Federer v Sampras

[chrisjie]

Sampras still the best ever. Sorry but you cant' crown Federer yet and all the people that did...you need to take a hard look at yourself.

 

[djs_23]

I don't reckon Pete was the best ever. Couldn't win on clay.
Laver won the grand slam twice, even Agassi won all four.

Fed has proven he can play on clay - had it not been for the best clay courter ever coming up at the same time, he would have won a few French.

Still, Pete was a hell of a player. No doubt.

 

[wally funk]

do you have to call rafa the best claycourter when he's only just turned 22? wait five or six years - he'll probably have another couple of FO crowns and probably another couple of slam titles to his name, and will definately rank quite highly then

 

[likka]

do you have to call rafa the best claycourter when he's only just turned 22?

No other player has won four French opens before his 22nd birthday... plus he holds the record for the most consecutive wins on the surface... and he hasn't reached his peak yet.

Scary stuff.

 

[Power King]

I'm with chrisjie.

I don't hold Federer above Sampras at all.

People just love to cream themselves in the moment, and are always quick to forget the past.

Agree with Likka too. Nadal's game on clay is beyond anything I've ever seen. Obviously I didn't get to watch Borg play, but looking at what Nadal has achieved after just turning 22, it is scary. He will probably go down as the greatest clay courter ever, and the only thing that will put it beyond doubt is if he wins more than 6 titles there.

 

[djs_23]

I've watched both Fed and Sampras when they were at their peak.

Sampras was a machine with a great great serve and a beautiful forehand. Fed is a magician. Not only do i think he's more entertaining, i think he's better. He has played classical-style tennis at a level that nobody else ever has.

Let's not forget they played each other at Wimbledon in 2001 when Sampras was still close to his best and Fed was a kid. Fed won it(in an amazing match).

Re Nadal, he is absolutely the best claycourter, already. He has never lost at the French, in an era of many clay court specialists. You could argue the record he broke could have been longer though - the guy he took it off (Vilas) had his streak broken by a guy using a spaghetti-strung racquet, which has since been banned.

 

[Lloydy4Pope]

Talk about a half arsed effort from old Roge. He knows which side his bread is buttered. Gave the fans their value for money, but ultimately, he would destroy Apeman if the match was worth a damn.

Your a flog - he is not called apeman by anyone. He is called pistol pete

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

I can't believe some of the comments I'm reading in this thread. Some people actually tried to emphasise that if Fed had tried, he would wipe the 5 year out of the game Sampras 1 and 1. Well derr, of course, Sampras at the time of those scratch matches was 5 years out of the game.

Pitt them against eachother, both at their peak, in 3 best of 5 set matches, one on clay, one on grass and one on hardcourt, to see who the real GOAT is. Forget the records, 16-14 slam wins in Fed's favour, because of the different eras. Most people would agree that Pete played in the tougher era. Forget their one and only match at Wimbledon, one was on the slide, the other unheard of. Fed knew who he was up against, Sampras had no idea who Fed was, had never seen him.

Clay:
Federer wins. No explanation needed here.

1-0 to Fed.

Grass:
Sampras wins. Most consistently devastating serve in the history of the game, with a volley to back it up. Sampras' game was built for grass. Fed might be able to get a look in on the serve if the match wore on, but Sampras would be relentless, trying to finish the points off ASAP, depriving Fed the chance to get in a groove.

1-1.

Hardcourt:
Fed, the all court game, versus Sampras with the big arsenal, namely his serve and big forehand. Would probably come down to who wants it most. Obviously both would want it bad. Sampras has heart, remember his match against Courier, crying on the court? He dug deep to win. Fed has heart too. Both are mentally tough. Might be a 5 setter, so fitness would be a factor, again, both seem equal in this area. Self belief would most likely be the key, who would have the belief in themselves and the belief to execute on the big points. It's been shown that Fed can suffer from self belief if he's playing a guy who is his equal, ie, Nadal. Never saw that with Sampras, he pretty much had the measure of all his rivals away from the clay. He feared no one. For that reason, I give the nod slightly in favour of Sampras on the hardcourt.

2-1 to Sampras.

In any event, I think some people have forgotten just how good Sampras was. Yes Fed has won more slams, and people love to compare players from different eras. But I have a real problem with Fed being declared the GOAT when one player in his own era, Nadal, constantly has his measure. I'm not talking all H2H matches, I'm talking grand slam finals. What is it, 6-2 in Nadal's favour? You almost get the feeling that if they kept meeting in GS finals, the gap would just widen. Even if you take the FO out of the equation, it is still 2-2, Nadal having won one on grass and one on hard, Fed having won both his on grass. But why should you take the clay away? Take the grass away and it's 5-0 to Nadal. As for Sampras, sure he has inferior H2H records against some players, but in all those circumstances, he lost a one off match, eg to Hewitt and Safin at the USO finals. Had he had more opportunities against them, I'm sure he would have squared up. But with Federa and Nadal, Nadal keeps on beating him, time and time and time again, on any surface.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Federer vs Sampras on grass depends on the type of grass we're talking about. Fast 90s grass? Slower mid 2000s style? Green clay of recent years? Federer EASILY on the slower stuff. Sampras favourite on the faster grass, but considering the style Federer played in that 2001 Wimbledon encounter, it's fair to say he would've been phenomenal no matter how the surface was playing.

And Federer is the best HC player of all time under basically any statistical measurement you can find. I think he wins, especially at the Australian Open. USO would be close.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Federer vs Sampras on grass depends on the type of grass we're talking about. Fast 90s grass? Slower mid 2000s style? Green clay of recent years? Federer EASILY on the slower stuff. Sampras favourite on the faster grass, but considering the style Federer played in that 2001 Wimbledon encounter, it's fair to say he would've been phenomenal no matter how the surface was playing.

And Federer is the best HC player of all time under basically any statistical measurement you can find. I think he wins, especially at the Australian Open. USO would be close.

It would all come down to how Sampras serves, be it on any type of grass or hardcourt. If Sampras is getting 50-60 per cent of first serves in, then Fed will feel like he is in with a chance to break. If Sampras is getting 75 per cent or higher into play, then Federer is going to feel helpless because when Sampras is on song with his serve, at his peak, he is almost impossible to break. It doesn't matter how good you are, when you got a guy who can serve like Sampras, with a volley and/or forehand to back it up, there's not much you can do. Agassi is considered the greatest reader and returner of a serve in the history of the game. Yet how many times did he have that look of helplessness about him as Sampras' serves were wizzing by him? IMO Sampras' serve is a bigger weapon than anything Federer has in repertoire.

 

[pepsi]

Sampras is my favourite all time player.

But Federer is a more complete player. The comparisons have already been made, looking at each individual attribute in their repertoire and Fed comes out just ahead.

 

[hamohawk1]

Put simply both players playing each other at their prime would have been a ripper of a match to see imo

 

[Dr Awkward]

You guys are kidding, peak Federer would have destroyed Sampras. Federer took the game to a new level.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

You guys are kidding, peak Federer would have destroyed Sampras. Federer took the game to a new level.

And yet he trails Nadal 2-6 in H2H grand slam finals.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

And yet he trails Nadal 2-6 in H2H grand slam finals.

Who cares? The entire H2H is a distorted mess.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Who cares? The entire H2H is a distorted mess.

Federer would care. It's going to be his one bug bear after he retires, if it isn't already, in that the man rated the best of all time, wasn't even the best in his duel with Nadal. Sampras made a point of this too btw, saying it's going to eat at him.

 

[Dr Awkward]

And yet he trails Nadal 2-6 in H2H grand slam finals.

How is Federer's record against Nadal relevant to him against Sampras.

I said Federer took the game to a new level. Nadal came up to that level. Nadal and Federer, and Djokovic for that matter would all account for Sampras comfortably.

I'd put Sampras in the top 5 of all time. During his era his was the best. But the game now is notches above the 90's.

Peak Sampras would have a good battle against peak Hewitt.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Federer would care. It's going to be his one bug bear after he retires, if it isn't already, in that the man rated the best of all time, wasn't even the best in his duel with Nadal. Sampras made a point of this too btw, saying it's going to eat at him.

The way Nadal looked yesterday, there is a chance Fed might square the H2H by the time their careers are over.

Their h2h's are completely screwed anyway. Nadal didn't have to deal with Fed for fed's first 3 or 4 peak years. Fed had to deal with Nadal right through his entire prime. Not to mention, 16 of their matches have been on clay, highly disproportionate.

 

[bombermick]

Sampras was phenomenal, but Federer would beat him comfortably. His serve is underrated, his forehand is just as good, his back hand is MUCH better, and he's a better volley.

 

[The_Doctor]

Sampras was phenomenal, but Federer would beat him comfortably. His serve is underrated, his forehand is just as good, his back hand is MUCH better, and he's a better volley.

One of the most under rated serves of the modern era, i think its just because the rest of his game is so complete that it gets over looked but his pin point serving is sensational. The way he absolutely destroyed Roddick with his serving in the Wimbledon final was awesome

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

How is Federer's record against Nadal relevant to him against Sampras.

I said Federer took the game to a new level. Nadal came up to that level. Nadal and Federer, and Djokovic for that matter would all account for Sampras comfortably.

I'd put Sampras in the top 5 of all time. During his era his was the best. But the game now is notches above the 90's.

Peak Sampras would have a good battle against peak Hewitt.

Sampras would find a way to win his fair share of matches against any player from any era, including the players you mentioned.

 

[crowsfan2004]

This year Rafa was just fine till Djokovic knocked Rafa off several times.The man already made the finals of 3 grandslams and several masters series titles. Federer on the other hand is going for broke against Nadal, stepping it up and taking it early.IMO he has learnt a lot from Djokovic this year on how to beat Nadal.Pity he wasnt able to do that throughout his career.Give Federer some credit instead of bagging Rafa. Making 3 grandslam finals is no mean feat.Novak has his number, if it wasnt for Novak we wouldnt be having his discussion now.I believe Nadal will prove many people wrong in 2012.He must win the Davis Cup next week to regain his lost confidence.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

I wouldn't be so sure that the H2H will remain that lopsided. Nadal will keep playing for at least another few years, but he's done as countless Spanish players have before him, and run his body over the hill before time. Federer's still in good shape, and given the way he treats his body and the easy, low-stress brand of tennis he plays, he's a classic candidate to have a lengthier career than most. I've always thought the French Open is a barometer for how their clashes on other surfaces will go throughout the year; indeed when Nadal toppled Fed at Wimbledon, he completely dominated him at the French. Conversely, during the time Federer arguably peaked and at one stage had strung 5 of his past 7 clashes together against Rafa, he took their two FO clashes to 4 sets apiece.

Their 2011 French Open meeting was as tight as I've ever seen between them at the event. It was the first time Federer, from my perspective, had the ascendancy for larger chunks of the contest than Rafa did. I know a lot has happened this year for and to both players, but I think signs are there that Nadal's body, the conditioning of which is what has set him apart from the pack for so long now, has given its best, and there's the possibility of a late reversal in fortunes as the two meet again in the coming couple of years.

It remains to be seen whether Nadal is finished as a serious contender. His grinding style of game may be starting to affect his body but if he plays his next few years right, choosing his tournament schedule carefully, taking breaks here and there and perfects the art of peaking for slams, he will still be an obstacle for Fed. A few people thought that Nadal was finished in 2009 when he spent half the year out, but he came back in 2010 and won 3 slams.

Aside from the drubbing that Fed gave Nadal in London at the WTF the other day, I think, and it's just my opinion, that Nadal has gotten in Fed's head. I think Nadal's dominance over Fed in the most important matches is as much mental as it is physical. Fed will be quite content of his flooring he gave Nadal at the WTF for now, and will be content that he won the last 3 tournaments of 2011, but his big test will come in January at the Open, should he meet Nadal there. Should they meet, and with the stakes raised, it will be interesting to see how Fed goes. You would have to think that if Fed can't beat Nadal at the Open, he will never beat him in a slam again. With his current form, and Nadal struggling, a loss to Nadal at the Open might be just too much mentally for Fed to overcome.

 

[crowsfan2004]

Nadal has handed Fed a couple of "drubbings" throughout his career.How can we forget the infamous French open where federer just won 4 games.Also the one in Miami this year was virtually a whitewash although Fed managed to win 5 games. Federer should thank Novak for showing him the way.It will be interesting to see how he goes on a different surface, cause i think he has worked Rafa out.Finally.

Its amazing how people bag Nadal.The same ones specially on MTF said he was finished in 2009 and his body has given up.3 grand slam finals, 5 masters series finals is 1 masters title and a slam is an apparent sign of decline .As i said above, if it wasnt for Novak Djokovic, we would not be having this conversation right now.

 

[Dr Awkward]

I wouldn't be writing off Nadal. It would be great to see a few grand slam Nadal v Federer clashes this year, whether that be in semis or in finals.