@ljubaa93 that's right, i mentioned murray becoz currently he's number 4 of the 'top 4'of male tennis, but so far he didn't win any slam yet... that will come eventually.. true, also rafa and novak both are younger and still have a lot of chances to win more slams however i don't think any of them are gonna beat rogers record of 16.. fact is that there is a real 'top' in the male tennis, while when u see the females, it's like anyone in top50 let's say, can win.. but it's a great sport to watch
federer is the greatest even sampras himself said that sampras is d 2nd bst without a doubt they both r legends but fedex will be always our hero for fedex fans he is d bst no matter what and we love him for what he has given to us love u roger.....
Hmmmm,in 90's tennis surfaces didn't change a lot. Federer started with a fast grasscourts and if it stayed like that,he wold dominate on grass totaly. But he adopted very well on this slowing down of grass and hardcourts. Supouse that happened in 90's, I'm not sure if Sampras would have that kind of success. Then,that would aloud players like Agassi or Chang to have even more success than they had. That's why Nadal,Djoko and others are so god. Fed just has more variabillity then Sampras.
This was such a good match. Why it isn't often recognized as one of the better all-time Wimbledon matches is beyond me. Granted, Sampras was a bit over, and Federer, well beneath what he would eventually become, but the match was exquisite. Big serving, phenomenal passes, delicate net play... It had everything.
This was before Federer was Federer. Pete, on the other hand, was the defending champion here, and would go on to win another US Open. Yet Federer beat him here. Prime Federer crushes Sampras with ease.
@thrillseeking Age is a factor for any tennis player. I will admit there is a mental block for Federer against Nadal as well as for Nadal vs Joker but Federer has a lot of wear and tear on those 30 year old legs, regardless of how it looks. I hope Federer wins another slam, but I wouldn't bet on it. Nadal will win the French, IMO, and then Novak will take Wimbledon. Im not sure about the US Open.
@MrLongenecker Yes and no. When they first played in Miami 8 years ago, Nadal's natural topspin forehand pushes cyclones into Federer's weak, one-handed backhand. He basically got pinned there and couldn't generate any offense. It happened a few more times early in their rivalry, before Nadal was really a force on tour, and it created a stigma for Federer when they eventually met at a Slam in Paris - clay making it even worse.
@whutbrush He will jump out to big leads against Nadal, miss one spectacular shot, or a first serve, and suddenly he over-thinks the whole process. Nadal gets an opening, gets fired up, and Federer mentally wilts. His first serve disappears, his shots start spraying everywhere, and it's often too late to make a come back.
Still, at age 30, he's pretty damned impressive. But more than the age, the surface is telling. Nadal's won 2/3 of their matches, and 2/3 of their matches have been on clay.
@whutbrush Had their matches been more appropriately matched to the tennis schedule (ie: 3/4 of their matches on fast, low-bounce surfaces), the h2h would be in Federer's favor, as he's ahead on non-clay surfaces. Watch their 4 meetings at the YEC in London for an indication of that match up.
This was the last great natural grasscourt match that I have seen! It is like these two were born to play on grass! They are aguably the most dominant players of their prospective era and when two great players come together on a pure grasscourt with one being a serve and volleyer and an baseline player with an unusually natural all-court game you have matches like these. I would call this the present versus the future!
Hmmmm,in 90's tennis surfaces didn't change a lot. Federer started with a fast grasscourts and if it stayed like that,he wold dominate on grass totaly. But he adopted very well on this slowing down of grass and hardcourts. Supouse that happened in 90's, I'm not sure if Sampras would have that kind of success. Then,that would aloud players like Agassi or Chang to have even more success than they had. That's why Nadal,Djoko and others are so god. Fed just has more variabillity then Sampras.
It's a shame that more people didn't realize what we were witnessing on this day. Wish my boy Pete had won but this was probably the most fitting way for this match to end, 30 yr old Pete losing a five setter to a 20 yr old Federer 7-5 in the fifth too.
At times I kinda wish we could have seen both of them in their primes but they would have taken away from each other, so maybe it's a good thing that they have their own eras to each other.
I can't believe that I have been away from tennis for so long and now I finally see those yellow balls again by playing with my two boys. I am loving playing and I am catching up with what happened in the last decade. Who will win the Olympic gold medal in men's single tennis this year?
@wearecastille i agree with u that nadal is one of the best players right now, and even one of the best players ever, i think he's great, but he hasn't achieve as much as federer! also because he is a lot younger of course. and in my opinion: nadal is better than djokovic and murray.. murray is good, but sometimes just not good enough.. and djokovic, yeah for the moment he's clearly number one, but both federer as nadal have won so much more than djokovic..he's got a lot to prove now..
hahaha people.. sampras is better cause he won 14 grandslams with the hardest game in tennis... imagine you as a player having only about 3 shots to beat ur opponent everytime.. thats insane especially in the pro's.. and he also had to do it against one of the best returners in tennis history...... agassi
i guess federer before everything was only about tennis for him, but now his kids are more important to him than winning a grand slam. and still i think, he's a great champion, and murray, nadal, djoko are now more or less equal, but they still have a lot to prove and to win, before they can say they are as big as federer
@OfficialWarns you can´t include nadal among murray or djokovic, nadal is one of the best players ever rigth now, djokovic will be and murray maybe too... nadal surely surpass federer, if djokovic allows it...
@wearecastille Apparently Djokovic is Nadal's Nadal? Murray is definitely.. not.. within the elite ranks. Not in terms of skills, but mentality-wise, he's still streets behind Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic at the moment. If Delpo can get back to his pre-injury level, I think he'd keep Djokovic from dominating so hard.
@OfficialWarns yeah thats true but murray aint their level.i mean he didnt win a slam yet.fed won 16 rafa 10 and novak 5....but rafa and novak are younger.i think rafa will end his career with 13 maybe 14 slams and novak will get around 10.i mean thats alot.that makes them all together legends of the sport
The similarities between Roger and Pete is amazing. Both were born 10 years apart. Both won at least 1 slam for 8 years 10 years apart(Roger: 2003-2010 Pete: 1993-2010), both have strength on their serve and forehand. You just can't deny that it is destiny. Greatness is destiny and determined. Mere mortals simply can't change that fact no matter how hard they try.
Federer is practically a mini Sampras but the reason Sampras never won on clay is because he always played hitting flat federer does to but he can play with top spin to
@MrAwsomebubba You got it wrong. Sampras never won the French Open because he can't move on clay. Soderling hit flat strokes as well, but he beat both Federer and Nadal at French Open. If Sampras could move on clay, he'd have won many more slams.
@oplilium I guess you forgot about Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Kuerten, Agassi, Ferrero and Nalbandian. I'm surprised you think these players are not worth mentioning... Federer could also perform on clay courts - if it wasn't for Nadal he would have won many more French Opens. Sampras would have needed a lot of other players to be injured if he was ever gonna win one.
@oplilium A few problems with your logic... McEnroe was not exactly in his prime in the early 90s.. Neither was Connors... Agassi was on meth for a few of those years. Rafter was a nobody along with some of the others you mentioned.
@oplilium I agree that Sampras had more challenging challengers during his era. That still does not take away from Federer's game which is one of the best I have ever seen because he is good at everything. And Federer even found a way to win on clay, and probably would have won a few more times but for Nadal. Sampras never managed to win on clay. Sampras' serve and volley game, in his prime, would have been tough for Federer.
Both of their strokes have great variety and similarity. It’s no accident! They were trained by the same coach, Paul Annacone, who produced 2 greatest [single-backhanded] players in the tennis history. What an odd! ☆☆☆☆☆
@tyoungos Sorry but I must point out how wrong you are despite the fact that I love both of these guys. Pete changed from a 2 handed backhand to a single-handed in his junior year, well before he was even coached by Tim Gullikson, let alone Paul Annacone in 1996 in the prime of his career. Roger first met up with Annacone in late 2010, as a 29 year old. Annacone did not give this stroke to either player, not to take away either from his incredible coaching, though, just getting facts straight.
@tyoungos paul annacone started working with both players midway to later in their careers, so really he had jack shit to do with "producing" a player
@tyoungos Paul annacone did NOT coach federer from the beginning he only started 2 years ago.''Paul Annacone was hired by Roger Federer to be his full-time coach on August 28, 2010'' Again Paul never trained and developed Federer's shots
@tyoungos to be fair Paul Annacone had a much great impact on Sampras' career as he came on fairly early, where as with Fed he became coach after Federer had already won all his majors and his helping him make adjustments to his game late in his career. There's a reason why Federer turned to Annacone for coaching but not too big of a coincidence. All that said, Federer is my favorite tennis player and I believe he is the greatest of all time.
@tyoungos It is no accident because Federer admired Sampras when he was young. However, it is wrong to imply that Annacone has made their strokes similar because Annacone has only been with Federer since some time recently (within the last year?).
@tyoungos Federer was not coached by Annacone until late 2010 while the video is from 2001, unless you are probably referring to modern-day Fed which was not obvious
@tyoungos What a fuck are you talking about ?? Paul Anacone joined Federer 3 years ago. Every one knows all Paul Anacone's done for Roger is take his money.
@tyoungos Sorry but I must point out how wrong you are despite the fact that I love both of these guys. Pete changed from a 2 handed backhand to a single-handed in his junior year, well before he was even coached by Tim Gullikson, let alone Paul Annacone in 1996 in the prime of his career. Roger first met up with Annacone in late 2010, as a 29 year old. Annacone did not give this stroke to either player, not to take away either from his incredible coaching, though, just getting facts straight.
@tyoungos Federer didn't develop his strokes under the tutelage of Paul Annacone - Annacone didn't get hired til 2010. In fact, since Annacone began coaching him he hasn't won a major.
Sampras was a great player. The reason Federer is better in my opinion is because of his ability on clay. Sampras was subpar on clay especially compared to Federer.
I hate the Internet. We're watching a superb display of skill, physical conditioning and mental toughness right here and somehow, some people out there manage to turn it into a slander feast against Nadal, Sampras, Federer and the list goes on. Psychotic comments about doping, belittling statements on this or that player ... The Internet would be a heavenly invention if only the freaks and the deranged could be left out. But then all these channels would be close to empty:-)
@gutelaunetyp wrong. It's a fallacy that Sampras played better competition. During his reign the only solid player was Agassi and he took 2 years off. Rios, Muster, Krajicek, Malavai Washington, Todd Martin don't really count. Becker was pretty much finished by the mid 90's winning slams. Courier fizzled out. Chang never won again. Kafelnikov isnt a great great player in my mind. Guga was only dominant on clay. Last 3 years you had 3 men win 3 slams a year. Weak competition?
Sampras's biggest competitions were a guy who was ruining his prime year with meth, and a few burnt out oldies (Becker, Edberg, Lendl). Federer had to play quite a few up coming stars all in their prime (Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick).
and yes, those new stars arent any less than the old timers
there're only so many slams a year, if you have 14 and your rivals have 6s and 8s, you know you're not playing with their best. to say these guys are more competition... pushing it
Federer is the best. Pete did not play better competition. In the last 4 years you had 2 men complete the career grand slam and Novak had a chance this year. The top 3 men this era have won 3 slams in a year. No one was even close to that in Sampras's era. During Sampras's prime who did he really have to beat outside of Agassi? Kafelnikov, muster, rios would all get smoked in todays game.
Federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game. Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but yours doesnt count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
The only reason why they had to play a fifth set was due to Federer young age and inexperience; even in the sets he lost, he had relatively good numbers of occasions and break points.
@ilanini Federer was at his best between 2003 - up to early 2008 ,Then he bounced back in 2009 . No matter what win lost records say they mean nothing , Other people have win records again federer and nadal , so irreverent commet. Nadal is not consecutive in any other grand slam except the French open . Regardless of who sampras had to compete with ,Federer has still won 16 grand slams and record 6 tour finals cups, It is infact harder for federer to win with the likes of nadal, murray, novak.
@LeebeKing Federer gets to finals in all surfaces, including clay where he is usually beaten by Nadal. The thing is: too many games on clay: Rome, Madrid, Monte Carlo, Hamburg,... and Roland Garros of course, while, for example, Wimbledon is essentially the only tournament on grass. If you take the games on clay out of the equation, you can see who has more wins despite that Federer is 6 years older.
@FriendOfTheStar Who are we comparing here ? Nadal or sampras ? If so Federer has easily won more excluding clay I agree. Federer has won more then Pete excluding clay...Lets not forget Federer has not yet retired and may have a few more years in his tank.
@BrilliantLike Erm no he is still very fit...He beat djokovic in the french open remember and he destroyed nadal in the 2011 tour finals.. Maybe he is not there 100% like he was between 2003-2009 but a lot of it is due to his mental state, and the fact it gets a little boring after you have won everything and 16 majors you begin to loose interest.
@LeebeKing OK, but what has he won since Novak and Murray matured? Since 2008 he "only" won 4 GS, that's one GS per year, still good but not great. Imagine if lets say Murray played in 2003-2007, I bet he would have at least 5 GS or even more. 16 GS titles have a lot to do with timing, nobody is saying Fed is not good or even great but those titles are just perfectly timed.
@thrillseeking It's called age and he lacks the need to fight to win as he has won 16 GS of course he wants to win, but when you get to his age you can't expect to still have that same drive and desire. He did beat novak which proves he CAN beat the best and nadal as i have said . Its got nothing to do with the era at all its to do with age, If Federer was 24-26 he wold be playing much much better against players like Novak and Nadal.
@thrillseeking Murray matured ?? LOL don't make me laugh perhaps with the new coach..maybe in the future. But he is still very much behind federer and nadal , Novak. He lost to federer at all his GS matchs and to Novak this year (which was close) Maybe he is getting their but he still very much in the shadow of the top 3 .
@LeebeKing well you said it yourself. Murray only losses to top 3 guys, so it's logical that if those guys weren't there Murray would have won.
Age is no excuse, for Federer especially. Age is a factor for Nadal but not Fed. He plays without relying on phisical strenght, Nadal does, he can play on top level for at least 4 years (top level=reach at least SF at GS). If he was in his 30's he would still win GS if there were no Nadal and Novak.
@LeebeKing And Nadal will always beat Federer because Nadal plays to his weakness, it's just a bad matchup. I like Fed more but Nadal is just in Fed's head and he can\t do anything about it.
@thrillseeking it's not all bout weakness i think he is scared of him in GS its all mental rather then physical .when he plays Nadal he makes uncharacteristic errors doesn't take risks and fails to move to his inside out forehand, Instead he lets nadal hit the ball up high against his back hand which is a much weaker shot. Nadal is having problems of his own beaten 3 times in a row at GS for the first time and 7x in a row he has lost to Djokovic who is playing better shots then Nadal ever could.
Federer pretty much beat Sampras at his own game, a lot of serving and volleying, chipping and charging, a lot of stab volleys, a lot of chipping and charging on 2nd serves, great FH passing shots, in fact on both sides! Federer's serving in this match also played a big role. It's a shame Federer doesn't employ this tactic more often against the opposition today. I know it might be harder with the way everyone returns, but he would come out trumps in majority of those points.
@davd1986 No... I doubt it. I love serve and volley too, but against the good players today, it wouldn't be possible to do this. I mean, you would need one amazing serve, and despite Federer's great serve, it's no Sampras serve. In addition, people return a lot better nowadays (either due to racquet technology, or a bigger emphasis on that type of play) so it's still hard as hell to win using this tactic. Of course, sticking to any one strategy all the time is silly in any case.
federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game, and Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but your doesnt count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
clay excluded. successive win 0. If grass and a hard are fast. Like Sampras era. Nadal is able to win only with clay. power of defense and muscles. boring ugly. All the surface is slow now
Fake time-out. cheater. gamesmanship. too noisy annoying.
Nadal said. "Sampras versus Ivanisevic match. or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable. It's not really tennis. it is a few swings of the racquet. For me in the past it was just serve. serve"
if there was no more than 2 to 3 years in age between sampras and federer, this would have been one of the greatest confrontation in sporting history.
the only reason nadal comes across better than federer is because of how slow tennis courts on all surfaces play in the present, they are all like clay courts, if wimbledon played the same way today as in 2001 and never changed federer would have won wimbledon 10 years in a row.
@T3hMightyIsBack You can't generalize. For example, Andre Agassi won most of his Grand Slams AFTER the age of 29. Pancho Gonzales, in his 40s, was beating the likes of all the major players at the time who were in their 20s. Federer is no old fart. And he has been playing Nadal for many years now. No excuses. Federer is excellent. It's just that Nadal may be a little bit better.
@T3hMightyIsBack It means you stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized. So you get NOTHING!! YOU LOSE!!! GOOD DAY, SIR!!!
@T3hMightyIsBack After I gave you a rational argument, your response was "Not really." That to you means you've won the argument? Ok, pal. Be happy in your universe with that thought.
...number of years on top, the initial edge has got to blunt somewhat and Fed isn't playing today with the kind of utter drive he displays here.
I don't see in what way Nadal could be shown to be a better player than Fed. Between 2004 and 2009, except for RG, Fed could only be beaten at slams through some freak occurrence, of a brilliant player having a brilliant day, such as Safin at the 2005 AO or Del Potro at the USO2009.
@suddenlyitsobvious And!? And he's beaten Federer several more times than Federer has beaten Nadal. Nadal has beaten Federer on every surface. Federer cannot say the same. Nadal is further ahead in his career than Federer was at Nadal's age. Nadal is on his way to having more Slams than Federer if he can keep fit and healthy.
Do you realize that Nadal besides the RG clay has only won 4 slams? Between 2008 and 2011, clearly Nadal's best years, he has won 7 out of 16 slams, less than 50%. This year he's only won 1 and he already gets beaten regularly by basically anybody.
Compare that to Fed, who during 2004-2007, his best 4 years, won 11 slams out of 16 and as said, it took something exceptional to beat him. Nadal's positive h-2-h against Fed in slams is imputable to his clay game.
@suddenlyitsobvious Nadal has also won an Olympic gold medal in singles (Federer has not) and has won one more tennis masters series than Federer, in 5 years less time. He completed the grand slam in 5 years less time than Federer. Nadal has 5 wins against Federer that are NOT on clay. His head-to-head with Federer is 17-8, in favor of Nadal. Nadal's winning percentage (82.52%) is higher than Federer's (81.17%).
Yeah, but Nadal is heavily favoured as far as the masters go, cos 3 out of nine are clay courts (the rest being hard courts). Of his 19 masters titles, THIRTEEN were won on clay.
Your stats deceptively reflect career averages and considering Fed's top form only took off FIVE YEARS after his career start if we use the winning of slams as a measure, and Nadal TWO years or so, these stats ignore Fed's sustained level of absolute dominance over years, whereas Nadal today already...
...appears to be something of a flash in the pan -aside from his clay dominance that is, a dominance however that is equally under serious pressure today.
You do realize that Nadal has only once achieved the winning of 3 slams in a year, while Fed managed this THREE TIMES?
Since Nadal's achievements do not appear to be following a rising curve anymore, I think reasonable people will agree with me that Fed has proven to be a far greater player. Nice try though...
@suddenlyitsobvious When Federer came onto the scene who was his greatest competition?.....That's ok, I'll wait for it....are you going to name anyone or should I continue waiting....Right, that's what I thought. Whereas when Nadal came to prominence, he had to manage to take on Federer. And Djokovic has managed to take on Federer. If I imagine all 3 of them at their prime, I would still put my money on Nadal.
Fed had to take on Sampras, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt. The latter 3 were crushed by Fed from the start & they never recovered.
Your desperate logic fails to convince, son, as by the same token we could make a case for Djoko being the greatest since you consider Fed had no or little competition, Nadal massive competition and then Djoko 'benefitting' from the rising trend still came out on top.
At the end it is simply a law of nature that what goes up at some point will come down.
@suddenlyitsobvious Please. Are you serious? Sampras is 10 years older than Federer. How is that competition? Safin is a joke. Roddick has never had anything except a fast serve. You are wrong about Hewitt. He had a good record against Federer in the beginning but Federer was quick to figure Hewitt out. Everything else you said is nonsense. But don't misunderstand me. It's not like I am saying Federer is a joke. I think he is ONE of the best, who met his match with Nadal.
Safin a joke? In my book he and Nalbandian are the 2 most talented players along with Fed. They just didn't want to put quite as much energy into their careers. It suffices to watch the AO2005 semi-final to see what wonderful tennis Safin was capable of. Guys like Djoko perform better because their drive is superior but how boring is Djoko's tennis in comparison!
@suddenlyitsobvious For a very short period, I thought Safin was the next big thing but his peak was very short. Nalbandian is an Armenian (from Argentina) so I already give him kudos as I am also. Nalbandian used to have a winning record against Federer but Federer figured him out quickly as well.
@suddenlyitsobvious DJOKOVIC IS A GREAT TACTICIAN AND HIS DEFENDING IS THE BEST I HAVE EVER SEEN IM NOT SOME BIAS GUY BUT SERIOUSLY DJOKOVICS DEFENDING IS CRAZY WATCH WIMBLEDON 2011 AND U WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN CRAZY
'If there is ever any proof that he did dope, I will eat my own words. Until then, I have to believe that these athletes are under intense scrutiny for doping'
Yeah, you have to BELIEVE, believe AUTHORITY of course when you can't use your own brains. Really! Isn't it obvious? Do you always believe anything the system has you BELIEVE is true? I suppose you must think 9/11 was perpetrated by arab terrorists with cutters too? Don't be a dupe.
@suddenlyitsobvious And you believe Nadal is doping because..Yannick Noah says so. Ok. I guess you rest your case...in bizzaro world. And why do you have to go down the poltiical 9/11 conspiracy theory tangent? Can't you stick with tennis? No one will ever know exactly what happened on 9/11 but clearly you fall into the category that's going to blame it on the Jews, right? I've heard that BS so many times. Let's just stick to tennis.
'And you believe Nadal is doping because..Yannick Noah says so'
What kind of bizarre remark is this? It's the kind of thing those people say who, exactly as I anticipated and suggested earlier, can't use their OWN brains, trust their OWN perceptions, their OWN discernment, and must as a result always believe someone else, typically expert consensus or authority.
Do you really think Noah is the only individual in the world who suspects Nadal of doping?
So basically you can't process information by yourself. I gave you TWO CLEAR, SUBSTANTIVE elements in my last post indicating that doping control does NOT work, because when the big fish are caught redhanded, the case is dropped and covered up.
As a result your comment:
'If there is ever any proof that he did dope, I will eat my own words. Until then, I have to believe that these athletes are under intense scrutiny for doping'
shows you cannot think for yourself and that you...
@suddenlyitsobvious I see. So doping control does not work because you happen to know for fact that when people are caught that cases are dropped and covered up. Right, like the cases against Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Floyd Landis...should I continue?
Yeah well, sometimes they need to catch some guys and make a big show of it to get the public used to stringent doping controls and that it's working, while in reality they're just sacrificing some guys in order to increase control of all aspects of the athletes' lives and of the system they function in, basically a controlled business that is quite important in the lives of society's members...They create a reality for the gullible masses, of some cheating stars and ambitious...
@suddenlyitsobvious Some guys? Everyone I named was a top athlete in their sport. There have been tennis players who have been baned for doping. Innocent until proven guilty and gulibility are two different things. I am saying Nadal is innocent until proven otherwise. You are telling me you know for a fact he is and that I should not be so gullible. We have a different way of looking at people. Not once have you suggested that perhaps Federer's success is due to doping. Only with Nadal.
...managers and illegal performance-enhancing drugs that are simply outrageous and that the forces of law and order and fair play must combat at all cost, and are doing so quite successfully. And of course, the ACTUAL reality of doping in sport eerily mimicks the ACTUAL results of America's 'War on Drugs', which is basically code for: the full involvement of the CIA in domestic & international drugtrade.
Do you really think that high-level doping labs are some illegal, criminal...
...makeshift, basic labs in some old, deceptively decrepit hangar in some industrial storage lot, run by a few mafiosi? No, it's of course all a part of an intricate system where all the players are aware of each other and doping is PROMOTED.
Everybody prominently functioning in sports knows about doping..
...will give up ALL REASONING processes and refuse to draw any EVIDENT conclusion as soon as it puts you at risk of being at odds with authoritative dogma.
Of course, this hardly makes you an inetersting interlocutor and it is therefore pointless as far as I'm concerned to take this any further cos I will learn nothing from you that I can't pick up from any mainstream media outlet...
...authority and the WTA. Since they talk a lot about their fight against doping, SURELY everything must be in order and who are WE to suspect anything when the doping commissions haven't made an incriminating announcement...
Do you realize how naive you are being?
As I said earlier, what about Agassi's revelations of doping. Was he caught?
What about Serena's pulmonary embolism and massive bulkiness?
OF COURSE there's a lot of doping going on. And OF COURSE they don't get caught.
The reason Fed apparently faced so little competition is that his tennis was so superior so we can flip your entire argument around. It is much easier really working up against a set standard, as Nadal had to do AND CONSTANTLY SAID HE DID, than to set the bar all by oneself. Who knows how much better Fed would have been had the competition from the start been even stiffer...
@Boudosaved since nadal cracked the top 2 in 2005, federer has won 12 grand slams, nadal 10, and by heavy accusations of doping
By december 2004 and april 2005, nadal had gained a lot of muscle, speed and resistance
Nike signed this kid and imediately exploded, winning rome, montecarlo, roland garros
Its all a big show, the atp needed a big rival for federer who was winning everything; theyve made a lot of money with it so theyre not gonna reveal the truth behind his steroid use
I agree that Nadal's stamina and muscle volume seem abnormal, and I don't like the vibe of his camp; uncle Tony looks since years like there's the dark shadow hanging over him of those having made the pact with the devil. He actually looks guilty and his control of Rafa seems quite totaiitarian.
I think indeed that Rafa was some kind of 'experiment' and that the people behind him tried by WHATEVER MEANS to take him all the way.
...things are known by people higher up in the hierarchy, and that ultimately it's all about social engineering.
These tennis players promote the system's values of competition, success and money, they're constantly involved in all sorts of charity events and social engineering efforts, they have massive access to the press but no freedom of speech whatsoever, are constantly thanking the banks and multinationals -the sponsors- and they all seem brainwashed.
It is pretty obvious that there's something seriously wrong with all these tennis daddies and mums, half of whom look like mafiosi who'd do anything to make big bucks, and the tennis dads have a notorious history of control and abuse of their daughters -Graf, Pierce and so on.
I'll bet that Seles' stabbing wasn't just about a 'crazed fan' and Vaidisova's retirement and marriage to Stepanek seem fishy.
Was her character too volatile and uncontrollable to allow her permanent...
...access to the spotlight, to millions of people?
Have you noted how all tennis players today can only voice insipid drivel? It's like they're completely brainwashed.
On a last note, even though Djoko's muscle volume hasn't bulked, his attitude and stamina seem equally abnormal. Wild eyed stares after each important win, being HYPER-DRIVEN all the time, it simply can't be natural.
Perhaps some/all of these players are vsimply ictims of advanced mindcontrol. Note Bolletieri...
...has an intelligence background, and many of the trends in tennis were developed in his stables, such as the 'grunting' for instance, or using Agassi to sell tennis to a new generation, the 'rebellious kid' with the funky hair. Little did we know he was made to wear a wig...
The entire tennis world is obviously controlled and champions are manufactured.
Fed was so smooth it didn't show, but Rafa and Djoko look like their souls were robbed...
Oh yeah, and let's not forget Agassi openly admitted to drug use and it was hushed, Serena's been admitted to hospital this year with pulmonary embolism which notoriously tends to be associated with steroid use. Serena's physique is obviously not natural today.
Henin's relationship with Rodriguez was bizarre, as if he controlled her body and soul with every single one of his disgusted smirks. Henin eyed his facial expressions after each single point, like a terrorized little...
Of course I'm not trying to argue that some players are cheaters, for that is no my point at all. Much more interesting is how utterly corrupt the ongoings are BEHIND THE SCENES.
What kind of world and reality are these players really living in?
Isn't it unimaginable that today the players must be available AT ALL TIMES for impromptu tests, meaning they must communicate their whereabouts AT ALL TIMES? They are not even free.
@ljubaa93 that's right, i mentioned murray becoz currently he's number 4 of the 'top 4'of male tennis, but so far he didn't win any slam yet... that will come eventually.. true, also rafa and novak both are younger and still have a lot of chances to win more slams however i don't think any of them are gonna beat rogers record of 16.. fact is that there is a real 'top' in the male tennis, while when u see the females, it's like anyone in top50 let's say, can win.. but it's a great sport to watch
OfficialWarns 4 days ago
federer is the greatest even sampras himself said that sampras is d 2nd bst without a doubt they both r legends but fedex will be always our hero for fedex fans he is d bst no matter what and we love him for what he has given to us love u roger.....
afsaldurranihotmail 5 days ago
Is it just me or do tennis players kind of crummy at their 19-20's but once they hit their 21's they become really good until their 30th birrthday.
Alphonse670 1 week ago
i cannot watch this, it hurts too hard when i see that sampras lose this
m3v0t 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmmm,in 90's tennis surfaces didn't change a lot. Federer started with a fast grasscourts and if it stayed like that,he wold dominate on grass totaly. But he adopted very well on this slowing down of grass and hardcourts. Supouse that happened in 90's, I'm not sure if Sampras would have that kind of success. Then,that would aloud players like Agassi or Chang to have even more success than they had. That's why Nadal,Djoko and others are so god. Fed just has more variabillity then Sampras.
TheDobardecko 1 week ago
Here the best tennis ever.
Federex1981 1 week ago
This was such a good match. Why it isn't often recognized as one of the better all-time Wimbledon matches is beyond me. Granted, Sampras was a bit over, and Federer, well beneath what he would eventually become, but the match was exquisite. Big serving, phenomenal passes, delicate net play... It had everything.
whutbrush 1 week ago
This was before Federer was Federer. Pete, on the other hand, was the defending champion here, and would go on to win another US Open. Yet Federer beat him here. Prime Federer crushes Sampras with ease.
whutbrush 1 week ago
@thrillseeking Age is a factor for any tennis player. I will admit there is a mental block for Federer against Nadal as well as for Nadal vs Joker but Federer has a lot of wear and tear on those 30 year old legs, regardless of how it looks. I hope Federer wins another slam, but I wouldn't bet on it. Nadal will win the French, IMO, and then Novak will take Wimbledon. Im not sure about the US Open.
MrLongenecker 2 weeks ago
Nadal beats Federer because he's 5 years younger. If they were both 25 it would be otherwise.
MrLongenecker 2 weeks ago
@MrLongenecker Yes and no. When they first played in Miami 8 years ago, Nadal's natural topspin forehand pushes cyclones into Federer's weak, one-handed backhand. He basically got pinned there and couldn't generate any offense. It happened a few more times early in their rivalry, before Nadal was really a force on tour, and it created a stigma for Federer when they eventually met at a Slam in Paris - clay making it even worse.
Now he has a mental block. (cont'd)
whutbrush 1 week ago
@whutbrush He will jump out to big leads against Nadal, miss one spectacular shot, or a first serve, and suddenly he over-thinks the whole process. Nadal gets an opening, gets fired up, and Federer mentally wilts. His first serve disappears, his shots start spraying everywhere, and it's often too late to make a come back.
Still, at age 30, he's pretty damned impressive. But more than the age, the surface is telling. Nadal's won 2/3 of their matches, and 2/3 of their matches have been on clay.
whutbrush 1 week ago
@whutbrush Had their matches been more appropriately matched to the tennis schedule (ie: 3/4 of their matches on fast, low-bounce surfaces), the h2h would be in Federer's favor, as he's ahead on non-clay surfaces. Watch their 4 meetings at the YEC in London for an indication of that match up.
whutbrush 1 week ago
This was the last great natural grasscourt match that I have seen! It is like these two were born to play on grass! They are aguably the most dominant players of their prospective era and when two great players come together on a pure grasscourt with one being a serve and volleyer and an baseline player with an unusually natural all-court game you have matches like these. I would call this the present versus the future!
Lovegainers5 2 weeks ago
Hmmmm,in 90's tennis surfaces didn't change a lot. Federer started with a fast grasscourts and if it stayed like that,he wold dominate on grass totaly. But he adopted very well on this slowing down of grass and hardcourts. Supouse that happened in 90's, I'm not sure if Sampras would have that kind of success. Then,that would aloud players like Agassi or Chang to have even more success than they had. That's why Nadal,Djoko and others are so god. Fed just has more variabillity then Sampras.
TheDobardecko 3 weeks ago
serve.approach.volley.point. its so boring to watch those days
nevernoone 3 weeks ago
It's a shame that more people didn't realize what we were witnessing on this day. Wish my boy Pete had won but this was probably the most fitting way for this match to end, 30 yr old Pete losing a five setter to a 20 yr old Federer 7-5 in the fifth too.
At times I kinda wish we could have seen both of them in their primes but they would have taken away from each other, so maybe it's a good thing that they have their own eras to each other.
If only Pete had won a French...
Amar283 3 weeks ago
I can't believe that I have been away from tennis for so long and now I finally see those yellow balls again by playing with my two boys. I am loving playing and I am catching up with what happened in the last decade. Who will win the Olympic gold medal in men's single tennis this year?
ironoarsman 3 weeks ago
and anyway i don't like djokovic
OfficialWarns 4 weeks ago
@wearecastille i agree with u that nadal is one of the best players right now, and even one of the best players ever, i think he's great, but he hasn't achieve as much as federer! also because he is a lot younger of course. and in my opinion: nadal is better than djokovic and murray.. murray is good, but sometimes just not good enough.. and djokovic, yeah for the moment he's clearly number one, but both federer as nadal have won so much more than djokovic..he's got a lot to prove now..
OfficialWarns 4 weeks ago
commentator at 6:39 - 'troll' haha
MrNihaoma11 4 weeks ago
greatest v greatest in tennis
whoopyourarse 1 month ago
hahaha people.. sampras is better cause he won 14 grandslams with the hardest game in tennis... imagine you as a player having only about 3 shots to beat ur opponent everytime.. thats insane especially in the pro's.. and he also had to do it against one of the best returners in tennis history...... agassi
urmominbedissexy 1 month ago
cant see a ball
title4214656 1 month ago
i guess federer before everything was only about tennis for him, but now his kids are more important to him than winning a grand slam. and still i think, he's a great champion, and murray, nadal, djoko are now more or less equal, but they still have a lot to prove and to win, before they can say they are as big as federer
OfficialWarns 1 month ago 4
@OfficialWarns you can´t include nadal among murray or djokovic, nadal is one of the best players ever rigth now, djokovic will be and murray maybe too... nadal surely surpass federer, if djokovic allows it...
wearecastille 4 weeks ago
@wearecastille Apparently Djokovic is Nadal's Nadal? Murray is definitely.. not.. within the elite ranks. Not in terms of skills, but mentality-wise, he's still streets behind Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic at the moment. If Delpo can get back to his pre-injury level, I think he'd keep Djokovic from dominating so hard.
asdfuogh 3 weeks ago
@OfficialWarns yeah thats true but murray aint their level.i mean he didnt win a slam yet.fed won 16 rafa 10 and novak 5....but rafa and novak are younger.i think rafa will end his career with 13 maybe 14 slams and novak will get around 10.i mean thats alot.that makes them all together legends of the sport
ljubaa93 4 days ago
The similarities between Roger and Pete is amazing. Both were born 10 years apart. Both won at least 1 slam for 8 years 10 years apart(Roger: 2003-2010 Pete: 1993-2010), both have strength on their serve and forehand. You just can't deny that it is destiny. Greatness is destiny and determined. Mere mortals simply can't change that fact no matter how hard they try.
oplilium 1 month ago
@oplilium you mean Pete 1993-2000 ?
JustFORshowify 1 month ago
Federer is practically a mini Sampras but the reason Sampras never won on clay is because he always played hitting flat federer does to but he can play with top spin to
MrAwsomebubba 1 month ago
@MrAwsomebubba You got it wrong. Sampras never won the French Open because he can't move on clay. Soderling hit flat strokes as well, but he beat both Federer and Nadal at French Open. If Sampras could move on clay, he'd have won many more slams.
oplilium 1 month ago
@MrAwsomebubba Mini sampras...tut tut tut, more like Sampras is the mini version of federer nowadays
LeebeKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oplilium I guess you forgot about Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Kuerten, Agassi, Ferrero and Nalbandian. I'm surprised you think these players are not worth mentioning... Federer could also perform on clay courts - if it wasn't for Nadal he would have won many more French Opens. Sampras would have needed a lot of other players to be injured if he was ever gonna win one.
therealjacko 1 month ago
Comment removed
therealjacko 1 month ago
@oplilium Thanks for mentioning Andy Roddick too. The 2009 Wimbledon Final was one of the best ever, dude.
TTFAFF 1 month ago
@oplilium A few problems with your logic... McEnroe was not exactly in his prime in the early 90s.. Neither was Connors... Agassi was on meth for a few of those years. Rafter was a nobody along with some of the others you mentioned.
rogerfederer2424 1 month ago
@oplilium I agree that Sampras had more challenging challengers during his era. That still does not take away from Federer's game which is one of the best I have ever seen because he is good at everything. And Federer even found a way to win on clay, and probably would have won a few more times but for Nadal. Sampras never managed to win on clay. Sampras' serve and volley game, in his prime, would have been tough for Federer.
Boudosaved 1 month ago
Federer's shots look more mature these days. He looks like a badass here lol
SnapbackHaven 1 month ago
After this match, sampras saw the future and decided to gtfo!!
himbomb 1 month ago
@himbomb Except he won one more U.S. Open "on his way out" asshole.
Amar283 3 weeks ago
TO all you ppl saying roger has the easy road compared to pete because he has nobody that difficult to beat, you are wrong for 2 reasons:
1) nadal, as much as it pains me to say this as a diehard fed fan, is really, really good
2) fed kinda stomped on everyone regardless of their talent, maybe thats why everybody else looks like shit even though they are actually good?
himbomb 1 month ago
this is the best match ever played on grass, is it?
hhgtipower 1 month ago
@oplilium Ahem .... If Fed fights people who don't have so much slams, it's maybe cause he won them instead of them ....
Martooof 1 month ago
I think pete suspected something that day.
winnygent88 1 month ago
so offensives players, Federer changed after that to a classical game, but with all his genius
l34tm4n 2 months ago
Both of their strokes have great variety and similarity. It’s no accident! They were trained by the same coach, Paul Annacone, who produced 2 greatest [single-backhanded] players in the tennis history. What an odd! ☆☆☆☆☆
tyoungos 2 months ago 40
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos Sorry but I must point out how wrong you are despite the fact that I love both of these guys. Pete changed from a 2 handed backhand to a single-handed in his junior year, well before he was even coached by Tim Gullikson, let alone Paul Annacone in 1996 in the prime of his career. Roger first met up with Annacone in late 2010, as a 29 year old. Annacone did not give this stroke to either player, not to take away either from his incredible coaching, though, just getting facts straight.
LegendKiller0084 1 month ago
@tyoungos paul annacone started working with both players midway to later in their careers, so really he had jack shit to do with "producing" a player
pyro888000 1 month ago
@tyoungos paul annacone has only been Federer coach for a 1 year Federer has had that backhand his whole life...
DarthMuse 1 month ago
@tyoungos That's funny, because this game was played in 2001 and Paul Annacone was hired to be Federer's coach only in August 28th, 2010.
CowsGoBaah 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos Paul annacone did NOT coach federer from the beginning he only started 2 years ago.''Paul Annacone was hired by Roger Federer to be his full-time coach on August 28, 2010'' Again Paul never trained and developed Federer's shots
LeebeKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos Annacone's been coachin Federer since 2010 and not 1998 when he turned pro.
RudolfMaister1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos are you kidding me? Paul Annacone is been with Federer for a little more than a year, he didn't teach Federer how to hit his backhand
carlosgamboa23 1 month ago
@tyoungos to be fair Paul Annacone had a much great impact on Sampras' career as he came on fairly early, where as with Fed he became coach after Federer had already won all his majors and his helping him make adjustments to his game late in his career. There's a reason why Federer turned to Annacone for coaching but not too big of a coincidence. All that said, Federer is my favorite tennis player and I believe he is the greatest of all time.
kigood 4 weeks ago
@tyoungos You mad? Federer was trained by Lundgren and Roche long before Annacone
EliteMagnifique1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos Well no thats very in accurate both players established their games and careers way before they met Paul Annacone
Kingportable 3 weeks ago
@tyoungos It is no accident because Federer admired Sampras when he was young. However, it is wrong to imply that Annacone has made their strokes similar because Annacone has only been with Federer since some time recently (within the last year?).
asdfuogh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos Federer was not coached by Annacone until late 2010 while the video is from 2001, unless you are probably referring to modern-day Fed which was not obvious
MrKayPham 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos What a fuck are you talking about ?? Paul Anacone joined Federer 3 years ago. Every one knows all Paul Anacone's done for Roger is take his money.
kaweke 2 weeks ago
@tyoungos dude annacone joined him in '09 way after he had his backhand technique down.
BigAlaMcC 2 weeks ago
@BigAlaMcC sry just checked it was august 2010
BigAlaMcC 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyoungos Sorry but I must point out how wrong you are despite the fact that I love both of these guys. Pete changed from a 2 handed backhand to a single-handed in his junior year, well before he was even coached by Tim Gullikson, let alone Paul Annacone in 1996 in the prime of his career. Roger first met up with Annacone in late 2010, as a 29 year old. Annacone did not give this stroke to either player, not to take away either from his incredible coaching, though, just getting facts straight.
LegendKiller0084 1 week ago
@tyoungos Federer didn't develop his strokes under the tutelage of Paul Annacone - Annacone didn't get hired til 2010. In fact, since Annacone began coaching him he hasn't won a major.
DanimalLawlz 6 days ago
Sampras was a great player. The reason Federer is better in my opinion is because of his ability on clay. Sampras was subpar on clay especially compared to Federer.
tyrone2252 2 months ago
I hate the Internet. We're watching a superb display of skill, physical conditioning and mental toughness right here and somehow, some people out there manage to turn it into a slander feast against Nadal, Sampras, Federer and the list goes on. Psychotic comments about doping, belittling statements on this or that player ... The Internet would be a heavenly invention if only the freaks and the deranged could be left out. But then all these channels would be close to empty:-)
AaronVanRosand 2 months ago
The only reason Sampras didn't win as much titles as Federer has, is the competition.
Look at the amazing player Sampras had to go up against...Agassi if you want to name one.
Federer has been without any great competitiors for quite some time.
I loved watching Sampra's matches....he had a certain magic...a certain style...as if he was flying.
He will always be the best player ever.
gutelaunetyp 2 months ago
@gutelaunetyp wrong. It's a fallacy that Sampras played better competition. During his reign the only solid player was Agassi and he took 2 years off. Rios, Muster, Krajicek, Malavai Washington, Todd Martin don't really count. Becker was pretty much finished by the mid 90's winning slams. Courier fizzled out. Chang never won again. Kafelnikov isnt a great great player in my mind. Guga was only dominant on clay. Last 3 years you had 3 men win 3 slams a year. Weak competition?
tyrone2252 2 months ago
@tyrone2252
I'm not talking about the competition for the last 5 years...but about the competition during the time after Sampras retired.
gutelaunetyp 2 months ago
@gutelaunetyp
Sampras's biggest competitions were a guy who was ruining his prime year with meth, and a few burnt out oldies (Becker, Edberg, Lendl). Federer had to play quite a few up coming stars all in their prime (Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick).
and yes, those new stars arent any less than the old timers
there're only so many slams a year, if you have 14 and your rivals have 6s and 8s, you know you're not playing with their best. to say these guys are more competition... pushing it
foul01 2 months ago 2
Federer is the best. Pete did not play better competition. In the last 4 years you had 2 men complete the career grand slam and Novak had a chance this year. The top 3 men this era have won 3 slams in a year. No one was even close to that in Sampras's era. During Sampras's prime who did he really have to beat outside of Agassi? Kafelnikov, muster, rios would all get smoked in todays game.
tyrone2252 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game. Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but yours doesnt count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
ILikeMarmiteALot 2 months ago
Federer idolized Sampras since young age. That's why he was so motivated to win this match.
oplilium 2 months ago
The only reason why they had to play a fifth set was due to Federer young age and inexperience; even in the sets he lost, he had relatively good numbers of occasions and break points.
Lackmind 2 months ago
pete sampras is the best ever tennis player
ilanini 2 months ago
@ilanini How exacle he never won the french open, he won 14 grand slams....federer 16
LeebeKing 2 months ago
@LeebeKing difrent times differt competitin federr agains hes best competetor nadal is behined 18-9
ilanini 2 months ago
@ilanini Federer was at his best between 2003 - up to early 2008 ,Then he bounced back in 2009 . No matter what win lost records say they mean nothing , Other people have win records again federer and nadal , so irreverent commet. Nadal is not consecutive in any other grand slam except the French open . Regardless of who sampras had to compete with ,Federer has still won 16 grand slams and record 6 tour finals cups, It is infact harder for federer to win with the likes of nadal, murray, novak.
LeebeKing 2 months ago 30
@LeebeKing is pure bul if you have two eyes watch pete play and just enjoy!! sampras the best tennis plkayer of all time
ilanini 2 months ago
@LeebeKing Federer gets to finals in all surfaces, including clay where he is usually beaten by Nadal. The thing is: too many games on clay: Rome, Madrid, Monte Carlo, Hamburg,... and Roland Garros of course, while, for example, Wimbledon is essentially the only tournament on grass. If you take the games on clay out of the equation, you can see who has more wins despite that Federer is 6 years older.
FriendOfTheStar 1 month ago
@FriendOfTheStar Who are we comparing here ? Nadal or sampras ? If so Federer has easily won more excluding clay I agree. Federer has won more then Pete excluding clay...Lets not forget Federer has not yet retired and may have a few more years in his tank.
LeebeKing 1 month ago
@LeebeKing And he's still fucking going strong. True champion.
Cream234 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeebeKing And he's still fucking going strong. True champion.
Cream234 1 month ago
@LeebeKing federer only loses because of his fitness, he's too old now :/
BrilliantLike 1 month ago
@BrilliantLike Erm no he is still very fit...He beat djokovic in the french open remember and he destroyed nadal in the 2011 tour finals.. Maybe he is not there 100% like he was between 2003-2009 but a lot of it is due to his mental state, and the fact it gets a little boring after you have won everything and 16 majors you begin to loose interest.
LeebeKing 1 month ago
@LeebeKing OK, but what has he won since Novak and Murray matured? Since 2008 he "only" won 4 GS, that's one GS per year, still good but not great. Imagine if lets say Murray played in 2003-2007, I bet he would have at least 5 GS or even more. 16 GS titles have a lot to do with timing, nobody is saying Fed is not good or even great but those titles are just perfectly timed.
thrillseeking 3 weeks ago
@thrillseeking It's called age and he lacks the need to fight to win as he has won 16 GS of course he wants to win, but when you get to his age you can't expect to still have that same drive and desire. He did beat novak which proves he CAN beat the best and nadal as i have said . Its got nothing to do with the era at all its to do with age, If Federer was 24-26 he wold be playing much much better against players like Novak and Nadal.
LeebeKing 3 weeks ago
@thrillseeking Murray matured ?? LOL don't make me laugh perhaps with the new coach..maybe in the future. But he is still very much behind federer and nadal , Novak. He lost to federer at all his GS matchs and to Novak this year (which was close) Maybe he is getting their but he still very much in the shadow of the top 3 .
LeebeKing 3 weeks ago
@LeebeKing well you said it yourself. Murray only losses to top 3 guys, so it's logical that if those guys weren't there Murray would have won.
Age is no excuse, for Federer especially. Age is a factor for Nadal but not Fed. He plays without relying on phisical strenght, Nadal does, he can play on top level for at least 4 years (top level=reach at least SF at GS). If he was in his 30's he would still win GS if there were no Nadal and Novak.
thrillseeking 3 weeks ago 3
@thrillseeking
Fed requires a lot of muscle power as well. his shots arent slow! they just arent nadal speed.
qweertasd 1 week ago
@qweertasd his shots are faster than nadals...
masonho1 5 days ago
@LeebeKing And Nadal will always beat Federer because Nadal plays to his weakness, it's just a bad matchup. I like Fed more but Nadal is just in Fed's head and he can\t do anything about it.
thrillseeking 3 weeks ago 2
@thrillseeking it's not all bout weakness i think he is scared of him in GS its all mental rather then physical .when he plays Nadal he makes uncharacteristic errors doesn't take risks and fails to move to his inside out forehand, Instead he lets nadal hit the ball up high against his back hand which is a much weaker shot. Nadal is having problems of his own beaten 3 times in a row at GS for the first time and 7x in a row he has lost to Djokovic who is playing better shots then Nadal ever could.
LeebeKing 3 weeks ago
@thrillseeking Go fuck your MOTHER !
kaweke 2 weeks ago
Clash of the Titans! two gods going head to head. if this video was in HD I probably would have exploded.
ultrazman14 2 months ago
*oftentimes appearing
suddenlyitsobvious 2 months ago
Damn, 10 years ago...it feels like only yesterday.
t0v3 2 months ago
Federer pretty much beat Sampras at his own game, a lot of serving and volleying, chipping and charging, a lot of stab volleys, a lot of chipping and charging on 2nd serves, great FH passing shots, in fact on both sides! Federer's serving in this match also played a big role. It's a shame Federer doesn't employ this tactic more often against the opposition today. I know it might be harder with the way everyone returns, but he would come out trumps in majority of those points.
davd1986 3 months ago
@davd1986 No... I doubt it. I love serve and volley too, but against the good players today, it wouldn't be possible to do this. I mean, you would need one amazing serve, and despite Federer's great serve, it's no Sampras serve. In addition, people return a lot better nowadays (either due to racquet technology, or a bigger emphasis on that type of play) so it's still hard as hell to win using this tactic. Of course, sticking to any one strategy all the time is silly in any case.
asdfuogh 3 months ago
wow fed came in SO often back then...
jamchew1982 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game, and Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but your doesnt count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
ILikeMarmiteALot 3 months ago
this should have been the final of Wimbledon.....
TheDonOrange 3 months ago
i can't see the ball s:
Athanzkt 3 months ago
2 best player of all time!
thunderball1003 3 months ago
literally...which pixel is the ball
sterner57 3 months ago
And so Nadal gets beaten 6-3 6-0 by Fed at the London masters...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago 2
Oh god, How much I love invincible tennis
frigidpt4 3 months ago
sampras now is probably like, no wonder why this guys amazing at wimbledon. two greatest players of all time
thevsters9 3 months ago
what raquet has federer???? this wilson and their fucking paintjob
dumitrualex1 3 months ago
Nadal is drawing against Mardy Fish
soijiro666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
clay excluded. successive win 0. If grass and a hard are fast. Like Sampras era. Nadal is able to win only with clay. power of defense and muscles. boring ugly. All the surface is slow now
Fake time-out. cheater. gamesmanship. too noisy annoying.
overratednadal 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nadal said. "Sampras versus Ivanisevic match. or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable. It's not really tennis. it is a few swings of the racquet. For me in the past it was just serve. serve"
arrogant smug
overratednadal 3 months ago
if there was no more than 2 to 3 years in age between sampras and federer, this would have been one of the greatest confrontation in sporting history.
dapperstyle1 3 months ago
the only reason nadal comes across better than federer is because of how slow tennis courts on all surfaces play in the present, they are all like clay courts, if wimbledon played the same way today as in 2001 and never changed federer would have won wimbledon 10 years in a row.
dapperstyle1 3 months ago
actually fedex is d greastest of all time..even sampras has agreed to tht...u sucka'sss
MrGurung27 3 months ago
@MrGurung27 What about Nadal and his winning record against Federer?
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved 16>10
rogerfederer2424 3 months ago
@Boudosaved Put Federer at the same age as Nadal and Federer would have a lot more wins against him.
Age plays a big part in tennis.
T3hMightyIsBack 3 months ago
@T3hMightyIsBack You can't generalize. For example, Andre Agassi won most of his Grand Slams AFTER the age of 29. Pancho Gonzales, in his 40s, was beating the likes of all the major players at the time who were in their 20s. Federer is no old fart. And he has been playing Nadal for many years now. No excuses. Federer is excellent. It's just that Nadal may be a little bit better.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved Not really.
T3hMightyIsBack 3 months ago
@T3hMightyIsBack As Shrek would say, really really.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved As shrek would say , two words, shut up.
T3hMightyIsBack 3 months ago
@T3hMightyIsBack As Donkey would say, do you want a breath mint or something cause your breath STINKS!!!
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved That made no sense whatsoever >.>
T3hMightyIsBack 3 months ago
@T3hMightyIsBack It means you stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized. So you get NOTHING!! YOU LOSE!!! GOOD DAY, SIR!!!
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved Urrr yeah ive won this argument from the looks of it, so good day sir. =)
T3hMightyIsBack 3 months ago
@T3hMightyIsBack After I gave you a rational argument, your response was "Not really." That to you means you've won the argument? Ok, pal. Be happy in your universe with that thought.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved Yawn.
T3hMightyIsBack 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
...number of years on top, the initial edge has got to blunt somewhat and Fed isn't playing today with the kind of utter drive he displays here.
I don't see in what way Nadal could be shown to be a better player than Fed. Between 2004 and 2009, except for RG, Fed could only be beaten at slams through some freak occurrence, of a brilliant player having a brilliant day, such as Safin at the 2005 AO or Del Potro at the USO2009.
That's 5 years.
Nadal has been No.1 twice for ONE year.
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and at the Aussie Open.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
Yeah, I know. And?
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious And!? And he's beaten Federer several more times than Federer has beaten Nadal. Nadal has beaten Federer on every surface. Federer cannot say the same. Nadal is further ahead in his career than Federer was at Nadal's age. Nadal is on his way to having more Slams than Federer if he can keep fit and healthy.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
Do you realize that Nadal besides the RG clay has only won 4 slams? Between 2008 and 2011, clearly Nadal's best years, he has won 7 out of 16 slams, less than 50%. This year he's only won 1 and he already gets beaten regularly by basically anybody.
Compare that to Fed, who during 2004-2007, his best 4 years, won 11 slams out of 16 and as said, it took something exceptional to beat him. Nadal's positive h-2-h against Fed in slams is imputable to his clay game.
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Nadal has also won an Olympic gold medal in singles (Federer has not) and has won one more tennis masters series than Federer, in 5 years less time. He completed the grand slam in 5 years less time than Federer. Nadal has 5 wins against Federer that are NOT on clay. His head-to-head with Federer is 17-8, in favor of Nadal. Nadal's winning percentage (82.52%) is higher than Federer's (81.17%).
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
Yeah, but Nadal is heavily favoured as far as the masters go, cos 3 out of nine are clay courts (the rest being hard courts). Of his 19 masters titles, THIRTEEN were won on clay.
Your stats deceptively reflect career averages and considering Fed's top form only took off FIVE YEARS after his career start if we use the winning of slams as a measure, and Nadal TWO years or so, these stats ignore Fed's sustained level of absolute dominance over years, whereas Nadal today already...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
...appears to be something of a flash in the pan -aside from his clay dominance that is, a dominance however that is equally under serious pressure today.
You do realize that Nadal has only once achieved the winning of 3 slams in a year, while Fed managed this THREE TIMES?
Since Nadal's achievements do not appear to be following a rising curve anymore, I think reasonable people will agree with me that Fed has proven to be a far greater player. Nice try though...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious When Federer came onto the scene who was his greatest competition?.....That's ok, I'll wait for it....are you going to name anyone or should I continue waiting....Right, that's what I thought. Whereas when Nadal came to prominence, he had to manage to take on Federer. And Djokovic has managed to take on Federer. If I imagine all 3 of them at their prime, I would still put my money on Nadal.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
Fed had to take on Sampras, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt. The latter 3 were crushed by Fed from the start & they never recovered.
Your desperate logic fails to convince, son, as by the same token we could make a case for Djoko being the greatest since you consider Fed had no or little competition, Nadal massive competition and then Djoko 'benefitting' from the rising trend still came out on top.
At the end it is simply a law of nature that what goes up at some point will come down.
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Please. Are you serious? Sampras is 10 years older than Federer. How is that competition? Safin is a joke. Roddick has never had anything except a fast serve. You are wrong about Hewitt. He had a good record against Federer in the beginning but Federer was quick to figure Hewitt out. Everything else you said is nonsense. But don't misunderstand me. It's not like I am saying Federer is a joke. I think he is ONE of the best, who met his match with Nadal.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
Safin a joke? In my book he and Nalbandian are the 2 most talented players along with Fed. They just didn't want to put quite as much energy into their careers. It suffices to watch the AO2005 semi-final to see what wonderful tennis Safin was capable of. Guys like Djoko perform better because their drive is superior but how boring is Djoko's tennis in comparison!
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious For a very short period, I thought Safin was the next big thing but his peak was very short. Nalbandian is an Armenian (from Argentina) so I already give him kudos as I am also. Nalbandian used to have a winning record against Federer but Federer figured him out quickly as well.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious DJOKOVIC IS A GREAT TACTICIAN AND HIS DEFENDING IS THE BEST I HAVE EVER SEEN IM NOT SOME BIAS GUY BUT SERIOUSLY DJOKOVICS DEFENDING IS CRAZY WATCH WIMBLEDON 2011 AND U WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN CRAZY
THEJACKSONVILLE1200 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
you to conatctafc10:
'If there is ever any proof that he did dope, I will eat my own words. Until then, I have to believe that these athletes are under intense scrutiny for doping'
Yeah, you have to BELIEVE, believe AUTHORITY of course when you can't use your own brains. Really! Isn't it obvious? Do you always believe anything the system has you BELIEVE is true? I suppose you must think 9/11 was perpetrated by arab terrorists with cutters too? Don't be a dupe.
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious And you believe Nadal is doping because..Yannick Noah says so. Ok. I guess you rest your case...in bizzaro world. And why do you have to go down the poltiical 9/11 conspiracy theory tangent? Can't you stick with tennis? No one will ever know exactly what happened on 9/11 but clearly you fall into the category that's going to blame it on the Jews, right? I've heard that BS so many times. Let's just stick to tennis.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
'And you believe Nadal is doping because..Yannick Noah says so'
What kind of bizarre remark is this? It's the kind of thing those people say who, exactly as I anticipated and suggested earlier, can't use their OWN brains, trust their OWN perceptions, their OWN discernment, and must as a result always believe someone else, typically expert consensus or authority.
Do you really think Noah is the only individual in the world who suspects Nadal of doping?
So, you BELIEVE...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Can you please say something substantive and not generic? Your comment was a waste of my reading time.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
So basically you can't process information by yourself. I gave you TWO CLEAR, SUBSTANTIVE elements in my last post indicating that doping control does NOT work, because when the big fish are caught redhanded, the case is dropped and covered up.
As a result your comment:
'If there is ever any proof that he did dope, I will eat my own words. Until then, I have to believe that these athletes are under intense scrutiny for doping'
shows you cannot think for yourself and that you...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I see. So doping control does not work because you happen to know for fact that when people are caught that cases are dropped and covered up. Right, like the cases against Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Floyd Landis...should I continue?
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
Yeah well, sometimes they need to catch some guys and make a big show of it to get the public used to stringent doping controls and that it's working, while in reality they're just sacrificing some guys in order to increase control of all aspects of the athletes' lives and of the system they function in, basically a controlled business that is quite important in the lives of society's members...They create a reality for the gullible masses, of some cheating stars and ambitious...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Some guys? Everyone I named was a top athlete in their sport. There have been tennis players who have been baned for doping. Innocent until proven guilty and gulibility are two different things. I am saying Nadal is innocent until proven otherwise. You are telling me you know for a fact he is and that I should not be so gullible. We have a different way of looking at people. Not once have you suggested that perhaps Federer's success is due to doping. Only with Nadal.
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
...managers and illegal performance-enhancing drugs that are simply outrageous and that the forces of law and order and fair play must combat at all cost, and are doing so quite successfully. And of course, the ACTUAL reality of doping in sport eerily mimicks the ACTUAL results of America's 'War on Drugs', which is basically code for: the full involvement of the CIA in domestic & international drugtrade.
Do you really think that high-level doping labs are some illegal, criminal...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
...makeshift, basic labs in some old, deceptively decrepit hangar in some industrial storage lot, run by a few mafiosi? No, it's of course all a part of an intricate system where all the players are aware of each other and doping is PROMOTED.
Everybody prominently functioning in sports knows about doping..
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
...will give up ALL REASONING processes and refuse to draw any EVIDENT conclusion as soon as it puts you at risk of being at odds with authoritative dogma.
Of course, this hardly makes you an inetersting interlocutor and it is therefore pointless as far as I'm concerned to take this any further cos I will learn nothing from you that I can't pick up from any mainstream media outlet...
Good luck!
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
...authority and the WTA. Since they talk a lot about their fight against doping, SURELY everything must be in order and who are WE to suspect anything when the doping commissions haven't made an incriminating announcement...
Do you realize how naive you are being?
As I said earlier, what about Agassi's revelations of doping. Was he caught?
What about Serena's pulmonary embolism and massive bulkiness?
OF COURSE there's a lot of doping going on. And OF COURSE they don't get caught.
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@Boudosaved
The reason Fed apparently faced so little competition is that his tennis was so superior so we can flip your entire argument around. It is much easier really working up against a set standard, as Nadal had to do AND CONSTANTLY SAID HE DID, than to set the bar all by oneself. Who knows how much better Fed would have been had the competition from the start been even stiffer...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@Boudosaved since nadal cracked the top 2 in 2005, federer has won 12 grand slams, nadal 10, and by heavy accusations of doping
By december 2004 and april 2005, nadal had gained a lot of muscle, speed and resistance
Nike signed this kid and imediately exploded, winning rome, montecarlo, roland garros
Its all a big show, the atp needed a big rival for federer who was winning everything; theyve made a lot of money with it so theyre not gonna reveal the truth behind his steroid use
contactafc10 3 months ago
@contactafc10
I agree that Nadal's stamina and muscle volume seem abnormal, and I don't like the vibe of his camp; uncle Tony looks since years like there's the dark shadow hanging over him of those having made the pact with the devil. He actually looks guilty and his control of Rafa seems quite totaiitarian.
I think indeed that Rafa was some kind of 'experiment' and that the people behind him tried by WHATEVER MEANS to take him all the way.
I also agree with you that in the end, these...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@contactafc10
...things are known by people higher up in the hierarchy, and that ultimately it's all about social engineering.
These tennis players promote the system's values of competition, success and money, they're constantly involved in all sorts of charity events and social engineering efforts, they have massive access to the press but no freedom of speech whatsoever, are constantly thanking the banks and multinationals -the sponsors- and they all seem brainwashed.
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@contactafc10
It is pretty obvious that there's something seriously wrong with all these tennis daddies and mums, half of whom look like mafiosi who'd do anything to make big bucks, and the tennis dads have a notorious history of control and abuse of their daughters -Graf, Pierce and so on.
I'll bet that Seles' stabbing wasn't just about a 'crazed fan' and Vaidisova's retirement and marriage to Stepanek seem fishy.
Was her character too volatile and uncontrollable to allow her permanent...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@contactafc10
...access to the spotlight, to millions of people?
Have you noted how all tennis players today can only voice insipid drivel? It's like they're completely brainwashed.
On a last note, even though Djoko's muscle volume hasn't bulked, his attitude and stamina seem equally abnormal. Wild eyed stares after each important win, being HYPER-DRIVEN all the time, it simply can't be natural.
Perhaps some/all of these players are vsimply ictims of advanced mindcontrol. Note Bolletieri...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@contactafc10
...has an intelligence background, and many of the trends in tennis were developed in his stables, such as the 'grunting' for instance, or using Agassi to sell tennis to a new generation, the 'rebellious kid' with the funky hair. Little did we know he was made to wear a wig...
The entire tennis world is obviously controlled and champions are manufactured.
Fed was so smooth it didn't show, but Rafa and Djoko look like their souls were robbed...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@contactafc10
Oh yeah, and let's not forget Agassi openly admitted to drug use and it was hushed, Serena's been admitted to hospital this year with pulmonary embolism which notoriously tends to be associated with steroid use. Serena's physique is obviously not natural today.
Henin's relationship with Rodriguez was bizarre, as if he controlled her body and soul with every single one of his disgusted smirks. Henin eyed his facial expressions after each single point, like a terrorized little...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago
@contactafc10
...mouse.
Of course I'm not trying to argue that some players are cheaters, for that is no my point at all. Much more interesting is how utterly corrupt the ongoings are BEHIND THE SCENES.
What kind of world and reality are these players really living in?
Isn't it unimaginable that today the players must be available AT ALL TIMES for impromptu tests, meaning they must communicate their whereabouts AT ALL TIMES? They are not even free.
And all that circus while the system ALL...
suddenlyitsobvious 3 months ago