Sampras vs Federer

Instant Karma

Closet Gooner
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,134
Location
Fletchcafe - Population: 5 (May 2006)
Sampras Stuns Federer in Exhibition

MACAU (AP) — Pete Sampras showed Roger Federer another side of his American idol on Saturday. Sampras never faced a break point and converted one of two against his opponent as he handed Federer a 7-6 (8), 6-4 defeat at the Venetian Macao arena, wrapping up a three-match Asian exhibition series between the two tennis greats.

Sampras downplayed his victory, noting Federer was coming off a long season and that he was helped by his big serve and the fast indoor carpet surface. He had only aimed to win one set during the three-match series.

"Let's not get carried away," he said at a news conference.

Sampras ruled out a comeback from retirement, telling the audience after the match, "I had my time in the 90s."

Federer tried to put on a positive spin on the loss, saying he wasn't embarrassed to lose to his idol, but still showed some disappointment.

"It's been tough beating my idol the last two times. I'm happy that he got me at least once," he said, but adding, "I hope we can do it again in the future. I'd like to get him back."

The two players have won a combined 26 Grand Slam titles, but Sampras, 36, retired five years ago after winning the U.S. Open in 2002. Twenty six-year-old Federer is fresh from another stellar season as he won three Slams and last week's Masters Cup in Shanghai in compiling a 68-9 winning record.

"I'm sort of surprised. This guy can play tennis, you know," the Swiss player said after his loss Saturday.

Federer beat Sampras 6-4, 6-3 in Seoul on Tuesday and edged the American 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5) in Kuala Lumpur on Thursday.

In Macau on Saturday, Federer was able to outhit Sampras early but the American held his own with the powerful serving and crafty volleying that helped him win seven Wimbledon titles.

The first set went on serve. In the tiebreaker, Federer had set points at 6-5 and 8-7 but Sampras saved both. The American went up 9-8 on a missed return by Federer then took the set with a forehand return winner on the Swiss player's serve.

Federer ran into trouble early in the second set, falling behind 30-40 in the third game, but recovered to hold serve.

At 4-4, Federer fell behind on his serve again. A forehand error gave Sampras break point, which he converted with a forehand winner.

Sampras held serve again the next game and closed out the match on a Federer backhand return that sailed long.

Federer said he thought Sampras could still beat the world's top five players on a fast surface.

---------------

LEGEND....Sampras would have kicked Federer's ass if he were 10 years younger.
 
Wow. I didn't expect that.
I still believe Federer is the greatest tennis player to have played the game but this is a nice result.
 
Even in the first exhibition match that Federer won, Sampras managed to break him to take a 4-2 lead in the first set. But he has lost several yards of pace and Federer got back by moving him around.

Everyone expected the series to be a walk in the park for Federer but the last two matches have been close. Sampras started to adapt more to Federer's game and started to take control on faster surfaces.
 
These matches mean very little to me. Having grown up watching and playing tennis myself though, I've always been of the opinion that Sampras is the better player. With the game Sampras has, nobody can dominate him. It would be two geniuses squaring up with very little between them every single match.
 
Instant Karma said:
Even in the first exhibition match that Federer won, Sampras managed to break him to take a 4-2 lead in the first set. But he has lost several yards of pace and Federer got back by moving him around.

Everyone expected the series to be a walk in the park for Federer but the last two matches have been close. Sampras started to adapt more to Federer's game and started to take control on faster surfaces.
Click to expand...

It's not like Federer is lacking match practice either, having gone there just off the back of his Masters win. It's save to say that that is better match practice than a retired 36-year (soon 37) old would have had.

Maybe that's why it took Sampras 2 matches to warm up enough for him to get into 3rd gear :D
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Federer>Sampras
Click to expand...

And Tyson > Ali ? :rolleyes:

Tyson at his peak had mediocre opponents just like Federer now. A 37 year old Sampras who has retired over 5 years ago, has hardly trained since is giving the champion at the peak of his game a run for his money.

Watch some youtube clips of the match once someone uploads it. Federer wasnt coasting or taking it easy. He hit some unbelievable winners and drop volleys. He didnt stretch himself in a friendly but was playing at 90%. Whereas Sampras was not even at 50% of his peak. He still controlled the game with brilliant serving and volleying.
 
Oh WOW!!!

A fit, 26 year old Federer beats a 37 year old Sampras that hasn't played competitive ATP Tennis for over 5 years

What a SURPRISE!!!
 
Instant Karma said:
And Tyson > Ali ? :rolleyes:

Tyson at his peak had mediocre opponents just like Federer now. A 37 year old Sampras who has retired over 5 years ago, has hardly trained since is giving the champion at the peak of his game a run for his money.

Watch some youtube clips of the match once someone uploads it. Federer wasnt coasting or taking it easy. He hit some unbelievable winners and drop volleys. He didnt stretch himself in a friendly but was playing at 90%. Whereas Sampras was not even at 50% of his peak. He still controlled the game with brilliant serving and volleying.
Click to expand...
Seen both at their best and personally think Federer is the better player. Sampras was great no doubt but he wasnt like Ali who is hailed as undoubtedly the greatest player to have played his sport. He looked lost on clay whereas Federer wins everything there is to win and has come close to winning the French. If it was the final of a grandslam i doubt Sampras would have come close. Still, kudos to him for actually winning a match considering everything. Quite amazing.
 
Anyone who doubts Federer being the better player is a complete moron. Sampras was great, the best all-time, but Federer will surpass kinda like Tiger with Jack
 
Suprah™ said:
Oh WOW!!!

A fit, 26 year old Federer beats a 37 year old Sampras that hasn't played competitive ATP Tennis for over 5 years

What a SURPRISE!!!
Click to expand...

Spacker. The thread was actually trying to focus on Sampras' achievements in the exhibition.
 
Reflectorboy said:
Federrer is the jack-of-all-trades master of none. Not to mention crap opponents
Click to expand...

Is correct.

His forehand, while good, is not as powerful as that of Sampras. Sampras' forehand was always powerfully hit and hit flatly (although he could use the needed topspin when needed to vary or let the ball drop just inside the lines).
You could see Agassi in his prime and co thinking 'oh shit' when they failed to get the ball on his backhand side. Noone could live with it and if it didn't finish the point off, it would be too powerful to get it back normally and would set it up for an easy winner.
If Federer made less errors when going for it, I'd say he might have a case to come close, but he does make as many unforced errors as Sampras on that side. It's especially evident when he has to enter longer rallies against the likes of Nadal.

His backhand is slightly better than that of Sampras', but it isn't so superior that you'd rank it even with true top baseliners. Sampras usually uses the backhand to keep the rally going and unless he's truly confident, like in games when he's in the zone (most of them against Agassi, when he'd winners on both sides), he just hits it high and save over the net with alot of topspin... when he's under pressure and playing against experienced baseliners on slow courts, it usually lacks depth as well, which sets it up for easy finishes for the opponent... that's why he never won the French.
At wimbledon though, when he has to hit backhand returns and passings, the backhand of his becomes just as good as that of Federer's. Opponents usually go to the net, which means he has a target and he knows when it's past him, it's a winner.
That said, everytime Federer is under pressure and playing against Nadal, I see him reverting to high spin balls on his backhand side as well and he doesn't look so confident on it either... a reason why Nadal will usually beat him on a slower surface and why I think Federer won't win the French either... unless Nadal's out or injured or another Muster/Gravel specialist doesn't stand up... In Sampras' era, there were so many of them, not in this one though.

Federer's serve, as he said after the second game against Sampras, isn't even close to that of Sampras even today. Power, pace, precision, spin, effect, mixing it up, it's a component of the game in which Sampras is even more creative than Federer whilst hitting it with more power as well. His second service is faster and has more effect as well, which means he could play serve and volley on both services at Wimbledon and faster surfaces. Federer can not, partly because Sampras has better volleys and partly because he doesn't have the (second) serve.
It's arguably the most important shot in the game, with the forehand in second place. Sampras was a master of both, Federer is very good at both.

Sampras is a better volleyer than Federer. Federer rarely plays serve and volley anyway, and only comes to the net when he's set up a point from the back, leaving him for easy volleys... which I've noticed he misses regularly...

Passing shots: Federer is better at it than Sampras. Sampras was great at it as well (he wouldn't win wimbledon if he wasn't), but Federer barely misses any. It's amazing, and he has to be the best at this component of the game ever.

Return of serve: has to be Federer. Sampras is erratic at this and misses alot of returns on second serves. Federer is good at it, but not the best.

Movement: a big cliche repeated by Mcenroe and other pundits, but Sampras' athleticism was oftentimes overlooked because he had so many weapons. He was a great athlete and moved around the court very quickly, hitting wonder shots from all corners (his running forehand is famous, and he could cut precise wonderfully sliced backhands across his opponent at the net as well, which Federer does nowadays). I'd say they are even at this.

Mentally, they are even. Both are known to be able to bring out their best tennis during critical high pressure moments.

Dropshots/lobs/blah: Federer uses it more than Sampras, but seeing as in tennis these shots are rarely used and only compound for about 1-5 points in a match, I think it only adds to entertainment value.

To sum it up, when you look at the seperate components of their games, I'd say they're about even. However, Sampras was the best at two of the most important shots in the game and this is a great advantage. Federer makes up for it with that little bit of extra creativity he has, but Sampras had so much power.

Also I am one of those that are very critical of the era Federer's been playing in as well... the top 10 players of today are a joke... Sampras is the better player overall IMO.

Oh and one thing: Sampras would never let a Nadal push him into 5 sets in the final of Wimbledon (Federer was fecking lucky as well... Nadal had breakpoints in his first service game of the fifth. Had he taken that, it would have changed the match). Federer's game, playing on the baseline on grass, is tailormade for someone like Nadal to take advantage. Sampras wouldn't give him the rhythm, a true grass court king playing on grass in the way it's supposed to be played on.

And yes I'm a tennis nerd.
 
Yeah... people were always a bit unfair on Sampras, making out he was some sort of dull, efficient machine, when actually he had marvellous touch and could lob and drop with the best of them, just he was disciplined enough only to do it when the time was right.

But Federer is a real artist.
 
I don't think we can read much into this friendly.

Kevin said:
Is correct.

His forehand, while good, is not as powerful as that of Sampras. Sampras' forehand was always powerfully hit and hit flatly (although he could use the needed topspin when needed to vary or let the ball drop just inside the lines).
You could see Agassi in his prime and co thinking 'oh shit' when they failed to get the ball on his backhand side. Noone could live with it and if it didn't finish the point off, it would be too powerful to get it back normally and would set it up for an easy winner.
If Federer made less errors when going for it, I'd say he might have a case to come close, but he does make as many unforced errors as Sampras on that side. It's especially evident when he has to enter longer rallies against the likes of Nadal.

His backhand is slightly better than that of Sampras', but it isn't so superior that you'd rank it even with true top baseliners. Sampras usually uses the backhand to keep the rally going and unless he's truly confident, like in games when he's in the zone (most of them against Agassi, when he'd winners on both sides), he just hits it high and save over the net with alot of topspin... when he's under pressure and playing against experienced baseliners on slow courts, it usually lacks depth as well, which sets it up for easy finishes for the opponent... that's why he never won the French.
At wimbledon though, when he has to hit backhand returns and passings, the backhand of his becomes just as good as that of Federer's. Opponents usually go to the net, which means he has a target and he knows when it's past him, it's a winner.
That said, everytime Federer is under pressure and playing against Nadal, I see him reverting to high spin balls on his backhand side as well and he doesn't look so confident on it either... a reason why Nadal will usually beat him on a slower surface and why I think Federer won't win the French either... unless Nadal's out or injured or another Muster/Gravel specialist doesn't stand up... In Sampras' era, there were so many of them, not in this one though.

Federer's serve, as he said after the second game against Sampras, isn't even close to that of Sampras even today. Power, pace, precision, spin, effect, mixing it up, it's a component of the game in which Sampras is even more creative than Federer whilst hitting it with more power as well. His second service is faster and has more effect as well, which means he could play serve and volley on both services at Wimbledon and faster surfaces. Federer can not, partly because Sampras has better volleys and partly because he doesn't have the (second) serve.
It's arguably the most important shot in the game, with the forehand in second place. Sampras was a master of both, Federer is very good at both.

Sampras is a better volleyer than Federer. Federer rarely plays serve and volley anyway, and only comes to the net when he's set up a point from the back, leaving him for easy volleys... which I've noticed he misses regularly...

Passing shots: Federer is better at it than Sampras. Sampras was great at it as well (he wouldn't win wimbledon if he wasn't), but Federer barely misses any. It's amazing, and he has to be the best at this component of the game ever.

Return of serve: has to be Federer. Sampras is erratic at this and misses alot of returns on second serves. Federer is good at it, but not the best.

Movement: a big cliche repeated by Mcenroe and other pundits, but Sampras' athleticism was oftentimes overlooked because he had so many weapons. He was a great athlete and moved around the court very quickly, hitting wonder shots from all corners (his running forehand is famous, and he could cut precise wonderfully sliced backhands across his opponent at the net as well, which Federer does nowadays). I'd say they are even at this.

Mentally, they are even. Both are known to be able to bring out their best tennis during critical high pressure moments.

Dropshots/lobs/blah: Federer uses it more than Sampras, but seeing as in tennis these shots are rarely used and only compound for about 1-5 points in a match, I think it only adds to entertainment value.

To sum it up, when you look at the seperate components of their games, I'd say they're about even. However, Sampras was the best at two of the most important shots in the game and this is a great advantage. Federer makes up for it with that little bit of extra creativity he has, but Sampras had so much power.
Click to expand...

Sampras had the better serve and the volley. Everything else Federer does better.


Kevin said:
Also I am one of those that are very critical of the era Federer's been playing in as well... the top 10 players of today are a joke... Sampras is the better player overall IMO.
Click to expand...

:wenger: Firstly how exactly do you know the top 10 from the '90s was better? Many people tend to over rate players from yesteryear. This year's top 10 is quite good and clearly not a joke. I'd say the standard of men's tennis has improved over the years. Have you even seen the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Nalbandian play? Or did you stop watching after Sampras retired?

Kevin said:
Oh and one thing: Sampras would never let a Nadal push him into 5 sets in the final of Wimbledon (Federer was fecking lucky as well... Nadal had breakpoints in his first service game of the fifth. Had he taken that, it would have changed the match). Federer's game, playing on the baseline on grass, is tailormade for someone like Nadal to take advantage. Sampras wouldn't give him the rhythm, a true grass court king playing on grass in the way it's supposed to be played on.

And yes I'm a tennis nerd.
Click to expand...

This is a bizarre argument. Federer wasn't at his best that day and still managed to win. Sampras also lost to baseliners on grass. And Sampras hasn't even come close to winning the French Open.

And people seem to think that losing to Nadal is a bad thing. He's quite handy at tennis too. Probably a better player than Agassi as well.
 
They came to Malaysia for the 2nd leg of the 3 leg series. Nadal vs. Gasquet and Federer against Sampras the next day. Wanted to go and watch but the tickets were too bloody expensive.
 
Although Sampras is my most fav Tennis player, have to agree that Federer is slightly better.Difficult to conclude.
 
Psmith said:
And people seem to think that losing to Nadal is a bad thing. He's quite handy at tennis too. Probably a better player than Agassi as well.
Click to expand...

Laughable. He's won none of the Grand Slams or even reached a final on the hard court Grand slams (I think he's not even won that many tournaments on that either) and he's a better player than Agassi. You truly know nothing about tennis.

Have you even played the game (and I don't mean every once in a year at a public crap court)?
Honest answers please. Until then I won't even bother dissecting the 'arguments' you posted.
 
Kevin said:
Laughable. He's won none of the Grand Slams or even reached a final on the hard court Grand slams (I think he's not even won that many tournaments on that either) and he's a better player than Agassi. You truly know nothing about tennis.

Have you even played the game (and I don't mean every once in a year at a public crap court)?
Honest answers please. Until then I won't even bother dissecting the 'arguments' you posted.
Click to expand...

Not that laughable, considering he's still very young.

And yes I play tennis and at a relatively high standard (for my Uni). What about you?
 
Psmith said:
Sampras had the better serve and the volley. Everything else Federer does better.
Click to expand...

Sampras had a better forehand by quite a big margin.



:wenger: Firstly how exactly do you know the top 10 from the '90s was better? Many people tend to over rate players from yesteryear. This year's top 10 is quite good and clearly not a joke. I'd say the standard of men's tennis has improved over the years. Have you even seen the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Nalbandian play? Or did you stop watching after Sampras retired?
Click to expand...

Yes I have seen the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Nalbandian play and no I haven't ever stopped watching and playing tennis since I was 6.
Nadal, I'm still not convinced of his game. There were several players in Sampras' era (when Hewitt was in his peak winning the US Open et all, I said he'd fall away and get found out Chang style. People called me crazy and went on about how young he was and what he's already achieved. :lol: ) who were great baseliners and achieved great success at already a young age... just like Nadal. And they all couldn't dominate at least retain their top 3 status. We'll see what happens.
Nalbandian - fair play for beating Federer twice and Nadal - going on a hot streak winning back to back big tournaments, after having done feck all all year, means nothing to me. Marcelo Rios did it twice (back then they were called super nine tournaments, all of the top represented) and other 'I hover around the top 10 but will soon fall away and retire or play challengers when I'm just 28' type of players have managed that. I admit, he'd be in the top 10 in Sampras' era though.
Djokovic... Davydenko... Ferrer... etc etc. All of those are average players with NO REAL weapons. Djokovic at least has a decent serve and is an intelligent player who finds the corners well with his strokes and can hit really sharp and short angled shots with his backhand.... but these are no great players, with Djokovic the only one with the potential who can prove me wrong in the long term.
I retain my stance, the top 10 is a joke nowadays.

