Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
i found great tennis pictures and videos here http://www.tennis-world.org i order the Wimbledon 2001 between Sampras vs Federer never saw this match before and good to see the 2 best tennis player's ever! at this time we were thinking maybe Federer beat sampras as lucky day...but was the first defeat of sampras since 96 quater agaisnt Krajicek and see that now federer is on the same way as sampras did it before...let see!

even if i was a great fan of pete, Andre Agassi say after his final lost against Federer at US Open that he never meet a guy so strong as Federer and i think he know what he talking about...Roger will broke the 14th grand chelem of Pete!?!?

Federer has still won 6 grand chelems in 3 years... Sampras won 14 in 12 years... Federer will broke probably this record at the end of his career!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
tennisworld said:
i found great tennis pictures and videos here http://www.tennis-world.org i order the Wimbledon 2001 between Sampras vs Federer never saw this match before and good to see the 2 best tennis player's ever! at this time we were thinking maybe Federer beat sampras as lucky day...but was the first defeat of sampras since 96 quater agaisnt Krajicek and see that now federer is on the same way as sampras did it before...let see!

even if i was a great fan of pete, Andre Agassi say after his final lost against Federer at US Open that he never meet a guy so strong as Federer and i think he know what he talking about...Roger will broke the 14th grand chelem of Pete!?!?

Federer has still won 6 grand chelems in 3 years... Sampras won 14 in 12 years... Federer will broke probably this record at the end of his career!

1st Grand Slam Titles won by Sampras in his 19 years old
Last Grand Slam Titles won by Sampras in his 31 years old

1st Grand Slam Titles won by Federer in his 21 (would be 22) years old
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,470 Posts
He's got a long way to go before he can be talked about being in Petes league. He's a crazy talent and one day could overtake pete and be the best ever but thats not the case yet. He's still not Becker or Edberg to me yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
flmmkrz said:
He's got a long way to go before he can be talked about being in Petes league. He's a crazy talent and one day could overtake pete and be the best ever but thats not the case yet. He's still not Becker or Edberg to me yet.

Hmm. On what basis could he not have measured up to Becker or Edberg yet, then? Six slams like them, a lot longer at number one, what more do you want - an RG final to match Edberg, perhaps? That's the only thing I can think of. He's certainly outstripped Becker on all counts, and I say that as fan of Boris.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
For me Pete was much better than federer is now. He can overtake Pete of course but need to improve a little bit.
Pete's defeat to Roger in Wimbledon was great Federer's win but for me it was similiar to Roddick USOpen 05 loss to Muller Roddick was in great form and he wasn't palying so bad but Giles was playing the best match of his life(so far) the same was with Federer beating Pete
But in my opinion inform Pete would beat even 2005 Federer (as federer hate palyers which attack so much and Pete was emperor of serve&volley game)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mimi

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
Not the same thing at all - the scorelines of the two matches show that. Roddick played lousy tennis after surrendering the break in the first set and Muller made him pay. Sampras was below-par throughout all his match with Federer, his returns were very poor and ineffective, but he strung together a couple of brilliant ones out of nowhere to get to breakpoint at 4-4 in the final set, and if he'd taken those chances he would still, somehow, have scraped out a win. To me that match isn't an example of an inspired demolition job, e.g. Safin in the US Open final the year before when Sampras didn't do much wrong; instead, it shows just how difficult it was to beat Sampras at Wimbledon even when he was playing badly, it took a superb talent to do it and still it finished 7-5 in the fifth.

I unwisely did an online search of 'Sampras vs Federer' and found another tennis board with a 32-page (yes, you read that right) thread debating the merits of the two players. I got about 4 pages in, and these are long pages, before my head started to ache at the unceasing flow of invective from one particular Sampras fan who liked to use CAPITAL LETTERS a lot, to repeatedly EMPHASISE their point that Federer was IN NO WAY the equal of Sampras, that he was SIGNIFICANTLY inferior. Imagine undomiele with the Sampras fan gene injected into her, and that's more or less what it was like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
Sjengster said:
I unwisely did an online search of 'Sampras vs Federer' and found another tennis board with a 32-page (yes, you read that right) thread debating the merits of the two players. I got about 4 pages in, and these are long pages, before my head started to ache at the unceasing flow of invective from one particular Sampras fan who liked to use CAPITAL LETTERS a lot, to repeatedly EMPHASISE their point that Federer was IN NO WAY the equal of Sampras, that he was SIGNIFICANTLY inferior. Imagine undomiele with the Sampras fan gene injected into her, and that's more or less what it was like.
That person unfortunately raises his ugly and illogical writing style in an unceasing trumpeting of Sampras across many tennis boards. His current reasoning for Sampras being greater is Federer's weak competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,934 Posts
Pete was not under par in that match. They both hit far more winners than errors. Pete said he couldn't read his serve. Return was never Pete's strong point. It was a well played match by both men and Pete would have against anybody except maybe Rafter that year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
Yes, but you're nearly always going to have more winners than errors on grass, both of them were playing routine serve and volley which yields a lot of winners. But look at that miss from Sampras, breakpoint down at 4-4 in the third - probably the crucial turning point in the match, and he dumps his trademark smash into the sidelines.
 

·
Got Premium? I do.
Joined
·
4,253 Posts
Sjengster said:
Yes, but you're nearly always going to have more winners than errors on grass, both of them were playing routine serve and volley which yields a lot of winners. But look at that miss from Sampras, breakpoint down at 4-4 in the third - probably the crucial turning point in the match, and he dumps his trademark smash into the sidelines.
What is your point here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
That he was below par - missing your signature shot on a breakpoint tends to signify that. Nothing unique to this particular match, he was having these sorts of inexplicable misses at virtually every tournament in 2001/02 until the final run to the US Open title.
 

·
Blown Out On the Trail
Joined
·
62,739 Posts
For me, and I'm not a Federer fan, Federer is a much more beautiful player to watch than was Sampras. He also has a better rounded game than did Sampras because it isn't centered on his serve. I think Sampras was better at the net though than Federer is now. Probably Federer won't ever become as good at the net as was Sampras because he doesn't really have to be.
 

·
Got Premium? I do.
Joined
·
4,253 Posts
Sjengster said:
That he was below par - missing your signature shot on a breakpoint tends to signify that. Nothing unique to this particular match, he was having these sorts of inexplicable misses at virtually every tournament in 2001/02 until the final run to the US Open title.
Since when does missing one shot indicate you're below par? Had he consistently missed this shot, then maybe. I never saw the match, so I honestly don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,172 Posts
star said:
For me, and I'm not a Federer fan, Federer is a much more beautiful player to watch than was Sampras. He also has a better rounded game than did Sampras because it isn't centered on his serve. I think Sampras was better at the net though than Federer is now. Probably Federer won't ever become as good at the net as was Sampras because he doesn't really have to be.

Yes even on their only match Sampras was the better player at net, a lot more natural up there and his reflexes are much better than Rogers even at this point. However, Federer reads the game a lot better than Sampras, he also anticipates much better than Sampras and has a much more solid return of serve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
seleshfan said:
Since when does missing one shot indicate you're below par? Had he consistently missed this shot, then maybe. I never saw the match, so I honestly don't know.
This is Sampras at Wimbledon, on a 31-match winning streak, and he hits his trademark shot wide on an absolutely crucial point. He obviously hadn't done that too often in his previous 31 matches at SW19, had he?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,470 Posts
jtipson said:
Hmm. On what basis could he not have measured up to Becker or Edberg yet, then? Six slams like them, a lot longer at number one, what more do you want - an RG final to match Edberg, perhaps? That's the only thing I can think of. He's certainly outstripped Becker on all counts, and I say that as fan of Boris.
Longevity.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top