Federer is a new Pete Sampras [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer is a new Pete Sampras

Mane
02-01-2004, 09:46 AM
I think so.

WyverN
02-01-2004, 10:11 AM
Federer is a new Roger Federer.
Why must everyone try to equate someone to a past great. Every player is unique and their achievements are unique as well.

oxy
02-01-2004, 10:16 AM
sampras is sampras.....a great player......
federer is federer........a great player in many years to come hopefully......
so the answer to this question is no!!!!

lleytonboi89
02-01-2004, 01:55 PM
No.

propi
02-01-2004, 02:16 PM
Federer can play in every surface :D

Crazy_Fool
02-01-2004, 03:02 PM
No - Federer might actually win the French open.
He might win RG but winning Wimbeldon 7 times is not happening.

Mane
02-01-2004, 03:06 PM
He might win RG but winning Wimbeldon 7 times is not happening.

Federer is fantastic on the grass.

Roland
02-01-2004, 03:06 PM
Who's going to stop Federer there?

Pink Panther
02-01-2004, 03:06 PM
Didn't Safin imply in his post-match interview that Federer's got a better backhand than Sampras? Anyway as most people are saying, Sampras is Sampras and Federer is Federer.

Crazy_Fool
02-01-2004, 03:11 PM
Who's going to stop Federer there?
Roddick, Safin, Hewitt are all very, very good on grass. Which is more than i can say about when Sampras was around.

yanchr
02-01-2004, 03:31 PM
Don't like the New Sampras designation at all.

But I believe he can reach the position Sampras once stood in men's tennis.

Deboogle!.
02-01-2004, 03:41 PM
No one will be like Sampras. he is one of a kind!

MisterQ
02-01-2004, 04:02 PM
he has a ways to go.

If he absolutely dominates this year, then I will start to consider this proposition...

renatoal
02-01-2004, 04:06 PM
He's not Sampras, I think he's better than Sampras, he can win on all surfaces.

amethyst
02-01-2004, 04:18 PM
I think it´s useless to compare a player who´s retired with a player who´s 22 year old unless we´re all fortune-tellers.

gmak
02-01-2004, 04:23 PM
no

sampras is sampras and federer is federer....

why do we have to compare them?
they're both unique...

Raoul Duke
02-01-2004, 05:41 PM
Roddick, Safin, Hewitt are all very, very good on grass. Which is more than i can say about when Sampras was around.

If you are implying Federer's competition on grass is going to be tougher than Sampras was...........then you are a crazy fool! ;)

Sampras battled against a generation of excellent grass court players. These days.......well compared to then there is hardly anybody....

Ma. Estefania
02-01-2004, 07:06 PM
No, he isn't.

He can be a serve/volley player, and at the same time a baseliner. And he's good on both things.

He's capable of winning important tournaments on clay, and the other surfaces, etc. Then I see him as someone who can win tournaments on every surface, but anyway I don't see him dominating only in one as Sampras 7 Wimbledon's titles.

faboozadoo15
02-01-2004, 07:10 PM
federer does kida play like pete at times...
but hes a little more versatile. first of all, he can beat agassi from the baseline... :eek: and he can win the french...
7 wimbledon titles is a little ridiculous to think about now...
but pete didn't have it easy... the names goran, pat, agassi, richard, jim, lendl, mcenroe, endberg mean anything to you?

faboozadoo15
02-01-2004, 07:14 PM
oops i forgot becker!!! and maybe a few others need to be in there and a few need to be taken out, as probably didn't play all of them :lol:

tennischick
02-01-2004, 09:35 PM
it's bad enuf that the media came up with this piece of crap comparison.

it's worse that the Android ran with it.

it's unacceptable that tennis fans are actually repeating it.

star
02-01-2004, 09:39 PM
There are similarities in their games. There is a similarity with their on court attitude.

And then I think you will find differences: For example, I don't think Sampras would ever have worn a bandana and a bun. :)

Crazy_Fool
02-01-2004, 10:49 PM
Sampras battled against a generation of excellent grass court players. These days.......well compared to then there is hardly anybody....
Really? Like who is that? Sure Becker at the start and that but not many others. Agassi is an amazing tennis player but not so much on grass. Can u tell me who these 'excellen' grass court players u are talking about? :confused:

WyverN
02-02-2004, 12:00 AM
Becker was way past his grass court prime by the time Pete came along (watch Becker on grass in 85 - WOW). Courier and Agassi were not good on grass.
Edberg was way past his grass prime.
The only decent grass courter was Ivanisevic.

Pete certainly didnt have competition *on grass*. Part of the reason he won a unbelievable 7 titles.

Lee
02-02-2004, 01:19 AM
Becker was way past his grass court prime by the time Pete came along (watch Becker on grass in 85 - WOW). Courier and Agassi were not good on grass.
Edberg was way past his grass prime.
The only decent grass courter was Ivanisevic.

Pete certainly didnt have competition *on grass*. Part of the reason he won a unbelievable 7 titles.

When Sampras first won Wimbleton in 1993, Becker was only 26 years old. He was way past his prime? Edberg was only 27 years old. He was way past his prime? (May be we should count how many GS titles Pete and Andre won after from they are 26 and on)

Rafter is not a decent grass courter? Don't tell me he's way pass his prime too since he's more or less as old as Sampras.

Action Jackson
02-02-2004, 04:31 AM
No, Federer is his own man.

Raoul Duke
02-02-2004, 07:14 AM
Becker was way past his grass court prime by the time Pete came along (watch Becker on grass in 85 - WOW). Courier and Agassi were not good on grass.
Edberg was way past his grass prime.
The only decent grass courter was Ivanisevic.

Pete certainly didnt have competition *on grass*. Part of the reason he won a unbelievable 7 titles.

:eek: Allow me to quote the great John McEnroe: "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!?!?!??!"

As someone already mentioned Becker was 26. Unlike Edberg he was very powerful and fitted in perfectly with the way tennis now was being played. He continued to have excellent results on all surfaces. If not for the arrival of Sampras who knows how much more he would have achieved? I think a lot more.
That's one thing. Becker by his own admission was a much better, much improved player in the 90's compared to when he was younger. He was my favorite player and I watched all his matches. He played better than ever. Had a better serve especially the second, better returning, much more control from the back of the court, even more power, improved volleys and immense mental strenght and on court presence. Yes he was a little slower (and even that is questionable if you watch matches like his Wimbledon semi win defeating Agassi in 95) but he adjusted his game, so he wasn't as dependent on it as before.

The fact is that he was able to beat everyone on grass except for Pete Sampras and you cannot deny that, that's exactly what he did.
Based on that how can you say he was way past his prime :confused: If it wasn't for Sampras I don't know how many Wimbledon titles Becker would have added!??

And these are some of the names that Sampras played at Wimbledon: Woodbridge, Stich, Ivanicevic, Agassi, Becker, Courier, Martin, Henman, Rusedski, Philoppoussis, Pioline, Krajicek, Korda, Grosjean, Federer and Rafter. SURELY overall much better grass players than we are seeing at this moment in time. Compare them to players now and it is quite obvious.

One example: Right now a guy like Nicholas Escude is one of the best grass court players around. In theory he could actually win Wimbledon (I think he can!)! I like him. He is one of my favorite players but compared to the grass court players of the Sampras era he hardly stands out as anything special.

WyverN
02-02-2004, 08:10 AM
:eek: Allow me to quote the great John McEnroe: "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!?!?!??!"



And these are some of the names that Sampras played at Wimbledon: Woodbridge, Stich, Ivanicevic, Agassi, Becker, Courier, Martin, Henman, Rusedski, Philoppoussis, Pioline, Krajicek, Korda, Grosjean, Federer and Rafter. SURELY overall much better grass players than we are seeing at this moment in time. Compare them to players now and it is quite obvious.


Woodbridge? Grosjean? Pioline? Rusedski? Why dont you mention Voltchkov?

Courier and Agassi were nothing special on grass. Sampras was undoubtedly a great grass player but he was beatable there, my only point, is that had he played at his peak in the 1980s, when the grass competition was much tougher, he would win closer to 4 or 5 Wimbledons rather then the astronomical 7.

Beat
02-02-2004, 08:27 AM
i don't really see why he should be. his tennis is very different.

Nymeria
02-02-2004, 12:46 PM
Why must everyone try to equate someone to a past great. Every player is unique and their achievements are unique as well.


:yeah:

Exactly what I wanted to say.

monicain
02-02-2004, 03:43 PM
If you wanna compare their success on grass, one thing to mention about toughness of reigning such 7 Wimbledon titles is that: these days they tend to have the grass at AELTC a lot slower, which means a bigger opportunities for baseliners to challenge serve-and-volleyers. This is a task FedEx's facing.
And talking on GS success, Pete had only Andre to challenge him. Rafter, Goran, Kafelnikov is such a minor factor. Compared to Federer, who comes up with a gang of youngsters with lots of potentials. And everyone has their own strength he has to adapt his game to beat them. [which he now seems to handle comfortably]
I dunno, it seems now he has everything under control. He's untouchable on grass, superb on carpet, strong on hard, and consistent on clay. He has no weakness so far. I think if he remains at this level, he could surpass Pete' 14 GSs eventually.

But talking on the style of play, yeah they're pretty similar. Especially that running forehand is strikingly similar.But roger seems to have more beautiful backhand slices and cross-court approach shots.

Sjengster
02-02-2004, 05:58 PM
I doubt anyone in the modern game is going to equal or surpass Sampras' achievements, no-one in this day and age can pick up 14 Slam titles or win the same major seven times with this better level of competition nowadays. For what it's worth, if I had to choose I would hope Federer had an Agassi-like career in Slams where he managed to win all of them at least once, as opposed to just dominating time after time at one Slam.

I agree that it's much better to let a player stand on their own merit rather than constantly likening them to their predecessors; overall Federer's game is fairly unique, and if it were really a copy of Sampras I wouldn't support him at all - most of the time watching Sampras was as dull as ditchwater.

tennischick
02-02-2004, 06:33 PM
well said Sjengman... :worship: :worship:

and actually i need to change my criticism of this outlandish comparison. if i am not mistaken, it was the Android who said it first and then the media started parroting the comparison between himself and Federer. but Federer is a joy to watch and Dishwater only lulled me to sleep. 14 times...:yawn: