i got this from newsday.com

"Sampras concedes that Federer will almost certainly breeze by his men's record of 14 Grand Slam titles, but adds: Who has Federer had to play? "I don't see anyone pushing Roger consistently," Sampras said. "I see a lot of good players out there facing him, but no great players."

it's true there were better players in pete's day...even though roger beat him at wimbledon in my mind at this point in time pete was better.

^pete just scared that his records are being wipe away in front of his face and he can't do anything about it.

quote:

Originally posted by chi6me8ra what's the matter with elin?

that little boy zoric is jealous because Im in love with her more than he is

Ben is a fag though

HEJA SVERIGE

quote:

Originally posted by chi6me8ra i got this from newsday.com "Sampras concedes that Federer will almost certainly breeze by his men's record of 14 Grand Slam titles, but adds: Who has Federer had to play? "I don't see anyone pushing Roger consistently," Sampras said. "I see a lot of good players out there facing him, but no great players." it's true there were better players in pete's day...even though roger beat him at wimbledon in my mind at this point in time pete was better.

That's the eternal question : Does Federer win so many Grand slams because he doesn't have any strong competitor?
Or, does he have no competitor because he's really higher than anyone?

I mean, Sampras had weaknesses in his game, his backhand and his game on clay. Federer is near to perfection. Today you have very solid players like Nalbandian, Nadal, ... Federer had to play against a great Agassi, in 2003, 2004, 2005. Federer had to play against a great Lleyton Hewitt who was a great player and number one during two years. Well, that's an eternal debate.

quote:

Originally posted by chi6me8ra it's true there were better players in pete's day...even though roger beat him at wimbledon in my mind at this point in time pete was better.

actually that was the time that sampras was starting to slump ... he lost to federer in 2001 and his last triumph prior to that was wimbledon in 2000 and he didnt win ne major till the US open in 2002

I find it hard to believe that sampras would ever pass a comment like that but at the same time, i pretty much agree that federer didnt have the kind of competition that sampras did back in the day.

Its like comparing Muhammad Ali to Mike Tyson (before he got a taste of human flesh). Tysons opponents were good but there was no Joe frazier or george foreman that ali had to put up with.

But after watching federer in the us open i have to concede that federer would probably have taken sampras even on grass in his peak. It was funny how hard he tried to look ecstatic after he beat frat boy roddick. I think by the next US open hel be walking to the net like he lost after he wins the championship.

^I think it also have to do with Pete Sampras being American and Roger Federer being European. Federer is slowly winning fans in American.

quote:

Originally posted by SolemnThirsty ^I think it also have to do with Pete Sampras being American and Roger Federer being European. Federer is slowly winning fans in American.

watching his game from up close and personal, i'm definitely a huge fan of federer's game. he's so smooth, and i could swear he takes it easy on guys so that it doesn't look like a total embarrassment. sometimes he inexplicably dumps his shots into the net, like not even close. he can be pushed but he's so cool under pressure. i think he could've taken sampras in his prime.