Oz Open Tennis 2009

Yeah I will be happy if Robosuisse gets his 14th, too.

whats the rush....

I am sure he will eventually break PP's record

Sampras> Fed

While I don't entirely disagree with you, at the same time you can't say the same with that much assurance.

SG wrote:

Sampras> Fed

While I don't entirely disagree with you, at the same time you can't say the same with that much assurance.

agree

PlanetPakistan wrote:

SG wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:ah really hope Fed loses the final

Really hope Sampras's WR of 14 slams is equalled on Sunday.

Sampras> Fed

and you know it SG!

I don't think that is the case at all. Sampras only ever made one French Open semi and never a final. On the other hand, you could probably argue that Sampras had more competition.

Let's see how Fed ends his career.

Federer would have won at least 3 French Opens by now if he hadn't played in the same era as the greatest clay courter of all time (Nadal).

For me- Federer>Sampras.

Federer would have won at least 3 French Opens by now if he hadn't played in the same era as the greatest clay courter of all time (Nadal).

Indeed.

On the other hand, you could probably argue that Sampras had more competition.

Whilst its truish, you could also say that Federer was that good to quell any compeitition he faced during his glory years.

And its very hard to go past the fact that Sampras struggled big time on clay.

JGK wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

SG wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:ah really hope Fed loses the final

Really hope Sampras's WR of 14 slams is equalled on Sunday.

Sampras> Fed

and you know it SG!

I don't think that is the case at all. Sampras only ever made one French Open semi and never a final. On the other hand, you could probably argue that Sampras had more competition.

Let's see how Fed ends his career.

to be honest if he beats rafa(NOT Verdesco) on Sunday then he will be on par with Pete not just in terms of G slams but as a player as well...

then after if he continues to play at a decent level then he will surely be ahead of Sampras....

BUT being ahead of Sampras doesn't mean that he will be the greatest ever...it will STILL be highly debatable.

BUT being ahead of Sampras doesn't mean that he will be the greatest ever

Andy Roddick thinks that he (Federer) is best ever without an iota of doubt as its not child's play to defeat him (Roddick) 10 straight times.

"Sampras> Fed"

Reckon?

The latter's fallen off a bit but he was close to perfect at one stage.

Even now, it's been five years since he failed to at least make the semis at a Major. ie 19 GS tournaments in a row, he's made the semifinals.

If ever RF wins at Roland Garros, it will seal the deal in my mind that he is the best since Laver. As it is, he's made three consecutive French Open finals (Sampras never made the final). The fact that he has achieved these things while someone of Nadal's ability has been on the scene competing for glory makes it all the greater. If Nadal wins today, there will have been 7 Federer-Nadal GS finals. Fkadoodledoo.

Laver himself has described Federer as the best player of all time.

What Sampras did have was a long career as an elite player. RF won his first major at 21, in 2003.

Sampras was 19 in 1990 when he won the US Open. He was 31 when he won his last. Can RF stay fit and continue to perform for that long? I don't know.

SG wrote:

BUT being ahead of Sampras doesn't mean that he will be the greatest ever

Andy Roddick thinks that he (Federer) is best ever without an iota of doubt as its not child's play to defeat him (Roddick) 10 straight times.

after being hammered so much its NOT surprising that Andy thinks that way....

I haven't read much about Laver but i have read quite a bit about Borg and have obviously watched Fed and Pete at their best...

I would say all 3 are very very close ...imagine Fed just quitting tennis for good after losing to Rafa at Wimbledon because thats what Borg did.

OP Tipping wrote:"Sampras> Fed"

Reckon?

The latter's fallen off a bit but he was close to perfect at one stage.

Even now, it's been five years since he failed to at least make the semis at a Major. ie 19 GS tournaments in a row, he's made the semifinals.

If ever RF wins at Roland Garros, it will seal the deal in my mind that he is the best since Laver. As it is, he's made three consecutive French Open finals (Sampras never made the final). The fact that he has achieved these things while someone of Nadal's ability has been on the scene competing for glory makes it all the greater. If Nadal wins today, there will have been 7 Federer-Nadal GS finals. Fkadoodledoo.

Laver himself has described Federer as the best player of all time.

What Sampras did have was a long career as an elite player. RF won his first major at 21, in 2003.

Sampras was 19 in 1990 when he won the US Open. He was 31 when he won his last. Can RF stay fit and continue to perform for that long? I don't know.

One thing is for sure

RF is far more talented

Good analysis OP. Doesn't change the fact that neither FedEx nor Sampras actually look like they enjoy(ed) the game while playing it, or that they'll ever win a personality contest.

Clinically brilliant, both of them. But eventually boring to watch.

Federer over Sampras by a long way for mine (which isn't to put Sampras down, only Federer up).

Sampras was very dominant but often got into trouble and had to rely on his serve to dig him out (which it invariably did).

Federer has the complete game which makes it very hard for an opponent to get into the match. Like Sampras he can also put in the big serve when needed, but he seems to need it a lot less.

Federer has the ability to change tactics mid-match if need be. He's great when he serves and volleys and can rally on his forehand and backhand.

He also has a great record at the French Open. He's made the final three years in a row only to run into the best clay courter since Borg.

The last time Federer failed to make the semis at any Grand Slam tournament was The French in 2004. The record is as good as his game.

I'm hoping we get a Federer v Nadal final - we're yet to see them contest the last match of a major on hard court.

It's all academic anyway... Laver's still the man that everyone needs to be compared to.

FWIW (probably not worth much) Federer did play Sampras a couple of times: won both.

"Good analysis OP. Doesn't change the fact that neither FedEx nor Sampras actually look like they enjoy(ed) the game while playing it, or that they'll ever win a personality contest."

True. Neither of them could be described as charismatic or flamboyant. They took it seriously and it showed.

Sampras knew when to get out. Mark of a champion.

Agassi too.

Phurt.

Sampras had more mental toughness than Federer and he won big points in big matches. What is their respective five set record in grand slams? He pushed himself to the limit. Something I don't get the feeling Federer can do. He doesn't go above and beyond his mental or physical limits.

Sampras had a winning record against most of his contemporaries and would never let anyone get the better of him over time. I would never imagine that Sampras would lose to Nadal as consistently as Fed has. Sampras would have changed his game plan, served and volleyed or stuck a the back of the court just to try and beat him. He can adapt, and mix things up.

Competition like Courier, Agassi, Becker, Lendl and Edberg are a class above today's players. FFS Andy Roddick is consistently a top ten player now, and he is rubbish.

I love Federer's play and style, but think Sampras just shades him.

Aye.

I should've stuck at tennis and become a doubles specialist.

Mahesh Bhupathi, singles career high ranking 217

Secialises in doubles. Career prizemoney - $4,488,382 USD

Farq!

Henry wrote:Federer would have won at least 3 French Opens by now if he hadn't played in the same era as the greatest clay courter of all time (Nadal).

For me- Federer>Sampras.

Specialist clay courters in Sampras's era included

Bruguera
Courier
Moya
Kuerten
Bersategui
Rios
Corretja

Sorry for the spelling.

I believe Sampras had every chance to win a French Open against today's generation if Nadal wasn't around.

Rennae Stubbs has done alright for herself too.


"I love Federer's play and style, but think Sampras just shades him."

Ah well, agree to disagree and all that.

And by the way, as the Channel 7 commentators were suggestingt the other night, why is Lendl the forgotten man when it comes to the best of the best.

He was a winning machine.