is pete sampras the greatest

First topic message reminder :

rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

I don't see how winning the USO consecutive has anything thing to do with this. Lydian stats i'm sure shows Lendl's great record on hard courts, not specifically the USO.

S-A
wrt Lendl's records, it was a bit of both - tremendous throughout hardcourt tournaments and with an outstanding record and the USO, only slightly let down by the fact that he lost more finals than he won.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sampras is probably one of the best 3 or 4 players in my lifetime (i'm old enough to remember Borg and MacEnroe), but I'd probably put him at #3 as a hard court player (#1 on grass).

Thanks Tenez, at least you now agree it was 2001 after arguing until you were blue in the face that the grass wasnt changed until 2002 on BBC606.

This article by Neil Harman on 17 June 2001, discusses the changes before they were made: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1310082/Centre-court-debut-for-a-new-Wimbledon-seed.html

The article quotes:
It is hoped that the new grass, sown last autumn, will slow the pace of the ball, enabling more and longer rallies to take place. Former and current tennis stars last week applauded the development. Sue Barker, who is now a BBC commentator, said the new grass would be a significant development.
She said: "I think it's excellent. I often felt in my day that the grass did not suit my game when there was such a low and unpredictable bounce. If it really does play like cement and feel like grass, it is the perfect compromise. There will be more rallies, but it will not lose the magic of Wimbledon."

Adrienne Wild, the editor of Your Garden magazine who has studied sports turfs, said she believed that the new grass would slow the game at Wimbledon. She said: "The traditional grass varieties at Wimbledon, especially the red fescue combinations, have a really fine finish but can wear, allowing the ball to zip off worn and patchy surfaces.

"These new rye grasses are shorter, hard-wearing and spongy and I imagine they will slow the ball down and allow the ball to sit up instead of skid."


Yes we know AELTC changed the grass for "durability" reasons but we all know they unofficially changed it to slow it down really. But we also know that the change in grass composition resulted in a change in maintenance of the lawns. The grass is cut higher than before, 8mm height. The pure rye lawns also require less moisture, which makes for a more compact layer of soil at the surface. This soil density allows for much heavier weights to be used (between 500 -1000 pounds) when rolling the courts, in contrast to the more sensitive rye-fescue mix which would not have tolerated such heavy rollers. This makes for a harder, slower and bouncier court.

So you're telling me the new grass and its resulting harder base in 2001 had ZERO effect on the play during the 2001 Champoinships versus previous years? Ok, it was an amittedly wet Wimbledon that year (in the second week) but it must have had an effect on every match. Then further changes to slow the game down took place after 2001 resulting in the much much slower conditions we have today.

But regarding 2001 playing conditions...you're simply living in denial of the facts Tenez.

Simple_Analyst wrote:When the bounce is low his SHB is not even better than Wawrinka or Gasquet's to even start with. And why must the bounce be low? Should every player demand conditions tailor made for their game?

Wrong. He is better cause he takes it earlier than Gasquet and has more variation than Wawrinka.

lydian wrote:Thanks Tenez, at least you now agree it was 2001 after arguing until you were blue in the face that the grass wasnt changed until 2002 on BBC606.

This article by Neil Harman on 17 June 2001, discusses the changes before they were made: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1310082/Centre-court-debut-for-a-new-Wimbledon-seed.html

The article quotes:
It is hoped that the new grass, sown last autumn, will slow the pace of the ball, enabling more and longer rallies to take place. Former and current tennis stars last week applauded the development. Sue Barker, who is now a BBC commentator, said the new grass would be a significant development.
She said: "I think it's excellent. I often felt in my day that the grass did not suit my game when there was such a low and unpredictable bounce. If it really does play like cement and feel like grass, it is the perfect compromise. There will be more rallies, but it will not lose the magic of Wimbledon."

Adrienne Wild, the editor of Your Garden magazine who has studied sports turfs, said she believed that the new grass would slow the game at Wimbledon. She said: "The traditional grass varieties at Wimbledon, especially the red fescue combinations, have a really fine finish but can wear, allowing the ball to zip off worn and patchy surfaces.

