[RafitoGoat]

Originally Posted by SetSampras

Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.

Very telling

[MrChopin]

Originally Posted by SetSampras

We put that into perspective its not that great.

To preface, Sampras got his 5 wins by beating his chief pigeon Agassi three times and then giants in Pioline and Chang. Baffled that you would think this real competition by comparison, but to humor you and continue on...

Agassi- Federer's wins broken down older Andre whos best days had passed. Well in 04, 34 year old Andre took Fed to 5 sets. Andre younger and towards his prime or in his prime out of 4 matches against Pete at the USO, could only manage to take 1 set off of Sampras. Andre came close at 34 to take out Federer. In 05, Andre finished playing 3 straight 5 setters and was giving Fed some trouble there for a while until Andre began feeling his age and already hindered with a bad back made a good match out of it. Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.

The '04 5 setter was in terrible conditions, but ok, they had a close one. Consider their rivalry after Fed won a slam: H2H 8-0 in favor of Fed, 20-5 in terms of sets. Agassi wasn't close to Fed, not that he wasn't a tough final in '05.

Roddick- LOL!!! Please.. Sampras at 31 years old whiped Roddick off the court at the USO. I assume Connors would too. Roddick couldnt even handle an Agassi in his mid 30s. Fed has dominated Roddick but I see no reason why greats like Agassi (he already has) Sampras in his prime and Connors would dominate Roddick too. Sampras did at 31 in his final year. Hes a good player but with many holes in his game to be exploited. So in this perspective, Roddick is nothing special. Never has been.

Your assumptions don't mean anything and you have no proof to go by. Roddick smacked Pete aside twice before their USO match. That's H2H 2-1 Roddick. So play the "31 years old card." You're only preaching to your fellow geriatric nostalgiatards by trying to argue that this indicates Roddick is weak compared to guys from the 90s.

Djoker and Murray- Murray's first slam final and had already finished player Nadal two days in a row prior due to the rain delays while Fed had two days off to prepare and Murray got screwed by scheduling. Djoker has not solidified himself as any type of slam winner yet. Hes still very much unproven. Murray as well to be honest. Neither have reached that level of legitimacy when it comes to slams and both had a crumby 2009 season as far as slams are concerned. That may develop but at this point in time.. Both are slam handicapped

Murray was in great summer form, arguably the best he's ever been in. Djokovic was one slam away from winning his first and also in near-peak form.

If any part of that was confusing: Agassi 3x, Pioline and Chang. It took Sampras 12 years to muster that.

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by GOATPARERA

Very telling

+1........

[JediFed]

Connors. He has the equivalent of 8 wins.

[Corey Feldman]

Lendl deserves a mention for 8 finals in a row

[Corey Feldman]

Originally Posted by SetSampras

Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.

Originally Posted by GOATPARERA

Very telling

so?

its also telling that Agassi kicked his arse twice on HC's down in AO

[SaFed2005]

I think that Sampras and Federer at their peak levels would split wins at the USO. On the other hand, both at their peak level would beat Connors.

[laurie-1]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

so?

its also telling that Agassi kicked his arse twice on HC's down in AO

At the US Open Agassi was always playing catch up in the three finals. Each time being two sets down and in 1995 and 2002 had to work extremely hard to claim the 3rd set only to lose the 4th late on each time.

However, in 1995 Aussie final, Pete had 3 straight set points in the 3rd set tiebreak to go 2 sets to 1 up, and in 2000 he was two points away from victory in the 4th set tiebreak so both matches in Australia were very close and could have gone Pete's way if he took his opportunities but at the US Open Agassi was always under the cosh.

I think matches between Sampras and Federer would have been very interesting at the US Open - it could have happened in 2001 but Agassi beat Federer in the last 16. A 29 year old Sampras at Wimbledon played into Federer's hands because Sampras was coming in all the time on grass (although of course it was still very close).

A younger Sampras at the US Open was more confident in his movement and from the baseline so stayed back on 2nd serve exclusively and didn't give his opponents as many targets to pass him.

It may have been a combination of injuries but I think Sampras' results and consistency dropped after he made the decision to attack the net on both serves on non grass surfaces from 2000 to 2002. He also changed his return game. He would often run around the backhand to hit the big forehand return on the ad court at key moments up to 1999 but in 2000 just started chipping and charging all the time instead. So Sampras made fundamental changes to his whole game.

A mid 1990s Sampras against a mid 2000s Federer would have been a great series of matches.

Connors against either guy would have been fantastic and probably close because it would not have been just a Tennis match based on skill and mental courage, it would have been a combination of war and mind games and getting the crowd involved to get under his opponents skin, they would have to overcome those factors if they wanted to beat Connors.

[SetSampras]

Originally Posted by MrChopin

To preface, Sampras got his 5 wins by beating his chief pigeon Agassi three times and then giants in Pioline and Chang. Baffled that you would think this real competition by comparison, but to humor you and continue on...



The '04 5 setter was in terrible conditions, but ok, they had a close one. Consider their rivalry after Fed won a slam: H2H 8-0 in favor of Fed, 20-5 in terms of sets. Agassi wasn't close to Fed, not that he wasn't a tough final in '05.



Your assumptions don't mean anything and you have no proof to go by. Roddick smacked Pete aside twice before their USO match. That's H2H 2-1 Roddick. So play the "31 years old card." You're only preaching to your fellow geriatric nostalgiatards by trying to argue that this indicates Roddick is weak compared to guys from the 90s.



Murray was in great summer form, arguably the best he's ever been in. Djokovic was one slam away from winning his first and also in near-peak form.

If any part of that was confusing: Agassi 3x, Pioline and Chang. It took Sampras 12 years to muster that.

And Most of Roger's wins came over his own respective Pigeons like Davydenko, and Roddick etc? Pete has had some victories over some questionable opponents, but you think Roger hasnt? How "slam di capped" Roddick? Roddick is 2-1 to Pete. But , dont forget was primarily concerned at the time with winning that last slam before retiring. Pete got the most important win over Roddick. Thumping him at the USO and even Boris Becker telling Roddick to get the hell out of the stadium Pete was abusing him so bad. Hell mid 30s Agassi is 5-1 in the h2h vs RODDICK!!! You talk about Pioline and Chang. Has Roddick even posed any more of a threat to Roger that Pioline and Chang were to Sampras? Roddick is 2-19 in the h2h vs Federer. For such a "great" player as u believe Roddick is, thats simply inexcusable. You could give Roddick a 2 set lead over Fed in 10 slam finals in a row and still find a way to squander them all. See Wimbeldon this year and others for example. Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Baghaditis etc , is hardly what I would call an all star cast of multi slam winners wither

[JediFed]

Of the players with double digit slam semifinals, all but one have won multiple slams.

Roddick is the only one who has not done so.

Were talking a pretty exclusive club,

Connors,
Lendl,
Borg,
McEnroe,
Wilander,
Becker,
Edberg,
Sampras,
Agassi,
Federer
Nadal

As good a list of tennis royalty as any. Also on the list, Roddick. Says more about Federer that he's turned a Wilander level of player into his pigeon.

[SetSampras]

Originally Posted by JediFed

Of the players with double digit slam semifinals, all but one have won multiple slams.

Roddick is the only one who has not done so.

Were talking a pretty exclusive club,

Connors,
Lendl,
Borg,
McEnroe,
Wilander,
Becker,
Edberg,
Sampras,
Agassi,
Federer
Nadal

As good a list of tennis royalty as any. Also on the list, Roddick. Says more about Federer that he's turned a Wilander level of player into his pigeon.

Are u really comparing Roddick to Wilander? WOW!! I dont think Wilander would have ended up with a lousy 2-19 h2h against Fed. Wilander won 7 Grandslams. With or without Fed, Roddick never would have touched 7 slams.

[tangerine_dream]

Connors. Nobody could work the crowd and get them excited about tennis the way he did.

[MalwareDie]

Roddick shouldn't even have his one Slam.

[fsoica]

for any poll involving Federer I'd vote to please the haters, because the guy IS JUST THE GOAT ! nothing more...eat that, haters !

[JediFed]

Are u really comparing Roddick to Wilander? WOW!! I dont think Wilander would have ended up with a lousy 2-19 h2h against Fed. Wilander won 7 Grandslams. With or without Fed, Roddick never would have touched 7 slams.

He'd have 4 Wimbledons, and possibly another 2 USOs.

He has lost 6 times to Federer in just those two slams.