Federer vs Sampras count updated.... - Page 3 - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 36 (permalink) Old 06-18-2009, 06:38 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Mechlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,153
                     
Re: Federer vs Sampras count updated....

Interesting to read this thread three years later. A lot of the comparisons made about Sampras vs Federer level of competition can now be seen in a different light. Federer really stepped it up in the past couple of years and a lot of his peers really fell off. Nadal is the lone exception, and of course Djokovic has come on strong by winning a slam and performing solidly in several others. Murray has just started to make his breakthrough, the next year could be really good for him if he continues to progress, but he's clearly already taken that step from promising talent to legitimate top player.

A lot of the younger competition Federer was supposed to have in Ancic, Gasquet, Berdych etc. really fell through. Baghdatis has been sidelined with injuries. Nalbandian showed glimpses of genius as Fit Dave but has disappointed at the slams by and large. Safin never pulled it together. And Hewitt, great as he used to be, is clearly on the downslope of his career.

In comparison, Sampras' competition seems a definite step better to me. Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Rafter etc. are all multiple-slam finalists who seem to have the mentality that a lot of today's top talent lack. Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt are all multiple slam finalists as well, but aside from Roddick and Hewitt, none of them have really been able to consistently back it up.

It should be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of years. I feel there was a dearth of talent late in Pete's era (though there was a lot early in his career) and I feel the opposite for Federer. Roger didn't have much competition early on, but there are a lot of young guys who are looking very strong and the next couple of years could be really interesting if they have what it takes mentally to fight for slams.
Mechlan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 36 (permalink) Old 06-18-2009, 07:03 AM
Registered User
 
wackykid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Age: 39
Posts: 531
                     
Re: Federer vs Sampras count updated....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechlan View Post
In comparison, Sampras' competition seems a definite step better to me. Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Rafter etc. are all multiple-slam finalists who seem to have the mentality that a lot of today's top talent lack. Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt are all multiple slam finalists as well, but aside from Roddick and Hewitt, none of them have really been able to consistently back it up.
i don't agree with chang and rafter being consistent... they are not at all consistent... i see them on par with roddick... safin... ferrero... and hewitt i put them on par (or slightly lower) with becker/courier by having ranked no.1 more times but lacking in slams...

also becker and courier are on beginning of declining stage when sampras enters his prime stage... only agassi is worthy to be sampras main rival as to federer-nadal...


regards,
wacky

Last edited by wackykid; 06-18-2009 at 07:08 AM.
wackykid is offline  
post #33 of 36 (permalink) Old 06-18-2009, 11:30 AM
Registered User
 
rofe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,789
                     
Re: Federer vs Sampras count updated....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechlan View Post
Interesting to read this thread three years later. A lot of the comparisons made about Sampras vs Federer level of competition can now be seen in a different light. Federer really stepped it up in the past couple of years and a lot of his peers really fell off. Nadal is the lone exception, and of course Djokovic has come on strong by winning a slam and performing solidly in several others. Murray has just started to make his breakthrough, the next year could be really good for him if he continues to progress, but he's clearly already taken that step from promising talent to legitimate top player.

A lot of the younger competition Federer was supposed to have in Ancic, Gasquet, Berdych etc. really fell through. Baghdatis has been sidelined with injuries. Nalbandian showed glimpses of genius as Fit Dave but has disappointed at the slams by and large. Safin never pulled it together. And Hewitt, great as he used to be, is clearly on the downslope of his career.

In comparison, Sampras' competition seems a definite step better to me. Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Rafter etc. are all multiple-slam finalists who seem to have the mentality that a lot of today's top talent lack. Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt are all multiple slam finalists as well, but aside from Roddick and Hewitt, none of them have really been able to consistently back it up.

It should be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of years. I feel there was a dearth of talent late in Pete's era (though there was a lot early in his career) and I feel the opposite for Federer. Roger didn't have much competition early on, but there are a lot of young guys who are looking very strong and the next couple of years could be really interesting if they have what it takes mentally to fight for slams.
I completely disagree with this statement. He had a lot of competition. Around 2003 I think, Nalby owned him, Hewitt owned him, Agassi owned him in the h2h. I think Nalby was 5-0, Hewitt was 7-2 and Agassi was 5-0. In fact, he was not even supposed to win Wimbly 2003. Ironically, Wimbly 2003 was supposed to be the place to crown Roddick as the next superstar.

He simply raised the bar and overcame all those negative h2h to become the player he is now. People take a look at his h2h with the current crop of players and think that he had no competition when he started winning GSs but don't realize that it is really hard to do that against the next breed of players because it is not that fair physically or mentally.

People on MTF snicker about Fed respecting Roddick even after the skewed h2h between them but Fed put a lot of hard work to deal with Roddick's serve, his flat and powerful forehand and confidence back then. To a certain extent, Fed actually softened Roddick up for players like Nadal and Murray who seem to have had no problems dispatching Roddick.

Fed put in a lot of work on the mental and physical side and it finally paid off in 2003 and started his era of dominance. It was not because competition suddenly got weak, he simply got way ahead of the competition.

Need ideas for a new signature...
rofe is offline  
post #34 of 36 (permalink) Old 06-19-2009, 02:22 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Mechlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,153
                     
Re: Federer vs Sampras count updated....

Quote:
Originally Posted by rofe View Post
I completely disagree with this statement. He had a lot of competition. Around 2003 I think, Nalby owned him, Hewitt owned him, Agassi owned him in the h2h. I think Nalby was 5-0, Hewitt was 7-2 and Agassi was 5-0. In fact, he was not even supposed to win Wimbly 2003. Ironically, Wimbly 2003 was supposed to be the place to crown Roddick as the next superstar.

He simply raised the bar and overcame all those negative h2h to become the player he is now. People take a look at his h2h with the current crop of players and think that he had no competition when he started winning GSs but don't realize that it is really hard to do that against the next breed of players because it is not that fair physically or mentally.

People on MTF snicker about Fed respecting Roddick even after the skewed h2h between them but Fed put a lot of hard work to deal with Roddick's serve, his flat and powerful forehand and confidence back then. To a certain extent, Fed actually softened Roddick up for players like Nadal and Murray who seem to have had no problems dispatching Roddick.

Fed put in a lot of work on the mental and physical side and it finally paid off in 2003 and started his era of dominance. It was not because competition suddenly got weak, he simply got way ahead of the competition.
I'm not discussing players Federer had trouble with and eventually overcame. I think it's pretty clear Roger is a much better player than he used to be. I was watching the 2004 Wimbledon final recently and couldn't believe how much better Roger became over time while Andy's level stayed the same of perhaps even dipped a bit.

In fact, I don't think individual matchups matter at all in the context of greatness, which is why I don't put too much emphasis on the Federer-Nadal H2H. Bad matchups happen. What I am more interested in is, how have the players Federer has had rivalries with performed over time against the rest of the field. Did they consistently perform well on the big stages? How versatile were they as far as surface? Did they have the focus in addition to the talent to keep striving to be the best?

Because of that paradox of one player dominating automatically meaning everyone else wins less, I don't place emphasis on GS titles as a measure of the level of competition. Just on whether players continued to consistently perform well, make the latter rounds of big tournaments, slam finals, etc. And there are players that have a very brief peak, but at that peak they consistently get to the late stages of slams. Courier and Rafter are examples of this. However I still qualify them as great players because they did it and sustained it through multiple grand slams.

There is an argument to be made that the depth of the overall men's field today is so great that it takes a truly unique player to go deep in slams time after time. I'm undecided on this. I still feel that great players would find a way to make it through like Nadal and Federer tend to do. The fact that not many have makes me think there are fewer great players around than there used to be. You might see it differently, I would be interested to hear your case if so.
Mechlan is offline  
post #35 of 36 (permalink) Old 06-19-2009, 07:37 AM
country flag rwn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 612
                     
Re: Federer vs Sampras count updated....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechlan View Post
I'm not discussing players Federer had trouble with and eventually overcame. I think it's pretty clear Roger is a much better player than he used to be. I was watching the 2004 Wimbledon final recently and couldn't believe how much better Roger became over time while Andy's level stayed the same of perhaps even dipped a bit.

In fact, I don't think individual matchups matter at all in the context of greatness, which is why I don't put too much emphasis on the Federer-Nadal H2H. Bad matchups happen. What I am more interested in is, how have the players Federer has had rivalries with performed over time against the rest of the field. Did they consistently perform well on the big stages? How versatile were they as far as surface? Did they have the focus in addition to the talent to keep striving to be the best?

Because of that paradox of one player dominating automatically meaning everyone else wins less, I don't place emphasis on GS titles as a measure of the level of competition. Just on whether players continued to consistently perform well, make the latter rounds of big tournaments, slam finals, etc. And there are players that have a very brief peak, but at that peak they consistently get to the late stages of slams. Courier and Rafter are examples of this. However I still qualify them as great players because they did it and sustained it through multiple grand slams.

There is an argument to be made that the depth of the overall men's field today is so great that it takes a truly unique player to go deep in slams time after time. I'm undecided on this. I still feel that great players would find a way to make it through like Nadal and Federer tend to do. The fact that not many have makes me think there are fewer great players around than there used to be. You might see it differently, I would be interested to hear your case if so.
Just look at some of the players Sampras lost to and you´ll realize how wrong you are.
rwn is offline  
post #36 of 36 (permalink) Old 06-19-2009, 08:16 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 1,062
                     
Re: Federer vs Sampras count updated....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechlan View Post
I'm not discussing players Federer had trouble with and eventually overcame. I think it's pretty clear Roger is a much better player than he used to be. I was watching the 2004 Wimbledon final recently and couldn't believe how much better Roger became over time while Andy's level stayed the same of perhaps even dipped a bit.

In fact, I don't think individual matchups matter at all in the context of greatness, which is why I don't put too much emphasis on the Federer-Nadal H2H. Bad matchups happen. What I am more interested in is, how have the players Federer has had rivalries with performed over time against the rest of the field. Did they consistently perform well on the big stages? How versatile were they as far as surface? Did they have the focus in addition to the talent to keep striving to be the best?

Because of that paradox of one player dominating automatically meaning everyone else wins less, I don't place emphasis on GS titles as a measure of the level of competition. Just on whether players continued to consistently perform well, make the latter rounds of big tournaments, slam finals, etc. And there are players that have a very brief peak, but at that peak they consistently get to the late stages of slams. Courier and Rafter are examples of this. However I still qualify them as great players because they did it and sustained it through multiple grand slams.

There is an argument to be made that the depth of the overall men's field today is so great that it takes a truly unique player to go deep in slams time after time. I'm undecided on this. I still feel that great players would find a way to make it through like Nadal and Federer tend to do. The fact that not many have makes me think there are fewer great players around than there used to be. You might see it differently, I would be interested to hear your case if so.
unfortunately, you are not going to get much love around here for this post.

what ppl do need to understand is that federer and nadal are not run of the mill great players like becker, courier etc. federer and nadal is like having borg and sampras in the same generation. They make everyone else look ridiculously ordinary.
crude oil is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome