Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

SetSampras
11-18-2009, 06:27 AM
And seems to have forgotten what Pete did to him at the USO.

An excerpt from Andre's book:

n last part of chapter 29 in his book, Andre has deep respect for Roger during the 2005 US Open.

"Walking to the net, I'm certain that I've lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don't mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It's real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none."



Now yes I am a big sampras fan. But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets. Andre at 35 years old just finished playing 3 straight 5 setters in a row, then meeting Fed in the final gave him quite a run for his money.

And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

Then we look back at what Sampras did to Andre. He played Sampras 4 times at the USO, and never got more than a set off of Sampras. Even Agassi at the very end of his career seemed to be having more headway against Roger than he EVER did against pete at the USO even in his prime.

Now I agree Fed's game is very well polished always have been. He isnt too "weak" in really any category. He has his basis covered But I think its more of the fact that Fed doesnt like dealing with a fighter like Nadal who can impose his will onto Federer and not just lay down and die when the going gets rough. So in that sense yes Fed does have weakness though its not exactly a fundamental weakness

CyBorg
11-18-2009, 07:24 AM
Federer's weaknesses emerged later.

duong
11-18-2009, 07:34 AM
Agassi always said that Nadal was a "fantastic animal" coming from nowhere or something like that.

But you don't even need to speak about Nadal to speak about Federer's weaknesses : see against Murray and some others.

it's quite clear : his backhand is a weakness comparing to the best backhands of the game, against a good defender he can make the final error, losses of concentration he has always had even if they increased in last years, prone error sometimes he has always been as well.

People are not able to look at these technical weaknesses then they focus on the mental aspect "midget against cojones" to speak about Nadal again and again,

but Federer has other weaknesses.

but every player has weaknesses, and Sampras had many ones ;)

As for Agassi vs Federer, you speak only about their USO match, but it was only one among others, and far from being the best of Federer's.

latso
11-18-2009, 07:43 AM
Rafa is a spectacular phenomenon, who actually was able to beat Roger on clay and that's all.

When Roger was dominating the world, with 3-4 losses and 75 wins, there were no Murrays, Djokovics, etc.

He was flawless and his BH wasn't a weakness, far from that.

But he couldn't hold that level all his life, who could?

And they slowed down every possible surface to make the mugs challenging him. And they succeeded - he still is N1 in the world but able to lose matches.

No one is shocked that he lost to Benneteau in Paris, or in Basel to Nole, coz now he isn't Zeus, but only Apolon.

Back then it was a bit different..

duong
11-18-2009, 07:50 AM
No one is shocked that he lost to Benneteau in Paris, or in Basel to Nole, coz now he isn't Zeus, but only Apolon.

Back then it was a bit different..

back then he could win 7/6 final set against Suzuki, or have an incredible tight match against a Koweiti.

Ok I know people say that "he won these because of mental"

probably ... but in so tight matches, luck plays a huge role (for instance in Nadal-Almagro, Nadal touched the line many times in not so controlled shots : a few centimeters more and he was out, no matter the "mental").

And Benneteau played far better than these players against whom Federer had a lot of problems.

duong
11-18-2009, 08:14 AM
But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets.

As for that USO 04 match, it seems that you forgot what kind of a match it was : awful wind, something I've never seen again in USO. The two players only focused on the ball staying in the court, that's all. Pure mental battle, and nothing representative of the technical opposition between Fed and Agassi. It was rather good conditions for Agassi, as Fed could not make winners at all during that match.

duong
11-18-2009, 09:12 AM
As for Fed vs Nadal, Nadal was the first one to show Fed's weaknesses, that's true, but apart from that, the debate is completely biased about those two imo :

- because they have played half of their matches on clay, and Nadal is a clay king as Borg was (for instance, statistically, if Agassi and Sampras had played together as much on clay as Fed and Nadal did, the Agassi-Sampras H2H would be equal, and even if clay was not Agassi's best surface)

- because Nadal is a player who has great but short "ons" (2 or 3 months, usually between Monte-Carlo and Wimbledon, except beginning of the year in 2009, and I don't think the surface explains everything : Nadal's game depends a lot on his physical, and that's why he has his huge ons when he's in great physical condition) and long "offs" the rest of the year. As Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, they only meet during Nadal's "ons" ... except in the Masters Cup where they can meet in semifinals, and you know the result.

If Fed and Nadal had met with the "Gonzales versus Hoad" formula : many times, and more often on quick surfaces, I'm personally convinced that Federer would have won the majority of their matches. Youzhny, Blake and Cilic can beat Nadal during his offs, so can Federer.

I'm more concerned personally by the Fed vs Murray H2H : Murray can beat a top-Federer (for instance Madrid 2008) on quick surfaces with a game he can play 10 months a year, that's interesting about Federer's weaknesses.

And Murray has no met Fed mostly on clay, with a such powerful weapon as Nadal's lifted forehand on Fed's backhand (remember RG 2006 and Federer having to jump for his backhands).

Of course all of their matches have been tight. Also people can say that Federer gets old : it's true but Murray is also young and can improve (and Murray beat Federer in a good match in Cinci 2006).

But Murray (Simon also in a different way) has proved more about Federer's weaknesses imo than Nadal.

About Nadal, everybody focuses about the mental aspect : I think it's more interesting to look at Fed vs Murray's matches to learn about Fed's weaknesses.

Bernard Black
11-18-2009, 09:57 AM
Ever heard of hyperbole?

Sophocles
11-18-2009, 10:11 AM
And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

No this is not the x-factor. The x-factor as far as Nadal goes is hitting the heaviest top-spin in history to Federer's one-handed backhand, a tactic particularly difficult to counter on clay. Federer's weakness, as it was for Sampras, is the high backhand, and connected to this, an inability to generate pace off the backhand wing - most of his backhand winners are either passing shots or using the pace of the opponent's shot. David Ferrer doesn't take his foot off the pedal & has a grand total of zero victories against Federer.

Sophocles
11-18-2009, 10:14 AM
- because Nadal is a player who has great but short "ons" (2 or 3 months, usually between Monte-Carlo and Wimbledon, except beginning of the year in 2009, and I don't think the surface explains everything : Nadal's game depends a lot on his physical, and that's why he has his huge ons when he's in great physical condition) and long "offs" the rest of the year. As Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, they only meet during Nadal's "ons" ... except in the Masters Cup where they can meet in semifinals, and you know the result.

I'm more concerned personally by the Fed vs Murray H2H : Murray can beat a top-Federer (for instance Madrid 2008) on quick surfaces with a game he can play 10 months a year, that's interesting about Federer's weaknesses.

And Murray has no met Fed mostly on clay, with a such powerful weapon as Nadal's lifted forehand on Fed's backhand (remember RG 2006 and Federer having to jump for his backhands).

Of course all of their matches have been tight. Also people can say that Federer gets old : it's true but Murray is also young and can improve (and Murray beat Federer in a good match in Cinci 2006).

But Murray (Simon also in a different way) has proved more about Federer's weaknesses imo than Nadal.

About Nadal, everybody focuses about the mental aspect : I think it's more interesting to look at Fed vs Murray's matches to learn about Fed's weaknesses.

Excellent point about Nadal's "ons". What's your analysis of Murray's success against Federer then?

siloe26
11-18-2009, 10:28 AM
Rafa is a spectacular phenomenon, who actually was able to beat Roger on clay and that's all.

When Roger was dominating the world, with 3-4 losses and 75 wins, there were no Murrays, Djokovics, etc.

He was flawless and his BH wasn't a weakness, far from that.

But he couldn't hold that level all his life, who could?

And they slowed down every possible surface to make the mugs challenging him. And they succeeded - he still is N1 in the world but able to lose matches.

No one is shocked that he lost to Benneteau in Paris, or in Basel to Nole, coz now he isn't Zeus, but only Apolon.

Back then it was a bit different..

Nadal won their first encounter in 2004, when he was not even 18 and it was on HC. He almost beat him the next year in the same tournament. And Wimbledon is not played on clay. Or maybe you are one of those people who manage to believe that today's grass (because it's slower) is actually clay with just some grass on it and that Hard Courts are some kind of clay as well, except the faster ones. In that case, I would suggest that Federer actually plays against Nadal on some kind of Hard Court during the clay season because clay is actually faster than it used to be. The clay became faster to give the attackers a chance to compete agaisnt the dirtballers and grass became slower to give the baseliners a chance to compete against the bombarders. It doesn't change the fact that the dominant clay court player is still a Nadal and that a Roddick (a real bombarder) would have won Wimbledon several times without a certain Federer. Because a faster clay is still clay and a slower grass is still grass.

duong
11-18-2009, 10:30 AM
Excellent point about Nadal's "ons". What's your analysis of Murray's success against Federer then?

Federer's problems against a good defender : catching every ball back whereas Fed can make an error in the end, good passing-shots, focusing on his backhand.

Some points which Nadal uses ... but without Nadal, which shows it's not only about Nadal.

See also Fed against Simon.

Also Murray has a good return whereas Federer likes making easy points with his big serve, especially as he gets old,

and Murray has a good first serve, whereas Fed's return is not so good. Also it's useful in tight moments when Federer puts some pressure.

On the mental point of view, Murray has a clear confidence against Federer and focuses more on Fed's weaknesses than on his strengths, he's persuaded he can beat him "winning ugly" (maybe Brad Gilbert took a role in that ;) ) : see how he's said that previous Fed's opponents have not used Fed's weaknesses whereas I think he underestimates the fact that these players like Roddick don't have the same weapons as him.

However, I think that in Wimbledon, Murray put too much pressure on himself about Federer : he should be very calm about him and not play too much "words' games", especially in Britain where he's the one who has the pressure. He's still young and doesn't have Federer's strength and experience about that pressure. He gave me the impression of being too "touchy" since Federer's words in Dubai nearly two years ago, and putting himself in the position of the "adolescent against the adult-father", which is not good. He still looks not completely mature to me.

stebs
11-18-2009, 01:12 PM
As for Fed vs Nadal, Nadal was the first one to show Fed's weaknesses, that's true, but apart from that, the debate is completely biased about those two imo :

- because they have played half of their matches on clay, and Nadal is a clay king as Borg was (for instance, statistically, if Agassi and Sampras had played together as much on clay as Fed and Nadal did, the Agassi-Sampras H2H would be equal, and even if clay was not Agassi's best surface)

- because Nadal is a player who has great but short "ons" (2 or 3 months, usually between Monte-Carlo and Wimbledon, except beginning of the year in 2009, and I don't think the surface explains everything : Nadal's game depends a lot on his physical, and that's why he has his huge ons when he's in great physical condition) and long "offs" the rest of the year. As Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, they only meet during Nadal's "ons" ... except in the Masters Cup where they can meet in semifinals, and you know the result.

If Fed and Nadal had met with the "Gonzales versus Hoad" formula : many times, and more often on quick surfaces, I'm personally convinced that Federer would have won the majority of their matches. Youzhny, Blake and Cilic can beat Nadal during his offs, so can Federer.

I'm more concerned personally by the Fed vs Murray H2H : Murray can beat a top-Federer (for instance Madrid 2008) on quick surfaces with a game he can play 10 months a year, that's interesting about Federer's weaknesses.

And Murray has no met Fed mostly on clay, with a such powerful weapon as Nadal's lifted forehand on Fed's backhand (remember RG 2006 and Federer having to jump for his backhands).

Of course all of their matches have been tight. Also people can say that Federer gets old : it's true but Murray is also young and can improve (and Murray beat Federer in a good match in Cinci 2006).

But Murray (Simon also in a different way) has proved more about Federer's weaknesses imo than Nadal.

About Nadal, everybody focuses about the mental aspect : I think it's more interesting to look at Fed vs Murray's matches to learn about Fed's weaknesses.

It's a very good post for the most part.

Only thing I would say, Cinci 2006 Fed - Murray was a terrible match, almost all errors, even Murray didn't play that well.

thrust
11-18-2009, 02:33 PM
And seems to have forgotten what Pete did to him at the USO.

An excerpt from Andre's book:

n last part of chapter 29 in his book, Andre has deep respect for Roger during the 2005 US Open.

"Walking to the net, I'm certain that I've lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don't mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It's real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none."



Now yes I am a big sampras fan. But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets. Andre at 35 years old just finished playing 3 straight 5 setters in a row, then meeting Fed in the final gave him quite a run for his money.

And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

Then we look back at what Sampras did to Andre. He played Sampras 4 times at the USO, and never got more than a set off of Sampras. Even Agassi at the very end of his career seemed to be having more headway against Roger than he EVER did against pete at the USO even in his prime.

Now I agree Fed's game is very well polished always have been. He isnt took "weak" in really any category. He has his basis covered But I think its more of the fact that Fed doesnt like dealing with a fighter like Nadal who can impose his well onto Federer and not just lay down and die when the going gets rough. So in that sense yes Fed does have weakness though its not exactly a fundamental weakness

Great post! Andre hates Pete so much that he talks nonsense concerning Pete VS Roger. He desperately wants Fed to be considered greater than Pete. Perhaps Fed is greater, though I am not convinced yet. Very close, to be sure.

andylovesaustin
11-18-2009, 07:33 PM
Great post! Andre hates Pete so much that he talks nonsense concerning Pete VS Roger. He desperately wants Fed to be considered greater than Pete. Perhaps Fed is greater, though I am not convinced yet. Very close, to be sure.

I'm not sure about Andre "hating" Pete, but apparently they areN'T beer drinking buddies; that's for sure!

What I have never understood is why Pete Sampras has ever been in contention as GOAT when he never even came close to winning the French even with his grand slam title record. I've never considered the guy GOAT. I think he was a great fast court player, but he really didn't transition very well to clay.

To me, there is no doubt Roger is in contention for GOAT along with Laver. But Pete.. uh no, and that's to say I don't think Pete is a great champion, probably right up there in the top three or at least to 5.

But Andre dramatized the whole thing. :lol:

siloe26
11-18-2009, 07:47 PM
I'm not sure about Andre "hating" Pete, but apparently they areN'T beer drinking buddies; that's for sure!

What I have never understood is why Pete Sampras has ever been in contention as GOAT when he never even came close to winning the French even with his grand slam title record. I've never considered the guy GOAT. I think he was a great fast court player, but he really didn't transition very well to clay.

To me, there is no doubt Roger is in contention for GOAT along with Laver. But Pete.. uh no, and that's to say I don't think Pete is a great champion, probably right up there in the top three or at least to 5.

But Andre dramatized the whole thing. :lol:

I'm really happy that a Federer came to dethrone Sampras from that "Goat" status. I had absolutely nothing against Sampras, I liked him better than Agassi, but he was a strict fast court player who coudn't be considered as a really great player on a slower surface. I wonder how many GS he would have been able to win without that awful big serve. I know what people say about this kind of statements : "If my aunt had balls, I would call her "uncle". But I'm sorry, I'll never accept the fact that a player can win so much because of his serve. With a normal (even clearly better than average) serve, I'm not even sure that Sampras would have won 3 Slams.

SetSampras
11-18-2009, 08:00 PM
I'm really happy that a Federer came to dethrone Sampras from that "Goat" status. I had absolutely nothing against Sampras, I liked him better than Agassi, but he was a strict fast court player who coudn't be considered as a really great player on a slower surface. I wonder how many GS he would have been able to win without that awful big serve. I know what people say about this kind of statements : "If my aunt had balls, I would call her "uncle". But I'm sorry, I'll never accept the fact that a player can win so much because of his serve. With a normal (even clearly better than average) serve, I'm not even sure that Sampras would have won 3 Slams.



Well.. There were 3 faster courts back in Pete's day. Tennis itself was primarily a faster surface game in Pete days with less slower surfaces. But thats not accurate to say Pete was just a "strict fast court player". In fact, Pete could play well on every surface. Was he better on certain surfaces than others? Sure. But lets look what he played on. USO decoturf where he consistently destroyed Andre and Andre could only garner taking 1 set from pete. Then you had the lightning fast wimbeldon surface and indoor carpeting. Theres your 3. But Pete also Won at the AO twice. A slower surface rebound ace. And he did make quite a few deep runs at the French. A few quarterfinals appearances and a semis appearance. He also won the Rome title on clay and the Davis Cup in 95 (something Fed HASNT DONE!!!) on an extremely slow clay surface. So in that sense.. No Pete was just not a strict baseliner. He saw more success on faster surfaces of course. But he also saw success on slower surfaces including the AO, French, and Rome and the Davis Cup. And its not like Pete played in era full of trash clay court players either. THe 90s produced some very solid clay court players. Guys like Bruguera, Andre and Courier. All who could give Fed a run for his money on clay. Then you had Andre at the Australian. He grabbed the bulk of his slams there and is arugbaly the greatest rebound ace player of all time. So.. I just dont feel thats accurate to say Pete is just a faster court player because he did some success all around the circuit. Thats not to say Pete is better on slower surfaces than Roger. But thats not also to say Roger is better on faster surfaces than Pete because I dont think he is.


And Im not sure Pete ever held the GOAT status. He held the most grandslam titles. There wasnt really a whole lot of importance of the grand slam count until Laver began chasing Emerson But it has always been traditionally Laver as the GOAT. Which I agree with due to his amount of titles and the 2 calendar slams. Though pete, Roger, Pancho and a few others all have legit cases.


And you noting Pete was "all serve". No a guy like Karlovic is all serve. You dont win 14 grandslam titles being all serve. Check Sampras' 92-99 days and tell me he is "all serve" again. In fact Sampras might have a more complete game than just about any player in history. He could it all as well. Destroy you from the baseline and the net. How many players today can do that?


And if Pete managed just one French Open title, Im sure people would be saying he just transitioned fine to clay. He won Rome and Davis Cup. Big tournaments in their own right. He didnt transition well as some other players but he has some good results nonetheless

duong
11-18-2009, 08:06 PM
and the Davis Cup in 95 (something Fed HASNT DONE!!!)

here you're kidding : for sure it's easier winning Davis Cup in the USA team than in the Swiss team ;) :haha:

SetSampras
11-18-2009, 08:08 PM
here you're kidding : for sure it's easier winning Davis Cup in the USA team than in the Swiss team ;) :haha:

Pete almost single handidly won the Davis Cup for America in 95 defeating the russians on slow as molasses clay

spencercarlos
11-18-2009, 09:31 PM
Great post! Andre hates Pete so much that he talks nonsense concerning Pete VS Roger. He desperately wants Fed to be considered greater than Pete. Perhaps Fed is greater, though I am not convinced yet. Very close, to be sure.
Close if you look that Federer has 15 and Sampras has 14 slams, but going into detail, Federer was able to be a contender on his worst surface in a lot of years, and Sampras was a cow on clay. Forced to hit more balls than usual, his backcourt game (yeah even his non topspin forehand) and fitness really were useless for Roland Garros.

Federer has 1 more slam but also the carreer slam. Sorry but after this yearīs Roland Garros Pete has no say in this discussion. Sampras never dominated the game, in fact never dominated a year with 3 slams a year like Federer has done in 3 different years.IMO.

About Andre and his opinion about Federer, he has always said that against Sampras he could be in a confort zone, at least knew that it was up to him be in control, when playing him tough and forcing Sampras play from the back of the court while against Federer he could be beaten even from the baseline. I have seen their matches and i think true.

spencercarlos
11-18-2009, 09:37 PM
And seems to have forgotten what Pete did to him at the USO.

An excerpt from Andre's book:

n last part of chapter 29 in his book, Andre has deep respect for Roger during the 2005 US Open.

"Walking to the net, I'm certain that I've lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don't mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It's real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none."



Now yes I am a big sampras fan. But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets. Andre at 35 years old just finished playing 3 straight 5 setters in a row, then meeting Fed in the final gave him quite a run for his money.

And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

Then we look back at what Sampras did to Andre. He played Sampras 4 times at the USO, and never got more than a set off of Sampras. Even Agassi at the very end of his career seemed to be having more headway against Roger than he EVER did against pete at the USO even in his prime.

Now I agree Fed's game is very well polished always have been. He isnt too "weak" in really any category. He has his basis covered But I think its more of the fact that Fed doesnt like dealing with a fighter like Nadal who can impose his will onto Federer and not just lay down and die when the going gets rough. So in that sense yes Fed does have weakness though its not exactly a fundamental weakness
How do you explain how Federer was able to dominate the players that were beating Sampras late on his carreer, say Hewit, Safin, Haas, Roddick,etc...
Also see how Federer handled Sampras at Wimbledon 20001 as well. You would say 1 match does not say anything right?.. But says a lot when we talk about Andre-Roger? right

The thing is that Agassi was not the kind of rival, worker, fighther, mentally stronger on court than Nadal was, that is why Nadal is more of a rival to Federer than Andre was to Sampras and in the long run Nadal will finish with more slams that Andre without a doubt.

Sophocles
11-18-2009, 09:51 PM
Federer's problems against a good defender : catching every ball back whereas Fed can make an error in the end, good passing-shots, focusing on his backhand.

Some points which Nadal uses ... but without Nadal, which shows it's not only about Nadal.

See also Fed against Simon.

Also Murray has a good return whereas Federer likes making easy points with his big serve, especially as he gets old,

and Murray has a good first serve, whereas Fed's return is not so good. Also it's useful in tight moments when Federer puts some pressure.

On the mental point of view, Murray has a clear confidence against Federer and focuses more on Fed's weaknesses than on his strengths, he's persuaded he can beat him "winning ugly" (maybe Brad Gilbert took a role in that ;) ) : see how he's said that previous Fed's opponents have not used Fed's weaknesses whereas I think he underestimates the fact that these players like Roddick don't have the same weapons as him.

However, I think that in Wimbledon, Murray put too much pressure on himself about Federer : he should be very calm about him and not play too much "words' games", especially in Britain where he's the one who has the pressure. He's still young and doesn't have Federer's strength and experience about that pressure. He gave me the impression of being too "touchy" since Federer's words in Dubai nearly two years ago, and putting himself in the position of the "adolescent against the adult-father", which is not good. He still looks not completely mature to me.

Very good analysis - only thing missing is that Murray is highly adept at mixing up the pace, thus making it hard for Federer to get his rhythm. Federer isn't used to this. He's normally the one doing it to his opponent.

Echoes
11-18-2009, 09:55 PM
How do you explain how Federer was able to dominate the players that were beating Sampras late on his career, say Hewitt, Safin, Haas, Roddick,etc...
Also see how Federer handled Sampras at Wimbledon 20001 as well. You would say 1 match does not say anything right?.. But says a lot when we talk about Andre-Roger? right


The answer is in your question. ;)

Dini
11-18-2009, 10:00 PM
This is probably a bit off topic but


Which talent would you most like to have?
AA: Roger Federer’s.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/proust-andre-agassi-200912

I also find it a bit funny that he talks about loyalty in there^^^ :lol:

----

I sometimes get the impression that some Sampras fans believe Pete truly was the greatest player to grace planet earth, seeing as they've got an explanation for everything and a lot of excuses.

duong
11-18-2009, 10:49 PM
Very good analysis - only thing missing is that Murray is highly adept at mixing up the pace, thus making it hard for Federer to get his rhythm. Federer isn't used to this. He's normally the one doing it to his opponent.

do you think that this is a problem for Federer ?

I didn't have this impression : didn't have the impression that Federer needed a regular rhythm as some other players do.

About the Sampras vs Fed debate, well I sometimes have the impression that we go from one extreme to another.

When Sampras was the slam recorder, well, whatever "Setsampras" said, I always heard about Sampras for the GOAT, I didn't hear about Laver, Borg and Gonzales, who imo were more contenders (Laver and Gonzales more than Borg, but I mean I hesitated who was the greatest player between Borg and Federer, whereas I didn't have any hesitation with Sampras).

Now I have the impression that sometimes people devaluate too much the great player which Sampras was.

Yes not so great on clay, not as complete as Laver and Federer, but he was still quite a complete player, and a very great one.

l_mac
11-18-2009, 11:04 PM
I sometimes get the impression that some Sampras fans believe Pete truly was the greatest player to grace planet earth, seeing as they've got an explanation for everything and a lot of excuses.

I sometimes laugh aloud when I see a Federer fan say such things.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dini
11-18-2009, 11:29 PM
I sometimes laugh aloud when I see a Federer fan say such things.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I've never said he's the GOAT, nor do I know enough about the history of the game to be in a position to list them. :shrug: I do find claims that Sampras could have won RG in this era a bit laughable though, and that's what some Sampras fans have been saying. I'm a Fedfan, but I've never felt the need to brag. Sure, if you want to generalise then by all means. I won't lose any sleep.

Echoes
11-19-2009, 12:19 AM
When Sampras was the slam recorder, well, whatever "Setsampras" said, I always heard about Sampras for the GOAT, I didn't hear about Laver, Borg and Gonzales, who imo were more contenders


I will speak for myself but in the 90's we didn't have the Internet and much to know about Laver or Gonzales (certainly about Gonzales who was only famous for his Pro Tour performances). Now we have so much input. We certainly can imagine how great Pancho and Laver was. We've got texts, we've got results and we even have vids and we can see other people's opinion on forums like this one. In the 90's I thought Sampras was the GAT (please do all drop this 'o', it's awful :() and now I can no longer make such statement (understand the GAT in his time).

MrChopin
11-19-2009, 01:34 AM
I sometimes laugh aloud when I see a Federer fan say such things.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You pay a lot of attention to what Federer fans say. Any reason?

dabeast
11-19-2009, 04:02 AM
Even back in 2003, before Fed became the FedExpress, after he beat Andre in straights at the Houston TMC Final, Cahill said that Andre told him in the locker room Fed was a genius and that he was gonna change the game.

swisht4u
11-19-2009, 04:58 AM
Even back in 2003, before Fed became the FedExpress, after he beat Andre in straights at the Houston TMC Final, Cahill said that Andre told him in the locker room Fed was a genius and that he was gonna change the game.

Interesting, I'm sure he wasn't thinking of downgrading Pete at the time.

SetSampras
11-19-2009, 05:52 AM
How do you explain how Federer was able to dominate the players that were beating Sampras late on his carreer, say Hewit, Safin, Haas, Roddick,etc...
Also see how Federer handled Sampras at Wimbledon 20001 as well. You would say 1 match does not say anything right?.. But says a lot when we talk about Andre-Roger? right

The thing is that Agassi was not the kind of rival, worker, fighther, mentally stronger on court than Nadal was, that is why Nadal is more of a rival to Federer than Andre was to Sampras and in the long run Nadal will finish with more slams that Andre without a doubt.

Pete was on his last leg and as you said near the end late in his career. Fed also has had some problems with the young guns as well like Djoker, Murray and Nadal all quite a bit younger than Fed as he has aged as well. Who knows what is going to happen as Fed reaches near the end of his career. You dont think Federer as he rapidly approaches 30-31 years of age isnt going to have some problems with some of the 19-22 year olds? Thats what happens when you age. Thats not to say Pete would have too many problems against the likes of an inconsistent Safin, Roddick (see the USO 2002 for a blowout vs. Roddick by the hands of Pete) or Hewitt. Murray and Djoker may up the wins and the h2h on Federer quite a bit before he retires.

Deivid23
11-19-2009, 06:14 AM
- because Nadal is a player who has great but short "ons" (2 or 3 months, usually between Monte-Carlo and Wimbledon, except beginning of the year in 2009, and I don't think the surface explains everything : Nadal's game depends a lot on his physical, and that's why he has his huge ons when he's in great physical condition) and long "offs" the rest of the year. As Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, they only meet during Nadal's "ons" ... except in the Masters Cup where they can meet in semifinals, and you know the result.




What a load of BS and lol at those who said this is a great post :haha:

spencercarlos
11-19-2009, 07:00 AM
Pete was on his last leg and as you said near the end late in his career. Fed also has had some problems with the young guns as well like Djoker, Murray and Nadal all quite a bit younger than Fed as he has aged as well. Who knows what is going to happen as Fed reaches near the end of his career. You dont think Federer as he rapidly approaches 30-31 years of age isnt going to have some problems with some of the 19-22 year olds? Thats what happens when you age. Thats not to say Pete would have too many problems against the likes of an inconsistent Safin, Roddick (see the USO 2002 for a blowout vs. Roddick by the hands of Pete) or Hewitt. Murray and Djoker may up the wins and the h2h on Federer quite a bit before he retires.
So Sampras was already on 1 leg after the Australian Open 1997, so explain why he was only able to win Wimbledons from then on. 5 years later he won his last Usopen.

Sampras was walking on water on Wimbledon (and even then Krajicek could spank him in 1996) but outside of that he could be beaten. And Peteīs clay court resume is shameful for someone that you would call the greatest ever at the sport.

duong
11-19-2009, 09:11 AM
Pete almost single handidly won the Davis Cup for America in 95 defeating the russians on slow as molasses clay

for the final yes in a way, but I don't like when people speak like that about Davis Cup : Sampras didn't even take part in the victory against France and Agassi, Courier, Martin, Palmer-Reneberg also had their share in the campaign

duong
11-19-2009, 09:19 AM
What a load of BS and lol at those who said this is a great post :haha:

Do you see any similarity between the huge rhythm Nadal who outplayed Federer in Wimbledon 2007 final (even more impressive than Wimbledon 2008) or outplayed Murray in Indian Wells this year, and the Nadal who is outplayed by Davydenko and by so many others during the rest of the year ?

Do you see other players than Nadal having such differences in the level they have the majority if the year and the level they have in punctual moments ?

What's your explanation for that : Nadal is injured 9 months a year ?

duong
11-19-2009, 09:26 AM
I will speak for myself but in the 90's we didn't have the Internet and much to know about Laver or Gonzales (certainly about Gonzales who was only famous for his Pro Tour performances). Now we have so much input. We certainly can imagine how great Pancho and Laver was. We've got texts, we've got results and we even have vids and we can see other people's opinion on forums like this one. In the 90's I thought Sampras was the GAT (please do all drop this 'o', it's awful :() and now I can no longer make such statement (understand the GAT in his time).

Even one or two years ago on forums, I always read about Sampras and Sampras and Sampras again, he was the ultimate reference.

The GOAT or GAT debate was supposed to be ultimately solved by the slam record "14>13" and so on.

Yes I have the impression that people have started speaking about Laver again and also watching videos (less about Gonzales and Borg, which I think is a little bit a pity). That's a good thing :yeah:

duong
11-19-2009, 09:29 AM
Even back in 2003, before Fed became the FedExpress, after he beat Andre in straights at the Houston TMC Final, Cahill said that Andre told him in the locker room Fed was a genius and that he was gonna change the game.

Actually that Masters Cup was huge, and personally, that's also when I saw THAT (also against Nalbandian for instance) that I had the impression that something completely new and impressive was coming.

I started watching more about tennis from this moment after several years with lesser attention.

duong
11-19-2009, 09:30 AM
Pete was on his last leg and as you said near the end late in his career. Fed also has had some problems with the young guns as well like Djoker, Murray and Nadal all quite a bit younger than Fed as he has aged as well. Who knows what is going to happen as Fed reaches near the end of his career. You dont think Federer as he rapidly approaches 30-31 years of age isnt going to have some problems with some of the 19-22 year olds? Thats what happens when you age. Thats not to say Pete would have too many problems against the likes of an inconsistent Safin, Roddick (see the USO 2002 for a blowout vs. Roddick by the hands of Pete) or Hewitt. Murray and Djoker may up the wins and the h2h on Federer quite a bit before he retires.

I totally agree with that

Sophocles
11-19-2009, 10:01 AM
do you think that this is a problem for Federer ?

I didn't have this impression : didn't have the impression that Federer needed a regular rhythm as some other players do.

About the Sampras vs Fed debate, well I sometimes have the impression that we go from one extreme to another.

When Sampras was the slam recorder, well, whatever "Setsampras" said, I always heard about Sampras for the GOAT, I didn't hear about Laver, Borg and Gonzales, who imo were more contenders (Laver and Gonzales more than Borg, but I mean I hesitated who was the greatest player between Borg and Federer, whereas I didn't have any hesitation with Sampras).

Now I have the impression that sometimes people devaluate too much the great player which Sampras was.

Yes not so great on clay, not as complete as Laver and Federer, but he was still quite a complete player, and a very great one.

Federer doesn't NEED a regular rhythm - he can dismantle Santoro pretty handily, always seems to find a way to beat Haas - but I'd say he PREFERS it. If you look at the players he's owned in recent years - Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Berdych, Ferrer, Davydenko, Robredo - you'll see none of them is exactly Mr Variety when it comes to his groundstrokes.

On the GOAT stuff, obviously now the magic 14 has been broken, people realise it may not be the only record that matters. Hence Laver, Gonzales, Borg et al come back into the discussion.

duong
11-19-2009, 10:38 AM
Federer doesn't NEED a regular rhythm - he can dismantle Santoro pretty handily, always seems to find a way to beat Haas - but I'd say he PREFERS it. If you look at the players he's owned in recent years - Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Berdych, Ferrer, Davydenko, Robredo - you'll see none of them is exactly Mr Variety when it comes to his groundstrokes.

yes, but Murray doesn't have the same level either.

And I rather had the impression that when he played against Federer, Murray was more "mono-maniac" than usual, insisting a lot on Fed's backhand.

And so are Nadal and Simon : they are more "mono-maniac" against Federer than usually.

Of course a little bit variety can help, but I rather think that their main tactics is quite "mono-maniac" against Federer.

Deivid23
11-19-2009, 10:44 AM
Do you see any similarity between the huge rhythm Nadal who outplayed Federer in Wimbledon 2007 final (even more impressive than Wimbledon 2008) or outplayed Murray in Indian Wells this year, and the Nadal who is outplayed by Davydenko and by so many others during the rest of the year ?

Do you see other players than Nadal having such differences in the level they have the majority if the year and the level they have in punctual moments ?

What's your explanation for that : Nadal is injured 9 months a year ?

It has a very easy explanation, and no, itīs not "Nadal is on for 2 months every year except maybe a couple of odd seasons". But itīs way less amusing than your theory so keep up the good work;)

duong
11-19-2009, 11:03 AM
It has a very easy explanation, and no, itīs not "Nadal is on for 2 months every year except maybe a couple of odd seasons". But itīs way less amusing than your theory so keep up the good work;)

thank you but I would very much like to know it (I never said "except a couple of odd seasons" : I said every year, yes), sorry if I'm too stupid or blind to see it.

I don't know Nadal as well as you do, I would be very interested in what you or even more I_mac would explain about that. Thanks in advance :worship:

By the way, for us to have a proper argument, here's my explanation from what I can see : Nadal's game is very physical and requires a huge physical condition to fully express.

Sophocles
11-19-2009, 11:48 AM
yes, but Murray doesn't have the same level either.

And I rather had the impression that when he played against Federer, Murray was more "mono-maniac" than usual, insisting a lot on Fed's backhand.

And so are Nadal and Simon : they are more "mono-maniac" against Federer than usually.

Of course a little bit variety can help, but I rather think that their main tactics is quite "mono-maniac" against Federer.

Okay, but you can hit more than one type of shot to Federer's backhand. Nadal doesn't, because his one shot is effective enough, but as for Murray at least, I think variety does come into it. But you're right, probably the main thing is just the depth & accuracy of his shots to Federer's backhand, even when well on the defensive.

TennisLurker
11-19-2009, 12:15 PM
So what if Agassi could play Fed very tough? (even though he lost all his matches against super Fed after the 2003 masters cup, and some of those matches were trashings)

Wayne Ferreira could play Pete Sampras very tough, and Agassi always had a very easy time beating Wayne Ferreira.

H2H isn't everything, and Feds h2h against Agassi is still great.

Fed is better than Sampras because

A) Fed is much better on clay, on clay they are on very different levels

B) Fed has the more complete game, less weaknesses

c) Sampras, even in his prime, was much more beatable and less dominating than Fed. Players feared getting bageled by Federer when he was in his prime.
No one feared getting bageled by Pete, his return game and groundstrokes weren't good enough for such a dominating performance.

Castafiore
11-19-2009, 12:19 PM
In the 90's I thought Sampras was the GAT (please do all drop this 'o', it's awful :() and now I can no longer make such statement (understand the GAT in his time).
Why is GOAT awful?

GAT is Flemish/Dutch for ASS/HOLE so I'm not in favor of this term but hey, if people want to use that term for Sampras or Federer. :shrug: :p

Echoes
11-19-2009, 12:25 PM
Ja. :lol:


I've already argued that the of in Greatest of All Time was a grammatical word that shouldn't be stood for in abbreviations. We usually say the USA and not USOA. :lol:

Castafiore
11-19-2009, 12:26 PM
Right.

FEDERER = GAT it is then. ;)

duong
11-19-2009, 01:01 PM
Why is GOAT awful?

GAT is Flemish/Dutch for ASS/HOLE so I'm not in favor of this term but hey, if people want to use that term for Sampras or Federer. :shrug: :p

just to say that the sentence you quoted was from Echoes, not from me : I have never thought that Sampras was the GOAT, or GAT or anything else :lol: Laver and Borg have always been ahead in my mind.

Between the Flemish "ass hole", and the English "goat", I'm not sure what's the best :haha:

Apemant
11-19-2009, 01:24 PM
Ja. :lol:


I've already argued that the of in Greatest of All Time was a grammatical word that shouldn't be stood for in abbreviations. We usually say the USA and not USOA. :lol:

Doesn't matter.

It's LotR, and FotR - not LR, FR. :devil:

Therefore, GoAT would be fine - but not GAT. It looks, spells and sounds silly. Plus it doesn't have any interesting puns as the 'GOAT'. :devil:

MatchFederer
11-19-2009, 04:59 PM
Doesn't matter.

It's LotR, and FotR - not LR, FR. :devil:

Therefore, GoAT would be fine - but not GAT. It looks, spells and sounds silly. Plus it doesn't have any interesting puns as the 'GOAT'. :devil:

Yeah it does. Guns and stuff.

SetSampras
11-19-2009, 07:42 PM
So what if Agassi could play Fed very tough? (even though he lost all his matches against super Fed after the 2003 masters cup, and some of those matches were trashings)

Wayne Ferreira could play Pete Sampras very tough, and Agassi always had a very easy time beating Wayne Ferreira.

H2H isn't everything, and Feds h2h against Agassi is still great.

Fed is better than Sampras because

A) Fed is much better on clay, on clay they are on very different levels

B) Fed has the more complete game, less weaknesses

c) Sampras, even in his prime, was much more beatable and less dominating than Fed. Players feared getting bageled by Federer when he was in his prime.
No one feared getting bageled by Pete, his return game and groundstrokes weren't good enough for such a dominating performance.



Fed was more dominant over the entire field than Pete week in week out. Thats agreeable. Though I always felt Roger put more emphasis on week in week out domination than pete during their respective primes. Pete was mostly concerned doing what he had to do to maintain the Number 1 ranking and win slams. (Note: Thats not something I admire about Pete since I think he should have showed complete dominance and focus on every tournament during his run to really solidify himself at tournaments other than mostly just slams and YEC) Something I think Roger is doing now at this point in his career. Now whether or not Roger had a domination over a stronger, more competitive and talented field especially top heavy thats very debatable and we can debate that all day long. Pete never let guys over and over get the best of him though especially his main rival throughout the years in Agassi. Pete never let a player get a 13-7 h2h over him though and get beat at 3 of the 4 slam finals all in a row and on 3 different surfaces. No one ever got a sizeable h2h advantage over Pete as Rafa has done to Federer on just about all the surfaces. So thats a whole other story in itself.

You can best be sured if Andre took Pete in a slam final like an Australian Open, Pete would answer the challenge and blow Andre right off the court the next meeting and he would never know what hit him. Sampras was more known in a sense to be proven when taking revenge on a player and not letting that player get the best of him in a consistent basis in his prime as Fed has been known to do against Nadal. I think Pete took losses much more personally to his rival/rivals than Roger. Roger has almost essentially let Rafa walk all over him for the most part during most of his career with a couple big wins over Nadal. Pete wouldnt allow this.

And to me that will be a neverending blemish on the footstone of Roger's career much as like Pete never grabbing a French Open title and his lack of wanting to dominate week in week out. Laver is really the one player with no blemish. He has the domination, the longevity, the record number of overrall titles, and 2 calendar slams. Thats why hes GOAT IMO. You cant submit a blemish to Laver's resume.

Roger and Pete both have the blemishes. Pete with no RG title and Federer letting his rival get the best of him in the big matches and at 3 of 4 slam finals in a row and knowing Rafa achieved all his grandslam titles by defeating Roger . Laver you cant make any cases against him really. And also, Laver most likely would have the slam record probably close to 20 slams if not more if he would have been able to play the tour in his prime years.

To be the GOAT you have to get all the slams I think. But you also need COMPLETE domination over anyone, have no equals and certainly not let your rival get the best of you especially at slams. Thats not GOAT-like.

Guys like Laver and Pancho said the bar so high with longevity and domination (Pancho 8 years on top) Laver (2 calendars and longevity, and record number of titles) that I doubt it will ever be duplicated. There may be more guys who even challenge Fed and Pete's slam count. But its not just about slams. There is more to a season than just slams

duong
11-19-2009, 08:36 PM
Fed was more dominant over the entire field than Pete week in week out. Thats agreeable. Though I always felt Roger put more emphasis on week in week out domination than pete during their respective primes. Pete was mostly concerned doing what he had to do to maintain the Number 1 ranking and win slams. (Note: Thats not something I admire about Pete since I think he should have showed complete dominance and focus on every tournament during his run to really solidify himself at tournaments other than mostly just slams and YEC) Something I think Roger is doing now at this point in his career. Now whether or not Roger had a domination over a stronger, more competitive and talented field especially top heavy thats very debatable and we can debate that all day long. Pete never let guys over and over get the best of him though especially his main rival throughout the years in Agassi. Pete never let a player get a 13-7 h2h over him though and get beat at 3 of the 4 slam finals all in a row and on 3 different surfaces. No one ever got a sizeable h2h advantage over Pete as Rafa has done to Federer on just about all the surfaces. So thats a whole other story in itself.

You can best be sured if Andre took Pete in a slam final like an Australian Open, Pete would answer the challenge and blow Andre right off the court the next meeting and he would never know what hit him. Sampras was more known in a sense to be proven when taking revenge on a player and not letting that player get the best of him in a consistent basis in his prime as Fed has been known to do against Nadal. I think Pete took losses much more personally to his rival/rivals than Roger. Roger has almost essentially let Rafa walk all over him for the most part during most of his career with a couple big wins over Nadal. Pete wouldnt allow this.

And to me that will be a neverending blemish on the footstone of Roger's career much as like Pete never grabbing a French Open title and his lack of wanting to dominate week in week out. Laver is really the one player with no blemish. He has the domination, the longevity, the record number of overrall titles, and 2 calendar slams. Thats why hes GOAT IMO. You cant submit a blemish to Laver's resume.


you can say "Nadal" and "Nadal" all over again, as a haven for you,

and imagine things like "Pete wouldn't allow this" from your imagination and your mind equation "Nadal, Nadal :scratch: ... oh well Agassi :rocker: !"

but the fact is that ... Sampras has never met Nadal :lol:

and never reached 4 RG finals + 1 semifinal, 3 Mcarlo finals, 2 Hamburg finals, 1 Madrid final ... :shrug:

Agassi, Agassi ... well consider Sampras-Agassi H2H, make them play half of their matches on clay, their H2H becomes equal, despite Agasssi was never a clay specialist.

Anyway, Agassi is not Nadal, Nadal is not Agassi, Sampras is not Federer and Federer is not Sampras.

Turn it all over again in your mind, that will only be your little mind with your little faith in "Pete" who "wouldnt allow this" and "who was only concerned about number 1 and slams" (actually you cannot calculate your energy just to stay number 1, it's impossible, you can only be lucky to finish number 1 just ahead of ... Agassi or Nadal -your 2 favorites :lol: )

As for Laver's H2H, well Gonzales beat him far more than the opposite.

Anyway, I can see that you like Nadal very much ;) (and Agassi as well ;) )

Echoes
11-19-2009, 09:12 PM
As for Laver's H2H, well Gonzales beat him far more than the opposite.

Are you sure?

I've got 35/19 or 36/21 in Laver's favour, depending on the sources.

Only for 1964 was Pancho ahead 7/5 or 8/5, depending on the sources.

duong
11-19-2009, 09:35 PM
Are you sure?

I've got 35/19 or 36/21 in Laver's favour, depending on the sources.

Only for 1964 was Pancho ahead 7/5 or 8/5, depending on the sources.

no sorry that's what I had heard, but anyway, I guess in the beginning of the 60s, it was like that, wasn't it ?

In 1964, Gonzales was already 36, I know that he played after 40, but well, how do you consider that ?

Gonzales was 10 years older than Laver : same difference as Federer-Sampras, for sure if Sampras had played until now (he's 38), he could have got a load of defeats from Federer ! (oh I know : Sampras fans also have another haven, that exhibition :lol: )

But what would it prove ? nothing :shrug:

Echoes
11-19-2009, 09:47 PM
Yeah the exhibition. :cool::D

1964 was the first year Laver and Gonzales met. Laver turned pro in 1963 and Gonzales retired in 1961 but - as usual for him - came back late in 1963. They didn't meet that year. So yeah Gonzales had the upper hand in the first year they played together, which Laver's detractors could remind us.

duong
11-19-2009, 10:01 PM
Yeah the exhibition. :cool::D

1964 was the first year Laver and Gonzales met. Laver turned pro in 1963 and Gonzales retired in 1961 but - as usual for him - came back late in 1963. They didn't meet that year. So yeah Gonzales had the upper hand in the first year they played together, which Laver's detractors could remind us.

Thanks for the info : I will know better about this Laver's detractors' argument now :lol:

but I know that in his book, Gonzales said about Laver "At his best, I think I might've had too much court coverage for him. He was a great athlete, but he didn't have the thinking part." :lol:

Gonzales was not especially a modest guy :lol:

Echoes
11-19-2009, 10:38 PM
Certainly not. :D

We might add here that 1964 was somewhat weird because there's a perfect "triangle" between the 3 top players. Gonzales beat Laver more often than Laver did. Rosewall beat Gonzales almost every time they met. And Laver beat Rosewall more often than Ken did. There was a point ranking on the Pro circuit and Rosewall was n°1 but i think Bud Collins argued that many tournaments were ignored.

Now as far as the comparison with Sampras is concerned I would say the two eras can't be compared. In those days when the played with a wooden racket you could still be a top player in your later days because it was more of mental sport in which strategy had a leading role. I think Laver said in his autobiography "The Education of a Tennis Player" that as the years went by Rosewall was still physically on top and had good reflexes but his nerves were getting fragile. If you take Connors' example you can notice how in his later days physical fitness and power got the better of him. The legendary match against Chang in RG 1991 is a perfect example. Modern tennis is more of a physical game in which power and fitness is important (racket technology was certainly a great factor). At least that's the way I see it.


No wonder then that Sampras stopped aged 31. Everybody who followed his whole career could sense that he was physically worn out during his last two seasons.

SetSampras
11-20-2009, 01:15 AM
No... Pancho was before Laver. By the time Laver hit his stride , Pancho was on his last leg

paseo
11-20-2009, 03:37 AM
c) Sampras, even in his prime, was much more beatable and less dominating than Fed. Players feared getting bageled by Federer when he was in his prime.
No one feared getting bageled by Pete, his return game and groundstrokes weren't good enough for such a dominating performance.

This reputation is still getting him wins nowadays. His opponents are still scared of "The Mighty Fed" aura. That's why a lot of players choked in a winning situation against Fed. A win against Fed is still considered a great achievement. See the reaction of Djokovic and Benneteau in Basel and bercy :)

SetSampras
11-20-2009, 05:26 AM
This reputation is still getting him wins nowadays. His opponents are still scared of "The Mighty Fed" aura. That's why a lot of players choked in a winning situation against Fed. A win against Fed is still considered a great achievement. See the reaction of Djokovic and Benneteau in Basel and bercy :)

Yea well tankavic is not exactly the most mentally tough player in history when it comes to big situations. Thats why he is only sitting on 1 slam with the talent and ability of a 6-8 slam player. Lack of mental toughness, focus and fitness. If Djoker had mental toughness and focus he should have a good 3-4 slams by now. Yet he has 1 slam and failed to reach a Slam final all of 2009.

paseo
11-20-2009, 11:18 AM
Yea well tankavic is not exactly the most mentally tough player in history when it comes to big situations. Thats why he is only sitting on 1 slam with the talent and ability of a 6-8 slam player. Lack of mental toughness, focus and fitness. If Djoker had mental toughness and focus he should have a good 3-4 slams by now. Yet he has 1 slam and failed to reach a Slam final all of 2009.

Come on, give the guy a break. He's just 22. He still could win 6-8 slams by the time he retires. For all we know, Djokovic could dominate tennis in the future, like Fed :D

rwn
11-23-2009, 06:25 AM
And seems to have forgotten what Pete did to him at the USO.

An excerpt from Andre's book:

n last part of chapter 29 in his book, Andre has deep respect for Roger during the 2005 US Open.

"Walking to the net, I'm certain that I've lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don't mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It's real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none."



Now yes I am a big sampras fan. But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets. Andre at 35 years old just finished playing 3 straight 5 setters in a row, then meeting Fed in the final gave him quite a run for his money.

And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

Then we look back at what Sampras did to Andre. He played Sampras 4 times at the USO, and never got more than a set off of Sampras. Even Agassi at the very end of his career seemed to be having more headway against Roger than he EVER did against pete at the USO even in his prime.

Now I agree Fed's game is very well polished always have been. He isnt too "weak" in really any category. He has his basis covered But I think its more of the fact that Fed doesnt like dealing with a fighter like Nadal who can impose his will onto Federer and not just lay down and die when the going gets rough. So in that sense yes Fed does have weakness though its not exactly a fundamental weakness

The only player Sampras has ever beaten in 5 sets in grand slam semi-finals and finals is Goran Ivanisevic. If we use your standards Sampras has never proven himself as a fighter either.

HKz
11-23-2009, 07:48 PM
Great post! Andre hates Pete so much that he talks nonsense concerning Pete VS Roger. He desperately wants Fed to be considered greater than Pete. Perhaps Fed is greater, though I am not convinced yet. Very close, to be sure.

You cannot be serious. I thought you Sampras/statisticaltards were gone by now? If you CAN'T agree with the statistics, then it is your personal opinion and it would never change.

I mean 15 > 14, RG > No RG, 7 straight Wimbledon > 4 straight Wimbledon, etc. What the hell more can you ask?

Burrow
11-23-2009, 07:51 PM
You cannot be serious. I thought you Sampras/statisticaltards were gone by now? If you CAN'T agree with the statistics, then it is your personal opinion and it would never change.

I mean 15 > 14, RG > No RG, 7 straight Wimbledon > 4 straight Wimbledon, etc. What the hell more can you ask?

Who has 7 straight Wimbledons?

Everko
11-23-2009, 10:43 PM
You cannot be serious. I thought you Sampras/statisticaltards were gone by now? If you CAN'T agree with the statistics, then it is your personal opinion and it would never change.

I mean 15 > 14, RG > No RG, 7 straight Wimbledon > 4 straight Wimbledon, etc. What the hell more can you ask?


wimbledons
7 > 6

JediFed
11-24-2009, 10:43 AM
Obviously Agassi hasn't forgotten Sampras. Federer is strong on all surfaces.

Sophocles
11-24-2009, 10:46 AM
wimbledons
7 > 6

Slams:
15 > 14.

Echoes
11-24-2009, 12:53 PM
Who has 7 straight Wimbledons?

Bill Renshaw. :lol:

Sophocles
11-24-2009, 01:03 PM
Bill Renshaw. :lol:

Were they consecutive though?

thrust
11-24-2009, 03:06 PM
You cannot be serious. I thought you Sampras/statisticaltards were gone by now? If you CAN'T agree with the statistics, then it is your personal opinion and it would never change.

I mean 15 > 14, RG > No RG, 7 straight Wimbledon > 4 straight Wimbledon, etc. What the hell more can you ask?

Weak Era, especially on grass. Sampras had many more outstanding grass court players to contend with than Roger ever did. As I said, they are very close. Too bad they did not reach their peak at the same time!

Start da Game
11-24-2009, 04:31 PM
And seems to have forgotten what Pete did to him at the USO.

An excerpt from Andre's book:

n last part of chapter 29 in his book, Andre has deep respect for Roger during the 2005 US Open.

"Walking to the net, I'm certain that I've lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don't mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It's real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none."



Now yes I am a big sampras fan. But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets. Andre at 35 years old just finished playing 3 straight 5 setters in a row, then meeting Fed in the final gave him quite a run for his money.

And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

Then we look back at what Sampras did to Andre. He played Sampras 4 times at the USO, and never got more than a set off of Sampras. Even Agassi at the very end of his career seemed to be having more headway against Roger than he EVER did against pete at the USO even in his prime.

Now I agree Fed's game is very well polished always have been. He isnt too "weak" in really any category. He has his basis covered But I think its more of the fact that Fed doesnt like dealing with a fighter like Nadal who can impose his will onto Federer and not just lay down and die when the going gets rough. So in that sense yes Fed does have weakness though its not exactly a fundamental weakness

agassi remembers what sampras did to him in slam finals and he simply cannot digest it........what does he do? at 35, he pushes federer to the limit and praises him more than pete who whopped his arse every single time at the us open.......

Echoes
11-24-2009, 10:43 PM
Were they consecutive though?

Hum no. You're right. 6 were.

duong
11-25-2009, 09:46 AM
Federer's problems against a good defender : catching every ball back whereas Fed can make an error in the end, good passing-shots, focusing on his backhand.

Some points which Nadal uses ... but without Nadal, which shows it's not only about Nadal.

See also Fed against Simon.

Also Murray has a good return whereas Federer likes making easy points with his big serve, especially as he gets old,

and Murray has a good first serve, whereas Fed's return is not so good. Also it's useful in tight moments when Federer puts some pressure.

On the mental point of view, Murray has a clear confidence against Federer and focuses more on Fed's weaknesses than on his strengths, he's persuaded he can beat him "winning ugly" (maybe Brad Gilbert took a role in that ;) ) : see how he's said that previous Fed's opponents have not used Fed's weaknesses whereas I think he underestimates the fact that these players like Roddick don't have the same weapons as him.

However, I think that in Wimbledon, Murray put too much pressure on himself about Federer : he should be very calm about him and not play too much "words' games", especially in Britain where he's the one who has the pressure. He's still young and doesn't have Federer's strength and experience about that pressure. He gave me the impression of being too "touchy" since Federer's words in Dubai nearly two years ago, and putting himself in the position of the "adolescent against the adult-father", which is not good. He still looks not completely mature to me.

yesterday, we could see that Murray's first serve is really hard for Federer to return :

from all of their matches I think it's a key point of their oppositions :

in the US Open final, Murray had lost his first serve, and Federer took an easy edge, in Madrid 2008 I remember that Murray served very well, yesterday again you could see how important Murray's first serve was between first set and last two sets.

Then to summarize :

Murray's defense, first serve, return, backhand on Fed's backhand ... and also changes of direction as Fed doesn't have his past movement and sometimes tries to go to his forehand when he's on his backhand, whioch opens his forehand side.

I don't think Murray's variety is a key point against Federer : against other points yes, but not against Federer who can play a game with a lot of variety (and I think that Fed's slice is better :lol: )

Also Murray is very motivated (even more than confident) against Federer : he can really play some of his best game against Federer, you could see last year's Masters Cup but also his first serve in first set this week, he's very motivated (and quite confident, not feared at all at least) when he plays against Federer.

Sophocles
11-25-2009, 12:01 PM
But changes of direction are an aspect of variety, no? Fed's problem reading Murray's 1st serve was evident, as was the fact that Murray is very good at pinning Federer in his backhand corner and then exploiting the opening on the forehand side. I think again, though, this is partly down to Murray's variety of shot. Other players are easily lured into hitting into Federer's forehand zone, whereas Murray can go back down the line when Fed hits his backhand down the line to him.

duong
11-25-2009, 12:49 PM
But changes of direction are an aspect of variety, no?

yes in a way, but it's only a specific advantage against Federer because he doesn't have the same movement as in the past.

And some other players can change directions : for instance Djokovic is an expert for that imo.

But I've often heard that Djokovic doesn't have a lot of variety.

For sure Murray's variety is wider than just change directions : for instance you or someone else spoke about the fact that when he goes to Fed's backhand, he can alternate spin or slice, it's something which disturbs many players but not really Federer.

For sure Murray's game has many qualities, a lot of variety, down-the line shots, etc, but what I mean is that I don't think it's a peculiar quality against Federer.

Federer is not the kind of player who needs a very regular rhythm, contrary to many players.

Murray uses a lot his variety against other players, against Federer it's not the key-point, I think.