I was going to say he's taking a long time with his serves...
Wimbledon
- Thread starter KeyserSoze
- Start date
Sampras has that plan B, he could do it against anyone because he had the best serve in the world and was one of the best volleyers...
Federer, for all the talk of his allround game, is a jack of all trades, master of none... he CAN serve quite well, he CAN volley a bit, it's not enough to base your game around it and use that as the main tactic when you come against the best though...
Sampras had the stronger mind of the two, seemingly.
set point for nadal
Has there been a Nadal serve game that hasn`t gone to deuce?
Federer has the chance all the time here, but he doesn`t take it.
Federer has the chance all the time here, but he doesn`t take it.
Nice and mature there. You claimed Federer was still the best in the world and that his performances earlier in the season counted for nothing. I claimed the opposite; that Federer's performances this season showed that Nadal had overtaken him as the best player. You said I knew nothing.You childish fool. I defended Federer as a player not this game. Go away.
All I'm saying now is that it looks like I'm being proved right; Nadal IS the better player.
Says it all. Being outplayed on the big points. Something he has over any other player other than Nadal... who does it better now.
Federer can't take avantage of the break point. 
How many break points has Nadal saved in this set alone? I know he succumbed to one, but over the course of the whole match (remember those three Federer got in the first set?) he must have saved eight or nine.
He's a goner. Nadal feels like the no.1 all match so far... you knew Federer was never going to hold onto that break...
I think that'll be all she wrote, unfortunately. No one will win three sets in a row against Nadal when he's playing like this.
Nadal win the second set 6-4
Its all about the powerhouse Nadal.
It`s actually a reverse Wimbledon 2007 Final. Last year Federer was able to come out on top on the important points, this year Nadal just has the edge. Great mentality for an athlete so young.
Federer needs a miracle now.
Two fecking sets to love... what a joke Federer is, this would've never happened to Sampras on Wimbledon... he has so many options my arse, he hasn't the game to serve and volley against a Nadal.
So is Nadal, who's owning Federer so much on his own surface now (after pummeling him on clay and leading their head to heads by far), better than the best player ever now
Federer is not the best ever, no matter what the outcome here is.
So is Nadal, who's owning Federer so much on his own surface now (after pummeling him on clay and leading their head to heads by far), better than the best player ever now
Federer is not the best ever, no matter what the outcome here is.
Sooner or later Nadal will be the new World number 1.
Sampras lost tennis matches too you know?
...............
I did not say that at all. Just enjoy the tennis and stop trying to prove a point. It has been a great game so far.Federer is a fantastic tennis player, but he never has been and never will be the best ever.
That's not to say he isn't up there - he is - but he's not the best. Bjorg, Sampras; they were all better than him.
The fact that Nadal is beating him isn't that disappointing in the grand scheme of things, though. Nadal is probably also going to be right up there with the best come the end of his career.
That's not to say he isn't up there - he is - but he's not the best. Bjorg, Sampras; they were all better than him.
The fact that Nadal is beating him isn't that disappointing in the grand scheme of things, though. Nadal is probably also going to be right up there with the best come the end of his career.
People are going over board here a bit. Federer is still class and one of the best ever.
But it is pretty clear for me that Sampras would have beat him more times on grass than the other way around. Sampras would have killed Nadal completely on grass with his serve and volley game.
But it is pretty clear for me that Sampras would have beat him more times on grass than the other way around. Sampras would have killed Nadal completely on grass with his serve and volley game.
He's overtaken your favorite, it's reality. He's a fecking machine and is the true number one... and no, it's not the glandular fever anymore... it's humiliating.
It really hasn't. Rafa "rat-face" Nadal is dismantling him, and I hate Nadal. He's boring, he grunts and he seems to be everyone's favourite for no other reason than he has big arms. His game is based purely around his strength and less on his skill, and it's a sad indication of the way the game is going.
If he starts to dominate (as it looks he might) then tennis is just going to go the way of so many other sports -- the winners will be decided not on skill basis, but who's stronger or more powerful. Boooooring.
Hardcourt season's coming, if Nadal's not tailing off like he used to, he'll overtake him in the rankings AND be on his way to completely dominating Federer on his last saving grace.
To be fair, everyone can hit a ball hard in tennis nowadays, nobody can do it as consistently and and as sharp as he does. It's talent and skill.
Wimbledon Quarter Finals 1996
Richard Krajicek def Pete Sampras 7-5, 7-6, 6-4.
What a shit player Sampras was, a joke, never among the best.
Richard Krajicek def Pete Sampras 7-5, 7-6, 6-4.
What a shit player Sampras was, a joke, never among the best.
I`m not going to pretend I know much about tennis, but isn`t there a reason for serve and volleyers don`t get far anymore at Wimbledon? Not sure why but maybe because the grass is so mucher slower than it was ten years ago, the ball bounces higher. It`s not really that fast a surface anymore. And when the court is like it is in the final week it gets even slower, and that favours baseline players like Nadal even more. Would Pete`s serve and volley game be as effective today like it was back then?
Krajicek is a serve and volleyer with the power and volleys to completely outplay an opponent... one-off, as sampras' dealt with him before and after... and he's actually got the game for grasscourt. Nadal's dominaing Federer now, in head to heads and has done well against him on hardcourts (won two of them... whilst federer won 2 or 3...) he's outhitting and outplaying him...Wimbledon Quarter Finals 1996
Richard Krajicek def Pete Sampras 7-5, 7-6, 6-4.
What a shit player Sampras was, a joke, never among the best.
Sampras won't lose against an Agassi, Nadal, Courier on grass at the peak of his powers. Baseliner dominating him on grass? Dream on.
Don't listen to some anti-Fed twats here. They are as bad people with Federer's cock in their mouth.Wimbledon Quarter Finals 1996
Richard Krajicek def Pete Sampras 7-5, 7-6, 6-4.
What a shit player Sampras was, a joke, never among the best.
I disagree there was some great tennis especially in the first set, it also got going straight from the off. Nadal is a bit boring but thats just his game, we have to live with it he is still a great player. He has simply won the important points, played well and Federer has not taken his chances which is unusual, dismantling is a bit strong. I think there is a bit more to come anyway.
that was in
Yes it would... they were talking about the grass being slower even back in those days. It would have played like a clay court if that's gotten worse since.
No one's claiming that Federer was never among the bestWimbledon Quarter Finals 1996
Richard Krajicek def Pete Sampras 7-5, 7-6, 6-4.
What a shit player Sampras was, a joke, never among the best.
I think most people are quite willing to admit that in his prime he was fantastic. What we debate is people who say he was the best, which simply isn't true. He's right up there, but he's not the very best player who ever lived.
The other argument going on is that Federer's peak has passed. That he's now being overtaken by Nadal doesn't mean that he was never any good, and it doesn't mean he's now shit. It just means that Nadal is now better. Whether that's because Nadal has improved, Federer has regressed or a little of both is anybody's guess.
Sampras in 1996 was 28, which is widely regarded as smack in the middle of his fall from grace. His lost there was indicitive of his fall as the best in the world. He'll always be remembered as one of the greatest ever, but at that point his career was coming to an end. People don't go on winning indefinitely.
Same with Federer. He'll always be remembered as one of the best (though not the best), and no one can take away what he's achieved, but I think he's coming to the end of his period of dominance, and that Nadal is going to swiftly take his place.
I'm sick of saying "here comes Federer" only for him to feck it up later on.
You have to be excellent at the net to pull off a serve and volley game otherwise baseliners like Nadal and Agassi will always find shot to pass you. Likes of Sampras, Becker rarely got passed at the net even against some of the best baseliners around.
If they were playing today, they would still use the same game.
Federer and no one around anymore is just not that good at Serve and Volley.
Come on Federer... if you come back here, I'll suck it. (nah)
Wimbledon Quarter Finals 1996
Richard Krajicek def Pete Sampras 7-5, 7-6, 6-4.
What a shit player Sampras was, a joke, never among the best.
Best post in the thread.
I didn`t quite understand that. Do you think it has gotten slower or not?Yes it would... they were talking about the grass being slower even back in those days. It would have played like a clay court if that's gotten worse since.
They showed a comparison of two Federer serves before the match one from 2008 and one from 2002, both with the same speed from serve. They tracked the path in a simulation and after the bounce the 2008 serve lost lots of speed compared to the 2002 serve and bounced much much higher. There has clearly been a change.
Win a set at least FFS.
Federer's a goner...