Federer vs Sampras..

And my conclusion was/is Federer needs to overcome the challenge of Nadal and Novak to be regarded as the best player of all time (also making him better than Pete).
 
Federer is the best player ever.

Sampras hardly reached the third round of the French Open, enough said.
 
crappycraperson said:
And my conclusion was/is Federer needs to overcome the challenge of Nadal and Novak to be regarded as the best player of all time (also making him better than Pete).
Click to expand...
To be fair, Sampras never looked like winning the French from what i've heard. Federer may keep getting tonked in the final, but atleast he gets there. Nadal hasnt had any impact on him at other tournaments and Djokovic has only upstaged him in one grandslam.
 
Ask Agassi. In fact someone already did, and he said Federer. It was in some comments he made to the press after a recent US open. I doubt that anything since would have caused him to change his mind.
 
Bjord was/is regarded as the best player ever.

Never won the US or Australian open..(Only played latter once, was not prestigious back then)

Was the only player ever to do the double(win French and Wimbledon back to back), three times in a row.

Another look at stats tells us he has the best win percentage in grandslams, both tournament and matches wise.

And to top it off he had some of the best players ever to compete against: Mcenroe, Connors, Evrert, Villas.

I like Federer, he really does play beautiful tennis so as to speak. But I stopped watching it all together due to his dominance and lack of people around who could even put a small challenge. Roddick and Hewitt are two most hideous tennis players to come through for me. In a way it is not his fault, that there were no strong competitors around for earlier part of his career. But still he took advantage of that and racked up the slams so it is valid to point it out. Now is the first time when he faces two proper challengers, he has to come on top. If he crawls to the grandslam record, won't be the best ever for me.
 
Jaysus tough one.

Love both of them. Probably Sampras
 
crappycraperson said:
Bjord was/is regarded as the best player ever.

Never won the US or Australian open..(Only played latter once, was not prestigious back then)

Was the only player ever to do the double(win French and Wimbledon back to back), three times in a row.

Another look at stats tells us he has the best win percentage in grandslams, both tournament and matches wise.

And to top it off he had some of the best players ever to compete against: Mcenroe, Connors, Evrert, Villas.

I like Federer, he really does play beautiful tennis so as to speak. But I stopped watching it all together due to his dominance and lack of people around who could even put a small challenge. Roddick and Hewitt are two most hideous tennis players to come through for me. In a way it is not his fault, that there were no strong competitors around for earlier part of his career. But still he took advantage of that and racked up the slams so it is valid to point it out. Now is the first time when he faces two proper challengers, he has to come on top. If he crawls to the grandslam record, won't be the best ever for me.
Click to expand...

who's that?
 
Federer every time. Although Sampras played in the more entertaining era for my taste. Stich, Courier, Sampras, Aggasi, Becker, Egberg, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter and a few others...I miss them....maybe I followed tennis more at that time though...
 
crappycraperson said:
Bjord was/is regarded as the best player ever.

Never won the US or Australian open..(Only played latter once, was not prestigious back then)

Was the only player ever to do the double(win French and Wimbledon back to back), three times in a row.

Another look at stats tells us he has the best win percentage in grandslams, both tournament and matches wise.

And to top it off he had some of the best players ever to compete against: Mcenroe, Connors, Evrert, Villas.

I like Federer, he really does play beautiful tennis so as to speak. But I stopped watching it all together due to his dominance and lack of people around who could even put a small challenge. Roddick and Hewitt are two most hideous tennis players to come through for me. In a way it is not his fault, that there were no strong competitors around for earlier part of his career. But still he took advantage of that and racked up the slams so it is valid to point it out. Now is the first time when he faces two proper challengers, he has to come on top. If he crawls to the grandslam record, won't be the best ever for me.
Click to expand...
Federer's been in almost every single grandslam final since his dominance started. And he's nearly won them all. Apart from the ones in the French Open and one each against Djokovic and Safin. Thats complete domination. He either wins two or three grandslams every year. He plays a game thats as complete as it gets.

But he's going through his roughest patch yet since he started dominating. Personally i think he will go down as the best, its just a matter of WHEN he gets back his top form. When he does, i dont think either of the new boys can stop him. I'm just hoping he gets it back quickly. Its unusual to see him so well below par for even the short duration he has been.

I havent witnessed a better sportsman personally. And this is coming from a big Sachin Tendulkar fan. :)
 
Federer is a genius, he really is. He can do stuff to a tennis ball that others can only dream of.

For that, I'd go for him, but I may being biased as he is from my era, so have seen far more of him. Both are amazing players though. Very tough to choose between them.
 
Can't believed, I am getting sucked into this again.

That is the only argument, Federer fanboys have. His complete domination. That only go on proves that he just bullied a weak field and now when competition is there he can't produce the same level of domination. That's being unfair to him I know, but untill he once it for all settles his feud with Novak and Nadal, it would be a valid stick to beat him with.

Looking for some examples. Aussies won three WC in a row, break several records. But WI cricket team circa 75-85 is still regarded as the best ever. It's not all about stacking up the numbers.

Also when you do win all the honours. Many times its the competition that makes you great. United needed those two injury time goals to beat Bayern and then that epic semi final and victory on last day to see of Arsenal's challenge on domestic front.

And Sachin/Federer does not work i.e. you can not compare individual sports and team sports. Anyway no sportman in the world has ever played under the same pressure as Sachin.

Also my take on Sampras and Federer is subjective as it stands. I have seen them both. If the were to play 5 matches on grass in a row, I would pick Sampras to win 3-2. Numbers wise Federer prevails. Though I have put money on Fed now not winning the Wimbledon this year.
 
kietotheworld said:
Federer won 2-1 in the series, didn't he?
Click to expand...

You mean the series held recently? Between a Federer in the prime of his career and a Sampras who had retired 5 years? We will never know who the better man was as they played in different generations really. Federer was making his name just as Sampras was leaving.
 
Roger.

I hope Roger batters Rafa in the Wimbledon final pending they both get there.
 
Sampras. Bjorn Borg is regarded as the best ever by many though. McEnroe is my personal favorite from the recorded matches I've seen.
 
Sampras was not very good on slow courts, like clay. His game just wasn't suited to it. Laver, Borg and Federer have been better all-court players. Maybe McEnroe too.
 
A really tough one.


Although my personal favorite is Sampras,I think Federer just about edges it or maybe not.Not quite sure.
 
It`s actually impossible to say isn`t it, as they never met when both were in their prime. The only way to compare them is in titles I guess, and Federer will most likely overtake Pete this year or the next. The "lack of rivals" argument has some weight but not that much IMO. First of all you can only beat what`s infront of you, second of all you could turn the argument around and say that he never had any real rivals because he is so great.


I prefer watching Federer the most as he plays the game so beautifully, like Zidane played football really.
 
Ruben said:
second of all you could turn the argument around and say that he never had any real rivals because he is so great
Click to expand...

He didnt have any great rivals because no one else during the last few years was a strong favorite to win the titles (except French open) if say Federer was injured. The competition wasn't champion material (Roddick, Bhagdatis, Gonzales, Ferrer, Nalbandian, Davidenko) apart from a couple of incredible 21 year old talents now.

Also the argument that Federer has the best all round game is bollocks. If he has a better all round game, then he should have come closer to beating Nadal on clay (Federer's weakness) than losing to Nadal on grass (Federer's strength). But Nadal took the Wimbledon final to 5 sets last time while superiority on clay is only getting better.

Djokovic and Nadal have the talent to dominate the sport in the coming years and how Federer handles them will determine if he is the greatest ever.
 
Federer.

This lack of competition thing is bollocks. Who did Sampras have to beat apart from Agassi?

Federer is only losing to Nadal on clay, who is probably the greatest claycourt player ever.
 
Psmith said:
This lack of competition thing is bollocks. Who did Sampras have to beat apart from Agassi?
Click to expand...
You're kidding right?

Courier, Edberg, Becker. That's three big names right there.

Throw in guys like Ivanesvic, Kuerten, Rafter. That's more that what Roger has to face these days.
 
Justin said:
You're kidding right?

Courier, Edberg, Becker. That's three big names right there.

Throw in guys like Ivanesvic, Kuerten, Rafter. That's more that what Roger has to face these days.
Click to expand...

Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin
 
It's Sampras. And for the twenty years I've followed and played (although at a far lower level) tennis, this era is shite... being in the top ten meant something back then. Nowadays, jokes like Gonzales and Ro-fecking-bredo are making up the numbers.
 
It's difficult to compare eras but I'm pretty sure Federer would beat the likes of Rafter, Edberg and Becker comfortably.

I'm surprised Instant Karma hasn't mentioned the exhibition matches between Federer and Sampras yet.
 
They're both wonderful players to watch. If Federer had Sampras' serve, you'd have pretty much the perfect tennis player.

It's Federer, for me but i also find it very difficult to compare eras. The gap in class between each era is becoming quite distinctly vast. McEnroe at his best, for example, would get destroyed by Nadal or Federer. The game is constantly evolving.
 
KingEric7 said:
They're both wonderful players to watch. If Federer had Sampras' serve, you'd have pretty much the perfect tennis player.

It's Federer, for me but i also find it very difficult to compare eras. The gap in class between each era is becoming quite distinctly vast. McEnroe at his best, for example, would get destroyed by Nadal or Federer. The game is constantly evolving.
Click to expand...

Not if they played with wooden rackets, that's really what's changed the most in tennis
 
To be fair Dippers it always was Sampras, regardless of him losing in the Olympics.

Lets see what happens in future tournaments.
 
Regardless of what happens in the future tournaments, federer will never be as good as Sampras was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.