Best way to compare Federer - Sampras [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Best way to compare Federer - Sampras

enrico
09-14-2007, 11:01 AM
Given the fact that both men were born in August ten years apart (Sampras 1971, Federer 1981) it is relatively easy to compare their achievements at the same age. That's exactly what they did on
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

For me this is by far the best Federer/Sampras compare because both are always compared at the same stage of their career (actually USO 1997/2007). At first sight it is interesting to find a lot of other similarities like birth date, weight, height, number of titles won, sort of titles won, winning percentages, most of the titles won at Wimbledon and USO, no FO title etc. Comparing the numbers Federer sometimes looks like a Sampras clone ten years after ...

Very interesting also the comparison of their rescaled ranking points at
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Sampras_Federer_rankingpoints.GIF

It gives you a hint when the players peaked. Sampras hit his ranking points peak in 1994 (more than 6500) and he nearly equaled that in 1995. Federer hit his points peak (until now) at the end of 2006 (more than 8000 points).
For me this graphic reflects very well their careers at the same stage. Sampras started earlier to win titles (and ranking points). His uprise was straightforward till 1994, then he ups and downs. Federer started later but peaked higher. That reflects his stronger domination of the game.

But it also gives you an indication of the possible future. Surely Fed will have ups and downs like Sampras had from now on (you can't win always 3 Slam a year), but he should stay on a higher level (ranking points wise) than Sampras and surpass him with his achievements. But of course you never know!

thesupreme
09-14-2007, 11:45 AM
^^god bless you sir, why havent people commented on this yet....this comparison is GOLD! Its better than a years worth of arguments on MTF alone, that 5 minutes of my time i HAVENT wasted on here...!

dragons112
09-14-2007, 11:50 AM
what a stupid article.. you cant use petes level or decline in tennis as a precedent for roger. they play different games, they are different body wieghts, different opponontes. im sick of people comparing roger. History is not writeen just watch him play tennis and admire the best tennis player of the game. You guys should love the moment not try to pick it apart.

rwn
09-14-2007, 12:16 PM
Given the fact that both men were born in August ten years apart (Sampras 1971, Federer 1981) it is relatively easy to compare their achievements at the same age. That's exactly what they did on
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

For me this is by far the best Federer/Sampras compare because both are always compared at the same stage of their career (actually USO 1997/2007). At first sight it is interesting to find a lot of other similarities like birth date, weight, height, number of titles won, sort of titles won, winning percentages etc. Comparing the numbers Federer sometimes looks like a Sampras clone ten years after ...

Very interesting also the comparison of their rescaled ranking points at
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Sampras_Federer_rankingpoints.GIF

It gives you a hint when the players peaked. Sampras hit his ranking points peak in 1994 (more than 6500) and he nearly equaled that in 1995. Federer hit his points peak (until now) at the end of 2006 (more than 8000 points).
For me this graphic reflects very well their careers at the same stage. Sampras started earlier to win titles (and ranking points). His uprise was straightforward till 1994, then he ups and downs. Federer started later but peaked higher. That reflects his stronger domination of the game.

But it also gives you an indication of the possible future. Surely Fed will have ups and downs like Sampras had from now on (you can't win always 3 Slam a year), but he should stay on a higher level (ranking points wise) than Sampras and surpass him with his achievements. But of course you never know!

Federer started late, that often means a very long career at the top, but there's always injury danger of course. What's interesting about this comparison is that Sampras has more "minor" titles. Maybe he didn't only care about Grand Slams. ;)

enrico
09-14-2007, 12:39 PM
what a stupid article.. you cant use petes level or decline in tennis as a precedent for roger. they play different games, they are different body wieghts, different opponontes. im sick of people comparing roger. History is not writeen just watch him play tennis and admire the best tennis player of the game. You guys should love the moment not try to pick it apart.

If you think any comparison of different players is stupid, you are not obliged to do so.
In my opinion making comparisons is a natural thing and nothing wrong. As you compare Backhands or Forehands of different players, you can ask how great players handled their competition or compare their careers and achievements. You're right that history is not written yet because Federers career is far away from ending. That's why I like the Fed-Sampras-Compare-Website, because it focuses on the moment (what Sampras and Federer achieved till USO 1997/2007).

And by the way. I love to watch Federer play as I loved watching Sampras. Making Comparisons doesn't bother me to really enjoy his game (and Nadals and other players too).

adee-gee
09-14-2007, 12:42 PM
The best way to compare them is not to compare them at all :)

enrico
09-14-2007, 01:47 PM
Interesting too, that Federer had six first round losses at Grand Slams. You don't expect that, but it shows how he struggled in the beginning to get his act together. Because he has a complete game it seems he needed more time to play at a contantly high level. His variety and choosing the right shots (too many options) made it much more difficult for him to break through. If you compare this to the young guns, you see that for example Nadal never had a first round loss and Gasquet already eight. Gasquet reminds me gamewise a lot of Federer and it will be interesting to see whether he can break through like Federer and and win a Grand Slam the next two years.

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/YG_Compare.html

mongo
09-14-2007, 01:50 PM
I've always thought this was was the best way to compare the two.

enrico
09-14-2007, 01:57 PM
I've always thought this was was the best way to compare the two.

You're right, the last was off topic

RagingLamb
09-14-2007, 05:30 PM
i've seen that site before, and it's interesting.

It's tough to compare players who only played eachother once during different points in their careers.

comparing numbers only works when comparing cars. You don't have to race a GT3 against an M3 to make sure which ones faster. But sadly, that's not true of tennis. It's all about matchups, peaks, contemporaries, etc.

All you can do is give opinions.

