Federer >>>> Sampras

[IGGYIVERSON]

and this is coming from someone who worshipped Pete. anyone watching the French Open final? Very early on in the match right now but damn Pete could never play like this on clay.

i think Pete had tougher competition but Federer just seems to have no weaknesses at all, and he can beat you on any surface. its terrifying.

im still praying Agassi can win another major and go out in style tho..

[chains5000]

Well, Sampras' game may not be as complete as Federer's, but he managed to stay 1st in the rankings for a million years. Let's see how longer does Federer stay.

[chains5000]

And I consider Federer today's best player.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

Federer is a freak. He just seems to coast at times and then just starts trying and crushes you. Its just awesome.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

I remember a game against that tall ass Croatian Llubjic or something, Federer let each set get to 5-4 and then would just crush him, broke him like he was playing against a scrub or something. Was scary.

[XxNeXuSxX]

What happened to Andy Roddick being no 1?

[Juvenile]

maybe Nadal can decrown him some day. Doesnt look too bad in the second set

[mavsfan4zindagi]

Federer=GOAT

[Hawker]

What happened to Andy Roddick being no 1?

I think Roddick knows he cant beat him. Federer is just godlike.

[Unregistered]

Nadal always seems to have Federer's number but Roger is still the most complete player ive ever seen.

Roddick will never enter Federer's class. his game has too many holes (the biggest one being his head). Roddick is basically just a less charismatic Ivanisevic

[Basketbolero]

This is the best French Open Final I've ever seen, these two guys are freaks!In a few years everybody will begin to say Federer is the best ever, and he has in Nadal a great opponent.

[mavsfan4zindagi]

Nadal is just sick.

Dude is dominating Federer now.

[joewait]

hahahaha but the guy can't beat Nadal on clay

[joewait]

and this is coming from someone who worshipped Pete. anyone watching the French Open final? Very early on in the match right now but damn Pete could never play like this on clay.

i think Pete had tougher competition but Federer just seems to have no weaknesses at all, and he can beat you on any surface. its terrifying.

im still praying Agassi can win another major and go out in style tho..


pete was sick though. had like a 42 inch vertical

[GOBB]

pete sampras is the goat. only thing he lacked was a personality. if he had one he would get celebrated/praised even more.

[joewait]

sampras is Tim duncan

[GOBB]

sampras is Tim duncan

kareem abdul jabbar

[mavsfan4zindagi]

Looks like Nadal might be better then both Federer and Sampras after all is said and done.


He dominated Federer today.

[GOBB]

Looks like Nadal might be better then both Federer and Sampras after all is said and done.


He dominated Federer today.

Ummm yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight :rollingeyes:

[mavsfan4zindagi]

He just turned 20 and he can improve a lot.

I wouldn't bet against that kid.

[joewait]

Looks like Nadal might be better then both Federer and Sampras after all is said and done.


He dominated Federer today.

Ah hell no. He's so far a one trick pony. He has zero shot at winning on grass, and I don't think he's made it past the 4th round at the US Open. I have a hard time believing he can win any major besides the French

[Unregistered]

Nadal is going to be great. but he cant dominate on every surface like Federer.

[mavsfan4zindagi]

Why not?

He's beaten Federer on the Hard surface already this year.

What makes you think he can't do it in a GS like the Austrailian/US Open?

[joewait]

I don't think he has the all around game to win on hard court. I really have a tough time betting on anyone not named Federer when it comes to the other 3 slams. I mean Nadal is amazing, but his heavy shots aren't as effective on a hard court where guys can just put them away, like a Roddick or Federer. especially at the Aussie Open, which I believe (they could have changed it so..) has the faster rubber surface, which would favor guys who hit the ball flatter and can get to net.
And on grass, well, Nadal has no chance, we can agree on that. But you're right hes only 20, so he can still win the other majors

[mavsfan4zindagi]

I agree that Federer is the better all around player, but it sure does look like Nadal has the mental edge over Roger.

He's 6-1 against him now and I'm pretty sure that could sneak up in Federer's mind if they play again.

[joewait]

True. when i first heard that it shocked me, but how many of those wins came on a hard court?
It's funny because everyone is getting on the Nadal bandwagon now. I was at the park yesterday and I saw 3 people wearing the Nadal shorts and nike headband while hitting on the wall, lol

[Unregistered]

Why not?

He's beaten Federer on the Hard surface already this year.

What makes you think he can't do it in a GS like the Austrailian/US Open?


well its not that he cant do it, its that he hasnt.

to me, Agassi having won all 4 majors on each surface is almost as impressive as Pete's 14 grandslams. even the Australian hardcourt is different than the US OPEN's.

[joewait]

well its not that he cant do it, its that he hasnt.

to me, Agassi having won all 4 majors on each surface is almost as impressive as Pete's 14 grandslams. even the Australian hardcourt is different than the US OPEN's.
\Is the Aussie Open still on Rebound Ace?

[mavsfan4zindagi]

He's probably the most modest 20 year old I've ever seen.

He just said that Roger is the GOAT and is the best on ALL surfaces including Clay.

[joewait]

Bud Collins looks like shit right now. he must be in his 70s. I remember in the 90s when he'd wear those crazy outfits that made him look he was still in the 70s

[Unregistered]

\Is the Aussie Open still on Rebound Ace?

im actually not sure. i just always read about how the organizers there are always messing with the speed of the court every year.

[Knoe Itawl]

It's crazy to think of what Agassi could have been if Brooke Shields hadn't warped his brain for those several years.

[roth15syr]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so don't get mad if I say something that's been said many times (It probably has been said because to me it's obvious). I think every sport gets better with time so even an average player these days could beat a prime Sampras, so I agree with the original premise that Federer is better than Sampras, though to me that says nothing. That said, I still think Federer is having one of the most dominant individual runs in Tennis history right now, because Sampras had Agassi to fight. When a 19-yr old is your main competition, you're set. Also, that's not a diss to Nadal. I LOVE NADAL! When he's 25 he could be even better than Federer is now, and his skills already on Clay are ridiculous. That said, I don't really buy into Nadal's 6-1 record vs. Federer so much. It is probably just a bad mesh of styles thing. Everybody has their one guy they have a tough time against. Sucks for Federer that he had to play his guy in the one Granny he doesn't have so far two years in a row...

[IGGYIVERSON]

think every sport gets better with time so even an average player these days could beat a prime Sampras, so I agree with the original premise that Federer is better than Sampras, though to me that says nothing. .

i would absolutely disagree with that 100% when it comes to players of the 80s or 90s generation. now could Rod Laver beat Roddick? no. the game is way too different.

but to say that any top 30 player today could beat prime Sampras is like saying any NBA starting shooting guard could own prime MJ

[joewait]

My favorite era of men's tennis is the early 90s, when you had guys like Edberg, Becker, and even Lendl and Connors (though much older), and Sampras and Agassi were young. The Edberg title run in the US Open was probably my favorite sports moment. It sucks that the new racket technology have made players like him extinct
I also remember how Courier killed everyone for like 2 years then he sucked afetr that

[IGGYIVERSON]

My favorite era of men's tennis is the early 90s, when you had guys like Edberg, Becker, and even Lendl and Connors (though much older), and Sampras and Agassi were young. The Edberg title run in the US Open was probably my favorite sports moment. It sucks that the new racket technology have made players like him extinct
I also remember how Courier killed everyone for like 2 years then he sucked afetr that

yea its strange to remember Courier dominating. that was just the best time for American tennis. Chang, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, even the guys like Mal Washington, Wheaton, Krickstein, etc.

good times. but yeah Edberg was the man. guy was so humble that he even turned down the chance to speak after his farewell Wimbledon match. the 92 US Open final was probably the only time i ever cheered against Sampras.

[joewait]

I think that US Open that Edberg beat him in was the last final Sampras ever lost, until he lost to Safin when he was way out of his prime. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the game

[Unregistered]

Roger Federer = GOAT

hes that good

[shadow]

Edberg, man that guy was the bomb. I was a huge fan. Still remember that match against Michael Chang in the '92(?) US Open. I think they went 4.5 hours and it was the longest match ever up till that point in time.

As far as federer goes, well he still has a ways to go before he can be considered as good as sampras. pete just straight out dominated,
especially on grass. Clay courts seem to be the undoing of quiet a few great serve/volley players like Sampras, Edberg. Anyone remember Thomas Muster. The guy could only play on clay, otherwise he was so-so. He went on this huge winning streak on clay surfaces during the clay court part of the season and was no. 1, supremely overhyped. Ofcourse the minute the clay court surface tournaments ended there went muster, his ranking & his hype.

[kentatm]

the best tennis player ever was Agassi. well when he cared anyways. then Brooke Sheilds came and down he goes. gets rid of her and back on top.

[joewait]

Edberg, man that guy was the bomb. I was a huge fan. Still remember that match against Michael Chang in the '92(?) US Open. I think they went 4.5 hours and it was the longest match ever up till that point in time.

As far as federer goes, well he still has a ways to go before he can be considered as good as sampras. pete just straight out dominated,
especially on grass. Clay courts seem to be the undoing of quiet a few great serve/volley players like Sampras, Edberg. Anyone remember Thomas Muster. The guy could only play on clay, otherwise he was so-so. He went on this huge winning streak on clay surfaces during the clay court part of the season and was no. 1, supremely overhyped. Ofcourse the minute the clay court surface tournaments ended there went muster, his ranking & his hype.


Thomas Muster the Mu-Man. That guy was great on clay and he'd irritate the hell out of opponents

[West-Side]

Nadal is just out of this world, this kid is what 19? Wow, we're witnessing history...he just beat Federer again (6-1 vs him)...that my friends is as good as it gets.

Nadal #1!

[JSub]

Nadal #1!

Correction: Nadal #1 on CLAY

[ChuckOakley]

It's tough to say who is the better player since Federer is only about halfway through his career and owns about half as many Grand Slams as Pete.

But.......... Federer has dominated his generation (except. Nadal) like no one else in history. Federer even beat Pete as a 19 year old at Wimbledon (Pete's favorite surface while Pete was still winning slams)
Federer lost only 4 matches last year (81-4), 6 losses in 2004, and only 4 losses so far this year (all to Nadal). (In Sampras' best years he weas still losing 12-20 matches per year) Some might say the competitiion is weak right now, but I don't buy it. Tennis is bigger and more popular than ever. There is a huge influx of South American players and other countries, so that tennis is simply not dominated by countries like the U.S. anymore. Anytime the U.S. starts to fall behind, like in the NBA, we think the overall quality of the sport is declining. I don't think so. I think it is improving. Improving so much, that the old gaurd can't keep up.

Also Federer is many times the player Sampras was on clay. He just made the finals of the French Open (barely losing to the best clay courter maybe ever in Nadal) the year after reaching the semis and losing to Nadal in 4 tight sets. Sampras only made it to the semis of the French Open once in 14 tries. Federer also owns many more clay titles (and important titles - Masters') than Sampras did in half the time.

Meanwhile Federer is the best on grass of his generation (like Pete) and the best on hardcourts (like Pete) until someone else like Nadal wins a Grand Slam on Hardcourts.

Sampras was my favorite player of the 90's but his game was mostly offensive. Huge serve, big forehand, good volleys. Federer has a big serve, big forehand, big backhand (much better than Pete's), good volleys and better movement, angles and defensive play.

The two would pretty much split their matches on hardcourts and grass courts, but Federer's clear superiority on clay gives him the edge IMO.

[kumquat]

I think every sport gets better with time so even an average player these days could beat a prime Sampras, ..

This is the reason why emoticons were made

:roll::roll::roll::stupid::wtf:

[Qwyjibo]

While it may not be true right now, I do think Federer will eventually surpass Sampras in most people's minds among any "top players of all-time list". His versatility is what will put him over the top and winning a French Open title in the next couple of years (to go along with the others he will accumulate) will be the difference.

[Shepseskaf]

I used to love to watch Chang play. The guy was so quick; it looked like he could run down just about every shot. It was amazing to me to see how fast he fell off.

[eliteballer]

It's tough to say who is the better player since Federer is only about halfway through his career and owns about half as many Grand Slams as Pete.

People really need to sit back and absorb how much previous players have accomplished. No one's going to blow a player like Sampras out of the water so easily.

[hateraid]

True, Federer does not have any clear weaknesses, but Sampras brought a devastating weapon to the game that NOBODY could contest for his time. That unbeleivable service game. Even his second serve was overpowering and accurate. Nobody had ever seen a game like that that was so overwhelming. Plus Federer does not have a dominant rival that can expose his game. Nadal is only good on clay, Roddick has power but no control. The only real rival IMO is Nalbandian, who I don't think is rival worthy. Sampras had Agassi ( a tennis warrior in his own right). Plus Sampras stayed consistantly at the top for nearly a whole decade. Federer would have to hold down number 1-5 for 4 more years to show the same consitancy. Sampras owns Federer. But Federer is amazing none the less.

[All Net]

If Nadal is only good on clay how do you explain Nadal beating Roger on the hard courts in the masters final? or how about taking Roger to 5 sets the previous year in Miami?

Nadal is unstoppable on clay but he is also becoming very good on the hard courts. Obviously we don't know how he will do on the grass but he is bound to improve on that surface because he wants to improve..his dream is to win wimbledon.

In say two years time I think Nadal would have surpassed Federer. He is already dominating him NOW.

[bagelred]

I think every sport gets better with time so even an average player these days could beat a prime Sampras, so I agree with the original premise that Federer is better than Sampras, though to me that says nothing. .

That is a ridiculous comment. You make it sound like Pete Sampras played in the 1930's with knickers on and a top hat.

HE PLAYED IN THE '90S!!!! YOU THINK THE GAME HAS CHANGED THAT MUCH THAT AN AVERAGE PLAYER CAN BEAT A YOUNG SAMPRAS??? LMAO??????

[joewait]

That is a ridiculous comment. You make it sound like Pete Sampras played in the 1930's with knickers on and a top hat.

HE PLAYED IN THE '90S!!!! YOU THINK THE GAME HAS CHANGED THAT MUCH THAT AN AVERAGE PLAYER CAN BEAT A YOUNG SAMPRAS??? LMAO??????

The guy has a point to an extent. Sampras played in the era of GREAT serve and volleyers. That era is dead right now, the only true serve and volleyer remaining is Henman and he's in the twilight stage of his career. The game has certainly changed tremendously but thats not to say the average player could beat pete

[bagelred]

If Sampras suddenly became 22 years old again, I'd put my money on him versus anyone...with the possible exception of Federer. That's a tough call.

Sampras was the Tim Duncan of his time. Boringly amazing always...

[joewait]

If Sampras suddenly became 22 years old again, I'd put my money on him versus anyone...with the possible exception of Federer. That's a tough call.

Sampras was the Tim Duncan of his time. Boringly amazing always...

yes. His accomplishments are so much more impressive than MJ and more celebrated athletes, but no one will ever give a damn

[bagelred]

If Sampras had McEnroe's personality, he'd be one of the most celebrated athletes ever....its amazing what a little personality can do for your legacy.

[joewait]

If Sampras had McEnroe's personality, he'd be one of the most celebrated athletes ever....its amazing what a little personality can do for your legacy.

Yeah, but you can just tell Pete's the kind of guy who is humble and could just blend in at a bar and chill with you and get drinks. Never let himself get above the game. My favorite Sampras moment was when he beat Courier in the Aussie open quarters when his coach was dying of the brain tumor and he was openly sobbing on the court, and he came back from 2 sets down to win and the crowd gave him a standing ovation

[shadow]

racket technology changes a lot in tennis.
One of the reasons those guys could hit that hard was because of the better rackets. There is no telling what guys from 50 years using wood rackets could do nowdays with the same technology.

[joewait]

racket technology changes a lot in tennis.
One of the reasons those guys could hit that hard was because of the better rackets. There is no telling what guys from 50 years using wood rackets could do nowdays with the same technology.

yeah. theres no way in hell Roddick could have played with a wood racket

[bagelred]

Yup...I just wish he had more moments like that in his career.

Let's just say Sampras is best ever, but Federer MIGHT be on his way to taking over.

[Milkman]

soccer >>>>>>>>> tennis

[kumquat]

*bump*

[The_Yearning]

bow down

[rfm767]

Lol nice bump. Federer is beyond GOAT now.

[Mr Clutch Melo]

Healthy Nadal > Federer.

[rzp]

Healthy Nadal > Federer.

Nadal is done ... no legs :lol

[Mr Clutch Melo]

Sad :ohwell: :cry:

[plowking]

Healthy Nadal > Federer.

Prime Federer > Healthy Nadal

[kkling]

Healthy Nadal > Federer.

That's okay, Federer > everyone else.

Nadal's poor knees, oh well, was fun while it lasted.

[Mr Clutch Melo]

Prime Federer > Healthy Nadal

No. Head to Head, Nadal > Federer. If not for the Injuries Nadal would become the GOAT. Just look at how many Grand Slams he has won and compare it to Federer, at age 23.

Hands down, Federer is the GOAT:bowdown: . I just like Nadal better.:cheers:

[kkling]

No. Head to Head, Nadal > Federer. If not for the Injuries Nadal would become the GOAT. Just look at how many Grand Slams he has won and compare it to Federer, at age 23.

Hands down, Federer is the GOAT:bowdown: . I just like Nadal better.:cheers:

Yeah, early on Federer was beating Nadal, that turned around quickly though.

[gasolina]

I wonder if Nadal will change his game or will he just win best of 3 set tournaments from now on?

[kkling]

I wonder if Nadal will change his game or will he just win best of 3 set tournaments from now on?

I can't see Nadal changing and doing as well. He wins so many matches because he plays incredibly hard.

[SoCalMike]

OTC??? :wtf::confusedshrug:



:pimp:

[Abd El-Krim]

Well, Sampras' game may not be as complete as Federer's, but he managed to stay 1st in the rankings for a million years. Let's see how longer does Federer stay.

:oldlol:

[Mr Clutch Melo]

I can't see Nadal changing and doing as well. He wins so many matches because he plays incredibly hard.

This. He just have too cut down the number of tournaments he parcitipates in.

Oh man, I feel bad for Rafa :ohwell:

[plowking]

No. Head to Head, Nadal > Federer. If not for the Injuries Nadal would become the GOAT. Just look at how many Grand Slams he has won and compare it to Federer, at age 23.

Hands down, Federer is the GOAT:bowdown: . I just like Nadal better.:cheers:

That's because most of their head to heads have been played on clay. If it was equally distributed among each surface Fed would be ahead most likely. It's kind of hard when the same guy beats you like 4 or 5 times in the French Open Final.

[rzp]

I can't see Nadal changing and doing as well. He wins so many matches because he plays incredibly hard.

exactly... Nadal can play at Federer level cuz he plays more than 100% , and his body is fked up now . Federer its a ferrari and Nadal its a Subaru with 4 turbos and running at high compresion... see the diference ?

Federer > Nadal

[Go Getter]

Isn't there an InsideTennis website you guys can talk about ghei stuff like this at?

:confusedshrug:

[Da_Realist]

That's because most of their head to heads have been played on clay. If it was equally distributed among each surface Fed would be ahead most likely. It's kind of hard when the same guy beats you like 4 or 5 times in the French Open Final.

