People who've witnessed Sampras's career truly know how special he was. Federer is an amazing talent, granted, but to me; he will never be as great as Pete. It also helps that Pete is way humbler and had a ton of heart :)
how come federer will never be as great as sampras? he surpassed sampras in every single detail, you shouldve said ''i dont like federer'' instead of ''federer will never be as great as sampras''. Anyway -youre right, he already is better than pete and still got years to go.
@89Pleasek I did say he won't be as great to ME as Pete. Federer has definitely proven that he has a better resume for the GOAT title than Pete, but deep down having seen both careers; I still feel like Pete was the better player. Not taking anything from Fed in anyway.
In 7 finals, Pete was 7-0. I believe he lost his serve 4 times in all 7 finals, whereas Fed may have lost his serve 3 or 4 times in his final against Nadal in 2008.
Sampras might have lost his serve only 4 times in all 7 finals, whereas Federer lost his serve 4 times in his 2008 Wimbledon final against Nadal, but Sampras never had to face such an incredible force like Nadal in a Wimbledon final... he did face Boris Becker, who was a much better grass court player than Nadal, but it was during his twilight years, and he only faced him ONCE... whereas Federer has had to face Nadal 3 times in Wimbledon finals...
Actually, Pete played Boris at least twice at Wimbledon.... he played him in 1995 (finals) and 1997 in the quarters. I don't know if he ever played him more than that however. Becker was 27 when he played Pete who was 25 in the finals, so he wasn't really that far out of his prime, considering Pete still won Wimbledon when he was 27.
In fact, Pete played Boris three times at Wimbledon: 1993 semifinals, 1995 final and 1997 quarterfinals... when I said that Pete had only faced Boris ONCE, I mean throughout the finals... And Boris was out of his prime during all 3 encounters ( his prime was from 1985 to 1989)... As Boris, Pete was out of his prime when he won Wimbledon for the last time... he was just good enough to hoist the golden trophy one last time...
How is being 26 out of your prime? The 1993 encounter, Boris was 26. At age 28 and 30, yes he was out of his prime, but still he was more challenging on grass than any of Roger's opponents.
In fact, Boris was 25 (his birthday was in november)... But, he WAS out of his prime... (His prime was from 1985 to 1989)... During this period, he won 48.98 % of his titles (24/49), including 4 Grand Slams in just 5 finals... After that period, he won 25 more titles, but in a 10 - year span, meaning that in this period he accomplished just a little bit more than that that he had accomplished during his prime, and he needed almost 3 times the same period of time that comprised his prime...
After 1989, Becker lost 3 of 5 Grand Slam finals, lost 3 of 5 Masters Cup finals, and lost 6 of 11 Masters Series finals...And you think he was in his prime after that?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
god how boring is this serve and volley! thats 19th century tennis! its not cool! id rather watch paint dry than watch a ancient style of tennis called serve and volley! i prefer the rallies of federer and nadal! now that is real tennis! the 21st century tennis!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LMFAO, yea thats why a 19yr old federer kicked sampras' arse in wimbledon 2001 when sampras was going for his 5th consecutive wimbledon! sampras was a boring old fart with no charisma or no personality, he made tennis very uncool and unpopular worldwide! fedex and rafa are finally making tennis popular and cool again! i do not support boring players, guys like djokovic,gulbis,fed,raffy are reviving tennis! players like sampras should be taken to the woodshed and shot in the head!
Pete was passed his prime in that match, i think it wud have been a different story if it was sampras(prime) vs federer(prime), than sampras wud win although a close match. and abt tennis not being popular, the 80s and 90s tennis was most interesting, u had mcenroe,lendl,wilander,becker,edberg,chang,courier, agassi,rafter,ivanesivic, and sampras. nowdayz its only federe and nadal and everyone else sucks.
If Federer was 29 at the time he played Sampras (the age Sampras was in 2001), then Sampras would have won. Why? Federer is slowing down, which makes his forehand much weaker. With that, his level of play drops tremendously. Sampras' serve would still be in top shape, and would give Sampras the win in 4 sets.
Sampras is like Pancho Gonzales, he was so damn good, they had to slow down the game to stop him, and it took them years before he lost, and it was because he got old! That is dominance!
Are crazy? It can`t be known right now who`d win if 29 year old Sampras and 29 year old Federer were to play... depending on how Federer plays in the 2010 season, then everyone`ll be able to know...
Are you crazy? Sampras might have been passed his prime when he played Federer, but Federer wasn`t even close to his prime either... so, it`s kind of a tie... If vintage Sampras were to face vintage Federer, then the result would have been the same: vintage Federer wins (although in a match that would have been even closer than the real match of 2001 Wimbledon)
i respectfully disagree i think imo sampras was the best grass court player ever he beat courier, ivansevic, becker, rafter, agassi all @ wimbledon his probably weakest opponent was pioline
I also disagree with you... Sampras`s opponents in Wimbledon finals won a combined 13 titles in grass courts... Federer`s opponents in Wimbledon finals have won a combined 8 titles in grass courts... Federer`s opponents might have less grass court titles than Sampras`s opponents (until now), but the fact is that Nadal could potentially win 5 more grass court titles, and the only Sampras`s opponent that was better than him on grass was Boris Becker...
Also, you have to remember that the 1993 Wimbledon final was a gift for Sampras, given that Courier didn`t have what it takes to win on grass... he wasn`t a good grass court player... he NEVER won a title on grass courts... I don`t even know how Sampras needed 4 sets to beat him on grass, it should have been easier for him to do... Federer never faced an opponent in a Wimbledon final who wasn`t able to succeed on grass... all of his opponents have at least 2 grass court titles...
Right...and the 2003 Wimbledon of Federer v. a 28 year old Philippoussis wasn't a gift? Come on. Federer never faced an opponent who couldn't succeed on grass? He only played 3 different people in all seven of his finals. Philippoussis, Roddick, and Nadal. Sampras played Courier, Ivanisevic, Becker, Pioline, Agassi, and Rafter. Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Rafter all were great players that could have succeeded on grass had Pete not been dominating them.
No, the 2003 Wimbledon final against Philippoussis wasn`t a gift for Federer, because unlike Courier, Philippoussis had won grass court titles prior to that final (Courier never won a grass court title, prior or after his Wimbledon final)... Becker did have A LOT of success on grass courts, even with Pete in the middle (before Pete arrived, he had alredy won a lot)...
OK, so the last part of your post about Becker helps augment my argument. True, Philippoussis may have won grass court titles prior to the Wimby final, but how many grand slams had he won? Courier had won 4, which meant he was much more suited for the pressure of Grand Slams than Philippoussis. This is why he took a set off of Pete and made a match,whereas the "match" between Roger and Philippoussis was more of a breathtaking exhibition of Roger's ability to hit passing shots and sweet winners.
That might be truth... but still it`d be more credible to hear that Philippoussis beated Federer in a Wimbledon final, than to hear that Courier beated Sampras in a Wimbledon final...
McEnroe, Becker and Wilander have said that Sampras would beat Fed in a five set match at wimbly if they met at their primes. I think they know better than you and Most experts rank Sampras as the best grass court player ever. Fed might be the best all around player ever like Phelps is in swimming but Sampras on grass is King. Never lost a final on grass and he played Becker, Agassi, Courier and Ivanisevic on some those wimbly finals.
He was excellent at other grass court tournaments, but not as untouchable as he was in Wimbledon:
He lost in the 2nd round of the Artois Championships in 1993, and in the quarterfinals of the 1997 edition... although both were really close matches, they came during his prime...
And then, he lost in the 3rd round of the 1998 edition, but this time he was blown out (6-3, 6-2) by doubles specialist Mark Woodforde...
Listen, i know Fed is your GOD but many experts are convived sampras is just the best on grass. Why doesn't fed have to the best at everything? Fed might be the best ever but Sampras is the best on grass. Sampras was born to dominate Wimbledon. Sampras never lost a wimbledon final and in his golden years faced "Boris Becker who's been one of the best grass court players ever, you may argue, Becker was past his primer but he was still a force in the 90's.
1. Federer isn`t my God (he`s just my favorite tennis player), Albert Pujols is.
2. There are also some experts that say that Federer is the best grass court player ever.
3. Federer`s reign at Wimbledon is extremely close to be as great as Sampras`s.
4. Boris Becker was undoubtedly one of the best to have ever played on grass courts, but he was out of his prime during all of his 19 encounters against Sampras, since his prime was from 1985 to 1989.
so Becker was nothing after 1989 at the age of 21 jajajjajaajajjaj. That's rubbish.............He was still a top five player and pretty competitive in the 90's: 2 aussie open wins, three wimbledon finals, one wimbly quaterfinals, one french open semis and one US open semis in the 90's and he wasn't a factor according to ya?, you are biased. Going by your reasoning, Nadal can't be counted as roger's rival coz Nadal wasn't in his prime during roger's prime(04-07). That's simply stupid.....
I know that Sampras played a twilight Becker at Wimbledon, as well as playing Courier (a man that never won a title on grass courts) and Ivanisevic (the Karlovic of the 1990s)...
It`s worth saying that Federer has a perfect record against Karlovic on grass (2-0), while Sampras DIDN`T have a perfect record against Ivanisevic on grass...
Yes... Sampras did beat vintage Agassi at Wimbledon...
Why do you keep on putting sampra's competition down?: a twilight Becker" ?Becker was a force in the 90's during sampra's career; He won the aussie open twice(91-95), wimbledon's finalist 90,91,95(losing to sampras), semis wimbly: 96, quaters wimbly 97 losing against sampras, semis US open 1995 losing against agassi in a 4 set thriller, 2 atp world champ(93-95). He was still a great player past his prime.
Agassi had his best year as a professional in 1999 when he was destroyed by sampras in Wimbledon. Don't tell me that Agassi was on his cusp when he faced sampras. Agassi was a major factor in Wimbledon from 1992 when he won the tournament untill 2000 when he lost against rafter in the semis. Agassi was always in semis, quaters,etc in Wimbledon, besides Agassi and sampras were from the same generation. Agassi was at his peak during sampra's reign of terror at wimbledon.
I do tell you again that Agassi was on his cusp when he faced Sampras at Wimbledon... To be ''on the cusp'' means to be at the highest levels that someone is able to reach while doing something...
Karlovic 'the ivanisevic" of the 90's, please don't insult Ivanisevic, Ivanisevic is three time wimbledon finalist, a wimbledon champ and US open semifinalist. Karlovic hasn't DONE shit to desserve to be compared to Rafter, Ivanisevic or Krajicek who you convenientely forgot to mention. You also forgot to mention: Michael Stitch who was a wimbledon champ too.
McEnroe, Becker and Wilander know it all, right? Because they have played Federer on grass, haven`t they?
Do you want to know who`s better on grass courts? Then, why don`t you ask someone who have played both Sampras and Federer on grass courts? Like Tim Henman?
Didn`t Sampras himself say that Federer was the greatest ever?
Sampras said Fed is the best ever but not the best on grass. You are the most biased fed's fan i've ever found on you tube. Sampas faced the great "agassi", Becker, Courier, Rafter and Ivanisevic. Fed faced: Roddick, Hewitt, Mark philippoussis,the great Nadal so sampras played players who won 21 slams combined against fed's rival who won only 9 combined and Courier and Becker, Agassi were ex-number ones so sampras had tougher towin on wimbledon during his career.
Roddick a one dimensional weak player and NADAL, great player but he wasn't in his prime when Roger beat the first time in 2007. Nadal's prime started in 2008.
Firstly, in 2007 Roger defeated Rafael in the Wimbledon final for the 2nd time.
It should be known that Federer`s level of play declined somewhat in 2007. He had a great season that year, but wasn`t certainly as ''untouchable'' as he was from 2004 to 2006...
nadal's peak started in 2008 but ended as early as mid 2009? Nadal was very much in his prime in 2006-2007, he did play better in 2008 and 2009 but over his limits. Nadal is a totally different patient as far as greatness is concerned.
btw when nadal beat federer in both wimbledon and australian open finals rog wasnt at his best.
Courier might've never won a title on grass but when he faced sampras in 1993 he was the world's top player, a player who had been in all surfaces slam finals. A player who was the toughest mentally speaking between 91-93 and a 4 time slam winner. Courier had the experience in grand slams to battle it out with sampras in 1993 and the final was really close. You are forgetting Rafter who is much better than Karlovic, a two time us open champ and two time wimbly runner up.
If Sampras and Federer played10 times, it would have been 5-5. They are equal in my book.
ballisticbliss 2 years ago
People who've witnessed Sampras's career truly know how special he was. Federer is an amazing talent, granted, but to me; he will never be as great as Pete. It also helps that Pete is way humbler and had a ton of heart :)
Meshalhasseen 2 years ago
how come federer will never be as great as sampras? he surpassed sampras in every single detail, you shouldve said ''i dont like federer'' instead of ''federer will never be as great as sampras''. Anyway -youre right, he already is better than pete and still got years to go.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I did say he won't be as great to ME as Pete. Federer has definitely proven that he has a better resume for the GOAT title than Pete, but deep down having seen both careers; I still feel like Pete was the better player. Not taking anything from Fed in anyway.
Meshalhasseen 1 year ago
In 7 finals, Pete was 7-0. I believe he lost his serve 4 times in all 7 finals, whereas Fed may have lost his serve 3 or 4 times in his final against Nadal in 2008.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
Sampras might have lost his serve only 4 times in all 7 finals, whereas Federer lost his serve 4 times in his 2008 Wimbledon final against Nadal, but Sampras never had to face such an incredible force like Nadal in a Wimbledon final... he did face Boris Becker, who was a much better grass court player than Nadal, but it was during his twilight years, and he only faced him ONCE... whereas Federer has had to face Nadal 3 times in Wimbledon finals...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Actually, Pete played Boris at least twice at Wimbledon.... he played him in 1995 (finals) and 1997 in the quarters. I don't know if he ever played him more than that however. Becker was 27 when he played Pete who was 25 in the finals, so he wasn't really that far out of his prime, considering Pete still won Wimbledon when he was 27.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
In fact, Pete played Boris three times at Wimbledon: 1993 semifinals, 1995 final and 1997 quarterfinals... when I said that Pete had only faced Boris ONCE, I mean throughout the finals... And Boris was out of his prime during all 3 encounters ( his prime was from 1985 to 1989)... As Boris, Pete was out of his prime when he won Wimbledon for the last time... he was just good enough to hoist the golden trophy one last time...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
How is being 26 out of your prime? The 1993 encounter, Boris was 26. At age 28 and 30, yes he was out of his prime, but still he was more challenging on grass than any of Roger's opponents.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
In fact, Boris was 25 (his birthday was in november)... But, he WAS out of his prime... (His prime was from 1985 to 1989)... During this period, he won 48.98 % of his titles (24/49), including 4 Grand Slams in just 5 finals... After that period, he won 25 more titles, but in a 10 - year span, meaning that in this period he accomplished just a little bit more than that that he had accomplished during his prime, and he needed almost 3 times the same period of time that comprised his prime...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
After 1989, Becker lost 3 of 5 Grand Slam finals, lost 3 of 5 Masters Cup finals, and lost 6 of 11 Masters Series finals...And you think he was in his prime after that?
mariomarcano 2 years ago
The age is generally symmetrical with prime years, but not always... look at Andre Agassi... his prime came in 1999, when his was 29 years old!
mariomarcano 2 years ago
But you`re right, even when he was out of his prime years, Becker was more challenging on grass than any of Roger`s opponents...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Sampras is an amazing champion and person. Too bad champions like him have to go and be replaced...
jmminu 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
god how boring is this serve and volley! thats 19th century tennis! its not cool! id rather watch paint dry than watch a ancient style of tennis called serve and volley! i prefer the rallies of federer and nadal! now that is real tennis! the 21st century tennis!
stealthpakfa 3 years ago
Well, hate to break it to you, but on grass, Pete's "19th century" style of tennis would rape Roger's "21st century" style of tennis.
Samprasisthebest 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LMFAO, yea thats why a 19yr old federer kicked sampras' arse in wimbledon 2001 when sampras was going for his 5th consecutive wimbledon! sampras was a boring old fart with no charisma or no personality, he made tennis very uncool and unpopular worldwide! fedex and rafa are finally making tennis popular and cool again! i do not support boring players, guys like djokovic,gulbis,fed,raffy are reviving tennis! players like sampras should be taken to the woodshed and shot in the head!
stealthpakfa 3 years ago
Pete was passed his prime in that match, i think it wud have been a different story if it was sampras(prime) vs federer(prime), than sampras wud win although a close match. and abt tennis not being popular, the 80s and 90s tennis was most interesting, u had mcenroe,lendl,wilander,becker,edberg,chang,courier, agassi,rafter,ivanesivic, and sampras. nowdayz its only federe and nadal and everyone else sucks.
nizzam1 3 years ago
If Federer was 29 at the time he played Sampras (the age Sampras was in 2001), then Sampras would have won. Why? Federer is slowing down, which makes his forehand much weaker. With that, his level of play drops tremendously. Sampras' serve would still be in top shape, and would give Sampras the win in 4 sets.
Sampras is like Pancho Gonzales, he was so damn good, they had to slow down the game to stop him, and it took them years before he lost, and it was because he got old! That is dominance!
Oreoclan 3 years ago
Are crazy? It can`t be known right now who`d win if 29 year old Sampras and 29 year old Federer were to play... depending on how Federer plays in the 2010 season, then everyone`ll be able to know...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Are you crazy? Sampras might have been passed his prime when he played Federer, but Federer wasn`t even close to his prime either... so, it`s kind of a tie... If vintage Sampras were to face vintage Federer, then the result would have been the same: vintage Federer wins (although in a match that would have been even closer than the real match of 2001 Wimbledon)
mariomarcano 2 years ago
i respectfully disagree i think imo sampras was the best grass court player ever he beat courier, ivansevic, becker, rafter, agassi all @ wimbledon his probably weakest opponent was pioline
nizzam1 2 years ago
I also disagree with you... Sampras`s opponents in Wimbledon finals won a combined 13 titles in grass courts... Federer`s opponents in Wimbledon finals have won a combined 8 titles in grass courts... Federer`s opponents might have less grass court titles than Sampras`s opponents (until now), but the fact is that Nadal could potentially win 5 more grass court titles, and the only Sampras`s opponent that was better than him on grass was Boris Becker...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Also, you have to remember that the 1993 Wimbledon final was a gift for Sampras, given that Courier didn`t have what it takes to win on grass... he wasn`t a good grass court player... he NEVER won a title on grass courts... I don`t even know how Sampras needed 4 sets to beat him on grass, it should have been easier for him to do... Federer never faced an opponent in a Wimbledon final who wasn`t able to succeed on grass... all of his opponents have at least 2 grass court titles...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Right...and the 2003 Wimbledon of Federer v. a 28 year old Philippoussis wasn't a gift? Come on. Federer never faced an opponent who couldn't succeed on grass? He only played 3 different people in all seven of his finals. Philippoussis, Roddick, and Nadal. Sampras played Courier, Ivanisevic, Becker, Pioline, Agassi, and Rafter. Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Rafter all were great players that could have succeeded on grass had Pete not been dominating them.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
Dear Samprasisthe best,
Game over. federer has posted 15 slams and one of the six elite players to win all the gslams.
Sampras is 2nd with 14 slams and never won RG and not even reach the final.
Sampras only holds the 7 wimbledon titlles for now and to be equalled by Federer next year if there's no player who can threaten him on grass.
so who's the best player ? should not arise now....question already answered by federer.
zb9775 2 years ago
No, the 2003 Wimbledon final against Philippoussis wasn`t a gift for Federer, because unlike Courier, Philippoussis had won grass court titles prior to that final (Courier never won a grass court title, prior or after his Wimbledon final)... Becker did have A LOT of success on grass courts, even with Pete in the middle (before Pete arrived, he had alredy won a lot)...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
OK, so the last part of your post about Becker helps augment my argument. True, Philippoussis may have won grass court titles prior to the Wimby final, but how many grand slams had he won? Courier had won 4, which meant he was much more suited for the pressure of Grand Slams than Philippoussis. This is why he took a set off of Pete and made a match,whereas the "match" between Roger and Philippoussis was more of a breathtaking exhibition of Roger's ability to hit passing shots and sweet winners.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
That might be truth... but still it`d be more credible to hear that Philippoussis beated Federer in a Wimbledon final, than to hear that Courier beated Sampras in a Wimbledon final...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Are you dilusional? On grass, Federer is as good as Sampras...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Ha ha!
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
McEnroe, Becker and Wilander have said that Sampras would beat Fed in a five set match at wimbly if they met at their primes. I think they know better than you and Most experts rank Sampras as the best grass court player ever. Fed might be the best all around player ever like Phelps is in swimming but Sampras on grass is King. Never lost a final on grass and he played Becker, Agassi, Courier and Ivanisevic on some those wimbly finals.
juandi2570 2 years ago
He was excellent at other grass court tournaments, but not as untouchable as he was in Wimbledon:
He lost in the 2nd round of the Artois Championships in 1993, and in the quarterfinals of the 1997 edition... although both were really close matches, they came during his prime...
And then, he lost in the 3rd round of the 1998 edition, but this time he was blown out (6-3, 6-2) by doubles specialist Mark Woodforde...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Listen, i know Fed is your GOD but many experts are convived sampras is just the best on grass. Why doesn't fed have to the best at everything? Fed might be the best ever but Sampras is the best on grass. Sampras was born to dominate Wimbledon. Sampras never lost a wimbledon final and in his golden years faced "Boris Becker who's been one of the best grass court players ever, you may argue, Becker was past his primer but he was still a force in the 90's.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Let me tell you this:
1. Federer isn`t my God (he`s just my favorite tennis player), Albert Pujols is.
2. There are also some experts that say that Federer is the best grass court player ever.
3. Federer`s reign at Wimbledon is extremely close to be as great as Sampras`s.
4. Boris Becker was undoubtedly one of the best to have ever played on grass courts, but he was out of his prime during all of his 19 encounters against Sampras, since his prime was from 1985 to 1989.
mariomarcano 2 years ago
so Becker was nothing after 1989 at the age of 21 jajajjajaajajjaj. That's rubbish.............He was still a top five player and pretty competitive in the 90's: 2 aussie open wins, three wimbledon finals, one wimbly quaterfinals, one french open semis and one US open semis in the 90's and he wasn't a factor according to ya?, you are biased. Going by your reasoning, Nadal can't be counted as roger's rival coz Nadal wasn't in his prime during roger's prime(04-07). That's simply stupid.....
juandi2570 2 years ago
I know that Sampras played a twilight Becker at Wimbledon, as well as playing Courier (a man that never won a title on grass courts) and Ivanisevic (the Karlovic of the 1990s)...
It`s worth saying that Federer has a perfect record against Karlovic on grass (2-0), while Sampras DIDN`T have a perfect record against Ivanisevic on grass...
Yes... Sampras did beat vintage Agassi at Wimbledon...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Why do you keep on putting sampra's competition down?: a twilight Becker" ?Becker was a force in the 90's during sampra's career; He won the aussie open twice(91-95), wimbledon's finalist 90,91,95(losing to sampras), semis wimbly: 96, quaters wimbly 97 losing against sampras, semis US open 1995 losing against agassi in a 4 set thriller, 2 atp world champ(93-95). He was still a great player past his prime.
juandi2570 2 years ago
I`m not putting Sampras`s competition down... if so, why couldn`t I ''put Agassi down''?
Agassi was on his cusp when he faced Sampras at Wimbledon, that`s AN UNDENIABLE TRUTH, it`s a fact...
But then, are you going to say that what I said about Becker, Courier and Ivanisevic isn`t truth?
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Agassi had his best year as a professional in 1999 when he was destroyed by sampras in Wimbledon. Don't tell me that Agassi was on his cusp when he faced sampras. Agassi was a major factor in Wimbledon from 1992 when he won the tournament untill 2000 when he lost against rafter in the semis. Agassi was always in semis, quaters,etc in Wimbledon, besides Agassi and sampras were from the same generation. Agassi was at his peak during sampra's reign of terror at wimbledon.
juandi2570 2 years ago
I do tell you again that Agassi was on his cusp when he faced Sampras at Wimbledon... To be ''on the cusp'' means to be at the highest levels that someone is able to reach while doing something...
Can I ask if english is your mother tongue?
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Karlovic 'the ivanisevic" of the 90's, please don't insult Ivanisevic, Ivanisevic is three time wimbledon finalist, a wimbledon champ and US open semifinalist. Karlovic hasn't DONE shit to desserve to be compared to Rafter, Ivanisevic or Krajicek who you convenientely forgot to mention. You also forgot to mention: Michael Stitch who was a wimbledon champ too.
juandi2570 2 years ago
McEnroe, Becker and Wilander know it all, right? Because they have played Federer on grass, haven`t they?
Do you want to know who`s better on grass courts? Then, why don`t you ask someone who have played both Sampras and Federer on grass courts? Like Tim Henman?
Didn`t Sampras himself say that Federer was the greatest ever?
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Sampras said Fed is the best ever but not the best on grass. You are the most biased fed's fan i've ever found on you tube. Sampas faced the great "agassi", Becker, Courier, Rafter and Ivanisevic. Fed faced: Roddick, Hewitt, Mark philippoussis,the great Nadal so sampras played players who won 21 slams combined against fed's rival who won only 9 combined and Courier and Becker, Agassi were ex-number ones so sampras had tougher towin on wimbledon during his career.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Roddick and Nadal were ex-No. 1 players, weren`t they?
I`m not discussing that Sampras had a tougher path to win at Wimbledon than Federer.
That isn`t the point.
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Roddick a one dimensional weak player and NADAL, great player but he wasn't in his prime when Roger beat the first time in 2007. Nadal's prime started in 2008.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Firstly, in 2007 Roger defeated Rafael in the Wimbledon final for the 2nd time.
It should be known that Federer`s level of play declined somewhat in 2007. He had a great season that year, but wasn`t certainly as ''untouchable'' as he was from 2004 to 2006...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
yea roddicks a weak player that's why he's top ten.
retard.
nickster0198 2 years ago 5
nadal's peak started in 2008 but ended as early as mid 2009? Nadal was very much in his prime in 2006-2007, he did play better in 2008 and 2009 but over his limits. Nadal is a totally different patient as far as greatness is concerned.
btw when nadal beat federer in both wimbledon and australian open finals rog wasnt at his best.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
I never forget to mention Rafter... but... did you mention him before?
So, why do I have to mention him?
Do you want to know something?
Rafter was also an ex-No.1 player, so Sampras defeated 4 No.1 players in Wimbledon finals, not 3 like you said...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Thanks for correcting me, you are right, sampras faced and defeated 4 No.1 players in Wimbledon finals.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Ok...
mariomarcano 2 years ago
I trust more the opinion of truely greats like McEnroe, Becker, Wilander than Henman's opinion.
juandi2570 2 years ago
I could listen to McEnroe and Becker`s opinion... but Wilander doesn`t count! Everybody knows that Wilander dislikes Federer and praises Nadal!
mariomarcano 2 years ago
Courier might've never won a title on grass but when he faced sampras in 1993 he was the world's top player, a player who had been in all surfaces slam finals. A player who was the toughest mentally speaking between 91-93 and a 4 time slam winner. Courier had the experience in grand slams to battle it out with sampras in 1993 and the final was really close. You are forgetting Rafter who is much better than Karlovic, a two time us open champ and two time wimbly runner up.
juandi2570 2 years ago