when i see this video, i wonder if it plays quickly now, i'm not sure. some point have an amazing speed even much faster than now. they now have slow the surfaces... sure that at their best, Sampras could win against Nadal, Federer or Djokovic etc.
this video is a tribute to Sampras' all-court ability...Rafter and Tim Henman were true serve & volley players, but both of them combined could not pull off half the shots that Pete made in this match.
imo, the current generation of tennis players play a boring brand of tennis - its all baseline and lacking variety....i miss the daring nature and the quick reflexes of serve and volley tennis
and for the record: Pete > Roger (nostalgic biased tennis fan of the 90s)
There is some similarity to the way pete and roger play. I think roger seem to remind me of pete sampras alot. Nadal is more of agassi type. But a better version of him.
@Thutmosis7 I've thought that alot of late too.. Sampas and Federer both returned service then immediately returned to center, and both have a simliar style of play.
@yoChris76 I am glad u agree. Cuz even federer said he idolize sampras alot. So he grow up watching him. The one thing sampras didn't have that fed now do, is the French Open. But without it he is still one of the greatest of all time.
Poor Agassi. He just couldn't beat Pete at the U.S. Open or at Wimbledon. I still like Agassi better. He was way more fun to watch. I think he should have played to Pete's backhand more and thrown more junk at him instead of hitting with so much pace. Pete liked pace. He should have moon balled to his backhand to throw off his rhythem.. so what if it would have looked ugly.
Love Boris on comment, he was my first hero from 1986 on, and although USO wasn't his favourite piece of cake, I still remember his 1989 glorious run to the victory!
I think Fed is probably the most talented and versatile of them all, but against Nadal his mental game seems to let him down. His service will never come close to Petes and when you win all your service points you cannot loose a match. However, Sampras never went further than semi in the French and it is clearly a major problem. Still, he beat Bruguera at the top of his game in 5 sets at the 1996 French so I think it may have been a coaching issue
Fed lost his nerve on one occasion in particular against Nadal, and from that moment on it was never the same for him (mentally) against the spaniard. It was the 2006 Rome Master series final.
Federer is great no question, but vs Nadal it's a match up, even a nuance thing. That's why Rafa gets the better of him and it's started to get into Rog's head.
Obviously clay was not Pete's favourite surface, but the guy beat Courier, Muster, Brugera and others on clay. His problem was not playing well on clay, as he showed he could, but consistency, and doing over a stretch of matches or for periods of time.
To me Pete is the greatest because he did not have a nemesis who had better record against him. Thus, there was no top player of his era who could ever beat Pete when he was on his game (Krajicek had a better record against Pete but he is in a different league and they have never met in any final). Think about it. Fed has Nadal, Borg and Connors had McEnroe, McEnroe had Lendl, Lendl had Edberg, Edberg had Becker, Becker and Agassi had Sampras, etc. By that standard Nadal may come out on top
Nadal's not Federer's nemesis. It's just the fact that Federer is TOO GOOD on clay and meets Nadal there in most of their encounters. Sampras met Agassi mostly on hard courts which favored him more due to his fast game. Had Sampras played more matches, let's say, on clay courts or slow hard courts (like those in the Australian Open), their head-to-head would surely favor Agassi.
To beat Federer in a GS final you need a man with a perfect combination of : mental strength, youth, topspin, stamina
Let's do some the stats: Nadal beat Federer on all surfaces, has a winning record 13-7 (they are even on hard courts), won 8 out of 11 five-set matches, won 6 out of 8 grand slam finals, and Federer has never won more than three matches in a row against Nadal. If this is not domination then I am not sure what is? What in your opinion is a definition of nemesis if this is not enough?
Their head-to-head record is extremely biased cause the majority of their matches came on clay. 11/20! - Fed had to win all his matches on hard and grass courts against Nadal and it still wouldn't give him the lead cause he had to win at least 2 matches against Nadal on clay to lead their h-2-h
Federer kept it 2-2 in GS finals against Nadal till the end of 2007 when he was still in good shape. Federer pays now for reaching finals of GS when he was playing some average tennis for his standards
Are you serious? Rafa has beaten him in slam F on THREE surfaces. 3-1 on outdoor hard vs Fed. Their 1st grass meeting was the 4th grass tourney of Nadal's life!!
What about the 5 yr age gap. You had a peak Fed playing Nadal who hadn't fully blossomed. What if Nadal had blossomed in 2005 and not 2008?? The H2H could be worse than 11-7.
A perfect match. Does that include the horrible serving from Del Potro for the 1st half of the match, or the subpar in the 2nd half? And 60 unforced errors?
"What if Nadal had blossomed in 2005 and not 2008?"
Well, if Nadal had blossomed in 2005 he would be already out of the Top 3 as soon as 07. You seem to forget that Nadal could keep his absolute peak form only for a year (mid 08 - mid 09), pity that in the same period Federer played as poorly as ever - that in the mix, Nadal playing extremely well and Federer first dealing with mono, then with back issues helped Nadal win most of their encounters at the time.
Wow!! Nadal's body broke down, not that his playing level dipped. Now if Nadal had peaked in 05, things could be different. if the 08 Nadal, showed up in the 05 Wim F. If the 09 Nadal showed up in the 06 Aus Open F, things may have been different, but we'll never know.
Deny all you want,but Rog benefitted that Nadal did not find his fo0ting outside of clay earlier. 08 AO was Nadals' 1st SF HC in his life. 06 Wim 4th grass tourney of his life. So define "playing extremely well"?
Federer benefitted from Nadal's injury but Rafa didn't benefit from Federer's mono and back injuries? You think Nadal would have anything to say in 08' if Federer played his average level set from 2004-2007?
It's not like Nadal suddenly started to play brilliantly in 08' - the only real difference was winning Wimbledon (still barely) but Federer played poorly throughout 08 (with some exceptions like the US Open). That didn't help Nadal reach the top spot?
Federer 04-07... the one Nadal owned on clay, choked away break pts @ 15-40 1-1 & 2-2 in 5th set and was 2-1 vs Rog on outdoor HC, his only loss was when he blew a 6-2,7-6, 4-1 lead.
And Fed played poorly, losing 0 sets and dropping serve twice en route to Wim F is playing poorly.. you're a joke.
Consider Fed 2008....
Wim F ... 89 win, 52 unf, 25 aces
US F ... 36 win, 33 unf, 3 aces
But the US was brilliant according to you. Get a clue.
You wont get any answers looking solely on the statistics. Youll get nowhere. So what Nadal leads 3-1 on outdoor hard, since he lost 2-0 2 times to Federer on indoor hard which ties it at 3-3.
Youll ask anyone who has a clue about tennis - in which final Federer played better - the US 2008 or Wimbledon 2008. No-one with lil common sense will point the Wimbledon final (especially looking foolishly at the stats). Fed was literally toying with Murray, maybe you should watch the highlights.
Soley looking at results. So if Fed has proven to be better on hard than Nadal why is the ecord even?? What could their HC record be if Nadal be if Nadal had bolossomed on HC sooner?
Again you miss the point. Who was a tougher obsltacle then... Nadal or Murray? You said Fed was playing poorly, he played one bad set in 08 F (2nd set). Do you consider Nadal's level. Such simple minded thinking.
Why does Federer have to prove himself based on Nadal all the time? Is Nadal some kind of indication of Federer's greatness? Why does nobody mention Agassi while considering Sampras' greatness? Pete never beat Andre at the Australian or the French Opens, does it make him an unworthy champion?
What does Federer have to do to prove himself? Triple bagel Nadal at the French?
And all the "take Nadal from 08 to 05.." stuff and what if is just lame and completely hypothetical. The facts are - everybody knew that Nadal with his style of play wouldn't last long. The only question was when is he going to break down? Those questions were already asked in 05.
In the end there will be Grand Slam titles that matters. That's what the game is about. Not head-to-heads. Sampras was 4-6 against Krajicek. So what? Sampras has 14 slams while Krajicek 1. Same with Federer's 16.
Well all the 11 of 20 matches on clay is just lame. Nadal is 3-1 vs Fed on outdoor hard, and last I checked he had beaten Fed in slam F on THREE surface, how many surfaces has Fed beaten Rafa on in a slam F??
Is Krajicek a contender for the GOAT?? Krajicek is 1-1 vs Sampras in slams not 6-2!!!!!!!!! Fed has 16... more domint # wise than anyone in a long time, but.... why can't he figure this kid out. Beleive me, it matters, If Pete was 1-4 vs Dre in slam F, you think it wouldn't matter?
You can't be called the greatest if your game is suited only to a particular surface and you have terrible statistics on clay courts (with 1 sem-final appearence at the FO).Sampras was one-dimensional,even in top form he was vulnerable if he had his serve off. You could never say that about Federer. Look what Nadal had to do to beat Federer with a terrible serve at the Australian Open in 2009 - he had to play his absolute best. Federer is superior to Sampras in every aspect except for the serve.
* in the early 90s one of the Sampras' biggest weapons was his backhand. Later Gullicsson remodelled his game to be more efficient at winning matches.
* if you win all your serves you cannot lose a match, and serve is the only shot in tennis not dependent on what your opponent does. Thus, in my view, having superior serve may be more important than any other shot.
* you should watch Sampras-Bruguera 1996 at the French Open when Sampras won in 5. But it is a fair point
I'm not going down on Sampras for having a great serve, but pardon me, if you keep losing 4/5 matches when you're serve is off I'm starting to think if he was all that great. Look what Del Potro had to do in the US Open final or Nadal in the AO final to defeat Federer not serving particularly well (50 % of 1st serve against Nadal / 11 double faults against Del Potro) - it took both 5 sets to BARELY defeat him.
Show me #'s where Sampras lost 4/5 matches when his serve was off?? Love 2 see them.
Del Potro served attrocious in the 1st half of the US Open F, and spun in his 1st serve @ 110-115mph the 2nd half and all Roger did was push it back. Fed played badm but DP played great... hitting 60 unforced errors.
Anyone can play with #'s. How can Fed be the greatest when he lets a 20 yr beat him in slam F making 60 unforced errors? Damn, nadal was broken SIX times in AO final.... and Fed lost.
soon youll tell me that federer is not the greatest cause he lost to canas in indian wells and miami back to back in 07.
Federer lost to Del Potro in the US Open final, I cant deny that (forgetting the fact that he was close to winning the whole thing anyway). But aged 28 hes still at the top, dominant as ever, hes in all slam finals which is just sick. What did Sampras achieve at the age of 28? His achievements are half not as great as federers
I treid to be cordial, fuck that. You are a pathetic little idiot who needs to remove his head from Roger's ass and see reality. All your insecurities become present everytimeyou talk..... Fed other than serve is superior to Sampras, 2009 Aus open F, Nadal?fed complex.....
And when your nonsense is broken down, there's no logical recourse, just nonsense.
At age 28 Pete went 4-1 vs the world #1. fed needed the world #1 to get injured when he was 28!!!!!!!!!
Actually my arguements seem to work as you started to insult me.
The problem is, Federer is always in the final of each grand slam tournament no matter what. Nadal's in the final only at the very top of his game. Since Federer played his best tennis up till the end of 2007, Nadal hasn't beaten him in a non-clay slam when Fed was playing decent tennis. On the other hand, Fed has never beaten a fit Nadal on clay, but that's not the point.
Competition is tougher each year.That's evolution. Just wait till Federer retires-there will be tons of 1 or 2-slam wonders. Does that mean that the competition will be tougher?
And Sampras didn't have all that much oposition in his prime years (1993-1998). Edberg played in his last slam final in early 1993, Courier never regained his best form after 1993, Ivanisevic for Sampras is like Roddick for Federer, Becker played only 95-96 well, Agassi had ups and downs. Where's the competition? Where?
Dumbass, I said last days of Edberg. Stefan QF of 93 French, SF of 93 Wim, and SF of 94 AO. Made masters in 93/94. That's better than the likes of Coria, Nalbandian who you named as Fed contemporaries.
Who knocked out Courier of 94/95 AO, 95 US and 96 Fench? Lost to whom in 93/94 French? And who in 96 AO in how many sets?
Agassi 8 slams, 7 slam F, 17 masters. From 1990-05 only finished out of top 10 once!!!! 1997!! I'vic beat Sampras, Edberg Becker in slams. Roddick who??
Actually I already feel like a winner of this discussion I always do when others support their arguements with insults.Calling me a dumbass or a joke won't make your statements stronger,mate.I know what I see when I look at Nadal,Federer or Sampras
You sound like a guy who doesn't register greatness but looks for weak competition.Maybe saying Federer had nobody to face during his best years you should look at Sampras and ask yaself-if he managed to win 14 slams maybe his rivals sucked as well?
"Nadal would rape Sampras" ..... "He'd never defeat an in-form Federer out of clay and he knows it. " ..... "Sampras one dimensional".
I laugh and call you names cuz I can't debate with such stupidity. "Federer had no one to face"... insecure much?? No Fed has had inferior competiton to what Sampras had. Maybe I shouldn;t say Klitchko had inferior competition, cuz to you that mean I'm not registering greatness. That's why I call you a clown!!
Anyway, I always said that the Federer-Nadal rivalry is unfair. Nadal's 5 years younger - that's half of a tennis generation. Secondly, for years he could only challenege Federer on clay, played more than half of their encounters on clay. Nadal's style is the most uncomfortable one for Federer, especially the high topspin on the one-handed backhand.
It's like saying - Federer can lose only to Nadal but Nadal, my friend, can lose to a bunch of players. Does it make Nadal a worse player?
This is funny. After arguing for so long now you say 5 yrs makes a difference. Then after talking about Fed's H2H vs Rafa 2004-07 you now say...."for years he could only challenege Federer on clay"
What was that you were saying about 06 Wim Nadal again?? Nadal is bad matchup for Fed for a myriad of reasons.
If you think you're winning you're more dellusional than your distorted tennis knowledge. You say only Laver and Gonzales can be compared to Fed. How??
You say Fed has 16 slams at that's final, well Gonzales onnly has TWO!!! You chastise Sampras about clay, what did Pancho do on the crushed red brick???
That's why I call you stupid. The basis you use to crown fed, all but elimnates Pancho, but yet you wanna claim Gonzales. If that's not stupid, what is??
Ok you just gave me an affirmative that your tennis knowledge is limited to the official list of grand slam champions from wikipedia.
What you don't know is that up till 1968 there were 2 tennis circuits - the pro and the ameteur. Gonzales won an equivalent of 14 slams (12 slams in the pro tour), Rosewall won 22 (6-4 in slam finals against Laver) and Laver won 19 alltogether. You ever wondered why Emerson swept all the slams in the mid 60's? Oh sorry, you dont even know who he is.
This is why I call you a dumbass. Read back to when I spoke of Laver/Rosewall and I said majors (slams and PROS). What was I talking about when I said major PROS???
And about Emerson, what did I already say about the pro/amateur split, when spaking on Laver/Rosewall. You just talk out of your ass!!!!
Good to know after I broke you down and told you to do the knowledge you actually rea a book.
Of course there are periods where the competition is miserable, like in 2001-2002 -when a guy like Hewitt was the no 1. By 2003 tennis was much more competitve and I've never seen such tight rivalry as in 2004-2005. Then it fell slightly off the track in 2006 but from 2007 till now there are several contenders for glory. And YET Federer aged nearly 29 holds 3 slams on 3 surfaces (with the final of the 4th) and is nearly as dominant as ever. The guy is just too much.
2005 - Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt (Safin for 1 slam and faded)
2006 - Nadal, Roddick
2007 - Nadal, Roddick, young Djokovic
Who am I missing? Blake? Davydenko? Coria? Nalbandian? Gonzalez? Gasquet? Ljubicic?
Fed at 29. Where was Nadal at French 09? Flamed out with knee injury? 09 Wim?? Did he even show up? 10 AO, did he complete the match he lost? Ionic how one guy makes such a difference isn't it?
Omg youre just plain dumb, my friend. Nobody forced Nadal to play 200 % each match. Everyone knew that sooner or later he'll end up with tons of injuries. That's a fact. It's not like Nadal's injury came out of nowhere and it was some kind of unlucky accident - Rafa worked for his knee condition for years, I'm in great doubt if he's ever gonna come back.
As I said, it's Nadal's problem that he couldn't keep up with Federer for long. That only shows how good Federer is.
So Federer was back to #1 cuz "Everyone knew that sooner or later he'll end up with tons of injuries. That's a fact. It's not like Nadal's injury came out of nowhere and it was some kind of unlucky accident"
Your dumbass words. Well he hang with Roger long enough to go 5-2 in slam finals (with wins on THREE surfaces), and take the #1 spot from him. While Roger got it back being aided by Nadal's knee problems. Thanx 4 clearing that up, appreciate it.
Well its hard for Federer to have any head-to-head records against the world #1 as he's the no 1 in the world.
And Pete really had tough no 1 to face in his career... in Kuerten, Rafter, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Muster...really tough opposition. I agree Agassi in his prime was tough but even Becker from 95-96 was slightly off track and far from his best.
Anyway, what do you want to prove? That Sampras is better than Federer? Gimme the stats, not records against other players.
Don't even start this as it will get bad for Roger.... and fast.
Sampras went up against Edberg (last days), Agassi, Courier, Becker and Rafter. He had Ivanisevic on grass, and then Muster, Bruguera and Guga on clay.
Fed had Safin, who has spent more weeks outside top 10 than in it. Nadal (no slam SF on HC while Rog won 1st 12 slams). Djoko/Murray.. not even factors while Fed won slams 1-12. Hewitt.. did what after 2005 US Open?? And Roddick? Leave it alone, Sampras' had it harder.
Well if there were so many "great players" back in the 90's(lots of, lots of 1-slam wonders like Ivanisevic, Chang, Muster, Krajicek) then maybe all this competition wasn't that good?
You really believe that there were tons of excellent players in the 90's and suddenly when Federer started to dominate everyone around(even great players like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Roddick, Coria)the competition in 00's and now is poor?Get a life - Federer is just a level above the rest of the field
One slam wonders. Ivanisic lost 2 Wim F and SF to Sampras. And a US SF. Chang lost to every eventual US Champ 91-97 exc. '95.
Nalbandian (has done what?), Hewitt (been where since 05), Ferrero (been where since '03), Coria (are U serious??), Safin (answer the question I asked about weeks in top 10... you can't).
And you compare this to Agassi, becker, Courier, Rafter, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Chang. You're making yourselk look like a clown!!
Well its hard for Federer to play against many Grand-Slam champions since he's been collecting nearly all the slams since 2003. That's why people get excited when a newcomer wins a slam like Del Potro or Djokovic.
It only seems that the competition in Sampras' prime years was great cause there were many champions. As I said, sampras in his prime might as well match Federer's prime but he wasn't half as consistant as Federer and sucked on clay courts.
Not even slam champs, what have they done in slams? Nalbandian what? Ferrero since 03? Coria since 04?Hewitt since 05? Safin... very talented but only plays when he feels like it. Up to Dec 31st 2008 Djoko/Murray?
These guys aren't just not winning slams they're not doing anything else. Take Chang 6 of 7 yrs the eventual US Open Champ beat him. Lost to Sampras (Wim, AO), Becker (AO), Muster (AO).
There are not as many threats as Sampras, so that's why on an off day, Fed could still win.
Of course Sampras had it harder. If you're playing one-dimensional tennis (sorry, Pete) sooner or later you'll get all figured out. It's Sampras' problem that he wasn't as dominant as Federer.
Pete could win Wimbledon playing brilliantly and then lose in the 4th round of the US Open. As far as the difference between the rest of the field there's nothing that separates Fed from Pete. The thing is Federer can keep it up all the time, Sampras had ups and downs.
Pete one dimensional, you really are a clown. Keep showing the levels of your stupidy.
Sampras had one bad loss at the US in his prime Korda 1997, and 7-6 in the 5th. In 1994 he had a leg injury missed the entire summer, and 1998 injured himself in the SF leading Rafter, so what were you saying???
Look at the 05 US final 35 yr old Dre was leading Fed 3-6,6-2,4-2 40-0 b4 running out of gas, and took him to 5 sets when he was 34. Look how Pete handled PEAK Dre in 3 of their 4 US meetings.
I think Federer is paying the price for wanting to excel on clay badly. A negative head-to-head record against his biggest rival (that probably won't change cause I don't see Nadal regaining his old form). But I guess it was worth waiting for an opportunity to finally win the French Open and complete the grand slam.
Sorry to say that, but Nadal was a bubble able to keep up with Federer for 4,5 years. Now this is HIS price for trying to match Federer's greatness.
Of course Federer payed the price 4 that. But what about Nadal on grass. He played the 06 Wim F, that was the 4th grasscourt tourney of his life. One was a 2nd rd loss, and the other he withdrew after 2 matches. The 07 final was his 6th grass tourney?
The same way it was for Federer who unfortunately kept running into Nadal on clay. That's how it goes. You look at how THIS was a detriment to Fed and not how THAT was a detriment to Nadal or anyone else.
What's the point in saying that it was Nadal's 4th or 5th or whatever tournament on grass in his life? How many grass court tournaments are there played now? A warm-up event + Wimbledon and that's it in a season. Might as well say Federer played ONLY in 12 grass court tournaments from 2003 till now. See why it's pointless?
How many grasscourt tornaments did Roger play as a junior??? The point is when Fed loses to Nadal on clay it's "clay", but when Nadal loses to Fed on grass, does Nadal's lack of gras court experience matter.
Well In Fed's 5th and 6th PRO grasscourt tourneys he was losing to Schalken and 18 yr old Ancic. If # of tourneys doesn't matter for Nadal... then explain?? Keep in mind Roger was Jr Wim champ.
Those "5th and 6th grass court tournament" statistics are just completely taken out of context.
You need to understand one thing which probably will solve most of your problems. Players peak at different age. Federer did at 22-26 (same with Sampras), Nadal at 19-23. The fact that Nadal won Wimbledon in his 3rd or 4th try doesn't mean he's gonna dominate grass from now on. Nadal might as well never reach another slam final that's because he's out of sync. That's why statistics prove nothing.
Please??? Was Nadal at his peak on grass in 2006?? 5 sets with kenrick, Soderling?? No. The point is when Nadal owns Fed on clay you want to factr in the surface. But when Fed beats Nadal on grass, you don't want to factor in playing level on that surface or experience. You're a joke!!!
Who said Nadal was/wasn't gonna dominate grass. The fact is Fed at times got an unpolished not fully blossomed Nadal on surfaces outside of clay. Rafa didn't play a slam SF on HC til Jan 08. Accept it!!!
Ive just got too many arguements, don't know which one to choose.
"Was Nadal at his peak on grass in 2006?? 5 sets with kenrick, Soderling?"
Federer played in 5-setters in AO 2008, US Open 2008, Australian Open (from 2 sets to 0) 2009, French Open (lost 6 sets in total), Wimbledon 2009 - does that mean he was out of form? Youre taking things out of context, bro.
So you're saying Nadal was at peak form in 2006 Wimbledon? That was his best on grass???
I was using 5 setters 2 illustrate some of the struggles Nadal had. Twice he was close to defeat in 2006, in 08 he breexed to the final dropping one set.
But you keep telling yourself that 2006 Nadal was his peak on grass.
Im in tennis for more than 20 years, Ive seen Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Federer several times in action. I know what each of them is capable of.
Well if a guy plays in the Wimbledon final just after winning the French Open isnt in form then I dont know who is.
Federer's standards are way higher. Its not like Nadal suddenly started to play way better in 2008. If he had, Federer wouldnt lose to random players like Karlovic, Simon or Stepanek.
Whatever?? You certainly don't have the comprehension of someone who's been alive for more than 20 years!!!
I said it's said the Fed/Rafa rivalry being swayed by clay is true, but it's also swayed by the fact that it had a PEAK Federer vs not fully blossomed Nadal. An example I used was the 2006 Wim F which was only Nadal's 4th grass tourney of his life.
You don't wanna accept it it fine. If you think they were both at their peaks on grass then fine. I think you're dellusional.
whats your definition of a players "peak"? and how do you see that a player is in his best years? I wanna know - you look at recent achievements, rival dismisal, particular shotmaking? what?
Its as clear as a feather that Federers best years were 2004-2007 - best results, best shot making and so on.
Why do you think "peaked Nadal" started in mid 2008 (and ended already in mid 2009 after barely a year?)? because he was playing better than before or did federer drop his form? think about it
Generally a players peak tennis wise is about a 5-6 yr span when they are at their best. You claim Fed's peak was 04-07, fine. His level dropped in 08, OK. Now you claimhe's at his best at 29 (he aturns 29 in Aug).
Athletes don't peak, dip, then peak again. Nadal started serving harder, driving his backhand more, improved his volleying, and understood that top spin isn;t effective on other surface like clay.
If Baghdatis/Nadal 06 show up in 08 does 08 Fed win AO & Wim? Think about that?
"Generally a players peak tennis wise is about a 5-6 yr span when they are at their best"-now youre the one whos contradicting yourself. You said Nadal hasnt blossomed till 2008. Well he was already finished by 2009. Why was he only 1 year in his peak? Cause he pushed himself to the limit. Thats what it takes to be at the top when Federers around
Up till 2007 Fed was beating nearly everybody. Suddenly in 2008 several players started to peak! Simon, Karlovic, Murray, Fish, Stepanek! Coincidence?
Karlovic - look at their H2H, 9 of 15 sets have gone to tie breaks then in Cinci 2 of 3 sets go to tie breaks. This time Ivo snuck it out, but to, Fed was playing attrocious.
Simon - he played badly, forehand was terrible, like Gasquet (Can 06), Davy (Aus 06), this time he didn't get away with it.
Stepanek - see Costa (04), Gasquet (05), Murray (06), Canas (07)
Making 3 of 4 slam F is a drop. What was 2005 seeing he only made 2 slam F?!? You're an idiot.
"Making 3 of 4 slam F is a drop. What was 2005 seeing he only made 2 slam F?!? You're an idiot. "
If you cant see any difference in the way federer played in 2005 and 2008 then I dont see any point in argueing.
In 2005, he got to the semis of both the australian and french opens without losing a set, lost to an in-life-form safin(having match points) and nadal on clay respectively, won 2 remaining slams.
In 2008 5-setters with tipsarevic,andreev(wtf), straight set losses to nadal and djokovic
Again I was showing how you play with #'s to suit your point and your 2 stupid 2 see it, taking it leterally.
2008 5 sets with Tip, how many sets did he need vs Haas in 06 AO?? Andreev, kind of like 34 yr old Dre in 2004 US Open?? 35 yr old broke back Dre led him 3-6,6-2,4-2 40-0 in US final. Kiefer (WTF!!!) up 5-3 in 4th set in 05 Wim, on grass?
And Fed back to form in 2009.... Del Potro (FO & US ), Haas(FO), Berdych(AO), the same Thomas he straight setted in 08 Aus Open?!? So your point?
Youll gripping to that Australian Open in 2006 as if it was your only arguement. Maybe instead of looking stupidly at the stats from wikipedia, watch some highlights from that tournament. He had an ankle injury from late 2005 till like march 2006. Why does nobody give a shit when Nadal loses-that means he wasnt fit or was injured. Federer is not a freaking robot - he gets injured sometimes (like his back in late 2008),nobody critisized sampras for catching an injury or sickness from time to time
The point I'm making is Nadal/Djoko raised the bar in 08. If the 06 cast shows up in 08 does Fed only get one slam?
If Fed dipped in 08 yet would still produce a multi slam year vs the 06 cast, then what does that say?? It's not that hard baboon!!!
When Nadal is/was injured he misses time, not running through guys, dishing bagels. See the difference. Fed had an ankle injry late 05, but double bagelled Gaudio, something he said he'd never done b4... on 2 GOOD ankles. Hmmmmm......
No you pointed out Fed had the anle injury in late 05 and still played.
Now if Fed can double bagel Gaudio with a bad ankle (what he said was the only double bagel of his exhistence)... theortically, what would he do with 2 good legs??
And why at full strength could Fed not deliver a double bagel at any point in his life, but was somehow able to do it with a bad ankle?? But you have no logical response, so you respond with this garbage.
The fact that he double-bagled a Top 10 player (who shouldnt be there) like Gaudio means as much as nothing. The difference between Nadal playing with an injury (wat) and Federer playing with one is that Federer still can play decent tennis and win most of his matches, Nadal cant do anything without his unnatural speed. How many times did Serena Williams win a slam looking like a mummy?
Not to mention having a 81-4 ratio in 2005 and 66-15 in 2008.
Federer only in 2008 lost as many matches as he did in 2004-2006. He was surely in top form in 2008, then. He reached 3 slam finals! Lol...thats your logic.
OK put Roddick from 2005 instead of Nadal in 2008 WimF, and there's a 2 slam yr for Fed.
I already broke down Karlovic, Stepanek and Simon.
Fish - he had the week of his life
Murray (twice) - see Canas in 2007
Roddick - who he outplayed and was unfortunate 2 lose (but 07 US and Masters we'll forget cuz Fed won)
Fed wasn;t as consistent day in week out in 2008, but he was also paying where in years past he was escaping, Nalbandiam Rome 06, Gasquet Canada 06, Roddci YEC 07 for eg.
Sampras' opinion changes like the weather. First it was Laver, then no one. Said Fed, then and hour later, yes ONE HOUR said one can't say.
Laver even after Wimbledon didn't say Roger. He just said it's hard to distinguish, whhich holds some truth, as it's not an exact science. And then he said he'd take Sampras over Fed at SW19.
Same with Mac, when preesed he's said he'd take Pete over Roger, What does it mean? It has weight, but it is it fact?
Laver didn't give Federer a nod as the greatest as Rod is still a major competitor for the GOAT title, he's still got arguements against Federer. And really tough ones. Sampras doesn't really have any left. Sooner or later Federer will surpass his 286 week no-1 record, win more than 7 Wimbledon titles and Sampras will have nothing left to argue with.
IMO if there's anyone still in the discussion about the goat other than Federer, it's Laver and Gonzales.
Laver once claimed Pacho Gonzales as GOAT and then Sampras.
Fed mat pass 286 weeks, but anyone with half a brain knows it was aided by Nadal's knee problems. Fed may pass 7 Wim titles, but Mac and Laver both said who'd they'd take in their primes on Center Court at SW19 and it wasn't Rog. Laver said it after 09 Wim. Mac said he'd take Pete over Rog at the US Open, during a Fed match!!!
"but anyone with half a brain knows it was aided by Nadal's knee problems".
Well Nadal started to have some serious knee problems as late as mid 2009. Federer had already 13 slams by then. Im asking you. Where was Nadal in 2004-2007 when Federer was sweeping all the slams (beating Nadal at Wimbledon on the way).
Nadal benefitted more from Federer's drop of form than Fed did from Nadal's knee injuries. He'd never defeat an in-form Federer out of clay and he knows it.
2004-07 was that the best of Nadal?? Nadal peaked in 2008. 04-07 Nadal had ZERO slam SF on hards, 04-05 Wim did nothing, and didn't play in 04 French. that's 11 of 16 slams. So in Fed's dominance (2004-07) Nadal was a non factor at 68% (11 of 16 slams), but that was the best of Nadal?!? His rival?
So Fed was out of form at 08 Wim and 09 AO. Miami 04, Dubai 06, Nadal beat him on hard, and led him 6-2,7-6,4-1 in 05 Miami, all before age 20!!! But Fed wasn't in form. Again you're a buffoon.
Stop supporting each of your arguements taken from wikipedia with an insult. Anyway, how old are you?The fact that you dont know Pancho Gonzales (and you think hes won 2 slams lol) makes me wonder if youre not like 12 years old
The more you insult me the more I feel victorious, so be careful next time before calling me a clown when your knowledge about tennis champions (I bet you never saw Sampras live) is just taken out of context. Youre doing everything not to acknowledge Federer's abilities.
This just shows the levels or your stupidity .... yet again. When I said Pancho had only 2 slams, what context did I say it in?? Hence I went on to say if chastise Sampras for clay, tell me what Gonzales did on that surface.
You use one sent of rules to annoint Federer. But those rules all but elimiate Pancho who you proclaimed along with Laver and Roger. Nonsense!!!!
I said Fed was great player and in contention for the GOAT. But that's not acknowledging his abilities I guess.
This from the baboon, who called Sampras... "one dimenional", said "serve and volley was a primitive style of play".... Nadal "could never beat an in form Federer".... "Nadal would rape Sampras and teach him a lesson".
That's all you and your UNfinite tennis wisdom. You feel victorious cuz you're a dellusional idiot. Contradict yourself all over the placeand all I can do is poke fun.Dog, you're 20 yrs old and question my age/knowledge???
Sampras was one-dimensional. Serve and volley is a primitive style of play. At least compared to the variety of federer. Nadal could never beat an in-form Federer. As I said he had to wait till Federers dropped his form in 2008 to achieve something more than winning garros billion times in a row.
Nadal would rape Sampras and teach him a lesson. On todays slow grass Id probably go with Nadal (both in their primes).
Sampras was one dimensional. Laughable. And you talk about tennis knowledge, I just have to laugh when I read that. Illustrating your ignorance. Serve and volley "primitive".
Fed's level dropped in 2008. So much so that he had his bet run to a Wim F... EVER!!! Lost 6 games in 1st 2 rds of AO (dishing 3 bages), served for 1st set vs on fire Djoko.... oh... then his level dipped?!?
Nadal ober a peak Sampras on today's grass. Laughable. You're a buffoon!!!!
Actually Sampras was more of a serve-and-volley-only-if-neccessary player rather than serve-and-volley. This style requires lots of skill but still its one-dimensional. Even Karlovic ace-ace-ace machinery requires lots of skill.
omg now youre talking about particular games in matches ("served for 1st set vs on fire Djoko.... oh... then his level dipped?!?"), maybe you should say that federer played his best tennis in 2008 cause he made a fantastic shot against djokovic in the us open (the lob),
Sampras one dimesnsional, now he S&V if necessary. Just keep making yourself look ignorant.
My point was Fed's level dipped in 08 like you said, but he ran through 1st 2 rds, and then straight setted Blake/Berdych w/o incident. Djokovic was playing the est tennis of his, so why did Fed still have a chance to serve for the 1st set? Djoko wasn't playing badly?? So why?? Cuz Fed played well in the 1st set then got casual. That's not mono or level, that's Rog not taking care of business.
Now youre describing Federers form based on a straight set victory over berdych or blake. Dang, lol. Federer would own 99 % of the field - mono or not, in or out of form, but it wasnt enough for the big guns like Nadal and Djokovic. How do you describe Federers semi-final loses at indian wells/miami/rome/doha to murray and djokovic in 2009? Was he in excellent shape cause he dismantled taylor dent in straight sets? Dang, man, listen to yourself. Even a 35-year old Nadal would be in the top 20.
So wait Fed with mono can still handle the field like he used to but not Nadal/Djoko. Good to know. Mono only effects an individual when the play "the big guns". Interesting illness.
Fed's losses to Murray/Fish/Stepanek I've explained. If you took you're head out of Fed's ass and read what I've posted U'd know.
Hes not handling the field like he used to when he has mono, dammit. He pwned everyone in straight sets back then, now he's toughing lots of the matches out. Hes got 5-setters in each slam he plays from 2008, tons of examples, with berdych, haas, tipsarevic, andreev, monfils, roddick, del potro . Each set he lost in a slam in 2004-2007 was a huge shock. Now its not. See the difference?
It was a huge shock when he was forced to 5 sets at Wimbledon in 2007. Now its a common phenomenon.
5 setters, well see Haas, 34 yr old Agassi, Nalbandian all 04-07 Kiefer led 5-3 in 4th in 05 Wim. Berdych, Del P & Haas all in 09 when you claim Roger was back in form. Hell Andreev in 08 when he won the Open.
If Nafal/Djoko 2008 blossomed in 2004, would a Fed slam loss 2004-07 be regarded with such shock?
Was it shock when Safin beat him in 05?? Not really it was considered a great match from both.
So Delpo wasn't a shock. Of course not as Fed is in peak form like you claim?!?
"Kiefer led 5-3 in 4th in 05 Wim" - this is the most lame example you could think of. How many times did Sampras have 4 or 5-setters in his prime at Wimbledon?
Actually Del Potro won the US Open cause he played better, no doubt. He should get more credit not for winning the whole thing but for hanging in there after being really down and out at 6:3 5:4 30:0. Thats a sign of a future champion.
After I give you examples from 04-07 all you can do is hang onto one. You said stupidity, were proven wrong, so you hang onto one match, pathetic!
Del Potro played better and Fed made mistakes. he should have closed out the 2nd set, and didn't. DP played smarter. When his serve was off he (last 2.5 sets) spun his 1st serv in @ 110-115mph, and fed let him get away with it, he should've attacked it.......
Yes, I agree 100 % Del Potro played better than Federer in the US Open final. Otherwise he'd lose. But you have to mention that Federer had the match in his hands before Del Potro found his rythm at 6-3 5-4 30:0. Its not like the Argentinian blew him off the court winning 6-2 6-1 6-0 that it was obvious from start to finish that he was better. He was the better man in the end - not throughout the match.
Was Del Potro better in the 1.75 sets?? No!!! If Fed had closed out the 2nd set, the match would have likely been different.
Even if DP found his rhythm at 6-3,5-4 30-0, Roger should have held. All of sudden DP woke up from a sleep. And DP was up a break in the 3rd gave it back, and double faulted the set away, and was up a break again in the 4th, b4 giving it back.
But that never happened, Del Potro played an absolutey amazing match and I'm imagining this.
Also Fed had the right idea, by attacking DP's trength (FH), early, but when he realized that wasn't working, he should have changed up but didn't. DP @ 20 made the adjustments.
Roger also hurt himself by making it more of a slugfest. DP is stronger and hits harder. He should have made it more a track meet as fed is the better athlete/mover.
I give credit to Del Potro for doing what he had to do, but at the same time, Fed made mistakes and didn't help himself.
Again - Federer HAS to play brilliantly all the time, come up with super form each time its asked for, play perfect tactics. The fact that hes a potential goat doesnt mean he has to win all his slam finals. It seems that Federer always has to come up with the goods when needed - Nadal only CAN.
THERE ARE NO PLAYERS WITHOUT FLAWS.
Even Laver was 4-6 against Rosewall in major finals. Sampras was nobody on clay (as his serve wasnt a major weapon).
-I'vic (95 SF), Goran served lasers including 38 aces
-Korda (97 4th), Pete was never broken, but tried to finish the match early as rain was coming and extended the match 2 the following day
-I'vic, (98 F), Pete started slow 13 win 9 unf 1st set (50 win, 10 unf rest of way), but Goran hurt himself, should have at least put 2 Pete 2nd serves in play on set pts in 2nd. If Pete makes the volly he does, but make him volley.
His history is as simple as his tennis tactics. He had 2 ways.One of them was winning the French Open probably till his death(and nothing more)but without major injuries.The second one was really going for it, win more majors on all surfaces but end up with career threatening injuries
Of course the ambitious Nadal chose option 2.
And now he's paying the price. This is only HIS problem, not the rest of the field. Nobody threw a pity party for Federer on mono.
So Nadal who taken the mantle in 2008 and then into early 2009. And Fed regained it, when Nadal faltered physically.
That's pretty much what you just said. Does fact that Nadal owns your boy really make you despise him that much?? Does it make you wish, then celebrate his physical downfall??
The fact that he owns your boy (5-2 in slam finals), must burn your soul like ether.
ive really got nothing against nadal,he deserves everything he achieved in his career, but the fact that its 5-2 in slam finals doesnt make him a better player than federer. If nadal is so good to have a 5-2 advantage over federer himself, why does he have only 6 slams, you tell me. After all, its not match-ups that matter in the end, its majors and years at no 1 that matter
If match-ups mattered Krajicek would be better than Sampras (6-4). Edberg is 2-0 in slams vs sampras - is he better then?
You're a clown. Does Krajicek own Sampras?? I won't even spaek of Pete's physical condition in some of those matches.
Was Pete in his prime in those matches with Edberg. Was Edberg not seeded higher in both meetings?? Fed was seeded higher than Nadal in 7 of 9 slam matches.
Also 92 US/ 93 AO translates to 02 US/ 03AO, where Fed was straight setted by Myrni and l. to Nalbanndian. But wait Fed wasn't in his prime you'll tell me, but of course that same premise doesn't apply 4Sampras.
Was Edberg in his prime as well? He was on the brink of retirement after 1993 and Pete was the no 1 player as soon as april 1993. So Sampras wasnt in his peak in february 1993 and suddenly got things together in 2 months to become world no 1? This is hilarious
Again what was Edberg/Sampras ranked when they met in slams. Edberg then went onto QF FO, SF Wim, made YEC. SF 94 AO and made masters again in 94. But that's on the brink of retirement. But you're the clown who said what about Nadal @ o6 Wim.
So wait Fed's prime was 04-7, but a few months earlier he was losing to Henman in Paris, Nalbandian in US Open?? Then dominates. Hilarious!!!!
Federer had it all in his head. He was allready damn good in 2002 and 2003. Its not a shame to lose to Nalbandian, hes a tough oponent. Federer showed real signs NOT at Wimbledon 2003 but at the Masters Cup in 2003 when he dismantled Agassi for the first time and then literally blew him off the court in the final. Thats where it all started. He needed a breakthrough to get it all together.
It's not a shame to lose Nalbandian, then why mention Edberg. Edberg >>>> Nalbandian.
Fed showeds signs at Wim 03, and when did Sampras come of age?? Wim 93. But you want to hold losses vs Edberg, prior to that. Fucking hypocrite if I ever saw one.
Well if quarterfinals and semi-finals are the best edberg can get in a slam, then thank you. He was 28 years old by the end of 1993.
And why does Federer have to explain all his losses? Hes not a robot. Nobody critisized Sampras, even after losing to random players in slams. Federer is after losing a single set. Nobody critisized Nadal after losing in the French Open in 2009.
This is sick - leave the poor guy be, when he loses- he loses. This is life.
Dumbass read. I sai "last dayss" of Edberg. he was in 93 AO F (may have won it if not for heatwave). SF of Wim 93 and AO 94, and QF RG 93. That's better than careers of Blake, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Kifer, Gonzalez, Ljubicic that Fed beat up on for years.
Nobody criticized Nadal after 09 RG cuz he was hurt stupid. He pulled out of Wimbledon?? That's why?? If Rafa was helthy and went to SW19 at anything close to 100% he'd have 2 answer for it. How stupid are you?
Wtf you mentioned the most random players Federer ever faced.How about Sampras defeating Martin,Moya,Pioline,Ivanisevic in his slam finals
IF Rafa was healthy,but he was not.End of discussion. Dont throw a pity party for a guy who conciously screwed his knees up.Its only his fault and now hes paying the price. It wouldnt be fair if a guy played 200 % all the time without any consequences. Thats what he deserved and thats what it takes to keep up with Federer, he wasnt able to do it for long tho
Blake's slam life 3 SF in over 20 appearence. 2 masters series F in 6-7 years and you wanna compare that to Goran. Do the knowledge idiot.
Did I call Moya great, oh look H2H matters now when it favours Roger. 2-0 vs Goran. So tell me about a PEAK Fed being 2-5 vs Nadal in majors with losses on 3 surfaces.
You won;t cuz H2H only matters to you when it favours Rog.
"So tell me about a PEAK Fed being 2-5 vs Nadal in majors with losses on 3 surfaces."
Yes surely, Federer played his absolute best tennis at the Wimbledon and Australian Open finals hes lost. Surely a peak Federer commits weird unforced errors from his best wing without any explanation.
Anyway, it just shows you how much you have to risk to defeat a slam federer. Nadal payed the highest price. Del Potro has permanent injuries ever since defeating Federer. Djokovic fell into misery.
Did I say Fed was at his pinnacle at AO & Wim? No you made it all about Fed's decile ("Nadal could never beat an in form Fed"), and I disagreed.
How many unforced errors did Fed's forehand produce in the 2006 Aus Open. If you knew tennis and Fed U'd know why his FH goes off from time 2 time. It's actually what makes his forehand so great.
So only the matches vs Fed effected Nadal, not anyone else. Fed 5-0 vs Djoko after AO 4-3. Novak has his own issues.
Sorry to say it but be fair to everyone cause you sound plain dumb.
If Federer ran every ball down in each match hed get as many injuries as Nadal hed win more than he did but by now hed be on a wheelchair. Would everyone pity federer? Of course not, he played his heart on the court! Why should Nadal be favored for being stupid not knowing where his limits are? He pushed it to fair and now hes paying the price. His screwed knees tell me how good federer is.
Pity Fed. "Fed had mono", "Fed had a bad ankle in late 05 and early 06"... where was my invite 2 this pity party?? And U say I sound dumb.
"His screwed knees tell me how good federer is" CLASSIC!!! Fed's great based on rafa's knees.
I can't evn give you 20. Years, no, maybe your IQ.... and that's a good day for you. Hell Olajuwan '94 over Jordan. he won and that's final. Stockton over Borg, he beat him in Flushing!!!
omfg the fact that federer is exactly 10 years younger than sampras doesnt mean things go the exact way with a 10 year margin, why didnt federer win the us open in 2000, then? sampras did 10 years earlier. Why didnt sampras win the 1999 french open? federer did it 10 years later. theyre not clones ffs, federer peaked bit later than sampras, doesnt mean hes worse, cause he won more and he still hasnt retired
Are you that stupid?? I was using the 10 yr gap as guideling 4 a fram of reference.
Federer peaked shortly after Sampras, Pete @ 93 Wim, while Rog wasn't in full swing til AO 04. But you use Edberg's wins over Pete before that time, then why not Fed's losses prior to 04 AO or 03 Wim??
I was just illustrating you're stupidity again, and you were 2 stupid 2 see it. How ironic?!?
BTW, Agassi, Medvedev, Kuerten or even Moya from 99 likely get 09 Fed at RG seing his struggles with Haas & DP.
My point. you know little.... but the majority of your comments already show that.
I mean look how you contradict yourself again. You say..... "Well if a guy plays in the Wimbledon final just after winning the French Open isnt in form then I dont know who is" ...... then.... "As I said he had to wait till Federers dropped his form in 2008 to achieve something more than winning garros billion times in a row"
I'm sorry did Fed not play in the French F then the Wimbledon final in 08??
Federer is not just "a" player. His standards are higher than everyones elses, even nadals. If Murray reaches a gs final - then hes in good form, but its hard to say federer is in good form when he reaches a slam final, cause hes a part in every slam final ever since reaching the top spot.
Federer did play in both the french and wimbledon finals in 08, but hes won neither. Nadal went into the wimbledon final 3 times in a row after winning the french open, thats a huge difference
Like I said If fed got Davydenko (06 AO SF), or Nadal (06 Wim F), what happens? He likely wins 3 slam again in 2008. But being the Federphile you are, it must be Fed's level dropping and nothing to do with the maturation of Djoko/Rafa.
So you're saying cuz Fed didn't win either FO?Wim in 08 his form wasn't good. Then why was his run to the 08 final best of his career? Lost ZERO sets and dropped his serve just twice. Why?? Better than yrs U say he was at his peak?!?
So when Nadal wins RG and plays in Wim F he's in form. But when Federer makes RG final, and has his best run to a Wim F a month later, his "level dropped".
You contradicted yourself again. Do you even think about the nonsense you write?? Get your head out of Fed's ass!!!!
And 2007 -prior..... Nadal 1 slam QF on hard, in 2008 2 slam SF on hards, but as you said he didn't improve.
Nadal missed a slam and how much time with injuries. Fed missed what with mono?? Ancic had mono see him.
As I said, Federer is making new standards. Its hard to say hes in or out of form based on the french open and wimbledon, cause hes in both finals for half of a decade!
And the fact that im defending him doesnt mean im an ass licker, if i am you might as well be a hater
Of course Nadal improved in 2008, I never denied that but its obvious federer dropped his form. Had Nadal played the way he did and Federer the way he did - roger would win the ozzie open and 2 masters titles at least, won none
So let me get this correct. When Fed makes FO/Wim finals and wins Wim, he's in good form. When he loses in the Wim F, his level has dipped as Nadal could never beat in form Fed (again ou idotic words).
Again if Fed won ZERO masters in 08 but got Baghdatis 06 (In AO) and Nadal 06 (Wim), Fed likely wins 3 slam (a least 2), and would you saying the same nonsense you are now??
Nah I just call a spade a spade. You're the one who said Delpo and 60 unforced errorsvs Fed was the match of life?!?
well if federer reaches the french open final (droping sets to random players like monfils or gonzalez) and loses to nadal 6-1 6-3 6-0, does it mean hes in great form? He reached the final! he has to be in great form!
Look at Federers standards and look at Nadals standards.
Federer wins 2 or 3 slams, a 4-setter with Nadal at the French - thats his average year. He wins less than that - it doesnt mean that suddenly everyone got better!
Are you that stupid?? I was using the 10 yr gap as guideling 4 a fram of reference.
Federer peaked shortly after Sampras, Pete @ 93 Wim, while Rog wasn't in full swing til AO 04. But you use Edberg's wins over Pete before that time, then why not Fed's losses prior to 04 AO or 03 Wim??
I was just illustrating you're stupidity again, and you were 2 stupid 2 see it. How ironic?!?
BTW, Agassi, Medvedev, Kuerten or even Moya from 99 likely get 09 Fed at RG seing his struggles with Haas & DP.
Stop generalising Sampras' era and showing all the details from Federer's. Thats not fair. If you start to shit at Federer's oponents for no reason listen to this - Agassi had ups and downs all the time, he was nowhere near consistent Nadal was for Federer for years. Ivanisevic had nothing but his serve. Medvedev, Kuerten, Moya were clay couters -something poor Pete never seemed to understand losing to 200 ranked players in the world in his prime years.
Hoho, believe me Federer would love to face Kuerten, Moya (won 6 games against Federer at the 2005 French Open) and Medvedev in each Garros hes played since 2006 rather than facing Nadal each year.
And thats a great line - call a spade a spade - of course Federer benefitted from Nadals injury - but surely Nadal (and all the players) benefitted from Federers mono in early 2008. Make it fair if you pity one - pity the other as well.
You mean like and 04 Fed who straight setted by Guga and his Bo Jackson hip. Fed who trailed Nalbandian 6-3,3-0 b4 David got hurt. Fed who struggled with Del Potro and broke body Haas in 09, got raped by Nadal in 08.
Sure he would love a shot vs peak Guga. Or even peak Muster or Bruguera for that matter.
Who bebefitted. Roddick in Miami who fed outplayed, Fish who just had the week of his life. Murray, who benefitted the same way in 06. Again if wins slams those losses are meaningless.
those losess are meaningless if they occur from time to time (remember federer losing to canas twice?) - they do matter when you cant win a tournament even at a 250 level for months being the no 1. Makes you think if youre ok.
As I said Federer would like to play Bruguera/Courier/Kuerten in one French Open than Nadal. At least hed have a chance.
Oh yes and remember Federer giving Kuerten a bagle on clay at the Hamburg Masters when Kuerten was the current French Open champion? That was in 2002
Generally, you can say wheter Federers in or out of form based on his slam results. Since a while, tho, its very hard to say as in one match hes playing brilliantly and then its a 5-setter in the next one. Hes less consistent as far as back-to-back matches are concerned,
Up till 2006 (not 2007) he treated early tournament as seriously. In 2007 he started to lose it a bit out of the slams. Why would he care about winning a Indian Wells or Miami title when hes already got them.
Losing early in small tournaments is something that comes with time. It's natural they don't mean as much.
But AO 08 lost 3 gams in 1st 2 rds, dishing 2 bagels. He served 4 1st set vs Tipsarevic at 5-4, if he holds he wins that match 6-4,7-6,5-7,6-1. Straight setted Blake & Berdych, and erved for the 1st vs an on fire Djokovic.
Other than the 2nd set vs Djoko explain how his performance dipped so drastically?
What ifs again. IF he holds. But he didnt. You cant say Federers in or out of form compared to players like Blake and Berdych cause hed win with them oftem with his eyes closed.
Lost 15 matches in 2008, 12 in 2009 but who did he lose to in 2009? Murray twice, Djokovic 3 times, Del Potro twice, Nadal once, Davydenko 1, Tsonga 1 and some random losses to Wawrinka (straight after his wedding), Bennetau (totally unprepared),
In 2008 those random losses appeared 5 times as often.
saying, that Pete was/is ugly is a stupid comment. He may have had a sluggish walk, but as soon as the ball is in play, he moved like a panther.
ulizinho 1 month ago
when i see this video, i wonder if it plays quickly now, i'm not sure. some point have an amazing speed even much faster than now. they now have slow the surfaces... sure that at their best, Sampras could win against Nadal, Federer or Djokovic etc.
JarreFan73 2 months ago
Hmmmm...Agassi's shot at 1:07 looks out...
splendid1000 8 months ago
this video is a tribute to Sampras' all-court ability...Rafter and Tim Henman were true serve & volley players, but both of them combined could not pull off half the shots that Pete made in this match.
imo, the current generation of tennis players play a boring brand of tennis - its all baseline and lacking variety....i miss the daring nature and the quick reflexes of serve and volley tennis
and for the record: Pete > Roger (nostalgic biased tennis fan of the 90s)
mus31 8 months ago
I thought Sampras was all serve and volley... my mistake.
huangyishi 1 year ago
@huangyishi
Yeah, I have to admit the same.
Great game by Pete. In this shape he could beat most players today, even Nadal and Federer.
ulizinho 1 year ago 2
As good as Agassi was, it seemed that on this day Sampras had all the answers. The number of winners that he was hitting was incredible.
ace942 1 year ago
Sampras' forehand is so awkward
mikatagahara1212 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikatagahara1212 then u know nothing about tennis!
federerownz 1 year ago
@mikatagahara1212 classic style, eastern grip. tucked elbow. pretty common in the late 80's to 90's.
cj397 1 year ago
@cj397 I realize, but Sampras' is particularly ugly. Like you can't pretend that it isn't, even when he hits awesome forehands.
mikatagahara1212 1 year ago
@mikatagahara1212 ugliness is relative to the eye of the beholder. besides, it's not that bad unlike some other pros we could mention.
just watch what he did with the ball especially on the running forehand than the aesthetics of his stroke.
they grew up in the time of wooden rackets and the early players rackets
cj397 1 year ago
@mikatagahara1212 id give anything to hit a forehand like he did....even turn my good looking one into this akward one of his
ladyblo0m 9 months ago
@mikatagahara1212
Yeah... Winners usually make your opponent feel pretty awkward...
splendid1000 8 months ago
There is some similarity to the way pete and roger play. I think roger seem to remind me of pete sampras alot. Nadal is more of agassi type. But a better version of him.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
@Thutmosis7 I've thought that alot of late too.. Sampas and Federer both returned service then immediately returned to center, and both have a simliar style of play.
yoChris76 1 year ago
@yoChris76 I am glad u agree. Cuz even federer said he idolize sampras alot. So he grow up watching him. The one thing sampras didn't have that fed now do, is the French Open. But without it he is still one of the greatest of all time.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
@Thutmosis7
Nadal is a better mover and grinder and thats why he wins. Movement is SO important in tennis obviously, but Agassi's groundstrokes are better.
splendid1000 8 months ago
@splendid1000 Interesting. Good point. People compare djoko to agassi somewhat.
Thutmosis7 8 months ago
@Thutmosis7
Yah they strike alike. I think Agassi was probably the funnest player to watch because of the control he had striking
splendid1000 8 months ago
Poor Agassi. He just couldn't beat Pete at the U.S. Open or at Wimbledon. I still like Agassi better. He was way more fun to watch. I think he should have played to Pete's backhand more and thrown more junk at him instead of hitting with so much pace. Pete liked pace. He should have moon balled to his backhand to throw off his rhythem.. so what if it would have looked ugly.
thadxxx 2 years ago
pete is the very talented player he has the offensive game
achuir 2 years ago
Love Boris on comment, he was my first hero from 1986 on, and although USO wasn't his favourite piece of cake, I still remember his 1989 glorious run to the victory!
Thetoughestweight1 2 years ago
I think Fed is probably the most talented and versatile of them all, but against Nadal his mental game seems to let him down. His service will never come close to Petes and when you win all your service points you cannot loose a match. However, Sampras never went further than semi in the French and it is clearly a major problem. Still, he beat Bruguera at the top of his game in 5 sets at the 1996 French so I think it may have been a coaching issue
agrodner 2 years ago
Fed lost his nerve on one occasion in particular against Nadal, and from that moment on it was never the same for him (mentally) against the spaniard. It was the 2006 Rome Master series final.
Thetoughestweight1 2 years ago
Federer is great no question, but vs Nadal it's a match up, even a nuance thing. That's why Rafa gets the better of him and it's started to get into Rog's head.
Obviously clay was not Pete's favourite surface, but the guy beat Courier, Muster, Brugera and others on clay. His problem was not playing well on clay, as he showed he could, but consistency, and doing over a stretch of matches or for periods of time.
thalivest 2 years ago
To me Pete is the greatest because he did not have a nemesis who had better record against him. Thus, there was no top player of his era who could ever beat Pete when he was on his game (Krajicek had a better record against Pete but he is in a different league and they have never met in any final). Think about it. Fed has Nadal, Borg and Connors had McEnroe, McEnroe had Lendl, Lendl had Edberg, Edberg had Becker, Becker and Agassi had Sampras, etc. By that standard Nadal may come out on top
agrodner 2 years ago
Nadal's not Federer's nemesis. It's just the fact that Federer is TOO GOOD on clay and meets Nadal there in most of their encounters. Sampras met Agassi mostly on hard courts which favored him more due to his fast game. Had Sampras played more matches, let's say, on clay courts or slow hard courts (like those in the Australian Open), their head-to-head would surely favor Agassi.
To beat Federer in a GS final you need a man with a perfect combination of : mental strength, youth, topspin, stamina
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Let's do some the stats: Nadal beat Federer on all surfaces, has a winning record 13-7 (they are even on hard courts), won 8 out of 11 five-set matches, won 6 out of 8 grand slam finals, and Federer has never won more than three matches in a row against Nadal. If this is not domination then I am not sure what is? What in your opinion is a definition of nemesis if this is not enough?
agrodner 2 years ago
Their head-to-head record is extremely biased cause the majority of their matches came on clay. 11/20! - Fed had to win all his matches on hard and grass courts against Nadal and it still wouldn't give him the lead cause he had to win at least 2 matches against Nadal on clay to lead their h-2-h
Federer kept it 2-2 in GS finals against Nadal till the end of 2007 when he was still in good shape. Federer pays now for reaching finals of GS when he was playing some average tennis for his standards
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Are you serious? Rafa has beaten him in slam F on THREE surfaces. 3-1 on outdoor hard vs Fed. Their 1st grass meeting was the 4th grass tourney of Nadal's life!!
What about the 5 yr age gap. You had a peak Fed playing Nadal who hadn't fully blossomed. What if Nadal had blossomed in 2005 and not 2008?? The H2H could be worse than 11-7.
A perfect match. Does that include the horrible serving from Del Potro for the 1st half of the match, or the subpar in the 2nd half? And 60 unforced errors?
thalivest 2 years ago
And last thing about Nadal.
"What if Nadal had blossomed in 2005 and not 2008?"
Well, if Nadal had blossomed in 2005 he would be already out of the Top 3 as soon as 07. You seem to forget that Nadal could keep his absolute peak form only for a year (mid 08 - mid 09), pity that in the same period Federer played as poorly as ever - that in the mix, Nadal playing extremely well and Federer first dealing with mono, then with back issues helped Nadal win most of their encounters at the time.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Wow!! Nadal's body broke down, not that his playing level dipped. Now if Nadal had peaked in 05, things could be different. if the 08 Nadal, showed up in the 05 Wim F. If the 09 Nadal showed up in the 06 Aus Open F, things may have been different, but we'll never know.
Deny all you want,but Rog benefitted that Nadal did not find his fo0ting outside of clay earlier. 08 AO was Nadals' 1st SF HC in his life. 06 Wim 4th grass tourney of his life. So define "playing extremely well"?
thalivest 2 years ago
Federer benefitted from Nadal's injury but Rafa didn't benefit from Federer's mono and back injuries? You think Nadal would have anything to say in 08' if Federer played his average level set from 2004-2007?
It's not like Nadal suddenly started to play brilliantly in 08' - the only real difference was winning Wimbledon (still barely) but Federer played poorly throughout 08 (with some exceptions like the US Open). That didn't help Nadal reach the top spot?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Federer 04-07... the one Nadal owned on clay, choked away break pts @ 15-40 1-1 & 2-2 in 5th set and was 2-1 vs Rog on outdoor HC, his only loss was when he blew a 6-2,7-6, 4-1 lead.
And Fed played poorly, losing 0 sets and dropping serve twice en route to Wim F is playing poorly.. you're a joke.
Consider Fed 2008....
Wim F ... 89 win, 52 unf, 25 aces
US F ... 36 win, 33 unf, 3 aces
But the US was brilliant according to you. Get a clue.
thalivest 2 years ago
You wont get any answers looking solely on the statistics. Youll get nowhere. So what Nadal leads 3-1 on outdoor hard, since he lost 2-0 2 times to Federer on indoor hard which ties it at 3-3.
Youll ask anyone who has a clue about tennis - in which final Federer played better - the US 2008 or Wimbledon 2008. No-one with lil common sense will point the Wimbledon final (especially looking foolishly at the stats). Fed was literally toying with Murray, maybe you should watch the highlights.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Soley looking at results. So if Fed has proven to be better on hard than Nadal why is the ecord even?? What could their HC record be if Nadal be if Nadal had bolossomed on HC sooner?
Again you miss the point. Who was a tougher obsltacle then... Nadal or Murray? You said Fed was playing poorly, he played one bad set in 08 F (2nd set). Do you consider Nadal's level. Such simple minded thinking.
thalivest 2 years ago
Why does Federer have to prove himself based on Nadal all the time? Is Nadal some kind of indication of Federer's greatness? Why does nobody mention Agassi while considering Sampras' greatness? Pete never beat Andre at the Australian or the French Opens, does it make him an unworthy champion?
What does Federer have to do to prove himself? Triple bagel Nadal at the French?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
And all the "take Nadal from 08 to 05.." stuff and what if is just lame and completely hypothetical. The facts are - everybody knew that Nadal with his style of play wouldn't last long. The only question was when is he going to break down? Those questions were already asked in 05.
In the end there will be Grand Slam titles that matters. That's what the game is about. Not head-to-heads. Sampras was 4-6 against Krajicek. So what? Sampras has 14 slams while Krajicek 1. Same with Federer's 16.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Well all the 11 of 20 matches on clay is just lame. Nadal is 3-1 vs Fed on outdoor hard, and last I checked he had beaten Fed in slam F on THREE surface, how many surfaces has Fed beaten Rafa on in a slam F??
Is Krajicek a contender for the GOAT?? Krajicek is 1-1 vs Sampras in slams not 6-2!!!!!!!!! Fed has 16... more domint # wise than anyone in a long time, but.... why can't he figure this kid out. Beleive me, it matters, If Pete was 1-4 vs Dre in slam F, you think it wouldn't matter?
thalivest 2 years ago
You can't be called the greatest if your game is suited only to a particular surface and you have terrible statistics on clay courts (with 1 sem-final appearence at the FO).Sampras was one-dimensional,even in top form he was vulnerable if he had his serve off. You could never say that about Federer. Look what Nadal had to do to beat Federer with a terrible serve at the Australian Open in 2009 - he had to play his absolute best. Federer is superior to Sampras in every aspect except for the serve.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Couple of points
* in the early 90s one of the Sampras' biggest weapons was his backhand. Later Gullicsson remodelled his game to be more efficient at winning matches.
* if you win all your serves you cannot lose a match, and serve is the only shot in tennis not dependent on what your opponent does. Thus, in my view, having superior serve may be more important than any other shot.
* you should watch Sampras-Bruguera 1996 at the French Open when Sampras won in 5. But it is a fair point
agrodner 2 years ago
I'm not going down on Sampras for having a great serve, but pardon me, if you keep losing 4/5 matches when you're serve is off I'm starting to think if he was all that great. Look what Del Potro had to do in the US Open final or Nadal in the AO final to defeat Federer not serving particularly well (50 % of 1st serve against Nadal / 11 double faults against Del Potro) - it took both 5 sets to BARELY defeat him.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Show me #'s where Sampras lost 4/5 matches when his serve was off?? Love 2 see them.
Del Potro served attrocious in the 1st half of the US Open F, and spun in his 1st serve @ 110-115mph the 2nd half and all Roger did was push it back. Fed played badm but DP played great... hitting 60 unforced errors.
Anyone can play with #'s. How can Fed be the greatest when he lets a 20 yr beat him in slam F making 60 unforced errors? Damn, nadal was broken SIX times in AO final.... and Fed lost.
thalivest 2 years ago
@thalivest
soon youll tell me that federer is not the greatest cause he lost to canas in indian wells and miami back to back in 07.
Federer lost to Del Potro in the US Open final, I cant deny that (forgetting the fact that he was close to winning the whole thing anyway). But aged 28 hes still at the top, dominant as ever, hes in all slam finals which is just sick. What did Sampras achieve at the age of 28? His achievements are half not as great as federers
89Pleasek 2 years ago
I treid to be cordial, fuck that. You are a pathetic little idiot who needs to remove his head from Roger's ass and see reality. All your insecurities become present everytimeyou talk..... Fed other than serve is superior to Sampras, 2009 Aus open F, Nadal?fed complex.....
And when your nonsense is broken down, there's no logical recourse, just nonsense.
At age 28 Pete went 4-1 vs the world #1. fed needed the world #1 to get injured when he was 28!!!!!!!!!
thalivest 2 years ago
Actually my arguements seem to work as you started to insult me.
The problem is, Federer is always in the final of each grand slam tournament no matter what. Nadal's in the final only at the very top of his game. Since Federer played his best tennis up till the end of 2007, Nadal hasn't beaten him in a non-clay slam when Fed was playing decent tennis. On the other hand, Fed has never beaten a fit Nadal on clay, but that's not the point.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
See this is what I don;t get "decent tennis". By that analogy throw out Fed's French title as Nadal wasn't playing decent tennis. Same with 06 Wim.
In 08 Wim Fed got to final w/o dropping a set and getting broken twice. His best run to a Wimbledon final ever. That's not decent?
09 Aus Open QF/SF Federer.....
89 winners, 24 unforced errors, 25 aces, broke 11 times (in 6 sets) while he didn't get broken. So if that's not "decent" tennis what is?
thalivest 2 years ago
Competition is tougher each year.That's evolution. Just wait till Federer retires-there will be tons of 1 or 2-slam wonders. Does that mean that the competition will be tougher?
And Sampras didn't have all that much oposition in his prime years (1993-1998). Edberg played in his last slam final in early 1993, Courier never regained his best form after 1993, Ivanisevic for Sampras is like Roddick for Federer, Becker played only 95-96 well, Agassi had ups and downs. Where's the competition? Where?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Dumbass, I said last days of Edberg. Stefan QF of 93 French, SF of 93 Wim, and SF of 94 AO. Made masters in 93/94. That's better than the likes of Coria, Nalbandian who you named as Fed contemporaries.
Who knocked out Courier of 94/95 AO, 95 US and 96 Fench? Lost to whom in 93/94 French? And who in 96 AO in how many sets?
Agassi 8 slams, 7 slam F, 17 masters. From 1990-05 only finished out of top 10 once!!!! 1997!! I'vic beat Sampras, Edberg Becker in slams. Roddick who??
thalivest 2 years ago
Actually I already feel like a winner of this discussion I always do when others support their arguements with insults.Calling me a dumbass or a joke won't make your statements stronger,mate.I know what I see when I look at Nadal,Federer or Sampras
You sound like a guy who doesn't register greatness but looks for weak competition.Maybe saying Federer had nobody to face during his best years you should look at Sampras and ask yaself-if he managed to win 14 slams maybe his rivals sucked as well?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
I call you names cuz you say things like.....
"Nadal would rape Sampras" ..... "He'd never defeat an in-form Federer out of clay and he knows it. " ..... "Sampras one dimensional".
I laugh and call you names cuz I can't debate with such stupidity. "Federer had no one to face"... insecure much?? No Fed has had inferior competiton to what Sampras had. Maybe I shouldn;t say Klitchko had inferior competition, cuz to you that mean I'm not registering greatness. That's why I call you a clown!!
thalivest 2 years ago
Anyway, I always said that the Federer-Nadal rivalry is unfair. Nadal's 5 years younger - that's half of a tennis generation. Secondly, for years he could only challenege Federer on clay, played more than half of their encounters on clay. Nadal's style is the most uncomfortable one for Federer, especially the high topspin on the one-handed backhand.
It's like saying - Federer can lose only to Nadal but Nadal, my friend, can lose to a bunch of players. Does it make Nadal a worse player?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
This is funny. After arguing for so long now you say 5 yrs makes a difference. Then after talking about Fed's H2H vs Rafa 2004-07 you now say...."for years he could only challenege Federer on clay"
What was that you were saying about 06 Wim Nadal again?? Nadal is bad matchup for Fed for a myriad of reasons.
And who said Nadal > Federer. Insecure much???
thalivest 2 years ago
If you think you're winning you're more dellusional than your distorted tennis knowledge. You say only Laver and Gonzales can be compared to Fed. How??
You say Fed has 16 slams at that's final, well Gonzales onnly has TWO!!! You chastise Sampras about clay, what did Pancho do on the crushed red brick???
That's why I call you stupid. The basis you use to crown fed, all but elimnates Pancho, but yet you wanna claim Gonzales. If that's not stupid, what is??
thalivest 2 years ago
Ok you just gave me an affirmative that your tennis knowledge is limited to the official list of grand slam champions from wikipedia.
What you don't know is that up till 1968 there were 2 tennis circuits - the pro and the ameteur. Gonzales won an equivalent of 14 slams (12 slams in the pro tour), Rosewall won 22 (6-4 in slam finals against Laver) and Laver won 19 alltogether. You ever wondered why Emerson swept all the slams in the mid 60's? Oh sorry, you dont even know who he is.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
This is why I call you a dumbass. Read back to when I spoke of Laver/Rosewall and I said majors (slams and PROS). What was I talking about when I said major PROS???
And about Emerson, what did I already say about the pro/amateur split, when spaking on Laver/Rosewall. You just talk out of your ass!!!!
Good to know after I broke you down and told you to do the knowledge you actually rea a book.
thalivest 2 years ago
Of course there are periods where the competition is miserable, like in 2001-2002 -when a guy like Hewitt was the no 1. By 2003 tennis was much more competitve and I've never seen such tight rivalry as in 2004-2005. Then it fell slightly off the track in 2006 but from 2007 till now there are several contenders for glory. And YET Federer aged nearly 29 holds 3 slams on 3 surfaces (with the final of the 4th) and is nearly as dominant as ever. The guy is just too much.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
2004 - OLD Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt
2005 - Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt (Safin for 1 slam and faded)
2006 - Nadal, Roddick
2007 - Nadal, Roddick, young Djokovic
Who am I missing? Blake? Davydenko? Coria? Nalbandian? Gonzalez? Gasquet? Ljubicic?
Fed at 29. Where was Nadal at French 09? Flamed out with knee injury? 09 Wim?? Did he even show up? 10 AO, did he complete the match he lost? Ionic how one guy makes such a difference isn't it?
thalivest 2 years ago
Omg youre just plain dumb, my friend. Nobody forced Nadal to play 200 % each match. Everyone knew that sooner or later he'll end up with tons of injuries. That's a fact. It's not like Nadal's injury came out of nowhere and it was some kind of unlucky accident - Rafa worked for his knee condition for years, I'm in great doubt if he's ever gonna come back.
As I said, it's Nadal's problem that he couldn't keep up with Federer for long. That only shows how good Federer is.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So Federer was back to #1 cuz "Everyone knew that sooner or later he'll end up with tons of injuries. That's a fact. It's not like Nadal's injury came out of nowhere and it was some kind of unlucky accident"
Your dumbass words. Well he hang with Roger long enough to go 5-2 in slam finals (with wins on THREE surfaces), and take the #1 spot from him. While Roger got it back being aided by Nadal's knee problems. Thanx 4 clearing that up, appreciate it.
thalivest 2 years ago
Well its hard for Federer to have any head-to-head records against the world #1 as he's the no 1 in the world.
And Pete really had tough no 1 to face in his career... in Kuerten, Rafter, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Muster...really tough opposition. I agree Agassi in his prime was tough but even Becker from 95-96 was slightly off track and far from his best.
Anyway, what do you want to prove? That Sampras is better than Federer? Gimme the stats, not records against other players.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Don't even start this as it will get bad for Roger.... and fast.
Sampras went up against Edberg (last days), Agassi, Courier, Becker and Rafter. He had Ivanisevic on grass, and then Muster, Bruguera and Guga on clay.
Fed had Safin, who has spent more weeks outside top 10 than in it. Nadal (no slam SF on HC while Rog won 1st 12 slams). Djoko/Murray.. not even factors while Fed won slams 1-12. Hewitt.. did what after 2005 US Open?? And Roddick? Leave it alone, Sampras' had it harder.
thalivest 2 years ago
Well if there were so many "great players" back in the 90's(lots of, lots of 1-slam wonders like Ivanisevic, Chang, Muster, Krajicek) then maybe all this competition wasn't that good?
You really believe that there were tons of excellent players in the 90's and suddenly when Federer started to dominate everyone around(even great players like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Roddick, Coria)the competition in 00's and now is poor?Get a life - Federer is just a level above the rest of the field
89Pleasek 2 years ago
One slam wonders. Ivanisic lost 2 Wim F and SF to Sampras. And a US SF. Chang lost to every eventual US Champ 91-97 exc. '95.
Nalbandian (has done what?), Hewitt (been where since 05), Ferrero (been where since '03), Coria (are U serious??), Safin (answer the question I asked about weeks in top 10... you can't).
And you compare this to Agassi, becker, Courier, Rafter, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Chang. You're making yourselk look like a clown!!
thalivest 2 years ago
About Sampras' reputedly competition:
Well its hard for Federer to play against many Grand-Slam champions since he's been collecting nearly all the slams since 2003. That's why people get excited when a newcomer wins a slam like Del Potro or Djokovic.
It only seems that the competition in Sampras' prime years was great cause there were many champions. As I said, sampras in his prime might as well match Federer's prime but he wasn't half as consistant as Federer and sucked on clay courts.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Not even slam champs, what have they done in slams? Nalbandian what? Ferrero since 03? Coria since 04?Hewitt since 05? Safin... very talented but only plays when he feels like it. Up to Dec 31st 2008 Djoko/Murray?
These guys aren't just not winning slams they're not doing anything else. Take Chang 6 of 7 yrs the eventual US Open Champ beat him. Lost to Sampras (Wim, AO), Becker (AO), Muster (AO).
There are not as many threats as Sampras, so that's why on an off day, Fed could still win.
thalivest 2 years ago
Of course Sampras had it harder. If you're playing one-dimensional tennis (sorry, Pete) sooner or later you'll get all figured out. It's Sampras' problem that he wasn't as dominant as Federer.
Pete could win Wimbledon playing brilliantly and then lose in the 4th round of the US Open. As far as the difference between the rest of the field there's nothing that separates Fed from Pete. The thing is Federer can keep it up all the time, Sampras had ups and downs.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Pete one dimensional, you really are a clown. Keep showing the levels of your stupidy.
Sampras had one bad loss at the US in his prime Korda 1997, and 7-6 in the 5th. In 1994 he had a leg injury missed the entire summer, and 1998 injured himself in the SF leading Rafter, so what were you saying???
Look at the 05 US final 35 yr old Dre was leading Fed 3-6,6-2,4-2 40-0 b4 running out of gas, and took him to 5 sets when he was 34. Look how Pete handled PEAK Dre in 3 of their 4 US meetings.
thalivest 2 years ago
And as far as Federer being the greatest. he has to fight Sampras, Borg, Laver and Pancho for that honour. Maybe even Tilden and Budge.
And if you don't know why you're more lost than I thought. Cuz .....
"You really think you know/ and if you think you know/ then I don't think you know!!!"
thalivest 2 years ago
I think Federer is paying the price for wanting to excel on clay badly. A negative head-to-head record against his biggest rival (that probably won't change cause I don't see Nadal regaining his old form). But I guess it was worth waiting for an opportunity to finally win the French Open and complete the grand slam.
Sorry to say that, but Nadal was a bubble able to keep up with Federer for 4,5 years. Now this is HIS price for trying to match Federer's greatness.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Of course Federer payed the price 4 that. But what about Nadal on grass. He played the 06 Wim F, that was the 4th grasscourt tourney of his life. One was a 2nd rd loss, and the other he withdrew after 2 matches. The 07 final was his 6th grass tourney?
The same way it was for Federer who unfortunately kept running into Nadal on clay. That's how it goes. You look at how THIS was a detriment to Fed and not how THAT was a detriment to Nadal or anyone else.
thalivest 2 years ago
What's the point in saying that it was Nadal's 4th or 5th or whatever tournament on grass in his life? How many grass court tournaments are there played now? A warm-up event + Wimbledon and that's it in a season. Might as well say Federer played ONLY in 12 grass court tournaments from 2003 till now. See why it's pointless?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
How many grasscourt tornaments did Roger play as a junior??? The point is when Fed loses to Nadal on clay it's "clay", but when Nadal loses to Fed on grass, does Nadal's lack of gras court experience matter.
Well In Fed's 5th and 6th PRO grasscourt tourneys he was losing to Schalken and 18 yr old Ancic. If # of tourneys doesn't matter for Nadal... then explain?? Keep in mind Roger was Jr Wim champ.
I wanna hear your idiotic explanation for this.
thalivest 2 years ago
Those "5th and 6th grass court tournament" statistics are just completely taken out of context.
You need to understand one thing which probably will solve most of your problems. Players peak at different age. Federer did at 22-26 (same with Sampras), Nadal at 19-23. The fact that Nadal won Wimbledon in his 3rd or 4th try doesn't mean he's gonna dominate grass from now on. Nadal might as well never reach another slam final that's because he's out of sync. That's why statistics prove nothing.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Please??? Was Nadal at his peak on grass in 2006?? 5 sets with kenrick, Soderling?? No. The point is when Nadal owns Fed on clay you want to factr in the surface. But when Fed beats Nadal on grass, you don't want to factor in playing level on that surface or experience. You're a joke!!!
Who said Nadal was/wasn't gonna dominate grass. The fact is Fed at times got an unpolished not fully blossomed Nadal on surfaces outside of clay. Rafa didn't play a slam SF on HC til Jan 08. Accept it!!!
thalivest 2 years ago
Ive just got too many arguements, don't know which one to choose.
"Was Nadal at his peak on grass in 2006?? 5 sets with kenrick, Soderling?"
Federer played in 5-setters in AO 2008, US Open 2008, Australian Open (from 2 sets to 0) 2009, French Open (lost 6 sets in total), Wimbledon 2009 - does that mean he was out of form? Youre taking things out of context, bro.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
So you're saying Nadal was at peak form in 2006 Wimbledon? That was his best on grass???
I was using 5 setters 2 illustrate some of the struggles Nadal had. Twice he was close to defeat in 2006, in 08 he breexed to the final dropping one set.
But you keep telling yourself that 2006 Nadal was his peak on grass.
thalivest 2 years ago
Dude 89 isnt my birth date.
Im in tennis for more than 20 years, Ive seen Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Federer several times in action. I know what each of them is capable of.
Well if a guy plays in the Wimbledon final just after winning the French Open isnt in form then I dont know who is.
Federer's standards are way higher. Its not like Nadal suddenly started to play way better in 2008. If he had, Federer wouldnt lose to random players like Karlovic, Simon or Stepanek.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Whatever?? You certainly don't have the comprehension of someone who's been alive for more than 20 years!!!
I said it's said the Fed/Rafa rivalry being swayed by clay is true, but it's also swayed by the fact that it had a PEAK Federer vs not fully blossomed Nadal. An example I used was the 2006 Wim F which was only Nadal's 4th grass tourney of his life.
You don't wanna accept it it fine. If you think they were both at their peaks on grass then fine. I think you're dellusional.
thalivest 2 years ago
whats your definition of a players "peak"? and how do you see that a player is in his best years? I wanna know - you look at recent achievements, rival dismisal, particular shotmaking? what?
Its as clear as a feather that Federers best years were 2004-2007 - best results, best shot making and so on.
Why do you think "peaked Nadal" started in mid 2008 (and ended already in mid 2009 after barely a year?)? because he was playing better than before or did federer drop his form? think about it
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Generally a players peak tennis wise is about a 5-6 yr span when they are at their best. You claim Fed's peak was 04-07, fine. His level dropped in 08, OK. Now you claimhe's at his best at 29 (he aturns 29 in Aug).
Athletes don't peak, dip, then peak again. Nadal started serving harder, driving his backhand more, improved his volleying, and understood that top spin isn;t effective on other surface like clay.
If Baghdatis/Nadal 06 show up in 08 does 08 Fed win AO & Wim? Think about that?
thalivest 2 years ago
"Generally a players peak tennis wise is about a 5-6 yr span when they are at their best"-now youre the one whos contradicting yourself. You said Nadal hasnt blossomed till 2008. Well he was already finished by 2009. Why was he only 1 year in his peak? Cause he pushed himself to the limit. Thats what it takes to be at the top when Federers around
Up till 2007 Fed was beating nearly everybody. Suddenly in 2008 several players started to peak! Simon, Karlovic, Murray, Fish, Stepanek! Coincidence?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Karlovic - look at their H2H, 9 of 15 sets have gone to tie breaks then in Cinci 2 of 3 sets go to tie breaks. This time Ivo snuck it out, but to, Fed was playing attrocious.
Simon - he played badly, forehand was terrible, like Gasquet (Can 06), Davy (Aus 06), this time he didn't get away with it.
Stepanek - see Costa (04), Gasquet (05), Murray (06), Canas (07)
Making 3 of 4 slam F is a drop. What was 2005 seeing he only made 2 slam F?!? You're an idiot.
thalivest 2 years ago
"Making 3 of 4 slam F is a drop. What was 2005 seeing he only made 2 slam F?!? You're an idiot. "
If you cant see any difference in the way federer played in 2005 and 2008 then I dont see any point in argueing.
In 2005, he got to the semis of both the australian and french opens without losing a set, lost to an in-life-form safin(having match points) and nadal on clay respectively, won 2 remaining slams.
In 2008 5-setters with tipsarevic,andreev(wtf), straight set losses to nadal and djokovic
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Again I was showing how you play with #'s to suit your point and your 2 stupid 2 see it, taking it leterally.
2008 5 sets with Tip, how many sets did he need vs Haas in 06 AO?? Andreev, kind of like 34 yr old Dre in 2004 US Open?? 35 yr old broke back Dre led him 3-6,6-2,4-2 40-0 in US final. Kiefer (WTF!!!) up 5-3 in 4th set in 05 Wim, on grass?
And Fed back to form in 2009.... Del Potro (FO & US ), Haas(FO), Berdych(AO), the same Thomas he straight setted in 08 Aus Open?!? So your point?
thalivest 2 years ago
Youll gripping to that Australian Open in 2006 as if it was your only arguement. Maybe instead of looking stupidly at the stats from wikipedia, watch some highlights from that tournament. He had an ankle injury from late 2005 till like march 2006. Why does nobody give a shit when Nadal loses-that means he wasnt fit or was injured. Federer is not a freaking robot - he gets injured sometimes (like his back in late 2008),nobody critisized sampras for catching an injury or sickness from time to time
89Pleasek 2 years ago
The point I'm making is Nadal/Djoko raised the bar in 08. If the 06 cast shows up in 08 does Fed only get one slam?
If Fed dipped in 08 yet would still produce a multi slam year vs the 06 cast, then what does that say?? It's not that hard baboon!!!
When Nadal is/was injured he misses time, not running through guys, dishing bagels. See the difference. Fed had an ankle injry late 05, but double bagelled Gaudio, something he said he'd never done b4... on 2 GOOD ankles. Hmmmmm......
thalivest 2 years ago
omfg now youre putting gaudio in the conversation. hahaha.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
No you pointed out Fed had the anle injury in late 05 and still played.
Now if Fed can double bagel Gaudio with a bad ankle (what he said was the only double bagel of his exhistence)... theortically, what would he do with 2 good legs??
And why at full strength could Fed not deliver a double bagel at any point in his life, but was somehow able to do it with a bad ankle?? But you have no logical response, so you respond with this garbage.
thalivest 2 years ago
"Theoretically" I slept with 10 virgins.
The fact that he double-bagled a Top 10 player (who shouldnt be there) like Gaudio means as much as nothing. The difference between Nadal playing with an injury (wat) and Federer playing with one is that Federer still can play decent tennis and win most of his matches, Nadal cant do anything without his unnatural speed. How many times did Serena Williams win a slam looking like a mummy?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Not to mention having a 81-4 ratio in 2005 and 66-15 in 2008.
Federer only in 2008 lost as many matches as he did in 2004-2006. He was surely in top form in 2008, then. He reached 3 slam finals! Lol...thats your logic.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
OK put Roddick from 2005 instead of Nadal in 2008 WimF, and there's a 2 slam yr for Fed.
I already broke down Karlovic, Stepanek and Simon.
Fish - he had the week of his life
Murray (twice) - see Canas in 2007
Roddick - who he outplayed and was unfortunate 2 lose (but 07 US and Masters we'll forget cuz Fed won)
Fed wasn;t as consistent day in week out in 2008, but he was also paying where in years past he was escaping, Nalbandiam Rome 06, Gasquet Canada 06, Roddci YEC 07 for eg.
thalivest 2 years ago
He doesnt have to fight anybody since Sampras Borg and Laver all called Federer the greatest. I dont know what more do you need
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Sampras' opinion changes like the weather. First it was Laver, then no one. Said Fed, then and hour later, yes ONE HOUR said one can't say.
Laver even after Wimbledon didn't say Roger. He just said it's hard to distinguish, whhich holds some truth, as it's not an exact science. And then he said he'd take Sampras over Fed at SW19.
Same with Mac, when preesed he's said he'd take Pete over Roger, What does it mean? It has weight, but it is it fact?
thalivest 2 years ago
Laver didn't give Federer a nod as the greatest as Rod is still a major competitor for the GOAT title, he's still got arguements against Federer. And really tough ones. Sampras doesn't really have any left. Sooner or later Federer will surpass his 286 week no-1 record, win more than 7 Wimbledon titles and Sampras will have nothing left to argue with.
IMO if there's anyone still in the discussion about the goat other than Federer, it's Laver and Gonzales.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Laver once claimed Pacho Gonzales as GOAT and then Sampras.
Fed mat pass 286 weeks, but anyone with half a brain knows it was aided by Nadal's knee problems. Fed may pass 7 Wim titles, but Mac and Laver both said who'd they'd take in their primes on Center Court at SW19 and it wasn't Rog. Laver said it after 09 Wim. Mac said he'd take Pete over Rog at the US Open, during a Fed match!!!
Your opinion.... meaningless. No substance.
thalivest 2 years ago
"but anyone with half a brain knows it was aided by Nadal's knee problems".
Well Nadal started to have some serious knee problems as late as mid 2009. Federer had already 13 slams by then. Im asking you. Where was Nadal in 2004-2007 when Federer was sweeping all the slams (beating Nadal at Wimbledon on the way).
Nadal benefitted more from Federer's drop of form than Fed did from Nadal's knee injuries. He'd never defeat an in-form Federer out of clay and he knows it.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
2004-07 was that the best of Nadal?? Nadal peaked in 2008. 04-07 Nadal had ZERO slam SF on hards, 04-05 Wim did nothing, and didn't play in 04 French. that's 11 of 16 slams. So in Fed's dominance (2004-07) Nadal was a non factor at 68% (11 of 16 slams), but that was the best of Nadal?!? His rival?
So Fed was out of form at 08 Wim and 09 AO. Miami 04, Dubai 06, Nadal beat him on hard, and led him 6-2,7-6,4-1 in 05 Miami, all before age 20!!! But Fed wasn't in form. Again you're a buffoon.
thalivest 2 years ago
Stop supporting each of your arguements taken from wikipedia with an insult. Anyway, how old are you?The fact that you dont know Pancho Gonzales (and you think hes won 2 slams lol) makes me wonder if youre not like 12 years old
The more you insult me the more I feel victorious, so be careful next time before calling me a clown when your knowledge about tennis champions (I bet you never saw Sampras live) is just taken out of context. Youre doing everything not to acknowledge Federer's abilities.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
This just shows the levels or your stupidity .... yet again. When I said Pancho had only 2 slams, what context did I say it in?? Hence I went on to say if chastise Sampras for clay, tell me what Gonzales did on that surface.
You use one sent of rules to annoint Federer. But those rules all but elimiate Pancho who you proclaimed along with Laver and Roger. Nonsense!!!!
I said Fed was great player and in contention for the GOAT. But that's not acknowledging his abilities I guess.
thalivest 2 years ago
This from the baboon, who called Sampras... "one dimenional", said "serve and volley was a primitive style of play".... Nadal "could never beat an in form Federer".... "Nadal would rape Sampras and teach him a lesson".
That's all you and your UNfinite tennis wisdom. You feel victorious cuz you're a dellusional idiot. Contradict yourself all over the placeand all I can do is poke fun.Dog, you're 20 yrs old and question my age/knowledge???
Get your head out of Roger's ass!!!!!!
thalivest 2 years ago
Sampras was one-dimensional. Serve and volley is a primitive style of play. At least compared to the variety of federer. Nadal could never beat an in-form Federer. As I said he had to wait till Federers dropped his form in 2008 to achieve something more than winning garros billion times in a row.
Nadal would rape Sampras and teach him a lesson. On todays slow grass Id probably go with Nadal (both in their primes).
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Sampras was one dimensional. Laughable. And you talk about tennis knowledge, I just have to laugh when I read that. Illustrating your ignorance. Serve and volley "primitive".
Fed's level dropped in 2008. So much so that he had his bet run to a Wim F... EVER!!! Lost 6 games in 1st 2 rds of AO (dishing 3 bages), served for 1st set vs on fire Djoko.... oh... then his level dipped?!?
Nadal ober a peak Sampras on today's grass. Laughable. You're a buffoon!!!!
thalivest 2 years ago
Actually Sampras was more of a serve-and-volley-only-if-neccessary player rather than serve-and-volley. This style requires lots of skill but still its one-dimensional. Even Karlovic ace-ace-ace machinery requires lots of skill.
omg now youre talking about particular games in matches ("served for 1st set vs on fire Djoko.... oh... then his level dipped?!?"), maybe you should say that federer played his best tennis in 2008 cause he made a fantastic shot against djokovic in the us open (the lob),
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Sampras one dimesnsional, now he S&V if necessary. Just keep making yourself look ignorant.
My point was Fed's level dipped in 08 like you said, but he ran through 1st 2 rds, and then straight setted Blake/Berdych w/o incident. Djokovic was playing the est tennis of his, so why did Fed still have a chance to serve for the 1st set? Djoko wasn't playing badly?? So why?? Cuz Fed played well in the 1st set then got casual. That's not mono or level, that's Rog not taking care of business.
thalivest 2 years ago
Now youre describing Federers form based on a straight set victory over berdych or blake. Dang, lol. Federer would own 99 % of the field - mono or not, in or out of form, but it wasnt enough for the big guns like Nadal and Djokovic. How do you describe Federers semi-final loses at indian wells/miami/rome/doha to murray and djokovic in 2009? Was he in excellent shape cause he dismantled taylor dent in straight sets? Dang, man, listen to yourself. Even a 35-year old Nadal would be in the top 20.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
So wait Fed with mono can still handle the field like he used to but not Nadal/Djoko. Good to know. Mono only effects an individual when the play "the big guns". Interesting illness.
Fed's losses to Murray/Fish/Stepanek I've explained. If you took you're head out of Fed's ass and read what I've posted U'd know.
thalivest 2 years ago
Hes not handling the field like he used to when he has mono, dammit. He pwned everyone in straight sets back then, now he's toughing lots of the matches out. Hes got 5-setters in each slam he plays from 2008, tons of examples, with berdych, haas, tipsarevic, andreev, monfils, roddick, del potro . Each set he lost in a slam in 2004-2007 was a huge shock. Now its not. See the difference?
It was a huge shock when he was forced to 5 sets at Wimbledon in 2007. Now its a common phenomenon.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
5 setters, well see Haas, 34 yr old Agassi, Nalbandian all 04-07 Kiefer led 5-3 in 4th in 05 Wim. Berdych, Del P & Haas all in 09 when you claim Roger was back in form. Hell Andreev in 08 when he won the Open.
If Nafal/Djoko 2008 blossomed in 2004, would a Fed slam loss 2004-07 be regarded with such shock?
Was it shock when Safin beat him in 05?? Not really it was considered a great match from both.
So Delpo wasn't a shock. Of course not as Fed is in peak form like you claim?!?
thalivest 2 years ago
"Kiefer led 5-3 in 4th in 05 Wim" - this is the most lame example you could think of. How many times did Sampras have 4 or 5-setters in his prime at Wimbledon?
Actually Del Potro won the US Open cause he played better, no doubt. He should get more credit not for winning the whole thing but for hanging in there after being really down and out at 6:3 5:4 30:0. Thats a sign of a future champion.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
After I give you examples from 04-07 all you can do is hang onto one. You said stupidity, were proven wrong, so you hang onto one match, pathetic!
Del Potro played better and Fed made mistakes. he should have closed out the 2nd set, and didn't. DP played smarter. When his serve was off he (last 2.5 sets) spun his 1st serv in @ 110-115mph, and fed let him get away with it, he should've attacked it.......
thalivest 2 years ago
Yes, I agree 100 % Del Potro played better than Federer in the US Open final. Otherwise he'd lose. But you have to mention that Federer had the match in his hands before Del Potro found his rythm at 6-3 5-4 30:0. Its not like the Argentinian blew him off the court winning 6-2 6-1 6-0 that it was obvious from start to finish that he was better. He was the better man in the end - not throughout the match.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Was Del Potro better in the 1.75 sets?? No!!! If Fed had closed out the 2nd set, the match would have likely been different.
Even if DP found his rhythm at 6-3,5-4 30-0, Roger should have held. All of sudden DP woke up from a sleep. And DP was up a break in the 3rd gave it back, and double faulted the set away, and was up a break again in the 4th, b4 giving it back.
But that never happened, Del Potro played an absolutey amazing match and I'm imagining this.
thalivest 2 years ago
I agree about Del Potro. Anything else?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
agree *with of course
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Yeah. You know little about tennis. But that's about it.
thalivest 2 years ago
Also Fed had the right idea, by attacking DP's trength (FH), early, but when he realized that wasn't working, he should have changed up but didn't. DP @ 20 made the adjustments.
Roger also hurt himself by making it more of a slugfest. DP is stronger and hits harder. He should have made it more a track meet as fed is the better athlete/mover.
I give credit to Del Potro for doing what he had to do, but at the same time, Fed made mistakes and didn't help himself.
thalivest 2 years ago
Again - Federer HAS to play brilliantly all the time, come up with super form each time its asked for, play perfect tactics. The fact that hes a potential goat doesnt mean he has to win all his slam finals. It seems that Federer always has to come up with the goods when needed - Nadal only CAN.
THERE ARE NO PLAYERS WITHOUT FLAWS.
Even Laver was 4-6 against Rosewall in major finals. Sampras was nobody on clay (as his serve wasnt a major weapon).
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Sampras in his prime at Wim....
-Agassi (93 QF), defending champion
-I'vic (95 SF), Goran served lasers including 38 aces
-Korda (97 4th), Pete was never broken, but tried to finish the match early as rain was coming and extended the match 2 the following day
-I'vic, (98 F), Pete started slow 13 win 9 unf 1st set (50 win, 10 unf rest of way), but Goran hurt himself, should have at least put 2 Pete 2nd serves in play on set pts in 2nd. If Pete makes the volly he does, but make him volley.
thalivest 2 years ago
Why dont you get off Nadal already?
His history is as simple as his tennis tactics. He had 2 ways.One of them was winning the French Open probably till his death(and nothing more)but without major injuries.The second one was really going for it, win more majors on all surfaces but end up with career threatening injuries
Of course the ambitious Nadal chose option 2.
And now he's paying the price. This is only HIS problem, not the rest of the field. Nobody threw a pity party for Federer on mono.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
So Nadal who taken the mantle in 2008 and then into early 2009. And Fed regained it, when Nadal faltered physically.
That's pretty much what you just said. Does fact that Nadal owns your boy really make you despise him that much?? Does it make you wish, then celebrate his physical downfall??
The fact that he owns your boy (5-2 in slam finals), must burn your soul like ether.
thalivest 2 years ago
ive really got nothing against nadal,he deserves everything he achieved in his career, but the fact that its 5-2 in slam finals doesnt make him a better player than federer. If nadal is so good to have a 5-2 advantage over federer himself, why does he have only 6 slams, you tell me. After all, its not match-ups that matter in the end, its majors and years at no 1 that matter
If match-ups mattered Krajicek would be better than Sampras (6-4). Edberg is 2-0 in slams vs sampras - is he better then?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
You're a clown. Does Krajicek own Sampras?? I won't even spaek of Pete's physical condition in some of those matches.
Was Pete in his prime in those matches with Edberg. Was Edberg not seeded higher in both meetings?? Fed was seeded higher than Nadal in 7 of 9 slam matches.
Also 92 US/ 93 AO translates to 02 US/ 03AO, where Fed was straight setted by Myrni and l. to Nalbanndian. But wait Fed wasn't in his prime you'll tell me, but of course that same premise doesn't apply 4Sampras.
thalivest 2 years ago
Was Edberg in his prime as well? He was on the brink of retirement after 1993 and Pete was the no 1 player as soon as april 1993. So Sampras wasnt in his peak in february 1993 and suddenly got things together in 2 months to become world no 1? This is hilarious
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Again what was Edberg/Sampras ranked when they met in slams. Edberg then went onto QF FO, SF Wim, made YEC. SF 94 AO and made masters again in 94. But that's on the brink of retirement. But you're the clown who said what about Nadal @ o6 Wim.
So wait Fed's prime was 04-7, but a few months earlier he was losing to Henman in Paris, Nalbandian in US Open?? Then dominates. Hilarious!!!!
thalivest 2 years ago
Federer had it all in his head. He was allready damn good in 2002 and 2003. Its not a shame to lose to Nalbandian, hes a tough oponent. Federer showed real signs NOT at Wimbledon 2003 but at the Masters Cup in 2003 when he dismantled Agassi for the first time and then literally blew him off the court in the final. Thats where it all started. He needed a breakthrough to get it all together.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
It's not a shame to lose Nalbandian, then why mention Edberg. Edberg >>>> Nalbandian.
Fed showeds signs at Wim 03, and when did Sampras come of age?? Wim 93. But you want to hold losses vs Edberg, prior to that. Fucking hypocrite if I ever saw one.
Get your head outta Fed's ass!!!!!
thalivest 2 years ago
Well if quarterfinals and semi-finals are the best edberg can get in a slam, then thank you. He was 28 years old by the end of 1993.
And why does Federer have to explain all his losses? Hes not a robot. Nobody critisized Sampras, even after losing to random players in slams. Federer is after losing a single set. Nobody critisized Nadal after losing in the French Open in 2009.
This is sick - leave the poor guy be, when he loses- he loses. This is life.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Dumbass read. I sai "last dayss" of Edberg. he was in 93 AO F (may have won it if not for heatwave). SF of Wim 93 and AO 94, and QF RG 93. That's better than careers of Blake, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Kifer, Gonzalez, Ljubicic that Fed beat up on for years.
Nobody criticized Nadal after 09 RG cuz he was hurt stupid. He pulled out of Wimbledon?? That's why?? If Rafa was helthy and went to SW19 at anything close to 100% he'd have 2 answer for it. How stupid are you?
thalivest 2 years ago
Wtf you mentioned the most random players Federer ever faced.How about Sampras defeating Martin,Moya,Pioline,Ivanisevic in his slam finals
IF Rafa was healthy,but he was not.End of discussion. Dont throw a pity party for a guy who conciously screwed his knees up.Its only his fault and now hes paying the price. It wouldnt be fair if a guy played 200 % all the time without any consequences. Thats what he deserved and thats what it takes to keep up with Federer, he wasnt able to do it for long tho
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Martin - 2 slam F, 3-4 slam SF, beat Edberg, Agassi in slams, not great but > Davydenko, Bag, Gonzalez Blake etc.
Moya - slam, slam F,
Ivanisevic - beat Edberg, Sampras 92, becker, Krajicek, Rafter in slams.
Don't throw a pity party for Rafa, true. Don't praise Roger for benefitting from it call a spade a spade.
Best statistical yrs Pete 94, Rog 06....
-Martin 94 F (AO), SF (Wim, US), and barely made the the top 10 didn;t make YEC
-Blake 06, US SF, and fininshed #4!!!!
Why??
thalivest 2 years ago
Blake made to the top 5 the way Ivanisevic made his way to the top 10 year by year.- by winning smaller tournaments.
Ivanisevic - 1996 - one QF one SF of a slam 1995 - one SF - rest 1 round - no 10, 1994 - not a single slam 4th round (!!!) - year end no 7.
Call a spade a spade.
Yes Moya was a great player. Hes 0-9 against Federer.
Ivanisevic - he was so tough a 19-year old Federer beat him twice (2-0 head-to-head).
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Blake's slam life 3 SF in over 20 appearence. 2 masters series F in 6-7 years and you wanna compare that to Goran. Do the knowledge idiot.
Did I call Moya great, oh look H2H matters now when it favours Roger. 2-0 vs Goran. So tell me about a PEAK Fed being 2-5 vs Nadal in majors with losses on 3 surfaces.
You won;t cuz H2H only matters to you when it favours Rog.
thalivest 2 years ago
"So tell me about a PEAK Fed being 2-5 vs Nadal in majors with losses on 3 surfaces."
Yes surely, Federer played his absolute best tennis at the Wimbledon and Australian Open finals hes lost. Surely a peak Federer commits weird unforced errors from his best wing without any explanation.
Anyway, it just shows you how much you have to risk to defeat a slam federer. Nadal payed the highest price. Del Potro has permanent injuries ever since defeating Federer. Djokovic fell into misery.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Did I say Fed was at his pinnacle at AO & Wim? No you made it all about Fed's decile ("Nadal could never beat an in form Fed"), and I disagreed.
How many unforced errors did Fed's forehand produce in the 2006 Aus Open. If you knew tennis and Fed U'd know why his FH goes off from time 2 time. It's actually what makes his forehand so great.
So only the matches vs Fed effected Nadal, not anyone else. Fed 5-0 vs Djoko after AO 4-3. Novak has his own issues.
thalivest 2 years ago
Sorry to say it but be fair to everyone cause you sound plain dumb.
If Federer ran every ball down in each match hed get as many injuries as Nadal hed win more than he did but by now hed be on a wheelchair. Would everyone pity federer? Of course not, he played his heart on the court! Why should Nadal be favored for being stupid not knowing where his limits are? He pushed it to fair and now hes paying the price. His screwed knees tell me how good federer is.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Pity Fed. "Fed had mono", "Fed had a bad ankle in late 05 and early 06"... where was my invite 2 this pity party?? And U say I sound dumb.
"His screwed knees tell me how good federer is" CLASSIC!!! Fed's great based on rafa's knees.
I can't evn give you 20. Years, no, maybe your IQ.... and that's a good day for you. Hell Olajuwan '94 over Jordan. he won and that's final. Stockton over Borg, he beat him in Flushing!!!
You're a baboon!!!!!!!!!!
thalivest 2 years ago
omfg the fact that federer is exactly 10 years younger than sampras doesnt mean things go the exact way with a 10 year margin, why didnt federer win the us open in 2000, then? sampras did 10 years earlier. Why didnt sampras win the 1999 french open? federer did it 10 years later. theyre not clones ffs, federer peaked bit later than sampras, doesnt mean hes worse, cause he won more and he still hasnt retired
89Pleasek 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you that stupid?? I was using the 10 yr gap as guideling 4 a fram of reference.
Federer peaked shortly after Sampras, Pete @ 93 Wim, while Rog wasn't in full swing til AO 04. But you use Edberg's wins over Pete before that time, then why not Fed's losses prior to 04 AO or 03 Wim??
I was just illustrating you're stupidity again, and you were 2 stupid 2 see it. How ironic?!?
BTW, Agassi, Medvedev, Kuerten or even Moya from 99 likely get 09 Fed at RG seing his struggles with Haas & DP.
thalivest 2 years ago
Ok whats your final point? cause im getting really bored
89Pleasek 2 years ago
My point. you know little.... but the majority of your comments already show that.
I mean look how you contradict yourself again. You say..... "Well if a guy plays in the Wimbledon final just after winning the French Open isnt in form then I dont know who is" ...... then.... "As I said he had to wait till Federers dropped his form in 2008 to achieve something more than winning garros billion times in a row"
I'm sorry did Fed not play in the French F then the Wimbledon final in 08??
thalivest 2 years ago
Federer is not just "a" player. His standards are higher than everyones elses, even nadals. If Murray reaches a gs final - then hes in good form, but its hard to say federer is in good form when he reaches a slam final, cause hes a part in every slam final ever since reaching the top spot.
Federer did play in both the french and wimbledon finals in 08, but hes won neither. Nadal went into the wimbledon final 3 times in a row after winning the french open, thats a huge difference
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Like I said If fed got Davydenko (06 AO SF), or Nadal (06 Wim F), what happens? He likely wins 3 slam again in 2008. But being the Federphile you are, it must be Fed's level dropping and nothing to do with the maturation of Djoko/Rafa.
So you're saying cuz Fed didn't win either FO?Wim in 08 his form wasn't good. Then why was his run to the 08 final best of his career? Lost ZERO sets and dropped his serve just twice. Why?? Better than yrs U say he was at his peak?!?
thalivest 2 years ago
So when Nadal wins RG and plays in Wim F he's in form. But when Federer makes RG final, and has his best run to a Wim F a month later, his "level dropped".
You contradicted yourself again. Do you even think about the nonsense you write?? Get your head out of Fed's ass!!!!
And 2007 -prior..... Nadal 1 slam QF on hard, in 2008 2 slam SF on hards, but as you said he didn't improve.
Nadal missed a slam and how much time with injuries. Fed missed what with mono?? Ancic had mono see him.
thalivest 2 years ago
As I said, Federer is making new standards. Its hard to say hes in or out of form based on the french open and wimbledon, cause hes in both finals for half of a decade!
And the fact that im defending him doesnt mean im an ass licker, if i am you might as well be a hater
Of course Nadal improved in 2008, I never denied that but its obvious federer dropped his form. Had Nadal played the way he did and Federer the way he did - roger would win the ozzie open and 2 masters titles at least, won none
89Pleasek 2 years ago
So let me get this correct. When Fed makes FO/Wim finals and wins Wim, he's in good form. When he loses in the Wim F, his level has dipped as Nadal could never beat in form Fed (again ou idotic words).
Again if Fed won ZERO masters in 08 but got Baghdatis 06 (In AO) and Nadal 06 (Wim), Fed likely wins 3 slam (a least 2), and would you saying the same nonsense you are now??
Nah I just call a spade a spade. You're the one who said Delpo and 60 unforced errorsvs Fed was the match of life?!?
thalivest 2 years ago
well if federer reaches the french open final (droping sets to random players like monfils or gonzalez) and loses to nadal 6-1 6-3 6-0, does it mean hes in great form? He reached the final! he has to be in great form!
Look at Federers standards and look at Nadals standards.
Federer wins 2 or 3 slams, a 4-setter with Nadal at the French - thats his average year. He wins less than that - it doesnt mean that suddenly everyone got better!
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Are you that stupid?? I was using the 10 yr gap as guideling 4 a fram of reference.
Federer peaked shortly after Sampras, Pete @ 93 Wim, while Rog wasn't in full swing til AO 04. But you use Edberg's wins over Pete before that time, then why not Fed's losses prior to 04 AO or 03 Wim??
I was just illustrating you're stupidity again, and you were 2 stupid 2 see it. How ironic?!?
BTW, Agassi, Medvedev, Kuerten or even Moya from 99 likely get 09 Fed at RG seing his struggles with Haas & DP.
thalivest 2 years ago
Stop generalising Sampras' era and showing all the details from Federer's. Thats not fair. If you start to shit at Federer's oponents for no reason listen to this - Agassi had ups and downs all the time, he was nowhere near consistent Nadal was for Federer for years. Ivanisevic had nothing but his serve. Medvedev, Kuerten, Moya were clay couters -something poor Pete never seemed to understand losing to 200 ranked players in the world in his prime years.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Ivanisevic had nothing but a serve. A serve tha produced victories over Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Krajiek and Rafter in slams.
Agassi from 1988-2005 finished out of the top 10 once (97).
Guga, Moya, Medvedev better than any claycourter last 5 yrs excl. Rafa. Guga b4 hip/Moya > Blake, Davy, Nalb, Ljubicic on HC.
Pete had a tougher generation of top players no matter how you look at it. The game may be deeper down the line, certainly not among the top players.
thalivest 2 years ago
Hoho, believe me Federer would love to face Kuerten, Moya (won 6 games against Federer at the 2005 French Open) and Medvedev in each Garros hes played since 2006 rather than facing Nadal each year.
And thats a great line - call a spade a spade - of course Federer benefitted from Nadals injury - but surely Nadal (and all the players) benefitted from Federers mono in early 2008. Make it fair if you pity one - pity the other as well.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
You mean like and 04 Fed who straight setted by Guga and his Bo Jackson hip. Fed who trailed Nalbandian 6-3,3-0 b4 David got hurt. Fed who struggled with Del Potro and broke body Haas in 09, got raped by Nadal in 08.
Sure he would love a shot vs peak Guga. Or even peak Muster or Bruguera for that matter.
Who bebefitted. Roddick in Miami who fed outplayed, Fish who just had the week of his life. Murray, who benefitted the same way in 06. Again if wins slams those losses are meaningless.
thalivest 2 years ago
those losess are meaningless if they occur from time to time (remember federer losing to canas twice?) - they do matter when you cant win a tournament even at a 250 level for months being the no 1. Makes you think if youre ok.
As I said Federer would like to play Bruguera/Courier/Kuerten in one French Open than Nadal. At least hed have a chance.
Oh yes and remember Federer giving Kuerten a bagle on clay at the Hamburg Masters when Kuerten was the current French Open champion? That was in 2002
89Pleasek 2 years ago
If Fed got Baghdatis/Kiefer from 06 Ao in 08 an the Nadal from 06 Wim in 08. Fed like win 2 or 3 slams in 08 and how much do those smalle losses mean.
About as much Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Davydenko, Benneteau & Wawrinka did in 09 when U claimed Rog was back in form.
Or as Much Canas, Volandri, Nalbandian & Gonzalez in 07.
Funny how the small losses aren't mentioned when he's winning slams.
thalivest 2 years ago
Generally, you can say wheter Federers in or out of form based on his slam results. Since a while, tho, its very hard to say as in one match hes playing brilliantly and then its a 5-setter in the next one. Hes less consistent as far as back-to-back matches are concerned,
Up till 2006 (not 2007) he treated early tournament as seriously. In 2007 he started to lose it a bit out of the slams. Why would he care about winning a Indian Wells or Miami title when hes already got them.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Losing early in small tournaments is something that comes with time. It's natural they don't mean as much.
But AO 08 lost 3 gams in 1st 2 rds, dishing 2 bagels. He served 4 1st set vs Tipsarevic at 5-4, if he holds he wins that match 6-4,7-6,5-7,6-1. Straight setted Blake & Berdych, and erved for the 1st vs an on fire Djokovic.
Other than the 2nd set vs Djoko explain how his performance dipped so drastically?
thalivest 2 years ago
What ifs again. IF he holds. But he didnt. You cant say Federers in or out of form compared to players like Blake and Berdych cause hed win with them oftem with his eyes closed.
Lost 15 matches in 2008, 12 in 2009 but who did he lose to in 2009? Murray twice, Djokovic 3 times, Del Potro twice, Nadal once, Davydenko 1, Tsonga 1 and some random losses to Wawrinka (straight after his wedding), Bennetau (totally unprepared),
In 2008 those random losses appeared 5 times as often.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
So Fed is not playing well, cuz he didn't hold in one game. Didn't know ONE game is the decider of one's playing level.
Wawrinka in 09, like Volandri in 07, Gasquet 05, Costa 04. benneteau, like Henamn in Rotterdam 04, Canas 07, Murray 06.
If Fed wins multiple slams in 2008 how much do those losses matter?? Tell me?? Don't cowar as usual.
thalivest 2 years ago