I used to feel the say way. Even made excuses for how Federer lost to Nadal at Wimbledon (they slowed the grass to a crawl and negated Federer's advantages there ), but when Nadal beat Federer in Australia last year after winning a tough 5 setter that stretched over 2 days and didn't end until the day before...I had no more excuses. Nadal is just the type of player to stare down Federer on any surface.

Federer turns into a nervous, over-thinking mess against Nadal (especially in tight moments). Nadal does to Federer what Federer has made a career out of doing to everyone else. Takes a lot for me to admit that, but it's the truth.

That said...Nadal has no chance of catching Federer's win total because he doesn't have the game to beat the variety of players that Federer can handle on all surfaces. Think Federer's gotten to the semifinals 20+ straight times in majors. Shows how special the guy is that he is such a force on all surfaces.

I'm actually a bigger Sampras fan than I am a Federer fan, but I like Federer better than anyone else. I think Sampras attacking style and serve (1st and 2nd) would give Federer real fits at the US Open and Wimbledon (especially when the grass played fast like in Sampras' time) but Federer would destroy Sampras at the French and outlast him in Australia.

If I had to bet my life on one match, I'd bet Sampras on any surface except clay because the guy was such a warrior. If I had to bet on a career that encompasses playing different styles, different personalities and different surfaces, I'd go with Federer because he can adapt his game so much more than Sampras could. In other words, Federer could become Sampras if he needed to, but Sampras could never adapt his game to resemble Federer's. I like that versatility over the course of a career.

[bagelred]

I like both Sampras and Federererererererererer

[stephanieg]

Apparently the Venn Diagram overlap between tennis and basketball fans is larger than I would have thought.

[arkain]

This bump is two grand slam titles late. He became the GOAT when he won the French Open.

[picc84]

I used to feel the say way. Even made excuses for how Federer lost to Nadal at Wimbledon (they slowed the grass to a crawl and negated Federer's advantages there ), but when Nadal beat Federer in Australia last year after winning a tough 5 setter that stretched over 2 days and didn't end until the day before...I had no more excuses. Nadal is just the type of player to stare down Federer on any surface.

Federer turns into a nervous, over-thinking mess against Nadal (especially in tight moments). Nadal does to Federer what Federer has made a career out of doing to everyone else. Takes a lot for me to admit that, but it's the truth.


Sure. In one of the worst years of Federer's career, dealing with injury, and years after his prime ended.


I'm actually a bigger Sampras fan than I am a Federer fan, but I like Federer better than anyone else. I think Sampras attacking style and serve (1st and 2nd) would give Federer real fits at the US Open and Wimbledon (especially when the grass played fast like in Sampras' time) but Federer would destroy Sampras at the French and outlast him in Australia.

If I had to bet my life on one match, I'd bet Sampras on any surface except clay because the guy was such a warrior. If I had to bet on a career that encompasses playing different styles, different personalities and different surfaces, I'd go with Federer because he can adapt his game so much more than Sampras could. In other words, Federer could become Sampras if he needed to, but Sampras could never adapt his game to resemble Federer's. I like that versatility over the course of a career.

People dont come to the net against Federer because he's the best passing shot maker in the history of tennis. He routinely makes volleyers look stupid. In addition, he's one of the mentally toughest people to ever play. If Sampras was a warrior then what is he? Sampras's game wasn't complete enough to be betting on him over Federer, on any surface really. There was a reason he was only dominant on grass and got beaten to destroyed on hardcourt and clay.

[Eldrunko247]

Didn't Sampras play against better players? Just saying.

[ukplayer4]

Didn't Sampras play against better players? Just saying.



errrrr.....no

[ArbitraryWater]

Bump

Would love to see all the 2006 Posters from back then appear and comment on this topic...

Rafa is now at 14 Majors having just won his NINTH French Open (Record for any Major) 3 behind Roger's 17... I'm confident in believing Rafa can pass him.

[dunksby]

Bump

Would love to see all the 2006 Posters from back then appear and comment on this topic...

Rafa is now at 14 Majors having just won his NINTH French Open (Record for any Major) 3 behind Roger's 17... I'm confident in believing Rafa can pass him.
As a Samp fan I have Federer over him but Nadal's game is too coarse to pass a legend like Pete.

[ArbitraryWater]

As a Samp fan I have Federer over him but Nadal's game is too coarse to pass a legend like Pete.

"too coarse" :lol Really?

Is that in your opinion? The facts afterall are majors, winning.. And you won't be able to argue that :cheers:

[RagaZ]

Nadal owns Djokovic and Federer at Grand Slams.

[Milbuck]

Who woulda thought in 2006 Nadal would've surpassed both these guys? Nadal is ahead of Sampras for me. He has a bit to do before officially surpassing Fed, but he's a better player to me. It's like Jordan vs Bird/Magic before the titles...it's only a matter of time before he hits 15-17 and officially becomes the GOAT.

[The_Yearning]

This. He just have too cut down the number of tournaments he parcitipates in.

Oh man, I feel bad for Rafa :ohwell:

Don't feel too bad.

Nadal is the King of Clay...

[Graviton]

Who woulda thought in 2006 Nadal would've surpassed both these guys? Nadal is ahead of Sampras for me. He has a bit to do before officially surpassing Fed, but he's a better player to me. It's like Jordan vs Bird/Magic before the titles...it's only a matter of time before he hits 15-17 and officially becomes the GOAT.
More like Russell vs Jordan. :oldlol:

Nadal may end up with more but most of them will be in a weak, one dimensional era(French Open) like Bill's championships. Federer on the other hand will have the advantage everywhere else.

Or you can compare it to Shaq vs Lebron. Shaq really dominant in one aspect(post offense), but not really elite defensively or shooting wise. But Lebron is just way more versatile and can do it all, elite everywhere but not as dominant in that one thing Shaq is best at.

[ArbitraryWater]

More like Russell vs Jordan. :oldlol:

Nadal may end up with more but most of them will be in a weak, one dimensional era(French Open) like Bill's championships. Federer on the other hand will have the advantage everywhere else.

Or you can compare it to Shaq vs Lebron. Shaq really dominant in one aspect(post offense), but not really elite defensively or shooting wise. But Lebron is just way more versatile and can do it all, elite everywhere but not as dominant in that one thing Shaq is best at.

french open is now an era?

bro stick to basketball

[AintNoSunshine]

More like Russell vs Jordan. :oldlol:

Nadal may end up with more but most of them will be in a weak, one dimensional era(French Open) like Bill's championships. Federer on the other hand will have the advantage everywhere else.

Or you can compare it to Shaq vs Lebron. Shaq really dominant in one aspect(post offense), but not really elite defensively or shooting wise. But Lebron is just way more versatile and can do it all, elite everywhere but not as dominant in that one thing Shaq is best at.

Somewhat similar to that, at the end of the day prime Federer was the best well rounded tennis player, and that level of dominance he had over the tennis world for that time was simply unmatched

[Milbuck]

More like Russell vs Jordan. :oldlol:

Nadal may end up with more but most of them will be in a weak, one dimensional era(French Open) like Bill's championships. Federer on the other hand will have the advantage everywhere else.

Or you can compare it to Shaq vs Lebron. Shaq really dominant in one aspect(post offense), but not really elite defensively or shooting wise. But Lebron is just way more versatile and can do it all, elite everywhere but not as dominant in that one thing Shaq is best at.
23-10.

[Milbuck]

Somewhat similar to that, at the end of the day prime Federer was the best well rounded tennis player, and that level of dominance he had over the tennis world for that time was simply unmatched
He played scrubs. His biggest competition was Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzalez, 35 year old Agassi, teenager Nadal, etc. Nadal over the years has had to deal with Federer, Djokovic, and Murray all at their primes. Murray is the worst one of the bunch and even he is better than anyone prime Fed faced outside of teenage Rafa :oldlol:

Federer's "dominance" is one of the most exaggerated things in all of sports. Which all-time great at their prime wouldn't shit on that awful era from 2003-2007?