Here is something that Fed in his post-match press conf. to make> Samprazfans happy. >
Q. So can you say something about you and Sampras, because you've been> compared quite a lot.>
ROGER FEDERER: Well, we've been compared quite a lot, but I play very> differently. I'm much more a baseliner than he was. I think the only> thing that we have in common is that we have a very aggressive style.> We are not staying five meters behind the baseline like the Argentines> or the Spaniards. But I think my game is very different from Sampras.>
But I would love to have the same results as him, even without Roland> Garros (smiling).>
If Fed had said this before the FO, it would've been interpreted> differently. After all, this is the most difficult for him to win and> it would appear as if he was already preparing the public to over-look> his FO record into the future. But, now he has a chance to win it and> so this statement probably means that Fed admits that having Pete's> record (or close to it) is probably the more difficult accomplishment> than winning all four.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out 14 Slams is a better record than a CGS, but Fed already has 2 Wimbledons and will be looking to add more Slams. Most players, including Fed, would love to have Sampras' record, but Fed can eclipse Sampras with less total Slams if he manages to win the CGS once, or even better, twice.
In the same interview he also said winning at FO would be "a dream come true".
But I would love to have the same results as him, even without Roland> Garros (smiling).>
If Fed had said this before the FO, it would've been interpreted> differently. After all, this is the most difficult for him to win and> it would appear as if he was already preparing the public to over-look> his FO record into the future. But, now he has a chance to win it and> so this statement probably means that Fed admits that having Pete's> record (or close to it) is probably the more difficult accomplishment> than winning all four.
Take it at face value: Just about everyone in history would love to have Sampras's results. I'd say Laver is the only one who would surely prefer his own.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Erich wrote:> It doesn't take a genius to figure out 14 Slams is a better record than a> CGS, but Fed already has 2 Wimbledons and will be looking to add more Slams.> Most players, including Fed, would love to have Sampras' record, but Fed can> eclipse Sampras with less total Slams if he manages to win the CGS once, or> even better, twice.>
Yes, but it will have to include a lot of Wimbledons (at least 5), & at least 12 slams total to actually eclipse Sampras....
Maybe for Borg, too. I wonder if he regrets not playing the AO,> especially since it was on grass. He could have won a couple of those> to bring his total to 13. But it's not like he's any less of a player> with "only" 11.>
Getting back to the original question, Federer could potentially do> something like 5 W, 4 US, 3 AO, 2 FO for a total of 14. That'd be> quite a mix. One could arguably want a career like this over Sampras'.
Very arguable - basically you're swapping 2 Wim/1 US for 2 FOs. I don't think that's smart. At any rate that mix is clearly top notch tier 1 status....
Now if Fed can match Pete's Wim/USO record, + throw in a FO or 2.... ; )
It's going to be tough for Federer to match Sampras' numbers (14, 7, 5,> 6, etc). He's gonna have to match it in a different way. Career Slam> would be nice, but that's only part of what he needs to do. For> example, he'll need to do things like win the remaining 3 Slams this> year. Nobody has won 3 Slams back-to-back years, right? Then a> Calendar Slam in some other year. So if he falls short of 14, he has> other things on his C.V. to boost his legacy in a different,> high-quality way.>
A calendar slam would be a massive legacy boost (10 times value of a career slam), as it proves complete dominance over peers on a supernatural level. There is simply nothing negative you can say about a guy who wins calendar slam in modern era. Everyone has to bend over & take it.
Let's keep in mind it's still possible Fed can go slamless this yr, & finish no.2 in rankings.... ; )
I agree that it is very, very difficult for Fed to match Pete's sheer> numbers. I'm sure he knows it too, but he also knows that he can set> his own legacy by winning all 4 at least 2 times (may be difficult at> the FO).
2 times would be far more significant than once.
My forecast, provided he doesn't get injured seriously, is he could> potentially end up with 4 W, 3 USO, 3 AO, 1 FO. As of now, it looks> possible that he can win 5 W, but with Ancic, Pimpim, Roddick etc. on a> good day over the next few years, it will be difficult.
No one can say. The landscape could be completely different in 2 yrs.... maybe Nadal will be winning 3 slams/yr?
He also relies a lot on his speed around the court, it also remains to> be seen how long he can keep up that speed. Beyond 26, it might be> difficult. If that does happen, he might find it difficult to play the> game that he plays now.
Yes, good point. Not many people can completely change their game at this level like Sampras did....
Thats where Pete's serve comes into the picture. As one very good> Indian sports writer put it, "Sampras had an arrogant domination of the> big points. The Sampras serve is arguably the single most dominant shot> in tennis."
That serve on it's own wouldn't have won him a single slam. It set him up to come in aggressively & finish the point. His greatest strength was his championship mind....
The sheer number of free points that he won on that one shot went a> long way in keeping him in the grand slam marathon that lasted 10 years.>
Agassi has two major legacy claims - career GS and "best of open era" at
AO.> > He also has an outstanding DC record which merits slam credit (that's
Mac gets into tier I).>
Why do you pay so much attention to DC play? In contrast, I almost> totally ignore it.
Since 1995 or thereabouts, it merits ignoring, since it's lost much prestige. But before then, DC play was very prestigious. Eg, for guys uy like Mac and Borg, winning DC was far more important and prestigious than winning the AO.
It makes little sense not to consider the prestige-rating of events at the time they were played.
If you don't think so, consider the opposite case: what if in the year 2015 or so, Indian Wells becomes a GS event. Would Agassi/Sampras types suddenly deserve to have their IW titles added to their slam totals? Of course not, since IW wasn't considered a slam by anyone when they were playing.......
Just apply that logic to pre-95 DC play, but in reverse.......
I'd days that Fed needs the FO to get on the path of being considered>>greater than Agassi- combine the FO with another W and he will almost>>be there in many people's eyes (if not definitely there).>
Agassi has two major legacy claims - career GS and "best of open era" at AO.
Yes, solid tier 3 stuff.....
He also has an outstanding DC record which merits slam credit (that's how> Mac gets into tier I).
At this level it's meaningless (footnote at best)...
If Fed wins the FO, he'll match Agassi's career GS. That leaves Agassi with> a USO and 3 AOs (with "best ever" tag + DC) compared to Fed's 1 W. Clearly> Agassi will still be ahead.
He'll have 4 blue-chips, same as Agassi, but a better mix than Andre.
If Fed also wins W and USO this summer, than he'd have 2 more Ws compared to> Agassi's 3 more AOs + best ever tag. Close, but still the nod to Agassi.
Fed would then have 6 blue-chips (50% more than Agassi), & an awesome mix with 3 W, 2 USO. He'll leave Agassi in the dust & qualify for alltime tier 2, ahead of tier 3 guys Agassi/Becker/Edberg/Wilander etc....
To summarize:>
Currently, with 4 slam titles, Fed is a open-era tier III guy along with> champs like Ashe, Guga, Kodes, and Vilas. He's tops in that bunch.
He's still tier 4. Sweeping the remaining 3 blue-chip slam will see him move up 2 tiers in the space of 3 months. Easier said than done though...
If he wins this FO to complete the career GS, he vaults to tier II, along> with Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, and Connors. He'd be the top guy in> that group.>
He'd get into tier 3, but be marginally behind Becker/Edberg/Agassi....
Agassi has two major legacy claims - career GS and "best of open era" at>
AO.>
He also has an outstanding DC record which merits slam credit (that's>
Mac gets into tier I).>>
Why do you pay so much attention to DC play? In contrast, I almost>>totally ignore it.>
Since 1995 or thereabouts, it merits ignoring, since it's lost much> prestige. But before then, DC play was very prestigious. Eg, for guys uy> like Mac and Borg, winning DC was far more important and prestigious than> winning the AO.>
It makes little sense not to consider the prestige-rating of events at the> time they were played.>
If you don't think so, consider the opposite case: what if in the year 2015> or so, Indian Wells becomes a GS event. Would Agassi/Sampras types suddenly> deserve to have their IW titles added to their slam totals? Of course not,> since IW wasn't considered a slam by anyone when they were playing.......>
Just apply that logic to pre-95 DC play, but in reverse.......>
You can win a DC by losing all your rubbers, like Hewitt in '99 DC final. How is this comparable to 7 bo5 matches v allcomers....?
Just apply that logic to pre-95 DC play, but in reverse.......
You can win a DC by losing all your rubbers, like Hewitt in '99 DC> final. How is this comparable to 7 bo5 matches v allcomers....?
It's a different format, but it's easy to sort out those kinds of situations. Hewitt, eg, is post 95 so DC isn't worth much then anyway.
Mac never won DC titles by losing his rubbers - usually he paved the way.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Go back and re-read my comments again, then modify yours accordingly.......................
Agassi has two major legacy claims - career GS and "best of open era" at
AO.>
Yes, solid tier 3 stuff.....>
He also has an outstanding DC record which merits slam credit (that's
Mac gets into tier I).>
At this level it's meaningless (footnote at best)...>
If Fed wins the FO, he'll match Agassi's career GS. That leaves Agassi
with> > a USO and 3 AOs (with "best ever" tag + DC) compared to Fed's 1 W. Clearly> > Agassi will still be ahead.>
He'll have 4 blue-chips, same as Agassi, but a better mix than Andre.>
If Fed also wins W and USO this summer, than he'd have 2 more Ws
compared to> > Agassi's 3 more AOs + best ever tag. Close, but still the nod to Agassi.>
Fed would then have 6 blue-chips (50% more than Agassi), & an awesome> mix with 3 W, 2 USO. He'll leave Agassi in the dust & qualify for> alltime tier 2, ahead of tier 3 guys Agassi/Becker/Edberg/Wilander etc....>
To summarize:> >
Currently, with 4 slam titles, Fed is a open-era tier III guy along with> > champs like Ashe, Guga, Kodes, and Vilas. He's tops in that bunch.>
He's still tier 4. Sweeping the remaining 3 blue-chip slam will see him> move up 2 tiers in the space of 3 months. Easier said than done though...>
If he wins this FO to complete the career GS, he vaults to tier II,
along> > with Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, and Connors. He'd be the top guy
that group.> >
He'd get into tier 3, but be marginally behind Becker/Edberg/Agassi....>
I'd days that Fed needs the FO to get on the path of being considered>>greater than Agassi- combine the FO with another W and he will almost>>be there in many people's eyes (if not definitely there).>
Agassi has two major legacy claims - career GS and "best of open era" at AO.> He also has an outstanding DC record which merits slam credit (that's how> Mac gets into tier I).>
If Fed wins the FO, he'll match Agassi's career GS. That leaves Agassi with> a USO and 3 AOs (with "best ever" tag + DC) compared to Fed's 1 W. Clearly> Agassi will still be ahead.>
If Fed also wins W and USO this summer, than he'd have 2 more Ws compared to> Agassi's 3 more AOs + best ever tag. Close, but still the nod to Agassi.>
You would put someone who wins 3 GS two years in a row behind AA just based on total GS? I think you will be in a really small minority.
