Tennis Discussions > Tennis Discussions

Federer verse Sampras


Tennis Freak:
Roger Federer rolled past Rusedski in straight sets today.  It just seems to be almost impossible to beat Roger.  When Sampras used to play, did it always seem like he was bound to win all the time like this?  I feel like I would feel more suprised if Federer lost a match now as opposed to Sampras losing a match back in say, 1996?

Is Roger's dominance better than Pete's was?  Realizing it is a shorter span of time so far, but still.

Nice new smilies by the way. :Boxing: - Roger knocking out Rusedski

MC ill Logic:
Sampras could lose at any moment when the tournament wasn't a Grand Slam, or important in some other way.  Sampras couldn't sleep walk through matches the way Federer can.  You could see that he really turned it on for certain events but when it wasn't "on" he was beatable.  Not so with Federer.  

Right now Federer is dominating in a way that Sampras never did.  But I guess the question is how long will he be able to sustain it?

I concur, Fed is just dicing the competition.  I did Sampras ever win 11 tournaments in 1 year?

Scarey thing is, Fed is cruising through out the year and still turns it up for the slams...  Sounds like your gut is right Freak.

Fed plays classic style tennis.  Very mature form as well.  I think if he can improve his serve a bit (more mph's), he'll be the man for some time to come.  He already has arguably the best return in todays game.  I also  believe he needs to hit a little bit harder, especially from the forehand side.  But what do I know, I never won 3 slams in one year and beat every top 10 player ...


[0] Message Index

Go to full version