Federer vs Sampras count updated.... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer vs Sampras count updated....

makro120
09-12-2005, 02:53 PM
Federer after 2005 USopen and Sampras after 95 USopen:

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

Federer is still one grand slam behind Sampras and he has won some titles less than Sampras and some weeks as nr1 less than Sampras. However he has actualy won 2 more master series than Sampras and the interesting part will be next year...

Federer has been catching up Sampras for so long now, because Sampras already won USopen as a 19 year old and already then became a star, Federer took more time to mature (I was getting worried). Now is the time for Federer to really get an advantage against Sampras and do a great year next year. Here comes some things Federer really can catch up on Sampras the coming year:

1.He can win 4 wimbledons before SAmpras if he wins next year.

2.He can equal Sampras number of grand slams in AO and later pass him in RG or wimbledon next year.

3.IF he holds his nr1 ranking for the rest of the year and beginning of next year he will pass Sampras weeks as nr1.

4.For the rest of this year Sampras only wins one more title, if Federer wins 4 more titles this year both have won 36 titles at 24 years old. If Federer wins5 titles he will pass Sampras.

5.Federer can win 3 master cups this year before Sampras did, as Sampras lost the master cup 95!

Lets just wish Federer can dominate as he did this year next year and I really hope the 3 matches he lose next year wont come in grand slams. A real grand slam next year and there would be no doubt about who is the best ever, however I would be happy if he only won RG and wimbledon. But he must win RG next year, he will have something to proof there. Otherwise I would be very disappointed.

1sun
09-12-2005, 03:22 PM
his right up sampras's arse but it would be asking a hell of alot to win more than 2 majors next year(asking to win 2 majors is asking a huge amount too). im just loving his wins at the mo, if more majors come then great but iam already very proud of roger

oneandonlyhsn
09-12-2005, 05:16 PM
his right up sampras's arse but it would be asking a hell of alot to win more than 2 majors next year(asking to win 2 majors is asking a huge amount too). im just loving his wins at the mo, if more majors come then great but iam already very proud of roger

Ditto, every win is a bonus. I'd love for him to win RG and Wimby next year but its a very difficult thing to ask. How Borg did it is beyond me

Daniel
09-21-2005, 03:12 AM
Roger :D

World Beater
10-09-2006, 05:12 AM
9 slams for federer...8 slams for pete at the same stage...three years continuous #1...3 more to go...

i found this interesting analogy to understand what its like playing federer and sampras. The fear that is involved.

I think they are two different kind of fear. Federer is like facing forest fire.
He does not give you ANY SPACE to run away.
Sampras is like walking on thin ice on the river.
You have ALL the space you can have.
But make one wrong step, you're dead.

World Beater
10-09-2006, 05:15 AM
Those who say that Pete's era had more great players, so Sampras' competition is greater are very mistaken. Just because Sampras has all those older hall of fame players do not suggest that his competition is greater.

Compare Players Older By 8 years & above
-----------------------------------------
Sampras, born in 1971, while all the older hall of famer players:
Connors, born in 1952, 19 years older, played until 1995 at age 43;
McEnroe, born in 1959, 12 years older, played until 1992 at age 33;
Lendl, born in 1960, 11 years older, played until 1994 at age 34;
Wilander, born in 1963, 8 years older, played until 1996 at age 33;

All these players were past their primes, all slumping in their rankings when Sampras started playing in 1998 and when he was in his prime in 1993 to 1996 when the last of these older hall of famer players retired. Although these players have several grandslams experience, they are like the present Agassi to Federer, just waiting to be slaughtered by a peak Sampras. I don't see anything mighty of gloating of beating all these old off-peak great players. In comparision, the new players that Federer is facing are younger, healthier, but with less grandslam experiences. To be fair, youth and experience should be equal if a young inexperience 19 year old with a ranking of 30 should post the same threat as a 30 year old great player ranked 30 in the world. Rankings don't lie. Remember how Sampras himself could not win a tournament for 2 years before he won his last US Open in 2002? Sampras was trashed by Safin and Hewitt in consecutive years when he was 29 to 30 years old. So a 30 year old great player posts just the same threat as an up & coming young inexperience player like Murray, Bagdhatis, Berydch, Gasquet.
To be fair to Federer, where are the players 8 years & above older than Federer?
Where is Sampras, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter gone to? They all retired except Agassi. So before people comment that Sampras had all these great players, then they better ask all those great players in Sampras era to come out of retirement and let Federer beat up on them. Great players like Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander all retired later than Sampras did at age 31. So Sampras and his fellow age group should stay on playing until at least until age 33 to 34 when Federer was dominating to get beaten up, but instead they all chose to retire before age 30 or less. So it is groundless to compare great soon to retired players who are 8 years older because they pose the same threat as an up & coming young player with the same ranking and most importantly all those players older than Federer by 8 years & above chose to retire, and they can still say Federer does not compete with any hall of fame players? That's absurd. Another reason besides retirement that cause no hall of fame players is because both Sampras & Agassi swept 22 Grandslams between them, while Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander shared their Grandslams over a longer playing career with average of 7 to 8 Grandslams.
So there were more hall of fame players in Sampras time due to the fact that these players have a longer career and accumulated less Grandslams amongst themselves. Sampras & Agassi won so many Grandslams between themselves, there aren't many multiple Grandslams winners in their peer group, hence Federer does not have the same number of great players to compete against. The same reason can be said of Federer's successor because if a junior no. 1 ten years younger than Federer comes onto the scene and by then Federer retires winning GS in double digits, there won't be any great players with multiple GS except for an aging Nadal left to compete against the new no. 1 born in 1991.

Compare players older by 4 to 6 years
------------------------------------
Edberg, born in 1966, 5 years older than Pete, played until 1996 at age 30;
Becker, born in 1967, 4 years older than Pete, played until 1999 at age 32;
Korda, born in 1968, 3 years older than Pete, played until 1999 at age 31

Basically, Sampras had difficulties playing with Edberg and Becker when Sampras was still young and Edberg & Becker were still in their primes between 1988 to 1992. The Head to Head for this period was pretty even. After 1993, Sampras started dominating both of them.
Federer on the other hand has an even match up with Kuerten, never lost to Moya, never lost to Rios, who were older by 4 to 6 years, few GS holders or no. 1 before. Again the players 4 to 6 years older than Federer do not have many GS titles because the cohort of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Rafter took away most of the GS, leaving behind those born in 1976, Moya & Kuerten to have only 2 or 3 GS and they are either injured, retired, poor form. Edberg & Becker were able to compete with the likes of McEnroe, Lendl, Connors when they were in their late teens to win their 2 GS titles (before 1987) and accumulated the other 4 GS (1998 to 1992) before Sampras peaked in 1993. Skill Level, Kuerten & Moya are similar to Edberg & Becker, just that Kuerten & Moya excelled more on clay, Edberg & Becker excelled more on grass, and on hards courts, they are pretty even these players. Except Kuerten & Moya stood less chance of GS glory because of those born in 1971 to 1972, snatching away all the GS trophies.
Korda & Haas 3 years older respectively to Sampras & Federer also posed challenges when Sampras & Federer were starting out, but when Sampras & Federer peaked, these players are having bad losing streaks. Korda managed a 5-12 Head to Head with Sampras; Haas now has a 2-7 Head to Head with Federer. I would say Federer does a better job at defending himself from a loss when he was still young & inexperience as compared to Sampras, but both Sampras & Federer hardly relent to this group of players when they are in their peaks.

Compare players of the same age (+/- 1 year difference)
------------------------------------------------------
Sampras has Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera
Federer has Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Robredo, Blake (2 yrs), Ljubicic (2 yrs)

Because of Federer's dominance, he is killing his peers into marriagehood, into delusion, bagelling them, beating them all the time, unless his ankle is half broken. That's why Federer's peers only have 2 GS at most so far and most likely will stay at 2 GS because of the stiff competition Federer is posing and also all the new, hungry and talented new players are coming up. The players in this group is comparable. Hewitt vs Agassi; Nalbandian vs Chang / Courier; Roddick vs Krajicek; Ljubicic vs Ivanisevic; Power game of Safin vs Net rushing athletic Rafter; Roberto/Nalbandian/Ferrero vs Bruguera: All match-up relatively equal. But, Federer dominates his same age group more than Sampras did to his own peers, until they become discourage, trying new ways to beat Federer, celebrating when they get small wins when he is out of the tournament or beat him when he is injured and become so happy. Federer's skill level surpassing his same age group that they are losing heart.
Sampras had a pretty tough match up with all his peers, even losing to Krajicek in head to head. Federer managed to turn the series with Nalbandian from 0-5 to now 6-6, so why can't Sampras do the same with Krajicek before both of them retired, their head to head is 6-4 in favour of Krajicek. Federer hardly loses to his age group since he peaked in 2003, but Sampras still lost to his peer group quite often. Sampras had a hard time with Bruguera on clay but Federer can beat Nalbandian and Robredo on a more regular basis on clay. As I compared the 2 groups, they are pretty much even in skill level.

Compare players 3 to 6 years younger
------------------------------------
Sampras has Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov (3 yrs)
Federer has Baghdatis, Nadal, Murray, Gasquet, Berdych, Ancic (3 yrs)
Kafelnikov is the only player 3 years younger than Sampras that made a difference because I could not find any better players than Ancic who is also 3 years younger than Federer. Skill wise, Ancic can match up with Kafelnikov on grass, fast hard courts, slightly weaker on Rebound Ace and will lose to Kafelnikov on clay. Kafelnikov managed to win 1 French Open & 1 Australian Open because these are his stronger surfaces and Sampras weaker surfaces, whereas Ancic's best surfaces are faster surfaces but too bad that Federer's best surfaces are grass and hard courts too. As for the rest of the players aged 5 to 6 years younger, Federer's young apprentices seemed more potent and more dangerous than Sampras' young apprentices. So in no way is competition less competitive for these younger group of players. Federer has a tougher 3 to 6 years younger players than Sampras did.

In conclusion, I simply don't agree Sampras' competition was stronger. It only appeared stronger because all those GS winners were decorated with GS trophies, but were past their primes, easy pickings for Sampras. His group of younger players were only a few good players who excelled mainly on the surface he hated most - clay. But Federer is able to beat all the younger players on a consistent basis except Nadal on clay and slow hard courts. All Federer's younger players can play on all surfaces well, whereas Sampras' younger players fared badly on grass. Sampras had no chance against all of his young apprentices on clay but Federer can beat all his young apprentices on clay and still give Nadal, one of the greatest claycourters, if not the greatest claycourter some problems with 2 matchpoints on clay.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1087401#post1087401

P.S.THIS IS NOT MY POST...but i found it to be an interesting analysis.

Rogiman
10-09-2006, 11:18 AM
Sorry, World Beater, but your post only convinced me Sampras faced a tougher competition:

Slightly older guys: Edberg&becker, were still very much competitive when Sampras first burst into the scene, and were both awesome, I can't think of a single player of their quality other than Federer nowadays.


Same age-group: Agassi, Chang, Courier, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Bruguera are so much better than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian and Ferrero it's not even funny, I mean - Chang and Rafter can perhaps be cancelled out by Safin and Hewitt, but the rest of them...? Who in Fed's age-group is even close to Agassi's level? and Courier?? and Ljubicic vs. Ivanisevic...?? Gim'me a break.

Youngsters: Kuerten, Moya, Rios and Kafelnikov vs. Baghdatis, Nadal, Murray, Gasquet, Berdych and Ancic is closer, although other than Nadal it has yet to be proven any of them can match Guga's and Kafelnikov's level.

nobama
10-09-2006, 01:08 PM
I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer as to who was a better player or who faced tougher competition. At the end of the day the # of slams and weeks/years at #1 will most likely be the deciding factor. The tennis-warehouse boards (where I think that post originally came from) have these discussions all the time and nobody can ever agree.

For me I don't see the point because you can't choose your competition, you can only play what's in front of you. Take Roger (and Nadal on clay) out of the mix and you'd probably have fewer people saying the tour is weak.

SUKTUEN
10-09-2006, 04:17 PM
very detail~thankyou

Ariadne
10-09-2006, 04:51 PM
For me I don't see the point because you can't choose your competition, you can only play what's in front of you. Take Roger (and Nadal on clay) out of the mix and you'd probably have fewer people saying the tour is weak.

Agree! In my humble opinion, Federer dominates the game not necessarily because his peers are not fantastic, powerful players, but because he is just that good. A person's merit need not always be relatively judged to legitimize their mark in a field. Rarely, one's skill or ability is so superior and impressive that it must be acknowledged in absolute terms. And, it's certainly not all-important, but I do put some stock in that match after match, announcers and commentators, alike, ooze with awe and respect for Federer -- and consistently state they believe he is the greatest the game has ever seen.

SUKTUEN
10-09-2006, 04:55 PM
Serve : Pete
Backhand: Roger
Baseline : Roger
net:Pete

ExpectedWinner
10-09-2006, 05:13 PM
What did big names of 90s achieve during Pete's prime years (1993-1998) on non clay surfaces?

Agassi, the legend, 2 slams :woohoo:

Becker-1

Chang-0

Ivanisevic-0

Courier -1 :bigclap:

Edberg-0

Kafelnikov-0

Krajicek-1 :worship: Eventually RF will lose at W too.

Rafter- 2 (97, 98) Wait, we are not in 2007/2008 yet

Moya-0

A lot can be said about the form, fitness level, commitment for the game, injures of these players in 1993-1998, but I'm too busy at the moment.

Long story short: middle 90s had the potential to be the competition of 2 men (outside of clay). However, AA failed his part miserably. He did not work hard enough on his fitness, had other priorities, etc. Last, but not the least, he did not have the ability that ball-less Fed has- the ability to recover form painful losses quickly.

World Beater
10-09-2006, 06:07 PM
Sorry, World Beater, but your post only convinced me Sampras faced a tougher competition:

Slightly older guys: Edberg&becker, were still very much competitive when Sampras first burst into the scene, and were both awesome, I can't think of a single player of their quality other than Federer nowadays.
.

Edberg and becker had the privilege of playing before sampras. They received their much vaunted reputation because of what they achieved before sampras burst onto the scene. the previous generation were already declining. tell me how many gs finals did these guys contest? I can only remember edberg beating a young sampras at the usopen. If these guys were so great, how is it that they cant even manage to contest a few gs finals with sampras during his reign. precisely because they were both on the decline. They all favored fast courts, there was no reason for them not to clash more often.

Federer's era of older players is a totally different kettle of fish. You had kuerten, rios and moya all predominantly slow court players. Rios could play on fast courts, but his fave was the clay. There was never going to be the same clash because federer wasn't good enough on the slow surfaces. Between them they have 4 RG's, and all the non hc slams were being eaten up by agassi and sampras. edberg and becker didnt have a sampras or agassi in their "older guys" to steal slams away from them. mcenroe was waning, borg retired early. Who was left?lendl? was he ever that big a threat at wimbledon...he had great success at the usopen, i will give you that.


Same age-group: Agassi, Chang, Courier, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Bruguera are so much better than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian and Ferrero it's not even funny, I mean - Chang and Rafter can perhaps be cancelled out by Safin and Hewitt, but the rest of them...? Who in Fed's age-group is even close to Agassi's level? and Courier?? and Ljubicic vs. Ivanisevic...?? Gim'me a break.
.

Roddick >> courier

its funny you have this image or vision of such great players like chang and rafter. These guys were great because of the fact that pete was not as dominant as Federer. you cant have it both ways. If roddick and hewitt actually did beat fed once or twice in slams, they would be comparable to the older generation of players. And we could talk about federer playing in an era of multiple gs winners. Comparing agassi's etc to this era is not fair because they have been brutalized by federer. The current generation of players' confidence have been hurt so much by federer. If they were allowed to develop, roddick would have become a great player, and hewitt a legend.

Now if we compare game styles, roddick for me is a much improved courier. Much bigger serve, equal forehand, same backhand. Only the movement department is courier superior, and thus his game on clay.

Roddick is a fast court player and has competed with federer for three gs finals. roddick is much more mentally tougher than courier ever was on faster surfaces. Courier reached success because of his rg wins and his brief dominance before pete took over. Roddick can never win RG but is a league above courier on fast surfaces, which is why the comparion based on gs wins is not FAIR. roddick also had a brief stint at #1 before fed.

Safin>>Krajicek & ivanisevic

safin is extremely inconsistent. But krajicek and goran ARE FAR worse. goran only appeared at wimbledon in his whole career. Krajicek had one good rg showing and showed up at two wimbledons, and both of them sucked at the hc slams. For all of safin's problems, he is a league above both these players combined. his career is far from over as well.

Hewitt>>Chang

Just as speedy, was #1 for two years. superior mental toughness and more firepower on the serve and better netskils. only hewitt is capable of bitch slapping sampras. Change could never do such a thing.

ljubicic>>>rusedski

its not fair to ivan to compare him to goran. It doesnt make any sense. people compare them because they are from the same country. But to me ljubicic is an improved rusedksi. Greg was pretty much hapless at all the slams and had one good showing at the usopen. He reached #4 in the world and was a monster indoors. He won smaller tournaments and that was that. Sounds like ivan, no? NO, while ivan has had similar results so far, he has reached rg semis and has a phenomenal record in davis cup(i know you hate this competition, but its still worth a mention).

agassi ~ nadal

right now this may be a ridiculous comparion, but consider the fact that federer will be competing for rg every year, they are bound to clash on clay. we have already seen one match on grass that may be a harbinger of their duels on faster surfaces to come. Nadal is already responsible for two of federer's losses at RG. He has cost him small bit of his legacy.

pete never got far enough on clay to play with agassi, and when he did once, agassi was off the map. Nadal has the same mental endurance on clay that federer does and is far superior to agassi in this dept. For all the excuses, nadal has done fantastically well and trouble federer far more than agassi ever troubled sampras. of course the agassi-sampras comparison is not fair to dre because agassi was good enough on faster surfaces to play him a few times in gs finals but the opposite was no true.

dont expect nadal to go on a walkabout and descend into 120's. instead expect nadal to improve his record on faster surfaces and to remain a slow court demon. there will be no respite for federer like there was for sampras.

now i couldnt find a player who fit the mold of agassi, in the same gen as federer. One could take hewitt, but i decided against this. Instead nadal, who is 5 years younger and becoming more dangerous by the day. This matchup will become more intruging as nadal approaches his "supposed" prime. This in many ways will reflect the andre-pete rivalry because andre was much stronger when pete started to become older. The same goes with nadal and federer.

bruguera>> ferrero + robredo

while the guy did trouble sampras on hc surfaces, i cant recall him beating pete in hc slams. Same with ferrero and robredo...but sergi gets the edge because he was present for whole career, whereas ferrero is going on a walkabout, while robredo's future success is uncertain.

Rafter >> nalbandian

the jury is still out because david is still young...but rafter only became a factor later in his career and david is already a factor for roger...he took him out in uso 2003 where a win would have helped fed get #1 and he probably would have been tough for roddick. right now, the h-h is more even but david can beat roger and we have seen it happen. Similarly rafter has beaten pete but has lost to him on more than once occasion as well. rafter choked real well in the wimby final just like fat dave choked against roddick and baghdatis. Rafter was not much of a factor at ausopen...david is a factor at all slams and a real danger for federer.



Youngsters: Kuerten, Moya, Rios and Kafelnikov vs. Baghdatis, Nadal, Murray, Gasquet, Berdych and Ancic is closer, although other than Nadal it has yet to be proven any of them can match Guga's and Kafelnikov's level.

here we are not talking only about level but also commitment. Guga disappeared for during the last part of pete's era. Do you honestly expect these young guys to do the same? They will have their whole career to trouble federer and can trouble him on ANY surface. Kuerten for all his merits was predominantly a slow court player. He was never in the mix for hc slams. These guys are the opposite. they will be vying with federer for ALL the slams the next couple of years.

already at age 20, these guys have surpassed what the other guys did at a similar age(correct me if im wrong).

baghdatis>>moya

moya reached one slam final in his young career against sampras and lost. Baggy did the same. Moya was once again a slow court player and thus found his success on clay. Pete never made it far enough on the clay during this time for moya to be a factor in playing sampras in gs. Their results were quite parallel.

baghadatis stylistically is a more complete player and has already reached wimby gs semi. He will be competing with fed for almost all the slams except perhaps rg.

ancic, gasquet >>>kafelnikov

while this is still yet to be established because we are in the early stages.

kafelnikov was never a factor in wimbledon except once. Ancic has taken out federer and will be competing with him every year for that slam. likewise, gasquet will be competing with federer for every slam except possibly wimbledon the next few years. both ancic and gasquet are far more dangerous to federer on paper than yevgeny"thanks for not playing aussie open, so i could win pete" kafelnikov. - yes he actually said what was in the quotation, talk about fear factor.

berdych, murray - x-factors.

im not sure where to put these guys, but i expect that murray could have a rafter-like career. berdych is to federer what safin was to sampras in terms of how they matchup...of course the results could be different

World Beater
10-09-2006, 06:19 PM
Krajicek-1 :worship: Eventually RF will lose at W too.

.

ancic already had his time in the sun. he beat fed in 02.

federer at his peak is too much for mario right now or any krajicek type player.

World Beater
10-09-2006, 06:40 PM
I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer as to who was a better player or who faced tougher competition. At the end of the day the # of slams and weeks/years at #1 will most likely be the deciding factor. The tennis-warehouse boards (where I think that post originally came from) have these discussions all the time and nobody can ever agree.

For me I don't see the point because you can't choose your competition, you can only play what's in front of you. Take Roger (and Nadal on clay) out of the mix and you'd probably have fewer people saying the tour is weak.

that doesnt make any sense.

Discussion is interesting because people will not agree.

If everyone were to agree, there would be no discussion...discussions like these are far more interesting precisely because they are speculative.;)

nobama
10-09-2006, 06:41 PM
Bruguera, another guy with a positive h2h against Sampras. Along with Krajicek, Haarhuis, Schaller and Gross (he only played Schaller and Gross once). How many others are there?

World Beater
10-09-2006, 06:49 PM
Bruguera, another guy with a positive h2h against Sampras. Along with Krajicek, Haarhuis, Schaller and Gross (he only played Schaller and Gross once). How many others are there?


indeed. But only consider the ones that happened in slams...the other tournament losses dont hurt pete's legacy

Rogiman
10-09-2006, 06:56 PM
Thank you for the explicit reply, WB, although we'll agree to disagree about certain things (Courier was at least as good as Roddick on fast courts, with at least finals of every Slam, Rusedski's time in the sun came in the twighlight of Pete's career, Rafter was just as much of a factor at OZ as Nalbandian with a 5 sets loss in the SF to Agassi - arguably the best ever on Rebound Ace - and made SF of every Slam, and also my guess is that Ancic right now is as good as he'll ever be, no surprises from him ahead of us).

Anyway, I might not be qualified to pass an objective judgment since I hate to admit today's game is basically a baseline-double-hander-game, with no exceptional Serve-Volleyers with distinguished skills like Edberg, Becker and Rafter (granted, the ATP brought it upon us fans with its atrocious Slowing-Down policy).

World Beater
10-09-2006, 07:19 PM
Thank you for the explicit reply, WB, although we'll agree to disagree about certain things (Courier was at least as good as Roddick on fast courts, with at least finals of every Slam, Rusedski's time in the sun came in the twighlight of Pete's career, Rafter was just as much of a factor at OZ as Nalbandian with a 5 sets loss in the SF to Agassi - arguably the best ever on Rebound Ace - and made SF of every Slam, and also my guess is that Ancic right now is as good as he'll ever be, no surprises from him ahead of us).

Anyway, I might not be qualified to pass an objective judgment since I hate to admit today's game is basically a baseline-double-hander-game, with no exceptional Serve-Volleyers with distinguished skills like Edberg, Becker and Rafter (granted, the ATP brought it upon us fans with its atrocious Slowing-Down policy).

well consider the fact that roddick isnt done yet...he has three gs finals lost. courier disappeared off the map after he had some initial success, so unless the same thing happens to roddick, i would bet that roddick will end up being more successful on fast courts. he is younger than federer after all, not by much i know.

its easy to compare rafter's finished career with david's still current one. Rafter has two usopen finals more than david. i give david another 3 years to match that. now remember that we cant count gs wins, because that falls into the argument of whether fed's competition is weaker or he is stronger...this is precisely what we are trying to analyze. david also has an two rg semis? So if david reaches another final only to be beaten by federer, he will become equal.

i agree that i dont see ancic troubling federer, but this is a testament to federer. ancic is almost a carbon copy of krajicek.

ancic has better grounstrokes, slightly worse volleys and a comparable serve. In this day and age with courts slowing down, he is the analogue of krajicek.

now in my previous post, i compared players who had similar results and some element of similar game style with the chronology of both eras as well, which is why i didnt compare ancic to krajicek. i believe the age difference is more between ancic and federer than it is between krajicek and pete.These players have similar game style, but i found the analogies on the whole to be better if i compared safin to krajicek and goran.

rusedski and rafter were succesful during similar times (usopen final)...if we say that rusedski emerged in the twilight of pete's career...we must say the same about rafter. rusedski did play pete indoors in paris...ivan has already gone further by getting to madrid and paris. so ivan came in the peak of federer, then this should not be used against him because he still has been able to achieve similar results. goran is not comparable because his haven was grass.

another comment is that much of agassi's success on rebound ace came during pete's decline. Nadal on the other hand is giving it to federer in his prime years. agassi played who? shuettler, kafelnikov. yes he beat some great ones like pat, and pete. but he's also lost to some not so great ones. agassi is for sure by record the best on rebound ace(not sure?) but he has played his fair share of not so strong players. if the only points we disagree with are the ones in your post, then i think we agree on more things than not.

throw in the fact that during andre's peak on rebound ace, he fell to both federer and safin, and we have some interesting context for the generations.

World Beater
10-09-2006, 10:41 PM
the point is that even though pete might have had the more "talented" contemporaries, this certainly did not translate into better competition

SUKTUEN
10-10-2006, 03:18 PM
very professional

wackykid
08-05-2008, 07:00 AM
lemme dig up this thread again... now that no.1 is lost... the comparison for no.1 position thread seems secondary... so perhaps we should revisit the achievements comparison with sampras...

seems that federer's career is following a similar ending trend as sampras?? consider the charts of federer and sampras:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampras

sampras won 1 slam and no AMS titles in 1998... federer has won neither in 2008... he could salvage a bit of the season if he can win US open...

sampras won a grand total of 4 titles (including 1 US Open) in 1998... federer has won 2 titles in 2008 so far...

1998 appears to be the year when sampras starts to be on a decline... although federer 's performance in 2008 so far is similar to sampras in 1998... sampras was able to remain year ending no.1 in 1998... but federer looks unlikely to...

so what's next for federer ...??

well for sampras... he won another 3 more slams after 1998... and few more weeks at no.1 in 1999 and 2000... before retiring in 2002 with a US Open title...

if federer follows the same trend... does this spell the start of the decline...? i think it's unfortunate that federer has a slightly slow start in his career... he reach no.1 in 2004 aged 23... where sampras (as well as nadal) reached that a year earlier aged 22... federer would have broken sampras records if he reached the peak at the same age...


regards,
wacky

Goncharov
09-23-2008, 05:54 PM
*Bump*

Hello. I have a question. It is only slightly related to this thread, but I didn't want to start a new one for one question.

There is an interview with Sampras in which he talks about Federer and mentions that Federer's results at the French Open confirm his talents and that he hasn't reached his peak and how he (Sampras) is impressed by Federer's personality.

My search has not yielded any results. Would any of you folks direct me to a website or magazine where this interview can be found?

robinhood
09-23-2008, 08:10 PM
*Bump*

Hello. I have a question. It is only slightly related to this thread, but I didn't want to start a new one for one question.

There is an interview with Sampras in which he talks about Federer and mentions that Federer's results at the French Open confirm his talents and that he hasn't reached his peak and how he (Sampras) is impressed by Federer's personality.

My search has not yielded any results. Would any of you folks direct me to a website or magazine where this interview can be found?

Hi, Goncharov. Welcome to the forum.
You know, there have been so many similar interviews and remarks from Sampras over the years that I personally wouldn't know how to locate the EXACT one you are looking for without more clues.

But here is one of them. :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/2328873/Pete-Sampras-Federer-can-take-my-records.html

Federerhingis
09-23-2008, 11:05 PM
They haven't updated that website since the aussie open.

Where can I find the Career win loss records at the Masters series events?

It's Nadal tied with Sampras?

Goncharov
09-24-2008, 12:47 AM
Hi, Goncharov. Welcome to the forum.
You know, there have been so many similar interviews and remarks from Sampras over the years that I personally wouldn't know how to locate the EXACT one you are looking for without more clues.

But here is one of them. :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/2328873/Pete-Sampras-Federer-can-take-my-records.html

Hi, mr. Hood. Thanks for the reply. :)

The Telegraph article kept showing up in my searches too but it's not the one I was looking for.

A fan posting here had a part of the quote in their signature a couple weeks ago, about how Sampras was impressed by Roger's personality. Can't remember the name of the poster.

Thanks all the same, I appreciate it.

crude oil
06-07-2009, 05:08 PM
federer now ties pete with an all important RG

SUKTUEN
06-07-2009, 05:10 PM
Yes!!!!!!!!!!

lina_seta
06-07-2009, 05:26 PM
its so nice to hear that pete has been sending roger msgs of encouragement!

SUKTUEN
06-08-2009, 01:39 PM
Pete said Roger is the best player in history~~

Mechlan
06-18-2009, 05:38 AM
Interesting to read this thread three years later. A lot of the comparisons made about Sampras vs Federer level of competition can now be seen in a different light. Federer really stepped it up in the past couple of years and a lot of his peers really fell off. Nadal is the lone exception, and of course Djokovic has come on strong by winning a slam and performing solidly in several others. Murray has just started to make his breakthrough, the next year could be really good for him if he continues to progress, but he's clearly already taken that step from promising talent to legitimate top player.

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

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

It should be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of years. I feel there was a dearth of talent late in Pete's era (though there was a lot early in his career) and I feel the opposite for Federer. Roger didn't have much competition early on, but there are a lot of young guys who are looking very strong and the next couple of years could be really interesting if they have what it takes mentally to fight for slams.

wackykid
06-18-2009, 06:03 AM
In comparison, Sampras' competition seems a definite step better to me. Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Rafter etc. are all multiple-slam finalists who seem to have the mentality that a lot of today's top talent lack. Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt are all multiple slam finalists as well, but aside from Roddick and Hewitt, none of them have really been able to consistently back it up.

i don't agree with chang and rafter being consistent... they are not at all consistent... i see them on par with roddick... safin... ferrero... and hewitt i put them on par (or slightly lower) with becker/courier by having ranked no.1 more times but lacking in slams...

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


regards,
wacky

rofe
06-18-2009, 10:30 AM
Interesting to read this thread three years later. A lot of the comparisons made about Sampras vs Federer level of competition can now be seen in a different light. Federer really stepped it up in the past couple of years and a lot of his peers really fell off. Nadal is the lone exception, and of course Djokovic has come on strong by winning a slam and performing solidly in several others. Murray has just started to make his breakthrough, the next year could be really good for him if he continues to progress, but he's clearly already taken that step from promising talent to legitimate top player.

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

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

It should be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of years. I feel there was a dearth of talent late in Pete's era (though there was a lot early in his career) and I feel the opposite for Federer. Roger didn't have much competition early on, but there are a lot of young guys who are looking very strong and the next couple of years could be really interesting if they have what it takes mentally to fight for slams.

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

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

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

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

Mechlan
06-19-2009, 01:22 AM
I completely disagree with this statement. He had a lot of competition. Around 2003 I think, Nalby owned him, Hewitt owned him, Agassi owned him in the h2h. I think Nalby was 5-0, Hewitt was 7-2 and Agassi was 5-0. In fact, he was not even supposed to win Wimbly 2003. Ironically, Wimbly 2003 was supposed to be the place to crown Roddick as the next superstar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rwn
06-19-2009, 06:37 AM
I'm not discussing players Federer had trouble with and eventually overcame. I think it's pretty clear Roger is a much better player than he used to be. I was watching the 2004 Wimbledon final recently and couldn't believe how much better Roger became over time while Andy's level stayed the same of perhaps even dipped a bit.

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

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

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

Just look at some of the players Sampras lost to and you´ll realize how wrong you are.

crude oil
06-19-2009, 07:16 AM
I'm not discussing players Federer had trouble with and eventually overcame. I think it's pretty clear Roger is a much better player than he used to be. I was watching the 2004 Wimbledon final recently and couldn't believe how much better Roger became over time while Andy's level stayed the same of perhaps even dipped a bit.

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

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

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

unfortunately, you are not going to get much love around here for this post.

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