Chris Chase equates Sampras and Federer
Scott
Give me Federer's career, but Sampras for one match in his prime. Or
give me Sampras' career, but Federer for one match in his prime. Six
of one, half-dozen of the other. The only thing we know for sure is
that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are the two greatest players of
our generation.
Whisper
Duh
13 Wimbledons
10 USOs
30 slams
11 yr end No.1, & more than 10 years No.1 in weeks
9 YECs
Fed more consistent from the baseline, Sampras big firepower from the
baseline & better s/v game.
The ultimate aggressive player always has the edge over the ultimate
baseliner. Just the nature of the styles.
The tennis quality woulda been some of the best ever, & the match scores
reasonably close - but imo the edge Sampras had would translate to
winning 4/5 over Fed.
Superdave
How about the facts?
Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships
Whisper
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:43:58 +1100, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2010 9:05 AM, Scott wrote:
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Feerer-ties-Sampras-with-64-titles-Who-had-the;_ylt=AnX1qz2iImsPlMjYyVmviO85nYcB?urn=ten-279691
>>>
>>> Give me Federer's career, but Sampras for one match in his prime. Or
>>> give me Sampras' career, but Federer for one match in his prime. Six
>>> of one, half-dozen of the other. The only thing we know for sure is
>>> that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are the two greatest players of
>>> our generation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Duh
>>
>> 13 Wimbledons
>> 10 USOs
>> 30 slams
>> 9 YECs
>>
>> Fed more consistent from the baseline, Sampras big firepower from the
>>
>> The ultimate aggressive player always has the edge over the ultimate
>> baseliner. Just the nature of the styles.
>>
>> reasonably close - but imo the edge Sampras had would translate to
>> winning 4/5 over Fed.
>
>
> How about the facts?
>
> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships
7 v 6 no?
What about Rafa v Fed 6-2 in slams?
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:2IednTLk_8ZfG1vR...@westnet.com.au...
> On 10/26/2010 9:05 AM, Scott wrote:
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Feerer-ties-Sampras-with-64-titles-Who-had-the;_ylt=AnX1qz2iImsPlMjYyVmviO85nYcB?urn=ten-279691
>>
>> Give me Federer's career, but Sampras for one match in his prime. Or
>> give me Sampras' career, but Federer for one match in his prime. Six
>> of one, half-dozen of the other. The only thing we know for sure is
>> that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are the two greatest players of
>> our generation.
>>
>
>
> Duh
>
> 13 Wimbledons
> 10 USOs
> 30 slams
> 11 yr end No.1, & more than 10 years No.1 in weeks
> 9 YECs
>
> Fed more consistent from the baseline, Sampras big firepower from the
> baseline & better s/v game.
>
> The ultimate aggressive player always has the edge over the ultimate
> baseliner. Just the nature of the styles.
The ultimate aggressive player does not necessarily translate in having an
edge.
Sampras was despite his power can not overpower Safin from the baseline.
Federer despite appeared to be lacking in power consistantly overpower guys
like Safin and Sampras on Steroid Roddick.
>
> The tennis quality woulda been some of the best ever, & the match scores
> reasonably close - but imo the edge Sampras had would translate to winning
> 4/5 over Fed.
It would be 10:0 on clay for Fed, pretty even in matches on other surfaces.
>
>
>
john
Nadal is not Sampras.
>
>
Ali Asoag
> "Whisper"<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2IednTLk_8ZfG1vR...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 10/26/2010 9:05 AM, Scott wrote:
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Feerer-ties-Sampras-with-64-titles-Who-had-the;_ylt=AnX1qz2iImsPlMjYyVmviO85nYcB?urn=ten-279691
>>>
>>> Give me Federer's career, but Sampras for one match in his prime. Or
>>> give me Sampras' career, but Federer for one match in his prime. Six
>>> of one, half-dozen of the other. The only thing we know for sure is
>>> that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are the two greatest players of
>>> our generation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Duh
>>
>> 13 Wimbledons
>> 10 USOs
>> 30 slams
>> 9 YECs
>>
>> Fed more consistent from the baseline, Sampras big firepower from the
>>
>> The ultimate aggressive player always has the edge over the ultimate
>> baseliner. Just the nature of the styles.
>
> The ultimate aggressive player does not necessarily translate in having an
> edge.
> Sampras was despite his power can not overpower Safin from the baseline.
