Champions like Pete Sampras about Roger Federer

[Wilde4Ever]

Once Roger arrived on the scene all everyone lauded how awesome he was to outclass such a tough field its only recently that people (mainly Sampras fans) have started to put this eaiser era theory forward. Before Roger emerged no-one 'its such a shame we don't have any good players anymore'

[Wilde4Ever]

It is silly to say that Fed's era was eaiser - before he came along everyone was lauding Hewitt and comparing him to Agassi, Hewitt pasted Sampras when they met at US Open. Then Roddick came along with perhaps the biggest serve ever and his big forehand and everyone lauded him as an awesome player. There was also Safin Ferrero, not to mention that Agassi was some playing some awesome tennis its before Rog everyone spoke of the strength and depth in men's tennis!

[MsPelicanus]

Hes a sexy beast

[balimakko]

These guys gave this interview while being held hostage by RF's fans.

Pete's face tells you everything.

[loris19861]

he is just the best!! very simple...

[ronacalu]

Champion talks about Champion of Champion

[ayazagl2000]

@chjtemp I do agree on your points and analysis about past and new era but surly there's one thing which make RF is the greatest of all time is "his playing style" I don't care how much GS he won or he will win but his playing style and all round game makes him complete player between any era of tennis I am a tennis freak I watched Sam and Agassi era even though I played golf but as far as RF is playing I love watching him

[chjtemp]

@ayazagl2000 I absolutely agree Federer is a beauty to watch!

[rememberifucan]

Stitch won Wimbledon in 1991 and 1992 champ is agassi !

[ashimr01]

nadal dislikes this...

[MuNURDcr7]

sampras has eyebrows that wont quit

[theQuestNeverEnds]

Two of my fav in tennis. pistel pete and roger are so great. i love them.

[7Sharukh]

Djokovic disliked it 

[bhull684]

Debating the strength of different eras is very difficult. I would argue that during the earlier years of Sampras' dominance...through 96 or 97...the top ten was more accomplished and, while during the bulk of Federer's dominance the top ten was weaker while the top 100 players were deaper and more talented. The major difference in their careers is Pete beat all challengers and owned all rivalries I can recall, while the same cannot be said of Fed who you cannot argue lost the rivalry with Rafa

[ulizinho]

@bhull684

well, can you think of a rivalry of Sampras and a claycourt king on clay ???

[chjtemp]

@bhull684 I think Sampras didn't have any real rival like Nadal is to Federer. I think Nadal is a guy right up there with Federer and Sampras at his best. Sampras had a few tough rivals, but I don't think any of them were as good as Nadal. No surprise Federer has had tough time against Nadal. Also, I think H2H record between them has been a bit exaggerated by the fact that they played on clay so many times. Nadal is an all time clay king and the record on clay made Nadal so dominant.

[contactafc10]

@chjtemp so true, the h2h record has been exaggerated by the clay factor yes...

but i think federer and sampras are a step up ahead of nadal. nadal´s won 6 of 10 grand slams in one surface, and most of his titles are on clay also, even though he´s won all of them, at least once and he is not a great indoor player.

he is one of the greatest yes, but federer´s records and game style are unreacheable.

[chjtemp]

@bhull684 However, I agree it's impossible to compare two different eras accurately. There will be personal preference and subjective views involved. My point was, however, that Federer's era has been no cakewalk and he's faced plenty of tough challengers. I think his record 16 grandslam titles are all well and truly valid. I was just pointing out that it wouldn't be easy for any players in the history to dominate this era like Federer has as some people seem to try to suggest.

[LFiers]

@chjtemp Very well said. I totally agree with you. I highly disagree when people try to say it was easy for Federer to dominate this era by that far, I thinks thats ridicolous and a low attempt to discredit what he rightfully deserves and has earned. Its been tough and hard fought for every one that he has earned & Nadal.. what can you say about Nadal as a rival. He's amazing! They raise eachothers game. Speaking of which its AusOpen Semi final tomorrow night! FEDERER VS NADAL everyone!

[chjtemp]

Courier's prime wasn't that long, Becker was nowhere as good during Pete's prime, and there were others like Stich, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Chang, and Kafelnikov, but I think Djokovic, Murray, Hewiit, Safin, Ferrero were about even to that group. I don't think Federer had that easy time winning so many slams like some try to make out to be.

[chjtemp]

I don't think Federer's era is that much weaker compared to Sampras' ear(I've lived in both era, trust me), generally speaking. The reason Sampras' era seems much better is the names like Ledle, Becker, Edberg are there, but they were playing well at the beginning of Pete's career, not during his peak. Pete's real rivals were Agassi and that's about it.

[LFiers]

@chjtemp You really are right. This is what I always try explain to people, Agassi was almost to Sampras what Nadal was to Federer. Once Sapras peaked there was not one can could macth him quite the way Agassi could. Federer has had Djokovic and Murray and Nadal to deal with. All tough rivals but obviously Rafa was the biggest one.

[chjtemp]

They came and went and some of them are still there. The depth in that group is really phenomenal. Pete has players like Ivanisevic, Henman, Rusedski, Rafter, Berasategui, Rios, Costas, Corretja, and others, but really it's this next group of players that has such a great depths in this era. They would've made it into top 10 or even top 5 for some if they played 10 or 15 years ago, and they would've been rated higher.

[LFiers]

@chjtemp I just reead a whole bunch of your comments & I think you write a blog or something you really know a lot of tennis history and write really well too. Do you have a blog or something? Otherwise I'll just copy all your comments into my note pad? Haha. Thanks.

[chjtemp]

@LFiers Thanks. I don't have any blog but I love sports and actually have done some sports journalism on some radio station before. Go ahead and use my stuff if that's any use to you :)

[chjtemp]

In fact, I think Nadal would've won more if he was in Pete's era(Djokovic and Murray as well). Then, there are players just behind them, like Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Coria, Moya, Grosjean, Clement, Lopez, Gaudio, Davydenko, Johansson, Stepanek, Ferrer, youzhny, Berdych,Baghdatis, Verdasco, Monfils, Blake, Mathieu, Monaco, Karlovic, Melzer, Wawrinka, Simon, del Potro, Almoagro, Tsonga, Cilic, Soderling, Fish, Troicki, Isner, Gulbis, Tipseravic, Dolgopolov, Chela, and many others(you name it),

[chjtemp]

And the depths of the two era are not that much different, but it looks much better in Pete's era because they had miultiple slam winners like Lendle, Edberg, Agassi, Becker, Courier. However, these guys were a bit past their prime when Pete really strted to assert his dominance, so it is somewhat of a misconcept that Pete's competition was much better. The ones whose prime coinceided with Pete's were perhaps Agassi and Courier, and I don't think they were better than Nadal.

[chjtemp]

The game has changed so much since Smapras' time. Improvements in racquet and other technologies have mad serve and volley very difficult nowadays. The proof is seen on tour now, there are almost no serve and volley players, certainly not to the extent of what Sampras, Edberg, Becker or McEnroe were. Sampra would've been forced to play in different style and although I can still see he would've done what he did, he wouldn't find it any easier playing in this era compared to his own.

[chjtemp]

Roger has had some great depth in competition with the contemporaries like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewiit, Kuerten and Ferrero, all peaked at different times(even Agassi was there for a while). If you compare this group to Sampras' group of contemporaries like Lendle(at the tail end of his career), Edberg, Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Stich, Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Krajicek, maybe Sampras had more consistent opponents who were still not quite as good as himself was.

[blindspirit]

Michael Stich obviously has no idea what he's talking about. The second he brought up a NASCAR driver, his comments became moot.

[Liutox008]

In 2011 semi-finals I think Federer gave himself up after proving to Djokovic that he can beat him any time any where whenever he wanted. So What was his message to Djokovic? Win the finals for me?????

[rambomonkey101]

not 15, 16 hell yea!!!

[ILikeMarmiteALot]

@anthonygareth your last sentence is funny, sorry but I doubt it, no doubt Sapras had a great serve, in fact Rogers is almost identical, and it's one aspect of Sampras' game I would consider only slightly better Rogers, but there is no comparison in their game styles. Roger's is a class above. Players are fitter and more versatile in their play, I talk about ALL players, I didnt say he wouldn' be good so don't take my words out of context and start a new discussion..

My point still stands guys.

[tokinblckgie]

@ILikeMarmiteALot

Sampras' serve is considerably better than Fed's. And his baseline game is top notch as well as his return game. People overlook the rest fo Pete's game and overrate his serve a lot as if that and his volley were his only weapons, but if you look at highlights of his career, you'll see that he had all the tools necessary to be dominant in todays game.

[ILikeMarmiteALot]

@jaitock (you) are a cock, how you can say the players haven't changed the game is a crime. Federer and Nadal, have brought the level of Tennis to a different class, well above previous era's. And what's with the emotional "Pete never harmed anyone" comments, I didn't say anything bad towards Pete. Pete is clearly dissapointed that Roger beat his GS total and in some interviews just by the way he talks you can see some jealousy in his tone and expressions, which is natural. Fuckin idiot..

[RobertPaulDoran]

Sampras, Philippoussis and Ivanisevic all need to shave.

[ILikeMarmiteALot]

Sampras wouldnt stand a chance in todays game

[jaitock1991]

@ILikeMarmiteALot

I don't know if you've noticed, but the game has changed dramatically since he quit.

First of all, it's technology and general development of the society that has brought the game to a higher level, not the players themselves. This is why serve and volley has died out. Example; if you look at the pace of the surfaces today, compared to the speed a couple of years back, you can(well maybe not you, but most others)easilly see how much slower it has become.

[anthonygareth]

@ILikeMarmiteALot Sampras would do very well in todays game, even with the improvements in technology. His serve is amazing, and he's one of the best volleyers ever. He would be a top player in ANY era. You need to think on it, do more research, before you make that comment. Sampras is awesome. He could beat some lower level players on the tour right now just because of his serve.

[ILikeMarmiteALot]

why is there even a discussion here, Roger is clearly the best player in history. Sampras is extremely jealous of Roger, if they played at the same time Roger would brush past him with total simplicity, Roger would hit passing shots all day long against Sampras. Roger also has a better serve and volley game than sampras but just can't use it in todays game.

And It's bullshit for the easier opponents thing, Roger was so dominant because he was so good. Fuck, Nadal is even better than Sampras

[jaitock1991]

@ILikeMarmiteALot

Hey. I am a huge fan of Roger, but saying what you say about Pete and him is just a discrase to humanity. What the hell do you know about how Pete is thinking? People(you) really have an intelligence problem when a player like Pete goes through his entire career, never screwing up anything towards the media, always letting his racket do the talking, and they still think of Pete the way they(you) do. Pete has never done any harm to anyone, fucking idiot..

[kingdingelingism]

fuck michi stich

[4165mc]

mentally Roger is very tough; he is a born athlete, but he also has the mental stamina to be able to turn a match around from losing to winning; not many can do that. He understands how to work wth his own mind - its almost Zen like. That's what sets him apart.

[MattyOyola21]

Serve and volley.... serve and volley..... serve and volley.... serve and volley...... SUCH A BORE!!! Always the same!! Thanks God he NEVER won the French Open :) Roger Federer rocks on ANY circumstance, not ONLY serve and volley ;)

[SeanMcGibbon]

@MattyOyola21 The game was different back then... the racket technology made it harder to hit passing shots.

[symba]

federer's game is based on his mental ability to think that he can win, if that goes....then he looses. he is the best tennis player ever, but he can't win matches, so many times he should have won ...instead he looses. so fucking disapointing.

[MattyOyola21]

@symba 'loses' NOT 'looses'

[Yepprd]

Sorry but just stop the video at :35 and tell me nothings wrong with the guy

[brightlights456X]

@Yepprd

He's get old. It's known as aging.

[Yepprd]

Pete looks like he just got out of prison or something..why can't he cut his hair like he used to?

[MattyOyola21]

@Yepprd because he got almost completely bald xD hahahahaah

[MiamiHEATnow]

sampras is better than roger? lmao. a one-dimensional player for sampras who can't play and clay and never got to the finals of roland garros.... even so, u can't count 16 is greater than 14?

[MiamiHEATnow]

stich has much better english than boris becker.

[andunusblick]

sampras 90s > federer

[MattyOyola21]

@andunusblick hahahahh poor ignornt you are! xD

[andunusblick]

@MattyOyola21 anda a ver videos de carrio.

[MattyOyola21]

@andunusblick Andá a ver partidos de softball

[whotaughtyou]

JURY CONSULATATION START AGAIN JAPAN NON JURY NO BAILIFF JUDGE

X STALLONE

[extradutyfelt1]

pete really need´s to shave!:)

[Amokrane1986]

@extradutyfelt1 They all need to shave!!

[extradutyfelt1]

@Amokrane1986 michael stich shaved!:)

[NDoraku]

Just 1 mistake:

Michael Stich didn t win Wimbledon 1992, it was 1991 vs. Boris Becker.

Greetings from Germany :)

[edbruby]

Tsonga is not a serve and volleyers, although he does it from time-to-time. Isner volleys about 40% of his first serves; Karlovic is ranked veyr low and often injured, so he is no threat. So, who are the Edbergs? Stichs? Beckers? Krajiceks? McEnroes?

No, Murray is not the same as Nadal, but he is far closer than Mecir was to Agassi or McEnroe was the Lendl.

[splendid1000]

Sorry for spamming. That was ridiculous.

[splendid1000]

USO was slowed down a second time in 2010 ... The same year that Nadal won his first title there. Sports writers, ESPN, even the casinos in Vegas all knew that Nadal would win the 2010 US Open because they were slowing the courts down again and that favors baseline grinders like Nadal. Wimbledon was slowed down a second time in 2006 as well ... the same year Nadal made his first Wimbledon final after having lost in the 2nd round the year before ... Its not a coincidence.

[splendid1000]

S&V is really only effective when a player has control of the point and is looking for an easy putaway.S&V is also more taxing on the body injury-wise (knees, ankles and back) because of the extreme angles you have to cover on your way in to net.Sampras had some real injuries (herniated discs) because of it.Fed never had to deal with those injuries because he didn't have to play S&V.Baseline is very taxing endurance-wise,but not as much injury-wise because of the perpetual lateral movement.

[splendid1000]

Fed dominated the baseline generation (except Nadal), but its easier to continually dominate all year long when you're really only facing one style of play. Baseline game can vary, but its nowhere near the extreme difference in play between baseline and serve & volley. Taking out S&V basically cuts the competition in half. There are still a couple serve & volleyers but they arent winning any slams cuz its just not as effective anymore on the slow surfaces.

[odingr]

was goran smoking something before the interview?

[drkunalsharma]

still as stich said, i rate sampras as the best player of all time.. considering the opponents he's had.. see now, that roger has a stiffer opposition compared to some of the gone by years, with nadal and djokovic, he's finding it tough and think of the opponents pete had.. phew! agassi, becker, mcnroe, rafter, jim courier, rafter, philippoussis..

[drugstoremarc]

Michael Stich = BALLS

[bnmanas]

Michael Stich is the 1991 Wimbledon Champion.

[telmolicious]

pete: I think he still has some slams left in him ... he is def. still the man to beat when it comes to the slams..... ehhhhhhhh hasnt been in the last four slam finals (at that point) rafa just won three slams in a row before djoko won the aussie open... Djoko is on a big match winning streak and won the last slam ... and beat fed the last couple of times they meat... "I dont see anyone beating him in wimbledon".... say rafa/berdych maybe djoko ? gehh get your tounge out of his ass pete!!

[MattyOyola21]

@telmolicious Pete begrudges Federer :D

[sasuke1994pown]

This was a really cool video, thanks for having uploaded it on my birthday! :)

[Zebes14]

And there are also many good Players who retired just before Roger began to dominate in 2003 / 2004 (Sampras, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Kraijcek, Ivanisevic...). Some were also often injured (Kuerten, Agassi, Safin...). And the new Generation with Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro was not yet that good as today respectively Nadal only on clay.

[MrTyrone9000]

for the 3rd guy Michael Stich it said he was "1992 Wimbledon Champion" but if Agassi won wimbeldon in 1992... :'o

[MrTyrone9000]

@MrTyrone9000

no "if" lol

[TheDobardecko]

hmmmm,it's tough to compare sampras wit fed,cause their styles are different. stich comment?well...players always favour their own generation. federer has much more variety in his game then sampras had. like grass,for instant. in 90's surface hasn't changed so sampras with his greatest  serve of all time had big advantage,while fed winning wimbly for the first time in 2003 against p'ousssis,surface was still very fast,so in '04 and '05,then they slowed it and roger just couldn't be so dominnant

[splendid1000]

@TheDobardecko

Actually Wimbledon was slowed down dramatically before 2003. End of 2001 to be exact. As of 2002, Wimbledon was nicknamed ' Green Clay ' ... Federer never won Wimbledon on true fast grass. Not saying he couldn't, but the competition would be much harder and varied had the surface not been altered to favor baseline play and make serve & volley much less effective. US Open was also slowed down significantly in 2003. Fed has a tremendous serve & volley game though.

[TheDobardecko]

@splendid1000

yes, I mean,Fed is just so adjustable,adaptive,pliable that I could imagine him playin any surface,any oponnent on every era of tennis that was in the past with the biggest success of everyone.

[edbruby]

Thank God that Stich has some courage to say that Pete's opponents were tougher. People think that just because players hit harder (rackets are more powerful), they are so much better. But Pete played baseliners, serve and volleyers, pushers, counterpunchers, etc. Who serves and volleys now? There is no variety in the game. Plus, Nadal has dominated Federer. Nobody dominated Sampras (except for the clay!).

[moedelonge]

@edbruby Federer only has a losing record against Nadal on Clay. And seriously? Tsonga? Karlovic? Isner? I see these guys regularly serve and volley so it's not extinct. I agree, more people play from the baseline, but so what? There's still so much variety from the baseline in the top 10. You honestly can't tell me murray's gonna give you a similiar game to nadal.

[counselor551]

@moedelonge Federer also has a losing record to Nadal in Grandslam finals as well don't forget. The argument is that Pete was the best at rising to the occasion against the toughest competition when the matches were at the highest level. From what I've seen, Federer has usually lost when the matches were extremely high level. Although, he was probably the best at beating a wide variety of really good (but not great) professionals such as Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Safin, and age 35 Agassi

[moedelonge]

@counselor551 yeah but if we exclude the french open, they're 2-2 in grandslam finals. However, i would agree that federer's mental strength is probably his main weakness. I just think that the 00's was tougher than 90's personally, but that's just my opinion and i can completely understand why someone would disagree with that.

Anyway, i'm sure if federer was born 10 years earlier i would still think he was the single best player to ever play tennis.

[counselor551]

@moedelonge I would rank him in the top 3. Sampras is the greatest fast court/grass court player bar none, when they slowed down the grass after 2000 you could see he wasn't as effective but he won 5 us opens and 7 wimbledons. Nadal is the best clay court player. Federer is the most all around player of the three giving him great flexibility when matching up with the majority of the lesser players on tour. But matched up against those two, I think he would have a losing record

[splendid1000]

@moedelonge

Tsonga is the only one of those three with any shot at a single slam and he is nowhere near pure serve & volley like Sampras, Rafter, Goran, Becker, Edberg, Mccenroe ... I could go on and on. S&V is not completely extinct but its MUCH less effective solely because they slowed down Wimbledon and USO surfaces. The disappearance of serve & volley coincides perfectly with the surface modifications. Fed has a great S&V game regardless and could hang with the best of them if he had too.

[Zebes14]

Roger Federer is one of the best players ever, no question. But i think Michael Stich is right: Pete Sampras had the tougher opponents.

[cynthiamty]

Great things all said abaut Roger...even there are a lot more cualities he has...one of them is that Roger love his fans and he is sooo nice with us!

Love you Roger!!! The Maestro!!!

[lovevadimjaclyn]

he will always the best of all

he's a awesome tennis player and a extraordinary man

thanks to you