Sampras's Era vs Federer's Era - Confronted once and for all. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sampras's Era vs Federer's Era - Confronted once and for all.

prima donna
11-25-2005, 05:58 PM
Lots of people have it in their minds that simply because Roger hasn't struggled or doesn't regulary endure 5-set matches, torturing his fanbase and supplying thrilling shot after thrilling shot, that his competition is obsolete in comparison to Pete's era. Roger is the type of player that would prefer to coast and relax, save his best play for later, he's able to play the big points so well that he saves his body time & energy. Sampras was the same way, especially in his earlier years and I don't think really much of anyone could push him to anything beyond 4 sets, I mean, it wasn't an impossibility, but he dismissed Andre in 4 sets more times than I can count. Actually, straight sets. If anything, Roger's excellence is a mark of just how high he has set the standard for tennis right now.

Let's compare the players that Pete had to deal with in earlier portions of his career:
Lendl(Skill was drastically declining), McEnroe(Old and beaten up), Chang, Edberg (actually losing to him in the only final they played), Connors (not much competition there either)

Tennis is going through a transition, it takes time, especially after an era has been dominated by one player for youngster players to construct their games based on more modern standards. Lendl dominated the 80's, then he died and Pete showed up, he beat a lot of nobodies and old men on the way. Roger has only truly dominated tennis for 2 years, his competition has been above average and maybe even who knows, during another time and place. Better than the 90's. We do know that the return game on the men's side has improved drastically (through technology), players are far more athletic than they ever were and it seems like everyone this day in age aside from clay courters possess a big serve.

Below are Pete's titles, I put into bold the ones that don't prove much of anything. I mean, if you want to base those same standards on Roger's performance. Look how easily Pete dispatched of Jim Courier in the Wimbledon final, what's a guy like Courier doing in the Wimbledon finally anyway ? A primarily slow court player, that would be an impossibility based on today's demand of play. Also, the only player of any real significance that Pete faced early on in his reign (Stefan Edberg) well, beat him fairly routinely. Pete's career was beating up Andre in final after final, so why is Roger's competition any less because he beats up on Andy Roddick, Wimbledon final after final ? It's not. Cedric Pioline was a good player in his time, but U.S Open and Wimbledon are a stretch, both performances prove to be a product of the draw, because Pete just straight-setted him.
Wins (14)
Year Championship Opponent in Final Score in Final
1990 US Open Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 6-2
1993 Wimbledon Jim Courier 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
1993 US Open Cedric Pioline 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
1994 Australian Open Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic 7-6, 7-6, 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Boris Becker 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
1995 US Open Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5
1996 US Open Michael Chang 6-1, 6-4, 7-6
1997 Australian Open Carlos Moya 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1997 Wimbledon Cedric Pioline 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
1998 Wimbledon Goran Ivanesevic 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2
1999 Wimbledon Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-4, 7-5
2000 Wimbledon Patrick Rafter 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
2002 US Open Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4



Runner-ups (4)
Year Championship Opponent in Final Score in Final
1992 US Open Stefan Edberg 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2
1995 Australian Open Andre Agassi 4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4
2000 US Open Marat Safin 6-4, 6-3, 6-3
2001 US Open Lleyton Hewitt 7-6, 6-1, 6-1

Federer Slams:
2003 Wimbledon - Mark Phillipousis (Has always been a top quality performer on Grass, that's the year he took out Andre with 48 aces)
2004 Australian Open - Marat Safin (Superior to any player aside from Sampras from the 90's)
2004 Wimbledon - Andy Roddick (2nd best grass courter in plenty of generations with that serve)
2004 U.S Open - Llleyton Hewitt - Ex #1, showed an elder Sampras the door by beating him, over and over. Like a drum.
2005 Wimbledon - Andy Roddick
2005 U.S Open - Andre Agassi - Yes, he's 35, but his game isn't based on athletic ability. Never was and never will be. His technique is steady and I'm so tired of the argument that if an Old Agassi can be reaching Slam Finals, the field must be really lackluster. It's an injustice to Andre.