> Federer despite appeared to be lacking in power consistantly overpower guys
> like Safin and Sampras on Steroid Roddick.
>
>>
>> reasonably close - but imo the edge Sampras had would translate to winning
>> 4/5 over Fed.
>
> It would be 10:0 on clay for Fed, pretty even in matches on other surfaces.
And 1:0 on grass for Fed. This is not even woulda coulda. LOL.
--
Say, how dumb are you, Whisper? Probably you are so dumb that you
can't realize that you are dumb.
Ali Asoag
16 v 14, yes?
> What about Rafa v Fed 6-2 in slams?
Rafa v non-peak Fed, to be precise.
To be more precise: 16 >>> 9.
Ali Asoag
Coulda woulda.
Sampras didn't get to know the passing shots from Fed (well, only once
in 2001) and Nadal.
Whisper
> "Whisper"<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2IednTLk_8ZfG1vR...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 10/26/2010 9:05 AM, Scott wrote:
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Feerer-ties-Sampras-with-64-titles-Who-had-the;_ylt=AnX1qz2iImsPlMjYyVmviO85nYcB?urn=ten-279691
>>>
>>> Give me Federer's career, but Sampras for one match in his prime. Or
>>> give me Sampras' career, but Federer for one match in his prime. Six
>>> of one, half-dozen of the other. The only thing we know for sure is
>>> that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are the two greatest players of
>>> our generation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Duh
>>
>> 13 Wimbledons
>> 10 USOs
>> 30 slams
>> 9 YECs
>>
>> Fed more consistent from the baseline, Sampras big firepower from the
>>
>> The ultimate aggressive player always has the edge over the ultimate
>> baseliner. Just the nature of the styles.
>
> The ultimate aggressive player does not necessarily translate in having an
> edge.
> Sampras was despite his power can not overpower Safin from the baseline.
> Federer despite appeared to be lacking in power consistantly overpower guys
> like Safin and Sampras on Steroid Roddick.
>
Explain Sampras' straight sets win over Safin in 2001 USO semi (Safin
defending champ)?
Wait - Safin had mono?
Whisper
Somehow I don't think history will regard 2005-2009 as anything other
than peak Fed era. Yet another lame Fed excuse - yawn. Take your
losses like a man you wimp.
john
Safin wasn't interested in the semi because Whisy told him it only count in
the final.
PeteWasLucky
that Federer could dominate the best players for an entire match,
while Pete would sit back and trade the first few service games of a
set before unloading on a huge return point to swing things in his
favor. He meant that as a compliment to both, but more so to Sampras.
He knew when to turn it on and was the best big-point player I've ever
seen. In this theoretical meeting, that would be the difference.
Sampras would win his serve more easily and would be able to score one
or two key breaks of Federer during the match."
"Sampras would win his serve more easily"
What does this mean? Does this mean he always won his service game? If
true then he would have never lost a match and would have won 50
slams. People assume and imagine stuff, they remember Sampras' good
serve then they go on with their imagination to draw a picture for
Sampras as the player that never dropped his serve.
Also people underestmate Federer's serve, if I remember correctly in
his match against Sampras, his serving stats was as good as Sampras if
not better.
"He knew when to turn it on"
And in many matches Sampras didn't find the button to turn it on and
lost badly and had his tongue sticking out.
drew
>
> Also people underestmate Federer's serve, if I remember correctly in
> his match against Sampras, his serving stats was as good as Sampras if
> not better.
>
> "He knew when to turn it on"
>
> And in many matches Sampras didn't find the button to turn it on and
> lost badly and had his tongue sticking out.
That is the disadvantage of living or dying by the serve. Pete was
really savvy and won
so many sets with a single strategic break of serve. The problems
started when he'd
encounter somebody who's serve wouldn't crack under pressure or a guy
like Hewitt who
would return everything. Then the pressure gets placed right back on
the server and
there is greater pressure not only to hold but to get that critical
break.
Federer has a great serve but as with his groundstrokes there has been
a slight erosion
of consistency in the last 3 years or so...enough room for an
opportunist to get a break.
Patrick Kehoe
Precisely! And Annacone is trying to find new strategic ratio mixes
for a mortar-job on the Fed high end game...
P
Shakes
Hardcore Fed fans underestimate Sampras and hardcore Sampras fans
underestimate Fed.
The truth is both had their strengths and weaknesses. To me, Fed was
the better player overall - had more options and could play a lot more
shots, had better footwork, better returns etc.. But Sampras must have
something extra too, to compensate, otherwise how could he win 14
slams ? He had a better serve (1st and 2nd) and volley. He was
stronger mentally.
Tennis success is a combination of talent/game and mental strength.
So, IMO, Fed was superior in the game department while Sampras, to
some extent, compensated by being better in the mental department. The
game part is what gets Fed to so many F's/SF's on seemingly autopilot
mode, while the mental part is what gets Sampras to hit clutch 2nd
serves and volleys when facing his arch rivals.
All I know is that if Fed had had Sampras' mental strength, he
could've had 18 slams instead of 16 (7 Wims and 5 AO).
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ironically, early in his career Sampras was labelled at 'mentally
soft'... a kid with a big serve and running forehand but not the
toughest competitor... the same was said of Tom Watson in golf, and he
went on to be one of the toughest competitors ever in big time golf...
Sampras certainly found his inner strength as resolve, when it came to
the 'big' moments...
P
Ali Asoag
2004 - 2007, to be precise. The fact that you even didn't consider 2004,
says enough about your shifted biased tennis "knowledge".
Make peace with yourself. Relax. It's just a game that Pete lost.
Whisper
> On Oct 27, 8:58 am, PeteWasLucky<waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also people underestmate Federer's serve, if I remember correctly in
>> his match against Sampras, his serving stats was as good as Sampras if
>> not better.
>>
>> "He knew when to turn it on"
>>
>> And in many matches Sampras didn't find the button to turn it on and
>> lost badly and had his tongue sticking out.
>
> That is the disadvantage of living or dying by the serve. Pete was
> really savvy and won
> so many sets with a single strategic break of serve. The problems
> started when he'd
> encounter somebody who's serve wouldn't crack under pressure or a guy
> like Hewitt who
> would return everything. Then the pressure gets placed right back on
> the server and
> there is greater pressure not only to hold but to get that critical
> break.
>
You do realise you're making a fool of yourself?
You're actually suggesting Hewitt had surpassed Sampras in absolute ability.
There isn't a single expert on the planet who would be that bold.
Whisper
>>
>> And in many matches Sampras didn't find the button to turn it on and
>> lost badly and had his tongue sticking out.
>
> Hardcore Fed fans underestimate Sampras and hardcore Sampras fans
> underestimate Fed.
>
> The truth is both had their strengths and weaknesses. To me, Fed was
> the better player overall - had more options and could play a lot more
> shots, had better footwork, better returns etc.. But Sampras must have
> something extra too, to compensate, otherwise how could he win 14
> slams ? He had a better serve (1st and 2nd) and volley. He was
> stronger mentally.
>
> Tennis success is a combination of talent/game and mental strength.
> So, IMO, Fed was superior in the game department while Sampras, to
> some extent, compensated by being better in the mental department. The
> game part is what gets Fed to so many F's/SF's on seemingly autopilot
> mode, while the mental part is what gets Sampras to hit clutch 2nd
> serves and volleys when facing his arch rivals.
>
> All I know is that if Fed had had Sampras' mental strength, he
> could've had 18 slams instead of 16 (7 Wims and 5 AO).
>
>
>
I agree the tennis Sampras/Fed woulda played in same era would be epic,
but the advantages Sampras has would edge Fed 4/5.
MBDunc
> I agree the tennis Sampras/Fed woulda played in same era would be epic,
> but the advantages Sampras has would edge Fed 4/5.
Sampras went 14/18 in his slam finals = 77,8%
What you actually say with 4/5 (80%) is that Fed on average is lesser
thread to Sampras in slam final than combined average of Edberg/Agassi/
Ivo/Pioline/Chang/Hewitt/Moya and co.
And above does not include clay where Fed would have an enormous
advantage.
.mikko
Whisper
Sampras' 4 slam r/ups are misleading. The 2 he lost in 2000 & 2001
aren't indicative of his ability, given he was old & close to retirement.
The 1995 AO final loss to Agassi came when he was emotionally drained
from his coach's brain cancer battle, & even then he had 2 set points to
lead 2 sets to 1 - & even then it's only the AO.
The only real loss he suffered was to Edberg in '92 USO final. Edberg
had vast advantage in experience & that loss really pissed Sampras off,
because he was beating Edberg like a drum in the tune-ups (62 63 type
scores). Sampras was actually playing far better tennis, but Edberg
used his experience to win the big points at the right time. He vowed
r/up would never be good enough for him any more, & he went on a real
tear winning 12 of his next 13 slam finals.
When I consider 4/5 advantage to Sampras over Fed I'm considering a
level playing field.
Iceberg
> On 10/27/2010 3:46 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/27/2010 1:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
> >> On 10/26/2010 4:58 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >>> On 10/26/2010 9:18 PM, Superdave wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 10/26/2010 9:05 AM, Scott wrote:
2007 - his peak ended there, LOL
MBDunc
> On 10/28/2010 7:08 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>
> > On 28 loka, 10:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> I agree the tennis Sampras/Fed woulda played in same era would be epic,
> >> but the advantages Sampras has would edge Fed 4/5.
>
> > Sampras went 14/18 in his slam finals = 77,8%
>
> > What you actually say with 4/5 (80%) is that Fed on average is lesser
> > thread to Sampras in slam final than combined average of Edberg/Agassi/
> > Ivo/Pioline/Chang/Hewitt/Moya and co.
>
> > And above does not include clay where Fed would have an enormous
> > advantage.
>
> > .mikko
>
> Sampras' 4 slam r/ups are misleading. The 2 he lost in 2000 & 2001
> aren't indicative of his ability, given he was old & close to retirement.
That is subjective. Sampras gave flat performance at 2001 final sure
but credits to Hewitt for playing one of his matches of life (+ windy
conditions favored Hewitt). At the time of 2000 USO loss Sampras was
still heading for year-end #1 with recent Wimb title. (and you
apparently do not remember what you did post around that time (autumn
2000) when you actually popped here).
> The 1995 AO final loss to Agassi came when he was emotionally drained
> from his coach's brain cancer battle, & even then he had 2 set points to
> lead 2 sets to 1 - & even then it's only the AO.
So he was mentally weak? If you dig deep enough you will find similar
excuses about every player there is for every match. Whether it is
dying father in the hospital, sister with breast cancer, close friends/
relatives in trouble, other personal problems....
> The only real loss he suffered was to Edberg in '92 USO final. Edberg
> had vast advantage in experience & that loss really pissed Sampras off,
> because he was beating Edberg like a drum in the tune-ups (62 63 type
> scores). Sampras was actually playing far better tennis, but Edberg
> used his experience to win the big points at the right time.
Funny thing of above is that if I would give Sampras any room for GS
final loss excuses it is 92 USO final. See above and add Sampras
stomach
problems in to mix.
.mikko
MBDunc
> apparently do not remember what you did post around that time (autumn
> 2000) when you actually popped here).
Just when I posted this. Congs to whisper about his ten year existence
here.
Is this your first post (20th Oct 2000)?
"Well, Rios was never really a great player. He just happened to win a
couple
of tournaments when the really good players where out of action. Who
really
thinks he was ever the best player on the planet? The guy is a bit of
a joke
really.
It's an insult to compare Wilander to Rios. "
.mikko
Pelle Svanslös
Even as a rabid Rios fan, I must agree. It's a good post actually.
--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous
Scott
> On 10/27/2010 1:19 AM, john wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:2IednTLk_8ZfG1vR...@westnet.com.au...
> >> On 10/26/2010 9:05 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> >>> Give me Federer's career, but Sampras for one match in his prime. Or
> >>> give me Sampras' career, but Federer for one match in his prime. Six
> >>> of one, half-dozen of the other. The only thing we know for sure is
> >>> that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are the two greatest players of
> >>> our generation.
>
> >> Duh
>
> >> 13 Wimbledons
> >> 10 USOs
> >> 30 slams
> >> 11 yr end No.1,& more than 10 years No.1 in weeks
> >> 9 YECs
>
> >> Fed more consistent from the baseline, Sampras big firepower from the
> >> baseline& better s/v game.
>
> >> The ultimate aggressive player always has the edge over the ultimate
> >> baseliner. Just the nature of the styles.
>
> > The ultimate aggressive player does not necessarily translate in having an
> > edge.
> > Sampras was despite his power can not overpower Safin from the baseline.
> > Federer despite appeared to be lacking in power consistantly overpower guys
> > like Safin and Sampras on Steroid Roddick.
>
> Explain Sampras' straight sets win over Safin in 2001 USO semi (Safin
> defending champ)?
>
that joke must be endlessly endearing where you come from.
Ali Asoag
correct.
Ali Asoag
> On 10/28/2010 7:08 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>> On 28 loka, 10:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> I agree the tennis Sampras/Fed woulda played in same era would be epic,
>>> but the advantages Sampras has would edge Fed 4/5.
>>
>> Sampras went 14/18 in his slam finals = 77,8%
>>
>> What you actually say with 4/5 (80%) is that Fed on average is lesser
>> thread to Sampras in slam final than combined average of Edberg/Agassi/
>> Ivo/Pioline/Chang/Hewitt/Moya and co.
>>
>> And above does not include clay where Fed would have an enormous
>> advantage.
>>
>> .mikko
>
>
>
> Sampras' 4 slam r/ups are misleading. The 2 he lost in 2000 & 2001
> aren't indicative of his ability, given he was old & close to retirement.
Good that you finally admitted Fed's losses in FO2008, Wimby2008 and
AO2009 were due to his decline driven by mono.
> The 1995 AO final loss to Agassi came when he was emotionally drained
> from his coach's brain cancer battle, & even then he had 2 set points to
> lead 2 sets to 1 - & even then it's only the AO.
This is like Nadal's bad 2008 due to his parents' divorce ...
> The only real loss he suffered was to Edberg in '92 USO final. Edberg
> had vast advantage in experience
Like his experience still didn't let him win against baby Fed at Wimby2001?
> & that loss really pissed Sampras off,
> because he was beating Edberg like a drum in the tune-ups (62 63 type
> scores).
LOL, I thought Sampras was man of slams? Why count those tune-ups?
> Sampras was actually playing far better tennis,
subjective as always
> When I consider 4/5 advantage to Sampras over Fed I'm considering a
> level playing field.
You mean certainly Sampras = 4/5 Fed = 80% Fed. Agreed!
john
> On 10/28/2010 7:08 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>> On 28 loka, 10:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> I agree the tennis Sampras/Fed woulda played in same era would be epic,
>>> but the advantages Sampras has would edge Fed 4/5.
>>
>> Sampras went 14/18 in his slam finals = 77,8%
>>
>> What you actually say with 4/5 (80%) is that Fed on average is lesser
>> thread to Sampras in slam final than combined average of Edberg/Agassi/
>> Ivo/Pioline/Chang/Hewitt/Moya and co.
>>
>> And above does not include clay where Fed would have an enormous
>> advantage.
>>
>> .mikko
>
>
>
> Sampras' 4 slam r/ups are misleading. The 2 he lost in 2000 & 2001 aren't
> indicative of his ability, given he was old & close to retirement.
He was the reigning Wimbledon champion when he lost to Safin and was
also world No.1 at the time of the loss. So he was near his peak form when
he lost to Safin. 2000 was his best year since 1997. Two guys Sampras
played in those final were playing the match of their lives. I have never
seen any player punishing Sampras' serve on a fast hard court as Safin and
Hewitt did in those two USO finals.
>
> The 1995 AO final loss to Agassi came when he was emotionally drained from
> his coach's brain cancer battle, & even then he had 2 set points to lead 2
> sets to 1 - & even then it's only the AO.
Sorry he still lost.
>
> The only real loss he suffered was to Edberg in '92 USO final. Edberg had
> vast advantage in experience & that loss really pissed Sampras off,
> because he was beating Edberg like a drum in the tune-ups (62 63 type
> scores). Sampras was actually playing far better tennis, but Edberg used
> his experience to win the big points at the right time. He vowed r/up
> would never be good enough for him any more, & he went on a real tear
> winning 12 of his next 13 slam finals.
Pete had the advantage of playing a shorter match against Courier and Edberg
was stretched out to play the longest match in USO history at the time. So
Sampras had the physical advantage. He was beating Edberg like a drum yes
and Lendl beat Edberg with the same score line in New Haven the previous
year
and lost to Edberg in USO in straight. They were tune ups.
>
> When I consider 4/5 advantage to Sampras over Fed I'm considering a level
> playing field.
On today's surface it would be more likely 3:7 in favour of Federer. He
would more
likely to hold his own against Sampras on both fast hard court and grass and
would
win even more matches on slow hard court and most like all matches on clay.
>
>