It's Really Federer Vs Sampras [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

It's Really Federer Vs Sampras

angiel
12-12-2006, 08:38 PM
ESPN.com: Tennis

Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Updated: November 9, 12:00 PM ET
It's really Federer vs. Sampras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know you've had an amazing season when your biggest stumbling block was a bed. We speak of The King -- Roger Federer. Blogging from Tokyo in October, Rog wrote about how he woke up in the middle of the night "screaming in a state of shock" and proceeded to bang his leg on the sharp wood frame. That didn't stop him from winning the tournament, of course. Or the one after that, in Madrid. Or the one after that, in Basel.


The guy is devouring tournaments like Pac Man with a serious case of the munchies.


As Federer heads into the season-ending Masters Cup next week, which pits the top eight players in round-robin competition, he won't be playing for the No. 1 ranking -- he locked that up months ago. And though Rafa and Roddick will be gunning for him, Federer's stiffest competition is against the player he's most compared to, one of his childhood heroes, Pete Sampras.


Forget Federer and Nadal. The most important rivalry in tennis is between Federer and Sampras. There certainly isn't another topic that stirs the hearts and minds of fans more than the question, Who's better?


The head-to-head record provides virtually no insight. The two played once, in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon in 2001, which Federer won. And you can break down all of their strokes, one by one, but that's subjective (other than the fact, which has nothing to do with their greatness, that Federer is exciting to watch, while Pete induced yawns big enough to be named hurricanes).


Then there are the individual accomplishments. Although Sampras leads in virtually all departments, Federer is quickly closing in. At 25 years old, he already has 44 singles titles to Sampras' 64, and Fed cares more about proving himself week in, week out, than Sampras ever did. In other words: Kiss that record goodbye.


In 2006, Federer put together a masterpiece of a season that overshadows anything Sampras did in a calendar year. He became the first male player since Rod Laver in 1961-62 to reach six consecutive major finals and the first player ever to win both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open three straight times. Most impressively, Federer came up one match short of the game's most celebrated accomplishment, the Grand Slam, which hasn't been done since Laver in 1969.


But you can throw all of that out. It doesn't matter. There's just one stat that counts when you're talking about Roger and Pete: Who'll end up with the most Grand Slam titles. Sampras has the all-time record with 14; Federer has 9. But short of the Swiss star having another mishap with a bed, that record will fall. The debate will be over.


And Pete knows it.


After Federer won this year's U.S. Open, he received a text message, out of the blue. Sampras wrote to congratulate him. He called Federer three days later to see if he got the text. (Apparently, the world's No. 1 is quick to return tennis balls, not messages.) "Pete said that I dominate the sport more than he used to," Federer told TENNIS Magazine. "It showed me that Sampras is pretty relaxed now. Records are there to be broken."


Perhaps Pete is chill. Or perhaps he's trying to get into Federer's headspace. You know how it goes: If someone is schooling you on a tennis court, one well-known tactic is to gush praise over them in the hopes that he'll relax, lose focus, and ultimately lose the match. It might be reading too much into a man who spends most of his time playing golf and poker. But it's fun to think Sampras is trying to mess with The King to protect his record.


One thing is certain: Federer will continue his march to becoming the best player of all time, and his hero will be watching.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :angel: :angel:

Mimi
12-13-2006, 01:13 AM
angiel, i think you should post this article in "general message" so that some of the nasty roger fans will finally realise that pete is only full of praise for roger and not bitterly against him :rolleyes: :p

angiel
12-13-2006, 02:16 PM
angiel, i think you should post this article in "general message" so that some of the nasty roger fans will finally realise that pete is only full of praise for roger and not bitterly against him :rolleyes: :p

:D :) I did post it there my dear.:D :) :angel:

angiel
12-13-2006, 02:43 PM
USTA will bolster American TV with TTC deal
Stop whining: Wade deserved the SI award as much as Federer


By Matthew Cronin, TennisReporters.net




USTA INVESTS IN THE TENNIS CHANNEL: America's governing body puts less than $6 million into TTC, essentially to help the still-struggling channel move forward. Now, TTC chief Ken Solomon can go to the big cable companies and satellite providers and say it has the backing of the mighty owner of the US Open. That should mean a great deal.
However, do not expect TTC to buy the major cable rights to the US Open any time soon; they don't have enough money to compete with USA or ESPN on that front. However, do expect them to make push for more early rounds of US tournaments, especially those that the USTA owns part of like Houston, Carson and Indian Wells.

What TTC needs now is far better cable distribution. It just debuted in on Comcast Northern California last week (arguably the wealthiest tennis-playing region in the nation) and is stuck on a paid sports tier.

SANIA BESTS LI NA: In one of the biggest victories of her career, Sania Mirza crushed China's top player, Li Na, 6-2, 6-2 to reach the Asian Games final. If Mirza beats Zheng Jie in the final, Mumbai will declare a national holiday.

HAARHUIS WINS BLACKROCK MASTERS: All credit to Dutchman Paul Haarhuis for playing superior tennis, but what men's senior tennis does not need is a once mediocre foil to Jimmy Connors winning its yearend event. Haarhuis won his second consecutive Blackrock Masters with a 7-6(4), 4-6, 10-7 win over Goran Ivanisevic.

TAYLOR DENT, JENNY HOPKINS GET MARRIED: Here's to a good-natured tennis couple and hoping that they last longer than Harkleroad-Bogomolov.

D-WADE DISSED: Has any tennis writer who wrote that Roger Federer deserved the Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year Awards over winner Dwayne Wade actually sat down and watched the Miami Heat superstar play at great length? Does anyone realize that a brilliant writer who covers a fair amount of tennis, Scott Price, penned the article? Does anyone realize that there are at least five SI staffers who love tennis? Is anyone concerned that when easily dismissing a player from another sport, that tennis looks more parochial that it already is?

First off, SI doesn't give the award to foreign athletes. Secondly, it doesn't give the award to tennis players anymore. Third, even though I would give a slight edge to Federer, too, Wade is a true superstar who played a super-human level to lead the Heat the NBA Championships level last year. He carried his team past three excellent teams with legitimate superstars: the New Jersey Nets (Jason Kid and Vince Carter); the Detroit Pistons (Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton); and the Dallas Mavericks (Dirk Nowitski and Jason Terry). Forget Shaq, the Heat was Wade's team through and through. They were awful before Pat Riley came in to coach again at mid-season and, at that point, no serious analyst imagined that they could win the title. But they did due to Wade's remarkable ability to come through in the clutch. Wade's run through those three teams is very similar to Federer's taking three '06 Slam crowns. He was that dominant.

Truthfully, you can't compare individual and team sports anyway, Next year, maybe SI should split the award and give out a separate award for individual sports. For goodness sakes, for all the complaining that Federer didn't get the award, Americans Pete Sampras and Serena "Serena Slam" Williams never won, either.

MARIA SHARAPOVA TO APPEAR IN VOGUE (ANGELINA JOLIE VERSION): The Russia starlet will appear in the January issue of Vogue, but won't get the cover. That's reserved for the world's most looked-at woman: Angelina Jolie (Brad Pitt's friend). If Sharapova wants the cover, she may have to start a relationship with another A-plus list celebrity Ö Rudy Youngblood from the brilliant Apocalypto.

© TennisReporters.net 2006

angiel
01-20-2007, 12:53 AM
Roger is history already
SERVES AND FOLLIES
Courtnet Walsh
January 20, 2007

FORGET Roger Federer creating history in five years - we are seeing it now according to Andre Agassi.

The American great said the points gap created by Federer over the rest of his rivals was unprecedented and may never be matched.

"His place in the game will be determined by him, and him alone," Agassi told ESPN.

"At a time where the No.2 player (Rafael Nadal) has probably earned double the points of the No.3 (Nikolay Davydenko), Federer has earned double the points of the No.2.

"I mean, we are seeing history. There is no question about it."

* * *

DESPITE Agassi's view, the man whose grand slam record Federer is chasing, Pete Sampras, has no doubt who would win if they clashed - at their best.

Sampras said if he was in his form of 1999, when he won Wimbledon and the season-ending championship, he would have been able to handle every trick the Swiss star has, and then some.

The American great, who was inducted into the Hall Of Fame, said he felt unbeatable every time he stepped on to the court during that golden patch.

* * *

FEDERER, meanwhile, may have differing thoughts about Hawk-Eye and the challenge system after his match against Mikhail Youzhny yesterday. The world No.1 attacked the system on Wednesday, saying it embarrassed the players and made the umpires lazy.

But yesterday he used it to successfully challenge a fault after serving what he believed was a set-winning ace. Given the Russian was pressing to break back at 5-3, it was handy timing.

* * *

angiel
01-25-2007, 07:59 PM
Laver backs Federer to become the best ever
January 25, 2007

Rod Laver says nine-times grand slam champion Roger Federer is a tennis artist and well on his way to becoming the greatest player to have ever picked up a racquet.

Laver, himself considered by many as the best player ever, returned to Melbourne Park today to watch Federer's Australian Open semi-final against Andy Roddick in the arena named in his honour.

Asked if Federer could surpass Pete Sampras's benchmark 14 majors, Laver said: "boy, it certainly looks like he could".

"He's a great champion and has proved it all along that he plays his best tennis in finals. I think he's certainly on his way.

"When I look at Pete Sampras, we all thought, 'could you get any better than Pete Sampras and his mark as being a great, great champion?'

"I think Roger is really in the middle of his career ... wait and see on Roger. He's a great player and has won a lot of grand slams and the way he's compiling the grand slam titles, I think he's got a great chance of being the best ever."

Asked directly if the Swiss ace was the greatest player ever, Laver said: "I have to believe it because he's got every shot in the book".

"And his experience of late seems to be (that) he's stepping it up even further," said the California-based Queenslander.

"Just the shots that he uses in a match is quite incredible. He knows the safe zone and he knows when to hit out and go for winners.

"You don't see him being passed very often when he comes to the net and that's because he comes in at the right time. Sometimes (there is) the surprise attack and other times it's just (after) dipping the ball at a person's foot.

"I think the art of Roger is probably the best player I've ever seen."

Laver, 68, said Federer was in a league of his own right now.

"Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body," he said.

"It's hardly fair that one person can do all this - his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position ... the way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground, and that's the sign of a great champion.

"And his anticipation I guess is the one thing that we all admire."

During an unparalleled career, Laver won 11 majors and remains the only man to have completed a calendar-year grand slam twice, having achieved the rare feat in 1962 and again in 1969.

He said he would love to see Federer pull it off.

"It's something he's very, very capable of winning and doing it but he's got to keep himself fit (with) injuries and that's something that's hard to do," Laver said.

"But if he could make it, that'd be just great because he's a great asset to the sport. He's a very modest champion."

Laver said it was impossible to say whether he was better than Federer.

"I guess I'm proud of his career as well as my own, but I think it's a feeling of it was a different era," he said.

"Wooden racquets were being used. Now, of course, you've got such more speed with serving and the spin on the ball.

"But also the other thing that Roger has that I don't think that I had was the amount of great champions that are actually in the draw.

"There are so many players now competing and the world is playing the game of tennis and I think that's the thing, it's hard to challenge and say my era was tougher than his era.

"But it was a matter of when you've got a small little racquet to play with ..."

AAP

angiel
01-26-2007, 10:11 PM
Federer perfect? Sampras was better

Tim Love

The performance of Peter Sampras against Andre Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final is still quite easily the most impressive ever seen.


It is in the opinion of many, the legendary Rod Laver included, that Roger Federer is the greatest player the tennis world has ever seen. Indeed, his display against Andy Roddick in the Australian Open semi-finals (6-4, 6-0, 6-2) had commentators and pundits alike discussing whether it might be the most complete performance ever on a tennis court.

While Federer deserves every plaudit he receives, it is my opinion that this is not the ultimate display of perfect tennis. No, for that we need to go back eight years to the Wimbledon 1999 men's final, when Pete Sampras took on Andre Agassi.

The reason that this match stands out as the most complete performance and arguably the greatest tennis match I have ever seen is because Sampras was playing a competitor with far more to his game than Roddick. To beat an in-form Agassi in three straight sets in the Wimbledon final, you have to be playing almost perfect tennis. Sampras did just this, and later commented that it was Ď'probably the best I'd played in many years, I couldn't have played any better, plain and simple.'í

Sampras started Wimbledon on the back of poor form. While he had managed to win the Stella Artois Championships at Queens the week before, prior to this he failed to proceed beyond the quarter-finals of any ATP tournament in 1999.

The British press were even more excited than usual; perhaps this was Tim Henmanís chance to win the Wimbledon crown he craved so much. However, as soon as the Championships began, Sampras disposed of every challenge that came his way, and did not drop a set until his quarter-final against Mark Philippoussis. Indeed, I might not be writing this article had the Australian not had to retire injured early in the second set. In the semi-finals, Sampras beat Henman with relative ease despite dropping the first set, and the stage was set for the final all tennis fans wanted - Sampras v. Agassi.

Sampras played a brand of tennis on that summer day that no player may never be equalled. The scoreline, 6-3, 6-4, 7-5, suggests that while Sampras may have been playing his best, Agassi was struggling to string shots together. This was not the case. The 1992 champion from Las Vegas was playing incredibly well, but Sampras made him look pedestrian.

Sampras was unstoppable. He served 16 aces, saved the four break points against him (all in one game in the first set), won an incredible 72 percent of the points when serving and broke Agassi three times in the match. His serve-volleying was sublime, his groundstrokes perfect; it is hard to sum up just how complete his performance was. And yet this match is only discussed by the hardcore tennis fans. To many, this was a disappointing final due to the relative ease with which Sampras won; anyone who did not relish seeing a master at work should not consider themselves a tennis fan all.

The Sampras v. Agassi Wimbledon final of 1999 was a case of two genuine all-time greats playing on the greatest stage. Federerís performance against Roddick cannot be compared to Pistol Peteís showing in 1999 for the simple fact that the man he was playing against cannot be considered anywhere near Agassi's level.

It is easy to see why Roddick lost; he attempted to change his usual tactics against Federer and come to the net, but many of his approach shorts were incredibly short, allowing the world number one so much time to use his brilliant array of groundstrokes. Roddick relies a lot on his serve, and Federerís simple response is just to block the ball back.

Roddick is one of the top five players in the world, but he is so much less talented than his opponent that we cannot look at Federerís performance in this match as being the greatest of all time. This is not Federerís fault, he can only play who he is drawn against, but I just hope that sooner or later a competitor of a closer standard to his makes him play the way Sampras did to on that memorable day in 1999.:worship: :worship: :worship: :angel:

angiel
01-28-2007, 07:38 PM
Out of bounds
OUR WEEKLY GIVE-AND-TAKE ON HOT TOPICS IN SPORTS
BY MIKE BALL, TIM CURTIS AND CHARLIE SVIHLIK





FEDERER EXPRESS

MB: Tennis today is down the pecking order in sports, but there is nothing more fun than watching greatness. While you were sleeping Wednesday/Thursday, Roger Federer destroyed Andy Roddick in the Australian Open to reach his seventh straight Grand Slam final. In his 6-0 second-set win, Federer lost six points. Wow.

CS: Is R-Fed the greatest player in history? Ask Pete Sampras? Anyhow, it's better to have challengers and parity in a sport than a sport become a parody of itself.

TC: The next time you watch him play, just focus on his footwork. It's amazing how he knows where to be before the ball is even returned.

almouchie
01-29-2007, 11:03 AM
if that were true soe 5 years ago
I would love to have seen SAmpras kick his ass again at wimbledon

i am losing interest in tennis because of roger
all the media talk about genuis& greatness & blah blah
where were they when pete was playing
then again i look at the current crop & i find it easy to understand
roddick is limited at best, but he is america's best hope

Greg-Pete fan
01-29-2007, 11:47 AM
Hi almouchie. Long time no see...

Yes, it is really boring to watch Roger`s winning again and again... Unfortunately I`m almost sure that Roger will break Pete`s record:mad:

Mimi
01-30-2007, 09:33 AM
me too:sad: , but at least he once was the record holder and he hold these 3 for almost 5 years:

1. the most slams won
2. the longest weeks as no.1
3. 6 consecutive years ended as no.1


Hi almouchie. Long time no see...

Yes, it is really boring to watch Roger`s winning again and again... Unfortunately I`m almost sure that Roger will break Pete`s record:mad:

Mimi
01-30-2007, 09:36 AM
i don't understand, in this article, once, laver said he believes roger is the greatest, which is as follows:

"Asked directly if the Swiss ace was the greatest player ever, Laver said: "I have to believe it because he's got every shot in the book"."

but then again in the same article, he said does not know whether he himself or roger is greater, which is as follows:

"Laver said it was impossible to say whether he was better than Federer.

"I guess I'm proud of his career as well as my own, but I think it's a feeling of it was a different era," he said.

