@Legendary081 you need to watch sampras's game... sampras was humble thats why he said that.. unlike federer... fool pisses in pants when he faces nadal or djokovic
of course Sampras is not gona name himself the greatest......no athlete with any modesty would.
And you cant compare the two very easily, and its definitely not black and white as to who the better player is/was, they played in different eras on different surfaces.
@splendid1000 thats true mate... sampras was humble unlike federer stupid.. so disrespectful.. even nadal is so humble.. but SAMPRAS was definitely the best in terms of his playing quality.. federer has losing records against all his arch rivals.
How did I know that this page would be littered with Federer/Nadal? Morons who have no idea about tennis. Agassi/Sampras was a great match-up, contrasting styles. With Federer/Nadal we have Nadal wrecking the Federer backhand all match. Booooooring.
These guys were the greats of their time. The game has evolved though. If Sampras and Agassi were playing today in the style they used here they would most likely get a beating from both Nadal and Fed, but does it really matter? Nadal and Fed wouldn't be as great as they are if not for these two bringing the game to new levels. Cheers
@b0nd33 , Listen mate. Sampras and Agassi were power players. Give em´the technology players use today and they´d be feared today like Nadal and Fed are.........You can´t discard raw talent and sampras and agassi are two of the most talented who ever played the game.
@anshuman0001 head to heads aren't everything because of game style match-ups. And part of the reason the head to head is he way it is, is because federer was better on clay than nadal was on grass and fast hard court so they met in more clay matches than grass. Hard court I think federer has the edge head to head wise, also on grass. But nadal is the clear favorite on clay. So take into account the number of times they've played on each surface as well as game style match ups.
@Naradio They're both exciting to watch, but the game styles are different in the two eras so you cant really compare them. But personality wise I thought it was better watching agassi who actually showed some emotion.
Roddick is a non tennis player. He is awful. And although he nearly beated Federer in Wimbledon shows that even Federer isnt as good as Sampras or Becker were in Wimbledon. They would have never needed more than 3 sets against Mr. "All I do is a monster serve"
@PacoZola He did a bit more than serve well in that match mate. He played the match of his life. I've never seen him hit his backhand so well before or since. And generally he's more than a serve as well - he's a great competitor, moves well and is solid from the back, he just lacks that bit extra.
Also you have to take into account that Wimbledon is a lot different than it used to be - it's probably about half the speed compared to what it was in the 90's which is sad for Wimbledon.
@KidAinaVeyron Yea, Sampras' strengths were his serve, athleticism, volleys, running forehand and his tactics. He got the most out of his game against Agassi because he would grind when they were in baseline rallies, then all the sudden take a short ball early and come to net therefore using his strength, his volleys. He also served well on first and second serves and was very clutch with it as well. Agassi strikes the ball (ground strokes) better than pete so his ground strokes were better.
Pete had slightly better competition than Roger but in the last few years Roger's competition has gotten better and at that level of Pete's. And we know that because Roddick is better now than he has ever been but is ranked 7 and not 1 or 2 or 3 like he was a few years ago. While Pete is as good as Roger if not even very slightly better than Roger on grass and hard court the reason Roger is a slightly better player is he is far better on clay. Sampras reached only one semifinal at the French
too bad sampras went on to lose this tiebreak and the match in five sets (1-6 in the 5th). if he could do that, i couldnt understand how he couldnt hold off the 4th set TB.
Pistolpete58 you are the one with atrocious debating logic. First of all: you can only ever beat the guy on the other side of the net, which Federer does better than anyone else. He hasn't lost to someone outside of the Top 5 at Grand Slam level since 2004. And second of all the competition at the moment is insane. Every one of the Top 6 has realistic Grand Slam potential.
@Tallchurch yes but the competition was no where like it was in the late 80s n early 90s when there was lendl, mcenroe, wilander, edberg, courier, becker, agassi, chang, sampras plus the court speeds and surfaces were much more varied than it is now. plz dont tell me u consider verdasco, roddick, murray, or even djokovic in the same league as the ppl in the legends i mentioned above, hell djokovic is probably not even in the same league as jim courier
@nizzam1 The fact is that while the top ten at the moment maybe worse, the top 100 or so are infinitely more competitive and to be frank, Federer's competition can't yet be judged because their careers are not yet over. Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro could end up as multi major winners. It's just that they can't when Federer wins practically everything. Not to mention that in a Federer-less universe, Roddick would probably have upwards of 8 majors.
continued: Anyway, if this is going to end up as a debate as to who is the greatest of all time, competition is irrelevant in light of Agassi's comments after the US open 2005. He said that "Pete was great but there was a place you could get to with Pete. There's no such place with Roger. If you do what you're supposed to do, you feel like it gives you a chance to win the point. That's just too good."
@Tallchurch fair point, however with regards to roddick winning more majors if there was no federer, one can say if there was no edberg or becker lendl wud have won wimbledon at least once, or if there was no sampras or agassi courier cud have won more i mean one can make this argument " if player x wasnt there then player y wud have won more slams" to virtually any player in history, the fact that roddick probably cud have won more majors if federer wasnt there doesn't make him great
@nizzam1 True, but Roddick's record is so poor compared to what it would have been. He's one of history's top servers, a great work ethic and my main point is that I sometimes here people saying Federer's competition has hardly any slams. This is because he wins them all. Anyway, let's just appreciate a great shot in a great match between two of the all time greats.
Thats true and not true, because Federer is a level above Becker, Edberg, Lendl and just about any player in history, and dominated more so than any of them making it harder to squeeze slams in here and there. If any of those guys had to play in Roger's era, there slam total would be much lower as well. Im not saying Roddick is better than those greats, but hed prolly have at least 4 slams or more had he not faced possibly the greatest tennis player ever, and 4 slams is not too shabby.
pistol pete58 your arguments flawed because if you discount clay fed has winning h2h record over nadal just coz nadal sometimes gets knocked out early in the other events other than clay so they end up not playing each other.
I think we're forgetting that you have to win 7 matches to win a slam. Ok, maybe his final competition was a little less than Sampras, but I'll take the top 20 from today against the top 20 from Pete's time any day.
Sorry, but this is a video about Pete Sampras so why are yet again Federer's fans commenting and disrespecting Pete Sampras? I'm with you pistolpete58...Federer's competition apart from Nadal is substandard where as Pete's generation was full of premium quality players and multi Grand Slam winners...Federer's achievements though great are on closer examination of his competition not that impressive next to Pete's! Plus, he'll never be ranked No1 for 6 straight years like Pete was!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sampras ended the year ranked number one for six years. He wasn't ranked number one for "six straight years."
Anyway, I don't see why Federer fans can't be Sampras fans. I think they're both awesome. Different eras, different problems, different champions, same spirit.
You are really confusing...he did end the year Ranked No. 1 for 6 straight years...go check out the stats if you don't believe me on the ATP Tennis website!
I'm not saying you cannot be a Federer fan and Sampras fan too...I just haven't bought into the whole Federer is the Greatest of All Time hype. I think every era has a greatest, Pete Sampras was his eras as was Rod Laver his. Federer for me needs to get a winning head-to-head against his biggest rival Nadal for me to agree to his tag!
Sorry. What I meant to say is that.. Sampras wasn't number one every week of those six years. He ended each year as number one, but he dropped every once in a while.
Yes, but that only just highlights again that Pete Sampras had a far tougher level of competition to play against! It's something he himself has said was the hardest thing to do! I don't think it will be beaten for some time to come!
I like both Sampras and Federer... but I'm not sure if you can say that really shows a tougher level of competition. It could just be that Sampras wasn't as dominating as Federer was.
Wouldn't it be great to have a video game that completely simulated each player at his prime, then have Sampras and Federer play that video as themselves to show who's better..?!
You have your view I have mine...no point in continuing this debate as we will never agree :) Best to agree to disagree lol...but it's good to be different sometimes it's what makes the world a more interesting place :)
you cant say either though that Federer wouldnt have it as easy as he did in Roland Garros. Not to mention Roddick has a mental block towards Federer (another sign of weak competition in this era, mentally, the players of this era are actually shocking) unlike Rafa, who would have gladly outplayed Federer like he has done on so many ocassions.
Sorry, I meant head to head versus Sampras (1-0). Of course Sampras and Laver are great; most people would put them with Fed as 1,2,3 although the order is disputable. I just think Federer does have competition and has continued to win because. The point that mechysonu made was that Sampras had competition and Fed didn't. I said that it just seems that way because he destroys almost everyone. Yeah Nadal and Murray have winning records against him but that's all.
It appears that Federer doesn't have any competition because he beats everyone. Borg, Connors and MacEnroe are great but they also won majors. Federer's era doesn't have other winners (beside Nadal and Djokovic) who have won a major because he beats everybody. Anyway, arguing that Federer isn't the best because of his competition is weak because that's beyond his control. The only three criteria are 1) majors won 2) time it took to win them and 3) head to head. Federer wins them all.
Federer is quite possibly the best of all time (although Laver is a serious contender to that throne), but you're wrong about him leading in head to heads. Vs Nadal: 7-13; vs Murray: 2-6. You say he doesn't have any competition, unlike Borg (who had Connors and McEnroe) and co, but these two head to heads show that you're wrong. His record against Murray and Nadal is a major blemish on his otherwise amazing record.
the competition argument isnt weak but it's said very poorly by people who argue against federer. it may appear fed has no competition besides nadal but it's very obvious that the previous era was stronger not only talent-wise but mentally as well.
It appears? What are you blind, can you not see how shitty Federers competition is? How one dimensional their game is when it comes to playing against him? Why do you think Federer has so many majors, cause he plays losers in the finals, like i listed in my previous post to you. How is it beyond his control? Youre only as good as your competition, and well.. Federer has no competition, what does that say about him, yes hes a good champion, but he is no Pete and never will be anywhere close 2 him
@pistolpete58 im a 90's fan as well but it's not Federers fold right? I agree that there was more competition and a lot more different styles to play against but I think he would have done well in the 90's as well. Probably would have won RG a couple of times more to compensate a couple of wimbledon losses against pete ;-)
Youre debating is so flawed its not even funny. All of your three factors are based solely on the competition of Federer, which I have argued, is simply put, substandard. Hes won so many majors cause of wins against a shitty 05-06 Roddick, Baghdatis,Gonzalez, a 35 year old Agassi, and Soderling lol. And your final factor is just retarded. How can you call Federer the GOAT if he cant even defeat his archnemesis when it counts? I mean h2h in GS's is 6-2 which is embarassing for the 'GOAT'
@pistolpete58 most of his defeats where on clay. You can say he lost a lot of finals but he made a lot of RG finals and thats something that pete didn't. If wimbledon was as fast today as it was in pete's time he would have won atleast 1 or 2 more wimbledon titles...
@1978utreg I think it's fair to say since 2005, Nadal has developed into an all court player (show-cased clearly by his dominance at the USO last year and beating Federer in two non-clay surface GS finals; Wimby 08 and AO 09). Pete didn't make RG finals because a) he had worthy clay court contenders (muster, bruguera, kuerten, bersatageui, kafelnikov to name a few) who were actually only clay court specialists. Could Federer have won RG titles in the 90s given the competition?......
@pistolpete58 he would have done a lot better then pete thats for sure but i see your point. Kuerten for example was beautiful to watch and i would have loved to see a prime kuerten against Nadal...I think Federer would have done well in any area but he would not have dominated as much
@1978utreg Kuerten gave a vivid sneak peak of that in 2004 when they played at RG. And if clay was as fast it is today, back then, i would have no doubt in my mind Pete would have reached more than just two QF's and an SF. Elaborate what you mean by 'not Federers fold?' I never denied Fed wouldn't do well, but let me ask you this if you claim youre a 90s fan. Would he really have 16 slams and such an impressive resume during this era? Agreed with your Wimbledon theory in terms of compensation.
@pistolpete58 i just sad that he wouldn't have been so dominant in the 90's or 80's area so don't talk so defensive!
I'm not trying to win an argument or something ;-) i just like too talk to other fans and respect other views / opinions and well maybe even learn from them ;-) Every area has different difficulties to overcome and in my book they are both obviously great players...But i do think that Federer is the better clay player even on the claycourts today...
@1978utreg I'm not trying to win an argument where there is none. Federer grew up and trained on clay as a kid/junior and if I'm not mistaken, the academy where he trained in the south of france was primarily clay based. He is the better clay court player but I still believe Sampras is the better player on fast surfaces. I'm glad you're a respectful tennis enthusiast.. check out my training video and give me a few pointers where it's needed.. it'd be much appreciated!
"So federer does that all the time" Pistol Pete did that everyday too; tjhats why he called pistol pete. Everyone was afraid of his serve and forehand. Sampras is the greatest of all time hands down because he made mince meat out of people like courier, mcenroe, agassi, borg connors. who's federrer competition; nadal who only really dominates on clay. I've watched matches of pete and federer in their prime and I got to say he was was almost invincible
Yeah, it's a good thing guys like Kucera, Korda, Delgado and Yzaga aren't playing now, otherwise Federer would be in real trouble. Their mental toughness was other wordly.
bullfuckingshit, with such a shitty competition what do you expect? Youre only as good as your competition buddy, and boy is Federers competition horrible other than Rafa. I mean beating Soderling,Gonzalez,Phillipoussis,Baghdatis, a 35 YEAR old Agassi? You call that the best of all times, what a fucking disgrace he is.
Rafa Nadal will be the greatest player of all time - he is so much younger than Federer. He is near invincible on clay, has won Wimbledon, the Olympics, Australian Open, and just needs the US Open to shut down Federer. I think Federer will pass Sampras' grand slam record, but Nadal is 5 years younger than him! Federer is getting weaker, whilst Nadal is getting better.
That's a misleading title for a video in this day and age of Roger Federer. Look up any video of Roger's and it'll blow this away by a mile. Tennis has evolved.
Sampras was a great champion but there's no way he was more fun to watch than Federer. His service games were so entertaining, ace, service winner, huge serve+volley, ace. If that's entertaining then I have to recheck the definition of entertainment
@walliegirl2 Roger attacks as much as modern racket tension and court speed allows.courts are favoring defensive players more and more each year,Federer is a relatively aggressive player
I dont think so. Even in the last French Open both him and Murray showed that Nadal was indeed vulnerable to players closing off the point at the net (after pushing him out wide), and that it worked even on clay. Still... neither had the guts or the brains to take their chances when they presented themselves.
So yes, Fed is immensely talented, but he is either a bit daft or a coward. He insists on playing Nadal's strengths and changes nothing when he is losing. Painful to watch.
@alin1975 no brains?a coward?who the fuck are you?probably just someone fatass who doesn't know shit about tennis.how can you be so dim?you think it's as easy as just coming to the net?you can't just go to the net when being under barrage of nadal's shots,you won't have the time or space or enough options to achieve anything at the net.to go to the net you need to make an opening,not to mention approaches on clay are even more pointless,especially against nadal
First off I know plenty about tennis. I was watching and playing it before you were born.
Second, I am not talking about mindless attack. I am talking about closing a point when you have the opponent out wide. This is something many former pros have commented on, about how current players miss their chance to finish a point.
Both Fed and Murray showed it was possible against Nadal in the last French Open. The few times they dared it worked. But... they lacked Wilanders you know?
@alin1975 that's because 20 years have past!today it's a lot harder to create those openings because the courts are slower and the rackets are harder.nadal never goes out to the net,and look at his achievments.federer does it as much as he can,it's just too risky and mostly pointless.and i dont give a damn how old you are or when you started playing.when you win a slam...screw that,win any atp title(hah),even then you cant call Federer a coward and say he has no brains.he knows more than you
I was commenting on this years French Open, so please spare me the lecture on tech evolution.
Federer does NOT do it as much as he can or should. Just look at his last game, its plain as day. Even clearer in Murray's game. Time and again they let Nadal back into the point for no reason, and the few times they dare, they win the point.
Add to this the fact that they are getting their butt kicked and the phrase "too risky" seems utterly moronic.,
As for who I am and who you are... I am happy to leave that out of any discussion. You are the one that started making personal comments, which is why I responded. Just a standard juvenile attempt to dismiss an argument one does not like by trying to discredit the person saying it.
Being talented and playing smart are two very different things. I readily acknowledge that Fed is supremely talented... but thats as far as it goes.
@alin1975 once again-who the fuck are you?why do think you have the right to judge players that would hand your ass on a platter to you?i dont care if you act personal,because i will,seeing as how you think you have the right to judge the greatest player of all time.and saying he doesn't play is smart is just so immensely stupid.you obviously don't know anything about tennis.he plays very smart,he attacks powerfully at the right moments,he even does head fakes.he's brilliant,unlike you...
Of course you got to go personal. Its all you got, because clearly you know nothing about tennis.
If the criteria for criticising someones game is being able to defeat them, all coaches would be out of business :) Logic I know... it will probably hurt your brain a bit.
Again, Fed insists on playing Nadal's game, he is timid and afraid to take his chances, and has no concept in his head of mixing it up when HE IS LOSING. Instead, he just keeps doing the same crap over and over.
@alin1975 you can't criticize something you know nothing about.how would you know what should be done against the best players in history?if it were as simple as going out to the net annacone would figure it out,and so would federer.hell,someone in the atp would already have figured it out and be kicking nadal's ass.but it's obviously not that simple,and you know a lot less than you think.you know nothing about playing against people like nadal or federer
Its about closing points when you have the chance. Many former champions have indeed figured it out and criticised the way modern players let chances slip through their fingers.
Just go watch the Murray-Nadal game - see how things go when he goes follow up at the net (on the good, wide shots) and how it goes when he gives Nadal the chance to get back into the game.
Also ask yourself how smart it is to continue a strategy that is categorically getting your ass kicked...
@alin1975 to close a point you need to have an opportunity.against nadal you don't get much of those+modern rackets make it hard at the net+he's fast+courts are slower.all of those former champions also say that courts are slower.you can't play as aggressively now as before.and if net play is so powerful today llodra would be in the top 10 and kicking nadal's ass.federer plays smart and aggressively from the baseline,coming to the net occasionally.he wins when his bh doesn't make many mistakes
@kyuubiyura oh please,don't be so arrogant.if you ANYTHING about tennis you wouldn't even say that federer doesn't play smart and the other ridiculous crap.and federer is the best player,nadal is up there as well
When it comes to who is best I think it was Laver who said that the most we can do is find the best of each generation. I will go with that, particularly considering the high level of competition past champions faced.
But if you think Fed is best, that cool, he has the best record. But thats one.
I would like to point out that (after hearing you repeatedly try to put my knowledge of the sport down) I am 100% certain I know a lot more about tennis than you do.
@alin1975 the modern level of competition is also very high.and i put your knowledge down for reasons,while you have not actual reasons to think you know about tennis.
What reasons? That I dont agree with you? Thats been your only argument... you dont see it my way, therefore you are wrong. Like a baby throwing a tantrum.
I used to play tennis on a pretty decent level and I watched it since the early 80s. I am quite sure I know a heck of a lot more about it than a moron like you, whose only argument is to repeat "Federer is smart".
But by all means dumbass, you claim modern competitive level is very high. Lets compare today to what Lendl had to face ok?
He started with Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, then competed against Edberg, Becker, and Wilander, and ended against Agassi and Sampras. Note I am not even mentioning strong players like Courier.
Federer had a brush with an old Sampras and Agassi... then he had Nadal. Who else would feature in a top 10 or 15 ever?
@alin1975 what you are also failing to realize,as expected,is that the courts today are slower,meaning that even an average player has a chance,also slower courts to not favor federer's game,they help his opponents like nadal,djokovic, etc.and nadal won more slams than them.and none of those players would win as much slams today.and its nice how you didn't mention roddick,murray,nalbandian,safin,moya,hewitt
No dumbass... I didnt mention them because none of those players are on the same calibre with the ones in Lendl's era.
All the players I mentioned are legends... look at any ranking of tennis players and those guys will rank higher than the names you mentioned. But more than that, anyone who knows anything about tennis would not have been stupid enough to put that list of players against mine.
Why are you even arguing this with me? You clearly know zero about tennis. At this stage all you are trying to do is protect your little retarded idol and to save face.
Funny how it goes isnt it? You try to discredit me and in the end it turns out you know nothing about the sport.
@alin1975 i facepalmed reading that.your last message provided NOTHING.just a bunch of insults saying i know nothing about the sport even though i provided plenty of proof for my point of view.you're acting really ridiculous and embarassing right now.i proved my point,you couldn't,and so you make it look like im on the defensive and have nothing to say,while the truth is that you just have nothing to say.pathetic and sad,i expected more of you.
But if someone lists "roddick,murray,nalbandian,safin,moya,hewitt" as a counter to Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Agassi, and Sampras, then that person does not know a thing about tennis.
Not one thing. So you see, not empty insults like yours, but insults based directly on garbage you said.
@alin1975 out of my many points you only replied to one,about the players.as i said before,those little champs of yours would not have won as much slams today!and you're saying those players aren't excellent?ridiculous!they are all magnificent players!they'd hand you your ass on a platter as well.if it weren't for Federer they'd have as much slams as your guys,despite the modern conditions,favoring the average players
Actually I replied to all of them... except for the ones where you were arguing against imaginary points.
What I said was that the competition was harder in the past. Plenty of excellent players I did not mention, I stuck to the legendary ones.
Again, someone who puts that list against mine knows nothing about tennis. Experts would rank those players higher than yours, so at this stage you are not just saying I dont know tennis, you are saying that you know better than everyone.
@alin1975 ...no,you replied to only one point...those players of yours wouldn't have won as much slams today.and todays condition favor the average players.in the modern era the players i mentioned are just as good as your champs would be.and Federer is obviously better than all of your champs,only sampras can be compared,but Federer beat sampras and the other conditions still apply,so Federer is obviously the greatest.suck it up and accept it.
@alin1975 facts?are you blind or retarded?i think both.i already provided them but you ignore them because you can't counter them.the courts are slower,favoring more defensive game and average players,rackets are faster negating net play.even the old players said it!
Wait... you meant that those players would not win as much today if they were teleported forward in time with the same styles they had back them? Who cares about that? If you teleported Nadal back in time, and handed him a racquet of that era he would be a nobody...
The point was, who faced the better competition, not some idiotic time travel experiment. Fact is, past eras were more competitive, and more of those players will go down in history as amongst the best ever. Period.
@alin1975 that's your counter-argument?time travel?how sad...im saying that your champs wouldn't win as much slams today.but Federer would win as much slams before,because his style is better for fast courts.and the players i mentioned are all as good players relative to modern conditions as your champs were to theirs.and modern competion is higher because in the conditions any player can go far
Right, and I am saying that pretty much any expert would rank the players I listed in a class above yours. I am saying that by denying this you are saying that you know better than everyone. I love this, because it shows how biased you are.
Your arguments are utter shit, because plenty of past champs would have preferred todays conditions (e.g. Lendl, Connors, and probably Borg). Put Fed back then, when todays top spin was not possible, and you handicap him just as much
@alin1975 you're kidding me.Federer's main weapon...is top spin?lol?seriously?aren't you tired of embarassing yourself?his main weapon is clever flat shots at right moment,aggressive game play,all-around game.Federer would kick just as much ass in the old days,even more.slow courts do not favor him!and you can't provide a single point,all you can say is that a hypothetical expert would rank your players higher.well show me an expert like that then.you won't find one,they all realize what i said
I never said that. But, compare his forehand to the players of the 80s (and you can see Lendl-Fed comparison right here on youtube) and you will see he uses MUCH more topspin... as does any modern player. Really helps if you argue against what I actually say, not your imagination.
So, all the facts we do have favour my position. Experts will rank the players I listed above yours. Yet still you keep talking...
@alin1975 you keep saying that you're right,which pretty much means you aren't,because you can't say anything other than that.nadal's top spin is a lot higher than Federer's.and Fed's game isn't about top spin,so it doesn't matter much.and you can't compare forehands to other times because conditions are different!stop ignoring my points and deluding yourself with victorious feelings.the only fact you provided is that you can't counter anything i say so you just ignore my points and say you win
"you can't say anything other than that.nadal's top spin is a lot higher than Federer's." - show me where I said this, or any point that hinged on it. Go on...
What I have told you is that the competitive level was higher, that former champions faced far better opposition, and that expert rankings support with this assertion.
You gave me a list of second rate players that you tried to put on par with tennis legends. Plus you invent stuff I never said in virtually every post...
@alin1975 my point is that Federer's game is better for faster courts,and he prefers flat shots to top spin,so he would play better in the old days.i told you that RELATIVE TO CONDITIONS the modern players are just as good as your players.and ill say it again,since you continue to avoid points you cant counter,show me these experts.sampras himself said that his game isn't as good for the modern courts but he can't play different.now please show me your hypothetical experts.
