True, and I think unless he has a terrible injury he will surely get Sampras's record now. What do you reckon?

Possibly but it is early days. I personally think folks are getting carried away with Djokovic as a major rival. He might well be if Fed plays his best stuff he'll easily have Novak packign his bags for the flight home. Plus who knows what will become of Djokovic? He could get injured or have a dip of his own. Now he's won a slam he might nto find No2 so easy. Not saying that si the case for sure as he might win 15 GS for all I know. But I do remeber times when other players have wona slam and looked like they were gonna win more and didn't. Roddick for example, and Hewitt who looked likely to win more.

Yeah, even if he only manages one Slam a year he should do it.
Last year people were saying he was past it and he still won Wimbledon and the US Open. And the Masters cup.
I just cant see Djokovic beating him regularly .

Not quite sure why you think that. Of all the matches they've played since Djoko's seriously announced himself, not once has Fed played his "best tennis", so it's a big "if", wouldn't you say? Plus, I don't think Djokovic has played his best tennis in any of those matches either, so a match between both players at their best would certainly be a close contest.

And re: Safin and Hewitt, you could just as easily say Federer will suddenly stop winning Slams as well. I actually thought a slightly similar thing about Djokovic myself after his US Open choke, but he seems the real deal - he's got much more to his game than Hewitt, and is far more applied than Safin. I see him getting at least 3 Slams, although to say any more than that is a risky business given how quickly things can change.

Me neither :)

For me the main difference between Sampras and let's say Federer and Borg is that Federer/Borg did take the game to new highs when they were at the top. I was never convinced Sampras played the best tennis of his era. He was certainly the most consistent but a good Agassi or Goran were in my view better on the day. Unfortunately, those 2 were not as dedicated or did not have Sampras nerves and were the first to falter in crucial points. This is what allowed Sampras to grab 14 slams in a 12 year span, with of course 2 a year in his best years but no dominance over his peers like Borg, Lendl and Federer. The athletism for Borg or pure skills for Federer simply took the game a few notches up above the rest. With the physicality of the game today, even on grass, Federer might not be given the chance to grab a few more Wimbledon like Sampras could do it on serve essentially. It is now different and as we can see if not 100%, no chance to fight for the title.

Hi Dark, i've quoted you because i think there's a key word in what you wrote and it's 'jaded'.
For about a year now i thing Fed has looked a little jaded, or at least as if he isn't really enjoying where he is quite as much as he was.
After this years Aussie open, he mentioned that he'd created a monster, and of course he has, he's expected to win everything-and it's a big deal if he doesn't.
Psychologically Fed's position as alpha male is being challenged just when the sweetness of holding that status is turning sour..
Djoko, of course has everything to gain and nothing to lose, he can play close to his best knowing that he's still the challenger not the king.
Much is made of Feds technique and how his game compares to others, but for me it's his state of mind that is crucial.
At the French Open final last year Fed failed to convert and infinite break points, made sloppy unforced errors and served like a girl-this has less to do with how his game matched up to Nadals but was about Fed feeling the pressure of playing a match he wanted more than any other. I don't see that changing this year at the French-events might help Fed-Nadal injured maybe, taken out by someone else, but i think Feds desire for the french would stop him beating even Djoko in the final-i don't say that based on Feds game, but on how i assume he would feel.
In the slams Fed is most confident at Wimbledon, he was shaken to the core in the final, but came through, and i'm still one of those who deosn't expect to see Nadal back in the final this year. Even if it's Djoko, Fed will have enough to win his 6th title.
The US Open who knows what the situation will.

I think when Fed does become the underdog-say he hasn't won a slam in a while and isn't ranked no1, that's when he can play freely with the weight of expectation taken off his shoulders-and then he'll be free to loosen up, and then he'll be really dangerous again.

I have to agree with your assessement of Sampras's performances. I have never seen a more well crafted performance on grass as Sampras against Agassi in the final of Wimbledon in 1999. Sampras was unbeatable and unplayable. And there were many more, especially at Wimbleon and the US Open. None at Roland Garros tho :D But even the most faithful Pete fan would surely admit that.

For me, Sampras definitely took the game to new heights. His game was free flowing and he was very aggressive, something the game yearns for these days. For me he helped make the game more of a returners/ baseline game as much as the slowing down of the courts and bigger balls has.... People simply had to learn how to return to get past him. But that is just my opinion.

To be utterly honest I see some of Federer's greatest performances on grass and I look back at tapes of Sampras's greatest performances on grass and after each one I always wonder how anyone could beat either of them. :ok:

For me the main difference between Sampras and let's say Federer and Borg is that Federer/Borg did take the game to new highs when they were at the top. I was never convinced Sampras played the best tennis of his era. He was certainly the most consistent but a good Agassi or Goran were in my view better on the day. Unfortunately, those 2 were not as dedicated or did not have Sampras nerves and were the first to falter in crucial points. This is what allowed Sampras to grab 14 slams in a 12 year span, with of course 2 a year in his best years but no dominance over his peers like Borg, Lendl and Federer. The athletism for Borg or pure skills for Federer simply took the game a few notches up above the rest. With the physicality of the game today, even on grass, Federer might not be given the chance to grab a few more Wimbledon like Sampras could do it on serve essentially. It is now different and as we can see if not 100%, no chance to fight for the title.

So now we are getting suggestions that 1 slam wonders would have been the equivalent of a 14 slam great had they been more consistent?

I dont want to turn this into a Federer,Sampras, Agassi debate but that 1999 Wimbledon final was such great tennis from Pete BUT only because Agassi allowed him to play that great.Agassi was definetly much more Edgier of the 2.His seem exasperated and almost over exerted.He was trying too hard like he normally does against Pete and thats what does him in.Yet again its a mental thing with Andre' and Pete.

With Regards to Wise saying that Federer hasnt done anything special to win his last 3 Slams,I have to agree on two of them and not last years Wimbledon Final as he really had to dig deep there and clinically broke Nadals will.The best 2 finals that I have seen of Federer's will Undoubtingly be the US Open Finals against both Hewitt and Agassi.Against Hewitt he was just so deadly and GOD like,almost like Ares The Greek God Of War,he had no mercy for Lleyton.Against Agassi he had the dip due to the crowd but it spurred him on and he was devastating thereafter.

Very interesting discussion..I will add my few remarks:

First, sure Darky but this is almost always like that..I mean..the best performance of FED in a Wimbledon final was the '05 one..His first set was just out of this world then he lose the concentration for 2 mim that cost him a service game at the beginning of the second and then he was back to his A game..

Still, you can always ask yourself: Was AROD playing his best Tennis? I will tend to say: No, AROD best Tennis in a Wimbledon final was during the '04 one.

So, FED genius at the 05 final was exalted as well by not so brilliant AROD performance..But are we sure of that? It is a circular argument IMO: If someone is playing stellar Tennis the opponent always look weak or not at the level (this was the case of Agassi IMO in '99 against Pete)..

Secondly, I disagree with: "FED was doing nothing special in his last three GS"..

This implies, as you are pointing out, nothing special at Wimbledon '06. And this is not true, IMO. Indeed, during the entire final (i.e. I will include even the fifth set) Rafa was playing great Tennis (his best at Wimbledon on grass):
His BH was in fire, he was missing almost no balls (even at the net), he was playing aggressive more than FED 9He was preventing FED playing aggressive to be honest) and so on and so forth..

And despite all that FED was able to win:IMO this is a great performance (and therefore something special)..More, he was special as well at the USO: Feliciano was out of this world in the first set and so was AROD during his two first sets. FED was able to handle both of them with great performances (and great points at the key moment).

OK he was not playing great in the last two matches of these events still his tennis was more than a standard one to reach that last stages.Omn that side, even in Australia this year: His performance against Berdy was far from being poor, same against Tipsa in the last two sets: His great Tennis is still there simply, IMO, more and more people know how to play him (as before it was the case for Pete and all other Big bosses) and also he can start feeling a psychological (more than physical) fatigue (4 consecutive year as No#1 of the ranking is just HUGE) which can low a bit his motivation.

As a conclusion: FED is still the big boss out there: He will no more dominate men's Tennis as he did in '06, his peak season.

Still he continues to be the main threat and man to beat in GS events for at least the next two years IMO. :pray: :pray: :P :P

TV, I said that I agree with Wise on 2 of those finals.Fed actually didnt play out of his skin at the US Open against Djoko nor did he play that well against Gonzo in Oz.He did however play crunch tennis at Wimbledon because he had to.Nadal drove him to play the tennis he was playing in 2005.In 07 US Open he just put the ball back in play and waited on Djoko's nerves.Nothing special about that.The question is now,Can he handle Djoko since he isnt nervous anymore?

So if that was the case why was his Wimbledon win versus Goran (a one slam wonder) always down to a couple of points at the business end of a tie break? If that was the case, why did Krajicek more oftern than not got the better of Sampras? and I am not talking over 3 or 4 matches but 10!

When you say great volleys, great serve great FH.....you could say the same of some others too. I am convinced the mental is what separated him from the rest. This is actually the best compliment one can get!

I liked Sampras from 90 to 95 afterwards much less.