federer vs sampras [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

federer vs sampras

hedgehog
03-25-2004, 03:09 AM
old question thats probably grown whiskers by now but can federer win more slams than sampras?? and match his achievements??, we are only in early stages but signs look good so what do you think???

Tennis Fool
03-25-2004, 03:12 AM
Can we at least get through 3 more Slams before asking this question?

Or alternatively, where was Pete in his career at Fed's age?

LCeh
03-25-2004, 03:13 AM
I didn't really watch Sampras that much, because I wasn't interested in Tennis back then, but from commentators, it seems that Roger has a more complete game than Pete, which is very important in winning against lots of different players. Agassi says that Roger returns better, Pete serves better, Roger moves better, but Pete volleys better.

Like you said, it's still very early, and I hate to go so far. I wish we can start talking about this when Roger wins his 13th slam... ;)

MisterQ
03-25-2004, 03:34 AM
Sorry to state a cliché here, but Sampras' greatest weapon was his mental strength. Astonishing ability to pull his act together when it counted most.

There is no doubt that Fed has equal the talent of Sampras in term of technique and creativity. The way Fed has played the past few months it is easy to think that he could match Sampras' slam achievement. But who knows. We have to see how his mind, his drive, and his competitive spirit hold up. He might end up more in the McEnroe/Connors/Lendl/Agassi bracket, which still isn't too shabby. ;)

LCeh
03-25-2004, 03:58 AM
Very good point Q, and I absolutely agree. From these past months, there is no doubt Roger has grown very strong mentally, and I am pretty sure he will continue to improve. To be honest, I am more concerned about his competitive spirit.

hedgehog
03-25-2004, 03:59 AM
so thats a no then? hmmmm LOL

LCeh
03-25-2004, 04:01 AM
It's just that it's not realistic to make any prediction about his total number of slam when he is still only 22. Nobody can tell. There are so many factors, physical health, mental health, desire, competition, etc.

Havok
03-25-2004, 04:29 AM
interesting how Federer is always the player used in your poll choices :scratch: instead of Sampras will have more slams, it's Federer will win less slams

Dirk
03-25-2004, 04:32 AM
Roger's desire is there and he wants to be number one (slams needed) for as long as he possibly can. He also wants to win many titles he said and different ones. We will have to wait and see. Roger has been playing the big important points very well recently. Who knows but if he ends up with half of pete's slams I will be happy. I just hope he has at least one on every surface.

LCeh
03-25-2004, 04:35 AM
That isn't really interesting though. What's more interesting is that he called Pete Hairy Monkey... :lol:

J. Corwin
03-25-2004, 08:35 AM
Too early to tell. "Everyone" is jumping on the Fed bandwagon now but who knows what will happen in the next few years.

Satanic Pasteur
03-25-2004, 09:03 AM
Or alternatively, where was Pete in his career at Fed's age?

He already had four Slams, 2 Super 9, 1 singles championship (Masters) and around 25 titles overall.

WyveN
03-25-2004, 01:38 PM
Too early to tell. "Everyone" is jumping on the Fed bandwagon now but who knows what will happen in the next few years.

Yes rather pathetic all these threads now that Roger has won a couple of titles.
I certainly expect Roger to win many more slams but I see a certain fragility in his game that wont let him get anywhere close to Pete's record. Can't really explain it and it is a shame as he certainly has the talent to win 14 slams.

vene
03-25-2004, 04:37 PM
I don't think it's just winning the titles, also the way he played and it seems he has finally got his mental game together.

Chris Seahorse
03-25-2004, 10:28 PM
Its funny how total number of grand slams is always used as the no 1 yardstick for how good a player is. I think many other criteria matter just as much. Sampras`s record on clay has always made me doubt his worthiness to be considered the best player of the open era. The best on grass? Without question. The best player of the 90`s? Only Agassi comes close. So while Federer may not finish with as many slams as Sampras if he can win 1 or 2 French and get into double figures in slams won I think that might be enough to put him into consideration as the best of the open era.

LCeh
03-25-2004, 10:33 PM
Good point Chris. :yeah:

denim
03-25-2004, 10:38 PM
I agree Chris, grand slams shouldn't be used as yardstick of players ability, Federer beat sampras at wimbledon and that proved or disproved nothing.

federer is best player right at this moment in time end of story, and all these comparisons are silly when hes only been around 5 minutes.

Dirk
03-26-2004, 09:07 AM
Chris is right. Sampras will always likely be the best, but if Roger could win at least two slams on every surface he could challenge for that title no matter how many slams he is far back. Pete's number one record will never be match but it should be taken into consideration and he 5 year end wins too. I just hope Roger stays healthy and makes the most of his career till he is about 30.

CmonAussie
03-26-2004, 03:45 PM
* If I were in Federer's shoes I'd be trying to win the Career Slam above winning multiple Slams at the same place. In my view it would be far more satisfying to win All-4-Slams as Agassi achieved then winning 7-Wimbledons & just dominating in boring hairy monkey fashion.
-->> Of course if Fedex manages to win RG & USO in the next couple of years then I guess his next objective would be to win them all again.

Realistically I can see Roger ending up in the same boat as Agassi, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander etc...
Ninja is a much more well rounded person than Android, so I don't think he'd even want to win 14GS~ that's just greedy man!

Domino
03-26-2004, 03:51 PM
So setting a record for number of slams one and year ends at number 1 is not better than one win at both Wimbledon and RG, with multiple losses in the finals?

renatoal
03-26-2004, 04:22 PM
I don't know, but I will like if he won more, because for me, he is better than Sampras !!

SaFed2005
03-26-2004, 05:13 PM
But dont u guys think it's much harder to win grandslams at the time? There is just so much more good players. So much more competetion... And then there are players that are inconsisten but can on their great day beat almost anybody. We cant count other players like Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Nalbandian ,etc (even Agassi heheh until he retires). out. They are all still improving...

So I think even if Federer wins half as many slams as Sampras it's still amazing... You can always have a surprise winner these days at slams or masters or any other tourneys... But they way Federer has been playing the last couple of months... wow... thats all I got to say... wow!!! He is beating everyone at the moment.... He's in my opionion doing better than Roddicks streak during the hardcourt season last year... MAsters cup, then australian open, then indiana wells all with only 1 loss in the middle to Henman... It's amazing./....

Dirk
03-26-2004, 05:57 PM
Wow Come Aussie used my Ninja nickname, remind me never to argue you with ever again. ;) I really really do hope he wins the Grand Slam this year. If Roger wins 2+ of each slam event I think he will be be placed on a higher level than Pete. I just hope he has a long career.

lsy
03-26-2004, 06:04 PM
My interest in this thread is actually not on the topic itselt but what different analysis can I find here than the other thread of "Can Federer win all slams and TMS" or "'Can Federer win all slams" etc etc

Even as a Federer fan, I'm getting bored not with his wins but with this similar discussion :p

And Dirk, I believe your ninja Dubai and IW mission reports are long overdue ;)

Dirk
03-26-2004, 06:07 PM
Its coming Lsy. I hope to have it posted by the end of the hour. Its over 3 pages long so far. :devil: It's my Gone With the Wind :worship:

lsy
03-26-2004, 06:20 PM
Great! I'm sure it will make an interesting read to go with my morning coffee tomorrow :)

Yes rather pathetic all these threads now that Roger has won a couple of titles.
I certainly expect Roger to win many more slams but I see a certain fragility in his game that wont let him get anywhere close to Pete's record. Can't really explain it and it is a shame as he certainly has the talent to win 14 slams.

WyverN, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to give you a deadline for finding this "certain fragility in his game" and let Rogi know ASAP so that he can go ahead and win the 14 slams and break whatever record there is to break ;)

J. Corwin
03-27-2004, 12:40 AM
If Roger wins at 2+ of each slam, then that puts him at 8 slams at the very least already. He'll probably win a couple more Wimbledons (and maybe the other two) than RG, etc...so that would put him in the double digits already. He'll have 2 career grand slams (and maybe even 1 Grand Slam?)...and he'll naturally end at least a few years at #1 with all those big wins....

So if you add all that up, he'd have a superior career to Pete's. (A big IF, if Roger can achieve that).