i am A great fan of pete sampras and roger federer.it is having pleasure to watch the match between these two players.i think they both are great legends of tennis.and i think pete should become a grand slam champion if he will take part in gran slams compititions.
Honestly, it would have been an interesting contest - if, and only if, the two of them would have been of the same era. Pete is 36 on date - how can we even expect him to replicate the magic that he was capable of when he was 24-25 and Roger was in high school at the time. Pete is a gentleman - both have mutual respect for each other - and genuine liking. Well, I like both of them as well.
Just the fact that the two of them together, look great - even though their games are so different, is what is truly fantastic. Pete was a natural serve and vollier - his entire game was based around his very very strong service. Roger, on the other hand is a master strategist in the guise of a tennis player - he plays tennis like Vishwanathan Anand plays chess - he plans strokes and plays them in his mind 2 or 3 strokes before he actually executes them - that is a sign of a true genius.
But, undoubtedly, both are all time greats, and both are gentlemen to be revered and if possible, to be emulated.
RE:Pete and Roger - very different, yet very great
by Sandeep Kumar on Nov 22, 2007 11:13 AM
very Good comments. Both are genius tennis players. It is better if we do not compare them.
You cant compare them, only way would have been if they were of same era and what a view it would have been... No one can say who is better...but definitely Roger has dominated tennis world like no one else....
RE:equals
by Sandeep Kumar on Nov 22, 2007 11:16 AM
The funniest thing is that both could not win French open Roland Garros. Fedex made it to the final, and pete could only make it to the Semis. Thats the only difference. I wish Fedex wins this time
No doubt Sampras was best at his time..but Roger is best..i have seen majority of matches Sampras played and his biggest strength was his serve..he was inferior to Aggassi in groundstrokes but Federer is greatest ..got every shot from book...good serve ..silky rallies...and above all respect for opponents...cool guy..
PETE WAS GREAT IN HIS DAY. BUT TODAY'S FEDEX IS THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. BY THE TIME HE RETIRES, THERE WILL BE RECORD UPON RECORD, WHICH THE NEXT GEN WILL FIND VERY HARD TO BREAK.
Nothing to take away from Roger but Sampras had more competition and far greater payers around him when he was king. Today the tennis world is devoid of players from Australia and USA. Players are only emerging only from Europe and Latin America.
RE:Sampras had more competiton
by arun bharadwaj on Nov 21, 2007 01:52 AM
well...that's what makes Fed special...its not that Sampras had more competition...its just that...Fed makes his opponents look extremely ordinary...He is definitely in a league of his own...He is all alone at the top...
RE:Sampras had more competiton
by Peekay Mast on Nov 21, 2007 11:13 AM
Fair enough. but don't jump into any conclusion dude. Remember that they belong to two different eras of tennis. There is no logical way that they can be compared. Now if there is a match between Hennin and Graf or Navratilova and if Hennin wins in straight sets, it wud be fatal to say that Hennin is greater than the two geniuses from the past. So plz let them be the way they are.
RE:Sampras had more competiton
by on Nov 21, 2007 09:28 PM
YOU ARE RIGHT ARUN. FED IS SPECIAL, EXCEPTIONALLY SPECIAL. THERE'S NOBODY IN IS STATURE FROM AMONGST THE CURRENT CROP. AND EVEN NADAL WILL NOT ATTAIN THE STATURE THAT FEDEX HAS REACHED.
AND THE DUDE IS SO VERY COOL, AND DOWN TO EARTH. MAN, HE TALKS LIKE A SIMPLE CLERK WHO DOES AN ORDINARY JOB. NO RACQUET SMASHING, NO BIG TALK, BUT A GAME THAT IS OUT OF THE ORDINARY.
OF COURSE, AS A HUMAN, HE SHOULD AND WILL HAVE HIS UPS AND DOWNS, AND HE WILL LOSE SOME DAYS. EVEN TO SMALL FRIES. BUT THEN, IT IS THE BIG MATCH TEMPEREMENT THAT MATTERS...
AND HE IS THE MASTER OF THEM ALL.
FEDERER. THE BEST IN HISTORY, EVER - MARK MY WORDS, 5 YEARS DOWN THE LINE.
When Sampras played tennis.. there were legends playing at their peak like Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, Goran Ivenasevic, Stephen Edberg, Michael Stich,etc and to play competetive tennis agaist these players is never gonna be easy..
If Sampras was in todays Era then maybe he would be having a much better record than Federer.
Soo todays win dont make federer a better player than Sampras
RE:Great Players
by Abhishek Thakur on Nov 21, 2007 01:55 AM
We don't have any credential to decide o this one. But the only who has played both these players at their peak, Andre Agassi, has testified Federer was the best he ever faced. Also, if you saw this year's Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal, you would agree that these two players win not because other players are weak but because they themselves are playing at such a high level that others have not been able to catch up.
RE:Great Players
by Saurav on Nov 20, 2007 11:44 PM
I am not a big fan of Federer but my brother Michael Stich, Stephen Edberg, Jim Courier they are not legends.
RE:Great Players
by mihir acharya on Nov 21, 2007 01:35 AM
watever it is.. can u tell me players from todays era winning grand slams except federer and nadal on clay.. these players are grandslam winners and always competitive than the players we have today soo look at that perspective and understand what am trying to say
RE:Great Players
by bipin vasant prabhu on Nov 21, 2007 01:39 AM
Agree that Stich and courier are not legends, Edberg is a legend, had an excellent all round games and has won 3 of the 4 grandslams, if he isnt a legend then who is...Sania?
RE:Great Players
by Kaushik Basu on Nov 22, 2007 11:29 AM
U r 200% rite...Edberg was on the best Serve n Volley-ers the tennis world has ever produced..it was a treat to watch him play...he is a LEGEND...surely
RE:Great Players
by kash on Nov 21, 2007 04:38 PM
Guys Edberg is a 6 time Grand Slam champion. He has won the Aus open, Wimby and US Open and has been to the finals of French Open. He was one of the finest serve and volleyers in the game. HE IS A LEGEND no denying that
RE:Great Players
by on Nov 21, 2007 01:38 AM
What the hell do you know about Stephen Edberg? Read tennis history before commenting.A small test for you: tell me sincerely without google-ing who is Ecterina Sczabo or Guillermo Vilas.Gain knowledge BROTHER
RE:Great Players
by Siddharth Gollapudi on Nov 21, 2007 07:19 PM
jim courier not a legend ? you must be joking. here is his record Australian Open Singles Winner - 1992, 1993 Singles Semifinalist - 1994 Singles Quarterfinalist - 1995, 1996
US Open Singles Finalist - 1991 Singles Semifinalist - 1992, 1995
Career Singles Titles (23); Finalist (36) Career Doubles Titles (6); Finalist (5) moreover, he stayed was the no 1 player for a then record 52 weeks consecutively and stayed in the top 10 until the late 90's. so if he is not a legend then who is ? although the record may not be too flaterring as compared to federer but we have to acknowledge the fact that he was a top player in an era where there were many legends like mentioned by mihir acharya [except stich]
