Is Federer the new Sampras? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Federer the new Sampras?

kapranos
03-22-2007, 04:02 PM
Great on grass, good on hard court, mediocre on clay, is Federer the new Sampras?

The unbalanced schedule allow players to dominate and rack Slams, even if they can't win on the only surface that truly requires talent: clay.

Unless Roger wins the French Open, he will be lumped in the same category as Sampras: an incomplete player who lacked the talent to win on clay.

At the moment, neither Sampras or Federer can be considered as the greatest of all time.

feuselino
03-22-2007, 04:07 PM
making at least the final of every major clay court tournament is considered mediocre??

So, there are like what, four or five mediocre clay court players and that's it? ;)

LinkMage
03-22-2007, 04:09 PM
Only "good" on Hard courts? I wonder what one has to do to be considered more than good on HC seeing as how Fed has 6 GS on hard courts, plus 3 TMC, plus 9 AMS.

Mediocre on clay? He has 3 AMS titles on clay, 3 AMS finals, 1 final and 1 semi at RG.

Stensland
03-22-2007, 04:10 PM
you should be banned for that much stupidity in one single post.

CyBorg
03-22-2007, 04:22 PM
Federer is amazing on hard courts. Maybe the most dominant hard court player of all-time.

As for clay, at least a title in Monte Carlo or Rome wouldn't hurt but he's miles ahead of Sampras in terms of clay ability. Sampras was able to get his act together a few times on clay between 94-96. Outside of that he was atrocious on the surface with terrible balance and mediocre baseline game.

I agree that Sampras' ineptness on clay should disqualify him from consideration for the greatest of all time. Federer, however, has proven to be an all-courter. But he should get the clay results this spring and the next to back that up.

GlennMirnyi
03-22-2007, 04:30 PM
Sampras category is: greatest of all time. If Federer gets to that level, it's good enough.

Burrow
03-22-2007, 04:32 PM
Mediocre on clay? how many masters has he won on clay? 2 i think, french open final and semi finals...mediocre????

Action Jackson
03-22-2007, 04:33 PM
This is just a campaign to get votes for the Arseclown contest.

Gonzalo81
03-22-2007, 04:34 PM
moronic thread

TMJordan
03-22-2007, 04:34 PM
good on hard court, mediocre on clay

:help:

Gonzalo81
03-22-2007, 04:34 PM
This is just a campaign to get votes for the Arseclown contest.

My vote is in the bag

atheneglaukopis
03-22-2007, 04:43 PM
And when Federer does win the French, half of MTF will still consider him mediocre on clay. :yawn:

Magus13
03-22-2007, 05:22 PM
Great on grass, good on hard court, mediocre on clay, is Federer the new Sampras?

The unbalanced schedule allow players to dominate and rack Slams, even if they can't win on the only surface that truly requires talent: clay.

Unless Roger wins the French Open, he will be lumped in the same category as Sampras: an incomplete player who lacked the talent to win on clay.

At the moment, neither Sampras or Federer can be considered as the greatest of all time.

I'll look at it from you're prespective. Nadal won 2 French Opens beating a mediocre Fed in the Semis once and a second time in the Finals. He also beat Fed in the Finals of Monte Carlo and Rome. What you are saying is that Nadal is only a slightly better than mediocre clay court player having only beaten a mediocre player for his titles.

Kitty de Sade
03-22-2007, 05:22 PM
As much as I love Pete, Federer is a much better player on clay than he was. The word mediocre and Sampras/Federer do not go together.

Congratulations on an insightful and thought provoking thread. :p

SBruguera
03-22-2007, 05:23 PM
If Federer canīt be considered an all-court player, who can in the last twenty years?
Even if Agassi managed to complete a career slam he wasnīt as versatile as Federer is. IMO is not a matter of titles, is a matter of game style and adaptation to the different courts.
Itīs unfair to say that Federerīs game on clay is mediocre. Not being a clay court specialist, he has done a big effort to master this surface.

rafagirlno1
03-22-2007, 05:25 PM
And when Federer does win the French, half of MTF will still consider him mediocre on clay. :yawn:

federer win never win the french open so long as rafa is fully 100% fit . i respect your opinion but in reality on clay fed can never ever defeat rafa and thts a fact . at the most he would end up being the runner up this year as well .:)

kapranos
03-22-2007, 05:28 PM
Let's stop focusing on the details, the main point is: if Federer doesn't win the French, he'll be lumped with Sampras in history books.

sondraj06
03-22-2007, 05:35 PM
I have a serious question, no ass whole remarks required.

What are people's opinion of tennis in respect to the surface. Because before today, it seemed like people downplayed clay,but maybe that's only because people downplayed rafa that i thought that, because he is a claycourter. But recently there seems to be this hike in respect for clay tennis.

I never really think of tennis as less of or more than because of the surface, I always just thought, it's all tennis just different environments.

Thanx

All_Slam_Andre
03-22-2007, 05:42 PM
Sampras wasn't terrible on clay. 1 semi-final and 3 quarter-finals at Roland Garros plus an Italian Open title in 1994 highlights that. He was good on clay, but nothing more than that. Of course Federer has proved that he is better than Sampras ever was on clay, having reaching the French Open final last year. On this surface at the moment Sampras qualifies as good, Federer as very good.
On hard, Sampras won 7 hard court grand slams and Federer won 6 so they are both indisputably great on this surface

DDrago2
03-22-2007, 05:51 PM
federer win never win the french open so long as rafa is fully 100% fit . i respect your opinion but in reality on clay fed can never ever defeat rafa and thts a fact .


I suppose you will then not consider Rafa to be 100% fit most of the time, since he CAN loose to Federer on clay all right. He should have lost already - you must remember his squandered match balls in Rome finals. It's also ridiculous to state something like this considering Nadal was blown away by RF in the first set of Roland Garros 2006 finals. But I agree Nadal is a firm favourite on clay

The first post of the thread is a moronic insult to Federer.
And no, Federer will never be quite lumped with Sampras. Unlike him Fed is not a pure serve&volleyer, and also already had much succes on clay.
But I agree that winning French would seal Federer's reputation of all-court champion

Allez
03-22-2007, 06:08 PM
How many times must we have this debate :shrug:

Veronique
03-22-2007, 06:29 PM
Being lumped with the great Sampras is quite an honor tyvm!

DrJules
03-22-2007, 06:33 PM
Great on grass, good on hard court, mediocre on clay, is Federer the new Sampras?

The unbalanced schedule allow players to dominate and rack Slams, even if they can't win on the only surface that truly requires talent: clay.

Unless Roger wins the French Open, he will be lumped in the same category as Sampras: an incomplete player who lacked the talent to win on clay.

At the moment, neither Sampras or Federer can be considered as the greatest of all time.

You forgot how good Sampras and Federer are on indoor courts.

Rosa Luxembourg
03-22-2007, 06:55 PM
you should be banned for that much stupidity in one single post.


:haha:

CyBorg
03-22-2007, 06:58 PM
Let's stop focusing on the details, the main point is: if Federer doesn't win the French, he'll be lumped with Sampras in history books.

Let's put it this way: to the casual tennis fan, Federer's clay accomplishments would (in the case you raise) mirror Sampras'.

To the educated tennis fan, Federer's clay court ability trumps Sampras'. Regardless of whether he wins the French.

knightsky
03-22-2007, 08:37 PM
The unbalanced schedule allow players to dominate and rack Slams, even if they can't win on the only surface that truly requires talent: clay.
Clay is the only surface that truly requires talent??? So are you saying that Nadal, Gaudio, Ferrero and Costa are all more talented than Sampras and Federer?

At the moment, neither Sampras or Federer can be considered as the greatest of all time.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on who's the greatest, and your ranking of Sampras and Federer on the all-time list.