No more excuses can be made fellas. Today's field just doesnt have "it" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

No more excuses can be made fellas. Today's field just doesnt have "it"

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 01:25 PM
Outside of Del Potro and Nadal there is no other player out there who has the cajones and the ability to get it done against even a 28 year old passed his peak/prime Federer.

At the end of the day, some blame is going to have to go on the likes of DJokovic and Murray for being pretenders. I dont want to hear about how "young" there are. They have been around now for quite some time at the top. I you would have to figure Murray would have at least made it a 5 setter epic or at least 4 set determined by tiebreaks. But to get bullied and whiped out in straights by a 28 year old player passed his prime? No excuses.. These guys just dont have what it takes and people are making them out to be something they aren't, Its been proven time and time again

Sunset of Age
01-31-2010, 01:28 PM
^^ how about giving that guy that managed to stay on top for all those years, and still continuing to do so despite being 'already' 28 years old, some well-deserved credits for his achievements, in stead of bashing the rest of the field of current players? :rolleyes:

Byrd
01-31-2010, 01:31 PM
Sampras fans still bitter eh...

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 01:32 PM
^^ how about giving that guy that managed to stay on top for all those years, and still continuing to do so despite being 'already' 28 years old, some well-deserved credits for his achievements, in stead of bashing the rest of the field of current players? :rolleyes:

I give Fed credit but Im not giving him nearly too much at all. .. He's been good.. But not good to the point where he has been overly impressive. Certainly nowhere near where he used to be.. And you can rest assured if Nadal was healthy Fed at this level would be the current #2 in the world. Fed wouldnt get away playing at a lower level if he had to deal with Nadal at the slams. He would have lost Wimbeldon, RG, AND Today playing Nadal.

If anything alot of the credit should go to Del Potro and Nadal for being injury plagued and letting Fed have free reign. They are the only ones with balls to beat Federer and now bow down

TheWall
01-31-2010, 01:34 PM
I give Fed credit but Im not giving him nearly too much at all. .. He's been good.. But not good to the point where he has been overly impressive. Certainly nowhere near where he used to be.. And you can rest assured if Nadal was healthy Fed at this level would be the current #2 in the world. Fed wouldnt get away playing at a lower level if he had to deal with Nadal at the slams. He would have lost Wimbeldon, RG, AND Today playing Nadal.

If anything alot of the credit should go to Del Potro and Nadal for being injury plagued and letting Fed have free reign. They are the only ones with balls to beat Federer and now bow down

Still commentating on matches you haven't seen?

Federer's backhand was as good as it ever has in the 2 few sets, serve was way better than during 2006.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 01:36 PM
Still commentating on matches you haven't seen?

Federer's backhand was as good as it ever has in the 2 few sets, serve was way better than during 2006.

Because Murray has no aggressive game to speak of unlike a Del Potro so Federer can just have a field day. Obviously if Fed was on, Murray is the perfect opponent to be "on" against.



Even Davydenko managed a set

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 01:36 PM
I think a lot of it... MOST OF IT is Roger. I used to not think that way, but... c'mon. Roger is really just that good.

However, there is something a little odd about the top players.
Now, even Rafa has fallen victim to it.

I mean.. I understand about protecting one's health.. I do.....

But this is the second time Rafa has just handed over a grand slam title without really defending it. First, it was at Wimby where he didn't even play. Now, he retired at the AO. In a way, I would have like to see him at least go through the motions, staying on court than retiring... I understand his knee was hurting him. However, I would have just liked to have seen him stay out there fighting as well as he could have under the circumstances.

Of course, now Nole has made a habit of it--like Tsonga said--for 5 years! I like Nole, too, and I realize if he's sick; he's sick. But I still would like to see him just stick it out rather than retiring because it's obviously a habit of some sort or just bad luck, maybe?

I'm on the fence about it because on one hand I understand... on the other it's like this fine line to where it APPEARS like they are just giving up.

rwn
01-31-2010, 01:38 PM
Sampras fans still bitter eh...

He remembers how Sampras played when he was 28. Nowhere near this level.

TheWall
01-31-2010, 01:39 PM
Because Murray has no aggressive game to speak of unlike a Del Potro so Federer can just have a field day. Obviously if Fed was on, Murray is the perfect opponent to be "on" against.



Even Davydenko managed a set

So you haven't seen the Federer-Davydenko match either?

Federer made 20+ UEs in the first 10 games and served badly compared to today, Murray would've won that set too.

Sunset of Age
01-31-2010, 01:40 PM
I give Fed credit but Im not giving him nearly too much at all. .. He's been good.. But not good to the point where he has been overly impressive. Certainly nowhere near where he used to be.. And you can rest assured if Nadal was healthy Fed at this level would be the current #2 in the world. Fed wouldnt get away playing at a lower level if he had to deal with Nadal at the slams. He would have lost Wimbeldon, RG, AND Today playing Nadal.

Okay. Point taken, but I think you're overrating Nadal here - know what, you just can't play someone in a GS final who fails to show up there. :)

If anything alot of the credit should go to Del Potro and Nadal for being injury plagued and letting Fed have free reign. They are the only ones with balls to beat Federer and now bow down

Staying healthy and fit is part of the game. :shrug:
A lot of it has to do with proper scheduling and of course, playing style. Of course there is the luck-factor as well, and yes, I admit that Federer has indeed been lucky with having a bod like he apparently has.

Persimmon
01-31-2010, 01:41 PM
Even Andreev took a set from Fed at the AO... what does that say about Murray?:o

Federer=God
01-31-2010, 01:42 PM
28 year old "post-prime" Fed would have easily been the best player in the world in the era of, say, Hewitt. Federer is too good, and yes a lot of the new crop are mentally weak, but Federer's ability should not be understated.

Stefanos13
01-31-2010, 01:42 PM
Outside of Del Potro and Nadal there is no other player out there who has the cajones and the ability to get it done against even a 28 year old passed his peak/prime Federer.

At the end of the day, some blame is going to have to go on the likes of DJokovic and Murray for being pretenders. I dont want to hear about how "young" there are. They have been around now for quite some time at the top. I you would have to figure Murray would have at least made it a 5 setter epic or at least 4 set determined by tiebreaks. But to get bullied and whiped out in straights by a 28 year old player passed his prime? No excuses.. These guys just dont have what it takes and people are making them out to be something they aren't, Its been proven time and time again

Such a naive thread on the day a guy won his 16th grand slam title! Have you seen the match? Or are you doing some age-based guess work here? This was one of Federer's most impressive grand slam appearances. And Murray was being no "pretender". He was good too. Give tennis some credit!

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 01:42 PM
So you haven't seen the Federer-Davydenko match either?

Federer made 20+ UEs in the first 10 games and served badly compared to today, Murray would've won that set too.

Yea I saw the game.. And Fed played bad because Davydenko was attacking, returning well and making him play bad. Until he turned into a country club after being up 3-1 in the 2nd set where he couldnt get a ball over the net

Persimmon
01-31-2010, 01:45 PM
If anything alot of the credit should go to Del Potro and Nadal for being injury plagued and letting Fed have free reign. They are the only ones with balls to beat Federer and now bow down

Yeah Nadal and Del Potro are very injury prone. But Fed knows how to stay healthy. Kudos to him.

TheWall
01-31-2010, 01:46 PM
Yea I saw the game.. And Fed played bad because Davydenko was attacking, returning well and making him play bad. Until he turned into a country club after being up 3-1 in the 2nd set where he couldnt get a ball over the net

Sure Davydenko played well, but Federer was shanking almost everything, no matter if it was a hard and deep shot or a midcourt looper.

It doesn't matter anyway, Federer beat both of them and keeps dwarfing Sampras' achievments.

gusavo
01-31-2010, 01:46 PM
Outside of Del Potro and Nadal there is no other player out there who has the cajones and the ability to get it done against even a 28 year old passed his peak/prime Federer.
2-5, 6-5(7-5)

I you would have to figure Murray would have at least made it a 5 setter epic or at least 4 set determined by tiebreaks. But to get bullied and whiped out in straights by a 28 year old player passed his prime? No excuses.. These guys just dont have what it takes and people are making them out to be something they aren't, Its been proven time and time again
yeah thats right, a player who is "really brave" and "has it" automatically doesent lose 0-3. potro was like 92% to go down 0-2 to fed and then be like 75% to lose the third. you are out of it.
what are they making them out to be. how has it been proven so many times?

Dougie
01-31-2010, 01:47 PM
Even Andreev took a set from Fed at the AO... what does that say about Murray?:o

Absolutely nothing. You really think it was the same Fed playing in the opening rounds and the final? Fed always uses the first 1-2 rounds trying out things, tesing his shots etc.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 01:49 PM
28 year old "post-prime" Fed would have easily been the best player in the world in the era of, say, Hewitt. Federer is too good, and yes a lot of the new crop are mentally weak, but Federer's ability should not be understated.

Maybe maybe not.. Fed barely got by Roddick at wimbeldon.. Maybe Roddick in 05 wimbeldon form or so would beat Federer in his current form.. Hell Andre at 34 or 35 years old may beat roger in current form since he took a much younger Roger to 4 and 5 sets at the USO. Murray CANT EVEN DO THAT!!! to a 28 year old Federer. Hewitt played with more cajones then mama's boy murray

Amber Spyglass
01-31-2010, 01:51 PM
Andy needed to be aggressive and he wasn't.A few points he played aggressive and he won them but he never played that way on a big point.He even looked too nervous and conservative to try a dropshot.I think Djokovic could have troubled him if ever got his shizz together,got over his nerves and played all out aggressive like he can.Obviously Delpo can do that to perfection but he's a little one-dimensional which Cilic showed even if he was tired and well Nadal as brilliant and all as he was playing you have to admit that Fed had a bit of a complex about him

gusavo
01-31-2010, 01:53 PM
Murray CANT EVEN DO THAT!!! to a 28 year old Federer.
lol of course he can, are you drunk? what is this?
age is god so irrelevant in this discussion

oranges
01-31-2010, 01:54 PM
Yawn, do you have a schedule for these threads, like one a week or something?

Pretty much, it's a lose/lose situation with you. Those who do it are mugs because they didn't do it time and time again, those who don't are even more so. But yeah, you're giving credit where it's due all around :crazy:

Time for a Murray bashing thread, else that pent up frustration over 16th will end up as ulcer if it hasn't already

Jōris
01-31-2010, 01:54 PM
Even Andreev took a set from Fed at the AO... what does that say about Murray?:o

Nothing. Federer underestimated Andreev in the first set and was throwing it on his serve when he went 3-1 ahead. The match was over after he upped his game.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 01:56 PM
2-5, 6-5(7-5)


yeah thats right, a player who is "really brave" and "has it" automatically doesent lose 0-3. potro was like 92% to go down 0-2 to fed and then be like 75% to lose the third. you are out of it.
what are they making them out to be. how has it been proven so many times?



Del Potro proved he can beat Federer in a slam final. Nadal proved he can do it 5-6 times. Murray has NEVER proven it.. Djoker proved it 2 years ago and hasnt even reached a slam final since for being such a great player.

The way Del Potro was playing in attack move made alot of people think he could have pulled the upset over Fed.. Regardless of how well Murray was playing at the AO( maybe at his best) showed that by the masses most people didn't have any confidence in him beating Fed due to his passive play. And this match showed why people have no confidence in him getting by Fed or winning a slam for that matter

Dougie
01-31-2010, 01:56 PM
Maybe maybe not.. Fed barely got by Roddick at wimbeldon.. Maybe Roddick in 05 wimbeldon form or so would beat Federer in his current form.. Hell Andre at 34 or 35 years old may beat roger in current form since he took a much younger Roger to 4 and 5 sets at the USO. Murray CANT EVEN DO THAT!!! to a 28 year old Federer. Hewitt played with more cajones then mama's boy murray

Itīs not as simple as saying Murray played badly. Federer didnīt let him in the match at any point, he was just that good. Murray tried to play to Federerīs backhand, but he got nothing out of it, Fed kept hitting his bh with good length and power, and as soon as Murray tried to do something with the ball, he would only open up an angle for Fed to go for, and he hardly missed. So some credit to Fed! When heīs playing at that kind of level, age hardly matters.

JediFed
01-31-2010, 01:57 PM
Man, that's got to suck. Sampras has to share yet another record with Federer. :)

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 01:57 PM
Maybe maybe not.. Fed barely got by Roddick at wimbeldon.. Maybe Roddick in 05 wimbeldon form or so would beat Federer in his current form.. Hell Andre at 34 or 35 years old may beat roger in current form since he took a much younger Roger to 4 and 5 sets at the USO. Murray CANT EVEN DO THAT!!! to a 28 year old Federer. Hewitt played with more cajones then mama's boy murray

I like Andy Roddick, obviously. I think he's a good top player-- a very hard worker. I just don't think he's champion like Andre--Andre's meth use notwithstanding! :lol: To me, Andy isn't playing with as much abandon as he used to. :shrug: It's like he's just getting the ball back.. I don't know what the heck he's doing.

Andre imposed himself. Hey... how many matches did Andre retire from--not that Andy Roddick has retired from matches. I'm talking about the legendary players in Roger and Rafa's league?

I just can't imagine Andre retiring because his knees were sore. I honestly can't imagine Andre not defending a Wimby title unless he had something broken or was really sick. I know--believe me-- I KNOW tendinitis can be very debilitating, but then again, a person can go through the motions at least....

Rafa used to "impose" himself. Now he doesn't.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 01:58 PM
lol of course he can, are you drunk? what is this?
age is god so irrelevant in this discussion

Where has it been shown he can? His two slam finals against Federer hes been whooped in straight sets. 34 year old Agassi was passed his prime took Federer to 5 sets in a slam final and at 35 years old hung right in there at the USO. And this was an agassi who just played a 5 straight five sets matches at 35 years of age

Mosquito3
01-31-2010, 01:59 PM
And you can rest assured if Nadal was healthy Fed at this level would be the current #2 in the world. Fed wouldnt get away playing at a lower level if he had to deal with Nadal at the slams. He would have lost Wimbeldon, RG, AND Today playing Nadal.

Shure, and if federer had been that of the 2006 nadal wouldn't have won Wimbledon 2008 and Ao 2009....

scoobs
01-31-2010, 01:59 PM
It's the usual argument - is Federer just that good or are the opponents just not that good.

Everyone will have their own opinion - not to mention their own agendas, when they answer.

scoobs
01-31-2010, 01:59 PM
Where has it been shown he can? His two slam finals against Federer hes been whooped in straight sets. 34 year old Agassi was passed his prime took Federer to 5 sets in a slam final
That'll come as welcome relief to Agassi, he thinks he only got it to a four set match.

Noleta
01-31-2010, 02:00 PM
It is what it is,deal with it.

SheepleBuster
01-31-2010, 02:02 PM
I have always believed that 70% Federer can still be in top 3 for a long time to come. I am just not sure you can read too much from Murray's loss today. The guy did his best and got nervous. He thinks Federer is a good match up for him but not when he is so defensive. Fed gave him a pointer by telling him to be aggressive but Murray didn't want to hear it.

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 02:05 PM
It's the usual argument - is Federer just that good or are the opponents just not that good.

Everyone will have their own opinion - not to mention their own agendas, when they answer.

Well, I think Federer is that good.

I just don't see a lot of fight from the other players.

Like today, I really thought Andy Murray would have taken it to 4 or 5 sets at least even though I didn't think he'd win. :shrug:

I mean.. it's one thing to lose in 4 or 5. It's quite another to lose in 3--particularly for a player like Andy Murray.

Sure Federer was his GOAT-ness self, but I'm just saying.. there was no fight from Andy--none of that brashness.

I dunno...

And Pony-boy has a wrist injury, right?

Nole getting sick again, and now he's ranked #2? :eek: (And I like Nole..)

There's just something weird... not really having to do with Roger if that makes any sense? It's not about Roger because Roger's record speaks for itself.

It's more about the other players not even making it close.

scoobs
01-31-2010, 02:08 PM
Well, I think Federer is that good.

I just don't see a lot of fight from the other players.

Like today, I really thought Andy Murray would have taken it to 4 or 5 sets at least even though I didn't think he'd win. :shrug:

I mean.. it's one thing to lose in 4 or 5. It's quite another to lose in 3--particularly for a player like Andy Murray.

Sure Federer was his GOAT-ness self, but I'm just saying.. there was no fight from Andy--none of that brashness.

I dunno...

And Pony-boy has a wrist injury, right?

Nole getting sick again, and now he's ranked #2? :eek: (And I like Nole..)

There's just something weird... not really having to do with Roger if that makes any sense? It's not about Roger because Roger's record speaks for itself.

It's more about the other players not even making it close.
Yes but do you not think, in the 90s for example, these sorts of issues were going on too, but they were also happening to guys like Sampras and Agassi as well as everyone else? Sampras would get injured, or he'd have a sticky tournament and lose earlier than one would expect. Agassi had his issues and would be good for a while then fall off the planet, etc. Even as good as those two were, they didn't keep it going every single slam. That's where the difference is, IMO - Federer rarely gets injured, never to the extent that he has to miss slams, rarely to the extent that it has any noticeable effect on his level of play.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 02:10 PM
I have always believed that 70% Federer can still be in top 3 for a long time to come. I am just not sure you can read too much from Murray's loss today. The guy did his best and got nervous. He thinks Federer is a good match up for him but not when he is so defensive. Fed gave him a pointer by telling him to be aggressive but Murray didn't want to hear it.


Should MUrray at this point be getting nervous? That just another excuse for lack of mental toughness in big situations.. Murray has been around and in and around the top spot in the world for quite some time now. THis was his 2nd slam finals appearance. Murray should not be getting "nervous" anymore.

zicofirol
01-31-2010, 02:13 PM
Fed is incredibly good, maybe best ever but it can't be denied that this era is weaker at the top when compared to sampras era...

gusavo
01-31-2010, 02:14 PM
Del Potro proved he can beat Federer in a slam final. Nadal proved he can do it 5-6 times. Murray has NEVER proven it.. Djoker proved it 2 years ago and hasnt even reached a slam final since for being such a great player.
anyone can "prove" it. this is stupid
djok has never "proved" he could beat fed there.

The way Del Potro was playing in attack move made alot of people think he could have pulled the upset over Fed.. And this match showed why people have no confidence in him getting by Fed or winning a slam for that matter
thats not what this match showed, and I havent seen people think that anywhere.
people who thought like your post above are not great at tennis. he didnt have close to as good chance to beat him as murray.

Where has it been shown he can? His two slam finals against Federer hes been whooped in straight sets.
by playing tennis matches hes shown it. he was about 3 for the us open final and 2.6 here.

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 02:14 PM
Yes but do you not think, in the 90s for example, these sorts of issues were going on too, but they were also happening to guys like Sampras and Agassi as well as everyone else? Sampras would get injured, or he'd have a sticky tournament and lose earlier than one would expect. Agassi had his issues and would be good for a while then fall off the planet, etc. Even as good as those two were, they didn't keep it going every single slam. That's where the difference is, IMO - Federer rarely gets injured, never to the extent that he has to miss slams, rarely to the extent that it has any noticeable effect on his level of play.

Well, that's true. We all know Andre took an extended leave of absence! :lol:

And Pete.. yeah... But I recall Pete vomiting on-court? Do you remember that? He had food poisoning or something like that, and he was getting all sick. I don't recall the score, maybe the match was too close for him to retire! :lol: But I remember him just throwing up in the hedges.. and then on court!:eek:

I just seems to me a lot of the top players retire from matches more than they used to.

Like Rafa... I was really shocked he retired from his match against Murray. I know... I know.... about his knees. But then again... I just think he could have gone through the motions. What was the score? Was Murray up two sets? Then Rafa retired in the third?

I found it: The score was Murray 6-4; 7-6; 3-0--Rafa retiring. Come-on now! As defending champ, Rafa could have just gone through the motions, sticking it out for the third set even if he lost at love.

In my opinion, for a defending champion to retire from a match--well anybody... I just think too many of these players--particularly the top players are retiring rather than just hanging in there. I understand about Rafa's tendonitis, but that's not an injury to where he couldn't stay on court and at least go through the motions--particularly since he was losing anyway.

There's just something very odd.

barbadosan
01-31-2010, 02:15 PM
Still commentating on matches you haven't seen?

Federer's backhand was as good as it ever has in the 2 few sets, serve was way better than during 2006.

Priceless! :haha: :haha: :haha:

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 02:37 PM
I agree with you, it's totally right.

I never found that Federer was that good, he always had to deal with mental issues of his opponents. Murray, who is a very very good player, can't play his game in a slam final, he is like the young Lendl, but I doubt that he will wins slams now, he is just clueless once he reach the final.

The current field is weak, and that becomes a cakewalk for Federer who is assured to wins a lot of slams, even if this year and last year, he has clearly lost a step. That's bad for the sport, very bad.

The level of play has dramatically decreased, Djokovic is not the end 2007-early 2008 player he was, and more importantly, Nadal may be done for tennis with all his injuries.

He had clearly took over Federer and was beating him in all slams and all finals. He spanked Federer at Roland Garros so badly that Federer looked like a joke. Federer is certainly a great player, but he is not the best player of all time. Nadal dominated him in 3 differents grand slams, even on grass, where Federer was supposed to be the very best.

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 02:39 PM
Murray today >> Pioline, Todd Martin during their GS F battles with Sampras

good players... capable of winning a GS but just came up against a great performance

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 02:42 PM
Murray today >> Pioline, Todd Martin during their GS F battles with Sampras

good players... capable of winning a GS but just came up against a great performance

Agassi at 34 and 35 years old > Murray today. Safin, Rafter > Murray. Becker > Murray. We can play these games all day. Pete received some gifts at slam for sure. Fed has received more and keeps on receiving them especially with Nadal and Del Potro out. Fed has been receiving gifts since the French Open last year when Nadal went down

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 02:46 PM
Agassi at 34 and 35 years old > Murray today. Safin, Rafter > Murray. Becker > Murray. We can play these games all day. Pete received some gifts at slam for sure. Fed has received more and keeps on receiving them especially with Nadal and Del Potro out. Fed has been receiving gifts since the French Open last year when Nadal went down

How about a crippled Guga > Roger at the French?!

I just have to throw that one in there...

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 02:47 PM
Agassi at 34 and 35 years old > Murray today. Safin, Rafter > Murray. Becker > Murray. We can play these games all day. Pete received some gifts at slam for sure. Fed has received more and keeps on receiving them especially with Nadal and Del Potro out. Fed has been receiving gifts since the French Open last year when Nadal went down

What is your reasoning for these inequalities? Why is 34-35 year old Agassi > Murray?

scoobs
01-31-2010, 02:49 PM
What is your reasoning for these inequalities? Why is 34-35 year old Agassi > Murray?
Oh he took Federer to 4 sets in New York in 2005.

That's how we measure relative success, how many sets you win in defeat.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 02:51 PM
What is your reasoning for these inequalities? Why is 34-35 year old Agassi > Murray?


Agassi showed that even he riddled with sciatica will put up 10 times the fight vs Federer than a young Murray who is in the prime of his career (maybe peak) is now. Federer was at a higher level in 04 and 05 than he is now and Agassi still took him to 5 in the slams finals and took a set off him at 35 years old after playing 3 straight five setters. Murray had all the time in the world to relax, prepare and he doesnt have a bad back injury and he still gets thumped in straights.

Not to mention Agassi was just plain flat out more aggressive from the baseline than Murray even in his mid 30s

chalkdust
01-31-2010, 02:52 PM
Roger Federer in post-match interview today:

"Now I feel like obviously I'm being pushed a great deal by the new generation coming up. I always feel sort of tennis changes sort of every five years.

Because when I came on tour, matches were played very differently. It was more of a bluff game, guys serving well, but there was always a weakness you could go to. Today that doesn't exist anymore. I think that's also thanks to guys like Murray. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances, you know, in a long time, or maybe forever."

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 02:55 PM
Roger Federer in post-match interview today:

"Now I feel like obviously I'm being pushed a great deal by the new generation coming up. I always feel sort of tennis changes sort of every five years.

Because when I came on tour, matches were played very differently. It was more of a bluff game, guys serving well, but there was always a weakness you could go to. Today that doesn't exist anymore. I think that's also thanks to guys like Murray. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances, you know, in a long time, or maybe forever."

:lol:

Well I guess Roger thinks Sampras and Andre had an easier time of it!

I just wish the current players were more imposing. Rafa had it there for a while.. then he lost it.

Andre, Guga, Pete, etc., had this presence..

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 02:55 PM
Roger Federer in post-match interview today:

"Now I feel like obviously I'm being pushed a great deal by the new generation coming up. I always feel sort of tennis changes sort of every five years.

Because when I came on tour, matches were played very differently. It was more of a bluff game, guys serving well, but there was always a weakness you could go to. Today that doesn't exist anymore. I think that's also thanks to guys like Murray. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances, you know, in a long time, or maybe forever."



Thats Federer for you.. In what ways did Murray "push" Federer today? Murray didnt even being to play until it was too late And hes full of shit anyways.. Fed is NOT a better player now than he was then. Anyone who watched Federer 4-5 years ago and now will tell u that. Hes just trying to make it seems that what he is accomplishing now is so difficult. Wheelchair Hewitt already getting surgery and mental chump Tsonga and Davydenko who gave up 13 straight games after being up 3-1 in the 2nd set and now Murray was a walk in the park for Federer.


The only guy that can push Federer to the limit and bring to him is Nadal and he is out injured... And Del Potro who is out injured as well

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 02:57 PM
Lol at Federer "being pushed".

That was one of his easiest slam due to poor competition. The guy is so arrogant.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 02:59 PM
Lol at Federer "being pushed".

That was one of his easiest slam due to poor competition. The guy is so arrogant.

Agreed.. He is just making it seem that way. Tsonga didnt push him one bit and folded up worse than a 2 dollar suit. Davydenko let Fed take 13 games straight. Hewitt is currently in the E.R. And Murray didnt begin playing until the 3rd set..


Ohh yea.. Fed was soooo pushed:confused:

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 03:00 PM
Agassi at 34 and 35 years old > Murray today. Safin, Rafter > Murray. Becker > Murray. We can play these games all day. Pete received some gifts at slam for sure. Fed has received more and keeps on receiving them especially with Nadal and Del Potro out. Fed has been receiving gifts since the French Open last year when Nadal went downwhat kind of shit are you talking

so because Nadal and Del Potro beat him in GS's last year means they automatically are a lock to beat him every other time they meet?

why couldnt a fit Nadal beat Murray in QF's, why couldnt Del Potro beat Cilic?

GS's are a survival of the fittest and best in form

scoobs
01-31-2010, 03:01 PM
I'm sorry Federer is so much better than Sampras ever was - it must be so difficult for you :hug:

Art&Soul
01-31-2010, 03:02 PM
Lol at Federer "being pushed".

That was one of his easiest slam due to poor competition. The guy is so arrogant.


What a retarded comment from a Nadulltard as always :retard::retard::retard:

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:02 PM
what kind of shit are you talking

so because Nadal and Del Potro beat him in GS's last year means they automatically are a lock to beat him every other time they meet?

why couldnt a fit Nadal beat Murray in QF's, why couldnt Del Potro beat Cilic?

GS's are a survival of the fittest and best in form

Nadal was not fit.

And Nadal has lost his tennis since Australian Open last year. He is nearly done. This is not the same Nadal anymore.

Before his injury, Nadal was toying with Federer in all slams and all surfaces.

Like I said, Federer was winning slam, Nadal came and dominated him, then get badly injured and Federer only started to win slams again. This is directly related.

The injury of Nadal is a guaranteed pass to victory for Federer, as proved today.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:03 PM
What a retarded comment from a Nadulltard as always :retard::retard::retard:

Are you a Federer fan?

Do you know how many mirror he owns? Or how many time per day he says to himself that he is a legend?

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 03:04 PM
Agassi showed that even he riddled with sciatica will put up 10 times the fight vs Federer than a young Murray who is in the prime of his career (maybe peak) is now. Federer was at a higher level in 04 and 05 than he is now and Agassi still took him to 5 in the slams finals and took a set off him at 35 years old after playing 3 straight five setters. Murray had all the time in the world to relax, prepare and he doesnt have a bad back injury and he still gets thumped in straights.

Not to mention Agassi was just plain flat out more aggressive from the baseline than Murray even in his mid 30s

1.) You are looking just at slams to define quality. Murray has taken more wins from Federer than Agassi was ever capable of, 34-35 or earlier. Just because Agassi was able to take one more set in a final doesn't make him better. Additionally Agassi had already won slams, so it wasn't as if he was playing Fed and dealing with first-time pressure.

2.) Being aggressive doesn't make Agassi better. Using that logic, you could say Woodford was better than Muster.

Lol at Federer "being pushed".

That was one of his easiest slam due to poor competition. The guy is so arrogant.

Playing nobody lower than #50. Playing Davydenko and Murray on hard. Throw in Tsonga and Hewitt. I mean, ok, it's not as tough as Nadal's Wimbledon '08... remember that SF against rhe dreaded Rainer Schuettler? Quite a tough draw that was.

Art&Soul
01-31-2010, 03:07 PM
Agreed.. He is just making it seem that way. Tsonga didnt push him one bit and folded up worse than a 2 dollar suit. Davydenko let Fed take 13 games straight. Hewitt is currently in the E.R. And Murray didnt begin playing until the 3rd set..


Ohh yea.. Fed was soooo pushed:confused:

Stop polluting this board with your BS again :bs: cos no one care about Samprass dull anymore :zzz:

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 03:09 PM
1.) You are looking just at slams to define quality. Murray has taken more wins from Federer than Agassi was ever capable of, 34-35 or earlier. Just because Agassi was able to take one more set in a final doesn't make him better. Additionally Agassi had already won slams, so it wasn't as if he was playing Fed and dealing with first-time pressure.

2.) Being aggressive doesn't make Agassi better. Using that logic, you could say Woodford was better than Muster.



Playing nobody lower than #50. Playing Davydenko and Murray on hard. Throw in Tsonga and Hewitt. I mean, ok, it's not as tough as Nadal's Wimbledon '08... remember that SF against rhe dreaded Rainer Schuettler? Quite a tough draw that was.



Im looking at the fact that how can man crippled with sciatica in his mid 30s put up much more of a fight against a younger Federer than currently with a young top 2-3 in the world player against an OLDER Federer on a less level playing wise?

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 03:09 PM
Nadal was not fit.

as i said

tennis is a survival of the fittest

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 03:10 PM
Im looking at the fact that how can man crippled with sciatica in his mid 30s put up much more of a fight against a younger Federer than currently with a young top 2-3 in the world player against an OLDER Federer on a less level playing wise?you do know in that same year Fed beat Agassi 3,4 and 4 in Aussie Open?

probably you dont

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 03:11 PM
you do know in that same year Fed beat Agassi 3,4 and 4 in Aussie Open?

probably you dont

And the year before Agassi toook Fed right to 5 sets at the USO. Has Murray ever taken Fed to 5 sets at a slam?

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 03:13 PM
And the year before Agassi toook Fed right to 5 sets at the USO. Has Murray ever taken Fed to 5 sets at a slam?did Sampras ever take a set from Safin or Hewitt in a GS Final?

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:14 PM
as i said

tennis is a survival of the fittest

Give him this title if you want.

For me he just not is the best tennisplayer. The less injury prones and a player who has a mental edge over a lot of other players, but not the best.

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:16 PM
Nadal was not fit.

And Nadal has lost his tennis since Australian Open last year. He is nearly done. This is not the same Nadal anymore.

Before his injury, Nadal was toying with Federer in all slams and all surfaces.

Like I said, Federer was winning slam, Nadal came and dominated him, then get badly injured and Federer only started to win slams again. This is directly related.

The injury of Nadal is a guaranteed pass to victory for Federer, as proved today.

Nadull was fit for two sets.

Get over it.

manuel84
01-31-2010, 03:17 PM
Fed is da MAN. Get over it already. Pete Sampras himself did sometime ago.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:18 PM
Nadull was fit for two sets.

Get over it.

Nadal has not played at his level for one year. The injuries have killed his tennis.

Get over it.

NadalPhan
01-31-2010, 03:19 PM
Nadal was not fit.

And Nadal has lost his tennis since Australian Open last year. He is nearly done. This is not the same Nadal anymore.

Before his injury, Nadal was toying with Federer in all slams and all surfaces.

Like I said, Federer was winning slam, Nadal came and dominated him, then get badly injured and Federer only started to win slams again. This is directly related.

The injury of Nadal is a guaranteed pass to victory for Federer, as proved today.

Boy I really hope you're wrong about Nadal being nearly done. And yes, every slam is a guaranteed pass to victory for Fed without Nadal.

HarryMan
01-31-2010, 03:20 PM
Well, Sampras and Agassi made their field look a lot more stronger by losing more often than not at slams. Federer just doesn't do that. I think, it would be easier to just admit that Federer is just better at everything that we have ever seen for a long time -- tennis, fitness, and everything else.

You talk about Del Potro, the same guy, who was thrashed a year ago at the AO by Federer. If he lost in the USO final (which he could have had Federer won the second set while serving for it), you would have dismissed him as a weak link of this era. Since Federer didn't play well and allowed Del Potro into that match, and in the process, losing his crown to Del Potro, you consider him a real threat. I don't want to make excuses, I am just breaking things down to you. And if he was so good, why couldn't he get past Cilic in the fourth round? Does that mean, he was not better than the field? Similarly Nadal was getting destroyed by Murray before his injury, so lets not attribute that loss to injury. Again, this proves Nadal is not greater than the field.

When these two (who you consider real contenders can't do it consistently against everyone else), how can you say the field is weak? Couldn't it just be that one guy has raised the bar so much that he makes others look weak? Ever considered this?

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:21 PM
Boy I really hope you're wrong about Nadal being nearly done. And yes, every slam is a guaranteed pass to victory for Fed without Nadal.

I hope I am wrong too, but all signs indicates that he will keep to get injured, that he is mentally broken, that he has no confidence and that probably he has enough of this situation.

Haelfix
01-31-2010, 03:22 PM
The weak era excuse is getting very old and the longer it goes on, the more implausible it really sounds.

Federer since 2003 has been wrecking people, whether its the older generation (Agassi, Henmann et al), the semi older generation (Safin, Hewitt) his generation (Gonzo, Davydenko, Nalbandian etc) and in fact now the newer generation (DP, Murray, Nole etc).

The implication is that all these guys suck, are mentally weak or clowns and so forth. Its just ridiculous and absurd!

scoobs
01-31-2010, 03:23 PM
Federer

2003 Wimbledon F - Federer d. Philippoussis 76 62 76 - pretty comfortable
2004 Australian Open F - Federer d. Safin 76 64 62 - easy enough
2004 Wimbledon F - Federer d. Roddick 46 75 76 64 - one set dropped
2004 US Open F - Federer d. Hewitt 60 76 60 - easy
2005 Wimbledon F - Federer d. Roddick 62 76 64 - easy
2005 US Open F - Federer d. Agassi 63 26 76 61 - one set dropped
2006 Australian Open F - Federer d. Baghdatis 57 75 60 62 - one set dropped
2006 Wimbledon F - Federer d. Nadal 60 76 67 63 - one set dropped
2006 US Open F - Federer d. Roddick 62 46 75 61 - one set dropped
2007 Australian Open F - Federer d. Gonzalez 76 64 64 - easy
2007 Wimbledon F - Federer d. Nadal 76 46 76 26 62 - two sets dropped
2007 US Open F - Federer d. Djokovic 76 76 64 - easy enough
2008 US Open F - Federer d. Murray 62 75 62 - easy
2009 Roland Garros F - Federer d. Soderling 61 76 64 - easy
2009 Wimbledon F - Federer d. Roddick 57 76 76 36 1614 - two sets dropped
2010 Australian Open F - Federer d. Murray 63 64 76 - easy

In 16 matches, 2 five setters, 5 four setters, 9 straight sets.


Sampras

1990 US Open F - Sampras d. Agassi 64 63 62 - yep, pushed hard there.

1993 Wimbledon F - Sampras d. Courier 76 76 36 63 - dropped one set in the third set, pushed a little bit
1993 US Open F - Sampras d. Pioline 64 64 63 - yep, Pete in major trouble there
1994 Australian Open F - Sampras d. Martin 76 64 64 - oops, so tough.
1994 Wimbledon F - Sampras d. Ivanisevic 76 76 60 - wow that 0 set must have been brutal.
1995 Wimbledon F - Sampras d. Becker 67 62 64 62 - looks like Pete woke up late but then he was really pushed.
1995 US Open F - Sampras d. Agassi 64 63 46 75 - another brutal encounter, Pete pushed all the way.
1996 US Open F - Sampras d. Chang 61 64 76 - a real nailbiter that one.
1997 Australian Open F - Sampras d. Moya 62 63 63 - murderously hard.
1997 Wimbledon F - Sampras d. Pioline 64 62 64 - a real ouchy match there.
1998 Wimbledon F - Sampras d. Ivanisevic 67 76 64 36 62 - wow, Pete actually *was* pushed!
1999 Wimbledon F - Sampras d. Agassi 63 64 75 - very very lucky to squeak through that one.
2000 Wimbledon F - Sampras d. Rafter 67 76 64 62 - the old man slow to crank up the engine but one he did, he was in big trouble.
2002 US Open F - Sampras d. Agassi 63 64 57 64 - Sampras's grand slam bitch bites back. Except not.

In 14 slam wins, 1 5 setter, 5 4 setters, 8 straight sets wins.

Yep, sure looks like Pete had a much tougher time in the slam finals - he was pushed so much more wasn't he. Well, about the same really but let's not let facts stand in the way of a good whine.

tektonac
01-31-2010, 03:24 PM
Fed was 22 when he won his first GS, so yes, there are few guys who are _still_ young. But agree, no1 will ever come close to what Fed has achieved.

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 03:24 PM
I definitely think Roger is more talented than Pete. :shrug:

I just think the other players of this generation don't seem to be as competitive.

And no, a player can't win on aggressiveness alone, but Andre could back-up being aggressive on the return.

As far as Rafa's injuries.. I dunno.. It's definitely a bummer whatever is going on with him.

It's a bummer whatever is going-on with Murray, too and DelPo and Nole... and Roddick, and Monfils, and

I do think Roger is in a league of his own. But Rafa was able to beat him... But when a player starts retiring from matches .. I just wouldn't be surprised if the players have lost some respect for Rafa... I mean.. I wonder if he would have retired if he had been up two sets, then started having problems with his knees..

There's just something weird...


I sometimes wonder how Roger would have handled somebody like McEnroe or Connors! :lol: Connors in particular would have given him no respect.

I just don't know..

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:25 PM
Nadal has not played at his level for one year. The injuries have killed his tennis.

Get over it.

He was still fit, clown.

Magus13
01-31-2010, 03:25 PM
At least you got people to remember Sampras who after today slips even further out of GOAT conversation. Agassi all but said, wait a minute did say Fed was better. I'm glad you love your guy and I'm sure he appreciates your efforts. I like Sampras, loved Edberg, Borg and have been a fan of tennis my whole life. Simply put, Fed is the best there is. I don't need stats and player comparisons and surface comparisons. I don't even need to convince you or anybody else because of how crystal clear it is that Fed is the GOAT. By the way, Sampras inabillity to do anything at the French is a glaring spot on his resume. Even Johnny Mac made a Fench Open final and Connors won the US Open on Clay. Courrier and Agassi won the French. He might not even beat Roddick on Clay. After each further slam won by Roger, please feel free to remind us of how great Sampras was even though many of us saw all his matches and know who the better man is. Have a nice day. :wavey::wavey:

king_roger
01-31-2010, 03:26 PM
Where has it been shown he can? His two slam finals against Federer hes been whooped in straight sets. 34 year old Agassi was passed his prime took Federer to 5 sets in a slam final and at 35 years old hung right in there at the USO. And this was an agassi who just played a 5 straight five sets matches at 35 years of age

You need to get your facts straight, man! First of all, Andre didn't play 5 straight 5-setters at 2005 USOpen, and second, he lost to Roger in 4 sets. In the third set Fed crushed him 7-1 i think, and the 4th set should have been a bagel. And since you are mentioning that Andre had tough matches with Fed, let me remind you some of the thrashings he received from Fed: 2003 Masters Cup, 2005 AOpen, 2005 Dubai....

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 03:27 PM
Nadal has not played at his level for one year. The injuries have killed his tennis.

Get over it.

Nadal's style of play has killed his results. His level is sprint and lunge. Doesn't work for a year. Get over it.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:27 PM
He was still fit, clown.

Not only Nadal was not fit, but in addition it was the poorer version of Rafa, the shadow that is losing against every top 20 player, and Murray stil had troubles.

king_roger
01-31-2010, 03:27 PM
At least you got people to remember Sampras who after today slips even further out of GOAT conversation. Agassi all but said, wait a minute did say Fed was better. I'm glad you love your guy and I'm sure he appreciates your efforts. I like Sampras, loved Edberg, Borg and have been a fan of tennis my whole life. Simply put, Fed is the best there is. I don't need stats and player comparisons and sur face comparisons. I don't even need to convince you or any body else because of how crystal clear it is that Fed is the GOAT. By the wat, Sampras inabillity to do anything at the French is a glaring spot on his resume. Even Johnny Mac made a Fench Open final and Connors won the US Open on Clay. Courrier and Agassi won the French. He might not even beat Roddick on Clay. After each further slam won by Roger, please feel free to remind us of how great Sampras was even though many of us saw all his matches and know who the better man is. Have a nice day. :wavey::wavey:

:worship: OWNED!

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:27 PM
At least you got people to remember Sampras who after today slips even further out of GOAT conversation. Agassi all but said, wait a minute did say Fed was better. I'm glad you love your guy and I'm sure he appreciates your efforts. I like Sampras, loved Edberg, Borg and have been a fan of tennis my whole life. Simply put, Fed is the best there is. I don't need stats and player comparisons and sur face comparisons. I don't even need to convince you or any body else because of how crystal clear it is that Fed is the GOAT. By the wat, Sampras inabillity to do anything at the French is a glaring spot on his resume. Even Johnny Mac made a Fench Open final and Connors won the US Open on Clay. Courrier and Agassi won the French. He might not even beat Roddick on Clay. After each further slam won by Roger, please feel free to remind us of how great Sampras was even though many of us saw all his matches and know who the better man is. Have a nice day. :wavey::wavey:

To be fair Pete did make the semis with a tough draw and won Rome, he was no clay clown.

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:28 PM
Not only Nadal was not fit, but in addition it was the poorer version of Rafa, the shadow that is losing against every top 20 player, and Murray stil had troubles.

Whether he's playing GOAT tennis or not doesn't matter, he was not injured for the two sets he lost. Therefore, legitimate loss.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:28 PM
Nadal's style of play has killed his results. His level is sprint and lunge. Doesn't work for a year. Get over it.

At his peak he was a better player than Federer. Mr fitness is just not the best. If other players like Murray and Davydenko were no mental midget, his record would not be that good.

SheepleBuster
01-31-2010, 03:29 PM
People think that Del Potro all of a sudden came and believed he could beat Fed. That's not true. After he got devastated at AO by Roger, he went to work, almost beat Roger at Roland Garros, and unsettled him enough in that US Open to win it. Del Po has more fire power than Murray and is a bad match up for a passive Roger. Roger does like Del Po, so that helps too. Roger won't go down to Murray not even if his life depended on it.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:29 PM
Whether he's playing GOAT tennis or not doesn't matter, he was not injured for the two sets he lost. Therefore, legitimate loss.

Rafa has been injured since the beginning of last year and has not recovered his level, that's all.

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:32 PM
Rafa has been injured since the beginning of last year and has not recovered his level, that's all.

So he's been carrying an injury all year long? Bloody hell he should be dead now then, all that tennis.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:34 PM
So he's been carrying an injury all year long? Bloody hell he should be dead now then, all that tennis.

Im a sure you are failing at trying to be ironic, but yes, Nadal is unable to perfom at his level because of injuries, and since one year.

