You CAN see Federer play on indoor carpet because he loves playing at the O2 in London and has won it two years running now. Nadal made the final of the 2010 event though in both their encounters (later in 2011 round robin), Fed won comfortably. But Nadal would roast either Sampras or Becker at RG.
@CrimsonKing589051 the O2 has a hard court, not carpet. and modern carpet is extremely slow compared to what you are watching in this vid. and you either have to take out Nadal's babolat and rpm blast, or give sampras and becker new tech.
@cain2335 Does it really matter if the racquet alone or the surface alone or both - which is the case - account for the speed? The point is, Federer has played well in fast paced matches and while Nadal is not as good in such conditions, he has done well too, especially so for a clay court player. He made the O2 final in 2010, has one Aus and US Open title and has made a final each other than that at both events. Did Sampras make the French Open final? No.
@CrimsonKing589051 yes it does matter lol. and nadal, who i am a fan of, has gotten to those finals namely bc the ball sits up nice and high for him to hit the shit out of it. he's great (can't really deny that) but that's the court conditions now. put him on courts where the ball bounce is below the knees and really fast, and he'd be destroyed. and sampras didn't make the final for some reasons: dirt rats were around, his game wasn't for clay, and he didnt grow up on clay..
@cain2335 The ball doesn't sit nice and high at O2 for him to whack it which is why he lost to both Federer and Tsonga last year. My point is simply that performance on one kind of circuit is hardly a proper way to rate a player. There are people claiming on this thread that Fed or Nadal would not be able to play on indoor carpet, which is why I asked what would Sampras do on clay. Face it, Sampras was 'just' a hard court/grass court player by the same token.
@CrimsonKing589051 yes it does. go watch the ball get up to waist height and higher most of the time at the O2. nadal didnt make it to the finals in 2011 bc he didn't play well, and fed and tsonga played well. and i disagree with sampras just being a hard court/grass player. 3 times to the quarters, 1 time semis, and lost a lot to the eventual champions each year. that's not bad on clay considering he didn't play much on it until his pro career
@cain2335 That has much more to do with the racquets and use of heavy topspin these days than the surface. And if racquets are what we are talking about, it applies as much to Sampras too. In the wooden racquet era, his serve may not have been quite so irretrievable. Since then, racquet technology has helped make return of serves more powerful. It has arguably redressed the balance a bit.
@CrimsonKing589051 Pete's first serve would have been more difficult to return in the wood racquet days. Wood racquets have been shown to not reduce serve speed appreciably. Pancho Gonzalez rolled people up for years with his dominating serve, and he wasn't allowed to leave his feet when he played the game.
Roscoe Tanner with wood and later an early metal frame won a major and beat some great players mainly on the strength of his one of the all time great serves.
@SerUresto Roscoe Tanner and Gonzalez may have served thundering aces with wooden racquets, but we don't know for sure that Sampras could have done it as well. I love Sampras, Becker all these awesome grass/hard court players but this whole discussion is extremely hypothetical, to say the least. And I just wanted to demonstrate that with a hypothetical statement of my own.
@cain2335 In the 70s, Vilas won Aus Open on grass and also a US Open title in spite of being called a clay court specialist. It was mainly in the 80s and 90s that Wimbledon and US Open began to overwhelmingly favour hard court and grass court players because graphite racquets gave players with a big serve a tremendous advantage.
OMG...the most masculine match ever....thudding aces, thumping forehands, rasping back hands, rapier volleys and 5 sets of them. The entire match is a high-lights reel!
I miss players like Sampras and Becker , and Edberg , Agassi , Borg , McEnroe , Lendl , Connor , Vilas , Laver , Roche , Rosewall , etc . tennis is dying nowaday :(
@jhgosnell Yeah that's all I"m saying. And look I like Roddick alot so obviously if I would go and play tennis I would try to copy his serve probably, but since his is pretty weird movement noone gonna try. And Sampras his serve is pretty normal and if Federer watched tennis he probably like Sampras the most and copied his abit. But yes, now federer has his own serve but it will always be abit alike with Sampras's due to the movements they both make/made.
@3timeMVPNash Go watch the 2001 wimbledon game Sampras vs Federer and then say that again. Their serves looks really alike. "Their serves don't look anything alike" Is something you would say if you compare roddicks serve with federers.
@DuendeDude Too bad all we got now is the boring baseline strategy with one grinding rally after another and the survival of the physically fittest player. Everyone plays exactly the same strategy now while in the 90´s beside the serve & volleyers there were lots of great baseliners too like Agassi, Kafelnikov, Lendl still, Courier, Chang, Korda, Rios... Both Becker and Sampras had also a more complete game than one might guess by those short snippets from classic matches.
@DuendeDude Never heard anyone call serve-and-volley boring. It's unbelievably hard to use that strategy and win. It goes to show you how talented guys like McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, and Becker were. I feel blessed to watch such artists play. Nowadays, I'm bored with the professional game.....no variety.
THIS MATCH WA AMAZING!!! Uno de los mejores partidos que he visto en mi vida. Además, con un final ejemplar: un abrazo de dos monstruos del tenis mundial de todos los tiempos!!! SAMPRAS Y BECKER!!!
Yzaga (who the f is Yzaga?), Schaller (who the f is Schaller?), Philippoussis (in straight sets), Krajicek (in straight sets at Wimbledon), Norman, Kodra, that' all his best years!
Even after 2007 Federer's losses were Djokovic twice at the AO and USO,Del Potro at the US,Nadal at the French/Wimbledon/US Open, all TOP TOP players, only 1 random loss since 2003 in a Slam to Berdych (but even Berdych was playing out of his mind,aided by a Fed injury)
@89Pleasek Korda was on juice in 97 us open win over pete in 5 sets..Krajeck in 96 would have beaten Federer. I disagree,pete was better than Fed on hard courts too.
too many players who were "on juice" could beat Sampras in Slams, as I said in my earlier comment, Federer since his first Slam win has only lost to top top players, only 1 single loss to a player outside the top 10 in a Slam (to Berdych who subsequently reached the no 10 and is still a top tenner).
Sampras a better hard court player than Federer? Based on what? Sampras couldn't even beat Agassi at the Australian Open and struggled against him at faster surfaces as well.
@89Pleasek Thanks buddy that was the only time Agassi beat pete in 95 Austrailan open finals and i'm refering to GS only.Based on his serve, since tiebreaker were instituted in 1970 Sampras would have beaten Federer in tiebreakers at U.S open or Australian open.How did Sampras Struggle against Agassi?in 90 open it was straight sets at wimbledon in99 Sampras straight sets and Open in 02 it was straight. 95 open in was 4 sets.01 open Sampras one in 5 sets.Nice try buddy.
Agassi also beat Sampras playing at his best at the 2000 Australian Open, not to mention pwning him at the 1992 FO, losing 3 games in the last 2 sets, all Grand Slam matches. Damn, even with an injured wrist he took Sampras to 5 sets at 1993 Wimbledon. The same Agassi who got dominated by Federer time after time after time in 2003-2005.
@89Pleasek So agassi beat Pete a few times but the majority of the time 85% Pete beat agassi.Agassi was an old man in03-05 against Fed who was in his prime thats a unfair comparison
85 % of the time? Bullshit again. Their h2h was 20-14 for Sampras which is not a big advantage if you consider how many times they played. Sampras NEVER beat Agassi at either the Australian or the French Open which tells you the whole story about Sampras' game on slower surfaces. Agassi also gave Sampras trouble at the US Open and Wimbledon.
Agassi still played great in 2003-2005, he won a Slam, reached a Slam final and was the no 1 player in the world so it's not like he was an "old man"
@89Pleasek your counting all time head to head i'm counting just GS especially the finals.by the way you never did answer why fed's lost some 9 GS finals.
Their GS finals is biased cause they only played once in Australia and besides that it was the US Open/Wimbledon, why couldnt Sampras reach more French Open or Australian Open finals in his career? Cause he wasnt good enough. Agassi was good enough to reach Slam finals which favored Sampras.
Conclusion: Agassi was more versitile and better on slower surfaces, Sampras cared only about the faster surfaces therefore he NEVER gave Andre a chance to play on a surface which favored Agassi
@89Pleasek I don't think Sampras went to the Austrailan open every single year in the 90's like your hero does.Sampras in his book said he hated the long flight over there and because of that he didn't care much for the tournament.But your hero craves it so much.Well grass hard courts and carpet Sampras was better than both Federer and agassi.
@89Pleasek Sampras became a pro in 1988.In 1989 he upset the defending Champion Mats Wilander in the opening round of the U.S Open and he just turn 18 and Mats was the #1 player the year before.So in 1989 1990 1991 and 1992 Sampras DIDNOT GO to Austraila....Nice try again.
1) "Upsetting Wilander in any Slam since 1989 meant as much as nothing cause he was playing complete crap. Wilander's career virtually ended at the end of 1988.
2) Sampras didn't go to Australia in 1989-1992 so what? You think he'd win the tournament in any of the 4 years? Well if a quarterfinal show-up means that much to you, I can count it up. Wait, Sampras still stands at 14 Slams.
Seriously if he could win there twice only in his entire career that tells you the whole story.
@89Pleasek Thats why one of Sampras GS trophies the Austraila of 94' he kept in a storage bin and it was stolen with other tournament trophies.Sampras didn't keep it in his house like the other 13 GS,yeah he really cared about the Austraila open
5) LOL WHAT CRAP. Sampras didn't care about the Australian Open? LOOOL sure thing, just because he sucked on anything slower than fast hard courts doesn't mean that he didn't care.
come back to me with some serious arguements cause right now our "discussion" is like a fart game with you taking arguements out of your ass and me proving you wrong every time
@89Pleasek "You just proved you're a federer hater" No I think he a highly talented player,I just don't have him rank as high as you do.I also think he's a spoiled brat too and sometimes acts unprofessional.
Seriously, based only on your arguements, I would've ended the disscussion days ago, you're just making me feel that much better after proving everything you write wrong. You advanced to this stage when you're coming up with Federer's worst career moments to bash him and look your hero look better. Give me a day and I'll come up with 10 times more humiliating losses for Sampras in his career. I'll just take clay courts a big sample lolz
@89Pleasek "You're just making me feel that much better..." What? Are YOU ok ?It's not my fault that Nadal is going to break Federer's record.It's not my fault that Federer CAN'T beat Nadal at Roland Garros and probably NEVER WILL.It's NOT my fault that every grand slam final he's lost he's lost to NADAL.You can't dance around the facts asshole that Nadal is a superior player to Federer on ALL Surfaces.
@89Pleasek Well you brought up connors.I disagree with 99% you had to say about Federer being the GOAT.Face it both Nadal and Pete are better.ONLY on clay is Fed better than Pete.
not only youre a federer hater but youre also a hypocrite, we were arguing about Sampras-Federer when you realized Sampras has nothing on Federer you put in Nadal in the convo, now how are you not being a hater?
Not only that, if we were having an arguement youd come with stuff what Sampras did in his career, not just bashing Federer for what he hasnt done. Youre just a sad case if you need support in Nadal to bash Federer.
Go find yourself a girlfriend, read a book cause youre into the Federer Hating Camp too much.
"Face it both Nadal and Pete are better"
Thats your opinion. While I can support my opinion that Federer is the GOAT with all his records and things he achieved which both Sampras/Nadal didnt even come close to, youve got some taken out of your ass "Sampras had tougher compeition" which is debatable and "Nadal will win more than 16 Slams" which is pure speculation. Federer's 16 Slams is NOT debatable
I'm just wondering what's the base of that hypothesis? If, again, arguements taken ouf of your ass that the "competition is tougher", then we can end the discussion right now. You're just bitter that Federer made Sampras' career look like a joke. Already (and he's got a good 3-4 more years of his career) he broke Sampras' every record, the last one is the 7 Wimbledons and given Federer's record there he has a got shot at winning another 2 titles.
Youre not bringing anything new to the conversation, since I proved Sampras has nothing on Federer you had to bring Nadal. What next? You're gonna bring Laver? Then God?
@89Pleasek" Agassi also beat Sampras playing at his best at the 2000 Austrailian Open"
I'm NOT sure Sampras was playing his best due to serious back surgery he had performed on him in NY during the U.S Open in 1999.Usually it takes longer than 3 or 4 months to recover from that but a dumb ass like you thinks Sampras was playing his best with no complication.
I don't remember Sampras playing any better after 1998 than at the 2000 Australian Open. Don't bullshit about the injuries to help your idol. The previous US Open took place 5 months earlier, there is no injury (other than death I think) that makes you feel it after that many months. Agassi was just on a roll winning 2 out of the last GS 3 tournaments + a final
What I saw was Sampras serving out of his mind and playing EXTREMELY well in the first 4 sets, he was never going to beat Agassi in 5.
"Sampras would have beaten Federer in tiebreakers at U.S open or Australian open"
what bullshit, taking arguements out of your ass to support your hero. Sampras won his both Australian Opens without facing any tough opposition, each time he faced Agassi or anyone tougher he failed to beat them. And youre implying that hed beat Federer who reached 8 consecutive semi-finals, winning the title 4 times already? What are you smoking?
Definitely not old enough to remember Edberg or Becker, and only watche the Sampras of the late 90's and early 2000s but I looking at these highlights and thinking how fast the courts must have been back then, it would be sick to see how Roger would have done against those legends! Thanks for the upload!
@89Pleasek Sampras was past his prime in that 2001 match and it could have gone either way.It's worthless talking to you because Fed won't win anymore GS you FAGGOT.
Federer wasnt even 20 you faggot. Im sure you would make a big deal out of it if Sampras somehow managed to beat him that day. He didnt cause he wasnt good enough. If a 4-time defending champion lost to a 19-year old Federer, imagine what a 24-year old Federer do to him.
@89Pleasek Ok asshole when Sampras was 19 he beat Lendl in the QF and won the next 2 matches to win the U.S open.Federer the Fag just barely beats Pete in 5 sets but doesn't even win the tournament but loses in the next round.plus Sampras had one the title 7 out of the last 8 years NOT 4 times.Krajeck beat pete in '96 QF of Wimbledon in straight sets when pete was in his prime.
Lendl was 30 and done winning majors 2 years before, Sampras reached the US Open final that year and won it next year, does it even matter? if you want me to admit that a 19-year old Sampras was better than a 19-year old Federer ok, if it makes your day. Too bad that overall Sampras is not even close to Federer, if it wasnt for 7 Wimbledon titles hed have nothing on Federer since Federer broke all of his records, including his beloved 14 Slams.
@89Pleasek Yeah is does matter because tennis at the higher levels is a young man sport so an up and coming 19 year old should beat a 29 or 30 year old.Sampras was 10 years younger than Lendl who was #1 at the time just like Fed beat Sampras.Fed is 10 years younger than Sampras.
the only point you can make is that a teenage Sampras was better than teenage Federer and I agree with that.
It doesnt make him a better player overall, in fact Federer at 22-26 smacks Sampras at 22-26, even at 27-30 Federer is way better than Sampras at 27-30
Federer was a late bloomer but once he got his act together he was unbeatable. The more paethetic was the 2001 W defeat for Sampras to get beaten by a 19-year old who started to play his best tennis full 3 years later.
@89Pleasek I already explained to you that after 2000 Sampras game was on the downside,Federer just barely beat him in 2001 wimbledon in 5 close sets that could have gone either way.I thought the most pathetic defeat was when FEDERER LOST in the 2008 French open finals to Nadal 1-6, 3-6, 0-6 How the FUCK does Federer get bagel in the last set.I cannot consider him the best ever after that performance.
@89Pleasek "Since Federer broke all of his record,including his beloved 14 slams"
Actually Sampras should have won at least 17 but he he played in the more difficult era.There were MORE BETTER PLAYERS in the 1990's than there were in the 2000's.Fed played in the water down era so I put an asterix next to his 16 slams.Fed's got 16 slams but an asterix needs to go next to it.
keep living in your imaginary world, he didnt win 17 cause he wasnt good enough
better players in the 90's compared to now? OH YES, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang, Muster, 30-year old Becker, Stich WOULD BE SUCH TOUGH RIVALS FOR PRIME FEDERER, LOL in your face
Didnt Federer play Safin (who pwned Sampras 2 times in Slams, once as a 20 year old), Roddick, Hewitt (who pwned Sampras every time they played), all 3 had a positive h2h with Sampras
@89Pleasek Sampras was already 30 and in 2000 after Sampras had back surgery in late 1999 his game was on the downside after that.In 2000 semi final at U.S open Sampras beat Hewitt who at that time was at the top of his game and Sampras was not and Sampras still beat him in 5 set.Hewitt was a top player in the early 2000's but his game drop off and now he is a journey man pro.= i give incorrect information
@89Pleasek When Krajeck won wimbledon in'96 he played at a higher level of tennis THAN ANY match federer ever played at Wimbledon
Rafter in 1997 and 1998 when he won the U.S open was playing at the same level as any match Federer ever played in at the US open. Had those 2 played at the top of there games I give the slight edge to Rafter because of his serve and volley game and he was extremely quick at that time.I not even sure Federer could beat ivansevic at Wimbledon in '90s
The only player from the Sampras era who could trouble Federer was Agassi but no...oh wait, he hasn't beaten Federer since Miami 2002 and Federer smacked his ass 8 times in a row, twice in a row in a year in which Agassi was the no 1 player in the world and a Slam champion
@89Pleasek "The only player from the Sampras era who could trouble Federer was Agassi" NOW I know you don't know what you are talking about.Sampras owned Agassi except for Clay surface.In GS finals Agassi has beaten Sampras just once.In head to head Sampras owns Agassi just like Nadal owns CryBaby.
btw if Federer wins 18 Slams youre going to say that Sampras shouldve won at least 19? HAHAHAHAHAHA pffffffffffffffff in yo face faggot, if it wasnt for the Sampras serve hed end up with a big fat 0 Slam titles, the most one-dimensional no 1 there was, take away his one shot and hes nothing
take federers forehand away from him and he still pwns 99 % guys on the tour with his left hand, Federer has more talent in his little finger than Sampras in his whole body
@overratednadal "Federer has more talent in his little finger than Sampras in his whole body"
HeeeHeeee If Federer is as great as you make him out to be than how come he doesn't have a winning record against Nadal and has NEVER beaten him at Roland Garros?You still haven't answer that question you Dumb Fuck piece of shit FAGGOT.
"No Federer will not win no more GS players the new players like Soderling can beat him on any surface now."
Pure speculation, if Federer wins 17 you'll say it's his last one. If he wins 2 more you'll say that 18 is the absolute max. Such a hater you are.
About Soderling: LOL
Soderling can beat him on any surface now? Whats their h2h? 15-1 Federer, even if you count the matches after the 2010 FO, Federer PWNED HIS ASS in Canada 6-1 6-1 and then straigh setted him at the US. What a joke.
Federer barely beats Pete? Hahaha thats a good one. So you expect a teenager to beat a 4-time defending and a 7-time champion on his favorite surface in straight sets? Or wouldnt that satisfy your needs as well? Maybe a tripple bagel? No wait, youd come up with excuses that Sampras was injured or sth.
