Pete is always the best tennis player in my heart!! Federer, Nadal or Djokovic....none can compare with him....Even I am watching their games today, none can impress me as Pete did. His serve and volley are always so powerful!! He is the King of Swing!!!
All Pete´s haters who are putting their stupid comments on this video should burn in hell. Do not stain this video of the greatest player ever with your dirt.
I don't have respect for any tennis player MORE than I do for Pete Sampras - just the greatest and the classiest. And I agree, with the exception of maybe Federer, I don't think any of today's players can claim to be at his level. Too bad injuries started to plague his later career - but when he was at his peak - hard to argue anyone (including Federer) could beat him. And definitely no one had his class.
The 10 year spell during which Sampras won his 14 Grand Slam titles also saw 13 other players win at least 1 GS compared to 6 other players and a 6 year spell as for Federer. This is a perfect proof Sampras met with much more resistance.
Also, the 90s generation had a lot of champions which made it harder for Sampras to be the best. We had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang back then just to name some. Moreover, Krajicek (winning Wimbledon in '96, beating Sampras in the quarterfinals) though not a great champion, was one of the few players Sampras has a worse H2H if I'm correct.
sampras n federer two legends...u knw u hear ppl talking a lot of shit,,,but after all the experience i m 100% sure the only way to judge a tennis players greatness is by no. of grandslams no matter which 1..i mean if a player wins 15 times d same grandslam he is better thn sampras...i mean doesnt matter which ones u win but wat matters is how many..sum1 might say agaasi won all four hey but sampras mite not hv won french but won wim 6 times which is a greater acheivemnt
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Sampras undoubtedly is one of the greatest player of all time,and before Federer became who he is today,Sampras was considered by most pundits the best of them all,if he would have won the French Open at least once,the conversation of who is the best between him and Federer would be a lot tighter,Fed is an all around player while Pete always struggled on clay regardless of who was in front of him,however I think on grass he would've had it his way against pretty much anybody.
@Gman256 hahah you are a fool. fed won against who??? haha soderling never heard of him... nadal wasnt there... fed would have won only few grand slams if there were good players.. the guy is a lucky joker.. always loses to djokovic and nadal.. his time is gone.. ITS NADALLLL now.. federer will never win french again.. e is a not a winner he is a loser... SAMPRAS was always best against top 10 opponents, fed has the worst record against his arch rivals, why ?? because he gets lucky ..
Failing to win a major tournament doesn't necessarily means you are worse. Although Agassi (or Courier) won the French Open, still Sampras had a better head-to-head record between the 2. And most importantly, he finished world No. 1 for a record 6 consecutive years.
Now with Sampras retired I like Federer as he's got a very similar style of play but the best way to decide who is better would be if the 2 met now with Sampras being at like 26 at his best.
Federer has been facing losers, nobody really steps up to challenge Roger. Roger is losing his matchup with Nadal too.
Sampras always beats his number one opponent Agassi.
The courts are different now, too high bouncing so you can chase down balls and encourage rally. Racket technology and strings helps too. Even John McEnroe is still competitive at his age because of the courts and equipments today.
@momay69 You are either slightly retarded or being intentionally antagonistic. You realise that with such nonsensical comments Sampras himself would likely consider you a dimwit.
@espanolporaplicacion No, you are the one who is retarded, How many top 10 today doesnt have a grandslam you idiot. And the supposed greatest of all time can't even beat his number 1 opponent.
Fed has been facing losers. The talent is there but nobody steps up to beat him. AND he can beat anybody not named Rafael NAdal.
@BurtReyn who knows... i think fed still moves better and has a better forehand. sampras would have his chance on a very quick surface like at the us open, no longer at wimbledon
Sampras Vs Federer in their primes on hard or Grass courts would of been a tough call. Both are Great Great Champions... it would of been a coin toss to who would of been the victor.
On Clay, i think Rodgers Ground strokes would of come out on top..With Pete's serve being negated by the slow surface.
I don't think you can say Agassi made things up. He certainly did seem like a bit of a tortured soul but I think he always gave Pete his respect and he understood the larger picture, particularly later on in his career. Though Pete did tend to dominate in the slams, Agassi won more masters events and their head to head was I think 20-14 in Sampras favor. I would call that a pretty good rivalry. wouldn't call that
@tommyenglish1 agreed. if both of them were in their prime and played on old grass courts (which were much faster than they are now), sampras would have won hands down
if both of them were at their prime and played on today's courts which are equivalent of the clay courts of Pete's time, I doubt that Mr. Sampras would have won hands down
but, you see, playing on a fast surface plays right into the hands of pete sampras. there were faster courts when pete played than today, where the courts are much slower. federers game is designed for the consitent baseline battles of today, not for the power game that was and is sampras's era.
Way more power? Are you joking? sure the technology has increased immensely but you never see players right now just blowing through guys on the court like in Sampras' day. Todays game is so much more about consist baseline strokes. The power game is set up only by consistently working your opponent around the court today.
No, I'm not really joking. Why the fuck would I be telling jokes on a video? If you're talking about power, wouldn't the fact that Federer's got the best and most powerful forehand ever, and the fact that Karlovic and Roddick having the most powerful serves ever, play a part in a "power" game? I saw Fed blow through Murray in US open 2008, Agassi in 2005, Tsonga, Murray, and Hewitt at AUS this year with massive forehands. How is that not power? You should define what you mean.
Why don't you watch their final in AUS 07 and see who has the better forehand. Gonzalez's is powerful, but not better. No one hits the same percentage/quality forehand winners as Federer. I didn't originate the claim, McEnroe did, who I'm sure knows more about tennis than either of us.
@sauceyboy Well really the topic in question was the power of the forehand...not the quality. federer has a better all around forehand but he isn't hitting the 100mph that gonzalez is. so gonzalez is a power player, and has no grand slams. This era is about consistency.
harder does not mean better, i hit the ball a damn sight harder than one ofmy friends, but he is a lot better player than me. placement consistency, spin. power is not everything
they both have equal serves and equal mental toughness; Sampras might have a better second serve (not sure); Sampras is a better serve and volleyer (Fed has intimidated all others to stay at the baseline); Federer is a better shotmaker; I think Agassi at his best would give Federer a good run - Agassi a better returner; Federer a better server
It's annoying that Agassi has to make shit up for his book to compensate by getting whipped by Pete his whole career. Agassi is a sellout joke. Agassi needs attention even if it means making up lies.
I think that when u are talking about the dominance of the greatest player ever statistally federer is the best. federer also dominates everyone around him. the only place where he is not dominant is on clay vs. nadal. I think that on hardcourt Nadal hasnt been that great in his career. Sure he won the australian but before that Nadal was not much of a threat on hard court. Federer dominate everyone. look at him vs andy roddick. the best serve in tennis and he still spanks him left and right
Pete has said time and time again that the reason he was so dominate was because of the competition around. The players around today are already above Pete Sampras' level, but they aren't winning because there is someone even better around... known as Federer.
Federer is much more dominate than Pete in the fact that he won more grand slams in less than half the time.
true in one sense but explain the dominance nadal has over federer. Sampras had dominance over every player on the tour in his time. Federer clearly does not.
True at 13 to 7 Rafa does have a dominate record, but that record is deceiving because 11 of those matches were on clay were Rafa is 9 and 2. So people criticize Fed and say how can he be the most dominate player if he has a losing record to Nadal. However, the truth is Federer is being punished for being such a great clay court player. Had Federer been as good on clay as Sampras, his record against Nadal would be pretty even because he'd never get to the finals to play Nadal.
"The players around today are already above sampras' level" do you want me to brutalize your argument?. Players today are brute forces and ball bashers in most cases due to technology. Have you heard "synthetic strings" and new technology raquet speed. Technology advancements make mediocre players have more ball control. Give sampas today's technology and he would rape most today's players due to his "raw talent and power" but FED AND nadal who are hall of famers.
@juandi2570 it is an unfair comparison. although today's generation do have the new technology, they are not competing with people without the new technology. they are competing against people with the same knowedgle and technology as them so in the end, it is all the same
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
Roger could be more talented than sampras but sampras would never let anybody get in his head like Nadal has done to roger and now delpo. Sampras was so dominante in slams' finals that he barely lost(3 times) coz he's been the best player ever mentally speaking period. He was tougher than federer in the mind dept but i respect your opinion of roger being the goat however naming a goat could be tricky.
disagreed. Sampras' groundstrokes were formidable and amazing. I saw most of his matches and everybody agrees he was a special force. Why do you insist on putting him down? i agree that Fed might be the best ever but sampras is just royalty in tennis. A phenomenal player who's respected deeply by everybody who knows tennis, including King Roger.
he wasn't perfect. He lost in early rounds but he won 14 slams and was number one 6 straight years, you can't do that without being a world class in every depto: baseline, net, serve, etc. I played tennis in college and love the game and you can't be number one and dominate the game for so long like sampras did without being exceptional at everything.
i might agree with ya that Roger might be the closest to perfection but Sampras, Borg and Laver were in a class of their own in their times. It's difficult to compare eras and name a goat but these four players(borg, sampras, fed and laver), if you would put em' in the same moment in time, with the same technology, equipment,etc those matches between em would be amazing.
"Very good at specific and althogh much over average at others" I disagree, nobody can be that great like Borg, Sampras, Laver without being world class at everthing. You haven't seen enough of these guys. Ask Fed what his opinion is on these guys. Fed said that sampras was his idiol and that sampras did amazing things on a tennis court.
a great backhand during his peak years. I saw sampras dominate great baseliners from the baseline like: agassi, courier, muster, kuerten, Kafelnicov,etc. Fed might be better than sampras but doesn't take anything away from pete. Pete was one the most complete players i've ever seen after Roger.
You don't get it..................Fed, Sampras, Laver, Borg are tennis royalty....They were not good, they were world class in all areas, get in your head, ALL AREAS: groundstrokes, serves, movement, volleys, smashes, drop volleys. These guys are the best ever. You can't dominate an era without having that variety in your game. I saw every final and semifinal of the great sampras and he had Phenomenal ground strokes(best running forehand i ever saw along with delpo's), a fantastic backhand....
My point is that sampras was the whole package, not only serve and volley like you insinuated in your post. Sampras used more serve and volley in Wimbledon and towards the end of his career when his backhand lost intensity, not before, during great part of his career he was really dominant from the baseline; however, The slow clay courts were his weakness but he was awesome anyway.
Listen GueorguiJoukov or whatever your nick name is, Sampras, Fed, Laver, Borg are the best 4 players of all time. Those guys had careers that spanned decades and won majors in the double-digits because they were world-class in all areas, be it the groundstrokes, the serves, the movement, and the volleys. This gave them more options and gave their games a timeless qualityme, they're the all time royalty of tennis.
Ok you want me to put it one by one? Where do I start on the weak opponents? Roddick is all power, no technique and does he really deserve his ranking? etc.
It's not like im making up stories. Why are you even here? Go watch Federer's videos then. You can't even accept his era is inferior to sampras in the first place.
Wow I've pointed out each one as simply as i can. Unexplained? I think you need to read my posts again. Do you really need an explaination for those very easy facts? come on you're not that dumb. I am just stating the facts and the truth, It's not my fault if you can't accept it. lol
Your GOAT is only about grandslams wins and french opens.
My GOAT is still about grandslams but in fast courts, he has heart, disease, great opponents. They all say baseliners always beat S&V but sampras overcomes that obstacle everytime.
Now players are just defensive players, prefers to stay at the baseline and just wait for their opponents to self destruct, such a boring way to win.
The greatest is not all about grandslams trophies won. If so, federer gets beaten by steffi graf.
Well all my arguments are valid, I've laid down so much points. You can't even counter my arguments. lol
You're only argument was about clay courts. Your answers are weak at best. Then you say my arguments are useless? You need to read my posts again then answer accordingly. lol
I'm much more impressed with sampras' 14 to federer's 15 because of the quality of opponents sampras had. Federer won 15 because he is facing easy and mediocre opponents. Nadal won 13-7 in their matchup and he's a clay court specialist.
Sampras has a genetic disease too but he plays thru it, That is the greatest.
if nadal did not reach the finals that fed has, does that count? did the french open 2009 where nadal lost earlier make fed's victory less? should potentials be given more weight than what already is?
I think nadal is a fantastic player and an athlete, but I don't see him dominating the tour like Sampras/Federer do...he will always have Roland Garros and maybe pick up the odd US / OZ open here and there which will increase his majors tally but I don't see him having that stranglehold over the ATP tour, like going for 3 or 4 years as No 1 and winning everything in between the majors!
the way he sticks out his tongue at 2:42 annoyed the hell out of me (and a number of people I know). Its another thing to admire his game but gestures like these prevented us from rooting for him. It happens to some people you know.
From wikipedia: They are the only men in the open era who have played each other in 7 Grand Slam finals, with Nadal winning 5 of the 7 finals. However, 3 of these 5 wins were on Nadal's best surface, clay. He has beaten Federer twice in non-clay major finals: Wimbledon 2008 and the Australian Open 2009.[82] Nadal is better.
but he is going to win two slams(french and wimbledon) back to back without facing any of the fourth best players in the world. When we have to discuss the "goat" we'll have to look into all these details. Nadal wasn't in the final either. He faced THE mediocre Soderling and tomorrow he will face the one dimensional roddick. The lack of competition in some of roger's grand slam finals is gonna tarnish roger's legacy.
Stupid mothafucka, your beloved Nadal went out against the mediocre Soderling in Paris you freaking moron! What does that tell you? And having all that kind of injuries in his age, that's not a good sign. And btw, he's juiced, so none of his titles will stand in the future...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
whao, you're so well mannered, your profanities are a sign of weakness. You're lacking argument coz guess what moron? Nadal owns the crying babe that fed is hahahhaha.
Your right,he does or did own Roger for a bit there but I personally think that Nadal despite the injury has reinvented Roger Federer and Nadal is going to find it really really hard to beat Federer now. Remember, FED was sick with glandular fever at the start of last year but still performed well,,, below his best but well, he's getting back there now and everyone is going to be hard pressed to beat him,fit Nadal or not! This is more psychological than anything and Nadal injury was bad timing.
Don't come up with excuses that Nobody buys..... Nadal beat fed when fed was 100%. Nadal got into Roger's head and Nadal ownes Fed having beaten fed in three grand slams and three different surfaces. I disagree, Roger is not playing at the level he used to. He is past his prime and Nadal will beat him again once he is healthy. If you analyze this past wimbly final, Fed played his worst grand slam final in recent years making tons of unforced errors.
are you serious? tons of unforced errors? know your facts tard, he made only 38. in five sets. you base your measly assumptions on what you think you know.
I don't think Fed is past his prime, he shouldn't be at 27, I just think the pressure on him to live up to these tags was immensely heavy and fucked with his fluidity. Look at all the finals except French that Nadal has beaten him, look how effortlessly he played through the tournament to reach the final of each of them and Nadal in contrast, I think he choked on himself rather Nadal but having said all of this he and Nadal are made for each other and it's awesome that they are close.
Come on man,turn it in! Fed was ill, Nadal was closing the gap a bit but not to the point of domination. I had glandular fever 5 years ago and unless you have had it, you would never know how sick it makes you. Now , Nadal did have Feds no and may still but it aint because he's better because he isn't and he never will be, it's because of a small window of opportunity that presented itself last January in the form of GF.Now Ndal knows what it's like to get ill at your best.I hope he comes back
you are pretty smart, don't come up with roger being sick. Nadal has owned fed so far. Don't take anything away from Nadal. If Nadal gets healthy he will dominate again, but his knees are a question mark to me so we will see.
dude if you call a five setter win over nadal on grass a owning...then what about 2008 wimbledon? I guess nadal owned fed then..
Dont be so close minded, Nadal is a great player on hard as well he does have a chance to bet fed on that surface if only it werent for the injuries and strain on his knees. But oh well....But dude trust me roger doesnt "own" Nadal on hard and definately not on grass. Hope you get better Rafa
fed is almost 28 and his play now is not as perfect as it was in his peak years when he was almost invincible. He didn't choke against nadal in those finals, nADAL was better.
Ok 1 on 1 Nadal is better than Federer, but thats not what makes you greatest of all time. What make you greatest is the ability to beat everyone(not just 1 guy) and Federer is better at that than Nadal is at this stage, who will know will happen from here, but right now Federer is a greater tennis player than Nadal, the same way Sampras was greater than Federer 5 years ago, you gotta consistently prove yourself...
are you nutss???/....nadal is better only in grass.....in hardcourt Roger is better althought they are tied in 3-3 and in grass , roger is clearly better leading 2-1,,,,only in clay rafa is leading 9-2......
Listen when i said Rafa owns Roger, i was basing my opinion on facts. Rafa has a 5-2 record in slam finals against Roger and has beaten roger in three different surfaces in slam finals(roland garros, australian open and wimbledon). That's dominance. Fed has only beaten Nadal twice in slam finals in his favorite surface which is grass. besides, the h2h overall is 13-6 on rafa's side.
Are you dumb mate. I already told ya that GRAND SLAMS IS WHAT MATTERS AND DEFINES GREATNESS AND RAFA IS UP 5-2 AGAINST ROGER IN GRAND SLAM FINALS INCLUDING THREE WINS IN DIFFERENT SURFACES: AUSTRALIAN, ROLAND GARROS AND AUSTRALIAN AND THAT'S DOMINANCE.
Fed feels the pressure of these milestones, it's like being in the nervous 90's of an innings in cricket. I don't know where your from, so I don't know if you know cricket but now Feds done with these feats, he should be able to just relax and enjoy and possibly dominate again. Interesting thing about Fed is he doesn't have a coach and hasn't for 2 years, could be that Nadal has not at all caught up but Roger as you say has indeed slipped. He was untouchable with Roche.
All those players Fed beat in finals including Nadal knocked out the better players on the way to these finals, thats a bit harsh. It's all about consistency and Fed owns this, Nadal has not and is not on this level of consistency. He does not show up and just routinely make finals like Roj does.I'm sure you are going to come gunning for me now,Ha Ha,as I oppose you disputing my opinion but thats the beautiful thing about opinions, we are all entitled to it but the truth will reveal all soon.
jfiles000000 , the thing is that Sampras is one of the greatests but he was in such a different level that he can not be compared with Nadal. Nadal is a base line defender, he has no intelligence neither the talent to play other way, his injury is the cost of all this, a player who doesn't know how to take care of his body, who induces so much pressure to his knees is not a great player.
You'll see how much his playing style will change when he recovers, if he recovers...
Pistol Pete Sampras is the best ever.Federer cannot beat Nadal and if Nadal was not injured Federer would have lost again and cried again ruining Nadal cermony again.Pete Sampras and Nadal are the greatest ever.
Listen Karlos, Nadal has a grand slam final record of 5-1 against your federer. Nadal has beaten fed three times at roland garros finals, one at wimbly and one at the australian open however Fed has beaten Nadal only in one slam final: wimbledon.......................My only asterisk to fed's greatness is his inability to dominate Nadal.................
and you are a dumbass?. We are talking about grand slam finals here between nadal and federer....................and nadal is up 5-1. We are talking about the number 1 and 2 of this decade and the number 2(nadal) has dominated the number1(fed) period.
Listen idiot, your post is rubish, you are telling me that the probably second best player ever has limited technique? you know shit of tennis. Roger is maybe the best ever but sampras is the second best and his technique was perftect, you are just a moron, go watch football coz your knowledge of tennis is horrible.
Im a big fan of both players, Federer and Sampras. I like Sampras better by a whisker. I still believe Sampras would have beaten Federer is their respective primes. Saying one is better than the other is missing the point though, they are both great players with unforgettable careers.
Wodz30 is talking absolute nonsense! Sampras went pro at 17, he won his first major at 19, Federer took 5 years to win a major! Sampras will always be the greatest as in his era he had Agassi, Becker, Courier, Rafter, among other greats who all were winning majors. Federer only has Nadal, which he has lost more than half of their games head to head. Sampras was humble on/off court, Federer is an arrogant cry baby who blows his trumpet when he wins, and disrespects his opponents when he loses.
Well Sampras just called Federer the greatest ever in an AP interview today:
"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," Sampras said. "I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."
For over two years? Are you kidding me? In 2007 he won three majors, and in 2008 he made it to a semifinal and two finals DESPITE being affected by mono and a bad back. And let's not forget his US Open title. Roger still has a lot of kick left in him.
And Nadal isn't just starting his prime. He is very much in the core of it, now. And his violent playing style has started to get to him, what with all his knee injuries and such. So, we'll see how long it lasts.
I agree, I think that what could stop Nadal from being consistent in the next years is his playing style. He cannot play so aggressively and with so much power for too long, or he will burn out. He will have to adjust his style if he wants to continue. Federer plays more gracefully and with more precision, he can play like that past 30 if he is willing to do so.
superb pete...love you always
cksampras2011 4 months ago
Pete is always the best tennis player in my heart!! Federer, Nadal or Djokovic....none can compare with him....Even I am watching their games today, none can impress me as Pete did. His serve and volley are always so powerful!! He is the King of Swing!!!
borninhk80s 5 months ago
24 straight semi finals of a slam says it all about federer,
with distance the greatest ever.
he is going to win 1 or 2 more
djdenns 5 months ago
I love how he comments on the majors having a ton of sponsors. Pure tennis is where it is at!
Tunainthebrine79 5 months ago
All Pete´s haters who are putting their stupid comments on this video should burn in hell. Do not stain this video of the greatest player ever with your dirt.
cammpinno 7 months ago
I loved this man; so handsome, so tall, so lovely
androidamonx 8 months ago
that is BS the best ever can't be someone who is owned by another like Federer is owned by nadal
miamigreyhound 9 months ago
I don't have respect for any tennis player MORE than I do for Pete Sampras - just the greatest and the classiest. And I agree, with the exception of maybe Federer, I don't think any of today's players can claim to be at his level. Too bad injuries started to plague his later career - but when he was at his peak - hard to argue anyone (including Federer) could beat him. And definitely no one had his class.
muchoudh 9 months ago
lol sampras
zanoases 11 months ago
i love pete sampas, one of the best of ALLTIME!
zanoases 11 months ago
He was right about Nadal and Djokovic is closing in also...
Grindking 11 months ago
The 10 year spell during which Sampras won his 14 Grand Slam titles also saw 13 other players win at least 1 GS compared to 6 other players and a 6 year spell as for Federer. This is a perfect proof Sampras met with much more resistance.
gamblerpete 1 year ago
Also, the 90s generation had a lot of champions which made it harder for Sampras to be the best. We had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang back then just to name some. Moreover, Krajicek (winning Wimbledon in '96, beating Sampras in the quarterfinals) though not a great champion, was one of the few players Sampras has a worse H2H if I'm correct.
gamblerpete 1 year ago
@IIIlIIlllI ya well losing your hair will do that to you. but then again, he's got a lotta wrinkles for 39 too though.
bhallic24 1 year ago
Def my idol.
Federer's too by the way....
oisashko 1 year ago
I'm sorry, McEnroe is NOT competitive today. Maybe on the seniors tour where he plays guys his age.
TorgeistLLN 1 year ago
sampras n federer two legends...u knw u hear ppl talking a lot of shit,,,but after all the experience i m 100% sure the only way to judge a tennis players greatness is by no. of grandslams no matter which 1..i mean if a player wins 15 times d same grandslam he is better thn sampras...i mean doesnt matter which ones u win but wat matters is how many..sum1 might say agaasi won all four hey but sampras mite not hv won french but won wim 6 times which is a greater acheivemnt
sabertooth7777 1 year ago
Please go away little Federer fanboys, and stop insulting our intelligence. This video is about the greatest tennis player of all times.
bjarktron 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Wilde4Ever 1 year ago
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Wilde4Ever 1 year ago
He's well spoken and seems intelligent. He also predicted Nadal's and Djokovic's rise to the top.
23house23 1 year ago
Sampras undoubtedly is one of the greatest player of all time,and before Federer became who he is today,Sampras was considered by most pundits the best of them all,if he would have won the French Open at least once,the conversation of who is the best between him and Federer would be a lot tighter,Fed is an all around player while Pete always struggled on clay regardless of who was in front of him,however I think on grass he would've had it his way against pretty much anybody.
julius5551 1 year ago
Never won the French Open. That's a big reason for why Federer is better.
Gman256 1 year ago 9
@Gman256
yeah, cos federer dominates at the french open, you fucking bus wanker!!!
mboner1 1 year ago
@Gman256 Oh no, that's not the biggest reason. Absolutely not... :)
FedererALegend 1 year ago
@Gman256 hahah you are a fool. fed won against who??? haha soderling never heard of him... nadal wasnt there... fed would have won only few grand slams if there were good players.. the guy is a lucky joker.. always loses to djokovic and nadal.. his time is gone.. ITS NADALLLL now.. federer will never win french again.. e is a not a winner he is a loser... SAMPRAS was always best against top 10 opponents, fed has the worst record against his arch rivals, why ?? because he gets lucky ..
1BGhimire 1 year ago
@Gman256 6 years in the #1 spot, im pretty sure he is better than federer
SPBTsnyder 1 year ago
@Gman256
Are you sure of that?
Failing to win a major tournament doesn't necessarily means you are worse. Although Agassi (or Courier) won the French Open, still Sampras had a better head-to-head record between the 2. And most importantly, he finished world No. 1 for a record 6 consecutive years.
Now with Sampras retired I like Federer as he's got a very similar style of play but the best way to decide who is better would be if the 2 met now with Sampras being at like 26 at his best.
gamblerpete 1 year ago
pueden subtitularlo al español por favorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
nuxakemi 1 year ago
there is only one king,SAMPRAS,competition in Sampras era,and Federer era,is silly even think to compare,fact
MrArsenalist 1 year ago
enjoyed very much
lpvcrcd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer has been facing losers, nobody really steps up to challenge Roger. Roger is losing his matchup with Nadal too.
Sampras always beats his number one opponent Agassi.
The courts are different now, too high bouncing so you can chase down balls and encourage rally. Racket technology and strings helps too. Even John McEnroe is still competitive at his age because of the courts and equipments today.
momay69 1 year ago 17
@momay69 You are either slightly retarded or being intentionally antagonistic. You realise that with such nonsensical comments Sampras himself would likely consider you a dimwit.
espanolporaplicacion 1 year ago
@espanolporaplicacion No, you are the one who is retarded, How many top 10 today doesnt have a grandslam you idiot. And the supposed greatest of all time can't even beat his number 1 opponent.
Fed has been facing losers. The talent is there but nobody steps up to beat him. AND he can beat anybody not named Rafael NAdal.
momay69 1 year ago
fuck this boring business
have you seen this guy play tennis?
i mean he fucking bounds around the court like a god damn panther
he flies through airspace like some shit out of avatar
this guy is so clutch he makes plays on the level of michael jordan but more consistently
pete is the man
kinetik44 1 year ago 2
@BurtReyn who knows... i think fed still moves better and has a better forehand. sampras would have his chance on a very quick surface like at the us open, no longer at wimbledon
pauloolem 1 year ago
actually his wife is ugly. I don't understand why some people found his wife hot.
soadl80 1 year ago
pete is awesome
smosh211 1 year ago
@BurtReyn wow what a well constructed an elegant argument
domisdabest 1 year ago
how can you claim that? thats a riduclous thing to say, there are so many variables its just impossible to say that. moron.
domisdabest 1 year ago
Serena`s no 1!!! He`s orthodox...<3
petronije1001 2 years ago
what a player but roger is the better player
MrFretmanic 2 years ago
Sampras Vs Federer in their primes on hard or Grass courts would of been a tough call. Both are Great Great Champions... it would of been a coin toss to who would of been the victor.
On Clay, i think Rodgers Ground strokes would of come out on top..With Pete's serve being negated by the slow surface.
JohnRagoon 2 years ago
pete seems like a pretty boring guy
podge325 2 years ago 2
What do you want him to do ? -- drop his pants ??
You seem like a real dipsh!t ! He's doing an interview and answering some pretty routine questions - questions he get every day - every day !
Tell us about your exciting life pudge ??
codlyman 2 years ago
he was always a bit boring, hes just that kind of person doesnt make him less great though
pootubeftw 2 years ago
he has a hot wife that he bangs. who cares if hes boring
denshaotoko89 2 years ago 6
I don't think you can say Agassi made things up. He certainly did seem like a bit of a tortured soul but I think he always gave Pete his respect and he understood the larger picture, particularly later on in his career. Though Pete did tend to dominate in the slams, Agassi won more masters events and their head to head was I think 20-14 in Sampras favor. I would call that a pretty good rivalry. wouldn't call that
sponge63 2 years ago
nobody would beat sampras if he played his best. not even federer (on a fast surface.)
tommyenglish1 2 years ago
@tommyenglish1 agreed. if both of them were in their prime and played on old grass courts (which were much faster than they are now), sampras would have won hands down
cain2335 2 years ago
if both of them were at their prime and played on today's courts which are equivalent of the clay courts of Pete's time, I doubt that Mr. Sampras would have won hands down
mulan400 2 years ago
but, you see, playing on a fast surface plays right into the hands of pete sampras. there were faster courts when pete played than today, where the courts are much slower. federers game is designed for the consitent baseline battles of today, not for the power game that was and is sampras's era.
pyro888000 2 years ago
There's way, way more power in today's era than Sampras' era. When did power-based players like Del Potro win slams in Sampras' era?
sauceyboy 2 years ago
Way more power? Are you joking? sure the technology has increased immensely but you never see players right now just blowing through guys on the court like in Sampras' day. Todays game is so much more about consist baseline strokes. The power game is set up only by consistently working your opponent around the court today.
pyro888000 2 years ago
No, I'm not really joking. Why the fuck would I be telling jokes on a video? If you're talking about power, wouldn't the fact that Federer's got the best and most powerful forehand ever, and the fact that Karlovic and Roddick having the most powerful serves ever, play a part in a "power" game? I saw Fed blow through Murray in US open 2008, Agassi in 2005, Tsonga, Murray, and Hewitt at AUS this year with massive forehands. How is that not power? You should define what you mean.
sauceyboy 2 years ago
Federer has the best forehand huh? im pretty sure fernando gonzalez has the best and most powerful forehand in the game....and no grand slams
pyro888000 2 years ago
Why don't you watch their final in AUS 07 and see who has the better forehand. Gonzalez's is powerful, but not better. No one hits the same percentage/quality forehand winners as Federer. I didn't originate the claim, McEnroe did, who I'm sure knows more about tennis than either of us.
sauceyboy 2 years ago
@sauceyboy Well really the topic in question was the power of the forehand...not the quality. federer has a better all around forehand but he isn't hitting the 100mph that gonzalez is. so gonzalez is a power player, and has no grand slams. This era is about consistency.
pyro888000 1 year ago
harder does not mean better, i hit the ball a damn sight harder than one ofmy friends, but he is a lot better player than me. placement consistency, spin. power is not everything
domisdabest 1 year ago
so if sampras played his best and federer played his best, pete would still beat him huh ?
hass2070 2 years ago
on a fast court yes he would
tommyenglish1 2 years ago 2
What would you say if they played against one another in all 4 Grand Slam surfaces, Sampras would still triumph over Roger ?
hass2070 2 years ago
they both have equal serves and equal mental toughness; Sampras might have a better second serve (not sure); Sampras is a better serve and volleyer (Fed has intimidated all others to stay at the baseline); Federer is a better shotmaker; I think Agassi at his best would give Federer a good run - Agassi a better returner; Federer a better server
Boudosaved 1 year ago
THE BEST TENNIS PLAYER FOR ME
vidin85 2 years ago
Can't we all just get along!!
drumdude1000 2 years ago
Sam is the best...to me he is the king of tennis
dingpuii2802 2 years ago
i just love this guy!! for me he is the best!!!
but he retired...so now, Rafa is my hero in tennis!!
NormanSawyer 2 years ago
Comment removed
virgilsheart 2 years ago
Andre Agassi had a career grand slam....and that's about it. Agassi was great, but sampras has almost double Agassi's grand slam record.
smithcm14 2 years ago
how do you know he's cheap. how are you sure he's not contributing in his own secretive way? what a stupid thing to say
bjornsiborgsi 2 years ago
it's not stupid, it's called being careless. I guess you're not that well informed. "Here's a buck kid. Bring my car around."
virgilsheart 2 years ago
@virgilsheart
It's annoying that Agassi has to make shit up for his book to compensate by getting whipped by Pete his whole career. Agassi is a sellout joke. Agassi needs attention even if it means making up lies.
antekkk 2 years ago
@antekkk what did he lie about? Sorry, I haven't read the book yet.
WWChrisCornellDo 1 year ago
........
hypercarbon 2 years ago
I think that when u are talking about the dominance of the greatest player ever statistally federer is the best. federer also dominates everyone around him. the only place where he is not dominant is on clay vs. nadal. I think that on hardcourt Nadal hasnt been that great in his career. Sure he won the australian but before that Nadal was not much of a threat on hard court. Federer dominate everyone. look at him vs andy roddick. the best serve in tennis and he still spanks him left and right
catrachoking 2 years ago
Pete has said time and time again that the reason he was so dominate was because of the competition around. The players around today are already above Pete Sampras' level, but they aren't winning because there is someone even better around... known as Federer.
Federer is much more dominate than Pete in the fact that he won more grand slams in less than half the time.
blessreborn 2 years ago
true in one sense but explain the dominance nadal has over federer. Sampras had dominance over every player on the tour in his time. Federer clearly does not.
drumzwizard 2 years ago 2
True at 13 to 7 Rafa does have a dominate record, but that record is deceiving because 11 of those matches were on clay were Rafa is 9 and 2. So people criticize Fed and say how can he be the most dominate player if he has a losing record to Nadal. However, the truth is Federer is being punished for being such a great clay court player. Had Federer been as good on clay as Sampras, his record against Nadal would be pretty even because he'd never get to the finals to play Nadal.
zdlore1985 2 years ago
"The players around today are already above sampras' level" do you want me to brutalize your argument?. Players today are brute forces and ball bashers in most cases due to technology. Have you heard "synthetic strings" and new technology raquet speed. Technology advancements make mediocre players have more ball control. Give sampas today's technology and he would rape most today's players due to his "raw talent and power" but FED AND nadal who are hall of famers.
juandi2570 2 years ago 19
@juandi2570 it is an unfair comparison. although today's generation do have the new technology, they are not competing with people without the new technology. they are competing against people with the same knowedgle and technology as them so in the end, it is all the same
FeDXeGX 1 year ago
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
talsmajd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
talsmajd 1 year ago
@juandi2570 I agree with all your comment. However the last sentence "rape Nadal and Federer" is a bit too strong.
Timurito1 9 months ago
@blessreborn When the fuck did Pete ever say that? please link. And please cut the other bullshit it makes you look pathetic
bjarktron 1 year ago
Pistol pete is the most exciting player, me and my brother would always watch for his high flying slam dunks when we were younger.
His era is the fast and dynamic. contrast of styles, great matchups. You only see baseliners now.
momay69 2 years ago 2
Roger could be more talented than sampras but sampras would never let anybody get in his head like Nadal has done to roger and now delpo. Sampras was so dominante in slams' finals that he barely lost(3 times) coz he's been the best player ever mentally speaking period. He was tougher than federer in the mind dept but i respect your opinion of roger being the goat however naming a goat could be tricky.
juandi2570 2 years ago 2
disagreed. Sampras' groundstrokes were formidable and amazing. I saw most of his matches and everybody agrees he was a special force. Why do you insist on putting him down? i agree that Fed might be the best ever but sampras is just royalty in tennis. A phenomenal player who's respected deeply by everybody who knows tennis, including King Roger.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Fed's idol was Sampras period. He idolized sampras. You remember wrong. He also admired Ebgerg and Becker but he idolized sampras.
juandi2570 2 years ago
he wasn't perfect. He lost in early rounds but he won 14 slams and was number one 6 straight years, you can't do that without being a world class in every depto: baseline, net, serve, etc. I played tennis in college and love the game and you can't be number one and dominate the game for so long like sampras did without being exceptional at everything.
juandi2570 2 years ago
i might agree with ya that Roger might be the closest to perfection but Sampras, Borg and Laver were in a class of their own in their times. It's difficult to compare eras and name a goat but these four players(borg, sampras, fed and laver), if you would put em' in the same moment in time, with the same technology, equipment,etc those matches between em would be amazing.
juandi2570 2 years ago
"Very good at specific and althogh much over average at others" I disagree, nobody can be that great like Borg, Sampras, Laver without being world class at everthing. You haven't seen enough of these guys. Ask Fed what his opinion is on these guys. Fed said that sampras was his idiol and that sampras did amazing things on a tennis court.
juandi2570 2 years ago
a great backhand during his peak years. I saw sampras dominate great baseliners from the baseline like: agassi, courier, muster, kuerten, Kafelnicov,etc. Fed might be better than sampras but doesn't take anything away from pete. Pete was one the most complete players i've ever seen after Roger.
juandi2570 2 years ago
You don't get it..................Fed, Sampras, Laver, Borg are tennis royalty....They were not good, they were world class in all areas, get in your head, ALL AREAS: groundstrokes, serves, movement, volleys, smashes, drop volleys. These guys are the best ever. You can't dominate an era without having that variety in your game. I saw every final and semifinal of the great sampras and he had Phenomenal ground strokes(best running forehand i ever saw along with delpo's), a fantastic backhand....
juandi2570 2 years ago
My point is that sampras was the whole package, not only serve and volley like you insinuated in your post. Sampras used more serve and volley in Wimbledon and towards the end of his career when his backhand lost intensity, not before, during great part of his career he was really dominant from the baseline; however, The slow clay courts were his weakness but he was awesome anyway.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Listen GueorguiJoukov or whatever your nick name is, Sampras, Fed, Laver, Borg are the best 4 players of all time. Those guys had careers that spanned decades and won majors in the double-digits because they were world-class in all areas, be it the groundstrokes, the serves, the movement, and the volleys. This gave them more options and gave their games a timeless qualityme, they're the all time royalty of tennis.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Miss you, Pete!
elenushinvirtecush 2 years ago
courier, kuerten, muster, rios, rafter,wilander, connors.
World number 1 means you're on top. Sampras constantly battled top players and was number one by year end 6 straight years.
momay69 2 years ago
Well boxing for example, If you got more loss to your number 1 opponent what would that make you?
momay69 2 years ago
Ok, I've already presented a lot of points.
Now show me your answers why Federer is the greatest?
momay69 2 years ago
Ok now answer my question,
How may current/ former world number 1 did sampras faced while he was playing?
Now compare that to federer, how many did he face?
momay69 2 years ago
Well your even said trophies matter. Sampras' opponents totalled 35 grand slams iirc. Federer's opponent totalled only 22. Still sampras dominates.
Yes dominating your rivals make you greater. What kind of question is that? Michael jordan, tiger woods, kobe bryant dominate their rivals.
You wouldnt even accept the Faster/slower courts factor.
momay69 2 years ago
Ok you want me to put it one by one? Where do I start on the weak opponents? Roddick is all power, no technique and does he really deserve his ranking? etc.
It's not like im making up stories. Why are you even here? Go watch Federer's videos then. You can't even accept his era is inferior to sampras in the first place.
momay69 2 years ago
Wow I've pointed out each one as simply as i can. Unexplained? I think you need to read my posts again. Do you really need an explaination for those very easy facts? come on you're not that dumb. I am just stating the facts and the truth, It's not my fault if you can't accept it. lol
momay69 2 years ago
Lol Well you just agreed with me about the grandslam trophies,
You even said it not the only thing that matters. So what does matter? Well read my comments again. lol
momay69 2 years ago
Your GOAT is only about grandslams wins and french opens.
My GOAT is still about grandslams but in fast courts, he has heart, disease, great opponents. They all say baseliners always beat S&V but sampras overcomes that obstacle everytime.
Now players are just defensive players, prefers to stay at the baseline and just wait for their opponents to self destruct, such a boring way to win.
The greatest is not all about grandslams trophies won. If so, federer gets beaten by steffi graf.
momay69 2 years ago
Just answer my questions directly, I'm putting it as simple as possible.
Sampras time
1. Faster courts -
2.Stronger opponents top 10 most grandslam winners
3. winning those when he has a genetic disease.
4. Has winning record against his number 1 rival and superstars.
Fast courts, fast reaction, quick thinking
slow courts- nevermind.
Now show me your explainations, because your "Federer is harder to beat answer is too weak."
momay69 2 years ago
Comparing math to players is a huge mistake because a person is unpredictable and not absolute. From there u already have a mistake.
momay69 2 years ago
Well all my arguments are valid, I've laid down so much points. You can't even counter my arguments. lol
You're only argument was about clay courts. Your answers are weak at best. Then you say my arguments are useless? You need to read my posts again then answer accordingly. lol
momay69 2 years ago
Well he lost to tsonga recently, Is tsonga really that good? Is federer really hard to beat or is he just facing amateurs all the time?
Federer's grandslam trophies should say "WON IN A SLOW COURT ERA".
momay69 2 years ago
My argument Weak? What are you smoking? Who has federer really faced? He even lost to a claycourt speciallist.
Look at their exhibition game, A retired Sampras beat Federer. He made Federer work than most of his talentless opponents.
That tells you Federer faced losers the entire time thats why he won so many GS.
Sampras has no coach too and has been inactive for years.
I don't really care if Federer wins 30 more grandslams. He was facing losers anyway. B-level opponents.
momay69 2 years ago
It's the QUALITY of opponents both faced, Who has federer really faced? Most of the top 10 players today didn't even win a grandslam.
Have you seen their Exhibition Game? An out of shape Sampras aced federer a bunch of times, won sets and won a game. You see how weak federer is?
Federer seems so dominant because there is NO more talent and superstars in today's game and he's facing nobodies.
momay69 2 years ago
I'm much more impressed with sampras' 14 to federer's 15 because of the quality of opponents sampras had. Federer won 15 because he is facing easy and mediocre opponents. Nadal won 13-7 in their matchup and he's a clay court specialist.
Sampras has a genetic disease too but he plays thru it, That is the greatest.
momay69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nadal makes Sampras seem amateurish
jamesrosevear 2 years ago
Er no, If he was playing in sampras time with faster courts i doubt it. He wont be able to chase every ball.
momay69 2 years ago
if nadal did not reach the finals that fed has, does that count? did the french open 2009 where nadal lost earlier make fed's victory less? should potentials be given more weight than what already is?
Totobee2007 2 years ago
juandi2570, Federer has 15 slam titles. No one cares if even Seppi had beaten Federer like 25 times in a row.
No one cares. Only Nadal fanboys.
Sampras dominated Agassi...yet Nadal is dominating Federer (on clay) and Federer has 15 titles. Do you see how trivial your points are?
Just end this.
Wodz30 2 years ago
Yes finally a voice of reason, Federer won all those majors because he is facing easy opponents.
The top 10 today is a joke compared to top ten in the 90's
momay69 2 years ago
I think nadal is a fantastic player and an athlete, but I don't see him dominating the tour like Sampras/Federer do...he will always have Roland Garros and maybe pick up the odd US / OZ open here and there which will increase his majors tally but I don't see him having that stranglehold over the ATP tour, like going for 3 or 4 years as No 1 and winning everything in between the majors!
su79er 2 years ago
give rafa time he is still younge
Winterisonyou2b 2 years ago
greatest tennis player of all time
receipt22 2 years ago
Yep, true.
cammpinno 2 years ago
the way he sticks out his tongue at 2:42 annoyed the hell out of me (and a number of people I know). Its another thing to admire his game but gestures like these prevented us from rooting for him. It happens to some people you know.
mulan400 2 years ago
juandi2570, just shut up, the only thing coming from you is shitload of shit. Zip it!
ligeantia 2 years ago
From wikipedia: They are the only men in the open era who have played each other in 7 Grand Slam finals, with Nadal winning 5 of the 7 finals. However, 3 of these 5 wins were on Nadal's best surface, clay. He has beaten Federer twice in non-clay major finals: Wimbledon 2008 and the Australian Open 2009.[82] Nadal is better.
TrueCall 2 years ago
but he is going to win two slams(french and wimbledon) back to back without facing any of the fourth best players in the world. When we have to discuss the "goat" we'll have to look into all these details. Nadal wasn't in the final either. He faced THE mediocre Soderling and tomorrow he will face the one dimensional roddick. The lack of competition in some of roger's grand slam finals is gonna tarnish roger's legacy.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Stupid mothafucka, your beloved Nadal went out against the mediocre Soderling in Paris you freaking moron! What does that tell you? And having all that kind of injuries in his age, that's not a good sign. And btw, he's juiced, so none of his titles will stand in the future...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
ligeantia 2 years ago
whao, you're so well mannered, your profanities are a sign of weakness. You're lacking argument coz guess what moron? Nadal owns the crying babe that fed is hahahhaha.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Your right,he does or did own Roger for a bit there but I personally think that Nadal despite the injury has reinvented Roger Federer and Nadal is going to find it really really hard to beat Federer now. Remember, FED was sick with glandular fever at the start of last year but still performed well,,, below his best but well, he's getting back there now and everyone is going to be hard pressed to beat him,fit Nadal or not! This is more psychological than anything and Nadal injury was bad timing.
Sachmorrow 2 years ago
Don't come up with excuses that Nobody buys..... Nadal beat fed when fed was 100%. Nadal got into Roger's head and Nadal ownes Fed having beaten fed in three grand slams and three different surfaces. I disagree, Roger is not playing at the level he used to. He is past his prime and Nadal will beat him again once he is healthy. If you analyze this past wimbly final, Fed played his worst grand slam final in recent years making tons of unforced errors.
juandi2570 2 years ago
are you serious? tons of unforced errors? know your facts tard, he made only 38. in five sets. you base your measly assumptions on what you think you know.
TreeMan0922 2 years ago
relax tard, 38 is high for Roger´s standard of excellence nut head.
juandi2570 2 years ago
I don't think Fed is past his prime, he shouldn't be at 27, I just think the pressure on him to live up to these tags was immensely heavy and fucked with his fluidity. Look at all the finals except French that Nadal has beaten him, look how effortlessly he played through the tournament to reach the final of each of them and Nadal in contrast, I think he choked on himself rather Nadal but having said all of this he and Nadal are made for each other and it's awesome that they are close.
Sachmorrow 2 years ago
Come on man,turn it in! Fed was ill, Nadal was closing the gap a bit but not to the point of domination. I had glandular fever 5 years ago and unless you have had it, you would never know how sick it makes you. Now , Nadal did have Feds no and may still but it aint because he's better because he isn't and he never will be, it's because of a small window of opportunity that presented itself last January in the form of GF.Now Ndal knows what it's like to get ill at your best.I hope he comes back
Sachmorrow 2 years ago
you are pretty smart, don't come up with roger being sick. Nadal has owned fed so far. Don't take anything away from Nadal. If Nadal gets healthy he will dominate again, but his knees are a question mark to me so we will see.
juandi2570 2 years ago
roger owns rafa in hard court and in grass....only he is behind in clay....still u think rafa owns roger....are u nuts????
suckmydick90210 2 years ago
dude if you call a five setter win over nadal on grass a owning...then what about 2008 wimbledon? I guess nadal owned fed then..
Dont be so close minded, Nadal is a great player on hard as well he does have a chance to bet fed on that surface if only it werent for the injuries and strain on his knees. But oh well....But dude trust me roger doesnt "own" Nadal on hard and definately not on grass. Hope you get better Rafa
Babuforlife 2 years ago
fed is almost 28 and his play now is not as perfect as it was in his peak years when he was almost invincible. He didn't choke against nadal in those finals, nADAL was better.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Ok 1 on 1 Nadal is better than Federer, but thats not what makes you greatest of all time. What make you greatest is the ability to beat everyone(not just 1 guy) and Federer is better at that than Nadal is at this stage, who will know will happen from here, but right now Federer is a greater tennis player than Nadal, the same way Sampras was greater than Federer 5 years ago, you gotta consistently prove yourself...
artikelmusic 2 years ago
agree with what you said.
juandi2570 2 years ago
are you nutss???/....nadal is better only in grass.....in hardcourt Roger is better althought they are tied in 3-3 and in grass , roger is clearly better leading 2-1,,,,only in clay rafa is leading 9-2......
suckmydick90210 2 years ago
Listen when i said Rafa owns Roger, i was basing my opinion on facts. Rafa has a 5-2 record in slam finals against Roger and has beaten roger in three different surfaces in slam finals(roland garros, australian open and wimbledon). That's dominance. Fed has only beaten Nadal twice in slam finals in his favorite surface which is grass. besides, the h2h overall is 13-6 on rafa's side.
juandi2570 2 years ago
nope....its 13-7.
in hardcourts , its 3-3.
in grass , its 2-1 in roger's side.
in clay , its 9-2 , favouring rafa.
Now , thats fact.
So, clearly , rafa is NOT dominating roger in other surface except clay.
Roger has also defeat rafa is all three surfaces.Right???....
and OWNING is a big term.
suckmydick90210 2 years ago 2
Are you dumb mate. I already told ya that GRAND SLAMS IS WHAT MATTERS AND DEFINES GREATNESS AND RAFA IS UP 5-2 AGAINST ROGER IN GRAND SLAM FINALS INCLUDING THREE WINS IN DIFFERENT SURFACES: AUSTRALIAN, ROLAND GARROS AND AUSTRALIAN AND THAT'S DOMINANCE.
juandi2570 2 years ago
I meant to say: australian open, wimbledon and roland garros.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Roddick WAS one dimensional but seriously he has improved immensely and watch him now have some success in majors with his improved game.
Sachmorrow 2 years ago
agreed but Roddick never was a threat to Fed in fed's prime years due to his lack of versatility.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Fed feels the pressure of these milestones, it's like being in the nervous 90's of an innings in cricket. I don't know where your from, so I don't know if you know cricket but now Feds done with these feats, he should be able to just relax and enjoy and possibly dominate again. Interesting thing about Fed is he doesn't have a coach and hasn't for 2 years, could be that Nadal has not at all caught up but Roger as you say has indeed slipped. He was untouchable with Roche.
Sachmorrow 2 years ago
All those players Fed beat in finals including Nadal knocked out the better players on the way to these finals, thats a bit harsh. It's all about consistency and Fed owns this, Nadal has not and is not on this level of consistency. He does not show up and just routinely make finals like Roj does.I'm sure you are going to come gunning for me now,Ha Ha,as I oppose you disputing my opinion but thats the beautiful thing about opinions, we are all entitled to it but the truth will reveal all soon.
Sachmorrow 2 years ago
not really, fed's been the most consistent player in grand slam history however nadal´s been pretty consistent since 07, dont ya think so?
juandi2570 2 years ago
2:40 he has such awkward body language. One of the reasons that kept him from being a lot of people's favourite.
mulan400 2 years ago
So he wasn't peoples favourite because he scratched his face? Right.
bigfatman9 2 years ago
jfiles000000 , the thing is that Sampras is one of the greatests but he was in such a different level that he can not be compared with Nadal. Nadal is a base line defender, he has no intelligence neither the talent to play other way, his injury is the cost of all this, a player who doesn't know how to take care of his body, who induces so much pressure to his knees is not a great player.
You'll see how much his playing style will change when he recovers, if he recovers...
mavster666 2 years ago
Pistol Pete Sampras is the best ever.Federer cannot beat Nadal and if Nadal was not injured Federer would have lost again and cried again ruining Nadal cermony again.Pete Sampras and Nadal are the greatest ever.
jfiles000000 2 years ago
Nadal is not tied for first for the greatest ever. Sit down child.
jsbruce11 2 years ago
Federer has beat Nadal on Grass and owns him on the hard courts.
karlos81 2 years ago
Listen Karlos, Nadal has a grand slam final record of 5-1 against your federer. Nadal has beaten fed three times at roland garros finals, one at wimbly and one at the australian open however Fed has beaten Nadal only in one slam final: wimbledon.......................My only asterisk to fed's greatness is his inability to dominate Nadal.................
juandi2570 2 years ago
My federer?
Mate your`e a dick.
Murray has a 6-2 record over Nadal does that make him a better player?
NO.
karlos81 2 years ago
and you are a dumbass?. We are talking about grand slam finals here between nadal and federer....................and nadal is up 5-1. We are talking about the number 1 and 2 of this decade and the number 2(nadal) has dominated the number1(fed) period.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Listen idiot, your post is rubish, you are telling me that the probably second best player ever has limited technique? you know shit of tennis. Roger is maybe the best ever but sampras is the second best and his technique was perftect, you are just a moron, go watch football coz your knowledge of tennis is horrible.
juandi2570 2 years ago 4
Im a big fan of both players, Federer and Sampras. I like Sampras better by a whisker. I still believe Sampras would have beaten Federer is their respective primes. Saying one is better than the other is missing the point though, they are both great players with unforgettable careers.
kiereemon 2 years ago
Wodz30 is talking absolute nonsense! Sampras went pro at 17, he won his first major at 19, Federer took 5 years to win a major! Sampras will always be the greatest as in his era he had Agassi, Becker, Courier, Rafter, among other greats who all were winning majors. Federer only has Nadal, which he has lost more than half of their games head to head. Sampras was humble on/off court, Federer is an arrogant cry baby who blows his trumpet when he wins, and disrespects his opponents when he loses.
ApocalypseBrown9 2 years ago
WTF?
0o0oja 2 years ago
He's real name is Petros Sampras and he is Greek American :-)
Jsg21 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Well Sampras just called Federer the greatest ever in an AP interview today:
"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," Sampras said. "I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."
markanders250 2 years ago
For over two years? Are you kidding me? In 2007 he won three majors, and in 2008 he made it to a semifinal and two finals DESPITE being affected by mono and a bad back. And let's not forget his US Open title. Roger still has a lot of kick left in him.
And Nadal isn't just starting his prime. He is very much in the core of it, now. And his violent playing style has started to get to him, what with all his knee injuries and such. So, we'll see how long it lasts.
Giajoynt 2 years ago
I agree, I think that what could stop Nadal from being consistent in the next years is his playing style. He cannot play so aggressively and with so much power for too long, or he will burn out. He will have to adjust his style if he wants to continue. Federer plays more gracefully and with more precision, he can play like that past 30 if he is willing to do so.
onixya1969 2 years ago 3
Sampras made Federer look like a fool in the third exhibition match.
pydpydper 2 years ago