The old days were well suited for either style. What I was trying to say was the Fed's game would not look the same without the ability to put as much top spin on the ball - so a good portion of the game would have to be altered. Similarly, players from that era would have trouble today for the same reason. So, both ways a lot of changes would have to be done. Plus Borg used heavy top spin, his game would benefit from todays tech and courts.
@alin1975 the most talented players would be doing just fine in any area...Players like Borg, Conners, Lenl and Bigmac would have addept to 2011 and still be worldclass...
Now I asked you to show me where I had claimed the thing about Nadal and topspin, and you ignored it. Nice...
You want expert rankings, look up any top XX player list for the open era and see how many coincide with the era I mentioned.
But listen, if you want lets start over. We can do this via youtube messaging with no char limit and without insults. This is not a personal discussion for me and if you abstain from the name calling, so will I.
@alin1975 oh what a hypocrit you are since all you do is ignore my points and keep talking about some imagine bullshit.how old are you man...oh and learn to read please there is a period between "you can't say anything other than that" and "nadal's top spin is a lot higher than Federer's".really,how old are you?and if you're going on about some mythical expert rankings you're supposed to show me,until then-it's a lie.so once again,you have provided nothing constructive
And ffs, please actually read my posts... if you concluded that I used time travel as a counter argument you either didnt read what I wrote or you are dumb as a brick.
And by the way... since I am the only one actually adding facts to this equation... last November, Edberg defeated Safin in an old boys final. Safin is 10 years his junior and Edberg was still using his old classic S&V style.
You want to tell me again that the old generation was less gifted?
If so, look at Becker's comeback in 1996. All the facts are there if you get your head out of your Swiss idol's ass.
@alin1975 so what,sampras beat Federer in an exho in 2009.that doesn't mean he's a better player.exho's are fixed,you would know that if you knew anything about tennis....and you can't compare the old days to know because the conditiong have changed dramatically!why don't you read Federer's yesterday's after-match press conference
For heavens sake man, just LOOK at the points they play. You have ample examples from this French Open. You have two points side by side, one where Murray or Fed closed it and others where they hesitated. Then compare the results.
No one (neither me nor the former champs) said one should play the way it was done in the 80s or 90s, just of closing points down when the chance is there.
Fed has devolved into a Nadal clone (minus the physique) and he wonders why he tends to lose...
@alin1975 you can't just LOOK at the points and think you perfectly understand what's going on!and like i said,why isn't llodra in the top 10 then?playing at the net against nadal aggressively on clay is too hard and risky,you'll lose more points than win.and a nadal clone?i hope you know how exaggerated that is,Federer still plays smartly and aggressively
For the hundredth time... I never said you should be playing at the net against Nadal. I said (like many other former champs) that one should close the point when the chance presents itself. It is not so hard to identify dozens of missed opportunities in the games I mentioned.
It is far less risky than letting Nadal back into the game and allowing him to dominate with his physical ability. Plus... he was losing the game anyway (hello!!!).
Nadal and Fed can hit those shots in their sleep? Gee maybe their using an imaginary ball then sure thay can hit it!!! Pete's game is special because he has the best serve and volley, running 4hand, overhead dunk and court demeanor.
lol can you prove it fucking asshole? That is so much bullshit its unreal. Federer would never make that shot from such an angle and with such high tension strings and a small framed racket.
I love Agassi's reaction after Sampras hit that pass. It was like a knock out punch. You could see by the reaction on Agassi's face that he was struggling to stay positive as he was "stunned" mentally by that shot as it was such a big point in the match.
so, this you'll find when you're looking for porns on youtube
eli9748 2 months ago
sampras 90s > federer
andunusblick 3 months ago
great commentator knows that I wanted him quiet.
Novinte 6 months ago
what a ripper,,,i call my farts rippers,,nice commentary
turkyish 7 months ago
Thats a ripper! Got to love these Aussie commentators, make everything so comedic!
LiquidPromotionz 8 months ago
@Legendary081 you need to watch sampras's game... sampras was humble thats why he said that.. unlike federer... fool pisses in pants when he faces nadal or djokovic
1BGhimire 10 months ago
0:32 epic face,got to love agassi.
cro91Maderfaker 10 months ago
that reaction was legenary:D
theclayman221 10 months ago
@Legendary081
of course Sampras is not gona name himself the greatest......no athlete with any modesty would.
And you cant compare the two very easily, and its definitely not black and white as to who the better player is/was, they played in different eras on different surfaces.
splendid1000 11 months ago
@splendid1000 thats true mate... sampras was humble unlike federer stupid.. so disrespectful.. even nadal is so humble.. but SAMPRAS was definitely the best in terms of his playing quality.. federer has losing records against all his arch rivals.
1BGhimire 10 months ago
How did I know that this page would be littered with Federer/Nadal? Morons who have no idea about tennis. Agassi/Sampras was a great match-up, contrasting styles. With Federer/Nadal we have Nadal wrecking the Federer backhand all match. Booooooring.
MaratSafinVideos 1 year ago
These guys were the greats of their time. The game has evolved though. If Sampras and Agassi were playing today in the style they used here they would most likely get a beating from both Nadal and Fed, but does it really matter? Nadal and Fed wouldn't be as great as they are if not for these two bringing the game to new levels. Cheers
b0nd33 1 year ago
@b0nd33 , Listen mate. Sampras and Agassi were power players. Give em´the technology players use today and they´d be feared today like Nadal and Fed are.........You can´t discard raw talent and sampras and agassi are two of the most talented who ever played the game.
juandi2570 7 months ago
What's the best rivalry? Sampras vs Agassi? or Federer vs Nadal?
Naradio 1 year ago
@Naradio no question....Sampras vs Agassi...
akosh1976 1 year ago
@Naradio Sampras Vs Agassi..Nadal Vs Fed is one sided with Nadal just pwaning Fed
anshuman0001 1 year ago
@anshuman0001 head to heads aren't everything because of game style match-ups. And part of the reason the head to head is he way it is, is because federer was better on clay than nadal was on grass and fast hard court so they met in more clay matches than grass. Hard court I think federer has the edge head to head wise, also on grass. But nadal is the clear favorite on clay. So take into account the number of times they've played on each surface as well as game style match ups.
fedex19912000 1 year ago
@Naradio They're both exciting to watch, but the game styles are different in the two eras so you cant really compare them. But personality wise I thought it was better watching agassi who actually showed some emotion.
fedex19912000 1 year ago
@edue2bro lol so? What a shitty point you're trying to prove. So it doesn't matter who they played?
bjarktron 1 year ago
a ripper !
jaegerhund 1 year ago
Will people shut the fuck up about Federer? This is a Sampras video, we don't a barrage of insecure fanboys.
Meshalhasseen 1 year ago
Roddick is a non tennis player. He is awful. And although he nearly beated Federer in Wimbledon shows that even Federer isnt as good as Sampras or Becker were in Wimbledon. They would have never needed more than 3 sets against Mr. "All I do is a monster serve"
PacoZola 1 year ago
@PacoZola He did a bit more than serve well in that match mate. He played the match of his life. I've never seen him hit his backhand so well before or since. And generally he's more than a serve as well - he's a great competitor, moves well and is solid from the back, he just lacks that bit extra.
Also you have to take into account that Wimbledon is a lot different than it used to be - it's probably about half the speed compared to what it was in the 90's which is sad for Wimbledon.
KidAinaVeyron 1 year ago
@KidAinaVeyron Yea, Sampras' strengths were his serve, athleticism, volleys, running forehand and his tactics. He got the most out of his game against Agassi because he would grind when they were in baseline rallies, then all the sudden take a short ball early and come to net therefore using his strength, his volleys. He also served well on first and second serves and was very clutch with it as well. Agassi strikes the ball (ground strokes) better than pete so his ground strokes were better.
fedex19912000 1 year ago
@PacoZola
Roddick is awful.....
U are a moron bro. My little sister could prolly wipe the floor with u
splendid1000 11 months ago
@splendid1000 maybe I could wipe your sister idiot
PacoZola 11 months ago
@PacoZola
lol go ahead nooblet. she just ate mexican
splendid1000 11 months ago
@splendid1000 good for her, but first of all I am not mexican and second I meant WIPE and not wipe
PacoZola 11 months ago
@PacoZola
the only wipin you're familiar with involves Charmin double ply
splendid1000 11 months ago
@splendid1000 I am only wipin your momie and sissy with, they are good at what they re doing
PacoZola 11 months ago
@PacoZola
...... nice bro
splendid1000 11 months ago
Pete had slightly better competition than Roger but in the last few years Roger's competition has gotten better and at that level of Pete's. And we know that because Roddick is better now than he has ever been but is ranked 7 and not 1 or 2 or 3 like he was a few years ago. While Pete is as good as Roger if not even very slightly better than Roger on grass and hard court the reason Roger is a slightly better player is he is far better on clay. Sampras reached only one semifinal at the French
kavor 1 year ago
djokster does that all the time, nadal too, the folks are awesome players. Todays tennis is just amazing
lobofaca707 1 year ago
nadal makes three of that in every match
nasthek156 1 year ago 2
0:14 agassi's face is just decomposating....curious to know whats the speed of his forehand on that point. agassi's one i mean.
about 140km/h??
guiguitebeka 1 year ago
Federer may be the greatest tennis player ever...
However, there are 3 things that Federer will never be able to do as good as Sampras -
1) serve and volley
2) running forehands
3) slam dunks
also, IMHO Sampras is the greatest grass court player ever!
wtb999 1 year ago 2
Agreed!
joyholmes11 1 year ago
i think petes the only player in history to hit slam dunk smashes lol
Lonehawk2k4 1 year ago
And Pete never fuck cows as Roger does
SeniorConcha 1 year ago
OMG!!!!!!!
stemilano97 2 years ago
too bad sampras went on to lose this tiebreak and the match in five sets (1-6 in the 5th). if he could do that, i couldnt understand how he couldnt hold off the 4th set TB.
BrotherTree1 2 years ago
It's a good thing they show it in slow motion because I cannot even follow the ball as they play - amaaaaaazing!
no1zgrl4eva 2 years ago 11
Pistolpete58 you are the one with atrocious debating logic. First of all: you can only ever beat the guy on the other side of the net, which Federer does better than anyone else. He hasn't lost to someone outside of the Top 5 at Grand Slam level since 2004. And second of all the competition at the moment is insane. Every one of the Top 6 has realistic Grand Slam potential.
Tallchurch 2 years ago
sampras has a much better record in grand slam finals than federer, then again federer has been in wha like 22 straight grand slm semis?
their both ridiculous and id hate to play either one prolly sampras would be tough to play cuz hed just ace u every other point
mathiyus 2 years ago
@Tallchurch yes but the competition was no where like it was in the late 80s n early 90s when there was lendl, mcenroe, wilander, edberg, courier, becker, agassi, chang, sampras plus the court speeds and surfaces were much more varied than it is now. plz dont tell me u consider verdasco, roddick, murray, or even djokovic in the same league as the ppl in the legends i mentioned above, hell djokovic is probably not even in the same league as jim courier
nizzam1 1 year ago
@nizzam1 The fact is that while the top ten at the moment maybe worse, the top 100 or so are infinitely more competitive and to be frank, Federer's competition can't yet be judged because their careers are not yet over. Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro could end up as multi major winners. It's just that they can't when Federer wins practically everything. Not to mention that in a Federer-less universe, Roddick would probably have upwards of 8 majors.
Tallchurch 1 year ago
continued: Anyway, if this is going to end up as a debate as to who is the greatest of all time, competition is irrelevant in light of Agassi's comments after the US open 2005. He said that "Pete was great but there was a place you could get to with Pete. There's no such place with Roger. If you do what you're supposed to do, you feel like it gives you a chance to win the point. That's just too good."
Tallchurch 1 year ago
@Tallchurch fair point, however with regards to roddick winning more majors if there was no federer, one can say if there was no edberg or becker lendl wud have won wimbledon at least once, or if there was no sampras or agassi courier cud have won more i mean one can make this argument " if player x wasnt there then player y wud have won more slams" to virtually any player in history, the fact that roddick probably cud have won more majors if federer wasnt there doesn't make him great
nizzam1 1 year ago
@nizzam1 True, but Roddick's record is so poor compared to what it would have been. He's one of history's top servers, a great work ethic and my main point is that I sometimes here people saying Federer's competition has hardly any slams. This is because he wins them all. Anyway, let's just appreciate a great shot in a great match between two of the all time greats.
Tallchurch 1 year ago
@Tallchurch agreed. People forget that if someone beats all their competition, that makes them LOOK bad. It doesn't necessarily mean they are.
TearTheRoofOff 1 year ago
@nizzam
Thats true and not true, because Federer is a level above Becker, Edberg, Lendl and just about any player in history, and dominated more so than any of them making it harder to squeeze slams in here and there. If any of those guys had to play in Roger's era, there slam total would be much lower as well. Im not saying Roddick is better than those greats, but hed prolly have at least 4 slams or more had he not faced possibly the greatest tennis player ever, and 4 slams is not too shabby.
splendid1000 11 months ago
@nizzam1 Trust me; Djokovic is better than Courier:-) Courier was like a 90's version of Andy Roddick.
The fact Courier won 4 majors to Roddicks 1 shows Roddick has the tougher competition:-)
flyingjibberish 1 year ago
@flyingjibberish LOL off all players you can compare him to, you compare Courier to RODDICK? You must be a real tennis expert sir :')
TheSjeknek 1 year ago
@flyingjibberish
Slightly specious reasoning.
KaitainCPS 1 year ago
@nizzam1 one year later your comment sounds a lot more stupid ;-)
1978utreg 5 months ago
pistol pete58 your arguments flawed because if you discount clay fed has winning h2h record over nadal just coz nadal sometimes gets knocked out early in the other events other than clay so they end up not playing each other.
lagerandapacketcrisp 2 years ago
agassi at the.....net.....wow thats new
mathiyus 2 years ago
Brilliant shot. Great players.
Chandu83 2 years ago 2
I think we're forgetting that you have to win 7 matches to win a slam. Ok, maybe his final competition was a little less than Sampras, but I'll take the top 20 from today against the top 20 from Pete's time any day.
aburg10s 2 years ago
Sorry, but this is a video about Pete Sampras so why are yet again Federer's fans commenting and disrespecting Pete Sampras? I'm with you pistolpete58...Federer's competition apart from Nadal is substandard where as Pete's generation was full of premium quality players and multi Grand Slam winners...Federer's achievements though great are on closer examination of his competition not that impressive next to Pete's! Plus, he'll never be ranked No1 for 6 straight years like Pete was!
pps1fan 2 years ago
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sampras ended the year ranked number one for six years. He wasn't ranked number one for "six straight years."
Anyway, I don't see why Federer fans can't be Sampras fans. I think they're both awesome. Different eras, different problems, different champions, same spirit.
asdfuogh 2 years ago 2
You are really confusing...he did end the year Ranked No. 1 for 6 straight years...go check out the stats if you don't believe me on the ATP Tennis website!
I'm not saying you cannot be a Federer fan and Sampras fan too...I just haven't bought into the whole Federer is the Greatest of All Time hype. I think every era has a greatest, Pete Sampras was his eras as was Rod Laver his. Federer for me needs to get a winning head-to-head against his biggest rival Nadal for me to agree to his tag!
pps1fan 2 years ago
Sorry. What I meant to say is that.. Sampras wasn't number one every week of those six years. He ended each year as number one, but he dropped every once in a while.
asdfuogh 2 years ago
Yes, but that only just highlights again that Pete Sampras had a far tougher level of competition to play against! It's something he himself has said was the hardest thing to do! I don't think it will be beaten for some time to come!
pps1fan 2 years ago
I like both Sampras and Federer... but I'm not sure if you can say that really shows a tougher level of competition. It could just be that Sampras wasn't as dominating as Federer was.
Wouldn't it be great to have a video game that completely simulated each player at his prime, then have Sampras and Federer play that video as themselves to show who's better..?!
asdfuogh 2 years ago
You have your view I have mine...no point in continuing this debate as we will never agree :) Best to agree to disagree lol...but it's good to be different sometimes it's what makes the world a more interesting place :)
pps1fan 2 years ago
This is the kind of shot Federer hits every set when he's at his best.
iamke55 2 years ago
Without a doubt an impressive shot! though for some reason sampras looked a little disapointed the moment after he hit it lol
PrestonCopter 2 years ago
In his prime Sampras would have beaten Federer.
Nadal beats Federer in his prime.
Federer isnt the greatest of all time.
He's lucky to have not faced Nadal at any stage in the past two of his tournament victories in Roland Garros Wimbledon.
