What's the deal? I can see him losing here and there but Guillermo Canas isn't that good. He's probably just bored at this point. That was the thing that impressed me so much about Sampras. He was ranked #1 for 5 years in a row and probably could have stayed there if he didn't get injured and burned out at the same time. It's gonna be tough for Roger to keep this pace. He's still gonna break the Grand Slam title record but i don't think it will be so easy these next 2 years. If he plays fewer tourneys and just focuses on the Grnad Slams it's gonna be easier but i don't see him doing that. Sampras delt with the same thing and that's why he ended up slowing down. Plus Pete had much better comptetition.

It sucks that the Pete vs Roger match will never be held. Pete was way past his prime when Roger beat him in the quarters of Wimbledon so qwe'll never truly know who was better. Most people would probably say Federer but i wouldn't be so quick to give it up to him that easy.

Quite the ramble. Thoughts?

Just read this about Canas. No wonder I hadn't seen or heard for him in so long. Looks like roids is the only thing that can beat Roger. The tennis drug policy is pretty good but i'm not naive enough to think that Canas is totally clean and doesn't have a superior masking agent. Anyway:

For the last three years, Roger Federer may well have worn a large "S" on his chest every time he took the court. He has been completely unstoppable. Federer has posted a ridiculous 247-15 record against the best the world has to offer while redefining what is possible on the tennis court with his uncommon grace and athleticism. Every time out, it appears he's launching a new assault on the record books. In a word, he has been Superman.
But recently it appears that kryptonite has been discovered in the form of Argentine Guillermo Canas. Canas proved last week's upset of Federer at the Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells was no anomaly after defeating Superman again on Tuesday at the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne. Federer has lost a mere two sets against his other 14 opponents this year, but has now lost two matches in a row to this guy. In Roger's world, this is catastrophic.

Canas, however, is no Johnny-come-lately. In the summer of 2005, he was the No. 8 player in the world when the announcement was made that he had tested positive for a banned substance, a diuretic commonly used as a masking agent for performance-enhancing drugs. Canas served a 15-month suspension from the tour before returning to competition this past fall.

Since coming back in October, Canas has excelled. After losing all his points as a result of the suspension, the Argentine has remarkably jumped all the way back to No. 55 in the world. In fact, his win-loss record has been a Federer-like 42-5.

His success, however, has been met with mixed emotions by players in the locker room. Opponents will genuinely admire any peer who has a successful run, someone who is able to solve the puzzle of this ever-increasingly challenging sport that we are all trying to figure out. This sentiment, though, seems contingent on a level playing field. Players have shown zero tolerance for abusing the rules. It feels as if they have preserved the fundamental tradition that tennis is a gentleman's game and anyone who challenges its integrity deserves to be ostracized. In fact, the 10-member ATP player council, of which I am a member, recently proposed a rule making it more difficult for players returning from a doping suspension. This motion would not allow players to receive wild cards for the same length of time as their suspension.

Canas is a fascinating story, but presents a real quandary. He is well liked in the locker room, despite the positive test, and he has maintained his innocence from Day 1. Though he is back now competing, Canas has little to gain other than to clear his name. He is adamant he was wrongfully suspended and continues to appeal to this day.

Nonetheless, his return to glory has been met with a fair amount of skepticism by his colleagues for several reasons. First and foremost, he has already tested positive once. Secondly, his style of play would lend itself to the benefits of performance-enhancing drugs. The guy runs ALL DAY. He must have covered eight miles of territory in his match with Federer and he was chasing down balls in the third-set tiebreaker with the same vigor as in the first set. Finally, he hails from a country that has produced an alarming number of positive tests at the elite level.

Personally, I believe Guillermo Canas has served his suspension and, thus, paid his penalty. He is now back competing and deserves the same treatment as any other player on tour, including praise for defeating the best player on the planet two weeks in a row.

But who am I kidding? As practical and just as I want to be about the situation, human nature cannot help but creep in and cause some level of doubt … thus the conundrum.

Roger Federerererer who?

Guy is amazing. Will end up the best of all time, I'm guessing.

2 losses? what a bum. hang it up roger

The only way to come up with Pete being better is to take clay out of the equation.

I think Pete won 2 clay titles and Roger has never won the French. Nor do i think he's gonna win one as long as Nadal is still around. So it's not like Roger has been all that good on clay either. Plus Pete won 7 Wimbledon's in 8 years. When Roger tops that i might put him over the top.

Sampras's best at the French was a single semifinal. Their clay records aren't close. Federer will eventually beat Nadal at the French anyway, so this will be even more moot than it already is.

Taking clay out and focusing on grass makes a really difficult and close situation. As of right now Federer hasn't quite matched what Sampras did on grass, but he's getting closer by the year. At their peaks I think Federer would win on grass due to his better return game, but it'd be a classic match with a lot of tiebreaks for sure.

Two losses? When a guy is good enough that 2 losses in a row becomes a story, that man has entered rarified air.

I watch him and he's just so good.

Right now, you'd have to go with Pete cuz he has a whole to career to judge, whereas Federer doesn't yet. In the end, Federer will own the grand slam titles, and he'll possibly go down as the best. Like was said earlier, there was a lot stronger competition for Pete, so titles don't tell the full story.

Woulda been great to see these two play.

i might go to one of the games. my coworkers have been hanging out at Key Biscayne all week

I loved watching Pete when I was younger and it was a blast being at the 2002 US Open when he made his one last run and won the title. Unfortunately it's really hard to say that in his prime he could beat Federer right now. On clay I think Pete has no shot, grass would be incredible and a slight edge to Roger on the hardcourt...

Wish we could see it!

Well, Federer just ended Nadal's 81 match win streak on clay. Looks like he's out of the slump. Should be a hell of a French.

yeah, very surprised about this. I guess nadal was due to lose. I still think he'll win the french

Federer claims he was able to win because he finally figured out how to play against Nadal on clay. If that's true, he'll become more dominant than he already is.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=federersampras&prov=st&type=lgns

You guys have been asking for it. I cant believe that Sampras is still only 35.

That should be fun to watch. I like all these exhibition matches I've been reading about. It makes me think Virtua Tennis 3 has come to life.