Action Jackson
09-14-2007, 05:41 PM
Wilander was a better player than Federer at 20, but they aren't be compared as players as Wilander on his best day, isn't close to Federer.

The age comparison fails big time, doesn't take into account gamestyles, peak years and other factors that numbers can't measure accurately.

alexbayen
09-14-2007, 06:31 PM
First, Numbers are only half the story. Just by looking at those numbers, one could conclude the two are more or less similar. But these numbers don't reflect just how brilliant Federer's game is (was - given his current form :)
Sampras, let's face it, was Sampras because of his serve and hence he didn't capture my imagination.

Second, one missing piece of statistics is their win-loss percentage every year (for the years in the charts). My guess is that will show how complete Federer's domination has been at his peak.

Finally, can someone comment on why Sampras played a lot more tournaments on carpet than Federer? Have those tournaments been done away with?

Action Jackson
09-14-2007, 06:35 PM
There were a lot more events on carpet when Sampras played, but they changed it cause the way the game just serving exhibitions.

RagingLamb
09-14-2007, 06:36 PM
First, Numbers are only half the story. Just by looking at those numbers, one could conclude the two are more or less similar. But these numbers don't reflect just how brilliant Federer's game is (was - given his current form :)
Sampras, let's face it, was Sampras because of his serve and hence he didn't capture my imagination.

Second, one missing piece of statistics is their win-loss percentage every year (for the years in the charts). My guess is that will show how complete Federer's domination has been at his peak.

Finally, can someone comment on why Sampras played a lot more tournaments on carpet than Federer? Have those tournaments been done away with?

would you say they capture how Pete's game was?

also if you think Sampras was Sampras because of his serve, then you probably didn't pay very close attention to his game.

World Beater
09-14-2007, 06:40 PM
would you say they capture how Pete's game was?

also if you think Sampras was Sampras because of his serve, then you probably didn't pay very close attention to his game.

on his best day, sampras was a complete player.

but in 60-70% of his matches, sampras served and attacked like a beast to hold on his own serve. then for about 1 min each set, sampras would decide to play on the ROS.

so while sampras certainly wasnt all serve, he made it seem like that way.

MisterQ
09-14-2007, 06:43 PM
The serve was the cornerstone of Pete's game, for sure... but he was also legendary for those leaping overheads, amazing running forehands, crisp volleys and deft half-volleys. And even that backhand, certainly his weakness, was capable of producing winners out of nowhere. His movement, while more loping than nimble, was surprisingly fast... with a few long strides he could make it across the entire court.

I wasn't even a big fan, but you have to give him his due. ;)

the answer
09-14-2007, 08:55 PM
Federer is taller than Sampras.

World Beater
09-14-2007, 08:57 PM
Federer is taller than Sampras.

literally, figuratively or both? :devil:

yes fed is closer to 6'2"

the answer
09-14-2007, 09:04 PM
literally, figuratively or both? :devil:

yes fed is closer to 6'2"

ehh:scratch: ...that's kinda gay ,that's not what I meant at all.

You're right Federer looks more like a 6'2" (he is taller than nadal who is listed as a 6'1").

World Beater
09-15-2007, 01:12 AM
ehh:scratch: ...that's kinda gay ,that's not what I meant at all.

You're right Federer looks more like a 6'2" (he is taller than nadal who is listed as a 6'1").

huh? I have no clue what you mean.

I was talking about taller player as in "more accomplished". Federer towers over sampras physically and accomplishment wise.

it was just a silly thought from me.

wcr
09-15-2007, 01:34 AM
I've always thought this was was the best way to compare the two.

Interesting. The race to 12 titles took Federer 5 years and Sampras 8 years.

PamV
09-15-2007, 01:23 PM
Federer started late, that often means a very long career at the top, but there's always injury danger of course. What's interesting about this comparison is that Sampras has more "minor" titles. Maybe he didn't only care about Grand Slams. ;)

Winning lots of minor titles where the pickens' were easy was a way for Sampras to keep his #1 ranking.

In
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/...
Joel Drucker writes:

------
Pete Sampras trekked through Europe throughout the fall of 1998 in hopes of becoming the first player in tennis history to have finished the year ranked No. 1 six straight times. "Just about killed me, but it was worth it," he said years later.

--------

He lost to Ferreira in R32 in Basel, beat Kucera in Vienna, lost to Haas in Quarters of Lyon, lost to Krajicek in semis in Suttgart, lost to Rusedski in finals of Paris, lost to Stoltenberg in R32 in Sweden, and finally lost to Corretja in semis in the year end championship.

You can see the desparation in his attempt to go for the records. Yes, the records show that he was year end #1, but a deeper look shows it is not by winning two or three slams and two or three masters events, but by playing every tournament there is and racking up points. That year he only won 3 tournaments - Wimbledon, Atlanta, and Vienna.

It's absolutely incredible in those days of "tougher competition" Pete retained #1 with just one slam and two dinky tournaments. Unthinkable these days.

This year, Nadal won the French, reached finals in Wimbledon, won Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome - all masters series and won Barcelona. He is still not #1. Go tell Nadal that in 1998 things were tougher. If he played in 1998, he'd be a #1 by a mile.

rwn
09-15-2007, 03:23 PM
Winning lots of minor titles where the pickens' were easy was a way for Sampras to keep his #1 ranking.

In
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/...
Joel Drucker writes:

------
Pete Sampras trekked through Europe throughout the fall of 1998 in hopes of becoming the first player in tennis history to have finished the year ranked No. 1 six straight times. "Just about killed me, but it was worth it," he said years later.

--------

He lost to Ferreira in R32 in Basel, beat Kucera in Vienna, lost to Haas in Quarters of Lyon, lost to Krajicek in semis in Suttgart, lost to Rusedski in finals of Paris, lost to Stoltenberg in R32 in Sweden, and finally lost to Corretja in semis in the year end championship.

You can see the desparation in his attempt to go for the records. Yes, the records show that he was year end #1, but a deeper look shows it is not by winning two or three slams and two or three masters events, but by playing every tournament there is and racking up points. That year he only won 3 tournaments - Wimbledon, Atlanta, and Vienna.

It's absolutely incredible in those days of "tougher competition" Pete retained #1 with just one slam and two dinky tournaments. Unthinkable these days.

This year, Nadal won the French, reached finals in Wimbledon, won Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome - all masters series and won Barcelona. He is still not #1. Go tell Nadal that in 1998 things were tougher. If he played in 1998, he'd be a #1 by a mile.

It's funny that people have forgotten about this and accuse Federer of playing in a very weak era.

nanoman
09-15-2007, 03:40 PM
Winning lots of minor titles where the pickens' were easy was a way for Sampras to keep his #1 ranking.

In
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/...
Joel Drucker writes:

------
Pete Sampras trekked through Europe throughout the fall of 1998 in hopes of becoming the first player in tennis history to have finished the year ranked No. 1 six straight times. "Just about killed me, but it was worth it," he said years later.

--------

He lost to Ferreira in R32 in Basel, beat Kucera in Vienna, lost to Haas in Quarters of Lyon, lost to Krajicek in semis in Suttgart, lost to Rusedski in finals of Paris, lost to Stoltenberg in R32 in Sweden, and finally lost to Corretja in semis in the year end championship.

You can see the desparation in his attempt to go for the records. Yes, the records show that he was year end #1, but a deeper look shows it is not by winning two or three slams and two or three masters events, but by playing every tournament there is and racking up points. That year he only won 3 tournaments - Wimbledon, Atlanta, and Vienna.

It's absolutely incredible in those days of "tougher competition" Pete retained #1 with just one slam and two dinky tournaments. Unthinkable these days.

This year, Nadal won the French, reached finals in Wimbledon, won Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome - all masters series and won Barcelona. He is still not #1. Go tell Nadal that in 1998 things were tougher. If he played in 1998, he'd be a #1 by a mile.

Yup, these are all giants of the game. Pete doesn't lose to clowns :haha: :haha: :haha:
Can anyone imagine Federer scrambling for points to retain the nr.1 ranking. Moreover, can anyone imagine Federer not winning 1 tournament out of 6 tries, when he sets his hearts to do so ?
Comparing Sampras to Federer is an insult to Fed. Fed is dominating his peers, while Pete is 'merely' the most successful in a field of equals.

jcempire
09-15-2007, 04:25 PM
what a stupid article.. you cant use petes level or decline in tennis as a precedent for roger. they play different games, they are different body wieghts, different opponontes. im sick of people comparing roger. History is not writeen just watch him play tennis and admire the best tennis player of the game. You guys should love the moment not try to pick it apart.

Absolute Stupid Article

wimbledonfan
09-15-2007, 04:42 PM
Peak Pete trashes peak Fed any day . Look at some classic youtube clips and there is no way Roger can handle that kind of power from Pete . He will lure Roger to hit to his forehand side and then he will do his patented killer running forehand shot . Also , Roger admitted than an old Pete actually took him to a tiebreaker when they played at Pete's house . If an old Pete , almost beat Roger , then what would a younger version of him do ?


Even when they played in 2001 , it was Pete who lost the match NOT Roger who won it .
Go back to set 1 tiebreak when Rogers serve was clearly out but there was no instant replay at the time . Had Pete won that tiebreak , he would have won the match in 4 sets .

Burrow
09-15-2007, 05:51 PM
Sampras and Federer use the same racket, they both use the pro staff original, Roche has confirmed this as well as a couple of stringers.

MisterQ
09-15-2007, 06:28 PM
Pete Sampras trekked through Europe throughout the fall of 1998 in hopes of becoming the first player in tennis history to have finished the year ranked No. 1 six straight times. "Just about killed me, but it was worth it," he said years later.

Personally, I've always felt Pete's 6 consecutive year-end No. 1 rankings to be a bit overrated. Very impressive, yes, but I'm more impressed by someone like Roger remaining No. 1 for so many consecutive weeks. I suppose it depends how much emphasis you put on the calendar year (an issue which carries over when talking about the Grand Slam, too).

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 06:37 PM
Personally, I've always felt Pete's 6 consecutive year-end No. 1 rankings to be a bit overrated. Very impressive, yes, but I'm more impressed by someone like Roger remaining No. 1 for so many consecutive weeks. I suppose it depends how much emphasis you put on the calendar year (an issue which carries over when talking about the Grand Slam, too).


1998 - Sampras won 4 titles for YE NO.1 :devil:

CmonAussie
09-15-2007, 07:09 PM
Yup, these are all giants of the game. Pete doesn't lose to clowns :haha: :haha: :haha:Can anyone imagine Federer scrambling for points to retain the nr.1 ranking. Moreover, can anyone imagine Federer not winning 1 tournament out of 6 tries, when he sets his hearts to do so ? Comparing Sampras to Federer is an insult to Fed. Fed is dominating his peers, while Pete is 'merely' the most successful in a field of equals.


Moreover, all those losses Sampras had @ the end of 1998 were on arguably his best surface [indoor carpet]~~ where Pete`s bullet serves were especially lethal:eek: .. yet he lost 6-times to chumps:p

buzz
09-15-2007, 07:21 PM
Well those 6 losses to chumps doesn't mean that Pete in form wasn't as good. Pete said he could always beat anybody on his day. His peak tennis earnt him enough in those 6 years to be no1. Reaching the 2nd round of very much MM tournys doesn't get you to no1. And 6 YEno1 is a great accomplishment. Although Roger is doing it with a lot more ease and lot more dominating.

Thanks for catching this 6 tourny results in 1998 PamV never new about it. (Didn't follow tennis closely at that time)

Sjengster
09-15-2007, 07:31 PM
Even when they played in 2001 , it was Pete who lost the match NOT Roger who won it .
Go back to set 1 tiebreak when Rogers serve was clearly out but there was no instant replay at the time . Had Pete won that tiebreak , he would have won the match in 4 sets .

Nonsense. There was a big point at 4-4 in the third set when Sampras was broken by hitting his trademark overhead wide, but did he gift the break to Federer in the final game of the match when the latter hit two return winners, one a cross-court backhand, the other a down the line forehand? He had about a dozen return winners in that match, and 0-40 on the Sampras serve early in the first and second sets - he could have broken serve a lot earlier than he did. He was the one who let Sampras back into the match in the fourth set tiebreak with two awful errors, one a volley into the net with the court wide open.

And as I'm sure you remember, at 4-4 in the fifth set when Sampras stepped up his returning and had breakpoints to serve for the match, Federer scooped a half-volley off his shoes on one and hit a forehand approach right into the Sampras forehand on the other, forcing a netted reply. That took guts, a definite sign that he was trying to win the match rather than hoping Sampras would lose it.

That doesn't change the fact that an awful lot of nonsense is being talked about Sampras in this thread, that he was serve only, that it's an insult to Federer to be compared to him (??!!), but I disagree that this match was lost and not won. And I'd like to think that when Federer's winning streak at Wimbledon is ended I'll be able to give full credit to his opponent, unless Federer plays a shocker from beginning to end, which Sampras certainly did not do as the scoreline testifies.

buzz
09-15-2007, 07:35 PM
^completely agree!

World Beater
09-15-2007, 08:35 PM
Nonsense. There was a big point at 4-4 in the third set when Sampras was broken by hitting his trademark overhead wide, but did he gift the break to Federer in the final game of the match when the latter hit two return winners, one a cross-court backhand, the other a down the line forehand? He had about a dozen return winners in that match, and 0-40 on the Sampras serve early in the first and second sets - he could have broken serve a lot earlier than he did. He was the one who let Sampras back into the match in the fourth set tiebreak with two awful errors, one a volley into the net with the court wide open.

And as I'm sure you remember, at 4-4 in the fifth set when Sampras stepped up his returning and had breakpoints to serve for the match, Federer scooped a half-volley off his shoes on one and hit a forehand approach right into the Sampras forehand on the other, forcing a netted reply. That took guts, a definite sign that he was trying to win the match rather than hoping Sampras would lose it.

That doesn't change the fact that an awful lot of nonsense is being talked about Sampras in this thread, that he was serve only, that it's an insult to Federer to be compared to him (??!!), but I disagree that this match was lost and not won. And I'd like to think that when Federer's winning streak at Wimbledon is ended I'll be able to give full credit to his opponent, unless Federer plays a shocker from beginning to end, which Sampras certainly did not do as the scoreline testifies.

wimbledon fan is a sampras troll.

poor sampras fans. :sad: federer is running a bulldozer over all his records.

magnoliaewan
09-15-2007, 08:58 PM
Can someone tell me if the Fed-Sampras match is in November or March? I hear both months being thrown around.

wimbledonfan
09-15-2007, 09:01 PM
I am as much of a Sampras troll as you are a Federer troll .

All records are meant to be broken and it doesn't bother me at all . One day , Federers records will be broken and you will have to accept that. For the time being he still has to win 15 majors and a French to be solidified as the g.o.a.t . If he doesn't achieve that , then he will be another legend who hasn't won all 4 majors .

The only thing Pete ever cared about was being in a conversation with amongst the best in the game . He modeled his game to being the greatest grass court player of all time and nothing Roger has done will take that away from him .

Sjengster
09-15-2007, 09:30 PM
I am as much of a Sampras troll as you are a Federer troll .

All records are meant to be broken and it doesn't bother me at all . One day , Federers records will be broken and you will have to accept that. For the time being he still has to win 15 majors and a French to be solidified as the g.o.a.t . If he doesn't achieve that , then he will be another legend who hasn't won all 4 majors .

The only thing Pete ever cared about was being in a conversation with amongst the best in the game . He modeled his game to being the greatest grass court player of all time and nothing Roger has done will take that away from him .

All perfectly good and true (well, I'm not commenting on the first sentence), but there was no need to take away credit from Federer's win, is all I'm saying.

LeChuck
09-15-2007, 09:56 PM
I agree that Sampras's 6 years ended as world no. 1 is overrated. In my opinion, the 286 weeks (5 and a half years) he spent as world no. 1 scattered throughout his career is a far more noteworthy and impressive record.
Sampras was undoubtedly the best player from 1993-1997, although in 1998 I thought that Rafter had the better season. Sampras's 1998 is the weakest season compiled by a year end no. 1 in the last 25 years (since McEnroe's 1982). Sampras actually played much better tennis and put together better results in 1999 than 1998, although he finished as the year end no. 3 in 1999, and that had a lot to do with the fact that he missed both the Australian and US Opens through injury.

KC13
09-15-2007, 10:21 PM
I think we should wait with a definitive answer until Mediter has had the chance to come with a flawless and impartial statistical analysis on the subject for it to be resolved permanently.

marcRD
09-16-2007, 12:30 AM
Federers 4 years as nr 1 vs Sampras 6 years as nr1:

Grand slam titles:

RF 11 Sampras 10

YEC

RF 2 (+1 potentialy at the end of this year) Sampras: 3

Master series:

RF 13 (potentialy +1-2) Sampras 8

Titles:

RF 40 (and counting) Sampras 41

World Beater
09-16-2007, 02:59 AM
FACT : federer is running a bulldozer over sampras' records. Deal with it.
FACT : LITTLE ROGER FEDERER DEF defending wimbledon champ SAMPRAS
FACT: Sampras' titles comprise of more mickey mouse tournaments contrary to his assertion that he only cared for the slams :lol:
Speculation: Sampras would kill federer in his prime. OMG LOLZZZ!!! samprAs RuLEz!!!

sampras clowns are bitter than their hero's status in the history books is being diminished with every passing slam. So much so, they cant give credit when its due.

one can endlessly speculate about this era's competition versus previous eras, but at the end of day, federer will have the records on the board. So deal with it sampras clowns. :lol:

TennisGrandSlam
09-16-2007, 03:04 AM
No problem, both Sampras and Federer are great players.

But no one can show that Sampras Era is tougher than FED Era. (Hard to compare)

How about Lendl? (more GS finals but less GS titles than Sampras, more multi-Slam opponents than Sampras)

wimbledonfan
09-16-2007, 05:14 AM
Fact: Little Roger Federer lost the very next round to Tim Henman
Fact: When Pete won the 2002 u.s open , Roger was eliminated to Max Mirnyi !!
Fact: When Pete was playing , Roger never won a slam
Fact: Roger is playing in a clown era
Fact: Roger struggles against Canas and has a losing record against him
Fact: An old Pete has a winning record against a young Canas
Fact: An old Pete took Fed to some tiebreaks early this year .
Fact: Pete has a better first and second serve , running forehand ,overhead smash and volleys better .

World Beater
09-16-2007, 05:40 AM
Fact: Little Roger Federer lost the very next round to Tim Henman
Fact: When Pete won the 2002 u.s open , Roger was eliminated to Max Mirnyi !!
Fact: When Pete was playing , Roger never won a slam
Fact: Roger is playing in a clown era
Fact: Roger struggles against Canas and has a losing record against him
Fact: An old Pete has a winning record against a young Canas
Fact: An old Pete took Fed to some tiebreaks early this year .
Fact: Pete has a better first and second serve , running forehand ,overhead smash and volleys better .

:haha:

more evidence for you being a troll.

anyways, the rest of it i can deal with pretty easily. Poor sampras fan :sad:

while Federer will own the records, you can hold some of these facts.

:haha:

Skyward
09-16-2007, 07:12 AM
Fact: Little Roger Federer lost the very next round to Tim Henman
Fact: When Pete won the 2002 u.s open , Roger was eliminated to Max Mirnyi !!
Fact: When Pete was playing , Roger never won a slam Fact: Roger is playing in a clown era
Fact: Roger struggles against Canas and has a losing record against him Fact: An old Pete has a winning record against a young Canas
Fact: An old Pete took Fed to some tiebreaks early this year .
Fact: Pete has a better first and second serve , running forehand ,overhead smash and volleys better .

1.So what? It wasn't Pete who pevented him from winning GS titles.

2. Pete struggled against Kraicek. Federer is 2-0 against him. Anyway, these Canas/Krajicek records are pointless. :shrug:

3. I had no idea that Pete played ATP tournaments this year.

TennisGrandSlam
09-16-2007, 08:39 AM
Fact: Little Roger Federer lost the very next round to Tim Henman
Fact: When Pete won the 2002 u.s open , Roger was eliminated to Max Mirnyi !!
Fact: When Pete was playing , Roger never won a slam
Fact: Roger is playing in a clown era
Fact: Roger struggles against Canas and has a losing record against him
Fact: An old Pete has a winning record against a young Canas
Fact: An old Pete took Fed to some tiebreaks early this year .
Fact: Pete has a better first and second serve , running forehand ,overhead smash and volleys better .



Nothing comparable

Krajicek 6-4 Sampras show that Krajicek is greater than Sampras? :devil:


Sampras' Era was tough? How about Lendl's Era :wavey:

TennisGrandSlam
09-16-2007, 09:04 AM
Only counting Australian Open, Wimbledon and US Open in his 6 NO.1 years!


1993
Australian Open - S (lost to Edberg)
Wimbledon - W (won Courier)
US Open - W (won Pioline)

1994
Australian Open - W (Won Todd Martin)
Wimbledon - W (Won Ivanisevic)
US Open - R16 (lost to Yzaga)

1995
Australian Open - F (lost to Agassi)
Wimbledon - W (Won Becker)
US Open - W (Won Agassi)

1996
Australian Open - R32 (lost to Philippoussis)
Wimbledon - QF (lost to Krajicek)
US Open - W (Won Michael)

1997
Australian Open - W
Wimbledon - W (won Pioline)
US Open - R16 (lost to Korda)


1998
Australian Open - QF (lost to Kucera)
Wimbledon - W (Won Ivanisevic)
US Open - S (lost to Rafter)



So many Sampras Fans'counting JMac, Connors, Edberg and Lendl as Sampras' opponents is not correct!

Only Becker is Sampras' opponent from 1980s' superstar.

Famous players (same-generation) like Michael Chang, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Korda was ONE SLAM WONDER! :devil:

Other major same-generation opponents Rafter, Kafeinlkov and Bruguera (only on clay) are TWO SLAM WINNERS! :devil: :devil:

Only Agassi had 8 career slam titles (but 5 of them derived after Sampra Era)


Lendl needed to face Vilas, Borg, Connors, JMac, Wilander, Edberg and Becker (4-11 GS).

Eden
09-16-2007, 09:50 AM
Can someone tell me if the Fed-Sampras match is in November or March? I hear both months being thrown around.

The best-of-three set matches will be played on indoor carpet surfaces on November 20 (Tue) in a city to be announced at a later date, November 22 (Thu) in Kuala Lumpur and on November 24 (Sat) in Macao. The
Malaysian match billed as the "Merdeka International Tennis Challenge" will be a tourism driven initiative held as part of the celebrations of Merdeka - the 50th anniversary of the Malaysia. The "Venetian Macao Tennis Showdown" will be title sponsored by the Venetian Macao Resort Hotel and take place at the Venetian Macao Resort Hotel's stunning new 15,000 seat arena.

For the Macao match read more here:

http://www.federersamprasmacao.com/

On March 10, 2008 they will meet in a night exhibition at Madison Square Garden in New York. The event will be produced and promoted by StarGames in conjunction with Ivan Lendl and The Garden

You can read more here:

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=17395&bannerregion=

wimbledonfan
09-16-2007, 01:45 PM
I think Lendl's era was the toughest . I'm certain Lendl would have had even more majors with the way the courts are playing these days .

80's>90's>00's

I'm talking about top ten caliber players . Overall , I think there are better players today because tennis is expanding as a sport but I think the top ten is really lacking in star power . The 80's in my opinion had the toughest top 10 crop of players in the modern era .

World Beater
09-16-2007, 03:57 PM
:awww: I think Lendl's era was the toughest . I'm certain Lendl would have had even more majors with the way the courts are playing these days .

80's>90's>00's

I'm talking about top ten caliber players . Overall , I think there are better players today because tennis is expanding as a sport but I think the top ten is really lacking in star power . The 80's in my opinion had the toughest top 10 crop of players in the modern era .

:awww:

pete is that you? :sad: dont worry you are still are a great player.

World Beater
09-16-2007, 04:00 PM
1.So what? It wasn't Pete who pevented him from winning GS titles.

2. Pete struggled against Kraicek. Federer is 2-0 against him. Anyway, these Canas/Krajicek records are pointless. :shrug:

3. I had no idea that Pete played ATP tournaments this year.

Not to mention that canas hasnt stopped federer from winning any slams. Sampras had so many bad h-h and losses against clowns of his era, that this guy has the audacity to bring one of the few roger has in his.

federer must be feeling terrible that he doesnt have a better overhead smash than sampras :haha:

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-16-2007, 04:33 PM
what a stupid article.. you cant use petes level or decline in tennis as a precedent for roger. they play different games, they are different body wieghts, different opponontes. im sick of people comparing roger. History is not writeen just watch him play tennis and admire the best tennis player of the game. You guys should love the moment not try to pick it apart.

:retard:

Go worship at JesusFeds altar you clown.

ReturnWinner
09-16-2007, 04:42 PM
Fact: Little Roger Federer lost the very next round to Tim Henman
Fact: When Pete won the 2002 u.s open , Roger was eliminated to Max Mirnyi !!
Fact: When Pete was playing , Roger never won a slam
Fact: Roger is playing in a clown era
Fact: Roger struggles against Canas and has a losing record against him
Fact: An old Pete has a winning record against a young Canas
Fact: An old Pete took Fed to some tiebreaks early this year .
Fact: Pete has a better first and second serve , running forehand ,overhead smash and volleys better .


yeah Sampras beat Cañas two times but both matches were very tight, Cañas had chances to win both in fact he should ve, even he won more total points and way more return points

in his match in cincinatti, Cañas served for the match two times and in the tiebreak which was won by sampras 86 there were two bad calls in sampras favour

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=sampras&player2=canas

R.Federer
09-16-2007, 04:51 PM
Fact: Roger struggles against Canas and has a losing record against him
Fact: An old Pete has a winning record against a young Canas


These are facts in the sense that they are true statements. But the implications can be anything.
One, a young Canas had no experience to beat an old Sampras.
Similar to:

Fact: Pete struggles against his contemporary Krajicek and has a losing record against him.
Fact: A young Roger has a winning record against a seasoned Krajicek

:shrug:

rwn
09-16-2007, 05:56 PM
yeah Sampras beat Cañas two times but both matches were very tight, Cañas had chances to win both in fact he should ve, even he won more total points and way more return points

in his match in cincinatti, Cañas served for the match two times and in the tiebreak which was won by sampras 86 there were two bad calls in sampras favour

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=sampras&player2=canas

Impossible. Players only choke against Federer, never against Sampras.

garad
09-16-2007, 06:05 PM
federer must be feeling terrible that he doesnt have a better overhead smash than sampras :haha:

Yep, it's tough not to be as good a volleyball player as Sampras...

rwn
09-16-2007, 10:38 PM
Federers 4 years as nr 1 vs Sampras 6 years as nr1:

Grand slam titles:

RF 11 Sampras 10

YEC

RF 2 (+1 potentialy at the end of this year) Sampras: 3

Master series:

RF 13 (potentialy +1-2) Sampras 8

Titles:

RF 40 (and counting) Sampras 41

43 titles for Sampras ;) And Federer's no.1 spot is not guaranteed, he could get injured.

hasanahmad
06-08-2009, 01:01 AM
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4112/11850751.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/my.php?image=11850751.jpg)

courtesy: USA TODAY

Ilovetheblues_86
06-08-2009, 01:02 AM
Too close to call.

Johnny Groove
06-08-2009, 01:03 AM
Federer still has 3-4 years before he calls it quits to add to his numbers too.

victory1
06-08-2009, 01:07 AM
Too close to call.

Not really; Roger has made 4 Roland Garros finals while Pete has made 0! How can Pete be considered greater then Roger when he completely suck in 1 surface? Should he not be able to at least make 1 final in his worse surface?

Everko
06-08-2009, 01:08 AM
Why compare to Sampras? Sampras wasn't even that good, he just had a clubber of a serve.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-08-2009, 01:10 AM
Not really; Roger has made 4 Roland Garros finals while Pete has made 0! How can Pete be considered greater then Roger when he completely suck in 1 surface? Should he not be able to at least make 1 final in his worse surface?

But Sampras had a tougher oppostion in grass and hard and has tremendous records there.
That being said, maybe Federer has the right to be called better because off his all-round game. But can we say he was better on grass and hard? Yet to prove. :)

ClaudiuS
06-08-2009, 01:12 AM
Sampras has an impressive 203-38 GS record. Although he has played 12 more GS than Federer.

victory1
06-08-2009, 01:17 AM
But Sampras had a tougher oppostion in grass and hard and has tremendous records there.

That's your opinion that does not make it true. Maybe it look easy because Roger is a better player. I mean 20 Semi in a row at a grand slam is not a fluke. Do you know how hard that is to accomplish? Anyway, clay is part of tennis; we have a clay court season. To be considered the Best, you have to be able to play on all surfaces. You don't have to be the best on all of them but you have to be at least decent. You have to be able to compete and Pete was not a competitor at Roland Garros. Since Pete could not compete in 1 of tennis's biggest surfaces, again how can he be considered the BEST!

JimmyV
06-08-2009, 01:18 AM
Why compare to Sampras? Sampras wasn't even that good, he just had a clubber of a serve.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/623/20090310fue4arsbcqnqj5q.jpg

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 01:23 AM
Sampras Wimbledon winning % : .9
Federer Wimbledon winning % : .898

Talk about close.

Everko
06-08-2009, 01:27 AM
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/623/20090310fue4arsbcqnqj5q.jpg

try. I'm ready

ballbasher101
06-08-2009, 01:27 AM
Federer has reached 20 consecutive slam semi-finals. Beat that :D.

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 01:32 AM
Roger's peak dominance is far better then Sampras'. The only thing Sampras has are some longevity records(Weeks at #1, YE #1 finishes, 1 more YEC). That doesn't even allow him to equal Federer IMHO. Fed is best of the Open Era as of now.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-08-2009, 01:32 AM
That's your opinion that does not make it true. Maybe it look easy because Roger is a better player. I mean 20 Semi in a row at a grand slam is not a fluke. Do you know how hard that is to accomplish? Anyway, clay is part of tennis; we have a clay court season. To be considered the Best, you have to be able to play on all surfaces. You don't have to be the best on all of them but you have to be at least decent. You have to be able to compete and Pete was not a competitor at Roland Garros. Since Pete could not compete in 1 of tennis's biggest surfaces, again how can he be considered the BEST!

The good servers with the likes of Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker and Stich are a very tough opposition.

victory1
06-08-2009, 01:36 AM
The good servers with the likes of Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker and Stich are a very tough opposition.

Yes, but 1 of the grand slams is played on clay and to crown Pete the best you would have to completely disregard clay as rubbish! Do we throw away this slam and surface to crown Pete as the best? I think the best means being an overall competitor on all surfaces!

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 01:38 AM
The thing about Sampras is he didn't even make 1 final at Roland Garros. Not only that he really didn't even try to do well on red clay, huge minus for me.

Chloe le Bopper
06-08-2009, 02:29 AM
Not really; Roger has made 4 Roland Garros finals while Pete has made 0! How can Pete be considered greater then Roger when he completely suck in 1 surface? Should he not be able to at least make 1 final in his worse surface?

Why compare to Sampras? Sampras wasn't even that good, he just had a clubber of a serve.

Even the most fervent of Sampras detractors couldn't figure out how people come up with this nonsense.

victory1
06-08-2009, 02:36 AM
Even the most fervent of Sampras detractors couldn't figure out how people come up with this nonsense.

What's nonsense about what I said? Is clay not a major surface in tennis? Let's say Pete won 7 Roland Garros and 0 Wimbledon, would that make him the best? Let's go further and say he never made a final at Wimbledon and made 1 semi his entire career. I'm not trying to take anything away from Pete but Roland Garros does exist!

nkp2
06-08-2009, 02:39 AM
Thread is irrelevant.

Fed still has between 14-18 slams to take part in. 14 to 18!!! Now, assume he wins say.... 3 of those. Very Conservative estimate, but that makes him better than Sampras alone. And he could win a lot more.

Equally, for the sake of balance, he could win none. But do any of you really think he won't win any between now and retirement? I mean really?

MrChopin
06-08-2009, 02:40 AM
But Sampras had a tougher oppostion in grass and hard and has tremendous records there.
That being said, maybe Federer has the right to be called better because off his all-round game. But can we say he was better on grass and hard? Yet to prove. :)

I think the case for Fed on hard is pretty straightforward. Everyone can play on hard these days, so I think it's foolish to conclude that Sampras' competition is more difficult than Fed's. Further, Fed's numbers are already superior in total and in terms of dominance and streaks. Pete still has him on grass, but Fed wins on hard. Clay is what really separates them, and I would have said that before today.

vidanhv
06-08-2009, 02:57 AM
I just don't get it why is it so hard to say that Roger is simply the best player ever? I am far from his fan, but the guy is simply the best. I am annoyed with his ballet on the court, with his false modesty, but he is better then Sampras (even he said that so many times that it started to be boring) and he is better then Rod Laver, and he is better then Nadal, Djokovic and Muzza (maybe not now but in terms of career) and he deserves to be reconed as such.

Snowwy
06-08-2009, 02:59 AM
Fed easily

Polikarpov
06-08-2009, 03:51 AM
But Sampras had a tougher oppostion in grass and hard and has tremendous records there.
That being said, maybe Federer has the right to be called better because off his all-round game. But can we say he was better on grass and hard? Yet to prove. :)

And who are the tougher opposition Sampras faced on grass and hard?

Edberg and Becker past their prime? Becker who can barely keep healthy for a whole season? Ivanisevic a one dimensional player, a perennial first week loser in slams outside Wimbledon, and massive choker? Krajicek who plays well against Sampras, who has a great serve and mediocre everything, as well as being another perennial first week loser at slams? Rafter who only managed to get past the 4th round of slams seven times in his whole career? Cedric Pioline who has no real weapons to hurt Roger? Agassi who would only manage to trouble Roger if they played in '95-'96 and '00 -'01?

DartMarcus
06-08-2009, 05:01 AM
Sampras will always be better.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-08-2009, 05:06 AM
And who are the tougher opposition Sampras faced on grass and hard?

Edberg and Becker past their prime? Becker who can barely keep healthy for a whole season? Ivanisevic a one dimensional player, a perennial first week loser in slams outside Wimbledon, and massive choker? Krajicek who plays well against Sampras, who has a great serve and mediocre everything, as well as being another perennial first week loser at slams? Rafter who only managed to get past the 4th round of slams seven times in his whole career? Cedric Pioline who has no real weapons to hurt Roger? Agassi who would only manage to trouble Roger if they played in '95-'96 and '00 -'01?

I wonder waht you could say about Hewitt/Roddick/Ljubo/Davydenko/safin. :p

Ilovetheblues_86
06-08-2009, 05:11 AM
Yes, but 1 of the grand slams is played on clay and to crown Pete the best you would have to completely disregard clay as rubbish! Do we throw away this slam and surface to crown Pete as the best? I think the best means being an overall competitor on all surfaces!

Actually the best thing to say is to not call one as the best because Roger is not that so superior than Sampras or Laver to be considered like alone in the highest class ever, even if we can assume he might be now and can even improve his carreer, but I would prefer to call someone the GOAT if this guy could have won like more than 16 GS in all surfaces with at least 2 in each.

Maybe Federer can improve his stats now with some more Slams winnings as someone said already and can convince me to call him the GOAT, but all in all its better to avoid this kind of title since eras are different and it´s more fair to have some goats than only one. :)

Polikarpov
06-08-2009, 05:20 AM
I wonder waht you could say about Hewitt/Roddick/Ljubo/Davydenko/safin. :p

Did you purposely leave out Nadal, Djokovic, Murray? My point being the depth of field during Pete's era isn't that much better, or deeper than what Roger faced, and is facing. Federer would still have a convinving winning head to head records against players in Pete's time, if not owning them.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-08-2009, 05:27 AM
Did you purposely leave out Nadal, Djokovic, Murray? The point being Pete's field during his era isn't that much better, or deeper than what Roger faced, and is facing. Federer would still have a convinving winning head to head records against players in Pete's time, if not owning them.

Those players are very recent and its not a coincidence since they came on Federer struggled more to reach the 14 slams (2008 was probably the year everyone thought would happen).
I´m not trying to prove anyuthing, but is a fact that Federer struggles against those players and have won mostly his majors when those players werent around (2004-2007).
I mean Nadal was a treat only on clay untill 2007. Djokovic only became a top player in the mid/end of 2007 and Murray at the beginning of 2008. How many slams Fed won then? Two in six. Not totally dominant.
The field of 2003-2006 is still a bit weak to me, but who cares about my opinion. :lol:
I still believe people should not forget Laver, that guy was too awesome and every MTF should spent watching some hours of his matches and he never lacked anything: super fast, strong, wonderful volleys and good baseline :worship: just like Fed.

JediFed
06-08-2009, 06:31 AM
Fine. Give Roger the French, but Sampras is better on Grass.

The real question, Roger or Sampras on Hard courts? Is Roger the greatest hardcourter of all time?

Roger has 8 hardcourt slams. Sampras has seven. Roger is better at the AO. Sampras slightly better at the US Open. 5 wins and 3 finals vs 5 wins.

ballbasher101
06-08-2009, 06:42 AM
The fact that Federer has won the French now puts to rest the Federer vs Sampras debate. The question should be now how many more slams will Federer add to the 14 he has. I hope he gets at least three in the coming years.

wackykid
06-08-2009, 06:54 AM
I mean Nadal was a treat only on clay untill 2007. Djokovic only became a top player in the mid/end of 2007 and Murray at the beginning of 2008. How many slams Fed won then? Two in six. Not totally dominant.
The field of 2003-2006 is still a bit weak to me, but who cares about my opinion. :lol:
I still believe people should not forget Laver, that guy was too awesome and every MTF should spent watching some hours of his matches and he never lacked anything: super fast, strong, wonderful volleys and good baseline :worship: just like Fed.

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

fed's record in 2007: won AO/wimbledon/USO, finals for french...
fed's record in 2008: semi for AO, finals for wimbledon and french, won USO..
fed's record in 2009 so far: finals for AO, won french...

so that's 5 slams out of 10... 4 runner-ups... 1 semis... with all that competition from nadal/djoko/murray upcoming... even sampras never achieved that sort of results in any part of his reign...

so considering that... even if we have so called "better competition" from 2003-2006... federer would probably still match the 14 slams sooner or later...



regards,
wacky

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 06:58 AM
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

could use some updating...

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 06:59 AM
The fact that Federer has won the French now puts to rest the Federer vs Sampras debate. The question should be now how many more slams will Federer add to the 14 he has. I hope he gets at least three in the coming years.

He could get to 17 as quickly as 8 months from now. ;)