posted Sep 3, 2008

"Sampras was a carpet king..."

Why, did he work in Allied Carpets?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

"Why, did he work in Allied Carpets?"

maybe he works there now? No he won a lot of titles on Carpet. A lot of Weak Era theorists and Fed haters use Sampras as the example by which Federer does not live up to, but if you're talking about an all court game you can't put Sampras in that bracket, being very average on Clay.

if you look at Sampras's titles

Hard (37) Grass (10) Clay (2) Carpet (14)

Federer

Hard (36) Grass (10) Clay (7) Carpet (2)

So Federer is one behind on hardcourt, level on Grass, ahead on Clay, but way behind on the real surface of great - Indoor carpet.

I'd say Federer was a better all court player....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

Sampras won 64 titles so your research is flawed and cannot be trusted.

Beyond that, Sampras played in one of the strongest claycourt eras of all time and Federer 'competed' in the weakest. Despite that, Sampras still managed to win a more prestigious clay court title, the Italian Open, than Federer will ever do.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

Erm Sapras could not cope on clay, it's only a relief that Pussy cat Pete never had to play Nadal, or the destruction Federer faced at the French Open this year would seem competitive in comparison. Of Course Sampras would've never reached the final to reciece such a beating.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

Ok so what is Sampras's title record across the surfaces since I was one title out?

He may have won the Rome but so did Djokovic. Would he have won if he faced Nadal? No. And that's the same with Sampras. Could Sampras make one single final at Rolland Garros a title that actually counts? No. Federer taking Nadal to 5 sets at Rome is a bigger achievment than anything Sampras did on clay.

But like I said, he was a Carpet King.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

"He may have won the Rome but so did Djokovic. Would he have won if he faced Nadal? No."

Would Federer have won Rome had he faced Kuerten, Moya, Bruguera, Chang, Corretja, Gomez, Agassi, Muster or Costa?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

"Would Federer have won Rome had he faced Kuerten, Moya, Bruguera, Chang, Corretja, Gomez, Agassi, Muster or Costa?"

Ah yes, Chang and Agassi who both won the French Open a single time each. Clay court masters indeed... I believe that also goes for Muster (goes to show how easy it was to become a top 3 player, even a number 1)

Kuerten, now there is a clay master! Only Sampras didn't beat him in his win at Rome, he never even played him on clay! Federer beat Kuerten when he won his first Hamburg title though. Sampras didn't play Moya on clay either. Federer has a 3-0 record against Moya (7-0 overall)

Corretja - ever won a slam? He only won a couple of Masters titles.



All you're doing is show us a great list of Clay Courters - and showing us that Federer has the better record against them!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2008

al that anaysis and no mention of having no coach.

I wonder why the vast majority of the words' athetes all have coaches. I know Fed is educated and inteigent but sometimes it's about having another perspective. Like Alexander/Parmenion.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 9, 2008

WHAT DOWNFALL?!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 6, 2008

Pretty fun reading these back again.

add comment | complain about this comment