Sampras on grass, Federer on anything else. Perhaps Laver beats them both on any surface. And going back to the 50s, Jack Kramer said if he had to have one man play one match to represent the Planet Earth, he would pick Lew Hoad.
i respect you the most of anyone ( i'm just jealous that us mere 'fizzicians' have to cede the
'"jock" sawbones' )
anyhows, back to topic - blake slaugtered agassi for 2 sets +, in the style pistol wouda done ( i egest thinkin how good he wouda been in '99 in the open, trying to claim the innuagural arthur, stadium trophy ! ) - just that pete was EVEN more athletic & had an INFINITELY better serve
agassi ( with no back problem ) couda won '05 ( set all & break-up in the 3rd ) which suggests to me, that, pistol of '99 defies belief !!!
Last edited by eldrick on Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Courier, Chang, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Kraijek - all played in the Sampras era and were grand slam champions. Right now Federer has no competition (on surfaces other than clay),nobody stands out. Federer is the Larry Holmes of tennis. Holmes dominated after Ali; let's wait and see if Federer is as good as Holmes was.
His versatility is unparalleled. He does not have any big weaknesses. The Sampras backhand sucks. That was his weakness on clay. Federer will win Roland Garros one day. His angled crosscourt is just too good.
Federer has to face players like Safin, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Nadal etc, all previous Slam winners. Its not like he has an easy ride.
may i add that federer is not currently playing against any top draw serve-volleyers
there is no pistol/edberg/goran/rafter/stich out there for him
remember, unil a coupla years ago, he had an abysmal record against henman ( just below top-echelon serve-volleyer ), who just crowded the net & put away any returns - it was amazing to see the look of frustration on fed's face during those matches
i'm not sure he has the return to beat guyz like the above when they were on fire
>I thoght Pat Rafter brought Pete down to earth a bit in '98.
Federer on a
>good day beats Safin on a good day.
Both had "good days" (as opposed to their best game days) in Melbourne this year, Safin won. Trouble is that Safin's absolute best is almost an unknown quantity, it's so rarely seen. But it demolished Sampras at Flushing Meadow (2000?) - that was special. A fully fit, non-partying, motivated, demon-free Safin... never gonna happen?!
>it demolished Sampras at Flushing Meadow (2000?) - that was special.<
pete was expected to win that & just didn't turn up that day
it may have been that he wasn't that familiar with safin's game & didn't adapt
look at what happened the following year, when he got to the final & in the process went thru the hardest draw that a slam has ever produced - he beat the 3 preceding champs to get there - agassi ( in probably he greatest tennis match ever played - 4 tie-break sets where neither man lost their serve - this is what fed hasn't faced ), rafter & then safin ( who he destroyed, once he'd learnt how the mercurial guy's game functioned )
yes, he got blown away in the final to hewitt, but he was exhausted getting thru that draw ( but remember, he beat hewitt the year before in the semis, so he knew he coud beat him )
I'm deliberately avoiding the question, because I just don't know! Time will tell.... I know that the best tennis performance I've ever seen was Mac's destruction of Connors at Wimbledon in '84. It was an honour to have seen it, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could have played better in one match.
>Ahhh, yes, and George Mikan would have been a match for Jordan or Shaq... NOT!
This is the old argument that Jesse Owens was not as good as Justin Gatlin because he ran slower times. All you can compare is how good, how dominant, they were against their own eras. Nobody has dominated tennis like Laver did in 1961-62, and 1968-69. He won the Grand Slam twice, for goodness sakes! He was banned from all the Grand Slams 1963-67 because he played professionally. Had he played in them in those 5 years, he would have put the record for most Grand Slam titles out of reach. As it is, he won 11.
And for Federer, he needs a bit more time probably to be called the GOAT. What they say now about Federer, they said in 1974-75 about Jimmy Connors who was unstoppable at the time. He won the finals of Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974 with the total loss of 7 games. In 1974, he only did not win the Grand Slam probably, because the French refused his entry because he was playing World Team Tennis.
I agree that the year Pete lost to Hewitt in the US Open was exhaustion, as he has to mow thru 3 former champs to get to the final. This is why I was sure he was not DONE back then. That final was an anomaly, but even wiith that, if he had decent backhand, he could still have won it.
However, you guys use the wrong criteria to judge Federer. You should look at his stroke play, serve and match temperment to understand what makes him special. This man is hitting near impossible shots, can play back, all court AND serve and volley. He is a complete player.
Federer losing to Henman should be viewed in context, he was young and perfecting his craft. Hell, I recall when Fed was Junior Wimbledon champ back in 1998, and look how many lean years came in bewtten that and his eventual triumph there. Fed is just 24 now and has been dominant for 2 years or so.
BTW, I liked Rafter, but his serve sucked and his volley had elements of 'pop-up' to it, not as bad as Yannick Noah, but eneough to exploit it. He could not volley like the very best, ie McEnroe, Laver and Edberg. Now, if Phillipousis could just have volleyed better with THAT serve, THEN we would be talking top notch.
Long and short, if Fed keeps going, he will be GOAT in another 3 years.
I don't know who would win at their "best". Maybe Sampras would take Roger. But, because of his complete balanced play, Federer has many more "best" days on any surface than Pete.
Federer is a complete package. Being a complete package he will ultimately give Federer longevity, consistency and the ability to handle any opponenet on any surface. So, as great as Sampras was I would have to agree with Agassi.
>That final was an anomaly, but even
>wiith that, if he had decent backhand, he could still have won it.
that's a joke !
i've never heard anyone ever say pistol had a weak backhand !
>BTW, I liked Rafter, but his serve sucked and
>his volley had elements of 'pop-up' to it, not as bad as Yannick Noah, but
>eneough to exploit it. He could not volley like the very best, ie McEnroe,
>Laver and Edberg. Now, if Phillipousis could just have volleyed better with
>THAT serve, THEN we would be talking top notch.<
there was absolutely nothing wrong with rafter's serve !
it had the bigest "kick" of anyone's & pistol admitted that's what made it so difficult to return & hence break
after bouncing, it woud rear up to ~ shoulder height making it so difficult to keep the return down low
with high balls coming back to volley away, rafter didn't need a great volley - he had easy put aways resulting from the serve
>absolutely nothing wrong with rafter's serve !
it had the bigest "kick" of
>anyone's & pistol admitted that's what made it so difficult to return & hence
after bouncing, it woud rear up to ~ shoulder height making it so
>difficult to keep the return down low
with high balls coming back to volley
>away, rafter didn't need a great volley - he had easy put aways resulting from
Well said . Rafter's serve, especially his second, was a beast - up there with Edberg's. He was truly underestimated, especially in England - I'll be daring here and say that Joe Public with his Wimbledon tickets hasn't got a clue about tennis - 2 weeks a year and screaming "C'mon Tim!" isn't quite enough. GB tennis is a joke, and that cannot be stressed enough.
You dont need anyone to tell you Sampras had a weak backhand...just look for yourself.
Everyone in my circle knew it. It was not reliable and was easy prey at Roland Garros with the long rallies.
He tended to lift it too much and go long when pressures. It was not a well controlled stroke. Compare him to Fed or Lendl with their singlehanded backhands. THOSE are waepons, not just means to keep the point going. How many winners did Pete get of the backhand against top players?
Rafters bserve came from a closed racket face and yes while he could get lift, it was not particularly angled or powerful. No one feared his serve...how many aces did he average???
He was a decent volleyer but tended to 'pop up', a fatal flaw in my books. Lendl would have eaten him for breafast, lunch, tea and dinner.