Who is best at the US Open, Federer, Sampras or Connors? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who is best at the US Open, Federer, Sampras or Connors?

RafitoGoat
11-21-2009, 12:09 PM
If they had a private threesome who would come out on top etc.?

Dini
11-21-2009, 12:14 PM
:tape: :tape: :tape:

Byrd
11-21-2009, 12:17 PM
Federer, his nose swings the balance.

RafitoGoat
11-21-2009, 12:19 PM
How hard did Connors hit compared to the other 2? Which would have been able to overpower the others, and which had the best mobility?

Certinfy
11-21-2009, 12:23 PM
Del Potro.

goldenlox
11-21-2009, 12:38 PM
Connors won the USO on 3 surfaces. But he lost 2 big matches to McEnroe.
Either Connors or Federer.

Action Jackson
11-21-2009, 12:40 PM
Sampras's carpet chest wins here.

partygirl
11-21-2009, 12:53 PM
Connors and his sexy 80's bowl cut.

tennisace
11-21-2009, 01:01 PM
Connors of course...who else ???

Sophocles
11-21-2009, 03:59 PM
Connors has the best record.

moon language
11-21-2009, 04:41 PM
Connors definitely seems like the top. Sampras would be in the middle a little confused about things and Federer is a total bottom for sure.

SetSampras
11-21-2009, 04:52 PM
If its a night match give me Sampras all day everyday over Connors and Fed. Sampras never lost at the USO under the lights. Federer could be the most consistent but I think Pete would overcome if he was on his game. Connors at his peak may beat both. Who knows. You can make cases for all 3 really. But in a one match situation and if I had to put my life on one player to get me the win it would be Sampras. Connors and Pete would both have the homecrowd behind them though so thats good motivation

DrJules
11-21-2009, 04:53 PM
5 straight, but very marginal.

MrChopin
11-21-2009, 04:59 PM
Five in a row against Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Djokovic, and Murray. Not a difficult question.

SetSampras
11-21-2009, 05:06 PM
Five in a row against Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Djokovic, and Murray. Not a difficult question.



We put that into perspective its not that great.

Hewitt- Big win no question for Fed. Fed dominated here and Hewitt was a very good player at the USO. But post 05 or so, Hewitt was alredy a shell of his former self

Agassi- Federer's wins broken down older Andre whos best days had passed. Well in 04, 34 year old Andre took Fed to 5 sets. Andre younger and towards his prime or in his prime out of 4 matches against Pete at the USO, could only manage to take 1 set off of Sampras. Andre came close at 34 to take out Federer. In 05, Andre finished playing 3 straight 5 setters and was giving Fed some trouble there for a while until Andre began feeling his age and already hindered with a bad back made a good match out of it. Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.

Roddick- LOL!!! Please.. Sampras at 31 years old whiped Roddick off the court at the USO. I assume Connors would too. Roddick couldnt even handle an Agassi in his mid 30s. Fed has dominated Roddick but I see no reason why greats like Agassi (he already has) Sampras in his prime and Connors would dominate Roddick too. Sampras did at 31 in his final year. Hes a good player but with many holes in his game to be exploited. So in this perspective, Roddick is nothing special. Never has been.


Djoker and Murray- Murray's first slam final and had already finished player Nadal two days in a row prior due to the rain delays while Fed had two days off to prepare and Murray got screwed by scheduling. Djoker has not solidified himself as any type of slam winner yet. Hes still very much unproven. Murray as well to be honest. Neither have reached that level of legitimacy when it comes to slams and both had a crumby 2009 season as far as slams are concerned. That may develop but at this point in time.. Both are slam handicapped

RafitoGoat
11-21-2009, 06:10 PM
Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.

Very telling :yeah:

MrChopin
11-21-2009, 06:12 PM
We put that into perspective its not that great.

To preface, Sampras got his 5 wins by beating his chief pigeon Agassi three times and then giants in Pioline and Chang. Baffled that you would think this real competition by comparison, but to humor you and continue on...

Agassi- Federer's wins broken down older Andre whos best days had passed. Well in 04, 34 year old Andre took Fed to 5 sets. Andre younger and towards his prime or in his prime out of 4 matches against Pete at the USO, could only manage to take 1 set off of Sampras. Andre came close at 34 to take out Federer. In 05, Andre finished playing 3 straight 5 setters and was giving Fed some trouble there for a while until Andre began feeling his age and already hindered with a bad back made a good match out of it. Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.

The '04 5 setter was in terrible conditions, but ok, they had a close one. Consider their rivalry after Fed won a slam: H2H 8-0 in favor of Fed, 20-5 in terms of sets. Agassi wasn't close to Fed, not that he wasn't a tough final in '05.

Roddick- LOL!!! Please.. Sampras at 31 years old whiped Roddick off the court at the USO. I assume Connors would too. Roddick couldnt even handle an Agassi in his mid 30s. Fed has dominated Roddick but I see no reason why greats like Agassi (he already has) Sampras in his prime and Connors would dominate Roddick too. Sampras did at 31 in his final year. Hes a good player but with many holes in his game to be exploited. So in this perspective, Roddick is nothing special. Never has been.

Your assumptions don't mean anything and you have no proof to go by. Roddick smacked Pete aside twice before their USO match. That's H2H 2-1 Roddick. So play the "31 years old card." You're only preaching to your fellow geriatric nostalgiatards by trying to argue that this indicates Roddick is weak compared to guys from the 90s.

Djoker and Murray- Murray's first slam final and had already finished player Nadal two days in a row prior due to the rain delays while Fed had two days off to prepare and Murray got screwed by scheduling. Djoker has not solidified himself as any type of slam winner yet. Hes still very much unproven. Murray as well to be honest. Neither have reached that level of legitimacy when it comes to slams and both had a crumby 2009 season as far as slams are concerned. That may develop but at this point in time.. Both are slam handicapped

Murray was in great summer form, arguably the best he's ever been in. Djokovic was one slam away from winning his first and also in near-peak form.

If any part of that was confusing: Agassi 3x, Pioline and Chang. It took Sampras 12 years to muster that.

Start da Game
11-21-2009, 06:28 PM
Very telling :yeah:

+1........

JediFed
11-21-2009, 06:34 PM
Connors. He has the equivalent of 8 wins.

Corey Feldman
11-21-2009, 06:47 PM
Lendl deserves a mention for 8 finals in a row

Corey Feldman
11-21-2009, 06:50 PM
Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.


Very telling :yeah:so?

its also telling that Agassi kicked his arse twice on HC's down in AO

SaFed2005
11-21-2009, 07:23 PM
I think that Sampras and Federer at their peak levels would split wins at the USO. On the other hand, both at their peak level would beat Connors.

laurie-1
11-21-2009, 08:15 PM
so?

its also telling that Agassi kicked his arse twice on HC's down in AO

At the US Open Agassi was always playing catch up in the three finals. Each time being two sets down and in 1995 and 2002 had to work extremely hard to claim the 3rd set only to lose the 4th late on each time.

However, in 1995 Aussie final, Pete had 3 straight set points in the 3rd set tiebreak to go 2 sets to 1 up, and in 2000 he was two points away from victory in the 4th set tiebreak so both matches in Australia were very close and could have gone Pete's way if he took his opportunities but at the US Open Agassi was always under the cosh.

I think matches between Sampras and Federer would have been very interesting at the US Open - it could have happened in 2001 but Agassi beat Federer in the last 16. A 29 year old Sampras at Wimbledon played into Federer's hands because Sampras was coming in all the time on grass (although of course it was still very close).

A younger Sampras at the US Open was more confident in his movement and from the baseline so stayed back on 2nd serve exclusively and didn't give his opponents as many targets to pass him.

It may have been a combination of injuries but I think Sampras' results and consistency dropped after he made the decision to attack the net on both serves on non grass surfaces from 2000 to 2002. He also changed his return game. He would often run around the backhand to hit the big forehand return on the ad court at key moments up to 1999 but in 2000 just started chipping and charging all the time instead. So Sampras made fundamental changes to his whole game.

A mid 1990s Sampras against a mid 2000s Federer would have been a great series of matches.

Connors against either guy would have been fantastic and probably close because it would not have been just a Tennis match based on skill and mental courage, it would have been a combination of war and mind games and getting the crowd involved to get under his opponents skin, they would have to overcome those factors if they wanted to beat Connors.

SetSampras
11-21-2009, 09:31 PM
To preface, Sampras got his 5 wins by beating his chief pigeon Agassi three times and then giants in Pioline and Chang. Baffled that you would think this real competition by comparison, but to humor you and continue on...



The '04 5 setter was in terrible conditions, but ok, they had a close one. Consider their rivalry after Fed won a slam: H2H 8-0 in favor of Fed, 20-5 in terms of sets. Agassi wasn't close to Fed, not that he wasn't a tough final in '05.



Your assumptions don't mean anything and you have no proof to go by. Roddick smacked Pete aside twice before their USO match. That's H2H 2-1 Roddick. So play the "31 years old card." You're only preaching to your fellow geriatric nostalgiatards by trying to argue that this indicates Roddick is weak compared to guys from the 90s.



Murray was in great summer form, arguably the best he's ever been in. Djokovic was one slam away from winning his first and also in near-peak form.

If any part of that was confusing: Agassi 3x, Pioline and Chang. It took Sampras 12 years to muster that.



And Most of Roger's wins came over his own respective Pigeons like Davydenko, and Roddick etc? Pete has had some victories over some questionable opponents, but you think Roger hasnt? How "slam di capped" Roddick? Roddick is 2-1 to Pete. But , dont forget was primarily concerned at the time with winning that last slam before retiring. Pete got the most important win over Roddick. Thumping him at the USO and even Boris Becker telling Roddick to get the hell out of the stadium Pete was abusing him so bad. Hell mid 30s Agassi is 5-1 in the h2h vs RODDICK!!! You talk about Pioline and Chang. Has Roddick even posed any more of a threat to Roger that Pioline and Chang were to Sampras? Roddick is 2-19 in the h2h vs Federer. For such a "great" player as u believe Roddick is, thats simply inexcusable. You could give Roddick a 2 set lead over Fed in 10 slam finals in a row and still find a way to squander them all. See Wimbeldon this year and others for example. Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Baghaditis etc , is hardly what I would call an all star cast of multi slam winners wither

JediFed
11-22-2009, 02:52 AM
Of the players with double digit slam semifinals, all but one have won multiple slams.

Roddick is the only one who has not done so.

Were talking a pretty exclusive club,

Connors,
Lendl,
Borg,
McEnroe,
Wilander,
Becker,
Edberg,
Sampras,
Agassi,
Federer
Nadal

As good a list of tennis royalty as any. Also on the list, Roddick. Says more about Federer that he's turned a Wilander level of player into his pigeon.

SetSampras
11-22-2009, 03:01 AM
Of the players with double digit slam semifinals, all but one have won multiple slams.

Roddick is the only one who has not done so.

Were talking a pretty exclusive club,

Connors,
Lendl,
Borg,
McEnroe,
Wilander,
Becker,
Edberg,
Sampras,
Agassi,
Federer
Nadal

As good a list of tennis royalty as any. Also on the list, Roddick. Says more about Federer that he's turned a Wilander level of player into his pigeon.



Are u really comparing Roddick to Wilander? WOW!! I dont think Wilander would have ended up with a lousy 2-19 h2h against Fed. Wilander won 7 Grandslams. With or without Fed, Roddick never would have touched 7 slams.

tangerine_dream
11-22-2009, 04:09 AM
Connors. Nobody could work the crowd and get them excited about tennis the way he did.

MalwareDie
11-22-2009, 05:26 AM
Roddick shouldn't even have his one Slam.

fsoica
11-22-2009, 08:14 AM
for any poll involving Federer I'd vote to please the haters, because the guy IS JUST THE GOAT ! nothing more...eat that, haters !

JediFed
11-22-2009, 09:42 AM
Are u really comparing Roddick to Wilander? WOW!! I dont think Wilander would have ended up with a lousy 2-19 h2h against Fed. Wilander won 7 Grandslams. With or without Fed, Roddick never would have touched 7 slams.


He'd have 4 Wimbledons, and possibly another 2 USOs.

He has lost 6 times to Federer in just those two slams.

RafitoGoat
11-22-2009, 10:14 AM
for any poll involving Federer I'd vote to please the haters, because the guy IS JUST THE GOAT ! nothing more...eat that, haters !

Yeah eat that haters! :yeah:

Boris Franz Ecker
11-22-2009, 10:29 AM
Federer 5 times in a row
Sampras youngest ever champion

That's good and that's exclusive.

Connors has no such things to offer.
This winning on all surfaces is nonsense.

Apart from that, Federer is not a US american.
That should give him the edge.

Federer never had such things like home advantage.

Echoes
11-22-2009, 12:13 PM
What's the point in being the best in one tournament only?

Burrow
11-22-2009, 01:19 PM
He'd have 4 Wimbledons, and possibly another 2 USOs.

He has lost 6 times to Federer in just those two slams.

Who's saying if Roger Federer weren't around that Roddick would beat this other player in the final?

Roddick is a one slam wonder, he has basically no level of greatness at all.

Wilander >>>>>>>>>> Roddick :lol:

stebs
11-22-2009, 01:26 PM
Since Federer is still playing and surely in with a shot at acheiveing more at the USO this question is rather redundant for now.

Everko
11-22-2009, 01:31 PM
Sampras was better than Federer

SetSampras
11-22-2009, 04:09 PM
He'd have 4 Wimbledons, and possibly another 2 USOs.

He has lost 6 times to Federer in just those two slams.


Im sorry but Roddick isnt that great of player and has historically had issues with his nerves in tight match big situations. To just HAND Roddick slams if Federer isnt there is not right. There is no proof that Roddick would have won those slams had Federer not been in the draw. You can just hand players slams if the abscence of another player especially Roddick.

Roddick may not have won all those wimbeldons. He still had a prime Hewitt to contend with. Roddick was Hewitt's bitch for the longest time. Then you have Nadal at wimbeldon. No proof that Roddick has what it takes to beat him. One of the years, Roddick went out at wimbeldin in the 1st round. So again. Its not as though Roddick is the ultra consistent player. There are players capable of catching fire and taking Roddick out.


You are not being very reasonable. First your comparing an all time great Mats Wilander to Roddick the one slam wonder. Than you give Roddick 6 slams in the abscence of Federer as if he was a sure thing to grab all of them.

rocketassist
11-22-2009, 04:10 PM
Let's hand Agassi slams if Sampras wasn't there.

bhathiya9999
11-22-2009, 05:39 PM
I think Its Federer..

thrust
11-22-2009, 06:15 PM
Winning the USO on three different IS an outstanding accomplishment. I think he beat Borg in one clay final. I would not concede any Slam final to Roddick. He was rather lucky to win the one Slam he has.

SetSampras
11-22-2009, 07:11 PM
Let's hand Agassi slams if Sampras wasn't there.

Both were the 2 best players of their generation. Proven slam champions many times over with the longevity.. Thats more plausible handing them slams without the other one around. Such as Agassi taking maybe 1 or two Australian Open titles from Pete give or take in 95 and 00. Pete taking possibly the 99 Wimbeldon away and few USO titles from Agassi like 1995 and a few others. Yes. Thats plausible. But to give Roddick 6 slams and place him on the level of Mats Wilander who has 7 slams?

In the abscence of Roger, Roddick probably grabs 3 slams or so. Maybe 4. Thats more plausible But thats still not an all time great career on the level of an Agassi, Wilander, Sampras, Roger etc. Far from it.

It all comes down to Roddick just not being good enough. If he was good enough there would be reason for him to have a such a pathetic 2-19 h2h against Roger. None at all. If Roddick was good enough there was no reason for him not grab a list a few big matches from Roger especially Wimbeldon this year when Fed wasnt exactly at his best

Voo de Mar
11-22-2009, 07:33 PM
I think Connors is the biggest legend of US Open in the Open Era, wins on 3 different surfaces, QF in 1973 and SF in 1991, and 5 titles between, beating both giants like Borg and Lendl twice in the finals - it's stunning. Federer can still overcome him but needs at least one more triumph.

Sophocles
11-22-2009, 10:21 PM
I think Connors is the biggest legend of US Open in the Open Era, wins on 3 different surfaces, QF in 1973 and SF in 1991, and 5 titles between, beating both giants like Borg and Lendl twice in the finals - it's stunning. Federer can still overcome him but needs at least one more triumph.

Most sensible posting in the thread.

Benny_Maths
11-22-2009, 11:38 PM
Federer is betterer.

/thread