Article - Sampras running forehand most exciting groundstroke in 30 years [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Article - Sampras running forehand most exciting groundstroke in 30 years

laurie-1
11-09-2009, 12:45 PM
Interesting article I posted in Sampras section - is it ok to post it here? Today is the 1st time I've posted on mens Tennis Forum this year and there seems to have been a few changes since I was last here :D

Anyway, if its ok to post it here then read on....

Sampras Running Forehand: Most Exciting Groundstroke In Last 30 Years by Tribal Tech

There have been many great players in the open era and many players where certain strokes have been associated with them. I can think of the Jimmy Connors Sky Hook, the Ivanesivic lefty serve, the Boris Becker diving volley, Steffi Graf's sliced backhand and Monica Seles' double handed shots off both wings. The Pete Sampras Running Forehand comes into that category as one of the most famous and one of the most devastating shots of all time.

A shot that Pete performed over 14 years in his career, a shot that had precision, awesome technique, variety, angles and extreme topspin at tremendous pace, down the line and crosscourt. There are a few interesting things when discussing this particular shot: First of all, Pete was able to perform this shot under pressure, always the sign of a great player. He could hit this shot to break his opponents serve, to win sets at crucial moments and save his own service games. Sampras' great athleticism and strength also allowed him to reach and get to shots and hit outright winners when it looked like he had no business performing such magic.

Then there is the tactical scenario to look at. Pete often camped on the backhand side during rallying - it was by design and force of circumstances. Sampras really took this play from the Ivan Lendl book. Ivan also had a pretty devastating running forehand and often was prepared to exchange topspin backhands until he got a shorter ball to either hit inside out forehands to dictate the play or move to his right to hit a screaming running forehand winner. Sampras took that play from Ivan and elevated it to even higher levels. Sampras was also extremely skilled at the inside out forehand which he used to take the net or to stretch his opponent. Or Sampras moved out to his right to hit those incredible winners. The force of circumstances was that as time went on, the likes of Courier, Chang, Agassi, Muster and others would play to Sampras’ backhand as much as possible and only go to his forehand when they thought they were in control of the point – often to find they were sadly mistaken.

One thing I noticed was that in the last 12 months of his career, Sampras was more likely to go crosscourt with his running forehand as opposed to down the line when stretched - probably due to a slight decline in athleticism and increasing his margin for error over the lower part of the net. Down the line requires more topspin for higher net clearance, so precision is more vital.

I hope you enjoyed looking at one of the greatest Tennis shots of all time in some detail. I have a channel on Youtube so here are some great running forehands I've uploaded over the last 3 months for you to drool over!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5rxZhVjrVM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ksF_0Lx_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF_cL1NbIKs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFiOslvMvXY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peqzhoF2SjE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUZtuOGKUA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShVJFn-q-48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP46aafP_EQ&feature=related

Everko
11-09-2009, 12:47 PM
Sampras's forehand always looked like a muscle spasm to me. Nadal's forehand is more 'exciting' than that. No otehr shot bounces over players heads.

Elena.
11-09-2009, 12:55 PM
It's indeed so ! :D

Action Jackson
11-09-2009, 12:56 PM
Berrer's smash.

JolánGagó
11-09-2009, 12:58 PM
exciting is the last word that'd come to mind when talking of Sampras.

anyway, isn't there a Sampras forum? :scratch:

Machiavelli
11-09-2009, 12:58 PM
Berrer's smash.

Andreev's volleys, Berrer's smash is kindergarden stuff for this amazing volleys...

thrust
11-09-2009, 01:09 PM
Don't take the Sampras haters remarks seriously!

Har-Tru
11-09-2009, 01:14 PM
It wasn't even Sampras's most exciting shot.

paseo
11-09-2009, 01:53 PM
Maybe back then it was exciting, but nowadays there are a lot of players that can hit good running forehands.

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 01:59 PM
http://www.tennis.com/features/greatestshots/greatestshots.aspx?id=108752
Able to change his grip to adjust with bounces – even when forced able to slice the old-school squash shot with underspin – Federer’s mechanics are at once austere and elegant. His head is always balanced, his eyes tracking the ball keenly, his feet rarely out of position. As any recreational player knows, the forehand’s very range of options make it easy to become lax. Never is this the case with Federer.

Everko
11-09-2009, 02:00 PM
Maybe back then it was exciting, but nowadays there are a lot of players that can hit good running forehands.

yes. Every hotshot junior can do it easily now

Commander Data
11-09-2009, 02:07 PM
BS. Sampras most exciting shot is his Slam-Dunk-Like-High-Flying-Monster-Overhead-In-Your-Face-Smash. ;)

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 02:12 PM
BS. Sampras most exciting shot is his Slam-Dunk-Like-High-Flying-Monster-Overhead-In-Your-Face-Smash. ;)

I think Federer's overhead is better personally, I think a case could be made for Federer being the best at all shots because his technique and footwork has no fault and is so consistently maintained without lax.

JolánGagó
11-09-2009, 02:33 PM
I think a case could be made for Federer being the best at all shots because his technique and footwork has no fault and is so consistently maintained without lax.

I agree, too true.

DJ Soup
11-09-2009, 02:40 PM
I think Federer's overhead is better personally, I think a case could be made for Federer being the best at all shots because his technique and footwork has no fault and is so consistently maintained without lax.

I can agree if we except the backhand topspin, man

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 02:43 PM
I can agree if we except the backhand topspin, man

Yes I am very agreeable to your persuasion and position regarding bh topspin.

Start da Game
11-09-2009, 02:47 PM
the running forehand and the slam dunk........

beat it.......

Smoke944
11-09-2009, 02:50 PM
Seems some people in this thread have fuzzy memories. Certainly Federer's forehand is all-around much better, but as far as running forehands go Sampras still has easily the best of all time. It was odd because the further you pulled him off the court the less likely you were to win the point. Pull him eight feet outside the doubles alley and there wasn't much you could do to prevent a cross-court forehand winner from flying by you.

BTW I agree that his slam dunk is more exciting, but as for actual effectiveness you can't beat his running forehand.

Bernard Black
11-09-2009, 03:18 PM
Seems some people in this thread have fuzzy memories. Certainly Federer's forehand is all-around much better, but as far as running forehands go Sampras still has easily the best of all time. It was odd because the further you pulled him off the court the less likely you were to win the point. Pull him eight feet outside the doubles alley and there wasn't much you could do to prevent a cross-court forehand winner from flying by you.

BTW I agree that his slam dunk is more exciting, but as for actual effectiveness you can't beat his running forehand.

Great post but it will fall on deaf ears as very few here have any knowledge of tennis pre-2005.

Nadal's forehand? I can see that as bait from a mile off so don't bother.

Sampras can't be described as exciting? Too true if you're talking about his personality. His game was far more entertaining that 99% of today's pros though.

Ichiban1920
11-09-2009, 03:31 PM
LMAO at all the Nadull/Frauderer glory hunters and fanboys in here hating Sampras. What a pathetic group of idiots. Nadull's forehand more exciting? Lay off the crack pipe retards.

JolánGagó
11-09-2009, 03:32 PM
His game was far more entertaining that 99% of today's pros though.

:haha:

rocketassist
11-09-2009, 03:33 PM
Nadal can only dream of a forehand like Pete's.

jonathancrane
11-09-2009, 03:37 PM
Nadull's moonballs >>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras + Federer + Laver forehands

GlennMirnyi
11-09-2009, 04:28 PM
Seems some people in this thread have fuzzy memories. Certainly Federer's forehand is all-around much better, but as far as running forehands go Sampras still has easily the best of all time. It was odd because the further you pulled him off the court the less likely you were to win the point. Pull him eight feet outside the doubles alley and there wasn't much you could do to prevent a cross-court forehand winner from flying by you.

BTW I agree that his slam dunk is more exciting, but as for actual effectiveness you can't beat his running forehand.

Agreed.

Great post but it will fall on deaf ears as very few here have any knowledge of tennis pre-2005.

Nadal's forehand? I can see that as bait from a mile off so don't bother.

Sampras can't be described as exciting? Too true if you're talking about his personality. His game was far more entertaining that 99% of today's pros though.

Pretty accurate.

fast_clay
11-09-2009, 04:54 PM
without the forehand, sampras was never likely to boss a point behind the serve vs guys like agassi... and yeah, fully agree, it was better to hit a shot straight at sampras' forehand rather than to make him run to a forehand...

iamke55
11-09-2009, 05:00 PM
The fanboyism in this thread is incredible... Sampras' baseline game, as well as everyone else of his era, was a joke compared to what top 500 players are today.

Burrow
11-09-2009, 05:20 PM
During his younger years, his ability to turn straight after hitting that forehand was amazing. He could just stop dead and change direction with minimal loss of balance. Great shot.

Start da Game
11-09-2009, 05:31 PM
The fanboyism in this thread is incredible... Sampras' baseline game, as well as everyone else of his era, was a joke compared to what top 500 players are today.

of-sdXeDjNE

with an 85 sq.inch old style wilson pro-staff stick.......

Everko
11-09-2009, 05:33 PM
The fanboyism in this thread is incredible... Sampras' baseline game, as well as everyone else of his era, was a joke compared to what top 500 players are today.

:worship:

Sharp
11-09-2009, 05:34 PM
Certanly not in this moment, but if JMDP continues to develop his game this way, his forehand might become the most powerfull stroke ever.

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 07:21 PM
Scud Forehand Power.

GugaF1
11-09-2009, 08:52 PM
of-sdXeDjNE

with an 85 sq.inch old style wilson pro-staff stick.......


Very sweet stuff. Just great.

tnosugar
11-09-2009, 09:00 PM
i enjoyed becker's volley's more in the first video. no hot shot juniors doing those ;)

leng jai
11-09-2009, 09:14 PM
Monfils' slice backhand clearly has the superior excitement factor.

Mechlan
11-09-2009, 09:36 PM
I like the Sampras smash too, but the running forehand was a thing of beauty.

moon language
11-09-2009, 10:09 PM
Did someone say Federer's overhead smash is better than Sampras's? Now I've really heard it all.

dabeast
11-10-2009, 01:21 AM
The fanboyism in this thread is incredible... Sampras' baseline game, as well as everyone else of his era, was a joke compared to what top 500 players are today.

Agreed. Which is why I always thought Sampras was overrated. The guy had only one option, S & V. His baseline game was seriously poor by today's standards. dunno where pple are getting the idea he was a multi-dimensional player. And talking about ugly strokes, his service motion, HILARIOUS!

Mechlan
11-10-2009, 01:36 AM
And talking about ugly strokes, his service motion, HILARIOUS!

You think that perhaps the best server ever had a funny service motion? Now that's hilarious.

dabeast
11-10-2009, 01:49 AM
yeah he had a great serve,but how he served was weird and awkward. don't take it so seriously dude.

GlennMirnyi
11-10-2009, 02:04 AM
Agreed. Which is why I always thought Sampras was overrated. The guy had only one option, S & V. His baseline game was seriously poor by today's standards. dunno where pple are getting the idea he was a multi-dimensional player. And talking about ugly strokes, his service motion, HILARIOUS!

Yeah, Sampras S&Ved all the time from 1990-1996. :lol:

If idiocy were a crime, you'd be sentenced to capital punishment.

Mechlan
11-10-2009, 02:45 AM
yeah he had a great serve,but how he served was weird and awkward. don't take it so seriously dude.

Seriously? just disagree i guess. his serve was the most elegant part of his game.

moon language
11-10-2009, 02:45 AM
of-sdXeDjNE

with an 85 sq.inch old style wilson pro-staff stick.......

I don't normally indulge in the "mug era" discussion about the quality of today's tennis, but if there was ever proof of it it's right here. It's easy to forget how good these guys were.

Mimi
11-10-2009, 03:20 AM
:bigclap::clap2: he didn't win the 14 slams for nothing, his serves and forehand, running forehead and overhead: one of the best in history:bowdown:

Mimi
11-10-2009, 03:32 AM
You think that perhaps the best server ever had a funny service motion? Now that's hilarious.
:worship::worship:

RagingLamb
11-10-2009, 05:43 AM
It was amazing that he could generate such pace on the run (especially considering the weight of his racquet and the tension in his strings).

It really was a terrific shot. And the odd thing is that players probably saw it coming, but couldn't do a damn thing about it. That was the power and athleticism of Sampras. And he had enough game and variety to back it up.

Show me one player today that has such a ferocious, forceful game.

GugaF1
11-10-2009, 11:00 AM
It was amazing that he could generate such pace on the run (especially considering the weight of his racquet and the tension in his strings).

It really was a terrific shot. And the odd thing is that players probably saw it coming, but couldn't do a damn thing about it. That was the power and athleticism of Sampras. And he had enough game and variety to back it up.

Show me one player today that has such a ferocious, forceful game.


That is true, Sampras is one of the most forceful, get it done on my own term player that I ever seen. He let the match be decided on his raquet terms. And he was even able to put Agassi into this submission position, which is increadible, because Agassi is historically problably the most forcefully and consistent baseliner ever.

RafitoGoat
11-10-2009, 11:08 AM
That is true, Sampras is one of the most forceful, get it done on my own term player that I ever seen. He let the match be decided on his raquet terms. And he was even able to put Agassi into this submission position, which is increadible, because Agassi is historically problably the most forcefully and consistent baseliner ever.

Very well put :wavey:

Bernard Black
11-10-2009, 12:36 PM
That is true, Sampras is one of the most forceful, get it done on my own term player that I ever seen. He let the match be decided on his raquet terms. And he was even able to put Agassi into this submission position, which is increadible, because Agassi is historically problably the most forcefully and consistent baseliner ever.

That's it, really. Anyone who watched the important matches Sampras had with Agassi would see he wasn't just winning points at the net, he was trading with Agassi from the back and winning his fair share there too.

Bizarrely, I hear people say tennis has moved on so much and Sampras' game is obsolete now. Just look at the athleticism the guy had, amazing touch at net, clinical overheads, solid backhand in his prime with pinpoint accuracy on the pass, and of course that forehand...he could do absolutely anything with it. It was put perfectly earlier that players could see it coming, it was predictable in that way, but what can you do about it when the ball's already passed you? Simply one of the greatest strokes of all time, and yes, exciting to watch.

fast_clay
11-10-2009, 01:21 PM
Agreed. Which is why I always thought Sampras was overrated. The guy had only one option, S & V. His baseline game was seriously poor by today's standards. dunno where pple are getting the idea he was a multi-dimensional player. And talking about ugly strokes, his service motion, HILARIOUS!

perhaps the worst post of the year, simply because i think the author takes itself seriously... a clear lack of understanding and comprehension of the game...

That's it, really. Anyone who watched the important matches Sampras had with Agassi would see he wasn't just winning points at the net, he was trading with Agassi from the back and winning his fair share there too.

Bizarrely, I hear people say tennis has moved on so much and Sampras' game is obsolete now. Just look at the athleticism the guy had, amazing touch at net, clinical overheads, solid backhand in his prime with pinpoint accuracy on the pass, and of course that forehand...he could do absolutely anything with it. It was put perfectly earlier that players could see it coming, it was predictable in that way, but what can you do about it when the ball's already passed you? Simply one of the greatest strokes of all time, and yes, exciting to watch.

it is bizarre, especially when you consider that the heavy flat slowly rotating ball used by del potro to disarm all and sundry at the USO '09 clearly displays that this style of play is still devestatingly relevant... the thing about sampras is that he had total control of the shot at a low or high pace and rotate it quicker or slower accordingly... he did not need a heavy ball to work with... nor did he need to be in position early...

supreme feel for the shot at high power...

Start da Game
11-10-2009, 02:03 PM
It was amazing that he could generate such pace on the run (especially considering the weight of his racquet and the tension in his strings).

It really was a terrific shot. And the odd thing is that players probably saw it coming, but couldn't do a damn thing about it. That was the power and athleticism of Sampras. And he had enough game and variety to back it up.

Show me one player today that has such a ferocious, forceful game.

that the thing, isn't it.......you know what was coming from his end but you can hardly do anything about it.......sheer aggression is the word........

That's it, really. Anyone who watched the important matches Sampras had with Agassi would see he wasn't just winning points at the net, he was trading with Agassi from the back and winning his fair share there too.

Bizarrely, I hear people say tennis has moved on so much and Sampras' game is obsolete now. Just look at the athleticism the guy had, amazing touch at net, clinical overheads, solid backhand in his prime with pinpoint accuracy on the pass, and of course that forehand...he could do absolutely anything with it. It was put perfectly earlier that players could see it coming, it was predictable in that way, but what can you do about it when the ball's already passed you? Simply one of the greatest strokes of all time, and yes, exciting to watch.

to me, sampras has the most perfect(read well rounded) game suitable for any era........the guy could do anything on a tennis court.......perfect serve and volleyer who could outlast anyone from the back court as well.......

it's a pity that people talk down his baseline capabilities.......couple of australian titles on that dead slow rebound ace despite missing the 91, 92 and 99 editions of the tournament due to injury and several great efforts at the french open despite little practice over clay are a testimony to his baseline capabilities........to beat all of muster, courier and bruguera at the french open is not a mean task........

we will never again see an all out aggressive player winning 14 slams in any era.......

SetSampras
11-10-2009, 06:28 PM
That's it, really. Anyone who watched the important matches Sampras had with Agassi would see he wasn't just winning points at the net, he was trading with Agassi from the back and winning his fair share there too.

Bizarrely, I hear people say tennis has moved on so much and Sampras' game is obsolete now. Just look at the athleticism the guy had, amazing touch at net, clinical overheads, solid backhand in his prime with pinpoint accuracy on the pass, and of course that forehand...he could do absolutely anything with it. It was put perfectly earlier that players could see it coming, it was predictable in that way, but what can you do about it when the ball's already passed you? Simply one of the greatest strokes of all time, and yes, exciting to watch.

And people seem to negate this.. just citing that Pete was just a serve-volleyer. That couldnt even be more from the truth.. In fact, I dont even think Pete was on the best serve volleyes or among the elite. Guys like McEnroe or Edberg were better than Pete in this regard. It was Pete's all court game which got it done. He could outslug or outbaseline even the best from the baseline in Agassi. If you watch Pete during his peak year 93-97 or so. You will see that Pete was much more than a serve-volleyer. IT was his later years he stepped up the attack more when he left his prime and began to slow down.

fidelio
11-10-2009, 06:41 PM
Federer running forehand is not too bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR_gNoWjF5Y

SetSampras
11-10-2009, 06:45 PM
Federer running forehand is not too bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR_gNoWjF5Y

Not bad. But certainly not on Pete's planet. THough Roger has more variety in his FH he doesnt have the running FH execution like Pete's. There is no player that could hit a running FH like Pete in history with the pace and power even being off balance as he was

timafi
11-10-2009, 09:40 PM
it couldn't buy him a place in the French capital to solidify his GOAT status for shit:tape:

laurie-1
11-10-2009, 10:52 PM
There have been some very interesting responses in this thread so far.

From what I can see, themajority are very knowledgeable posters here - and a few who are probably trying to either look clever or look good, who clearly are not knowledgeable about Tennis or influenced by certain sections of the media and not able to make an informed judgement and instead make what can be described as schioolboy comments.

But yes, Sampras did have a great all around game. Sampras' decline was typical of a player who peaks around the age of 25. Sampras made the decision around the age of 29 to play to certain strengths in his game, and cut out other things which made him the player he was.

For instance, in Sampras' best years from 1992 to 1999, he regularly would run around his backhand to hit forehand returns, to get them deep or go for winners. Sampras would also hit the inside out forehand a lot during rallies and stay back on his 2nd serve often, almost exclusievely on hardcourts and clay and even indoors.

In 2000 and 2001, Sampras was chipping and charging a lot (too much in my opinion) and stopped running around the backhand to hit forehand returns, was no longer staying back on his 2nd serve and became ultra aggressive.

That style of play (due to back injuries) meant that Sampras was no longer able to play consistently at a high level every week and thats what a lot of people remember him for - the way he played in the last 2 years of his career as opposed to the way he played from 1990 through 1999.

However, if you speak to Sampras directly, he will probably tell you that amending his game as he got older extended his stay in the top 10 because his body was no longer holding up to allow him to play how he wanted to play.

And as he says in his book, he really wasn't interested in playing aggressive tennis all the time because he enjoyed playing from the baseline and it took a lot of persuading by Paul Annacone, coupled with serious back injuries in September 1999 which persuaded him to play that way from 2000 to 2002.

fast_clay
11-11-2009, 12:08 AM
have posted this up here before in mtf... probably the highest quality 4 set match i'm ever likely to watch live... and probably illustrates best the post above on sampras' tactical switch late in his career...

the video is just highlights, and what you see is agassi staying right the **** from sampras' forehand wing... heh heh...

but there is one spectacular job... on the run... in the point commencing at 4:05... the following point shows a variety of usage... especially the right side finish when coming forward - to take the set...

2VUBtEbuOuY

FairWeatherFan
11-11-2009, 12:57 AM
Sampras would make mincemeat out of this clown era.

Mimi
11-11-2009, 01:03 AM
That's it, really. Anyone who watched the important matches Sampras had with Agassi would see he wasn't just winning points at the net, he was trading with Agassi from the back and winning his fair share there too.

Bizarrely, I hear people say tennis has moved on so much and Sampras' game is obsolete now. Just look at the athleticism the guy had, amazing touch at net, clinical overheads, solid backhand in his prime with pinpoint accuracy on the pass, and of course that forehand...he could do absolutely anything with it. It was put perfectly earlier that players could see it coming, it was predictable in that way, but what can you do about it when the ball's already passed you? Simply one of the greatest strokes of all time, and yes, exciting to watch.

:worship::worship:

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 01:26 AM
it couldn't buy him a place in the French capital to solidify his GOAT status for shit:tape:

show me a player that federer beat at the french open in his career who is of the level of bruguera or courier on clay.......

Haelfix
11-11-2009, 04:33 AM
Federer's running forehand is less powerful than Pete's was, but slightly more angled. Both are pretty devastating, but i'd give the edge to Pete b/c it stayed consistent throughout his career whereas Federers kinda dissappears for periods of time.

In general, Pete's forehand is a flatter more penetrating stroke, which is why all those old matches it seems like he is on steroids hitting paces that don't exist anymore (outside of Safin and JMDP).

But there is a bit of an optical illusion going on there too. Nadals forehand seems very slow for instance, but its been clocked at over 105 mph (a speed nearly unheard off back in the 90s), even though it doesn't look that fast and kinda loopy in the replays. That has to do with ball trajectory and the way our eye tracks motion.

Likewise, Federers serve is in the 120s, low 130s. Nearly identical (give or take a mph or two) from Sampras's average. But it seems slow by comparison. Why? B/c the reaction time of the opposing player is so much faster now relative to the Todd Martins of the world, and we are accustomed to Roddick and Karlovic booming 140+mph serves. Another trick of the eye.

leng jai
11-11-2009, 06:32 AM
show me a player that federer beat at the french open in his career who is of the level of bruguera or courier on clay.......

T. Haas

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 07:32 AM
T. Haas

purge yourself first.......

TheWall
11-11-2009, 08:17 AM
show me a player that federer beat at the french open in his career who is of the level of bruguera or courier on clay.......

You need to keep it in perspective.

Bruguera's clay record of 1996: 12-9 (including loss to clay-god Rosset)
Courier's clay record of 1996: 8-4 (4-3 without RG)

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 09:01 AM
You need to keep it in perspective.

Bruguera's clay record of 1996: 12-9 (including loss to clay-god Rosset)
Courier's clay record of 1996: 8-4 (4-3 without RG)

that doesn't make them any bad players and you wouldn't be talking like this if you watched those two matches of pete.......federer got a totally hip crippled kuerten in 2004 but got spanked in straight sets.......what could federer do to kuerten then? nothing.......

TheWall
11-11-2009, 09:17 AM
that doesn't make them any bad players and you wouldn't be talking like this if you watched those two matches of pete.......federer got a totally hip crippled kuerten in 2004 but got spanked in straight sets.......what could federer do to kuerten then? nothing.......

"hip crippled kuerten" had a 15-5 record including a title on clay in 2004, he did in every way much better than Courier and Brueguera in 1996.

Even if Kuerten had a 0-10 record it wouldn't been a big deal, everyone has a bad loss from time to time.

Didn't Sampras hit 100 UE in a RG loss to Schaller? Was Sampars so much more impressive against Delgado in 98 than Federer was against Kuerten in 04?

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 09:22 AM
"hip crippled kuerten" had a 15-5 record on clay in 2004, he did in every way much better than Courier and Brueguera in 1996.

Even if Kuerten had a 0-10 record, it would've ben forgivable, bad losses happen to everyone.
Didn't Sampras hit 100 UEs in a RG loss to Schaller?
Was Sampars so much more impressive against Delgado in 98 than Federer was against Kuerten in 04?

you are not getting it.......it's not about how sampras fared against lesser players........it's about how sampras and federer fared against greats at the french open........

bruguera and courier are multiple french open champions.......the only two great clay courters that federer faced in his career at the french open are kuerten(the hip crippled one) and nadal.......his record is 0-1 against kuerten and 0-4 against nadal.......utter flop, quality owns federer on clay.......

if sampras had a draw like fed's this year, he would have won the french too........

TheWall
11-11-2009, 09:29 AM
you are not getting it.......it's not about how sampras fared against lesser players........it's about how sampras and federer fared against greats at the french open........

bruguera and courier are multiple french open champions.......the only two great clay courters that federer faced in his career at the french open are kuerten(the hip crippled one) and nadal.......his record is 0-1 against kuerten and 0-4 against nadal.......utter flop, quality owns federer on clay.......

No, you're not getting it.

Sampras has not a single win against a top clay courter in one of his peak years, that's how it is.

Believe it or not, but beating Muster on clay in 1990 is not the same as doing it in 1995, just as beating Nadal in 2013 is not the same as doing it in 2008.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 09:41 AM
No, you're not getting it.

Sampras has not a single win against a top clay courter in one of his peak years, that's how it is.

Believe it or not, but beating Muster on clay in 1990 is not the same as doing it in 1995, just as beating Nadal in 2013 is not the same as doing it in 2008.

sampras did beat courier and bruguera back to back in two tough 5 setters in 96 and they were by no means finished by then.......in fact bruguera still had it in him to make it to the french final the very next year.......federer never in his life beat players of the class of courier and bruguera at the french open.......

TheWall
11-11-2009, 11:21 AM
sampras did beat courier and bruguera back to back in two tough 5 setters in 96 and they were by no means finished by then.......in fact bruguera still had it in him to make it to the french final the very next year.......federer never in his life beat players of the class of courier and bruguera at the french open.......

They were a nice scalp, but they were hardly great clay courters at the time.

You can talk up those wins as long as you want, but Sampras never beat peak Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Moyŕ, Corretja, Ferrero, or Kürten on clay.

If some random ballbasher (lets say Korolev) beats a far past his prime Nadal in RG in a few years, are his achievements in Paris more impressive than Federer's?

By the way, Bruguera played much better tennis in 97, he got over some serious injuries and as a result his record on clay was 20-8 and he even outplayed a confident Sampras on hardcourts. That's why Sergi was #82 at the end of 96, and #8 at the end of 97.

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 11:40 AM
Sampras had excellent wins on clay, he was not a clay clown, but his poor movement on the surface and a lack of endurance on the surface cost him when it came to consistently doing well on clay.

What about Rosset on clay, he wasn't a clown on the surface when he wanted to play.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 11:44 AM
Sampras had excellent wins on clay, he was not a clay clown, but his poor movement on the surface and a lack of endurance on the surface cost him when it came to consistently doing well on clay.

What about Rosset on clay, he wasn't a clown on the surface when he wanted to play.
I never said that Sampras was clay-clown, he was way to good on other surfaces to just suck on dirt. A serve and forehand like that don't just disappear.

And you're right about Rosset, I never really followed his career closely and sold him short as a clay courter, he had some nice results. I didn't realize that he reached the SF of Roland Garros in 96 (OTOH so did Ljubicic).

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 11:51 AM
Rosset thumped Courier for the loss of 7 games at the Barcelona Olympics.

I am far from a Sampras fan, but Wallmeister, you were making him out to be a clay clown. It's useless comparing him to Federer when the game on clay and playing style has changed significantly in that time peroid.

Sampras didn't know how to approach clay, unlike Rafter, Noah or Edberg, he didn't attack as much as them, but he was not as stubborn as Becker who wanted to beat the big clay guys from the baseline. He was in between.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 11:54 AM
if sampras had a draw like fed's this year, he would have won the french too........


He was taken to 5 by Juan Antonio Marin from Costa Riaca in RG 99 and you think he would've beaten
Acasuso, Mathieu, Haas, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling?

Dini
11-11-2009, 12:00 PM
show me a player that federer beat at the french open in his career who is of the level of bruguera or courier on clay.......

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. That a semi final, 3 further finals and a win is < wins over Bruguera and Courier with a career best being one semi final?

Sure I'm just stating facts. But even you implying that Sampras was better on the clay courts than Federer sounds a bit iffy. Surface speeds and players were different back then, but I'm sure even Pete would agree that Federer is better on the surface. Sampras lost to clay court nobodies in his peak, Federer hasn't. That should count for something too. :shrug:

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:00 PM
He was taken to 5 by Juan Antonio Marin from Costa Riaca in RG 99 and you think he would've beaten
Acasuso, Mathieu, Haas, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling?

Different style of game on clay then and now, how can you not see that? Greater degree of surface specialisation and they could expose Sampras on the forehand side, with his running forehand and not being able to stop with the slide and then get his backhand.

Acasuso, PHM, Haas, Monfils, del Potro and Söderling all of them are Fed pigeons.

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:01 PM
No one should be seriously trying to compare Federer and Sampras on clay, that is like comparing Russia and Monaco in area.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 12:06 PM
Rosset thumped Courier for the loss of 7 games at the Barcelona Olympics.

I am far from a Sampras fan, but Wallmeister, you were making him out to be a clay clown. It's useless comparing him to Federer when the game on clay and playing style has changed significantly in that time peroid.

Sampras didn't know how to approach clay, unlike Rafter, Noah or Edberg, he didn't attack as much as them, but he was not as stubborn as Becker who wanted to beat the big clay guys from the baseline. He was in between.

It was not my intetion to portray him as a clay clown, he wasn't. Probably a counter-reaction against Start da Game's glorification. :p

Sampras played some fantastic matches on clay (DC against Russia), but overall he failed to make any inroads against the good and inform clay courters.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 12:11 PM
Different style of game on clay then and now, how can you not see that? Greater degree of surface specialisation and they could expose Sampras on the forehand side, with his running forehand and not being able to stop with the slide and then get his backhand.

Acasuso, PHM, Haas, Monfils, del Potro and Söderling all of them are Fed pigeons.

I'm well aware that we don't have the typical clay court grinders in today's game, this definately helps Federer as he gets to play more favorable match-ups, but it's not like a guy like Monfils couldn't outretrieve and frustrate an average Sampras on clay.

Saying that Sampras would've won RG in 99 with Federer's 09 draw is laughable.

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:15 PM
His best RG run in 96 was with a draw more brutal than Agassi ever had to deal with.

R1 - Gustafsson in 3, last 2 sets were tight.

R2 - Bruguera in 5, yes Sergi was not in shape and having problems, but he made Sampras work very hard.

R3 - T.Martin in 5, not your typical claycourt player, but American players today on clay wish they would be at his level on the surface, any of them.

R4- Draper, rest day.

QF Courier - even not as good as he was, but played well and loved Paris, good win for Sampras.

He was gone and Kafelnikov chewed him up.

Yes, Start da Game is overrating Sampras on clay, but he wasn't a total gimp.

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:17 PM
I'm well aware that we don't have the typical clay court grinders in today's game, this definately helps Federer as he gets to play more favorable match-ups, but it's not like a guy like Monfils couldn't outretrieve and frustrate an average Sampras on clay.

Saying that Sampras would've won RG in 99 with Federer's 09 draw is laughable.

It's not just about running down balls, takes more than that to win on clay, you should know that.

Is it laughable really? Agassi apart from Moya had the dream draw in 99, Fillipini (140s), Hrbaty a 19 yr old in his first semi and Medvedev in the last 3 matches.

All about timing and Sampras was never a serious threat to win at RG.

Dini
11-11-2009, 12:21 PM
In the Del Potro match, Fed was being outplayed - simple. But then he started literally to grind it out from the back and he played some defensive junkballing shite to get through. :shrug: He had a different game plan which tired JMDP in the process. I'm not too sure Sampras had that many gears on clay so saying he would win with Fed's 09 draw is probably not laughable but it's scratch-head-able.

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:24 PM
How can you compare when the match ups are very different. Sampras wouldn't play the same way now and the guys now wouldn't play the same way at that time.

Dini
11-11-2009, 12:28 PM
How can you compare when the match ups are very different. Sampras wouldn't play the same way now and the guys now wouldn't play the same way at that time.

Then how do you know that Sampras would win in 99 with Fed's 09 draw? :shrug:

But was it really that drastically different in 99? I wasn't a tennis fan back then, though it's quite sad if ten years cause the game to be a different one, literally. I'm just thinking that considering Del Potro's height, I'm quite sure he'd still have a big serve in 99 and big power off both wings - the ingredients that make his game.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 12:36 PM
His best RG run in 96 was with a draw more brutal than Agassi ever had to deal with.

R1 - Gustafsson in 3, last 2 sets were tight.

R2 - Bruguera in 5, yes Sergi was not in shape and having problems, but he made Sampras work very hard.

R3 - T.Martin in 5, not your typical claycourt player, but American players today on clay wish they would be at his level on the surface, any of them.

R4- Draper, rest day.

QF Courier - even not as good as he was, but played well and loved Paris, good win for Sampras.

He was gone and Kafelnikov chewed him up.

Yes, Start da Game is overrating Sampras on clay, but he wasn't a total gimp.
Sampras' 96 draw was definately a tough one. Great effort by Sampras to reach SF, but the draw does look better (tougher) on paper than it was.

It's not just about running down balls, takes more than that to win on clay, you should know that.

Is it laughable really? Agassi apart from Moya had the dream draw in 99, Fillipini (140s), Hrbaty a 19 yr old in his first semi and Medvedev in the last 3 matches.

All about timing and Sampras was never a serious threat to win at RG.
I didn't say that you only need to retrieve to win on clay, point construction and heavy shots are just as important.

When Sampras wasn't at his best he could be outretrieved on clay, and a guy like Monfils is surely capable of doing just that, obviously not every time, but he's not a BYE for Sampras by any means.

Agassi did have an easy draw in 99, but how is that related to Sampras' chances with a RG 09 draw?

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:36 PM
Then how do you know that Sampras would win in 99 with Fed's 09 draw? :shrug:

But was it really that drastically different in 99? I wasn't a tennis fan back then, though it's quite sad if ten years cause the game to be a different one, literally. I'm just thinking that considering Del Potro's height, I'm quite sure he'd still have a big serve in 99 and big power off both wings - the ingredients that make his game.

I am not saying he would, where am I saying that? Del Potro he is just Todd Martin with worse volleys and better movement.

Yes, it was a different game especially on clay, for reasons explained in detail many times over. How is it going to be sad? Things move on, sometimes good and other times not.

Seriously Federer played in 99, he doesn't play anywhere near the same style then as he does now and that is not a surprise.

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:41 PM
Sampras' 96 draw was definately a tough one. Great effort by Sampras to reach SF, but the draw does look better (tougher) on paper than it was.

It was a tough draw pure and simple, none of this 32 seed bullshit. It was very hot that event and the balls were flying, so that helped Sampras on serve, but exposed his fitness.

Of course he was more vulnerable on clay, but that was to a lot of players then for reasons already explained.

Why is Sampras 99 mentioned initially, since Agassi won it 99. In fact 2 examples of contrasting draws in their best years. As with Federer draws, impossible to tell and don't need to know why. All depends on the day.

Considering the game isn't the same then as it is now, the 09 draw makes no sense, as too much time has passed.

stebs
11-11-2009, 12:42 PM
I am not saying he would, where am I saying that? Del Potro he is just Todd Martin with worse volleys and better movement.

Todd Martin doesn't hit the ball like Del Potro on the FH wing and they play points completely differently as well which is obviously partly due to being product of their times. Still, a tenous link imo.

Dini
11-11-2009, 12:44 PM
I am not saying he would, where am I saying that? Del Potro he is just Todd Martin with worse volleys and better movement.

Yes, it was a different game especially on clay, for reasons explained in detail many times over. How is it going to be sad? Things move on, sometimes good and other times not.

Seriously Federer played in 99, he doesn't play anywhere near the same style then as he does now and that is not a surprise.

My bad you didn't but someone did (or implied that) can't be bothered to check back. :p

The changes (surface speeds for example) are sad in my opinion because you don't get continuation. I'd like there to be a constant throughout the sport - where one thing stays the same but the rest changes. In an ideal world I would have loved to see the clay remain the slowest thing and grass the fastest. But now it's the opposite. Clay is faster and grass is slower than it used to be...

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 12:49 PM
@TheWall

you have nothing(zero) to show as far as fed's victories against great players on clay is concerned........i have given you 2 of sampras already........sampras hardly ever considered to take part in montecarlo and even hamburg, goes to show his lack of interest in the surface.......despite all that and despite minimal match play, he did beat greatest clay courters of his generation at the biggest stage of clay, the french open.......

i will say it once again.......courier and bruguera were far from finished that year.......just get the videos of those two matches, you will know what i am talking........

federer always had trouble dealing with any quality clay courter.......corretja blasted him in 2001, arazi(what is he?) in 2002, horna(who is he?) in 2003.......

kuerten's victory in 2004 just seals the deal in my favour........except nadal, who has pwned him at the french open, never in his life again did he face a clay courter as good as kuerten ........

sampras, despite minimal matchplay on clay, did find a way to beat the best clay courters of his generation in the french open........

TheWall
11-11-2009, 12:54 PM
It was a tough draw pure and simple, none of this 32 seed bullshit. It was very hot that event and the balls were flying, so that helped Sampras on serve, but exposed his fitness.

Of course he was more vulnerable on clay, but that was to a lot of players then for reasons already explained.

Why is Sampras 99 mentioned initially, since Agassi won it 99. In fact 2 examples of contrasting draws in their best years. As with Federer draws, impossible to tell and don't need to know why. All depends on the day.

Considering the game isn't the same then as it is now, the 09 draw makes no sense, as too much time has passed.

Fair enough.

It's impossible to tell how a different field would've influenced their results.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 12:55 PM
one more thing.......sampras would never have allowed anyone to assert their games on him as long as nadal did on federer.......

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 12:55 PM
Sampras was never close to winning RG, even in 96, he was just fodder for Kafelnikov.

Dini
11-11-2009, 01:02 PM
@TheWall

you have nothing(zero) to show as far as fed's victories against great players on clay is concerned........i have given you 2 of sampras already........sampras hardly ever considered to take part in montecarlo and even hamburg, goes to show his lack of interest in the surface.......despite all that and despite minimal match play, he did beat greatest clay courters of his generation at the biggest stage of clay, the french open.......


What do victories against great players mean when they don't translate to titles and strong results? That's like Liverpool FC celebrating a win against Manchester United as if they've won the premier league, when in fact Man U are the ones with the titles.


federer always had trouble dealing with any quality clay courter.......corretja blasted him in 2001, arazi(what is he?) in 2002, horna(who is he?) in 2003.......

Because in 2001-2003 Federer was racking the slams like there was no tomorrow. Lots of people blasted and crushed Federer in these years on grass and hard. Let alone clay.


sampras, despite minimal matchplay on clay, did find a way to beat the best clay courters of his generation in the french open........

You're still talking about individual wins.

stebs
11-11-2009, 01:04 PM
one more thing.......sampras would never have allowed anyone to assert their games on him as long as nadal did on federer.......

Sampras would receive same treatment as Federer on clay vs Nadal and I see no way he would deal with it any better than Federer has done. It's not like Sampras has a superior BH that doesn't break down under that kind of pressure.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 01:17 PM
@TheWall

you have nothing(zero) to show as far as fed's victories against great players on clay is concerned........i have given you 2 of sampras already........sampras hardly ever considered to take part in montecarlo and even hamburg, goes to show his lack of interest in the surface.......despite all that and despite minimal match play, he did beat greatest clay courters of his generation at the biggest stage of clay, the french open.......

i will say it once again.......courier and bruguera were far from finished that year.......just get the videos of those two matches, you will know what i am talking........

federer always had trouble dealing with any quality clay courter.......corretja blasted him in 2001, arazi(what is he?) in 2002, horna(who is he?) in 2003.......

kuerten's victory in 2004 just seals the deal in my favour........except nadal, who has pwned him at the french open, never in his life again did he face a clay courter as good as kuerten ........

sampras, despite minimal matchplay on clay, did find a way to beat the best clay courters of his generation in the french open........

I'm not denying that Federer doesn't have truely great wins in RG either.

But you're looking at Sampras best clay-wins in a 13+ year career (against 2 players that both ended that year outside the top25) and compared them to some of Federer's worst RG-losses, how is that supposed to proof anything?

It's logical that Federer would've had some more early round losses if he played against the clay-courters of the 90s, but on the other hand he wouldn't have lost matches like the 2006 Rome final.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 01:24 PM
@thewall
well, the point has always been the same.......don't confuse yourself.......at the FO, sampras beat players of the class of courier and bruguera, federer could not.......simple as that.......

i don't mean to say that sampras is superior over federer on clay.......my point is, sampras not winning FO and federer winning it has no importance in my book coz we all know in what field federer won it and what is federer's state at the hands of the best clay courter of his generation.......

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 01:29 PM
Sampras would receive same treatment as Federer on clay vs Nadal and I see no way he would deal with it any better than Federer has done. It's not like Sampras has a superior BH that doesn't break down under that kind of pressure.

one thing for sure - he wouldn't allow nadal to fuck his backhand 1000 times like federer.......his nature is such that he tries to create something when he sees an opponent repeating the same stuff.......

just for the info, courier(something which he always tried against pete) was pinning him to the backhand corner over and over in that 96 match.......pete won that match hitting about 80% of his shots on the backhand side........

TheWall
11-11-2009, 01:32 PM
@thewall
well, the point has always been the same.......don't confuse yourself.......at the FO, sampras beat players of the class of courier and bruguera, federer could not.......simple as that.......

i don't mean to say that sampras is superior over federer on clay.......my point is, sampras not winning FO and federer winning it has no importance in my book coz we all know in what field federer won it and what is federer's state at the hands of the best clay courter of his generation.......

I'm afraid that's even worse than Agassi's. :D

But you know, all hope is not lost for Federer, he might get your respect if he beats Nadal in the first round of RG 2014, of course just to lose to some journeyman in R2.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 01:35 PM
one thing for sure - he wouldn't allow nadal to fuck his backhand 1000 times like federer.......his nature is such that he tries to create something when he sees an opponent repeating the same stuff.......

just for the info, courier(something which he always tried against pete) was pinning him to the backhand corner over and over in that 96 match.......pete won that match hitting about 80% of his shots on the backhand side........

Yes, only Bruguera on hardcourt has that privilege.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 01:36 PM
I'm afraid that's even worse than Agassi's. :D

But you know, all hope is not lost for Federer, he might get your respect if he beats Nadal in the first round of RG 2014, of course just to lose to some journeyman in R2.

well, you know that they weren't as bad yet as you are trying to suggest.......federer had kuerten of similar shape, but water was separated from milk that day.......thank you.......and don't worry about rafa, fed will choke against him even if rafa came out on one leg.......

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 01:37 PM
Time to grow up. Federer winning FO has a very significant meaning in history-the one that really counts not your opinion-. He's completed the career grand slam by winning the FO, thus cemented his place as the greatest player in the open era.

you don't deserve my attention........

Dini
11-11-2009, 01:43 PM
you don't deserve my attention........

Truth hurts.

Action Jackson
11-11-2009, 01:44 PM
Yes, only Bruguera on hardcourt has that privilege.

Sergi loved the match, though they only played 3 times, hehe.

laurie-1
11-11-2009, 01:45 PM
Ahhh, I see. This forum is like many other forums.

Post an article about Sampras' running forehand - and it turns into a debate about Federer and Sampras.

Very inevitable I suppose......

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 01:46 PM
Truth hurts.

truth of zero importance never hurts.......

JolánGagó
11-11-2009, 01:47 PM
Time to grow up. Federer winning FO has a very significant meaning in history-the one that really counts not your opinion-. He's completed the career grand slam by winning the FO, thus cemented his place as the greatest player in the open era.

sticky fingers? take this:

http://susiebright.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c5e4053ef010534cf8c14970b-320wi

TheWall
11-11-2009, 01:51 PM
well, you know that they weren't as bad yet as you are trying to suggest.......federer had kuerten of similar shape, but water was separated from milk that day.......thank you.......and don't worry about rafa, fed will choke against him even if rafa came out on one leg.......
They were still good players, but far from their best level, while Sampras was playing some of his best-ever clay court tennis.

I gave you the numbers before, Kuerten was FAR more successful on clay in 04 than Courier and Bruguera were in 96.

What you do is comparing Sampras best ever RG-showing during his peak years with Federer's worst.

But lets end the discussion, it doesn't lead anywhere.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 01:54 PM
What you do is comparing Sampras best ever RG-showing during his peak years with Federer's worst.



well then show me all those great clay courters that federer beat at the french open during his peak........

Dini
11-11-2009, 01:57 PM
well then show me all those great clay courters that federer beat at the french open during his peak........

There is only one great clay courter these days.

Everko
11-11-2009, 01:58 PM
There is only one great clay courter these days.

nonsense. Nadal is just so great that he overshadows everyone else,

Har-Tru
11-11-2009, 02:01 PM
There is only one great clay courter these days.

Sad but true.

TheWall
11-11-2009, 02:02 PM
well then show me all those great clay courters that federer beat at the french open during his peak........
Except for Nadal there hasn't been any multi-RG winner in the draw in the last few years, you can't blame Federer for that.
But you can blame Sampras for losing to Schaller, Delgado and getting bageled by Kafelnikov.

Federer beat Nadal in 07 and 09 (both peak years of Nadal). Sampras has 0 wins over an truely inform RG-winner on clay.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 02:17 PM
he had a chance against kuerten who was way out of his prime but failed horribly.......truth remains that federer DID NOT beat any clay courter at the french open who can be termed great......where as sampras DID.......hence i don't think fed's victory weighs much at all in comparison to pete.......he won because nadal let him.......he failed 4 times in a row against the only great clay courter of his era without even a fight in at least 1 match.......

TheWall
11-11-2009, 02:23 PM
why did he lose to kuerten who was way out of his prime? to corretja? arazi and horna, who are those clowns btw?

truth remains that federer DID NOT beat any clay courter at the french open who can be termed great......where as sampras DID.......hence i don't think fed's victory weighs much at all in comparison to pete.......he won because nadal let him.......he failed 4 times in a row against the only great clay courter of his era without even a fight in at least 1 match.......

Federer was shaky against a solid and smart playing Kürten, it happens.

Corretja and Arazi are no clowns on clay, but you obviously have no clue.

I'm not willing to waste my time any further with you.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 02:32 PM
Federer was shaky against a solid and smart playing Kürten, it happens.

Corretja and Arazi are no clowns on clay, but you obviously have no clue.

I'm not willing to waste my time any further with you.

can you read? i said horna and arazi, not corretja and that was more in a sarcastic way than enquiring who they are.......arazi can be good on his day but a country mile away from being called great.......

that happened against kuerten coz kuerten was quality in motion.......

TheWall
11-11-2009, 02:40 PM
can you read? i said horna and arazi, not corretja and that was more in a sarcastic way than enquiring who they are.......arazi can be good on his day but a country mile away from being called great.......

that happened against kuerten coz kuerten was quality in motion.......
Sorry, but judging by what you wrote so far I would not have been surprised if you didn't know Corretja.

I didn't call Arazi great, but he was a fine clay courter, he defeated Kuerten easily to win Monte Carlo in 2001, far from a clown on clay. Players like Delgado and Schaller have not achieved half of that.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Sorry, but judging by what you wrote so far I would not have been surprised if you didn't know Corretja.

I didn't call Arazi great, but he was a fine clay courter, he defeated Kuerten easily to win Monte Carlo in 2001, far from a clown on clay. Players like Delagado and Schaller have not achieved half of that.

still, point remains that you have no great players to show who federer beat at the FO.......

TheWall
11-11-2009, 02:50 PM
still, point remains that you have no great players to show who federer beat at the FO.......

Yes, because there hasn't been any great clay courter in the draw except for Nadal. How many times should I repeat that?

You still don't have a point, as losing to average players is far worse than beating them.

Everko
11-11-2009, 02:51 PM
would Sampras beat Nadal on clay?

What more must be said

Sophocles
11-11-2009, 02:51 PM
Federer is better than Sampras on clay. Beating an out-of-form R.G. champion means jack-shit at this (Open-era-GOAT) level, and to insist otherwise is blatant trolling. Federer has a better record at R.G. & overall on the surface. He's better, & he has wins on clay against all the good clay-court players of his era, often when they were actually in form, including Nadal, Moya, Kuerten, Coria, & Ferrero - not that it matters.

On the other hand, Sampras's running forehand was better than Federer's.

Everko
11-11-2009, 02:53 PM
Federer is better than Sampras on clay. Beating an out-of-form R.G. champion means jack-shit at this (Open-era-GOAT) level, and to insist otherwise is blatant trolling. Federer has a better record at R.G. & overall on the surface. He's better, & he has wins on clay against all the good clay-court players of his era, often when they were actually in form, including Nadal, Moya, Kuerten, Coria, & Ferrero - not that it matters.

On the other hand, Sampras's running forehand was better than Federer's.

Nadal's is better than either. Remember Wimby 2008 in teh tie break? Or do you fed fans erase that from the mind of ignorance.

Sophocles
11-11-2009, 03:24 PM
Nadal's is better than either. Remember Wimby 2008 in teh tie break? Or do you fed fans erase that from the mind of ignorance.

Disagree, Sampras's is better. One great shot isn't enough. You could however make a case that Nadal has better passing shots overall than either Federer or Sampras.

Start da Game
11-11-2009, 04:44 PM
Yes, because there hasn't been any great clay courter in the draw except for Nadal. How many times should I repeat that?

You still don't have a point, as losing to average players is far worse than beating them.

you still don't get it.......it's not about who lost to who......it's about how many great clay courters did pete and federer beat at the FO in their careers.......if great clay courters are absent today, then that cannot be an excuse to suggest that federer's french open makes him superior to sampras on clay.......

p.s. federer had 5 chances against two great clay court players and he failed in all 5, quite miserably without even a fight in any of them.......

RagingLamb
11-11-2009, 06:24 PM
Ahhh, I see. This forum is like many other forums.

Post an article about Sampras' running forehand - and it turns into a debate about Federer and Sampras.

Very inevitable I suppose......

That's right. Not sure what Sampras on clay, or even Federer has anything to do with the Sampras running forehand. But that's just the nature of MTF.

You can't say anything positive about a player without upsetting someone.

This place is as much a place to hate tennis players as it is a place to discuss tennis.