I too see Sampras as better than Federer at this point but dont think the quality of his rivals comes into it... for numerous reasons.
Wimbledon
- Thread starter KeyserSoze
- Start date
Hewitt has beaten Sampras 5 times. Roddick has beaten him twice. People tend to overrate past players. The level of men's tennis hasn't fallen at all. Federer has made some of these players look mediocre.
I'm trying to picture Rafter giving Federer competition. He just keeps getting passed.
I've been watching tennis for about twenty years, and I come from a tennis-following family, so I've watched an awful lot of tennis, both on tv/video/dvd and live. But don't take my word for it. Have a look at what all the experts say, almost to a man they will all admit the standard is higher than it ever. But yeah, you're probably right, after all these people only made their careers from the game.
Sampras is the better player in my opinion as well. Although Federer has shown he's a fecking great player and even convinced me that he's much better than I gave him credit for... he's played really well today (yes he made unforced errors, but you expect that, there's only one player at this moment who could lash out on forehands 5-6 times close to the corners/lines without making many errors: nadal himself. Even Federer will make mistakes when he is pushed like this by Nadal.), best I've seen him play against him even though he lost.
Yeah, but probably not as much as Roddick or Hewitt.
Seriously, you are so far up roger's arse but it's almost impossible to make any relevant points across to you.
Nah apparently Sampras was unbeatably throughout his career. Apart from being ripped apart for few good years by the likes of Hewwit, Roddick and even Safin. Ripped apart is a tad strong but i remember him being hopeless against this 'mediocrecy' for a good while. This apart from him being rubbish on clay.
Fact is, everyone has a fall in form. Federer's hasnt fallen like Sampras' did just yet. Hes had more success faster and hes been better on more surfaces. Hes also beaten him in the one proper match they played. Which while was when Sampras wasnt young, was also when Federer was nowhere near the great player he eventually became.
Also, Federer would have won a good few French open titles he played during Sampras' era. Something people forget. So that makes up for titles he MAY have lost on other surfaces.
Enjoy your imaginary match ups in which no doubt Federer will 'miraculously' always come out on top in straight sets 6-0 6-0, but let's face reality first and see if Federer, after losing two slam finals (one on 'his' surface) to the same kid and lose a semi against another kid, can turn this around as easily as you imagine.
Their emergence coincides with the decline of sampras, young kids on the block beating waning old stars, not exactly hard to imagine.
Sampras from 1995-1997 would have taken roddick and hewitt to the cleaners.
Hes one of the best ever. Possibly he could become the best. What of this do you disagree with? If believing that is being biased then most unspastic tennis followers are. But then again i dont think you do.Yeah, but probably not as much as Roddick or Hewitt.
Seriously, you are so far up roger's arse but it's almost impossible to make any relevant points across to you.
Why? How are those two so much worse than Rafter. I was a fan but he was the type of player for whome winning one grandslam was a big achievement. Hewwit put up some fine performances against Sampras if i remember correctly. Most of these players have looked so mediocre because Federer put them in their place. Sampras could have too but didnt.
Sampras lost on 'his' surface to Federer the 'kid' a few years ago.
Is Federer beating Rafter convincingly again and again (never mentioned 6-0) a miraculous achievement. Rafter wouldnt think so. Noone would. Rafter was in the bracket of a lot of players Federer has made look average. And i liked the guy!
I don't deny Federer will be one of the greats. No question about that. But you are just putting him on some god-like pedestral when he will beat any player that we named or mentioned. That is biased.
Hewitt gave sampras some good matches when hewitt was at his peak or close to his peak at that time. Don't forget sampras was already waning then.
Did federer make them looked mediocre, or does hewitt and roddick both have a "mental block" and therefore "not at their best" when playing federer?
Federer was a kid, Sampras was SERIOUSLY over the hill (although he pulled out a miracle us open win 2 yrs later, hardly winning a tournament inbetween). It went 5 sets.
Nothing can be concluded from that.
Err...that's what Federer does as well.
I don't understand Sampras had to play harder players argument. People suggest that the quality of men's players have fallen over the space of 5-10 years. But that just doesn't happen. Men's tennis on the whole has improved I'd say. Shots are hit faster and harder, players have become more fit etc.
And why has this debate become vicious with all this fanboy nonsense... I've even forgotten what we're arguing about
Sampras lost to federer and never got to another wimbledon final? Maybe this will happen to federer too?
You really ought to stop being so idiosyncratic in your replies. No one is saying rafter is going to stuff federer, and it doesn't helps when you keep watching your imaginary federer thrashing rafter match in your head. Wake up, how the hell do you know how pat fecking rafter thinks?
I wouldn't take to much from that match where Federer beat Sampras, I mean in the round previous didn't Sampras have to go 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan?! That should tell you how well Sampras was playing at that championship.
Not really. Its just that Rafter really wouldnt have competed with Federer. Others may have but your ignoring that Federer would have won French open titles during Sampras' time. None of you pick up on that which ironically looks like bias.
If Hewwit and Roddick were as rubbish as all of you claim they had no business passing a man as invincible as Sampras (as a lot of again claim) with such ease, even if he wasnt at his prime. It was embarassing at times. Infact his game should be less affected by age considering his serve did so much for him.
This is getting tiring. Yes i think its a blow to his legacy, but like Sampras mentioned sometime back, Federer was bound to fall sometime. I hope he recovers and doesnt just go down as one of the greats but as the very best.
It's subjective. Some feel the competition is mediocre the past few years because federer basically strolled through the grand slams and twatted either roddick or hewitt in the final to get a grand slam win. As compared to sampras, who basically fought real hard to beat becker, agassi in GS finals. Some probably will argue that's because Federer is too good.
The thing is, we will remembered the grand slam finals pete won because they are classics 5 setters, whereas Federer just get his routine straight sets wins, which leads to most people suggesting the field is weaker now.
How old was he? Its not as if Federer was at his best either. He was seriously not close to the player he is today.
I dont. He just wouldnt trouble Federer much at all IMO. If you think he would then good for you.
As for this god like status. Hes actually earned it by being incredible. Obviously noones invincible and thats been proven this year.
Fair enough.
So question, how many French open titles would Roger have won if he had played in Sampras' era people?
Well, that's your opinion, and like what they said, everybody has one.. etc..
Yes, it's high time someone knocked federer off his "pedestral" then.
Nah i preferred he just sat there. Hope he gets back up there quickly.
It's a subjective question. He probably would have won, but nobody knows for sure. Don't state it as fact when it is only your opinion.
His talents did explode a bit in that match though, and was the first small step to knowing how good he actually was... without having learnt to play at that level consistently yet.
As said, there are too many factors (sampras was 29 turning 30, and no, history hasn't shown in tennis that 27-29 are your prime years.. in any case, he was so clearly not playing at his old level and losing so much that ''over the hill'' was the correct term to use): how far was sampras off to his best? how well did federer play to his strengths in that one-off match? etc etc. It'd be a battle of "oh federer was so much off his best back then" vs "oh sampras was so fecking over the hill back then".
As it is, they just missed eachother, so we'll never truly know.
Well, that's what you preferred, but we all don't always get what we want, do we? Stop being a child, if he did gets back, then well done to him, but it's not going to be easy.
Just to put his record into context for those who didn't see him/can't remember, Sampras won 14 grand slams. & Wimbledon titles, 5 US Opens, and two Australian Opens. Impressive to say the least. However as regards the alleged relative weakness of the competition, I honestly don't feel those players were really all that much better than what Federer has had to face, but each to their own.
1990-US Open bt Agassi.
- 1993-Wimbledon bt Courier
- 1993-US bt Pioline.
- 1994-Aussie Open bt Todd Martin
- 1994-Wimbledon bt Ivanisevic
- 1995-Wimbledon bt Becker
- 1995-US bt Agassi
- 1996-US bt Michael Chang
- 1997-Aussie bt Moya
- 1997-Wimbledon bt Pioline
- 1998-Wimbledon bt Ivanisevic
- 1999-Wimbledon bt Agassi
- 2000-Wimbledon bt Rafter
- 2002-US bt Agassi
and federer didn't even go on to win wimbledon that year after beating sampras.
Talk about a game raiser eh?
Nobody knows anything for sure. Nobody knows for sure if Sampras would beaten Hewwit at his prime regularly but in all probably he would have.
What did i state as fact? Its kinda unimportant to put 'IMO' if thats what your hinting at.
Sampras only lost 4 grand slams finals, correct me if I am wrong, I believe today the first time federer lost in a grand slam final?
Depends whether you choose to dismiss the specialists back then (there were alot more of them, claycourt specialists, grasscourt specialists). Muster had Nadal-esque unbeaten runs (40+ in one season if I remember correctly) for example, there were Bruguera, Rios (won hell of alot of super nine tournaments on clay, but bottled it on the big ones.. still more dangerous than meeting a Robredo or whatever onto your path to the final), Albert Costa, Corretja, etc etc... far more great claycourters (lots of spaniards) who used the top spin style as well, though not as good as Nadal. Muster, Costa, Bruguera, Corretja, Moya,so many fecking spaniards running eachother close for the french.. each won one, with muster and bruguera winning 2 I believe?
Competitive on clay as hell.
You just don't know.
Rafter, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Moya, Michael Chang, Todd Martin. Clearly, Sampras always played the very best. (runs!)
Nah he's lost in 4 I believe now... 3 at the french and today.
Im looking forward to the next French open. Nadal has broken Federers winning streak on grass just like Federer did to Nadal on clay (80 odd games). Federer will want to beat him on his own surface even more now. Its up to him to close the gap.
Yeah, but it's hardcourt next. Federer will definitely go win all guns blazing for the US Open, so we would have to wait for next year's claycourt season.
But realisticly, it looks a tall order, the French Final was a demolition job. 6 fecking 0 in the 3rd set....
Go on then. Name the player Federer has faced before Novak and Nadal that are better than Becker, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Edberg, Rafter. Goran is easily better than Roddick, so was Rafter. Courier was better than Hewitt let alone Agassi comparisons.
I mean my incapability to pull myself away from rubbish arguments.
Nah, forget it. Federer is going to trounce those u mentioned 6-0, 6-0 in his imaginary match ups.
I really don't like to to make such argument, but one has to be blind to reckon the level of competition right now is same as in Sampras era. Bar a few Federer fans boy here I have never heard or read someone else make such a claim.