@89Pleasek I disagree with your assumption that Federer at his prime is better than Pete at his prime.Clay is the only surface that Fed was better than pete.The other Surfaces Pete's serve would be to much of a dominate force especially when pete could string them together.A great server and volleyer always beat a great returning.Had Fed played in the 1990's he would only get about 9 -10 slams at tops.
youre really retarted if you think that the Sampras' serve would make him beat Federer on any fast surface. If you wanna see how Federer deals against big servers look at his h2h with Roddick
"A great server and volleyer always beat a great returning"
LOL, Federer would own Sampras from the baseline on any surface, the only way Sampras would have a chance on fast grass courts (every other surface its ownage from Federer) is serving 80 % of first serves in and playing his absolute best
@89Pleasek "If you wanna see how Federer deals against big servers look at h2h with Roddick"
So now your comparing Sampras serve with Roddick.The big difference is Sampras could serve the ball in a tighter window in the box more consistently and fast on both 1st and 2nd serves.Roddick can just hit the ball hard but he is not as accurate or consistent as Sampras.
I like that Comparison a one hit wonder with a tennis legend
"plus Sampras had one the title 7 out of the last 8 years NOT 4 times"
proper reading is what you need to learn, I said 4-time defending champion in 2001 which is true since he won in 1997-2000, overall hes a 7-time champion but at the time he was the 4-time defending champ, a 19-year old years before he peaked beat the defending champion on his home turf, hows that for a beatdown? If it wasnt for his lack of experience hed pwn him in straights
@89Pleasek And thats a great record for Pete.Krajeck played at a higher level of tennis that day when he took pete out in straight sets than Fed had played in any match at Wimbledon of the 2000's
who the f are you to compare both matches (1996 W/2001 W) and wat do you wanna prove? Sampras lost both and that's what matters, nobody gives a shit if he played worse of better.
@89Pleasek Fed did in the 2000's what Sampras did in the 90's so what?Plus, if Fed was REAL good he should of won the whole tournament in 2001.For me personally i thought both pete in 94, 97 and 99 and Krajeck in 96 played tennis at a higher level than Federer did in any match that he played at wimbledon in the 2000's
youre fucked up, the post 2001 grass and pre 2001 grass are completely different surfaces, Federer was more dominant in his best years cause he was (and still is) a better player.
Federer playing in the 90's would achieve even more than he did in the last couple of years, because there would be no Nadal. Now you put Sampras in today's era and he doesn't win a single Wimbledon, still gets pwned at the French and MAYBE wins 3-4 Australian or US Opens, thats why s-volleyers are gone
Federer playing in the 90's would still mean winning more than Sampras. He would be the best clay court player in the 90's, the best hard court player next with Sampras coming as close second and Agassi close third, and he goes 50/50 with Sampras.
Now you put Sampras in the current era and he doesn't win more than 3 Slams, all 3 probably at the US Open if he gets a lucky draw. Baseliners still had success in the 90's but serve-and-volleyers ARE GONE nowadays. Pete was lucky to play in the 90;s
@89Pleasek "Federer would be the best clay court player in the 90's" Thats bull shit.Guga was a better player than Federer on clay and woould have beaten him and Kafenkov would have gone the distance probably beating him.Guga would have been the Nadal for Federer in the 90's.
HAD FEDERER PLAYED IN THE 90's HE GETS 8-10 SLAMS AT TOPS.
@89Pleasek "Federer playing in the 90's would still men winning more than Sampras"
At Roland Garros yes.Wimbeldon NO WAY and U.S open I give the edge to Pete because Pete at the top of his game and stringing those serves for aces would beat Federer in tie breakers
Federer at the top of his game wouldn't lose to Sampras on any surface. I've seen both of them in action and Sampras would very often rely purely on his serve. You need more than that to beat a prime Federer, can't have any weaknesses and Sampras backhand was simply atrocious at times, looping it in the middle of the court.
If you wanna see how Federer deals with big servers check his h2h against Roddick, Soderling, Del Potro or whoever there is.
@89Pleasek Yes but Sampras is a special server.Sampras was a very accurate server in the Mid1990's .He was very hard to break against except for Clay.I think Federer at his best would keep it close but pete would win the majority of the matches except clay.
you can't say what Sampras would've done in today's game cause there are too many what ifs, shoudlves and couldves, what we know is that Federer started playing as a serve-and-volley player, beat Sampras himself at Wimbledon as a kid, then won Wimbledon in 2003 playing serve-and-volley before he went on to dominate from the baseline from 2004 onwards. Sampras sucked on every slower surface than fast hard courts/grass courts, he couldnt adapt to win the FO
@89Pleasek No kidding but Federer won only one FO and thats because Nadal was not 100% in'09.I already agree with you that Federer was better than Pete on clay.But on other surface I thought pete was a little better because his serve was so good.
Nadal has nothing to do with Federer playing at the FO. Federer has been the second best clay court player since 2005. Sampras couldnt even beat a guy ranked 197 in the world at the French Open, Nadal or not Nadal, Sampras was never going to win the French Open. He was too one-dimensional or too stubborn to change his game. No sacrifice, no price.
Btw Sampras beat Agassi in the 2002 US Open in 4 sets, not 3, Agassi could've easily taken it to 5. They also played the famous 2001 US Open QF
The Sampras serve wouldn't hurt Federer if they both played now because the game has slowed down. I told you theres a reason why serve-and-volley has died, even Sampras wouldn't do shit nowadays with his great serve. As I said, Sampras was very lucky to play in the 90's in the fast pace era,if he played now, Federer would've annihilated him on every surface,Sampras was too one-dimensional for Federer who even at 19 could beat the American in his fav tournie
@89Pleasek Your a dumb ass.Federer would get his ass kick by Sampras at Wimbledon had they played in the 90's.You don't know shit about tennis asshole. How many times do I have to tell you in that 01 match Sampras was on the downside of his career.
Federer is the last player who can get his ass kicked by anyone on any surface. Again, your arguements taken out of your ass, completely hypothetical. All we know is that a TEENAGER FEDERER beat the 4-TIME DEFENDING CHAMPION SAMPRAS on FAST GRASS COURTS AT WIMBLEDON playing SERVE-AND-VOLLEY.
@89Pleasek And that Sampras was on the downside of his career and thats why he retired a year later.Just like federer losing now to soderling and Novak .
"And that Sampras was on the downside of his career and thats why he retired a year later"
Yea, retired, after winning a GS title and after reaching the US Open final in 2001, the next Slam tournament after his loss to Federer at Wimbledon
Look at Federer, even now at 30 he's still losing to top 5 players (in great shape most of the time), giving them a hard time, Sampras lost to a teenager out of nowhere, no matter how good Federer became later on
Sampras might've been on a downside but he, a 4-time defending champion, still lost to a teenager ranked something around 20 at the time. Federer is losing to guys like Djokovic/Soderling on a hot streak
@89Pleasek Just the fact that Federer even played Agassi in 2005 U.S open final tells me there wasn't anybody good out there.Why is a 35 year old Agassi in the Finals?.None of those what you call better players couldn't knock off a 35 year old who Played in you so called "slower era."Give me a break your just talking the talk out of your ass.
lol its not like Agassi faced some great players en route, the only DECENT one was Blake and Agassi barely won that won having lost the first 2 sets 6-3 6-3
Federer beat Nalbandian, Hewitt in the quarters and semis respectively. Safin was injured. Nadal was still improving on hard courts. Roddick lost early.
If a one-time-shoot-out is an indicator for you that this era is "weak" that youre seriously retarted. What do you make out of Connors reaching the US Open semi-finals in 1991 aged 39?
Connors reaching the semis of the US Open in 1991 at 39 years of age? And the 1985-1993 was supposed to be the strongest era ever with Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Courier, emerging Sampras/Agassi and many more I forgot about.
Connors playing in the last 4 at 39 suddenly makes that era weak based on your logic lulz.
Btw look who Agassi faced en route to the final, not a single top 30 player, a wildcard in the quarters, Ginepri in the semis lulz
@89Pleasek But agassi still took a set off federer in the finals.Connors didn't make the final he got routed by Courier in straight sets in SF.Nice try It was YOU that said the players in the 2000's were faster and overall better than the players in the 90's.So how did a player from the 90's who was 35 make it to the finals in the middle of the decade of the 2000's and STILL take a set off a Man YOU consider was the greatest ever and playing at the top of his game?I like to hear this answer
Youre a complete idiot if you wanna compare the 90's to 00's with 1 Agassi run. That is just too retarted to even be considered an arguement. The players in 00's are tons better than 90's because of evolution, as simple as that. Just as the players in the 90's were way better than in the 80's. It has nothing to do with particular players sucking.
"I like to hear this answer "
dude youre seriously fucked up, Agassi took a set off Federer? And what does that tell us? Federer routed him 8 times
@89Pleasek Dude your seriously Fucked up.You said the players in the 2000's were better than the players in the 90's so I ask you a plain a simple question than how did Agassi a 35 year old player from the 90's make it to the Finals of the 2005 U.S open and your answer was a lucky draw.That is the STUPIDEST RETARDED ANSWER I EVER HEARD.Is that the best YOU can do because if it is I REALLY FEEL SORRY FOR YOU.YOU MORON.
Aha, so based on your retarted logic the greatest player of all time should straight set everyone on every surface for 10 years. Im not even gonna respond to this bullshit. Federer routed Agassi in 2003 (including a bagel set) at the Masters Cup with Agassi holding the no 1 position just weeks before and being the then AO champion. Federer wasn't even in his prime yet.
Sampras was routed in straight sets in 1993 by a 33 year old near retired Lendl. What do you make out of this tard?
@89Pleasek In his prime he should against a 35 year old with back problems.You said he's(Federer) the greatest ever so don't you think the greatest ever should be able to straight set a 35 year old? I can't wait to hear your answer on this one.
1) Federer straight-setted Agassi many times since 2003, 2003 MC final (including a bagel), 2005 AO, 2005 Dubai, 2005 Miami. In fact he lost only 5 sets in the last 8 meetings with Federer in 2003-2005. So what he was 35? He was never going to win anything against Federer when Federer hit his prime.
Come to think of it, I can't believe I have to argue about Federer losing 1 set to Andre Agassi like you're making him look 50+ or something.
@89Pleasek But I thought you said the players in the 2000's were better than in the 90's if thats the case than agassi should have lost earlier than the finals.Nice try deflecting the question by bringing Connors up.
Youre just plain stumb. The fact that Agassi was 35 doesn't mean he couldn't reach the final, ESPECIALLY given who he played in that tournament, not one single top 30 player. Look at his draw, Malisse, Karlovic, Ginepri in the semis (!), Blake was the only decent player he had to face and even he was coming back from injury at the time, almost beat Agassi in straights.
And I'm not deflecting the question at all by bringing Connors, I'm just using your retarted logic.
40-year old Connors almost took a set of Sampras in 1992 (the first set ended in a breaker). What can you make out of this?
31-year old McEnroe who was the last time in his prime 6 years earlier took a set off Sampras a the 1990 US Open who then went on to win the tournament.
@89Pleasek ALMOST doesn't count.And what tournament did Connors almost take a set off Sampras?.I'm just going by GS.Remember Sampras said the GS are what really matters,the rest are just tournaments
1)A win is a win, no need to go by GS terms when facts don't fit your arguements.
2)Sampras said GS are what really matters, Federer wins more than him, need to say anything more?
3)why is my answer retarted? AGAIN because it spoils your arguement? I said Agassi had a piss easy draw and he actually had, not only that. Agassi's draws in both the 2001 AO and 2003 AO were just paethetically easy. It sais nothing about the whole generation you dumb fuck.
@89Pleasek First you said the players of the 2000's were better than the players of the 90's.I ask you than how did Agassi a player from the 90's make it to the 2005 u.s open final.You said he had an easy draw BUT that can't be because the players of the 2000's are suppose to be better according to YOU.Right?? You are the stupidest person ever.GROW A FUCKIN BRAIN YOU RETARD YOUR GIVING ME A HEADACHE.
So if Federer continues doing what he's doing Sampras won't have absolutely nothing on him. I don't believe in the "better generation" cause it's bullshit. Tell me in which areas are Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Krajicek, Muster, Courier better than Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and now Djokovic, Del Potro? Again, it's all taken out of your ass. Sampras' only big rival was Agassi just like Federer's is Nadal.
Players from the 00's are better than players from the 90's just as players from the 90's are better than players from the 80's, same thing with players from 10's better than players from the 00's, this is called evolution.
Borg was a great player? He sure was. But bring him back now and he's not a top 20 player. Laver was a great player in his hay day? Yes indeed. Sampras would've smoked him, even on clay.
This has NOTHING to do with particular players being better than other players.
You brought up 35-year old Agassi taking 1 set off prime Federer on a hard court. I brought you 33-year old Lendl beating Sampras IN STRAIGHT sets on carpet. If you want more humiliating losses, how about this one:
Santoro beat Sampras Monte Carlo 1998 6-1 6-1. Any excuses for this one? Oh wait, it's a clay court so it doesn't count lolz.
I'm asking you for 1 thing. Either bring something new to the discussion other than WHAT YOU THINK WOULD/WILL HAPPEN or there's no point of further arguement
"It wasn't a GS final so maybe Sampras didn't try."
what a dumbarse excuse, btw I wanna see Sampras try and beat ANY Nadal on clay, even the one-legged Nadal in 2009, youre bashing Fed for trying to beat Nadal on clay, not only he did it twice, but he took a set off him in almost every clay match and all of them (except for 2008 FO when Federer played just aweful tennis, killed himself with UE) were very close.
I wanna see Sampras have a positive h2h with Nadal having played 12 out of 22 matches on clay. Nadal would have 12 wins to start with lolz... and very likely beat him here on there on slow hard/grass courts. I wanna see Sampras lead ANYONE in the h2h having played 12 out of 22 matches on clay. Federer leads Nadal on both grass and hard courts which should tell the whole story. Sampras sucked so badly on clay, he wouldn't even get to play Nadal in a tournament final on clay.
@89Pleasek True...but on Wimbledon's fast grass during Sampras' reign, Nadal would not have fared too well either. He would have had to deal with Becker, Edberg, Agassi, etc.
Nobody knows that. All we know is that Sampras is well done winning Slams, Federer is still in his 20's and already won 2 more majors than Pete in his whole career LOLZ
@89Pleasek I disagree Sampras serve on grass is way too good.Mac and other commentators said that if Sampras could be a 5th seed at wimbledon a couple of years ago. Sampras can now benefit from todays technology.As far as that 2001 match as i explain a million times thru your thick skull Sampras had back surgery in 1999 his serve was not as consistent and potent after 1999.Plus anybody can beat anybody on a given day,The grass courts are not slower moron .Sampras is still better than Fed
Ok, this is the last time Im responding to your bullshit. It was fun proving you wrong at the beginning but now youre simply starting to piss me off.
1)Sampras can now benefit from todays technology? The technology is exactly the same as it was in the 90's, the only difference are the strings which can last longer but it wouldn't affect Sampras "new" serve at all. Get your info.
2) The grass courts have been slower since 2001, sto denying it just to make Nadal's victories at Wimbledon more worthy. If the grass is the same now as it was 10 years, why does nobody serve-and-volley? Why did Nadal win the 2008 Wimbledon final having played 1 (at 8-7 in the 5th) serve-and-volley action and winning the remaining points by grinding 10 feet from the baseline?
4) I dont give a shit, man. 19-year old Federer beat Sampras who was going for his record eqalling 5th Wimbledon title in 2001. A kid beat your idol. The same kid made Sampras career look like a joke by breaking all his records. LIVE WITH IT
I do.You live with the fact that Fed had no competition from 2003 to 2006 and than Nadal started becoming a great tennis player and Fed has a losing record against him.Nadal is WAY BETTER THAN YOUR IDOL.But a moron like you still thinks fed is the best ever but the facts are NADAL is better.Live with it.
Championship point wasn't too shabby.
davd1986 18 hours ago
Why are there no tramlines?
mrhindu82 1 day ago
Love Becker's serve
s333b1 2 weeks ago
You CAN see Federer play on indoor carpet because he loves playing at the O2 in London and has won it two years running now. Nadal made the final of the 2010 event though in both their encounters (later in 2011 round robin), Fed won comfortably. But Nadal would roast either Sampras or Becker at RG.
CrimsonKing589051 1 month ago
@CrimsonKing589051 the O2 has a hard court, not carpet. and modern carpet is extremely slow compared to what you are watching in this vid. and you either have to take out Nadal's babolat and rpm blast, or give sampras and becker new tech.
cain2335 4 weeks ago
@cain2335 Does it really matter if the racquet alone or the surface alone or both - which is the case - account for the speed? The point is, Federer has played well in fast paced matches and while Nadal is not as good in such conditions, he has done well too, especially so for a clay court player. He made the O2 final in 2010, has one Aus and US Open title and has made a final each other than that at both events. Did Sampras make the French Open final? No.
CrimsonKing589051 4 weeks ago
@CrimsonKing589051 yes it does matter lol. and nadal, who i am a fan of, has gotten to those finals namely bc the ball sits up nice and high for him to hit the shit out of it. he's great (can't really deny that) but that's the court conditions now. put him on courts where the ball bounce is below the knees and really fast, and he'd be destroyed. and sampras didn't make the final for some reasons: dirt rats were around, his game wasn't for clay, and he didnt grow up on clay..
cain2335 4 weeks ago
@cain2335 like nadal and federer did. he grew up playing on hard courts.
cain2335 4 weeks ago
@cain2335 The ball doesn't sit nice and high at O2 for him to whack it which is why he lost to both Federer and Tsonga last year. My point is simply that performance on one kind of circuit is hardly a proper way to rate a player. There are people claiming on this thread that Fed or Nadal would not be able to play on indoor carpet, which is why I asked what would Sampras do on clay. Face it, Sampras was 'just' a hard court/grass court player by the same token.
CrimsonKing589051 4 weeks ago
@CrimsonKing589051 yes it does. go watch the ball get up to waist height and higher most of the time at the O2. nadal didnt make it to the finals in 2011 bc he didn't play well, and fed and tsonga played well. and i disagree with sampras just being a hard court/grass player. 3 times to the quarters, 1 time semis, and lost a lot to the eventual champions each year. that's not bad on clay considering he didn't play much on it until his pro career
cain2335 4 weeks ago
@cain2335 That has much more to do with the racquets and use of heavy topspin these days than the surface. And if racquets are what we are talking about, it applies as much to Sampras too. In the wooden racquet era, his serve may not have been quite so irretrievable. Since then, racquet technology has helped make return of serves more powerful. It has arguably redressed the balance a bit.
CrimsonKing589051 4 weeks ago
@CrimsonKing589051 yea it has redressed the balance a bit, but im not sure that's a good thing. that's just my opinion
cain2335 4 weeks ago
@CrimsonKing589051 Pete's first serve would have been more difficult to return in the wood racquet days. Wood racquets have been shown to not reduce serve speed appreciably. Pancho Gonzalez rolled people up for years with his dominating serve, and he wasn't allowed to leave his feet when he played the game.
Roscoe Tanner with wood and later an early metal frame won a major and beat some great players mainly on the strength of his one of the all time great serves.
SerUresto 2 weeks ago
@SerUresto Roscoe Tanner and Gonzalez may have served thundering aces with wooden racquets, but we don't know for sure that Sampras could have done it as well. I love Sampras, Becker all these awesome grass/hard court players but this whole discussion is extremely hypothetical, to say the least. And I just wanted to demonstrate that with a hypothetical statement of my own.
CrimsonKing589051 2 weeks ago
@cain2335 In the 70s, Vilas won Aus Open on grass and also a US Open title in spite of being called a clay court specialist. It was mainly in the 80s and 90s that Wimbledon and US Open began to overwhelmingly favour hard court and grass court players because graphite racquets gave players with a big serve a tremendous advantage.
CrimsonKing589051 4 weeks ago
i have this match on dvd, great match, players dressed funny back then lol
quest8899 2 months ago
why sampras is in underpants ?
yaglourt 3 months ago
you didnt show the 4 aces of the first game :/
yaglourt 3 months ago
1:30 That`s Becker Classic Backhand shot!!!
SthlmFARSTASTRAND 3 months ago
this match was gansta lol no compromise warrior stuff.
themythuk 3 months ago
OMG...the most masculine match ever....thudding aces, thumping forehands, rasping back hands, rapier volleys and 5 sets of them. The entire match is a high-lights reel!
Voltairec 3 months ago 2
GO Pete!
Frogmanbb66 5 months ago
respect to becker, i really enjoyed these kind of mtaches!
hhgtipower 5 months ago
Holy Sheep Shit- what a match and what a match point
altfratuben 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I miss players like Sampras and Becker , and Edberg , Agassi , Borg , McEnroe , Lendl , Connor , Vilas , Laver , Roche , Rosewall , etc . tennis is dying nowaday :(
sampras19 5 months ago
Comment removed
sampras19 5 months ago
@jhgosnell Yeah that's all I"m saying. And look I like Roddick alot so obviously if I would go and play tennis I would try to copy his serve probably, but since his is pretty weird movement noone gonna try. And Sampras his serve is pretty normal and if Federer watched tennis he probably like Sampras the most and copied his abit. But yes, now federer has his own serve but it will always be abit alike with Sampras's due to the movements they both make/made.
xSaikusu 6 months ago
I play tennis myself, and it would seem a little disorienting to play on a court with no doubles alleys, because I am used to them being there.
dineirodude 6 months ago
@dineirodude that tought allways crosses my mind when i see a video like this haha. it looks very futuristic ;-)
1978utreg 6 months ago
@3timeMVPNash Go watch the 2001 wimbledon game Sampras vs Federer and then say that again. Their serves looks really alike. "Their serves don't look anything alike" Is something you would say if you compare roddicks serve with federers.
xSaikusu 7 months ago
Anyone else noticed that Federer copied Sampras's his serve?
xSaikusu 8 months ago
@xSaikusu Their serves don't look anything alike.
3timeMVPNash 7 months ago
@xSaikusu I think he tried to, but over time he found his own serve.
jhgosnell 6 months ago
Prime Federer vs. either of these guys would be an orgasmic match
365to173repubsPWNED 8 months ago
its funny how alot of people think they know tennis....
federerownz 8 months ago
@federerownz Coming from a guy whose nickname is 'federerownz' that's saying a lot
drugstoremarc 6 months ago
@drugstoremarc yea it does doesn't it....
federerownz 6 months ago
these were manly times! when most players had a single handed backhand ... but I don't miss the boring and redundant serve-volley scoring strategy
DuendeDude 8 months ago
@DuendeDude Too bad all we got now is the boring baseline strategy with one grinding rally after another and the survival of the physically fittest player. Everyone plays exactly the same strategy now while in the 90´s beside the serve & volleyers there were lots of great baseliners too like Agassi, Kafelnikov, Lendl still, Courier, Chang, Korda, Rios... Both Becker and Sampras had also a more complete game than one might guess by those short snippets from classic matches.
ChristianPaul75 8 months ago
@DuendeDude Never heard anyone call serve-and-volley boring. It's unbelievably hard to use that strategy and win. It goes to show you how talented guys like McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, and Becker were. I feel blessed to watch such artists play. Nowadays, I'm bored with the professional game.....no variety.
bull864 6 months ago
Sampras was the GOAT.
tyruk 9 months ago
what a match!
shinobilordz 9 months ago
The greatest indoor match of all time...
I don't think any other match can come close...
Sampras and Becker can really light it up when they are on.
For the record, how would Roger Federer do on a quick indoor surface like this one?
It would be a fun match, but given Becker and Sampras both have better serves, I would favor them.
Becker, IMO, is the greatest carpet player of all time....
LDis1 10 months ago
THIS MATCH WA AMAZING!!! Uno de los mejores partidos que he visto en mi vida. Además, con un final ejemplar: un abrazo de dos monstruos del tenis mundial de todos los tiempos!!! SAMPRAS Y BECKER!!!
xvideos75 10 months ago
these guys nowadays would dominate so easily! especially Sampras, I like Federer but Sampras's game destroys any player.
federerownz 10 months ago
Smart & very fast tennis, we can notice how the game has changed, interesting !!!
bnpparibastennis 11 months ago
This Bullshit discussion Federer vs. Sampras are so boring. Get a life guys
morphiger 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
overratednadal 1 year ago
Comment removed
overratednadal 1 year ago
now who did Sampras lose to in his best years?
Yzaga (who the f is Yzaga?), Schaller (who the f is Schaller?), Philippoussis (in straight sets), Krajicek (in straight sets at Wimbledon), Norman, Kodra, that' all his best years!
Even after 2007 Federer's losses were Djokovic twice at the AO and USO,Del Potro at the US,Nadal at the French/Wimbledon/US Open, all TOP TOP players, only 1 random loss since 2003 in a Slam to Berdych (but even Berdych was playing out of his mind,aided by a Fed injury)
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Korda was on juice in 97 us open win over pete in 5 sets..Krajeck in 96 would have beaten Federer. I disagree,pete was better than Fed on hard courts too.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
too many players who were "on juice" could beat Sampras in Slams, as I said in my earlier comment, Federer since his first Slam win has only lost to top top players, only 1 single loss to a player outside the top 10 in a Slam (to Berdych who subsequently reached the no 10 and is still a top tenner).
Sampras a better hard court player than Federer? Based on what? Sampras couldn't even beat Agassi at the Australian Open and struggled against him at faster surfaces as well.
Keep dreaming fanboy
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Thanks buddy that was the only time Agassi beat pete in 95 Austrailan open finals and i'm refering to GS only.Based on his serve, since tiebreaker were instituted in 1970 Sampras would have beaten Federer in tiebreakers at U.S open or Australian open.How did Sampras Struggle against Agassi?in 90 open it was straight sets at wimbledon in99 Sampras straight sets and Open in 02 it was straight. 95 open in was 4 sets.01 open Sampras one in 5 sets.Nice try buddy.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Agassi also beat Sampras playing at his best at the 2000 Australian Open, not to mention pwning him at the 1992 FO, losing 3 games in the last 2 sets, all Grand Slam matches. Damn, even with an injured wrist he took Sampras to 5 sets at 1993 Wimbledon. The same Agassi who got dominated by Federer time after time after time in 2003-2005.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek So agassi beat Pete a few times but the majority of the time 85% Pete beat agassi.Agassi was an old man in03-05 against Fed who was in his prime thats a unfair comparison
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
85 % of the time? Bullshit again. Their h2h was 20-14 for Sampras which is not a big advantage if you consider how many times they played. Sampras NEVER beat Agassi at either the Australian or the French Open which tells you the whole story about Sampras' game on slower surfaces. Agassi also gave Sampras trouble at the US Open and Wimbledon.
Agassi still played great in 2003-2005, he won a Slam, reached a Slam final and was the no 1 player in the world so it's not like he was an "old man"
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek your counting all time head to head i'm counting just GS especially the finals.by the way you never did answer why fed's lost some 9 GS finals.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Their GS finals is biased cause they only played once in Australia and besides that it was the US Open/Wimbledon, why couldnt Sampras reach more French Open or Australian Open finals in his career? Cause he wasnt good enough. Agassi was good enough to reach Slam finals which favored Sampras.
Conclusion: Agassi was more versitile and better on slower surfaces, Sampras cared only about the faster surfaces therefore he NEVER gave Andre a chance to play on a surface which favored Agassi
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I don't think Sampras went to the Austrailan open every single year in the 90's like your hero does.Sampras in his book said he hated the long flight over there and because of that he didn't care much for the tournament.But your hero craves it so much.Well grass hard courts and carpet Sampras was better than both Federer and agassi.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bullshit again. Sampras missed only 1 Australian Open in 1993-2002, that is 1999.
"sampras in his book said he hated the long flight over there and because of that he didn't care much for the tournament"
Sure thing, nobody cares about some minor GS tournament, lolz
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Sampras became a pro in 1988.In 1989 he upset the defending Champion Mats Wilander in the opening round of the U.S Open and he just turn 18 and Mats was the #1 player the year before.So in 1989 1990 1991 and 1992 Sampras DIDNOT GO to Austraila....Nice try again.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
1) "Upsetting Wilander in any Slam since 1989 meant as much as nothing cause he was playing complete crap. Wilander's career virtually ended at the end of 1988.
2) Sampras didn't go to Australia in 1989-1992 so what? You think he'd win the tournament in any of the 4 years? Well if a quarterfinal show-up means that much to you, I can count it up. Wait, Sampras still stands at 14 Slams.
Seriously if he could win there twice only in his entire career that tells you the whole story.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Thats why one of Sampras GS trophies the Austraila of 94' he kept in a storage bin and it was stolen with other tournament trophies.Sampras didn't keep it in his house like the other 13 GS,yeah he really cared about the Austraila open
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
5) LOL WHAT CRAP. Sampras didn't care about the Australian Open? LOOOL sure thing, just because he sucked on anything slower than fast hard courts doesn't mean that he didn't care.
89Pleasek 1 year ago 2
come back to me with some serious arguements cause right now our "discussion" is like a fart game with you taking arguements out of your ass and me proving you wrong every time
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Your an asshole you know nothing just stupid shit
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Im an asshole because Im proving you wrong every time? If thats the definition, then ok.
"Lets put it this way I say Federer NEVER WINS another GS and if he does i'll give you $20"
lol wut? you just proved that youre a federer hater and not a tennis fan, our discussion is over since youre heavily biased
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "You just proved you're a federer hater" No I think he a highly talented player,I just don't have him rank as high as you do.I also think he's a spoiled brat too and sometimes acts unprofessional.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Seriously, based only on your arguements, I would've ended the disscussion days ago, you're just making me feel that much better after proving everything you write wrong. You advanced to this stage when you're coming up with Federer's worst career moments to bash him and look your hero look better. Give me a day and I'll come up with 10 times more humiliating losses for Sampras in his career. I'll just take clay courts a big sample lolz
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "You're just making me feel that much better..." What? Are YOU ok ?It's not my fault that Nadal is going to break Federer's record.It's not my fault that Federer CAN'T beat Nadal at Roland Garros and probably NEVER WILL.It's NOT my fault that every grand slam final he's lost he's lost to NADAL.You can't dance around the facts asshole that Nadal is a superior player to Federer on ALL Surfaces.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Tell me what were we arguing about again? cause I thought it was a "who's better Federer or Sampras" discussion, yet you bring in Nadal.
I mean, keep writing man, you're making my day.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Well you brought up connors.I disagree with 99% you had to say about Federer being the GOAT.Face it both Nadal and Pete are better.ONLY on clay is Fed better than Pete.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
not only youre a federer hater but youre also a hypocrite, we were arguing about Sampras-Federer when you realized Sampras has nothing on Federer you put in Nadal in the convo, now how are you not being a hater?
Not only that, if we were having an arguement youd come with stuff what Sampras did in his career, not just bashing Federer for what he hasnt done. Youre just a sad case if you need support in Nadal to bash Federer.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Go find yourself a girlfriend, read a book cause youre into the Federer Hating Camp too much.
"Face it both Nadal and Pete are better"
Thats your opinion. While I can support my opinion that Federer is the GOAT with all his records and things he achieved which both Sampras/Nadal didnt even come close to, youve got some taken out of your ass "Sampras had tougher compeition" which is debatable and "Nadal will win more than 16 Slams" which is pure speculation. Federer's 16 Slams is NOT debatable
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"ONLY on clay is Fed better than Pete. "
I'm just wondering what's the base of that hypothesis? If, again, arguements taken ouf of your ass that the "competition is tougher", then we can end the discussion right now. You're just bitter that Federer made Sampras' career look like a joke. Already (and he's got a good 3-4 more years of his career) he broke Sampras' every record, the last one is the 7 Wimbledons and given Federer's record there he has a got shot at winning another 2 titles.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek No Federer will not win no more GS players the new players like Soderling can beat him on any surface now.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Youre not bringing anything new to the conversation, since I proved Sampras has nothing on Federer you had to bring Nadal. What next? You're gonna bring Laver? Then God?
Stop being such a hater
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "Stop being such a hater"
How am I being a hater???? I can't wait to hear your answer on this one
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
@89Pleasek" Agassi also beat Sampras playing at his best at the 2000 Austrailian Open"
I'm NOT sure Sampras was playing his best due to serious back surgery he had performed on him in NY during the U.S Open in 1999.Usually it takes longer than 3 or 4 months to recover from that but a dumb ass like you thinks Sampras was playing his best with no complication.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
I don't remember Sampras playing any better after 1998 than at the 2000 Australian Open. Don't bullshit about the injuries to help your idol. The previous US Open took place 5 months earlier, there is no injury (other than death I think) that makes you feel it after that many months. Agassi was just on a roll winning 2 out of the last GS 3 tournaments + a final
What I saw was Sampras serving out of his mind and playing EXTREMELY well in the first 4 sets, he was never going to beat Agassi in 5.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"Sampras would have beaten Federer in tiebreakers at U.S open or Australian open"
what bullshit, taking arguements out of your ass to support your hero. Sampras won his both Australian Opens without facing any tough opposition, each time he faced Agassi or anyone tougher he failed to beat them. And youre implying that hed beat Federer who reached 8 consecutive semi-finals, winning the title 4 times already? What are you smoking?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
sampras had a way tougher field then than federer does now
ludtke337 1 year ago
merci pour ce match! une grande partie qui restera dans les annales! sans doute la plus belle finale de l'histoire du Masters!
quentincador 1 year ago
Grazie a Sampras per aver sconfitto quel culone di Becker proprio in Germania! Dopo Roger the best è lui il migliore degli ultimi 25 anni.
obellaciao 1 year ago
Habe ich auch noch auf S-VHS rumfliegen, nice upload m8 :-)
XXS666 1 year ago
Definitely not old enough to remember Edberg or Becker, and only watche the Sampras of the late 90's and early 2000s but I looking at these highlights and thinking how fast the courts must have been back then, it would be sick to see how Roger would have done against those legends! Thanks for the upload!
davd1986 1 year ago
Federer won Wimbledon 2003 playing s-v, he beat Sampras in 2001 playing s-v, dont you worry about Federer, he would be just as dominant as he is now
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Sampras was past his prime in that 2001 match and it could have gone either way.It's worthless talking to you because Fed won't win anymore GS you FAGGOT.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Federer wasnt even 20 you faggot. Im sure you would make a big deal out of it if Sampras somehow managed to beat him that day. He didnt cause he wasnt good enough. If a 4-time defending champion lost to a 19-year old Federer, imagine what a 24-year old Federer do to him.
Fucking cry me a river
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Ok asshole when Sampras was 19 he beat Lendl in the QF and won the next 2 matches to win the U.S open.Federer the Fag just barely beats Pete in 5 sets but doesn't even win the tournament but loses in the next round.plus Sampras had one the title 7 out of the last 8 years NOT 4 times.Krajeck beat pete in '96 QF of Wimbledon in straight sets when pete was in his prime.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Lendl was 30 and done winning majors 2 years before, Sampras reached the US Open final that year and won it next year, does it even matter? if you want me to admit that a 19-year old Sampras was better than a 19-year old Federer ok, if it makes your day. Too bad that overall Sampras is not even close to Federer, if it wasnt for 7 Wimbledon titles hed have nothing on Federer since Federer broke all of his records, including his beloved 14 Slams.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Yeah is does matter because tennis at the higher levels is a young man sport so an up and coming 19 year old should beat a 29 or 30 year old.Sampras was 10 years younger than Lendl who was #1 at the time just like Fed beat Sampras.Fed is 10 years younger than Sampras.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
the only point you can make is that a teenage Sampras was better than teenage Federer and I agree with that.
It doesnt make him a better player overall, in fact Federer at 22-26 smacks Sampras at 22-26, even at 27-30 Federer is way better than Sampras at 27-30
Federer was a late bloomer but once he got his act together he was unbeatable. The more paethetic was the 2001 W defeat for Sampras to get beaten by a 19-year old who started to play his best tennis full 3 years later.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I already explained to you that after 2000 Sampras game was on the downside,Federer just barely beat him in 2001 wimbledon in 5 close sets that could have gone either way.I thought the most pathetic defeat was when FEDERER LOST in the 2008 French open finals to Nadal 1-6, 3-6, 0-6 How the FUCK does Federer get bagel in the last set.I cannot consider him the best ever after that performance.
FAILED
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
dont bullshit, ask anyone with a little common sense and theyll tell you that:
A 19 year old Sampras would never beat a 29 year old Sampras
A 19 year old Federer wouldnt even come close of beating a 29 year old Federer
89Pleasek 1 year ago 13
@89Pleasek "Since Federer broke all of his record,including his beloved 14 slams"
Actually Sampras should have won at least 17 but he he played in the more difficult era.There were MORE BETTER PLAYERS in the 1990's than there were in the 2000's.Fed played in the water down era so I put an asterix next to his 16 slams.Fed's got 16 slams but an asterix needs to go next to it.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
"Sampras shouldve won at least 17"
keep living in your imaginary world, he didnt win 17 cause he wasnt good enough
better players in the 90's compared to now? OH YES, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang, Muster, 30-year old Becker, Stich WOULD BE SUCH TOUGH RIVALS FOR PRIME FEDERER, LOL in your face
Didnt Federer play Safin (who pwned Sampras 2 times in Slams, once as a 20 year old), Roddick, Hewitt (who pwned Sampras every time they played), all 3 had a positive h2h with Sampras
FAIL
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Sampras was already 30 and in 2000 after Sampras had back surgery in late 1999 his game was on the downside after that.In 2000 semi final at U.S open Sampras beat Hewitt who at that time was at the top of his game and Sampras was not and Sampras still beat him in 5 set.Hewitt was a top player in the early 2000's but his game drop off and now he is a journey man pro.= i give incorrect information
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
@89Pleasek When Krajeck won wimbledon in'96 he played at a higher level of tennis THAN ANY match federer ever played at Wimbledon
Rafter in 1997 and 1998 when he won the U.S open was playing at the same level as any match Federer ever played in at the US open. Had those 2 played at the top of there games I give the slight edge to Rafter because of his serve and volley game and he was extremely quick at that time.I not even sure Federer could beat ivansevic at Wimbledon in '90s
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
The only player from the Sampras era who could trouble Federer was Agassi but no...oh wait, he hasn't beaten Federer since Miami 2002 and Federer smacked his ass 8 times in a row, twice in a row in a year in which Agassi was the no 1 player in the world and a Slam champion
FAIL, in your face AGAIN
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "The only player from the Sampras era who could trouble Federer was Agassi" NOW I know you don't know what you are talking about.Sampras owned Agassi except for Clay surface.In GS finals Agassi has beaten Sampras just once.In head to head Sampras owns Agassi just like Nadal owns CryBaby.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
btw if Federer wins 18 Slams youre going to say that Sampras shouldve won at least 19? HAHAHAHAHAHA pffffffffffffffff in yo face faggot, if it wasnt for the Sampras serve hed end up with a big fat 0 Slam titles, the most one-dimensional no 1 there was, take away his one shot and hes nothing
take federers forehand away from him and he still pwns 99 % guys on the tour with his left hand, Federer has more talent in his little finger than Sampras in his whole body
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek ALL THE FINALS THAT FEDERER HAS BEEN IN HE ALREADY SHOULD HAVE WON 18 OR 19 OR 20 .He's lost 8
FAILED
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
@LittleVinnyCock LOL. asshole
overratednadal 1 year ago
@overratednadal "Federer has more talent in his little finger than Sampras in his whole body"
HeeeHeeee If Federer is as great as you make him out to be than how come he doesn't have a winning record against Nadal and has NEVER beaten him at Roland Garros?You still haven't answer that question you Dumb Fuck piece of shit FAGGOT.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
"No Federer will not win no more GS players the new players like Soderling can beat him on any surface now."
Pure speculation, if Federer wins 17 you'll say it's his last one. If he wins 2 more you'll say that 18 is the absolute max. Such a hater you are.
About Soderling: LOL
Soderling can beat him on any surface now? Whats their h2h? 15-1 Federer, even if you count the matches after the 2010 FO, Federer PWNED HIS ASS in Canada 6-1 6-1 and then straigh setted him at the US. What a joke.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Comment removed
jfiles000000 1 year ago
Federer barely beats Pete? Hahaha thats a good one. So you expect a teenager to beat a 4-time defending and a 7-time champion on his favorite surface in straight sets? Or wouldnt that satisfy your needs as well? Maybe a tripple bagel? No wait, youd come up with excuses that Sampras was injured or sth.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I disagree with your assumption that Federer at his prime is better than Pete at his prime.Clay is the only surface that Fed was better than pete.The other Surfaces Pete's serve would be to much of a dominate force especially when pete could string them together.A great server and volleyer always beat a great returning.Had Fed played in the 1990's he would only get about 9 -10 slams at tops.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
youre really retarted if you think that the Sampras' serve would make him beat Federer on any fast surface. If you wanna see how Federer deals against big servers look at his h2h with Roddick
"A great server and volleyer always beat a great returning"
LOL, Federer would own Sampras from the baseline on any surface, the only way Sampras would have a chance on fast grass courts (every other surface its ownage from Federer) is serving 80 % of first serves in and playing his absolute best
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "If you wanna see how Federer deals against big servers look at h2h with Roddick"
So now your comparing Sampras serve with Roddick.The big difference is Sampras could serve the ball in a tighter window in the box more consistently and fast on both 1st and 2nd serves.Roddick can just hit the ball hard but he is not as accurate or consistent as Sampras.
I like that Comparison a one hit wonder with a tennis legend
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
"plus Sampras had one the title 7 out of the last 8 years NOT 4 times"
proper reading is what you need to learn, I said 4-time defending champion in 2001 which is true since he won in 1997-2000, overall hes a 7-time champion but at the time he was the 4-time defending champ, a 19-year old years before he peaked beat the defending champion on his home turf, hows that for a beatdown? If it wasnt for his lack of experience hed pwn him in straights
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek And thats a great record for Pete.Krajeck played at a higher level of tennis that day when he took pete out in straight sets than Fed had played in any match at Wimbledon of the 2000's
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
who the f are you to compare both matches (1996 W/2001 W) and wat do you wanna prove? Sampras lost both and that's what matters, nobody gives a shit if he played worse of better.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Fed did in the 2000's what Sampras did in the 90's so what?Plus, if Fed was REAL good he should of won the whole tournament in 2001.For me personally i thought both pete in 94, 97 and 99 and Krajeck in 96 played tennis at a higher level than Federer did in any match that he played at wimbledon in the 2000's
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
youre fucked up, the post 2001 grass and pre 2001 grass are completely different surfaces, Federer was more dominant in his best years cause he was (and still is) a better player.
Federer playing in the 90's would achieve even more than he did in the last couple of years, because there would be no Nadal. Now you put Sampras in today's era and he doesn't win a single Wimbledon, still gets pwned at the French and MAYBE wins 3-4 Australian or US Opens, thats why s-volleyers are gone
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Federer playing in the 90's would still mean winning more than Sampras. He would be the best clay court player in the 90's, the best hard court player next with Sampras coming as close second and Agassi close third, and he goes 50/50 with Sampras.
Now you put Sampras in the current era and he doesn't win more than 3 Slams, all 3 probably at the US Open if he gets a lucky draw. Baseliners still had success in the 90's but serve-and-volleyers ARE GONE nowadays. Pete was lucky to play in the 90;s
89Pleasek 1 year ago 10
@89Pleasek "Federer would be the best clay court player in the 90's" Thats bull shit.Guga was a better player than Federer on clay and woould have beaten him and Kafenkov would have gone the distance probably beating him.Guga would have been the Nadal for Federer in the 90's.
HAD FEDERER PLAYED IN THE 90's HE GETS 8-10 SLAMS AT TOPS.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "Federer playing in the 90's would still men winning more than Sampras"
At Roland Garros yes.Wimbeldon NO WAY and U.S open I give the edge to Pete because Pete at the top of his game and stringing those serves for aces would beat Federer in tie breakers
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Federer at the top of his game wouldn't lose to Sampras on any surface. I've seen both of them in action and Sampras would very often rely purely on his serve. You need more than that to beat a prime Federer, can't have any weaknesses and Sampras backhand was simply atrocious at times, looping it in the middle of the court.
If you wanna see how Federer deals with big servers check his h2h against Roddick, Soderling, Del Potro or whoever there is.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Yes but Sampras is a special server.Sampras was a very accurate server in the Mid1990's .He was very hard to break against except for Clay.I think Federer at his best would keep it close but pete would win the majority of the matches except clay.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
you can't say what Sampras would've done in today's game cause there are too many what ifs, shoudlves and couldves, what we know is that Federer started playing as a serve-and-volley player, beat Sampras himself at Wimbledon as a kid, then won Wimbledon in 2003 playing serve-and-volley before he went on to dominate from the baseline from 2004 onwards. Sampras sucked on every slower surface than fast hard courts/grass courts, he couldnt adapt to win the FO
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek No kidding but Federer won only one FO and thats because Nadal was not 100% in'09.I already agree with you that Federer was better than Pete on clay.But on other surface I thought pete was a little better because his serve was so good.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Nadal has nothing to do with Federer playing at the FO. Federer has been the second best clay court player since 2005. Sampras couldnt even beat a guy ranked 197 in the world at the French Open, Nadal or not Nadal, Sampras was never going to win the French Open. He was too one-dimensional or too stubborn to change his game. No sacrifice, no price.
Btw Sampras beat Agassi in the 2002 US Open in 4 sets, not 3, Agassi could've easily taken it to 5. They also played the famous 2001 US Open QF
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"Yes but Sampras is a special server"
The Sampras serve wouldn't hurt Federer if they both played now because the game has slowed down. I told you theres a reason why serve-and-volley has died, even Sampras wouldn't do shit nowadays with his great serve. As I said, Sampras was very lucky to play in the 90's in the fast pace era,if he played now, Federer would've annihilated him on every surface,Sampras was too one-dimensional for Federer who even at 19 could beat the American in his fav tournie
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Your a dumb ass.Federer would get his ass kick by Sampras at Wimbledon had they played in the 90's.You don't know shit about tennis asshole. How many times do I have to tell you in that 01 match Sampras was on the downside of his career.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Federer is the last player who can get his ass kicked by anyone on any surface. Again, your arguements taken out of your ass, completely hypothetical. All we know is that a TEENAGER FEDERER beat the 4-TIME DEFENDING CHAMPION SAMPRAS on FAST GRASS COURTS AT WIMBLEDON playing SERVE-AND-VOLLEY.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek And that Sampras was on the downside of his career and thats why he retired a year later.Just like federer losing now to soderling and Novak .
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"And that Sampras was on the downside of his career and thats why he retired a year later"
Yea, retired, after winning a GS title and after reaching the US Open final in 2001, the next Slam tournament after his loss to Federer at Wimbledon
Look at Federer, even now at 30 he's still losing to top 5 players (in great shape most of the time), giving them a hard time, Sampras lost to a teenager out of nowhere, no matter how good Federer became later on
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Sampras might've been on a downside but he, a 4-time defending champion, still lost to a teenager ranked something around 20 at the time. Federer is losing to guys like Djokovic/Soderling on a hot streak
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Lets put it this way I say Federer NEVER WINS another GS and if he does i'll give you $20
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Just the fact that Federer even played Agassi in 2005 U.S open final tells me there wasn't anybody good out there.Why is a 35 year old Agassi in the Finals?.None of those what you call better players couldn't knock off a 35 year old who Played in you so called "slower era."Give me a break your just talking the talk out of your ass.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
lol its not like Agassi faced some great players en route, the only DECENT one was Blake and Agassi barely won that won having lost the first 2 sets 6-3 6-3
Federer beat Nalbandian, Hewitt in the quarters and semis respectively. Safin was injured. Nadal was still improving on hard courts. Roddick lost early.
If a one-time-shoot-out is an indicator for you that this era is "weak" that youre seriously retarted. What do you make out of Connors reaching the US Open semi-finals in 1991 aged 39?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Connors reaching the semis of the US Open in 1991 at 39 years of age? And the 1985-1993 was supposed to be the strongest era ever with Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Courier, emerging Sampras/Agassi and many more I forgot about.
Connors playing in the last 4 at 39 suddenly makes that era weak based on your logic lulz.
Btw look who Agassi faced en route to the final, not a single top 30 player, a wildcard in the quarters, Ginepri in the semis lulz
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek But agassi still took a set off federer in the finals.Connors didn't make the final he got routed by Courier in straight sets in SF.Nice try It was YOU that said the players in the 2000's were faster and overall better than the players in the 90's.So how did a player from the 90's who was 35 make it to the finals in the middle of the decade of the 2000's and STILL take a set off a Man YOU consider was the greatest ever and playing at the top of his game?I like to hear this answer
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Youre a complete idiot if you wanna compare the 90's to 00's with 1 Agassi run. That is just too retarted to even be considered an arguement. The players in 00's are tons better than 90's because of evolution, as simple as that. Just as the players in the 90's were way better than in the 80's. It has nothing to do with particular players sucking.
"I like to hear this answer "
dude youre seriously fucked up, Agassi took a set off Federer? And what does that tell us? Federer routed him 8 times
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Dude your seriously Fucked up.You said the players in the 2000's were better than the players in the 90's so I ask you a plain a simple question than how did Agassi a 35 year old player from the 90's make it to the Finals of the 2005 U.S open and your answer was a lucky draw.That is the STUPIDEST RETARDED ANSWER I EVER HEARD.Is that the best YOU can do because if it is I REALLY FEEL SORRY FOR YOU.YOU MORON.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Aha, so based on your retarted logic the greatest player of all time should straight set everyone on every surface for 10 years. Im not even gonna respond to this bullshit. Federer routed Agassi in 2003 (including a bagel set) at the Masters Cup with Agassi holding the no 1 position just weeks before and being the then AO champion. Federer wasn't even in his prime yet.
Sampras was routed in straight sets in 1993 by a 33 year old near retired Lendl. What do you make out of this tard?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek In his prime he should against a 35 year old with back problems.You said he's(Federer) the greatest ever so don't you think the greatest ever should be able to straight set a 35 year old? I can't wait to hear your answer on this one.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
1) Federer straight-setted Agassi many times since 2003, 2003 MC final (including a bagel), 2005 AO, 2005 Dubai, 2005 Miami. In fact he lost only 5 sets in the last 8 meetings with Federer in 2003-2005. So what he was 35? He was never going to win anything against Federer when Federer hit his prime.
Come to think of it, I can't believe I have to argue about Federer losing 1 set to Andre Agassi like you're making him look 50+ or something.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Agassi was super lucky with his 2005 Us Open draw and he should've retired after the final, he thought he'd go on forever.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek But I thought you said the players in the 2000's were better than in the 90's if thats the case than agassi should have lost earlier than the finals.Nice try deflecting the question by bringing Connors up.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Youre just plain stumb. The fact that Agassi was 35 doesn't mean he couldn't reach the final, ESPECIALLY given who he played in that tournament, not one single top 30 player. Look at his draw, Malisse, Karlovic, Ginepri in the semis (!), Blake was the only decent player he had to face and even he was coming back from injury at the time, almost beat Agassi in straights.
And I'm not deflecting the question at all by bringing Connors, I'm just using your retarted logic.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
40-year old Connors almost took a set of Sampras in 1992 (the first set ended in a breaker). What can you make out of this?
31-year old McEnroe who was the last time in his prime 6 years earlier took a set off Sampras a the 1990 US Open who then went on to win the tournament.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek ALMOST doesn't count.And what tournament did Connors almost take a set off Sampras?.I'm just going by GS.Remember Sampras said the GS are what really matters,the rest are just tournaments
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
1)A win is a win, no need to go by GS terms when facts don't fit your arguements.
2)Sampras said GS are what really matters, Federer wins more than him, need to say anything more?
3)why is my answer retarted? AGAIN because it spoils your arguement? I said Agassi had a piss easy draw and he actually had, not only that. Agassi's draws in both the 2001 AO and 2003 AO were just paethetically easy. It sais nothing about the whole generation you dumb fuck.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek First you said the players of the 2000's were better than the players of the 90's.I ask you than how did Agassi a player from the 90's make it to the 2005 u.s open final.You said he had an easy draw BUT that can't be because the players of the 2000's are suppose to be better according to YOU.Right?? You are the stupidest person ever.GROW A FUCKIN BRAIN YOU RETARD YOUR GIVING ME A HEADACHE.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
So if Federer continues doing what he's doing Sampras won't have absolutely nothing on him. I don't believe in the "better generation" cause it's bullshit. Tell me in which areas are Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Krajicek, Muster, Courier better than Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and now Djokovic, Del Potro? Again, it's all taken out of your ass. Sampras' only big rival was Agassi just like Federer's is Nadal.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Players from the 00's are better than players from the 90's just as players from the 90's are better than players from the 80's, same thing with players from 10's better than players from the 00's, this is called evolution.
Borg was a great player? He sure was. But bring him back now and he's not a top 20 player. Laver was a great player in his hay day? Yes indeed. Sampras would've smoked him, even on clay.
This has NOTHING to do with particular players being better than other players.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
You brought up 35-year old Agassi taking 1 set off prime Federer on a hard court. I brought you 33-year old Lendl beating Sampras IN STRAIGHT sets on carpet. If you want more humiliating losses, how about this one:
Santoro beat Sampras Monte Carlo 1998 6-1 6-1. Any excuses for this one? Oh wait, it's a clay court so it doesn't count lolz.
I'm asking you for 1 thing. Either bring something new to the discussion other than WHAT YOU THINK WOULD/WILL HAPPEN or there's no point of further arguement
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek It wasn't a GS final so maybe Sampras didn't try.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It wasn't a GS final so maybe Sampras didn't try."
what a dumbarse excuse, btw I wanna see Sampras try and beat ANY Nadal on clay, even the one-legged Nadal in 2009, youre bashing Fed for trying to beat Nadal on clay, not only he did it twice, but he took a set off him in almost every clay match and all of them (except for 2008 FO when Federer played just aweful tennis, killed himself with UE) were very close.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
I wanna see Sampras have a positive h2h with Nadal having played 12 out of 22 matches on clay. Nadal would have 12 wins to start with lolz... and very likely beat him here on there on slow hard/grass courts. I wanna see Sampras lead ANYONE in the h2h having played 12 out of 22 matches on clay. Federer leads Nadal on both grass and hard courts which should tell the whole story. Sampras sucked so badly on clay, he wouldn't even get to play Nadal in a tournament final on clay.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek True...but on Wimbledon's fast grass during Sampras' reign, Nadal would not have fared too well either. He would have had to deal with Becker, Edberg, Agassi, etc.
jhgosnell 1 year ago
I think both Sampras and Nadal were lucky to have played in the times they actually did (that is Sampras in the 90's and Nadal now).
The more I respect Agassi and Federer, they seem to have a perfect style for just about every tennis era.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Anyways Federer will NEVER win another slam
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Anyways Federer will NEVER win another slam"
Nobody knows that. All we know is that Sampras is well done winning Slams, Federer is still in his 20's and already won 2 more majors than Pete in his whole career LOLZ
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I disagree Sampras serve on grass is way too good.Mac and other commentators said that if Sampras could be a 5th seed at wimbledon a couple of years ago. Sampras can now benefit from todays technology.As far as that 2001 match as i explain a million times thru your thick skull Sampras had back surgery in 1999 his serve was not as consistent and potent after 1999.Plus anybody can beat anybody on a given day,The grass courts are not slower moron .Sampras is still better than Fed
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Ok, this is the last time Im responding to your bullshit. It was fun proving you wrong at the beginning but now youre simply starting to piss me off.
1)Sampras can now benefit from todays technology? The technology is exactly the same as it was in the 90's, the only difference are the strings which can last longer but it wouldn't affect Sampras "new" serve at all. Get your info.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek No Way is the racquet technology the same now as in the 90's.What kind of world DO YOU LIVE IN?
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago 3
2) The grass courts have been slower since 2001, sto denying it just to make Nadal's victories at Wimbledon more worthy. If the grass is the same now as it was 10 years, why does nobody serve-and-volley? Why did Nadal win the 2008 Wimbledon final having played 1 (at 8-7 in the 5th) serve-and-volley action and winning the remaining points by grinding 10 feet from the baseline?
89Pleasek 1 year ago 2
4) I dont give a shit, man. 19-year old Federer beat Sampras who was going for his record eqalling 5th Wimbledon title in 2001. A kid beat your idol. The same kid made Sampras career look like a joke by breaking all his records. LIVE WITH IT
89Pleasek 1 year ago 3
@89Pleasek "I don't give a shit,man."
I do.You live with the fact that Fed had no competition from 2003 to 2006 and than Nadal started becoming a great tennis player and Fed has a losing record against him.Nadal is WAY BETTER THAN YOUR IDOL.But a moron like you still thinks fed is the best ever but the facts are NADAL is better.Live with it.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago