Federer has ALREADY surpassed Sampras [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer has ALREADY surpassed Sampras

wraith
09-12-2007, 11:43 AM
Talent and greatness in sports are not unrelated but neither are they one and the same. Greatness denotes accomplishment. In my view Michael Jordan was not the most talented basketball player ever, but undoubtedly the greatest. Similarly, Sampras had less all-around ability than Agassi, MacEnroe, and, well, even Martina Hingis, but in terms of greatness, he exceeds them and all but a few players in history. Empirically, I find it hard to accept that anyone honestly doesn't see that Roger is easily more talented than Pete and everyone else in the last thirty-five years (I never saw Laver play). But, to the point, talent aside, I would argue that Fed's resume already is ahead of Sampras'.

Sampras never won more than two Slams in a single year. Federer has already won three in one year and done it three times. The closest Sampras came to the career Slam was a single semifinal appearance where his conqueror was Yevgeny Kafelnikov, who I don't think anybody would qualify as a tennis great. Federer, on the other hand has two finals appearances and a semifinal to his credit, and the man who stopped him from winning those three French Opens is probably the best clay-courter ever. I love Agassi to death and cherish the fact that he won every major, but he wouldn't have been able to sniff that feat if he played in the era of Rafael Nadal.

Additionally, when determining the best player of all time, shouldn't that player be the best overall player, taking every surface into account? If we were to compare where Roger and Pete rank on the three primary surfaces in tennis during their respective careers it would look something like this:

Federer: grass-- 1st/ hardcourt-- 1st/ clay: 2nd

Sampras: grass-- 1st/ hardcourt-- 1st or 2nd (either Agassi or he)/ clay-- 99999999e

You know that number that appears on your calculator when the total gets too high? I mean you could pull a random janitor off the streets of Barcelona, and he could beat Pete on red dirt....

There are other ways to look at this too. Pete's 14 Slams spanned the 13 years between 1990 and 2002. Roger's 12 have come in the five years between 2003 and 2007. Pete retired at 31 with 64 total titles. At 26, Roger has 51. Roger has made it to ten straight GS finals. Pete never could make more than three straight. And the list goes on....

The major detraction that people hurl at Federer is that he plays in an era of less competition. Gee, I wonder if that's because he keeps winning everything? How many more Slams would Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, and especially Roddick have if Roger wasn't around? Or another way to put this is that I guess Pete wasn't good enough to keep the players of his day from winning more majors.

adee-gee
09-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Additionally, when determining the best player of all time, shouldn't that player be the best overall player, taking every surface into account?

Yes.

Agassi > Federer.

ChrisDoesDallas
09-12-2007, 12:21 PM
I'm sure there plenty of UN-type posts like these, but why can't we just admit they're the two best players since Borg? I didn't read your post, so maybe I missed something, but everyone's in this rush to just completely overlook Sampras, and it's kind of unsettling. :unsure:

VampirE
09-12-2007, 12:29 PM
Additionally, when determining the best player of all time, shouldn't that player be the best overall player, taking every surface into account? If we were to compare where Roger and Pete rank on the three primary surfaces in tennis during their respective careers it would look something like this:

Federer: grass-- 1st/ hardcourt-- 1st/ clay: 2nd

Sampras: grass-- 1st/ hardcourt-- 1st or 2nd (either Agassi or he)/ clay-- 99999999e

You know that number that appears on your calculator when the total gets too high? I mean you could pull a random janitor off the streets of Barcelona, and he could beat Pete on red dirt....



^ here you get a new and interesting sight

Rogiman
09-12-2007, 01:11 PM
Sampras had less all-around ability than Agassi, MacEnroe, and, well, even Martina Hingis:o :retard:
Yes.

Agassi > Federer.If both met on clay Federer would hand a peak Agassi a serious beat down.

It's only fitting that Agassi went down as both Sampras' and Federer's bitch.

Burrow
09-12-2007, 01:12 PM
Yes.

Agassi > Federer.

:lol:

Predictable coming from scrammbled egg face.

Wait till Roger Federer takes the French Open from your Nadal, then you will struggle to search for stupid excuses of why Roger Federer is not the best player ever.

celia
09-12-2007, 01:53 PM
Talent and greatness in sports are not unrelated but neither are they one and the same. Greatness denotes accomplishment.

