Official Tennis thread

[Forostar]

Some more facts (stats / records / trivia ;-) ). Federer has many more records, but I thought these were nice enough to mention:

Sampras has a better US Open record than Federer.

Sampras:
5 wins
3 runner-up

Federer:
5 wins
2 runner-up

That's 8 US Open finals for Sampras, a record he shares with Ivan Lendl.

More Sampras records:
- Grand Slam: 1995–2000 8 consecutive finals appearances won
- Grand Slam: 1992–2002 11 consecutive years reaching 1+ final shared with Ivan Lendl
- US Open: 1990 Youngest US Open champion
- Sampras still holds the ATP record of six year-end No. 1 rankings, which were in consecutive years from 1993 through 1998.

Ken Rosewall and Sampras are the only men to have won Grand Slam singles titles as a teenager, in their 20s, and in their 30s!

Sampras won 40 of the 42 singles matches he played on Wimbledon's Centre Court and 63 of the 70 singles matches he played at the All England Club.


Head to head with Federer:
At the 2001 Wimbledon Championships, Sampras lost to Roger Federer, then aged 19, 6–7(7), 7–5, 4–6, 7–6(2), 5–7, in the fourth round, ending Sampras' 31-match winning streak at Wimbledon, and a match that marked the only time that the two men ever played each other on the ATP tour.

On November 20, 2007, Sampras lost the first of three exhibition matches in Asia against Roger Federer in Seoul, Korea. Two days later in Kuala Lumpur, Sampras again lost to Federer in two tiebreaks. However, Sampras was able to win the last match of the series, winning in two sets on fast carpet.

On March 10, 2008, Sampras played another exhibition match against world No. 1 Roger Federer at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Sampras once again lost the match in three tight sets.

Winning percentage in Grand Slam tournaments per court type:
Sampras: Grass: 90.00%; W: 63, L: 7
Federer: Grass: 88.76%; W: 79, L: 10

Career records per court type:
Sampras: Indoor: 23
Federer: Indoor: 22

 

[The Flash]

Everything you said in regards to US Open is irrelevant in the argument we've had. US Open is hard court.

A 19 year old Roger Federer beat a 4 time defending champion Pete Sampras in his prime at Wimbledon in 2001. Leave everything aside, that should tell you who the superior player is.

Full game is available. I watched it about a year ago, definitely recommended. Great game.

 

[Forostar]

I am aware of that match. It was a moment in time in which Federer was superior. But it was very close. IMO one match is not that representative for saying who a superior player is (if that's the case, then Krajicek was also a superior player (1996)), but of course, we know the other stuff both guys have done. I like to look at all the other aspects as well. I wish these two had played more often. After this loss, everyone thought Sampras was NOT in his prime anymore. He still reached the US Open final in 2001 and won it in 2002! (Federer reached the fourth round in both years, losing from Agassi and Max Mirnyi respectively)

 

[The Flash]

I am aware of that match. It was a moment in time in which Federer was superior. But it was very close. IMO one match is not that representative for saying who a superior player is

Federer was 19, Foro. He was far from what he would be. And it still was enough to beat a four time defending champion Sampras at his favorite court. Even if he lost, he managed to keep it competitive. At 19. He'd run away with it with the domination he had in mid 2000s. He didn't even have his best weapon in his offensive arsenal (passing shot) back then.

 

[Forostar]

re: He'd run away with it with the domination he had in mid 2000s.

Not necessarily vs Sampras at his best. Sampras played well, but was not at his best anymore on grass. He wasn't able anymore.

 

[The Flash]

re: He'd run away with it with the domination he had in mid 2000s.

Not necessarily vs Sampras at his best. Sampras played well, but was not at his best anymore on grass. He wasn't able anymore.

Why do you continue to ignore Federer was 19 at that match? Sampras had won Wimbledon the year before. Federer was still two years away from winning his first one. "At his best" argument doesn't protect Sampras here.

I've already made my points as to why Federer would destroy Sampras in the last page so I'm not going to go through the same thing again.

 

[Forostar]

Sampras did something that wasn't that different. He won from renowned players and won a grand slam.

First Grand Slam: 19 years old, beating Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi. Okay, McEnroe hadn't reached a final since 1985 (still SFs in 1990 and Wimbledon in 1992 though) but Agassi was no chicken shit (hadn't won a grand slam yet though) and Lendl...

Look at Lendl's US streak up til that point:
1982 Final
1983 Final
1984 Final
1985 Winner
1986 Winner
1987 Winner
1988 Final
1989 Final

Against Sampras he loses in the QF. Even though Lendl didn't win every year, it certainly was his court in the eighties, as much as Sampras had something with Wimledon in the nineties.

It went downhill with Sampras after March 2001. It went quick. I don't know how he did it on the US Opens, afterwards, but on all other grounds he was not that impressive anymore. He still reached 3 ATP tour finals, but in the ATP Master Series, he mostly had 1st and 2nd round losses. His best result in these tournaments was one Quarter Final in Stuttgart (clay) in 2001 and one semi @ Indian Wells (hard court), 2002.

Tournament wins:

1990 4
1991 4
1992 5
1993 8
1994 10
1995 5
1996 8
1997 8
1998 4
1999 5
2000 2
2001 0
2002 1

 

[The Flash]

Again, a completely unrelated argument. Sampras being able to do what Federer did against him has nothing to do with the Federer vs. Sampras discussion we're having. The discussion is whether Federer is a better grass court player than Sampras. You keep bringing up Sampras' success on US Open when it's a hard court tournament. If we're gonna go Federer vs. Sampras in general, then I'll bring up different arguments, which there are many of.

I can't keep up with the shifting paradigms, sorry.

 

[Forostar]

Sorry you can't keep it up but it's not completely unrelated. You brought up what Federer did at a young age. I ventured further into that by explaining what Sampras did on a young age. I compare players, beyond just focusing on one match, one type of court and the career of only one player (you focus on Federer, I focus more on Sampras). I also brought up how Sampras went downhill (for sure on grass!) around the time Federer won. Perhaps you rather discard all this info, but that doesn't mean it cannot be relevant in explaining various aspects of Sampras' career. After all, this is a broad tennis topic. No off-topic here. (And absolutely no offense meant)

 

[The Flash]

You brought up what Federer did at a young age. I ventured further into that by explaining what Sampras did on a young age

No. I brought up what Federer did at a young age against Sampras on grass court. Because you know, that's what we were talking about.

The game was brought up because it was their only head to head matchup. It has nothing to do with their acclompishments as young tennis players. Federer being 19 was emphasized to show that he beat a four time defending champion as an inexperienced player. Like, think how would he do against him when he was actually creme de la creme.

I compare players, beyond just focusing on one match, one type of court and the career of only one player

This part goes to show you that you're in a different register than I am. This wasn't a Federer vs. Sampras discussion. It was a Federer vs. Sampras on grass discussion.

This is how you started it:

re: Federer playing on grass at a level that had never been seen before

Well, Sampras is lauded by many tennis analysts as one of the greatest grass-court players of all time.

Like I said, if you want to discuss Federer vs. Sampras in general, fine. But you can't switch the subject without informing me if you want me to take your hard court arguments into account.

 

[Forostar]

It was a Federer vs. Sampras on grass discussion.

But how literal? Would that mean we would only stick at this game and nothing else? Yes, Federer was better. He won the match. End of story. Great discussion!

Like I said, if you want to discuss Federer vs. Sampras in general, fine. But you can't switch the subject without informing me if you want me to take your hard court arguments into account.

This comes across as being inflexible, to put it mildly. Maybe the things I said felt as being inconvenient in the discussion? In any case...
I am informing you about something. I was not necessarily switching. I made it broader and tried to put things in a different perspective, without leaving the grass aspect:

I said things about Sampras his career. It builds in saying how good he was at young age (not unrelated to what Federer did on the same age), how good he was at Wimbledon and grass up to 2000, and how his downfall (grass included!) started in Spring 2001. Putting the match he lost vs Federer in this perspective fits very well to the discussion.

Flash, I'd like to keep it friendly here. If this is not going the right way, if one of us feels he keeps being irritated about what the other says, let's try to change that and make it better.

 

[Shadow]

One important factor when talking about grass tennis is that the courts play considerably slower today than they did in Sampras' time, partly as a response to the infamous service ace contests of the nineties (think Ivanisevic etc.), and perhaps also because nobody wants star players to get knocked out early. A player like Nadal would probably have skipped Wimbledon back then, as many clay specialists did. This increased surface homogenization is probably part of the reason why a handful of players has dominated across all tournaments in recent years.

I think Federer's main advantage over Sampras is his greater versatility. I can see him succeeding in Wimbledon on the old fast-playing courts, but unlike Sampras I can also see him doing well on clay at the same time.

 

[Forostar]

Meanwhile, do you guys have some favourite moments (ever) in tennis?

I'd like to talk about something that impressed me very much when I was 17.

What I saw on TV was incredibly cool.

Dates: 26-28 March 1993
Location: Olympic Tennis Stadium, Barcelona, Spain
Court type: Clay (we call it gravel in Dutch)
Event: Davis Cup, first round

The Dutch had to play vs the masters of clay, Spain. The match was in Spain, and it was on clay. And it was a Spanish team with some of the best players on that court type. Their single players were much higher on the ATP ranking. Basically everything was against us. Also, Krajicek, our best player, was not there (ill).

Sergio Bruguera vs Paul Haarhuis
3-6 6-4 6-4 3-6 2-6

This was unexpected! Bruguera lost!

Then Carlos Costa (number 12 in the world) won from Mark Koevermans
5-7 6-3 6-1 6-1

Paul Haarhuis and Jacco Eltingh also lost the doubles vs Emilio Sanchez and Sergio Casal:
6-3 6-4 5-7 7-5

Then the last day:
Carlos Costa vs Paul Haarhuis. Again Haarhuis won in 5 sets! 6-3 6-4 3-6 6-7(6) 3-6
2-2!
Haarhuis had 2 or 3 match points against him...


Last match:
Sergio Bruguera vs Mark Koevermans:
6-3 7-6(4) 4-6 4-6 4-6 !! Total euphoria. What a victory!
The number 140 wins from number 16!

The story goes that Spain had the champagne cold after Bruguera won the first two sets in that final match. Koevermans heard about that and thought: "No way!"

I really hoped to have video footage but I can't find it. Describing this in words is nothing compared to seeing it.

Bruguera won Roland Garros later that year. He won it again the next year. At that time he was the king of clay. I'll see if I can find ATP rankings of all players involved to show the difference. Winning on this type of court, in Spain, must've been one of the most sentimental sport moments ever. What a thriller it was, and what a miracle! Legendary match.

edit: found video footage of the match point!
http://nos.nl/video/507322-ats-oranje-gekte-in-tennisland.html

More footage:
http://www.npo.nl/andere-tijden-sport/23-06-2013/VPWON_1185422
E.g. go to the 24th minute and further. The two players meet and look back.

 

[The Flash]

But how literal? Would that mean we would only stick at this game and nothing else? Yes, Federer was better. He won the match. End of story. Great discussion!

Way to completely ignore my entire premise as to why I think Federer is better than Sampras and pretend I've only talked about the game they played.

I didn't see Sampras live in his prime but I've watched most of his Wimbledon victories. I'm not pulling it out of my ass when I say Federer is on another level. Federer would destroy Sampras. Sampras was a fantastic service/volley player, probably the greatest of all time. Prime Federer is the worst possible matchup for a service/volley player, because he had the best passing shot in the history of the game. Federer's arsenal is just way too broad for Sampras to handle him.

There was no one in the 90s that could handle Sampras' big service/volley based fast paced game. Nobody had the game to combat it. Agassi was the greatest service returner of all time and it still wasn't enough, because he didn't have the offensive arsenal. Federer loved playing against service/volley guys, pretty much toyed with them throughout his prime. His calm demeanor would drive Sampras nuts as well because Sampras loved playing a fiery game.

With that being said I do rate Sampras the 2nd greatest grass player of all time.

My premise is a breakdown of their respective styles. But go on, pretend that my only argument is the sole game they've played.

The real rgument for Sampras has been mentioned by Shadow. Faster grass courts. If you based your argumentation on the grass court and came up with a counter argument that actually had anything to do with grass court success, then we'd have a proper discussion here.

 

[Forostar]

Can I have a laugh. You ignored about everything I said.

 

[The Flash]

No I did not. I simply ignore your arguments that are based on US Open. Because it's absolutely ridiculous. Hard court and grass court are entirely different ball games. Hell, you're killing your argument here, you're arguing Sampras' prime was over when he lost to Federer, but he won US Open the following year.

Hard court success has nothing to do with grass court success. That's the bottomline.

You haven't come up with ANYTHING that argues for Sampras > Federer on grass. You've come up with things that argue Sampras > Federer on hard court.

 

[Forostar]

But I have said things about grass. You ignore them.

His prime on grass was over. Get it?

 

[The Flash]

Sure. But that would only mean something if Federer was in his prime at the time. That's why I put the emphasis on Sampras being a 4 time defending champion and Federer being two years away from his first Wimbledon title. Federer was farther away from his prime in that game.

 

[Forostar]

I've seen the emphasis, but that doesn't mean Federer is easily the best grass player of all time. I'd take more into account when discussing that. Not only your premise.

 

[The Flash]

Why do you ignore my actual argument? Honestly, fuck the game. That wasn't even my argument. That's why I said "leave everything aside" when I posted the game: There already were arguments that I had made and you chose to ignore them.

I didn't see Sampras live in his prime but I've watched most of his Wimbledon victories. I'm not pulling it out of my ass when I say Federer is on another level. Federer would destroy Sampras. Sampras was a fantastic service/volley player, probably the greatest of all time. Prime Federer is the worst possible matchup for a service/volley player, because he had the best passing shot in the history of the game. Federer's arsenal is just way too broad for Sampras to handle him.

There was no one in the 90s that could handle Sampras' big service/volley based fast paced game. Nobody had the game to combat it. Agassi was the greatest service returner of all time and it still wasn't enough, because he didn't have the offensive arsenal. Federer loved playing against service/volley guys, pretty much toyed with them throughout his prime. His calm demeanor would drive Sampras nuts as well because Sampras loved playing a fiery game.

With that being said I do rate Sampras the 2nd greatest grass player of all time.

This is the second time I'm quoting this post because you continue to ignore it and pretend the game was my only argument. This was my initial response to your rebuttal, you know. The game is located in the following page to this one.