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 03:34 PM
Rafa has been injured since the beginning of last year and has not recovered his level, that's all.every single match Nadal has lost since turning pro was because he was injured wasnt it?

tennis2tennis
01-31-2010, 03:34 PM
I give Fed credit but Im not giving him nearly too much at all. .. He's been good.. But not good to the point where he has been overly impressive. Certainly nowhere near where he used to be.. And you can rest assured if Nadal was healthy Fed at this level would be the current #2 in the world. Fed wouldnt get away playing at a lower level if he had to deal with Nadal at the slams. He would have lost Wimbeldon, RG, AND Today playing Nadal.

If anything alot of the credit should go to Del Potro and Nadal for being injury plagued and letting Fed have free reign. They are the only ones with balls to beat Federer and now bow down

do you actually read what your writing before you submit it...they're injury plagued because they find it difficult to sustain that level of play while maintaining their physical shape...Federer doesn't, I love Sampras too but c'mon he's competition was actually weaker just look at Roland Garros would he have beaten for example Nalbandian in the third round of the French open?

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:35 PM
every single match Nadal has lost since turning pro was because he was injured wasnt it?

No, but since one year at least.

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:37 PM
Im a sure you are failing at trying to be ironic, but yes, Nadal is unable to perfom at his level because of injuries, and since one year.

So is he injured when he walks out on to court every match??

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:39 PM
So is he injured when he walks out on to court every match??

Nadal is playing with injuries all the time now. And that's why he can't return to his level.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 03:39 PM
do you actually read what your writing before you submit it...they're injury plagued because they find it difficult to sustain that level of play while maintaining their physical shape...Federer doesn't, I love Sampras too but c'mon he's competition was actually weaker just look at Roland Garros would he have beaten for example Nalbandian in the third round of the French open?

Now that pisses me off.:mad: You telling me Sampras had "weaker" competition Don't bring up Sampras' clay court competition because there is NO comparison.. Sampras clay court competition was 10 times as deep. Outside the 2nd or 3rd clay court GOAT in Rafa who did you EVER have from there? Guga was the next of the 00s and he was finished years ago. You had Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Mevedev, Muster, and the list goes. There are no more clay court specialists who accel on clay. Nalbandian is a joke and hes been washed up for years.. Whats he won? Why bring him up?

Not sure why it would be difficult for Del Potro to maintain his fitness other than because he is big. Hes only 21 I mean come on now. 21 year olds shouldnt be constantly hampered by injuries left and right.. I could see if he was on top for a long time and in his mid-late 20s.

Magus13
01-31-2010, 03:41 PM
At his peak he was a better player than Federer. Mr fitness is just not the best. If other players like Murray and Davydenko were no mental midget, his record would not be that good.

Since I'm soooo happy Roger got 16 and will keep going, I want you too feel good as well. Nadal is better than Fed. Even though he has never won a US Open, held #1 for only 40 something weeks and outside of clay never dominated anyone he is the best. Actually he is the best along with Sampras. Hope that makes everyone happy. Me and most of the tennis world will live in our delusional fantasy that Fed is the Goat:devil:

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 03:42 PM
Nadal is playing with injuries all the time now. And that's why he can't return to his level.in 2008 Nadal faced a Federer who was no where near his best level from 2004-2006. look at it like that

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:42 PM
Since I'm soooo happy Roger got 16 and will keep going, I want you too feel good as well. Nadal is better than Fed. Even though he has never won a US Open, held #1 for only 40 something weeks and outside of clay never dominated anyone he is the best. Actually he is the best along with Sampras. Hope that makes everyone happy. Me and most of the tennis world will live in our delusional fantasy that Fed is the Goat:devil:

I just watched some footage of the 2008 RG final today. Only really deluded people would think that Federer is the "the goat".

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:44 PM
in 2008 Nadal faced a Federer who was no where near his best level from 2004-2006. look at it like that

Lol. Nadal slapped Federer when he was 17 in 2004, almost beat him in Miami again when he was 18, and beat him in Dubai in 2006 and in RG two times at this period.

"Prime Federer" was already losing against Rafa.

Magus13
01-31-2010, 03:45 PM
[QUOTE=SetSampras;9582946]Now that pisses me off.:mad: You telling me Sampras had "weaker" competition Don't bring up Sampras' clay court competition because there is NO comparison.. Sampras clay court competition was 10 times as deep. Outside the 2nd or 3rd clay court GOAT in Rafa who did you EVER have from there? Guga was the next of the 00s and he was finished years ago. You had Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Mevedev, Muster, and the list goes. There are no more clay court specialists who accel on clay. Nalbandian is a joke and hes been washed up for years.. Whats he won? Why bring him up?

Not sure why it would be difficult for Del Potro to maintain his fitness other than because he is big. Hes only 21 I mean come on now. 21 year olds shouldnt be constantly hampered by injuries left and right.. I could see if he was on top for a long time and in his mid-late 20s.[/QU.

My bad. Sampras was great on clay. Even though most champions find a way to win no mmatter what His level of competition was soo amazing that the best he could do was one French Semi final. Sampras=Clay GOAT. Sorry to think otherwise.

Everko
01-31-2010, 03:45 PM
Federer has benefited from weak competetion, its as simple as that.

scoobs
01-31-2010, 03:45 PM
Now that pisses me off.:mad: You telling me Sampras had "weaker" competition Don't bring up Sampras' clay court competition because there is NO comparison.. Sampras clay court competition was 10 times as deep. Outside the 2nd or 3rd clay court GOAT in Rafa who did you EVER have from there? Guga was the next of the 00s and he was finished years ago. You had Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Mevedev, Muster, and the list goes. There are no more clay court specialists who accel on clay. Nalbandian is a joke and hes been washed up for years.. Whats he won? Why bring him up?

Not sure why it would be difficult for Del Potro to maintain his fitness other than because he is big. Hes only 21 I mean come on now. 21 year olds shouldnt be constantly hampered by injuries left and right.. I could see if he was on top for a long time and in his mid-late 20s.
Where I think Sampras had greater problems than Roger does now is that back in the 90s there was more divergence between the surfaces. Grass was very fast, clay was slow, hardcourts somewhere in between, carpets were fast. This naturally led to different styles of players that excelled more on different surfaces. Nowadays grass is pretty slow, hardcourts are usually slow, clay is still slow, carpet tennis went the way of the dodo. So there's a more homogenised way of playing tennis by the pros, they have less adaptation to do from one surface to another in terms of their gamestyle. I think this is something that Federer is able to take advantage of - he has less different styles to deal with. What he says though is that in compensation for that, very few players have major weaknesses to exploit now, their games are so solid.

gusavo
01-31-2010, 03:46 PM
Federer was at a higher level in 04 and 05 than he is now and Agassi still took him to 5 in the slams finals and took a set off him at 35 years old after playing 3 straight five setters.
man, he played 3 five set matches in a row leading up to the final (one against ginepri!!!) and murray only lost one all the way to the final, murray must be ten times the player andre is!
so, given your own crazy way of analysing things, murray is still way better than andre. game over, then.


The only guy that can push Federer to the limit and bring to him is Del Potro who is out injured as well
2-5...

Im looking at the fact that how can man crippled with sciatica in his mid 30s put up much more of a fight against a younger Federer than currently with a young top 2-3 in the world player against an OLDER Federer on a less level playing wise?
because he was in amazing shape, playing brilliantly? I suppose bennetau is better than sampras because he has a win against fed while sampras lost against a fed in much worse form than when bennetau played him. bennetau is clearely the better fighter, as you can see.
why cant you see that you have to stop this? your arguments are total jokes. thats why nobody agrees with you, see.

andylovesaustin
01-31-2010, 03:47 PM
do you actually read what your writing before you submit it...they're injury plagued because they find it difficult to sustain that level of play while maintaining their physical shape...Federer doesn't, I love Sampras too but c'mon he's competition was actually weaker just look at Roland Garros would he have beaten for example Nalbandian in the third round of the French open?

I'm inclined to agree,minus some notable exceptions like Guga and Andre.. among others.

I think Guga in his prime could have given GOAT Roger some trouble--particularly at the French. And Andre in his prime could have given Roger some trouble on all surfaces. Pete in his prime could have given Roger some trouble, of course.

To me, this generation has more overall talent. In other words, there are more dangerous players, I think.

At the same time, as talented as they might be, many of them don't even make it close when it counts except Rafa. It's like they can do well in three sets, but the 5 set format does them in.

I mean come on... look at Nole! He's #2! I really love Nole, but c'mon.... Andy Murray--what the heck happened?? Even Andy Roddick made it closer at Wimby.

You all don't think it's strange? For as much hate as Rafa gets on this site, Rafa could challenge Roger. Do I think Rafa is GOAT status. Hell to the nah! :lol: But in a head to head matchup, in-prime Rafa caused Roger all kinds trouble, frustrating him to tear last year!

I just wish more of the players of this generation would play up to their potential v Roger. I think this is what bugs me the most.

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:48 PM
It's the clay court era that makes this era weak, not players like Murray.

Federer would be successful in a non-homogenized tour. Nadull would not.

NadalPhan
01-31-2010, 03:48 PM
I doubt Nadal was injured in the first 2 sets he played Murray. He's just not the same player he was back in late 2007 and 2008. Though a healthy Nadal playing at his best is better than Federer imo.

Magus13
01-31-2010, 03:49 PM
I just watched some footage of the 2008 RG final today. Only really deluded people would think that Federer is the "the goat".

I'm deluded. You have shown me the way. Rafa is GOAT, best ever. I'll just celebrate my player winning his 16th slam, but knowing Rafa is better. Thank you for your insightful arguements. I stand corrected.

Vida
01-31-2010, 03:51 PM
the answer to the question is this a weak era lays here:

if safin, nalby, hewitt, roddick were the same generation with rafa, djoko, murray, delpo - who would've won more slams?

if it is the latter group, than yes - fed had it easy to begin with, cause his peers were relatively weak to the present guys, thus enabling fed to have a jump start over the present contenders (over whom he is older, wiser and more experienced).

Magus13
01-31-2010, 03:52 PM
Federer has benefited from weak competetion, its as simple as that.

Welcome to the conversation Nostradamus. Anymore predictions for us.

Magus13
01-31-2010, 03:54 PM
I just watched some footage of the 2008 RG final today. Only really deluded people would think that Federer is the "the goat".

It must really suck to be you. Think about it, after Fed wins 16th slam, you feel the need to go back and watch footage from 08 finals:eek: Priceless.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:55 PM
I'm deluded. You have shown me the way. Rafa is GOAT, best ever. I'll just celebrate my player winning his 16th slam, but knowing Rafa is better. Thank you for your insightful arguements. I stand corrected.

Continue to lie to yourself where the "Goat" is being trashed in slam finals, being dominated by his main rival and writing his legacy on this rival's injuries.

Caerula Sanguis
01-31-2010, 03:55 PM
Sigh... I guess this is the last thing Federer's haters can cling on to, a subjective believe that this era is weaker than the 90's. I always believe that once the only argument these people can come up with is the "Weak Era", then Federer is truely the GOAT.

HarryMan
01-31-2010, 03:55 PM
Today's field meaning right from 03-10? That is a weak field for a long time. The field might be weak for a few more years till Federer calls it a day, then we can get back to the competitive era. :hug:

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 03:56 PM
the answer to the question is this a weak era lays here:

if safin, nalby, hewitt, roddick were the same generation with rafa, djoko, murray, delpo - who would've won more slams?

if it is the latter group, than yes - fed had it easy to begin with, cause his peers were relatively weak to the present guys, thus enabling fed to have a jump start over the present contenders (over whom he is older, wiser and more experienced).

Safin would beat all of those four more often than not.
Hewitt would own Delpo, 50-50 with Djokovic, lose most to Nadal.
Fat Dave would dominate all of those if he played in his pre 2007 level.
Roddick before 04 would dominate those except Murray. Roddick of right now, would lose most except on grass where he would beat all of them.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:57 PM
It must really suck to be you. Think about it, after Fed wins 16th slam, you feel the need to go back and watch footage from 08 finals:eek: Priceless.

It just shows that reality is not what Federer nuthuggers are claiming. Nonetheless I understand you don't want to rewatch it. :spit:

Everko
01-31-2010, 03:58 PM
Welcome to the conversation Nostradamus. Anymore predictions for us.

I don't know since people expect me to know when a certain man's body will tear in the knee or how a man's mind will work when faced with the stress of getting a double break on Federer.

HKz
01-31-2010, 04:02 PM
This is ALL speculation. You can either conclude two things:

1. Federer is a better dominator than Sampras was during his era.
2. Field is weaker is Federer's era than in the era of Sampras.

You however, decide to go with the second option. I used to think you were a quality member here at MTF, being very respectful of today's game. Fact is, players are getting stronger, taller, faster, just better in general. But now we realize you're bitter that Agassi applauded Federer's achievements and considers Roger better than Pete. You're jealous that many of the commentators and previous professionals consider Roger's achievements as the best ever. Sure, I still do think it is impossible to compare generations and players among generations in general. But you have to go with the fact that the game is better much tougher overall. Mats Wilander says it all the time, that the depth of the men's game is the greatest ever right now, and many times it is true. Why should a random on the Internet actually mean anything compared to actual past players and professionals in today's game when they are all echoing the same ting?

As they say, there will always be someone better than you. Unluckily for Sampras, his successor came a lot sooner than anyone could have imagine, and his 14 GS record only stood for a mere 7 years, unlike Borg's Wimb/RG double and 5 Wimbledons in a row, which Pete couldn't do, which both lasted for 27/28 years. And then we have Laver's calender year GS which will probably be never broken. But fact is, one day in the future, there will be a player that will dominate the field even better than Federer and people will ask these exact questions. Then someone named "SetFederer" will join a forum being a fine member at first and then totally go rogue on his previous comments after all is said and done by this new champion.

What are you trying to say? Federer needs to lose more? Just because he has only lost to 2 different people in GS finals makes the rest of the field weak? I mean, the Del Potro match wasn't even anything to be amazed at, they were both playing poorly. I grew up as a kid watching Sampras and I cried when I was 10 or 11 after he lost to Roger at Wimbledon, but I didn't realize how big of a champion Federer would become, and he really deserves all the praise he gets for even just putting himself in the situation of being able to win titles over and over and over, even if all his opponents choke to him, as you are claiming. Just be happy that Sampras probably has achieved things that will stand the test of time for a long time such as 8 GS final wins in a row (good times at Pioline, Moya, Chang, Choknisevic, Agassi @ Wimbledon), his 6 consecutive year end WN1 ranking and among other littles things.

mickymouse
01-31-2010, 04:05 PM
I don't know since people expect me to know when a certain man's body will tear in the knee or how a man's mind will work when faced with the stress of getting a double break on Federer.

