US Open Mens Final

[The Erectile Banana]

Thing is I just find Federer and Sampras these almost Terminator like players, they just dont allow anhy emotion interfere with them.
I dont disagree that Federer plays brilliant tennis, I just find him a bit dull.

But that's why Federer is so good.

He doesn't allow his emotions to interfere with his play.

Remember before he won his first Wimbledon he used to be a very angry & volatile individual on court at times. It's no coincidence that the grand slams started rolling in once he curbed his temper.

Allowing your emotions to get the better of you is generally a bad idea for sportsmen except in rare cases like John McEnroe who seemed to need anger to bring him to another level.

As for Federer being a robot I think you are being harsh. Some of his play is breathtaking. He is the closest thing I have seen to an artist on the tennis court.

[Lynchyred]

How can you NOT consider Sampras great?

More Grand Slams than anyone else, world number one for a long long time. I think before Federer tuned up he was the greatest ever, but to say he's not even "one of the greats" seems a little harsh to me.
Lendl was a great player but he never won Wimbledon. In fact I think there are only 4 player ho have won all 4 Slams at some point. I think it was Agassi, Lever, Borg and I can't remember the other. So are there only 4 great players in mens tennis history?
FWIW Pete Sampras has deservedly taken his place in Tennis's hall of fame.

Borg didn't win all 4. Only Agassi in last 30 years and before that, at least 3 out of the 4 grand slams were on the same surface so Agassi is the only one to win on 4 different surfaces. However (and he is my favourite player of all time), he cannot be compared quite on the same level as Sampras IMHO. Sampras hammered him a few times in Grand Slam finals and that says something.

Sampras is one of the greatest, Laver too for what it's worth. Before that you are going back 70+ years and who really knows then. Those 2 and Borg have to regarded as the best (and Borg retired properly aged 26 with 11 Slam titles we must remember). Federer is easily approaching that bracket and only the next 4 years will prove whether he stands above all of the others!!

That's my tuppence's worth anyhoo!!!!

[AFII]

How can you NOT consider Sampras great?

More Grand Slams than anyone else, world number one for a long long time. I think before Federer tuned up he was the greatest ever, but to say he's not even "one of the greats" seems a little harsh to me.
Lendl was a great player but he never won Wimbledon. In fact I think there are only 4 player ho have won all 4 Slams at some point. I think it was Agassi, Lever, Borg and I can't remember the other. So are there only 4 great players in mens tennis history?

FWIW Pete Sampras has deservedly taken his place in Tennis's hall of fame.

It's more easy for a player to be great on one or two surfaces like Sampras than if you are trying to be the best on all surfaces like Federer, Agassi, Wilander and Borg.

Sampras didn't give a **** about the clay court season and that is one reason to why he was so dominant on grass and hard court. Agassi would probably beaten him more times on grass and hard court if he had only concentrated his training on fast surfaces like Sampras.

Sampras, one of the best ever on a fast surface but rubbish on clay.

I will only call a player great if he is a proven great on all surfaces, Sampras isn't.

[Lynchyred]

It's more easy for a player to be great on one or two surfaces like Sampras than if you are trying to be the best on all surfaces like Federer, Agassi, Wilander and Borg.

Sampras didn't give a **** about the clay court season and that is one reason to why he was so dominant on grass and hard court. Agassi would probably beaten him more times on grass and hard court if he had only concentrated his training on fast surfaces like Sampras.

Sampras, one of the best ever on a fast surface but rubbish on clay.

I will only call a player great if he is a proven great on all surfaces, Sampras isn't.

The US Open was played on grass until 1975 and the Aus Open until 1988. Agassi is the only player who has won on 4 different surfaces. So what you are saying is that he is the only one you are calling great? He is great and Samprs, Borg, Laver aren't? Hmmm!!

[AFII]

The US Open was played on grass until 1975 and the Aus Open until 1988. Agassi is the only player who has won on 4 different surfaces. So what you are saying is that he is the only one you are calling great? He is great and Samprs, Borg, Laver aren't? Hmmm!!

Borg won titles on all different sourfaces, grass, hard court, clay and indoors.

Sampras didn't win a single clay court title, not even an ATP tournament title.

[Joe King]

Take away all the grand slams: who has been the best player ever to grace the sport?

[AFII]

Take away all the grand slams: who has been the best player ever to grace the sport?

Federer.

He wins almost every competition he enters. He is the most complete player ever.

Grass, best in the world without any doubt at all.
Clay, the second best after Nadal.
Hard court, the best in the world.
Indoor, the best in the world.

He simply doesn't lose more or less any match at all against anyone outside the top five.

Murray won against him last year of course.

[Guest]

Great to see you mention Wilander AFII. Great great player too.

[AFII]

Great to see you mention Wilander AFII. Great great player too.

He won three of the four slams in the same year, only McEnroe beat him in the Wimbledon QF that year in the slams. Edberg won Wimbledon so at least a swede won all four slams.

He lost his motivation after that fantastic year.

[Guest]

He won three of the four slams in the same year, only McEnroe beat him in the Wimbledon QF that year in the slams. Edberg won Wimbledon so at least a swede won all four slams.

He lost his motivation after that fantastic year.

He won 7 or 9 grand slams isn't it ? Off the top of my head.

[AFII]

He won 7 or 9 grand slams isn't it ? Off the top of my head.

Seven and lost four times in the final.

[Jayesh87]

Agassi

[Parm]

But that's why Federer is so good.

He doesn't allow his emotions to interfere with his play.

Remember before he won his first Wimbledon he used to be a very angry & volatile individual on court at times. It's no coincidence that the grand slams started rolling in once he curbed his temper.

Allowing your emotions to get the better of you is generally a bad idea for sportsmen except in rare cases like John McEnroe who seemed to need anger to bring him to another level.

As for Federer being a robot I think you are being harsh. Some of his play is breathtaking. He is the closest thing I have seen to an artist on the tennis court.

I know I'm probably being a bit harsh, actually used to be a bit of a fan of federers when he first won Wimbledon.
but now it's Nadal all the way for me. Just for the record, I do respect federer and do rate him very highly, but just gets irritating when he keeps on winning!!!

[Parm]

Agassi

[disco]

A mate watched Federer in the Men's Semis this year. It was a joy to watch, because he's not just serving and volleying like Sampras did, but playing a variety of shots.

The main thing my mate noticed was that Federer has 'gears'. And his top gear is unplayable. In his view, Federer was 'just doing enough' for the first two sets, but half way through the third thought '**** this' and demolished him.

We saw the same in the final - in the final set Federer's game raised and (after some break-point scares) demolished Nadal.

A brilliant, brilliant player.