At 06 June, 2007 14:07,  Anonymous said...

Stats are not the be all and end all. If we went by that Jordan would come up no higher than 3rd and Ali would not even be in the top 5 where heavyweights are concerned.

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.  

At 10 July, 2007 06:06,  Anonymous said...

In my opinion Sampras is better than Federer, the quality of the opponents around today are not in the same league as they were in Sampas' day.
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.  

At 11 July, 2007 13:46,  Ray House said...

In response to the comment about Pete Sampras being ahead of Roger Federer, nothing against Pete but, this guy Roger Federer is extremely special. He has the endorsement of many former players( some of who played against Pete, not to mention Andre Agassi ) and other experts associated with the sport of tennis. He is phenomenal.
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.  

At 15 July, 2007 18:34,  Anonymous said...

Agassi pushed Federer thats true. But are we forgetting that Agassi was great in his own right? Agassi has done something Pete and Roger have not and that is win all four grand slams. Agassi is on of the all time great players. Agassi has beaten Sampras, so it is no surprise that he might give Federer some trouble.  

At 23 July, 2007 21:06,  Anonymous said...

A timeless question emerges with any human endeavor, be it our quest to opine who we think the best President ever is, to the best team or horse, etc. ever is. It's tantalising to opine in the realm of: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greatest of them all?

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.  

At 31 July, 2007 19:03,  Anonymous said...

Response to what Ray House implying that Sampras's generation lacking fitness etc:

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!!!!  

At 01 August, 2007 01:07,  Anonymous said...

Federer is great but the level of players he's doing it vs certainly is not.

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.  

At 03 August, 2007 17:05,  Anonymous said...

I think Federer has showed he is a more complete, versatile player. To the guy who commented that if Nadal betters his serve he will beat Roger I will answer that if Sampras had had better groundstrokes he could have won on clay. Well the fact is he did not. Roger beat Pete on grass, and that is a fact. Roger bageled Nadal on clay, and on grass. Roger got two times to the FO final. Sampras did never got there. Mac did get to the final, Agassi won there. So in the end, Roger is more versatile, has a more complete game and above all he plays better on clay. He can be considered number two on clay behind Nadal. Sam[pras was a mediocre player on clay. I do not think Federer is plying in inferior era. Safin beat Sampras on the US Open final an so did Hewitt. Players that Roger handled now easily. By the way Roger bageled Hewwit in the US Open final. May be that he is so above the rest that he makes the others look inferior. Remember Steffi was being regularly beaten by Monica until somebody stopped her. Nobodoy says now that if Monica had not been stabbed Steffi would have never got to where she was finally ranked.  

At 21 August, 2007 04:16,  Anonymous said...

I agree with the comment posted
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 *.  

At 06 September, 2007 11:00,  Anonymous said...

I disagree with the notion that Sampras had better opponents in his playing days. The reason why Roger's opponents appear to be weak or inferior barring Nadal is that he makes them look that way. You have to look at how many of the top players Hewitt, Roddick to name a few that Roger has bageled in the course of a match and that's because when he sees an opening he just grabs it by the throat and he is relentless on his opponents that Roger dominates them not just physically but also mentally. So, in my opinion and in the minds of the experts Roger is a complete tennis player although he still can make easy errors on his volleys. But even that, I feel he does it bcos he thinks he can afford it !! Another fact that Sampras is a better serve and volleyer also does not hold merit bcos of the racquet technology that exists today Federer will easily outplay and frustrate Sampras from the baseline with his service returns and passing shots.  

At 10 September, 2007 21:33,  Anonymous said...

Roger is all the way...He is at his peak mentally, physically, and strategically. At times now.... in tournaments he makes things looks hard and dificult because he just testing his opponents...indeed when critical moments needed, he really put step up and dominate his opponents ....
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.  

At 12 September, 2007 11:07,  Anonymous said...

Oh My God - no contest. I loved Sampras but Federer is just ridiculous. 10 straight GS Finals.
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.  

At 12 September, 2007 12:22,  Chaz said...

It's unfair to say that Sampras had tougher competition simply because there were more slam winners back then.

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.  

At 12 September, 2007 16:46,  Syed said...

This surely is comment by a die hard fan of Sampras. I'm a huge fan of Andy Roddick. Even though i hate it like hell watching Federer kicking Andy's ass every match but i truely believe that Federer could beat Sampras on any given day in prime form.  

At 14 September, 2007 03:22,  Anonymous said...

federer has won 4 not 3 us open titles, please change...thanks  

At 20 September, 2007 14:50,  Anonymous said...

I go back to the days of Lendl, Becker, Edberg, even Johnny Mc and Connors at the end of their careers.

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?  

At 28 September, 2007 03:24,  Rui said...

Ok, I have to put my comment in.

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.  

At 29 September, 2007 14:38,  Anonymous said...

Roger beat Sampras at Wimbledon, in his own turf. Had Sampras won, all his fans will claim that he was no doubt the better. Imagine Sampras playing Nadal on clay. I think it will Nadal will embarass Sampras. Sampras was great on fast surfaces. But his backcourt game was not so great. Federer has all the shotsand is moreversatile player. Sorry for Sampras but Borg got to six straight finals on Wimbledon. And as one of the guys said, he always came restedto Wimbledon rested, but he never got the the final of the French. Look at Lendl, he got to the final on Wimbledon twice, Borg got to the final of the US Open four times, Mac got to the final of the Frencha (and Mac was basically a Serve an volley player), son I do not see how Sampras can erase that mediocre record of his on clay. Sure he does not deserve to be called the greatest, not even close. Pancho Gonzalez was ranked number one for 9 consecutive years. I think US citizens ( not american citizens)cannot stand the fact that a guy from other country is the best of all time. I am from Central America and always are mad at that arrogance, of them calling themselves americans, they are US citizens. If not what are mexicans, canadians and so on... They watch too much TV and beleive all that their own newspapers and magazines publish. Sorry for them. But Fed is already TBOAT.  

At 03 October, 2007 21:39,  Anonymous said...

Edberg also won the Australian(2), Wim bledon (2)and the US Open twice. He got to the French Open once and lost I guess it was in five sets.He was not such a great asthey claim Pete tobe. How come hegot to the FO final? Agassi won all the torunaments in Sampras time? I remember Mac Enroe was considered the best volleyer of all time and Pancho Gonzales was considered to have the best service.

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.  

At 04 October, 2007 22:12,  Anonymous said...

This one goes for Rui.
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.  

At 06 October, 2007 20:40,  Anonymous said...

I agree with the comment ofOctober 4. Let me pont out that this reminds me of Ali vrs Holmes. When Olmes won, his detractors said he had just beaten an old guy. Had Ali won he would had been considered and inmortal.So there was no way that Holmes could prove nothing with that fight and Ali knew it. In this case Pete has a lot more experience and was not finished. Fed was just a teenager. We have to stick to the facts in this case. Fed won. Pete was in trouble against Rafter, and I remember Ivanisevic took him to five sets. Did Agassi beat Ivanisevic on grass at Wibledon? Of course he did. Pete was great. But I sincerely think that his record at the French shows that his ground starokes were sub par. Mac at his best lost on the final of the FO, he was just two points away. The FO foiled Mac, foiled Edberg. It did not foiled Pete because Pete never got to the final. Laver was an all around champ. There are many things to factor out, but as fasr as consistency and versatility, Fed is far ahead. My picks 1. Fed 2. Budge 3. Laver.  

At 07 October, 2007 09:22,  Jomaropol said...

All very nice comments. But it's really a no contest, Federer is way ahead of Sampras.

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.  

At 07 October, 2007 10:33,  Anonymous said...

I just have to reply to everyone who says things along these lines: "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."

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...  

At 08 October, 2007 22:30,  Anonymous said...

Andy Roddick has a winning record against Sampras, so does Krajicek.

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  

At 23 October, 2007 02:04,  Anonymous said...

Response to what Jomaropol stated, and I quote him:

"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.  

At 27 October, 2007 23:14,  Anonymous said...

They are both great players, but Federer is just better than Sampras!

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!  

At 28 October, 2007 12:42,  K.L. said...

It's not like I don't like Federer...I just think it's kinda simplistic how people judge
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).  

At 04 November, 2007 10:33,  Anonymous said...

I believe grass court tennis comes down of which player happens to be serving better on a given day or week. I believe either Sampras or Federer could win on a given day. As would also any other player with an outstanding serve. As that was the case with Ivanisevic which reached the WF on several occassions and finally winning on 2001 as a wild card entry. However, hard court and clay court tennis comes down more to who is the more complete player. Having been myself a competitive player since I was teen. Now I am in my late 30s. I have always paid extreme attention to pro players stroke's mechanics. And to my observation, Agassi was the first player to truly hit the ball on the rise with an amazing precision and control probably more from the backhand side than the forehand. Unfortunately Agassi was not a neither a natural server or volleyer. Sampras was a natural server and volleyer, but he was not as comfortable on the baseline. He had very good strokes. But he did not have the amazing skill of hitting the ball on the rise as Agassi. When it comes down to Federer. He is also a natural server. But he is also as comfortable on the baseline. In my opinion. Federer has the amazing skill that Agassi had of hitting the ball on the rise with amazing precision and control, not only on the forehand but on the backhand as well. So to me, in grass, either player could beat each other on a given day. But in hard and clay, Federer would win the most times given his superior stroke technique on all wings.  

At 15 November, 2007 10:41,  Anonymous said...

I am not that fond of the "best of all time" moniker because tennis, like many sports, has evolved over time. I'd prefer the term of "Most Dominate Player of his/her time." Comparing players of differnt generations is fun but futile since the technology of rackets, strings, shoes, training and even clothes makes such comparisons difficult.
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?  

At 20 November, 2007 00:01,  Anonymous said...

To anonymous (nov 15)I am the Central American blogger who complained about the word and I want to point out that it is a matter of common sense. You referred to me as a Central American so how wome the term american applies to US citizens. Does that mean that a Central American is a Us citizen that lives in the middle of the United States. Please, como on. This is not an language issue,?
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.  

At 20 November, 2007 08:04,  Anonymous said...

Lets set the record straight Sampras has beaten Federer as the Nasdaq in Miami Florida. I was there as a witness so the record is tied. I was rooting for Federer as he was playing great all tournament and Sampras demolished him in the final. Check the records.  

At 20 November, 2007 09:37,  Anonymous said...

Since Hewitt became no1 the quality of players have been awful compared to the past. Also when Fed was pushed by an aging Agassi many forget Agassi had little sleep after his long matches to that point and terrible schedule that made him play again the following day against the well rested Fed. Sampras had ten times the opposition Fed has now. Even if Fed wins more grand slams its just a number. Agassi I still consider the best for being able to achieve what no other players in history has done - retire for 2 years, poke B. Shields and come back and win on Clay apart from Rebound Ace, Hard court and grass what a legend. Most players today have very little consistency and Federer would be compared to Edberg at most but better forehand. The level of Tennis today leaves much to be desired in the top ranks. lets hope at least Nalbandian stays healthy for a little competition before Fed retires. Safin beat both Fed and Sampras in great matches but is gone and few of these talented players are around except inexperienced, no stamina juniors like Djokovic and Murray. Lets hope there are great talents coming ahead that are not drawn into the limelight but focus on their tennis like a career rather than glamour stage.  

At 21 November, 2007 15:41,  Anonymous said...

To the guyt who posted the comment on Nov 20 stating that the head to head is 1 to 1 between Fed and Sampras. Please let us know when did this happened. I have checked all over and I did nof ind any record of that. I will be instructive for all tu up date this information. So pleas let us know the date and year of that tournament.

Thanks in advance  

At 22 November, 2007 20:01,  Niaz said...

Niaz from Sydney:

Sampras is far beter then Federer. He is classical and plays serve and volley.His tennis looks attractive...  

At 22 November, 2007 21:59,  Anonymous said...

To anonymou on Nov 20

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  

At 22 November, 2007 22:41,  Anonymous said...

To anonymous on Nov 20 Either the statistics of the Blog are completely wrong, see the beginning of this page, or you just live in another planet pal. I have checked all the sites and there is no record of Pete beating Fed. You sure you were in the right match, because it it is not correct to lie.

ER  

At 22 November, 2007 23:02,  Anonymous said...

To the guy stating that the record between Fed and Pete being 1 to 1 I have only one word Liar. I did check the now sony ericcson open history Pete last won it in 2000 and defeated Gustavo Kuerten in the final and there was no Roger in his side of the draw. Nice try pal. At least try somethin else. You are not doing this blog any good with that attitude. You stated that you were there and saw the final. Please come on.

Maria  

At 22 November, 2007 23:40,  Anonymous said...

In my opinion Pete Sampras is much more better player in all the aspects of the game than federer. The Reason is the match which I saw last night. Although he is 36 now but he had a very close encounter with Federer, and made him work hard for his victory. Everyone is saying that Federer has a better stroke play but he is losing now, like he lost to Nalbandian recently. Also I want to mention that Safin beat Federer during his prime in Semi's during Australian Open. Also as a doctor I want to mention one thing which no one is mentioning so far that Sampras is a patient of thallasemia minor. So he can't over stress himself.  

At 23 November, 2007 16:15,  Anonymous said...

For the record Roger Feder and Pete Sampras never met as the nasdaq.

Pete beat Kuerten in the 2000 final. This die hard fan of Sampras is just lying.  

At 28 November, 2007 11:42,  Anonymous said...

Federer is the Best ever! Having been a former tour player myself and having spoken to a quite a number of my former colleagues, we all agree that there has never been a better player than Federer. And I must say, I am a Sampras fan myself, but the things that Federer does with the ball are just unbelievable. Even Sampras admitted that Federer can do things/ create shots that he does not have in his arsenal.
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.  

At 29 November, 2007 07:26,  Anonymous said...

Completely agree. Fed is the BEST!  

At 02 December, 2007 21:43,  tama_sempai said...

...and what about Rod Laver? Come on people, we're comparing bacon with eggs! In all honesty, the game has changed over time, that's the beauty of the sport. Rod Laver is a legend, Pete Sampras is a champion, and Roger Federer will be a record-breaker.

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.  

At 12 December, 2007 04:07,  G-Cubed said...

I would be curious to see what the age group of the commenters on this debate are. I am in my 30's, so I grew up in the Era of Lendl to Sampras, as far as the #1s.

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.  

At 12 December, 2007 04:28,  G-Cubed said...

Personally I think I am the greatest of all time...if only I had the chance to face Pete or Roger in my prime, I would demolish them! They are lucky that I chose IT as my career and not professional Tennis!

Can we stop speaking in hypotheticals now?

If not, I want my name to be included in this debate!  

At 13 December, 2007 10:33,  TennisMasta said...

Interesting to note what Roddick said recently:

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  

At 17 December, 2007 19:52,  Anonymous said...

Both players are great on fast surfaces. Fed is great on clay. Sampras was not That puts and end to the question and i think that that is the last nail in the coffin.Period.  

At 31 December, 2007 02:56,  Anonymous said...

Roger grew up in Europe and Sampras in the US which could be one of the reasons for their different level of abilities and results on clay. The vast majoritiy of courts in Europe are still made of Clay, ang Roger would have grown up on this surface. To my knowledge most of the courts in the US moved to hard and/or synthetic in Sampras's time and he probably grew up playing on hard surfaces and evolved his style of play which yielded better results on fast surfaces.  

At 30 January, 2008 13:10,  Anonymous said...

While federer has more variety of shots, pete had more power in his shots overall.In this category I would say that, they are both even.
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.  

At 17 February, 2008 11:42,  Anonymous said...

Fed is the best ever. fed beat agassi 8 consecutive match which agassi said one will ever beat him in 7 consecutive match. And that goes for roddick with 11 consecutive match, hewitt(former no.1)with 11 consecutive match and a lot more. These players are very competitive that's why they've been playing roger more because they usually played each other on a QF, SF or F.
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  

At 09 April, 2008 20:28,  Marwan Hanania said...

Some fun comments on here and this is a cool exercise, but ultimately the answer to this question is totally subjective. I think it is just misleading to compare players from different eras. It's like comparing apples and oranges; there's simply no objective, fair or even reasonable way to go about this. The only fair method to assess a player's greatness is to look at his or her record during their career and against the opponents of their day. For example, it's so unfair and misleading when people say that Federer has had weaker opponents than Sampras. This is a superficial comment. As someone noted above, had Federer not been so talented, many of his opponents would have probably ended up winning more titles (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, even Nadal) ... And one simply can't conjecture about how Federer would do against people he's never played, like Becker or Edberg or Borg.
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.  

At 16 April, 2008 21:59,  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.But in actuality,I think it was the other way around! Let's be real here, there is no way that a balding, out of shape, out of touch with the game inactive player should ever compete on any level against the current no 1! Sad but true to say that Sampras thru out most of his career has been a product of true laziness and extreme natural talent. After winning the 02'open Anaccone made the comment that he practiced for nearly 2 hours a day, harder than he had for a long time. If you put Pete in this era or Federer back in his I know we would have seen a different player. True Sampras fans know just how scary this legend could have been. I've said this long before Federer made the scene that Pete didn't reach his highest ground. 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.  

Post a Comment

Back to Federer Magic Homepage