Sean,I have been a big tennis fan since the past 2 decades and I have to say that pete sampras was the biggest reason for my interest in the sport.Naturally,I’ve always held a grudge against Federer for beating Sampras at Wimbledon and I could and never have been able to forget that day.I’m also frustated with Federer’s dominance in tennis,but that is not to say I don’t acknowledge his achievments and his impact on the tennis world.But I have to say,your analysis on the whole sampras-federer comparison was just the exact objective analysis I was looking forward to in time when all people talk about is how federer keeps winning.What they fail to understand is that as great a player he is,he really has not been challenged by his opponents.The only one who really challenges him is Nadal,against whom he has a 2-6 record.No doubt Federer has all the shots and he really possesses the whole artillery of a perfect tennis player,but the level of competition around him is just really falling and the opponents who play against him aren’t really high quality players,atleast not over a period of time as far as consistency is concerned.Look at Roddick,here today,gone tomorrow.So I think your analysis was very much needed in a time when all people can talk about how lame sampras looks in comparison to federer.

Sean,

Your post is full of erroneous/twisted statements.

First, your stupid American bias. You see Roddick in the hall of fame, and even blake, but not baghdatis. Why? what has roddick done, just one slam, and he’s 24? what has blake done - not even a grand slam semi, and he’s 26. baghdatis is 20 and has a slam final and a semi already. Its too early to count him out, especially if you count blake in.

yes, nalbandian WILL kill Chang at the french. Are you kidding me? Chang won one french in 1989 (barely), then never came close.

regarding becker, don’t be so stupid as to count him as Pete’s adversary. pete never faced becker at his prime. Becker’s prime was 85-91, maybe 93. Pete peaked after that. At their peak? they would split matches on grass, but becker would smoke Pete on other surfaces.

Agassi? for personal issues, he goofed off, was almost not there from 96-98, when Pete made hay.

Fed’s record on clay? He won hamburg masters THRICE. He smoked Gaudio (french open champ) 6-0 6-0. He has smoked EVERY SINGLE clay court champion (Moya, Ferrero, gaudio, Coria, etc.) regularly on CLAY. Pete has a losing record even to bruguera on clay. And he’s only half done yet.

Becker and Agassi are the only “great” players in the top 10 in 1996. but becker was WAY past his prime, and Agassi goofed off. So what competition are you talking about? Even Leander Paes has a winning record against Pete Sampras. On hard courts. Straight sets.

As for fitness, it DOES make you a better player. Look at Nadal. he is world no 2 JUST because of his fitness. What are you smoking Sean? You will volley better, return better, hit forehands better if you are fitter. Especially at grand slams, where its best of 5. You kidding me?

Even tiger woods says sports are tougher today than even six years ago (he was refering to golf of course).

Nobody is saying Fed is already the greatest ever. But everyone IS saying that Sampras is DEFINITELY not the greatest ever. And his career was over long time ago, so that debate is over.

Bottomline, you american nuts have to stop being so biased, and give players like Laver, Borg, Lendl, and now federer their due.

Sean, if you are really honest about what you say, then how do YOU rank Sampras compared to Laver, Borg and Lendl? Leave fed out, he’s not done yet.

Just these four - Laver, Borg, Lendl, Sampras. What your ranking? Do you have the guts to put your money where your mouth is? Lets see.

My ranking? exactly the way I have written above. Laver, Borg, Lendl, Sampras. Fed is right now in the middle of that pack, likely to get to the top.

Laver, Borg, Lendl - they would smoke Sampras overall if they all played best of 5 with each other three times each - one on grass, clay and hard each.

So lets hear it Sean. Lets see what you are made of - objectivity, or stupid american bias?

Nick, what am I smoking? How about what are you smoking?? Maybe I need some of that, or better yet, maybe I dont.

As for Andy, sorry to burst your bubble but Roddick’s in the HOF. Like it or not, When you win a Slam and finish the year No. 1, you are in. Roddick could lose every match the rest of his life and he’d still get in. That plaque is already engraved. Sorry.

Regarding Baghdatis, I agree, he’s definately a guy that could get in, and if you read my post more carefully you would have noticed that I mentioned that.

I do say Blake has a chance at the Hall if he can win a Slam. He’s got a great comeback story, people like him, he’s a nice kid, carries himself well and he grew up pretty close to the Hall, so all those things would help his cause. I wouldn’t bet on it happening, but I’m just saying.

You mentioned Becker wiping Pete all over the court. I won’t get into that, but all the garbage about Pete playing guys who weren’t at their peak is just that, garbage. Does that mean Fed is playing everyone at their peak? Did he just beat Henman in Tokyo when Henman was at his Peak?? What about Roddick? Was he peaking when Fed beat him at the Open?? How about Andre at the Open last year. Are you going to tell me Andre was at his peak at age 35 when Fed, 10 years younger, needed four sets to beat him???

Peak, off-peak, I don’t freaking know and I never will. All I know Boris back in the early-mid 90s was a tough out. In fact, if you took the time to look it up, you would have seen Boris reached the final at 95 Wimbledon, the SF at the 95 US Open and then won the 96 Australian Open. Sounds like he was still pretty good.

Same for Andre. A year after reaching two Slam finals (he won the Aussie), Agassi reached two more Slam SFs in 1996. And that’s while he goofing off. Whatever…

Thanks for pointing out Roger’s excellent clay results, something I didn’t really get into much. I did write that Pete was nothing great on court, but I added that he came through in some pretty big matches on dirt, something I have yet to see from Roger on clay.

Roger’s no doubt won some big clay titles, but he hasn’t had that big win at the French in my mind. Nalbandian would have been it this year but the guy flamed out.

Regarding fitness, you show me how doing wind sprints will help keep my racquet up when I volley. Or help with my nerves. Or help me hit an ace down match point. (Maybe I do need to smoke what you smoke)

And as far as guys like Tiger Woods (and there have been others) saying that their sport is tougher now than ever due to technology, fitness, strength, etc. Of course you are going to hear that, what are they suppose to say? It’s weak and I dominate because it is weak. Whether it’s true or not, no player who’s still in the game and dominating is going to say that their sport is weaker now. Never.

And I can’t end, Nick, without giving you my American-biased Top 5 of the “modern era” (sorry Rocket!). 1) Pete, 2) Roger, 3) Borg, 4) Lendl, 5) Agassi.

There ya have it. That’s what I’m made of.

Pete never reached the French Open finals in 13 tries. Fed reached the finals at FO once in 7 tries. Fed also won the Hamburg Masters 3 times. So they are not big wins?

Is only a tough 5 setter counted as a big win? Looks like Sampras bias to me.

I am a huge Fed fan. But I do think that as of now, Pete/Laver are the greatest. Rog still has some work. Let him get there.

But as for the assertion that the competition was stiffer 10 years ago, that is just bogus! Am I to believe that 10 years on the competition has gotten worse? How warped is that? Instead of improving, tennis players are regressing?

Also, as of 1996, Becker was past his prime. Agassi (didn’t he win like half his slams after 1999?) was in Brooke Shields land, Kafelnikov and Ivanisevic had not even won a slam. So if Ljubicic and Nalbandian were to win slams in the next few years, wouldn’t that whole point about 1996 having more hall of famers be moot?

Is it not possible that if it weren’t for Rog, Andy/Lleyton/Safin/Marcos and perhaps a few others would have already won more slams? Check out the number of times that Rog has had to go through Lleyton and Safin and Andy and even Andre to win his slams.

I think comparing players from 2 eras is tough.. but to say that 10 years on the competition in the ATP is only worse, is not very astute.

Regarding fitness, you show me how doing wind sprints will help keep my racquet up when I volley. Or help with my nerves. Or help me hit an ace down match point. (Maybe I do need to smoke what you smoke)

If your fit..the mental part becomes easier. It’s late in the 5th set and you know you can track down every ball..HUGE mental edge. You dont have to go for broke because you cant stay in 5-6 ball rallies.

Sean, I love this one from you:

>>
Oh wait, I hear you guys say, but it’s deeper now. Yeah, it is. But a decade ago when you get deep into a tournament you run into Hall of Fame players. Now you run into Tommy Robredo or Mikhail Youzhny or Nikolay Davydenko, Ivan Ljubicic and Fernando Gonzalez. Not exactly the cream of the crop when you think of guys who can win and do win big matches.
>>

Just FYI, here’s a who’s who list of Pete’s oponents in semis/finals of slams that he has won:
Alexander Volkov, Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Todd Woodbridge, Valdimir Voltchkov, Scheng Schlaken (sp?).

If that ain’t a murderer’s row of tennis players, I don’t know what is!

I think that Pete could probably take Federer in a match but it would have to be by the end of 07. After seeing Pete giving a lesson to Roddick last month I think he has still got it. Even though it was an exo Roddick was pissed after the match because he got a beating. I know that Roger is another story but I would love to see them go at. I don’t think Roger would do it as he would have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

I think the debate you guys are having is great–and as a fellow avid tennis fan, I appreciate all the comments, biased or not…bias is human, inescapably.

That said, I think this debate could use a dose of objectivity, and to my mind the greatest objective statement here is what the overwhelming majority of greats, including Americans Andre Agassi and John McEnroe, are saying: Roger Federer is either already or will end up being recognized as the greatest player of all time, period.

I feel certain if all the greatest living tennis players were to rate Sampras v. Federer, even when Fed has not yet matched Sampras’ majors record, the overwhelming majority, without hesitation, would sing Federer, in chorus, hands down.

And for my part I believe the reason for this is the sheer beauty of Federer’s virtuousity on the court–the likes of which have never been seen in tennis, or possibly in any sport…. Other athletes who come to mind: Ali, Bobby Jones, Jim Thorpe, and, yes, Tiger Woods. Federer transcends tennis. I loved Sampras, but I do not ever remember Becker, Agassi, Borg, Lendl or any other Hall of Famer debating whether he would go down as the greatest in history.

That level of accolade, at least among the greatest players in the game so far, is reserved exclusively for Roger–and THAT is saying not just something, but in my mind, all that HAS to be said to render any “debate” moot.

I think, just by looking at the kind of shots Fed can come up with, at difficult times, and so consistently, one can figure out, why he has to be termed, “the “greatest tennis player there ever has been.

Sean, I must say I agree with Nick. I would definitely rank Borg ahead of any competition. The guy played professional tennis for like, 8 years and the amzing part is that he achieved so much during those years that he’s constantly mentioned as one of the greatest. If he wouldn’t have quit tennis at the tender age of 25 something he would have set all-time records that only Fed would be able to break. If we’re going to talk about the “greatest of all time” we mustn’t forget about for how many years the tennis player was actually active + the winning percentage (wins/tournaments), number of slams, the rest of the competition at that particular time etc. SO to sum up: I too want to give you some of my very European-biased view of the greatest: 1) Borg 2) Fed (and the rest can just sod off;-)

Sean Randall,

Peter greater than Borg, Lendl and Laver? You are nuts. Ignorant American bias. Even leaving fed out of the debate. What a coincidence - borg, lendl, laver are not american, sampras is american. Wow. How far will you guys go.

Regarding fitness, you still haven’t answered my question - how do you explain Nadal? The guy has NOTHING except he can run for 10 hours and get everything back. That has propelled him to a clear world no 2. So how can you say fitness doesn’t improve your tennis? What a joke. This is not chess, and even in chess fitness can matter. Saying that fitness doesn’t help your tennis game is the biggest crap I have ever heard.

You still need to tell me what you are smoking Sean.

Sean,

Pete greater than lendl? You are nuts. Lendl had 94 singles titles, Pete 64. Lendl had over 1000 ATP match wins, Pete 762. 8 consecutive US open finals. 19 grand slam finals. And you know why he lost 11 of those? Because he played Borg, Connors, wilander, mcenroe, becker, pat cash for those finals, ALL AT THEIR PEAK. Compare that to Sampras’s opponents (cedric pioline? ha ha). 270 weeks at world no 1, through the 80s, when all these great players were at their peak. Plus he dominated the mid-end 80s almost like Federer, inspite of having to play becker, edberg, wilander at their peak. Reached every grand slam final at least twice (agassi is the only one else to do it, other than Laver).

You kidding me Pete is greater than Lendl? what a joke. guys like you would probably rate james blake higher than lendl just because he is american.

I gotta say, I think everyone here has a very good point. First of all, how can you say Nadal has nothing except for fitness? Fitness is an essential part of any sport that’s gonna improve how your game. But! Fitness is not what improves your volleys, it’s what allows you to hit a good volley consistently for hours. You can’t become top 100 in the world with just fitness, and especially not number 2. Nadal generally has top 20 talented, and the kid is obviously very talented. But his fitness is definetly what puts him at number 2 instead of number 22. As for who is the GOAT? As of right now it’s Sampras. I think in time Federer will definetly be the GOAT, but right now it’s still Sampras. And no I don’t have an American bias. I prove that by saying I don’t like Agassi, despite what he has done for the sport I don’t think his tennis achievements were as great as a lot of other players like Borg and Lendl. But what makes Sampras the greatest is his ability to raise his game. He wasn’t the greatest on clay by far, yet he had some huge wins on the surface. I think Federer has this same ability actually: raise his game when it really matters. I mean yeah I think Borg was unbelievable, 11 slams in such a short amount of time, BUT he wasn’t always number 1, and he clearly wasn’t able to raise his game enough to win the U.S. Open. You can’t overlook the 6 years of being number 1. It’s just amazing how consistent he was for so many years. 6/14 years at number 1? There are some good players who didn’t even spend that much time in the top 10. But I still think Federer will break that record.

Nick,

You are 100% correct. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Fitness is so key in tennis, and helps in so many ways. I am very fit and look how much it helps me. Especially in five setters.

I am the greatest!!!! period.

Quite simply, Federer whipped Apeman’s ass in Wimby. Case Closed.

Apeman’s (aka sampras) mouth was completely agape. Oh, wait a second, his mouth was always hanging open with that tongue sticking out at every serve. No class. Sure he won titles, but no quality.

Agassi said he never played anyone like Federer. That includes sampras. Did sampras ever get to the finals at the French Open? I was impressed with his Davis Cup performance, that never say its over till it is.

Federer has class and talent, and is amazing to watch even if he’s playing a guy like Spadea. Fabulous to watch when he’s beating up Sampras.

Federer’s record against ex-French open champs.

AMS MonteCarlo
2001 R64 beat Chang, Michael (RG chap 1989/Finalist 1995)

AMS Hamburg
2002 Q beat Gustova Kuerten (RG chap 2001/1999)
2004 R64 beat Gaudio (RG chap 2004)
2004 Q beat Moya (RG chap 1999)

AMS Rome
2003 S beat Ferrero ( RG chap 2003)
2004 R32 beat Albert Costa (RG chap 2002)

Gstaad
2003 S beat Gaudio

And those results above were on clay. Can Sampras even compare???

More fuel to the fire eh?

Sean, being stronger and fitter allows you to endure longer, more physical matches, especially on clay, and hit harder.

There is no way the Beckers, Changs, et al from the past era in their form would have been able to withstand the game the way it is played now by current players. It’s a lot more gruelling, and with the courts slowed down, you have to be fitter just to compete. With all the complaints about Wimbledon’s grass courts getting slower and slower each year, would Pete’s game still have won him 7 wimbledons in this day and age?

I think we HAVE to listen to the guys who have actually played the sport as a profession. Agassi, Lendl, Chang, McEnroe etc have said Federer is simply the most amazing tennis player they have ever seen. The things he can do and more importantly WIN matches consistently, can only mean he probably the only guy who can GET BETTER. Age 25 is just the BEGINNING (God forbid injuries) Federer has already performed Sampras, IMO. However, I must say that Sampras is had been a WORTHY champion. A great guy especially on the court,

Meanwhile, to ME the greatest player is John McEnroe. 76 singles 78 doubles…and without practicing? Incredible! Sampras, doubles lets see…wait…damn, can’t remember!

you are the guy that gets us fed fans going by your ridiculous statements continually.is your life so boring that you always have to have a go at roger.just enjoy the game of tennis if you watch or understand it at all.it certainly doesnt sound like it.

Why can’t you guys just shut the #@*& up? Today belongs to Federer. Yesterday, it was Sampras’. The other day, probably to some other tennis superhero. And tomorrow? Who knows? Maybe it’s gonna be the kid down the street where you guys live. All i know is that they were all great during their primes. Today, it’s Federer’s prime. You can’t compare anyone of them to somebody else because to me they are all super players. And I am not an American.

You have to remember that tennis players now hit
more powerfull shots and look better largely due
to tennis rackets being so much better.

i remember playing with the old rackets and you couldn`t put the amount of spin or power a nadal uses. if you missed the middle you hit a crap shot. Even amateurs can hit better looking more powerfull shots now.

I think if becker or lendl ( for example )with their talent came around now with the new rackets and training they would
look damn good alot of the current players.

Everyones seems obsessed by one wimbeldon match between fed and samp its not much to built a conclusion on.

Well, I think Federer is a better player than Sampras. We saw a non-peak Federer play a non-peak Sampras. There were extended moments in that match where both were playing at a level close to their best, yet Federer still managed to treat Sampras’ serve and volley with contempt and did’nt look rushed doing so. I think Sampras was closer to peak in this match than Federer, because after it, Federer was nowhere for 2 years, whereas Sampras went on to win the US Open that year. Having said this, the match was tight and could have gone either way.

If you watch the two in isolation, Sampras is athletic, all hustle and bustle, attacking and aggressive. Federer is athletic, relaxed, smooth and balletic with aggression. To look at the two, Sampras seems like the go-getter, the American hero. Federer, more nonchalant and European. It may appear as if Sampras would prevail if they were to meet at peak because of his very visible aggression, but the astute eye recognizes that Federer, on balance, has more fire power, despite the somewhat deceptive lackadaisical style of his play.

Regarding fitness, maybe Sean does not play tennis. From experience, I can tell you that my technique definitely deteriorates when fatigue sets in and this increases my errors. You cannot move your racket as quickly, you are lethargic moving your feet, bending the knees and getting to balls. I have been so tired at times, it has been difficult to even lift the racket, let alone swing it with vitality. The effect of fatigue on the wrists and ones ability to grip the racket, can also be very debilitating. Fitness is half the game.

Agassi has said repeatedly that Fed is better than Sampras. SO all the Apeman’s fans should shut up.

And if you have ever picked up a tennis racket, you will know the value of fitness. This is not a game played for 15 minutes, where its mainly technique. Its played over 2-4 hours, best of 5 sets, where the ability to SUSTAIN your technique is entirely dependent on fitness.

As for Apemans six “year end no1″ - this has been said before - that statistic is meaningless, what matters is how long a person was number one. For several of those six years, apeman was not no1 for bulk of the year, and nicked and dimed his way to year end no 1 just for the record books.

That’s the difference. Fed doesn’t play for the record books, unlike apeman. Proof? Fed showed up at Shanghai last year on one leg, putting his 24 finals won in a row on the line (and lost the record). Same way at Cincinnati this year - he didn’t pull out becuase he was committed to play, even though he wa close to breaking lendl’s record of 18 consecutive finals (he had reached 17). Again, he put a record on the line, where he could have easily withdrawn. Same thing at Halle this year - he put his grass streak on the line.

Apeman just played for records. He got some, but now all of them will vanish within 5-6 years of his retirement. There is justice afterall.

nick,

Buddy, calm down a touch. Apeman? Why the visceral hatred? Did Sampras steal your lunch money in elementary school or something? It’s professional tennis, a spectator sport, a form of entertainment. Smack talk here at tennis-x is fun, and it’s meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. Remember that.

Sean Randall,

I think all these comments just made your boss really happy ahi?? Or are you just working for free. I mean if you are a proper journalist you would do your research before you make a comment..not wait for “Nick” to point out Fed’s clay court record.

And who cares whether Fed or Pete is the greatest…they both entertained and still entertain us with their talent. And they got paid handsomly for it.

I mean the argument should rather be…do you enjoy watching tennis now or in the by-gone era? if one can answer that question it will tell you why some r Pete fans and some r Fed fans.

Unfortunately for Mr. Lever most of the Internet junkies never got to see him play…Tough for Lever…does any one know a website where we can watch him play?? Sean, may be you can do some research on that…That is if you work for free…:)

Thanks for all your comments, especially from James and Ivan - nice to have some star power.

Lots and lots of talk about my thoughts fitness. Maybe I wasn’t clear. My point was/is that being fit doesn’t automatically make you a good tennis player. Just because you work out 10 hours a day doesn’t mean you will be a good at tennis or even better at tennis. By all accounts Andy Roddick is a fit guy, but that doesn’t mean he will volley great, does it? Maybe it helps his volleys in the fifth, but overall it’s not like Connors is telling him to work out more so his volley gets better. Thomas Muster was a fit guy, but that doesn’t mean his serve was ever worth a darn.

Yeah, I play tennis. I’m pretty fit. My buddy down the street played soccer in college, now he runs marathons. He’s 10 times fitter than me, and he plays tennis, too. But when we play I beat him easily. Why? I’m just better than him. There’s a lot more to tennis than just being fit.

For those of you that play tennis when you play someone you’ve never played or seen before, and you try to get the scoop on what the guy does good/bad, is the first thing you ask if he’s fit and in shape? Or if he works out?? If he spends a lot of time in the gym??? Do you even ask those questions at all? Of course not. No one does. If I played someone in a tournament I had never played before and I heard he ran marathons and lifted weights do I care? Probably not.

This is tennis. This isn’t bodybuilding or long distance running. There’s a lot between the ears.

So when you Fed freaks argue players are fitter and stronger now then they were, well what the hell does that mean?? What difference does that make?? Who cares??

Pete wasn’t the fittest guy, he just knew how to win. Fed’s probably not the fittest guy, he wins, too. James Blake probably fitter than both, but he can’t seem to win a fifth set. Ya think James’s coach is telling his boy that the reason he keeps losing is five is because he doesn’t spend enough time in the gym?

Do players strategize better now? Do they have more variety now? Do they serve better? Or volley better?

As for Borg, Nick/Thomas, you guys actually bring up a good point. Unfortunately we can’t go by averages (or maybe we can) otherwise Borg with his 11 Slams in 25 events (I think) would be on top. Also to note, the number of times Borg played Australia was zero. That’s right, he never went Down Under as up until the mid 80s or so the Aussie Open was not as important an event as it is now. If Borg were to have played Australia and played another 4-5 years he would have in my mind compiled 17 or maybe more Slams. But that’s a lot of “what ifs…”

Same for Lendl. Guy was great, no doubt, but 11 Slams is 11 Slams.

On the clay topic, I never said Pete was better than Roger on clay. If the two played 10 times at Roland Garros, Roger wins all ten. Maybe Pete serves out his you know what and gets a win, but that’s probably it. My point was that Pete actually had a few big wins of his own on the dirt, give him some credit. Hamburg, Rome, Monte Carlo are all great events, but I guess I would like to see Roger pull out a big win at the French or in D-Cup.

As for those that say I’m coming down on Fed, where have I done that? I’m fully behind Fed, the guy’s a marvel. He’s going to go down as the greatest.

Now, again, I’m not really interested in hearing who’s better between Fed and Pete, but I do want to hear from you Fed freaks as to why you guys say that Pete played in a time of lesser competition, and why it’s tougher now.

So far I got Nick telling me Nalbandian would kill Chang. Nick, I won’t argue (but you should see your doctor more often), I could see it happening for David, but I could also see him choking in five to Chang. Who knows.

As for Giner telling me the “Beckers, Changs, et al” wouldn’t be able to handle today’s power game. Well, sure looks like Andre handled it pretty well. Santoro handled it. Hell, Jonas Bjorkman is ranked at the same spot he was 12 years ago. He obviously could handle it. So I’m sure Becker, Chang, et al wouldn’t have had too much problem adapting to guys hitting it harder.

I also got Leo doing some homework of his own showing me that Pete played a bunch “patsies” en route to a few of his Slams. That’s fair, and it’s accurate.

But show me more of how the current Top 10 is better than 10 years ago.

As I questioned to you folks in my original post, “… of the current Top 10, how many of them would have been in the 1996 year-end Top 10?”

This argument is fun, but silly. Yes, Sampras was great. Yes, he has a phenomenal 14 grand slam titles. Yes, he never won the French.
Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl were all great. Heck, why leave out Perry, Lacoste, Emerson, Tillden, Budge, anyone on that list.
What seems fascinating about Federer however is the sheer breadth, depth and height of his game. It is as if he combines the best of everything in one package. Whether he is the greatest of all time is one of those academic questions that only posterity can answer. He certainly seems to be heading that way. Why not enjoy the ride instead of taking it all so personally?
By the way, what is all this nationalistic nonsense? I’m Indian, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to claim that Sania Mirza is greater than Maria Sharapova or Martina Hingis or whoever. Great tennis ought to be without nationality, outside perhaps the Olympics and the Davis and Fed Cups.

Sean Randall,

you just mentioned above - “Same for Lendl. Guy was great, no doubt, but 11 Slams is 11 Slams.”

get your facts right. Lendl won 8 slams. Not 11.

Do you know ANYTHING about tennis???

Fitness is obviously not the only thing in tennis. Or in any other sport. Mental toughness and Skill are equally important. However, given the same level of mental toughness and skill level, when you increase fitness, your tennis game will improve. In case you didn’t understand this point before (as it appears) - that’s what everyone is saying. Not that fitness is the only thing. Go back and read the posts. Someone mentioned that Nadal would be 22, not ranked 2, but for his super fitness. You need a lot of skill and mental toughness to be 22, which he has (to be 22nd). However, fitness is what has brought him from 22nd to 2nd (he actually has the mental toughness also, just not the skill level of a world no 2). That’s how the increased level of fitness today, compared to 10 years ago, and raised the level of the game, all else being the same. Got it? Its English buddy, quite simple.

There are just too many incorrect and distorted statements in your various posts. I have pointed out some. Here’s one more, AGAIN, since you can’t seem to get it.

Becker was NOT at his peak after 1992-93. Ya, he won his last slam in 1996 (Aus open). But Sampras won his last slam in 2002. Would you say that Sampras was at his peak then? The last time sampras was at his peak was in 1998. Sameway, the last time Becker was at his peak was in the early 90s. GOT IT? So stop saying that Sampras faced becker at becker’s peak. That’s totally false.

Otherwise, you will have to concede that Fed beat Sampras at Sampras’s peak (and obviously Fed was not at his peak in 2001, since he won his first slam in 2003). Would you say that Fed beat Sampras at his peak in 2001?

Let me hear it Sean, let me hear it. Its either a yes or no to this question. Either ways it destroys one of your arguments.

Well, I’m not sure but the initial impression I got from reading the article was Sampras beat a good number of Grand Slam champions during his time. And this was translated to a “deeper” field circa 1996. While today, Federer has little competition, with only one or two Grand Slam champions also ranked with him in the top 10. Mind you, there are also several Grand Slam champions ranked outside the top 10 in 1996 and this year. It is neither Sampras’ or Federer’s fault that they were/are injured or not playing well. So there is some hole in just judging the competition based on the number of Grand Slam winners in the top 10. Moreover, the benefit for Sampras’ co-top 10 is that we are viewing it 10 years after (note that Krajicek and Ivanisevic had not yet won their Grand Slams, while Becker, although a multiple winner, was already nearing retirement). Now, although we can’t question Federer’s dominance, we must leave the door open on who among the top 10 can win a Grand Slam. In addition, there is the tendency to compare Sampras and Federer per se, as if they existed in separate eras. And we immediately say that Federer is able to dominate because of lack of competition (or in this article, lack of Grand Slam champions). Note that the lack or abundance of current Grand Slam champions is a legacy of Sampras’ dominance (hence, what experts termed as the “Lost Generation”, to which the likes of Haas belongs to–players who have shown Grand Slam caliber at their prime but were not able to win a title due to the still active Sampras [and his rivalry with Agassi]). So yes, people might argue that Federer is the greatest, but like what Agassi said when he retired, he achieved it by standing on the shoulders of previous greats, Sampras included. Lastly, the article notes the great matches Sampras played on clay, while Federer still has to find the consistency to win (again, as the article repeatedly insists) over French Open champions. Then again, these are indirect comparisons. The most direct comparison we can get is through their head-to-head match ups, much like classic rivalries. And the most notable match there was their Wimbledon clash, which Federer won (as coincidentally like this article’s insistence on Sampras’ marathon victories on clay–in five sets)–in what many say, including Boris Becker, marked the changing of the guard in men’s tennis.

Ranjona,

Well, it IS nationalistic nonsense. Its present everywhere, but the extent is outrageous in the US. I am from Turkey, no great tennis players, so am quite neutral, I think. But its clear, these people are constantly putting down Laver, Borg, Lendl, and now Federer, and over hyping Sampras. All of these are great players, but Sampras is certainly not the best in this group of 5. He is best only to Americans. Nationalistic nonsense. Yes, that’s accurate.

Guys!!

Give Pete and Rog a break.

What pete did was monumental, and what rog is doing is monumental as well.

Two points

1)Nalbandian would have wiped out Chang on clay. Because Chang won the 1989 Roland Garros title, he got inaccurately labeled as a claycourt specialist. He actually was infinitely better on hardcourts (check his winning percentage on both surfaces). It is a testament to his competitiveness that he reached two Roland Garros finals when his movement was not as good on clay and he struggled with high backhands. Nalby, who prefers faster surfaces than clay, too, still has more game on clay than Chang ever did.

2)Davydenko will be perpetually underrated. He has huge weaknesses in his game (is any top player more clueless at the net?), but he has maxed out on his ability and proved he can stay at that level. He hits the ball incredibly clean and early and is sort of a poor man’s Agassi with better movement and less (much less) charisma. He would have been a top 10 player in 1996, too.

3)I give the edge to the 96 top 10 over the current one, but it’s an unfair list. Hewitt, who is much better than Change, is a top 10 player who has slipped out of the top 10 at the moment. This year, the game is in transition, with several incredibly talented young players on the verge of breaking into the top 10. The list will be a lot more imposing by this time next year, and it was more imposing at this time last year.

OK, that was three points.

Henman says Fed is better than Pete, Agassi says the same. Both have played both many many times, and won and lost.

Who are we to question henman and agassi? Is there anybody amongst us who is more qualified to comment on this issue than henman or agassi, both of whom have seen fed and sampras up close and personal, from across the net.

futile debate amongst amateurs. As someone said - opinions are like A..holes, everybody has one.

CHeck this out, someone has posted a graph of the ranking points of sampras and federer (adjusted for the change in the ranking system)

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Sampras_Federer_rankingpoints.GIF

they are exactly 10 years apart in age, so 1995 for sampras corresponds to 2005 for federer.

seems like sampras reached his peak in 1994-95, and then started to decline, even though he managed to grab the no1 ranking at the year end for a few more years. federer reached a similar peak in 2004-05, but is still going up and up and up.

Shows a higher peak and greater stay at the top for federer. But draw whatever conclusions you like. the facts are in front of you.

Another article in the globe (make what you want of it, but it has some facts too).
——————————————
Federer’s consistency is remarkable, particularly when stacked up against the last dominant player, Pete Sampras, during his best years.

Sampras’s run between 1993 and 1995 pales in comparison to the formidable Federer over the past three years. Sampras’s win-loss record in the three peak years was 234-44; Federer’s record has been 232-15 from 2004 to 2006. It is startling that Federer has almost the same number of wins but almost two-thirds fewer losses.

He also leads in Grand Slam titles (eight to six) and in tournament victories (31 to 23) over the two three-year periods. Though Sampras is well ahead in career Grand Slam titles (14 to nine) and in years finishing at No. 1 in the rankings (six to three), Federer, 25, is within striking distance of both.
———————————————

Apeman fans, (sorry, sensitive guy James, if it puts your panties in a bunch) - Francis has posted some nice stuff. how are you going to refute the data in there?

What are Henman and Agassi really judging though? I’m not questioning them or anything but think about it. They played tennis with them, and that’s what they’re judging. If you wanna know who is the best tennis player ever, who is better at playing tennis than everyone else? It’s Roger Federer. No question. The guy can hit any shot at any time and every single little tiny detail of his game is as perfect as possible. For Henman and Agassi, you know they’re playing some great tennis making it to the finals of a tounrament and then facing Roger and just failling to find a way to win. It’s like Agassi once said, (I’m paraphrasing this), “if you’re playing great against Pete, you can lose 6-4 6-4, if you’re playing bad against Pete, you can lose 6-4 6-4. if you’re playing great against Roger, you can lose 6-4 6-4, but if you’re playing bad, you can lose “6-2 6-2″. That right there tells me everything about what’s the difference between the two. But right now, I still say Sampras is the greatest. The way he was able to play his best tennis when it mattered most is what makes him so incredible. Borg? The U.S. Open is something he should’ve won at LEAST once but he was never able to win the final match. Lendl? He was like the Davydenko of his day playing every tournament, only he was able to win because he was a great player. Laver? Played during a time when there were like 5 tournaments all year that weren’t on grass. Other than winning the Grand Slam I don’t see why he’s rated so high, sure he was great during his time but cmon, he was before the Open Era.

I have seen Borg in action and have followed all the big names since then and must say that I too think Borg is/was the greatest. He won almost everything until he (didn’t even play Australian Open –> which meant fewer opportunities to win slams) was bored with tennis. I’ve read a very interesting biography about Borg where it’s evident that the parties (and drugs to some extent) just took over his life. Quite sad actually. Anyway Borg is number one on my list. The second player on my list isn’t there for his merits (ATP-titles, slams and so on), but for his beautiful skills of the game. Yep, you guessed it right, it’s Edberg. I have never seen a more elegant player than that. His volleys are worth a hall of fame on their own.

Borg is my top player too, though I like lendl too because he is czech. but borg was the best player ever.

I don’t think you can use the rest of the field’s Hall of Fame potential as a strong gauge if having GS titles is a basic requirement to get in. For one, if we agree that Federer dominates the field, then it follows that he will have less competition who are Grand Slam winners (i.e. because he keeps winning them).

Also, the lists of Top 10 you compared during Sampras’ time and Fed’s time are skewed. You took Sampras’ 1996 YE list while you took Fed’s current Top 10 List. How about taking 2004 YE list too and you’ll see that you have Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Moya, and Agassi there. Now that’s more fair comparison. Add to that Nadal in 2005, JC Ferrero in 2003, one can arguably say that Fed’s competition in a relatively short 24 months still have impressive credentials. I’m sure if we dig into all the weekly Top 10 lists, the number of HOF there will vary so it’s a waste to use this to bolster arguments.

Following up on some of the facts I posted earlier…

Pete went 234-44 during 1993-95, his peak years. Out of his 44 losses, only 11 were to players who ever won grand slam tournaments, before or after. In other words, he lost 33 matches over his 3 peak years to players who NEVER won a grand slam. This included losses like the one to Eric Stafford in the first round of queens on grass, etc.

Fed is already 232-15 during 2004-06. Out of his 15 losses, only 8 are to players who haven’t won a grand slam (and some of them are likely to in the future, like murray, gasquet, etc., so this will go down further).

Sampras used to lose too many matches (and sets), even at his peak, to relatively weaker players (Eltingh, Brett Steven, Stafford, Paes, etc.). Anyone could take him down if he was having a bad day. It takes tons more to take down federer, even when he having a bad day.

Again, infer what you want from this.

On the one hand, no matter how hard you’ll try to erase it, you’ll always have some prejudices against certain players and, on the other hand, always like some guys - no matter how beautiful their game is… If you don’t like Fed, even when you’re the fairest guy on the world there’ll be always something in your mind that will keep telling you that this guy’s not the best (or at least shouldn’t be the best), even when you must admit that he is… That’s all OK…

But… You picked Blake (as an American) as a possible Hall of Famer over Davydenko, Robredo and Ljuby, isn’t it? Yes, UNINTERESTING is the right word which comes through your mind when you’re thinking about them, isn’t it? They’re all from Europe, not from the US… From the market point of view, they’re uninteresting - as was Lendl… On top of it, they’re not Americans… Yes, they’re uninteresting for me as well, but why should I consider Blake a better player only because he’s an American? The guy’s perhaps most famous match was that quarterfinal with Agassi at the US last year, which he LOST… I like James as a human being, but why he should be better than Davy, Ljuby or Robredo? American bias after all…

But what’s the point of this article? To annoy all the Fed fans (including me)? Six consecutive years with No 1. finishes? Come on! Who cares? Look at the Champions Race if you want a clearly determined No. 1 for that particular year - not Entry! CR shows clearly who amassed the highest amount of points FOR THE WHOLE YEAR - not like Entry, where you can have a poor run in spring and then win 5 tournaments in summer/fall when you don’t have any points to defend and thus end as a No. 1… Yes, Pete had to defend a lot of points each of those 6 years, but there were always some dull times from the previous season which he could make use of it in the following one and thus gain some precious points…

In my opinion, it’s inessential that Pete finished 6 consecutive years as No. 1… His 286 weeks at the No. 1 spot - that’s what really matters! Roger isn’t even halfway there, and it will be really interesting to see whether he’s capable of beating this number… When you imagine how long he’s dominating the tour already, and then you realize he isn’t even halfway there… That really shows Pete’s class - and I’m a HUGE Federer fan!

Finally, to discuss whether today’s competition vs. that one from 1996 is questionable as well… Yes, Davydenko, Robredo or Ljubicic surely aren’t “the cream of the crop”, but it’s just because Fed is so good - nothing else… Just imagine if the guy wasn’t there - they all would surely be Slam winners one day (including Blake, Baghdatis etc)… But who knows, maybe they will be after all?

P.S. As Fed once said: “Domination isn’t about weak opposition. Domination is about how to make the opposition look weak…”

I think Federer is the ultimate champion of all time. But then again only time will provide solid evidence.However I wont underrate Sampras’s acheivements simply because he managed to win more slams than the others.So if he has not won the French he has compromised for it by winning more slams in the other tournaments.So Sampras might not be the greatest but atleast he is one of them.C’mon give him some credit for numbers(14 slams).It’s not fair to call him apeman because he knew how to control his emotions on court and played when it mattered but maybe not as polished as Federer.Anyway Fed vs Sampras……..Fed wins simply because he has a better all round game than sampras except maybe the killer serve.Nick has posted some nice records as to why Fed is the greatest ever and also has shown that Sean Randall doesnt have a clue about Tennis(Lendl has won 11 slams it seems!).

Ya, picking blake really shows the ignorance and bias of sean randall. Dangerous combination these two (ignorance and bias) - look where they have led the bush administration!!

Anyway, back to tennis. Tons of good stuff has been posted, especially all the statistics by Francis, Nick, etc.

Pete was a great player, nobody contests that. Problem is when you call him the greatest. A really telling statistic is by francis - Pete was 234-44 during 1993-95, his peak years. I looked it up - he lost 33 out of those 44 matches to players who never won a slam, before or after. In contrast, Fed is 232-15 during 2004-06 (and still going this year!) - only 7 of those losses have been to players who haven’t won a slam (but some likely will, like murray, gasquet, berdych).

Bottomline is - Fed just doesn’t lose, especially to “NON TOP” players. When was the last time he lost to some shady player? Can anyone tell me? And Sampras used to (at his peak) routinely lose to shady players like Brett Stevens, Eric Stafford, Eltingh, Paes, etc, including on grass at the Queens.

If Sampras wasn’t having a good day serving, he would lose the match. As simple as that. It happened about 15 times a year, even when he was at his peak. Fed wins (most of the time) even when he has a bad day. Why? Because he has so many options, shots, strategies. Out of his 15 losses, 8 are on clay, most of them to current or former french champs. Hasn’t lost on grass. Loses 1 or 2 matches on hard courts every year. That’s it. Fed is just a much tougher opponent. Not like Sampras, who was so reliant on one shot (serve).

Only a person who is either ignorant or biased or both would rate sampras above federer. Or even equal to him.

Lendl as all-time greatest? Or even top 5?
He never won Wimbledon, the ultimate tournament.
That knocks him out of contention for me, his US Open run notwithstanding.

Federer will end his career with a better clay-court record than Sampras. He’s already made a French Open final, which Sampras did not do. I don’t think that clay will be such a gaping hole in the resume of Federer the way it is for Sampras. Sampras was far from the king of clay. Federer, on the other hand is the king of everything in tennis EXCEPT Nadal.

This is maybe a bit off topic, but in my view should the person that has won most French Open titles (in my view the hardest to win, because they demand more skill than all the rest) be considered the greatest.
Anyone that thinks different? Let me explain my reasoning. To win Wimby you need a good serve and some luck, nothing more. To win the FO you need to be more complete as a player because you can’t just rely on your serves to win the matches. Or better yet, I think the person that has shown he can master both grass and clay as the respective extremes are the best player ever.

Interesting reasoning from the previous posts. So clay results should set the tone?

After some snooping on the Internet I found this:
………………………………
Borg’s six French Open singles titles are an all-time record. He is the only player to have won in three consecutive years both Wimbledon and the French Open, an accomplishment called by Wimbledon officials “the most difficult double in tennis” and “a feat considered impossible among today’s players.”
………………………… Wikipedia
So maybe I was right when I said that I regarded Borg as the greatest ever? And all this in just 8-9 years. It’s just simply amazing.

I stand corrected, Lendl only got 8 slams, not 11. My bad.

As for my alleged American bias, if you read my original post I actually ranked Fed No. 1 in 1996 ahead of Pete that is if Fed had played back then. I also put Nadal No. 3. I also said Baghadits has a good shot at the Hall, in addition to Blake. And I said Blake gets a nudge because he is American and he did grow up right around the corner from the Hall. Does he deserve it if he wins just one Slam? Probably not. But Yannick Noah got in on one Slam so… As for Ljubicic, Robredo and Davydenko, I just don’t see it.

I know if Fed were to take the next few years off allowing the other players to win Slams, do you really think Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Robredo or Davydenko would be those guys? Who knows.

However as Funches thankfully brought up, there is an encouraging bunch of youngsters coming up, and a few of them will surely find their place in the Hall. Of course I’m talking about Richard Gasquet, Novak Djokovic, Koralev, Del Potro, Andy Murray, Monfils, Cilic and Baghdatis.

As I said before, I’m not interested in the great debate between Sampras and Federer and who’s the best. Rather, I’m still waiting on reasons, real reasons, as to why Fed Freaks alleges Pete played at a time of lesser competition compared to Fed.

So far, I’ve heard two arguments, that coming from the totally delusional Nick and Funches, who made some strong points in his post. Funches, like Nick I’m also with you in that Chang could get wiped by Nalby. And if you want to put Davydenko in the year-end 1996 Top 10 that’s fine. I can actually see that.

But is that it? Is that the great defense for the Fed Freak argument that “Roger plays such better competition right now, Pete played no one and the guys he played weren’t at their peak.”

Again, prove it. Show me. Don’t give me Fed’s record the last few years or his streaks of titles, I don’t care. Don’t tell me “Borg is the greatest, or Lendl” because that’s not relevant to my question. Tell me why the Top 10 guys today – beyond Fed – are better than they were 10 years ago. Tell me why Roddick is better than Ivanisevic, or that Davydenko is better than Kafelnikov. Just tell me why.

So far the number of Fed Freaks that have argued that the current Top 10 is better than the 1996 Top 10 is still at ZERO. I guess maybe it’s just not true then…

Borg is my greatest ever, no matter what others think. I feel he is way way way better than Sampras. Borg was better than Sampras on Grass. He won one of his wimbledons without losing a set. A feat which Sampras could never do. He won Wimbledon 5 consecutive times and even reached the sixth final after that. Then he became bored at the age of 26!!!!

All his feats at Wimbledon coincided with his incredible run at French on clay.

Borg was a genius… Also look at Borgs career Win loss record (576/124 = 4.64 ), he is way way above Sampras (762/222 = 3.43).

Borg was a genius who simply got bored with his life. Sampras can never compare to Borg.

Nick u r completely right, I am Native American, and have watched alot of tennis. American players just r plain horrible, they all seem to have 1 thing a serve. Wow, and players r tougher, faster, and better stanmina, Darwin Theory. Disprove that Sean. No comparison, all European, and minoritys dominate, and will continue to dominate American sprots perid, unless youll get some crossbreeding or somrthing. Federer and nadal will dominate next 10 - 15 yrs.

Sean,

Federer is better than Sampras. And it is straight forward to establish - Sampras never dominated “his” era as much as Federer is able to dominate this era.

It is pointless, ridiculous and stupid to say one era is better than the other. You cannot say Sampras era is better anymore than anyone can say this era is better than Samprases.

Such an experiment cannot be done.

Only OBJECTIVE (nothing subjective here) statement of greatness here is - Federer is dominating his era as no one has ever done before.

Musing.

As of right now, Sampras has more achievements in his career than Federer. But Federer is the better tennis player. Sampras had some 44 losses was it during his 3 best years? And those losses most likely came on several bad days and others on days where his opponent was someone like Agassi who was playing very well and already knew how to beat Sampras. But with Federer, even when he’s playing bad it’s almost impossible to figure out how to beat him, then comes the task of beating him.