I am a big fan of Pete Sampras. In fact, while Sampras was playing I made sure that I saw most of his Grand Slam matches. When he retired I thought tennis would never be the same again.
Then, slowly but surely this name kept cropping up in discussions, about someone being magnificent to watch. Someone, who in this world of power tennis plays "touch" shots, someone who can play on all sides of the court with equal perfection. I should have known that Roger Federer was going to not only fill Sampras's shoes but also exceed all expectations. The 4th round match at Wimbledon where Fedex beat Sampras was the precursor of total domination that we see in tennis these days. People say that Federer is not very good on clay and that Nadal keeps beating him at the french open. Just go through the list of recent french open champions... Sergie Bruguera, Gustavo Kuerten, thomas Muster, Kafelnikov, Albert Costa, Gaston Gaudio, Rafael Nadal. Don't you think that most of them are players who have not succeeded in any other grand slam? Of the list above, only Nadal is one who's ok to watch, but that too because of his athleticism. Federer on the other hand, gives joy to a person watching tennis, shots which have a lot more to them than just raw power
On comparing with Pete, all I can say at this point of time is that Fedex is just as good (if not better)
I am a big fan of Pete Sampras. In fact, while Sampras was playing I made sure that I saw most of his Grand Slam matches. When he retired I thought tennis would never be the same again.
Then, slowly but surely this name kept cropping up in discussions, about someone being magnificent to watch. Someone, who in this world of power tennis plays "touch" shots, someone who can play on all sides of the court with equal perfection. I should have known that Roger Federer was going to not only fill Sampras's shoes but also exceed all expectations. The 4th round match at Wimbledon where Fedex beat Sampras was the precursor of total domination that we see in tennis these days. People say that Federer is not very good on clay and that Nadal keeps beating him at the french open. Just go through the list of recent french open champions... Sergie Bruguera, Gustavo Kuerten, thomas Muster, Kafelnikov, Albert Costa, Gaston Gaudio, Rafael Nadal. Don't you think that most of them are players who have not succeeded in any other grand slam? Of the list above, only Nadal is one who's ok to watch, but that too because of his athleticism. Federer on the other hand, gives joy to a person watching tennis, shots which have a lot more to them than just raw power
On comparing with Pete, all I can say at this point of time is that Fedex is just as good (if not better)
Federer can beat every records, but his records are unbeatable. He is still to young to make to many more records. He will also overcome Nadal in clay soon. His techniques and energy is unimaginable. Difference between Federer and Nadal is Federer Plays 100 Different Shots and Nadal Plays the Same Shot 100 Times.
RE:RE:East or west Federer is Best
by adfasd asdasd on Jul 04, 2007 05:54 PM
wow man....you are saying this about a 10 times grand slam champion....open your eyes buddy.
RE:federer
by Gilchrist on Jul 04, 2007 11:21 AM
What? hello Federer is so great that others look ordinary when they play against him. Nadal may beat him on clay but elsewhere he is DON. They were even talking big abt Roddick. federer completely destroys roddick. FEDEX ROCKS...
RE:federer
by Joseph George on Jul 04, 2007 11:34 AM
Agreed that Federer would beat Borg in his prime on most days. So would most reigning champs from Sampras onwards. What you cannot take away from Borg and Vilas are the artistry and class that does not enthuse non players to watch a five set game today.
RE:federer
by navin kumar on Jul 04, 2007 12:46 PM
Fedrere is indeed a great player but still he has not faced the stiff competation except from nadal that too only on clay court. when sampras was playing there so many other good players agianst whom sampras had to fight it hard to win the tournaments
In comparison with eras of Borg and Sampras, present men's tennis field is one-sided at least turf-wise. To be counted in the same rank as them, Federer needs to improve the win-loss record with Nadal on clay. Then, OK, (if my memory is right) French open was Pete's waterloo as US open for Borg.
RE:Advantage Federer
by cynic on Jul 04, 2007 11:33 AM
dude Federer is 2nd best on clay and the gap between him and Nadal on clay is not all that much. Sampras was a complete flop on clay, he never even reached a French open final.
RE:Advantage Federer
by Rudraraju Narsimha on Jul 04, 2007 12:45 PM
i don't think federer (or any body in the world) can beat nadal in clay. but nadal can beat federer in grass(only 1%). The major advantage for him is his top spin.
Sampras started his career in clay but couldn't get even 1 french open title. I bet same thing happens to Federer.
