Who is the best ? Federer or Sampras ?
If they play together, who will win ?
If they play together, who will win ?
Federer vs. Sampras
This is very difficult but In my opinion Sampras in his day would beat Federer.
Any any given day either man could win but Sampras had power and finese with Federer just having mostly finese. Federer can be controlled if you keep him on his backhand and I beleive Sampras could do that
Federe is VERY VERY good but I think there was more tougher competition when Sampras was playing, that is why Federer loos that much better
Any any given day either man could win but Sampras had power and finese with Federer just having mostly finese. Federer can be controlled if you keep him on his backhand and I beleive Sampras could do that
Federe is VERY VERY good but I think there was more tougher competition when Sampras was playing, that is why Federer loos that much better
i think federer is better then sampras.Sampras was a greta player no doubt,but federer is something different ,he has a perfect shots,his moving is great,and he can make pass-shot when oponnent is on the net.And Sampras liked to play on net.But it would be a very hard match for both players.And yes it was tougher competition when sampras was playing.
good day
everyone
in my own opinion. if federer and sampras will be given a chance to play,
i think pete sampras will win.why?
because pete sampras is more
skillful and more experienced
tennis player than federer.
Eventhough federer is still young
and that's his advantage over sampras.
But i'll still go for pete Sampras
everyone
in my own opinion. if federer and sampras will be given a chance to play,
i think pete sampras will win.why?
because pete sampras is more
skillful and more experienced
tennis player than federer.
Eventhough federer is still young
and that's his advantage over sampras.
But i'll still go for pete Sampras
Hello !
If there was a match between Sampras and Federer, I would give an advantage to Federer.
Indeed Sampras was a really really good player but his game was always the same. Federer can change each point his way to play. Moreover Federer control all the technic and especially the tactic. He's up to Sampras for the tactic.
So Advantage Federer
If there was a match between Sampras and Federer, I would give an advantage to Federer.
Indeed Sampras was a really really good player but his game was always the same. Federer can change each point his way to play. Moreover Federer control all the technic and especially the tactic. He's up to Sampras for the tactic.
So Advantage Federer
Well they have played before... and the one I remember was when they played at wimbleond where Federer won. If you're talking at this very second, of course Federer would win. If you're talking about when they both are at their prime level (who knows if federer is even there right now), then that's tough.
Sampras in his prime would dominate Federer. Not even close. Don't think about almost retired Sampras, think about the top-of-his-game model, and you will probably agree.
Yeah, Sampras no doubt a great player, with great technique and awesome tactics and good character. On paper, yes i would say sampras will beat frederer. But well, if u guys remember, sampras always seem to have problems when he plays against andre agassi. So no matter how great a player is, i believe in some way or another, there is always a nemesis. So nothing can be certain. Cheers!
i think federer will win but its a hars questioin but go go federer=P 
I could not decide. They are both just so good. They are very evenly matched and they both are clever on the court and they both have a devastating service. At this point in time it is too hard to decide who is better. We must wait and see how federer plays in the future. Will he win wimbledon 7 times like sampras? We will find out!javascript:emoticon('
')
Arrow
')
Arrow
What about Rafael Nadal? he is still young but he is going to be the Nº1 in a couple of years. He just needs to improve his game in grass to be the number one...anyway, i think that Federer is better than Pete.
tough one.. an universal question... i prefer the way federer plays, but a match between the best federer and the best sampras will... end in a tie!! none of them can loose, therefore none of them can win, therefore is a tie... i know there are no ties in tennis, so it means that don't make yourself questions humankind may never answer. it's a waste of time.
I will surely say that Federer will wins this one if both play on their best. Something which Federer wasn't always this season to be honest. Certainly with his class you always expect something special and its a shame then if he loses a couple of matches. Much rather see him than Nadal, who is too much power for my likening.
I think Federer will be a better player betweent the two. Federer has a game plan for all types of players in all types of courts. And his dominion seems to be more than Sampras as well. Except Nadal, no one comes close to Fedex these days. But for Sampras it was all a hard fought matches.
No doubt, Federer would win.
Both of them have a great service but Roger has a wider variety of possibilities to play. Pete based his game in service-volley.
I can't remember but I'm sure Sampras never reached Roland Garros' final or semifinal like Federer did last two years and only was defeated by Rafa Nadal. In Wimbledon Sampras could win if he has a good day with his service, on any other court he wouldn't have possibilities.
Both of them have a great service but Roger has a wider variety of possibilities to play. Pete based his game in service-volley.
I can't remember but I'm sure Sampras never reached Roland Garros' final or semifinal like Federer did last two years and only was defeated by Rafa Nadal. In Wimbledon Sampras could win if he has a good day with his service, on any other court he wouldn't have possibilities.
WOW fed vs pete....now that would have been mindblowing.
With both of them in their prime its very difficult to jugde.
But I think federer would have won...may in a fivesetter.
He ball control and placement is just too good...sampras may have more power but I'll still go with Federer.
BTW Nadal LOST to Mikhail Youzhny...never saw that coming...I was getting ready to another exciting Fed vs. Nadal final.
With both of them in their prime its very difficult to jugde.
But I think federer would have won...may in a fivesetter.
He ball control and placement is just too good...sampras may have more power but I'll still go with Federer.
BTW Nadal LOST to Mikhail Youzhny...never saw that coming...I was getting ready to another exciting Fed vs. Nadal final.
| Svarn wrote: |
| Sampras in his prime would dominate Federer. Not even close. Don't think about almost retired Sampras, think about the top-of-his-game model, and you will probably agree. |
Sampras was never able to arrive to the final in the French Opens where as Federer arrives to semi final and final these last years.
Federer can still improve.
I'd pick defenitly pick Federer
Once again Federer proves that he will be among the all time great in the history of lawn tennis. He just beat Andy Roddick in the US open and added another grand slam to his name easily. I saw the match on TV and it was a very one-sided match. There was no play at all when Federer served, they only play when Andy Roddick served. And so, it was only a 4 setter match.
Since I sided with Roddick in that particular match, I was just tired. It's tiresome to be against the best player in the world at the moment.
Fed Ex rules, and it continues........
Since I sided with Roddick in that particular match, I was just tired. It's tiresome to be against the best player in the world at the moment.
Fed Ex rules, and it continues........
I think judging a player because he has or has not won a tournament is just plain stupid. The men's tennis players who are considered the greatest of all time did not win all four majors. Borg, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras. Now, I'm only talking the "open" era. Guys like Laver, Nastase, and Ashe are judged differently because they didn't have the "four" majors.
Only Agassi has won all four in the last 50 years. Is he better than Sampras or Federer? I think not.
I truly believe that Sampras in his prime (1993-97) would win over Federer. His serve and volley would be overpowering, and Federer does not possess a serve that could be used as a weapon against Sampras (whose return game is/was terribly underrated).
I believe that Federer will challenge Pete's record of major wins, and of all the men's players right now, I enjoy watching him the most. He reminds me of Pete so much, especially his seemingly effortless play.
Only Agassi has won all four in the last 50 years. Is he better than Sampras or Federer? I think not.
I truly believe that Sampras in his prime (1993-97) would win over Federer. His serve and volley would be overpowering, and Federer does not possess a serve that could be used as a weapon against Sampras (whose return game is/was terribly underrated).
I believe that Federer will challenge Pete's record of major wins, and of all the men's players right now, I enjoy watching him the most. He reminds me of Pete so much, especially his seemingly effortless play.
I agree that the standards have dropped since sampras at his peak.It would really depend on the surface and many other factors.Iknow for sure though Sampras would have thrashed him on grass.
bjorn borg 
well you can't compare between those two, because they didn't play in the same ages (well.. they did played each other..) and than Federer won sometimes....
But i think that those 2 players, are the best in their age.
But i think that those 2 players, are the best in their age.
Hi,
It is going to be a tough choice. But if you ask me to pick one, I would go for Sampras. Sampras on his day was even more outstanding that what Federer is now. The power definitely was more.
And yes, there was a little more competition back then.
It is going to be a tough choice. But if you ask me to pick one, I would go for Sampras. Sampras on his day was even more outstanding that what Federer is now. The power definitely was more.
And yes, there was a little more competition back then.
Federer, hands down.
Have you seen how pretty his shots are? And his serves?!?!
Okay, I don't actually know that much about tennis (used to play, don't anymore) but I do know that Federer has beautiful form.
Yes, I am totally biased because Federer's my favourite player.
Have you seen how pretty his shots are? And his serves?!?!
Okay, I don't actually know that much about tennis (used to play, don't anymore) but I do know that Federer has beautiful form.
Yes, I am totally biased because Federer's my favourite player.
OK I will try to break down their games by a rating usually based on my reading of a no of articles as well as watching the game closely.
Scores (out of 10)
SAMPRAS FEDERER
Forehand - 8 9
(both have gr8 forehands SAmpras -running forehand is amazing but fed has more angles and more vicious spins and makes very few unforced errors with it. Fed can control a game just based on his forehand)
Backhand- 7 8
( sampras's comparatively weaker side of his game. fed has very strong backhand but makes a number of unforced errors)
Serve - 10 7
(sampras - best serve in history. Fed gets broken more often than he likes to)
Volley- 9 7
(sampras's bread and butter..federer whenever he approaches the net makes classy volleys)
service returns- 7 9
(largely based on number of aces the opponent has served against them..rare to see more than 10 aces scored in a match against fed while sampras has yielded over 15 aces in a match on numerous occasions. Although Sampras's return from his backhand side wasnt great.)
Speed and athletism-9 9.5
( both of them are ballet dancers on court but I believe fed is slightly faster and has retrieved impossible balls on a number of occasions)
Defense 8 10
( Fed has probably the best defense in the game)
Endurance- 9.5 10
(Sampras (although he has won) has had to be carried out due to exhaustion on a couple of occasions. Sampras gets 9.5 coz of the number of 5 set matches he has won. Federer is a machine when it comes to endurance.)
mental edge - 10 8
(fed has had trouble finishing off straight forward matches while Sampras has won solely based on will power on a few occasions)
Consistent pressure 8 9
(Talking about pressurising the opponent. Most of the time Sampras does "just enough" to win while players playing against fed are on their toes through out their match.)
Playing the big points - 10 10
(This what made them so good. Playing the big points well)
playing incredible and fancy shots - 9 10
( Fed does it very often. Sampras gets 9 largely coz of his slam dunk style overhead smash)
Game strategy - 9 8
(Sampras faced a larger "variety" of oppposition so had to come up with different strategies. Have to give Sampras the edge on this one.)
Overall
SAMPRAS - 113.5 FEDERER- 114.5
Result - its very close. I would say its a 51% probability fed will win while 49% sampras will prevail. the match also depends on the other factors like conditions (grass- Sampras has more chance, clay- Federer , Hardcourts -difficult to say). Also the crowd backing (fed is the most popular of this generation while sampras was labelled boring during his time; Agassi as well as a few other superstars were more popular).
This is the best simulation I could run.
Hope you guys found this interesting.
Scores (out of 10)
SAMPRAS FEDERER
Forehand - 8 9
(both have gr8 forehands SAmpras -running forehand is amazing but fed has more angles and more vicious spins and makes very few unforced errors with it. Fed can control a game just based on his forehand)
Backhand- 7 8
( sampras's comparatively weaker side of his game. fed has very strong backhand but makes a number of unforced errors)
Serve - 10 7
(sampras - best serve in history. Fed gets broken more often than he likes to)
Volley- 9 7
(sampras's bread and butter..federer whenever he approaches the net makes classy volleys)
service returns- 7 9
(largely based on number of aces the opponent has served against them..rare to see more than 10 aces scored in a match against fed while sampras has yielded over 15 aces in a match on numerous occasions. Although Sampras's return from his backhand side wasnt great.)
Speed and athletism-9 9.5
( both of them are ballet dancers on court but I believe fed is slightly faster and has retrieved impossible balls on a number of occasions)
Defense 8 10
( Fed has probably the best defense in the game)
Endurance- 9.5 10
(Sampras (although he has won) has had to be carried out due to exhaustion on a couple of occasions. Sampras gets 9.5 coz of the number of 5 set matches he has won. Federer is a machine when it comes to endurance.)
mental edge - 10 8
(fed has had trouble finishing off straight forward matches while Sampras has won solely based on will power on a few occasions)
Consistent pressure 8 9
(Talking about pressurising the opponent. Most of the time Sampras does "just enough" to win while players playing against fed are on their toes through out their match.)
Playing the big points - 10 10
(This what made them so good. Playing the big points well)
playing incredible and fancy shots - 9 10
( Fed does it very often. Sampras gets 9 largely coz of his slam dunk style overhead smash)
Game strategy - 9 8
(Sampras faced a larger "variety" of oppposition so had to come up with different strategies. Have to give Sampras the edge on this one.)
Overall
SAMPRAS - 113.5 FEDERER- 114.5
Result - its very close. I would say its a 51% probability fed will win while 49% sampras will prevail. the match also depends on the other factors like conditions (grass- Sampras has more chance, clay- Federer , Hardcourts -difficult to say). Also the crowd backing (fed is the most popular of this generation while sampras was labelled boring during his time; Agassi as well as a few other superstars were more popular).
This is the best simulation I could run.
Hope you guys found this interesting.
i haven't seen Sampras play, really, i was too young to follow tennis XD but i do remember watching a tennis special and seeing a rather young, just-off-junior-category Federer (meaning he was just starting his professional career) beating Sampras in the finals i thought that was awesome. and a little sad. because Federer wept for happiness at winning, but he also said Sampras was his idol. how was that possibly like, you know? beating someone you admired for the longest time? it's like defeating a dream you had in order to live your own. *shrugs* heheh. getting a bit too philosophical here.
i thought that was awesome. and a little sad. because Federer wept for happiness at winning, but he also said Sampras was his idol. how was that possibly like, you know? beating someone you admired for the longest time? it's like defeating a dream you had in order to live your own. *shrugs* heheh. getting a bit too philosophical here. Nice analysis nazzu! I personally think Federer would win. He seems like a more well rounded player and can stand the pressure. I remember watching Sampras and times I swear it seemed like the guy was about to break down and cry. He'd have this childish expression and I would be convinced that he was about to flood Center Court with his tears!!! But he was fun to watch.
However, I think Federer would do a brilliant job of tearing him apart. Someone said that the competition was stiffer in Sampras' day. I think the competition is just as stiff with guys like Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick, Safin, etc. Regardless, Federer is just dominating the sport in a way that Sampras never did. I think Federer has won every major Open, but Sampras could never win a particular one. The French Open i think. Please correct me if I am wrong!!
In a match up like that, I would go with Federer!
However, I think Federer would do a brilliant job of tearing him apart. Someone said that the competition was stiffer in Sampras' day. I think the competition is just as stiff with guys like Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick, Safin, etc. Regardless, Federer is just dominating the sport in a way that Sampras never did. I think Federer has won every major Open, but Sampras could never win a particular one. The French Open i think. Please correct me if I am wrong!!
In a match up like that, I would go with Federer!
It must Fedrer!
When Agassi can compete with Sampras, Fedrer are on the top of its fields.
When Agassi can compete with Sampras, Fedrer are on the top of its fields.
| mattchun wrote: |
| It must Fedrer!
When Agassi can compete with Sampras, Fedrer are on the top of its fields. |
This cracks me up. When did Agassi ever compete with Samprass? They played in several finals in grand slam events and Pete won each and every one of them. Sure Andre won each of the four majors while Pete is missing a French Open (hardly a major IMO), but the two were not even on the same planet in terms of talent.
this debate will never reach an answer.. but in my opinion federer would win. he's career is not too long and he has achieved records of all kinds. it's nearly impossible to beat federer. the only things that can make federer loose his no1 are an injury or the coming of a new superplayer (baghdatis is still young, keep an eye on him), but it can not be denied that what federer has reached so far no other player had rechaed before at this point of their career. and, furthermore, we are not talking of a player with only one shot (example: roddick reached no1 due to his serve), but federer's backhand, forehand, serve and every single shot are probably the best or one of the bests in the circuit. (nadal is no2, but his backhand is way behind in the ranking).
No one has mentioned the surface they played on... if they played on clay... Federer would dominate ( he even made Nadal sweat, and i guess that he will finally grab French open this year ). If they played on grass, i'd say that Sampras has 55:45 advantage. If they played on hardcourt, i'd say Fed 55:45
OK I will try to break down their games by a rating usually based on my reading of a no of articles as well as watching the game closely.
Scores (out of 10)
SAMPRAS FEDERER
Forehand - 8 9
(both have gr8 forehands SAmpras -running forehand is amazing but fed has more angles and more vicious spins and makes very few unforced errors with it. Fed can control a game just based on his forehand)
Backhand- 7 8
( sampras's comparatively weaker side of his game. fed has very strong backhand but makes a number of unforced errors)
Serve - 10 7
(sampras - best serve in history. Fed gets broken more often than he likes to)
Volley- 9 7
(sampras's bread and butter..federer whenever he approaches the net makes classy volleys)
service returns- 7 9
(largely based on number of aces the opponent has served against them..rare to see more than 10 aces scored in a match against fed while sampras has yielded over 15 aces in a match on numerous occasions. Although Sampras's return from his backhand side wasnt great.)
Speed and athletism-9 9.5
( both of them are ballet dancers on court but I believe fed is slightly faster and has retrieved impossible balls on a number of occasions)
Defense 8 10
( Fed has probably the best defense in the game)
Endurance- 9.5 10
(Sampras (although he has won) has had to be carried out due to exhaustion on a couple of occasions. Sampras gets 9.5 coz of the number of 5 set matches he has won. Federer is a machine when it comes to endurance.)
mental edge - 10 8
(fed has had trouble finishing off straight forward matches while Sampras has won solely based on will power on a few occasions)
Consistent pressure 8 9
(Talking about pressurising the opponent. Most of the time Sampras does "just enough" to win while players playing against fed are on their toes through out their match.)
Playing the big points - 10 10
(This what made them so good. Playing the big points well)
playing incredible and fancy shots - 9 10
( Fed does it very often. Sampras gets 9 largely coz of his slam dunk style overhead smash)
Game strategy - 9 8
(Sampras faced a larger "variety" of oppposition so had to come up with different strategies. Have to give Sampras the edge on this one.)
Overall
SAMPRAS - 113.5 FEDERER- 114.5
Result - its very close. I would say its a 51% probability fed will win while 49% sampras will prevail. the match also depends on the other factors like conditions (grass- Sampras has more chance, clay- Federer , Hardcourts -difficult to say). Also the crowd backing (fed is the most popular of this generation while sampras was labelled boring during his time; Agassi as well as a few other superstars were more popular).
This is the best simulation I could run.
Hope you guys found this interesting.
Scores (out of 10)
SAMPRAS FEDERER
Forehand - 8 9
(both have gr8 forehands SAmpras -running forehand is amazing but fed has more angles and more vicious spins and makes very few unforced errors with it. Fed can control a game just based on his forehand)
Backhand- 7 8
( sampras's comparatively weaker side of his game. fed has very strong backhand but makes a number of unforced errors)
Serve - 10 7
(sampras - best serve in history. Fed gets broken more often than he likes to)
Volley- 9 7
(sampras's bread and butter..federer whenever he approaches the net makes classy volleys)
service returns- 7 9
(largely based on number of aces the opponent has served against them..rare to see more than 10 aces scored in a match against fed while sampras has yielded over 15 aces in a match on numerous occasions. Although Sampras's return from his backhand side wasnt great.)
Speed and athletism-9 9.5
( both of them are ballet dancers on court but I believe fed is slightly faster and has retrieved impossible balls on a number of occasions)
Defense 8 10
( Fed has probably the best defense in the game)
Endurance- 9.5 10
(Sampras (although he has won) has had to be carried out due to exhaustion on a couple of occasions. Sampras gets 9.5 coz of the number of 5 set matches he has won. Federer is a machine when it comes to endurance.)
mental edge - 10 8
(fed has had trouble finishing off straight forward matches while Sampras has won solely based on will power on a few occasions)
Consistent pressure 8 9
(Talking about pressurising the opponent. Most of the time Sampras does "just enough" to win while players playing against fed are on their toes through out their match.)
Playing the big points - 10 10
(This what made them so good. Playing the big points well)
playing incredible and fancy shots - 9 10
( Fed does it very often. Sampras gets 9 largely coz of his slam dunk style overhead smash)
Game strategy - 9 8
(Sampras faced a larger "variety" of oppposition so had to come up with different strategies. Have to give Sampras the edge on this one.)
Overall
SAMPRAS - 113.5 FEDERER- 114.5
Result - its very close. I would say its a 51% probability fed will win while 49% sampras will prevail. the match also depends on the other factors like conditions (grass- Sampras has more chance, clay- Federer , Hardcourts -difficult to say). Also the crowd backing (fed is the most popular of this generation while sampras was labelled boring during his time; Agassi as well as a few other superstars were more popular).
This is the best simulation I could run.
Hope you guys found this interesting.
good analysis jon9314 
i see a tiebreak in their fifth game
i see a tiebreak in their fifth game
Sampras was the best some years ago but Federer's actual level is so amazing! I thought that Nadal was going to be better last' year but he wasn't. To conclude I think that federer's level is higher that Sampras in his time...
What does Pete Sampras say about Federer?
“I have never enjoyed watching soebody to play tennis like Federer. I am in reverence." Pete Sampras
“I think he can dominate tennis as long as I did. We have the same temper and like me he let the play look loose. He can do simply everything with the racquet and he can dominate everyone like I did years ago.” Pete Sampras
-----
But personally I think you cannot compare Sampras and Federer. This are different ages. Technology and tactics improve constantly. I remember when Björn Borg made a comeback with his racquet made out of wood - and some unknown tennis player fare beyond top 100 broke it ...
But I think Federers domination makes tennis a little boring, becaus nobody really coud stand him. (only Nadal on clay.) - I often think back to the glory days with Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Becker and of course Thomas Muster .
“I have never enjoyed watching soebody to play tennis like Federer. I am in reverence." Pete Sampras
“I think he can dominate tennis as long as I did. We have the same temper and like me he let the play look loose. He can do simply everything with the racquet and he can dominate everyone like I did years ago.” Pete Sampras
-----
But personally I think you cannot compare Sampras and Federer. This are different ages. Technology and tactics improve constantly. I remember when Björn Borg made a comeback with his racquet made out of wood - and some unknown tennis player fare beyond top 100 broke it ...
But I think Federers domination makes tennis a little boring, becaus nobody really coud stand him. (only Nadal on clay.) - I often think back to the glory days
with Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Becker and of course Thomas Muster .| nazzu wrote: |
| OK I will try to break down their games by a rating usually based on my reading of a no of articles as well as watching the game closely.
Scores (out of 10) SAMPRAS FEDERER Forehand - 8 9 (both have gr8 forehands SAmpras -running forehand is amazing but fed has more angles and more vicious spins and makes very few unforced errors with it. Fed can control a game just based on his forehand) Backhand- 7 8 ( sampras's comparatively weaker side of his game. fed has very strong backhand but makes a number of unforced errors) Serve - 10 7 (sampras - best serve in history. Fed gets broken more often than he likes to) Volley- 9 7 (sampras's bread and butter..federer whenever he approaches the net makes classy volleys) service returns- 7 9 (largely based on number of aces the opponent has served against them..rare to see more than 10 aces scored in a match against fed while sampras has yielded over 15 aces in a match on numerous occasions. Although Sampras's return from his backhand side wasnt great.) Speed and athletism-9 9.5 ( both of them are ballet dancers on court but I believe fed is slightly faster and has retrieved impossible balls on a number of occasions) Defense 8 10 ( Fed has probably the best defense in the game) Endurance- 9.5 10 (Sampras (although he has won) has had to be carried out due to exhaustion on a couple of occasions. Sampras gets 9.5 coz of the number of 5 set matches he has won. Federer is a machine when it comes to endurance.) mental edge - 10 8 (fed has had trouble finishing off straight forward matches while Sampras has won solely based on will power on a few occasions) Consistent pressure 8 9 (Talking about pressurising the opponent. Most of the time Sampras does "just enough" to win while players playing against fed are on their toes through out their match.) Playing the big points - 10 10 (This what made them so good. Playing the big points well) playing incredible and fancy shots - 9 10 ( Fed does it very often. Sampras gets 9 largely coz of his slam dunk style overhead smash) Game strategy - 9 8 (Sampras faced a larger "variety" of oppposition so had to come up with different strategies. Have to give Sampras the edge on this one.) Overall SAMPRAS - 113.5 FEDERER- 114.5 Result - its very close. I would say its a 51% probability fed will win while 49% sampras will prevail. the match also depends on the other factors like conditions (grass- Sampras has more chance, clay- Federer , Hardcourts -difficult to say). Also the crowd backing (fed is the most popular of this generation while sampras was labelled boring during his time; Agassi as well as a few other superstars were more popular). This is the best simulation I could run. Hope you guys found this interesting. |
Nothing but whoa. Thats a very nice break-down there.
I like that Federer won. Even if it was just by a little.
Federer is better than what Sampras was, but the thing that annoys me about these 2 is they keep winning but they are nice guys and its hard to hate them 
Federer is good. But Sampras is a legend. I will go with Federer, simply becoz I ahve seen him play more often than I saw Sampras. Not many weaknesses though
HArd to compare players of different eras. Federer by a nose.
Federer is out of this world...
who is more entertaining?
sampras.
federer is boring and tennis seems to be losing popularity.
sampras.
federer is boring and tennis seems to be losing popularity.
I have grown up watching Sampras play. Everytime I have been amazed at his endurance and sheer brilliance at the sport. Federer is more talented than Sampras. He is an extremely gifted player. Making shots that were never possible before, he is in a class of his own. But if Sampras were to play him at his peak fitness levels , he would surely have found a chink in Federer's armour. Federer thrives in making the opponent feel extremely helpless. But against Sampras he would meet his match. Sampras may not have all the shots that Federe has but an extremely quick well placed serve and extremely good volleying were his great assets. And if it goes to 5 sets only Sampras would win. Federer seems to somehow loose his cool at that time. But as everybody says, there would never be an answer to that question.
FEDERER would dominate..
appreciate your comments but by the looks of it Nadal is making big leadway and might be number one by next year!!
although you can say federer was a bit rusty in the wimbledon final as he didnt play for 5 days in a row and also not playing at the warm up grass court tournament. I guess a a couple more matches in between the day off he would have hit top form like last year.
About the sampras vs federer match up I feel if federer comes up with those passing shots similar to the ones he hit against roddick in AUS '07 semis, he would have had sampras's number. It was probably one of the greatest and most incredible performances I have seen.
although you can say federer was a bit rusty in the wimbledon final as he didnt play for 5 days in a row and also not playing at the warm up grass court tournament. I guess a a couple more matches in between the day off he would have hit top form like last year.
About the sampras vs federer match up I feel if federer comes up with those passing shots similar to the ones he hit against roddick in AUS '07 semis, he would have had sampras's number. It was probably one of the greatest and most incredible performances I have seen.
i got my tickets to watch them play from
http://www.realbidz.com/EventCategory.aspx?EventCategoryID=29
=D
gogo watch the event yourself!
http://www.realbidz.com/EventCategory.aspx?EventCategoryID=29
=D
gogo watch the event yourself!
So I think that at the moment, they are playing exhibition matches and fed will uterly destroy Sampras just based on age and that slightly over 5 years ago, Sampras was only 17th ranked in the world when he played his final tournament. The real question is could sampras beat federer when he was at his prime if you took into account racket technology.
I'd say fed would win this match too and heres why:
Fed dominates this generation. Hes far and away the best player on hardcourt and grass and far and away the second best clay court player behind someone who could possibly be the greatest clay court player of all time (not a bad person to be behind). Remember against opponents not named Federer, Nadal still has a 80+ match winning streak that lasts since early 2005. Federer has achieved a dominance on Hardcourt that Sampras did not and as much domination on Grasscourt as Sampras. He is on pace to demolish Sampras' 14 Slam record, probably brake his 7 Wimboldon title record, and probably win a career grand slam (Nadal will eventually lose a earlier round match and hes injury prone).
The biggest knock against Federer is people say he didn't have the competition that Sampras had during his career but I disagree with that. I think it seems like he doesn't because hes so much better. Its very hard to have rivals when you are much better than everyone else. I think there is actually more parity in the game than ever before. There are more and better players from other countries which makes the US look worse but I still think the level of American tennis is similar to what it was. Federer dominates the game in a way that is absolutely unbelievable and Sampras did not and I think Federer would win 4/5 meetings with Sampras at top strength with Sampras winning 1/5 only because he is better mentally than Federer.
I'd say fed would win this match too and heres why:
Fed dominates this generation. Hes far and away the best player on hardcourt and grass and far and away the second best clay court player behind someone who could possibly be the greatest clay court player of all time (not a bad person to be behind). Remember against opponents not named Federer, Nadal still has a 80+ match winning streak that lasts since early 2005. Federer has achieved a dominance on Hardcourt that Sampras did not and as much domination on Grasscourt as Sampras. He is on pace to demolish Sampras' 14 Slam record, probably brake his 7 Wimboldon title record, and probably win a career grand slam (Nadal will eventually lose a earlier round match and hes injury prone).
The biggest knock against Federer is people say he didn't have the competition that Sampras had during his career but I disagree with that. I think it seems like he doesn't because hes so much better. Its very hard to have rivals when you are much better than everyone else. I think there is actually more parity in the game than ever before. There are more and better players from other countries which makes the US look worse but I still think the level of American tennis is similar to what it was. Federer dominates the game in a way that is absolutely unbelievable and Sampras did not and I think Federer would win 4/5 meetings with Sampras at top strength with Sampras winning 1/5 only because he is better mentally than Federer.
Don't you think that there always be another good player to come? Why should we to compare between them?
Federer; no doubt
 |