"These new rye grasses are shorter, hard-wearing and spongy and I imagine they will slow the ball down and allow the ball to sit up instead of skid."


Yes we know AELTC changed the grass for "durability" reasons but we all know they unofficially changed it to slow it down really. But we also know that the change in grass composition resulted in a change in maintenance of the lawns. The grass is cut higher than before, 8mm height. The pure rye lawns also require less moisture, which makes for a more compact layer of soil at the surface. This soil density allows for much heavier weights to be used (between 500 -1000 pounds) when rolling the courts, in contrast to the more sensitive rye-fescue mix which would not have tolerated such heavy rollers. This makes for a harder, slower and bouncier court.

So you're telling me the new grass and its resulting harder base in 2001 had ZERO effect on the play during the 2001 Champoinships versus previous years? Ok, it was an amittedly wet Wimbledon that year (in the second week) but it must have had an effect on every match. Then further changes to slow the game down took place after 2001 resulting in the much much slower conditions we have today.

But regarding 2001 playing conditions...you're simply living in denial of the facts Tenez.

No you are living in denial cause we all agree 2001 was fast bar you. Even Tom your "agenda" friend doesn't deny it.

You are the only one that denies that the best way to alter the pace of teh court is to actually change the balls. That's what they have done everywhere but you refuse to see it. It's clearly stated on the article I copied as it is stated in all papers that 2002 was the introduction of slower balls. That's how they paced the FO this year!

But hey Lydian...admit it! It pains you that young Federer beat Sampras on his own garden with Sampras' own racquet on a fast grass.
You just have to accept it. No point discussing how reye gras has little horns and arms trying to catch the ball. Absurd!

There will be more rallies, but it will not lose the magic of Wimbledon."

LOL! And they they were right! We all fell asleep watching Rafter and Goran play those endless rallies.

No shame Lydian!

Tenez wrote:

There will be more rallies, but it will not lose the magic of Wimbledon."

LOL! And they they were right! We all fell asleep watching Rafter and Goran play those endless rallies.

No shame Lydian!

Do you actually realise you have a habit of speaking for "everyone" when you voice YOUR OWN opinion

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Tenez wrote:

There will be more rallies, but it will not lose the magic of Wimbledon."

LOL! And they they were right! We all fell asleep watching Rafter and Goran play those endless rallies.

No shame Lydian!

Do you actually realise you have a habit of speaking for "everyone" when you voice YOUR OWN opinion

Do you realise that I say WE in that case cause I can remember one of the most exciting final of all time with the whole crowd getting completely crazy and rallies being very short with S&V?

It's called sarcasm...Have you lost your sense of it since you went to live in Spain?

Tenez wrote:The fact of the matter is that the changes to the ball and the court took place all before Fed's epic grandslam run. So again the biggest beneficiary of the slow courts is Roger Federer.
-------------------------------

Completely wrong again. Faster conds would likely have seen Federer win 7 wimbledon in a row. There is clear evidence that the conds slowed down again from 2003 to now.

After all this discussion we know that Fed was able to beat the best on fast grass...and it;s clear that Federer has the best eye/hand coordination out there and therefore would have benefited from faster courts.

Actually, Tenez the man won all 16 grandslams with slower balls and conditions. Are you claiming that Fed's speed and movement have not been an intregal part of his success? Therefore, when analyzing or comparing players post 2002 and 03, slower conditions mean absolutely nothing in the analysis. Federer's haul of grandslams occurred entirely with slowed down conditions, so did all of nadal's grandslams.

I watched the 2001 match and that was a Sampras clearly past his prime remember that his ranking had already started to tumble at that point, he did manage I believe one more grandslam by the skin of his teeth when he went on an amazing run at the USO. And federer barely won that match, albeit he was two years before his prime as well. Therefore, this single match does little to shed light on who was the best grass court player between the two.

Tenez wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Tenez wrote:

There will be more rallies, but it will not lose the magic of Wimbledon."

LOL! And they they were right! We all fell asleep watching Rafter and Goran play those endless rallies.

No shame Lydian!

Do you actually realise you have a habit of speaking for "everyone" when you voice YOUR OWN opinion

Do you realise that I say WE in that case cause I can remember one of the most exciting final of all time with the whole crowd getting completely crazy and rallies being very short with S&V?

It's called sarcasm...Have you lost your sense of it since you went to live in Spain?

Not exactly sure why you assume that remark has earned you any points Tenez-.. anyone can stoop and pick up nothing..You have to get personal because where I live is of no damned business of yours. I still maintain you make your opinions sound like statements and I do not retract what I said. Keep to tennis in future

[quote="socal1976"]

Tenez wrote: Therefore, this single match does little to shed light on who was the best grass court player between the two.

That's the difference between you and me SOcal. I don;t need stats. I know Federer has a better grass game. I can see it and not many pros will tell you that Sampras was a better player caus ethey all can see it. Fed has the best eye/hand coordination in the world and because of that he has the best returns on grass and has the best grounds shots. Sampras was good but had too many limitations and his game on grass was essentially based on his serve. He was helped by the fact that he made most of his slams at a time luxilon strings were not around so his opponents had to stay close to baseline to return his big serve and hope to bring teh ball in court. Nowadays players woudl have much less trouble returning his serve and would have tested him much more on his volleys. fast grass or not.

Sampras won 14 slams on fast surfaces and none on slower clay. That tells you he would have struggled big time in this era. But that;s normal as he learnt his tennis to be successful on fast surfaces.

I watched sampras as well, and i found that he was a better volley than Roger and a better server. His groundstrokes were not as deficient as many claim, I would rate Roger as having a slightly, slightly better forehand than pete. But Pete in his prime was great mover and baseline player as well. It isn't just based on statistics, on a grass court superior serving and volleys provide the player a bigger advantage than a ground stroke advantage. However, it is close, very close. Roger and Pete are the two best, and if Roger at slightly passed his prime with the tough competition he currently faces can rise to the summit one more time i to would give him the nod.

However, it is close, very close. Roger and Pete are the two best, and if Roger at slightly passed his prime with the tough competition he currently faces can rise to the summit one more time i to would give him the nod. .

How kind of you!

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:Thanks Tenez, at least you now agree it was 2001 after arguing until you were blue in the face that the grass wasnt changed until 2002 on BBC606.

This article by Neil Harman on 17 June 2001, discusses the changes before they were made: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1310082/Centre-court-debut-for-a-new-Wimbledon-seed.html

The article quotes:
It is hoped that the new grass, sown last autumn, will slow the pace of the ball, enabling more and longer rallies to take place. Former and current tennis stars last week applauded the development. Sue Barker, who is now a BBC commentator, said the new grass would be a significant development.
She said: "I think it's excellent. I often felt in my day that the grass did not suit my game when there was such a low and unpredictable bounce. If it really does play like cement and feel like grass, it is the perfect compromise. There will be more rallies, but it will not lose the magic of Wimbledon."

Adrienne Wild, the editor of Your Garden magazine who has studied sports turfs, said she believed that the new grass would slow the game at Wimbledon. She said: "The traditional grass varieties at Wimbledon, especially the red fescue combinations, have a really fine finish but can wear, allowing the ball to zip off worn and patchy surfaces.

"These new rye grasses are shorter, hard-wearing and spongy and I imagine they will slow the ball down and allow the ball to sit up instead of skid."


Yes we know AELTC changed the grass for "durability" reasons but we all know they unofficially changed it to slow it down really. But we also know that the change in grass composition resulted in a change in maintenance of the lawns. The grass is cut higher than before, 8mm height. The pure rye lawns also require less moisture, which makes for a more compact layer of soil at the surface. This soil density allows for much heavier weights to be used (between 500 -1000 pounds) when rolling the courts, in contrast to the more sensitive rye-fescue mix which would not have tolerated such heavy rollers. This makes for a harder, slower and bouncier court.

So you're telling me the new grass and its resulting harder base in 2001 had ZERO effect on the play during the 2001 Champoinships versus previous years? Ok, it was an amittedly wet Wimbledon that year (in the second week) but it must have had an effect on every match. Then further changes to slow the game down took place after 2001 resulting in the much much slower conditions we have today.

But regarding 2001 playing conditions...you're simply living in denial of the facts Tenez.

No you are living in denial cause we all agree 2001 was fast bar you. Even Tom your "agenda" friend doesn't deny it.

You are the only one that denies that the best way to alter the pace of teh court is to actually change the balls. That's what they have done everywhere but you refuse to see it. It's clearly stated on the article I copied as it is stated in all papers that 2002 was the introduction of slower balls. That's how they paced the FO this year!

But hey Lydian...admit it! It pains you that young Federer beat Sampras on his own garden with Sampras' own racquet on a fast grass.
You just have to accept it. No point discussing how reye gras has little horns and arms trying to catch the ball. Absurd!

Oh dear me tenez, you are being very silly here. Let me just put things straight.

I believe that it has been sufficiently shown that the speed at wimbledon was being progressively slowed down from 1995-2000 mainly via use of low pressure heavy balls. I posted three comments from players earlier to show this. Then in 2001 we have the next incremental slow down due to the grass and the fact the sub soil could be drier, as per lydians and my articles and anecdotally backed up by the Bjorkman comments in Jan.2001. Then in 2002 another step was taken with the balls and i believe around this time the subsoil was actually changed making it even more slow/bouncey. small changes since then appear to have slowed conditions even more.

So in 2001 all the evidence indicates that the courts had already been slowed to a large degree, which of course will not have benefited Sampras' chances at wimbledon. So no, the grass in 2001 was not as fast as the grass game in the 90s when Sampras won most of his titles, and yes, Federer did only start becoming a grass force after the courts were slowed significantly. Sampras played well that match and yes, he was a step slower, yes he was fighting injuries, but that is simply what happens to all tennis players as they rack up court mileage. Right now Federer is not as fast as he was and that hurt his game slightly, thats the way it goes. For the last few years we have witnessed a prolonged period at the top of the mens game where we have been treated to so many great matches by 2-4 players, personally ive enjoyed it loads.

Its highly childish that you rant around in your posts, talking down to people and trying to talk for everyone. I feel sorry for you in a way, because no matter who i'm watching i get enjoyment out of watching the game. By marvelling at only one player and being unable to accept another players obvious ability (E.g Nadal on clay), you must limit your own enjoyment and understanding of the great game of tennis. Rabid Football fans who are so emotionally attached to one team who riot and become unstable when they lose are unable to enjoy that game also, its to their own detriment.

DO you expect me to read your post tom? You and Lydian have been denying the obvious for the last 100s posts. Denying what pros and Wimbledon says...

Just watch Wimbledon and enjoy.

Tenez wrote:DO you expect me to read your post tom? You and Lydian have been denying the obvious for the last 100s posts. Denying what pros and Wimbledon says...

Just watch Wimbledon and enjoy.

Not really, but you clearly have done :-)

Tenez wrote:DO you expect me to read your post tom? You and Lydian have been denying the obvious for the last 100s posts. Denying what pros and Wimbledon says..

This is a forum, we share views. From what you have said there why should we debate with you, indeed should anyone on this forum debate with you when you ignore rationally put debating points to anything that doesnt sit well with you? That post above tells people what type of one-sided poster you are.

I cant and wont speak for Tom, but I'm pretty sure he doesnt have an agenda, nor do I. We have given plenty of facts, references, commentary and reasons why the courts would have been slower in 2001. Whether Sampras lost to Federer or Robert Dee is irrelevant here - and I personally I attribute no value to that win, not because its Sampras, but because its one match between 2 guys who had 10 years age gap between them. Only you want to paint that as a great catharsis that annointed Federer as GOAT and best ever on grass.

We're talking about changes that affected game play in 2001 and also before. You deny they had any difference, you only want to point to the balls changing in 2002. We have even discussed how they were slowing the courts/play down before 2001. Yet you refuse to budge (as usual) to any changes pre-2002 in the face of clear evidence. Tom and I both agree the balls changing in 2002 were another factor in the concerted regime by the AELTC to slow the game down over the years - see, we agree and conceded that point, as sometimes people do in debates. But you seem to know better as usual on the other points and not budge an inch in the face of so much information because it doesnt suit your argument - you only proffer that the balls changed in 2002 so as to make the victory of Federer over Sampras in 2001 definitive. That's transparent.

Here's a deal Tenez, how about you keep talking balls and we'll keep talking surface and other game play changes

lendl has the record final appearances in the us open, had lendl won a wimbledon then he would certainly be included in the GOAT list , imo sampras is the GOAT as regards grass court tennis , taking into account his wins at queens as well.

agassi would have to be included in the GOAT list as well, the first player in a long time to have won all four slams after he won the FO in 1999.

Nore Staat wrote:

pauline1981 wrote:rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

Considering that Pete Sampras is on record as saying Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player who has ever played the game, your assertion that Pete Sampras is the greatest player ever is negated. Either Pete Sampras is right or he is wrong and is a poor judge of tennis - which is it?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/06/08/federer.great.tennis.sampras/index.html

roger was standing by him when he said that. sampras kows deep down he his the greatest of all time

pauline, do you know Pete personally to confirm that he has been quoted saying that deep down her knows he is the GOAT?

he might think rog is best.i dont fnow why history will judge both.

Considering Roger has 16 Grand Slam titles and Pete has 14 and that Roger has completed the 'Career' Grand Slam, do you not think that Roger is considered the better tennis player on those facts alone?

I agree daraghj82, Sampras in my mind due to his overwhelming serve which was based more on precision and consistency than on power would beat anyone in his prime on grass more often than not. And his legacy of 7 wimbeldons proves this point. Definetly the grass court goat as you state. Roger I think if he proves he can win wimby again at this age and with this level of competition maybe deserves co-billing.

legendkillar wrote:Considering Roger has 16 Grand Slam titles and Pete has 14 and that Roger has completed the 'Career' Grand Slam, do you not think that Roger is considered the better tennis player on those facts alone?

you win legend roger is best

Puuuuuuuuuuuhleeeeeeease,

The Sampras vs Fed debate ended when Fed won thefrench open.

Fed's resume is stronger in pretty much every significant criteria:

He has more;

Slams, slam finals, career titles, career slam, much stronger slow court resume, at least as good on fast courts, more versatile all-round game, better shotmaker and on and on.

The main thing is that Federer managed to win on grass extremely consistently, doing a 5 in a row which Sampras could not despite being faced with much stronger returners equipped with much better technology and fitness to return serves.

Sampras already struggled on grass versus guys like young Hewitt. It doesn;t take much imagination to see his serve being returned much more often and more violently with spin he never faced making his volleys much more easier than they would be now.

But obviously some choose not to take this into account.

Go and check there how laborious were some of his wins on grass versus unknown players.

http://www.petesampras.com/sampras2.html

Federer was much more dominant on his 8 previous Wimbledon bar the time he was injured last year.

It's not close actually when it comes to domination on grass.
Federer:
1 - Unbeaten for 6 years minus one day.
2 - Top Number of consiecutive wins on grass
3 - Much easier runs through finals despite better returners
4 - The only times he lost on grass since 2003 were 2008 (mono) and last year groin injury)..otherwise his record of invincibilty could still be going on.
5 - Never beaten fair an square while on form like Sampras was v Krajicek and Goran.

Compared with Sampras:
1 - Stopped by a young Federer to get his 5 in a row.
2 - Lucky to have survived his semi v Phillippousis after this one injured himself
3 - Never had to face great returners equipped with luxilon strings. Sure Agassi was spectacular returner but did not have the consistency of todays players who can blast a return in your feet and chase any volley.
4 - Sampras woudl have been no exception and woudl not have been a successful SVer so he woudl have had to win a bit more from the back and seeing how he struggled v Braasch, Costa, Kucera
5 beaten fair and square by Goran and more importantly Krajicek while at his very peak.


-

Emancipator, the thread progressed we have recently been discussing who is better on grass. And in my mind Pete is still the all time Grass goat and Fed's french open isn't really relevant to the debate. In fact, my point is similar to your point as I think Sampras is as good if not a little bit better on a fast court, but on slow hardcourt or clay court Fed is much better than sampras.

Socal, I wholeheartedly agree Sampras is the best grass player of open era.
Strings is a relative thing.
Sampras would have adapted and had more lethal returns and groundstrokes himself.
He still has the best overall serve and running forehand in history - both being key shots on grass.
He also had better volleys than Federer - after all, Federer said he only volleyed when he panicked.

Love the trotting out of the mono, groin and now the invisible injury of 2010.
It's amazing Federer has been able to play at all the past 3 years.
Remind me, who is the one with the agenda again - I'm starting to think you're a member of Federer's PR team

I have to say in terms of 'grass' Sampras is the greatest of the open era. Regardless of Federer winning 5 in a row, Sampras won 4 in a row and 3 in a row. Shows dominance. Not taking the gloss off of Federer's achievement.

In terms of all round and all surface play, Federer is the greatest of all time. 5 Wimbledon and 5 US Open titles consecutively. 6 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens and 1 French Open. I think if Federer could add another French Open and win Olympic Gold (Even though he has a doubles Gold) He will be the GOAT.

Sampras coudl not have had better volleys than Federer. Federer has the best eye/hand coordination and that is what volleying is all about.

Volleying a ball coming from natural gut as opposed to the ones coming from players standing back 1 meter further with luxilon cannot be compared.

You know that but you choose to overlook it. Sampras was not the only player who could win slams SVing in the 90s yet noone does it now and Sampras would have been no exception.

Sampras lost to Chang on carpet! Do I need to say more!

legendkillar wrote:I have to say in terms of 'grass' Sampras is the greatest of the open era. Regardless of Federer winning 5 in a row, Sampras won 4 in a row and 3 in a row. Shows dominance. Not taking the gloss off of Federer's achievement.

Completely disagree with that for the reason explained. Federer has never been beaten on grass in 8 years bar 3 times when he was not 100%. You cannot say that Sampras was more consistent when he got beat more often and sometimes fair and square being also lucky to escape another defeat by Phillippousis.

The only thing in favour of Sampras in 7 Wimbledons instead of 6 but that's not enough for me.

Come on tenez,

You should know that Nadal is the only one allowed to be injured after a loss.

And if he's not injured, then it's because his parents were splitting, or because he had a fever, or because he hasn't had enough time to prepare or because he's had too much time off (as in prior to the WTF last year), or because he's mentally fatigued, or because he's been playing too much golf recently or because he's playing too many exhos, or simply because he deliberately lost.

So you see Tenez, only Rafa is allowed any kind of excuse.... and boy does he have a bag full of them



emancipator - exposing the myths

That's their respective grass record.

Pete Sampras 93-15 86.1%
Roger Federer 96-14 87.3%

Federer wins 3 more with one less loss.

Even if Federer were to lose today, he would still get a better record than Pete!!!!!
And Pete was more consistent?????

And imagine if Federer hadn;t had a groin injury last year while playing Hewitt. Won the first set and was on cruise control and you can clearly see him struggle with mouvement in that second set. He may have had had 2 less losses and an extra Halle and Wimbledon.

It's actually not that close between Pete and Federer.

Emancipator, I'm not sure how Nadal's injuries have anything to do with this thread? Can you not try and take a good debate down the road of Nadal bashing please?

"is pete sampras the greatest" - pauline1981

-------------------------------------------

Not until he wins an RG title.

Tenez how do you figure Roger was never beaten fair and square on grass. The match after he beat Sampras he lost to henman. And enough with the mono thing in 2008 he played for 6 hours and didn't look tired to me going 10-8 or 9-7 at the end of the fifth set. In my mind there were more natural grass court players and big servers in Pete's day. Pete has 7 wimbeldons and you can call that a meaningless statstic if you like but it is what it is. Plus if you look at players like Rafter, Goran, Phillipoussis, and Krajicek, not to mention the becker's and edberg's earlier in Sampras' run. Pete had to face tougher grass court competition. While in today's game most of the players are more naturally suited to hardcourt or clay.

Didn't Roger go out in the first round to Ancic in 2002?

I am sorry, but as much as you want Roger to be considered to greatest player on grass amongst everyone on this forum, you need to not put Federer's exits down to 'Not being fit'

Like I said, Pete never lost a final. That is champion form!

I am talking about his dominating years. I am not talking about Pete's first grass court tournament. Not when Fed was a schoolboy and simply overwhelmed by his beating Sampras. He was 19!

His usinque loss is to Nadal when we know he was not 100% as he lost to many players that year he never lost to...after and before Wimbledon. PLus he lost a very narrow match 97 in the 5th...in complete darkness. I don;t call that fair and square...especially knowing that the match ended up so late cause Nadal takes more time than the time allowed between points...which is not very fair.

So there is a case for saying that Federer was not beaten while at normal top form in normal conds. Compare that to Sampras losing in 3 or 4 sets v Kraji or Goran and close shave by Phillipousis and you can't honestly say that Sampras was better nor more dominant!..unless of course you simply prefer Pete.

legendkillar wrote:
Like I said, Pete never lost a final. That is champion form!

That is not a good argument. How losing twice in 1/4 Finals is better than losing in a very close final?

Gaudio and Johanson never lost in a slam final either!

How is not a good arguement? 7 out of 7 is a bit special. When people make reference to Lendl, they talk about his consecutive finals appearances at the US Open. I never hear that dis-credited.

We are talking about Grass. I am not doing Roger a dis-service at all. He lost to Berdych in the Quarters last year. Time will tell how great Roger will be. It is easier to judge Sampras because his career is finished.

People's opinions will differ, no matter how much you try to disect it.

legendkillar wrote:.

People's opinions will differ, no matter how much you try to disect it.

Even more so that opinions may carry emotional content. I was behind Sampras during his best years but to me it's simply obvious who is the better grass courter.

It's not even close when looking at stats and style.

Blimey the Fed-PR machine is in full spin now.
9-7 in the 5th was the same for both players.
Nadal would likely have beaten him in straights had it not been for the rain anyway. But this isnt about Nadal.
Grass court opposition was tougher in the 90s, you had more specialists, bigger servers and better volleyers.
Federer lost against Henman in 2001, who routinely lost to Sampras when both were prime.
In 2002 he lost to Ancic in straights in the first round, another good fast court player.
After that then the old style fast court players faded away towards the ends of their careers, and the courts continued to slow down suiting Federer's clay-based game ideally.
This leaves me in no doubt that when grass was proper fast-court grass, Sampras was the best of the Open Era, Federer is probably the best of the "slow-grass" era although Nadal has his measure I suspect as he's been getting to every final since 2006 as a 19 yr old...

After that then the old style fast court players faded away towards the ends of their careers, and the courts continued to slow down suiting Federer's clay-based game ideally.
-------------------------------

Sure. I wonder why Fed did not win 8 FOs as the slow surface suited him more.


2001 was the fastest surface Fed played on as a mature player and that when he stopped the "best" player on fast to go for 5 in a row...at the age of 19! So how on earth slower surfaces helped him. The slowest conds recorded were 2002 and there he loses early!

That's why I don't read all your posts.

Tenez wrote:Sampras coudl not have had better volleys than Federer. Federer has the best eye/hand coordination and that is what volleying is all about.

Volleying a ball coming from natural gut as opposed to the ones coming from players standing back 1 meter further with luxilon cannot be compared.

You know that but you choose to overlook it. Sampras was not the only player who could win slams SVing in the 90s yet noone does it now and Sampras would have been no exception.

Sampras lost to Chang on carpet! Do I need to say more!

Tenez is fast becoming a comic relief. Anyone who argues whether Federer has volleying abilities even close to Sampras needs to be pitied . Until Annacone came to some how improve Federer's volleying, there was little to see in it. He has improved a bit but i'm sorry Federer was an above average volleyer something the likes of McEnroe pointed out many times.

Back to the grass argument itself, Sampras is the greatest player on grass in the modern era and i don't know how any one can dispute that if they ever saw what he did on grass with the depth of the field at that time. Didn't exactly take Nadal too long to figure out Federer on grass to be honest.

Funny Tenez you telling us how Sampras lost to Michael Chang on carpet. I got news for you, Federer lost to Michael Chang on grass.

Tenez wrote:After that then the old style fast court players faded away towards the ends of their careers, and the courts continued to slow down suiting Federer's clay-based game ideally.
-------------------------------

Sure. I wonder why Fed did not win 8 FOs as the slow surface suited him more.


2001 was the fastest surface Fed played on as a mature player and that when he stopped the "best" player on fast to go for 5 in a row...at the age of 19! So how on earth slower surfaces helped him. The slowest conds recorded were 2002 and there he loses early!

That's why I don't read all your posts.

Isn't it obvious why Federer did not win 8 FO's? He is not good enough. Remember before Nadal came even after he won his 1st Wimbledon, he was losing to Kuerten , a clay court great and Luis Horna before Nadal came to the scene to embark the FO dominance. Can't be Nadal's fault that he missed the 2 wins after his 1st slame before Nadal came.

The comics are those who think that slow grass benefited Federer when the only guy who beat Federer on grass in 7 years was the king of clay playing a loopy clay game on grass.

Some are completely biased to the point of no repair.

Don't go away Lydian....tell me with a straight face which player of Federer's generation woudl have benefited more than him of faster grass?

C'mom knowledgeable poster. I want names!

Mardy Fish? Stepanek? Querrey? maybe? OHHH of course....Nadal...teh real king of grass...you know the faster the grass teh better for him...right?

C'mon...we are listening!

Tenez wrote:The comics are those who think that slow grass benefited Federer when the only guy who beat Federer on grass in 7 years was the king of clay playing a loopy clay game on grass.

Some are completely biased to the point of no repair.

Well if thats not an attempt at Wumming I dont know what is.....

But let us even be honest here. Is not like Federer was beating any decent grass court great players before Nadal came to learn the art on grass. From 2003-2005 before Nadal made the finals, the only decent gras court player he played was Roddick and if decent is used loosely, Hewitt.

2003

Hyung-Taik Lee
Stefan Koubek
Mardy Fish
Feliciano López
Sjeng Schalken
Andy Roddick
Mark Philippoussis

2004

Alex Bogdanovic
Alejandro Falla
Thomas Johansson
Ivo Karlović
Lleyton Hewitt
Sébastien Grosjean
Andy Roddick

2005
Paul-Henri Mathieu
Ivo Minář
Nicolas Kiefer
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Fernando González
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick


No one is taking anything away from Federer as he had to play who was put before him but hardly any dominance over great grass court players. It was obvious soon after Nadal made the first final he wouldn't take long to beat Federer and that became the case. Federer is a great grass court player no argument but the greatest no!

Slow grass benefitted Federer too but that is the surface he was giving and he made good use of it and won many Wimbledon titles on it.

But like I said Tenez, Federer's career is far from over and opinions do change

They both have very differing playing styles and Federer beating Sampras in 2001 was one tennis's most poignant moments. I just think that Sampras during his pomp, looked unbeatable on Grass.