You cant equate or call federer better than pete. Sampras played along side other legends like andre, where as federer has no serious competition like 'nadal-clay specialist'
RE:Sampras had many Competitors
by i_am_wat_i_am on Nov 20, 2007 09:07 PM
well... federer is better than the rest dude.. no question bout tat... and he's nt havin competition ?? wat , r u nuts ? nadal - djokovic - gonzales - ferrer - roddick etc are players arent they ? and u dont seem to live in the present do u ?
RE:Sampras had many Competitors
by cynic on Nov 20, 2007 09:09 PM
well Agassi also played when federer was around. And Agassi is a great player but his record in finals is pretty dismal just 8 out of 19. He had a habit of losing to unknown players. Anyone remember how he lost a match to Andres Gomez in French Open final in 1991?. Also Federer is no.2 in clay whereas Sampras was nowhere in top 10 in terms of clay. Just one semi final appearance shows how poor he was in clay. Regarding other opponents Goran was a one trick pony with a huge serve.
RE:Sampras had many Competitors
by Amit Kripalani on Nov 21, 2007 04:58 PM
wt u guys fail to understand that like any other sport even tennis keeps evolving..top playres from sampras's era might have not be in top 10 in today's era and vice versa..so while comparing 2 players from different era we have to look in to lot more finer details like courts speeds..cort types..nature of rackets being manufactured etc etc..its a lot more complex than it actually looks..so by mere talkin about which players were in which era doesnt rest the debate..2 best ways is to analyse the indvidual skills and take words of the experts like andre agassi. sampras was a great player..1 of the greatest no doubt..but he wasnt an artist like roger is..sampras was a player who maximised his skills to achieve the success he achieved..roger doesnt do that..he just goes out and plays and competes..and fitness of roger is outstanding..one of the reason for that is he doesnt even have to push himself too hard to achieve desired results..not coz of lack of competition but coz of the nature of his game..roger doesnt ever push too hard..not even against nadal on clay..he just plays the way he wants..sampras had dtrengths like serve volley off and running forehand..and very good slice back hand..he maximised these strengths to achieve his results..roger doesnt rely on 3 or 4 type of strokes to get wt he wants ..he just have too many options..its upto him which shot he wants to play ..which tactis he wants to use..and I trust andre agassi..if he says roger is the best ..I ll take his w
RE:RE:RE:Sampras had many Competitors
by Amit Kripalani on Nov 21, 2007 05:04 PM
to sum it up its lot more complex to compare players from different eras..but i ll take andre's word coz he has played both of at their peak and andre and pete might hv been rivals on court at one time but off the court andre and pete have had good relation..I m sure when andre said that he knew he was syn thngs tht probably his frnd and compatriot wont like..but he still did..so lets take his word..and well I think roger is better and I even think players today are better..look at andy roddick..if he was in 90s his serve would have given anyone nightmares..and today not just roger..no one cares if he serves at 142mph..but in 90s it was big deal..partly is due to evolution of the game as well..
RE:Sampras had many Competitors
by karthick anand on Nov 20, 2007 09:31 PM
ok how many ppl in mens tennis today have won grand slams? how many are consistent? Nadal is a good player but u ve got to wonder why he has not been able to extend his form after Wimbledon...tell me one player in top 10 whos got the serve of Ivanesevic, the return of Agassi or who has got a good serve and volley game...clearly Sampras had tougher opposition and to me is still the king of tennis even if he was poor on clay and even if federer breaks his record
RE:Sampras had many Competitors
by harindra kumar on Nov 21, 2007 12:17 AM
i really consider federer is the best. he plays almost every short in the book and his presence on the tennis court looks too gracious. never forget the first time when the two men pete and federer met in wimbledon federer matched pete's experience and wonderful play when he was new in tennis circuit. his opponent of today, rafael nadal is too quick even in his peak form pete might have found it hard to defeat.
RE:As soon as Federer
by India on Nov 21, 2007 02:13 AM
Maybe so but against inferior competion. That is a big minus for Roger. Today tennis is a dying sport and not the same as it was when Laver, Emerson, Borg and Connors were playing.
RE:As soon as Federer
by Sumeet on Nov 21, 2007 11:48 AM
Get over it..Indian..as if you have watched these players playing. and secondly..India was very very poor to understand tennis at that time when tennis was a rich mans game..More like golf 10 years back. Fed is the best amongst all the tennis players in history. Every individual living player including Laver, Emerson, Borg, Connors, Mcanroe, Sampras, Becker, Agassi etc have unanimously accepted this fact..
Does not prove anything because the players belong to different eras. I recall the day when Connors defeated an aging Rosewall in one of the premier tournaments. The young Connors reacted in an arrogant manner then. I am sure that Federer will be more cool.
I love Sampy's spirit...He's been a survivor, fighter and a winner throuout his hey days and its so evident with the fight he put up in this exhibition match with the reigning emperor, Rogy. Rogy has the age advantage with regards to movement on the court. However, Pete was so much a valiant competitor! Simply reconfirms the reasons why this guy remains one of the czars of international tennis and of course, 14 grand slams! A bow to u Pete!
I wud love to see Rogy's game when he hits those mid-30s! As for now, he RULES! :)
It would have been really great if they had played each other at their peak. It will be surprise if Pete even manages to take a set off the sublime Fed in the 3 match series...
We should keep in mind that Pete is in his late 30's and is not playing as regular as Federer does. Federer won't play as good as he does now, when he becomes 35 . I wonder how (and why) people compare the results of these exhibition matches!
RE:Consider Pete's Age!
by Tennis on Nov 20, 2007 08:08 PM
well said!!!...and look at these rediff guys...the first line says, "World No 1 Roger Federer showed who is king.....". So immature really!!!!...grow up Rediff...Pete n Roger are the best tennis players of their respective generations....thats it!!!...so just sit back n enjoy the matches rather than making cheap statements like the one in this article.
