Do u think people said that federer got lucky beating sampras in 2001?

Question

like they said he got lucky

than what do u think they said when he won it in 2003?

Answer 1

He really won it. Five sets of intense tennis is all about getting your shots right. Luck might have played little but both of them needed luck on their side.

Answer 2

Fed was young at that time and just went after every shot. He had that desire of winning as you could tell from the way he played that day. It was not easy beating Pete at Wimbledon, but Fedex just did the impossible.If it was just luck, then he would not have repeated the same kind of performance for the last five years at Wimbledon. He plays better on grasscourts and that is one of the main reasons why he has been successful at Wimbledon. I think Fed got really lucky beating Rafa at Wimbledon 2007, and it was amazing to see how he kept his nerves under control in that fifth set. Hopefully, he wins some more.

Answer 3

Fed has nothing to loose in that game..young and much agressive than sampras...if only they are on the same age, pete style of game is very effective on grass and hard surface...no pro in this new era plays like his style. As fed said pete is his idol, you can see his forehand and back hand similarities.....

Answer 4

You have to understand that FEderer was well known in tennis circles for a long time leading up to that match. Most tennis players were predicting that he would win that match against Sampras if Sampras did not raise his game. And Sampras did raise his game against Federer (compared to his earlier matches at Wimbledon that year). But it wasn't enough. Federer beat him.

Having said that, there is always luck involved in winning a close 5 set match (7-5). For example Sampras had two break point chances in the 5th set. He had to come up with difficult passing shots, but credit to Roger for making it difficult for him. Basically it comes down to nerves and who cracks first. It was the experienced Sampras who cracked. So kudos to Federer for holding his nerves.

Answer 5

sure he got a little bit lucky....luck is always a factor

Answer 6

Federer has said that the win over Pete Sampras in 5 at Wimbledon was the turning point in his career, when he realized his own greatness.

Pete also admitted in his interview that he was beaten by the better man that day.

If both champions admit that it wasn't a fluke match, then how is it lucky?  Federer has been on the upswing since.

Answer 7

Roger Federer really won that match, no luck there. He really fought hard for it, he went for the shots, he had the game, it was a 5-setter.

Answer 8

Sampras was almost done. He won just 1 more match at wimby after losing to Federer, so there's nothing great about that victory however he defeated one of the greatest players ever so well done to him then!

I don't think he was lucky, he must have earned his victory.

Answer 9

Federer played extremely well and so did Sampras so i don't think people said Federer was lucky. I think more people just said that Sampras was getting old because I dont think he won a single title that year losing many matches to newcomers like Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin. People also knew he was a very talented player so I'm sure they didn't think it was all just luck seeing as he was ranked 13th at the end of 2001.

Answer 10

Yes many people believe that. But c`mon Roger Federer is such a great champion he is amazing the best tennis player in the world! Rafa is amazing too ! Vamos Rafa

Answer 11

people said it , at that time it was hard to sampras losing