Well, the parallells are not obvious, but there are some. Dominant World No. 1's with an obvious worst surface and constantly rebuffed in their attempts to pick up a GS on that surface.

Lendl lost two Wimbledon Finals in straight sets and never got back to the Wimbledon Final after losing to Pat Cash in 1987 - but the bright side (where I hope that there is a parallel) is that he got into another 6 GS finals after that day, winning 3 of them - 2 in Australia after the surface changed from grass.

Here's hoping as 3 more would do it...

(maybe Fed needs to give up worrying about clay.....)

While it seems perfectly plausible to suggest Fed may gain more slams, but playing is as much about what's between the ears as ability alone.
Lendl lost two Wimbledons-but the momentum of his career was quite different to Feds.
Ironically it's Feds unbelievable success and obvious talent that makes anything less than brilliant, hard to take. Fed is often touted as being the potential GOAT by commentators, fans and most of all probably himself-and i'm sure it gets more difficult to live up to his and others expectations. Lendl in contrast emerged from being a player with a reputation for choking in slams to being a dominant, but somehow unremarkable winner of slams. I don't mean to denigrate Lendl when i say unremarkable, but I mean-workman like.

The upshot is that i think there's now a kind of millstone of expectation and anticipation around Feds neck, far more so than Lendl, i think the next month will give us a big clue as to how he'll cope with that. I think a closer comparison is possibly with Sampras who also had a poor year and a crises of confidence at exactly the same point in his career, to the point where he thought the worrying was effecting his hair loss, however Sampras won a few more slams (three i think)

There were also some similar questions about how Federer would handle it, after losing to Safin then Nadal in the first two slams of '05. He had just started to really assert his dominance in the previous year, and some thought this would be a blow to his confidence going forward. He went on to win 8 of the next 10 slams; everything but the FO.

The lopsided loss to Nadal has to be frustrating for him, but I don't think it will affect him too much. But I don't think he'll win another 8 of 10. He's getting a bit older and the youngsters like Djoko are catching up. I think his days of winning 3/4 slams in a year may be over.

True Nick and that's what it's all about,maybe the absolute thrashing he got might be the start of his transition into a more competitive top 5 player,than the dominant player that he has been.

I don't know who of the Fed fans on here are thinking this way,but his mono aside,there have been signs for at least a year now that this is happening slowly but surely.

I suppose most don't want to see him slip out of GS form,but the first two slams of 08,he has reached a semi and a final,not all bad.

There was no presurre on Sampras to lift the RG title as there is for Fed..I believe that since Sampras didn't win it...folks believe that Fed has to win it to prove that he indeed is the GOAT..imo its not the right criterion.One RG is not going to make you the greatest player ever. In a months time we'll know if Fed can really handle the situation..for Sampras it was different...he knew and everybody knew that he was not a clay courter and that Wimby was his main hunting ground and winning there for him was a lot easier than it is for Fed to win in wimby...that's where the mental pressure builds up...lets wait and watch.

perspective is everything :yep:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Let's not bother to try and rewrie history here - Pete was under tremendous pressure every year to win the French so the pundits could crown him undisputed GOAT. That pressure subsided in 2001 when it became clear he had no chance anymore. In 2000 he got a bad draw getting Phillipousis in the 1st rd and losing in 5 sets.

This article from May 1997 clearly illustrates the pressure he was under and how he tried to deflect it.

http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/art-The_P...on_of_Pete.html

I must say I am pleased to see some response to this thread - I watched rather embarrassed as it sunk like a stone yesterday.

I guess my point was hoping that Fed's obsession with Roland Garros will not bring the rest of his game down - something that seems to worry TV too.

Which is exactly the point Pete was trying to make in this article.
By the way I agree with the sadly departed Bill Threllffall who said that Sampras gave up on the French towards the end and he shouldn't have, he should have tried harder because he could have won it or at least made a final. He also had a chance in 1993 / 1994 to win 4 slams in a row after winning Wimbledon, US and Australia but lost in the quarterfinals of the French to Courier in 4 sets, which he was very disappointed about - he also won the Italian that year so must have really fancied his chances.

So I give credit for Federer to keep trying as he gets older because after the age of 26 Sampras was no longer competitive on the red stuff.

A couple of quotes from the article for those who don't want to read all of it:

The announcer booms out Sampras's name, and the sparse crowd applauds politely, but he gives no response. It is as if he is alone, and the place is tomb silent. He sits down in his courtside chair, looks up, stops. He can't believe what his eyes have done to him. Sampras wanted to be casual about this, look around, slowly get a feel for the new CoreStates Center. But he couldn't help himself. His glance flew like a dart to one face, there in the front row, the face of the man who set him off on this amazing run that has lasted 17 years.

Already Sampras can hear Pete Fischer's voice, always saying the same thing, no matter how many Grand Slam tournaments Sampras has won, no matter what time of year it is, no matter what city he's in: You don't want an asterisk next to your name, Pete. You've got to win the French. Sampras looks away, picks up his racket. A shiver passes through his stomach, and now he is nervous, more nervous than he has been in a long time. This is stupid. For four years Sampras has finished the season ranked No. 1, and his straight-set demolition of Spain's Carlos Moya in the 1997 Australian Open final gave him his ninth Grand Slam singles title. Sampras plays at a level far above that of anyone else in the game.

Between last November and early March, Sampras went on a roll that began with a win over No. 6 Boris Becker at the ATP World Championship in Hannover, Germany, and included a victory over No. 5 Thomas Muster in Melbourne in January. Sampras has won the last two Grand Slam titles--the 1996 U.S. Open and the '97 Australian. In the former he erased No. 3 Michael Chang in straight sets in the final to pass John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl on the alltime Grand Slam singles victory list and come within two titles of Laver and Bjorn Borg, who both have 11, and three of Roy Emerson, who holds the record.

Only the clay in Paris continues to bedevil him. If Sampras wins the French Open in June, his place as the best player of the Open era will be secure. "He's one of the great players of all time," says Borg, a six-time winner in Paris. "He has a very good chance to win a few more Grand Slam tournaments." Becker's praise is even less qualified. "I have played him on different surfaces, and I've experienced something I didn't experience with the likes of McEnroe or Lendl or even Borg," he said in Australia. "He's able to adapt on different surfaces in a way no one has done before. He's able to play very aggressive tennis even on a clay court or a slow hard court. And his tennis doesn't have any flaws. He's probably better than anybody who ever played the game."

He feels Agassi gave him one of the best matches of his life, in the 1995 U.S. Open final, and he wants more. But if no one is going to push him, he's going to keep pushing himself. Sampras is 25, the age at which most modern players begin to fade, yet he is motivated and fresh. "I am in my prime right now," he says. "The story's not over. "I think about Pete [Fischer], and he was right about everything he said since I was 10 years old. Everything. Maybe we both were lucky, but I feel even stronger about winning the majors than I did before. Winning a Slam...you feel like you're making history. Pete had no idea what it was like, but I do, and he was right. It's not about money. It's about making history. I thought it all went in one ear and out the other, but now I know he was spot-on. "He keeps talking about the French. All you need is the French. And I say, 'Well, what about the other ones?' Another Wimbledon, another U.S. Open is what it's all about."

Yes - thanks for that. I have to confess I found the article rather densely written and also the print is not too friendly on the eye, but the point is there from your extracts.

I would not like him to give up on Roland Garros, but I hope he will start playing to his strengths more, especially when now he seems to need them on hard and grass.

I guess the pressure on Roger is more because he is a much better clay court player than Sampras. Having won Hamburg 4 times and been to the finals of Rome, Monte Carlo and Roland Garros on a number of occasions, we want to see Federer winning it once at least because we as well as him believe that he can.

Let's distinguish the difference.

You as a fan want to see Federer win Roland Garros more, that's perfectly understandable.

The pressure from the media and pundits was exactly the same, both players want/wanted to go down as the best, and to achieve that it was seen that the French had to be won.

Sampras shifted the goal post by breaking the record without having won RG. his predecessor Emerson had won RG. So people can agrue that if Federer wins more than 14 (without RG) he will be the best.

Besides, no one among causal observers or non Tennis fans care how many times Federer won Hamburg. Both Agassi and Sampras only won a handful of clay tournaments, Sampras 3 and Agassi 4 or 5, but Agassi won the French so everyone remembers that.

Some folks can't play on clay and some can't play on grass (I'm still trying to figure out how you get the ball to bounce on grass-they must cut it really short. :hmm: ).

Haha yes they have made it longer recently so its slower :(

Its a matter of mm.

Time and again I question whether winning more than 14 slams is the only criterion to make Fed the GOAT? IMO Its not the best criterion. I'm a huge Sampras fan and not a Fed fan and I may be biased because of that and until Fed wins the french(which I'm afraid he is never going to) he is going to be counted as one among the greats and not the greatest even if he goes beyond 14 slams (which itself seems very tough now).
And coming to the point of pressure, I agree that there was some pressure on Sampras to win the tiltle but as a fan it really never bothered me much whether he won it or not ,but because Sampras did not win it Fed is having to handle a tremendous pressure of winning the RG.

So who is the greatest for you?Based on what you said Sampras isn't the greatest either.

Personally I believe now that if Federer equals it,then he is the greatest of the open era from the 68 onwards that is,because it's almost impossible to compare players from the start of the 20th century to todays players.

As laurie posted in the other thread on Lendl,Sampras himself said that we have had great players who define their own era.Federer has created his own stand alone history to join other legends before him.

Presently I still consider sampras as the greatest ever..I'll have to wait and watch how Fed goes from here on to judge whether he can make claims of being the best ever. Just titles is not the criterion..Sampras's game itself was the best I've seen.

I see your perspective clearly but only differ in thinking Federer's game is the best I've ever seen.

14+ slams and an RG would only help the masses to accept he is the GOAT where I beleived it along time ago simply on his level of play.

Infact if he never wins RG this might be to his deteriment MORESO than Sampras simply because he got much closer than Pete and so people will remember him as the almost man.

And barrystar they also made Wimby from 80% rye grass to 100% this year which will make it MUCH slower :huh:

And I believe they've kept the grass longer so its going to be slower than ever :huh:

Funny thing is, somebody in another post was saying that longer grass helps a game like Fed's because it makes the ball more likely to skid off the surface, rather than short grass which does not cushion the ball against the hard earth. I am bound to say that rings true because in cricket they shave the wicket, which is the hardest bouncing part of the pitch.

Can anyone confirm - have they changed the grass to ensure its durability against the modern shoes, which otherwise rip up the old style grass? Cash wrote an article about it blaming Borg on being the first to wear shoes with a grippy sole that damaged the grass, leading in time to this need for a change of grass.

I have to stop myself to ask the question......Why are they changing the grass again anyway?

Last year in the mens draw at least they had their most exciting final since Goran beat Rafter. Why the constant change every year? :angry3:

When will they stop, rather than keep changing the grass they need to smoke a little, chill out and calm down with all the change every year...

Correct this does not bode well for Fedmeister as well seen as how close it was last year and how well Rafa is playing :o

Well, Federer has been to the Semis finals of the last 16 GSs, which is an all time reocrd among other records he holds. So if he passes the 14 GS marks why will he not be the greatest?

Don't say he didn't have good opponents. Well he has Nadal, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin and even Canas he has lost to more than once. Except for Canas (may be) the rest are very good players.

Well this is my own opinion but that's one of the reasons that I feel Sampras holds claim to the greatest ever because he did have better opponents..like for example Fed's opponents you've mentioned..Nadal..fades away after wimby (that too only for the last two years before that after the RG also) then Djokovic has just burst into the scene..he was a no one in 05-06 when Fed was at his prime..Fat Dave..well we know how good he is in GS's ;) Safin...well yes he is one guy..but he has been a threat all this while and will only be that...not a challenger excepting for the AO 05. When I see the players of the 90's..rafter, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Courier..earlier on Becker...all these were greats...multi GS champions..and Ivanisevic was a genuine grass court player ..the likes of who we don't have today...that's my opinion only... and that's why even if Fed goes past 14 slams I'll not be wholly convinced.. :shrug: And for my other reasons..I feel Sampras was a complete net player...Fed may be a better baseliner but there certainly was more variety when I watched Sampras play..Fed has an all court game but I'd be happier if he brought more of it on court...