Oz Open Tennis 2009

courier was not a specialist clay courter..he won an Oz Open...that said I don't think he was a champ.

"He was a winning machine."

He was certainly great, but maybe people keep in mind that he was more a machine for being runner-up. Made 19 GS finals (a record just matched by Fed), and won 8.

Made 19 GS finals (a record just matched by Fed)

Not yet. Sunday's final would be Federer's 18th GS final, same as Sampras.

Is Sampras vs Federer > Lara vs Tendulkar ?

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.

How could you be so sure about that? I mean not to disrespect Sampras in any way but how could one predict that?

If thats the case can't one say that Federer too would've done alright had he played in '90s when competition in men's tennis was very tough.

Yeah I suppose Lendl was soft. FFS - he let Michael Chang get to him when Chang started eating bananas and serving under arm in a French Open Final loss.

{Sampras > Federer} < {Lara > Tendulkar }

I would never imagine that Sampras would lose to Nadal as consistently as Fed has.

Mostly on clay though except THAT arguably greatest ever tennis match.

BTW how many specialist clay courters has Sampras dominated in his time on clay?

SG wrote:

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.

How could you be so sure about that? I mean not to disrespect Sampras in any way but how could one predict that?

If thats the case can't one say that Federer too would've done alright had he played in '90s when competition in men's tennis was very tough.

Goel, obviously I can't be sure. But it's just my opinion.

Agassi used to throw the kitchen sink at Sampras and yet he struggled to beat him in a Grand Slam semi or final. I remember the US Open in 2002 when Agassi was his the best form of his life, and yet in the final Sampras found a way around him. He just adapts his play. Sampras is a bit of a net rusher to certain opponents. But against Courier he always remained behind the baseline because he felt he could match it with Jim and that his servce would always come through.

SG wrote:

I would never imagine that Sampras would lose to Nadal as consistently as Fed has.

Mostly on clay though except THAT arguably greatest ever tennis match.

BTW how many specialist clay courters has Sampras dominated in his time on clay?

Not sure what you mean by "Mostly on clay though except THAT arguably greatest ever tennis match."

Sampras dominated no one on clay.

What great clay court specialist has Federer dominated?

It's not all about records and stats but geez RF has some... 10 consecutive GS finals is a record. Two consecutive years in which he made all four GS finals is a record. 19 consecutive GS semis is a record. 237 consecutive weeks as Number 1 is a record.


But he needs an actual Grand Slam to join the immortals.

Not sure what you mean by "Mostly on clay though except THAT arguably greatest ever tennis match."

I meant that Federer lost most of his matches to Nadal on clay except last year's Wimbledon final. Hence my question which clay courters did Sampras dominated on clay.

What great clay court specialist has Federer dominated?

Don't know the answer but he has reached French open finals thrice something which Sampras could never do.

Re Lendl - obviously a great player and the prototype of the modern power hitter. But never winning Wimbledon and losing so many other GS finals counts against him (again, of course against some other great players).

FWIW, Nadal could eclipse them all. I really think he is a chance at the Slam this year.

SG wrote:

What great clay court specialist has Federer dominated?

Don't know the answer but he has reached French open finals thrice something which Sampras could never do.

Not to mention losing in a SF to Rafa the other time (Puerta FFS make the final).

Williams sisters won the doubles.

"FWIW, Nadal could eclipse them all. "

Agree. He is still merely a lad, 22.

Not sure this will be the year, though.

My only reservation on Rafa is that he plays so hard I can't see his body lasting much past his mid to late 20s. Of course by then he could have 15 majors anyway.

I think you have to go back to 2004 to find a match in which someone other than Nadal beat Federer in a match at the French Open. In 2004 he was beaten by Kuerten.

Sania and Mahesh in deep trouble already

Paul Keating wrote: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.

I wish we had a tennis statsguru. I know that Sampras record is 29-9. And last year Federer's record was something like 11-10. Since then I can remember him beating Andreev and Berdych and losing to Nadal (at Wimbledon).

I think it's a misleading stat. Federer wins more matches in fewer sets more often. If someone beats him at a slam they'll often require five sets. There are plenty of those five-setters that Sampras won that Federer would never have let get past straight sets.

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.

To quote Orwell (for the second time this week)... "Contrary to popular belief, the past was not more eventful than the present. If it seems so it is because when you look backwards things that happened years apart are telescoped together."

Samparas only became dominant from the middle of 1993 onwards. By that stage...
Lendl wasn't competitive and might as well have been retired.
Edberg was on the way down, only making a couple more grand slam semi-finals.
Becker was also on the way out, although he was still competitive at Wimbledon and managed to pull off a win at the Aussie Open in 1996.
Courier was past his best - 1993 would be the last year Courier made a slam final.
Agassi was a genuine challenge, but even he slipped in and out of form and fitness for much of the mid-to-late 90's.

When you roll off all those names you go, "Wow, Sampras had some amazing competition". But in truth his biggest competition came from players like Cedric Pioline, Carlos Moya, Goran Ivanisevic, Peter Korda and the like.

OP Tipping wrote:I think you have to go back to 2004 to find a match in which someone other than Nadal beat Federer in a match at the French Open. In 2004 he was beaten by Kuerten.

So the only players to beat him at the French in the last 5 years are the 2 best claycourters of the last decade and a half.

FMD, Sania and Mahesh turned that around, and won 6-4 6-1. Through to the finals.

Yuki Bhambri of India through to the Boys' Singles finals, so a good tournament for India.

Hass wrote:I think it's a misleading stat. Federer wins more matches in fewer sets more often. If someone beats him at a slam they'll often require five sets. There are plenty of those five-setters that Sampras won that Federer would never have let get past straight sets.

On the other hand, you could also say Sampras would never have lost the five set matches that Federer did. The whole point of the stat is that Sampras had the will power to go the distance, he never shirked a gruelling challenge. With Fed I feel that he doesn't want to sweat, doesn't want to fight to the point of vomitting and exhaustion.

In any case too, the stat is overwhelming. Fed wins one in two five setters. Sampras lost 1 in four five setters. Huge difference.

On average, Sampras took longer to put his opponents away. He probably turned casual watchers away in droves.