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.

Socal... Ill pass on that one cos to be absolutely frank when he came on court I turned off the tv... I hardly ever watched him.... I dont know about being the GOAT... but most certain he used to get mine
Seen one of his matches you have seen the lot.

Sampras certainly the best Grass court player. Don't think he lost a final at Wimbledon?

socal1976 wrote:I just love Fed fans and their ability to have their cake and eat it to. The courts are slow, yeah Roger won 16 grandslams on slow conditions. Well now that he isn't as fast the conditions need to be sped up. Roger was completely thrown off his game by Nadal taking one minute to tape his ankle resulting in Roger completely losing his timing, but a 4 day layoff for Djokovic didn't cause him to lose his timing and in fact helped Novak. One win against an ageing pete sampras proves Roger is better than Pete, but 17 wins by Rafa over Roger proves nothing.

I am not a fan who lives very far away from Wimbledon and only got interested in Tennis yesterday with slow internet access that can't see old clips of the game but yet is full of opinions on everthing about tennis without tangible proof.

I have been living less than a mile from centre court for 11 years and have been going there every year for the last 15 years and my tennis club has grass courts supervised and managed by the AE and I am the one, with someone else, in contact with them to manage those grass courts. I have all the information I need about the grass, its length, and the loam composition used in Wimbledon.

I can tell you that the 2001 courts were fast and that no player found them slow cause they were not despite adopting the 100% reye grass that year. If anything it allowed the grass to hold better in that second week and therefore kept the pace of the grass further in the tournament as the finalists in 2001 testifies.

The introduction in 2002 of bigger balls certainly slowed the conds as the finalists of 2002 can testify. What happened from 2003 to today, in a that an increase in clay percentage in the loam composition has contributed to a serious hardening of the soil preventing too many bad bounces, and of course making the ball bounce higher. In 2002 they used type 3 balls but realised the change was too drastic and reverted in type 2 balls in 2003. However the type 2 ball used are at the limit of the type 2 range and as soons as they fluff, after a few rallies, go over that "type 2 limit" in size making them dead slower compared to 2001.

It is of course the harder surface, balls and added topspin that played so dramatically in Nadal's favour. especially when it's dry as the soil litereally becomes as hard as a pottery mug.

legendkillar wrote:Sampras certainly the best Grass court player. Don't think he lost a final at Wimbledon?

So it's better to lose in the first round than final?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Sampras certainly the best Grass court player. Don't think he lost a final at Wimbledon?

So it's better to lose in the first round than final?

I think 7 titles and no defeats in a final is certainly an achievement in itself.

I know he lacks the consistency of a Federer or Nadal.

But who in the modern game could go out in the first round of a slam and then go and win the next slam event?

Tenez, I am not a fan of tennis who got interested yesterday if that is what you are hinting at I have been playing the sport since I was 6 years old and watching it for about that long. I am sorry I don't have the privelege of the internet speed you have at my current locale, but in 3 weeks time I will be back in sunny southern california and you can send me whatever clips you like And I will watch them at lightining fast speed.

As your post indicates Roger won pretty much all of his slams at wimbeldon after the slow balls and slower courts. Therefore my thesis stands despite your condescending tone and your self proclaimed knowledge. The greatest beneficiary of the slow courts is Roger federer, who used his amazing speed to win 16 grandslams. Now that Roger has lost a step should we speed up the courts and rig some results for him.

Well said socal

Tenez wrote:That's another point of your agenda trying to diminish Federer's achievement right and left!

Lol, you're funny tenez, you really are. Agenda? Dont talk rubbish and get off your perennial soap-box.
Whatever you say the courts were slowed down in 2001. Its just fact. Greg Rusedski for one talked about it.

