Federer was undefeated this year until he faced the mighty Pete Sampras on the American's home turf. Details are unknown about what exactly happened in that match (it's rumoured that Sampras was 6-0, 6-0, 3-0 up when he slipped on Federer's tears at the change of end and had to retire), but what we do know is ever since that fateful day, the Swiss has embarked on a pretty appalling run. He's not won a single tournament and has in fact only reached the final of one :yikes:

Coincidence, or did the great man give Federer a reality check?

:devil:

Maybe Sampras taught him a few tricks about how to lose on clay.

Sampras was the expert on losing on clay as Nick points out.

Terrible Troll to Tell Tales roflmao roflmao roflmao

Wise - your thread bears a more than passing ressemblance to this one on the Beeb - is it a coincidence?

Impartial_Lion


Wise's avatar on here


: coincidence?


:D

IF you that much free time to write wind ups, spare a litle bit of time and go to see this:

http://broadband.espn.go.com/ivp/splash?id=2857811

Slightly more seriously . . . .

Sampras was known for saving his best stuff for the slams, and it wasn't all that unusual for him to lose to a considerably lower ranked player from time to time outside the slams. Fed already has more Masters titles in the past 5 years than Pete had in his career. Do you think Pete might actually have advised Roger to ease up a little in some of these other tournaments in order to focus more energy and attention on the slams. :shrug:

Glad someone else is thinking the same thing as me Nick, I don't see the big deal...did anyone really think he was gonna keep up win-loss ratios of 53456-2 or whatever it was last year?

I know his performances since AO haven't exactly set the world on fire but...did people think they would? Does no one remember watching Sampras lose to not-so-great players during this part of the season? Dominance like he's had over the last 2 or 3 years doesn't last...partly because people naturally start to catch you up, and partly because it takes more effort than people think (even if Fed does make it look easy).

I know some people hope he'll win RG, but I've personally never been one of those believers- by the time he found his feet, a certain Mr Nadal had arrived on the scene. He does own the rest of the season, which is far more than enough for me. I won't be particularly concerned until he bombs out of Wimbledon in R2.

Oh, and if that does happen, I'll happily print this post out, and eat it.

I actually think Roger might have a chance of sneaking RG when hes just shy of 30, as Nadal will be burn out and off the scene by then.

Clay retrievers like Nadal have been known for having short careers.

Roger has the skills and experience at his disposition to beat anyone. All we are seeing is a dip in form - he'd also beat Volandri on any other surface.
He's human, after all, like all other greats-he can be beaten! His run was astounding, and had him on a pedestal as an invincible machine.

That said-the number of UEs was horrific.

OR, it could be the tears haven't stopped flowing since the game chez Pete and his confidence has been irrefutably damaged.

I still think Rogers Renaissance Rattles the Rabble will happen soon enough ;)

After today's result, I think Nick hit the nail on the head here!

yes that also was my thought especially since he committed to the Hamburg organisers. watching him play today, he really played as if he did not care much (especially after dropping the last 7 BPs). But on the other side, he needed this encounter with Nadal once again and I am sure he would have liked to try his chance again this week. He even mentioned that he arrived to Rome 8 days before to prepare.

I simply think he has lost confidence which is so key for this kind of players. He really had zero confidence on his FH. Maybe because he was sluggish and did not really to run. Difficult to say for sure.

I didn't see the match but I imagine a loss in confidence and form.

Let's not forget he lost two matches on hardcourts in April. I thought at the time that would chip away at his confidence (I said that too) The second match aginst Canas, he wanted to set the record straight and still lost.

By the way, I wouldn't write Federer off for Roland Garros yet. He always does well in Hamburg. His 2002 win over Safin in Hamburg was one of his best clay performances.

Did Sampras really beat Federer in practise I thought they didnt say the result?!

A tongue in cheek comment by our resident comedian (I mean that in earnest) Wise.

I think Roger is a mental case :confused:
Well, maybe not mental because that is Safin case :shrug:
Roger is a personality case,and we can see that in his results and exibitions. He his the typical front runner, with him is not the case: if the things get tougher the tough gets going.
I believe that he is too self center , a bit introverted and has a too big self image resulting from all the praise and the easy road to the top. Nowdays if the things don't go as he thinks they should he just don't fight, it's like he is punishing himself to not being able to play to his standarts. I am begining to think we are watching the start of his progressing fall. Just remember how he strugle in the begining of his career when his talent was no enough to win Slams and he got frustrated and didn't fight. While he had a vast superiority he was cruising, but the others would have to catch him someday and give him some trouble, and in close matchs the fighting spirit makes the diference, just see Nadal.
And for him it's too late to change his personality, his only chance is to improving his tecnical skills but i have great doubts about his work etic. Just compare his work habits with those of Nadal. Nadal works everyday focus in the tennis while Federer is in holidays in Dubai or giving a interview to some magazine or getting along with his friends. And related to that i couldn't see the point of having a part-time coach and with the profile of roche. i am thinking feder made some major errors on the managment of his carrer in this last two years and now he is paying for it.

"Did Sampras really beat Federer in practise I thought they didnt say the result?!"

In ESPN they have a video of sampras talking about it. He didn't said the result but he admited he lost. He said he gave a good fight for his age but that federer have another level.

Sampras said he held his own in the sets they played which he was happy about. He said that on interviews in America. These interviews are easily available on Youtube and I provided a link to the interviews earlier this week.

Sampras said he held his own in the sets they played which he was happy about. He said that on interviews in America. These interviews are easily available on Youtube and I provided a link to the interviews earlier this week. "

go see ESPN and all th doubs will be over.

Hey this site didn't had a way to correct typo mistakes in the past? :admin:

That's the interview. Good interview - it's about 10 minutes long.

What doubts are you referring to?

That was a very small portion of the whole 10 minute interview. The whole interview is on Youtube though.

I think Federer is too young to have a terminal decline so we'll see how long this loss in form lasts.

"What doubts are you referring to? "

If Sampras lost or not and if he admits that or not.To both, yes.

"I think Federer is too young to have a terminal decline so we'll see how long this loss in form lasts. "

For me it's not just a loss in form, but a mental inability to handle with the other guys improvement and specialy in clay with his inability to handle with his incapacity to win easy against those guys.

I feel pretty down about this loss .. especially after Fed saying his practice in Rome was "perfect". Some of the posts cheer me up here ... but unfortunately .. not for long!

I'm one of those who didn't expect him to equal 2006 nor have I believed he would win RG - but perhaps I didn't quite see the dip in form coming so quickly. I find it just hard to believe that Fed wouldn't want to win everything ... then again, he ain't getting any younger - have to learn to pace yourself! But practising 4 or 5 hours a day before a clay tournament .. isn't that a bit excessive?

"But practising 4 or 5 hours a day before a clay tournament "
But did he? Don't believe in everything you read.
Even if he did, what kind of practice was that. We can practice2 hours with intensity or you can practice 5 hours just fooling around. The thing it's not for how long but how good.
If you want you can go to the site of tennis.com where Bodo and tylor putt a lot of posts about this kind of stuff, and they are saying that the federer training at least in tournaments it's the intenseless of the big guns.
It might say nothing but it might say a lot.

Wise this is for you.

With love from roger

So Pete, how would you perform against Roger today? Should we take his word for it?

Describing on his practice session with Pete Sampras before Indian Wells, Roger Federer said, “He was very good, surprisingly. Very good you know, but not good enough to beat me.”

Sampras confirmed this last week, saying, “We played on my court, and I'd say I held my own. But Roger has an extra gear, and that makes him so great.”
roflmao

I already explained this. Sampras was leading 6-0, 6-0, 3-0 when he slipped on Federer's tears at the change of ends and had to retire. This is the extra gear that Sampras spoke about which prevented him winning.

your delivery isn't bad but your timing sucks, i think you'ld be better as part of comic duo, rather than a solo comic.

Pathetiic school boy stuff. Straight from the BBC with love.

They were playing for fun. One guy is 10 years older and hasn't played since 2002. They were playing unofficially so the score doesn't matter.

Plus Sampras is stating the obvious that a man at the age of 25 will have an extra gear to go up to., it's obvious - but Sampras is obviously happy with his level of ability - movement not quite the same with age and lack of proper training.

Cut the schoolboy crap.

Hey laurie go easy, i was just having fun with the unwise and respond to his wind up with another wind up.
But it seems you didn't like it, humm have we here another Sampras fanatic? Hey but sampras i'ts not god and making copy past about a true story it's not heresy, yet.

Sure you call it fun but the fact remains it's boring.

Speaking of fanatic, why do you have the board name GOAT? What does that tell us about you.

I can't believe I'm the only one who finds this Federer Sampras nonsense just that - nonsense.

Laurie, laurie you like to jump to conclusions don't you?
My board name goat is because i was guessing that in this board my tennis knoelege would be sacrificed to some fanatical members of this board, i guess i was rigth ;)2

Ups typo mistake :whistle:

Befor i get sacrificed by some english purists it's better to correct:

Laurie, laurie you like to jump to conclusions don't you?
My board name goat is because i was guessing that in this board my tennis knowledge would be sacrificed by some fanatical members of this board, i guess i was rigth

:doh:
Now i i will get i rigth, i can make it, believe in you goat, go for it



Before i get sacrificed by some english purists it's better to correct:

Laurie, laurie you like to jump to conclusions don't you?
My board name goat is because i was guessing that in this board my tennis knowledge would be sacrificed by some fanatical members of this board, i guess i was right...

i give up :shrug:

Yeah nice name, whatever, clever clogs :whistle:

:rolleyes:

The Fed Sampras comparison has been done to death. It is just boring, as are people who bang on about weak eras of tennis. Yawn. :coffee: