Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sampras v Federer

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Sampras v Federer

    >>But
    >it demolished Sampras at Flushing Meadow (2000?) - that was special.<

    pete was expected to win that & just didn't turn up that day

    it may have been that he wasn't that familiar with safin's game & didn't adapt

    look at what happened the following year, when he got to the final & in the process went thru the hardest draw that a slam has ever produced - he beat the 3 preceding champs to get there - agassi ( in probably he greatest tennis match ever played - 4 tie-break sets where neither man lost their serve - this is what fed hasn't faced ), rafter & then safin ( who he destroyed, once he'd learnt how the mercurial guy's game functioned )

    yes, he got blown away in the final to hewitt, but he was exhausted getting thru that draw ( but remember, he beat hewitt the year before in the semis, so he knew he coud beat him )

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sampras v Federer

      I'm deliberately avoiding the question, because I just don't know! Time will tell.... I know that the best tennis performance I've ever seen was Mac's destruction of Connors at Wimbledon in '84. It was an honour to have seen it, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could have played better in one match.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sampras v Federer

        >>Trouble is that Safin's absolute best is almost an unknown quantity, it's so rarely seen.

        Boy is that correct. The best question is who do you pick, Safin's girlfriend or James Blake's girlfriend. Like we'd ever get to do so, of course!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sampras v Federer

          >Ahhh, yes, and George Mikan would have been a match for Jordan or Shaq... NOT!

          This is the old argument that Jesse Owens was not as good as Justin Gatlin because he ran slower times. All you can compare is how good, how dominant, they were against their own eras. Nobody has dominated tennis like Laver did in 1961-62, and 1968-69. He won the Grand Slam twice, for goodness sakes! He was banned from all the Grand Slams 1963-67 because he played professionally. Had he played in them in those 5 years, he would have put the record for most Grand Slam titles out of reach. As it is, he won 11.

          And for Federer, he needs a bit more time probably to be called the GOAT. What they say now about Federer, they said in 1974-75 about Jimmy Connors who was unstoppable at the time. He won the finals of Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974 with the total loss of 7 games. In 1974, he only did not win the Grand Slam probably, because the French refused his entry because he was playing World Team Tennis.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sampras v Federer

            El D.

            I agree that the year Pete lost to Hewitt in the US Open was exhaustion, as he has to mow thru 3 former champs to get to the final. This is why I was sure he was not DONE back then. That final was an anomaly, but even wiith that, if he had decent backhand, he could still have won it.

            However, you guys use the wrong criteria to judge Federer. You should look at his stroke play, serve and match temperment to understand what makes him special. This man is hitting near impossible shots, can play back, all court AND serve and volley. He is a complete player.

            Federer losing to Henman should be viewed in context, he was young and perfecting his craft. Hell, I recall when Fed was Junior Wimbledon champ back in 1998, and look how many lean years came in bewtten that and his eventual triumph there. Fed is just 24 now and has been dominant for 2 years or so.

            BTW, I liked Rafter, but his serve sucked and his volley had elements of 'pop-up' to it, not as bad as Yannick Noah, but eneough to exploit it. He could not volley like the very best, ie McEnroe, Laver and Edberg. Now, if Phillipousis could just have volleyed better with THAT serve, THEN we would be talking top notch.

            Long and short, if Fed keeps going, he will be GOAT in another 3 years.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sampras v Federer

              I don't know who would win at their "best". Maybe Sampras would take Roger. But, because of his complete balanced play, Federer has many more "best" days on any surface than Pete.

              Federer is a complete package. Being a complete package he will ultimately give Federer longevity, consistency and the ability to handle any opponenet on any surface. So, as great as Sampras was I would have to agree with Agassi.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sampras v Federer

                >That final was an anomaly, but even
                >wiith that, if he had decent backhand, he could still have won it.

                that's a joke !

                i've never heard anyone ever say pistol had a weak backhand !


                >BTW, I liked Rafter, but his serve sucked and
                >his volley had elements of 'pop-up' to it, not as bad as Yannick Noah, but
                >eneough to exploit it. He could not volley like the very best, ie McEnroe,
                >Laver and Edberg. Now, if Phillipousis could just have volleyed better with
                >THAT serve, THEN we would be talking top notch.<

                there was absolutely nothing wrong with rafter's serve !

                it had the bigest "kick" of anyone's & pistol admitted that's what made it so difficult to return & hence break

                after bouncing, it woud rear up to ~ shoulder height making it so difficult to keep the return down low

                with high balls coming back to volley away, rafter didn't need a great volley - he had easy put aways resulting from the serve

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sampras v Federer

                  there was
                  >absolutely nothing wrong with rafter's serve !

                  it had the bigest "kick" of
                  >anyone's & pistol admitted that's what made it so difficult to return & hence
                  >break

                  after bouncing, it woud rear up to ~ shoulder height making it so
                  >difficult to keep the return down low

                  with high balls coming back to volley
                  >away, rafter didn't need a great volley - he had easy put aways resulting from
                  >the serve

                  Well said . Rafter's serve, especially his second, was a beast - up there with Edberg's. He was truly underestimated, especially in England - I'll be daring here and say that Joe Public with his Wimbledon tickets hasn't got a clue about tennis - 2 weeks a year and screaming "C'mon Tim!" isn't quite enough. GB tennis is a joke, and that cannot be stressed enough.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sampras v Federer

                    You dont need anyone to tell you Sampras had a weak backhand...just look for yourself.

                    Everyone in my circle knew it. It was not reliable and was easy prey at Roland Garros with the long rallies.

                    He tended to lift it too much and go long when pressures. It was not a well controlled stroke. Compare him to Fed or Lendl with their singlehanded backhands. THOSE are waepons, not just means to keep the point going. How many winners did Pete get of the backhand against top players?

                    Rafters bserve came from a closed racket face and yes while he could get lift, it was not particularly angled or powerful. No one feared his serve...how many aces did he average???

                    He was a decent volleyer but tended to 'pop up', a fatal flaw in my books. Lendl would have eaten him for breafast, lunch, tea and dinner.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sampras v Federer

                      Vern,

                      who was underestimated, Edberg or Rafter?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sampras v Federer

                        Vern

                        Edberg and Rafter had similar serves and yes they could be tricky, especially on faster surfaces, but the dont compare to Sampras, Fed, Roddick, Safin, Poussis or Zedski.

                        Crafter and Edberg had success more than some of the bigger servers because they have a better al round game, that is they could play. Zedski is just a big server.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sampras v Federer

                          >Vern,

                          who was underestimated, Edberg or Rafter?

                          By me, neither. But here I meant Rafter - his best performances went unnoticed in the UK. Edberg won Wimbledon, which makes a big difference according to the part-time fans that plague British tennis.

                          BTW, my brother wants me to say that Edberg's victory over Courier ("92? 93? Sure your boys know!") was up there with Mac in '84. Since Stefan is a LUFC nut, he'll always be a god for me....

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sampras v Federer

                            >Long and short, if Fed keeps going, he will be GOAT in another 3 years.

                            I think Infama is about right on this.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Sampras v Federer

                              >>Long and short, if Fed keeps going, he will be GOAT in another 3 years.

                              I
                              >think Infama is about right on this.


                              Me too, impossible Safin scenario notwithstanding. How good is Donald Young?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Sampras v Federer

                                >>Long and short, if Fed keeps going, he will be GOAT in another 3 years.

                                >I think Infama is about right on this.


                                Hear that, Eldrick?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X