A fact you can't really ignore.
riazomonero 2 years ago
even though Nadal can beat Federer, you can't say what you said is truely a fact.
cwdfr0st 2 years ago 3
you cant say either though that Federer wouldnt have it as easy as he did in Roland Garros. Not to mention Roddick has a mental block towards Federer (another sign of weak competition in this era, mentally, the players of this era are actually shocking) unlike Rafa, who would have gladly outplayed Federer like he has done on so many ocassions.
pistolpete58 2 years ago
Here's a fact you can't ignore. Federer doesn't lose to the likes of Karl Kucera, Jaime Yzaga, or Ramón Delgado ect....
mrperfect87106 2 years ago
I love how sampras acts after he dominated that ball
aytharmate 2 years ago
Sorry, I meant head to head versus Sampras (1-0). Of course Sampras and Laver are great; most people would put them with Fed as 1,2,3 although the order is disputable. I just think Federer does have competition and has continued to win because. The point that mechysonu made was that Sampras had competition and Fed didn't. I said that it just seems that way because he destroys almost everyone. Yeah Nadal and Murray have winning records against him but that's all.
aburg10s 2 years ago
It appears that Federer doesn't have any competition because he beats everyone. Borg, Connors and MacEnroe are great but they also won majors. Federer's era doesn't have other winners (beside Nadal and Djokovic) who have won a major because he beats everybody. Anyway, arguing that Federer isn't the best because of his competition is weak because that's beyond his control. The only three criteria are 1) majors won 2) time it took to win them and 3) head to head. Federer wins them all.
aburg10s 2 years ago
Federer is quite possibly the best of all time (although Laver is a serious contender to that throne), but you're wrong about him leading in head to heads. Vs Nadal: 7-13; vs Murray: 2-6. You say he doesn't have any competition, unlike Borg (who had Connors and McEnroe) and co, but these two head to heads show that you're wrong. His record against Murray and Nadal is a major blemish on his otherwise amazing record.
9Simmo 2 years ago
the competition argument isnt weak but it's said very poorly by people who argue against federer. it may appear fed has no competition besides nadal but it's very obvious that the previous era was stronger not only talent-wise but mentally as well.
milankiev7 2 years ago
It appears? What are you blind, can you not see how shitty Federers competition is? How one dimensional their game is when it comes to playing against him? Why do you think Federer has so many majors, cause he plays losers in the finals, like i listed in my previous post to you. How is it beyond his control? Youre only as good as your competition, and well.. Federer has no competition, what does that say about him, yes hes a good champion, but he is no Pete and never will be anywhere close 2 him
pistolpete58 2 years ago
@pistolpete58 im a 90's fan as well but it's not Federers fold right? I agree that there was more competition and a lot more different styles to play against but I think he would have done well in the 90's as well. Probably would have won RG a couple of times more to compensate a couple of wimbledon losses against pete ;-)
1978utreg 5 months ago
Youre debating is so flawed its not even funny. All of your three factors are based solely on the competition of Federer, which I have argued, is simply put, substandard. Hes won so many majors cause of wins against a shitty 05-06 Roddick, Baghdatis,Gonzalez, a 35 year old Agassi, and Soderling lol. And your final factor is just retarded. How can you call Federer the GOAT if he cant even defeat his archnemesis when it counts? I mean h2h in GS's is 6-2 which is embarassing for the 'GOAT'
pistolpete58 2 years ago
@pistolpete58 most of his defeats where on clay. You can say he lost a lot of finals but he made a lot of RG finals and thats something that pete didn't. If wimbledon was as fast today as it was in pete's time he would have won atleast 1 or 2 more wimbledon titles...
1978utreg 5 months ago
@1978utreg I think it's fair to say since 2005, Nadal has developed into an all court player (show-cased clearly by his dominance at the USO last year and beating Federer in two non-clay surface GS finals; Wimby 08 and AO 09). Pete didn't make RG finals because a) he had worthy clay court contenders (muster, bruguera, kuerten, bersatageui, kafelnikov to name a few) who were actually only clay court specialists. Could Federer have won RG titles in the 90s given the competition?......
pistolpete58 5 months ago
@pistolpete58 he would have done a lot better then pete thats for sure but i see your point. Kuerten for example was beautiful to watch and i would have loved to see a prime kuerten against Nadal...I think Federer would have done well in any area but he would not have dominated as much
1978utreg 5 months ago
@1978utreg Kuerten gave a vivid sneak peak of that in 2004 when they played at RG. And if clay was as fast it is today, back then, i would have no doubt in my mind Pete would have reached more than just two QF's and an SF. Elaborate what you mean by 'not Federers fold?' I never denied Fed wouldn't do well, but let me ask you this if you claim youre a 90s fan. Would he really have 16 slams and such an impressive resume during this era? Agreed with your Wimbledon theory in terms of compensation.
pistolpete58 5 months ago
@pistolpete58 i just sad that he wouldn't have been so dominant in the 90's or 80's area so don't talk so defensive!
I'm not trying to win an argument or something ;-) i just like too talk to other fans and respect other views / opinions and well maybe even learn from them ;-) Every area has different difficulties to overcome and in my book they are both obviously great players...But i do think that Federer is the better clay player even on the claycourts today...
1978utreg 5 months ago
@1978utreg I'm not trying to win an argument where there is none. Federer grew up and trained on clay as a kid/junior and if I'm not mistaken, the academy where he trained in the south of france was primarily clay based. He is the better clay court player but I still believe Sampras is the better player on fast surfaces. I'm glad you're a respectful tennis enthusiast.. check out my training video and give me a few pointers where it's needed.. it'd be much appreciated!
pistolpete58 5 months ago
@pistolpete58 i respect anyone cause we have one thing in common, we both love tennis ;-)
1978utreg 5 months ago
Federer does that every day. Pistol Pete is great, but Fed is the best of all time hands down.
aburg10s 2 years ago
"So federer does that all the time" Pistol Pete did that everyday too; tjhats why he called pistol pete. Everyone was afraid of his serve and forehand. Sampras is the greatest of all time hands down because he made mince meat out of people like courier, mcenroe, agassi, borg connors. who's federrer competition; nadal who only really dominates on clay. I've watched matches of pete and federer in their prime and I got to say he was was almost invincible
mechysonu1 2 years ago
Yeah, it's a good thing guys like Kucera, Korda, Delgado and Yzaga aren't playing now, otherwise Federer would be in real trouble. Their mental toughness was other wordly.
mrperfect87106 2 years ago
bullfuckingshit, with such a shitty competition what do you expect? Youre only as good as your competition buddy, and boy is Federers competition horrible other than Rafa. I mean beating Soderling,Gonzalez,Phillipoussis,Baghdatis, a 35 YEAR old Agassi? You call that the best of all times, what a fucking disgrace he is.
pistolpete58 2 years ago
LOL, you mean the same Philipoussis that was kicking Samrpas' teeth in at Wimbledon before he got injured and retired? This is rich.
mrperfect87106 2 years ago
the battle between 2 giants and Pete is still the best player of all times!!
He had that perfect complete play and was one of the last serve and volley specialists...
stevenfromstol 2 years ago 2
thats wat happens when two amazing players play a match
miljanasaysrelax 2 years ago
I would be great if I could actually see the ball...
miguelucho20008 2 years ago
we miss you pete.....
sarah2373 2 years ago 3
I don't.
Stay put.
miguelucho20008 2 years ago
Ouch, harsh reality for Pete.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
go die then?
pistolpete58 2 years ago
Rafa Nadal will be the greatest player of all time - he is so much younger than Federer. He is near invincible on clay, has won Wimbledon, the Olympics, Australian Open, and just needs the US Open to shut down Federer. I think Federer will pass Sampras' grand slam record, but Nadal is 5 years younger than him! Federer is getting weaker, whilst Nadal is getting better.
1daful1 2 years ago
Even Nadal said he won't last that long because his game is so physical.
xandernorthstaar 2 years ago
Pete was the best of all time...
bebiskos 2 years ago 2
It's weird.. A commentator sees that from Roger and they'll be like 'Oh yeah, he does that sometimes'.
Roger makes it look easy and people watching think it's easy - their reaction here, if it weren't for Federer, would still make sense today.
CaptainJackSparrow1 3 years ago
it's a great shot even for today.
juandi2570 2 years ago
That's a misleading title for a video in this day and age of Roger Federer. Look up any video of Roger's and it'll blow this away by a mile. Tennis has evolved.
Linteria 3 years ago
I agree to an extent but this is still a fantastic shot even in today's time.
CuprousChloride 3 years ago 2
not only that, but it's a magnificent shot under pressure.
teflonmagnet 3 years ago 2
Good point from Pete, but that's a usual move from Federer, I was Pete's fan all his career but Roger is simply more complete. Is the greatest
locopatadita24 3 years ago
Pete was more fun to watch than Roger. His game was more explosive and athletic than Roger. Also, he attacked more.
walliegirl2 2 years ago 22
Sampras was a great champion but there's no way he was more fun to watch than Federer. His service games were so entertaining, ace, service winner, huge serve+volley, ace. If that's entertaining then I have to recheck the definition of entertainment
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@walliegirl2 bull shiiit
pyro888000 10 months ago
@walliegirl2 Roger attacks as much as modern racket tension and court speed allows.courts are favoring defensive players more and more each year,Federer is a relatively aggressive player
kyuubiyura 9 months ago
@kyuubiyura
I dont think so. Even in the last French Open both him and Murray showed that Nadal was indeed vulnerable to players closing off the point at the net (after pushing him out wide), and that it worked even on clay. Still... neither had the guts or the brains to take their chances when they presented themselves.
So yes, Fed is immensely talented, but he is either a bit daft or a coward. He insists on playing Nadal's strengths and changes nothing when he is losing. Painful to watch.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 no brains?a coward?who the fuck are you?probably just someone fatass who doesn't know shit about tennis.how can you be so dim?you think it's as easy as just coming to the net?you can't just go to the net when being under barrage of nadal's shots,you won't have the time or space or enough options to achieve anything at the net.to go to the net you need to make an opening,not to mention approaches on clay are even more pointless,especially against nadal
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
First off I know plenty about tennis. I was watching and playing it before you were born.
Second, I am not talking about mindless attack. I am talking about closing a point when you have the opponent out wide. This is something many former pros have commented on, about how current players miss their chance to finish a point.
Both Fed and Murray showed it was possible against Nadal in the last French Open. The few times they dared it worked. But... they lacked Wilanders you know?
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 that's because 20 years have past!today it's a lot harder to create those openings because the courts are slower and the rackets are harder.nadal never goes out to the net,and look at his achievments.federer does it as much as he can,it's just too risky and mostly pointless.and i dont give a damn how old you are or when you started playing.when you win a slam...screw that,win any atp title(hah),even then you cant call Federer a coward and say he has no brains.he knows more than you
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
I was commenting on this years French Open, so please spare me the lecture on tech evolution.
Federer does NOT do it as much as he can or should. Just look at his last game, its plain as day. Even clearer in Murray's game. Time and again they let Nadal back into the point for no reason, and the few times they dare, they win the point.
Add to this the fact that they are getting their butt kicked and the phrase "too risky" seems utterly moronic.,
alin1975 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
As for who I am and who you are... I am happy to leave that out of any discussion. You are the one that started making personal comments, which is why I responded. Just a standard juvenile attempt to dismiss an argument one does not like by trying to discredit the person saying it.
Being talented and playing smart are two very different things. I readily acknowledge that Fed is supremely talented... but thats as far as it goes.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 once again-who the fuck are you?why do think you have the right to judge players that would hand your ass on a platter to you?i dont care if you act personal,because i will,seeing as how you think you have the right to judge the greatest player of all time.and saying he doesn't play is smart is just so immensely stupid.you obviously don't know anything about tennis.he plays very smart,he attacks powerfully at the right moments,he even does head fakes.he's brilliant,unlike you...
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Of course you got to go personal. Its all you got, because clearly you know nothing about tennis.
If the criteria for criticising someones game is being able to defeat them, all coaches would be out of business :) Logic I know... it will probably hurt your brain a bit.
Again, Fed insists on playing Nadal's game, he is timid and afraid to take his chances, and has no concept in his head of mixing it up when HE IS LOSING. Instead, he just keeps doing the same crap over and over.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 you can't criticize something you know nothing about.how would you know what should be done against the best players in history?if it were as simple as going out to the net annacone would figure it out,and so would federer.hell,someone in the atp would already have figured it out and be kicking nadal's ass.but it's obviously not that simple,and you know a lot less than you think.you know nothing about playing against people like nadal or federer
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Its about closing points when you have the chance. Many former champions have indeed figured it out and criticised the way modern players let chances slip through their fingers.
Just go watch the Murray-Nadal game - see how things go when he goes follow up at the net (on the good, wide shots) and how it goes when he gives Nadal the chance to get back into the game.
Also ask yourself how smart it is to continue a strategy that is categorically getting your ass kicked...
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 to close a point you need to have an opportunity.against nadal you don't get much of those+modern rackets make it hard at the net+he's fast+courts are slower.all of those former champions also say that courts are slower.you can't play as aggressively now as before.and if net play is so powerful today llodra would be in the top 10 and kicking nadal's ass.federer plays smart and aggressively from the baseline,coming to the net occasionally.he wins when his bh doesn't make many mistakes
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura oh please,don't be so arrogant.if you ANYTHING about tennis you wouldn't even say that federer doesn't play smart and the other ridiculous crap.and federer is the best player,nadal is up there as well
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
When it comes to who is best I think it was Laver who said that the most we can do is find the best of each generation. I will go with that, particularly considering the high level of competition past champions faced.
But if you think Fed is best, that cool, he has the best record. But thats one.
I would like to point out that (after hearing you repeatedly try to put my knowledge of the sport down) I am 100% certain I know a lot more about tennis than you do.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 the modern level of competition is also very high.and i put your knowledge down for reasons,while you have not actual reasons to think you know about tennis.
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
What reasons? That I dont agree with you? Thats been your only argument... you dont see it my way, therefore you are wrong. Like a baby throwing a tantrum.
I used to play tennis on a pretty decent level and I watched it since the early 80s. I am quite sure I know a heck of a lot more about it than a moron like you, whose only argument is to repeat "Federer is smart".
alin1975 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
But by all means dumbass, you claim modern competitive level is very high. Lets compare today to what Lendl had to face ok?
He started with Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, then competed against Edberg, Becker, and Wilander, and ended against Agassi and Sampras. Note I am not even mentioning strong players like Courier.
Federer had a brush with an old Sampras and Agassi... then he had Nadal. Who else would feature in a top 10 or 15 ever?
So take your competitive era and shove it.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 what you are also failing to realize,as expected,is that the courts today are slower,meaning that even an average player has a chance,also slower courts to not favor federer's game,they help his opponents like nadal,djokovic, etc.and nadal won more slams than them.and none of those players would win as much slams today.and its nice how you didn't mention roddick,murray,nalbandian,safin,moya,hewitt
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
No dumbass... I didnt mention them because none of those players are on the same calibre with the ones in Lendl's era.
All the players I mentioned are legends... look at any ranking of tennis players and those guys will rank higher than the names you mentioned. But more than that, anyone who knows anything about tennis would not have been stupid enough to put that list of players against mine.
alin1975 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Why are you even arguing this with me? You clearly know zero about tennis. At this stage all you are trying to do is protect your little retarded idol and to save face.
Funny how it goes isnt it? You try to discredit me and in the end it turns out you know nothing about the sport.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 i facepalmed reading that.your last message provided NOTHING.just a bunch of insults saying i know nothing about the sport even though i provided plenty of proof for my point of view.you're acting really ridiculous and embarassing right now.i proved my point,you couldn't,and so you make it look like im on the defensive and have nothing to say,while the truth is that you just have nothing to say.pathetic and sad,i expected more of you.
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Truth hurts buddy I know.
But if someone lists "roddick,murray,nalbandian,safin,moya,hewitt" as a counter to Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Agassi, and Sampras, then that person does not know a thing about tennis.
Not one thing. So you see, not empty insults like yours, but insults based directly on garbage you said.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 out of my many points you only replied to one,about the players.as i said before,those little champs of yours would not have won as much slams today!and you're saying those players aren't excellent?ridiculous!they are all magnificent players!they'd hand you your ass on a platter as well.if it weren't for Federer they'd have as much slams as your guys,despite the modern conditions,favoring the average players
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Actually I replied to all of them... except for the ones where you were arguing against imaginary points.
What I said was that the competition was harder in the past. Plenty of excellent players I did not mention, I stuck to the legendary ones.
Again, someone who puts that list against mine knows nothing about tennis. Experts would rank those players higher than yours, so at this stage you are not just saying I dont know tennis, you are saying that you know better than everyone.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 ...no,you replied to only one point...those players of yours wouldn't have won as much slams today.and todays condition favor the average players.in the modern era the players i mentioned are just as good as your champs would be.and Federer is obviously better than all of your champs,only sampras can be compared,but Federer beat sampras and the other conditions still apply,so Federer is obviously the greatest.suck it up and accept it.
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
"those players of yours wouldn't have won as much slams today"
Enough of your garbage.
Back this up with facts or shut the fuck up.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 facts?are you blind or retarded?i think both.i already provided them but you ignore them because you can't counter them.the courts are slower,favoring more defensive game and average players,rackets are faster negating net play.even the old players said it!
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Wait... you meant that those players would not win as much today if they were teleported forward in time with the same styles they had back them? Who cares about that? If you teleported Nadal back in time, and handed him a racquet of that era he would be a nobody...
The point was, who faced the better competition, not some idiotic time travel experiment. Fact is, past eras were more competitive, and more of those players will go down in history as amongst the best ever. Period.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 that's your counter-argument?time travel?how sad...im saying that your champs wouldn't win as much slams today.but Federer would win as much slams before,because his style is better for fast courts.and the players i mentioned are all as good players relative to modern conditions as your champs were to theirs.and modern competion is higher because in the conditions any player can go far
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Right, and I am saying that pretty much any expert would rank the players I listed in a class above yours. I am saying that by denying this you are saying that you know better than everyone. I love this, because it shows how biased you are.
Your arguments are utter shit, because plenty of past champs would have preferred todays conditions (e.g. Lendl, Connors, and probably Borg). Put Fed back then, when todays top spin was not possible, and you handicap him just as much
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 you're kidding me.Federer's main weapon...is top spin?lol?seriously?aren't you tired of embarassing yourself?his main weapon is clever flat shots at right moment,aggressive game play,all-around game.Federer would kick just as much ass in the old days,even more.slow courts do not favor him!and you can't provide a single point,all you can say is that a hypothetical expert would rank your players higher.well show me an expert like that then.you won't find one,they all realize what i said
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
"Federer's main weapon...is top spin?"
I never said that. But, compare his forehand to the players of the 80s (and you can see Lendl-Fed comparison right here on youtube) and you will see he uses MUCH more topspin... as does any modern player. Really helps if you argue against what I actually say, not your imagination.
So, all the facts we do have favour my position. Experts will rank the players I listed above yours. Yet still you keep talking...
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 you keep saying that you're right,which pretty much means you aren't,because you can't say anything other than that.nadal's top spin is a lot higher than Federer's.and Fed's game isn't about top spin,so it doesn't matter much.and you can't compare forehands to other times because conditions are different!stop ignoring my points and deluding yourself with victorious feelings.the only fact you provided is that you can't counter anything i say so you just ignore my points and say you win
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
"you can't say anything other than that.nadal's top spin is a lot higher than Federer's." - show me where I said this, or any point that hinged on it. Go on...
What I have told you is that the competitive level was higher, that former champions faced far better opposition, and that expert rankings support with this assertion.
You gave me a list of second rate players that you tried to put on par with tennis legends. Plus you invent stuff I never said in virtually every post...
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 my point is that Federer's game is better for faster courts,and he prefers flat shots to top spin,so he would play better in the old days.i told you that RELATIVE TO CONDITIONS the modern players are just as good as your players.and ill say it again,since you continue to avoid points you cant counter,show me these experts.sampras himself said that his game isn't as good for the modern courts but he can't play different.now please show me your hypothetical experts.
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
The old days were well suited for either style. What I was trying to say was the Fed's game would not look the same without the ability to put as much top spin on the ball - so a good portion of the game would have to be altered. Similarly, players from that era would have trouble today for the same reason. So, both ways a lot of changes would have to be done. Plus Borg used heavy top spin, his game would benefit from todays tech and courts.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 the most talented players would be doing just fine in any area...Players like Borg, Conners, Lenl and Bigmac would have addept to 2011 and still be worldclass...
1978utreg 5 months ago
@1978utreg
I certainly agree with you.
In the rather absurd hypothetical discussion I was involved in we were talking about some weird sort of time travel lol :D
alin1975 5 months ago
@alin1975 it was really entertaining to read ;-) very weird discussion, even for youtube ;-)
1978utreg 5 months ago
@1978utreg
Lol... I know. Sometimes I wonder how I end up in these things :P
alin1975 5 months ago
@alin1975 haha well atleast you have the sence of humor too take a piss out of yourself so i suppose your not that bad of a guy ;-)
1978utreg 5 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Now I asked you to show me where I had claimed the thing about Nadal and topspin, and you ignored it. Nice...
You want expert rankings, look up any top XX player list for the open era and see how many coincide with the era I mentioned.
But listen, if you want lets start over. We can do this via youtube messaging with no char limit and without insults. This is not a personal discussion for me and if you abstain from the name calling, so will I.
alin1975 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alin1975 oh what a hypocrit you are since all you do is ignore my points and keep talking about some imagine bullshit.how old are you man...oh and learn to read please there is a period between "you can't say anything other than that" and "nadal's top spin is a lot higher than Federer's".really,how old are you?and if you're going on about some mythical expert rankings you're supposed to show me,until then-it's a lie.so once again,you have provided nothing constructive
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@alin1975 I just wanted to say that Federer's game is very much based on topspin.
Geno98 6 months ago
@kyuubiyura
And ffs, please actually read my posts... if you concluded that I used time travel as a counter argument you either didnt read what I wrote or you are dumb as a brick.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 your entire time travel thing was an utter failure.i was talking about relativity to eras and favoring conditions
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
Do you see how easy it is to expose your bias?
And by the way... since I am the only one actually adding facts to this equation... last November, Edberg defeated Safin in an old boys final. Safin is 10 years his junior and Edberg was still using his old classic S&V style.
You want to tell me again that the old generation was less gifted?
If so, look at Becker's comeback in 1996. All the facts are there if you get your head out of your Swiss idol's ass.
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 so what,sampras beat Federer in an exho in 2009.that doesn't mean he's a better player.exho's are fixed,you would know that if you knew anything about tennis....and you can't compare the old days to know because the conditiong have changed dramatically!why don't you read Federer's yesterday's after-match press conference
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
No moron, it was not an exhibition.
I was the senior tour which for years has been a serious event thanks to McEnroe.
Do your research if you dont believe me.
alin1975 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
For heavens sake man, just LOOK at the points they play. You have ample examples from this French Open. You have two points side by side, one where Murray or Fed closed it and others where they hesitated. Then compare the results.
No one (neither me nor the former champs) said one should play the way it was done in the 80s or 90s, just of closing points down when the chance is there.
Fed has devolved into a Nadal clone (minus the physique) and he wonders why he tends to lose...
alin1975 7 months ago
@alin1975 you can't just LOOK at the points and think you perfectly understand what's going on!and like i said,why isn't llodra in the top 10 then?playing at the net against nadal aggressively on clay is too hard and risky,you'll lose more points than win.and a nadal clone?i hope you know how exaggerated that is,Federer still plays smartly and aggressively
kyuubiyura 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
For the hundredth time... I never said you should be playing at the net against Nadal. I said (like many other former champs) that one should close the point when the chance presents itself. It is not so hard to identify dozens of missed opportunities in the games I mentioned.
It is far less risky than letting Nadal back into the game and allowing him to dominate with his physical ability. Plus... he was losing the game anyway (hello!!!).
alin1975 7 months ago
@kyuubiyura
And I assure you buddy, after discussing with you now, I am quite certain I know a great deal more about this sport than you do.
(Lol @ "best players in history" btw... how on earth did you manage to pluralise that?)
alin1975 7 months ago
Nadal and Fed can hit those shots in their sleep? Gee maybe their using an imaginary ball then sure thay can hit it!!! Pete's game is special because he has the best serve and volley, running 4hand, overhead dunk and court demeanor.
mariadiasy 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
actually Fed did that every match circa 04-07.
He-llo-o??
snappycruise 3 years ago
lol can you prove it fucking asshole? That is so much bullshit its unreal. Federer would never make that shot from such an angle and with such high tension strings and a small framed racket.
pistolpete58 2 years ago
Sampras el mas grande for ever!!
sampras3112 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
federer and nadal hit these in their sleep..wats so special
randikibachi88 3 years ago
I love Agassi's reaction after Sampras hit that pass. It was like a knock out punch. You could see by the reaction on Agassi's face that he was struggling to stay positive as he was "stunned" mentally by that shot as it was such a big point in the match.
alstrom 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show