Besides which Sampras had other issues in 2001...he was carrying long term injuries, he was a step slower and his motivation was nowhere near what it once was. He had broken the slam record and achieved what he set out to do. After all post-2000, he hardly got to any finals. He just couldnt lift his motivation to compete anymore so he became very inconsistent. Its clear he wasnt the same competitor and was able to raise himself for one last curtain call at USO 2002.
And lets not forget in 2001 that Federer lost in 4-sets to Henman in the next round, so the win over Sampras said much more about Pete's form than Roger's.
We can debate the ins and outs of 2001, its just one match and as others have said its funny how the 17-8 H2H with Nadal is discounted but this match means everything. However, I'm confident that in the mid-90s on fast grass Sampras was pretty much untouchable - the 99 final against Agassi is an amazing level of tennis never surpassed to this day. I also agree with Socal that Federer's slams have come on different surfaces to those won by Sampras and anyone pre-2001 - much slower, which is obvious. All surfaces are more homogenised in speed now, the guys dont have to vary their games much and can ralley from the baseline across all slams - you couldnt do that in the 90s which made it so much tougher to win all slams pre-2001. Back then you had true surface specialists who were tough to beat, e.g. Sampras on fast grass and faster USO, Agassi on slower hardcourt was tough to beat, then guys like Kuerten who were true demons on clay.
Remember Federer playing an aging and injured Kuerten at the French in 2004? ...
Remember him playing Henman on fast courts? ...
I would have to say he was a great beneficiary of the homogenisation.
You can call that an agenda, I just call it facts of how the surfaces have changed across all slams, benefitting Federer's type of attacking baseline game perfectly - and he didnt have to change his tactics from one slam to another. And then Nadal arrived...and he found he couldnt.

They were progressively slowing the wimbledon balls throughout the mid-late 90s by means of weight and pressure:

E.g 1995
"The new balls are the slightly depressurized, slightly heavier Slazengers, which provided only marginally longer rallies among the big players on the first day than last year.

Forget, one of the fastest servers, had only five aces but was quite happy with the new balls.

''You have to sometimes play one more shot, which is probably what the tournament wanted,'' Forget said. ''Have more rallies and less free points on the serve. I think the balls are really nice, and I wish all the other tournaments in the world could . . . have those new balls with less pressure.'"

From an article dated 1996:
"Gustafsson said that he did feel the odd twinge during Saturday's five-set win against the No 11 seed, Wayne Ferreira, "because the balls were so heavy". As was the case last year, slightly depressurised balls are being used at the championships in an attempt to curb the power in the men's game"

Obviously things flipped round more after the soil change the next decade, but many people will remember the gradual effect from the changing of the balls well prior to 2001.

Even so comparing that one match 11 years after Sampras won his first major will be like comparing a Federer performance to some new guy in 2014. Its virtually baseless and given the points Lydian mentioned you could be surprised Federer was pushed to 5 sets. The fact that Henman with a SV game style took Federer out the next round suggests Sampras had an off day, simple as that.

two men, two generations.

Great posts by Lydian and Tom, and thanks for the support Haddie. To me its just funny how some extreme federer fans talk about how the slow courts have hurt Fed's game. On a quick indoor court in asia a nearly 40 year old Sampras beat Roger in an exhibition at the peak of Fed's powers. Fed is not a serve and volleyer, he is a power baseliner finishing the vast majority of points from the back of the court. In fact, many of his fans have mentioned how Fed needs to come in more and how he shouldn't stay back. Roger federer is the quintessential modern champion, a player who uses his speed, defense, and a big forehand to win most of the matches he wins. So ladies and gentleman the biggest beneficiary of the slower courts and balls, Roger Federer the man that won 16 grandslams on with his great speed. Now all of sudden when his footwork isn't as good as Nadal, mUrray, or Djoko; well now the courts and balls are too slow and we need to speed them up.

I have just watched the Federer v Sampras 4th round match on ESPN from Wimbledon. Pete's first serve was around 127mph whilst his second serve speed was around 112mph. Roger's first serve speed was around 124mph and his second serve speed was around 108mph. This to me shows that the courts will still playing fast round 2001.

Interestingly seeing Roger come to the net so frequently, shows how good he is to be able to adjust his game post 2002 to a more baseline court game.

The point I made about Pete's unbeaten final record at Wimbledon was that 7 out of 7 is amazing. Not only relfects his tennis talent, but his mental talent too.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Sampras certainly the best Grass court player. Don't think he lost a final at Wimbledon?

So it's better to lose in the first round than final?

I think 7 titles and no defeats in a final is certainly an achievement in itself.

I know he lacks the consistency of a Federer or Nadal.

But who in the modern game could go out in the first round of a slam and then go and win the next slam event?

But he lost in the semi v Krajicek, Lose to Goran in the 1/4 final one year and lost a few times at Queens.

Federer went undefeated on grass for a day short of 6 years in a row! That's an amazing achievement. If Fed wins a 7th Wimbledon, he will surely overcome Pete.

Pete was a tougher customer mentally than a lot of people gave him credit for. He was a southern california kid like myself, he grew up playing tennis about 40 minutes from where I grew up. Frankly if you put pete on a quick court in his prime I would take him over anyone that has ever played the game. Not only did he have a big first serve, he had a great second serve, and he served with tremendous accuracy and precision.

Tenez, if roger equals pete i think he has a good chance of surpassing him as greatest grass courter of all time. But I think Pete's serve was a little more overwhelming than Fed's, especially his second serve which is probably the greatest of all time.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's another point of your agenda trying to diminish Federer's achievement right and left!

Whatever you say the courts were slowed down in 2001. Its just fact. Greg Rusedski for one talked about it.

Wrong like you were wrong about the 85inch racquet. Find the link where he says so. Find the link were one player says the 2001 courts were slow.

socal1976 wrote:Tenez, if roger equals pete i think he has a good chance of surpassing him as greatest grass courter of all time. But I think Pete's serve was a little more overwhelming than Fed's, especially his second serve which is probably the greatest of all time.

Don't you think that has a lot to do with the quality of returners today? Hewitt and Federer showed how good they were already at returning Sampras serve. Young Federer ended with as many aces as Sampras when those 2 met.

And the serve is one of the shot which is least affected by age....so no excuse for Sampras there.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Sampras certainly the best Grass court player. Don't think he lost a final at Wimbledon?

So it's better to lose in the first round than final?

I think 7 titles and no defeats in a final is certainly an achievement in itself.

I know he lacks the consistency of a Federer or Nadal.

But who in the modern game could go out in the first round of a slam and then go and win the next slam event?

But he lost in the semi v Krajicek, Lose to Goran in the 1/4 final one year and lost a few times at Queens.

Federer went undefeated on grass for a day short of 6 years in a row! That's an amazing achievement. If Fed wins a 7th Wimbledon, he will surely overcome Pete.

If Fed won this year he would have 7 wimbledons in nine years with a QF and a final defeat
Sampras lost to krajicek in the QF (btw) and won 7 wimbledons in 8 years - its a better achievement in my book. Even more so as personally i saw the 90s as being dominated by a whole series of serve volleyers, who were all very suited to the wimbledon grass, yet on only one occasion during those 8 years did a guy manage to raise his game so much as to beat Sampras.

Queens has always drawn higher quality players than Halle.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's another point of your agenda trying to diminish Federer's achievement right and left!

Whatever you say the courts were slowed down in 2001. Its just fact. Greg Rusedski for one talked about it.

Wrong like you were wrong about the 85inch racquet. Find the link where he says so. Find the link were one player says the 2001 courts were slow.

well i found two above discussing the slowing of balls prior to 2001 - took all of 2 mins

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Tenez, if roger equals pete i think he has a good chance of surpassing him as greatest grass courter of all time. But I think Pete's serve was a little more overwhelming than Fed's, especially his second serve which is probably the greatest of all time.

Don't you think that has a lot to do with the quality of returners today? Hewitt and Federer showed how good they were already at returning Sampras serve. Young Federer ended with as many aces as Sampras when those 2 met.

And the serve is one of the shot which is least affected by age....so no excuse for Sampras there.

Yes thats true, i can't remember any good returners in Sampras' generation

Tom_____ wrote:If Fed won this year he would have 7 wimbledons in nine years with a QF and a final defeat
Sampras lost to krajicek in the QF (btw) and won 7 wimbledons in 8 years - its a better achievement in my book. Even more so as personally i saw the 90s as being dominated by a whole series of serve volleyers, who were all very suited to the wimbledon grass, yet on only one occasion during those 8 years did a guy manage to raise his game so much as to beat Sampras.

Queens has always drawn higher quality players than Halle.

Of course because you also have an agenda like Lydian. It's so obvious that Federer is a better player than Pete on grass (slow or fast) and better on HC than you will find any irrelevant stats to prove otherwise.

At 19 Federer was far from reaching his peak, yet he had better shots, nearly as good a serve and much better returns. But hey...if you don;t want to see it, fine!

The problem is when you read the biography of greats like Sampras, they sometimes point it out at times they lack motivation to achieve much. I don't think there was any intense GOAT discussions and pressure as there is today. Pete for example performed seasonally and leisurely at times, even missing a couple of AO. One reason he was inconsistent in patches. Players like Nadal and Federer today play with a more serious purpose. The point Tenez is making about Sampras losing at Queens is weak. For 8 years at Wimbledon he lost one time. Do you think if Sampras wanted to win 6 or 7 Queens title during that period he wouldn't? The same 6 years period of Federer's dominance he lost one time as well but really Halle to judge them? Don't forget Federer himself had many loses on grass.

Tenez wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:If Fed won this year he would have 7 wimbledons in nine years with a QF and a final defeat
Sampras lost to krajicek in the QF (btw) and won 7 wimbledons in 8 years - its a better achievement in my book. Even more so as personally i saw the 90s as being dominated by a whole series of serve volleyers, who were all very suited to the wimbledon grass, yet on only one occasion during those 8 years did a guy manage to raise his game so much as to beat Sampras.

Queens has always drawn higher quality players than Halle.

Of course because you also have an agenda like Lydian. It's so obvious that Federer is a better player than Pete on grass (slow or fast) and better on HC than you will find any irrelevant stats to prove otherwise.

At 19 Federer was far from reaching his peak, yet he had better shots, nearly as good a serve and much better returns. But hey...if you don;t want to see it, fine!

Theres no fact in your view, just opinions


https://2img.net/h/i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/bogbot/ttbr1.png


From 2000:
TIM HENMAN: Yes. I feel like the court surface itself has probably changed a little bit in the last few years. I feel like it's a fraction slower than before. I always felt like it was very, very hard and the ball really skidded off. Today I felt like it was a little bit slower than it had been.

Q. Why do you suppose there are so few guys playing classic serve-and-volley tennis of the kind that you play?

TIM HENMAN: I think it's pretty fair to say that the conditions that we play in have changed. It probably does favour more so the baseliners and the returners now because the conditions are definitely slower and the balls are heavier. It's probably harder to do right now. If you are going to do it, you're going to have to do it very, very well.

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

Lol Federer was better on grass slow or fast than Sampras? Let us assume the grass in 2001 was as fast as 90's. Why did Federer then lose to Henman soon after beating Sampras to show he is great on grass?

Tom_____ wrote:From 2000:
TIM HENMAN: Yes. I feel like the court surface itself has probably changed a little bit in the last few years. I feel like it's a fraction slower than before. I always felt like it was very, very hard and the ball really skidded off. Today I felt like it was a little bit slower than it had been.

Oh yeah...you looked hard on the web and could only find a 2000 quote!!! And who won on those "slow" 2000 courts?

And that before they changed to 100% reye grass....how interesting. That's what I call "shooting yourself in the foot!"

Are you bald by the way?

Tenez wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:From 2000:
TIM HENMAN: Yes. I feel like the court surface itself has probably changed a little bit in the last few years. I feel like it's a fraction slower than before. I always felt like it was very, very hard and the ball really skidded off. Today I felt like it was a little bit slower than it had been.

Oh yeah...you looked hard on the web and could only find a 2000 quote!!! And who won in those "slow" 2000 courts?

And that before they changed to 100% reye grass....how interesting. That's what I call "shooting yourself on the foot!"

Are you bald by the way?

Now that is funny, because what i think it shows is that Sampras could still play well on the courts of 2000, but was at a growing disadvantage. - and then they change to 100% rye to tighten the screw more. Yet in 2001 due to injury and age he simply played on close loss against a player who went on to be considered an all time great. Where is the significance here?

Personally, if Fed wins another Wimbledon title this year, I'd pick him as better than Sampras @ Wimbledon (so I agree with Tenez on this point).

I get that Sampras only lost once in eight years but Fed's record would be good in itself and he would have made more finals, which is also a measure of how good a player is (of course wins is the ultimate measure, but if Fed has 7, he's equaled Sampras).

As for what the original thread suggests, I'm sure Sampras would have won titles @ the Aussie Open, Wimby & the USO but I'm not sure if he'd have as many as 14.

btw, I don't want to get involved in the side chat about the slowing down of courts, but surely if Fed has benefited (by slowing them down), so has Nadal? I don't think you can say it favours just Fed, it equally favours Nadal too.

"Are you bald by the way?"

No, full head of hair and very lucky - i figure you must have pulled all yours out at the computer and in front of the tennis over the last few years?



In order to calm down, it might be worthwhile having a go at this worksheet to sharpen up your equipment knowledge:

http://www.cableeducational.com/catalog/documents/Wimbledon%20Science%20Web%20Pages.pdf

5 in a row is what really matters. Faster conditions like in 2001 would have given Federer the edge on that crucial 2008 final and he would have been on 7 in a row regardless the pace had he not had mono that year. Also had he not been injured in 2010 he would had his 8th title and going for his 9th this year.

...as some are using the injury card for sampras I thought I could use mine too!

Tenez wrote:5 in a row is what really matters. Faster conditions like in 2001 would have given Federer the edge on that crucial 2008 final and he would have been on 7 in a row regardless the pace had he not had mono that year. Also had he not been injured in 2010 he would had his 8th title and going for his 9th this year.

...as some are using the injury card for sampras I thought I could use mine too!

When did anyone say Sampras was injured in his 96 loss to Krajicek? no injury card played

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:5 in a row is what really matters. Faster conditions like in 2001 would have given Federer the edge on that crucial 2008 final and he would have been on 7 in a row regardless the pace had he not had mono that year. Also had he not been injured in 2010 he would had his 8th title and going for his 9th this year.

...as some are using the injury card for sampras I thought I could use mine too!

When did anyone say Sampras was injured in his 96 loss to Krajicek? no injury card played

Didn't we read your excuses for his encounter v Fed in 2001?

Tenez wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:5 in a row is what really matters. Faster conditions like in 2001 would have given Federer the edge on that crucial 2008 final and he would have been on 7 in a row regardless the pace had he not had mono that year. Also had he not been injured in 2010 he would had his 8th title and going for his 9th this year.

...as some are using the injury card for sampras I thought I could use mine too!

When did anyone say Sampras was injured in his 96 loss to Krajicek? no injury card played

Didn't we read your excuses for his encounter v Fed in 2001?

Irrelevant as you know, as at that point Sampras already had his 7 wimbledons, only the krajicek loss need be considered.

As Fed is yet to claim his 7th, even if he does so this year, there are two losses on his record. For me considering the period of dominant fastcourt players Sampras played in, his 8 year race to 7 titles is better than a 9 year race to 7 titles by Federer in my opinion.

Personally, I think it was that win in 2001 over the great legend Sampras which gave Federer the belief & confidence to then become the multiple grand slam winner he's become.

Of course it will always be conjecture but how many matches in tennis have been won with confidence and belief, especially @ the elite level (as very little separate them in abilities)? I'd say a lot and that's what Fed got from that match. So Sampras may have been injured but that match was pivotal for the effect it had on Fed. I remember watching the match, it was a big shock @ the time.

Fair enough Tom, I don't think Sampras 7 would be better than Fed's 7 (were he to win this year). As I said, he'd have reached more finals, which I think is important too. Just like in football (in fact in most sports), you'd rank the team that has the same number of titles but more final appearances (and lost) above the team that has the same number of titles but less final losses below, I'd do the same here. Also, we're not considering steaks here (7 wins in 8 years). Everyone looks back over a career and as Fed has yet to finish his, we don't know, but again if he wins another title, his record would be better since he made more finals (perhaps no better if you look at just those 8 years but most don't do that).

Luciusman, he lost to Henman a round later and Ancic a year later. Beating Sampras I don't think had anything to do with it.

Luciusman, he lost to Henman a round later and Ancic a year later. Beating Sampras I don't think had anything to do with it.

As you can't measure belief and confidence easily SA, I don't think there's much in what you got to say. When he beat Sampras he was young, that clearly has an impact, a much bigger impact (when your young), and as he was young, consistently is something you struggle with (observe Murray, even Nadal if you like).

Look @ the young golf player from NI who was leading until the last round of the Augusta Masters when he fluffed his final round. Now look @ him, he's leading again with a significant lead and it doesn't look like he will lose. You don't think that his previous great run didn't have an impact? Well you can keep your views, I simply think you're wrong on this.

luciusmann wrote:As you can't measure belief and confidence easily SA, I don't think there's much in what you got to say. When he beat Sampras he was young, that clearly has an impact, a much bigger impact (when your young), and as he was young, consistently is something you struggle with (observe Murray, even Nadal if you like).

Look @ the young golf player from NI who was leading until the last round of the Augusta Masters when he fluffed his final round. Now look @ him, he's leading again with a significant lead and it doesn't look like he will lose. You don't think that his previous great run didn't have an impact? Well you can keep your views, I simply think you're wrong on this.

Doesn't that cancel your point tho?

If Mcilroy wins straight away after his confidence booster, why did it take Fed two years?

In 1990 when Sampras won the USO:

"Along the way, he defeated sixth-ranked Thomas Muster in the fourth round and third-ranked Ivan Lendl in a five-set quarterfinal, breaking Lendl's streak of eight consecutive US Open finals"

The QF sounds like his confidence booster and he capitalised straight away

Federer the great fast-court player? I dont think so...

If you look at his results against a good fast-court player - Henman - on fast courts you'll find:

2004 Rotterdam: Henman won 6-3, 7-6
2003 ATP Masters Paris Carpet: Henman won 7-6, 6-1
2001 Basel Indoors Carpet: Henman won: 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 (5 set match)
2001 Wimbledon: Henman won 7-5, 7-6, 2-6, 7-6
2000 Vienna Indoors: Henman won 2-6, 7-6, 6-3
1999 Basel Indoors Carpet:Henman won 6-3, 7-5

I think those stats show that Federer would have somewhat struggled against Sampras considering Sampras had a 6-1 record against Tim (all those 6 Sampras wins being on fast courts).
The fact Federer beat Sampras in 2001 but lost to Henman next round and then later that year in a 5-set final indoors indicates a) Sampras in 2001 was nowhere near the Sampras of his prime, b) Federer struggled with fast-court players on form.

Sampras was dogged by tendonitis and back problems during his last 3 years on tour, he won Wimb 2000 with severe shin tendonitis. Pete had to retire vs Goran in the Zurich final 3 months prior to Wimb 2001 due to injury. The back and leg injuries caused his court coverage to become slower and it started to affect his serve more too (what long standing back injury wouldnt). 3 weeks after Wimbledon 2001 finished he had to withdraw from the Montreal Masters through another leg injury.
The guy was pretty washed up really and it also affected his motivation further. His genetic thalassemia meant he didnt recover from injury well and so it became harder and harder to maintain his prior level after 2000...anyone thinking it was prime Sampras on court in 2001 at Wimbledon is simply deluding themselves. And as mentioned Federer promptly lost to Henman in the next round.

But your point does not make sense. If so every multiple slam champions future win will be put down to having beaten another great at the start. Example, you'll say Sampras beating Lendl at the USO 1991 is what gave him confidence to become a multiple champion. Or Nadal beating Federer at FO 05 is why he has confidence to win 6 titles there now. The point be, the quality of all great players shine through at some point regardless of who they beat.

Depends, not necessarily, it entirely depends on the personality of the player and how a player takes the loss, it's not as straight forward as that, we're dealing with people here, not machines.

I have no doubt Mcilroy would have been gutted and went out there and practiced hard to make sure he didn't fluff things again and thereby become a memorial to Greg Norman if he had fluffed things. He had something to prove immediately, so he's bouncing back.

I can't see how Fed had something to prove immediately in the same way, he didn't fluff anything. He beat a legend and something like that takes time to sink in. After watching that match I knew straight away I'd seen something special, in fact that was when I started watching tennis far more regularly. It didn't surprise me when Fed won Wimbledon a few years later.

I'm not saying that SA, I was referring to Fed, I'm not saying it's true for every player. I'm looking at a specific example, I'm not generalizing and saying it's true for every player. Hence why I say it's not always the case a player capitalizes immediately upon that initial success, entirely depends on the personality and traits of that player.

Luciusmann I think you are pushing it here, Federer becoming a multiple slam champion had little to do with beating Pete. Your point about the victory taking 2 years to sink in makes no sense.

I didn't say it took two year, I said it took a while. As you haven't interviewed Fed SA(& nor have I), you're point is no more valid than mine to be honest, so you're pushing it every bit as you're saying I am.

I don't agree with you and there's nothing in what you're saying which is anymore valid than what I've said, I guess we'll find out when he releases his autobiography which maybe @ least a few years away so we'll find out one way or the other.

Even for every player still doesn't make much sense. Will you put down Djokovic becoming a multiple slam champion as because he beat Federer in AO 08? Read Tom's post.

Lol i'll be suprised if Federer releases and autobiography and backs your point. Like I said, the quality of a great player always comes through. If anything a 1st slam win will bring more confidence.

If anything a 1st slam win will bring more confidence..
------------------------

Didn;t help Sampras retaining his first USO! He even said he was glad he lost!!!!! when he retruned to defend it cause the pressure was too high!

You can hardly make such a silly comparison SA, Djokovic, was playing very well the year before he beat Fed in AO '08, so I can hardly say that hearlds the arival of Djokovic. Maybe for you but Fed's year before he beat Sampras? Apart from the French Open quarter finals, he'd made no better than 4th round of any ATP tennis tournament. In fact, the year following Wimbledon his performance did pick up, not in the grand slams so much but he was reaching the finals stages of various tournaments. So a bit disingenuous to say Fed disappeared off the map following his defeat of Sampras.

Well a lot of things might surprise you SA, and I bet you he does release an autobiography, he's the sort of guy who would!

A better question SA, if he released one, would you read it?

So then how could beating Sampras could have helped Federer 2 years later then?

Namely, it's to do with belief (& confidence). Fair enough Sampras may have been injured (although he still got to the quarters), but when Fed was playing a few years later, knowing he's got more experience playing at the top level, that victory helps to beat the top players he was then facing in those rounds. Again, I won't deny this is conjecture, but as I said, it will remain so until he releases an autobiography!