If a man has to run like a mad hare in order to win matches, it's actually not difficult at all to predict that his body will fall apart sooner than later. Many in fact have predicted this to happen. :o

Vida
01-31-2010, 04:08 PM
Safin would beat all of those four more often than not.
Hewitt would own Delpo, 50-50 with Djokovic, lose most to Nadal.
Fat Dave would dominate all of those if he played in his pre 2007 level.
Roddick before 04 would dominate those except Murray. Roddick of right now, would lose most except on grass where he would beat all of them.

safin was often injured, and was not mentally "sound" in his later years. murray, maybe djokovic have more upside than safin on the long run. perhaps delpo as well if he remains injury free.

hewitt would be 50 50 with delpo, 40 60 with murray and 30 70 with djoko, rafa would again own him on clay (though he was pushed once a bit in RL ages ago).

fat dave? murray, djoko and delpo are by FAR more consistent than him day in day out. also their returns would feed on his mediocre serve.

roddick with his insane work ethics would be the toughest cookie of the bunch for present generation.

rafa is though toughest competitor of all of them and he would benefit the most of their relative headcasiness.

remains to be seen, but by the time these guys are age those are now (28-30), Id say they are overall better players.

NadalPhan
01-31-2010, 04:09 PM
Safin would beat all of those four more often than not.
Hewitt would own Delpo, 50-50 with Djokovic, lose most to Nadal.
Fat Dave would dominate all of those if he played in his pre 2007 level.
Roddick before 04 would dominate those except Murray. Roddick of right now, would lose most except on grass where he would beat all of them.

OK, I can understand Safin, because he was a great player when he chose to show up, but no way would Nalbadian own Nadal. No way!

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 04:12 PM
safin was often injured, and was not mentally "sound" in his later years. murray, maybe djokovic have more upside than safin on the long run. perhaps delpo as well if he remains injury free.

hewitt would be 50 50 with delpo, 40 60 with murray and 30 70 with djoko, rafa would again own him on clay (though he was pushed once a bit in RL ages ago).

fat dave? murray, djoko and delpo are by FAR more consistent than him day in day out. also their returns would feed on his mediocre serve.

roddick with his insane work ethics would be the toughest cookie of the bunch for present generation.

rafa is though toughest competitor of all of them and he would benefit the most of their relative headcasiness.

remains to be seen, but by the time these guys are age those are now (28-30), Id say they are overall better players.

Nadal was in both Fed's first rivalries and his current ones, so to group him with Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro is a little wrong, given he won his first slam in 2005.

Sophocles
01-31-2010, 04:14 PM
Fuck me, what a borefest! Sampras-tards & Rafatrolls spewing their bitter vomity shite.

Vida
01-31-2010, 04:16 PM
Nadal was in both Fed's first rivalries and his current ones, so to group him with Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro is a little wrong, given he won his first slam in 2005.

thats right, I thought of leaving him out, but age-wise he belongs in the latter group. I mean he was very young when he won first slam. relative to feds streak he belongs in the first group but he cant be in the same group with say safin (safin is 30, rafa 24)

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 04:18 PM
At his peak he was a better player than Federer. Mr fitness is just not the best. If other players like Murray and Davydenko were no mental midget, his record would not be that good.

If like most Nadaltards you mean "peak" as in the 2-3 month winning streak of 2008, you're still wrong. And Davydenko was no midget against healthy, refreshed Rafa at Rotterdam this year.

tennis2tennis
01-31-2010, 04:19 PM
This whole thread is stupid had Murray won today we'd have had the..."I told you Roger wasn't a GOAT thread.."

Everko
01-31-2010, 04:19 PM
If like most Nadaltards you mean "peak" as in the 2-3 month winning streak of 2008, you're still wrong. And Davydenko was no midget against healthy, refreshed Rafa at Rotterdam this year.

6-1 6-3 6-0 dosen't look very wrong to me

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 04:19 PM
Nadull has benefited from weak competetion, its as simple as that.

Corrected.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 04:21 PM
If like most Nadaltards you mean "peak" as in the 2-3 month winning streak of 2008, you're still wrong. And Davydenko was no midget against healthy, refreshed Rafa at Rotterdam this year.

Rotterdam this year? The tournament Nadal pulled out due to his injury and who is schedulded for next month?

Or maybe are you trying to speak about Doha, with the shadow of Nadal playing, like since one year and all the injuries?

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 04:21 PM
6-1 6-3 6-0 dosen't look very wrong to me

The running total is 16-6. If you keep hiding in 2008, you would never know that Fed has won 4 slams since that match, Rafa only 2. And remember, this is during Rafa's peak and Fed's decline.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 04:22 PM
6-1 6-3 6-0 dosen't look very wrong to me

The "Goat" destroyed like that in a slam final without any injury or true excuses. :spit:

Vida
01-31-2010, 04:25 PM
a strong argument against "weak competition" can be made if it can be proven that it was federers consistency that in large part contributed to his peer's diminished focus, health etc. like, 'safin became a head case cause he saw that federer was so damn good and consistent'.... like 'it was so damn hard with him around, that I gave up'.

Im not sure about this.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
01-31-2010, 04:26 PM
SetSampras, why are you picking one four set match against Agassi at the USO? What about when a young Federer bagelled a younger Agassi at the TMS?

Federer has never bagelled Murray.

Singularity
01-31-2010, 04:32 PM
6-1 6-3 6-0 dosen't look very wrong to me
I really don't see what the big deal about this match is. Even when playing well, Federer doesn't have many chances against Rafa on clay, so it's hardly surprising that when he plays badly he gets a beatdown.

paseo
01-31-2010, 04:33 PM
The "Goat" destroyed like that in a slam final without any injury or true excuses. :spit:

Yeah. Fed should learn from Nadal. Stupid guy, this Federer.

wally1
01-31-2010, 04:39 PM
The point I'd make about a lot of the current top players is that yes, they have no major weaknesses in their game, but I don't see particular stand out strengths either - i.e. what shot or tactic can they really rely on when they need to win that vital point when the going gets tough?

I think Federer made the point in an interview a few days ago, when you watch the likes of Davydenko, Djokjovic et al you just wonder what the hell their best shot is.

Logical
01-31-2010, 04:39 PM
Outside of Del Potro and Nadal there is no other player out there who has the cajones and the ability to get it done against even a 28 year old passed his peak/prime Federer.

At the end of the day, some blame is going to have to go on the likes of DJokovic and Murray for being pretenders. I dont want to hear about how "young" there are. They have been around now for quite some time at the top. I you would have to figure Murray would have at least made it a 5 setter epic or at least 4 set determined by tiebreaks. But to get bullied and whiped out in straights by a 28 year old player passed his prime? No excuses.. These guys just dont have what it takes and people are making them out to be something they aren't, Its been proven time and time again

Tennis circuit without El Matador the Spanish Archduke is comedy central.

Apemant
01-31-2010, 04:42 PM
The "Goat" destroyed like that in a slam final without any injury or true excuses. :spit:

Yes, that will go down as the biggest (by FAR) blemish on Federer's career: to lose so badly to a one-dimensional moonballer. Shameful. Disgraceful. Words can't describe how pathetic a performance that was. :devil:

That's what you were saying? :haha:

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 04:46 PM
SetSampras, why are you picking one four set match against Agassi at the USO? What about when a young Federer bagelled a younger Agassi at the TMS?

Federer has never bagelled Murray.

Im bringing up the fact that Murray brought no pride or cajones to the table today to at least make this a competitive match.. All I heard all fucking year long was how Murray is the next this and that yada yada and how he may take Fed.. Yet he shows up and plays like a scared child in the final AGAIN!!! vs. Federer. Like I said.. Hell I would have like Old man agassi's chances better than Murray.. At least Agassi gave it everything he got and managed to take sets off of Federer.

Logical
01-31-2010, 04:47 PM
^^ how about giving that guy that managed to stay on top for all those years, and still continuing to do so despite being 'already' 28 years old, some well-deserved credits for his achievements, in stead of bashing the rest of the field of current players? :rolleyes:

No credit, no cookie for Frauderer. Collecting titles from the backdoor in the absence of El Matador. Credit goes to Matador for allowing Frauderer win so many clown titles.

safin-rules-no.1
01-31-2010, 04:47 PM
Im bringing up the fact that Murray brought no pride or cajones to the table today to at least make this a competitive match.. All I heard all fucking year long was how Murray is the next this and that yada yada and how he may take Fed.. Yet he shows up and plays like a scared child in the final AGAIN!!! vs. Federer. Like I said.. Hell I would have like Old man agassi's chances better than Murray.. At least Agassi gave it everything he got and managed to take sets off of Federer.

:worship:

Vida
01-31-2010, 04:49 PM
Im bringing up the fact that Murray brought no pride or cajones to the table today to at least make this a competitive match.. All I heard all fucking year long was how Murray is the next this and that yada yada and how he may take Fed.. Yet he shows up and plays like a scared child in the final AGAIN!!! vs. Federer. Like I said.. Hell I would have like Old man agassi's chances better than Murray.. At least Agassi gave it everything he got and managed to take sets off of Federer.

fed was too good today. andy simply hasnt had the game to beat him and no matter how much cajones he brought would do him good.

therefore, no matter how competitive this match would've been would make any difference.

Smasher
01-31-2010, 04:55 PM
Too much trolling to handle, I'm getting a headache

Logical
01-31-2010, 04:56 PM
Im bringing up the fact that Murray brought no pride or cajones to the table today to at least make this a competitive match.. All I heard all fucking year long was how Murray is the next this and that yada yada and how he may take Fed.. Yet he shows up and plays like a scared child in the final AGAIN!!! vs. Federer. Like I said.. Hell I would have like Old man agassi's chances better than Murray.. At least Agassi gave it everything he got and managed to take sets off of Federer.

After the two clown slams last year, I never thought it would happen again. El Matador, Del Potro injuring themselves and allowing this fluke Champ run away with the show again. Count me too among those who expected the bad tooth to man up and play tennis. I wonder what he was trying to do. There was no clear tactic, he kept pushing and dropping mid court balls to be spanked. Chokedreev(Andreev) in round one played much better than this clown.

It don't matter how many slams lucky Frauderer collects as long as El Matador keeps kicking him in Slams. There can never be made a strong argument for his GOAT candidature as long as Matador his biggest rival owns him at the big dances.

jasmin
01-31-2010, 04:58 PM
People will find anyway to put Fed down but it just doesn't hold much water. It just makes that person look like a hater.

This field is too deep to deep now to dismiss anyone's status.
Love Del Potro but imo Fed let that US Open slip away.

manuel84
01-31-2010, 05:05 PM
Haters blowing steam out of their arses.:lol:

If it makes you feel better, carry on.:cool:

andreevforehand
01-31-2010, 05:20 PM
Fed's playing style and strokes themselves are what allow him to stay so injury free, since he has to expend so much less energy to execute them than all of these guys with 2 handed backhands and lower powered forehands who have to scramble all over the court to deal with Fed's shots (although even Fed's forehand takes less energy than his opponents'). Therefore he deserves all the credit for having to deal with injury-hampered opponents. Especially considering he's 5 or 6 years older than most of them.

As for Sampras, yeah he was great, but I highly doubt he could have achieved what he achieved in the Luxilon era with his style of play. It's not that Fed's opponents are that bad, but just that Fed's minimal style makes them look bad.

juliehardwick
01-31-2010, 05:39 PM
I don't think it's useful to compare generations by saying some previous generation couldn't have been successful with the current equipment - they still had epic talent and would have adjusted their playing styles.

Federer is amazing. I think one possible indication of the lack of depth at the top (obviously the depth overall is much improved) is the lack of multiple slam winners among his opponents besides Nadal. I don't know if it's possible that the new equipment is flattening out differences in talent and execution outside Fed and Nadal. It is hard to believe how few people have been able to really challenge in him slams.

It's true that Agassi often (not always) could even at the end of his career when his movement was severely restricted - their match at the 04 USO was absolutely tight in five sets, and the 05 final (even after Agassi had played three back to back five set matches and had no recovery day of course) was very close almost all the way - split the first two sets, Agassi up a break briefly in the third which went to the tiebreak. Fed ran away with the 4th but of course Agassi could hardly walk by the end as was obvious even in the trophy presentation.

Agassi of course though even in "old age" was a phenomenal ball striker. I don't think any of the current besides Nadal are up to that. The other guys of that era (late 80s on) - Edberg, Wilander, Courier, Rafter etc - may indeed all be a level above the current challengers besides Nadal.

fred perry
01-31-2010, 05:47 PM
what kind of shit are you talking

so because Nadal and Del Potro beat him in GS's last year means they automatically are a lock to beat him every other time they meet?

why couldnt a fit Nadal beat Murray in QF's, why couldnt Del Potro beat Cilic?

GS's are a survival of the fittest and best in form

the point is these two don't back down from fed and aren't intimidated like murray and djok, who Still is having mental and physical issues. fed wins most of these matches Before he steps on the court. Murray was befuddled until it didn't matter any more.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-31-2010, 05:49 PM
Lol at Federer "being pushed".

That was one of his easiest slam due to poor competition. The guy is so arrogant.

So true

An easy win against a mentally weak clown like Murray is not being pushed

Tennis needs a healthy Nadal to shut Federer up

Shirogane
01-31-2010, 05:50 PM
I don't think it's useful to compare generations by saying some previous generation couldn't have been successful with the current equipment - they still had epic talent and would have adjusted their playing styles.

Federer is amazing. I think one possible indication of the lack of depth at the top (obviously the depth overall is much improved) is the lack of multiple slam winners among his opponents besides Nadal. I don't know if it's possible that the new equipment is flattening out differences in talent and execution outside Fed and Nadal. It is hard to believe how few people have been able to really challenge in him slams.

It's true that Agassi often (not always) could even at the end of his career when his movement was severely restricted - their match at the 04 USO was absolutely tight in five sets, and the 05 final (even after Agassi had played three back to back five set matches and had no recovery day of course) was very close almost all the way - split the first two sets, Agassi up a break briefly in the third which went to the tiebreak. Fed ran away with the 4th but of course Agassi could hardly walk by the end as was obvious even in the trophy presentation.

Agassi of course though even in "old age" was a phenomenal ball striker. I don't think any of the current besides Nadal are up to that. The other guys of that era (late 80s on) - Edberg, Wilander, Courier, Rafter etc - may indeed all be a level above the current challengers besides Nadal.
At last, a sensible post.

Sophocles
01-31-2010, 05:53 PM
the point is these two don't back down from fed and aren't intimidated like murray and djok, who Still is having mental and physical issues. fed wins most of these matches Before he steps on the court. Murray was befuddled until it didn't matter any more.

No, the point is they actually have WEAPONS that can hurt Federer.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 05:55 PM
fed was too good today. andy simply hasnt had the game to beat him and no matter how much cajones he brought would do him good.

therefore, no matter how competitive this match would've been would make any difference.

Yet Murray somehow has managed to grab wins over him before.. Now I know Fed is a different animal at the slams.. But Murray has proved he can beat Fed. So im not so sure if it was just Fed being too good or Murray not rising to the challenge

fmolinari2005
01-31-2010, 06:11 PM
Wasn't this supposed to be the toughest AO ever, due to the current depths of mens tennis?! How quickly things have changed.

Logical
01-31-2010, 06:12 PM
So true

An easy win against a mentally weak clown like Murray is not being pushed

Tennis needs a healthy Nadal to shut Federer up

Not to forget the cake draw. Chokedreev, Hanescu, Chickentanes, Mugwitt(worst), Dulldonkey, Clownfried. One has to be amazed at the number of times the fire flies thrown in Frauderer's half and all the fighters dumped in the opposite halves to kill each other. This draw is ditto the US Open draw and I suspect there is a hidden reason behind it: 3/4 of the Tennis viewing audience all over the world are casual followers who switch to tennis on finals days. How to attract the flock of sheep and increase the ratings? That is done by ensuring that Frauderer the fake ruler shows up in the final. The 3/4 of the tennis audience do not care what happened up until the final, who beat who. They all gather and chant goat goat goat and show their support. Big bucks for ATP and satisfaction for the flock. All are happy except the deserving champions.

3/4 of the 3/4 of above mentioned Tennis audience post at MTF.

Vida
01-31-2010, 06:21 PM
Yet Murray somehow has managed to grab wins over him before.. Now I know Fed is a different animal at the slams.. But Murray has proved he can beat Fed. So im not so sure if it was just Fed being too good or Murray not rising to the challenge

bit of both imo. andy could've made it closer but I wouldn't say he disappointed a lot. personally I thought fed wouldn't play as good as he did and that the result would be much much closer.

Logical
01-31-2010, 06:27 PM
bit of both imo. andy could've made it closer but I wouldn't say he disappointed a lot. personally I thought fed wouldn't play as good as he did and that the result would be much much closer.

Lucky clown had 42 unforced errors from his racket and had his serve broken twice. Mugray chickened out so quickly and did not take advantage of Frauderer's inconsistency. Mugray was in choke mode from game one, far from Champion mentality. Mentally weak clowns can never win Slams.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 06:29 PM
IT disgusts me.. Murray was playing his best slam to date.. Had enough rest, was healthy.. Has the youth factor.. Playing on hardcourts which is his best surface has alot of people believing this may be his first slam. The one which sets him off to winning many more ... Yet he lays an egg in the final without even making it competitive or even taking a set. Im sorry but at the end of the day....What a CLOWN!!!

abraxas21
01-31-2010, 06:31 PM
Lucky clown had 42 unforced errors from his racket and had his serve broken twice. Mugray chickened out so quickly and did not take advantage of Frauderer's inconsistency. Mugray was in choke mode from game one, far from Champion mentality. Mentally weak clowns can never win Slams.

funny how things change... just a day ago you were predicting in this board how murray going to crush federer because he was mentally stronger. not surprising really considering that you also predicted Rafa was going to win the AO :lol:

Corey Feldman
01-31-2010, 06:35 PM
Nadal's wins over Fed on clay are irrelevant for me

no one has ever disputed he has been the #1 on clay for last 5 years

mono Fed was hardly beaten heavily by Nadal at his peak during 2008 Wim final and 2009 AO final, they were close

Fed probably should have won the Wimbledon final

Johnny Groove
01-31-2010, 06:36 PM
Federer is too good.

He really brought his best stuff to the last two rounds of the AO.

Don't blame the field.

tkr
01-31-2010, 06:36 PM
I give Fed credit but Im not giving him nearly too much at all. .. He's been good.. But not good to the point where he has been overly impressive. Certainly nowhere near where he used to be..


Hey bitter Sampras dog...why so bitter? The guy has been totally domnating for generations. Give the guy some credit... Not overly impressive? What does a guy have to do to impress you? 6-0, 6-0, 6-0? TMF plays some of the best tennis he's ever played. Chill dude...:wavey:

Logical
01-31-2010, 06:40 PM
funny how things change... just a day ago you were predicting in this board how murray going to crush federer because he was mentally stronger. not surprising really considering that you also predicted Rafa was going to win the AO :lol:

El Matador is just unfortunate to get injured a week sooner then what he would ideally have wanted but I never knew this Dulldy Dullray would turn out to be a pathetic choker in 2 days. He deserves a 3 months imprisonment for the disaster today, pissed all over himself with the kind of effort he showed. He will do better as a bun seller in London then a tennis player.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 06:40 PM
Hey bitter Sampras dog...why so bitter? The guy has been totally domnating for generations. Give the guy some credit... Not overly impressive? What does a guy have to do to impress you? 6-0, 6-0, 6-0? TMF plays some of the best tennis he's ever played. Chill dude...:wavey:

Not impressive as nearly to the point to where he was before.. He IS very much beatable today but you have to have balls and brains along with game to compete. Only Nadal and Del Potro have that

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 06:43 PM
Hell I would put more money on 40 year old Sampras beating Fed in a slam than I would any of the so called "future stars" today. I would put more money on Pete beating Fed than I would Murray or Djokovic thats for sure

tkr
01-31-2010, 06:43 PM
Not impressive as nearly to the point to where he was before.. He IS very much beatable today but you have to have balls and brains along with game to compete. Only Nadal and Del Potro have that has that


You seem to forget that they have also been beaten a number of times by TMF. What happened then? Did they choke? Injured?

Logical
01-31-2010, 06:46 PM
Not impressive as nearly to the point to where he was before.. He IS very much beatable today but you have to have balls and brains along with game to compete. Only Nadal and Del Potro have that has that

Bear in mind that your posts are falling on the ears of 3 yo's. I agree that these overrated clowns lack balls. El Matador should return for the good of the game and finish this Frauderer once for all. It would be ideal if Frauderer gets spanked in the French and Wimbledon finals this very year. Have faith in El Matador, he is the savior of tennis.

TheWall
01-31-2010, 06:46 PM
Not impressive as nearly to the point to where he was before.. He IS very much beatable today but you have to have balls and brains along with game to compete. Only Nadal and Del Potro have that has that

Watch him get schooled should he play Federer in Wimbledon.

Federer&Hingis
01-31-2010, 06:49 PM
:devil: :devil: :devil:

Seeing Jerks("Emotional el piggy" , "Setofnumber 14 < 16" , "Rafa = early retirement killed" , "n-EVER KO-me back to no.1 again" , "You-Suck-couf" ) try to explode their painful that makes me very happy :D

:devil: :devil: :devil:

tkr
01-31-2010, 06:49 PM
Bear in mind that your posts are falling on the ears of 3 yo's. I agree that these overrated clowns lack balls. El Matador should return for the good of the game and finish this Frauderer once for all. It would be ideal if Frauderer gets spanked in the French and Wimbledon finals this very year. Have faith in El Matador, he is the savior of tennis.

How does your douche bag save tennis? By hitting them 3 meters over the net? Running like a rabbit around the court? Why does I answer a troll?

abraxas21
01-31-2010, 06:50 PM
Hell I would put more money on 40 year old Sampras beating Fed in a slam than I would any of the so called "future stars" today. I would put more money on Pete beating Fed than I would Murray or Djokovic thats for sure

:lol: Sampras in his late twenties couldn't beat a young and still-not-GOAT-mode Federer in what was by far his favourite tournament.

luie
01-31-2010, 07:03 PM
Folks I've been converted the samprass & nadull trolls have conviced me 14 non clay slams & 6 non US open slams is > 16 GS across all surfaces known to man after 8 straight years @ the top.

luie
01-31-2010, 07:10 PM
The best part off fed winning GS is not adding to his tally is watching the all serve mug sampussy,the grinding moonballer nadull & the fakervic trolls froth @ the mouth priceless.

RogerFan82
01-31-2010, 07:35 PM
Leander Paes >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras. Delivered a straight sets beatdown on peak level Sampras (when he was in his prime) at his own den (New Haven) :worship::worship::worship:

aulus
01-31-2010, 07:37 PM
imo, Sampras did face a stronger field (probably partially b/c of the homogenization of surfaces today), but he was also not as good as Federer.

Federer is by a good margin the best player i have seen in the 20+ years i have been watching the sport.

madmax
01-31-2010, 07:57 PM
it's really refreshing to see all Nadulltards and one lone Sampras mugtard gathering together to cry about the state of the game:haha: Like one dimensional mug moonballer at the top of the game saves tennis, right? Well, some clowns are at least funny, makes for a good laugh reading...

jasmin
01-31-2010, 08:01 PM
funny how things change... just a day ago you were predicting in this board how murray going to crush federer because he was mentally stronger. not surprising really considering that you also predicted Rafa was going to win the AO :lol:

It is pretty funny and the response now is expected.

General Suburbia
01-31-2010, 08:02 PM
People forget how many cakewalk draws Sampras had for many of his slams.

heya
01-31-2010, 10:15 PM
Hell I would put more money on 40 year old Sampras beating Fed in a slam than I would any of the so called "future stars" today. I would put more money on Pete beating Fed than I would Murray or Djokovic thats for sureTruer words were never said.

Head-to-head records don't look very important, imo. Djokovic & Davydenko served like Hewitt, even after beating Federina recently. :confused:
It was predictable in 1 of the countless, unfunny clown spills, and the 2008 US Open looked better for Mugray because he was robbed with bad calls.
Who could play worse than Murray--Brad Gilbert's ex-student and fellow Andre Drugassi worshipper?
At least Del Potro didn't apologize to Federina after winning his Slam! See what happened to Nadal & Blakewimp after they said sorry in Australia & the Olympics. :o

Magus13
01-31-2010, 10:52 PM
I truly have enjoyed this thread. With each post the ridiculous fans of Sampras and Nadal have made my day. I look forward to more of the same as Federer wins even more slams. Than you for all you inventive rationalizations as to why your guys are the real GOAT. This was entertaining and showed the power of denial in the human mind. I'm done in this thread, but thank you once again and have a good night.

SaFed2005
01-31-2010, 10:55 PM
it's really refreshing to see all Nadulltards and one lone Sampras mugtard gathering together to cry about the state of the game:haha: Like one dimensional mug moonballer at the top of the game saves tennis, right? Well, some clowns are at least funny, makes for a good laugh reading...


Honestly a whole lot of the Nadaltards are people who are Samrastards who wished Nadal stopped Fed from breaking the GS records. Now Federer is 2 slams past Sampy... they really have nothing to do but bash the so called state of the game.

oz_boz
01-31-2010, 11:04 PM
As I keep saing in these threads - way too early to tell. In the case of the ca1985-generation (Rafa, Murray, Djokovic), wait with the evaluation until their careers are over, i.e. ca 6-7 more years.

And for those who are waiting for Nadal's comeback: FYI he has been playing since last fall, and he was part of the AO draw.

Forehander
01-31-2010, 11:36 PM
It's simple. Federer at 28 is clearly much much much better than Sampras at 28. The versatility that he possesses allows him to prolong his career and compete at the top for however long he desires. You can't be so blinded that you're not seeing some of the incredible hot shots that the swiss is still pulling off routinely out there on the court. Sampras was a heavy hitter with a great volley, and during his prime he was definitely a very complete player. But with that said, he never had the versatility of Federer's, and his main game plan always was to over power the opponents. Overpowering young guns at 28? Serve and volley on first and second serve to try to overcome fast sprinters such as Hewitt at a consistent rate? don't think so. The fact is that he never had a set of armory like Federer's. The Swiss can play the right game at the right time. Sure, his game as you said is nowhere close to his peak. The footspeed is now only a shadow of its former self; the aggression is gone; the balance is not as good etc... but the incredible thing is that he has discovered ways to get around that. Whereas Sampras, he only had one game plan against anybody. So when one factor of Federer's game crumble, there's always another plan for him to win. There's just no player out there who can switch gears like him. He just keeps changing and changing, contionuously throwing different challenges at you. Whatever you throw back at him, he always has the weaponry ready to counter you, which is exactly why beating him is always a tough task, because the one and only way really is to totally out hit him and keep going for your shots. There's a reason why Agassi said Federer was the greatest he's ever played. It's illusional playing Federer. He just makes you think "what the fuck is going on?" when he's over the other side of the court.

Persimmon
01-31-2010, 11:38 PM
Watch him get schooled should he play Federer in Wimbledon.

Del Potro is lousy on grass. True.

barbadosan
01-31-2010, 11:39 PM
No credit, no cookie for Frauderer. Collecting titles from the backdoor in the absence of El Matador. Credit goes to Matador for allowing Frauderer win so many clown titles.

Just as well Fed won 9 slams to Nadal's 6 since Nadal's first GS win (and I haven't counted in Fed's post AO2009 slams either

thrust
01-31-2010, 11:47 PM
28 year old "post-prime" Fed would have easily been the best player in the world in the era of, say, Hewitt. Federer is too good, and yes a lot of the new crop are mentally weak, but Federer's ability should not be understated.

Well put! Roger is a great athlete with great technique, which has enabled him to be a great player for a long time. As I have said before, Roger is a larger version of Ken Rosewall who played great tennis for a very long time. In today's game I doubt anyone will be winning or reaching slam finals in their late thirties, but I can see Roger doing so for several more years, assuming he has the desire to do so.

Persimmon
01-31-2010, 11:47 PM
IT disgusts me.. Murray was playing his best slam to date.. Had enough rest, was healthy.. Has the youth factor.. Playing on hardcourts which is his best surface has alot of people believing this may be his first slam. The one which sets him off to winning many more ... Yet he lays an egg in the final without even making it competitive or even taking a set. Im sorry but at the end of the day....What a CLOWN!!!

Some players are not born to win slams. :o

barbadosan
01-31-2010, 11:48 PM
I can't begin to imagine the contortions and convulsions SetSampras and people like Logical (RafawillWinWhatever?)and surcouf will have over the next 2 years should Fed win another 4 slams! They'll prob end up with blood clots from suffering fits of apoplexy

SetSampras
02-01-2010, 01:11 AM
It's simple. Federer at 28 is clearly much much much better than Sampras at 28. The versatility that he possesses allows him to prolong his career and compete at the top for however long he desires. You can't be so blinded that you're not seeing some of the incredible hot shots that the swiss is still pulling off routinely out there on the court. Sampras was a heavy hitter with a great volley, and during his prime he was definitely a very complete player. But with that said, he never had the versatility of Federer's, and his main game plan always was to over power the opponents. Overpowering young guns at 28? Serve and volley on first and second serve to try to overcome fast sprinters such as Hewitt at a consistent rate? don't think so. The fact is that he never had a set of armory like Federer's. The Swiss can play the right game at the right time. Sure, his game as you said is nowhere close to his peak. The footspeed is now only a shadow of its former self; the aggression is gone; the balance is not as good etc... but the incredible thing is that he has discovered ways to get around that. Whereas Sampras, he only had one game plan against anybody. So when one factor of Federer's game crumble, there's always another plan for him to win. There's just no player out there who can switch gears like him. He just keeps changing and changing, contionuously throwing different challenges at you. Whatever you throw back at him, he always has the weaponry ready to counter you, which is exactly why beating him is always a tough task, because the one and only way really is to totally out hit him and keep going for your shots. There's a reason why Agassi said Federer was the greatest he's ever played. It's illusional playing Federer. He just makes you think "what the fuck is going on?" when he's over the other side of the court.

Thats arguable if Federer is or not. Pete in 1999 was a beast and made Andre look like a junior's level player when they met at Wimbeldon and the YEC. Pete was hurt some of the season as well. Didnt play the AO or USO but when he did play he was deadly. We dont know how Fed would have handled Sampras or vice versa. Fed's level has dropped compared to when he was 24-25 years of age.. Pete wasnt as good at 28 as he was at 22-25 years of age but he still had flashes of greatness and still winning slams much like Sampras. Their careers have definitely paralleled in this regard make no mistake. Pete at 28 may have mopped the floors with Federer at Wimbeldon or the USO (unfortunate for Pete not playing the USO due to a herniated disc at a bad time since Pete was playing some of the best tennis in his career around Wimbeldon YEC). So thats not really fair to compare.

Federer has never faced anyone on the level of a younger Sampras and vice versa I think we can agree with that. Their sole match was in 2001 when Sampras was 30 much passed his prime and Roger at 19 (Before his prime but playing above his years and showing aspects of his greatness during Wimbledon)


We never got to see Federer at 28 square off against Pete at 28 so we will never know. You think Sampras would allow to be whiped off the court by an aging Federer in a slam final like Murray was? Yea right.

Sampras even at 28 years of age in 1999 was better than any player out there right now

tennisphilia
02-01-2010, 01:27 AM
But to get bullied and whiped out in straights by a 28 year old player passed his prime? No excuses..

It's laughable to call a person who holds 3 Grand Slam titles to be passed his prime. He's the current #1 too!

spencercarlos
02-01-2010, 01:59 AM
Thats arguable if Federer is or not. Pete in 1999 was a beast and made Andre look like a junior's level player when they met at Wimbeldon and the YEC.
Agassi was useless at Wimbledon, and despite his great form and confidence in 1999, he really had very little to hurt a grass court especialist like Sampras. On Grass Pete would neutralize Agassiīs best shot which was the return with his own serve, and put pressure against Andre on his own serve, which was not big either. Neither Andre would pressure Sampras at the net... So it the end it was pretty much a win situation for Sampras on his own racket.

Lets not even talk about the YEC where Andre instead of trying to play and win the match, he was aiming at Samprasīs at the net :rolleyes:




Federer has never faced anyone on the level of a younger Sampras and vice versa I think we can agree with that. Their sole match was in 2001 when Sampras was 30 much passed his prime and Roger at 19 (Before his prime but playing above his years and showing aspects of his greatness during Wimbledon)
Who are you trying to fool? everybody knows and if you google a little but you would know that Sampras and Federer are exactly 10 years apart. Plus Sampras was the defending champion at the event, so i assume he could still play against a young up and coming player.



We never got to see Federer at 28 square off against Pete at 28 so we will never know. You think Sampras would allow to be whiped off the court by an aging Federer in a slam final like Murray was? Yea right.
Well if Sampras was whipped off the court by a player with virtually no movement like Krajicek, then i think Federer would have had better chances than Richard, period.

Pete at 28 may have mopped the floors with Federer at Wimbeldon or the USO (unfortunate for Pete not playing the USO due to a herniated disc at a bad time since Pete was playing some of the best tennis in his career around Wimbeldon YEC). So thats not really fair to compare.
We could not care less about it, its not Federerīs fault that he is able to play a kind of tennis that is "light" to his body and able to be more sucessful. Pete virtually gave it "his all" on his serve, the same as Nadal does with running the court, and things like that sooner or later ends up paying it up with the body.

Fed's level has dropped compared to when he was 24-25 years of age.. Pete wasnt as good at 28 as he was at 22-25 years of age but he still had flashes of greatness and still winning slams much like Sampras.
Wow what a discovery, that happens pretty much with most of the players. That is related to aging. :rolleyes:

We dont know how Fed would have handled Sampras or vice versa.
We pretty much know that baby Federer defeated defending Champion Pete Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 :lol: Pretty much a preview of what would have been, since Federer does everything that Sampras does, but better.


Their careers have definitely paralleled in this regard make no mistake.
No they havenīt here is why.
After the Australian Open 1997 Sampras did not win another grand slam different than Wimbledon until 2002 Usopen, that is more than 5 years :tape:. Tells you how much "versatility" Pete had :rolleyes: . If they had paralleled with you delusionally think then Federer would have done nothing else at other slams after winning 2007 Australian Open, guess what Federer has won 4 slams different than Wimbledon since 2007 AOpen (2007,2008 Usopen /2009 Roland Garros/2010 Australian Open), and another bunch of grand slam finals to boot, compared to Sampras lonely 2 Usopen finals in 2000 and 2001.
Parallel my ass

:wavey:

spencercarlos
02-01-2010, 02:03 AM
It's laughable to call a person who holds 3 Grand Slam titles to be passed his prime. He's the current #1 too!

Let him be, he just can handle that Federer virtually excels Sampras on any category, and is not a cow on ice like Sampras was on clay :lol:

Forehander
02-01-2010, 02:21 AM
Agassi was useless at Wimbledon, and despite his great form and confidence in 1999, he really had very little to hurt a grass court especialist like Sampras. On Grass Pete would neutralize Agassiīs best shot which was the return with his own serve, and put pressure against Andre on his own serve, which was not big either. Neither Andre would pressure Sampras at the net... So it the end it was pretty much a win situation for Sampras on his own racket.

Lets not even talk about the YEC where Andre instead of trying to play and win the match, he was aiming at Samprasīs at the net :rolleyes:




Who are you trying to fool? everybody knows and if you google a little but you would know that Sampras and Federer are exactly 10 years apart. Plus Sampras was the defending champion at the event, so i assume he could still play against a young up and coming player.



Well if Sampras was whipped off the court by a player with virtually no movement like Krajicek, then i think Federer would have had better chances than Richard, period.


We could not care less about it, its not Federerīs fault that he is able to play a kind of tennis that is "light" to his body and able to be more sucessful. Pete virtually gave it "his all" on his serve, the same as Nadal does with running the court, and things like that sooner or later ends up paying it up with the body.


Wow what a discovery, that happens pretty much with most of the players. That is related to aging. :rolleyes:


We pretty much know that baby Federer defeated defending Champion Pete Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 :lol: Pretty much a preview of what would have been, since Federer does everything that Sampras does, but better.



No they havenīt here is why.
After the Australian Open 1997 Sampras did not win another grand slam different than Wimbledon until 2002 Usopen, that is more than 5 years :tape:. Tells you how much "versatility" Pete had :rolleyes: . If they had paralleled with you delusionally think then Federer would have done nothing else at other slams after winning 2007 Australian Open, guess what Federer has won 4 slams different than Wimbledon since 2007 AOpen (2007,2008 Usopen /2009 Roland Garros/2010 Australian Open), and another bunch of grand slam finals to boot, compared to Sampras lonely 2 Usopen finals in 2000 and 2001.
Parallel my ass

:wavey:

I don't want to be disrespectful of SetSampras because I'm also quite a fan of Sampras too back in the days... But this post lol :worship:

SetSampras
02-01-2010, 02:46 AM
Ohh shit.... Your post already loses credibility buddy from the opening sentence.. Agassi was not the greatest freakin grass court player since Laver but wasn't "useless" as you say.. He won it 92 defeating Goran and Becker and reached the final in 99 probably to win if he didnt meet Sampras. Hell Nadal has a similiar resume to Agassi there. Is Nadal useless at Wimbeldon as well? Well Probably according to your logic...

And yes believe it or not Sampras and Fed's career have parelleled in some ways. Both began their rise to dominance at 22. Both are having similiarly the same longevity around 6 careers.. Fed has been more dominant over his field overralll aside from Nadal though with Sampras not letting another get the best of him all around the circuit. Both players levels dropped around the same age.. Fed's has dropped, Pete's did around this time though both had the ability to still pull out slams and wins. Both became primarily just focused on slams around that age.. Yea take a look at Fed's results these days.. Cant win a shitty smaller tournament to save his life these days yet reaches every slam final.

Arkulari
02-01-2010, 02:49 AM
Agassi was useless at Wimbledon, and despite his great form and confidence in 1999, he really had very little to hurt a grass court especialist like Sampras. On Grass Pete would neutralize Agassiīs best shot which was the return with his own serve, and put pressure against Andre on his own serve, which was not big either. Neither Andre would pressure Sampras at the net... So it the end it was pretty much a win situation for Sampras on his own racket.

Lets not even talk about the YEC where Andre instead of trying to play and win the match, he was aiming at Samprasīs at the net :rolleyes:




Who are you trying to fool? everybody knows and if you google a little but you would know that Sampras and Federer are exactly 10 years apart. Plus Sampras was the defending champion at the event, so i assume he could still play against a young up and coming player.



Well if Sampras was whipped off the court by a player with virtually no movement like Krajicek, then i think Federer would have had better chances than Richard, period.


We could not care less about it, its not Federerīs fault that he is able to play a kind of tennis that is "light" to his body and able to be more sucessful. Pete virtually gave it "his all" on his serve, the same as Nadal does with running the court, and things like that sooner or later ends up paying it up with the body.


Wow what a discovery, that happens pretty much with most of the players. That is related to aging. :rolleyes:


We pretty much know that baby Federer defeated defending Champion Pete Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 :lol: Pretty much a preview of what would have been, since Federer does everything that Sampras does, but better.



No they havenīt here is why.
After the Australian Open 1997 Sampras did not win another grand slam different than Wimbledon until 2002 Usopen, that is more than 5 years :tape:. Tells you how much "versatility" Pete had :rolleyes: . If they had paralleled with you delusionally think then Federer would have done nothing else at other slams after winning 2007 Australian Open, guess what Federer has won 4 slams different than Wimbledon since 2007 AOpen (2007,2008 Usopen /2009 Roland Garros/2010 Australian Open), and another bunch of grand slam finals to boot, compared to Sampras lonely 2 Usopen finals in 2000 and 2001.
Parallel my ass

:wavey:

I pretty much agree with everything in here except for the "useless" Agassi part, he won the tournament once, didn't he? ;)

luie
02-01-2010, 03:41 AM
Ohh shit.... Your post already loses credibility buddy from the opening sentence.. Agassi was not the greatest freakin grass court player since Laver but wasn't "useless" as you say.. He won it 92 defeating Goran and Becker and reached the final in 99 probably to win if he didnt meet Sampras. Hell Nadal has a similiar resume to Agassi there. Is Nadal useless at Wimbeldon as well? Well Probably according to your logic...

And yes believe it or not Sampras and Fed's career have parelleled in some ways. Both began their rise to dominance at 22. Both are having similiarly the same longevity around 6 careers.. Fed has been more dominant over his field overralll aside from Nadal though with Sampras not letting another get the best of him all around the circuit. Both players levels dropped around the same age.. Fed's has dropped, Pete's did around this time though both had the ability to still pull out slams and wins. Both became primarily just focused on slams around that age.. Yea take a look at Fed's results these days.. Cant win a shitty smaller tournament to save his life these days yet reaches every slam final.
Easier for sampussy to do because he was a clay mug an absolute non -factor on that surface so no player was able to get the better of him because he only played players on his terms.:)

SyphaX
02-01-2010, 03:47 AM
1 kid trying to increase his post count is shit disturbing the whole forum. Amazing

I almost never post but I had to this time so you can all just ignore the troll! You can say anything to him and Fed will still suck and the rest of the field will suck with him compared to Sampras who couldn't even hack it @ RG.

Emperor Yi
02-01-2010, 03:53 AM
i have to say, this is an abysmal thread started by the OP. and I'm not a Fed worshiper by any means.

LleytonMonfils
02-01-2010, 03:57 AM
Get over it... FED is the GOAT. End of story, no ifs ands or buts about it. When the guy was dominating in his prime he was so far ahead of everyone it was scary. The gap that the guy created from the next tier of top tennis players was so large even when he finally dropped his level a tad in recent years he was/is still capable of dominating the game. IT'S TRULY SCARY!

spencercarlos
02-01-2010, 04:09 AM
I pretty much agree with everything in here except for the "useless" Agassi part, he won the tournament once, didn't he? ;)

I meant vs Sampras on grass. Sorry i should have written it.

spencercarlos
02-01-2010, 04:26 AM
Ohh shit.... Your post already loses credibility buddy from the opening sentence.. Agassi was not the greatest freakin grass court player since Laver but wasn't "useless" as you say.. He won it 92 defeating Goran and Becker and reached the final in 99 probably to win if he didnt meet Sampras. Hell Nadal has a similiar resume to Agassi there. Is Nadal useless at Wimbeldon as well? Well Probably according to your logic...

Nadal has a better resume than Andre on grass, go figure. And as i said on a previous post, i mean Andre vs Pete on grass, he was pretty much hopeless. Ask Sampras why he was troubled by bigger servers-volleyers on grass, than Andre... :rolleyes:

Nadal is a better rival to Federer than Agassi was to Sampras. The kid is a worker, dedicated guy, and better than Federer mentally wise. Agassi showed some signs in 1994-1995 when he took over the number one ranking off Sampras, but then we know what happened :rolleyes: Federer has had to deal with a tenacious Nadal, indeed a much tougher opossition.

Fed has been more dominant over his field overralll aside from Nadal though with Sampras not letting another get the best of him all around the circuit.
Krajicek? Wayne Ferreira?

The thing is that these players were so incosistently bad that they would barely reach the latter rounds of GS events, while you have a monster like Nadal has been there in the latter rounds pretty much since 2005.

Greenday
02-01-2010, 04:51 AM
Idiotic thread. Period.

Give the respect to the man for all of his acheivements....instead of bashing his opponents....

Honestly, to sum this thread up. A VERY BITTER Sampras fan trying everything he can to undermine Roger's acheivements.

Whatever you think, Roger is better than Sampras.....Sampras got spanked by both hewitt and Safin when they are only 20 years old...where as roger won GS titles by beating Agassis, hewitts, safins...nadals..murrays...djokovics of this world...Sampras couldnt win a meaningful title on clay which pretty much exposes his limitations as a player when his serve is not effective....

And I think Agassi knows what he is speaking when he says roger is the best he ever played against....thts quite a statement....

Dude, Honestly dont be so bitter.....reading ur posts in every thread related to fed is so disgusting....

serveandvolley80
02-01-2010, 05:23 AM
Roger Federer has made 4 french open finals, losing 3 to one of the best clay court player of all time, if there was no Nadal you are looking at a 4 or 5 time french open champion, the guy has gotten it done on all surfaces which is something the prior generation had a problem with.

Before his RG title, you could make a case for Sampras being better then Federer, but not anymore, the only argument left is denial and claiming that somehow a era that had Washingon, Ferreira and other flukes make GS finals and get blitzed badly, that somehow that was a tougher era.

If you want to make a case against Sampras just to be bitter then you can say, his game took off when Edberg, Becker, and other stars of that time were in the twilight of their career, Sampras had Agassi as a main rival, who else was there that could compete and actually win a slam consistently?

HKz
02-01-2010, 05:34 AM
OP is still bitter? Looks like this thread has brought the bitterness of Federer's achievements. Bottom line, just give the guy credit. You obviously don't have to like him, but respect his records and such, he clearly works absolutely hard at it. Must suck ass when people question if he is actually "winning" or players are just "giving" him the titles when he is trying his absolutely best on and off the court. I know for me it would heartbreaking to be giving it your all and not getting any respect.

serveandvolley80
02-01-2010, 06:05 AM
OP is still bitter? Looks like this thread has brought the bitterness of Federer's achievements. Bottom line, just give the guy credit. You obviously don't have to like him, but respect his records and such, he clearly works absolutely hard at it. Must suck ass when people question if he is actually "winning" or players are just "giving" him the titles when he is trying his absolutely best on and off the court. I know for me it would heartbreaking to be giving it your all and not getting any respect.

Its hard to get respect from people that have no respect for themselves or their fellow man, if that does not describe half the posters in this forum, then i don't know what does.

FairWeatherFan
02-01-2010, 06:52 AM
OP is spot on. This is an unbelievably pathetic era of tennis. Utterly worthless.

Commander Data
02-01-2010, 08:37 AM
Outside of Del Potro and Nadal there is no other player out there who has the cajones and the ability to get it done against even a 28 year old passed his peak/prime Federer.

At the end of the day, some blame is going to have to go on the likes of DJokovic and Murray for being pretenders. I dont want to hear about how "young" there are. They have been around now for quite some time at the top. I you would have to figure Murray would have at least made it a 5 setter epic or at least 4 set determined by tiebreaks. But to get bullied and whiped out in straights by a 28 year old player passed his prime? No excuses.. These guys just dont have what it takes and people are making them out to be something they aren't, Its been proven time and time again

Fed is probably the best player ever. plus he has excellent form right now. Whether he is slightly past his peak or not is hard to judge (Agassi was near his peak after 30..) but Fed himself said that he played probably as good as ever in the final.

Okay, lets sum it up: We have the GOAT playing at his best. And we have some no GOATS competing. What is the logical consequence? He is gonna kill the field! Why? simply, because he is the best. Doesn't say much about the field. you think Becker, Connors or Lendel would have stopped peak Fed? delusional..

Nadal is about the only one that might have beaten Fed last Sunday (and even that is questionable, after he needed 5 sets last year and Fed is now clearly in better form).

But the conclusion from that is not that Nadal beats Federer because he is a real Champion and Murray and Nole or Mugs.
No, he beats Fed because his freak Topspin breaks down Feds BH. terrible match-up.. There is nothing tactically beautiful about it. no amazing shot making. It is very simple: Top spin FH into Fed BH one million times, until win point, then repeat procedure. since nadals shot has more constistency fed's single hander breaks down evetually and Nadal wins.
Does that make Nadal the real deal? it is still 16 > 6 overall because overall Fed is better.

Commander Data
02-01-2010, 08:40 AM
The weak era excuse is getting very old and the longer it goes on, the more implausible it really sounds.

Federer since 2003 has been wrecking people, whether its the older generation (Agassi, Henmann et al), the semi older generation (Safin, Hewitt) his generation (Gonzo, Davydenko, Nalbandian etc) and in fact now the newer generation (DP, Murray, Nole etc).

The implication is that all these guys suck, are mentally weak or clowns and so forth. Its just ridiculous and absurd!

indeed! absurd.

juja_06
02-01-2010, 09:13 AM
Hopefully Federer's fans wont be as bitter as some fans in this forum when he does retire from playing.

Commander Data
02-01-2010, 09:47 AM
Isn't it odd that Nadaltards gather to talk negative about Federer instead of talking positive about Nadal?

(In fact a self-defeating strategy :lol: By argueing that the main rival of their beloved Rafa is a weak pussy they dimish their idols achievements greatly. Rafa the ultimate warrior needs 5 sets to barely defeat a weak pussy? The spartan can only win 6 GS against the weakest field of history filled with utter Mugs that bend over and choke to allow the cry baby 16 GS? :lol:
To argue that Rafa was able to compete with the GOAT and even etablish a positive head-to-head. Now, that would make for a nice Pro-Nadal argument.
However you want it, Nadaltards...)

back to the topic: why do fans of player A not concentrate on talking about the success of that player but focus on bashing his main rival?

hmmmm?????

-> jealousy, frustration, bitterness...

Their angel has not won a title in ages, his head-to-head with the top ten has gone to shit and the future looks grim at the tender age of 23. a picture of misery indeed. all this while his main rival of who he was supposed to replace keeps doing as good as ever.

Just too much disappointment for the weak minded.

I get it.

Seems i have to train my mind to separate Nadals great career (whom i admire) from his mentally disabled fans (I know there are also sain ones out there). otherwise I would start to dislike a guy who I actually like (Nadal).

Federer&Hingis
02-01-2010, 10:15 AM
Isn't it odd that Nadaltards gather to talk negative about Federer instead of talking positive about Nadal?

(In fact a self-defeating strategy :lol: By argueing that the main rival of their beloved Rafa is a weak pussy they dimish their idols achievements greatly. Rafa the ultimate warrior needs 5 sets to barely defeat a weak pussy? The spartan can only win 6 GS against the weakest field of history filled with utter Mugs that bend over and choke to allow the cry baby 16 GS? :lol:
To argue that Rafa was able to compete with the GOAT and even etablish a positive head-to-head. Now, that would make for a nice Pro-Nadal argument.
However you want it, Nadaltards...)

back to the topic: why do fans of player A not concentrate on talking about the success of that player but focus on bashing his main rival?

hmmmm?????

-> jealousy, frustration, bitterness...

Their angel has not won a title in ages, his head-to-head with the top ten has gone to shit and the future looks grim at the tender age of 23. a picture of misery indeed. all this while his main rival of who he was supposed to replace keeps doing as good as ever.

Just too much disappointment for the weak minded.

I get it.

Seems i have to train my mind to separate Nadals great career (whom i admire) from his mentally disabled fans (I know there are also sain ones out there). otherwise I would start to dislike a guy who I actually like (Nadal).

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Logical
02-01-2010, 10:51 AM
I can't begin to imagine the contortions and convulsions SetSampras and people like Logical (RafawillWinWhatever?)and surcouf will have over the next 2 years should Fed win another 4 slams! They'll prob end up with blood clots from suffering fits of apoplexy

Talking from experience?

rocketassist
02-01-2010, 01:05 PM
Nadal has a better resume than Andre on grass, go figure. And as i said on a previous post, i mean Andre vs Pete on grass, he was pretty much hopeless. Ask Sampras why he was troubled by bigger servers-volleyers on grass, than Andre... :rolleyes:

Nadal is a better rival to Federer than Agassi was to Sampras. The kid is a worker, dedicated guy, and better than Federer mentally wise. Agassi showed some signs in 1994-1995 when he took over the number one ranking off Sampras, but then we know what happened :rolleyes: Federer has had to deal with a tenacious Nadal, indeed a much tougher opossition.


Krajicek? Wayne Ferreira?

The thing is that these players were so incosistently bad that they would barely reach the latter rounds of GS events, while you have a monster like Nadal has been there in the latter rounds pretty much since 2005.

Agassi >>>> Nadal on grass BY FAR. Would Nadal win Wimbledon on 90s grass against players like Ivanisevic and Sampras? :haha:

Agassi would love this grass as well.

Apemant
02-01-2010, 01:16 PM
Rafa the ultimate warrior needs 5 sets to barely defeat a weak pussy? The spartan can only win 6 GS against the weakest field of history filled with utter Mugs that bend over and choke to allow the cry baby 16 GS? :lol:

This. :worship:

Shirogane
02-01-2010, 01:28 PM
Agassi >>>> Nadal on grass BY FAR. Would Nadal win Wimbledon on 90s grass against players like Ivanisevic and Sampras? :haha:

Agassi would love this grass as well.
And so would Lendl.

manuel84
02-01-2010, 04:46 PM
Face it, the only way to combat the Federer reign is by selling your pair of knees to the devil.:devil:

Now, speaking of Sampras, is he or isn't he the one with the worst FO resume among the all-time greats? hmmm McEnroe and Edberg were one-time finalists; Connors and Becker were semifinalists a few times over.

Sophocles
02-01-2010, 04:48 PM
Now, speaking of Sampras, is he or isn't he the one with the worst FO resume among the all-time greats? hmmm McEnroe and Edberg were one-time finalists; Connors and Becker were semifinalists a few times over.

I think Richard Gonzales had only one semi too. Difference being, he wasn't allowed to play for 20 years.

Everko
02-01-2010, 04:48 PM
Agassi >>>> Nadal on grass BY FAR. Would Nadal win Wimbledon on 90s grass against players like Ivanisevic and Sampras? :haha:

Agassi would love this grass as well.

No no no. Nadal is a far better grass player than Agassi.

gusavo
02-01-2010, 05:03 PM
IT disgusts me.. Murray was playing his best slam to date.. Had enough rest, was healthy.. Has the youth factor.. Playing on hardcourts which is his best surface has alot of people believing this may be his first slam. The one which sets him off to winning many more ... Yet he lays an egg in the final without even making it competitive or even taking a set. Im sorry but at the end of the day....What a CLOWN!!!
answer my posts, clown.

abraxas21
02-01-2010, 05:14 PM
No no no. Nadal is a far better grass player than Agassi.

I'm fairly sure a prime Agassi would dominate Nadal on pretty much all surfaces (with the possible exception of clay). Why? Simply because Agassi is probably the best "early-hitter" the game has ever seen and Nadal has consisntely showed to have problems with the players who take the ball early (like Blake, Kolya and even Soderling among others) so his heavy topspin doesn't affect them as much as it does to most players.

Logical
02-01-2010, 05:24 PM
I'm fairly sure a prime Agassi would dominate Nadal on pretty much all surfaces (with the possible exception of clay). Why? Simply because Agassi is probably the best "early-hitter" the game has ever seen and Nadal has consisntely showed to have problems with the players who take the ball early (like Blake, Kolya and even Soderling among others) so his heavy topspin doesn't affect them as much as it does to most players.

By that token, Blake can take the ball early and Frauderer cannot? Your contrived logic is exposed.

Baby Matador straight setted Agassi at Wimbledon. Why don't you shut yourself for now and wait for El Matador to return fit and have a go at these overrated ball bashers? Soderbash will stop playing tennis and run away from the court if Matador gets to grab him at Roland Garros.

Sophocles
02-01-2010, 05:29 PM
I'm fairly sure a prime Agassi would dominate Nadal on pretty much all surfaces (with the possible exception of clay). Why? Simply because Agassi is probably the best "early-hitter" the game has ever seen and Nadal has consisntely showed to have problems with the players who take the ball early (like Blake, Kolya and even Soderling among others) so his heavy topspin doesn't affect them as much as it does to most players.

You're right. Peak Agassi took the ball even earlier than Davydenko & with his relentless barrage of pacy groundstrokes into the corners would have slaughtered Nadal indoors & on hard courts & probably would have beaten him on grass. He'd also have given him major trouble on clay, even if losing more often than not. But this is a match-up analysis & we cannot conclude he was better than Nadal on grass.

Soderling doesn't take the ball particularly early - he just hits it hard & flat.

Dougie
02-01-2010, 05:37 PM
No no no. Nadal is a far better grass player than Agassi.

No no no. He isnīt. Agassi won his title at the time when grass was actually fast against a very tough field. Nadal would never have won Wimbledon when grass was fast. Also, as others have said, Agassi took the ball so early he would have given Nadal a hard time, Nadalīs topspin groundstrokes would have gotten him nowhere at an era when grass was real grass and most of the other players serve & volleyers.

bobrocks
02-01-2010, 05:48 PM
I listed all the players with at least a half dozen Grand Slam wins by age of their first win.

Wilander 17
Becker 17
Borg 18
Nadal 18
Edberg 19
Sampras 19
McEnroe 20
Federer 21
Connors 21
Agassi 22
Lendl 24

Now the young guns that are out there now are:

Del Potro 21 (with one win already)
Djokovic 22 (win one win already)
Murray 22 (with 2 GS finals)
Cilic 21

Interesting that a year ago after the AO, Federer on this board was done, finished, will never win another GS. Now one year later, people are suggesting he may win the CYGS.
Maybe, just maybe, this was his last Grand Slam?
Those young guys are all at the age where it wouldn't surprise me if this was the start of their era. Not nessesarily one of them, but perhaps a combination of them all. And maybe some new guy that starts a quick progression up the rankings.

SetSampras
02-01-2010, 06:32 PM
You're right. Peak Agassi took the ball even earlier than Davydenko & with his relentless barrage of pacy groundstrokes into the corners would have slaughtered Nadal indoors & on hard courts & probably would have beaten him on grass. He'd also have given him major trouble on clay, even if losing more often than not. But this is a match-up analysis & we cannot conclude he was better than Nadal on grass.

Soderling doesn't take the ball particularly early - he just hits it hard & flat.

Agassi still gets the advantage regardless? Why? Could Nadal do what Agassi did and win a Wimbledon in the 90s under those conditions against a plethora of attackers? He cant even win the USO when getting attacked just from the baseline under the fastest conditions that tennis provides today which isnt much. Agassi could adapt and probably be much more successful on today's grass than the 90s grass. While Nadal most likely would be lucky to see a final at wimby in the 90s


So when people say Nadal is better than Agassi on grass? What grass are we talking because Agassi was the only baselinre who could manage to win wimbeldon back in the day. The surface didnt mesh with baseline players. Nadal may be better on this grass but Agassi never played on this grass either and I would suspect Agassi would probably see at least 2 slams himself at wimbeldon today if he had to deal with NO serve-volleyers, no attackers, no Sampras' no players forcing the issue and under the slowest conditions imaginable

abraxas21
02-01-2010, 06:32 PM
By that token, Blake can take the ball early and Frauderer cannot? Your contrived logic is exposed.

Baby Matador straight setted Agassi at Wimbledon. Why don't you shut yourself for now and wait for El Matador to return fit and have a go at these overrated ball bashers? Soderbash will stop playing tennis and run away from the court if Matador gets to grab him at Roland Garros.

:lol: chill out, dude

Federer doesn't take the ball early like Blake does and certainly not like Agassi used to do. It's just not his style.

I see Soderling still upsets you in spite of the fact that it has been almost a year since Nadal lost in RG! Get over it, man. For the record, I expect Parera to come back in full force for the clay court season. It might be a bit early to say, but I do think he is going to win RG.