Federer vs Djokovic

[Gunz Buz n LustBANNED]

Na m8 dont worry it's not what I mean at all, and its okay I think I'll survive, I might even not lose any sleep over it. No need to apologize ma bru, I just want people to hear my 2 cents here too, anything than looking over statutes relating to the protection of plants

[Mike Rotchtickles]

Bru, I sommer skeem you smaak Sampras a bit too much
This is rather how I see things:




Roddick had an edge over Pete.

Hewitt had an edge over Pete.

Safin had an edge over Pete.

Federer had an edge over Pete.

Pete was from an older era, and by the time he retired, he possessed the last straggling remains of the serve and volley relic that would soon and permanently disappear from relevance. It's testimony to his greatness that he was able to go out with one final hurrah!, but the modern power baseline game was quickly relegating him to irrelevance. He wasn't that ancient when he retired(he was only 31 for pete's sake ) -- he was simply just about over, and he knew it.

When Pete was in his prime, he dominated a list of successful champs from past eras who were good and varied players, all of whom built up impressive resumes because no REAL legend was there to take away their chances. You can kinda say that they built their resumes in a vacuum. When Pete arrived, he quickly proved that the "legends" from the 80's were simply capable placeholders waiting for a true champ to come along. Likewise, when the power baseliners REALLY came into their own, they proved that "ordinary" top ten talents in the modern (2000's) era were more than sufficient to dismiss the likes of Sampras.

The Hewitts and Safins and Roddicks and Nadals would very likely more often than not hand out beatings to guys like Edberg and Becker and Rafter in their primes, that those legends would probably end up looking quite ordinary.

Not only are all the best players today better than the best of Sampras's rivals, they are all better than Sampras, and proved it on the court. And guys like Safin and Hewitt did it before their primes. The fact that they developed and matured into even better players than when they were beating Pete, and STILL couldn't get a sniff of a title in the Fed era, just goes to show how Fed can be considered ahead of Pete, and Fed's contemporaries, on the whole, superior to those in the Sampras era.

Take that and smoke it my bru

[Gunz Buz n LustBANNED]

Before I address my opinion, let me just point out how far up you have your kop up a certain big-nosed legend's naars, that you can smaak the swiss cheese

Also my fellow Saffa, you be acting a little hypocritical.

I took the liberty of taking this stront from your spotlight:

'Sampras or Federer: It could depend on the surface, but I would go for Sampras. Also, the level of competition that he competed successfully against is miles better than the pitiful bunch that Federer is playing against these days.'

Pitiful indeed, Grandslam victories against players like the Arod of 05 n 06, a 35 year old Agassi, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Soderling, Phillippoussis to name a few.

None of the players you've mentioned can you convincingly argue have had a dominant edge over Sampras when Pete was way past his prime when they met him. Even then Sampras having one foot already in planned retirement schooled Roddick and Safin to win his last US Open in pretty epic style. Combining Safin,Roddick and Hewitt Grand Slam victories together (underachievers of their era), Sampras still has more than twice their GS wins. Moreover, if you think Federer defeated Sampras at his best in 2001, then it is you with Q who is not lekker in the kop ma bru.

Saying that serve and volley would disappear from relevance is immaterial, as other variable factors (ie.court speed, rackets, and heavyness of balls) caused this style of play to diminish, not the fact that the 'modern power' wa relegating Pete to irrelvance (what a load of bollocks).

If you have watched Sampras play, you know he was equally adept on the baseline (dont deny it unless you have proof; I have plenty of vids to corroborate) as he was at his serve and volley game. ONLY 31 is quite an age for Tennis, youre not exactly 21 anymore, and for Sampras's case he wasn't over cause he thought he couldn't handle 'the big guns' (how much do you speculate without any references by the way) , he retired because he had nothing else to prove, and he everything he wanted to achieve he had done so (except winning the RG).

The only people I can think of who you call past era players is Lendl and Edberg, (Becker was definitely at his very best during Sampras's peak years). No REAL legend? Lol are you for real mate? They were all legends who constantly pushed each other to reach their leaps and bounds in terms of achievements (most notably Grand Slams). Even insinuating that people like Edberg and Lendl arent proper legends shows how little you know lad. When Pete did arrive, these 'placeholders' as you name them didnt exactly roll over. Both Edberg and Becker took down Sampras on numerous occassions. Even so why are you ignoring the players who actually all were in their primes and make people like Roddick or any of the Top 20 look like a bunch of chumps. Stich,Kuerten,Brugera,Courier,Agassi,Becker, Rios, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter (you can fill in the rest, if at all, the players that you claim as having an edge over Sampras, can be warranted as 'capable placeholders' . Again I'm not going to reiterate, but for the sake of emphasis, Sampras played these ordinary placeholders when he was way past his peak; correct me if im wrong?

Again the Hewitts and Safins and Roddicks would very much get their arses handed to them by players who were in their primes that were aforementioned (please stop mentioning players like Edberg). Nadal I agree could take anyone from Petes era, but then again he can take Federer easily too . Calling them ordinary is a load of balls, when the players you mentioned that can beat people like Rafter, Courier and Brugera dont even have hold a candle to them in terms of GS's and other achievements.

Bloufo:

'Not only are all the best players today better than the best of Sampras's rivals, they are all better than Sampras, and proved it on the court... The fact that they developed and matured into even better players than when they were beating Pete, and STILL couldn't get a sniff of a title in the Fed era, just goes to show how Fed can be considered ahead of Pete, and Fed's contemporaries, on the whole, superior to those in the Sampras era'

Refer back to to player spotlight, you've taken quite a 360 m8, sure you cant smell the swiss cheese yet? Oh yeah bru, didnt you read that statistical report? That pretty much stronts all over that THEORY of yours with facts; something devoid in your arguments.

I've smoked alot of things in my life bru, yes even biltong, but your post is a load of stront that I rather not smoke, made straite from Jo'burg (try Port Eliz next time blud ).

[Mike Rotchtickles]

A q&a I did over 2 and a half years ago is dragged out to 'show me up'?
I don't know what to say to you I mean since that feature was done and my opinions were voiced, Fed has gone on to add a couple more Wimbledon titles, a couple more US Open titles, getting the career slam at the French and breaking the record for all-time GS title victories. You could also throw in the fact that he extended his semi final streak to 22. You would think that just maybe a persons opinion could be changed after having seen all that? Well mine certainly did watching a player achieve all this and do it before the age of 28! But I cant voice my opinions as things stand now regarding his quality and that of his contemporaries, because that'd be hypocritical of me, considering my thoughts of 2 and a half years ago?
Maybe I should add some form of disclaimer and use that as my sig, kinda like what GOA has. Something like "Yesterday I was lying. Today I'm speaking the truth" Maybe that would cover me from you going back in my posts and digging up 'inconsistencies' with what I might have said then to how I feel now.
Look, you've said what you think and I've done the same, but don't be throwing around " just goes to show you don't know much, lad" comments. I've not resorted to any of that, so I would appreciate the same from you.

Oh man, why do I feel another long-winded response coming my way?

[MisterGregory42]

You're comparing apples and oranges, guys.

There were a lot of intelligent, insightful comments on that blog that Gunz Buz n Lust posted a link to...it was a good read. I think this particular portion of a comment sums it up perfectly:

"As Tennis legend Rod Laver puts it, 'it’s not easier to compare two players. what is important is Who is best during their era' During Sampras era, Sampras was the best. During Federer era, Federer is the best."

[Q. Reese]

Yes. The thing we have to remember is that technology and time seperate the eras from one another.

People try so hard to compare the two, but I think it is not able to be done (of course, you can try)!