I have been watching the australian open, and Federer is playing amazing. I was wondering how many of you think he is or will become the best ever? Or was Pete Sampres Better? Because IMHO he was the best ever, But Federer is amazing, so i'm curious what you all think.
I think Rod Laver was the best ever, and Agassi is the best of the last generation (Pete couldn't win on clay). Federer is probably the best in the current generation over guys like Roddick and Kuerten. The most disappointing may have been Henman, he really deserved to win Wimbledon at least once in his career.
I never liked Henman, i didn't want him to win Wimbledon. I do not agree that Agassi was better the Pete. The thing i think that is great of Agassi is that he made that HUGE Comeback after a coouple of years without tennis. Unbelievable. But IMHO was Pete better, he may not have won on Clay but on grass he was unbeatable. i have to admit that i liked Pete's game better then Agasi, i always played serve voley so i liked it when other also do that
well agassi couldn't finish #1 6 consecutive seasons like sampras. agassi gets the all-around nod but not the overall nod. sampras could just seemingly will victory at wimbledon, even when he was older. he'd conserve energy on the opponents serve until he'd happen to get up 0-30 on a mistake or something and then he'd go in for the kill, win that one game, and then serve out the set because no one could beat his serve and volley game. rinse and repeat 3 times a match, 7 times a tournament. amazing.
Yea, I've been watching the Federer Express this Aussie Open, and think he is simply amazing. I believe he will become better than Sampras over time. Sampras always failed on clay, and I think Federer is much, much better player overall.
I never really liked Agassi or Sampras. I always liked Kafelnikov and Courier much better. They had exciting game.
what's federer up to in grand slams. it seems like i've been hearing his name for a few years now and he always seems to be winning (though he's always so under the radar) and on all types of surfaces so he's got to have a sizable number by now.
Boris Becker was the most exciting player to watch. Most exciting matches to watch would have been Becker vs. Agassi. Best player was Sampras. Federer has the potential to become best ever.
Sampras is probably the best, especially since I have an autogrpahed card, but bjorn borg was my favorite cause he beat that b*stard McEnroe. Then played with a wooden racket just to see if he could do it.
Until Federer starts to come close to Sampras' grand slam title, nobody should annoint him.... yet. He is truly awesome... and frankly, its like combining the best of Sampras (killer serve and volley) with a little of Andre (great groundstrokes), and a flair for the dramatic like Becker (diving every which way). He could be the best ever... but longevity is always in issue. He could lose interest after another 2-3 years of domination.
Total number of slams is quite misleading. In different eras some pros couldn't play them, and in the Open Era many of the top pros never went to Australia (McEnroe, Borg, Connors) whereas Sampras, Agassi and the newer players pad their totals there. IMO McEnroe was the greatest. He drove Borg out of tennis, for crying out loud. His 83-3 1984 year was a thing to behold, and his play was pure genius. What separated Sampras was his will to win over a long period of time - Connors with a great serve. Agassi could have been the best ever but screwed around too much early on - its a shame because once he actually dedicated himself to the game we've seen what he's done. Laver certainly gets a lot of credit in this 'best ever' category, but personally I only know some of his stats - never having seen him play but in SportCentury type shows. Federer, Becker, Courier, Kafelnikov, et al don't even deserve to be mentioned in this thread. Connors goes above all of those (won on all three surfaces, plenty of Grand Slams, semifinals at 38, 5 years at #1).
When his career is over, Federer will go down as the best ever. I'm not sure he will do the grand slam in one year like Laver, but I think he will win all the slams more than once and eclipse the 14 won by Sampras. Hayes Street, Connors achievements are overrated IMO. He racked up his slam wins in the years between Laver(and his generation) leaving and the next generation of greats(Borg, McEnroe, Lendl) arriving. And that run to the US Open semi finals was embarassing - for both the level of opponents he faced, and his diabolical behaviour. The guy was a jerk and thank heavens Courier put him in his place.
Hmmm, he was #1 for five consecutive years including a significant portion of the years Borg was winning Wimbeldon and the French. His titles included wins in the US Open over Borg (twice), and over McEnroe in '82 at Wimbledon. Those wins dispell your contention that Borg and McEnroe had not 'arrived. He won on clay, hardcourts, and grass. His 99-4 1974 record was amazing and he would probably have won the grand slam had he not been banned from the French for joining world team tennis. In comparison, none of the opposition Federer faced in Grand Slam finals (Hewitt, Phillippousis, Safin, Roddick) comes into the 'all time greatest' discussion.
Agassi is the most talented but jacked around too much. I would have to say Borg or Sampras was probably the best ever. Borg won on grass and clay.
Federer may or may not end up being the best, but he is definitely a fun player to watch. Pete was bit boring. I love it when Federer or Justinne Henin-Hardin hits that one handed backhand laser. Absolutely devastating! When I try that on the courts, it usually goes over the fence or gets crushed back at me. They make it look so easy and beautiful.
i loved pete sampras, sure he was boring but he was a machine who just tore through his opponents. he never did win on clay but it's not like he got knocked out of the french in the first round every single year. he was very competitive. for his generation he's easlily the best. i haven't really kept up with tennis for more then a year but what's going on with that australian kid, hewitt? he was number one for a while and at the time i thought he was going to be one of the best, it seemed like you couldn't get a ball past him and he had a nasty backhand.
His game is based on tracking every ball down. Since Agassi exposed him in the Australian (you wanna run, beeotch?) he's never been the same.
Nothing wrong with hustle. Michael Chang made a career out of running down every ball. However, you'll be Mr. Quarter Finals forever.
this is why i still must rank pete number 1. he may have been a boring person, but his game was not. i think people are confusing his personality with his game.
