Pete Vs Roger !? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Pete Vs Roger !?

tennisworld
10-08-2005, 06:32 PM
i found great tennis pictures and videos here http://www.****************** i order the Wimbledon 2001 between Sampras vs Federer never saw this match before and good to see the 2 best tennis player's ever! at this time we were thinking maybe Federer beat sampras as lucky day...but was the first defeat of sampras since 96 quater agaisnt Krajicek and see that now federer is on the same way as sampras did it before...let see!

even if i was a great fan of pete, Andre Agassi say after his final lost against Federer at US Open that he never meet a guy so strong as Federer and i think he know what he talking about...Roger will broke the 14th grand chelem of Pete!?!?

Federer has still won 6 grand chelems in 3 years... Sampras won 14 in 12 years... Federer will broke probably this record at the end of his career!

TennisGrandSlam
10-08-2005, 06:41 PM
i found great tennis pictures and videos here http://www.****************** i order the Wimbledon 2001 between Sampras vs Federer never saw this match before and good to see the 2 best tennis player's ever! at this time we were thinking maybe Federer beat sampras as lucky day...but was the first defeat of sampras since 96 quater agaisnt Krajicek and see that now federer is on the same way as sampras did it before...let see!

even if i was a great fan of pete, Andre Agassi say after his final lost against Federer at US Open that he never meet a guy so strong as Federer and i think he know what he talking about...Roger will broke the 14th grand chelem of Pete!?!?

Federer has still won 6 grand chelems in 3 years... Sampras won 14 in 12 years... Federer will broke probably this record at the end of his career!


1st Grand Slam Titles won by Sampras in his 19 years old
Last Grand Slam Titles won by Sampras in his 31 years old

1st Grand Slam Titles won by Federer in his 21 (would be 22) years old

its.like.that
10-12-2005, 07:33 AM
for a second I thought TennisFool started this thread.

:sad:

you tricked me.

flmmkrz
10-12-2005, 07:35 AM
He's got a long way to go before he can be talked about being in Petes league. He's a crazy talent and one day could overtake pete and be the best ever but thats not the case yet. He's still not Becker or Edberg to me yet.

its.like.that
10-12-2005, 07:42 AM
:lol:

nice one flimmy

deliveryman
10-12-2005, 09:20 AM
He's still not Becker or Edberg to me yet.

You're joking right? Please tell me you're joking.

jtipson
10-12-2005, 12:05 PM
He's got a long way to go before he can be talked about being in Petes league. He's a crazy talent and one day could overtake pete and be the best ever but thats not the case yet. He's still not Becker or Edberg to me yet.


Hmm. On what basis could he not have measured up to Becker or Edberg yet, then? Six slams like them, a lot longer at number one, what more do you want - an RG final to match Edberg, perhaps? That's the only thing I can think of. He's certainly outstripped Becker on all counts, and I say that as fan of Boris.

Loremaster
10-12-2005, 01:45 PM
For me Pete was much better than federer is now. He can overtake Pete of course but need to improve a little bit.
Pete's defeat to Roger in Wimbledon was great Federer's win but for me it was similiar to Roddick USOpen 05 loss to Muller Roddick was in great form and he wasn't palying so bad but Giles was playing the best match of his life(so far) the same was with Federer beating Pete
But in my opinion inform Pete would beat even 2005 Federer (as federer hate palyers which attack so much and Pete was emperor of serve&volley game)

Sjengster
10-12-2005, 02:10 PM
Not the same thing at all - the scorelines of the two matches show that. Roddick played lousy tennis after surrendering the break in the first set and Muller made him pay. Sampras was below-par throughout all his match with Federer, his returns were very poor and ineffective, but he strung together a couple of brilliant ones out of nowhere to get to breakpoint at 4-4 in the final set, and if he'd taken those chances he would still, somehow, have scraped out a win. To me that match isn't an example of an inspired demolition job, e.g. Safin in the US Open final the year before when Sampras didn't do much wrong; instead, it shows just how difficult it was to beat Sampras at Wimbledon even when he was playing badly, it took a superb talent to do it and still it finished 7-5 in the fifth.

I unwisely did an online search of 'Sampras vs Federer' and found another tennis board with a 32-page (yes, you read that right) thread debating the merits of the two players. I got about 4 pages in, and these are long pages, before my head started to ache at the unceasing flow of invective from one particular Sampras fan who liked to use CAPITAL LETTERS a lot, to repeatedly EMPHASISE their point that Federer was IN NO WAY the equal of Sampras, that he was SIGNIFICANTLY inferior. Imagine undomiele with the Sampras fan gene injected into her, and that's more or less what it was like.

jtipson
10-12-2005, 02:39 PM
I unwisely did an online search of 'Sampras vs Federer' and found another tennis board with a 32-page (yes, you read that right) thread debating the merits of the two players. I got about 4 pages in, and these are long pages, before my head started to ache at the unceasing flow of invective from one particular Sampras fan who liked to use CAPITAL LETTERS a lot, to repeatedly EMPHASISE their point that Federer was IN NO WAY the equal of Sampras, that he was SIGNIFICANTLY inferior. Imagine undomiele with the Sampras fan gene injected into her, and that's more or less what it was like.

That person unfortunately raises his ugly and illogical writing style in an unceasing trumpeting of Sampras across many tennis boards. His current reasoning for Sampras being greater is Federer's weak competition.

Dirk
10-12-2005, 07:50 PM
Pete was not under par in that match. They both hit far more winners than errors. Pete said he couldn't read his serve. Return was never Pete's strong point. It was a well played match by both men and Pete would have against anybody except maybe Rafter that year.

Sjengster
10-12-2005, 09:40 PM
Yes, but you're nearly always going to have more winners than errors on grass, both of them were playing routine serve and volley which yields a lot of winners. But look at that miss from Sampras, breakpoint down at 4-4 in the third - probably the crucial turning point in the match, and he dumps his trademark smash into the sidelines.

Seleshfan
10-12-2005, 09:44 PM
Yes, but you're nearly always going to have more winners than errors on grass, both of them were playing routine serve and volley which yields a lot of winners. But look at that miss from Sampras, breakpoint down at 4-4 in the third - probably the crucial turning point in the match, and he dumps his trademark smash into the sidelines.

What is your point here?

Sjengster
10-12-2005, 09:48 PM
That he was below par - missing your signature shot on a breakpoint tends to signify that. Nothing unique to this particular match, he was having these sorts of inexplicable misses at virtually every tournament in 2001/02 until the final run to the US Open title.

star
10-12-2005, 10:17 PM
For me, and I'm not a Federer fan, Federer is a much more beautiful player to watch than was Sampras. He also has a better rounded game than did Sampras because it isn't centered on his serve. I think Sampras was better at the net though than Federer is now. Probably Federer won't ever become as good at the net as was Sampras because he doesn't really have to be.

Seleshfan
10-12-2005, 11:52 PM
That he was below par - missing your signature shot on a breakpoint tends to signify that. Nothing unique to this particular match, he was having these sorts of inexplicable misses at virtually every tournament in 2001/02 until the final run to the US Open title.

Since when does missing one shot indicate you're below par? Had he consistently missed this shot, then maybe. I never saw the match, so I honestly don't know.

Federerhingis
10-13-2005, 12:59 AM
For me, and I'm not a Federer fan, Federer is a much more beautiful player to watch than was Sampras. He also has a better rounded game than did Sampras because it isn't centered on his serve. I think Sampras was better at the net though than Federer is now. Probably Federer won't ever become as good at the net as was Sampras because he doesn't really have to be.


Yes even on their only match Sampras was the better player at net, a lot more natural up there and his reflexes are much better than Rogers even at this point. However, Federer reads the game a lot better than Sampras, he also anticipates much better than Sampras and has a much more solid return of serve.

Sjengster
10-13-2005, 01:24 AM
Since when does missing one shot indicate you're below par? Had he consistently missed this shot, then maybe. I never saw the match, so I honestly don't know.

This is Sampras at Wimbledon, on a 31-match winning streak, and he hits his trademark shot wide on an absolutely crucial point. He obviously hadn't done that too often in his previous 31 matches at SW19, had he?

Dirk
10-13-2005, 01:45 AM
He couldn't control Federer's FH that is all it was. He did just miss that shot in his prime too. :rolleyes:

flmmkrz
10-13-2005, 02:30 AM
Hmm. On what basis could he not have measured up to Becker or Edberg yet, then? Six slams like them, a lot longer at number one, what more do you want - an RG final to match Edberg, perhaps? That's the only thing I can think of. He's certainly outstripped Becker on all counts, and I say that as fan of Boris.

Longevity.

Seleshfan
10-13-2005, 02:34 AM
This is Sampras at Wimbledon, on a 31-match winning streak, and he hits his trademark shot wide on an absolutely crucial point. He obviously hadn't done that too often in his previous 31 matches at SW19, had he?

And, of course, there could be no other reason he misses this shot right? As you said, it was a crucial point, maybe that got to him. Had he never flubbed a crucial point in his prime?

wimbledonfan
10-13-2005, 01:45 PM
There is a video clip online where a reporter interrupts Sampras while he's playing golf and asks him about Federer. He said that many people think Roger is already the greatest grass court tennis player to ever play the game and asks him about his thoughts. Sampras , of course , praised Federer saying that he has all the tools and weapons and that there is no competition for him right now . Then the reporter asked the typical question about who was better if both players played in their prime at wimbledon and Sampras said " part of me thinks I'd like my chances against him because even I know a thing or two about winning " He said he fancies his chances on grass because Federer stays back often .

Seleshfan
10-13-2005, 04:57 PM
Well he did say, "part of me thinks I'd like my chances," he didn't say which part, or how how much of it thought it. For all we know, it could've been just the right cheek of his ass that thought that.

petosp
10-13-2005, 07:16 PM
There is a video clip online where a reporter interrupts Sampras while he's playing golf and asks him about Federer. He said that many people think Roger is already the greatest grass court tennis player to ever play the game and asks him about his thoughts. Sampras , of course , praised Federer saying that he has all the tools and weapons and that there is no competition for him right now . Then the reporter asked the typical question about who was better if both players played in their prime at wimbledon and Sampras said " part of me thinks I'd like my chances against him because even I know a thing or two about winning " He said he fancies his chances on grass because Federer stays back often .
In 2001 and Federer was able to beat Sampras on his best surface, and Federer then was not even the half of player that he is today, mentally and tecnically Federer has improved tons.
Sampras had the better serve and volley, but Federer serve and volley are not weak links either, its like a 9.5 against a 10. And Federer off the ground is superior to Sampras. Not only because i think of that but also because Federer has won many more titles on clay than Sampras and has beaten many many great names on that given surface (like Moya, Lapentti, Safin, Gaudio, Coria among others). Sampras on clay would end up losing to nobodies most of the times and only won a Tier I on clay with a pretty much easy draw. Take away only Feferer`s 04 Hamburg win where he had to beat Gaudio, Lapentti, Gonzalez, Moya, Hewitt and Coria and compare it against any Sampras`s clay court event win.
It`s just a matter of time (and dedication to the game of course) until Federer surpasses Sampras`s records. Already Federer has won 3 of 4 Grand Slam events in one year, something that Sampras not even in the depleted/weak fields of the mid nineties could achieve.

nobama
10-13-2005, 07:31 PM
These threads always make me laugh. One person says Sampras played against a weaker field in his prime, someone else says Roger's playing against the weaker field. Outside of the facts (like Pete's 14 GS to Roger's 6 GS) it's all opinion anyway. I can say that I think Roger's a better overall player/natural talent than Pete was, but probably won't break Pete's GS record, but then someone else will say that's crap and that Pete did loads of things better than Roger.

petosp
10-13-2005, 07:40 PM
These threads always make me laugh. One person says Sampras played against a weaker field in his prime, someone else says Roger's playing against the weaker field. Outside of the facts (like Pete's 14 GS to Roger's 6 GS) it's all opinion anyway. I can say that I think Roger's a better overall player/natural talent than Pete was, but probably won't break Pete's GS record, but then someone else will say that's crap and that Pete did loads of things better than Roger.
Federer already has a better resumé than Sampras on clay and has had the most dominant year 3 of 4 grands slams and the masters.
Still there is a lot work to be done, but take in consideration that already Federer has acomplished almost half of what Sampras did on his whole carreer 6 GS to Sampras 14 and 2 masters against 5 from Pete all of this in less than three years.

Loremaster
10-13-2005, 08:20 PM
But it is not about clay. Of course on clay Federer is much much better than Sampras but on fast hardcourts and grass Sampras game was much better,
huge serve ideal volley. You don't have do be uniwersal to win - Sampras had one tactic and he was doing palying serve&volley perfectlly and this alone would be enough to beat Federer on fast surfaces.
And in Sampras era Pete had more rivality - Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic etc
Federer is one Hewitt and Roddick are not thread to him Nadal is but how long??
that's why Pete hasn't won 3of4 slams it was much harder task.

In my opnion Federer won't capture as many slams as Sampras - he had 3 great yeras but in my opinion every next year will be much harder, even now is health is in bad shape - in 2003 he hasn't miss so much tournamnents as in 2004. Now in 2005 he missed a lot of time taking free time after Wimbledon and now another injury(I have heard that this foot problems in his case are uncurable but who nows??)

AgassiDomination
10-13-2005, 08:30 PM
:rolleyes: people put too much emphasis on just one meeting...

petosp
10-13-2005, 09:52 PM
But it is not about clay. Of course on clay Federer is much much better than Sampras but on fast hardcourts and grass Sampras game was much better,
huge serve ideal volley. You don't have do be uniwersal to win - Sampras had one tactic and he was doing palying serve&volley perfectlly and this alone would be enough to beat Federer on fast surfaces.
And in Sampras era Pete had more rivality - Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic etc
Federer is one Hewitt and Roddick are not thread to him Nadal is but how long??
that's why Pete hasn't won 3of4 slams it was much harder task.

In my opnion Federer won't capture as many slams as Sampras - he had 3 great yeras but in my opinion every next year will be much harder, even now is health is in bad shape - in 2003 he hasn't miss so much tournamnents as in 2004. Now in 2005 he missed a lot of time taking free time after Wimbledon and now another injury(I have heard that this foot problems in his case are uncurable but who nows??)
There are a couple of objections.
Sampras`s game was not undimensional, in a lot of ways Federer and Sampras had a lot in common, where areas Sampras slightly better on his serve and volley, Federer is simply much better from the back of the court, but overall of course both complete.
Actually Sampras used to struggle a lot with the well all around players like Wayne Ferreira, Richard Krajicek, Leyton Hewitt, Paul Haarhuis.
In fact Sampras has lost in hard courts against Sergi Bruguera and even has a losing record to him, i have really no doubt that Federer is much better than all of this names i just gave which used give Sampras all kinds of troubles, and the fact that an inmature Federer could still beat Sampras in 2001 at Wimbledon, fast surface, home for Pete, what could have today`s Federer done with Pete when he has improved mentally and tecnically, i don`t really want to imagine.

Loremaster
10-13-2005, 10:27 PM
oh come on
Sampras struggle to some players of course but Federer struggle for example to Nadal - who outplayed him twice and only Federer winover Nadal - who is above all clay court specialsit was fact of young age lack of expercience from nadal in Miami - on hard court where Federer should win with every clay court specialist, the same with Henman, Ferreo or Nalbandian this two guys in-form were great problem for Federer. They are losing now agaisnt him but they are out of form. So your argument is double edged sword. Or Safin having so bad record agaisnts Hrabty or Santoro ?? Soem palyers don't like to play with other players everyone nows it and it;s not an argumetn
So your prediction that now Federer would win with Sampras is without any serious argument. Or Agassi-Sampras last meeting in final of 2002 USOpen ??
He was controlling the match all the time and won agaisnt Agassi being old player Federer in his best form in 05 was struggling against Agassi(who much weaker palyer than 2002 - eg his injuries, speed and so on) and Agassi was in more comfortable situation to win match he lost beacuse Federer is great player but Sampras was controlling whole match against "better" Agassi even with those tie-breaks than Federer and Federer is his best form 24years young body etc

