Federer vs Sampras on youtube [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer vs Sampras on youtube

lordmanji
09-13-2006, 06:29 AM
their match from wimbledon in 2001. http://youtube.com/watch?v=yR1XO9k-svo

federer has no court presence, his footwork is a quarter of what it is now as is the rest of his game. yet it went to four sets to federer.

robinhood
09-13-2006, 06:33 AM
He won in five sets.

lordmanji
09-13-2006, 06:35 AM
He won in five sets.

oops. you're right. i was going from memory and i guess i misheard.

here's the final score: 7-6(7) 5-7 6-4 6-7(2) 7-5

robinhood
09-13-2006, 06:38 AM
:D

By the way, thanks for the link, manji.

soothsayer
09-13-2006, 06:43 AM
It's weird to see Roger serve and volley so much. It's almost a bit boring.

lordmanji
09-13-2006, 06:47 AM
I wouldnt say young Federer beat Sampras when Sampras was in a major slump. These are Sampras' finlalist finishings (not titles) that same year, 2001: Indian Wells TMS, Long Island, Los Angeles, US Open Any player would be lucky to have such a "slump." And if a younger inexperienced Fed could beat Sampras slightly below his prime, I'd say Fed would whup Sampras 9 out of 10 times.

The link is just for 4th set but surprisingly Fed nearly kept up in ace department with Pete and won alot of his points at net. Perhaps Fed's statement that he likes beating players at their own game has credence here.

Mimi
09-13-2006, 07:52 AM
just one match cannot decide who is greater, wasn't Murray beat Federer this year? does this mean Murray is greater than Federer ;)?

I wouldnt say young Federer beat Sampras when Sampras was in a major slump. These are Sampras' titles that same year, 2001: Indian Wells TMS, Long Island, Los Angeles, US Open Any player would be lucky to have such a "slump." And if a younger inexperienced Fed could beat Sampras slightly below his prime, I'd say Fed would whup Sampras 9 out of 10 times.

The link is just for 4th set but surprisingly Fed nearly kept up in ace department with Pete and won alot of his points at net. Perhaps Fed's statement that he likes beating players at their own game has credence here.

Gogo123
09-13-2006, 08:10 AM
just one match cannot decide who is greater, wasn't Murray beat Federer this year? does this mean Murray is greater than Federer ;)?
But they played each other twice (H2H tied at 1-1) and Federer won his match by losing one game less...so this means that Federer is better :p

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-13-2006, 08:14 AM
It's hardly the same thing, Mimi. He played Fed in a tournament which judging by Fed's body language and play obviously meant nothing to Fed.

If Murray beats Fed on Centre Court next year, when Fed is obviously giving it his everything, then you can start talking. :)

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-13-2006, 08:17 AM
BTW I wouldn't be too hard on Pete. I think he would probably lose because Fed takes down big servers all the time. But he wasn't a choker like Fed is and I think he'd be a bad matchup for Nadal on any surface other than clay...

shrudy
09-13-2006, 09:08 AM
I wouldnt say young Federer beat Sampras when Sampras was in a major slump. These are Sampras' titles that same year, 2001: Indian Wells TMS, Long Island, Los Angeles, US Open Any player would be lucky to have such a "slump." And if a younger inexperienced Fed could beat Sampras slightly below his prime, I'd say Fed would whup Sampras 9 out of 10 times.


ummm you really should do some basic research before posting such tripe. Pete won NO titles in 2001. And yes, for Pete Sampras, that is an absolute slump. And therefore, really, you can not claim Sampras was "slightly" below his prime, he was FAR below it. and really there goes your whole 9 out of 10 bs if both players are in their prime.

oz_boz
09-13-2006, 09:25 AM
ummm you really should do some basic research before posting such tripe. Pete won NO titles in 2001. And yes, for Pete Sampras, that is an absolute slump. And therefore, really, you can not claim Sampras was "slightly" below his prime, he was FAR below it. and really there goes your whole 9 out of 10 bs if both players are in their prime.

:rolleyes: I wonder who really should do "some basic research".

deliveryman
09-13-2006, 10:02 AM
ummm you really should do some basic research before posting such tripe. Pete won NO titles in 2001. And yes, for Pete Sampras, that is an absolute slump. And therefore, really, you can not claim Sampras was "slightly" below his prime, he was FAR below it. and really there goes your whole 9 out of 10 bs if both players are in their prime.

ROFL.

BlueSwan
09-13-2006, 10:11 AM
BTW I wouldn't be too hard on Pete. I think he would probably lose because Fed takes down big servers all the time. But he wasn't a choker like Fed is and I think he'd be a bad matchup for Nadal on any surface other than clay...
Exactly, tennis is abaout matchups. Sampras played an aggressive serve-and-volley game and really went for his shots instead of just staying in rallies. Nadal hates playing players like that, while Federer seems to thrive against those kind of players. Therefore I'm quite positive that Sampras would have dominated Nadal on every medium to fast paced surface.

However, it is not given that Federer would have dominated Sampras. True, Federer hardly ever loses to players who play the game in the same vein as Sampras, but let's not forget that Sampras is a whole other caliber of player than todays representatives of a somewhat similar style. If I had to pick one, I'd pick Federer, but it's not an easy choice to make, given the incredible hold game Sampras had.

Mimi
09-13-2006, 10:14 AM
its truth that pete won no title in 2001, he won wimb 2000, it took him 2 years that he won another title, and which is his final one: the 2002 us open :wavey:
:rolleyes: I wonder who really should do "some basic research".

oz_boz
09-13-2006, 10:25 AM
:rolleyes: I wonder who really should do "some basic research".

Ouch.

I guess being a finalist doesn't really count as winning a title...

Sorry mimi, shrudy

Me -> :silly:

bokehlicious
09-13-2006, 10:29 AM
I guess being a finalist doesn't really count as winning a title...


If it did then Roger would have achieved the calendar Slam this year :cool: :sad:

Norrage
09-13-2006, 10:37 AM
Sampras played a 5-setter against the number 10000000 of the world 2 rounds before that...You can hardly call Sampras "on form" that day... -__-

kronus12
09-13-2006, 10:59 AM
bah sampras was the defending champion and if you watch the game properly he was actually playing well against fed also he was the defending champion only krajaeck or whateva his name was beat pete when he was dominating.
Not just anyone beats pete on grass.

shrudy
09-13-2006, 11:12 AM
Not just anyone beats pete on grass.

unless of course you're the mighty George Bastl.

shrudy
09-13-2006, 11:15 AM
ROFL.

still laughin? it's amazing how bereft of recent knowledge some ppl are on here.

Halba
09-13-2006, 11:16 AM
those days its hardly surprising players can lose on grass...it was a quicker surface then...and breaks of serve are rare...only takes a few points for the returner and he's got a crucial service break...almost pot luck really

And as we know hardly surprising that Fed beat Pete when he was just 19 years of age.... :p.


Maybe Gasquet, Baghdatis or Murray can lift their level to near-Fed level?? :confused:

oz_boz
09-13-2006, 11:41 AM
Take 2 on this thread:

Pete was obviously on his way down. He still went to the final of Indian Wells and USO the very same year, was ranked 6th at the time.

And Federer was obviously not in his prime either. Biggest results of the year was QF in Miami, MC, RG and Wimbly.

I think that it would have been a very close match between them in their primes. On today's slower grass, I'd hold Fed the slight favourite, on the grass of the 90's, maybe Pete.

wimbledonfan
09-13-2006, 01:24 PM
Watch the match on youtube , you'll notice that even Fed had a hard time handling Petes serve . Pete robbed him of his time which he managed to do against all of his opponents . Pete always managed to string together a couple great return of service games which is all he needed .

The reason why I think Pete would win on a fast surface is because Fed does have a tendency to lose his serve once in a while . He wasn't as consistent with holding his serve as Pete was . As long as Pete could hold serve , you would have to beat him on tiebreakers and we all know that he had the best tiebreak record in the history of the sport .

Dirk
09-13-2006, 02:15 PM
just one match cannot decide who is greater, wasn't Murray beat Federer this year? does this mean Murray is greater than Federer ;)?

um no because both men played awful while Pete and Roger played very well.

feuselino
09-13-2006, 03:49 PM
Man that point at 0-1, 0:0, Roger serving... brilliant technique from both guys... :worship:

bokehlicious
09-13-2006, 04:14 PM
um no because both men played awful while Pete and Roger played very well.

And Cincy is NOT Wimbledon :)

lordmanji
09-13-2006, 04:58 PM
oh sorry about saying that he won those titles you guys. i pulled it from the ATP website and at the top at the left it says "SINGLES TITLS" but at the middle all the way to the right it says "FINALIST."

lol anyway, being a finalist in all those events esp. a masters series and a grand slam isnt exactly what i'd call a big slump.

Polikarpov
09-15-2006, 02:51 AM
I think this is a pretty fair match since it featured a Sampras two years past his prime and a Federer two years before his prime. :)

Plus, it's on grass.

jacobhiggins
09-15-2006, 02:56 AM
I would always give the edge to Federer, just because he can handle Petes serve. That would be Petes biggest weapon against Federer and I think Federer would diffuse it!

atheneglaukopis
09-15-2006, 02:56 AM
If it did then Roger would have achieved the calendar Slam this year :cool: :sad:I'm all for it! ;)

Welcome to DENIAL. We hope you enjoy your stay.

playerhater
09-15-2006, 04:13 AM
yet it went to four sets to federer.

I wasn't following much tennis back then, and knew only that fed won this match, but thanks to that mistake, it had me thinking fed is going to break at any time or comeback from 2:6, and wow, that makes the match much more interesting.

PamV
09-15-2006, 05:51 AM
their match from wimbledon in 2001. http://youtube.com/watch?v=yR1XO9k-svo

federer has no court presence, his footwork is a quarter of what it is now as is the rest of his game. yet it went to four sets to federer.

I have the full match on DVD and during the match it was said that Sampras and Federer were like mirror images of themselves. They both played with a cool demeanor and with ice water in their veins during the big points. That was amazing given the fact that after the match Roger broke down and sobbed in his chair.

I remember when I saw the match live and at the time and I thought Roger was the sexiest player I'd ever seen.

PamV
09-15-2006, 05:58 AM
unless of course you're the mighty George Bastl.

At the time in 2001 Pete was ranked #6 in the world and Roger was ranked #15. Pete was playing well that day.

oz_boz
09-15-2006, 09:37 AM
I would always give the edge to Federer, just because he can handle Petes serve. That would be Petes biggest weapon against Federer and I think Federer would diffuse it!

Check out the video, and match stats: Sampras 26 aces, Fed 25. Fed's returns are possibly better nowadays, but he'd probably still struggle with Pete a lot more than he does against Roddick.

Modetopia
09-15-2006, 10:25 AM
Wimbledon 2001 R16 match stats
http://img1.imagetitan.com/img1/1/28/0372.jpg

TheMightyFed
09-15-2006, 11:30 AM
it's funny how Fed didn't push on those legs on serve at the time...

angiel
09-19-2006, 09:15 PM
I would always give the edge to Federer, just because he can handle Petes serve. That would be Petes biggest weapon against Federer and I think Federer would diffuse it!


And I would give Pete the edge, you know why he would not diffuse it, winning one time doesn't make it so, and there is more than just Pete serve my friend. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wavey:

silverarrows
09-20-2006, 04:48 AM
Wimbledon 2001 R16 match stats
http://img1.imagetitan.com/img1/1/28/0372.jpg






^^^ Stats says it all. ;)

jacobhiggins
09-20-2006, 06:08 AM
And I would give Pete the edge, you know why he would not diffuse it, winning one time doesn't make it so, and there is more than just Pete serve my friend. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wavey:

Of course there was more then just his serve, but Federer can return Petes serve. He wasn't in his prime when they played, but Pete never lost his serve and it was still as good as it always had been.

Federer just has more weapons and I don't think Pete can diffuse the ones Federer has as Federer could do to him!

wimbledonfan
09-20-2006, 01:33 PM
I'm certain that Pete would have had a better record against Nadal than Roger would have and it's possible Roger would have had more success against Pete had they played eachother . It's like a game of paper, rock and scissors .

Eden
12-05-2006, 11:17 PM
Here is an interesting interview with Pete after the match:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ssZg9wYUiw

Fedex
12-06-2006, 01:14 AM
^^^ Stats says it all. ;)
I'd be interested to know what the net points statistics are in this match. Federer really beat Sampras at his own game in that match, and I am pretty sure he was more successful at the net than Sampras.

GlennMirnyi
12-06-2006, 01:19 AM
51 aces... ah, the good old days.

Osama B Hitler
12-06-2006, 01:30 AM
People who think that 1 match proves that Federer would have dominated Sampras are just wrong.

However, the fact that the amazin' George Bastl beat Sampras in the 2002 Wimbledon, the same year Sampras won the U.S. Open over Agassi, certainly proves that Bastl was/is a better player than Sampras. No question.

NYCtennisfan
12-06-2006, 01:54 AM
The most amazing thing about this match is that Federer beat the King on grass on centre playing much differently than he does now. Sampras played a very good match hitting a very high % of his 1st serves in. He probably wins against everyone else that day.

How many players can say that they were able to so successfully change their strategy/gameplans overall and become even better?

GlennMirnyi
12-06-2006, 02:15 AM
The most amazing thing about this match is that Federer beat the King on grass on centre playing much differently than he does now. Sampras played a very good match hitting a very high % of his 1st serves in. He probably wins against everyone else that day.

How many players can say that they were able to so successfully change their strategy/gameplans overall and become even better?

On grass Federer used to S&V always 2003. I don't think he stopped doing that out of his head. I see him doing that out of necessity, when ATP decided to extinct S&V.

r2473
12-06-2006, 02:23 AM
I have the full match on DVD and during the match it was said that Sampras and Federer were like mirror images of themselves. They both played with a cool demeanor and with ice water in their veins during the big points. That was amazing given the fact that after the match Roger broke down and sobbed in his chair.

I remember when I saw the match live and at the time and I thought Roger was the sexiest player I'd ever seen.

I have the full match on DVD too. From what I see:

-It is true that Pete was on his downward slide that year. He was something like 18-12 entering that match. He did play a very close 5-setter against ?????, some 1000th ranked player or something. But you can toss that out the window. Pete played very well that day. Was it the match of his careeer? No. But he played very good tennis and won a lot of tough, gritty points.

-It is also true that Federer was not "Jesus Fed" at this point in his career. In fact, he has losing records against most of the top players at this point (which is why you see his head to head against many players is close even today, though he has not lost to many of these players in 3 or more years). But Fed played a very good match. Lots of brilliant points. A match to be very proud of indeed.

I think we all wish that Federer and Sampras played in the same era. The matchup would have made for some outstanding tennis. My gut feeling is, that apart from clay court (were Fed would win hands down), there was not a lot seperating the two. These guys would have shown us tennis at the highest level nearly everytime they met. The winner would have been decided on guts more times than not.

nkhera1
12-06-2006, 05:20 AM
It would be foolish to use this match as an indicator that Fed is better than Sampras as it is quite apparent that neither player is in their prime. As For Sampras's serve, Fed would not be able to read it and Sampras had so much action on his serve it would be hard for him to block it back like he does with Roddick. Sampras was the best player of his generation as is Federer of his generation and I believe every generation improves from the one before it so therefore Fed may be slightly better but I don't even know why this debate needs to exist.

Fedex
12-06-2006, 05:26 AM
but I don't even know why this debate needs to exist.
Because its the offseason and we need to find things to talk about. :p