Very interesting read. And as much as I want to agree with you, most people will not be satisfied until Federer wins 15 Slams. He needs to pass Sampras in every respect including the total number of Slams won.

That said, I suspect that Sampras himself might agree with you. A title that he consciously chased -- the Greatest Player Ever -- seems about to be usurped by an upstart Swiss. All of a sudden we see Sampras giving up his babymaking and coming out of retirement. Is he trying to share some of Roger's spotlight (their coming up exhibition match for example)? He wouldn't be feeling threatened would he? I wouldn't at all blame him if he were.

bokehlicious
09-12-2007, 02:06 PM
Interresting read :hatoff: , though not sure I agree on everything... :o

alfonsojose
09-12-2007, 03:18 PM
Like it or not, JesusFed is already better than Sampras. But as Pete, not winning Roland garros will put a little * next to his GOAT throne.

qisabella
09-12-2007, 03:35 PM
Sampras is such a conceited asshole, and it must be making him crazy to watch his record disappear within years of his retirement. I remember him talking about how important it was to him to break Laver's record and be "the best," while Steffi Graf was interviewed she said she could not have cared less that she cam within 1 slam of breaking Margaret Court's record. It was her carer as a whole that she was proud of.

jcempire
09-12-2007, 03:38 PM
Yes, He does. But you got to know where Sampras played with Andre, Jim, Michael Chang and Tens of great players during 1990s'

Roger got only Nadal, NOW Djok is the guy who can put pressure on him.

guga2120
09-12-2007, 03:46 PM
As much as I would like see somebody take him down, Roger is better than Sampras ever was. Anybody that played like Sampras did on clay, does not deserve to even be mentioned as the GOAT.

CyBorg
09-12-2007, 04:14 PM
I think that it's as simple as asking yourself this question:

"What could Sampras do as a tennis player that Roger Federer cannot?"

Throw out the statistics. Watch both guys play and then decide.

Allure
09-12-2007, 04:23 PM
:lol:

Predictable coming from scrammbled egg face.

Wait till Roger Federer takes the French Open from your Nadal, then you will struggle to search for stupid excuses of why Roger Federer is not the best player ever.

When Roger handed Andy a beatdown at this year's AO all he could say was ''Poor first serve percentage from Fed.'' He can never admit that Roger is doing well or is a great player. And he had the nerve to criticize someone for not respecting Andy because he is a GS champion. But Roger won 12 GSs and he doesn't seem to respect him at all. :lol:

MatchFederer
09-12-2007, 04:29 PM
Isn't that because he is an idiot?

guga2120
09-12-2007, 05:23 PM
:lol:



Wait till Roger Federer takes the French Open from your Nadal, then you will struggle to search for stupid excuses of why Roger Federer is not the best player ever.

If Nadal is healthy that will never happen.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 05:43 PM
Many people think michael jordan was the greatest ever in basketball and it wasnt because he won the most cships or had the best stats out of all the greats.

The same is true with federer. At least some people think so.

bobrocks
09-12-2007, 06:59 PM
Yes, He does. But you got to know where Sampras played with Andre, Jim, Michael Chang and Tens of great players during 1990s'

Roger got only Nadal, NOW Djok is the guy who can put pressure on him.

What a joke!

Only Nadal?
No mention of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick? Oh, I'm sure none of those lofers could stand up to the legend of Michael Chang or any of the other "tens of great players during the 1990's"

I repeat. What a joke.

jcempire
09-12-2007, 07:16 PM
What a joke!

Only Nadal?
No mention of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick? Oh, I'm sure none of those lofers could stand up to the legend of Michael Chang or any of the other "tens of great players during the 1990's"

I repeat. What a joke.

Roddick is nothing, He was a joke after 03. Hewitt never play any great Match after 02. Safin is done, bye.

Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker
Patrick Rafter
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Carlos Moya
Albert Costa

I just tell you some of those name. You got to know how many guys are there they got GS Titles.

To me, Andy Roddick is never close to Michael Chang

TankingTheSet
09-12-2007, 07:29 PM
Sampras won one Masters Series clay event.

He won the semi-final 6-1 6-2 and the final 6-1 6-2 6-2.

Probably a bit of a fluke, but still.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 07:35 PM
Sampras won one Masters Series clay event.

He won the semi-final 6-1 6-2 and the final 6-1 6-2 6-2.

Probably a bit of a fluke, but still.

it must have been BROWN GRASS.

:lol: ;)

tennischick
09-12-2007, 09:43 PM
Talent and greatness in sports are not unrelated but neither are they one and the same. Greatness denotes accomplishment. In my view Michael Jordan was not the most talented basketball player ever, but undoubtedly the greatest. Similarly, Sampras had less all-around ability than Agassi, MacEnroe, and, well, even Martina Hingis, but in terms of greatness, he exceeds them and all but a few players in history. Empirically, I find it hard to accept that anyone honestly doesn't see that Roger is easily more talented than Pete and everyone else in the last thirty-five years (I never saw Laver play). But, to the point, talent aside, I would argue that Fed's resume already is ahead of Sampras'.

Sampras never won more than two Slams in a single year. Federer has already won three in one year and done it three times. The closest Sampras came to the career Slam was a single semifinal appearance where his conqueror was Yevgeny Kafelnikov, who I don't think anybody would qualify as a tennis great. Federer, on the other hand has two finals appearances and a semifinal to his credit, and the man who stopped him from winning those three French Opens is probably the best clay-courter ever. I love Agassi to death and cherish the fact that he won every major, but he wouldn't have been able to sniff that feat if he played in the era of Rafael Nadal.

Additionally, when determining the best player of all time, shouldn't that player be the best overall player, taking every surface into account? If we were to compare where Roger and Pete rank on the three primary surfaces in tennis during their respective careers it would look something like this:

Federer: grass-- 1st/ hardcourt-- 1st/ clay: 2nd

Sampras: grass-- 1st/ hardcourt-- 1st or 2nd (either Agassi or he)/ clay-- 99999999e

You know that number that appears on your calculator when the total gets too high? I mean you could pull a random janitor off the streets of Barcelona, and he could beat Pete on red dirt....

There are other ways to look at this too. Pete's 14 Slams spanned the 13 years between 1990 and 2002. Roger's 12 have come in the five years between 2003 and 2007. Pete retired at 31 with 64 total titles. At 26, Roger has 51. Roger has made it to ten straight GS finals. Pete never could make more than three straight. And the list goes on....

The major detraction that people hurl at Federer is that he plays in an era of less competition. Gee, I wonder if that's because he keeps winning everything? How many more Slams would Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, and especially Roddick have if Roger wasn't around? Or another way to put this is that I guess Pete wasn't good enough to keep the players of his day from winning more majors.

Hey!
folks are gonna start saying that we're one and the same since we seemed have crawled onto the board on the same day!

of course i agree with you. the Android was a one-trick pony. Federer has a complete game, has already won on clay, and will one day win RG (preferably if Nadal is taken out before the finals). But even without that, he has already surpassed the Android's accomplishments.

such memories you bring back! watching the Android try to play on clay, mouth hanging loosely open, wiping off the sweat with one finger, falling over his feet as he tried to move on the dirt. :rolls: :lol: :rolls: :haha:

nikita13
09-12-2007, 09:59 PM
You know that number that appears on your calculator when the total gets too high? I mean you could pull a random janitor off the streets of Barcelona, and he could beat Pete on red dirt....

There are other ways to look at this too. Pete's 14 Slams spanned the 13 years between 1990 and 2002. Roger's 12 have come in the five years between 2003 and 2007. Pete retired at 31 with 64 total titles. At 26, Roger has 51. Roger has made it to ten straight GS finals. Pete never could make more than three straight. And the list goes on....

The major detraction that people hurl at Federer is that he plays in an era of less competition. Gee, I wonder if that's because he keeps winning everything? How many more Slams would Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, and especially Roddick have if Roger 'wasn't around? Or another way to put this is that I guess Pete wasn't good enough to keep the players of his day from winning more majors.

I don't disagree. Pete's natural ability was just not suited to clay :worship:
Have to point out Pete has this disease Thalassemia minor. It sort of explains why he needed IVs after 5-set finals and why his career just had a different pace. for the moment they're even.

patrickc
09-13-2007, 02:33 AM
Sampras did win 1 masters series on clay, but he beat becker (who I believe never won a clay court title in his career) in the final

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-13-2007, 09:01 AM
Sampras won Rome when the court was playing extremely fast (Becker got to the final that year).

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 09:06 AM
It was very warm in the year Sampras won in Rome and Federer's movement on clay is so much better than Sampras on his best day, even then Pete had some good wins on that surface, but Federer has surpassed him on that surface and will take over his GS titles record barring injury.

LeChuck
09-13-2007, 09:30 AM
In my opinion, Sampras's best feat on clay was single handedly winning the Davis Cup final for the USA in Russia in 1995. Russia picked the slowest clay they could find (nothing wrong with that of course), but Pete performed heroicly over that weekend.
In 1996, he did well to reach the French Open semis, beating Bruguera and Courier in 5 set matches on the way. I did think that the courts at Roland Garros appeared to be playing faster that year than they were during 1994-1995, and the hot temperatures baking the court, and the use of lighter balls (I think this was the case but I'm not entirely sure) also helped to make the conditions quicker. However I'm not wishing to take anything away from his achievement. From 1992-1996, he was definately a good player on clay. Speaking of 1996, I think that Rosset blew a golden opportunity at Roland Garros that year by losing to Stich in the semis, considering his game matched up well to Kafelnikov's, although I'm going off on a tangent here.

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 09:36 AM
In my opinion, Sampras's best feat on clay was single handedly winning the Davis Cup final for the USA in Russia in 1995. Russia picked the slowest clay they could find (nothing wrong with that of course), but Pete performed heroicly over that weekend.
In 1996, he did well to reach the French Open semis, beating Bruguera and Courier in 5 set matches on the way. I did think that the courts at Roland Garros appeared to be playing faster that year than they were during 1994-1995, and the hot temperatures baking the court, and the use of lighter balls (I think this was the case but I'm not entirely sure) also helped to make the conditions quicker. However I'm not wishing to take anything away from his achievement. From 1992-1996, he was definately a good player on clay. Speaking of 1996, I think that Rosset blew a golden opportunity at Roland Garros that year by losing to Stich in the semis, considering his game matched up well to Kafelnikov's, although I'm going off on a tangent here.

The DC was definitely his greatest effort on clay along with RG 96 and it was definitely faster, when you have Sampras, Kafelnikov, Stich and Rosset as the semi finalists that should say more than enough.

wraith
09-13-2007, 12:08 PM
[QUOTE=LeChuck;6018354]In my opinion, Sampras's best feat on clay was single handedly winning the Davis Cup final for the USA in Russia in 1995.

That was green clay. Very different from red.

BlueSwan
09-13-2007, 12:17 PM
when you have Sampras, Kafelnikov, Stich and Rosset as the semi finalists that should say more than enough.
Indeed. That's like having Costa, Bruguera, Berasategui and Muster contesting the Wimbledon semifinals.

LeChuck
09-13-2007, 12:20 PM
That was green clay. Very different from red.

Nope. It was definately red clay. For starters the tie took place in Moscow, and the surface green clay is a very rarely found/used outside North America.

http://www.tennis-x.com/tournaments/daviscup.shtml
Scroll down a bit and you'll see that it says red clay.

wraith
09-13-2007, 12:22 PM
[QUOTE=tennischick;6017176]Hey!
Federer has a complete game, has already won on clay, and will one day win RG (preferably if Nadal is taken out before the finals). But even without that, he has already surpassed the Android's accomplishments.

Yeah, it's interesting-- I became a Federer fan at first just because he seemed to have the best chance to wipe out the Droid's records and historical standing. But it's become something more than that now. I don't have the emotional connection to him that I had to Agassi's career. Instead it's more a fascination with and appreciation of the sublime. It's been said so many times that it's become quite trite, but Roger has taken tennis beyond the domain of athletics and into the realm of art.

PM me. I would love to tell you what's going on with my life and hear about yours. Or I could e-mail you. I still remember your addy.

DDrago2
09-13-2007, 12:30 PM
Like it or not, JesusFed is already better than Sampras. But as Pete, not winning Roland garros will put a little * next to his GOAT throne.

It will put a little * next to Rolland Garros

This RG thing is over-blown.
Federer was two time finalist in RG and once in SF, all three times losing to the same player. He won other tournaments on clay and is one of the best players on the surface, but not the best. He is the best on grass and HC and in the top on clay. That is enough, he doesn't have to win RG.

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 12:31 PM
http://www.daviscup.com/ties/tie.asp?tie=10005374

World Group 1995
Final
Olympic Stadium, Moscow, Russia
01 December - 03 December 1995
Surface: Clay (Red Clay) - Indoors
Ball Type: Dunlop