"Wooden racquets were being used. Now, of course, you've got such more speed with serving and the spin on the ball."

then who does he think is the greatest, him or roger :confused: :confused:

angiel
01-31-2007, 08:51 PM
me too:sad: , but at least he once was the record holder and he hold these 3 for almost 5 years:

1. the most slams won
2. the longest weeks as no.1
3. 6 consecutive years ended as no.1


Dream on Mimi, I love you my dear, but I am not giving up hope yet, that he will not break these records.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wavey:

angiel
01-31-2007, 08:52 PM
i don't understand, in this article, once, laver said he believes roger is the greatest, which is as follows:

"Asked directly if the Swiss ace was the greatest player ever, Laver said: "I have to believe it because he's got every shot in the book"."

but then again in the same article, he said does not know whether he himself or roger is greater, which is as follows:

"Laver said it was impossible to say whether he was better than Federer.

"I guess I'm proud of his career as well as my own, but I think it's a feeling of it was a different era," he said.

"Wooden racquets were being used. Now, of course, you've got such more speed with serving and the spin on the ball."

then who does he think is the greatest, him or roger :confused: :confused:


All of these people are just talking are have to say something mimi:rolleyes: :rolleyes: but to give Laver his due, he didn't say Roger is the greatest, he say he could become the greatest.

Mimi
02-01-2007, 01:31 AM
ai angiel, he already got 10 slams and he is only 25, just won 5 more and he will break the record, its so easy for him, he almost won 3 every year, so i am sure that he will break the record next year, tell me, who can beat him??

but pete is still the greatest in my eyes, his mental toughness and fighting spirit won my vote :worship:
Dream on Mimi, I love you my dear, but I am not giving up hope yet, that he will not break these records.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wavey:

Mimi
02-01-2007, 01:33 AM
i see :wavey:
All of these people are just talking are have to say something mimi:rolleyes: :rolleyes: but to give Laver his due, he didn't say Roger is the greatest, he say he could become the greatest.

almouchie
02-01-2007, 09:27 AM
salam

all i care about is the 14 GS record
thou Federer is more likely to break that

than the 6 years no.1
he is already half way throu


but as far as AO semis match against A.Roddick
it was the worst example of domination ever

Roddick has limited capabilities & i will continue to say this forever
his strongest weapon is his serve & powerful forehand, anything else is average/a little better but against Roger these shots are well below average

to seea rattled Roddick unable to win a point in his first serve & even worse to use volley tactic, when he isnt even that capable against a player with more shots than all the field combined
is simply suicide

Roddick didnt need to bother show up, if he were to play like this

what bothers me most, is the fact that such a limited player like Roddick is made out to be the hope of americans & golden boy.
no fault of his, it is just disappointing seeing no one challenging federer
Nadal no clay is near invincible which is why i think its all about him whethere federer can win RG. rafa needs to rest & scedule his year so as not to come to RG tired or fall off the rails after
his wimbledon final was no fluke, taking a set off Federer & with a bit less nerve he should have taken the 2nd set.
it just shows the rest of the sleeping field how to play Federer & come to court prepared to fight, body lanaguge & attitude on court is extremely important

if u watch the matches Federer lost in the past 2 years (which are only handful) u can see how his opponents got him rattled & gave him a positive attitude like they are there to win

sorry for long posts
coming to Sampras forum, i can speak as i want & not worry about some Fedfan going nuts on me.
many of these fans are young & havent seen past champions, & have little to compare with
the AO win against ROddick is the best example, if this is the most domination,
then this tell u all u want to know

almouchie
02-01-2007, 09:31 AM
one more thing
1999 wimbledon Sampras vs. Agassi
Simply a classic match for history
2 champs playing at their best & we know who won & comfortably
another great match Becker vs. Edberg second wimbledon final
touches at the net, we dont even see anymore
its sad there is no serve & volley game

angiel
02-01-2007, 08:19 PM
i see :wavey:


What do you see my dear;) :p :D :)

Mimi
02-02-2007, 05:44 AM
good post almouche :worship:

roger is going to break the 14 slams record next year, so at least pete has kept this record for 5-6 years (at first, i thought it would last 20 years)
:sad:

no, not all of the roger fans are young, many of them are over 30 ;)




salam

all i care about is the 14 GS record
thou Federer is more likely to break that

than the 6 years no.1
he is already half way throu


but as far as AO semis match against A.Roddick
it was the worst example of domination ever

Roddick has limited capabilities & i will continue to say this forever
his strongest weapon is his serve & powerful forehand, anything else is average/a little better but against Roger these shots are well below average

to seea rattled Roddick unable to win a point in his first serve & even worse to use volley tactic, when he isnt even that capable against a player with more shots than all the field combined
is simply suicide

Roddick didnt need to bother show up, if he were to play like this

what bothers me most, is the fact that such a limited player like Roddick is made out to be the hope of americans & golden boy.
no fault of his, it is just disappointing seeing no one challenging federer
Nadal no clay is near invincible which is why i think its all about him whethere federer can win RG. rafa needs to rest & scedule his year so as not to come to RG tired or fall off the rails after
his wimbledon final was no fluke, taking a set off Federer & with a bit less nerve he should have taken the 2nd set.
it just shows the rest of the sleeping field how to play Federer & come to court prepared to fight, body lanaguge & attitude on court is extremely important

if u watch the matches Federer lost in the past 2 years (which are only handful) u can see how his opponents got him rattled & gave him a positive attitude like they are there to win

sorry for long posts
coming to Sampras forum, i can speak as i want & not worry about some Fedfan going nuts on me.
many of these fans are young & havent seen past champions, & have little to compare with
the AO win against ROddick is the best example, if this is the most domination,
then this tell u all u want to know

Mimi
02-02-2007, 05:45 AM
yes pete was playing good that match, i had it recorded and i still watch it from time to time :D

when pete was on, he was so good, he was also playing great in his last 2002 us open :worship:

one more thing
1999 wimbledon Sampras vs. Agassi
Simply a classic match for history
2 champs playing at their best & we know who won & comfortably
another great match Becker vs. Edberg second wimbledon final
touches at the net, we dont even see anymore
its sad there is no serve & volley game

bokehlicious
02-02-2007, 06:25 AM
no, not all of the roger fans are young, many of them are over 30 ;)

True. Nadal fans are often young teenieboopers, but Roger fans are more mature and most of them have also witnessed Pete (and other greats) in his prime :o :wavey:

angiel
02-02-2007, 10:06 PM
True. Nadal fans are often young teenieboopers, but Roger fans are more mature and most of them have also witnessed Pete (and other greats) in his prime :o :wavey:


Not so fast my friend, Roger is only 25 yrs not that old himself so i would think it is mix and if you think Nadal fans are often teeniebopers think again.:sad: :mad: :mad:

almouchie
02-03-2007, 10:02 AM
good post almouche :worship:

roger is going to break the 14 slams record next year, so at least pete has kept this record for 5-6 years (at first, i thought it would last 20 years)
:sad:

no, not all of the roger fans are young, many of them are over 30 ;)

salam mimi

i didnt mean young as in under 30 but rather
that many have only witnessed few of past champions, might have seen pete, andre, goran, chang, courier,
but my point is there are many past champions, bjorg, llendl, connors, mcenroe etc,
as a fan u need to see the past champions before u can make an informed decision that X player is the best ever
when all u have seen are the current generation

it was one of main things, while watching sampras legacy
that bought tennis dvd, of many of the old guard

i wanted to see for myslef what others were all abuot
& whether pete is really that good, or just the best among his generation

angiel
02-05-2007, 07:32 PM
I am praying that those records dont fall just yet, and maybe I will get my wishes.:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

bokehlicious
02-06-2007, 09:13 AM
if you think Nadal fans are often teeniebopers think again.:sad: :mad: :mad:

My bad, actually they're either teenibopers or Pete's sore scared fans :o :p

angiel
02-06-2007, 08:49 PM
My bad, actually they're either teenibopers or Pete's sore scared fans :o :p


Excuse me????:o :o :mad: :mad:

angiel
02-08-2007, 07:48 PM
Feb, 07, 2007


Fly doesn't lace up his clay-court shoes very often, but here's some smack from the yellow-ball world that couldn't pass without comment. Pete Sampras believes he could beat Roger Federer ... well, at least he could have in his prime, he tells the Miami Herald. Big talk from Mr. Retired. Too bad we won't get to see Sampras vs. Federer. Sampras will be playing in some over-30 matches, but that just means he'll face the likes of Jim Courier and John McEnroe.:worship: :worship: