Record-crushing Federer won't match Pete's No. 1s [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Record-crushing Federer won't match Pete's No. 1s

angiel
09-29-2006, 11:46 PM
September 29th, 2006

Record-crushing Federer Won’t Match Pete’s No. 1s

by Richard Vach



The year is not yet over, and Roger Federer has clinched his third straight year-end No. 1 ranking, putting yet another tennis record in his sights — the next record of greatness besides Pete Sampras’ 14 Grand Slam wins, and a record also held by the American.

If the Swiss dominates again in 2007, it would be four year-end top finishes, tying Ivan Lendl (1985-87,’89) and John McEnroe (1981-84). Jimmy Connors finished in the top spot five consecutive times (1974-78), and Sampras holds the all-time mark with six consecutive finishes (1993-98).

Can Federer do it, six year-end No. 1s in a row, in this Sega-tennis high-tech rocket era of injures?

No.

And no disrespect.

Federer will top Sampras’ Slam mark, but the chances of him maintaining his dominance while staying uninjured for another three years is highly unlikely.

The way Federer wisely cares for his body between major events, resting after Slams (and tanking out of Masters Series events when he needs additional rest), it isn’t such a stretch to think that Sampras’ record of six year-ends in a row might not be out of reach. But Pete was a freak of nature who rarely succumbed to major injuries until his final years.

But health issues aside, who will be the next Rafael Nadal-type to step to the Swiss in 2007? There has to be some greater competition out there somewhere. Richard Gasquet? Marcos Baghdatis? Federer’s new buddy Tiger Woods switching sports? Can someone, for lack of a better term, get good?

David Nalbandian and Ivan Ljubicic have threatened over the last 12 months, but can’t seem to find that champion-type consistency. Former No. 1s Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt have battled with their confidence, while former-former No. 1s (seems like such a long time ago) Juan Carlos Ferrero and Carlos Moya have little left in the tank.

Speaking of rivals, or lack of, has Federer coasted somewhat over the last two years? Besides Nadal, have his challengers for the most part spun their wheels trying to find their own games, much less challenge his?

When it comes to the Roger vs. Pete debate, you also have to take into consideration the competition, or lack of, as Moya said earlier this week.

“Things were different in the ’90s,” the Spaniard reminisced. “There were quite a few great players like Sampras, (Boris) Becker, (Andre) Agassi, (Patrick) Rafter with virtually the same kind of skills. They were all in the same league. But today, there’s a big gap between the top two-three players and the rest. See Federer and Nadal. There is hardly anyone who can come close to them. (Sampras) was a class apart. Federer and Nadal are good, but not in his league.”

This from a player who played both Sampras and Federer. Actually, this from a player who beat Sampras, on hardcourt yet, at the Masters Cup. Then again, maybe you want to say the greatest player is the one you took out — then you can tell your kids, rather than telling them the greatest player was that Swiss guy you were 0-6 against.

Sampras himself concedes Federer his Slam record — of course throwing in the lack-of-competition jibe.

“It’s not a question of if he’ll break my record, but when he’ll break my record,” said Sampras of his 14-Slam mark. “I see a lot of good players out there facing him, but no great players.”

The 14 Slams, probably, but the six-consecutive year-end No. 1s? Let’s talk in around two years, if it’s still an issue.

To this point in time, no one even thought the Sampras year-end record could ever be touched. At the end of 1998, knowing that the all-time record sixth was in reach, and with Marcelo Rios breathing down his neck at No. 2 on the rankings, Sampras went on a European tear the likes that had not been seen before or since by a top American.

After the US Open in ‘98 Sampras played six events in eight weeks before the year-end championship — including Basel, Vienna, Lyon, Stuttgart-indoor, Paris-indoor, Stockholm — before reaching the semis at the year-end championship, finally clinching the year-end top rank when Rios withdrew after one match with injury. Talk about an effort.

Federer seems to be mowing down Sampras records left and right — but many of Pete’s accomplishments continue to amaze. Especially after the U.S. Davis Cup team was again bogged down in clay last week in Russia, the year 1996 was oft mentioned — the year Sampras almost single-handedly beat the Russians on clay in Moscow, winning two singles and the doubles to claim the U.S.’s last (and possibly for a long while) Davis Cup title.

For those already proclaiming Federer the all-time greatest (and there are more than a few), the Swiss has yet to equal Pete’s Slam mark, his year-end No. 1 mark, or win the Davis Cup. And for those wishing that Rog’s and Pete’s careers did more than barely overlap, don’t worry — Federer will still be going head-to-head against Sampras’ records for years to come.

Richard Vach, Tennis-X.com senior writer, can currently be seen on The Tennis Channel’s “Tennis Insiders: Super Insiders” episodes, and was recently awarded “Best Hard News” story for 2005 by the United States Tennis Writers Association.



:worship: :worship: :D

mangoes
09-29-2006, 11:58 PM
:scratch: Why the need for worship??


Federer will top Sampras’ Slam mark, but the chances of him maintaining his dominance while staying uninjured for another three years is highly unlikely.

I think it's rather silly to expect Roger to lose his no. 1 spot due to injury. I also don't think Roger will hold on to the no. 1 for another 3 years. That will be hard to do considering the youngsters waiting in the wings combined with the natural decrease in his level of play.

Nevertheless, Roger would have had an excellent career and that's the important thing. If it floats your boat, Angiel, to think that Roger not being no. 1 for six years, somehow, leaves him as an underachiever, then keep telling yourself that over and over until you have the big O!

Corey Feldman
09-30-2006, 12:00 AM
another tennis dinosaur... tennis moved on, a couple of Sampras last slam finals were crushing easy defeats to the likes of Hewitt and Safin... players Fed has since done the same to in slam finals.
im not saying Fed has had greater opposition than sampy had, so far...
but he has still been the best of the new era of tennis with alot of depth, and took out Pete himself at centre court in 2001.

some folks need to be ready for the day Fed upsets them and sweeps all records, simple as that :p

some ppl act like the Fed v Rafa atp tour show has been happening for 5 or 6 years, really :rolleyes:

Andre♥
09-30-2006, 12:02 AM
I actually can't imagine Federer losing the number one spot in the next few years...

Corey Feldman
09-30-2006, 12:02 AM
I think it's rather silly to expect Roger to lose his no. 1 spot due to injury.perhaps it was wishful thinking from this latest member of the fed fan club ;)

betowiec
09-30-2006, 12:02 AM
The way Federer wisely cares for his body between major events, resting after Slams (and tanking out of Masters Series events when he needs additional rest)



yessssssssssssss:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

NYCtennisfan
09-30-2006, 12:35 AM
The way Federer wisely cares for his body between major events, resting after Slams (and tanking out of Masters Series events when he needs additional rest),

Fed DOES seem to do a lot of tanking in TMS events. Take a look at this:

2005 IW---Win
2005 Miami----Win
2005 Monte Carlo----QF loss in 3rd set TB'er
2005 Hamburg----Win
2005 Cincy----Win
2006 IW---Win
2006 Miami---Win
2006 Monte Carlo---Runner up
2006 Roma---Runner up
2006 Canada---Win
2006 Cincy---R.2 defeat

56-4 in his last 11 TMS events. Clearly he is doing a lot of tanking when he needs it.

Skyward
09-30-2006, 12:46 AM
Old news. Most people have already figured out that Federer blew his chances to match Pete's record in 2003.

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 12:59 AM
Roger will beat Pete's marks, unfortunately. Both in # of slams and # of years at the top.

Johnny Groove
09-30-2006, 01:02 AM
o Pete :o

wimbledonfan
09-30-2006, 01:38 AM
Glenn , I doubt he will stay # 1 for 4 more years .

Nadal is right up his ass .

Dirk
09-30-2006, 01:57 AM
Glenn , I doubt he will stay # 1 for 4 more years .

Nadal is right up his ass .

yeah right up his ass with a few thousand points behind.

alelysafina
09-30-2006, 02:16 AM
I don't see Fed's losing his number one spot in the next few years.
Other than that thing at cincy, he generally takes good care of himself and pays attention to his body.

Plus even though Nadal is the only one who can actually win a match over him, I can't see Nadal actually getting to the number one spot because he is great on clay but only good on every other surface. Roger on the other hand is great on pretty much every surface. And many people have won matches against Nadal, while less than a handful have won matches over Federer since he began his dominance.

mangoes
09-30-2006, 02:21 AM
Glenn , I doubt he will stay # 1 for 4 more years .

Nadal is right up his ass .

You're also making a lot of assumptions about Nadal;) He'd have to also keep being "right up his ass":p

Dirk
09-30-2006, 02:41 AM
You're also making a lot of assumptions about Nadal;) He'd have to also keep being "right up his ass":p

I wouldn't call someone who has to close the gap of a few thousand points which will likely increase this fall as someone right up Roger's ass.

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 03:00 AM
Glenn , I doubt he will stay # 1 for 4 more years .

Nadal is right up his ass .

Yeah, right. Almost 3000 points behind... :haha:

PamV
09-30-2006, 03:02 AM
:scratch: Why the need for worship??




I think it's rather silly to expect Roger to lose his no. 1 spot due to injury. I also don't think Roger will hold on to the no. 1 for another 3 years. That will be hard to do considering the youngsters waiting in the wings combined with the natural decrease in his level of play.

Nevertheless, Roger would have had an excellent career and that's the important thing. If it floats your boat, Angiel, to think that Roger not being no. 1 for six years, somehow, leaves him as an underachiever, then keep telling yourself that over and over until you have the big O!

Good points. I think the biggest danger for Roger is that he has such a high level of points to defend each year due to the fact that he's been winning 2 or 3 majors plus 3 or 4 MS each year.....plus this year getting to the finals in 3 big clay tournaments. That's a bit more than what Sampras was doing.

In any case, like you say the main goal is for Roger to win tournaments to add to his tally.

PamV
09-30-2006, 03:08 AM
I wouldn't call someone who has to close the gap of a few thousand points which will likely increase this fall as someone right up Roger's ass.

It's more a matter of logistics for 2007 because Nadal can gain heavily at AO '07 if he gets an easy draw and Roger has 1000 points to defend there. Furthermore, Nadal has the benefit of the fact that his clay tournaments are easier to defend for him than the titles Roger has to defend. That's because the clay field is weak and there are no other top clay court specialists out there. Besides that, Roger might not feel like spending his energy to the same degree on clay in '07. I can't see him trying to get to all those clay finals again.

Fedex
09-30-2006, 03:26 AM
These articles are getting real old, real fast. I might as well not even go to GM anymore if this is the only crap that there is to read.

Mimi
09-30-2006, 03:34 AM
the article is not old, it was only written yesterday :rolleyes:

if you think it is crap, yes, don't read it, but i think this article is not crap, and there are a lot more craps threads in GM :rolleyes:
These articles are getting real old, real fast. I might as well not even go to GM anymore if this is the only crap that there is to read.

Headbump
09-30-2006, 03:51 AM
Glenn , I doubt he will stay # 1 for 4 more years .

Nadal is right up his ass .

since when did 2000 pts became "right up his ass" Roger can win all 4 Grand slams in any year....Nadal 1 :wavey:

aneevar
09-30-2006, 04:17 AM
We need a sampras forum !!

Bagelicious
09-30-2006, 04:25 AM
We need a sampras forum !!

:haha: Angiel still needs to come out every now and then for company... (http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=49)

Lee
09-30-2006, 04:59 AM
We need a sampras forum !!

Are you saying the other 4 threads in the first page of GM now need to put in Federer forum too? :shrug:

For me, I'm a Sampras fan but don't really care about reports like this but let's be fair, I don't see anybody whining about other Federer threads need to be put in Federer forum, why complain about this?

And Sampras is not the only name here so don't give me the BS about Sampras is a retired player.

Mimi
09-30-2006, 05:08 AM
so true, there are lots of rogers threads in GM when he already has a forum of his own :rolleyes:

the people just hate the idea that pete is still ahead of roger in terms of grand slams titles :rolleyes:
Are you saying the other 4 threads in the first page of GM now need to put in Federer forum too? :shrug:

For me, I'm a Sampras fan but don't really care about reports like this but let's be fair, I don't see anybody whining about other Federer threads need to be put in Federer forum, why complain about this?

And Sampras is not the only name here so don't give me the BS about Sampras is a retired player.

wimbledonfan
09-30-2006, 05:16 AM
There are a lot of teenagers on this forum so you have to take everything they say lightly .

Besides , people do have short term memories when it comes to sports . I've heard reports that Dwayne Wade is apparently just as good as Michael Jordan and that he'll break all his records .

It's simply amazing at how much disrespect the new generation have on the past champions . The media can hype up any player they want . It kind of reminds me of WWE .

Mimi
09-30-2006, 05:21 AM
not all of them are teenagers i guess :rolleyes:

i just wonder if someday, those disrespectable posters have their own kids and the kids don't show them any respect (oh old parents, you are useless! ;)), how will they feel :rolleyes: ;) :devil: , time passes more quickly then you think, my pals ;)
There are a lot of teenagers on this forum so you have to take everything they say lightly .

Besides , people do have short term memories when it comes to sports . I've heard reports that Dwayne Wade is apparently just as good as Michael Jordan and that he'll break all his records .

It's simply amazing at how much disrespect the new generation have on the past champtions . The media can hype up any player they want . It kind of reminds me of WWE .

MisterQ
09-30-2006, 05:30 AM
Neither of them will match Pancho Gonzales' 9 years at No. 1.

wimbledonfan
09-30-2006, 05:40 AM
As far as i'm concerned , Pete holds the record at 6 consecutive years at numero uno .

Skyward
09-30-2006, 06:18 AM
the people just hate the idea that pete is still ahead of roger in terms of grand slams titles :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Speak for yourself.

Afaik, Fed's fans are very happy with his 9 Slams. Nobody expected him to win 14+ Slams by the age of 25.

Mimi
09-30-2006, 06:19 AM
if not, then please explain me why whenever there is a sampras' thread, loads of posters come and say such things as "crap thread, pete is retired, better move on, post them in pete's forum etc" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

if its not that they do not like the idea that pete is still ahead of roger, then may be its because pete had done many bad things on them and they hate him so much
:rolleyes:

Speak for yourself.

Afaik, Fed's fans are very happy with his 9 Slams. Nobody expected him to win 14+ Slams by the age of 25.

LaTenista
09-30-2006, 06:34 AM
I guess I'm the only one to notice it says the US won the Davis Cup in 1996, when in reality it was 1995.

Nice fact checking. :rolleyes:

This article is so premature, after TMC this year would have made more sense.

Aphex
09-30-2006, 07:40 AM
Consecutive weeks as #1 is more important IMO, than this year-end stuff, which only Sampras and Connors ever cared about.

DrJules
09-30-2006, 08:05 AM
For those already proclaiming Federer the all-time greatest (and there are more than a few), the Swiss has yet to equal Pete’s Slam mark, his year-end No. 1 mark, or win the Davis Cup. And for those wishing that Rog’s and Pete’s careers did more than barely overlap, don’t worry — Federer will still be going head-to-head against Sampras’ records for years to come.


Considering that Sampras was unable and Federer is unlikely to win the French Open I consider it impossible to consider either the greatest player in the history of tennis.

On achievements, owing to winning the grand slam twice, Laver is the player who has won all 4 of the grand slams and has sufficient domination and victories to be given that recognition. Agassi never was dominated enough or won enough grand slam to be considered the greatest.

These continual discussions fail to recognise that both Sampras and Federer (possibly) failed to win the French Open. Hence, it is hard to consider any player missing one of the 4 biggest events in men's tennis as the greatest.

DrJules
09-30-2006, 08:11 AM
There are a lot of teenagers on this forum so you have to take everything they say lightly .

Besides , people do have short term memories when it comes to sports . I've heard reports that Dwayne Wade is apparently just as good as Michael Jordan and that he'll break all his records .

It's simply amazing at how much disrespect the new generation have on the past champions . The media can hype up any player they want . It kind of reminds me of WWE .

Very true, but Sampras actually benefits from that as well. When compared the record of Laver he falls short, particularly, the absence of a French Open victory. Laver was the only player who managed to be the best player on all surfaces during his career for significant periods.

Macbrother
09-30-2006, 08:57 AM
DrJules, both the US Open and Australian Open were both played on grass at the time of Laver's victories. So while yes, that's still impressive, it's not nearly the accomplishment nor difficulty it is to win on the 3 (4 if you count rebound ace) different surfaces of today.

NYCtennisfan
09-30-2006, 09:07 AM
DrJules, both the US Open and Australian Open were both played on grass at the time of Laver's victories. So while yes, that's still impressive, it's not nearly the accomplishment nor difficulty it is to win on the 3 (4 if you count rebound ace) different surfaces of today.

Yes, and add to this the fact that the competition in Laver's time was not even remotely close to what it is today and you can definitely say that Pete's and also Borg's accomplishments were as great as Laver's. The overall depth of the game and the quality of the athletes improves every year. Most of the young posters on this board who have been to events and been around the athletes would be very surprised to see how much more physically imposing most of the players are nowadays compared with the old days. I'm not sure how many people are aware that Rod Laver is only 5'8" tall. Could a 5'8" tall player dominate the game today the way Laver did?

DrJules
09-30-2006, 09:21 AM
DrJules, both the US Open and Australian Open were both played on grass at the time of Laver's victories. So while yes, that's still impressive, it's not nearly the accomplishment nor difficulty it is to win on the 3 (4 if you count rebound ace) different surfaces of today.

Bar a defeat to Safin in the Aus Open semi-final in 2005, Federer won have won the AO, Wimbledon and the US Open 3 times in a row 2004,2005,2006. His continual stumbling block being the French Open.

The French Open has this weird position in tennis. Often players among the potential greatest ever fail to win it; McEnroe, Sampras and Federer yet so many French Open winners have only won 1 grand slam in their career.

alelysafina
09-30-2006, 09:25 AM
Neither of them will match Pancho Gonzales' 9 years at No. 1.

:yeah: :yeah:

DrJules
09-30-2006, 09:28 AM
Yes, and add to this the fact that the competition in Laver's time was not even remotely close to what it is today and you can definitely say that Pete's and also Borg's accomplishments were as great as Laver's. The overall depth of the game and the quality of the athletes improves every year. Most of the young posters on this board who have been to events and been around the athletes would be very surprised to see how much more physically imposing most of the players are nowadays compared with the old days. I'm not sure how many people are aware that Rod Laver is only 5'8" tall. Could a 5'8" tall player dominate the game today the way Laver did?

Totally agree that in an absolute level each generation is better than the previous. In sports where measurement is possible, like swimming, cycling and athletics, records are continually being broken. Interestingly, Mark Spitz is considered by many the greatest ever swimmer. However, the times he achieved in the 1972 Olympics when he won 7 gold medals would not have enabled him to reach a single swimming final at the last Olympics.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-30-2006, 09:30 AM
Federer will soon have the record for being no 1 consecutive weeks.
But it's more important to win titles instead of being no 1.
Federer was already no 1 in 2003 on the court, but US-driven ITF elected Roddick as the player of the year, though Federer won more titles including the YEC.

nobama
09-30-2006, 09:38 AM
the people just hate the idea that pete is still ahead of roger in terms of grand slams titles :rolleyes::retard: Roger is only 25, Pete is retired. You can't compare Pete's entire career to Roger's as Roger isn't done playing yet. Roger won his 9th slam a month after he turned 25, Pete won his 8th. Although before Pete turned 26 he had 10 as he won AO and Wimbledon in '97.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-30-2006, 09:50 AM
Considering that Sampras was unable and Federer is unlikely to win the French Open I consider it impossible to consider either the greatest player in the history of tennis.



Another time nonsense.
Missing French Open is no problem.
What do really you want? Federer stopping his career and only continues to play on clay and prepare for the French Open?
That would be the consequence of such 'opinions'

Good to know that Federer thinks otherwise.
And he's right.

nobama
09-30-2006, 09:55 AM
Federer was already no 1 in 2003 on the court, but US-driven ITF elected Roddick as the player of the year, though Federer won more titles including the YEC.Isn't there a ranking system that decides who is #1? Roddick earned 907 race points in 2003 to Roger's 875. I believe had Roger not lost to Andy in Montreal that year he could have ended the year #1. But Andy performed better at the slams that year making SF of AO and Wimbledon whereas Roger only made R16 at AO and USO.

oz_boz
09-30-2006, 11:04 AM
Seems like R. Vach found a pacifier for angiel :baby:

Jogy
09-30-2006, 01:18 PM
I hope Federer will not only fail to match Sampras #1, but also not come close to his Grand Slam numbers :devil:

Guybrush
09-30-2006, 01:21 PM
I actually can't imagine Federer losing the number one spot in the next few years...

Me too. I'm quite sure he will beat Pete's record. ;)

stebs
09-30-2006, 02:43 PM
I very much doubt Roger will beat Pete's mark of consecutive years at #1. This doesn't mean Roger is a worse player.

angiel
10-02-2006, 02:46 PM
Seems like R. Vach found a pacifier for angiel :baby:


What? you dont like to here thre truth.:sad: :sad: :devil:

And do you think he will break it, what is your answer, dont have one like everything else Roger Federer.

angiel
10-02-2006, 02:57 PM
Here are some response to that article, knock yourself out.



October 1st, 2006

Federer/Sampras Year-End No. 1 Redux

by Richard Vach

If you’re ever lonely for death threats from 12-year-olds or e-mail in-boxes full of character-slandering abuse, just publicly question a record that world No. 1 Roger Federer possibly can’t achieve.

In this case, Pete Sampras’ six consecutive years ending the ATP Rankings at No. 1.

Federer is half way there after already clinching this year’s top spot. He is, by the estimate of most, on his way to the title of best-ever in men’s tennis.

Still — and here’s where Federer fans’ veins started popping and keyboards were thrown against walls — it was proposed, nay, prognosticated, that the smooth Swiss would not match Sampras’ six in a row, that it was too difficult to maintain in this age of major injury and the rise of opponents such as Rafael Nadal. And pointing to Carlos Moya’s comments that in his opinion, Sampras had tougher competition in the ’90s than Federer does now.

Apparently, even as a big fan of the Swiss, one can’t venture an opinion other than that Federer is a god among men who will break every record imaginably then ascend to the Popehood.

Commenter Siva Natarajan says: “I also think this is an article in poor taste trying to put down Federer’s achievements and potential.”

Only you and the entire Fed Army.

arsh says: “You just simply think Roger is not as great as Peter, but this is not an appropriate reason to predict his decompose, or that’s just your wish maybe.”

Lot of problems with this statement, as I think Rog would have dominated Pete had they played in the same era. All I touched on was Rog not in my opinion reaching the six in a row — and his competition being less than Pete’s. Also not sure Sampras has ever been called “Peter” by anyone other than his mother, nor is he to the point of decomposing.

JCF says: “I’m saving a copy of this article for 3 years time. Richard Vash should retire as a Senior Writer and consider a career in comedy. This is great stuff Richard, keep it up!”

Don’t stop at one article, start a scrapbook. But seriously — no, seriously, you can start a scrapbook if you want. In three years if Rog is looking at six year-ends in a row, dinner is on me. It certainly won’t be for lack of talent on Federer’s part, but today’s tour is an out-of-control injury factory where they don’t regulate technology like other major sports — yet they still try to get the players to compete on an incremental basis.

tequilaandchili says: “yeah, Mr. Vach, why you don’t dedicate some time of your life to cook and sale tortillas in the streets of LA instead of trying to put down Roger’s achievements down.”

You gotta like arguments that start with “Yeah…” like “Yeah, Mr. Doodoohead, stop talking about Roger that way because he is great and you’re not as you’re just jealous because he is great!!!!!!!” And putting down the tortilla guy in L.A. ain’t cool. Those guys do you right for like $3 bucks a pop.

joeseph o brien says: “I don’t know why i bother reading this site anymore. Your views are one sided, and arent backed up by proper evidence and I am sick of the idiotoc and juvenile writing of Richard Vach.”

We agree. You should stop reading this site. And spelling stuff.

John says: “I think you’re just grasping at straws trying to bring Federer down to earth when clearly he’s so far a class above the rest. Since no current player has matched up to him (except Nadal, and that’s open for debate)you’re trying to resurrect the ghost of Pete Sampras in the hopes of giving federer a credible adversary.”

Thank God, a voice of reason. That pretty much hit it on the head. Federer is a class above the rest, and I was grasping at straws, one of the few straws left, I’m saying one of the few records he won’t get is Sampras’ six in a row.

Joy Parker says: “Wow, the Federer fanz are out in full force. Pete was the best in his era! Roger is the best at the moment…Will he break Pete’s records???? Maybe. Does it kill Sampras fans that that is a possibility??? Yes for the most part…So reading all the comments from this article makes me smile because I know what the Federer fans are going through.”

No Joy, you don’t — you don’t know what Venkat is going through:

Venkat says: “Federer is more than a player, he is a genius and you better appreciate his greatness…Finally, Fed is such a good person off the court that none of us would like to see him injured. You saying that Fed might not be able to break Pete’s record of year-end No. 1’s on the basis of injury sounds selfish to me.”

That was pretty selfish wasn’t it, pointing out that with the runaway injuries on tour, it’s unlikely anyone could sweep six straight years of No. 1. I should have listened to anonymously yours who said: “The crazy Fedtards will hunt you down and kill you.”

These were just the blog message responses, you should have seen the e-mails.

One completely insane poster, kamret, commented: “I think the article was a good one. I don’t understand why so many people (probably a lot of teenagers whose knowledge of tennis cannot come anywhere close to an author who has been a fan and analyst of the game for several decades) on this board are criticizing the article and the author. Rich Vach never said that he thought Sampras was greater than Federer, or vice-versa. Instead, all he said was that in this new era of brutal tennis, it would be almost impossible to stay #1 for 6 straight years without getting injured. I totally agree with him.”

Thanks Mom, er, kamret. Like I say, if I can just reach THAT ONE READER, save THAT ONE LIFE, then my years in medical school were not wasted.

Corey Feldman
10-02-2006, 03:07 PM
hehehehe listen to that bitch Vach cry now, boohoo :baby:

the FedArmy will get you :devil:

Eden
10-02-2006, 03:14 PM
Lets listen to the words of Sampras and wait what will happen ;)

"Well, I think when I look at Roger, I mean, I'm a fan. I mean, I'm a fan of how he plays, what he's about, just the fact that I think he's a class -- I don't know him personally, but seems like he's a class guy on and off the court. He's fun to watch. Just his athletic ability, what he's able to do on the run. I think he can and will break every tennis record out there."

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-02-2006, 08:19 PM
Wow Fedtards are the most delusional people on Earth.

On one side you have a sports writer and on the other side you have Fed loving teens who are trying to kiss a poster of their god.

Who should the world listen to? The smart person with a job or the losers in their parents besement.

I wanna see the Fedtard exceuses after the masters cup and the Australian Open.

Fedtard: I didn't pray hard enough to my Federer shrine to help him win. :sad:

madmanfool
10-02-2006, 08:34 PM
Fed DOES seem to do a lot of tanking in TMS events. Take a look at this:

2005 IW---Win
2005 Miami----Win
2005 Monte Carlo----QF loss in 3rd set TB'er
2005 Hamburg----Win
2005 Cincy----Win
2006 IW---Win
2006 Miami---Win
2006 Monte Carlo---Runner up
2006 Roma---Runner up
2006 Canada---Win
2006 Cincy---R.2 defeat

56-4 in his last 11 TMS events. Clearly he is doing a lot of tanking when he needs it.

How convenient you left out Montreal 2005, Madrid 2005, Paris 2005 and Hamburg 2006:D

almouchie
10-02-2006, 08:49 PM
i sure hope not
federer will NOT break sampras record

inshallah someone will come up & give him some more trouble a la nadal style

Purple Rainbow
10-02-2006, 09:17 PM
How convenient you left out Montreal 2005, Madrid 2005, Paris 2005 and Hamburg 2006:D


:rolleyes:

nobama
10-02-2006, 09:20 PM
How convenient you left out Montreal 2005, Madrid 2005, Paris 2005 and Hamburg 2006:DHow can you tank an event you don't even play in? :confused: Does that mean Nadal tanked in Paris, Shanghai, AO, Hamburg? :confused:

jcempire
10-02-2006, 09:35 PM
too far to say that

Everything could be possible/..........

Who knows

oz_boz
10-03-2006, 10:48 AM
What? you dont like to here thre truth.:sad: :sad: :devil:

And do you think he will break it, what is your answer, dont have one like everything else Roger Federer.

Roger won't break the record. There you go. :)

doublebackhand
10-03-2006, 06:28 PM
i think its a case of a lot of sampras's fans (including vach among a few posters here) not being able of reconciling with the prospects of federer breaking their idol's records. someone even repeatedly suggested that it was Fed's fans not being able to cope with the truth (Roger has 9, Pete has 14). cmon, roger's career isnt even over yet (we are not THAT stupid).

so vach came up with a record in pete's book that looks least likely to be broken ever and blew its significance out of frigging proportion and denied he was putting down roger's accomplishment (he is playing lesser opponents these days than pete's era...blah blah blah) and tried to back-step when he received death threats. why doesnt he talk about total number of weeks at #1 or consecutive weeks at #1??

Dancing Hero
10-03-2006, 06:38 PM
Federer may or may not match Sampras' record of year end no.1 rankings but I don't think he'll be bothered if he keeps winning the big titles. It's the GS you're remembered for. Lindsay Davenport would rather have been winning GS than be ranked no.1 and losing finals and semi finals in the last few years.

angiel
10-03-2006, 06:49 PM
Federer may or may not match Sampras' record of year end no.1 rankings but I don't think he'll be bothered if he keeps winning the big titles. It's the GS you're remembered for. Lindsay Davenport would rather have been winning GS than be ranked no.1 and losing finals and semi finals in the last few years.

But Dancing Hero if Lindsay was winnning slams she would also be number no 1, dont you think, it is one and the same almost, dont you know how much a slam carries in points alone?:wavey: :wavey:

maskedmuffin
10-03-2006, 06:55 PM
how silly would the author of this article look if he had posted th same dribble 10+ years ago when pete was still halfway through his career and chasing 13?


The fact that people are even bringing up the" no he cant do it argument" when his career by all accounts is only about half over shows how scared those folks are that he will not only beat the record, but possibly shatter it


Think about it..pete retired in2002..and he didnt even get time to bask in his "glory"..cause this dude in 4 years is already more than halfway to the record


pwnt.

DrJules
10-03-2006, 06:55 PM
But Dancing Hero if Lindsay was winnning slams she would also be number no 1, dont you think, it is one and the same almost, dont you know how much a slam carries in points alone?:wavey: :wavey:

Serena and Venus Williams have won 12 grand slam between themselves and only once did either of them end the year at number 1.

Sometimes the importance of the computer is overstated.

Dancing Hero
10-03-2006, 06:56 PM
But Dancing Hero if Lindsay was winnning slams she would also be number no 1, dont you think, it is one and the same almost, dont you know how much a slam carries in points alone?:wavey: :wavey:


Hello.:wavey: :wavey:

Lindsay Davenport said herself after Wimbledon '05 she was frustrated at being no.1 and falling short in the GS in the last few years. She was consistent, getting to semi finals and finals, picking up lots of points and not winning the GS. Not quite the same thing.

Dancing Hero
10-03-2006, 07:03 PM
I agree with one thing, angiel, Federer will probably be both no.1 and winning GS
at the same time.

pistolmarat
10-03-2006, 07:30 PM
September 29th, 2006

Record-crushing Federer Won’t Match Pete’s No. 1s

by Richard Vach



The year is not yet over, and Roger Federer has clinched his third straight year-end No. 1 ranking, putting yet another tennis record in his sights — the next record of greatness besides Pete Sampras’ 14 Grand Slam wins, and a record also held by the American.

If the Swiss dominates again in 2007, it would be four year-end top finishes, tying Ivan Lendl (1985-87,’89) and John McEnroe (1981-84). Jimmy Connors finished in the top spot five consecutive times (1974-78), and Sampras holds the all-time mark with six consecutive finishes (1993-98).

Can Federer do it, six year-end No. 1s in a row, in this Sega-tennis high-tech rocket era of injures?

No.

And no disrespect.

Federer will top Sampras’ Slam mark, but the chances of him maintaining his dominance while staying uninjured for another three years is highly unlikely.

The way Federer wisely cares for his body between major events, resting after Slams (and tanking out of Masters Series events when he needs additional rest), it isn’t such a stretch to think that Sampras’ record of six year-ends in a row might not be out of reach. But Pete was a freak of nature who rarely succumbed to major injuries until his final years.

But health issues aside, who will be the next Rafael Nadal-type to step to the Swiss in 2007? There has to be some greater competition out there somewhere. Richard Gasquet? Marcos Baghdatis? Federer’s new buddy Tiger Woods switching sports? Can someone, for lack of a better term, get good?

David Nalbandian and Ivan Ljubicic have threatened over the last 12 months, but can’t seem to find that champion-type consistency. Former No. 1s Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt have battled with their confidence, while former-former No. 1s (seems like such a long time ago) Juan Carlos Ferrero and Carlos Moya have little left in the tank.

Speaking of rivals, or lack of, has Federer coasted somewhat over the last two years? Besides Nadal, have his challengers for the most part spun their wheels trying to find their own games, much less challenge his?

When it comes to the Roger vs. Pete debate, you also have to take into consideration the competition, or lack of, as Moya said earlier this week.

“Things were different in the ’90s,” the Spaniard reminisced. “There were quite a few great players like Sampras, (Boris) Becker, (Andre) Agassi, (Patrick) Rafter with virtually the same kind of skills. They were all in the same league. But today, there’s a big gap between the top two-three players and the rest. See Federer and Nadal. There is hardly anyone who can come close to them. (Sampras) was a class apart. Federer and Nadal are good, but not in his league.”

This from a player who played both Sampras and Federer. Actually, this from a player who beat Sampras, on hardcourt yet, at the Masters Cup. Then again, maybe you want to say the greatest player is the one you took out — then you can tell your kids, rather than telling them the greatest player was that Swiss guy you were 0-6 against.

Sampras himself concedes Federer his Slam record — of course throwing in the lack-of-competition jibe.

“It’s not a question of if he’ll break my record, but when he’ll break my record,” said Sampras of his 14-Slam mark. “I see a lot of good players out there facing him, but no great players.”

The 14 Slams, probably, but the six-consecutive year-end No. 1s? Let’s talk in around two years, if it’s still an issue.

To this point in time, no one even thought the Sampras year-end record could ever be touched. At the end of 1998, knowing that the all-time record sixth was in reach, and with Marcelo Rios breathing down his neck at No. 2 on the rankings, Sampras went on a European tear the likes that had not been seen before or since by a top American.

After the US Open in ‘98 Sampras played six events in eight weeks before the year-end championship — including Basel, Vienna, Lyon, Stuttgart-indoor, Paris-indoor, Stockholm — before reaching the semis at the year-end championship, finally clinching the year-end top rank when Rios withdrew after one match with injury. Talk about an effort.

Federer seems to be mowing down Sampras records left and right — but many of Pete’s accomplishments continue to amaze. Especially after the U.S. Davis Cup team was again bogged down in clay last week in Russia, the year 1996 was oft mentioned — the year Sampras almost single-handedly beat the Russians on clay in Moscow, winning two singles and the doubles to claim the U.S.’s last (and possibly for a long while) Davis Cup title.

For those already proclaiming Federer the all-time greatest (and there are more than a few), the Swiss has yet to equal Pete’s Slam mark, his year-end No. 1 mark, or win the Davis Cup. And for those wishing that Rog’s and Pete’s careers did more than barely overlap, don’t worry — Federer will still be going head-to-head against Sampras’ records for years to come.

Richard Vach, Tennis-X.com senior writer, can currently be seen on The Tennis Channel’s “Tennis Insiders: Super Insiders” episodes, and was recently awarded “Best Hard News” story for 2005 by the United States Tennis Writers Association.


Correct:cool:
And a very fair view on the mens tennis nowadays.::hatoff:
Pete's carreer was outstanding - Fed's doing fantastic, but he's not the best ever, at least not yet...
Who is the all time greatest...that's the question, but certain fans unneccessarily try to proclaim Rogi the best ever already.:rolleyes:
:wavey:

maskedmuffin
10-03-2006, 07:42 PM
nonsense

the best ever is not necessarily about records its also about watching the player in his era for the purity of his game, his shotmaking..and trying to translate that over others


The reasons many federer fans like myself feel he is the best ever is simply because of his pure shotmaking at his peak...when hes on top of his game quite simply he is unbeatable...does this speak anything about his mental toughness or what not? no, because most times he never even needs to be streched to win..and when he faces adversity (and believe me i was at the us open blake match, i know how much the crowd, as much as they marvel at him, like to egg him JUST to see some sort of competetive match..he plays against the crowd as much as anyone) he usually responds in a very smart manner.

Does he have certain players he struggles against? sure. just like all the greats before him had certain "annoyances"

I think you misunderstand federer fans..most of us, much like a john mcenroe, tend to analyze the game as if we are playing the man himself, and are just marveled at his abilities.


So yeah, i think hes up there with laver, borg, and sampras in the best ever category right now itself...simply because of the masterful level of tennis he has displayed over the last 4 years.

But you dont have to believe me..just go watch a live match of his..watch the acceleration he has on that forehand..and i dont care what freaking racquet you put in his hand..you wont find a more controlled whippy forehand in the history of tennis..the man can take that pace and give it back 10X faster..its like he is playing men against boys when he has that forehand going.

And i mean it..go watch his forehand live when he is on..then go wathc his movement..his suttleness..then come back and argue with me the best ever..he certainly is in the hunt.

doublebackhand
10-03-2006, 07:47 PM
For those already proclaiming Federer the all-time greatest (and there are more than a few), the Swiss has yet to equal Pete’s Slam mark, his year-end No. 1 mark, or win the Davis Cup. And for those wishing that Rog’s and Pete’s careers did more than barely overlap, don’t worry — Federer will still be going head-to-head against Sampras’ records for years to come.

re-reading what this richard dude wrote, there are just so many flaws in his argument...

a)people out there are not yet proclaiming federer as the all-time greatest, most people are saying he is on the road to be one, especially if he can win the French. some people do think he plays the most spectacular game out there, maybe the best player ever but that is different from claiming him the greatest ever (which is more about # of titles, records, etc).
b) since when being the year end #1 is the most important yardstick in measuring greatness? isnt the total number of weeks more important if u wanna talk about being at #1?
c) while davis cup is important, it is afterall a team sports. it is not exactly one man's job to carry a whole nation thru to championships. au contraire, an olympics gold medal is more personal, yet nationalistic. unfortunately roger hasnt won it yet (still got time, as he wrote in his blog), otherwise there will be one more reason to shut this richard guy up.

pistolmarat
10-03-2006, 07:50 PM
Originally Posted by maskedmuffin
So yeah, i think hes up there with laver, borg, and sampras in the best ever category right now itself...simply because of the masterful level of tennis he has displayed over the last 4 years.
I agree with all you wrote in the above post.:)
He's one of the best ever. He's not the best ever yet like some fedfans claim.

Jim Jones
10-03-2006, 11:04 PM
That was an interesting article. It is true that Sampras was one of the rare breed who was hardly injured. Take the other such as the Americans, Courier, Agassi and Chang who were all injured during various stages of their career. Chang was on a roll until he twisted his ankle. After that he no longer was the same player. Courier had shouldier problems and that ended his career. Agassi had health problems which he can be excused because of his age. But Sampras was hardly injured. Federer may not be injured too because like with Sampras he chooses the tournaments he plays and does not play as much as others in general.

NyGeL
10-03-2006, 11:35 PM
Federer plays phew tournaments compared to the rest of the players, so there are no reason to suffer injurys becouse of this.

Fedever
10-04-2006, 05:51 AM
Considering that Sampras was unable and Federer is unlikely to win the French Open I consider it impossible to consider either the greatest player in the history of tennis.

On achievements, owing to winning the grand slam twice, Laver is the player who has won all 4 of the grand slams and has sufficient domination and victories to be given that recognition. Agassi never was dominated enough or won enough grand slam to be considered the greatest.

These continual discussions fail to recognise that both Sampras and Federer (possibly) failed to win the French Open. Hence, it is hard to consider any player missing one of the 4 biggest events in men's tennis as the greatest.


Federer has not won the French Open YET. I believe that he will.:)

Fedever
10-04-2006, 06:31 AM
nonsense

the best ever is not necessarily about records its also about watching the player in his era for the purity of his game, his shotmaking..and trying to translate that over others


The reasons many federer fans like myself feel he is the best ever is simply because of his pure shotmaking at his peak...when hes on top of his game quite simply he is unbeatable...does this speak anything about his mental toughness or what not? no, because most times he never even needs to be streched to win..and when he faces adversity (and believe me i was at the us open blake match, i know how much the crowd, as much as they marvel at him, like to egg him JUST to see some sort of competetive match..he plays against the crowd as much as anyone) he usually responds in a very smart manner.

Does he have certain players he struggles against? sure. just like all the greats before him had certain "annoyances"

I think you misunderstand federer fans..most of us, much like a john mcenroe, tend to analyze the game as if we are playing the man himself, and are just marveled at his abilities.


So yeah, i think hes up there with laver, borg, and sampras in the best ever category right now itself...simply because of the masterful level of tennis he has displayed over the last 4 years.

But you dont have to believe me..just go watch a live match of his..watch the acceleration he has on that forehand..and i dont care what freaking racquet you put in his hand..you wont find a more controlled whippy forehand in the history of tennis..the man can take that pace and give it back 10X faster..its like he is playing men against boys when he has that forehand going.

And i mean it..go watch his forehand live when he is on..then go wathc his movement..his suttleness..then come back and argue with me the best ever..he certainly is in the hunt.

Exactly! It is not all about records. I believe that Roger Federer is the greatest player ever for these same reasons. Well said!:)