How much effort does Federer put into his preparation? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How much effort does Federer put into his preparation?

abraxas21
02-07-2010, 03:28 PM
I always get the feeling that Federer trains less than any other player in the top 10. Recently I read that he was going to Ethiopia to visit and check the work of his foundation over there and then, apparently, he's going to Austria for the ceremony of the release of a new stamp that features him. In between he probably does many interviews (come to think of it, he's probably the player who gives the most interviews) and also reunites with his sponsors and such.Finally -I don't know when exactly though- he plans to go to Dubai to train for the tournament that starts on February 22.

Furthermore, when he trains he seems to do it so relaxed, almost like he doesn't care. Once I read that even when he was a kid he din't really take training sessions too seriously and that he considered himself to be more of a "match player". Even his parents back in the day used to reccommend him to take training sessions more seriously!
Anyway, has this tendency really changed? Once Nadal said "I've never ever seen him train as hard as I do" and tv commentators who have seen his work have basically made similar comments.

Anyhow, I just wanted to say that... I've always thought it was kind of strange how little effort Roger seems to put into his preparation and yet be so good at what he does.

barbadosan
02-07-2010, 03:34 PM
Myabe it's the difference in how people swot for exams. Some have to slog it out for hours upon countless hours and review every little detail; others focus on the important concepts and spend less time.

In fact, we don't even have to go that far afield for an analogy - just look at the time in which Federeer can complete a service game, and contrast that with others.

dodo
02-07-2010, 03:42 PM
During AO some of his practice sessions consisted of 30 minutes light hitting. Thats probably not enough to warm up for a warm-up for Nadal.
He also said in an interview he never practices serving, the amount he hits during matches is "enough".
Shrug, whatever works for him.

elessar
02-07-2010, 03:43 PM
From numerous accounts, Roger usually trains like a maniac 4/5 times a year in Dubai (before AO, before Dubai, before Montreal/Toronto, after USO etc... depending on his schedule) with juniors. That's when he really works on his physical conditioning and tennis, his practice sessions during tourneys are a complete joke. I remember Mirka saying in an interview that he warmed up on a court without a net before one of his TMC final (03 I think) :cuckoo:

Ibracadabra
02-07-2010, 03:57 PM
Less than you would imagine

maratsmaiden
02-07-2010, 04:23 PM
I saw him practice up close in Miami. He took up the whole hour. But I don't think he ever broke a sweat, seemed to be enjoying himself and fully relaxed (until he broke his racquet on court :lol:). This is in contrast to Rafa, whom I also watched up close - he was training with Del Potro - they were working very hard, with uncle Tony watching every shot... a lot of the players I watched train up-close (murray, roddick, blake, safin, youzhny, & few more) seemed to take their practice a bit more seriously than him... but that could have just been my perception of his training, as he does tend to make tennis look very easy.

Dini
02-07-2010, 04:31 PM
Federer before a tournament works very hard in his practice sessions, apparently. According to Roger Rasheed, Federer works through every shot in his arsenal for 20-30 minutes each, and does it all in a logical manner. He (Rasheed) had seen nothing like it before.

From what fans say, he's much more relaxed in practice sessions during the tournament.

Arkulari
02-07-2010, 04:35 PM
KqHFUGl2DS4

that in Dubai under an infernal sun... ;)

He does not take hitting that seriously, but his physical preparation is very good, after all his trainer is a decathlon expert

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 04:36 PM
Myabe it's the difference in how people swot for exams. Some have to slog it out for hours upon countless hours and review every little detail; others focus on the important concepts and spend less time.

In fact, we don't even have to go that far afield for an analogy - just look at the time in which Federeer can complete a service game, and contrast that with others.

:lol:

Anyway, Federer has made it clear on mayn occasions that he trains very hard during off season. you guys think he never sweats on chance? ;)

dodo
02-07-2010, 05:47 PM
Federer before a tournament works very hard in his practice sessions, apparently. According to Roger Rasheed, Federer works through every shot in his arsenal for 20-30 minutes each, and does it all in a logical manner. He (Rasheed) had seen nothing like it before.

From what fans say, he's much more relaxed in practice sessions during the tournament.

But he has an infinite arsenal of shots :confused::confused::confused:

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 05:54 PM
He hasnt even had a coach for the longest time and its focus primarily is on slams these days. They seem to be his only motivation over the least year or two.. Slams and nothing else so he has plenty of time to prepare for slams since winning non slam even no doubt seem to be low on his "to do list" anymore.

I doubt he has to train much. The two main guys with the tools to take him out at a slam (Del Potro and Nadal) are always getting injured. He can beat the likes of DJoker and Murray and Davydenko and the rest at slams just by warming up through the earlier rounds. These guys dont have what it take to win slams. There may be some ability there but there isnt the desire to lay their foot down and win slams. Nadal was the only that came along and looked at Federer as an OPPONENT!!! Not as "Federer the Great I must bow down to him"

habibko
02-07-2010, 06:02 PM
he works extremely hard in the off-season and in various times mid-season, the OP is making it sound like he sits on the couch and go out to play GOAT tennis with GOAT stamina at will :lol:

Sunset of Age
02-07-2010, 06:12 PM
He hasnt even had a coach for the longest time and its focus primarily is on slams these days. They seem to be his only motivation over the least year or two.. Slams and nothing else so he has plenty of time to prepare for slams since winning non slam even no doubt seem to be low on his "to do list" anymore.

I doubt he has to train much. The two main guys with the tools to take him out at a slam (Del Potro and Nadal) are always getting injured. He can beat the likes of DJoker and Murray and Davydenko and the rest at slams just by warming up through the earlier rounds. These guys dont have what it take to win slams. There may be some ability there but there isnt the desire to lay their foot down and win slams. Nadal was the only that came along and looked at Federer as an OPPONENT!!! Not as "Federer the Great I must bow down to him"

Why don't you just post 'weak era' again, it would save you a lot of time. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:13 PM
Why don't you just post 'weak era' again, it would save you a lot of time. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

I just say it how it is

Dini
02-07-2010, 06:14 PM
Why don't you just post 'weak era' again, it would save you a lot of time. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

+1

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 06:14 PM
he works extremely hard in the off-season and in various times mid-season, the OP is making it sound like he sits on the couch and go out to play GOAT tennis with GOAT stamina at will :lol:

Seriously though, perhaps Federer is talented and natural enough that he can go significantly easier in practice compared to the other top pros, and yet sustain his high level. It could end up being a huge part of what prolongs his career for perhaps a good number of years to come.

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 06:15 PM
I just say it how it is

You're a broken record and an exasperating poster boi.

barbadosan
02-07-2010, 06:15 PM
Why don't you just post 'weak era' again, it would save you a lot of time. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Isn't it creepy how SetSampras manages to turn every single discussion into Federer blah balh, opponents blah blah. Oddest combination of tunnel vision and obsession I've ever been unfortunate enough to witness

Arkulari
02-07-2010, 06:16 PM
I just say it how I see it to make Sampras accomplishments even more awesome and diminish Federer's

Fixed :D

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:16 PM
Isn't it creepy how manages to turn every single discussion into Federer blah balh, opponents blah blah. Oddest combination of tunnel vision and obsession I've ever been unfortunate enough to witness

This thread is about Federer. So naturally he is the topic of discussion right?

barbadosan
02-07-2010, 06:19 PM
This thread is about Federer. So naturally he is the topic of discussion right?

Umm.. it's about Fedeerer and his training routine. Do you even understand the difference between that and Federer and his opposition???

Edit: You're not even comparing Federer's routine with that of his opponents, which would be at least valid; no sir, you're back on the same old dead hobby horse of weak, spineless etc... which has crap all to do with training regimens

Dini
02-07-2010, 06:22 PM
He does practice and work very hard, no one gets to the top by sitting on the couch.

I've read that he had 2 and 3 hour practice sessions nearly every day leading up to the Oz open, and as I mentioned Rasheed talked about Fed's practice regime, how focussed he was, wanting to go through everything.

Where Fed looks relaxed is during a tournament where there are crowds/fans watching. From reports of practice sessions where no public is allowed, it all seems very much intense. Last year, there were also reports of Fed going to a place in Italy for a week before Rome, practising daily with Koubek for three hours.

I think the general perception is due to the fact that we don't see this side of him or it's not talked about a lot - so we assume it all comes easy to him, when it's far from being the case.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:25 PM
Umm.. it's about Fedeerer and his training routine. Do you even understand the difference between that and Federer and his opposition???

Obviously Federer is not 100 percent focused on every tournament anymore. Thats plain enough to see at this point.. But his opposition has everything to do with it. Even with his form and level slowly waining it still good enough to beat 98 percent of the tour on a regular basis at the slams. Who knows what his off season training would along with focus if he was still #2 in the world, Nadal was king and he was still stuck back on 13 slams? Nadal goes out injured right during the peak of his career... Federer gets blessed and he goes back on cruise control. Now his other big time opposition Del Potro is out injured. So thats even more of a blessing for Roger.


Is Federer going to have to put everything he has in the offseason and work his ass off if his chief rival is Roddick or Davydenko? please... Federer at his current form would be 2nd behind Nadal at his peak mid 08-early 09 and he would be putting twice the effort that he is now in the off season. You could bet on that

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:27 PM
He does practice and work very hard, no one gets to the top by sitting on the couch.

I've read that he had 2 and 3 hour practice sessions nearly every day leading up to the Oz open, and as I mentioned Rasheed talked about Fed's practice regime, how focussed he was, wanting to go through everything.

Where Fed looks relaxed is during a tournament where there are crowds/fans watching. From reports of practice sessions where no public is allowed, it all seems very much intense. Last year, there were also reports of Fed going to a place in Italy for a week before Rome, practising daily with Koubek for three hours.

I think the general perception is due to the fact that we don't see this side of him or it's not talked about a lot - so we assume it all comes easy to him, when it's far from being the case.



Beating most of his opposition DOES come easy to him.

Corey Feldman
02-07-2010, 06:27 PM
he never practises (look at the beer belly he has thesedays)

but pure talent alone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal and the rest

god it must suck not being a fan of Federer :cool:

habibko
02-07-2010, 06:28 PM
Seriously though, perhaps Federer is talented and natural enough that he can go significantly easier in practice compared to the other top pros, and yet sustain his high level. It could end up being a huge part of what prolongs his career for perhaps a good number of years to come.

he is good, but he is not THAT good, you don't last through GS after GS making a final after final and deep runs in each tournament you play every year past your mid twenties without training hard, that would not be human.

he is a hard worker according to his own words, he does say his workouts are tennis oriented and very specific, here's a part of an interview he gave in AO this year:

Q. He got you to run around a lot early on in the game. You matched every challenge there. Besides hitting a thousand tennis balls in practice, what do you do to keep yourself so aerobically fit?

ROGER FEDERER: I thought the beginning was extremely physical. I felt quickly the pulse was racing. It was a tough few rallies we had early on. I think it was key to stay with him there and even take control of the match.

Of course, I work extremely hard in the off‑season. I was joking a bit with Courier, but I do work hard. I do all kinds of stuff. I think that's what's nice about us tennis players. It's not very sort of how you say always the same thing. It's not just running and that's it.

We do a lot of agility work, weights. You name it, you can combine it with tennis and conditioning. I do all sorts of different things, you know. So it's worked out for me well over the years.

You know, I'm a strong believer that the tennis player needs to work on what he needs on the tennis court. Before maybe running sand dunes and stuff like this, it works for some players. But I believe you work on the court and it's going to benefit your tennis more than running sand dunes.


Q. What has been the maximum number of hours in a gym in one day in your life?

ROGER FEDERER: I don't know in a gym. Three hours maybe. Three hours in a gym. But then do tennis, as well, you know. Maybe on a tennis court four and a half hours in a row.

barbadosan
02-07-2010, 06:32 PM
Anyhoo.. back on topic: Maybe Fed's training regime is in a way, an image of his tour scheduling. Specific periods of intense training allowing for enough counterbalancing lighter preiods, so he burns out neither on tour nor in practice.

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 06:33 PM
Cool but I didn't say in my post that he didn't practice hard but alluded to him perhaps practicing less hard than the other top pros, or has a 'relatively' easier time than them. Of course I appreciate that he works very hard. I wouldn't be surprised if he puts in less overall hours of practice than all of the others in the top 10, despite still working very hard and intelligently. Of course though, I don't know.

I've read the press already.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:33 PM
Truth be told... I doubt he works his ass off in the off season nearly as much as he did 5-6 years ago. He doesnt have to be peak form.. He just to be one step ahead and good enough to beat the competition. As I said.. if he was still stuck back on 13 slams and Nadal was still at his peak, #1 in the world and Del Potro was around healthy breathing down his neck then you would probably see Federer in damage control putting in the necessary work. But what the hell does he have to worry about that for? Del Potro is out.. Nadal is out... He has 16 slams.. Doesnt need to kill himself anymore. If he was still back at 13 and didnt proper from his main opposition going out injured, than I think it would be a different story. He can work his way into good form during the earlier rounds of slams

habibko
02-07-2010, 06:35 PM
Beating most of his opposition DOES come easy to him.

that's because he is too good for most of his opposition, of course I can't expect someone who is too biased that he believes Sampras is a better player than Federer to realize this :cuckoo:

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 06:36 PM
Anyhoo.. back on topic: Maybe Fed's training regime is in a way, an image of his tour scheduling. Specific periods of intense training allowing for enough counterbalancing lighter preiods, so he burns out neither on tour nor in practice.

This is exactly how I envisage it.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:37 PM
that's because he is too good for most of his opposition, of course I can't expect someone who is too biased that he believes Sampras is a better player than Federer to realize this :cuckoo:

Exactly.. he is too good for most of his opposition so why would he have to go balls to the wall in the off season to beat Andy Roddick or Davydenko for instance? .. He has to put in the work off the court obviously much more especially the BH if he wants to beat Nadal at his top form for instance.


And Im not saying.. Sampras is better than Federer in every category of tennis. Im just saying there are areas where Sampras is the superior player to Federer

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 06:37 PM
I just say it how it is

You are a douche bag. I just say how it is.

Dini
02-07-2010, 06:40 PM
Truth be told... I doubt he works his ass off in the off season nearly as much as he did 5-6 years ago. He doesnt have to be peak form.. He just to be one step ahead and good enough to beat the competition. As I said.. if he was still stuck back on 13 slams and Nadal was still at his peak, #1 in the world and Del Potro was around healthy breathing down his neck then you would probably see Federer in damage control putting in the necessary work. But what the hell does he have to worry about that for? Del Potro is out.. Nadal is out... He has 16 slams.. Doesnt need to kill himself anymore. If he was still back at 13 and didnt proper from his main opposition going out injured, than I think it would be a different story. He can work his way into good form during the earlier rounds of slams

What truth? :scratch:

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 06:40 PM
Exactly.. he is too good for most of his opposition so why would he have to go balls to the wall in the off season to beat Andy Roddick? .. He has to put in the work off the court obviously much more especially the BH if he wants to beat Nadal at his top form for instance.


And Im not saying.. Sampras is better than Federer in every category of tennis. Im just saying there are areas where Sampras is the superior player to Federer

One area: serve.

Thats it. take away samprass serve and he has 0 Slams.

Edit: forgot vomiting on court. Pete is clearly better there.

elessar
02-07-2010, 06:40 PM
Roger is just that good:
God given talent ==> No need to practice his strokes
Rafa like arms and abs, except naturally ==> No need to train

Imagine what Sampras could have achieved if he hadn't had to work so hard all the time, like the rest of the talentless little people :sport:

habibko
02-07-2010, 06:45 PM
Exactly.. he is too good for most of his opposition so why would he have to go balls to the wall in the off season to beat Andy Roddick or Davydenko for instance? .. He has to put in the work off the court obviously much more especially the BH if he wants to beat Nadal at his top form for instance.


And Im not saying.. Sampras is better than Federer in every category of tennis. Im just saying there are areas where Sampras is the superior player to Federer

if he didn't put in the hard work he wouldn't have outlasted Roddick 16-14 in the 5th set in Wimbledon last year, he would have been too tired to serve and would have been broken then, so yes he does need to work hard and maintain his stamina and fitness to beat those players you keep bashing day and night, get over your bitterness already, we had enough of your broken record :help:

DrJules
02-07-2010, 06:51 PM
I always get the feeling that Federer trains less than any other player in the top 10. Recently I read that he was going to Ethiopia to visit and check the work of his foundation over there and then, apparently, he's going to Austria for the ceremony of the release of a new stamp that features him. In between he probably does many interviews (come to think of it, he's probably the player who gives the most interviews) and also reunites with his sponsors and such.Finally -I don't know when exactly though- he plans to go to Dubai to train for the tournament that starts on February 22.

Furthermore, when he trains he seems to do it so relaxed, almost like he doesn't care. Once I read that even when he was a kid he din't really take training sessions too seriously and that he considered himself to be more of a "match player". Even his parents back in the day used to reccommend him to take training sessions more seriously!
Anyway, has this tendency really changed? Once Nadal said "I've never ever seen him train as hard as I do" and tv commentators who have seen his work have basically made similar comments.

Anyhow, I just wanted to say that... I've always thought it was kind of strange how little effort Roger seems to put into his preparation and yet be so good at what he does.

Maybe that is why Federer wins so few tournaments these days (4 last 2 years in total 8 including 3GS and 2MS), suffers less injuries than Nadal and goes through spells when everybody write him off these days.

The French Open and Wimbledon are a long way off and last year his first tournament win was in May.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:53 PM
One area: serve.

Thats it. take away samprass serve and he has 0 Slams.

Edit: forgot vomiting on court. Pete is clearly better there.

Thats it? LOL.... Wow...


Volleying? Did you forget about this Sampras greater obviously

FH- Different styles. Sampras was much better on the run and deadlier with the depth on the FH. Though Federer can do more with FH. Both have two of the greatest FH's ever in different ways

Serve- Sampras obviously

Mental Toughness Big match situation? Sampras since he had the clutchness and was never dominated by a rival like Federer. We have seen Federer has mental toughness in terms of consistency.. But when going up against someone with more mental toughness than him in Nadal, Federer's mental toughness comes into question.


BH? Both had an average BH and it wasnt their strengths obviously

DrJules
02-07-2010, 06:54 PM
Exactly.. he is too good for most of his opposition so why would he have to go balls to the wall in the off season to beat Andy Roddick or Davydenko for instance? .. He has to put in the work off the court obviously much more especially the BH if he wants to beat Nadal at his top form for instance.


And Im not saying.. Sampras is better than Federer in every category of tennis. Im just saying there are areas where Sampras is the superior player to Federer

Sampras was a better server and had better volleys and possibly mentally tougher, but see no other area where he had an advantage. Sampras had more penetration on the forehand, but more errors came from the forehand.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:55 PM
if he didn't put in the hard work he wouldn't have outlasted Roddick 16-14 in the 5th set in Wimbledon last year, he would have been too tired to serve and would have been broken then, so yes he does need to work hard and maintain his stamina and fitness to beat those players you keep bashing day and night, get over your bitterness already, we had enough of your broken record :help:

Years prior he would have broke Roddick easily and the match wouldnt have gone 4 sets. So it comes into question how much work Federer truly is putting in the off season. He was close to going to Roddick and very well may have gone out to Roddick had not have missed an easy routine volley and choked in the big points and had Federer not gotten off 50 aces that match due to Roddick's pitiful return of serve

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 06:58 PM
One aspect of Federer's game that has improved over the last few years has been his serve.. Other than that.. I dont think there is a single of aspect of his game that you can truly say has gotten better. Again.. He just has to put enough work in to stay ahead of the pack and its EASIER TO DO without Nadal or Del Potro around obviously. Djokovic has gone nowheres and hasnt been a threat in 2 years. In fact his game has regressed. Not got bettetr. Murray just isnt ready for the big time yet. He has some game obviously (he relies too much on going back to the pusher ways) but lacks elsewhere. Who else is there Fed has to worry about right now?

Feketepuss
02-07-2010, 06:58 PM
There are two different issues here:

1) Does Fed practise hard during tournaments? No, he warms up but doesn't work on his game with any intensity (John Lloyd reckons he saw Fed and Santoro playing together just before a major Fed final and of the 30 mins, 25 were devoted to practising trick shots!)

2) Does Fed practise hard in between tournaments. Obviously. And I think it was Jessie Levine who went over and was one of three or more partners who would alternate, while Fed played in the Dubai sun for four hours at a stretch.

I think 1) is another contributory factor to why Federer doesn't get injured with any frequency. And judging from the manic way Nadal practises at tournaments, I don't think his current problems are so surprising

DrJules
02-07-2010, 07:01 PM
Years prior he would have broke Roddick easily and the match wouldnt have gone 4 sets. So it comes into question how much work Federer truly is putting in the off season. He was close to going to Roddick and very well may have gone out to Roddick had not have missed an easy routine volley and choked in the big points.

Possibly although the Wimbledon 2009 final conditions seemed to play very fast; Federer serving 50 aces which is more than Ivansevic served in a 5 set match. The final was played in very serve friendly conditions.

elessar
02-07-2010, 07:01 PM
Call me back when Sampras serves 50 aces in a match :sport: Or hits his BH the way Roger did in last week's final :sport: or wins as many big matches as Roger (best sign of mental toughness) :sport: AS for who's the better volleyer, I think we got the answer to that on a certain CC at wimbledon in 2001 :sport:

DrJules
02-07-2010, 07:03 PM
One aspect of Federer's game that has improved over the last few years has been his serve.. Other than that.. I dont think there is a single of aspect of his game that you can truly say has gotten better. Again.. He just has to put enough work in to stay ahead of the pack and its EASIER TO DO without Nadal or Del Potro around obviously. Djokovic has gone nowheres and hasnt been a threat in 2 years. In fact his game has regressed. Not got bettetr. Murray just isnt ready for the big time yet. He has some game obviously (he relies too much on going back to the pusher ways) but lacks elsewhere. Who else is there Fed has to worry about right now?

Del Potro is a player where if a Federer, Murray or Djokovic are tactically astute they should win most matches.

Dini
02-07-2010, 07:03 PM
SetSampras, you talk as if you know the facts, as if you've watched him training in Dubai or in the high altitude locations he chooses mid year. All you're saying is pure speculation, because you think Fed owning the likes of Roddick and Davydenko means it's coming easy to him, therefore no practice required.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 07:04 PM
Call me back when Sampras serves 50 aces in a match :sport: Or hits his BH the way Roger did in last week's final :sport: or wins as many big matches as Roger (best sign of mental toughness) :sport: AS for who's the better volleyer, I think we got the answer to that on a certain CC at wimbledon in 2001 :sport:

Let Sampras play Roddick 20 some odd times all throughout his prime and you will see Sampras ace Roddick far more than 50 times. That shows more at how Roddick sucks at returning and reading serves than someone like Nadal who can handle Fed's serve and then you watch Federer's service games all go to shit

Feketepuss
02-07-2010, 07:06 PM
T
FH- Different styles. Sampras was much better on the run and deadlier with the depth on the FH. Though Federer can do more with FH. Both have two of the greatest FH's ever in different ways

Serve- Sampras obviously

Mental Toughness Big match situation? Sampras since he had the clutchness and was never dominated by a rival like Federer. We have seen Federer has mental toughness in terms of consistency.. But when going up against someone with more mental toughness than him in Nadal, Federer's mental toughness comes into question.


BH? Both had an average BH and it wasnt their strengths obviously


So why was Sampras useless on clay?

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 07:07 PM
SetSampras, you talk as if you know the facts, as if you've watched him training in Dubai or in the high altitude locations he chooses mid year. All you're saying is pure speculation, because you think Fed owning the likes of Roddick and Davydenko means it's coming easy to him, therefore no practice required.

Im going by what I see from Federer these days on the court.. Hes played well. .. I dont think he has played unbeatable tennis over the last year or two. I think he was playing far better in 04-06 than he is now. I think he is doing enough to stay in shape and with his style of game and how he moves on the court its easier to naturally stay injury free.


Owning Roddick and Davydenko has always came easy to Federer so lets say it the way it is. When you have a 19-2 h2h against someone there isn't much more you can say.

BigJohn
02-07-2010, 07:08 PM
One area: serve.

Thats it. take away samprass serve and he has 0 Slams.

Edit: forgot vomiting on court. Pete is clearly better there.

That is pretty much true. The part about vomiting too.

With a regular serve, no effective serve/volley.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 07:08 PM
So why was Sampras useless on clay?

He wasnt useless on clay... He won Rome, won Davis Cup on clay. Reached a semis and a few QFS at the French. He wasnt among the greatest on clay but he wasnt useless

Feketepuss
02-07-2010, 07:12 PM
He wasnt useless on clay... He won Rome, won Davis Cup on clay. Reached a semis and a few QFS at the French. He wasnt among the greatest on clay but he wasnt useless

Yes, but according to your analysis, he has a game that is superior (or at least equal) to Federer in most regards. And yet Fed has won 5 Masters titles on clay, one Roland Garros (plus three finals), plus numerous other finals in masters clay events and is the only person to have beaten Nadal twice on clay in the past 6 years...

So your assessment of Sampras is missing the point, otherwise he would not have such a meagre clay CV

DrJules
02-07-2010, 07:12 PM
Let Sampras play Roddick 20 some odd times all throughout his prime and you will see Sampras ace Roddick far more than 50 times. That shows more at how Roddick sucks at returning and reading serves than someone like Nadal who can handle Fed's serve and then you watch Federer's service games all go to shit

What is the most aces Sampras ever served in a match - not sure he ever passed 30.

barbadosan
02-07-2010, 07:15 PM
You have my sympathy, abraxas. Like others, you've had your thread derailed by the serial thread hi-jacker, SetSampras :D

DrJules
02-07-2010, 07:18 PM
Thats it? LOL.... Wow...


Volleying? Did you forget about this Sampras greater obviously

FH- Different styles. Sampras was much better on the run and deadlier with the depth on the FH. Though Federer can do more with FH. Both have two of the greatest FH's ever in different ways

Serve- Sampras obviously

Mental Toughness Big match situation? Sampras since he had the clutchness and was never dominated by a rival like Federer. We have seen Federer has mental toughness in terms of consistency.. But when going up against someone with more mental toughness than him in Nadal, Federer's mental toughness comes into question.


BH? Both had an average BH and it wasnt their strengths obviously

Between 94 and 99 Krajicek won 4 matches in a row against Sampras and between 93 and 99 won 6 out of 7 matches and none were on clay ( Nadal has only 4 wins over Federer off clay):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K214&oId=S402

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 07:19 PM
delete post

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 07:20 PM
[QUOTE=Feketepuss;9606636]Yes, but according to your analysis, he has a game that is superior (or at least equal) to Federer in most regards. And yet Fed has won 5 Masters titles on clay, one Roland Garros (plus three finals), plus numerous other finals in masters clay events and is the only person to have beaten Nadal twice on clay in the past 6 years...

So your assessment of Sampras is missing the point, otherwise he would not have such a meagre clay CV[/QUOTE


I said I believe in certain areas of the game Sampras is superior. Sampras was had much authority on the court the Federer did and if Sampras was "on" while dictating there was next nothing the opponent could do about it. In terms of their relative clay court resume. Yes federer's game translates better on clay.. Fed grew up playing on clay.. Sampras didnt. Federer is more point constructive while Sampras was more point destructive. Federer implements more spin in his shots thus making it more useful on clay. Im not arguing Sampras is better than Federer on clay. We could go into how Sampras had more threats to deal with on clay but thats for another day. Whats sad is if Sampras had gotten just one RG win there were be none of this talk and Sampras and his "useleness" on clay. The fact is he could play on clay.


Agassi's game adapted better to clay the Pete's yet if you break their games down sampras had a far better overrall repeotire

Arkulari
02-07-2010, 07:22 PM
Let Sampras play Roddick 20 some odd times all throughout his prime and you will see Sampras ace Roddick far more than 50 times. That shows more at how Roddick sucks at returning and reading serves than someone like Nadal who can handle Fed's serve and then you watch Federer's service games all go to shit

yeah, Sampras just played the likes of Krajicek and Ivanisevic who were gods of ROS :lol:

also, his matches were played in much faster conditions in HC and grass, yet he never made 50 aces in a match... :scratch:

Jelena
02-07-2010, 07:22 PM
I always get the feeling that Federer trains less than any other player in the top 10. Recently I read that he was going to Ethiopia to visit and check the work of his foundation over there and then, apparently, he's going to Austria for the ceremony of the release of a new stamp that features him. In between he probably does many interviews (come to think of it, he's probably the player who gives the most interviews) and also reunites with his sponsors and such.Finally -I don't know when exactly though- he plans to go to Dubai to train for the tournament that starts on February 22.

Furthermore, when he trains he seems to do it so relaxed, almost like he doesn't care. Once I read that even when he was a kid he din't really take training sessions too seriously and that he considered himself to be more of a "match player". Even his parents back in the day used to reccommend him to take training sessions more seriously!
Anyway, has this tendency really changed? Once Nadal said "I've never ever seen him train as hard as I do" and tv commentators who have seen his work have basically made similar comments.

Anyhow, I just wanted to say that... I've always thought it was kind of strange how little effort Roger seems to put into his preparation and yet be so good at what he does.
Have you ever watched a practice session of him? I watched him practicing on the quali weekend of Hamburg Masters 2005. For me it was impressing to see how hard he works. Ok it was before the tournament started, it was (as far as I remember) his first clay court tournament of the year, but he worked really hard. You could see how he wants to play on clay and what he wants to change. So who are we to judge how Federer practices? He seems to make nearly no mistakes in the way he practices. He's nearly never injured, at 99% of the top events - which are the only important for him - he is fit enough to play several hard matches in a row, so the results speak for themselves. :)

Feketepuss
02-07-2010, 07:26 PM
[QUOTE]


Whats sad is if Sampras had gotten just one RG win there were be none of this talk and Sampras and his "useleness" on clay. The fact is he could play on clay.



What is sad is that you are 26 and still living in a dream world! Sampras didn't come close and you know it!

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 07:28 PM
He wasnt useless on clay... He won Rome, won Davis Cup on clay. Reached a semis and a few QFS at the French. He wasnt among the greatest on clay but he wasnt useless

Sampras sucks on clay, deal with it. just watch some old matches in RG to refresh your memory. There is a reason he was never even in the final there. Federer is lightyears ahead of Sampras in terms of clay tennis.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 07:31 PM
Sampras sucks on clay, deal with it. just watch some old matches in RG to refresh your memory. There is a reason he was never even in the final there. Federer is lightyears ahead of Sampras in terms of clay tennis.



You know what look at what the fuck Pete DID accomplsih on clay. He won Davis Cup for the U.S SINGLEHANDINDLY in 1995!!!! on super slow clay. He won Rome in 94. He has victories over Andre, Muster, Bruguera, and Courier on clay. Reached the semis and QF;s a few times of the French usually going out to the eventual champ. Yea more number of threats than even the great federer himself dealed with on clay. Thats not being "sucky". You dont accomplish what Pete did on clay and "suck"

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 07:32 PM
Clearly, Federer DOES prepare hard and must have prepared excellently to have the level of brilliantly sustained dominance that he had, the likes of which hadn't been seen previously since Borg and then before that Laver. For Federer to have garnered the results that put him on a similar pedestal to the likes of Laver and Borg is quite remarkable. All these 3 have various achievements that undoubtedly make them GOAT candidates but with the way Federer is going he might end up making it more or less unanimous which would be a mighty testament to his tremendous preparation.

Certainly the fact that Federer has been able to prepare hard and well enough to have no real deficiencies on any surface speaks volumes.

DrJules
02-07-2010, 07:33 PM
yeah, Sampras just played the likes of Krajicek and Ivanisevic who were gods of ROS :lol:

also, his matches were played in much faster conditions in HC and grass, yet he never made 50 aces in a match... :scratch:

There are more aces per 10 points at Wimbledon than 10 or so years ago:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=9604933&postcount=67

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 07:36 PM
There are more aces per 10 points at Wimbledon than 10 or so years ago:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=9604933&postcount=67

Very interesting.

tennishero
02-07-2010, 07:50 PM
i dont believe this federer doesnt practise much rumour.

maybe compared to his opponents in the top 5 he practises less/more but he is now 28 years old and has many years of practise and experience... murray, delpo, djoko, nadal are all much younger so they still have room to improve.

im sure if you compare him to players his age, or on average all the players, he trains the most.

elessar
02-07-2010, 07:55 PM
So why was Sampras useless on clay?
If only he'd grown up on the stuff :sad:
Im going by what I see from Federer these days on the court.. Hes played well. .. I dont think he has played unbeatable tennis over the last year or two. I think he was playing far better in 04-06 than he is now.
No way :eek:

NYCtennisfan
02-07-2010, 08:01 PM
He hasnt even had a coach for the longest time and its focus primarily is on slams these days. They seem to be his only motivation over the least year or two.. Slams and nothing else so he has plenty of time to prepare for slams since winning non slam even no doubt seem to be low on his "to do list" anymore.

I doubt he has to train much. The two main guys with the tools to take him out at a slam (Del Potro and Nadal) are always getting injured. He can beat the likes of DJoker and Murray and Davydenko and the rest at slams just by warming up through the earlier rounds. These guys dont have what it take to win slams. There may be some ability there but there isnt the desire to lay their foot down and win slams. Nadal was the only that came along and looked at Federer as an OPPONENT!!! Not as "Federer the Great I must bow down to him"

Why not just make this your signature so you don't have to repeat it in every one of your posts?

Vida
02-07-2010, 08:36 PM
I bet Fed prepares incredibly hard, harder than anyone actually - but than fakes it pretending he doesnt care much, like 'Im so talented I dont have to prepare much, it just comes naturally'. its aaaaaaaaall part of the act to preserve his aura :shrug:

Dini
02-07-2010, 08:52 PM
I bet Fed prepares incredibly hard, harder than anyone actually - but than fakes it pretending he doesnt care much, like 'Im so talented I dont have to prepare much, it just comes naturally'. its aaaaaaaaall part of the act to preserve his aura :shrug:

He makes jokes about sitting on the couch doing nothing, just taking care of the children. But that's just what it is - a joke. When asked about it in the press conference later, he gives a more detailed answer as has been pointed out already in the thread, here (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=9606475&postcount=26). He talks about it in quite some detail actually so I'm not sure where he's faking that he's working hard.

Vida
02-07-2010, 08:57 PM
He makes jokes about sitting on the couch doing nothing, just taking care of the children. But that's just what it is - a joke. When asked about it in the press conference later, he gives a more detailed answer as has been pointed out already in the thread, here (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=9606475&postcount=26). He talks about it in quite some detail actually so I'm not sure where he's faking that he's working hard.

I was joking Ininity, just poncing about. yes, I know he spoke about it and no he isnt faking it.:rolleyes:

but in all seriousness, fed does mind about looking 'for me its easier cause, you know, Im very talented'.

Dini
02-07-2010, 09:00 PM
I was joking Ininity, just poncing about. yes, I know he spoke about it and no he isnt faking it.:rolleyes:

but in all seriousness, fed does mind about looking 'for me its easier cause, you know, Im very talented'.

It was a bit hard to tell that you were joking. :shrug:

JediFed
02-07-2010, 11:02 PM
I just say it how it is


Remind me, was Pete known for his stamina?

JediFed
02-07-2010, 11:04 PM
Sadly I can't rep Karin once more. :(

Sunset of Age
02-08-2010, 01:05 AM
Sadly I can't rep Karin once more. :(

Consider yourself being :hug:ed in return. :D

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 01:42 AM
Remind me, was Pete known for his stamina?

Thalassemia Minor. Look it up. Was Roger known for stepping up against his one sole rival? :eek:

luie
02-08-2010, 01:48 AM
Thalassemia Minor. Look it up. Was Roger known for stepping up against his one sole rival? :eek:
Yes he stood up,beating him on clay maybe not.;)
Was sampras known for beating his main rival on clay or rebound ace.

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 01:55 AM
Thalassemia Minor. Look it up. Was Roger known for stepping up against his one sole rival? :eek:

if Sampras illness was as serious as you say it is, he wouldn't have been able to have a successful tennis career and win as much as he did

geez, only when mentioning clay is that the disease is thrown into discussion, was it latent and only shown in the clay season every year?

He was a remarkable player but his results in clay were never good enough, yes, he won some tournaments and other things but he was never a true force on clay, because his SERVE and volley style was never suited for that particular surface

and let's not talk about the "big" competition he had, he wasn't really losing to the Muster and Brugueras of the world in RG, he almost never got far enough to play them, he was losing to the Delgados and Champions of the world, heck he even lost to Philippousis (who was a good player but on clay he was like a current Murray)

I hate when people make excuses for the players losses, specially if they are as lame as this one or the usual injured/tired ones for Rafa or the mono for Roger, they cannot lose if they are healthy, God forbid it :rolleyes:

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 01:56 AM
Yes he stood up,beating him on clay maybe not.;)
Was sampras known for beating his main rival on clay or rebound ace.

Sampras was 20-14 against his main rival agassi and yes he beat Agassi on clay before. Had him in 2000 at the Australian Open but tore a rotator cuff. Federer was beaten at 3 of the 4 slam finals and is 7-13 in h2h vs. Nadal. So thats worse

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 01:59 AM
if Sampras illness was as serious as you say it is, he wouldn't have been able to have a successful tennis career and win as much as he did

geez, only when mentioning clay is that the disease is thrown into discussion, was it latent and only shown in the clay season every year?

He was a remarkable player but his results in clay were never good enough, yes, he won some tournaments and other things but he was never a true force on clay, because his SERVE and volley style was never suited for that particular surface

and let's not talk about the "big" competition he had, he wasn't really losing to the Muster and Brugueras of the world in RG, he almost never got far enough to play them, he was losing to the Delgados and Champions of the world, heck he even lost to Philippousis (who was a good player but on clay he was like a current Murray)

I hate when people make excuses for the players losses, specially if they are as lame as this one or the usual injured/tired ones for Rafa or the mono for Roger, they cannot lose if they are healthy, God forbid it :rolleyes:

Bottomline: Sampras was an excellent player, won a ton of slams but was never as dominant and as consistent as Roger has been



Lets see what Federer's stamina would be like if he had Thalassemia Minor his entire career? He wasnt dominating with a mild form of mono. Would Fed have won 16 slams with Thalassemia Minor? Doubt it when you have a low iron deficiency it affects your stamina. Especially today when you need stamina more than you did in eras prior due to the way the game is played today

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 02:01 AM
if Sampras illness was as serious as you say it is, he wouldn't have been able to have a successful tennis career and win as much as he did

geez, only when mentioning clay is that the disease is thrown into discussion, was it latent and only shown in the clay season every year?

He was a remarkable player but his results in clay were never good enough, yes, he won some tournaments and other things but he was never a true force on clay, because his SERVE and volley style was never suited for that particular surface

and let's not talk about the "big" competition he had, he wasn't really losing to the Muster and Brugueras of the world in RG, he almost never got far enough to play them, he was losing to the Delgados and Champions of the world, heck he even lost to Philippousis (who was a good player but on clay he was like a current Murray)

I hate when people make excuses for the players losses, specially if they are as lame as this one or the usual injured/tired ones for Rafa or the mono for Roger, they cannot lose if they are healthy, God forbid it :rolleyes:




And uhhhhh....... Sampras in his prime at his best days on clay before his coach died Sampras went out to Agassi in 92, Bruguera in 93, Courier in 94, bad loss in 95, and Yevgeny in 96 after beating Bruguera and Courier. So yes... during Pete's best days, he was going out to some fine clay court competition and all guys who would eventually go on at one or another win the slam and create great clay court legacies for themselves. Courier was awesome on clay, Agassi won it 99 and reached the finals two other times, and Bruguera won it twice. None of them were crap on clay. Later on Pete had some bad losses but his main BEST YEARS where he was still focused on clay he was going out to some very good clay courts

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 02:05 AM
Lets see what Federer's stamina would be like if he had Thalassemia Minor his entire career? He wasnt dominating with a mild form of mono. Would Fed have won 16 slams with Thalassemia Minor? Doubt it when you have a low iron deficiency it affects your stamina. Especially today when you need stamina more than you did in eras prior due to the way the game is played today

like I said before, Sampras wouldn't have been as dominant if his illness wasn't mild, he simply wouldn't have had the stamina, and it is always thrown into discussion when it comes to clay, was it latent when he was playing in other surfaces?

yes, Roger had mono, but unlike some other tards I don't really blame his losses on that, just that other players got on fire and managed to beat him, it's an insult to a champion like him or Sampras to blame their losses to a illness that wasn't making them weak enough to retire left and right

it's Sampras own fault that he wasn't focussed on clay, it is an important season and he should have made the effort to win in there instead of simply giving up like he did, he lost to people like Delgado and Champion because he didn't really care about RG

and for the "he didn't grow up playing on clay", well, did Agassi and Courier grew up playing on clay day in day out like european/south american players do? ;)

you will always find a way to excuse Sampras non domination in clay and to try to diminish Roger's accomplishments blaming them on his era (which is totally his fault because he can choose WHEN to play in history) or the fact that he has had ONE bad match-up that has taken him down a lot of times (nevermind that practically the rest of the tour has a bad record against Roger)

Newsflash: Sampras dominated the 90's, Roger dominated the 00's, GOAT doesn't exist, simply remarkable players who were much better than most of his peers in a given moment of time but whom weren't perfect or unvincible, just great but not perfect

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 02:15 AM
like I said before, Sampras wouldn't have been as dominant if his illness wasn't mild, he simply wouldn't have had the stamina, and it is always thrown into discussion when it comes to clay, was it latent when he was playing in other surfaces?

yes, Roger had mono, but unlike some other tards I don't really blame his losses on that, just that other players got on fire and managed to beat him, it's an insult to a champion like him or Sampras to blame their losses to a illness that wasn't making them weak enough to retire left and right

it's Sampras own fault that he wasn't focussed on clay, it is an important season and he should have made the effort to win in there instead of simply giving up like he did, he lost to people like Delgado and Champion because he didn't really care about RG

and for the "he didn't grow up playing on clay", well, did Agassi and Courier grew up playing on clay day in day out like european/south american players do? ;)

you will always find a way to excuse Sampras non domination in clay and to try to diminish Roger's accomplishment blaming them on his era (which is totally his fault because he can choose WHEN to play in history) or the fact that he has had ONE bad match-up that has taken him down a lot of times (nevermind that practically the rest of the tour has a bad record against Roger)



