Difference between Pete and Roger [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Difference between Pete and Roger

wimbledonfan
03-19-2007, 08:18 PM
One noticeable difference between the two is that Pete never once declared himself the greatest player of all time even after after what he's accomplished . All he said in the past is that he'd like to be compared with the other greats but that he didn't want to stand alone . Roger on the other hand has the audacity to say that if he continues like this then he'll be the greatest player of all time . That's a bunch of bullshit as he's clearly disrespecting the past champions by saying he should be the greatest if he continues . I think he needs a lesson from Pete in class as his arrogance is really showing .

senorgato
03-19-2007, 08:45 PM
The media is the one that branded Roger the greatest first. And it comes up in almost every interview and every conversation with past champions...even current champions. So, Roger is almost forced to comment on it at every turn.
That didn't happen with Pete. Pete didn't dominate the field the way Roger is. And Pete never had a shot in hell of winning the FO. The notion of GOAT rarely came up with Pete until much, much later in his career. And when it did, it wasn't nearly as emphatic as it is when it's brought up about Roger.

THAT'S the true difference. Get it right.

Burrow
03-19-2007, 08:53 PM
But Roger is right, if he carries on at this rate, he will be the best in history.

guga2120
03-19-2007, 08:58 PM
the biggest difference is one can play on clay, and the other can not.

spencercarlos
03-19-2007, 09:05 PM
The media is the one that branded Roger the greatest first. And it comes up in almost every interview and every conversation with past champions...even current champions. So, Roger is almost forced to comment on it at every turn.
That didn't happen with Pete. Pete didn't dominate the field the way Roger is. And Pete never had a shot in hell of winning the FO. The notion of GOAT rarely came up with Pete until much, much later in his career. And when it did, it wasn't nearly as emphatic as it is when it's brought up about Roger.

THAT'S the true difference. Get it right.
Great post! ;)

Boris Franz Ecker
03-19-2007, 09:27 PM
But Roger is right, if he carries on at this rate, he will be the best in history.

That's right, son.

Waterfox
03-19-2007, 09:48 PM
rate?
what rate?
losing in the first week of a major tournament??

deliveryman
03-19-2007, 09:51 PM
How can anyone deny that Roger is not correct?

Must we really recall what he's done in the past 3 years? If he continues at this pace, he would have around 20 Grandslams by the time he's retired, and surely a couple of those French Opens.

trixtah
03-20-2007, 12:35 AM
rate?
what rate?
losing in the first week of a major tournament??

this is your first post? STFU.

CyBorg
03-20-2007, 12:47 AM
this is your first post? STFU.

Bizarre. Hope it was worth the hastles of registration. :)

People should get off Roger's back. If the microphone was in front of my mouth at all times I would come off as the worst person in the world. It is hard to always say the right thing that conforms to everyone's preference. Roger does an amazing job of pleasing most people, though. Maybe too good a job.

Bagelicious
03-20-2007, 12:57 AM
rate?
what rate?
losing in the first week of a major tournament??

:haha: In one post, you have made yourself a strong contender for the 2007 ArseClown awards.

Bobby
03-20-2007, 08:52 AM
rate?
what rate?
losing in the first week of a major tournament??

And you think that's what Federer has been doing lately. He's won two big tournaments this year, at this RATE he'll win much more.

By the way, a conversation is always better if there are differing views. As long as all the views make sense. What you are saying is as intelligent as claiming that black is actually white. Federer is not a first round loser.

Stensland
03-20-2007, 09:11 AM
as most have already said: pete's just never been as dominating before as roger is these days. put sampras on clay and he'd struggle against guys like montanes or portas. put roger on clay and he would't lose a set even if they'd play for years. that being said: roger's at least as good as pete on every other surface.

and at last: just take a look at how easily he's been outdistancing the no. 2's over the last 3 years. there's never been any talk like "wow, could the gap be narrowing?"

the first guy who slightly brought that issue up was roddick during this year's ao (remember him saying "i don't know if the gap has narrowed, but it surely hasn't widened over the last months"). and what did he get? a hell of a beating in the semis.

to me there's no doubt about the fact that roger will BY FAR be the best man that's ever played this sport if he continues to play the way he's doing right now. plus: he won't be like clijsters, the williams sisters or maybe hewitt lateron, who're talking about retiring or getting caught up in other business and therefor not focussing on tennis. fedex loves tennis, there's just no way that he'll be off stage in 2 or 3 years.

keep 'em coming, roger! :)

feuselino
03-20-2007, 09:29 AM
One noticeable difference between the two is that Pete never once declared himself the greatest player of all time even after after what he's accomplished.

I don't remember that Roger ever declared himself the greatest player of all time?! :confused:

Dougie
03-20-2007, 09:38 AM
I don't remember that Roger ever declared himself the greatest player of all time?! :confused:

Me neither. The problem is, that since all the interviews are more or less about this hype, eventually he will slip something that will be interpreted as arrogant. I think Federer seems to be pretty humble, considering he is clearly the best. And if he keeps playing like this, he certainly WILL be the best of all time.

tenniswheels
03-20-2007, 01:12 PM
I difference between Pete and Roger is that Roger is fun to watch.

Pete's matches were the most boring ever on TV. He would serve and ace or Serve and Volley.

It was boring.

Roger can do it all and does it all very well.

oz_boz
03-20-2007, 01:17 PM
It's all in the eyes of the beholder, wimbledonfan.

Eden
03-20-2007, 01:25 PM
One noticeable difference between the two is that Pete never once declared himself the greatest player of all time even after after what he's accomplished . All he said in the past is that he'd like to be compared with the other greats but that he didn't want to stand alone . Roger on the other hand has the audacity to say that if he continues like this then he'll be the greatest player of all time . That's a bunch of bullshit as he's clearly disrespecting the past champions by saying he should be the greatest if he continues . I think he needs a lesson from Pete in class as his arrogance is really showing .

First, have you ever followed how Roger talks about the former legends of tennis? Have you seen how emotional he had been when he met Rod Laver?
And you try to tell us that he would disrespect the former champions? Sorry, I have to laugh about it.

And by the way, how classy is it when Pete says he thinks he would be able to competete with the players of today when he would have enough time to prepare?

thrust
03-20-2007, 01:43 PM
I do believe the Italian Open was played on clay the year Pete won it. I think Pete^s problem with clay was mental. He had the game to win the FO, but didn^t care enough to change his ususal game to win there. Also, Roger grew up on clay while Pete grew up on hard courts. I am convinced that Pete had tougher competition than Roger, especially in the mental aspect of the game.

Veronique
03-20-2007, 01:54 PM
how classy is it when Pete says he thinks he would be able to competete with the players of today when he would have enough time to prepare?

Pete has paid is due and he's entitled to make those statements if that's his belief. That said, Federer isn't nearly arrogant enough for a player as dominant as he's been.

Veronique
03-20-2007, 02:04 PM
It's all in the eyes of the beholder, wimbledonfan.

Very true! Some of us find Roger's matches very boring.

Federerhingis
03-20-2007, 02:20 PM
God I just get a laugh at how many reasons some go out searching for to hate on Roger Federer. It's kind of ironic and funny how switzerland's top tennis players have been despised fervently. First Hingis was despised, and still is though she was not born in switzerland and now Federer an even more candid swiss champion is hated for being so good and unassuming of his great talent?

I guess Federer will never please some if his talent isn't pleasing enough than what is? :shrug:

bokehlicious
03-20-2007, 02:30 PM
It's kind of ironic and funny how switzerland's top tennis players have been despised fervently. First Hingis was despised, and still is though she was not born in switzerland and now Federer an even more candid swiss champion is hated for being so good and unassuming of his great talent?

I don't get that either :shrug: but who cares, hatred is for weak people...

Kitty de Sade
03-20-2007, 02:32 PM
They are both great, and get along well. I'm looking forward to the next time they practice together. I totally disagree with Roger and/or Pete's matches being boring. It's more boring to see nonstop ball bashing all match long IMO. :)

Honestly, Roger never comes across as arrogant, just confident and self-assured. It's understandable after all. ;)

TheMightyFed
03-20-2007, 02:35 PM
I think it also has to see with their cultural bacckgrounds and personnalities. Roger is an open German Swiss guy: will tell you what he thinks straight forward, without trying to invent stories or whatever. Pete was a shy guy, less direct in his communication. But both know that they will mark their sport for a while.

Allure
03-20-2007, 06:48 PM
Oh another Roger is arrogant thread.:rolleyes: Okay, for a guy with his accomplishments (10 GS, 47 titles) he hasn't even begun to touch arrogance. I've seen players who doesn't have half his accomplishments and are cocky as hell.:rolleyes:

Eden
03-20-2007, 09:12 PM
how classy is it when Pete says he thinks he would be able to competete with the players of today when he would have enough time to prepare?

Pete has paid is due and he's entitled to make those statements if that's his belief.

I disagree about this. He surely is the most successful player and I truly respect his achievements, but he has retired. When he says he feels he has a chance against the current generation he should take out the racket and do the speaking on the tennis court. Otherwise lean back and enjoy the pride and achievements he has brought to the sportsworld.

ExpectedWinner
03-20-2007, 09:27 PM
One noticeable difference between the two is that Pete never once declared himself the greatest player of all time even after after what he's accomplished . All he said in the past is that he'd like to be compared with the other greats but that he didn't want to stand alone . Roger on the other hand has the audacity to say that if he continues like this then he'll be the greatest player of all time . That's a bunch of bullshit as he's clearly disrespecting the past champions by saying he should be the greatest if he continues . I think he needs a lesson from Pete in class as his arrogance is really showing .

Don't wet your pants. It's impossible to keep winning 2-3 Slams per year.

I agree that Pete can teach him a lesson- Federer needs to learn how to operate with numbers. Then next time, instead of boring bs-Nadal should have been No1, Nalbandian could have been No1 ... blah, blah..., he will be able to snap - the difference is 8,10 GS respectively, so...

senorgato
03-21-2007, 12:29 AM
I do believe the Italian Open was played on clay the year Pete won it. I think Pete^s problem with clay was mental. He had the game to win the FO, but didn^t care enough to change his ususal game to win there. Also, Roger grew up on clay while Pete grew up on hard courts. I am convinced that Pete had tougher competition than Roger, especially in the mental aspect of the game.


Well, yay! Pete won 1 claycourt title in 15 or so years on the tour. And I see you're citing the same excuse Pete cites when he says that "Roger grew up on clay". Well, considering Roger's so dominating on hard courts and grass says alot about his talent. Even Pete wasn't as dominant on hard courts the way Roger has been the past few years. And let's not forget that there are a lot of Europeans and Latin Americans who also grew up on clay who possess clay court records that aren't even close to Roger's.

And this whole "whose competition was tougher" stuff is just old. Pete was competing on the tour when Becker was a good 10 years into his career. Courier had 2-3 great years on tour then disappeared. Rafter was a decent foil for Pete, but Roger beat Rafter all 3 times they played, when Roger was not dominant. Goran was only a threat to Pete on grass. Roger is 2-0 vs. Goran, both matches played when Roger was not dominant. Then there's Hewitt who gave Pete a challenge. Roger has won the last 9 straight against Lleyton, including 5 bagel sets. Then there's Safin, who held a 4-3 record against Pete, including a USO final win. Federer is 7-2 against him, including a loss of 9-7 in the fifth set at the AO where Fed held match point. There's also Roddick who has a 2-1 record against Pete. Of course as we all know, Fed has had little problems with Roddick.
And, of course, there's Agassi who had a decent record against Pete. His record against Fed is very lopsided, though. This might be the only saving grace for this argument because Agassi was challenging Pete, and beat Fed twice when he was at his peak (though Fed was not). However, Fed started to completely dominate Agassi when Roger began dominating the game and Agassi was on a decline in his career.

So, when all is said and done, those players that were supposedly such tough competition for Pete has proved not much of a problem for Fed, even when Roger was not in his current, dominant form.

Don't get me wrong. Pete is one of the greatest players ever. But I'm just sick of hearing the "the competition is not so tough these days" argument.

AND, let me add this. As much as Pete and everyone can claim the competition is not as tough today as it was in Pete's era, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendl, and maybe even Edberg, Becker, and Wilander, can make the same exact argument, with ALOT more validity about Pete's era vs. theirs. I'm surprised that I haven't heard where anyone has said that publicly in response to Pete's words (or Becker's words).

kronus12
03-21-2007, 12:35 AM
roger got more class then pete that's for sure, take the incident between him and rafter when a reporter ask pete whats the difference between him and rafter 10 grandslam without a hint of humor he was seriously piss of at rafter for beating him in the final of Cincinnati masters on a quetionable match point. Rafter i consider one of the nice guys of tennis couldn't understand pete's anger against him. Classy guy right?

angiel
03-22-2007, 07:33 PM
I difference between Pete and Roger is that Roger is fun to watch.

Pete's matches were the most boring ever on TV. He would serve and ace or Serve and Volley.

It was boring.

Roger can do it all and does it all very well.


Roger is fun to watch my foot:sad: :sad: :mad: All of Roger match is so routine, no dramas are hypes, good look at all of Pete Sampras matches my friend, you dont know what boring means, if anyone is boring it is Roger Federer matches, not Pete Sampras.:eek:

angiel
03-22-2007, 07:39 PM
roger got more class then pete that's for sure, take the incident between him and rafter when a reporter ask pete whats the difference between him and rafter 10 grandslam without a hint of humor he was seriously piss of at rafter for beating him in the final of Cincinnati masters on a quetionable match point. Rafter i consider one of the nice guys of tennis couldn't understand pete's anger against him. Classy guy right?


You know Kronus, you need to stop making all this generalizing about Pete Sampras - it sound like all sour gripes, you dont know one shit about any of these players you are writing about, they could all be axe murderers for all you know - and has for Rafter been a nice guy, so what:rolleyes: :rolleyes: how do you know how nice he really is.:mad: :eek: :sad:

almouchie
03-22-2007, 07:42 PM
no way
written by a swiss not less
dissing roger
there must be a smiley for this around here

I have nothing against the man, just would like people to stop saying he is such a gentlemen & ignoring he is a tad arrogant
class act no doubt, but he is surely coached

blank_frackis
03-22-2007, 08:10 PM
I don't think he's that arrogant, you have to judge people by their situation. When you dominate any sport to the degree that Federer does and when you constantly have people showering praise on you it takes a huge effort not to let it go to your head. He's done well to keep his feet on the ground as much as he has in my opinion.