Nalbandian upsets Federer in final

RE:Sampras nothing compared to Fedex. by krishnamohan chandrahasan on Oct 24, 2007 03:56 PM You have demonstrated ur ignorance .......Yeah,samprass is nothing compared to Fedex when it comes to arrogance.    Forward   |   Report abuse

RE:Sampras by AAZIM LAKHANI on Oct 21, 2007 10:28 PM By far federer is superior to everyone according to me. He wins titles at the rate of dozens per year. He has hardly been out of action due to injuries over the past few years. He loses less than 10 times a year on an average of over 5 yrs. Wat else do u want. In this demanding age where the no of tournaments r on a rise, he still wins everything. By the time he ends his career i see him winning 20 grand slam titles atmost    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by A on Oct 21, 2007 10:37 PM Your statements says you need to know tenis better before you comment. Your so called ownable Sampras admits Federer is better than him...    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by krishnamohan chandrahasan on Oct 24, 2007 03:33 PM Thats called humility..Sampras sure is humble...FYI ive been following tennis for more than 17 yrs and hve tennis players as friends......Just compare the qulity of games and u'd understand.....    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by prakash mohanasundaram on Oct 22, 2007 12:34 PM Thanks for mentioning my fav player's name its not Sampras but Goran. Its just nice to see his name - honestly i am yet to see what u have written in your article.    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by Nitin Sawai on Oct 21, 2007 10:38 PM I almost fully agree with mr Krishna except he fogot one real big name 'the man with the best return ever' and who is the only moedern era player to hav won slam on every surface ANDRE fedex doesnt hav to face real class big hitters    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by Rajneesh on Oct 22, 2007 02:24 PM Only time they played federer outclassed him... so once again what are we talking about here???    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Sampras by krishnamohan chandrahasan on Oct 24, 2007 03:42 PM Sure,but Fed did not win wimbledon that year,lost at a later stage....Hence it does not prove anything......Plus An aged kafelnikov has beaten Federer .....again nothing much is proved....I am only requesting u to compare the quality of games and the quality of opponents.    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Sampras by krishnamohan chandrahasan on Oct 24, 2007 03:43 PM Plus it was an aged,jaded Sampras nearing retirement.    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by Kannan SivaramanViswanatha on Oct 21, 2007 11:14 PM I am a die-hard Sampras fan but I have equally enormous respect for what Federer has achieved during the last three years. If we get into a debate to decide who is better, the debate will be on until the cows come home! Firstly, both played in different eras and with different standards and common denominators. Sampras played when the courts were much faster and balls lighter. Although one could argue (again debatable) that Sampras had better opponents than What Federer has to face, the fact remains that Federer's armoury has no chinks. Sampras probably had the edge in his overpowering serve but his backhand was decidedly weaker, although good enough to beat most players. Federer's serve may not be that "all-conquering weapon" but he has an effective winning percentage of first serves. Ultimately, the percentages matter and not the speed. Federer's backhand is much better than Sampras', no doubt. In all other strokes, there is nothing much left to choose between the two. This is just a comparison between the two and their relative strengths. For someone to maintain such a virtually injury-free record for more than three seasons and play with such incredible consistency, Federer gets the honours, without question! Both are great players and in a hypothetical scenario where if one were to pit a 20-something Sampras against Federer, in faster courts, Sampras will have a definite edge. In slower courts with baseline bashing, as is the order of the day, the Swiss Master will co    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Sampras by Kannan SivaramanViswanatha on Oct 21, 2007 11:17 PM just to complete the sentence, "the Swiss master will come through easily"    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Sampras by srinivas narashimalu on Oct 21, 2007 11:54 PM Good analysis. I agree. Proof being Sampras never winning a French Open, but even Federer hasn't won one yet! Maybe, they'd have given each other good fight on hard courts and Sampras easing through on grass.    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by Raj Rag on Oct 22, 2007 01:18 AM You left out one of the most telling differences that would have troubled Fed no end - Sampras' menacing second serves - he wouldn;t have had to grind from the baseline (he could have when he had to) Sampras would have taken time away from Fed like no other. And Sampras' HUGE confidence, toughness under pressure is unparalleled - the current top 20 can grind all day but they are all wimps when it comes to mental toughness - Nadal and to some extent Nalbandian being the only exception. All you need to look at is the # of second serve aces by Sampras on break points. And over 3 out of 5 sets it's super hard to break him consistently to win on the big stages    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by tanmoy on Oct 22, 2007 01:30 AM Its not right to compare two legends.But some diff. is also there between them.federer returns better than sampras.But Sampras volley n serve is better than Federer.But 1 thing,in Sampras era there r many gr8 players like Agassi(his true form),Ivanisevic,becker(some of his previous years),Kafelnikov etc.But in todays era only 1 gr8 player n thats nadal.So federer has relatively easy opponents.Others like Safin,Hewitt r taleneted but most inconsistent.But I never see serve like croat Ivanisevic and return like agassi(in his early days).So sampras has to dealt with him.So 1 can say Sampras is better than Federer. But still I admit that both r uncomparable.And its difficult to say who will win if they met in their prime form    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by anuj desai on Oct 22, 2007 12:02 PM Stop this debate please. Both are undisputed champions of their times. Who is superior could be known only if both were playing in the same era. But honestly speaking both have very similar game styles and attitude. Who wins may depend on who is luckier on the given day. Hats off to the two champions of successive decades..    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by IM Amused on Oct 21, 2007 10:41 PM i think you're being unfair to both of them... it's like telling that bradman would not have scored even a single century had he played against the bowling of shoaib akhtar or murali...    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by Nitin Sawai on Oct 21, 2007 10:48 PM no i am not the proof yonas bjorkman who hardly made any imprsn in his prime age reaches qrt/semi final in so many slams these days even at 36 or probly more    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Sampras by prakash mohanasundaram on Oct 22, 2007 12:37 PM Mr. Nitin Sawai Jonas Bjorkman was world number 4 when he was 24 years old so pls dont say Bjorkman has hardly made an impression in his prime age. Moreover he has been consistently ranked within the top10 in doubles for more than a decade    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by senthil on Oct 22, 2007 11:53 AM sampras lacks allround games. He has good serve and volley. He doesn't have good ground strokes. He couldn't reach finals of French open in his entire career, despite having medicore clay court players in his era. However roger has allround game. He reached finals of french open two consecutive years and only losing to nadal who is all time great in clay. Federer backhand is relic. His back handslice keeps incredibly low which frustrates the oponents. He can disguise his backhand drive and direction of the hitting. And his forhand is best in the business. He is far superior than sampras. Sampras himself admits this fact. Agassi too acknowlege this. These days all the courts in the world is slowing down. WIth modern string technology returing the serve becoming more easier. If some one like sampras plays serve and volley game, he would perish. However, Roger has adopted to the slowless of the court he plays good baseline game and does paly serve and volley only if it is needed. When sampras and federer met in wimbledon, 70% sampras skills couldn't beat 30% of roger in his peak skill    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by tanmoy on Oct 22, 2007 01:39 PM Senthil how could u compare two alltime greats.they r legends.BTW u said that Federer is better because the courts r slow.But when u guys compare federer with Nadal,u guys always told that due to slow court Nadal had advantage over federer in clay court otherwise he cant play.Even his success in wimbledon is fluke.So before stop commenting abt two legends.And BTW if u said abt opponents,1 man rightly point out,Jonas Bjorkman who is above 35 still do well in Singles Grandslams,but when he is young,i.e.,in Sampras era he never got into semis of grandslams.Now what u tell. Still I am telling u that dont compare with two legends.Nobody knows who will win between them.As nobody can tell that if Bradman played today will he scored more than Sachin or not.    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Sampras by senthil on Oct 22, 2007 02:49 PM come on!!!!. Your line of thinking is wrong. Fed and Sam had overlap in their era but sachin and Bradman did not..Very little got changed from Sam era to Fed era. Bjorkman polished his game so well for so many years it is not surprise for any one to have Bjokman is semis of Wimbledon.    Forward   |   Report abuse