petosp
10-14-2005, 03:50 AM
oh come on
Sampras struggle to some players of course but Federer struggle for example to Nadal - who outplayed him twice and only Federer winover Nadal - who is above all clay court specialsit was fact of young age lack of expercience from nadal in Miami - on hard court where Federer should win with every clay court specialist, the same with Henman, Ferreo or Nalbandian this two guys in-form were great problem for Federer. They are losing now agaisnt him but they are out of form. So your argument is double edged sword. Or Safin having so bad record agaisnts Hrabty or Santoro ?? Soem palyers don't like to play with other players everyone nows it and it;s not an argumetn
So your prediction that now Federer would win with Sampras is without any serious argument. Or Agassi-Sampras last meeting in final of 2002 USOpen ??
He was controlling the match all the time and won agaisnt Agassi being old player Federer in his best form in 05 was struggling against Agassi(who much weaker palyer than 2002 - eg his injuries, speed and so on) and Agassi was in more comfortable situation to win match he lost beacuse Federer is great player but Sampras was controlling whole match against "better" Agassi even with those tie-breaks than Federer and Federer is his best form 24years young body etc
Agassi`s level in the second set of this year`s Usopen final with just 3 unforced errors and smacking the ball on everyshot, was something that he was unable to produce in the 2002 final, mainly because he was tired from his drainy semifinal win over Hewitt one day earlier.
Many would argue which match was closer, as Federer won the 4th set 6-1 and Sampras beat Agassi 7-5 in the 4th.
Im just stating that Federer has all the tools to give Sampras trouble, as he showed in Wimbledon 2001, Federer serves well, Sampras would not be able to attack his serve as easy to come to the net, Federer can hit great passing shots, from anywhere on the court, and has huge forehand and a solid backhand. Of course Pete has his own weapons huge serve and forehand, but Federer is also a great returner, he puts a lot of balls in play (this exactly drives Roddick nuts) and low balls, and what about Federer`s ability to defend, which is very overlooked, he gets to a lot of balls, in fact much more athetic than Sampras.
Yes Nadal gives Federer lots of troubles, but Nadal is a kind of clay court player that we have never seen, not even Muster comes close to Nadal`s clay court play, probably Nadal is to Muster, what Federer is to Sampras. Better overall.

wimbledonfan
10-14-2005, 04:44 AM
It is all about matchups . For instance , Nadal has a winning record against Federer because in all their mettings Federer stayed back . With most of his opponents he can beat them at their own game , but with Nadal , I believe he has better groundies than Fed . Sampras, would have fared much better against Nadal because serving and volleying would put away all of Nadals returns . He stays way too far back on his return of serve , something Federer isn't able to exploit as well .

btw petosp , I truly think Sampras was just a little past his prime that year , don't ya think ? In your next post , tell me how many tournaments Pete won in 2001 and then tell me if you think he was in peak form .

Seleshfan
10-14-2005, 06:21 AM
It is all about matchups . For instance , Nadal has a winning record against Federer because in all their mettings Federer stayed back . With most of his opponents he can beat them at their own game , but with Nadal , I believe he has better groundies than Fed . Sampras, would have fared much better against Nadal because serving and volleying would put away all of Nadals returns . He stays way too far back on his return of serve , something Federer isn't able to exploit as well .

btw petosp , I truly think Sampras was just a little past his prime that year , don't ya think ? In your next post , tell me how many tournaments Pete won in 2001 and then tell me if you think he was in peak form .

Federer was in his prime in that match? I don't think so. So you have two great players, not playing their best. Not much you can tell from that match, except the obvious, Federer was better on the day.