grandslams.

Even an aged Sampras showed he was a match to Federer and a spent force like Agassi was returning Federer's server like playing in a practice match when they met few years back in the US open finals.

Dont think Federer could've stood a chance against them had he faced them in their pomp.

As for Nadal...Thomas Muster and Bruguera were as good if not better than him on clay.

Bizarre post.

Had United played against the Liverpool of the '80s, Brazil 1970, Sacchi's Milan we wouldn't have won the European Cup last year.

The spent force Agassi returned Federer serve but still got hammered by Federer.

Muster better than Nadal? Nadal's won 4 in a row if you hadn't noticed.

I'd say Borg's the greatest. Still think Federer is better than Sampras.

 

[vijay]

Bizarre post.

Had United played against the Liverpool of the '80s, Brazil 1970, Sacchi's Milan we wouldn't have won the European Cup last year.

Its loonier to equate team sport with individual ones. United would've beaten Liverpool but the latter two teams you talk are the greatest teams of all time in international and club football. No team would've stood a chance against them apart from Holland 74 and Brazil 82.

The spent force Agassi returned Federer serve but still got hammered by Federer.

In a four set match which involved three close sets, you call that a hammering.

Muster better than Nadal? Nadal's won 4 in a row if you hadn't noticed.

Some how I missed that point. But a baseliner like Nadal wouldn't about dreamt about reaching Wimbledon semifinals had he played along with powerful serve and volleyers forget about winning it and also an introvert like Kuerten winning the French open multiple times - it speaks a lot about the competition. Schumacher has won more than Senna, Prost and Fangio. Does that mean he is the greatest of all time?

Oh...its internet...

I'd say Borg's the greatest. Still think Federer is better than Sampras.

Borg is definitely one of the greatest. Federer would be better than Sampras in pie eating or hub cup stealing not in tennis mind.

 

[Alex]

It's Murray for me

 

[VP]

Its loonier to equate team sport with individual ones. United would've beaten Liverpool but the latter two teams you talk are the greatest teams of all time in international and club football. No team would've stood a chance against them apart from Holland 74 and Brazil 82.

We'd give Milan a game, but that's a diferent thread. You said, 'Had Federer played along with the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander, Ivanesevic etc he would'nt won more than three or four grandslams.' Nobody in that group would've won more than 3 grand slams if they were playing together. It'd be good fun to watch though.

In a four set match with involved three close sets, you call that a hammering.

A convincing victory when Agassi was hardly a spent force and playing some of the best tennis of his life.

Some how I missed that point. But a baseliner like Nadal wouldn't of dreamt about reaching Wimbledon semifinals had he played along with powerful serve and volleyers forget about winning it. Schumacher has won more than Senna, Prost and Fangio. Does that mean he is the greatest of all time?

Dont know much about F1, we can talk about that in the entertainment forum if you want. But you said Muster was a better claycourter than Nadal and that's clearly bollocks.

 

[vijay]

We'd give Milan a game, but that's a diferent thread. You said, 'Had Federer played along with the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander, Ivanesevic etc he would'nt won more than three or four grandslams.' Nobody in that group would've won more than 3 grand slams if they were playing together. It'd be good fun to watch though.

They all played together. Come again.

Connors and McEnroe were still top players when Becker and Edberg won two grand slams each and Lendl and Wilander four each.

Lendl, Becker, Wilander and Edberg were rivals....

Those three were tussling ove the Number one spot when Agassi, Chang, Ivanesevic and Sampras broke in the picture 89' and 90 followed by Courier..Lendl was the first to go out, followed by Edberg and finally Becker after a brief rivalary with those two he bowed out.

The draw also had the likes of Forget, Holm and Bruguera and many other players capable of knocking any one out probably the names you wont find on search engines...

A convincing victory when Agassi was hardly a spent force and playing some of the best tennis of his life.

Agassi was a spent force more worse than Fat Ronaldo of today living in a borrowed time. If any one say Agassi played some best tennis of his life after 2000, it says how much they know about tennis.

Dont know much about F1, we can talk about that in the entertainment forum if you want. But you said Muster was a better claycourter than Nadal and that's clearly bollocks.

Just try out in youtube and google about Muster.period!

 

[Alex]

They all played together. Come again.

Connors and McEnroe were still top players when Becker and Edberg won two grand slams each and Lendl and Wilander four each.

Lendl, Becker, Wilander and Edberg were rivals....

Those three were tussling ove the Number one spot when Agassi, Chang, Ivanesevic and Sampras broke in the picture 89' and 90 followed by Courier..Lendl was the first to go out, followed by Edberg and finally Becker after a brief rivalary with those two he bowed out.

The draw also had the likes of Forget, Holm and Bruguera and many other players capable of knocking any one out probably the names you wont find on search engines...




Agassi was a spent force more worse than Fat Ronaldo of today living in a borrowed time. If any one say Agassi played the best tennis of his life after 2000, it says how much they know about tennis.



Just try out in youtube and google about Muster.period!

Well said, he was long past his prime, sadly he wasnt focused on tennis for a decent slice of it

 

[vijay]

Well said, he was long past his prime, sadly he wasnt focused on tennis for a decent slice of it

Agassi played some best tennis of his life when he was banging Brooke shields.

 

[vijay]

My List of greatest players...Its all opinonated though

1) Rod Laver/PeteSampras
2) Roy Emerson
3) Borg
4) McEnroe/ (Lendl also a close call)
5) Federer

Ability wise I don't think Federer would've dominated against the likes of Agassi, Becker, Ivanesevic, Wilander, Edberg and others when they were in thier prime. But he gets the nod for his sheer consistency...It takes a lot of doing to win shitloads of grandslams at a relatively young age although both the competition and competitors are crap.

 

[Alex]

My List of greatest players...Its all opinonated though

1) Rod Laver/PeteSampras
2) Roy Emerson
3) Borg
4) McEnroe/ (Lendl also a close call)
5) Federer

Ability wise I don't think Federer would've dominated against the likes of Agassi, Becker, Ivanesevic, Wilander, Edberg and others when they were in thier prime. But he gets the nod for his sheer consistency...It takes a lot of doing to win shitloads of grandslams at a relatively young age although both the competition and competitors are crap.

Agassi would be on that list, if he would have focused on tennis. Come on Federer is better than McEnroe, the man says it himself.

On a side not Johhny Mac got kicked out of a masters tournament on Thursday for arguing with the ref

 

[Alex]

You gotta love the man, top class cameos in Curb and Mr Deeds

 

[Alex]

I think Federer is underrated because he was so dominate for a stretch, every other player had little hope of winning, and often they didnt, he made the competition look like shit, though they werent he has peaked but still has some left in the tank imo

 

[Instant Karma]

Federer is a flat track bully. Once there is good competition, his game starts to disintegrate. He hardly has the fighting qualities that great champions of the past have had. He has just been lucky to collect his grand slam titles in 4 years when the competition was mediocre.

 

[Merman]

Federer is a flat track bully. Once there is good competition, his game starts to disintegrate. He hardly has the fighting qualities that great champions of the past have had. He has just been lucky to collect his grand slam titles in 4 years when the competition was mediocre.

Well said

 

[Merman]

Agassi would be on that list, if he would have focused on tennis. Come on Federer is better than McEnroe, the man says it himself.

On a side not Johhny Mac got kicked out of a masters tournament on Thursday for arguing with the ref

Get some vids of McEnroe. There is no way Agassi or Federer are better than him.

 

[KingEric7]

The game has evolved immeasurably at a much faster rate than sports such as football, for example. You simply need to look at the incredible change in groundstroke technique between eras to understand this point.

Hypothetically, if you put Federer or Nadal up against some of the greats of the 70s and 80s in their prime, the truth is that there would be no competition whatsoever.

Instead, you have to consider how good the players were proportionally to their era. This makes this discussion pointless due to its impossibility.

 

[Instant Karma]

Hypothetically, if you put Federer or Nadal up against some of the greats of the 70s and 80s in their prime, the truth is that there would be no competition whatsoever

If they played with wooden racquets, the 70s/80s players would more than match Nadal or Federer. Even the lower priced racquets available today are probably far superior to the best ones from a couple of decades ago.

 

[vijay]

The game has evolved immeasurably at a much faster rate than sports such as football, for example. You simply need to look at the incredible change in groundstroke technique between eras to understand this point.

Groundstroke technique? Agassi's groundstrokes were much powerful than Nadal albeit he didn't have that mobility. He had more speed than Nadal prior to 92 but he gained weight and sacrificed speed for power. Ironically from then on he was able win over powerful serve and volleyers consistently and was able to shine outside the clay courts.

Also the speed of the courts including Wimdbledon and the US open has been slowed down considerably and the Roland Garros much more faster. ITF was looking to standardize the courts and it triggered the downfall in quality...Dont think Nadal would've even reached the quarters of the wimbledon had he played in the late 80's or early 90's and Federer wouldn't have dreamt of getting any decent run in the Australian and French opens forget about winning it or reaching the finals.

Hypothetically, if you put Federer or Nadal up against some of the greats of the 70s and 80s in their prime, the truth is that there would be no competition whatsoever.

Instead, you have to consider how good the players were proportionally to their era. This makes this discussion pointless due to its impossibility.

One factor is the quality of coaching in the name of professionalism has gone more gimpish. I had chance to Boris Becker in a Tennis camp few years back and he said Deutscher Tennis Bund would take xrays of players wrists when they are 12 or 13 which determines their height and decide whether to train them as baseliners or Serve and volleyers.

Now a days many morons in the name of coaches (failed tennis players) charge on an hourly basis once you move up in the professional circle and they wanna develop a player as an allrounder - the onus is on winning more than enjoying the sport or naturally expressing yourself and the dip in quality is apparent. Not every player has that allround capablity of Borg, Lendl or Federer..Strong serve, powerful groundstrokes and decent net play to have an all court game.

In 80's and 90's if the courts are slow naturally the baseliners would call the shots, and serve and volleyers winning in the fast courts and if any individual breaks during that period his class gets understated. These days we find loads of players cropping up and going down without consistency or class. Only the really good ones are able to sustain it at the top.

Both Federer and Nadal would've been good players whichever era they would've played but they wouldn't be winning grandslams or occupied the number one spot for fun as its happening now.

 

[Spoony]

If they played with wooden racquets, the 70s/80s players would more than match Nadal or Federer. Even the lower priced racquets available today are probably far superior to the best ones from a couple of decades ago.

Racquets changed the game. Which is why it's so difficult to compare eras. I'd say Boris Becker was the prototype modern tennis player. First one I can recall with a bullet-like serve. McEnroe's got a few mentions on here, he was probably the best around when I started watching tennis, and I'd say he played his best stuff with the wooden racquets, like many others, his game wasn't about power, which is the reason why he suffered after the change. The old racquets required more skill, mainly because they were smaller. The game back then, wasn't all about big booming serves and the power game, but it clearly is now.