Federer Stuff
- The Giants of the Game - A concise look at tennis history
- Celebration of Champions: An Essay
- Roger Federer vs Rod Laver
- Roger Federer vs Bjorn Borg
- Roger Federer vs Pete Sampras
- In Pictures: Rog
- Fed's Serve - An analysis
- Federer's Playing Style Guide
- Early Days Pics & Family
- Fed's Coaches Timeline
- Video of Roger in ultra-slow motion
- Introducing Ninja - a biography
- Over the years
- All about Gear
Mirka Stuff
Making of the Magician
Current Tennis Events
Helpful Bookmarks
Extra Tennis
- Tennis on Floating Court at Elbe
- Other Stuff
- Saving streaming videos
- The Champions List
- Federer Videos and More
Roger Federer vs. Pete Sampras
I am not a big believer of stats. That said, there are several interesting coincidences about the careers of Pete and Roger. And unsurprising it is. Though they have vastly different approach to tennis as well as slams, here is an attempt to celebrate the coincidences rather than as a comparison between them.
Sampras and Federer were both born in August ten year apart. Federer's birthday is August 08, 1981, while Sampras's is August 12, 1971. So, at the time of writing, Sampras is 33, while Federer is 23. And the grand slams make up this way too. For example, Federer won Wimbledon 2005 at the age of 23, while Sampras won Wimbledon 1995, at the same age of 23. And so on.. get the drift?
Sampras won his half of his 14 slams (7), at his mid point, at his 8th year as a pro (of his 15 year career).
Note: RF/PS age is the age of both Roger Federer and Pete Sampras when the tennis season starts (Jan 1). By the time they play US Open, they would have had their birthday and older by one year. (Like Sampras won his last US Open at age 31, though he was 30 when the tennis season started).
Original idea by Tennis28 ; Data by Wikipedia.
Also Federer at Grand slam Singles Main draw.
______________
Sampras vs Federer on Wimbledon 2001:
Some stats about the historic match in the Round of 16. It was the only time they both met and since Sampras has retired, Federer holds a 1-0 lifetime head to head against him. Going into the match,
Sampras and Federer were both born in August ten year apart. Federer's birthday is August 08, 1981, while Sampras's is August 12, 1971. So, at the time of writing, Sampras is 33, while Federer is 23. And the grand slams make up this way too. For example, Federer won Wimbledon 2005 at the age of 23, while Sampras won Wimbledon 1995, at the same age of 23. And so on.. get the drift?
| Sampras | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | Career |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian | - | 1r | 4r | - | - | SF | W | F | 3r | W | QF | - | SF | 4r | 4r | 2 |
| French | - | 2r | - | 2r | QF | QF | QF | 1r | SF | 3r | 2r | 2r | 1r | 2r | 1r | 0 |
| Wimbledon | - | 1r | 1r | 2r | SF | W | W | W | QF | W | W | W | W | 4r | 2r | 7 |
| US Open | 1rw | 4r | W | QF | F | W | 4r | W | W | 4r | SF | - | F | F | W | 5 |
| Federer | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | Career |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian | j-F | q1 | 3r | 3r | 4r | 4r | W | SF | W | W | SF | F | W | SF | 4 | |
| French | j-1r | 1rw | 4r | QF | 1r | 1r | 3r | SF | F | F | F | W | QF | F | 1 | |
| Wimbledon | j-W | 1rw | 1r | QF | 1r | W | W | W | W | W | F | W | QF | QF | 6 | |
| US Open | j-SF | q2 | 3r | 4r | 4r | 4r | W | W | W | W | W | F | SF | SF | 5 | |
| RF/PS age | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Sampras won his half of his 14 slams (7), at his mid point, at his 8th year as a pro (of his 15 year career).
Note: RF/PS age is the age of both Roger Federer and Pete Sampras when the tennis season starts (Jan 1). By the time they play US Open, they would have had their birthday and older by one year. (Like Sampras won his last US Open at age 31, though he was 30 when the tennis season started).
Original idea by Tennis28 ; Data by Wikipedia.
Also Federer at Grand slam Singles Main draw.
______________
Sampras vs Federer on Wimbledon 2001:
Some stats about the historic match in the Round of 16. It was the only time they both met and since Sampras has retired, Federer holds a 1-0 lifetime head to head against him. Going into the match,
- Pete had never lost a 5-set match at Wimbledon before he lost to Federer 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7- 5.
- He had a streak of 31 straight wins at Wimbledon, tying him with Rod Laver.
- Pete had won the seven of the last 8 Wimbledons going into the 2001 Wimby.
- Pete was looking for his 100th win at Wimbledon when he met Federer. He got his 100th win at Wimbledon with his 3-set win over Martin Lee in R128 the next year. It was also his last win at Wimbledon.
Translate into: Español | Deutsche | Français | Italiano | Português | 简体字 | 日本語 | 한국말 | русский язык
Popular Articles: |
Federer Magic
Translate to
Deutsche 
Français
All about the swiss tennis super-star Roger Federer, an amazing person who shines beyond tennis. Get the latest word about the magic he does with his strings.
Where Sampras gets the edge in my opinion, is that Federer is playing in a inferior era. Many condemn Sampras 4 his nemuerous failures at Roland Garros despite 3 QF and 1 SF. And he was losing 2 Courier, Agassi, Bruguera and Kafelnikov.
As 4 Roger his QF opp in Paris have been... Hanescu, Ancic and Robredo. In 04 he was beaten by a passed his prime Kuerten in straight sets and was down last yr 2 Nalbandian 6-3,3-0 b4 David was getting hurt.
At Wim his QF-SF-F opp. have been Roddick, Hewitt, Grosjean, 34 yr old Bjorkman, Nadal in his 4th grass tourney, Gonzalez and 48th rk P'sis. While Sampras had 2 go through Rafter, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Henman, Ivanisevic 2 his titles.
I think Federer is one of the greatest 2 ever play, but we need 2 keep things in perspective. In 05 US Open F he was down 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0 to a 35 yr old Agassi. While being pushed by a 33-35yr old Agassi on a few occasions.
That's enough 4 now, but that's why I believe Sampras is a little ahead of Federer.
If anyone saw the 99 wimbledon final they would have witnessed what was the best grass court performance ever seen. If you put Federer at his best and Sampras at his best I think Sampras would win... also because, unlike Nadal, he has a Power game where he can serve 138mph serves which is faster than the fastest Federer serve. Federer has also moulded himself around Sampras... the way he walks, serves, his demeanour on court etc. If Nadal could perfect his service game he will beat Federer. Also Roger is now 25 so it will in time become harder for him to maintain this level of tennis. Nadal is closing in as he knows how to beat Roger but for me Sampras will always be the best Grass court player of our generation.
He has been to the last 9 majors and his streak is still alive. He has won 7 of the 9. That has never happened in any generation prior and is very unlikely to happen in any after. Among his weapons is was a wickedly powerful and precise forehand. The players from Sampras' era all seemed competive against each other. It's impossible to measure that era against this one but, if it could be done I would be hard pressed to believe that Sampras' era would prevail. due to the advances in training and conditioning, the physically superiority of todays players and the technological advancement in the sport.
I think one could find an answer to such a question in Shakespeare's famous line, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts; His acts being seven ages." ("As You Like It")
Every example of human greatness has a unique and special place sown in history. The variables of space and time, chance and circumstance are complex, and who can know it but God.
Had Pete Sampras been born in the time period of Roy Emerson, how can one even know if would even be interested in tennis? Perhaps, he would have taken up a career in baseball or hockey!
Life is far more complex than our need for simplistic comparisons.
In all fairness, I think it is safe to say that each champion was special in his generation and time period.
Let me tell you it is extremely difficult to play serve & volley game than it is to play the baseline game. Why ? For one, one needs to have extreme confidence in their serving ability. And secondly, has to have an extreme fitness to meet the ball at the precise time at the net. Next time when you watch the match, observe a few things 1) how todays services lack placement, meaning the ball comes right on to the returners racket 2) Also notice how the server after serving waits & waits & waits for the ball to come to him, so he can get in the rally. My argument is meant for grass & hard courts only & not to clay courts.
Sampras in his prime will take out Federer in his prime in straight sets at Wimbledon. Just like the 99 Wimby Finals!! it will not be a close contest at all!!!!
Something caught my attention...in 04 Wim F, Federer had all sorts of problems with Roddick. But 2000 Wim F(which Pete played basically on one leg his avg serve speeds were 123mph(1st) and 112(2nd)both faster than what Roddick avg'd in '04 F.
03 August, 2007 17:05.
Pete Sampras is a great player
and that is because not only he
serves hard but with placement
control. Unlike Andy Roddick,
who can serve up to 150 mph, Pete
can serve at 105 or 110, he can
still get an ace or at least getting weak returns. This is why Pete can ace with his second serve. However, when compare to Roger Federer, Roger has a better
chance in beating Pete. This is
because Roger is just as good as
Pete in serving and coming into
the net. But Roger is a better
defensive player and he is much
superior with his ground strokes.
If Pete is to play in Roger's era,
I believe that Pete will succumb
to Federer just as players like
Marat Safin and Lyeton Hewitt.
I am also glad that finally someone mention the stabbing of Monica Seles. That took the wind out of Monica. This allow Steffi to prolong her dominance in women tennis. I certainly believe that
anything Steffi won after that
event should be marked with an *.
I'm surely confident Federer can easily beat Nadal..Only if Federer mentality is committed to win Nadal.
Federer can also beat Sampras....He proved it in wimbledon 01. And he was not at his peak but Sampras was at peak with experience, technique, and mentally except physically(going down)at age.
But both are great in different times....can't compare.
Over all Federer is more complete player than Nadal and Sampras. All pro tennis player will agree to that.
14 straight GS semifinals. 189 consecutive weeks at #1. Watch him beat Sampras' 286 weeks CONSECUTIVELY. I mean - when is this all going to stop?! When he gets bored?!?
Roger is the only player in history to win 3 majors in a year, THREE times. The only player to win 3 different majors - at least three times each.
The only player in history to win ANY double (whether it be AO-French, French-Wimby, Wimby-US or US-AO) FOUR consecutive years. Well, in Roger's case, it's the Wimby-US double FOUR consecutive years (2004-2007). Holy cow! How'd that happen? That's a quadruple-double! It's never happened before. The closest would be Borg's French-Wimby double for THREE consecutive years. Still falls short....
Roger is the only player to go THREE consecutive years with at least 10 titles in each year (in his case - it's at least 11!)
Roger has the absolute hands-down FASTEST pace in collecting Slams beginning with his 1st - Wimby 2003. Starting then, over a stretch of 18 Slams joined, he has won 12 - that's a 66% winning ratio - UNBELIEVABLE!
He is also the FASTEST to 12 majors - at 26 years and one month. Sampras was 27 years and 11 months when he hit #12. Emerson was 30. Duh!
I know stats cannot always be looked upon as the be all and the end all, but c'mon! This is just unreal.
As Federer himself said - competition may only LOOK weaker today simply because he's GRABBING ALL the major titles (together with Nadal) - if Roddick or Safin or Hewitt or even Djokovic had won a couple - then everyone would say that competition is tough. Hey, if Pete had won as many as Roger in as short a time period - noone would say, "Oh, that's just because Pete doesn't face the competition that Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Newcombe, Laver, etc. faced - they would just say - PETE is the greatest!"
Well - to that I say - ROGER is the greatest!
No, actually - he's GOD.
The fact is that we will never know how guys like Lendl, Courier, Edberg, and Becker would fair against Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Davydenko, and Djokovic.
All we can say for sure is that Federer is so good, that today's players don't stand a very good chance of beating him in a slam, except for Nadal on clay.
I have to say that, If I to send one player from this planet, to send to another planet to play against it's greats, you have to send Federer.
Federer is the first tennis player I have ever seen who really has no weakness. I mean, the greats from the past all had certain shots they couldn't really make, consistently.
Connors couldn't serve, McEnroe, Becker and Edberg didn't really have a baseline game. Lendl couldn't volley. Federer doesn't seem to have a weakness. He doesn't seem to have a weakness.
Maybe Sampras could serve better, volley better, was tougher mentally, but not by much. And whatever points you give Sampras for that, ANY tennis expert could come up with points to give Federer. And I mean enough to equal and, YES, get ahead of Sampras.
The thing that is amazing about Federer is those 10 consecutive Slam finals he's reached. Now what was Pete's best? I'll tell you: 3.
The biggest problem I would have with Pete as the best ever is his French Open record. Even if Federer never wins the French Open, just look at the glaring discrepancy of good French Open results when you compare Sampras to Federer! EIGHT times Sampras lost in either the first or second round of the French Open. Federer has lost in the first or second round of the French Open three times!
And that's probably why Sampras won all those Wimbledon titles: He was so well rested after crashing out early, he had plenty of strength left for the grass court season. Meanwhile, others, like Agassi, who almost always went deep into the French Open's second week, came to Wimbledon, dead tired. Look at Borg: 76,78,79,80, he wins the French Open AND Wimbledon in the SAME YEAR! Shouldn't he get some greatest of all time considereration, even next to Pete. No, he didn't win seven Wimbledon, but he did win 41 consecutive matches at Wimbledon, just like Federer!
A lot of say that Sampras had far, far, far better competition. Okay, I'll grant you that, although, I don't see how you say that. Why does Sampras claim that he was facing "Multiple slam winners" in all of his slam finals, and that Federer doesn't. Well, Pete, stop pulling out what is left of that hair of yours.
I seem to recall that Federer has faced, in HIS slam finals:
Agassi (8 Slams)
Nadal (X 4)(3 Slams so far)
Hewitt (2 Slams)
Safin (2 Slams)
So seven of Federer's slams have come against potential Hall of Famers. You call THAT easy competition. Didn't Sampras twice beat Cedric Pioline (WHO?) in slam finals?
I wonder how many title MJ and the Chicago Bulls win if they face the 80s Lakers or Celtics? Or How about the 60s Celtics? You never hear about how Jordan and his pals would fare against that kind of competition do you? And should that take away from what he accomplished?
Pete Sampras definitely had tougher opponents back then. Roger Federer is a great player, no doubt about that, but he didn't have multiple grand slam winners to compete with.
There is really no comparison between Sampras and Federer's serve. Name a player who can ace an opponent so many times on their second serve? Surely, not Roger. And Federer's serve is not as big as Sampras'.
You can state Federer defeated Sampras before, but remember, it is only one match. Sampras was near the end of his career. Federer was young and just starting to dominate.
Assuming they are both in their prime and on their best service playing their best match, I would have to give the edge to Sampras. It would be an extremely close match though.
Sampras' serve and volley is the best in the world. And really, the best there ever will be. The one thing that Federer do so great at is not his serve, not his volleys and not his winners. It simply is how little unforced errors he makes.
When you look at Federer's match stats, he does not dominate his opponents with winners. Rather he dominates them with few unforced errors.
I agree with the guy tyhat stated that Roger is the best. Laver was an all court true champion. So is Federer. Sampras was a gareat champion but for fast surfaces. I will like to see if he could dominate Wimbledon on the slower grass of today. I will like to see him play Nadal on clay. Fed abeathim at Wimbledon. Sampras fans claims he wasgoing dow, but remember Fed wasnot as his peak too. As mexicans say, since lame excuses were invented, the are no losers. The mark of achampion is to make things happen. How come Peter won the US Open later on.
Sorry for die hard Sampras fan. Sampras ranks behind Fed, Laver, Budge and Pancho Gonzalez, in that order.
You should be more specific when confronting Fed vrs Sampras at his best.
Do you think Sampras could takle Fed on clay? Comne on?
On grass may be Sampras best chance, but Fed prevailed. No matter what you argue. Sampras was a far more experienced player and was not over the hill yet when they met. Remember he still won the US Open after that.
On Carpet and on Rebound (Australian Open)I will give the nod to Fed. Asyou said he did have a great serve and great volley, but thatdoes not mean that ha has to prevail with that. Agassi won from the back in Wimbledon.Is the sum of all strokes that makes the more versatile player my friend. In Sampras case, look at what happened with Richard Krajicek. Bigger serve and good volleys and who ended up with the better record in head to head. The best of all times is the more rounded player the all around champion. Grass was faster in Sampras time. See how Nadal madeit to the Wimbledon final twice, nevertheless Fed prevailed. All around Fed record is better. The macho statement will go with having the stronger serve. Fed mocks Rod serve. Do not take me wrong, Sampras was a superb player when he was at the top of his game, so was Mac and Borg. Look at Borg¨s record. Six FO & five straight Wimbledons ( not even Sampras could match that,but Fed did. It will be close, but all in all, I agree with the guy that said that ranked 1. Fed 2. Laver 3 Gonzales or Budge 4. Pete I am old enough to have seen them all. Tennis mag ranked Pancho Gonzales serve as the best ever and Mac as the best volleyer. As Chris Evert once said, champions stand the test of time. Margaret Courth won 24 Slams and the Grand Slam but that does not automatically makes her the boat.
Think of how many Slams could Laver had won or Borg for that matter but that is speculation. Fed beat Sampras on Sampras turf at Wimbledon and that is the last nail in the coffin.
Who knows best? The pros. Ask them and 99% would say that Federer is the best. Rod Laver, one of the best in the history of tennis even stated there's no question that Federer is the best. (honestly I would rank laver ahead of Sampras)
When Sampras won his 14 titles I did not even think he's was the best, but rather Rod Laver was the best. Rod Laver won all the slams twice! And see what he said above about Federer.
But watching Federer play, even before he wins 14 titles, I can safely annoint him the best ever. I play competitive tennis and I know what I'm talking about. Some shots which he makes I've never seen anybody make before. My jaw just drops. I can't say the same for Sampras.
Some of you might fry me for this, but I would say that even Djokovic can beat Sampras in his prime. And Djokovic lost to Federer straight sets in the most recent slam. (ok he did take a match off federer though)You guys may laugh , but I was telling my other friends 2 years ago to watch this Djokovic guy as he can hand Nadal his ass. Now just look at Djokovic.
Federer of course. No contest. Just ask the pros.
Aside from the fact that has been pointed out that Roger has faced multiple-Slam winners, the reason why he's not is that he's winning all of them. You say that means that he faces weaker competition than Pete did? Okay, so say that Roger didn't dominate the way he does. Say he only wins one or maybe two GS titles a year. Sure, now you claim he faces "tougher" competition. But then he wouldn't be in the conversation about who's the greatest of all time, would he?
He doesn't face "tough" competition because his level of play is just that much higher than everyone else's. Are you saying that Roger is only (well beyond) good because his opponents are bad? I'll remind you that he and Pete have met only once in competition and Roger won...and Pete didn't play a bad match either...and that was on grass, Pete's favorite surface. If Roger is good because his opponents are weak, then what does that say about Pete? (And to those who might say that Pete was past his prime at that time, well, Roger hadn't reached his prime at that time either. In fact, he hadn't even won an ATP title yet.)
I don't mean to take anything away from Pete, of course. He was my favorite player when he was on the tour, and he was incredible himself as well. But I just wanted to point out that because Roger dominates so incredibly, he makes the rest look like nothing in comparison. And of course, when he doesn't win, like at Montreal this year, people worry about him losing his edge and going down. *sigh* Roger just can't win...
Chang used to beat Pete a lot. So, the argument that Agassi pushed Fed is misleading. Nalbandian used to beat Fed before Fed prime.
Laver, Mac and Agassi consider Fed the boat. Agassi faced both of them at his best. So he is in a very good position to know.
My pick 1. Fed. 2. Laver. 3. Borg
"But watching Federer play, even before he wins 14 titles, I can safely annoint him the best ever. I play competitive tennis and I know what I'm talking about. Some shots which he makes I've never seen anybody make before. My jaw just drops. I can't say the same for Sampras."
When you can finish the point in 1 to 3 strokes why win/lose a point in 10 stroke rally ??? Such was the genius of Sampras !!! When did you see Sampras getting into 10 stroke rallies ???? And if you do I can assure you it would be a masterpiece! go check out on youtube.com. Obviously you don't know your tennis well.
Only people who doesn't play tennis STILL thinks Sampras is better.
Most Federer fans used to be Sampras' fans! We proudly accept the fact that Federer carried Sampras' classic style into a far better level!
who is better than such and such, especially from different generations. He is ONE of
the greatest but not THE greatest. I don't think there is such a thing as the greatest
ever...but I would agree with the title "the greatest during their time".
I have been watching and reading about tennis players and following the history of tennis for many years now. The question that come up every year without fail is "Who is
the greatest player of all time?" Since the Open Era began in 1968 there have been many
World Champions.
The first recognized World Champion of the Open Era was the Australian, Rodney George
Laver popularly known as "The Rocket." After his Grand Slam in 1969 which was the first
"Open Grand Slam" (major tournaments open to amateurs and professionals) many called
Laver the Greatest of All Time.
A few years later, in 1974 Jimmy Connors came along and dominated the game with one of
the most incredible years a player has ever had, winning three out of three majors
entered (he was banned from the French Open because he dared commit the sin of playing
World Team Tennis) and 99 of 103 matches played. Connors was called by many to be the
Greatest of All Time. Succeeding Connors as number one was Bjorn Borg, who dominated
tennis for many years with his seemingly infallible baseline play and passing shots. Borg
was also called the Greatest of All Time. Later in the 1970’s came John McEnroe with his
great serve and volley and fine touch game. He had a year in 1984 which was something to
be believed, winning 13 of 15 tournaments and two of the three majors entered and in the
one major he lost that season, Roland Garros, McEnroe led Ivan Lendl by two sets to none
in the final. Guess what McEnroe was called by many? The Greatest of All Time! What a
surprise!
The same is true for Pete Sampras and currently Roger Federer. They each has been widely
extolled as, the You-Know-What of All Time. Well doesn’t it seem strange to you that we
have so many players who have been crowned "The Greatest Player of All Time?" Thus far I
have only gone back only as far as the year 1968 and it seems that everyone, including
your little sister's 2-year-old son has been the crowned the You-Know-What at one time or
another. "
That, my friends, is why I despise giving anyone/anything a title like that. In a decade
there will be another G.O.A.T. and another and another. (vicious cycle!)
Here is a site that keeps stats/ match info between Sampras Vs. Federer, and runs it
parallel to the same age....the numbers are eery.
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html
At age 26 years and 1 month....Roger and Pete have entered 34 Grand Slams, with Fed
winning 12 and Pete winning 10.......NOT much difference.
Win-Loss record at this age:
Federer: 535-131, 80.3%
Sampras: 541-148, 78.5%
Conclusion: They both dominated their eras (and not other eras).
Imagine what it would be like to see Sampras, Becker , McEnroe, Lendl, Federer and Nadal playing round robin with circa 1975 technology: wooden rackets, gut strings and even the embarassingly short-shorts of the time. I would laugh my backside off but I wouldn't want to predict the outcome. One comment to the Central American blogger who complained about the use of "American" to describe US Citizens. I have heard this argument before and I think it's a language issue. In English "American" refers to US citizens (regardless if the speaker is Canadian, British, or US) but in Spanish, the term "American" is not specific to the US. Let's leave the comments on this blogsite exclusively about tennis. ok?
Guillermo VILAS IS A SOUTH AMERICAN. yOU SURE KNOW WHERE IS Argentina and what is South America. America is a continent and the US happens to be a country within But you are right lets keep it to tennis. Fed is the best.
By the way check the Websters Dictionary for the term american and you will see that it does not refer to US citizens exclusively.
Thanks in advance
Sampras is far beter then Federer. He is classical and plays serve and volley.His tennis looks attractive...
I have checked the records and there is no place where it shows that sampras has evr beaten Fed. The only place I did not check was in your mind. I seriously doubt your credibility, and I mean not to be rude but. How come the Wilkipedia does not show it, and every place I check states that the record says Fed 1 Sampras 0. Put the year and date my friend, else lets stick to the record books.
Sincerely
Rodneys
ER
Maria
Pete beat Kuerten in the 2000 final. This die hard fan of Sampras is just lying.
I agree with comments that Federer's slight edge comes from his consistency and the ability to play on all surfaces. I am certain that he will win the French as well, he has everything to achieve this goal.
One point that was not mentioned is Federer's record against all players. Federer has only a losing record to Nadal (*only on clay), while Sampras has losing records against the following ten players:
Christo Van Rensburg (1-2), Andy Roddick (1-2), Max Mirnyi (1-2), Marat Safin (3-4), Lleyton Hewitt (4-5), Paul Haarhuis (1-3), Richard Krajicek (4-6), Sergi Bruguera (2-3), Michael Stich (4-5), and Derrick Rostagno (1-2) were the only players who finished with a winning record against Sampras (minimum three matches).
Federer absolutely owns Roddick, Hewitt and has winning records against Safin. In addition, I would argue these guys are better now then when Sampras played them.
I got to run, but in my view Federer is the BEST EVER, without a shadow of a doubt.
Honestly, I like my bacon with eggs. Together, those three are the tennis giants. Rod Laver started the tradition, Sampras idolised Laver and broke his record and Federer modelled himself after his hero, Sampras, and there is no doubt in my mind, or Sampras's mind for that matter, that Federer will smash that record. There is just not a single soul out there on the circuit who has the quality of tennis to catch up with him (they are getting closer though). Anyway, let the family of tennis-record breakers continue, can't wait to see the next champion who has their eyes set on Roger.
I have to say, in this debate, the improved technology and training methods of today should be left out. Do we not think that if all of that were available to the heroes of yesterday, that they would not utilize it as well?
All that being even, I have to say that the competition of Pete's time was significantly better than that of Roger's. Essentially, there were only 2 dominant players of that era, Lendl and Sampras, but in between, there were a lot of players that "put it all together" for at least a significant amount of time. Wilander spent some time at #1, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Muster, Kafelnikow, Rios, Agassi ... all of these players held the #1 ranking at least twice. Go back a little farther and you can include McEnroe and Connors. Rarely do you stumble upon being #1. You have to put together a lot of good tennis over a good period of time. And again, all of the afforementioned players did it at least twice!
For Roger, he took over when the #1 ranking was basically being passed around to whoever one the last grand slam. In his time, the only consistent threat to attain the #1 ranking was the "reborn" Agassi. After him, there were great players, but not of the caliber of Becker, Wilander, Edberg, or even Courier.
I honestly do not think that either player would dominate the other in a match in their respective primes, I don't even know if Sampras could beat Federer in his prime, but I do believe that Sampras had a much more competitive era. Roger's era has only become competitive in the last few years with the emergence of Nadal, Nalbandian, and Djokovic.
So having said that, I would give the best ever edge to Pete, 100-99.99.
Incidentally, does anyone believe that Roger gave Pete his full game when Pete beat him in the exhibition about a month ago? Curious...very curious.
Can we stop speaking in hypotheticals now?
If not, I want my name to be included in this debate!
Football may be Roddick's pastime, but he and the rest of the tennis world have set their eyes for the future on Roger Federer. How does Roddick, a 25-year-old at the peak of his ability, overcome perhaps the greatest tennis talent ever?
He long ago tired of the questions, just as he tires of seeing Federer rip backhand winners at the most improbable angles.
Since Roddick's U.S. Open win four years ago, he's 0-11 against Federer in official tour matches — five of those losses came in Grand Slam semifinals or finals.
"It is a little frustrating because I'm a better player now than I was when I was No. 1 in the world," Roddick said.
At the Open in September, Roddick played one of the finest matches of his career, pushing Federer to tiebreaks in the first two sets. He lost each and eventually the match.
..........
Full story at:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1200&u_sid=10208234
You sould say federer's shots are delightful and sublime but pete's shots are awesome and deadly.
The key factor which gives Pete the edge however, is the serve. As far as serve goes, Pete is the best ever by far. Even his 2nd serve was deadlier than some player's first serve.
Infact, if it wasnt for Pete's serve Agassi would have won more titles than what he ended up with. Maybe Pete woudn't have the 14 GS titles.
You could also say that if Agassi wasnt playing when Pete was no. 1 He could have bagged at least 17 GS titles.
And yes unlike Sampras, Federer hasn't had to compete against a legend like Agassi specially when Agassi was at his peak.
So overall Pete would have won more times over federer IMHO. I would say Pete would have won 60% of their encounters. Mentally too federer can get a bit shaky at times but Pete was always relentless.
If Agassi had a good serve like say djockovic today, we would be including him in this mix. Agassi still managed 7 titles with his crappy serve in the era of serve dominating the game.
For the last 25 years the players with the best serves have been dominating the no.1 position with the exception of Agassi.
It proves to me that Agassi was the best returner and baseline shot maker that the game has ever seen.
While federer is the most gifted player I have ever seen and Pete was the most awesome player I have ever seen. IMHO Agassi was the best baseline player and the best returner of serve I have seen.
Djokovic looks promising but I can also see Tsonga has the potential to become a true legend. 14th GS looks just that much harder for federer.
some people are saying the roger's era is not competitive than of pete's because roger's been dominating it. He is holding the no. 1 rank for the longest consecutive time. It shows that roger is much of a complete player .
There should be no contest here because we've all known the roger beat pete in his turf when roger was not even in his prime (no grand slam title yet) and pete which is in a good condition and desparately wanting to get another grand slam title again which he got the following year at US open.
With that match, it was very close match and I can say that they are the greatest who ever played tennis only that roger is on top of pete. hehehe
Federer can only play the people he is slated to play in his time, unless by some miracle we could somehow recreate 1968 Laver, 1974 Connors, 1979 Borg, 1984 McEnroe, 1987 Lendl, 1990s Sampras/Agassi and 2006 Federer and have them play each other. Even then it would be a totally ridiculous exercise because each player was raised and honed in a different era, with different equipment, competition, expectations, earnings, training, technology,..., it just can't be done. As things stand, though, in terms of technique and overall level, I think most tennis experts would probably say that Federer is
the most complete player we've ever seen, noting the caveats above. This actually makes sense and doesn't take anything away from previous champions. The game is constantly improving and becoming more advanced and competitive with the passage of time, just like in so many other fields. It makes sense that the champion of this generation would be more complete than previous champions. The game has changed and the players of today learn from and try to build on the players of the past. Just as Djokovic and future players learn from Federer, Federer learned from Sampras, who learned from Lendl and McEnroe, who learned from Borg and Laver, who learned from .... Saying that Federer is the best we've seen does not automatically undermine the greatness of previous champions. The drum of time is always marching on and athletes, like scholars and scientists, keep getting "better," learning from the past and benefitting from the discoveries of the present and the promise of the future.
Pistol pete has shown that even in retirement he has a game that could trouble fed. The serve and forehand are still exceptional. The volleys phenomenal. At his prime he would clean up fed. The dominance of his brand of tennis is something the world will never see again see. He was beating multiple slam champions not pretenders!
Pete sampras is the greatest most formidable tennis star which dominated and re-wrote the record books in "The competive era"
If pete played in todays era, he would collected without a doubt 20 grand slam titles.
Long live the king of swing.
Anonymous said:
>>There are a lot of posts out there concerning Sampras vs Federer. A lot of Federer fans claim that Roger was toying with Pete during those exhibition matches.
If you look at Federer's deameanor, the way he plays and holds his raquet it is obvious that he has studied Sampras and definitely became a super baseliner of him. But the copy is never greater than the original.
>>A lot of Federer fans claim that Roger was toying with Pete during those exhibition matches.But in actuality,I think it was the other way around!
Agree with above. Talk about toying with Fed. Pete was leading 5 2 in the 3rd set at MSG exhibition, serving out the match?? Unlike Pistol Pete to drop his serve when serving out matches, a guy who has the greatest and best serve in history and has shown this throughout his entire career and to not serve it out like he always has in the past? Hmmm. And again, leading 5,2 in the 3 rd set tie breaker, broken by fed and takes the match? Again unlike him leading tie breakers by that much and loose them, especially at match points. Pete has best tie break record. Talk about toying. But the gracious loser and humble player he is, comes out and says Fed was too good and played well on the big points.
Just look how Fed destroyed Hewitt in the Final of the US Open, the very same Hewitt that has whipped Pete's ass a couple of years before. If this was a different and inferior era, then it was by mere luck that Safin beat Pete and Fed beat Saffin.
Let stick to the facts. Fed is the best.
which states that Pete was going for his
100th win at Wimbledon when he faced
Roger in the 4th round of 2001. Of course
he lost, but he supposedly got his 100th win the next year against Martin Lee in the 1st round.
However...I just checked Pete's win/loss record for
Wimbledon and it says "63-7".
?????? How did 63 suddenly equal 100?
Please correct this glaring error of a statistic.
Pete was an all-time great player - no question -
but he was NOWHERE near 100 wins at Wimbledon.
Also, using your comparative tables above,
it appears that Roger is WAY ahead of schedule
in matching Pete's pace of collecting majors.
Roger just won his 13th at the end of his 2008
season, which would be the equivalent of
the end of Pete's 1998 season - when he had
amassed 11. So Roger has basically four years
to "chill" until 2012 before he bags ONE more
to tie the record. Pete won his 14th at the end of the 2002 Grand Slam season.
But c'mon - we all know that Roger will win AT
LEAST TWO more, and that would effectively
end this long-standing debate. After which,
of course, the Sampras loyalists will still be lamenting about how the competition is not the same as during Pete's era, etc. etc. blah blah blah....
Attacking players like Mac & Edberg got to the final of the FO, Pete could not and he did try, the way Lendl could not win Wimbledon but at least gopt to the final two times. Borg got to the final ot the US Open four times ( Australian was no big deal at that time). So there is no way Pete fans could erase that flaw.
Your reasoning makes no sense. Recently 50 years old Mac beat Sampras. What would happen if Mac at his best had dplayed against Sampras. A doubole bagel in Mac´s favor?. Come on. Mac got to the French final and took on the the great clay courters (Lendl in 84)to five sets playing serve an volley tennis. How com the great Pete, with his marvelous ground strokes and superb service could not manage to reach the Final of the French. The reason is clear, because he was not that Good. Fed at 19 beat Pete, and Pete was not finished because next year he won the US Open. On grass Fed got 5 straight Wimbledons, Borg ( abaseliner did it) and no excuses. Pete managed 4 straight.
Fed is great is hardcourt, grass, carpet and so his Pete. Fed is great in clay, Pete was mediocre on clay. That is is it and as some of the blogger have said it. This is the last nail in the coffin. The edge goes to Fed. Agassi considers Fed better, Laver considers Fed better. Most current and past champions give the nod to Fed. Head to head in competition gives the edge to Fed. In exhibitions the edge goes to Fed. Unless you want to go against all evidence, you will go to Pete. Pete won so many times in Wibledon fast grass, now speculate what will happen to him in the slowest grass of today, if he were to play against a great defensive player like Nadal. You will get the idea sooner or later, unless your intellect is clouded by un partiality.
Henry
The argument that Sampras opponents were not dominated as Federer’s opponents can be turned around in that because Sampras faced greater champions and a greater number of them, they would not allow themselves to be dominated the way today’s players allow. Further Sampras faced a greater variety of players, grass court specialists like Stich and Edberg as well as clay court specialists like Muster, Bruguera and more.
Let's look at the strategy behind today’s players, the tactics employed; and sometimes I don’t think that is at the same level it was in the 90s. The serve and volley game will beat the baseline game other things being equal because the serve and volley game makes for shorter points and when on fire makes for a practically unbreakable service game with aces and short rallies ending in a put-away volley. The window for winning such points is not as open as when there is a rally from the baseline after a serve where with a round of spectacular shots a player like Sampras can run off a few winners and break serve. Serving and volleying with a serve like Sampras’s when in fine form is in effect unbreakable, the only hope is in a tiebreaker–there again the more aggressive serve and volleying style would allow less margin for error for the returner. It’s easier when learning the game to just stand back and do the up and down rhythmic cardio of baseline practice rather than the continual sprint to the front line of fire following a serve with a volley.
These incredible serve and volleyers like Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Goran Ivanisevic also had serviceable baseline games, but the point is that they employed an entire, more high percentage, and aggressive dimension of the game that players today simply don’t as they primarily stay at the baseline.
The argument that the game has changed such that serve and volleyers simply can’t hack it anymore with the amazing groundstrokes of today’s players is bunk! Serving and volleying done well is a high percentage, efficiently effective way to win points (check with tennis coaches). If groundstrokes really have reached such advancement why do doubles teams still rush the net?
Why if the most superb groundstrokes of today destroy the ability of players to even exploit the entire aspect of serve and volleying did perhaps the greatest baseliner of the modern era in Agassi not destroy the ability of Rafter and Edberg? No, he did not. The great serve and volleyers of the 90s competed very well with Agassi and they won Wimbledons and other fast surface titles despite he and other formidable baseliners competing.
I think the level of serves in the 90s was higher than now. There were more servers serving more aces, maybe not quite as fast and hard as now, but remember those matches where Goran would serve 4 aces and then Sampras would serve 4 aces or unreturnable serves, and entire sets would go by like that until tiebreaks or incredible mini outbreaks of sterling winners leaped off of one player’s racket in rapid succession to capture a rare break of serve? The battle of big servers and those ridiculously short one to three shot points that made tennis at times a bit boring in the 90s is not really a fact of life for Roger on tour now. There are many more rallies. And who out there has the counterpoint return of serve game that Agassi had toward Sampras?
The hard servers of today simply don’t have Sampras’s precision or disguise, which even if 10 miles/hour faster in Roddick’s case makes them in some ways easier to return. And baseline bangers today don’t play with the relentless consistency and strategy as Agassi did with their prone-to-impatience, not-as-wise and precise shot selection and greater unforced errors. Federer can out steady these players and he’s better at winning on serve.
But if Sampras, when he’s on, serves better and is more aggressive in coming in taking risks for follow up volleys after the serve for easy points, even able to make holding serve look easy against players with Agassi caliber returning skills; and then Pete captures an occasional break of serve by out slugging even people like Agassi from the baseline on choice points in order to win sets–how could Roger Federer expect to beat Sampras in his prime? How, without Agassi’s return of serve, and with Pete’s incredibly competitive derring do chance-taking shotmaking during return games, and ability to elevate his own game on big points, could Federer beat Pete in his prime?
No, Pete faced a greater variety of opponents who played more aggressively and served more precisely, and played from the baseline with more skill and talent like Agassi. There are not even any players at the top now who take most advantage of a surface like grass with the style best suited to it–serving and volleying. Sampras had to face Macenroe, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevich, Edberg, Rafter, all masters of grass and he still won 7 Wimbledon's.
I don’t think the game has changed all that much in the few years since Pete and Agassi retired and Federer began dominating. What is the revolutionary training that makes the athletes better tennis players today (more running, better ball machines, ha come on, so what if the rackets you cant miss with and the shoes are little more aerodynamic)?
Let's also rewind his greatness when he took Federer to two tiebreakers in Malaysia and ultimate derailed the Fed-Express in Macao with a 7-6, 6-4 win. Who would have thought Pistol Pete can derail the Fed-Express after five years of retirement? Federer is over achieving because he had too much time against most of the current ATP lackies. Federer's game looks good because of this. He doesn't get pushed or challenge hard enough to really see how well he plays in these situations.You can see that Sampras's games of relentless attack bothers Federer so much because he had no time to run around his backhands or getting away with defensive shots. Before, every time when Federer was in defensive situations he was able to get out of trouble with defensive slices but he couldn’t do that against the mighty Sampras because Pistol Pete would be at the net putting away any weak shots Federer threw his way. Basically, the only way Federer can win any point in defensive mode is by hitting great passing shots and the odds are astronomically in favor of Sampras winning most of those points because even as great a player as he is, Federer can’t hit out of this world passing shots all the time in rushed situations. I honestly don’t think Federer can’t even come close to Sampras if the situation is reversed.
Now turning to Clay Courts: Federer grew up playing on clay dont forget and still cannot win the French, where Pete didn't, but I wouldn't rule Federer's chances out yet, Nadal might have an off-day or get injured? You never know. Federer clearly has the advantage but still cant pull it off and he only has to beat one opponent to win it.
Now we all know Hewitt beat Sampras on his way out, just like Federer beat Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. That is a poor comparison. You cant compare a player who is no longer in their prime against someone like Hewitt, Safin, Federer who were hungry and emerging. Sampras just had enough, emotionally and physically from 2000 and onwards. He was at the top of his game for 10 years. Safin took Sampras by surprise in 2000, Safin playing brilliant tennis, all credit to him but Sampras got his revenge the following year. At head to head Sampras was still ahead of Hewitt and Safin. But at the end Sampras wanted to retire on his own terms after been written off by the media, even some tennis commentators, but he believed he had one more slam left in him and at the end he prevailed and proved them all wrong. A subsequent retirement at the top and for me this is one of the reasons why he's the greatest player the game has and will ever have.
And even today. Didn't Sampras defeat Pro ATP players in exhibition matches over the last 2-3 years? Most recent win was against Sam Querry I believe? Sampras is 37, Sam Querry is 20?
The dominance of Sampras's brand of tennis is something the world will never see again. He was beating multiple slam champions not pretenders! Pete Sampras is the greatest and most formidable tennis star which dominated and re-wrote the record books in "The competitive era"
At the end both are great, but Pistol Pete is the Greatest. He is like Bruce Lee and Federer is like Jackie Chan.
LONG LIVE THE KING OF SWING!
the end.
How many times did Sampras get to 3Slam finals in one?
ONCE! (1995)
Federer?
FOUR times and possibly counting!
Federer was within two points of winning Wimbleton for the 6th STRAIGHT time, Sampras got to seven finals, TOTAL.
Federer had three straight French Open finals, plus a semi-final, in the last four years.
Sampras plays the French Open THIRTEEN times and has ONE French Open semi-finals appearance! EIGHT times he losses in the first or second round and another appearance results in a third round loss...need we also mention that he was beaten by PHILIPPOUSSIS (whose best surface wasn't clay) in the first round in 2000.
Sampras had it pretty easy twice against Cedric Pioline TWICE in grandslam finals. I'm supposed to believe that Roger would lose to Pioline? Yeah right!
Speaking of Pioline, last I heard he was beating Sampras on the 35 and over tour (in two tie-breakers, something Federer NEVER losses), which is full of tennis players like Greg Rusedski who Federer would torch every time. A 49 year old man who losses his temper a lot got even seven games off Sampras.
Federer is the best tennis player ever.
End of argument!
Capturing the open era record of most consecutive US Open titles (five) in 2008
he also...
is The only player in tennis history to have won 5 consecutive Grand Slam titles at two separate Grand Slam Events (Wimbledon 2003-2007 and US Open 2004-2008)
And:
He was Ranked World #1 for a record of 237 consecutive weeks as of August 17, 2008, outlasting Jimmy Connors's record of 160 consecutive weeks as #1 men's player and Steffi Graf's record of 186 weeks as #1 singles player in the world.
Case closed.
Kracijeck beat Sampras 7 to 4 my friend. By the way, since you seem to know a lot about tennis let me tell you that, I will love to see Pete ( with his great record on Clay) playing Nadal in Roland Garros. Then start talking my friend.
By the way as per today Roger has beaten Nadal in Madrid in straight sets, and won the French Open. Now Sampras ackowledges he his the GOAT. That puts and end to any discussion. Sorry for you.
Pete ranked him already the GOAT.
Agassi also ranked him the GOAT. Laver and Mac also agree. End of discussion. He can lose now everything he wants, he is already King of the mopuntain.
How many times did Pete won the French? Was Five or Six may be. None. How many FO finals None . Pete against Nadal on clay. Will never have happened because Pete was not good enough to get to the finals.. Richard Krajicek has a 7-4 record against Pete and knocked him out of Wimbledon at Pete¨s best in straight sets. Fed won on all surfaces. To be the best you have to have a great Record on all surfaces. End of the argument.
See my own attempt at mathematical compare between the two greats - Federer and Sampras... (This was done end-Nov last year though, and I've not updated the "points" since then)
We tennis fans should be glad we saw how this history happened. From now on he can lose every single match and wont matter. He is King of the mountain, for how long only time will tell, but remmeber that true champions stand the test of time.
I do think I can state that Federer is the most beautifull player to watch, some of the points he has produced over the years have been incredible and never produced before and after. I hope he keeps playing for a while, it just wouldn't be the same without him.
Sampras was a true champion and always be, and so he accepted it. The King is dead, long life to the new King.
I understand your admiration for Pete, but Fed in snow number one.
Time will tell if somebody can surpass him, but until then he his the new King.
FED won, as he did in the only time they met in Wimbledon
I do hope somebody takes over Federer in the future because that means that I'll get to experience the religious experience that Federer brings to the game. But I think I'll have to way a long time, maybe not in my lifetime, to see somebody that special in a tennis court. Long live the GOAT, Roger Federer!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?ei=5090&en=716968175e36505e&ex=1313726400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Fed is a religious experience. Sampras was not. I credit Sampras with the best serve and volley ever. But let's face it, Federer is a better returner than he gets credit. I think he returns better than Agassi. Just look at how he destroyed Karlovic in Wimbledon 2009. And Karlovic serves wayyyy bigger than Sampras. Sampras speed is less (about 130) but he did placed the ball better. But still, I don't think you can beat Federer with a serve. You need more than a serve. And that's because even Sampras, during the match, had patches in which his serve was not there. And I believe Federer would have made the most of those chances and would have a better record against Sampras, probably he would have won 70% of the time they played.
Also, something people don't understand is that serve and volley is pretty much dead. Federer used to serve and volley, but the game has changed the last 7 or so years. You simply can't win now by serving and volleying. The technology, raquets, strings, players are so fast now. You can only come to net when you hit an aggresive shot. But off the serve, you will get burned most of the time. Today's game is more baseline.
And to the person that said Sampras had more firepower, that is just not true. Federer hits a faster ball from his forehand with way more action on the ball. And on the backhand, not even close. Sampras backhand was a liability. You could always hit it to his backhand when you wanted to get back into the point (exeption was the Wimbledon 99 final in which his backhand was on fire). But that is an exeption, he was having a backhand day ;) Pete's power came only when he hit the running forehand, but over the lenght of a whole rally, Federer has more heat on both forehand and backhand.
Federer moves way better than Pete. He moves so well that it looks effortless. But believe me,
it takes effort. He just has the most amazing footwork ever. He is never late for a shot and is always in the perfect spot. Also, mentally Federer has the edge. I don't know why people think he is not mentally strong. He lost two 5 sets Slams to Nadal and now he is weak? I mean, just look at how he saved match point in the fourth set of the Wimbledon 2008 final, with a clutch backhand down the line and with Nadal in prime position at the net. Does not gets more clutch than that. He lost because Nadal is a beast on his own. I believe Nadal would have owned Pete on clay, and I mean owned, Pete could not take a set off of him. At least Roger is the second best clay corter of his generation. Oh yes, that's because he grew up playing on clay. So what, he is good on grass and hard courts, and he did not grew up playing on those. He developed those skills, and it does not matter how he did it. The fact is that he is a contender in EVERY major, something that Sampras did not do. And he is the most consistent player of all times, and that is a FACT proven by his record.
All the FACTS point to Fed as the GOAT. He beat Sampras the only time he played. Granted, Sampras was old, but hey, I would take old and experience vs young and inexperienced. I mean, Fed did not even has a minor ATP singles title back then. C'mon, Sampras won the US Open the next year. So that means that Sampras was closer to his prime than Federer to his.
Last point, Sampras said Federer was the best ever. How can you argue with that?
1. nadal has dominated fed
2. fed won most when nadal wasnt there , and roddick and marat saffin and hewit where injured and suffereing
3. sampras had an attacking game , and would have surprised any of the baseliners with baseline and volley
4. sampras was never over confident fed is sometimes
5. sampras played with tough opponents , aggasi, kafelnikov , hewit roddick , safin , mark philliposis,rafter, chang , gustavo kuerton, etc at the start ivan lendi, macnore, pat cash
so i think pete sampras is much better
Sampras said Federer was the best ever. How can you argue with that?
I guess he had to admit that in the face of all the records Federer has broken.
On the other hand roger would experience frustation of relentless first serve and even more impressive second serves for 95% of the game.This would affect his success on his return quality and overall break point opportunities. Not to mention the frustration of being volleyed just about every point. This would test the mental toughness of federer which is hardly ever seen be stretched to the limit not only once but time and time again.
Pete however has his moments and in some games could seem so different and ditatched from the way he can really play and could loose to opponents so inferior which is something that would never happen to federer.
federers baseline game is more complete due to his backhand wider varieties such as that deadly flick crosscourt and overall agressiveness on the backhand.
both their forehands are incredible in their own style and there cannot be one better than the other.
Federer is relentless and hardly shows emotion which is a grear attribute and a key to his success. When he shows emotion he backles slightly in my opinion.
Pete is on the other hand a more emotional player and can let his emotion turn into positive energy and can go from dissapointing to marvalous is a space of half an hour.Or he just surrender and looses the game very quickly.There is no in between with pete.
Pete was very random and not as consistent as federer, but when he stepped in a court with the eye of the tiger he pretty much would come out the winner no matter how incredibly well the adversery was playing.
It is unfair to say that federers competition is inferior to sampras. I think federer and nadal are just as incredible as sampras and agassi.
It is extremelly unwise to say federer would dominate sampras or vice versa, as they are easily the two distinct best players of all time.
the reason I say that is because they were the only two players Ive seen play the great game with complete effortlessness in contrast to greats such as nadal and agassi who had to put extreme physical effort into their wins.
The only time they played was that majestic wimblendon game which either one of the champions could have walked away with the win. In that occasion federer was the one and good on him for having dominated for so long since that confidence win.
I think something extremelly important which is forgotten sometimes is luck.
Luck never makes great players but a little luck can influence huge moments specially when the difference in talent in non existant.
Im my opinion pete could have easily won the match when ha had federer against the ropes on match point and had him passed if my memory doesnt fail me but the ball hit the net.
If pete would have won that match it would be unfair to say that pete was better than federer because pete had supposibly won.
I was so excited to see them play those exibition games and let me tell you it proved they are both as good as each other and only a fool would claim one would dominate the other.
Federer could be the best if Nadal did not exist in his time. Sampras never face a player who constantly beat him. Pete was without doubt the best player of his time. Federer didn't prove he is better than Nadal (and I hate Nadal).
For that I think Sampras is the great tenis player.
Post a Comment
Back to Federer Magic Homepage