Fact of the matter is, we cannot compare era's, a lot of the things being said about Roger can be said about Pete's as well, with this new talent (Nadal, Gasquet, Berdych), also, I'd be willing to count Kuerten (obviously not new talent) as part of Roger's generation, the fact is Roger's generation possesses the more physically gifted athletes and a much different game is being played. You cannot be serious, if you think that a guy can serve & volley his way to 14 Slams this day in age, can't and won't happen. The ground game is too good now.

Nadal - Most physically talented to ever play on clay.
Kuerten - All due respect to Borg and his 6 FO titles, but Gustavo would dismantle him.
Safin - What other era were 6'5 200lbs players that actually had an all-court game playing in ? None.
Hewitt - Simply a better counter puncher than anyone you can name in a long time.

Roger is facing physically intimidating entities, that are armed with technology, making them even more effective. I haven't heard the argument on this board as much as others, but I just don't think the Sampras's Era was stronger argument holds much water. Sadly. Input?

liptea
11-25-2005, 06:52 PM
I might take this more seriously if you hadn't dismissed Andre Agassi as an inconsequential player at Wimbledon when Pete was playing..but then argued that an older Andre is definitely a challenge to Roger. Plus, Goran at Wimbledon? And Pat Rafter? They aren't inconsequential. If you had counted more than the Grand Slams, it might be more valid. Also..considering Guga was largely injured during Roger's dominance, I don't understand why you're counting him as a major threat to Federer.

prima donna
11-25-2005, 06:58 PM
I might take this more seriously if you hadn't dismissed Andre Agassi as an inconsequential player at Wimbledon when Pete was playing

Dismissed Andre as inconsequential player ? Never. Actually, the argument that I made was that Roddick is to Roger, what Andre was to Pete. Maybe somewhere throughout my rambling, I wasn't 100% crystal clear on what was intended to be translated.

But, in any event, I've only used Andre as an ingredient to this argument that furtherly states: Who did Pete beat aside from Agassi ? How many of these finals came against him ? The only thing that I could ever dismiss Andre from is the Who's got hair club, because aside from that not only has he proven himself to be a legend, but he accomplished the Grand Slam, something Sampras couldn't do and why in my book he's only #3 of all-time, at best.

The only players that I dismiss are Courier, Pioline, Chang, Martin and Moya, the rest of the list is decent.

El Legenda
11-25-2005, 07:26 PM
2006 U.S Open - Andre Agassi - Yes, he's 35, but his game isn't based on athletic ability. Never was and never will be. His technique is steady and I'm so tired of the argument that if an Old Agassi can be reaching Slam Finals, the field must be really lackluster. It's an injustice to Andre.



2006? really :retard:

prima donna
11-25-2005, 07:55 PM
2006? really :retard:
Hey, just because baldy (and I'm not talking about Agassi) didn't bother bringing it at another big event, doesn't warrant this type of rubbish. I feel your pain. Maybe next year. I mean, maybe next month. Davis Cup matters ... really!

George_Hanson
11-25-2005, 08:50 PM
Sampras vs Federer *yawn* *yawn*

Sampras was the best
McEnroe was the best
Connors was the best
Lendl was the best
Federer is the best

That's my comparison

prima donna
11-25-2005, 08:58 PM
Sampras was the best
McEnroe was the best
Connors was the best
Lendl was the best
Federer is the best

That's my comparison
:worship:

El Legenda
11-25-2005, 09:10 PM
Hey, just because baldy (and I'm not talking about Agassi) didn't bother bringing it at another big event, doesn't warrant this type of rubbish. I feel your pain. Maybe next year. I mean, maybe next month. Davis Cup matters ... really!

right on :retard:

prima donna
11-25-2005, 09:16 PM
right on :retard:
How was Thanksgiving, or do they not celebrate such an American holiday at the Ljubicic household? :lol: :lol:

DrJules
11-25-2005, 09:20 PM
I think it is almost impossible to compare players of different periods. You can have the best in each period and analyse how much they dominated. Actually the decade most dominated by 1 player was the 60's by Rod Laver who won the grand slam both as amateur (best players who were professional where not eligible) and as a professional when all players were eligible. He was also the only player who managed domination on grass and clay (grand slam titles) and cement which was used on the professional circuit. 5 years in the middle of his career he could not play grand slams because he was professional. He won 11 grand slams, but how many could he have won? No other player seems to have managed such domination on all surfaces.

El Legenda
11-25-2005, 09:21 PM
How was Thanksgiving, or do they not celebrate such an American holiday at the Ljubicic household? :lol: :lol:

No i dont celebrate thangsgiving :retard:

DrJules
11-25-2005, 09:25 PM
No i dont celebrate thangsgiving :retard:

Are you postponing it in case Croatia lose the Davis Cup final

El Legenda
11-25-2005, 09:26 PM
Are you postponing it in case Croatia lose the Davis Cup final

right on :retard:

JeNn
11-25-2005, 10:23 PM
Your statement that you can't compare eras might have been more compelling if you hadn't gone on to do just that by rubbishing Sampras' opposition, boosting Roger's and saying that Pete never would have won 14 slams in this era.

Let's have a fair look at Sampras' opposition

Wimbledon '93: Agassi, Becker, Courier
US Open '93: Chang, Pioline
Aus Open '94: Courier, Martin
Wimbledon '94: Chang, Martin, Ivanisevic
Wimbledon '95: Ivanisevic, Becker
US Open ''95: Martin, Courier, Agassi
US Open '96: Corretja, Ivanisevic, Chang
Aus Open '97: Muster, Moya
Wimbledon '97: Becker, Pioline
Wimbledon '98: Philippoussis, Henman, Ivanisevic
Wimbledon '99: Henman, Agassi
Wimbledon '00: Rafter
US Open '02: Roddick, Agassi

Wimbledon '03: Roddick, Philippoussis
Aus Open '04: Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Safin
Wimbledon '04: Hewitt, Roddick
Us Open '04: Agassi, Henman, Hewitt
Wimbledon '05: Hewitt, Roddick
US Open '05: Hewitt, Agassi

So unless Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian and old Agassi are better than Becker, Courier, Rafter, Chang, Ivanisevic, Martin and young Agassi you're attempt to put Pete's opposition down is surely flawed.

Finally, surely you cannot be serious saying that Roddick is the equivalent of Agassi :o. Roddick is the equivalent of Ivanisevic, if anything.

Scotso
11-25-2005, 10:26 PM
Your statement that you can't compare eras might have been more compelling if you hadn't gone on to do just that by rubbishing Sampras' opposition, boosting Roger's and saying that Pete never would have won 14 slams in this era.

:haha:

Federerthebest
11-25-2005, 11:29 PM
Sampras should also have two less Wimbledon titles than what he does.

In 1998 he got very lucky against Ivanisevic in the final.

In 1999 Philippoussis was smashing him and would have won that match if he had not been forced to retire due to a knee injury.

Sampras is, without a doubt, the most overrated player of all time. Llendl, Newcombe, Conners and Borg - as well as Federer - are all superior players.

disturb3d
11-25-2005, 11:29 PM
Sampras' h2h's against the top players are mediocre.
Federer's h2h's against the top players are unblemished post-2002

Sampras faced trouble wherever he went, in Agassi, Safin and the player he couldn't seem to beat; Hewitt.
Federer would realistically double bagel them on any given sunday.

It would be a blast to see Roger dismantle the opposition of the last decade.
Those in denial can glorify pete's reign over fast courts, and forget his embarassment on slow courts.

disturb3d
11-25-2005, 11:32 PM
Sampras is, without a doubt, the most overrated player of all time. Llendl, Newcombe, Conners and Borg - as well as Federer - are all superior players.Exactly.

The best player is the complete package.
Is Sampras the complete package? Not by a long shot.

prima donna
11-26-2005, 12:01 AM
Finally, surely you cannot be serious saying that Roddick is the equivalent of Agassi :o. Roddick is the equivalent of Ivanisevic, if anything.
That comparison, related more so to Pete repetitively beating the same old drum in the final, much like Roger beats the same old drum in the final. Which basically kills the excuse that Roger has no "grass competition", when he does, Roddick and Agassi both have their strongpoints, but it is not the game of either that prevents them from beating either Roger or Pete, but the mental edge that both possessed. Andre Agassi is a legend, but nonetheless, that is not and was not the issue being raised, sweetheart.

diegogg
11-26-2005, 06:03 AM
prima donna: how the hell is it that you are not red?? :rolleyes:

TennisGrandSlam
11-26-2005, 06:18 AM
2006? really :retard:



very difficult!

TennisGrandSlam
11-26-2005, 06:19 AM
Sampras should also have two less Wimbledon titles than what he does.

In 1998 he got very lucky against Ivanisevic in the final.

In 1999 Philippoussis was smashing him and would have won that match if he had not been forced to retire due to a knee injury.

Sampras is, without a doubt, the most overrated player of all time. Llendl, Newcombe, Conners and Borg - as well as Federer - are all superior players.


I am a Roger's Fans


But I only say, for talent


Borg > Sampras > Federer > others

JeNn
11-26-2005, 06:28 AM
That comparison, related more so to Pete repetitively beating the same old drum in the final, much like Roger beats the same old drum in the final. Which basically kills the excuse that Roger has no "grass competition", when he does, Roddick and Agassi both have their strongpoints, but it is not the game of either that prevents them from beating either Roger or Pete, but the mental edge that both possessed. Andre Agassi is a legend, but nonetheless, that is not and was not the issue being raised, sweetheart.

I don't know where you get this idea that Sampras kept beating Agassi like a drum at Wimbledon. Pete won 7 all England-Club titles and only beat Agassi in two of them, once in the quarters and once in a final. On the other hand he had to beat Ivanisevic 3 times, twice in finals and once in a semi. And, like Roddick with Federer, it is very likely that all three of those trophies would have gone to Ivanisevic in Sampras' absence. As soon as Pete lost his invincibility at Wimbledon in '01, Goran stepped in and took advantage, even though he himself was past his best by then. If we are talking about Grass opposition, Ivanisevic and Roddick is altogether a better comparison than Agassi and Roddick.

prima donna
11-26-2005, 06:30 AM
I don't know where you get this idea that Sampras kept beating Agassi like a drum at Wimbledon. Pete won 7 all England-Club titles and only beat Agassi in two of them, once in the quarters and once in a final. On the other hand he had to beat Ivanisevic 3 times, twice in finals and once in a semi. And, like Roddick with Federer, it is very likely that all three of those trophies would have gone to Ivanisevic in Sampras' absence. As soon as Pete lost his invincibility at Wimbledon in '01, Goran stepped in and took advantage, even though he himself was past his best by then. If we are talking about Grass opposition, Ivanisevic and Roddick is altogether a better comparison than Agassi and Roddick.
Pete beat Andre like a drum everywhere, Roddick just happens to only be able to reach the Wimbledon finals (where he is routinely beat like a drum by Roger), this is where the line is drawn between the two.

Agassi had enough talent to lose to Pete in Australia, London or New York. Take your pick. Roddick's talent is limited to getting him slugged around the lawns of Wimbledon turf.

thrust
11-26-2005, 11:12 AM
prima donna is obviously in love with Roger, which is fine. Unfortunately, however, PD^ s statements concerning Pete^s opposition are pathetically ignorant. To put Roddick or Safin in the same league of Becker, Edberg, younger Agassi is laughable. Courier was a 4 time slam winner, 2 French and 2 AO. Goran and Rafter were outstanding grass court players. The only weak link is Pioline, who somehow managed to reach those finals. Against Pete, he had no chance. Sampras DEFINITELY had the tougher opposition, without a doubt. This is not to say that Roger is not a great player, but to say he is obviously superior to Pete is silly.

prima donna
11-26-2005, 11:53 AM
prima donna is obviously in love with Roger, which is fine. Unfortunately, however, PD^ s statements concerning Pete^s opposition are pathetically ignorant. To put Roddick or Safin in the same league of Becker, Edberg, younger Agassi is laughable.
Roddick is Roger's punching bag, much like Agassi was to Sampras. That's all that was said in reference to him. You need to read all the posts in the thread before responding.

Secondly, Marat Safin is a superior player to Becker and Edberg, his work ethic is not quite there.

I'm not in love with other men, but how do you think Stefan's frail forehand would have held up against today's generation of ball-bashers ? Roddick has an incomplete game, but the return game of the early 90's was very suspect, I think he'd crush a few so-called "legends" and no, Agassi is not one of them. He cannot even come close to beating a cortisone filled 35 year old Andre now. Men's tennis is a simple game, hold serve or get broken, it's not complicated. The only reason rallies exist are in large part due to clay court play and Roger, last I checked it's 1-2-3 and done. I challenge anyone to name a player that would want a piece of Safin aside from Pete or Andre from the early 90's.

peteslamz
11-26-2005, 12:02 PM
Here's CNNSI Wertheim's take on Federer's opponents and Sampras opponents each of course on different eras:

While I acknowledge that Federer's game is truly spectacular and arguably better rounded than Pete Sampras', I think that we need to consider the level of competition that they played against. Sampras played against HOFers Ivan Lendl, Agassi, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker and Courier. There were also a lot of other Grand Slam-winning players like Michael Chang, Gustavo Kuerten, Sergi Bruguera, Thomas Muster, etc. In contrast, Federer is dominating an era devoid of serve-and-volleyers and with just three double-major players (Agassi, Hewitt and Safin). While Federer is responsible for holding back the rest of the field, there are simply no great players out there to challenge him. So, given his competition, Federer would need to win a lot more than 14 Slams to surpass Sampras' career accomplishments. (Of course, winning all four in one year would change things.)

I'm surprised at how often this critique gets raised. There's something tautological about this whole discussion. If one player is swooping up Grand Slam trophies like Halloween candy (please be kind enough to note the seasonal imagery), obviously the list of other active winners will be a small one.
In the case of Sampras, by the time he was cooking in 1990, Lendl, John McEnroe and even Becker were definitely on the decline. And Kuerten, Bruguera, Chang and Muster won their only Slams on clay, a surface on which Sampras was all but a non-entity, so is it really worth counting them? In the prime of his career, Sampras' best contemporaries (we don't dare call them rivals) were whom? I say Edberg and Courier early on. Agassi, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, maybe Goran Ivanisevic throughout. Maybe Hewitt and Safin at the end? Compare that to Federer's "supporting cast" of Hewitt, Roddick, Rafael Nadal, Safin, Agassi and maybe Juan Ferrero, and I don't see such an enormous difference.

almouchie
11-26-2005, 12:14 PM
Your statement that you can't compare eras might have been more compelling if you hadn't gone on to do just that by rubbishing Sampras' opposition, boosting Roger's and saying that Pete never would have won 14 slams in this era.

Finally, surely you cannot be serious saying that Roddick is the equivalent of Agassi :o. .

Brilliantly said
Sampras has contested multiple grand slam winners & number of Hall of famer or eventual hall of famers. AA aside since, the twice GS champions Safin & Hewitt are the only ones with more than 1 GS (2actually) that Federer has faced. Hewiit had his best years & I doubt he will ever win a GS,as for Safin he is the most talented of this generation along with Federer.

Roddick with all due respect to his supporters/fans, is unlikely to win another slam. He had a great hard court season & won the Open couple od years ago.
Cannt see him doing that again, his game is limited & so is his talent. Admitting it might be hard but its for all to see.
To think he is a two time Wimblon finalist tells u all u need to know about the players of this generation. A baseliner with fierce yet inconsistent power & a less than mediocre volleying game having great resukts in Wimbledon

PEOPLE Grow up
Have some respect for the KING
PETE SAMPRAS

almouchie
11-26-2005, 01:46 PM
i am glad to read some of ur mature & logical assessment on the subject.
PETE was not always given his due but i guess most champs arent

I disagree greatly that Edberg & Becker were not great champ or are less than Safins, Roddicks & the Hewitts
i take these two example for illustrations
they had great hands, reflexes & TOUCH, & enough power serving
the subject of power is interesting
as in the laver era, power wasnt an issue, nobody played to outpower any1
as in the borg , then conner/mcenroe fitness & coditioning became the trend
with lendl hard work & dedication were all the more evident
with sampras& agassi all the above & more power
now the conditioning is even more important, but they don make a not talented player talented , it makes him better able to compete

thrust
11-26-2005, 02:41 PM
PD- Agassi at his best, when Pete played him, was a far superior player than Roddick Hewitt or Safin. Also, Andre was no punching bag for Pete on any surface other than grass. Safin does indeed have exceptional talent, but he only shows it once or twice a season which is hardly the quality of a great player. Roger is indeed a great player who probably would hold his own against the players of Pete^s era, however, I doubt he could dominate them as he does his competition of today.

Bagelicious
11-26-2005, 04:49 PM
The truth is, I'm sick of this Federer/Sampras argument. No matter which tennis forum you go to, it is the same people saying the same things.

I have great respect for Pete Sampras and all he has achieved, but boy am I sick of his fans. Now that he is retired and the record books are frozen, the only way to keep their burning passion alive is to bring up those records over and over. Their arguments seem to consist of:

1. Saying how every one of Roger's opponents doesn't compare to the Pete's opponents in their style of play and bringing in a lot of unanswerable 'what-ifs'. What if Roger and Pete had played each other at their peak? Who would have won? What if tigers fought polar bears? Who would win then?

2. Comparing his 14 Grand Slams from his ENTIRE career, to Federer's 6, mid-career. In fact, at 24, Pete Sampras was only 1 GS ahead of Roger's current 6. This shows that they are both amazing players capable of achieving great things.

I don't care who will be the best ever, or who has the most Grand Slams in the end, because this stupid, repetitive argument makes me sick to my stomach. The people having these arguments aren't interested in watching good tennis, they are only interested numbers and they seem to get off on being a fan of someone with X amount of titles to their name.

Pete Sampras played awesome tennis THEN. Roger Federer plays awesome tennis NOW. Surely even a Pete Sampras fan can agree with that. And Federer fans, stop playing into that tired debate.

The interesting thing about the future is that it hasn't happened yet; and we don't know what will happen. Federer could have a career threatening injury next week(God forbid), he may win 5 consecutive Calender Grand Slams, the apocalypse may come and the world ends and he never gets the chance to break Pete's record.

You shall get over it and the earth will still revolve (except in the apocalypse scenario, of course).

Now please shut up about this stupid debate. If you're not convinced it's stupid, go to ANY other tennis forum you can find and look for a thread titled FEDERER vs. SAMPRAS - it will be there, trust me. It will be a clone of this thread, only with different usernames. And don't be surprised if you see this post on there either.

angiel
11-26-2005, 06:49 PM
Well hello there Kajonie, we are all fed up with these comparsion, but everyone is entitled to their opinions dont they.

lau
11-26-2005, 06:51 PM
kajonie, best post in here :yeah: :lol: And you deserve some green stuff for that ;)


You shall get over it and the earth will still revolve (except in the apocalypse scenario, of course).

:haha: :haha: :yeah:

angiel
11-26-2005, 07:03 PM
PD- Agassi at his best, when Pete played him, was a far superior player than Roddick Hewitt or Safin. Also, Andre was no punching bag for Pete on any surface other than grass. Safin does indeed have exceptional talent, but he only shows it once or twice a season which is hardly the quality of a great player. Roger is indeed a great player who probably would hold his own against the players of Pete^s era, however, I doubt he could dominate them as he does his competition of today.


Thank you thrust :worship: and I dont know why we keep answering these polls when they crap up - Roger will never have the level of competition that pete has during his era, not unless another Pete Sampras is born. :wavey: :wavey: :angel:

prima donna
11-26-2005, 08:05 PM
Thank you thrust :worship: and I dont know why we keep answering these polls when they crap up
Are you seeing something that I'm not ? Maybe that poll is a figment of your imagination, because the last time I checked, this thread revolved around a comparison of the competition, as opposed to who is better. I didn't ask if Pete or Roger was better, to me that's a simple one. This after all, is a tennis forum and there is no tennis being played. Why bitch ? Just contribute and be peaceful.

angiel
11-26-2005, 08:17 PM
Are you seeing something that I'm not ? Maybe that poll is a figment of your imagination, because the last time I checked, this thread revolved around a comparison of the competition, as opposed to who is better. I didn't ask if Pete or Roger was better, to me that's a simple one. This after all, is a tennis forum and there is no tennis being played. Why bitch ? Just contribute and be peaceful.


You cannot read or what - maybe you better read all the posts again, and if i am a bitch, who are you? Please go wash your mouth out. :devil: :devil: :mad: :o

Lee
11-26-2005, 08:18 PM
The truth is, I'm sick of this Federer/Sampras argument. No matter which tennis forum you go to, it is the same people saying the same things.

I have great respect for Pete Sampras and all he has achieved, but boy am I sick of his fans. Now that he is retired and the record books are frozen, the only way to keep their burning passion alive is to bring up those records over and over.


The problem is kajonie, all the comparsion threads here are created by FEDERER FANS, NOT SAMPRAS FANS here. And only when the bias is so obvious that some Sampras fans here responded.

For me, I don't even bothered to response to this thread from the beginning. But when you started criticizing Sampras fans without really reading what's here, I have to say something.

Bagelicious
11-27-2005, 02:41 AM
The problem is kajonie, all the comparsion threads here are created by FEDERER FANS, NOT SAMPRAS FANS here. And only when the bias is so obvious that some Sampras fans here responded.

For me, I don't even bothered to response to this thread from the beginning. But when you started criticizing Sampras fans without really reading what's here, I have to say something.


My first rant above is actually a stock rant that I've posted on other boards (hence the deja vu you get reading these types of threads...although you'd get that feeling anyway) thus the reference to Sampras fans. Notice Fed fans get a piece too...

Quite frankly, it's a pretty pointless argument because both the players and the game have changed over the years, and imagining that the 'weaker opponents' theory is a valid one is a waste of time, whether or not you are a Sampras/Fed fan.

For example: Sampras faced a lot more serve and volleyers who are more superior players. Well Petey himself was one of the best serve and volleyers and got his ass kicked by Marat Safin during USO 2000 because everytime he came to net, Marat smacked a passing winner by him.

Don't get too caught up in the fact that I'm using one match to illustrate my point because this is it: the initial assumption is that S&V players are superior to baseliners and thus Pete's competition was stronger. However, that is based on opinion and not fact - it renders the discussion tautological since it depends on a subjective definition in the first place. You can do this all day (try interchanging Sampras' and Federer's names for extra fun!) - the argument will still hold no water.

It doesn't matter which side of the fence you sit on (personally I'm right on it) this is definitely one of the more pointless arguments you can use to defend either player. So sit down, chill out with a cold helping of your favourite alcoholic beverage and enjoy good tennis when you see it.

Random Aside: Have you ever realised that sometimes you dislike a player's fans even though you feel for that particular player? For example, I have nothing against Andy Roddick, but go on AR.com, and it's nothing but 14 yr-old airheads with names like annie_roddick debating "how cld they put roger in people's sexiest men alive, andy is sooooo hawt!1!eleven!! LOL!!

Lee
11-27-2005, 02:49 AM
This particular one was started by a Sampras fan. You can always tell which player they support because the name of their favourite player comes first in the thread title: e.g. Sampras' Era vs Federer's Era --> posted by Sampras fan. Never fails - try and see it for yourself.

Quite seriously though, reread the first post, all s/he tries to say is that Fed wins all the time because his opponents are weaker than Pete's - not because he may be more dominant. That sounds like a Sampras fan to me.

Prima donna a Sampras fan :haha: :rolls: You got to be kidding me!!!!!!

Quite frankly, it's a pretty pointless argument because both the players and the game have changed over the years, and imagining that the 'weaker opponents' theory is a valid one is a waste of time, whether or not you are a Sampras/Fed fan.

Agree

There's a Sampras forum here. If you want to know who are Sampras fans here, check it out. But Prima Donna is definitely NOT a Sampras fan.

aaron_112
11-27-2005, 02:59 AM
fed express all the way mate one hander bakhand is so awsome

thrust
11-27-2005, 11:30 AM
Lee- Very well put! It is the Fed^s fans who are the more fanatical. Both Roger and Pete are among the all time greats and a joy to watch.

Bagelicious
11-27-2005, 08:57 PM
Lee- Very well put! It is the Fed^s fans who are the more fanatical. Both Roger and Pete are among the all time greats and a joy to watch.


Um, I think it depends on which boards you go to. There's some pretty fanatical fans on both sides. How about those Monica Seles fans huh?

DrJules
11-27-2005, 09:23 PM
Um, I think it depends on which boards you go to. There's some pretty fanatical fans on both sides. How about those Monica Seles fans huh?

The debate on this site is very civilised at the moment compared to the zoo that is WTA;tennis aus (promoting Seles) vs.Calimero377 (promoting Graf) are total obsessives who start numerous thread and post against each other all the time.

Please save this site from the Sampras vs. Federer debate taking over and keep it civilised.
:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: