Sampras vs Federer Wimbledon 2001
Top Comments
All Comments (640)
-
@m3v0t i cant either...
-
@ljubaa93 that's right, i mentioned murray becoz currently he's number 4 of the 'top 4'of male tennis, but so far he didn't win any slam yet... that will come eventually.. true, also rafa and novak both are younger and still have a lot of chances to win more slams however i don't think any of them are gonna beat rogers record of 16.. fact is that there is a real 'top' in the male tennis, while when u see the females, it's like anyone in top50 let's say, can win.. but it's a great sport to watch
-
@OfficialWarns yeah thats true but murray aint their level.i mean he didnt win a slam yet.fed won 16 rafa 10 and novak 5....but rafa and novak are younger.i think rafa will end his career with 13 maybe 14 slams and novak will get around 10.i mean thats alot.that makes them all together legends of the sport
-
@qweertasd his shots are faster than nadals...
-
federer is the greatest even sampras himself said that sampras is d 2nd bst without a doubt they both r legends but fedex will be always our hero for fedex fans he is d bst no matter what and we love him for what he has given to us love u roger.....
-
@tyoungos Federer didn't develop his strokes under the tutelage of Paul Annacone - Annacone didn't get hired til 2010. In fact, since Annacone began coaching him he hasn't won a major.
-
Fed requires a lot of muscle power as well. his shots arent slow! they just arent nadal speed.
-
Is it just me or do tennis players kind of crummy at their 19-20's but once they hit their 21's they become really good until their 30th birrthday.
-
i cannot watch this, it hurts too hard when i see that sampras lose this
i guess federer before everything was only about tennis for him, but now his kids are more important to him than winning a grand slam. and still i think, he's a great champion, and murray, nadal, djoko are now more or less equal, but they still have a lot to prove and to win, before they can say they are as big as federer
OfficialWarns 1 month ago 5
@LeebeKing well you said it yourself. Murray only losses to top 3 guys, so it's logical that if those guys weren't there Murray would have won.
Age is no excuse, for Federer especially. Age is a factor for Nadal but not Fed. He plays without relying on phisical strenght, Nadal does, he can play on top level for at least 4 years (top level=reach at least SF at GS). If he was in his 30's he would still win GS if there were no Nadal and Novak.
thrillseeking 3 weeks ago 3