Sampras interview "Roger's competition hasn't been as great" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sampras interview "Roger's competition hasn't been as great"

sexybeast
01-26-2011, 11:54 PM
Sampras is confident about his chanses against this generation and why wouldnt he be confident? But to me he is opening his mouth a little bit too much here. Whats your take on this Sampras interview?


Mats Wilander recently stirred the pot when he inferred that, while on paper and in the record books, Roger Federer may be the best player of all time, the 16-time Slam champ hasn’t necessarily been challenged the way elite players of the past were. Said the Swede: “You have to say that the era when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so much…His era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had‚ the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger dominated so much…That’s the only way I can see it. How can you be that dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible.”

Hall of Famer Pete Sampras, who’s prepping for a Feb. 7 exo match against Frenchman Gael Monfils at the HP Pavilion in San Jose, Calif., concurs. To a point, that is.

“What’s happening to the game is that there’s only a handful of great players,” Sampras told Inside Tennis. “There’s a lot of really good players, but there’s only a number of guys who have won majors. In Mats’ generation, in my generation, there were a lot more major winners — Becker, Edberg, Stich, Courier, Agassi, you can go down the list. With Rafa and Roger being so dominating over the years, there’s not anyone else who really believes they can win majors. If it’s a Soderling or a Robredo, they’re really good players, but I’m not sure they believe.” (haha, if only Robredo believed he certanly would beat Federer and Nadal, what is Sampras smoking?)

“As to how dominant Roger has been, how great he’s been; the competition hasn’t necessarily been as great,” Sampras continued. “I’ve never seen two guys dominate as much as Roger and Rafa have. The competition is the competition — there’s nothing Roger can do about it. If he plays [fellow Swiss Stanislaus] Wawrinka like he did the other night , 1, 3 and 3 in an hour and 20 minutes, it’s not his fault. He’s that much better. Guys are pretty content now just getting to the quarters and are not believing in themselves as far as being able to beat Roger and Rafa. They’re clearly the best players in the world, but they’ve mentally got a really big edge on these guys.”

Sampras’ mid-’90s run of six years as the world No. 1 remains an unparalleled streak. That he pulled it off against the likes of nemesis Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc., only makes it more remarkable.

“As far as styles of play, I felt in my day there were some players who were dangerous, who had big serves, who could serve you off the court,” Sampras explained. “I’d play one of those guys one day and the next day play a great returner, versus Roger, who never feels scared out there. He doesn’t feel like he’s under that much pressure. Everyone sort of plays the same; it’s just that Roger and Rafa are just better at it. They just move better. They’re better from the backcourt. It’s very clear to me that no major threat comes through like a Krajicek, an Ivanisevic, guys who could potentially blow you off the court with their serve. You have to admire what these guys have been able to do. It’s incredible. That’s the way I look at it. I don’t look at it like, ‘Wow, they’re not playing anybody.’ They’re playing the competition of their generation and they’re dominating. That’s enough for me.”

And how would an in-his-prime Pete Sampras fare against Federer and Nadal today?

“When you get the top guys from your generation, if it’s me or Andre or Becker, I was going to win my fair share of big ones, they were going to win their fair share of big ones. It’s hard to compare the decades. That said, I think we all would have been pretty even depending on the surface. I don’t think one guy would have been 10-1 against someone. It would be pretty even. My game would certainly hold up I believe in any generation, with the serve-and-volley game. Everyone talks about that game being extinct, but I still think it’s an effective way to play. It would have been exciting, and we all want to compare generations, what I’d do against Borg or McEnroe or Laver, for that matter. It’s hard to compare. The game has changed, technology has changed, but in my prime I felt unbeatable, as does Roger, as did Lendl, as did Laver. That’s the way we look at our decades. To say that one is better than the other? It’s hard to compare, but I felt I came out of a generation that was very, very strong, and I feel proud about that.”

With Nadal on the verge of owning all four major titles at once, Sampras said that while it wouldn’t be a calendar year Slam al la Laver (the last man to sweep all four majors in a single year), there would be no taking away from the accomplishment.

“If he does it, it’s incredible,” he said. “It’s one of the greatest achievements in all of sports in this day and age when the competition is a lot more fierce than it was back when Laver was doing it. It’s hard to believe, honestly, that he’s so close to doing it. He very well could do it. It’s mind-boggling to be that consistent, to win on all those surfaces in a day when the competition is very tough. You’ve got to put him right up there with Laver. Like I said, technically, it’s not January through the [U.S.] Open, but in my eyes he’s going to hold all four of them at one time. No one’s done that.”

[I](Sampras contradicts himself saying competition is very tough for Nadal on all surfaces, Sampras sounds like a Nadal fan)

Of course, Federer may just be the last man standing between the Spaniard and that seemingly superhuman feat. What advice would Pistol Pete give his big-dollars exo counterpart should the Swiss meet Nadal in the final?

“I’ve always felt playing lefties, Nadal especially…you have to use the whole court, you can’t get it just to his backhand. You have to go wide to Rafa’s forehand, open it up, get it to the backhand. That’s something Roger might try. He isn’t going to do it every game, but second serve, run around and smack forehands and chip and charge a little bit. What Roger doesn’t want to get involved in is long, grinding rallies that are tough to recover from that will take its toll over a five-set match. And Rafa can keep doing that. He has to take his chances, serve and volley occasionally, even on the second serve, because Rafa stands so far back. Just giving different looks. And I know that’s a little uncomfortable for Roger just to get out of that. But against Rafa, he’s forced to do some things that he doesn’t have to against other players. Rafa is that tough for him.”

And Federer will need to avoid being pinned down on his weaker side, his oft vulnerable one-handed backhand, by Nadal’s unrelenting, more-than-formidable forehand.

Easier said than done.

“It’s very tough. It’s what makes Rafa as great as he is,” Sampras concluded. “It’s tough to get control at that point. And once Rafa gets that ball to his backhand, it’s hard. I can tell you from one-handers, it’s the hardest shot in the game for us. What can you do? You’ve just got to try to get it back deep and wait for your forehand, and you can try to chip it, but it’s got to be a good chip. He’s returning Rafa’s serve and being pretty aggressive with it. Once you get one short ball, you have your track shoes on and he’s going to get it to your backhand…It’s an uphill battle once those points happen.”


http://www.insidetennis.com/2011/01/sampras-my-game-hold-generation/

philosophicalarf
01-26-2011, 11:58 PM
Yeah, Federer has been lucky not to have been stretched by titans like Washington, Bjorkman and Rusedski.

Sampras won all but 3 of his slams in 94-02, when most of the big names he mentions had faded hard.

Johnny Groove
01-26-2011, 11:58 PM
Sampras giving this interview after he ripped the bong.

He does live in California after all.

What is with Sampras and Laver takin' shots at this generation?

scoobs
01-26-2011, 11:59 PM
It's the same old debate, over and over.

Is there a lack of competition because the top 2 are just much better than the rest and better than the competition even in other eras, or were the dominant players in other eras just not as good so the competiton was comparatively stronger?

Or, if you dropped Federer and Nadal down in Sampras's era, would they still have 16 and 9 slams?

This is a question that can never be satisfactorily answered, everyone has an opinion, even Sampras. Some feel this is a weaker era and that's why Federer and Nadal are so dominant. Others feel that this is the best era of tennis competition ever and that Federer and Nadal are just THAT good that even if this best era ever they are still able to dominatetheir peers.

Arkulari
01-27-2011, 12:01 AM
Rafa >>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippoussis + Pioline + Martin + Ivanisevic + Moyá put together
And I'm not counting Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten...

Sampras came in the 90's when Becker/Edberg/Lendl were past their primes, Agassi was his main contender but the guy was not consistent enough to be a threat week in, week out.

The same competition he's criticizing, Hewitt and Safin was the competition that beat him at the USO two straight years when he was Roger's current age.

He and Wankander are such sore losers, they can't stand the fact that their records are being pulverized by someone.

Being a nostalgiatard is one of the saddest things, if you don't like this era then you shouldn't watch the sport :shrug:

Kat_YYZ
01-27-2011, 12:02 AM
jealous haters :o

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 12:02 AM
I like Sampras when he's candid.

I don't like him when he starts saying anything just to get press attention.

I abhor anyone who thinks Nadull has a "more-than-formidable" forehand. It's just a leftie moonball.

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 12:03 AM
Sampras, I like you but you have no idea what u are talking about. Tennis is much more professional these days. Do us a favour and retire in peace. Federer has a better record than you, accept it and move on.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 12:05 AM
Anyone saying Sampras competition was weaker than today is just making things up.

mgasol
01-27-2011, 12:09 AM
sampy is as stupid as people who thinks just cos other people were not allowed to win slams by the GOAT necessarily makes them suck. according to them if they were allowed to win slams then it would be a great era :retard:

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 12:11 AM
sampy is as stupid as people who thinks just cos other people were not allowed to win slams by the GOAT necessarily makes them suck. according to them if they were allowed to win slams then it would be a great era :retard:

Frauderer dominated clowns and mugs.

The first left-handed moonballer who showed up manhandled him in every freaking GS match they have played. Even in the matches Frauderer won, he was embarrassed at times.

tennismaster1978
01-27-2011, 12:11 AM
The game evolves.. Players get better. Think about how many slams roddick would have if fed was not around? He would be considered a better player for sure. Federer and Nadal would crush the likes of pete's day. The game evolves and the players get better.

sexybeast
01-27-2011, 12:11 AM
I really dont know what Sampras would have done with the Nadal forehand up his backhand, you cant slice it against Nadal so Sampras is right about the problems onehanders without incredible power (ala Gasquet, Wawrinka) face when playing Nadal. I think Sampras would still most often have won by sheer will power and great serve and volleying on grass and US hardcourt, all sets tiebreaks. Sampras was more clutch than Federer, that would have been the deciding factor.

Johnny Groove
01-27-2011, 12:13 AM
Sampras Slam Final opponents

Agassi- Win
Edberg- Lose
Courier- Win
Pioline- Win
Todd Martin- Win
Ivanisevic- Win
Agassi- Lose
Chang- Win
Moya- Win
Pioline- Win
Ivanievic- Win
Agassi- Win
Rafter- Win
Safin- Lose
Hewitt- Lose
Agassi- Win

Federer slam final opponents

Philippoussis- Win
Safin- Win
Roddick- Win
Hewitt- Win
Roddick- Win
Agassi- Win
Baghdatis- Win
Nadal- Lose
Nadal- Win
Roddick- Win
Gonzalez- Win
Nadal- Lose
Nadal- Win
Djokovic- Win
Nadal- Lose
Nadal- Lose
Murray- Win
Nadal- Lose
Soderling- Win
Roddick- Win
Del Potro- Lose
Murray- Win

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 12:13 AM
Anyone saying Sampras competition was weaker than today is just making things up.

Almost all players these days can serve big. The level of fitness is better. The coaching is better. To turn around and say this generation is weak is just offensive. Agassi has gone on record as saying Federer is the best player he has ever faced and he has played a lot of the greats of the game. Seems as if Sampras fears that Nadal might even reach and surpass his 14 majors.

green25814
01-27-2011, 12:13 AM
Anyone saying Sampras competition was weaker than today is just making things up.

Agreed.

mgasol
01-27-2011, 12:14 AM
Frauderer dominated clowns and mugs.

The first left-handed moonballer who showed up manhandled him in every freaking GS match they have played. Even in the matches Frauderer won, he was embarrassed at times.

how do you argue with such blatant retardism? i rest my case.

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 12:17 AM
I really dont know what Sampras would have done with the Nadal forehand up his backhand, you cant slice it against Nadal so Sampras is right about the problems onehanders without incredible power (ala Gasquet, Wawrinka) face when playing Nadal. I think Sampras would still most often have won by sheer will power and great serve and volleying on grass and US hardcourt, all sets tiebreaks. Sampras was more clutch than Federer, that would have been the deciding factor.

U can't volley these days. U will get destroyed if u try to serve and volley. The passing is just too good and so is the returning.

nobama
01-27-2011, 12:18 AM
sour grapes

mgasol
01-27-2011, 12:22 AM
sour grapes

exactly. he praises nadull who hasnt surpassed him but criticizes roger. makes perfect sense. sampras knows roger has chances to make his records look even more insignificant than he already has. if you dont have the goods you dont have it. deal with it sampy and all nostalgiatards.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 12:24 AM
The game evolves.. Players get better. Think about how many slams roddick would have if fed was not around? He would be considered a better player for sure. Federer and Nadal would crush the likes of pete's day. The game evolves and the players get better.

:rolleyes:

The game got more physical, it hasn't "evolved". If less variety and more moonballing/ballbashing is "evolving", then I wonder how the hell haven't we become monkeys again.

Sampras Slam Final opponents

Agassi- Win
Edberg- Lose
Courier- Win
Pioline- Win
Todd Martin- Win
Ivanisevic- Win
Agassi- Lose
Chang- Win
Moya- Win
Pioline- Win
Ivanievic- Win
Agassi- Win
Rafter- Win
Safin- Lose
Hewitt- Lose
Agassi- Win

Federer slam final opponents

Philippoussis- Win
Safin- Win
Roddick- Win
Hewitt- Win
Roddick- Win
Agassi- Win
Baghdatis- Win
Nadal- Lose
Nadal- Win
Roddick- Win
Gonzalez- Win
Nadal- Lose
Nadal- Win
Djokovic- Win
Nadal- Lose
Nadal- Lose
Murray- Win
Nadal- Lose
Soderling- Win
Roddick- Win
Del Potro- Lose
Murray- Win

Each and every player Frauderer played in GS finals is a mug. Roddick? Gonzalez? Soderling? Del Pony? Hewitt? Safin? Murray? Nadull? Elder Agassi?

Hewitt is the best of the pack and it says A LOT.

Almost all players these days can serve big. The level of fitness is better. The coaching is better. To turn around and say this generation is weak is just offensive. Agassi has gone on record as saying Federer is the best player he has ever faced and he has played a lot of the greats of the game. Seems as if Sampras fears that Nadal might even reach and surpass his 14 majors.

Comparing Krajicek and Ivanisevic's serve to today's players serve is a joke. Pathetic joke. Fitness means nothing, tennis isn't ironman. This generation can only hit topspin. It's weak. Agassi says anything just to get press.

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 12:33 AM
:rolleyes:

The game got more physical, it hasn't "evolved". If less variety and more moonballing/ballbashing is "evolving", then I wonder how the hell haven't we become monkeys again.



Each and every player Frauderer played in GS finals is a mug. Roddick? Gonzalez? Soderling? Del Pony? Hewitt? Safin? Murray? Nadull? Elder Agassi?

Hewitt is the best of the pack and it says A LOT.



Comparing Krajicek and Ivanisevic's serve to today's players serve is a joke. Pathetic joke. Fitness means nothing, tennis isn't ironman. This generation can only hit topspin. It's weak. Agassi says anything just to get press.


Are u forgeting the change of surfaces. Courts are slower but players still serve big. Hewitt and Safin beat Sampras. Ok he was older and past his best but still he lost even with that serve of his. Players return so much better u can't just rely on your serve like in the past. In the past u had players that were just good on clay, grass or hard but these days players compete throughout the year on every surface so competition is better.

nobama
01-27-2011, 12:41 AM
no contradiction here... :rolleyes:

“As to how dominant Roger has been, how great he’s been; the competition hasn’t necessarily been as great,” Sampras continued.

(Nadal)He very well could do it. It’s mind-boggling to be that consistent, to win on all those surfaces in a day when the competition is very tough.

silverarrows
01-27-2011, 12:41 AM
"Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc."

Federer will destroy all these players.

romismak
01-27-2011, 12:52 AM
Sampras was great player but he is so wrong... His problem is that now he realised that it is really bad with him- in terms of succes and history rankings- when he was finishing he had 14 GS titles- most in open era- he was considered as the best player ever- he thought maybe by himself that he will stay until his dead as GOAT. I read somewhere like he was saying it was wrong idea to retired so soon, maybe he thought he will win another GS titles- but i think he wonīt - maybe one more and he will get 15 together- but the thing is when he retired it was that era- that everything was ATP slowing down- in 2001-2002-2003 and so one- so i donīt think he would win more than 1 GS title- he played Federer- in Wimbledon and he lost to him... if he would play Rafa at his best Rafa would destroy him in every rally and if you thing he will thanks to his serve won against Rafa in tie-breaks common.. maybe on fastest grass Wimbledon yes, but on HC- even, on clay Rafa would destroy him always something like 6:1 6:0 6:1. He is sorry for himself that he was thinking how great he is- and he really was, but he just canīt swallow that fact that Roger surpassed him in every possible achievemenst- except total No.1 weeks and year ending No. 1 and total Wimbledon titles. He can say what he wants to TV, media and in interviews- but everyone - every human if you are best at something and someone surrpased you you would hate that person- just think Sampras retired as greatest guy ever and now some Swiss guy DURING HIS ACTIVE CAREER surpassed almost 90% of his achievements.. that must be really horrible for you if you are Sampras- and now he know that Rafa is on the way to surpassed him to- so only 8-9years ago he was considered as the GOAT and he was thinking it will stay that way until he died and now he is only 2nd and with every GS toournament he is near and near to be replaced on 2nd place and fell to 3rd place... that the thing about Sampras. he was great but he canīt swallow that fact that in 10 years he felt from No. 1 guy in history to No.3...

mgasol
01-27-2011, 01:01 AM
no contradiction here... :rolleyes:

:haha: i didnt even notice that. sampy blatantly gives himself away :o

Henry Chinaski
01-27-2011, 01:01 AM
cba reading the thread and possibly mentioned already...but Sampras belittling Hewitt is just hilarious.

tennismaster1978
01-27-2011, 01:07 AM
:rolleyes:

The game got more physical, it hasn't "evolved". If less variety and more moonballing/ballbashing is "evolving", then I wonder how the hell haven't we become monkeys again.



Each and every player Frauderer played in GS finals is a mug. Roddick? Gonzalez? Soderling? Del Pony? Hewitt? Safin? Murray? Nadull? Elder Agassi?

Hewitt is the best of the pack and it says A LOT.



Comparing Krajicek and Ivanisevic's serve to today's players serve is a joke. Pathetic joke. Fitness means nothing, tennis isn't ironman. This generation can only hit topspin. It's weak. Agassi says anything just to get press.

You must be an old timer. Every sport evolves. Players are stronger, faster, serves are bigger, training techniques get better, heavier shots. The equipment is better. Which is depate for another time.

If you think hewitt is the best best of the pack you stated, I want some of what your smoking. Safin destroyed samprass at the us open. Bringing in the new style of play. A bigger guy with all the shots, down the line back hand the sport had never seen. Now, it's the norm.

I don't think any of the players of pete's era could handle the play of nadal. He would have reacked havak on the tour. Same with fed. He's the most complete player the sport has ever seen. All the old timers you speak were all one dimensional. Oh yeah, and fed beat pete at wimby as well.

mgasol
01-27-2011, 01:10 AM
Sampras was great player but he is so wrong... His problem is that now he realised that it is really bad with him- in terms of succes and history rankings- when he was finishing he had 14 GS titles- most in open era- he was considered as the best player ever- he thought maybe by himself that he will stay until his dead as GOAT. I read somewhere like he was saying it was wrong idea to retired so soon, maybe he thought he will win another GS titles- but i think he wonīt - maybe one more and he will get 15 together- but the thing is when he retired it was that era- that everything was ATP slowing down- in 2001-2002-2003 and so one- so i donīt think he would win more than 1 GS title- he played Federer- in Wimbledon and he lost to him... if he would play Rafa at his best Rafa would destroy him in every rally and if you thing he will thanks to his serve won against Rafa in tie-breaks common.. maybe on fastest grass Wimbledon yes, but on HC- even, on clay Rafa would destroy him always something like 6:1 6:0 6:1. He is sorry for himself that he was thinking how great he is- and he really was, but he just canīt swallow that fact that Roger surpassed him in every possible achievemenst- except total No.1 weeks and year ending No. 1 and total Wimbledon titles. He can say what he wants to TV, media and in interviews- but everyone - every human if you are best at something and someone surrpased you you would hate that person- just think Sampras retired as greatest guy ever and now some Swiss guy DURING HIS ACTIVE CAREER surpassed almost 90% of his achievements.. that must be really horrible for you if you are Sampras- and now he know that Rafa is on the way to surpassed him to- so only 8-9years ago he was considered as the GOAT and he was thinking it will stay that way until he died and now he is only 2nd and with every GS toournament he is near and near to be replaced on 2nd place and fell to 3rd place... that the thing about Sampras. he was great but he canīt swallow that fact that in 10 years he felt from No. 1 guy in history to No.3...

it is the price sampy has to pay for going out on a high. in my opinion it was a mistake to go out all self-satisfied. you never know when your records can be broken, and besides you have to keep playing for love of it until you are truly done. at least then you can retire knowing you had nothing left.

mgasol
01-27-2011, 01:13 AM
You must be an old timer. Every sport evolves. Players are stronger, faster, serves are bigger, training techniques get better, heavier shots. The equipment is better. Which is depate for another time.

If you think hewitt is the best best of the pack you stated, I want some of what your smoking. Safin destroyed samprass at the us open. Bringing in the new style of play. A bigger guy with all the shots, down the line back hand the sport had never seen. Now, it's the norm.

I don't think any of the players of pete's era could handle the play of nadal. He would have reacked havak on the tour. Same with fed. He's the most complete player the sport has ever seen. All the old timers you speak were all one dimensional. Oh yeah, and fed beat pete at wimby as well.

glenbug is not an old timer but he sure acts like one. the sport has passed nostalgiatards like him by. the new brand of tennis is just too much for them to adapt to.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 01:13 AM
Are u forgeting the change of surfaces. Courts are slower but players still serve big. Hewitt and Safin beat Sampras. Ok he was older and past his best but still he lost even with that serve of his. Players return so much better u can't just rely on your serve like in the past. In the past u had players that were just good on clay, grass or hard but these days players compete throughout the year on every surface so competition is better.

They beat Sampras but not because of their serves.

No they don't serve that much better. That's :bs:. Ferrer was #4 - can't serve. Murray can't serve. Nadull can't serve. Boredo made it to the top 10 - can't serve. You can go on and on and on. Hewitt never had a big serve. Nalbandian also never had a serve. Wawrinka was a top 10 - weak serve.

Players return better because the balls and rackets are bigger and the courts slower.

And about surfaces - there were players good in different surfaces because THEY PLAYED DIFFERENTLY. Nowadays they're all slow and every single match is played from the baseline. Obviously this killed variety in the sport.

"Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc."

Federer will destroy all these players.

Will he? When? In the Blackrock Champions Tour? :rolleyes:

tennismaster1978
01-27-2011, 01:15 AM
"Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc."

Federer will destroy all these players.

Agreed 100%

mgasol
01-27-2011, 01:16 AM
Agreed 100%

+1

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 01:19 AM
Agreed 100%

+1

Double account alert.

tests
01-27-2011, 01:29 AM
sampras is a bitter old man

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 01:33 AM
Sampras still has selective memory over his 2000 Wimbledon when he didnt face a player inside the top30

and exactly how many slams did Becker and Edberg win between them during his prime years? 1

but he throws their name in anyway

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 01:34 AM
They beat Sampras but not because of their serves.

No they don't serve that much better. That's :bs:. Ferrer was #4 - can't serve. Murray can't serve. Nadull can't serve. Boredo made it to the top 10 - can't serve. You can go on and on and on. Hewitt never had a big serve. Nalbandian also never had a serve. Wawrinka was a top 10 - weak serve.

Players return better because the balls and rackets are bigger and the courts slower.

And about surfaces - there were players good in different surfaces because THEY PLAYED DIFFERENTLY. Nowadays they're all slow and every single match is played from the baseline. Obviously this killed variety in the sport.



Will he? When? In the Blackrock Champions Tour? :rolleyes:

My point exactly u have to be at your best everyday otherwise you will lose. Because courts are slower every point is tough to win. You have to play every point like it's match point. The movement of modern players is ridiculous. Take the Djoker and Murray or Simon let alone Nadal. These guys get to balls that u say to yourself that is not possible.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 01:39 AM
My point exactly u have to be at your best everyday otherwise you will lose. Because courts are slower every point is tough to win. You have to play every point like it's match point. The movement of modern players is ridiculous. Take the Djoker and Murray or Simon let alone Nadal. These guys get to balls that u say to yourself that is not possible.

Have you ever picked up a racket?

Since when winning a point moonballing is harder than pulling a half-volley out of a rocket of a passing shot?

This is just laughable. It takes a lot more skill to win points at the net than through moonballing and pushing.

Movement says nothing to me. Any moron can get fit and fast. You can't say the same about having touch and skill.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 01:40 AM
Sampras still has selective memory over his 2000 Wimbledon when he didnt face a player inside the top30

and exactly how many slams did Becker and Edberg win between them during his prime years? 1

but he throws their name in anyway

They did though.

tennismaster1978
01-27-2011, 01:54 AM
Have you ever picked up a racket?

Since when winning a point moonballing is harder than pulling a half-volley out of a rocket of a passing shot?

This is just laughable. It takes a lot more skill to win points at the net than through moonballing and pushing.

Movement says nothing to me. Any moron can get fit and fast. You can't say the same about having touch and skill.

Your a funny guy. Not everyone can get fit and fast. There is however, better athletes. Roddick trains his butt off and will never be as fast as nadal or fed.

If you think nadal is moonballing, you don't play, or know anything about tennis. His "Moon Ball" is one of the hardest shots to deal with in tennis. It's not a junk, soft moonball.

Let's take johny mac for instance. One of the all time greats, great volleys and hands at the net. Put him at his prime with todays equipment and he would not win one major. He's to small and could not handle the power, or fitness of today's players. By the way, fed does still use touch and skill to win.

Movement and being faster helps you get to more balls and recover quicker. Hence, being a better player. It's a no brainer!

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 01:59 AM
Have you ever picked up a racket?

Since when winning a point moonballing is harder than pulling a half-volley out of a rocket of a passing shot?

This is just laughable. It takes a lot more skill to win points at the net than through moonballing and pushing.

Movement says nothing to me. Any moron can get fit and fast. You can't say the same about having touch and skill.

Have I played tennis, Yes. Was I good, NO hence I don't play anymore. Volleying is tough but most of the players Sampras faced were not the best at passing. Not today though, you can't come in on a nothing shot. Moonballing? Moon ballers exist but they do not win anything, there are very few players who moonball. Nadal was getting destroyed by the likes of Delpotro and Soderling thus he changed his game and became more attacking. The likes of Hewitt who push the ball can't compete so I have no clue where you are coming from. Hewitt could compete in Sampras's era though ;).

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 02:02 AM
Your a funny guy. Not everyone can get fit and fast. There is however, better athletes. Roddick trains his butt off and will never be as fast as nadal or fed.

If you think nadal is moonballing, you don't play, or know anything about tennis. His "Moon Ball" is one of the hardest shots to deal with in tennis. It's not a junk, soft moonball.

Let's take johny mac for instance. One of the all time greats, great volleys and hands at the net. Put him at his prime with todays equipment and he would not win one major. He's to small and could not handle the power, or fitness of today's players. By the way, fed does still use touch and skill to win.

Movement and being faster helps you get to more balls and recover quicker. Hence, being a better player. It's a no brainer!

Roddick was as fast if not faster than both of them for a good part of his career.

It's moonballing, stop lying to yourself. Guy can't even hit a proper forehand. Every swing finishes behind his head.

:bs: if McEnroe were to play today he'd hit big and have the same physical training of today's players. It's obvious that with the conjuncture of today's tour he wouldn't be able to use his game of the 80s, but it's preposterous to think he'd be transported to today's times without the same training and upbringing players have nowadays. :rolleyes:

So you think serve and volley players can't move... and I'm the one who has never played tennis... :lol:

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 02:05 AM
Roddick was as fast if not faster than both of them for a good part of his career.

It's moonballing, stop lying to yourself. Guy can't even hit a proper forehand. Every swing finishes behind his head.

:bs: if McEnroe were to play today he'd hit big and have the same physical training of today's players. It's obvious that with the conjuncture of today's tour he wouldn't be able to use his game of the 80s, but it's preposterous to think he'd be transported to today's times without the same training and upbringing players have nowadays. :rolleyes:

So you think serve and volley players can't move... and I'm the one who has never played tennis... :lol:

Roddick and fast in the same sentence. Arrest my case. I don't mean to insult but I think you might have had one or two too many.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 02:06 AM
Have I played tennis, Yes. Was I good, NO hence I don't play anymore. Volleying is tough but most of the players Sampras faced were not the best at passing. Not today though, you can't come in on a nothing shot. Moonballing? Moon ballers exist but they do not win anything, there are very few players who moonball. Nadal was getting destroyed by the likes of Delpotro and Soderling thus he changed his game and became more attacking. The likes of Hewitt who push the ball can't compete so I have no clue where you are coming from. Hewitt could compete in Sampras's era though ;).

You're saying Agassi wasn't good at passing? :lol:

Nadull has never changed his game, don't be silly. And he has never been half the player Hewitt once was. Hewitt's problem was physical decline. In peak form he wasn't such a pusher.

Hewitt couldn't "compete" in Sampras era basically because Sampras' era finished right when Hewitt peaked. It never happened. He wasn't there during the 90s.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 02:07 AM
Roddick and fast in the same sentence. Arrest my case. I don't mean to insult but I think you might have had one or two too many.

:lol:

Roddick is a pretty good athlete. I guess you haven't watched him at his peak.

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 02:13 AM
You're saying Agassi wasn't good at passing? :lol:

Nadull has never changed his game, don't be silly. And he has never been half the player Hewitt once was. Hewitt's problem was physical decline. In peak form he wasn't such a pusher.

Hewitt couldn't "compete" in Sampras era basically because Sampras' era finished right when Hewitt peaked. It never happened. He wasn't there during the 90s.

Everyone knows Agassi had wonderful passing shots but besides him there were not very many who could pass or return as well as him. Nadal has not changed his game? Where have you been. The guy does not play six feet behind the baseline anymore. He is serving bigger. He can actually flatten his forehand now. Hewitt on the other hand has always played the same.

tennismaster1978
01-27-2011, 02:13 AM
Roddick was as fast if not faster than both of them for a good part of his career.

It's moonballing, stop lying to yourself. Guy can't even hit a proper forehand. Every swing finishes behind his head.

:bs: if McEnroe were to play today he'd hit big and have the same physical training of today's players. It's obvious that with the conjuncture of today's tour he wouldn't be able to use his game of the 80s, but it's preposterous to think he'd be transported to today's times without the same training and upbringing players have nowadays. :rolleyes:

So you think serve and volley players can't move... and I'm the one who has never played tennis... :lol:

Johny Mac would have had to that, but he still would have not been as good as he was given his natural talents were not speed and power. Which is today's game.

Please be honest, Roddick was never near as fast as fed and nadal. Not in his dna.

"Moon Balling" refers to junk players that basically lob you from the baseline giving you no pace. Thus throwing your rhythm off. Nadal however, hits it very hard with alot of topspin. One of the best shots in the game.

The game changes. Alot of players will finish there forehand behind there head. This gives them more spin and the ability to use the most power and control. I bet you think a proper forehand grip would be an eastern or continental grip, huh? Comes at ya like a slider. Yep that's how my dad use to hit them.

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 02:16 AM
i mean Sampras can mention Fed's QF with Wawrinka but forget he's had to beat Agassi , Nalbands , Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Gonzalez , Davydenko , Del Potro in qf's

does he forget Fed was bombed out in 2 qf's last year by Soder and Berdych

does he forget every now and then he had GS qf's against people like JM Gambill, Chris Woodruff, Byron Black, Matsuoka, Brett Steven, Gustafsson, Volkov. same goes with Wilander

as i've said before with them.. its selective memory ":singer: i've played, and destroyed, Chang and Kafelnikov one time in a GS, i must have had it tougher"

tennismaster1978
01-27-2011, 02:22 AM
Everyone knows Agassi had wonderful passing shots but besides him there were not very many who could pass or return as well as him. Nadal has not changed his game? Where have you been. The guy does not play six feet behind the baseline anymore. He is serving bigger. He can actually flatten his forehand now. Hewitt on the other hand has always played the same.

So hewitt was a better player than nadal. That's one of the funniest things Ive heard. Nadal will, most likely go down as top 5 best of all time. Hewitt might not even be top 20.

paseo
01-27-2011, 02:24 AM
:lol:

Roddick is a pretty good athlete. I guess you haven't watched him at his peak.

Come on, Roddick was never as fast as.. let's say Djokovic, for example. He's not slow, but saying that he's as fast as Nadal is pushing it. Compared to todays game, Roddick at his prime is a slightly above average mover.

ballbasher101
01-27-2011, 02:31 AM
So hewitt was a better player than nadal. That's one of the funniest things Ive heard. Nadal will, most likely go down as top 5 best of all time. Hewitt might not even be top 20.

I did not say Hewitt is a better player or was ever better than Nadal. All I said was Nadal has changed his game slightly whilst Hewitt has not.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 02:34 AM
Everyone knows Agassi had wonderful passing shots but besides him there were not very many who could pass or return as well as him. Nadal has not changed his game? Where have you been. The guy does not play six feet behind the baseline anymore. He is serving bigger. He can actually flatten his forehand now. Hewitt on the other hand has always played the same.

Well you said there were no players who could pass well. You've just been proven wrong. ;)

Nadull hasn't changed his game. Against stronger players he plays moonballing all day long. I don't care how he plays against Daniel. Serving bigger? :haha: Guy can't even hold the racket right.

However, Hewitt played way better tennis. His body was just punished too much.

Johny Mac would have had to that, but he still would have not been as good as he was given his natural talents were not speed and power. Which is today's game.

Please be honest, Roddick was never near as fast as fed and nadal. Not in his dna.

"Moon Balling" refers to junk players that basically lob you from the baseline giving you no pace. Thus throwing your rhythm off. Nadal however, hits it very hard with alot of topspin. One of the best shots in the game.

The game changes. Alot of players will finish there forehand behind there head. This gives them more spin and the ability to use the most power and control. I bet you think a proper forehand grip would be an eastern or continental grip, huh? Comes at ya like a slider. Yep that's how my dad use to hit them.

He'd develop them the same way players have developed them nowadays. Go to a club and you'll see - every single kid hits hard and moves well. It's no big deal.

We all know why Nadull is fast. Frauderer isn't that fast. He just has a great notion of space. He runs far less than other players yet he's more often in position (not nowadays, but yeah...).

Nadull is a glorified junkballer. If you can't see that, that's your problem not mine. I can see though his hack of a game.

A lot? This stroke exists since forever. Sampras used it a lot to hit forehands when stretched far to his right but not in EVERY SINGLE SHOT OF EVERY SINGLE MATCH. That's pathetic technique. More power and control? Wow. I wonder why everybody's missing on that then. :rolleyes: Tennis technique wasn't invented yesterday. Many people have improved it. Nadull is the only guy hitting every shot like that.

A good forehand technique has nothing to do with the grip. A good forehand technique can be achieved with whichever grip you want. Nadull's pathetic forehand has nothing to do with the fact he hits western.

i mean Sampras can mention Fed's QF with Wawrinka but forget he's had to beat Agassi , Nalbands , Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Gonzalez , Davydenko , Del Potro in qf's

does he forget Fed was bombed out in 2 qf's last year by Soder and Berdych

does he forget every now and then he had GS qf's against people like JM Gambill, Chris Woodruff, Byron Black, Matsuoka, Brett Steven, Gustafsson, Volkov. same goes with Wilander

as i've said before with them.. its selective memory ":singer: i've played, and destroyed, Chang and Kafelnikov one time in a GS, i must have had it tougher"

Elder Agassi, Fat Dave, one-slam wonder Duck, pusher Hewitt, one-slam wonder Ferrero, no slam Gonzalez, choker Davydenko, one-slam glass wonder Del Pony.

Wow, that surely qualifies Frauderer as the greatest athlete to have ever lived in the history of the universe. :rolleyes:

And Fraud has played much bigger clowns than these in his GS QFs.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 02:35 AM
So hewitt was a better player than nadal. That's one of the funniest things Ive heard. Nadal will, most likely go down as top 5 best of all time. Hewitt might not even be top 20.

Nadull can't hold a candle to Hewitt when it comes to technique.

I haven't mentioned titles. I mentioned ability.

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 02:49 AM
Elder Agassi, Fat Dave, one-slam wonder Duck, pusher Hewitt, one-slam wonder Ferrero, no slam Gonzalez, choker Davydenko, one-slam glass wonder Del Pony.

Wow, that surely qualifies Frauderer as the greatest athlete to have ever lived in the history of the universe. :rolleyes:

selective memory, you say Elder Agassi

well Becker and Edberg were in Elder years when Pete considered them his rivals

i will also add, what makes 1 slam Goran, Krajicek, Chang somehow more difficult opponents than 1 slam Roddick, Del Potro, Ferrero were to Fed


for Pete's Agassi, Fed had Nadal
Pete's Bruguera, Fed had Kuerten
Pete's Rafter, Fed had Hewitt
Pete's Courier, Fed had Safin
Pete's Todd Martin, Fed had Berdych
Pete's Rafter, Fed had Djokovic
Pete's Pioline , Fed had Davydenko
Pete's Philippoussis, Fed had Soderling

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 02:51 AM
selective memory, you say Elder Agassi

well Becker and Edberg were in Elder years when Pete considered them his rivals

i will also add, what makes 1 slam Goran, Krajicek, Chang somehow more difficult opponents than 1 slam Roddick, Del Potro, Ferrero were to Fed


for Pete's Agassi, Fed had Nadal
Pete's Bruguera, Fed had Kuerten
Pete's Rafter, Fed had Hewitt
Pete's Courier, Fed had Safin
Pete's Todd Martin, Fed had Berdych
Pete's Rafter, Fed had Soderling
Pete's Pioline , Fed had Davydenko
Pete's Edberg Fed, had Djokovic

Comparing Bruguera to Kuerten is preposterous. :lol:

Rafter twice? Edberg to Djokovic? :haha: That's grasping at straws.

Krajicek >>>> Del Pony.

Each era had its clowns but today's clowns are much more clownish.

Lleyton_
01-27-2011, 02:53 AM
Sour grapes :smoke:

stzenit
01-27-2011, 02:53 AM
I like Sampras when he's candid.

I don't like him when he starts saying anything just to get press attention.

I abhor anyone who thinks Nadull has a "more-than-formidable" forehand. It's just a leftie moonball.

http://oels.byu.edu/student/idioms/idioms/images/hit_nail_on_head.jpg

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 02:53 AM
add to that Fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon

he had to deal with Agassi still in some prime years from 2002-2005

young Fed beat likes of Kafelnikov, Goran (to win his 1st title in Milan) and also Krajicek and Chang

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 02:55 AM
Krajicek >>>> Del Pony.

Each era had its clowns but today's clowns are much more clownish.a clown to you is a player who doesnt serve volley

manic thinking.

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 03:01 AM
i even left out Nalbandian who is another worthy rival Fed has had to deal with (10-8, beat fed x2 in slams, beat him in juniors and 2005 atp Final)

ppl can try all they want to diminish Fed's era but its bollocks, you can just as easily diminish Samp, Laver and Fred Perry by that way.

abraxas21
01-27-2011, 03:03 AM
truth is theres no objective criteria to oompare eras, just opinions -and you know what they say opinions are like...

Roddickominator
01-27-2011, 03:04 AM
Sampras is clearly right, but he'd be better off just not saying things like this. It comes off as sour grapes to those who have only watched tennis for a short time and don't really understand the game. He's in the GOAT discussion, and always will be. Just like Laver and Borg. Yeah, today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, etc....but in their time they helped develop the game into what it is and ruled their era. You can analyze things further, but at that point you're just going into what-if scenarios and wild speculation.

Bargearse
01-27-2011, 03:18 AM
It's amazing how Rafa wins with such consistency on all surfaces against enormous competition, yet Federer has achieved what he has by playing mugs. I guess Sampras is saying that the guys who are competitive against Rafa aren't competitive against Federer??? I'm confused. At any rate, Sampras, like Wilander and Laver are just giving their expert two cents lest we forget about the greats of the past.:rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 03:27 AM
a clown to you is a player who doesnt serve volley

manic thinking.

Not exactly.

A clown is a player who has no other strokes other than topspin.

i even left out Nalbandian who is another worthy rival Fed has had to deal with (10-8, beat fed x2 in slams, beat him in juniors and 2005 atp Final)

ppl can try all they want to diminish Fed's era but its bollocks, you can just as easily diminish Samp, Laver and Fred Perry by that way.

Not as easily.

Fraud's era is the weakest era ever.

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 03:31 AM
Nadal has a good slice and you see him as a clown ;)

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2011, 03:32 AM
Nadal has a good slice and you see him as a clown ;)

In the days of the Inquisition you would've been burnt alive for such blasphemy. :o

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 03:33 AM
forgot to add A.Costa, Moya, Gaudio, T.Johansson (all 4 slam champs) and Coria into Fed's era

maybe not big rivals but again worthy players that he had to deal with it some time or other

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 03:35 AM
Pete's Muster, Fed's A.Costa

tests
01-27-2011, 03:42 AM
Sampras is clearly right, but he'd be better off just not saying things like this. It comes off as sour grapes to those who have only watched tennis for a short time and don't really understand the game. He's in the GOAT discussion, and always will be. Just like Laver and Borg. Yeah, today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, etc....but in their time they helped develop the game into what it is and ruled their era. You can analyze things further, but at that point you're just going into what-if scenarios and wild speculation.

sampras is not in the GOAT discussion anymore. IMo its between fed/laver right now if anything. BOrg was amazing, but he retired to early so what if scenarios should not apply...

Corey Feldman
01-27-2011, 03:44 AM
Pete's Paul Haarhuis, Fed's Gilles Simon or Canas

Roddickominator
01-27-2011, 03:52 AM
sampras is not in the GOAT discussion anymore. IMo its between fed/laver right now if anything. BOrg was amazing, but he retired to early so what if scenarios should not apply...

If you are so simple that you need it narrowed down to 2 guys without appreciating the accomplishments of other guys who similarly dominated their era, then that is up to you. But you are wrong.

tests
01-27-2011, 03:55 AM
sampras/borg are one of the all time greats. Yes, there are many GOATS (people like specific players for different reasons). statistically speaking, sampras is no where close to the other two.

mgasol
01-27-2011, 03:58 AM
haha i see that nostalgiatard is still arguing his case as hard as ever. move on with the times old sport you will feel better. and you wont need to take those pills every day.

Gabe32
01-27-2011, 04:02 AM
All these older greats are starting to sound pretty indignant. They have to learn to simply keep their mouths closed about Roger and sit back and enjoy his game. He is better than all of them.

The Magician
01-27-2011, 04:05 AM
It's true this era is weak but Sampras's era was even weaker and Sampras/Agassi were both clowns :o Sampras especially took advantage of the strong era of Lendl, Mcenroe, Edbug, Wilander, Becker, Connors, etc fading and no one to replace them.

NadalPhan
01-27-2011, 05:49 AM
:rolleyes:

The game got more physical, it hasn't "evolved". If less variety and more moonballing/ballbashing is "evolving", then I wonder how the hell haven't we become monkeys again.



Each and every player Frauderer played in GS finals is a mug. Roddick? Gonzalez? Soderling? Del Pony? Hewitt? Safin? Murray? Nadull? Elder Agassi?

Hewitt is the best of the pack and it says A LOT.



Comparing Krajicek and Ivanisevic's serve to today's players serve is a joke. Pathetic joke. Fitness means nothing, tennis isn't ironman. This generation can only hit topspin. It's weak. Agassi says anything just to get press.

lol

aulus
01-27-2011, 05:50 AM
I think Sampras' era was probably more difficult, probably more because the surfaces were more different and there were more specialists, than because there were more great players. I think overall depth of the field is better now, though.

The vast majority of players play the same style on every surface, and it seems to me that players are notable more for their lack of weaknesses than for their strengths.

But i also rank Federer clearly above Sampras, and Nadal above Agassi.

tests
01-27-2011, 05:56 AM
its blasphemy to think that federer WOULD NOT have dominated during samprases time. Place federer in sampras position and he easily wins more slams. Federer would easily beat the clay court specialists of that era vs nadal today. Nadal is the CLAY COURT GOAT FFS!

2003
01-27-2011, 06:41 AM
:rolleyes:

Each and every player Frauderer played in GS finals is a mug. Roddick? Gonzalez? Soderling? Del Pony? Hewitt? Safin? Murray? Nadull? Elder Agassi?

Hewitt is the best of the pack and it says A LOT.


You certainly hugged Roddicks nuts for a long time on here. Soderking you were a massive fan of when he put Nadal to sleep in 2009.

Now theyre mugs because it suits the arguement.

You said once "I support whoever I want". It does show.

mgasol
01-27-2011, 06:44 AM
You certainly hugged Roddicks nuts for a long time on here. Soderking you were a massive fan of when he put Nadal to sleep in 2009.

Now theyre mugs because it suits the arguement.

You said once "I support whoever I want". It does show.

glenbug is just a troll. nevermind him.

Action Jackson
01-27-2011, 06:44 AM
Don't be a fool 2003, Mirnyi has never liked Roddick.

2003
01-27-2011, 06:53 AM
Don't be a fool 2003, Mirnyi has never liked Roddick.

Ive seen many posts over the years where he has said as close to complementary about a top player as Glenn gets

sco
01-27-2011, 06:59 AM
Sampras should be thankful that he was born in his era. He'd win a lot less these days with the surfaces slowed down and the technology that they have now (racquets, strings). His backhand would be even more powerless against Nadal's spin than Federer's. Don't even talk about him trying to play Nadal on clay.

And about his comments on the big servers of his day, what does he think Soderling, Del Potro and Berdych do but hit big off the ground. If Nadal and Fed sometimes look overwhelmed when they're on their games, imagine Pete's ground game against these big hitters. Doesn't it occur to Pete that once he returns the serve against the big servers, the advantage switches back to him. Not so with today's big hitters - they keep blasting away at the groundstrokes with more and more power. And we've already seen what Fed can do against him in his own backyard with fast grass. Imagine what would happen on the slow surfaces of today.

Wilander is just plain insulting about the players today. Imagine how Hewitt and Roddick feel after reading Wilander's comments. If Wilander were playing in this era, he'd be just like Hewitt and Roddick. No way is Wilander winning FO with Nadal around or USO & AO with Fed & Rafa playing.

They should keep their mouths shut - comes across as sour grapes.

Ouragan
01-27-2011, 07:00 AM
Sad by Sampras. Who knew brains withered even faster than bodies?

Dr.Slice
01-27-2011, 07:00 AM
If I played someone like Cedric Pioline in two grand slam finals, I would think twice about calling someone elses era weak.

Cedric Pioline:lol::lol::lol::lol:

mgasol
01-27-2011, 07:04 AM
Sampras should be thankful that he was born in his era. He'd win a lot less these days with the surfaces slowed down and the technology that they have now (racquets, strings). His backhand would be even more powerless against Nadal's spin than Federer's. Don't even talk about him trying to play Nadal on clay.

And about his comments on the big servers of his day, what does he think Soderling, Del Potro and Berdych do but hit big off the ground. If Nadal and Fed sometimes look overwhelmed when they're on their games, imagine Pete's ground game against these big hitters. Doesn't it occur to Pete that once he returns the serve against the big servers, the advantage switches back to him. Not so with today's big hitters - they keep blasting away at the groundstrokes with more and more power. And we've already seen what Fed can do against him in his own backyard with fast grass. Imagine what would happen on the slow surfaces of today.

Wilander is just plain insulting about the players today. Imagine how Hewitt and Roddick feel after reading Wilander's comments. If Wilander were playing in this era, he'd be just like Hewitt and Roddick. No way is Wilander winning FO with Nadal around or USO & AO with Fed & Rafa playing.

They should keep their mouths shut - comes across as sour grapes.

exactly. sampy didnt have a prayer in this era. he was a one-dimensional player like nadull who took advantage of the favorable conditions. put sampy in this era and nadull in sampy's era and both ends up with less than 10 slams. only the true GOAT wins 16+ slams in any era.

Kip
01-27-2011, 07:06 AM
The pettiness of these men is astounding!
I thought the women were bad.

tests
01-27-2011, 07:21 AM
IMO, sampras is threatened by nadal/federer. Hell, when its all said and done, fed might have 18-20 slams, and nadal, 13-14. Nadal, even if he has 12 slams will prolly be > sampras cuz of his CAREER grand slam.