Listen, Sampras did pretty well on clay during and I already listed during his best years early to mid 90s he went out to some quality clay court competition against players who all won the French Open. (Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov who played his best on clay). And lets be honest, Federer NEVER dominated on clay either. So thats all irrelevant. When Federer went up against quality clay court competition at RG like Nadal or Kuerten.. We saw what happeend. He was whipped like a government mule. His main conquests at RG were never against great clay court individuals. Unless you want to count Almagro, Hanescu, Nalbandian, Monfils as some great clay court French Open gods. But since none of them have ever won it they arent. If Sampras brought his 92-96 form to the French Open and brough it to the early 00's he may have won a French Open who knows. There were no Couriers, Bruguera,Musters, Medvedevs (multiple clay masters winner) or Agassis to contend with at the point.. He may have got right into the final and grabbed one of them. As I said... more quality clay court threats in Pete's day.. The draws were littered with more unlike the 00s where there were less and less clay court threats and specialists

rofe
02-08-2010, 02:21 AM
Sampras was 20-14 against his main rival agassi and yes he beat Agassi on clay before. Had him in 2000 at the Australian Open but tore a rotator cuff. Federer was beaten at 3 of the 4 slam finals and is 7-13 in h2h vs. Nadal. So thats worse

You are the same guy who called Fed Frauderer in a different thread. With that kind of bias, I am surprised that people are trying to have a sane discussion with an obvious troll. Oh well, carry on.

luie
02-08-2010, 02:23 AM
Sampras was 20-14 against his main rival agassi and yes he beat Agassi on clay before. Had him in 2000 at the Australian Open but tore a rotator cuff. Federer was beaten at 3 of the 4 slam finals and is 7-13 in h2h vs. Nadal. So thats worse
Not GS Level,(clay)
Too bad about pete's injury but it happens.:sad:
About the 20-14 H2H its a career while the h2h between federer is not complete.:rolleyes:
Eg alot can change for example I always felt that sampras never had a TRUE MAIN rival during his prime. HIs career main rival agassi was MIA (missing in action) during those years spanning 93-98.
93
Agassi-AO absent
FO absent
WIM QF
USO 1R
94
AO absent
FO 2R
WIM 4R
USO W
95
AO W
FO QF
WIM SF
F
96 AO SF
FO 2R
WIM 1R
USO SF
97 THE CRYSTAL METH YEAR
AO absent
FO absent
FO absent
USO 4R
Ranking # 141.
98
AO 4R
FO 1R
WIM 2R
USO 4R
So in sampras 6 year reign his main rival won only 2 slams.
Secondly they met only 3 times @ grand slam level .Pete winning on his prefered surface WIM& USO ,agassi won on rebound ace 95 AO.
THE point is while I think DRUGGASI is a better player off clay than nadal but nadal has been more of an obstacle to federer during his Prime or #1 years thus far. They already met 8 @ GS level since 05-09 only 5 years. 4 on nadal's turf with him winning all 4,4 off-clay split 2-2
non @ the USO nadal's worst surface (game wise,result wise)
IN short I felt pete was never really challenged @ the very top during those years.

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 02:24 AM
Listen, Sampras did pretty well on clay and I already listed during his best years early to mid 90s he went out to some quality clay court competition. And lets be honest, Federer NEVER dominated on clay either. So thats all irrelevant. When Federer went up against quality clay court competition at RG like Nadal or Kuerten.. We saw what happeend. His main conquests at RG were never against great clay court individuals. Unless you want to count Almagro, Hanescu, Nalbandian, Monfils as some great clay court French Open gods. But since none of them have ever won it they arent

I don't think three RG finals, one title, 5 MS, 6 MS runner-ups are something to take lightly, he never dominated but he was not a second-tier claycourter either ;)

2002 TMS Hamburg

1st Federer def. Lapentti 6-1, 6-4
2nd Federer def. Ulihrach 6-3, 6-0
3rd Federer def. Voinea 7-5, 6-4
QF Federer def. Kuerten 6-0, 1-6, 6-2
SF Federer def. Mirnyi 6-4, 6-4
F Federer def. Safin 6-1, 6-3, 6-4

2004 TMS Hamburg

1st Federer def. Gaudio 6-1, 5-7, 6-4
2nd Federer def. Lapentti 6-3, 6-3
3rd Federer def. Gonzalez 7-5, 6-1
QF Federer def. Moya 6-4, 6-3
SF Federer def. Hewitt 6-0, 6-4
F Federer def. Coria 4-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-3


2005 TMS Hamburg

1st Federer def. Verdasco 6-4, 6-3
2nd Federer def. Berdych 6-2, 6-1
3rd Federer def. Robredo 6-2, 6-3
QF Federer def. Coria 6-4, 7-6(3)
SF Federer def. Davydenko 6-3, 6-4
F Federer def. Gasquet 6-3, 7-5, 7-6(4) (guy who has just beaten him in MC a couple weeks before)


2007 TMS Hamburg

1st Federer def. Bye
2nd Federer def. Monaco 6-3, 2-6, 6-4
3rd Federer def. Ferrero 6-2, 6-3
QF Federer def. Ferrer 6-3, 4-6, 6-3
SF Federer def. Moya 4-6, 6-4, 6-2
F Federer def. Nadal 2-6, 6-2, 6-0

yep, he ALWAYS lost back to back to strong clay competition...

in RG he only lost to the greatest claycourter of our era, which is like being ashamed of losing in clay to Borg in his prime :shrug:

rolandgarros
02-08-2010, 02:27 AM
lol

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 02:29 AM
Not GS Level,(clay)
Too bad about pete's injury but it happens.:sad:
About the 20-14 H2H its a career while the h2h between federer is not complete.:rolleyes:
Eg alot can change for example I always felt that sampras never had a TRUE MAIN rival during his prime. HIs career main rival agassi was MIA (missing in action) during those years spanning 93-98.
93
Agassi-AO absent
FO absent
WIM QF
USO 1R
94
AO absent
FO 2R
WIM 4R
USO W
95
AO W
FO QF
WIM SF
F
96 AO SF
FO 2R
WIM 1R
USO SF
97 THE CRYSTAL METH YEAR
AO absent
FO absent
FO absent
USO 4R
Ranking # 141.
98
AO 4R
FO 1R
WIM 2R
USO 4R
So in sampras 6 year reign his main rival won only 2 slams.
Secondly they met only 3 times @ grand slam level .Pete winning on his prefered surface WIM& USO ,agassi won on rebound ace 95 AO.
THE point is while I think DRUGGASI is a better player off clay than nadal but nadal has been more of an obstacle to federer during his Prime or #1 years thus far. They already met 8 @ GS level since 05-09 only 5 years. 4 on nadal's turf with him winning all 4,4 off-clay split 2-2
non @ the USO nadal's worst surface (game wise,result wise)
IN short I felt pete was never really challenged @ the very top during those years.



Agassi turned it on later in his career from 29 years of age but it never would have mattered Agassi was around or not during that time. He was never going to beat Sampras at Wimbeldon or the USO. Sampras mauled him both at both on multiple occasions. Agassi could barely win a set over Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO and I wish Agassi would have been around during that time for Sampras to contend with him at the AO cause I do think Sampras and Agassi should have split their AO meetings but Pete got injured in 2000. Nadal has been more of an obstacle for Federer since Nadal maintained being around for alot of that time.. But... Nadal was never could reached a USO final to play Federer. Agassi was a much better hardcourt player than Nadal has been and managed to win every slam even though he spent alot of his physical prime years off the radar he made up for him later in his career from 1999-on. Nadal has been the rival to Federer on grass and clay.. But there is also a 5 year age differential lets no forget. Agassi and Sampras there is only a 1 year. But as I said it wouldnt have mattered.. Ive never seen Agassi play any better then he did in 1995 and it still wasnt enough to get by Pete.


Agassi and Sampras didnt occur as many times in such a brief period of time as Nadal-Federer but Sampras-Agassi rivalry did extend from 1990-2002. Thats an ungodly amount of time for a tennis rivalry.. Sampras won his first and last slam against Andre.


Agassi was winning slams at a pretty young age all the way into his early 30s. Nadal seems all finished and washed up by 23 years of age. Others may differ but personally I would much prefer Agassi's career over Nadal.. Agassi won the Grand Slam and had a long illustrious career spanning from teenage years to mid 30s even though he didnt dominate the game. He still was very successful and IMO the ONLY PLAYER to win the true Grand slam due to the distinct differences of the conditions in both opponents and surfaces

luie
02-08-2010, 02:38 AM
Agassi turned it on later in his career from 29 years of age but it never would have mattered Agassi was around or not during that time. He was never going to beat Sampras at Wimbeldon or the USO. Sampras mauled him both at both on multiple occasions. Agassi could barely win a set over Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO and I wish Agassi would have been around during that time for Sampras to contend with him at the AO cause I do think Sampras and Agassi should have split their AO meetings but Pete got injured in 2000. Nadal has been more of an obstacle for Federer since Nadal maintained being around for alot of that time.. But... Nadal was never could reached a USO final to play Federer. Agassi was a much better hardcourt player than Nadal has been and managed to win every slam even though he spent alot of his physical prime years off the radar he made up for him later in his career from 1999-on. Nadal has been the rival to Federer on grass and clay.. But there is also a 5 year age differential lets no forget. Agassi and Sampras there is only a 1 year. But as I said it wouldnt have mattered.. Ive never seen Agassi play any better then he did in 1995 and it still wasnt enough to get by Pete.


Agassi and Sampras didnt occur as many times in such a brief period of time as Nadal-Federer but Sampras-Agassi rivalry did extend from 1990-2002. Thats an ungodly amount of time for a tennis rivalry.. Sampras won his first and last slam against Andre
Thats my point exactly the book isn't closed on fed vs nadal by a long shot.Nadal has a lot too prove but also this rivalry can be extended for many years to come.
BUT the point still remains its a proved FACT that samprass #1 years was DEVIOD of his career main rival.;)

kengyin
02-08-2010, 02:40 AM
just be quiet and stop hating on federer!!!

kengyin
02-08-2010, 02:41 AM
that was for setsampras

luie
02-08-2010, 02:42 AM
Others might dis agree but to me DRUGASSI is a GLORIFIED JOURNEYMAN.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 02:42 AM
Thats my point exactly the book isn't closed on fed vs nadal by a long shot.Nadal has a lot too prove but also this rivalry can be extended for many years to come.
BUT the point still remains its a proved FACT that samprass #1 years was DEVIOD of his career main rival.;)




Ahhhh... Well I will disagree with you.. I think the boook is very much closing on Nadal's career. Hes already burning himself to a crisp. Hasnt finisehd a season healthy in a long time and is constantly having issues with injuries and hes only 23. One of these times its going to be something very serious, as in career threatening if it hasnt been already.. He is going to be off again for quite some time, dip further in the rankings, and spend a ton time grabbing back his old form, and spending MORE time than that getting back to his dominant level. By then Federer could probably be on the way out the door.. In fact, Nadal will probably be the one retiring before Federer will. Nadal is a player who has to be 100 percent both physically and mentally to dominate and win slams because of his style of game. He isnt moving well hes fucked. If he isnt playing with confidence hes fucked which is usually a direct correlation with him not being in top form.


As for Agassi not being around.. I already expressed my views on that.. it wouldnt have mattered.. Agassi could not beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. In contrast with Nadal and Federer where Nadal proposes an issue for Federer everywheres and has the ability to beat Federer most of the time if hes at the top of his game. This he proved

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 02:43 AM
just be quiet and stop hating on federer!!!

Im not hating on Federer.. But some of this fuckin nonsense has to be put into perspective.

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 02:45 AM
As for Agassi not being around.. I already expressed my views on that.. it wouldnt have mattered.. Agassi could not beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. In contrast with Nadal and Federer where Nadal proposes an issue for Federer everywheres and has the ability to beat Federer most of the time if hes healthy

wait a second: since Sampras didn't lose to Agassi in Wimbledon (but lost to the likes of Krajicek and Federer pre-prime) that makes him a better player that someone that has only lost in grass once in the last 8 years? :scratch:

or am I reading it wrong?

I was never a Sampras fan, but I don't really hate the guy either, his style of play was never my cup of tea but I can acknowledge his accomplishments and say he was a great player, the best of his own time, like I said before, the GOAT nonsense is just stupid because there is no basis for comparison :shrug:

luie
02-08-2010, 02:47 AM
Ahhhh... Well I will disagree with you.. I think the boook is very much closing on Nadal's career. Hes already burning himself to a crisp. Hasnt finisehd a season healthy in a long time and is constantly having issues with injuries and hes only 23. One of these times its going to be something very serious, as in career threatening if it hasnt been already.. He is going to be off again for quite some time, dip further in the rankings, and spend a ton time grabbing back his old form, and spending MORE time than that getting back to his dominant level. By then Federer could probably be on the way out the door.. In fact, Nadal will probably be the one retiring before Federer will.


As for Agassi not being around.. I already expressed my views on that.. it wouldnt have mattered.. Agassi could not beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. In contrast with Nadal and Federer where Nadal proposes an issue for Federer everywheres and has the ability to beat Federer most of the time if hes healthy
IN short then samprass never had a TRUE rival on these surface if he could never be beaten by his CAREER rival.SO the 90's was a "weak era" for sampras if "no-one" had the ability to stand up to him,certainly his so-called main rival who could not so that leaves Todd Martin or cedric pioline.:confused:

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 02:50 AM
wait a second: since Sampras didn't lose to Agassi in Wimbledon (but lost to the likes of Krajicek and Federer pre-prime) makes him a better player that someone that has only lost in grass once in the last 8 years? :scratch:

or am I reading it wrong?

I was never a Sampras fan, but I don't really hate the guy either, his style of play was never my cup of tea but I can acknowledge his accomplishments and say he was a great player, the best of his own time, like I said before, the GOAT nonsense is just stupid because there is no basis for comparison :shrug:



I dont take much into Sampras losing to Federer at Wimbledon.. By that time sampras was already 30 years old and passed his prime for sure. A few at that point. I think Sampras was going to go out regardless that year.. if not to Federer than Goran or Rafter or even Henman. Just prior to meeting Federer, sampras needed 5 sets to get by some bum I never even heard of. Granted still a big win for a young Federer, but I think it was inevitable the run was over for Pete at the point.

Now Im in the same boat as you.. I never really was a huge of Fed.. I always respected his accomplishments and abilities but thats about as far as I went with him. I enjoyed him much better before he began dominating.. At least his game when he attacked, served and volleyed and didnt live at the baseline

kengyin
02-08-2010, 02:52 AM
setsampras is just annoyed that federer bested his records

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 02:54 AM
I dont take much into Sampras losing to Federer at Wimbledon.. By that time sampras was already 30 years old and passed his prime for sure. A few at that point. I think Sampras was going to go out regardless that year.. if not to Federer than Goran or Rafter or even Henman. Just prior to meeting Federer, sampras needed 5 sets to get by some bum I never even heard of. Granted still a big win for a young Federer, but I think it was inevitable the run was over for Pete at the point.

Now Im in the same boat as you.. I never really was a huge of Fed.. I always respected his accomplishments and abilities but thats about as far as I went with him. I enjoyed him much better before he began dominating.. At least his game when he attacked, served and volleyed and didnt live at the baseline

Both him and Sampras were a result of their own eras, of the surfaces they play at, someone who S&V all the time nowadays simply would get passed more times than not because of the power game and the surface speed :shrug:

I for example attended Wimbledon 5 times, the first in 1996 and the last in 2007, the difference of style play and surface speed was unbelievable and it subsequently produced their own type of players

Choreos
02-08-2010, 02:55 AM
Well, he is a good way to gaze into the mind of illogical people.

luie
02-08-2010, 02:56 AM
Ahhhh... Well I will disagree with you.. I think the boook is very much closing on Nadal's career. Hes already burning himself to a crisp. Hasnt finisehd a season healthy in a long time and is constantly having issues with injuries and hes only 23. One of these times its going to be something very serious, as in career threatening if it hasnt been already.. He is going to be off again for quite some time, dip further in the rankings, and spend a ton time grabbing back his old form, and spending MORE time than that getting back to his dominant level. By then Federer could probably be on the way out the door.. In fact, Nadal will probably be the one retiring before Federer will. Nadal is a player who has to be 100 percent both physically and mentally to dominate and win slams because of his style of game. He isnt moving well hes fucked. If he isnt playing with confidence hes fucked which is usually a direct correlation with him not being in top form.


As for Agassi not being around.. I already expressed my views on that.. it wouldnt have mattered.. Agassi could not beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. In contrast with Nadal and Federer where Nadal proposes an issue for Federer everywheres and has the ability to beat Federer most of the time if hes at the top of his game. This he proved
Also in those short years (nadal)he has been more of an obstacle to federer than drugassi ever was because according to you he could NEVER beat pete @ USO & WIM, in short agassi was sort of roddick,safin etc unable to beat federer when it mattered @ the big one after all safin,djokovic beat him @ the AO rebound ace but are unable to beat him @ wimbledon &USO so that makes nadal a special case then.:confused:

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 02:58 AM
Also in those short years (nadal)he has been more of an obstacle to federer than drugassi ever was because according to you he could NEVER beat pete @ USO & WIM, in short agassi was sort of roddick,safin etc unable to beat federer when it mattered @ the big one after all safin,djokovic beat him @ the AO rebound ace but are unable to beat him @ wimbledon &USO so that makes nadal a special case then.:confused:

Agassi DID have the ability to beat Sampras. Just not at Wimbledon or the USO. He certainly had the ability to beat Sampras or anyone else at the Australian Open. Had the ability at the French Open. Nadal had the ability to fluster Federer everywheres. Now I dont know about the USO since Nadal was never good enough to reach Federer there but maybe we will see at the USO this year. To me if Nadal completes the Grandslam sweep of Federer at the USO much less in the final, I dont think there is any logical way anyone can call Fed the GOAT anymore.

The GOAT who lost to his only rival in all 4 slam finals?

barbadosan
02-08-2010, 03:04 AM
Agassi DID have the ability to beat Sampras. Just not at Wimbledon or the USO. He certainly had the ability to beat Sampras or anyone else at the Australian Open. Had the ability at the French Open. Nadal had the ability to fluster Federer everywheres. Now I dont know about the USO since Nadal was never good enough to reach Federer there but maybe we will see at the USO this year. To me if Nadal completes the Grandslam sweep of Federer at the USO much less in the final, I dont think there is any logical way anyone can call Fed the GOAT anymore.

The GOAT who lost to his only rival in all 4 slam finals?

Which, let's face it, is the one thing that sticks in your craw... that your beloved Pete is no longer in the running for GOAT because Fed has overshadowed almost all of Pete's records -- that is the real reason why people on at least 2 different boards have had to suffer through your endless diatribes on the subject. Pshaw!


(Well at least the people on one of the two baords got some relief!)

-----

Edit: Oh and "all 4 Slam Finals?" I guess you accidentally overlooked the fact that they did play 2 slam finals at Wimbledon which Federer won

luie
02-08-2010, 03:06 AM
Agassi DID have the ability to beat Sampras. Just not at Wimbledon or the USO. He certainly had the ability to beat Sampras or anyone else at the Australian Open. Had the ability at the French Open. Nadal had the ability to fluster Federer everywheres. Now I dont know about the USO since Nadal was never good enough to reach Federer there but maybe we will see at the USO this year
So what you are saying agassi was like players like safin & djokovic players who could beat federer on rebound ace like AO 2005,2008 & clay like fakervic beat federer on clay 2009 rome but just can't beat him @ wimbledon & USO.SO nadal is a type of player that pete never faced a player with the game and match-up to "take it too him".
I already know that pete never had much competion outside clay & it so happens he suck on clay.
The bottom line samprass was given a "free" pass in the 90s no one had the game & mentality to stand-up to him.:sad:

luie
02-08-2010, 03:13 AM
FEDERER =GOAT. Samprass just all-time great who was a mug on clay got beaten by the younger generation as soon as players came along with the ability @ metality to take him out @ his favorite slams,Safin defeat sampras USO 2000,hewitt defeat samprass USO 2001 ,GOAT federer WIM 2001.HE!HE!
look pete even beat his lap dog drugassi 2002. So yes its true pete could hardly be challenged by his greatest rival on USO & Wim but the young generation could.
BTW federer = GOAT

FairWeatherFan
02-08-2010, 05:00 AM
Due to the currently pathetic era of tennis I doubt he needs to practice that hard.

federersforehand
02-08-2010, 07:16 AM
you go beat everyone then, faggot, sick of people like yours shit

oematoema
02-08-2010, 07:39 AM
Word of advice of SetSampras: read Don Quixote.

king_roger
02-08-2010, 10:02 AM
Thats it? LOL.... Wow...


Volleying? Did you forget about this Sampras greater obviously

FH- Different styles. Sampras was much better on the run and deadlier with the depth on the FH. Though Federer can do more with FH. Both have two of the greatest FH's ever in different ways

Serve- Sampras obviously

Mental Toughness Big match situation? Sampras since he had the clutchness and was never dominated by a rival like Federer. We have seen Federer has mental toughness in terms of consistency.. But when going up against someone with more mental toughness than him in Nadal, Federer's mental toughness comes into question.


BH? Both had an average BH and it wasnt their strengths obviously


First, Pete's volleying was great simply because of his serve. Most of the time he had to play easy put-away volleys if his 1st serve got in.

Secondly, Pete had much better FH on the run? You got to be kidding me. Fed was on par with him in that shot, if not better. And in terms of power and variety, Fed's is much better.

Finally, i like how you overlook that Fed has a much,much better backhand than Pete, both as a rally shot and passing shot. And when not facing Nadal and his lefty topspin, Fed's backhand is actually a weapon, and that can't be said about Pete's backhand.

BTW, i do agree that Pete has better serve, though.

Feketepuss
02-08-2010, 10:54 AM
If my life depended on someone serving out a set, then I'd pick Sampras every time.

And he was better than Federer at net.

But Federer has vastly greater variety and touch on both wings, which is the real reason why he still flourishes on surfaces where the serve is partially negated, unlike Sampras who struggled badly on clay (being a great player and competitor, he certainly defied the odds for some great individual matches as you point out, but doesn't have a very impressive clay resumé for a whole career) and was never the same player on slower hard (rebound ace.)

It also occurred to me that SetSampras, who says he is 26, is casting judgment about matches he saw when he was 10!

nobama
02-08-2010, 11:46 AM
Is this thread about Fed's preparation or a Sampras v Fed comparison? :confused:

paseo
02-08-2010, 11:48 AM
Is this thread about Fed's preparation or a Sampras v Fed comparison? :confused:

Just another "Mission Accomplished" by SetSampras.

Acer
02-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Is this thread about Fed's preparation or a Sampras v Fed comparison? :confused:
Every thread is going to turn into that when you have that broken twatty record SetSampras

Sophocles
02-08-2010, 12:55 PM
I know it's a lot to ask, but would somebody please give SetSampras a job?

Castafiore
02-08-2010, 12:57 PM
How about ignoring the poster instead of giving him so much attention? I can't believe how much response he's getting. Of course, he's going to continue.

Vida
02-08-2010, 12:58 PM
was sampras better at trash talking than fed? did he have to resort to that in a way fed does?

for what I remember, no.

scarecrows
02-08-2010, 01:11 PM
was sampras better at trash talking than fed? did he have to resort to that in a way fed does?



as good as Fed

Sophocles
02-08-2010, 01:13 PM
To answer the original question, more than John McEnroe, less than Bjorn Borg.

bokehlicious
02-08-2010, 01:13 PM
was sampras better at trash talking than fed? did he have to resort to that in a way fed does?

for what I remember, no.

You started watching tennis the day Nole came out of the wood, don't you? :o :p

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 01:28 PM
Well, even if Fed trains hard in Dubai as he claims, wouldn't it still be too little compared to others? I mean he spends at most 3 months a year over there and the rest of the time he seems to dedicate almost exclusively to play official matches.

Don't get me wrong, this has worked and I guess he can't complain... I just find it a bit odd. But then again I guess that's what people call talent. Fat Dave and womanizer Safin don't strike me as particularly hard working tennis players either for that matter.

bokehlicious
02-08-2010, 01:50 PM
If Fed was as lazy as Safin and Nalbi he wouldn't have had a better career... He worked (still works??) his arse off to get where he is...

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 01:55 PM
If Fed was as lazy as Safin and Nalbi he wouldn't have had a better career... He worked (still works??) his arse off to get where he is...

yup, i know.. i wasn't intending to compare them on the basis of work/dedication as if they were on equal terms. Just saying that talented people don't need to work as much as others to succced. Of course, I don't doubt that Federer has worked more than Marat or Dave but i do question the notion that federer "works his ass off" like probably nadal or murray do.

For the record, I don't necessarily find anything wrong if that's not the case. I don't even criticize Fit Dave or womanizer Marat for not dedicating their lives entirely to tennis. They just happen to have other interests and that's okay. They gotta do what makes them happy..

Vida
02-08-2010, 03:08 PM
You started watching tennis the day Nole came out of the wood, don't you? :o :p

no. I watch tennis since Monica Seles came out of the wood.

that I didnt really post on forums and read every interview there was (as I pretty much do now), that is true.

nobama
02-08-2010, 03:14 PM
Well, even if Fed trains hard in Dubai as he claims, wouldn't it still be too little compared to others? I mean he spends at most 3 months a year over there and the rest of the time he seems to dedicate almost exclusively to play official matches.

Don't get me wrong, this has worked and I guess he can't complain... I just find it a bit odd. But then again I guess that's what people call talent. Fat Dave and womanizer Safin don't strike me as particularly hard working tennis players either for that matter.Just curious when you say "compared to others" what does that mean? Can you provide the training schedules of Murray, Djerk, JDMP, Roddick, etc.? Just curious how you know others are spending more time training than he is.

nobama
02-08-2010, 03:16 PM
was sampras better at trash talking than fed? did he have to resort to that in a way fed does?

for what I remember, no.Er, this thread is supposed to be about Fed and his training. WTF does your question have to do with that?

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 03:19 PM
Just curious when you say "compared to others" what does that mean? Can you provide the training schedules of Murray, Djerk, JDMP, Roddick, etc.? Just curious how you know others are spending more time training than he is.

just guessing of course... i accept the possibility that i might be wrong and that the likes of murray, nadal, Roddick, JMDP train less or the same than Federer but my impression is that it's not the case. then again, i accept that it's only my impression.

Vida
02-08-2010, 03:21 PM
Er, this thread is supposed to be about Fed and his training. WTF does your question have to do with that?

in broader perspective trash talk has all to do with training and preparation. the fact a comparison is made with sampras, well fed is often compared with sampras one way or the other. look at this thread for example :shrug:

bokehlicious
02-08-2010, 03:25 PM
that I didnt really post on forums and read every interview there was (as I pretty much do now), that is true.

Can you imagine Federer answering some British journo prior to the AO finals that the difference between him and Murray was "15 slams"? :o Sampras probably would've say it...

Vida
02-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Can you imagine Federer answering some British journo prior to the AO finals that the difference between him and Murray was "15 slams"? :o Sampras probably would've say it...

I dont get it honestly. one of us must've missed this mornings dose of medication.

Dini
02-08-2010, 04:01 PM
SetSampras brings in the name Sampras to every thread. Why should everyone feel the need to follow his lead? :scratch:

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:04 PM
A lot.

(we are discussing ego preparation right?)

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 04:11 PM
awww look who's here :D

MrChopin
02-08-2010, 04:12 PM
Well, even if Fed trains hard in Dubai as he claims, wouldn't it still be too little compared to others?

How do you determine what is "too little"?

***

This thread, the "I don't like Roger" thread... why are these allowed to continue but piggy roasting and hahahaha got locked?

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 03:05 AM
I dont get it honestly. one of us must've missed this mornings dose of medication.

In 1998, after Rafter defeated Sampras in the Cincinnati Masters final, Sampras, at the time winner of 11 Grand Slams, when asked about the difference between himself and Rafter, famously stated "Ten grand slams", that a controversial line-call cost him the match, and that a player had to come back and win another Grand Slam title in order to be considered great.[27] The two met in the semifinals of the 1998 US Open, with Rafter winning in five sets. Sampras refused to show Rafter respect in defeat, instead citing a leg injury as the reason Rafter won, an attitude that upset the generally mild-mannered Aussie: "He really does say some funny things at the wrong time," said Rafter, "We are out there busting our guts and he doesn't show a lot of respect at the end of the day. He tries to play down the reason why he lost, giving no respect to the other player, and that is what really upsets me about him and the reason I try to [anger him] as much as I can."[28]

People forget stuff...

Action Jackson
02-09-2010, 03:14 AM
Enough to win.

federersforehand
02-09-2010, 03:28 AM
None At All. Fed Is God

mandeep
02-09-2010, 04:09 AM
In 1998, after Rafter defeated Sampras in the Cincinnati Masters final, Sampras, at the time winner of 11 Grand Slams, when asked about the difference between himself and Rafter, famously stated "Ten grand slams", that a controversial line-call cost him the match, and that a player had to come back and win another Grand Slam title in order to be considered great.[27] The two met in the semifinals of the 1998 US Open, with Rafter winning in five sets. Sampras refused to show Rafter respect in defeat, instead citing a leg injury as the reason Rafter won, an attitude that upset the generally mild-mannered Aussie: "He really does say some funny things at the wrong time," said Rafter, "We are out there busting our guts and he doesn't show a lot of respect at the end of the day. He tries to play down the reason why he lost, giving no respect to the other player, and that is what really upsets me about him and the reason I try to [anger him] as much as I can."[28]

People forget stuff...

Wow! I did not know that.. and people call Roger an arrogant asshole.

serveandvolley80
02-09-2010, 05:31 AM
Edit, forum acting weird for me.

JediFed
02-09-2010, 05:42 AM
I don't see how you can hold stamina up against Federer while giving Sampras a pass. Federer has proven that he has far more stamina then Sampras at his best. The only thing Roger doesn't have is the 6 years at number one, broken only by Nadal in 2008, when Roger won a slam, went to 2 finals and lost in a SF.

How does this compare to Sampras in 1996, and in 1998, when he won 1 slam, reached a SF and a QF? At the very least, you have to say that in 2008, the competition was greater for Federer then it was for Sampras, in winning more games at the slams than Sampras in 1996 and in 1998, as Federer fell to number 2 for the year despite winning 24 matches, a mark Sampras never reached even in his best season.

oranges
02-09-2010, 05:45 AM
I swear, this board is sinking lower and lower and we were already around the middle of the earth anyway. Now, everyone's making Sampras looking like an ordinary player :haha:

abraxas, where did you get that from, since it seems to have some quote/reference stuff. I don't remember it and I was a huge Rafter fan.
Edit: Never mind, found it on wiki

serveandvolley80
02-09-2010, 05:53 AM
Wow! I did not know that.. and people call Roger an arrogant asshole.

That's because most people on here started watching tennis a few years ago or are too young to remember.

I am in the middle, 2003 was when i started to get into the game, saw Federer play and his crazy shot making, then branched off and became fans of many players, watching old man Agassi do so well in 2003 at age 33 was awesome. Roddick had that huge serve to usher in an all new serve only era to take over for the mugs in the late 90's to early 2000's as tennis started to become boring and stale, with players that sucked at return of serve, minus Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt of course.

Setsampras, time to move on man, Pete is gone, he retired, watching tennis out of spire, anger, jealousy towards someone else and their accomplishments is not healthy. Watch the game out of enjoyment, not spite. Please for your own mental health, start being fans of other players, develop a new obsession with the younger generation, jump on board another band wagon, the one you are one is barely rolling anymore.

NYCtennisfan
02-09-2010, 05:54 AM
Wow! I did not know that.. and people call Roger an arrogant asshole.

In general, Sampras was not the most obliging when it came to dishing out compliments and kudos. He rarely acknowledged the good play of others as a reason for defeat off of clay with the notable exceptions being Safin at the 2000 USO and Federer at the 2001 Wimbledon.

Sampras was a big believer in 'big game' and that for someone to beat him, they too must possess a lot of game i.e. winning because they directed the action with their serve, groundstrokes, etc. This is one of the reasons that Sampras was enamored with Berdych's game about which he gave out rare commendations. He saw a dictating serve, easy power off of both wings, the ability to finish at net, and so on. What Pete didn't realize was that the new generation of players needed to move extremely well laterally to be able to reach the apex of the game and this is something Berdych doesn't do all that well.

One of the many reasons why Pete was so great was that he genuinely believed that the match was always on his racket when he went out on court. To actually believe this, one must internalize that others and their games simply don't match up and if one really does believe this, it will be hard for that person to hand out many compliments to anyone.

serveandvolley80
02-09-2010, 05:56 AM
Wow! I did not know that.. and people call Roger an arrogant asshole.

That is because most on here only started watching tennis a few years ago or are too young to remember.

Me i started in the early 2000's when players suck at return of serve, big giants that were useless at movement and playing an all court game.

Its a funny coincidence that Sampras got destroyed by players with a good return of serve and made his big weapon look really ordinary. And you can use age as an excuse, but a serve is not something that really goes away with age, not if the technique is right and Pete's was amazing. He was still blasting those things at the expo versus Federer recently. So why then once players coming into the new generation that actually had great movement and return started making him look ordinary.

Hmm i guess its easy to look like a genius when you are playing a giant like Goran.

I swear, this board is sinking lower and lower and we were already around the middle of the earth anyway. Now, everyone's making Sampras looking like an ordinary player

Its quite easy to be bias, if it means pissing off a resident troll, maybe he will get the hell out and find another bridge to hide under. Yes, Sampras had limited weapons i said it.

oranges
02-09-2010, 06:14 AM
Its quite easy to be bias, if it means pissing off a resident troll, maybe he will get the hell out and find another bridge to hide under. Yes, Sampras had limited weapons i said it.

:rolls: I know, you said it the first time. There's biased, but then there is this :lol: SetSampras will start looking pretty moderate in comparison, which, like I said is hitting genuinely new lows

serveandvolley80
02-09-2010, 07:03 AM
:rolls: I know, you said it the first time. There's biased, but then there is this :lol: SetSampras will start looking pretty moderate in comparison, which, like I said is hitting genuinely new lows

Yeah making him look modest....... Calling a great player average, overrated, weak mentally, and on and on. What exactly did i say about Sampras that was not true, what were his other weapons besides his forehand and serve?

Am i being factually wrong when i said he was a one dimensional player? Does the truth bother you so much?

Half his slams are on one surface, If Federer is being punished for playing in a weak era, then Pete should be punished for playing in an era where it was an all serve fest and Wimbledon and nobody else could serve as well as Pete.

Please for the love of god, shut up about Sampras already, this thread has been derailed enough. I tried to make a point about being a biased retard, anyone can make silly claims how so and so player sucks, its just opinion can't make it fact. Sampras is a legend, so is Federer, lets leave it at that.

Chiseller
02-09-2010, 09:22 AM
Prior to his Wimbledon 4th round victory in 2001 it was said he didn't practice at all. That's how good he is.

duong
02-09-2010, 09:43 AM
Well, the only interesting things in this thread were said in the very interesting first two pages before deriving ...

There are still some mysteries in what I read, and interesting aspects to know.

For instance, we don't really know a lot about his supposedly intensive training sessions in december, before clay season, in the summer and in fall.

We don't know as well how much his work has evolved with time.

He once said that he practiced his physical very hard in his young time, and that he didn't need to practice it hard later (see someone who mentions an interview where he says he never goes to a gym).

But he was supposed not to be a very disciplined youngster, often late and so on ... :shrug:

Maybe he practiced harder in the first part of the 2000s :shrug:

Because there's the 2005-2006 period where he looked the fittest in my opinion : remember that in Roma final in 2006 against Nadal, it was a very intense 5 hours match, and he didn't look really tired :shrug:

In that time, he looked having a lot of stamina.

Recently I'm less sure about it : after all, he lost Australian Open and US Open final in a very bad 5th set. And he's lost quite many matches in 3rd set in a period. The match against Roddick was different but it was a lot of serves and not so physical :shrug: Against Del Potro in Roland-Garros it looked more convincing imo.

One thing which is also interesting is that I heard that he slept a lot (I think I heard it was also the case for Del Potro) : once I read mentioned that it was one of his secrets, both for his physical and his mental. Surely we know how sleep is important for a man's balance and physiology.

How does he sleep now with the twins ? We don't know a lot about it either, hard to know the truth behind what he says. Surely during tournaments, he puts earplugs, but once he said only the night before the match, not the other night ... and anyway, the importance of sleep in one's balance is not only measured in how much you slept the previous night, but your general balance is important as well.

I have to say I was worried about that point about sleeping since the twins, and sometimes I read Federer also mention it as a question mark for him.

I mean some are saying as if he didn't practice much. Surely we know that he doesn't practice his physical in a gym, that he was naturally gifted for that, and that maybe he worked it hard when he was young. His shots maybe he also practices less than some others, maybe he practices his backhand more sometimes, but generally speaking it seems that he trusts the level he's achieved, contrary to a Nadal who often tries new shots (I remember Wilander talking about it).

But as for his practice for his stamina, we know little. It's hard to imagine that a "lazy man" played 5 hours against Nadal the way he did in 2006 :shrug: Of course some might talk about doping, but I once read that Federer was one of the players who always ticks off the item "I accept to be tested again in next 10 years if the control methodology does improve" on the "control sheet".

I was very interested by the first two pages, I would really like to know more, rather than deriving :fiery:

nobama
02-09-2010, 10:48 AM
Where is it required that players give the nitty gritty details of their training/practice regimes? :shrug:

Apemant
02-09-2010, 11:36 AM
Yeah making him look modest....... Calling a great player average, overrated, weak mentally, and on and on. What exactly did i say about Sampras that was not true, what were his other weapons besides his forehand and serve?

Net game and mental fortitude.

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 12:03 PM
duong, if you're interested, you might want to read this but i'd guess you have already :)

Dany Schnyder, the younger brother of the later top women’s player Patty Schnyder, became his arch rival and his biggest junior adversary. “I tried everything but it didn’t make a difference,” Roger recollected. “I always lost and lost decisively.”
Schnyder, six months older than Roger, grew up in the neighboring village of Bottmingen and has fond recollections of his junior duels with Roger, “We played against each other 17 times between the age of eight and 12,” he said. “I won eight of the first nine matches but lost the last eight matches. Roger always played aggressively. I kept the ball in the court for the most part. Everything went wrong for him at the beginning. His gambles didn’t pay off. That’s probably why I won. But then suddenly his shots stay in.”
“I was surprised to see Roger suddenly storm to the top,” said Schnyder, who eventually gave up his tennis career to pursue academics. “One noticed that he had good strokes at 11 or 12, but I never would have thought that he would become the No. 1 player in the world. I think what he’s accomplished is great—but he’s not an idol, a world star or a super hero for me. Whenever we see each other, he’s still the same guy as when we first met.”
Schnyder also corroborated the fact that Federer didn’t take practice matches nearly as seriously as tournament matches. “When things counted, he could always rise to the occasion,” he said. Roger himself was aware that his performances in practice matches had not dispelled all doubts. “I was conscientious but I didn’t like to train,” he said years later. “My parents always said, ‘Start training better,’ but I often had problems getting motivated. I was a match player.”
Negative emotions also often took control of him on the court. “When things weren’t going the way he wanted, he would curse and toss his racquet,” Kacovsky explained. “It was so bad, I had to intervene sometimes.”
“I was constantly cursing and tossing my racquet around,” said Federer. “It was bad. My parents were embarrassed and they told me to stop it or they wouldn’t come along with to my tournaments anymore. I had to calm down but that was an extremely long process. I believe that I was looking for perfection too early.”

http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/NewsDetail.asp?id=7401271


Also, Nadal once commented on Federer: Rarely have I seen him train with the intensity that I do, and that impresses me.

duong
02-09-2010, 12:40 PM
duong, if you're interested, you might want to read this but i'd guess you have already :)

[I]Dany Schnyder, the younger brother of the later top women’s player Patty Schnyder, became his arch rival and his biggest junior adversary. “I tried everything but it didn’t make a difference,” Roger recollected. “I always lost and lost decisively.”
Schnyder, six months older than Roger, grew up in the neighboring village of Bottmingen and has fond recollections of his junior duels with Roger, “We played against each other 17 times between the age of eight and 12,” he said. “I won eight of the first nine matches but lost the last eight matches. Roger always played aggressively. I kept the ball in the court for the most part. Everything went wrong for him at the beginning. His gambles didn’t pay off. That’s probably why I won. But then suddenly his shots stay in.”

Thanks : I didn't know the first part of the article, about Schnyder's episode :)

We know quite that the young Federer was not quite a hard trainer.
The old one doesn't seem to be much either.

I wonder more about the one in the first part of the 2000s :confused:

I mean I talked about the final in Roma 2006, but one could also mention Wimbledon's final in 2008. Many people talk about mono, it was right after that. Yet, it was a terrific, huge match, where he played better in the second part than in the first one. Remember the match against Safin in 2005. I mean he's played some terrific and long matches, and showed some good stamina there.

I'm more doubtful about "old Federer" (I was frankly worried if Murray had taken Federer to a 5th set :unsure: : generally speaking old payers have some good stamina, but I'm not sure for Federer, esp at this rhythm like in Aus Open and US Open 2009 by the way), but the "best-age Federer" looked having a very good stamina imo.

elessar
02-09-2010, 01:06 PM
Don't forget that his two previous matches had ended in a 3rd set TB, what hope could he have of defeating the evil Rafito in those conditions:sad: But still he fought heroically :hug:

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 01:06 PM
I don't think he's much of a hard worker either and to think that has always surprised me. However, he did seem to work his body a lot in physical conditioning during his first years with Paganini. I frankly don't think that Federer would have achieve half of what he's achieved thus far if it weren't for that man.

I'll post this excerpt for others to read :)

Federer's 2000 season ---his second as a professional---taught him the bitter lesson that spectacular strokes and talent by themselves weren't enough to win tournaments and get to the top. He had to work on his physical fitness.Although fitness training was something he didn't particularly like,he hired a fitness coach,Pierre Paganini, an old acquaintance from his time with the Swiss Tennis Federation at Ecublens,to join Lundgen as part of his team.Training with the 43-year-old Paganini 100 days a year proved to be a stroke of luck.
"He is the best fitness trainer you can imagine,"said Lundgren of Paganini.The bald, bespectacled man was a former soccer player as well as a smart, professional and unobtrusive worker----and he quickly deduced what Federer was lacking."Athletically, he had great shortcomings. There was enormous potential for improvement, especially in legwork and body building,"Paganini recalled."His problem was that his enormous talent allowed him to cover up his athletic shortcomings."At the same time ,however,he also had to defend his position in the world rankings and he could not afford to just work on basic conditioning."I had a time table of 3 years to bring him up to the best physical condition."
Paganini's goal ,however ,was not to transform Federer into a muscle-man."A tennis player isn't a sprinter,a marathon runner or a shot-put thrower,"he said."But he does have to have something from all of them and he does have to be able to summon all of these qualities when playing."Because Federer was a creative player who often improvised many different shots during a match ,he had to be able to execute many different movements,unlike a player like Hewitt,who tended to play the same style and hit the same type of shots repeatedly.Paganini worked with Federer to achieve a "coordinated" creativity,"high precision movements and the ability to muster top athletic performance after four hours of play ."Roger couldn't be permitted to choose the wrong tactic for physical reasons."Paganini said.
Every day brought fresh challenges for Paganini to keep the young firebrand's morale high."Roger isn't a workaholic that you can hit 3000 backhands to and he hits them and feels good doing it .Training has to be fun for Roger."said Lundgren.
"He wants to work hard but he needs a lot of variety,"Paganini said ."He has to see that an exercise is useful to him .He is an artist .If you motivate him ,then he turns into a training animal."
In Biel in December of 2000,Federer received a two-week preview of what his new training work would entail.Paganini developed special exercises for him that he termed "integrated fitness training ."Federer,for example, ran on the side of the court until he was exhausted and then immediately ran back onto the court to play tennis ."The natural reflexes and all the bad habits that are the hardest to break kick in when one is in an exhausted state ,"Paganini said,explaining his method ."And then the coach goes to work on them."
While many tennis players only concentrated on building fitness in December ,the only tournament-free month of the year ,Federer punctually worked on his fitness training the entire year .Paganini was immediately enthused by the professional dedication shown by his protege ."He was really motivated for such exercisesand this surprised me ,"he said ."But he is ,after all ,a natural athlete."Paganini,who called Federer "naturally coordinated ."said Federer accepted the fact that fitness work and practicing would not always be fun ."He noticed that he was there to acquire something that would later serve him on the tennis court ."
Paganini's 3-year plan proved successful."Today ,Roger can reach a maximumspeed of 20km/h,which means that he can keep up with a regional sprinter for the first 30 meters ,"he recollected in 2003.Federer could run 3300 meters in 12min,9300meters in 40min and he could press 150 kg while doing knee-bends .This was an immense improvement from before.
Federer found it easy to motivate himself for these goal-oriented training sessions because they broke up the routine."Just a little bit of change does me a lot of good,"he,said ."Once I'm on the court ,I don'thave any problem getting motivated .If I want to be No.1 ,I must give my all in training ."Thanks to Paganini ,he understood why he was training so hard .He quickly noticed his improved fitness was helping him to increase his self-confidence."I feel mentally really good because I know that I was physically prepared and that I can compete ."he said after the first extended training session with Paganini.
Lundgren expected a lot from Federer in 2001 ,his first full season as Federer's private coach.He was convinced that "if he played like he did last fall in Sydney,Vienna or in Basel,he'll be in the top 15."He even dared to speculate that "he could have his first title very soon."

nobama
02-09-2010, 02:28 PM
I don't think he's much of a hard worker either and to think that has always surprised me. Is this just your opinion or do you have something (other than excerpts from 10 years ago) to back it up? Have you been to Dubai (or anywhere else he trains) to see first hand how hard he does/doesn't train? That comment from Nadal...when would he actually see Roger train, other than practice sessions during tournaments? And is that the best indicator of someone's training regimen/tournament preparation? Below is an interview journalist Rene Stauffer conducted with Pierre Paganini from last year:

http://www.gototennisblog.com/2009/10/27/pierre-paganini-on-roger-federer-as-long-as-he-plays-he-will-be-strong/

Is Federer underestimated as an athlete?
Paganini: With certainty.

What sets him apart?
Paganini: He is nimble, persistent and highly coordinated, even after several hours and in 70, 80 matches per year. And for the last ten years. This is not just talent, but the result of hard work and willingness to repeat something again and again. In this way, Roger is strong. He works a lot more then people can imagine – because he usually trains when nobody sees him. He had to submit his whole life to a philosophy of work.

duong
02-09-2010, 02:29 PM
Federer's 2000 season ---his second as a professional---taught him the bitter lesson that spectacular strokes and talent by themselves weren't enough to win tournaments and get to the top. He had to work on his physical fitness.Although fitness training was something he didn't particularly like,he hired a fitness coach,Pierre Paganini, an old acquaintance from his time with the Swiss Tennis Federation at Ecublens,to join Lundgen as part of his team.Training with the 43-year-old Paganini 100 days a year proved to be a stroke of luck.
"He is the best fitness trainer you can imagine,"said Lundgren of Paganini.The bald, bespectacled man was a former soccer player as well as a smart, professional and unobtrusive worker----and he quickly deduced what Federer was lacking."Athletically, he had great shortcomings. There was enormous potential for improvement, especially in legwork and body building,"Paganini recalled."His problem was that his enormous talent allowed him to cover up his athletic shortcomings."At the same time ,however,he also had to defend his position in the world rankings and he could not afford to just work on basic conditioning."I had a time table of 3 years to bring him up to the best physical condition."
Paganini's goal ,however ,was not to transform Federer into a muscle-man."A tennis player isn't a sprinter,a marathon runner or a shot-put thrower,"he said."But he does have to have something from all of them and he does have to be able to summon all of these qualities when playing."Because Federer was a creative player who often improvised many different shots during a match ,he had to be able to execute many different movements,unlike a player like Hewitt,who tended to play the same style and hit the same type of shots repeatedly.Paganini worked with Federer to achieve a "coordinated" creativity,"high precision movements and the ability to muster top athletic performance after four hours of play ."Roger couldn't be permitted to choose the wrong tactic for physical reasons."Paganini said.
Every day brought fresh challenges for Paganini to keep the young firebrand's morale high."Roger isn't a workaholic that you can hit 3000 backhands to and he hits them and feels good doing it .Training has to be fun for Roger."said Lundgren.
"He wants to work hard but he needs a lot of variety,"Paganini said ."He has to see that an exercise is useful to him .He is an artist .If you motivate him ,then he turns into a training animal."
In Biel in December of 2000,Federer received a two-week preview of what his new training work would entail.Paganini developed special exercises for him that he termed "integrated fitness training ."Federer,for example, ran on the side of the court until he was exhausted and then immediately ran back onto the court to play tennis ."The natural reflexes and all the bad habits that are the hardest to break kick in when one is in an exhausted state ,"Paganini said,explaining his method ."And then the coach goes to work on them."
While many tennis players only concentrated on building fitness in December ,the only tournament-free month of the year ,Federer punctually worked on his fitness training the entire year .Paganini was immediately enthused by the professional dedication shown by his protege ."He was really motivated for such exercisesand this surprised me ,"he said ."But he is ,after all ,a natural athlete."Paganini,who called Federer "naturally coordinated ."said Federer accepted the fact that fitness work and practicing would not always be fun ."He noticed that he was there to acquire something that would later serve him on the tennis court ."
Paganini's 3-year plan proved successful."Today ,Roger can reach a maximumspeed of 20km/h,which means that he can keep up with a regional sprinter for the first 30 meters ,"he recollected in 2003.Federer could run 3300 meters in 12min,9300meters in 40min and he could press 150 kg while doing knee-bends .This was an immense improvement from before.
Federer found it easy to motivate himself for these goal-oriented training sessions because they broke up the routine."Just a little bit of change does me a lot of good,"he,said ."Once I'm on the court ,I don'thave any problem getting motivated .If I want to be No.1 ,I must give my all in training ."Thanks to Paganini ,he understood why he was training so hard .He quickly noticed his improved fitness was helping him to increase his self-confidence."I feel mentally really good because I know that I was physically prepared and that I can compete ."he said after the first extended training session with Paganini.
Lundgren expected a lot from Federer in 2001 ,his first full season as Federer's private coach.He was convinced that "if he played like he did last fall in Sydney,Vienna or in Basel,he'll be in the top 15."He even dared to speculate that "he could have his first title very soon."

yes very interesting article :yeah: : I really think that these first years of the 2000s and the relation with Paganini and his methods are the key for everything.

Still last year after Roland-Garros you could read Federer relating that he had prepared very hard in the beginning of the season (before and after the Australian Open, and before Roma) because "his improved fitness would help him to increase his self-confidence" : he knew it was the key because it reminded him of that period, it's the key, I guess.

Paganini has also often said that Federer was underestimated as an athlete. Certainly natural physical talents, a bit lazy, but Paganini knew the exercises to motivate him.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-09-2010, 02:37 PM
whats the saying

genius is 10% inspiration 90% perspiration

believe me if it was 50-50 i would be president of the universe :P

JediFed
02-09-2010, 03:38 PM
Interesting to see the comparisons between Federer and Johnny McEnroe. Same philosophy there, that McEnroe kept fit playing matches, and was supremely talented. The difference between the two is that Federer chose to apply himself to his fitness, whereas McEnroe did not. A difference of 9 slams and counting.

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 03:41 PM
Interesting to see the comparisons between Federer and Johnny McEnroe. Same philosophy there, that McEnroe kept fit playing matches, and was supremely talented. The difference between the two is that Federer chose to apply himself to his fitness, whereas McEnroe did not. A difference of 9 slams and counting.

That is sadly true. Also I don't think Mac's unorthodox technique was really suited to the age of power tennis.

Commander Data
02-09-2010, 03:44 PM
Federer as said that when he was younger he lost matches due to fitness issues. At the time he made a promise to himself that he will never again lose because of lack of fitness/stamina! Then he added that was what he did/does. I think people take this kind of comments way to lightly. Federer probably likes to be seen as the natural talent and does not stress the issue much himself either. Probably a great part of his success is due to extrem hard and smart training in the offseason. Just take the AO final for example Murray seemed pretty exausted after 2 hours while Fed looked pretty much like in the beginning. Fed might be the fittest player on tour!

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:34 PM
Interesting to see the comparisons between Federer and Johnny McEnroe. Same philosophy there, that McEnroe kept fit playing matches, and was supremely talented. The difference between the two is that Federer chose to apply himself to his fitness, whereas McEnroe did not. A difference of 9 slams and counting.

McEnroe had to deal with more great threats at the top then Roger. The 80s arguably had the most stacked talent ever in the history of the game. Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Lendl, Borg earlier on The list goes on.


Players better than Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Monfils, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Gonzales etc wouldnt you agree?

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 04:39 PM
you will keep underestimating and underrating Roger's accomplishments for as long as you are in this board, right? :lol:

I don't remember if it was Wilander or Mac who said that they would have loved to be like Roger one day, just to be able to play like him ;)

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 04:40 PM
McEnroe had to deal with more great threats at the top then Roger. The 80s arguably had the most stacked talent ever in the history of the game. Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Lendl, Borg earlier on The list goes on.

This helps to explain why he didn't manage to win more slams while at the top of the game, but it doesn't explain why despite making the odd semi he was no longer a serious contender after 1985. That has to do with his unwillingness to match his successor's work ethic & the rise of power tennis, to which his touch-based game was unsuited.

elessar
02-09-2010, 04:42 PM
McEnroe had to deal with more great threats at the top then Roger. The 80s arguably had the most stacked talent ever in the history of the game. Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Lendl, Borg earlier on The list goes on.


Players better than Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Monfils, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Gonzales etc wouldnt you agree?
OMG seriously :banghead:
Your posts are way too long and not offensive enough to be the work of a troll, so WTF motivates you to post the same crap over and over again?

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:44 PM
This helps to explain why he didn't manage to win more slams while at the top of the game, but it doesn't explain why despite making the odd semi he was no longer a serious contender after 1985. That has to do with his unwillingness to match his successor's work ethic & the rise of power tennis, to which his touch-based game was unsuited.

Well he had arguably the season in history out of any player in 1984. Im not really sure why his accomplishments dipped from post 1985. Maybe had interests outside of playing tennis? He went on to be a great successful commentator.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:45 PM
OMG seriously :banghead:
Your posts are way too long and not offensive enough to be the work of a troll, so WTF motivates you to post the same crap over and over again?

Just making a point is all

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:47 PM
There were lots of great players around at the time as well post 1985. the late 80s was littered with great talent. Its not as though the 80s were followed a by a shit tennis field like the early 00s. The tennis field was stacked from the late 80s to the mid 90s or so. Maybe he just realized he couldnt keep it up against the endlessley great top talent around him

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 04:48 PM
Im not really sure why his accomplishments dipped from post 1985. Maybe had interests outside of playing tennis?

That too.

habibko
02-09-2010, 04:51 PM
Who Posted? Total Posts: 168
User Name Posts
SetSampras 30
Arkulari 10
luie 8
Infini. 8
abraxas21 7
DrJules 7
Vida 6
ArcadianA 6
elessar 6
barbadosan 6

http://members.cox.net/dogmatix/Thread%20Hijacked.JPG

elessar
02-09-2010, 05:24 PM
Just making a point is all
No, you're not making a point. Your point was made 500 posts ago, but all you've been doing since then is repeat it. It's been rebutted, laughed at, and finally ignored by those few MTF smarter than myself who realize the hopelessness of trying to reason with you.

It's time to move on. Angel that I am, I'd even be willing to help you find a new topic to obsesss about :hug:

JackPumpkinHead
02-09-2010, 05:30 PM
didnt that kid from the states who went and trained in dubai with fed say it was brutal. Just hours and hours of tennis.

Dini
02-09-2010, 05:36 PM
Levine?

MrChopin
02-09-2010, 05:37 PM
didnt that kid from the states who went and trained in dubai with fed say it was brutal. Just hours and hours of tennis.

Fed paid him to say that. Really was just Fed and Mirka lounging on salons in the sun, kid bringing them chocolates and mojitos every half-hour.

habibko
02-09-2010, 05:38 PM
these trolls managed to get Federer def. Murray match thread closed, and soon this one to follow.

please don't feed the trolls...

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 05:40 PM
didnt that kid from the states who went and trained in dubai with fed say it was brutal. Just hours and hours of tennis.

Do you have a link for that story?? I've heard that Fed usually takes a couple of juniors to train with him in Dubai but I've never heard a report from any of them...
I'm genuinely interested :)

JackPumpkinHead
02-09-2010, 05:40 PM
Levine?

Yeah, levine. thanks

MrChopin
02-09-2010, 05:45 PM
these trolls managed to get Federer def. Murray match thread closed, and soon this one to follow.

please don't feed the trolls...

This was a shitty thread from the start. You know the H2Htards would be out in full force to talk about Rafa's impovrished, undying, Tony Montana-like rise-to-the-top effort against Golderer, who was born ambidextrous, more athletic, and with bulging biceps.

Not surprised the mods have let tards close down another Fed slam victory thread.

JackPumpkinHead
02-09-2010, 05:45 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,2940389.story
Boca Raton teenager joins Roger Federer in Dubai for tennis practice
By Charles Bricker
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
July 28, 2007

This had to be one of Jesse Levine's Boca Raton or Gator buddies, bored with a particularly hot Florida summer, trying to pull a caper no one with any sense would believe.

The phone message: The world's No. 1 tennis player, Roger Federer, wants you to come to Dubai and practice with him for 10 days.

"Yeah, I thought it was a prank at first, but it was for real," said Levine, a college freshman unknown to many tennis fans.

In a half-hour, instant-messaging exchange from Dubai, where he is indeed working with Federer and living the high life in a five-star hotel on the beach, Levine is well over his initial shock. However, he's still star-struck enough to describe the experience as awesome, incredible and, predictably, subject to a little nervousness.

"Right now, I'm just living the dream," said Levine, 19. "When I get back to Gainesville, it's going to feel weird, and then I'll look back on it and probably be like, 'Wow, I just played with the best tennis player in the world for 10 days.' Not too many people can say that."

With the U.S. Open Series under way and ATP players moving from Los Angeles to Indianapolis this week, and then to four other North American cities on the way to the U.S. Open, there aren't many players available for Federer, who enjoys spending time and practicing in Dubai, where the oppressive heat toughens his training regimen.

So he called his management group, IMG, and an agent phoned Levine. Why Levine? He was 21-0 in his freshman season at the University of Florida and known a little to IMG, which owns the Bollettieri Academy in Bradenton, where Levine has been training for several years.

And one other thing. He's left-handed, as is Jonathan Eysseric, the French junior with whom Federer worked in the days before the French Open. It wasn't lost on Levine that Federer is trying everything he can to get an edge over his No. 1 nemesis, lefty Rafael Nadal.

He arrived in Dubai late on the evening of July 19 after 14 hours of riding coach from Atlanta to the Middle East.

"He called in the morning while I was having breakfast and left a voicemail. Pretty overwhelming to have Roger Federer leave you a voicemail," Levine said. The first practice would be at 3 p.m. Be in the lobby at 2:30. There was no way Jesse would be even 10 seconds late.

"I've been waking up around 8, going down for the breakfast buffet, then going to practice with him late morning, or working out here at the hotel gym. Then, in the afternoon, practice again, but lately it's been at night because the heat is so unreal during the day it's too much just to stand outside."

On the first day of practice, he admitted to be "pretty nervous hitting the first ball. But we had talked for a little before, messing around about hockey since I love hockey." That helped take the edge off.

Although Federer is getting hard work in under heavy heat conditions, Levine is soaking up the tennis experience as well. They're just training, working on certain court situations, not playing sets yet.

"I'm learning how calm he stays, no matter what the situation. Even if a ball is very difficult for him, he looks so effortless and keeps his composure at all times. He never shows if he gets tired, either, even in 125-degree heat. He's either got a good poker face, or just really isn't feeling it."

Levine, who is Jewish, had questions about flying to an Arab country. "For sure I had it in mind, but I talked about that with my parents and people that had been to Dubai, and it's a very safe country. And I know other Jewish people that have been there."

His hotel? "It's amazing. People treat you here like royalty. I open my window to a deck and walk out to see the ocean. It's unreal. Except yesterday," he added.

"I left my sweaty clothes outside to dry, and when I went to get them this morning there was a little sandstorm. My clothes got a little sand in them."

He brought along all his Gator gear, including a T-shirt that he's gifted to Federer.

"I'm not sure if he'll put it on, but it is Nike [Federer's clothing sponsor], so it's worth a shot," said Levine.

Ranked No. 493, Levine could have gotten into the qualifying tournament at Indianapolis this week. But given the alternative, it wasn't difficult to forgo a trip to Indiana.

After winning all 21 regular-season matches, he lost in the quarters of the NCAA tournament to Alex Slovic of Washington, but was named rookie of the year by the Intercollegiate Tennis Association.

Even before his spectacular how-I-spent-my-summer experience, Levine was contemplating whether to return to Florida this fall or turn pro, and maybe this experience makes him lean a bit more toward leaving school, though he doesn't sound certain.

"I've made some really close friends in the semester I've been there, and it's hard to think it could be over soon," he said.

He could have added that he's made one other friend as well.

duong
02-09-2010, 05:51 PM
Interesting to see the comparisons between Federer and Johnny McEnroe. Same philosophy there, that McEnroe kept fit playing matches, and was supremely talented. The difference between the two is that Federer chose to apply himself to his fitness, whereas McEnroe did not. A difference of 9 slams and counting.

There are many more differences than that, for instance :

- you can't compare McEnroe's dedication to tennis after 1985 and Federer's

- the 80s saw maybe the biggest changes in the game which have happened in the last 30 years with the quick evolution of the rackets, and McEnroe was especially vulnerable to these changes considering the very unorthodox way he played : he adapted and changed racket himself but he was definitely vulnerable to that, especially his game was not so adaptable to modern power

- there were good opponents yes, but well McEnroe had dominated Lendl before, and there was quite the same difference in talent imo between McEnroe and Becker as there is between Federer and Murray

r2473
02-09-2010, 05:54 PM
Hours.

http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/federer-blazer-closeup.jpg

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 06:03 PM
thanks jackpumpkinhead... that was interesting.

I was just reading a thread on Tennis Warehouse about Fed's training regime in Dubai and found out this:

Today i have talked to the sister of Ricardas Berankis, lithuanian player (17 years old, ranking - 830), who participated in the training sessions with Roger Federer in Dubai since July 19 till July 30. She said that Fed trains 3 times per day like crazy and drinks Coca cola during the timeouts. She also mentioned that they had a match and Fed won 64 63, not bad for the junior even if it was not a real tournament conditions.

It was a press conference today of Berankis and his coach. The coach said that conditions in Dubai were tough as it was 40 degrees Celsius during the day, so at first it was difficult to handle all the things. Also the feeling that you play with number 1 in the world also influences you performing. But seems like Fed is a really nice guy cause he makes you feel free and comfortable when comunicating, so after few days everything became alright so Fed was happy about the performing of Berankis. He said that the guy has good hands, touch and the feeling of the game and proposed to have some training in before and during US Open.

I don't know if that's reliable enough, tough... I've never seen Fed drinking coke lol

DrJules
02-09-2010, 06:06 PM
There are many more differences than that, for instance :

- you can't compare McEnroe's dedication to tennis after 1985 and Federer's

- the 80s saw maybe the biggest changes in the game which have happened in the last 30 years with the quick evolution of the rackets, and McEnroe was especially vulnerable to these changes considering the very unorthodox way he played : he adapted and changed racket himself but he was definitely vulnerable to that, especially his game was not so adaptable to modern power

- there were good opponents yes, but well McEnroe had dominated Lendl before, and there was quite the same difference in talent imo between McEnroe and Becker as there is between Federer and Murray

McEnroe (talent) + Lendl (dedication) = Federer (combination of both)

electronicmusic
02-09-2010, 06:12 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,2940389.story

Thanks a lot for this article.

Vida
02-09-2010, 06:28 PM
I would really like to read a few more posts on this topic that go beyond blind Fed-worship. if that happens, if those posts are indeed possible to write at this point, than I think no one could object to those complaining how 'this thread got hijacked'. alas that does not seem to be the case.

MrChopin
02-09-2010, 06:56 PM
I would really like to read a few more posts on this topic that go beyond blind Fed-worship. if that happens, if those posts are indeed possible to write at this point, than I think no one could object to those complaining how 'this thread got hijacked'. alas that does not seem to be the case.

*Translator at work*

- subtract layered anger of Djoko's demise
- subtract need to dishonor whomever is considered praiseworthy

*Finished*

Resulting translation: "With each slam victory, it is getting more difficult to drown out Fed-praise using bullshit tard threads questioning his character."

MatchFederer
02-09-2010, 07:20 PM
Thanks :

I'm more doubtful about "old Federer" (I was frankly worried if Murray had taken Federer to a 5th set :unsure: : generally speaking old payers have some good stamina, but I'm not sure for Federer, esp at this rhythm like in Aus Open and US Open 2009 by the way), but the "best-age Federer" looked having a very good stamina imo.

I too am doubtful about 'old Federer', and shared the same worries about if Murray had taken Federer to set 5.

I seem to recall an interview where Federer said he and Roach had talked after the 5 set semi-final at AO 2005 and decided that he needed to get fitter. Certainly to me his stamina looked to be in its peak condition in 2006.

***

Undoubtedly this has been posted before but i'll just highlight a couple of bits

Roger Federer’s Australian Open Interview - Final
January 31, 2010 | By Nina In Australian Open, Roger Federer, Tennis |

Q. Would you say maybe your ability to retrieve is just as important as shot?making, the balls you ran down?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, I definitely think footwork is something of the most important things in tennis, especially at the level that we’re playing at. At the moment, I think it’s become extremely physical, you know, the game of tennis, especially at the baseline. It’s not as much back and forth. It’s more side to side.

I feel like, you know, my movement’s back. I think that’s a great thing. I definitely had to play some of my best tennis tonight to come through. That was clearly the case.

Q. Did you think it was a great strategy tonight, more than usual?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, he’s obviously a very patient man from the baseline, you know. I mean, I think this is how he made it to the top really. You know, not missing much, being dangerous, mixing up his pace very well, some loopier, some flatter. He can obviously go angle, hard down the line, as well as his backhand. I think that makes him particularly tough to play against.

I think the first set was very interesting on a mental and on a physical level. I thought he played at a very high intensity. I think the first set could have gone either way. So for me to get the first break and play well the way I did, and I think him as well, was obviously crucial for the match, you know, that we were both playing so well.

Somebody had to win the set. Thankfully it was me. I think I was hitting the ball well. I felt that from the start. So I always knew it was going to be a very intense match, you know. I’m happy I was able to play so aggressive and patient at the same time because that’s what you got to be against Murray.

Q. We saw you engage in psychological warfare, talking about the pressure on him, how long it’s been, using 150,000 years out on court. Was it so much sweeter beating Andy because he has a very good record against you and has got under your skin in the past?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I think it got exaggerated. The on?court interview, I don’t take those serious anyway. If you think it was a mental thing, it was not the case, you know.

But you ask me a question, I’ll give you a straight answer. That’s how the press conference was after the Tsonga match. It’s not an easy thing to do to win your first Grand Slam. That’s not mental, you know, trying to screw with his head, you know. It’s just a tough thing, you know.

The next one is not gonna get any easier. But his game is so good that I’m convinced he will win one, you know. And I thought he did really well tonight because conditions were tough. I mean, I think I played a great match. So someone’s got to win, and I’m happy it was me.

Q. After the emotions of wins 14 and 15, how do you rate a 16th title?

ROGER FEDERER: I think you also got to see the way a match ends. Is it 40?Love point where serving and you’re up 5?Love, or in a breaker. I don’t even know the score, 13?11. Sometimes it’s over before you know it.

This felt similar to the Wimbledon victory in a way, because all of a sudden it was over and it hit me, you know. Whereas before I made the dropshot and I think I won, and might have been much more emotional, you know.

But then after losing that point, I’m thinking, My God, he just grabbed the trophy out of my hands. I might end up losing this thing. Two or three points later, I’m the winner after all.

It was very much a rollercoaster with the emotions. You know, you just try to stay focused. I guess the match point was over, and I was like, Oh, my God, this is it. That’s kind of how I felt. It was great.

Q. How do you keep doing it year after year, Grand Slam after Grand Slam? You make it look so easy, and obviously it isn’t.

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, look, there’s no secret behind it. You know, I mean, definitely a very talented player (laughter). I always knew I had something special, but I didn’t know it was like, you know, that crazy.

I definitely had to work extremely hard so I would pick the right shot at the right time. For instance, on the match point I decided to hit a dropshot. You got to be crazy to do that.

But I just ?? you know, I always knew I had it in my hand. The question is do I have it in my mind and in my legs, you know. That’s something I had to work extremely hard at. 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.

Q. Would you have been confident even if you lost the third set? How were you feeling at that point?

ROGER FEDERER: I mean, I think it would have been very interesting obviously to see how he would have handled it, you know, coming off such a high of winning the third set. Then still I think it was very physical, so it would have been very taxing on his body and my body, you know, just to see how we would have both sort of pulled up after that third set.

Unfortunately, it didn’t happen for him. But it was played at a very high intensity, I think, from start to finish. Rallies were long. They were physical. I would have been okay. I still had the lead, so wouldn’t have been a problem.


***

It is interesting to hear his comments on an apparently continually changing game and also the fact that he felt it would have been 'interesting' to see how their bodies would have held up in a longer match. I got the impression throughout the tournament that the surface was quite draining for a players leg muscles.

Vida
02-09-2010, 07:30 PM
*Translator at work*

- subtract layered anger of Djoko's demise
- subtract need to dishonor whomever is considered praiseworthy

*Finished*

Resulting translation: "With each slam victory, it is getting more difficult to drown out Fed-praise using bullshit tard threads questioning his character."

:bs:
:yeah:

JackPumpkinHead
02-09-2010, 08:08 PM
NP by the way the name's Derek

nobama
02-09-2010, 10:20 PM
Do you have a link for that story?? I've heard that Fed usually takes a couple of juniors to train with him in Dubai but I've never heard a report from any of them...
I'm genuinely interested :)There was one guy who started blogging about it a (I think it was year or two ago). But the blog didn't last long, so my guess is team Fed found out about it and told him to stop. I know one of the guys that trained with him said the humidity was so bad that during training he would have to take off his shoes and wring them out b/c they were soaking wet.

Rafa = Fed Killa
02-10-2010, 03:11 AM
none...he wins through luck and a choking era full of clowns

duong
02-10-2010, 07:51 AM
I too am doubtful about 'old Federer', and shared the same worries about if Murray had taken Federer to set 5.

I seem to recall an interview where Federer said he and Roach had talked after the 5 set semi-final at AO 2005 and decided that he needed to get fitter. Certainly to me his stamina looked to be in its peak condition in 2006.

***

Undoubtedly this has been posted before but i'll just highlight a couple of bits

yes you're right to quote that interview, as I had also noted these parts which confirmed me in the idea that he wondered about his fitness if they had gone to a 5th set :yeah: