federer vs sampras

[The Grover]

Sampras had a better serve easily, Federer has better groundstrokes easily, Sampras probably just in volleys ( maybe only because he volleyed more than Fed ).

Would love to get a tape of Wimbledon 2001 when Fed beat Sampras in the 4th round 7/5 in the 5th set.

At the time of that match Sampras was 29yrs old & Fed was 19 yrs old.

 

[Frizzo]

I think you're all missing an important point.

The real reason you can't compare the two...is that Federer is still peaking.

He's the best...ever.

His level of dominance in his field (which will continue on for a few years at least) is rivalled only by Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky.

 

[WeSt CoAsT EaGLeS]

Probably Sampras because Federer is the master of amateurs. Sampras beat all those great players in his time, therefore being the master of MASTERS.

 

[bresker]

Sampras had more power in his volleys and had a better 'slam dunk' overhead smash, but otherwise I think Federer has him covered. I thought Sampras was taller that the Fed but having just googled them I've found that their stats are almost identical - both 185cm and around 80kg.

Roger has more finesse, and has a wild selection of shots. I think he just shades it. Sampras would have taken him to 5 sets a few times, I'd reckon.

 

[wce4premiership]

Probably Sampras because Federer is the master of amateurs. Sampras beat all those great players in his time, therefore being the master of MASTERS.

Federer beat sampras.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Most people don't even regar him as the best ever.

And? What does that have to do with him being better than Federer to this stage.

Federer will almost definitely surpass him, but I'm not prepared to say Federer is better yet.

 

[rick James]

Federer is the Michael Jordan of tennis. People will claim he looks better because the competition is supposedly weaker - but it only appears weaker because EVERYONE looks second rate compared to him.

If Federer wasn't peaking, Grand Slam Tennis would be incredibly competitive.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

How do you figure that they had retired when he played and beat them all?

Go ahead and look it up - He really did beat them in Grand Slam play.

And who ended Sampras' Wimbledon run?

Beating them whenever doesn't equate to beating them at their respective peaks.

 

[wce4premiership]

And? What does that have to do with him being better than Federer to this stage.

Federer will almost definitely surpass him, but I'm not prepared to say Federer is better yet.

He is better though, sampras would have killed to be able to perform like him.

Just because a competition is less even (in federers case apparently) doesn't mean the opposition is less qualified. I've heard numerous tennis personalities throughout the aust. open claim that it's even more amazing what federer is doing because of the higher amount of quality players.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Federer is the best tennis player in my lifetime, and I can't comment on Laver.

Federer is a joy to watch, even when he's in a lopsided match, because he just plays incredible shots. He has every shot in the book, and then a whole bunch that aren't. Amazing.

 

[rick James]

It took Sampras 12 years from his first Grand Slam to his 14th.

Federer has won 10 in 3 and a half years, arguably against a more competitive field of players (imo)

Pretty convincing stat that one.

 

[wce4premiership]

yes, also these days the top players will be at every grand slam where as in the old days sometimes they wouldn't travel to some. The competition these days is stronger then most think, federer just dominates like never before.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I also think Federer is more of an all court player, and will likely win a French Open before he retires, something Sampras was never able to do. Had Nadal not been absolutely on fire with his clay court winning streak, Federer would already have one French Open trophy in his cabinet.

Being an all court player is something that for me puts, say, Laver ahead of Sampras.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Federer is the Michael Jordan of tennis. People will claim he looks better because the competition is supposedly weaker - but it only appears weaker because EVERYONE looks second rate compared to him.

If Federer wasn't peaking, Grand Slam Tennis would be incredibly competitive.

Thats so wrong...

 

[rick James]

Thats so wrong...

Elaborate

 

[Wally Matera]

Sampras.

We have no idea how Federer would have gone against guys like Boris Becker, Andre Agassi, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, Jim Courier or any of the other great players that were around in Sampras' time.

However, Sampras beat them ALL.

The fact of the matter is, Roddick and Nadal are no match for the competition that Sampras faced, and while they're still young, Federer's current winning percentage only matches the one that Sampras retired with.

Federer still has to improve his winning percentage and break Sampras' record by a fair bit before I'll consider him better, because he's doing it against lesser competition.

Agree one million percent! Federer has no where near the competition that Pistol faced, there is daylight between Nadal/Roddick and those mentioned above!

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Elaborate

Rod Laver >>>>> Fed

 

[wce4premiership]

Agree one million percent! Federer has no where near the competition that Pistol faced, there is daylight between Nadal/Roddick and those mentioned above!

That's because he is so much better.

Throughout the australian open i heard a lot of comments regarding federers prowess being so amazing considering the opponents he has these days.

 

[OneEyedHawk]

Federer is the Michael Jordan of tennis. People will claim he looks better because the competition is supposedly weaker - but it only appears weaker because EVERYONE looks second rate compared to him.

If Federer wasn't peaking, Grand Slam Tennis would be incredibly competitive.

Thats so wrong...

I thought he was pretty spot on.

 

[rick James]

Rod Laver >>>>> Fed

I was only talking in context of Sampras vs Federer, I don't know enough about Laver to comment.

It's like comapring Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain, you can make arguments for both - but when in doubt, imo, pick the modern player if there's more than 15 years difference between their primes.

 

[Wally07]

If Rod Laver won the Grand Slam twice in 62 and 69 what is the reason for him only winning 3 grand slams in between?

 

[skipper kelly]

If Rod Laver won the Grand Slam twice in 62 and 69 what is the reason for him only winning 3 grand slams in between?

He played in pro tournaments.

 

[goldenstate23]

Most people don't even regar him as the best ever.

Most people have very short memories too.. Roger Federer is brilliant but he needs to compete at this level for several more years before he is compared to the great Pistol Pete. He also needs to add another four Wimbledons to pass the great man. He may end up being better but he certainly isn't yet.