This is a bizarre argument. Federer wasn't at his best that day and still managed to win. Sampras also lost to baseliners on grass. And Sampras hasn't even come close to winning the French Open.
Click to expand...

Sampras not coming close to win the French Open has feck all to do with what you quoted. Now onto the point of discussion: Sampras didn't actually lose to baseliners on grass, unless you're talking about the time he was starting to be past it. He always plays Queens as preparation and then Wimbledon. Now we all know he's won 7 Wimbledons, with serve and volley player krajicek breaking the streak after his third. He had a close escape against Hewitt on Queens once I remember and lost a couple against big servers who went to the net. That's about it.
Federer wasn't at his best that day? He played into the hands of Nadal really, it looked like a repeat of Roland Garros, with Federer's serve being slightly more effective on the faster court.

Psmith said:
Not that laughable, considering he's still very young.

And yes I play tennis and at a relatively high standard (for my Uni). What about you?
Click to expand...

I'm 25, played tennis since my sixth, was a b1 player (qualified in Holland to become tennis teacher) and reached the semi a few times during provincial championships in Holland.

And yes it's laughable, even though he's young. It's like saying some new up and coming talented player is better than Zidane already.
Nadal can't even use Federer's domination as a reason to his failure on hardcourts/indoor, he rarely fecking gets far enough to meet him. Let him win standard tournaments on hardcourt regularly first, let's not even talk about Grand Slams. Then we'll see. I predict he won't get much more success than this though, although he WILL stop federer from winning the French. Federer's backhand is not good enough on gravel and with his forehand, he hits as many winners as unforced errors.

I'm actually a big Federer fan, as I recognize he's a genius, I find him the closest thing to Sampras and I'm fascinated by the records he's breaking. I supported and support him in every Grand Slam and hope he breaks Sampras' records, completes THE 'Grand Slam' and wins the French. A fan of both really. I just don't think he's as good as Sampras.
 
Instant Karma said:
And Tyson > Ali ? :rolleyes:

Tyson at his peak had mediocre opponents just like Federer now. A 37 year old Sampras who has retired over 5 years ago, has hardly trained since is giving the champion at the peak of his game a run for his money.

Watch some youtube clips of the match once someone uploads it. Federer wasnt coasting or taking it easy. He hit some unbelievable winners and drop volleys. He didnt stretch himself in a friendly but was playing at 90%. Whereas Sampras was not even at 50% of his peak. He still controlled the game with brilliant serving and volleying.
Click to expand...

spot on
 
I always rated mcenroe more than sampras or federer or even borg.
 
Kevin said:
Sampras had a better forehand by quite a big margin.
Click to expand...

Hmm..that's debatable. Federer has a really good forehand.

Kevin said:
Yes I have seen the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Nalbandian play and no I haven't ever stopped watching and playing tennis since I was 6.
Nadal, I'm still not convinced of his game. There were several players in Sampras' era (when Hewitt was in his peak winning the US Open et all, I said he'd fall away and get found out Chang style. People called me crazy and went on about how young he was and what he's already achieved. :lol: ) who were great baseliners and achieved great success at already a young age... just like Nadal. And they all couldn't dominate at least retain their top 3 status. We'll see what happens.
Nalbandian - fair play for beating Federer twice and Nadal - going on a hot streak winning back to back tournaments means nothing to me. I admit, he'd be in the top 10 in Sampras' era though.
Djokovic... Davydenko... Ferrer... etc etc. All of those are average players with NO REAL weapons. Djokovic at least has a decent serve and is an intelligent player who finds the corners well with his strokes and can hit really sharp and short angled shots with his backhand.... but these are no great players, with Djokovic the only one with the potential who can prove me wrong in the long term.
I retain my stance, the top 10 is a joke nowadays.
Click to expand...

That's very harsh, I feel. I agree all the players are very similar in their styles of play but I wouldn't describe them as average at all. Just because they don't have any real weapon doesn't mean they're not good. Gone were the days you could just get by with a huge serve. Only time will tell whether some of the new players can maintain their level.

Kevin said:
Sampras not coming close to win the French Open has feck all to do with what you quoted. Now onto the point of discussion: Sampras didn't actually lose to baseliners on grass, unless you're talking about the time he was starting to be past it. He always plays Queens as preparation and then Wimbledon. Now we all know he's won 7 Wimbledons, with serve and volley player krajicek breaking the streak after his third. He had a close escape against Hewitt on Queens once I remember and lost a couple against big servers who went to the net. That's about it.
Federer wasn't at his best that day? He played into the hands of Nadal really, it looked like a repeat of Roland Garros, with Federer's serve being slightly more effective on the faster court.
Click to expand...
My point was, you can't hold one match against Federer. He's brilliant on grass. However saying all that, there's no denying Sampras is a much better grass court player.

Kevin said:
I'm 25, played tennis since my sixth, was a b1 player (qualified in Holland to become tennis teacher) and reached the semi a few times during provincial championships in Holland.
Click to expand...
Then you're probably better than me. Maybe we should've a match to settle this debate. ;)

Kevin said:
And yes it's laughable, even though he's young. It's like saying some new up and coming talented player is better than Zidane already.
Nadal can't even use Federer's domination as a reason to his failure on hardcourts/indoor, he rarely fecking gets far enough to meet him. Let him win standard tournaments on hardcourt regularly first, let's not even talk about Grand Slams. Then we'll see. I predict he won't get much more success than this though, although he WILL stop federer from winning the French. Federer's backhand is not good enough on gravel and with his forehand, he hits as many winners as unforced errors.
Click to expand...

Ok, I got carried away. I should've said Nadal probably could become a better player than Agassi. The only thing with Nadal is his technique is prone to injuries. And I've a feeling he'll burn out.

Kevin said:
I'm actually a big Federer fan, as I recognize he's a genius, I find him the closest thing to Sampras and I'm fascinated by the records he's breaking. I supported and support him in every Grand Slam and hope he breaks Sampras' records, completes THE 'Grand Slam' and wins the French. A fan of both really. I just don't think he's as good as Sampras.
Click to expand...

I'm a huge Sampras fan myself. I enjoyed watching him play the most. And I want Federer to win the Grand Slam as well. I just think that Federer has a more all round game than Sampras which makes him the better player.
 
Plechazunga said:
Yeah... people were always a bit unfair on Sampras, making out he was some sort of dull, efficient machine, when actually he had marvellous touch and could lob and drop with the best of them, just he was disciplined enough only to do it when the time was right.

But Federer is a real artist.
Click to expand...

Sampras is by far the best server i have ever seen, This was his main asset. I remember him playing against Pat Rafter (i think) and i think he only lost about 5 points on his serve in the whole match.
He was also so well co-ordinated with his ground strokes. A pleasure to watch, basically.

For me though, Federer is even greater. That backhand is pure artistry and he also has the most unbelievable forehand. It's hard for me to put my finger on it, but i believe that Federer is simply the greatest tennis player of all time, already.
It isn't obvious either way you look at it, be it Federer or Sampras.
 
Psmith said:
Then you're probably better than me. Maybe we should've a match to settle this debate. ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed, there's no end to this Sampras vs Federer debate and the arguments used (different eras, better this or better that) can turn into endless arguments themselves... that's why I tend to stay out of such debates... couldn't resist this time though.

You'd have to come over to Holland for a match though :nervous: :devil:
 
Nice to know that our American posters are as biased as ever.

Samprass is a true great. Probably the best player ever not currently playing. His service, forehand, mentality and athleticism are all up there with the best ever.

However…

Federer is the greatest tennis player to set foot on the planet. Why? Because he can literally do everything very very well. He doesn’t have a weakness. He’s almost as good on clay as he is on grass. Reaching the French finals in an era where there are so many clay specialists, and when so much is done to help those types of players, that is an amazing feat. It is a question when he wins the French rather than if. Samprass never stood a chance in the French, yet he played in an era where the conditions did not suit clay specialists as much as they do now.

One note: I think it’s difficult to compare players of different eras in any sport. You are great because you were great in your era. So many things develop over time. I think it is unfair to compare both these greats to each other.
 
I'm impressed that Sampras can beat Federer in 2007. Sampras was one of the greatest ever, like Federer is now. Agassi was one of the few who faced both at their peaks, and he basically said that Federer is the best he ever played against. He made these comments after losing the US Open final to Federer a few years ago.
 
Sampras vs Federer was played again in Madison Square garden.

In the summer, Federer beat Sampras in the first two, Sampras beat him in the third one. He's nearly done it again... he was 5-2 up in the third set, only for Federer to make a good comeback:

6-3 6-7 (7-4) 7-6 (8-6)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.