Comparisons Between Federer & sampras. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Comparisons Between Federer & sampras.

angiel
02-28-2006, 07:30 PM
Sampras Calls Federer Comparisons Valid

By HOWARD FENDRICH
AP Sports Writer
February 28, 2006, 1:56 PM CST


All those comparisons between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras are right on the mark. Sampras himself says so.

"They're all very valid: Not only is he winning majors, but the way he's winning them -- with pretty much ease. He's pretty much the favorite in every major for the rest of his career," Sampras said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.



"Clearly, he's head and shoulders above the rest. I don't see anyone pushing him over the next three or four years."

Sampras knows his record of 14 Grand Slam tournament titles could very well be threatened by Federer, who has seven so far. Time for the 34-year-old Sampras to come out of retirement and try to add to his total? Not quite.

Sampras is returning to the tennis court, though, signing up for the World Team Tennis Pro League more than three years after his last match.

"This is more about just getting myself a little busier and focused on something I used to be good at," he said ahead of Wednesday's announcement by the league. "It's time this year to do a little more. Last year, I was kind of floating along."

His last professional match was the 2002 U.S. Open final, when he beat longtime rival Andre Agassi. As much as he says he's looking forward to playing in the WTT, Sampras made one thing quite clear: Don't call it a comeback.

"I miss playing the game. I miss the majors. I miss competing. But to play at the level I used to play is a whole other animal. I've done that, and I know what it takes," he told the AP. "Me playing a little tennis this year is something I can control; there isn't any pressure. I can relax and have a little fun. Coming back is not something that crossed my mind."

While it's tough for him to watch Wimbledon, where he won seven championships, Sampras keeps tabs on the game.

And he's impressed by the top-ranked Federer.

"He moves great, does everything very well. He's gotten to a point that when he's not at his best, he's finding ways to win, and that separates him from the rest," Sampras said, a moment before making sure to bolster his own credentials a tad.

"There are less great players today than there was when I was playing," he continued. "I just see him carrying on with what he's been doing. He's got the whole package. He doesn't have any holes in his game."

Federer has won Wimbledon three years in a row, and he's won the past three majors: Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open. The Swiss star heads to the French Open in May with a chance to complete a Grand Slam, albeit not in a calendar year.

The French Open is the only major Federer hasn't won; Sampras never made it past the semifinals at Roland Garros.

"Clay will be the toughest surface for Roger," Sampras said. "If things go right, if the weather's right, I think he can win it."

Sampras has never played in the WTT, a 12-team league that in recent years has featured such stars as Agassi, Steffi Graf, John McEnroe, Martina Navratilova, Andy Roddick and Venus Williams. Sampras will be chosen by a team in the March 28 draft and expects to play about a half-dozen matches during the July 6-26 regular season.

WTT co-founder Billie Jean King unsuccessfully tried to persuade Sampras to participate in the league while he was on tour.

"He's definitely someone that we wanted," WTT commissioner Ilana Kloss said. "We're just thrilled that Pete's going to be back out there, and fans will get an opportunity to see him again."

Sampras also will be appearing in an exhibition match at Houston in April. He said he's thought about working as a TV commentator, but he's not interested in coaching.

"When you retire, you take time away, you don't want to have anything to do with tennis. After two years of having fun and not doing much in the sport, you get a little bored and want to know what's the next chapter in your life. Last year was a turning point -- 'What am I going to do next?' -- and I had to make a decision," Sampras said.

"Playing in front of some people -- you kind of look forward to it a little bit."



Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press

angiel
02-28-2006, 08:03 PM
Fed-Ex matches Pistol Pete

rediff Sports Bureau | February 25, 2006 16:54 IST


Ever since Roger Federer beat Pete Sampras in the fourth round at Wimbledon in 2001, he has been hailed as Sampras' successor on grass.

Five years since, Federer is threatening to topple Sampras as the best modern-day player, ever.

The American, when at his peak, looked like a one-in-a-lifetime player. But it took only 10 years before Federer was born.

Australian legend Rod Laver, the only player to win all four Grand Slams the same year twice, thinks Federer can win a Grand Slam of titles.

Andre Agassi, after the 2005 US Open final, proclaimed that the Swiss was the best he had ever played against.

At 24, Federer has seven Grand Slam titles. Sampras retired with the most men's singles Slams in history --14.

ATP released statistics that show their amazingly similar career paths, separated by exactly 10 years.


Birthdate Sampras: August 12, 1971
Birthdate Federer: August 8, 1981

Winning % Sampras: 0.773 (437-128)
Winning % Federer: 0.765 (391-120)

Titles Sampras: 36
Titles Federer: 33

Year Sampras' Reign began: at the 1993 Wimbledon contest(it was his 5th Wimbledon competition and the 17th major he had entered)
Year Federer's Reign began: at the 2003 Wimbledon contest (it was his 5th Wimbledon and the 17th major he had entered)

Sampras' peak period: Won 6 out of 10 majors 1993 Wimbledon to 1995 US Open
Federer's peak period: Won 6 out of 10 majors 2003 Wimbledon to 2005 US Open

Sampras' Grand Slam record: 1 Australian Open, 3 Wimbledon titles, 2 US Open titles
Federer's Grand Slam record: 1 Australian Open, 3 Wimbledon titles, 2 US Open titles

Wimbledon Sampras: 1993-1995
Wimbledon Federer: 2003-2005

Major stumble Sampras: Roland Garros, 3 quarterfinals
Major stumble Federer: Roland Garros, semifinal, quarterfinal, 4th round

Masters Cup Sampras: 1991, 1994
Masters Cup Federer: 2003, 2004

Sampras at No. 1 slot: 109 weeks
Federer at No. 1 slot: 100 weeks

The list does not include Federer's 2006 Australian Open victory. The period up until January 1996 is considered for Sampras and the one up until January 2006 for Federer.

almouchie
03-02-2006, 01:20 PM
even the words coming out of the king's mouth still hurt
Federer is not being challenged & till he is u cannt really tell his fight agaisnt adversity & his ability to battle hard
his lastest AO win was the first where he was made to sweat & try hard as he wasnt playing that well at times
hope someone stops him in RG, cannt stand a federer slam

angiel
03-02-2006, 08:09 PM
even the words coming out of the king's mouth still hurt
Federer is not being challenged & till he is u cannt really tell his fight agaisnt adversity & his ability to battle hard
his lastest AO win was the first where he was made to sweat & try hard as he wasnt playing that well at times
hope someone stops him in RG, cannt stand a federer slam



Maybe somebody will, Nadal is back playing. :worship: :worship: :angel: :wavey: :hug:

the_natural
03-03-2006, 07:52 AM
Safin has the talent. Tomas Berdych is very talented and better from the baseline than Federer (in terms of the strength of his shots and the power of his backhand, his speed is greater though and equal in anticipation. He is a young safin... sad that his head is the same as safin). Haas was definatley the one to stop him but the 6-2 score in the final set was deceptive because Haas had break point and his string broke just before he was gonna make a passing shot and then he didnt adjust to the new racquet soon enough. It was really tight until federer got the lucky break, and that was only his 3rd tournament (2nd ATP pro tour/non exhibition tournament and First Grandslam) ther was alot for him to deal with. He shoulda won !!!

angiel
03-03-2006, 09:10 PM
Maybe he will get his revenge on him at the french open, Safin is a sad case, he could make life harder for Roger, but he is a joke to the sport. :o :o :sad:

Mimi
03-04-2006, 12:49 AM
roger is a great champion, and he may break pete's most grand slams records, but untill he reached this goal, pete was and is still the king :worship: , i feel very angry that posters critise pete for saying roger has less competitors than him, the king is just giving his opinion, he has not put down roger, i am so angry to read posters saying pete jerk BS, etc, so i scold them back :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

the_natural
03-04-2006, 07:15 AM
Yeh but rogers fans are all f%$#ed in the head, there are very very few who really understand tennis and dont just see it in Black and White, and even fewer level headed Federer fans they think that Serve Volleying is an easier style than baselining and some think that its almost cheating and all this BS dumbasses

Greg-Pete fan
03-04-2006, 08:18 AM
Nadal will have a chance to beat Federer in Dubai final ;)

the_natural
03-04-2006, 01:01 PM
I hear its a heavy ball, there were complaints, alot of them, from players about how it can injure the player cos its heavy, and the windy conditions, all in his favour, slow things down and also there will be little margin for error if the wind picks up, Nadal has lots and lots of topspin, more than any player in history i believe, and so that will help combat the wind. I hope he wins, the conditions should be in his favour

Greg-Pete fan
03-04-2006, 04:40 PM
He has done it !!! He has just beaten Roger, 2-6,6-4,6-4 !!!

angiel
03-04-2006, 06:41 PM
Nadal will have a chance to beat Federer in Dubai final ;)


And I hope he does, Roger really needs someone who can set him back on his feet. :wavey: :rolleyes: :wavey:

angiel
03-04-2006, 06:42 PM
He has done it !!! He has just beaten Roger, 2-6,6-4,6-4 !!!


Hoooooorrrrraayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :lick:

the_natural
03-06-2006, 12:15 AM
YESSS I KNOW, But Lookin back, things were in Rogers Favour, Nadal is just in his second tournament back, but Rogers is in his 3 pro tournament, if we dont count the Exhibition tournament at Kooyyong where he lost to Haas. And Roger also won 29 of his 56 Hard Court Matche winning streak matches at this place (he beat Petes Record for most Consecutive hard court matches, Pete was in the 30s i believe and did it twice), Roger won this title 3 consecutive times and has a better finals record than Nadal who is STILL only 19. Plus Federer Trains in this intense heat on a regular basis. Oh yeh and Federer won a Grandslam tournament this year so yes He had the odds in his favour. He was up a set too lol and he won it 6-2 So wat was up with losing.

angiel
03-06-2006, 09:41 PM
The main thing is he lost, and he could do so again, Nadal is still here, isn't he. :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cool:

Mimi
03-08-2006, 02:32 AM
:p i hope besides nadal, there will be more young ones to challenge roger like gasquet, etc, i hope roddick can challenge him too, otherwise it would be too boring to see just roger winning :p

Mimi
03-08-2006, 02:33 AM
:worship: :worship: the _natural is the tennis expert :worship: :worship:

even i don't know too mucah about tennis skills, i do know that serve and volley is way more difficult and risky than baselining ;)


Yeh but rogers fans are all f%$#ed in the head, there are very very few who really understand tennis and dont just see it in Black and White, and even fewer level headed Federer fans they think that Serve Volleying is an easier style than baselining and some think that its almost cheating and all this BS dumbasses

landoud
03-08-2006, 10:22 AM
I really didn't like it when Roger lost to Rafa...
I do like Rafa but I love Roger more... both of them played fantastic tennis bur Nadal took the advantage and won
I hope Roger can defend his tittle in IW because he is my fav now

angiel
03-08-2006, 09:31 PM
I really didn't like it when Roger lost to Rafa...
I do like Rafa but I love Roger more... both of them played fantastic tennis bur Nadal took the advantage and won
I hope Roger can defend his tittle in IW because he is my fav now


Hello landoud, how are you my friend, long time no see :wavey: :angel: I hope Nadal set him back on his left foot again. ;) :p :D

bokehlicious
03-08-2006, 09:35 PM
Roger will achieve the Grand Slam this year :)

angiel
03-08-2006, 09:38 PM
Roger will achieve the Grand Slam this year :)


Oh yeh, who say so, you??? :devil: :mad:

bokehlicious
03-08-2006, 09:40 PM
Yes, I deeply believe that :) So he'll definitely be a level above Pete according to the tennis specialists :)

angiel
03-08-2006, 10:14 PM
Yes, I deeply believe that :) So he'll definitely be a level above Pete according to the tennis specialists :)


Who are the tennis specialists? there names please? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

bokehlicious
03-09-2006, 06:26 AM
Who are the tennis specialists? there names please? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Too many to name them :) Most of tennis Greats and journalists :)

Doctor Dance
03-09-2006, 07:35 AM
Roger will achieve the Grand Slam this year :)


:haha:

It is good see our swiss friends have a sense of humour because that comment is hilarious

He could not even beat Nadal on hardcourt, and you think he can beat him on clay :cuckoo:

Doctor Dance
03-09-2006, 07:36 AM
Who are the tennis specialists? there names please? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


He can not give you names because he must have woken up from his wild dream before he could get any names :lol:

Doctor Dance
03-09-2006, 07:38 AM
Back to the topic though, Pete is my all time favourite player but I think some of what he says might be a little sour grapes as it is impossible to judje the quality of players in two different eras

Pete is a legend, Roger is becoming one, I think we should just leave it at that for the moment

angiel
03-09-2006, 08:45 PM
Back to the topic though, Pete is my all time favourite player but I think some of what he says might be a little sour grapes as it is impossible to judje the quality of players in two different eras

Pete is a legend, Roger is becoming one, I think we should just leave it at that for the moment


:wavey: Hi, and how are you, glad to have you here, a big welcome my dear :angel: And I agree with you, I dont get myself worked up again, I used to do that, but not any more - I love pete dearly, he is great and will alway be great, no matter what Federer do or dont do, a big welcome and post more often will you, we needs new fans here. :smooch: :smooch: :hug: :hug:

angiel
03-09-2006, 08:48 PM
Too many to name them :) Most of tennis Greats and journalists :)



Too many you say, so it should not be so hard to name even one or two, now..................... :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :(

angiel
03-09-2006, 09:53 PM
Yes, I deeply believe that :) So he'll definitely be a level above Pete according to the tennis specialists :)



Here is what some of those same specialists are saying, about Federer on winning the French Open::


FEDERER NOT BETTERER IN 2006 FOR FRENCH OPEN RUN?

Not that you ever thought he would need to, but Roger Federer has gone into spin mode after his third loss to Rafael Nadal in four meetings after Dubai. "Rafa was just too good today. He was the better player," Federer said. "I'm still happy with my week here and the state of my game. I hope I can keep it up over the next weeks." Happy with playing out of his mind for one set, then struggling with too much aggressive play for the remaining two sets while watching Nadal eat his second serve for lunch? What hope does the Swiss have at Roland Garros for the almost-inevitable meeting with Nadal if he can't top the Spaniard on hardcourt? No, it's not like Federer is on the back end of a career slide after his first loss of the year, but with the Masters Series stops at Indian Wells and Miami looming, and an entire claycourt season awaiting before the French -- and the Swiss' constant problems with the Nadal jumping lefty spin -- a few more beatings could feature before Roland Garros. And this last win for Nadal was with the Spaniard just coming off a bum ankle. Next post-match question for Club Fed -- 'Just how deep in your head is Nadal?'


TENNISX NEWS.

Mimi
03-10-2006, 01:35 AM
good words, but i guess its fair enough for pete to be a little bit sour grapes, not long ago, people said pete was the greatest ever and that he had won most grand slams in men's tennis history, however, just after a few years, they forgot their greatness, and saying roger is the best ever and is like a god, i don't disagree that roger is a great player and he may surpass pete's achievemnets, but before he achieved the 15 slams, please don't say he is greater than pete :mad: :wavey:

pete may be a bit sour because the people/media/fans are so cruel to forget his greatness so soon, i don't blame him on this ;)


Back to the topic though, Pete is my all time favourite player but I think some of what he says might be a little sour grapes as it is impossible to judje the quality of players in two different eras

Pete is a legend, Roger is becoming one, I think we should just leave it at that for the moment

bokehlicious
03-10-2006, 02:17 PM
Fact is Roger has a far more complete game than Pete, so when one says Roger's the greatest ever, it's not in terms of achievements (not yet), but in terms of game's style :)

Greg-Pete fan
03-10-2006, 06:14 PM
Fact is Roger has a far more complete game than Pete, so when one says Roger's the greatest ever, it's not in terms of achievements (not yet), but in terms of game's style :)

I can`t agree. Many people say that Roger is better than Pete, but in my opinion they didn`t see many Pete`s matches when he was 22, 23 or 24 (like Roger today). Sampras also was playing unbelievable tennis.

Greg-Pete fan
03-10-2006, 06:17 PM
Moreover Pete won 14 Grand Slam titles. Roger has already got 7 Grand Slam titles, but I don`t believe he can break his record.

bokehlicious
03-10-2006, 06:32 PM
I can`t agree. Many people say that Roger is better than Pete, but in my opinion they didn`t see many Pete`s matches when he was 22, 23 or 24 (like Roger today). Sampras also was playing unbelievable tennis.

I personnaly saw a lot of Pete's matches in those early days, and he never had Roger's BH (diveresity), dropshots, forehand or even footwork. So I can easily understand why Roger's is so often called the best ever in the game.

I know it's hard to admit that for some, especially on a Pete sub-forum. :wavey:

bokehlicious
03-10-2006, 06:33 PM
Moreover Pete won 14 Grand Slam titles. Roger has already got 7 Grand Slam titles, but I don`t believe he can break his record.

You should better compare achievements at the same age, and you'll see that Pete was not ahead...

Greg-Pete fan
03-10-2006, 06:35 PM
You should better compare achievements at the same age, and you'll see that Pete was not ahead...

Believe me, their achievements were similar at the same age ;)

BlakeorHenman
03-10-2006, 06:38 PM
But Pete burned out pretty early and had a pretty bad period going until USO '02. Dont see that happening to Federer. He can use that time to play catchup.

Greg-Pete fan
03-10-2006, 06:47 PM
But Pete burned out pretty early and had a pretty bad period going until USO '02. Dont see that happening to Federer. He can use that time to play catchup.

You are right, but everything is possible. You remember surely what happened with Andre Agassi in 1997...

And don`t forget about Pete`s opponents and Roger.

Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Courier, Stich, Ivanisevic, Rafter AND
Nadal,Hewitt,Roddick,Safin,Nalbandian. I will not comment it.

bokehlicious
03-10-2006, 06:48 PM
Believe me, their achievements were similar at the same age ;)

I know. I follow the comparison between these two greats closely, and the only thing I said is that Pete 'was not ahead', but Roger either ;) .

bokehlicious
03-10-2006, 06:51 PM
And don`t forget about Pete`s opponents and Roger.

Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Courier, Stich, Ivanisevic, Rafter AND
Nadal,Hewitt,Roddick,Safin,Nalbandian. I will not comment it.

That's irrelevant, comparison is impossible and there's no proof at all that the formers were better than the latters...

Greg-Pete fan
03-10-2006, 07:03 PM
That's irrelevant, comparison is impossible and there's no proof at all that the formers were better than the latters...

Comparison is possible, Pete`s reign took place only a couple of years ago, not
a few decades ago, so why can`t we compare their opponents?

bokehlicious
03-10-2006, 07:59 PM
Comparison is possible, Pete`s reign took place only a couple of years ago, not
a few decades ago, so why can`t we compare their opponents?

So what make you think that Pete's opponents were better than Roger's ?

Greg-Pete fan
03-10-2006, 08:06 PM
So what make you think that Pete's opponents were better than Roger's ?

Yes, Pete`s opponents were better than Roger`s ;)

bokehlicious
03-10-2006, 08:12 PM
Yes, Pete`s opponents were better than Roger`s ;)

That's your opinion as a Pete fan :) Personnaly I'm convinced that today's fitness and game are better than in the 90's...BTW I guess we're both biased ;)

angiel
03-10-2006, 09:00 PM
That's your opinion as a Pete fan :) Personnaly I'm convinced that today's fitness and game are better than in the 90's...BTW I guess we're both biased ;)


Dont kid yourself JMPower, you must be really blind are something, you need to go look at the players of the 90's my friend, they were way better than todays players, and it has nothing to do with been biased at all, did you see the amount on unjuries as in todays players, and that is just one point - get real will you. :devil: :devil: :mad: :sad:

angiel
03-10-2006, 09:02 PM
Fact is Roger has a far more complete game than Pete, so when one says Roger's the greatest ever, it's not in terms of achievements (not yet), but in terms of game's style :)


You got to be kidding me, more complete game my foot, Pete won a slam at the tender age of 19 years old, when did Roger won his first? :rolleyes: :mad:

angiel
03-10-2006, 09:05 PM
But Pete burned out pretty early and had a pretty bad period going until USO '02. Dont see that happening to Federer. He can use that time to play catchup.


He didn't burned out my friend, he achieve everything he wanted, and he start winning at a younger age than Roger did - and how do you know that it will not happen to Federer - can you really say that, no way. :rolleyes: :wavey:

angiel
03-10-2006, 09:10 PM
I personnaly saw a lot of Pete's matches in those early days, and he never had Roger's BH (diveresity), dropshots, forehand or even footwork. So I can easily understand why Roger's is so often called the best ever in the game.

I know it's hard to admit that for some, especially on a Pete sub-forum. :wavey:


Roger having a better backhand, dropshots, forehand or footwork, doesn't make him a better player, and you have one thing wrong right here, there is no way Roger dropshots or forehand are better than Pete, Pete was one of the greatest serve & vollyer in the game, and he has one of the best if not the best forehand in tennis, go look at Pete play again - the only thing Roger has over Pete, is his Backhand, you really need glasses. :devil: :mad: :wavey: :rolleyes:

angiel
03-10-2006, 09:19 PM
Maybe you need to READ THIS JMPower......



Putting a Charge in It
Bjorkman is one of the few dedicated serve-volleyers left on tour

By Bill Dwyre, Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2006

Some advice for tennis fans at Indian Wells for the start of the men's tournament in the Pacific Life Open today: Get a draw sheet, find the name Jonas Bjorkman and head out to the back courts.

That's where the Swedish journeyman will be, where he has been for most of his 16-year career, other than in 1997, when he stunned everybody by going 71-26 and finished the season ranked fourth in the world.


He is no longer young, no longer a frequent sighting on the big courts with the luxury suites and the people sipping chardonnay in their designer Filas.

He is also no less entertaining and no less worth watching. At 33 — he will turn 34 on March 23 — he is the third-oldest regular participant on the men's tour, after Andre Agassi, one month from his 36th birthday, and Wayne Arthurs, a week from his 35th.

As much as his age, Bjorkman's style of play makes him a tennis dinosaur.

Bjorkman follows his serve to the net, a technique last seen commonly in the era of Jack Kramer, wooden rackets and long pants. Now, in men's tennis, players go to the net only when struck by diving birds that leave them dazed and disoriented.

It isn't totally their fault. They are now asked to play with balls that weigh as much as baseballs, fluffed up like a Don King hairdo and squished into slow courts of sandy, gooey compositions. A game not long ago played mostly on slick grass has become the Pro Swamplands Tour.

Among the men who play regularly, a few renegades still try to attack behind the serve — Taylor Dent, Tim Henman, Ivo Karlovic, Mario Ancic and Arthurs, as well as Bjorkman's current doubles partner, Max Mirnyi.

Bjorkman has never quit trying to serve and volley. He has reasons, and a sense of humor about it.

"I'd look pretty stupid if I stayed back at the baseline after hitting the kind of serve I do," he says.

He is also serious about what the game has become.

"It is sad to see the game go this way," he said. "When I'm done, I won't watch two guys stay back at the baseline and slug it out."

The true artists of the last serve-and-volley era, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Patrick Rafter and Boris Becker, are gone.

Bjorkman has persevered at what he does because it is what he knows and what he likes. It has also meant that he has had most of his success in doubles, where you'd better know how to play at the net or you'll lose.

Last month, the Swedish dinosaur shared one side of the net with an American dinosaur, McEnroe. The result was a stunning tournament doubles title at San Jose.

The tournament director, Bill Rapp, had been working on getting the still-proficient McEnroe, now 47, back into an ATP main draw. He identified Bjorkman, with his 44 doubles titles and eight Grand Slam doubles titles, as a worthy partner.

McEnroe said yes, the two quickly clicked, and the San Jose championship was theirs.

"He is a true legend," Bjorkman said. "We see doubles the same way. It worked right away."

Like all so-called doubles specialists, Bjorkman bristles a bit at the label. He has been No. 4 in the world, seen the bright lights of the big-stadium center courts, been to a U.S. Open semifinal and a Wimbledon quarterfinal.

"It is still fun," he says. "It still feels the same when you get out on a center court. I still get the same chills as I did when I was 20. And in some ways, it is even better because now, if you are successful, it is so much bigger because the fields are so much better.

"I've been lucky. I haven't had a serious injury since 1990 [a year before he had a world ranking], and here I am, still trying. I never thought I'd be playing at 34."

He hasn't finished a year out of the top 75 since 1993, has played in 48 of the last 49 Grand Slam tournaments, has made more than $12 million in prize money, entered last week's Tennis Channel Open in Las Vegas at No. 64 — he's No. 68 now — and has never stopped moving forward, in his goals and on his serve.

He lists among his highlights his 1-0 record against his friend and retired countryman, Edberg, winner of six Grand Slam singles titles, whom he beat in a third-round match at the U.S. Open.

"When I see him, I always remind him that I dominated him in singles," Bjorkman says. "He, of course, reminds me of the 40 or so practice matches we played, where he won them all."

bokehlicious
03-11-2006, 08:59 AM
Roger having a better backhand, dropshots, forehand or footwork, doesn't make him a better player, and you have one thing wrong right here, there is no way Roger dropshots or forehand are better than Pete, Pete was one of the greatest serve & vollyer in the game, and he has one of the best if not the best forehand in tennis, go look at Pete play again - the only thing Roger has over Pete, is his Backhand, you really need glasses. :devil: :mad: :wavey: :rolleyes:

S & V is for Pete, no problem with that, but in all other parts of the game, Roger is simply better :) and could you remember me when Pete has such great years like Roger in 04 and 05 ? :o :angel: :) Don't be pissed off mate, Pete remains one of the greatest :wavey:

the_natural
03-11-2006, 11:50 AM
This debate could go on forever. And yes Pete had 1993 SF Aus,QF French, Win Wimbledon, Win USO, and 1994 Aus Open win and Wimbledon, out with a foot injury before he had to rush back to hold the number 1 ranking burnin out at the USO.oh 1995 wasnt too bad finals at Aus, Wimbledon and US win again, 96 was only a let down at the slams but he won the USO and was pretty dominant otherwise. 97 he was pretty dominant and won 2 slams And a semi at USO. Yes Pete has had such good years, except he versed ppl who were brought up on Hard courts, and those who specialised on grass, not just kids who learnt to play on clay hehehe.

Roger will achieve what he sets his mind to, which is why he went 81-4 last year, pete only had 3 goals: 1ST Alltime GS record, 2nd Most years at number 1, 3rd Win Wimbledon... the rest was less important (only the french got away hehe, if only Timmy were still around, Pete was playing more on clay with him). Roger is going for more :) but I believe he will get lots of Winning streaks, hes a baseliner, its easier.

And as i said before, pete had a better backhand down the line than Roger and could change direction on the ball better than anyone else, he showed those two strengths when he had that small flash of brilliance at Wimbledon 01 against roger, when he exposed Rogers weakness of running around the forehand. But Rogers backhand is more consistent but its not necessarily better lol. Oh and he is a bit slower to the net, as Pete was a bit slower side to side.

angiel
03-11-2006, 06:14 PM
S & V is for Pete, no problem with that, but in all other parts of the game, Roger is simply better :) and could you remember me when Pete has such great years like Roger in 04 and 05 ? :o :angel: :) Don't be pissed off mate, Pete remains one of the greatest :wavey:


Dont pissed you off you say, but do you know that this is Pete Sampras thread you are in, just mine your manners okay, do you see any of us coming on Federer thread and disrespecting him, if you really want to stay here, be very careful with your language my friend, I am entitled to my opinions just like you are, and we agree to disagree, do you get that - you say Roger is better, and i say Pete is better, so what is your problem, cant I disagree with you, yes i can and I will, dont to the dumb person can see that Roger is Playing into a very weaker era than Pete was, and if you cant see that, find somewhere else to rant or rage - -- :devil: :devil: :mad: :o



You dont like to hear the truth, that is not my fault, but yours, Pete was a true artist of the game - show me who it great in Roger time. :o :mad:

He dont remain one of the greatest, he is the greatest, and until Federer surpass him, then you can talk to us here, thank you. :wavey: :wavey:

angiel
03-11-2006, 06:19 PM
S & V is for Pete, no problem with that, but in all other parts of the game, Roger is simply better :) and could you remember me when Pete has such great years like Roger in 04 and 05 ? :o :angel: :) Don't be pissed off mate, Pete remains one of the greatest :wavey:


And one more thing JMPower, to play the game of S & V you have to can play every part of the game, damn fool. :o :devil: :mad: :sad:

angiel
03-11-2006, 06:31 PM
You are so right natural, JMPower just cant see that, but that's his problems not ours, the guy is a fool and dont like to hear the truth, like a lot of others who love to bash Pete, both Pete & Roger play at differnet game, and a lot of people cant see that, Pete style of play is a dieing breed, S & V, if you look on the tour today, there is nobody playing S & V, all baseliners including Federer, of course the game is easier playing that style of game - it is much harder to play S & V in today's game......


JMPower seem to think, he is the only one who know about tennis :o :o are ever watch a tennis match in his life :mad: :mad: he keep talking about how much Roger won in 04 and 05, yes he won all those matches, but against who?? really now, even when he won wimbledon last year, a journalist was saying the same thing about his winning, who did he really beat, compare to sampras in his days, people needs to start think on these thing, before they start claiming he is the best, give Nadal a chance to develop and he is going to make life very difficult Roger...... :wavey: :wavey: :D :worship:

angiel
03-11-2006, 07:45 PM
THIS IS ANOTHER FOR JMPower to read.............



Pete Sampras began his path to all-time greatness as a raw 19-year-old kid in 1990 when he became the youngest US Open champion in history. Thirteen more Grand Slam singles titles have followed, making Sampras the most successful player in history. STEVE FLINK traces the amazing journey from rookie to Grand Slam master by analyzing each of his 14 triumphs.

the_natural
03-12-2006, 08:36 AM
I still Say Roger will Surpass Pete, but I will always love pete more regardless. I also think Nadal's style of play is TOO physical, and Federer will lose the first couple of matches but eventually will dominate unless Nadal can find a more sustainable style of play for his everyday matches. His Foot injury made him cry too, i think he means that it could have been career threatening, this is something that wont be as bad for Roger as Nadal, because Nadal needs to chase down lots of shots.

I dont really like watching Federer play, even when hes playing his best, i only like the Haas and the Safin AO matches, those two I liked, not even the End of year when he lost to David, the French Open wasnt too great either. or the loss to gasguet. I guess im not into his style. But I do see what everyone else loves, and I do see how one can admire the finesse and the way he will wait and construct points.

His biggest weapon is not his forehand, THEY are his feet.

bokehlicious
03-12-2006, 10:38 AM
:lol: Angiel why are you so defensive ? That's funny indeed, just by not kissing Pete's ass and pretending Roger has a more complete game I am a fool...

Don't worry mate, I let you here with the few Pete fans suck Pete's cock and I won't bother you anymore in here :angel: :wavey:

wimbledonfan
03-12-2006, 03:29 PM
Pete Sampras would have exposed a part of Rogers game like no other player would have .

Tim Henman, still to this day, has a winning record against Roger and still troubles him when they play eachother (tim beat him in an expo last year ) which says a lot about what Pete would have done .

I don't care what anyone says , but when you have a serve as deadly and as accurate as Pete possessed , you could beat any player on any single day .

A journalist once interviewed Pete during a charity golf event and asked him who he thought would have won at wimbledon had they played eachother in there respective primes and Pete said that a part of him thinks he would win because Roger likes to stay back at the baseline .

angiel
03-13-2006, 04:11 PM
:lol: Angiel why are you so defensive ? That's funny indeed, just by not kissing Pete's ass and pretending Roger has a more complete game I am a fool...

Don't worry mate, I let you here with the few Pete fans suck Pete's cock and I won't bother you anymore in here :angel: :wavey:


Dont you get it you jackass, and why are you even on this board, with your foul language, get lost - and stay there will you, who's ass are you kissing? :devil: :mad: :o


I am not been defensive, you are been rude, if you dont like my opinions, find somewhere else to go, dont Roger has a message board too - go there man. :devil: :mad:

angiel
03-13-2006, 04:15 PM
Thank you much wimbledon, you seen to have some sense, a lot of people can't see what you say, are refuse to see, Roger would have a very hard time beating Pete Sampras, his serve alone would be a lot to handle day in day out on the tour. :wavey: :D :worship:

angiel
03-13-2006, 04:19 PM
natural, dont be so sure that Federer will surpass Sampras, a lot could happen in the next couple of years my friend, and until he do so, fine, the other players will figure out a way to beat Roger, watch and see. :wavey: :D How was your weekend, have a G-day. :wavey: :angel:

angiel
03-13-2006, 04:47 PM
Is Federer the best ever?
Tennis greats debate current No. 1’s place in history




Leighton Ginn
The Desert Sun
March 12, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDIAN WELLS - Greatness in tennis is defined differently by various players.

Rod Laver, the only man to win the Grand Slam twice, said greatness begins simply by winning.

Pete Sampras, the winner of a record 14 Grand Slam titles, said it's excellence over a long period of time, where a player wins majors, big matches and defend titles.

"If you do all those things and do it for a long period of time, I think that makes you a legend," said Sampras, a Palm Desert resident and investor in the Pacific Life Open.

One thing many of the greatest players in history agree with is that Roger Federer appears on his way to placing himself among the greatest ever.

"If he stays healthy, and doesn't make so much money where he does not want to stay on track, he'll establish records to show he might be the best we've seen to date," said Hall of Famer Jack Kramer. "He's a great, great champion and he's still a kid."

At 24, Federer has won seven Grand Slam titles, including the last three. Federer was so dominant last year that he went 81-4, falling short of John McEnroe's single-season record at 82-3.

"I think he's already up there with his results," Sampras said. "I don't see anyone pushing him. There's a couple of guys playing better, but at the end of the day, Roger is head and shoulders above everyone else playing, so I see him dominating for as long as he wants too."

When Kramer talks about the greatest players in each era, he qualifies his answer by the fact the game has changed so much during each eras.



There's also a hint of skepticism in Kramer's voice as he talks about how the game has changed because of the racket technology. With the lighter rackets, players can generate so much power from the baseline that it's harder for players to come to the net.

"I've always felt that champions would be champions of any age," Kramer said. "If (the older champions) had modern equipment, they're so light, they could do more than we could with heavy rackets.

"Now, seeing Roger play, I've never seen someone do so much of all the people I've watched."

Looking for a rival

Federer has been so dominant for the past three years that no one has really stood up to him for any extended period of time.

"As good as Roger is, people want to see him tested," said Andy Roddick, who lost to Federer in the finals of Wimbledon the last two years. "You want there to be the Boston Celtics for the Lakers, you want there to be Red Sox for the Yankees."

Jimmy Connors, who had his own legendary battles with John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg, said rivalries are the lifeblood of the sport.

The player who has emerged as a possible rival is Rafael Nadal, the 19-year-old French Open champion who is No. 2 in the rankings.

Nadal owns a 3-1 record against Federer and could be a road block to the glaring omission on Federer's resume, a French Open title.

If Federer could win at Roland Garros, he would become the sixth player to win all four Grand Slam tournaments. And if Federer can win the French Open this year, he would complete a calendar-year Grand Slam.

"I saw him at the French and he has what it takes on the clay - the heart and the grit and the determination - to do well there," Sampras said. "He has the game and he's going to be a threat there for years to come. For Roger, that will be his biggest challenge, the French, even though he grew up on the clay. There's so many good clay court players that things will really have to fall in place for him to win there."

Roddick has a chance to be Federer's biggest rival on tennis' grandest stage, Wimbledon. The two have met in the last two finals at Wimbledon.

Despite having one of the best serves and a dominating forehand, Roddick has not found a way to put pressure on Federer as his 1-10 record indicates.

Roddick said Federer might be in his head, which might have set back the top American.

"I made adjustments with him in mind," Roddick said. "You have to make adjustments in mind and apply them to (Federer) and not lose what you're doing against other people. I still have to find a way to get there. (The adjustments) wasn't solely for him, but a lot of it was done with him in mind. I think that's the pressure, to his credit, that he has put on all of the guys."

Sampras agrees.

"I think there are guys who can push him, but on a consistent level, I don't know," said Sampras, who had a legendary rivalry with Andre Agassi. "There's not really anyone I see that's 'Wow, this is going to be a tough match for Roger.' They're just guys who can push him, but at the end of the day he'll come through and will probably win more of these matches than he's going to lose them."

Steady focus

Not only will Federer have to worry about rivals coming up, he might also have to worry about himself.

Larry Stefanki, who coached Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Marcelo Rios to the No. 1 ranking, thought Federer looked off at the Australian Open.

"Roger can be lackadaisical and doesn't want to move, and he can fall into a trap," Stefanki said. "I don't think he can play worse than Australia and he got away with a lot. It was shocking.

"I think he's on cruise control at the moment. He also has the aura of Roger, so everyone has bought into that scene. It's a double plus for him."

However, Sampras, who set the record for most weeks at No. 1 at 286, sees similarities between himself and Federer.

"I think he has a great attitude. He doesn't get too high or too low on wins or losses," Sampras said. "He has a pretty stoic attitude, a lot like I had, where it's easier to maintain that level of play, keeping it simple. He just goes out there and gets that job done.

"Being from Switzerland, he doesn't have that American media pressure that I faced a little bit or what Tim Henman faced in Great Britain. He's under the radar screen when it comes to the media and feeling that (pressure)."

angiel
03-20-2006, 11:30 PM
TENNIS-X NEWS, NOTES, QUOTES AND BARBS




Roger Federer on following Pete Sampras' lead of setting himself apart from other players, this week in IW choosing to not stay at the player hotel: "I never knew how (Sampras) was going at his tennis really because it was more or less a secret for us players. We hardly ever saw him in the locker room. I didn't speak to him too much because we were too far apart I guess in age. I wasn't playing well enough deep into the tournaments so we could even hang out together. I now see why he's not hanging out in the locker room. He wasn't. It just gets too much sometimes. You don't want to share everything with all the other players sometimes. When you are there, then you want to have a good time, but only for a short period of time. That's what I've realized over the years. You know, maybe that's what Pete was doing also. Andre (Agassi) was the same. Everybody wants something from you, wants you at the grounds. You always try to stay away as much as possible."

angiel
03-22-2006, 10:16 PM
Posted on Wed, Mar. 22, 2006

Style & substance

No. 1 Roger Federer dominates other top players, but a genuine rivalry exists with flashy No. 2 Rafael Nadal.

BY MICHELLE KAUFMAN
mkaufman@MiamiHerald.com


The first sign Roger Federer might have met his nemesis came two years ago, in a third-round match in Key Biscayne. Rafael Nadal, 17 years old at the time and ranked No. 34, biceps bulging from his red sleeveless shirt, left world No. 1 Federer's head spinning with a 6-3, 6-3 victory that took just more than an hour.

It wasn't just Nadal's strength and quickness that unsettled Federer, it was his blistering, left-handed shots loaded with topspin -- especially his crosscourt forehand, bouncing way up on Federer's shoulder, the one spot that exposes the tiniest of holes in Federer's game.

Federer and Nadal met again on that same Crandon Park court for the NASDAQ-100 Open final last March, and the swashbuckling Spaniard nearly pulled off another shocker, going up two sets to one and 4-1 in the third before Federer rallied for a 2-6, 6-7 (4-7), 7-6 (7-5), 6-3, 6-1 victory.

Nadal went on to beat Federer in the French Open semifinals and again last month in Dubai, ensuring the men are bona fide rivals as they enter the 2006 NASDAQ-100 Open, which begins today.

Federer is 10-1 against Andy Roddick and has won nine straight against Lleyton Hewitt, but he is 1-3 against Nadal, which makes for the kind of rivalry tennis has been starving for since Pete Sampras took his final bow after beating Andre Agassi in the 2002 U.S. Open final.

In the past 15 months, Federer and Nadal have separated themselves from the rest of the men on tour, combining for four of five Grand Slam titles and nine of 10 Masters Series titles.

''I think the potential is there for this to become a great rivalry, because Nadal has gotten somewhat into Federer's head by winning three of their four matches, and almost winning at NASDAQ last year,'' TV analyst Patrick McEnroe said. ``But for it to become a big rivalry like Sampras-Agassi or my brother [John] and [Jimmy] Connors, Nadal needs to do something outside the French. He needs to make a major run at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open. Federer has won seven majors and Nadal has won one.''

Said Agassi: ``I think it would be nearly impossible for anybody to dominate in the nature that Roger has over the last few years. It's great to see that the one person that's probably closest to him is actually a difficult matchup for Roger. Nadal can hit the one shot that everybody wishes they could hit to Roger, and that's the ball up and get it over his backhand side. I mean, that's not brain surgery. Nobody likes it up here. So, it's great to see the matchup that lends for a rivalry that might continue for a long time.''

OPPOSITES ATTRACT

It is still far too early to compare Federer-Nadal with the Bjorn Borg vs. John McEnroe rivalry, or Connors-McEnroe, or Sampras-Agassi, who played each other 34 times, including in five major finals. But there is no question the court sizzles when Nadal takes on Federer.

The contrast in personalities and styles are the stuff rivalries are made of. Federer is clean-cut, and his every move is measured and precise. When Nadal steps on the Crandon Park courts, it looks like he just walked over from the beach with his Coppertone tan, calf-length pirate pants, muscle shirt and bandanna. Nadal plays with reckless abandon, chasing down everything and sending dizzying shots into the places Federer prefers not to go.

''This is a pure, sweet growing rivalry, and the beauty of it is that their games are so different,'' TV analyst Mary Carillo said. ``Nadal gets after Federer's backhand, and the ball bounces up at Federer's shoulder, which is a problem for him. Federer is going to have to come in more and take it to him at the net, and Nadal wants long rallies. Not since Borg-McEnroe have we seen, stylistically, such a fun matchup. It's going to be great.

``Last year's NASDAQ final was really when it started. We all knew Nadal was a clay-court specialist, but here he was, taking on a great hard courter and the No. 1 player in the world, and that match was Nadal's declaration that, `Hey, if you think I'm just a teenager who's good on clay, think again.''

SPECIAL PROBLEM

Federer, always diplomatic, insisted he respects many players on tour but admitted that Nadal presents unique obstacles.

''I enjoy the challenge with him,'' Federer said. ``He's a terrific scrambler, and he brings something else to the game as a great left-hander, and we don't have many of those. I consider that a tough thing to do, to play against a good lefty. The more matches I play against him, also it's going to be easier for both of us to know.''

Despite his winning record against the world No. 1, Nadal remains humble and insists theirs is not yet a true rivalry.

''I don't think so,'' Nadal said. ``I am very young, and he is an unbelievable player, one of the best in history and the best player now by far. If you look at the ranking, if you look at the points, if you look at the grand slam titles, we don't have competition.''
email thisprint this

Hank777
03-25-2006, 09:19 AM
Birthdate Sampras: August 12, 1971
Birthdate Federer: August 8, 1981

Winning % Sampras: 0.773 (437-128)
Winning % Federer: 0.765 (391-120)

Titles Sampras: 36
Titles Federer: 33

Year Sampras' Reign began: at the 1993 Wimbledon contest(it was his 5th Wimbledon competition and the 17th major he had entered)
Year Federer's Reign began: at the 2003 Wimbledon contest (it was his 5th Wimbledon and the 17th major he had entered)

Sampras' peak period: Won 6 out of 10 majors 1993 Wimbledon to 1995 US Open
Federer's peak period: Won 6 out of 10 majors 2003 Wimbledon to 2005 US Open

Sampras' Grand Slam record: 1 Australian Open, 3 Wimbledon titles, 2 US Open titles
Federer's Grand Slam record: 1 Australian Open, 3 Wimbledon titles, 2 US Open titles

Wimbledon Sampras: 1993-1995
Wimbledon Federer: 2003-2005

Major stumble Sampras: Roland Garros, 3 quarterfinals
Major stumble Federer: Roland Garros, semifinal, quarterfinal, 4th round

Masters Cup Sampras: 1991, 1994
Masters Cup Federer: 2003, 2004

Sampras at No. 1 slot: 109 weeks
Federer at No. 1 slot: 100 weeks

Wow, these STATS are spooky, talk about similarities ... wow.

Still I don't know, my impression is that Feds is becoming such an immaculate player, I mean, really usually if he enters an event he wins it !

Still I guess Pete in 1994 was perceived the same, still to be honest I'd be interested how it develops.

FORECAST:

I think ultimately Federer will win more titles than PETE, but whether he wins as many Grand Slams, I don't know, Wimbies same thing.

He ... I do hope Pete stays Mr. 14 GS :cool: :worship:

angiel
03-25-2006, 06:05 PM
Wow, these STATS are spooky, talk about similarities ... wow.

Still I don't know, my impression is that Feds is becoming such an immaculate player, I mean, really usually if he enters an event he wins it !

Still I guess Pete in 1994 was perceived the same, still to be honest I'd be interested how it develops.

FORECAST:

I think ultimately Federer will win more titles than PETE, but whether he wins as many Grand Slams, I don't know, Wimbies same thing.

He ... I do hope Pete stays Mr. 14 GS :cool: :worship:

:wavey: Hi there , and how are you, nice seeing you here with us, a big welcome :worship: :angel:

Anything can happen in sports these days, and i agree, I want Pete to stays Mr. GS too, hope it happens, cheers. :angel: :D

angiel
05-26-2006, 09:11 PM
Federer: Sampras still the best
2006-05-26 09:13:11




Paris - Roger Federer pays attention to what people think he maintains that despite not winning on clay Pete Sampras had the best career of any player. Paris - Roger Federer pays attention to what people think.

He hears what's said about his game, his legacy. He also considers what's said about Pete Sampras, the player to whom his skills, drive and body of work are most often compared.

If he never does manage to win the French Open, the only Grand Slam tournament he's yet to conquer, Federer will leave himself open to the same sort of criticism levelled at Sampras for never mastering the red clay of Roland Garros.

"Many people take away things from Sampras because he never won the French, saying his career was not complete, which I totally don't agree with. I think he had the best career of any player ever. So to say his career is not complete, that is not fair," Federer said in a telephone interview.

"But it still leaves the door open for attacks on him. Because they say he was maybe the best on grass, hard courts and indoor, but not the best on clay. I really don't think it's fair. That's why I really hope one day I can win the French and be one of the elite group who won all four."

When play starts at the French Open on Sunday Federer will be trying to become the sixth man with a career Grand Slam.

He'll also be bidding to win his fourth straight major championship, following Wimbledon, the US Open and Australian Open, which would make him the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to hold all of the sport's top titles simultaneously.

Which is why, Federer said, "I've been thinking about the French Open since the end of January." That's right, from the moment he won the Australian Open for his seventh Slam title, Federer has been working on improving his conditioning, doing extra running, grinding through longer rallies in practice with visions of Paris in his head.

To collect that non-calendar Slam, though, Federer might very well have to beat the player who's his chief nemesis: Rafael Nadal, the Spaniard with the over-the-knees white shorts, the bulging biceps and bruising game.
Nadal, who turns 20 next week, will try to become the youngest player since Bjorn Borg in 1974-75 to win consecutive French Open titles.

The kid known as 'Rafa' - even Federer calls him that - provides a perfect foil for the Swiss. Federer plays a stylish, all-court game highlighted by spectacular shots that no one else would attempt. Nadal plays a counterpunching, power-based game that's all about imposing his will. Federer rarely betrays a shred of emotion. Nadal is never too far from a celebratory uppercut.

After beating Federer in a thrill-a-minute, five-set Rome Masters final this month, the number two-ranked Nadal felt compelled to say: "He's definitely, at the moment, better than any other player."

Federer blew two match points, then added some spice to the emerging rivalry by complaining that Nadal was getting coaching tips during the match, a no-no on tour.
News24/AP

angiel
07-19-2006, 12:23 AM
Who's Master Of the Grass?

By TOM PERROTTA
July 17, 2006


So who was better, Sampras or Federer? Before you lash out, we'll make it clear that we are not, at the moment, comparing careers. Pistol Pete wins that contest by a knockout - 14 Grand Slam titles beats eight, no matter one's loyalties.

But Roger Federer's fourth consecutive title at Wimbledon does present a fine opportunity to dabble in data. Sampras won four straight at the All England Club not too long ago, from 1997 to 2000, and now Federer has matched him (only Bjorn Borg and Willie Renshaw, in the late 1800s, won more consecutive titles). The staff at IBM in London have offered us match-by-match stats for Sampras and Federer's 28-match streaks, and it's clear that Federer has been the more dominant champion.

Consider the big picture (and the table, below). In his four years, Federer won 549 games and lost 312, a winning percentage of 63.8%. Sampras won 559 and lost 367, good for 60.4%. Federer outdid his opponents in sets 84-5 (94.4%), while Sampras put up a record of 81-12 (he played three fewer sets because Mark Philippoussis retired in the 1999 quarterfinal after winning the first set). And unlike the then 28-year-old Sampras, the 24-year-old Federer finished off his fourth consecutive title with a flourish - his most dominating performance yet. Federer won 58.5% of points at Wimbledon this year, his best percentage and better than any year Sampras had in his string of four.

No statistic more reveals Federer's advantage than service returns. Federer has won 41.6% of return points these past four years, compared to 37.8% for Sampras. He broke his opponent's serve 28 more times (132 to 104), an average of one more break per match. Federer has won an astonishing 49.6% of break points, compared to 39.8% percent for Sampras (not too shabby, it must be said).

On his serve, Federer nearly kept pace with Sampras, winning 72.6% of his serve points and losing his serve 25 times, compared to 75.3% and 18 breaks for Sampras. When it came time to save break points, Sampras carried the day, staving off defeat 80.9% of the time (76 of 94). Federer saved 72.8% (67 of 92). Sampras' serve, as one might expect, proved the more explosive of the two, producing 465 aces to Federer's 308. But it also proved more erratic. Sampras served 146 double faults, and average of 5.2 a match, compared to 50 for Federer. The defending champion served only five double faults at Wimbledon this year.

The numbers also illustrate the sharp differences in the tactics between these two men. Sampras won Wimbledon in the traditional attacking style: serving and volleying and playing more chips and slices as he pressed for an advantage at the net. Federer has killed with variety, though he has increasingly relied on his forehand rather than venturing forward.

How much of a decline has there been in Federer's forays to the net? In 2003, he finished 20% of his points at the net, winning 64.7% of them (176 of 272). The following year, he ended 16.3% of points at net, winning 70.6% of them; these figures dropped to 15.8% (65.6% winning percentage) in 2005 and 13.4% (71% winning percentage) this year. It's hard to argue with his results, though one gets the sense that the lack of a true rival on grass - before Rafael Nadal's emergence this year - has made Federer feeling quite secure in playing less than risky tennis.


Perhaps surprising to some, Sampras experienced the same trend during his four-year run. In 1997 and 1998, Sampras finished 40.8% and 38.5% of points at the net. In the next two years, those percentages decreased to 25.8% and 23.1%.

Even though these two men came to the court with insurmountable tennis every single match, there were a few tests along the way.

Sampras's most challenging opponent is no surprise. In the 1998 final, Goran Ivanisevic served 32 aces and took Sampras to five sets, 6-7(2) 7-6(11) 6-4 3-6 6-2. Sampras went five sets one other time, in a 1997 fourth round match against Petr Korda, 6-4 6-3 6-7(10) 6-7(1) 6-4. And who knows what might have happened in the 1999 quarterfinal had Philippoussis not retired? (Philippoussis continued his latest comeback yesterday with a 6-3, 7-5 victory over Justin Gimelstob in the final of Hall of Fame Tennis Championships in Newport, R.I.)

Federer has never needed more than four sets for a victory. Andy Roddick pushed him in the 2004 final, when rain interrupted play. Nicolas Kiefer, a regular troublemaker for Federer, unsettled him several times during the third round last year, taking the only set off the defending champion for the entire tournament.

Much to everyone's surprise, Federer's most difficult match the last four years came from Nadal, who seemed a likely candidate for a second-round loss against a qualifier before he found his game and reached the final. If Nadal had won that second set - well, never mind. Against Federer and Sampras on grass, "if" is usually as good as anyone can do

angiel
09-18-2006, 03:29 PM
Sept. 17, 2006, 9:45PM
TENNIS NOTEBOOK
Federer may be in his own league
Swiss player in line to break record for weeks at No. 1


By DALE ROBERTSON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

The numbers don't lie. Roger Federer has enjoyed the best three-year run of the Open era. Statistically, it's easy to build a case for him as the most dominant player of the almost four decades since the pros were first embraced by the tennis establishment.

Just five times in 39 years have players won three of the four Slams in the same year. (Rod Laver, of course, won all four in 1969.) Federer has done it twice in three years while becoming the first man since Laver to reach each of the four finals.

And, short of his forgetting how to play, on Feb. 26, 2007, he will break Jimmy Connors' record for most consecutive weeks at No. 1. It would be the Swiss' 161st in a row.

But does all this make him the greatest? Federer could be.

Even the crustiest of old-timers marvel at his myriad gifts. Where the debate starts, though, is over the caliber of the competition he's crushing.

Almost everybody agrees men's tennis has never been deeper through the top 100 — or 200, for that matter — but the quality of the players near the top seems suspect, certainly below Rafael Nadal.

No. 3 Ivan Ljubicic, to cite the most extreme example, first advanced as far as the semifinals of a Grand Slam this year at the age of 27.

With Andre Agassi retired, Federer's nine Slam titles, all won since Wimbledon 2003, are only five shy of the 14 won by all other active players combined. But of the 14, just three belong to players currently in the top 10: Nadal's two at the French Open and Andy Roddick's at the U.S. Open.

"I'm disappointed his competition doesn't give him more of a run for his money," said Boris Becker, who won Wimbledon four times, a feat Federer, 25, from Switzerland, has matched. "One way to give him a hard time is to pressure him. If he has time, he's unbeatable. But you don't have a (Patrick) Rafter, a (Stefan) Edberg or a (Pete) Sampras now."

Or a Boris Becker. When Sampras started accumulating his record 14 majors, he was having to go through the aforementioned plus Agassi and Jim Courier.

What can inarguably be said of Federer is that no player in modern times has so thoroughly separated himself from his peers (save Nadal, obviously) over such an extended period. And whether the trend continues in 2007 seems to rest on what Nadal and Roddick can do to close the gap.

Both have been Wimbledon finalists. Roddick's got his Open crown. Each is young enough to still have his best tennis ahead of him. Nadal, of course, is already the superior clay-court player and should become a major nuisance on the Open's hard courts, if he can keep his strength up into September as he matures. Roddick matched Federer almost shot for shot for two sets in the final last week, showing he's headed back to where he should be in the pecking order.

Pete Sampras won eight of his Slams between 1990 and 1995. It took him seven more years to collect the final six. Federer, in theory, should start facing rougher sledding in 2007.

Then the "greatest" debate will come into focus.

the_natural
09-25-2006, 02:57 PM
thats quite an accurate fair article, and thank you very much Boris.

angiel
09-26-2006, 05:01 PM
thats quite an accurate fair article, and thank you very much Boris.


Roger competition is so weak natural. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

angiel
09-26-2006, 05:03 PM
‘Federer and Nadal, nothing compared to Sampras’

Satya Siddharth Rath
Monday, September 25, 2006 23:41 IST




Tour veteran Carlos Moya, with over 500 singles wins, says he doesn’t see an early ending to his ATP career.

MUMBAI: He has been to India many times, though this is only his second visit to Mumbai. The first time, it was for a promotional event; now, it is to test his ageing skills at the Kingfisher Airlines Tennis Open.

“I always enjoy coming to India,” says Carlos Moya. “I have been coming to the Chennai ATP event every year. Yes, it’s quite hot and humid here, but then I’ve experienced it before so it’s not a problem for me.

I have carried home some happy memories from this country. I’m looking forward to a good outing here.”

The former world number one, with a current world ranking of 43 but seeded fifth here, has his first test against up-and-coming Argentinean Juan Martin Del Potro. “I will take it step by step. The first round is always tricky. He’s a fairly decent player. It should be a good fight,” the veteran Spaniard says.

Though he has been on the Tour for close to 11 years now, he’s still scared of leaving the game. “I can’t think of a life beyond tennis. It still seems like yesterday. True, the Tour calender has become much more tough and competitive now, and frequent travelling does take a toll on your body. But that’s nothing compared to what the game has given me,” his tone takes a philosophical note.

“Things were different in the 90s. There were quite a few great players like (Pete) Sampras, (Boris) Becker, (Andre) Agassi, (Patrick) Rafter with virtually the same kind of skills. They were all in the same league. But today, there’s a big gap between the top two-three players and the rest. See (Roger) Federer and (Rafael) Nadal. There is hardly anyone who can come close to them,” he says.

But for him, Sampras was and always will remain the best. “He was a class apart. Federer and Nadal are good, but not in his league,” Moya says.

And he does feel that Federer is not unbeatable. “Nadal has beaten him twice this year. Murray beat him recently. He’s after all human. He has his weaknesses,” he says.

For Moya, his 500th singles win on Tour did come as a surprise. “When I started off, I never knew I’d reach this far. But now I think maybe I can notch up my 600th win. Yes, I am old enough, but even at this age I can still prove a handful for many younger players,” he says.

Moya, who won the French Open crown in 1998 - his only Grand Slam title — and was world number one for a brief period in 1999. However, he doesn’t rate these achievements as much as being part of his country’s triumphant Davis Cup squad. “The Davis Cup (over US in 2004) win means much more to me than a Grand Slam crown or a world number one ranking,” he says.

And no, he hasn’t thought of retirement yet. “There’s still a long journey ahead. Once I am through it all, I will sit down quietly and relax for some time. Beyond that I haven’t planned yet,” he goes philosophical again.

the_natural
09-29-2006, 06:30 AM
Awww First Juan Carlos Ferrero and now Moya, Those spanish guys are so sweet :D but you know Moya could easily have hated Pete because Pete beat him at the Aussie open in 97 Which was Moya's starting tournament and the biggest victories in his careers came there. I wonder if its because of the way Pete fought against Alex Corretja? Maybe that is why they respect him?

And JCF is from Federers era and never played sampras but Moya had a losing record against sampras when they played in the same era, so people might say moya is biased because of that fact, but they cant say that about JCF :P I dont think hes biased, Especially since Moya loves Nadal like a son.

Mimi
09-29-2006, 07:08 AM
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bigclap: all hail moya, thank you so much for giving pete credit, of which many posters do not ;)

Greg-Pete fan
09-29-2006, 08:26 AM
And JCF is from Federers era and never played sampras but Moya had a losing record against sampras when they played in the same era, so people might say moya is biased because of that fact, but they cant say that about JCF :P I dont think hes biased, Especially since Moya loves Nadal like a son.

You are right about Ferrero the natural, but I remember that they played one exhibition match (probably in Kooyong Classic), but I don`t know who was a winner of this match.

angiel
09-29-2006, 10:23 PM
Awww First Juan Carlos Ferrero and now Moya, Those spanish guys are so sweet :D but you know Moya could easily have hated Pete because Pete beat him at the Aussie open in 97 Which was Moya's starting tournament and the biggest victories in his careers came there. I wonder if its because of the way Pete fought against Alex Corretja? Maybe that is why they respect him?

And JCF is from Federers era and never played sampras but Moya had a losing record against sampras when they played in the same era, so people might say moya is biased because of that fact, but they cant say that about JCF :P I dont think hes biased, Especially since Moya loves Nadal like a son.



Pete is the best, and until I see Roger do something better than him, all this Roger this and Roger that is just talk, and as they say talk is cheap so let talk guys.:worship: :worship: :D