After a little time has gone by after Wimbledon, and the ego makes it's way back to the surface (did you even doubt it woudn't?), Pete Sampras now has this to say:
"I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass is is a true serve-and-volley-er, someone that's willing to come in and put pressure on him, make him pass and return. With these big serves,I don't think anyone really scares him. I think my game could make Roger a little uncomfortable. I would come in on both serves, put pressure on his backhand and go from there."
"Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure, I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. I felt unbeatable in the mid 90's. But he would be a tough guy to beat, especially when he is hitting 50 aces like he did at Wimbledon. It would be a great matchup."
Well do not despair tennis fans, we actually have one match between the two on grass, center court of Wimbledon no less. 2001, a 19-yr old Federer vs. 7-time winner Sampras. Sampras was still yet to win his final US Open, and his game was still formidible. Roger was a young and inexperienced kid, 5 years before his prime but even then much talked about.
It was a very good match, we were unaccustomed to seeing a player do the things on grass to Sampras that Roger did; the services, the returns & the passes which actually had Sampras shaking his head a few times. It was a match that could have gone either way, yet the 19-yr old kid beat the 7-time champ on his best surface. If we could do the dream matchup, Sampras in his prime vs. Federer in his prime, on grass where Sampras would have the best shot at beating Roger, I think out of 10 matches, Federer would win 7. What do you think?
People forget the speed grass used to have. The match they played was a good one but neither was in their prime. If Pete's serve is hot not even Federer can keep enough in play. But on the other hand any rally that goes more than three strokes is to Federer's advantage. Barely 6 out of 10 to Fed. If's he plays his A+ game.
In his prime Pete would have beaten Federer 8 out of 10 times on the old grass, and probably 7 out of 10 times on the new grass. The one match they had at Wimbledon should be thrown out because neither one was in their prime, at that point Sampras was probably playing the worst tennis of his professional career because he wasn't training hard. After getting frustrated Sampras eventually started to train hard to show that he could still win one more major, which he did at the US Open. Sampras is 100% correct when he says that Federer has never had to face the kind of game at Wimbledon that Sampras played, I wouldn't even put Federer up there as one of the best grass court players of all time. Surfaces don't even matter anymore because everyone basically plays the same style of tennis. Federer wouldn't have beaten Boris Becker, or Stefan Edberg, or even guys like Goran, who was the last great grass court player to win Wimbledon.
Sampras is by far the superior grass court player, it isn't even close.
A 19 yr old kid, barely turned pro a little over a year earlier, and he faces 7-time champ Sampras on center court and wins. And Federer's tennis then was not even close to what it would be 5 years later, and he still won beating the giant Sampras 7-time champ on his best surface. I'm convinced, you can keep spinning the "Sampras wasn't in his prime" or "the grass was faster then" excuses, because Federer wasn't in his prime either, and as a 19-yr old kid lacked experience, yet faced his vaunted serve & volley attack AND BEAT PETE.
Sampras probably could have in his prime, but Federer is an overall better player because he won the French, something that Sampras didn't, and Federer won against the "king of clay," but i agree, Sampras would still loose 6-7 out of 10 against Federer.
I'm convinced, you can keep spinning the "Sampras wasn't in his prime" or "the grass was faster then" excuses, because Federer wasn't in his prime either, and as a 19-yr old kid lacked experience, yet faced his vaunted serve & volley attack AND BEAT PETE. Nobody is making excuses, just stating the facts....maybe if you had actually played on various types of grass before then you would understand the difference. That head to head match doesn't even matter because we are talking about a matchup IN THEIR PRIME. I could just as easily point to Sampras winning an exhibition match over Federer, but of course you would point to that as saying "well, that was just for fun and Federer wasn't really trying." I'd even go as far to say that Federer was closer to his prime in that match than Sampras was to his prime.
Well spin it any way you like, the titles and the actual head-to-head Federer-Sampras match on Wimbledon's center court & Pete's best possible surface tell us Federer tops Sampras. You CAN say and back it up that Sampras has better grasscourt results, 7 titles vs 6. But Federer is still playing...:)
Tim Henman then beat Federer in the next match at Wimbledon. Do Federer fans who think Fed's better than Pete, think Henman's better Federer because he beat him that next match? Also, people should consider this, Federer had a lot of trouble with serve and volleyrs. Henman was 6-7 against Federer. Rafter was 3-0 against Federer. I'm sure everyone would agree that Sampras is a much, much, better player and serve and volleyer than both Henman and Rafter who were a combined 9-7 against Federer. So if Henman and Rafter were 9-7 aginst Federer, isn't it safe to say that Sampras would've done much better than Henman and Rafter since he's the superior player? I believe so. The reason Federer has trouble against serve and volleyers' is because of his return of serve. All Federer does is try and block the return back in play. That works against a baseliner like Roddick, but not serve and volleyers. That's why Henman and rafter were so successful against Federer and both defeated him on grass. And that's why Pete would've owned Federer.
"Tim Henman then beat Federer in the next match at Wimbledon. Do Federer fans who think Fed's better than Pete, think Henman's better Federer because he beat him that next match?"
No, nobody thinks Henman is better than Federer on the basis of one match. More different people beat Sampras than have beaten Federer, you don't even want to go there!
The reason why I bring up the 2001 match is not to prove who is the best, Federer has already done that, but to show that yes indeed we do have a head-to-head Federer/Sampras match from which to view. Sampras can only claim his serve & volley game would have given Federer trouble, and what Sampras had was the best serve I've ever seen, and against Federer it was smoking! Yet Federer managed to break him many times, and at age 19, won the match against the 7-time champ. On grass. At Wimbledon. On center court.
Since Federer has won the most majors, even in an era when another player may soon claim the g.o.a.t. label, is amazing! He is the best I've ever seen, and I've seen them all from the early 70's and on.
Federer beat Pete when he was 30 years old and definitely on the down side of his career. Can't really call Federer the greatest if a guy in his own era dominates him the way Nadal did. Could never in my wildest dreams imagine someone beating Sampras in 3 straight major finals on 3 different surfaces at age 26-27, the way nadal whipped Federer.
Federer is great against weak competition, but against great players he cracks. That's why Federer never won a major until Sampras retired and all the great serve and volleyrs retired at Wimbledon.
Federer is great as long as he's playing weak competition. The fact remains, Federer never won a major beating a great player, on a great surface.
Federer has the records but Pete would've handled him comfortably. Even at age 36 Pete held his own against Federer. That's because Pete switched rackets after his retirement and now serves 10 mph faster. Federer couldn't break Pete in 2 straight matches, even though Pete was old. Imagine pete and Federer playing with similar rackets, both 25 years old. Pete beats him, much eaiser than Nadal beats Federer since Federer wouldn't be able to handle Pete's serve.
Also the reason Federer doesn't do well against serve and volleyers like Rafter, and Henman 9-7 against him, is because he only blocks a return of serve which works well against a guy like Roddick who doesn't come in. But serve and volleyers just feast on a Fed's return. That's why Henman was 6-7 against him, even though he wasn't an elite player. Rafter was 3-0.
Pete would've owned Federer. Simply a better player.
"Federer has the records but Pete would've handled him comfortably." What color is the sky in your world? Well thank God we have that 2001 match to shed some light. Those who argue for Sampras over Federer ALWAYS cite Sampras' age as why Federer beat him on Sampras' best surface, but of course they don't remind you that Federer was only 19 and had turned pro less than two years previous. And was still 5 years from his prime, the guy who beat Pete in 2001 was not even close to the same player who dominated 2005-2007! Yet he beat who people thought THEN was the best ever, on centercourt Wimbledon.
It's going to be tougher and tougher for Sampras fans to keep defending their increasingly indefensible position, not only because of Federer's victory over Sampras when he was a teen, and his major victories on all the surfaces, but also because Federer will in all probability end up with 17-19 majors before retirement. I don't envy your daunting task. But keep giving your opinions, they are interesting!
You're not too bright Nirky to use 1 match decided 8-6 in the fifth to determine who's better between 2 guys. Federer may have been only 19, but Sampras won the U.S Open when he was 19. I'll take a young great player who's 19, over an emotionally burnt out 30 year old player who's going through the motions, any day.
You say that match isn't the deciding factor, but you keep citing it. In your world Nirky, Henman is better than Fed, since he beat him right after Fed beat Sampras. And Murray is better than Fed because of his winning record over him, right Nirky? "Thankfuully we have those Murray/Fed matches to see who's better?"
And Federer might end up with 17 majors or 19, but its against sht competition. Sampras would've cleaned up on this garbage compettion that Fed has feasted on. Sampras probably would've won 22 majors against this dead dog sht era. Fed's best opponent he's dominated has been the stiff, Andy Roddick. Through 1 great player into Fed's era, (Nadal) and Fed gets owned.
Bigger font doesn't make a better argument "Ochotimes 3"! To say Sampras would have owned Federer is as laughable as saying Federer would have owned Sampras. If they played ten times, I'd say Fed wins six out of the ten. Henman's record against Federer is very deceiving as he started 6-0 & lost the last seven times. Wayne Ferriera had a 6-7 record against Pete & most of those matches were during Pete's prime, but that doesn't mean Pete's inferior.
Quality of opponents aside, to get the best sense of whose better, one only listen to the players who've played both. Agassi,along with McEnroe, both will be the first to admit that Federer's in a different league than even Pete.
Day in, day out Sampras couldn't play at the level Roger's taken the game to. While he's struggled against Nadal, Nadal might end up being regarded as the greatest claycourter in history (if he already isn't!). The level's faster than anytime in history as one only needs to watch the women's game to see the power they're bringing too (trying watching an old Evert-Navratilova match without laughing at the slow tempo!). Whether it's equipment or simply that the players are bigger and stronger; the game's much more athletic than ever before. I enjoyed watching Sampras during his dominance & I see Federer as an even more advanced version (a much stronger backhand & even quicker).
Mrobe your stats are all wrong. Federer didn't win the last 7 matches against Henman. Where did you get that from? Also Mcenroe never played Federer. Do you just make things up? Or do you simply not know what you're talking about? Also what does Everet and navrativlove have to do with Sampras vs Federer? And if Federer is a more advanced version of Sampras, why does Sampras hit his first and second serve 10 mph faster than Federer. Why is Pete's forehand much faster than Federer's. Why is Sampras is a vastly superior volleyer than Federer?
You really are greatly misinformed. However, I'll agree with you that if they played 10 times Federer would win 6. But then again Sampras is 38 years old and Federer is 27. Based on their matches last year they were pretty much dead even. So you got that one right.
Not likely Federer would beat him. Remember, Pete was 30, Roger was a young 19. Pete had lost a step clearly (he retired the following year), Federer played a good match, but Pete didn't play his beat. Sampras is a bit arrogant, because there is some truth to what he is saying. I don't think Federer would had gotten a sniff on the serve of Pete Sampras from 1995, or 1999 at Wimbledon. Also when Pete was 36 he played a 25 year old Roger and actually beat him in a indoor exhibition on a surface nearly as fast as grass. Federer couldn't break him then,I doubt he would have broken Pete back in the day. Pete could have won easily in 3 tie breakers.
The entire argument isn't who was the better overall player between Federer and Sampras, the argument is what would happen if both played each other in their prime on grass, and I'm going to narrow it further by sticking with the old grass that was used when Sampras played that was much faster than the grass that is currently used. The head to head match should be thrown out because we are talking about players in their prime, and in that match neither player was in their prime. Federer has never played anybody with the dominating serve and volley game that Sampras had, and on grass Sampras would win at least 7 times out of 10 simply because he was the far superior grass court player. I'd even go as far to say that guys like Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, and Goran Ivanovic were better grass court players than Federer. I must state again that we are talking about the old grass court tennis, I think that even with the new grass Sampras is better, but it is closer.
Roger's the best on grass now, Pete was the best on grass in his time, Borg was the best in his time. It's hard to compare individuals from different times. I do think Pete makes a good point about serving and vollying. It's not done as much as in the past and Federer hasn't faced a real good one like Pete was. It would be great to have seen them play when they both were in their prime, but then I'd have to build a time machine.
Here's the question I would pose: even if you (general you) make the assumption that Federer absolutely could not touch Sampras on his serve, what makes you think that Pete would break Roger? Sure Pete has the better serve of the two, but I would say the distance between Federer's return game and Pete's return game is greater than Pete on serve compared to Federer on serve. Federer may not have faced an imposing serve and volleyer, but keep in mind that back when he was destroying everyone on tour, he would bring people into the net and pass them at will. He was at his best when people were at the net, those people could not dictate play at the net like other serve and volleyers, but I would tend to think that Roger wouldn't be helpless against Pete.
Federer may not have faced an imposing serve and volleyer, but keep in mind that back when he was destroying everyone on tour, he would bring people into the net and pass them at will. He was at his best when people were at the net, those people could not dictate play at the net like other serve and volleyers, but I would tend to think that Roger wouldn't be helpless against Pete.My response to this is that Federer passing a bunch of guys who can't volley and passing guys like Sampras are two different things. Everybody on tour plays basically the same style of tennis now, there are no great serve and volley players out there and I would even go as far to say that there are very few that are even good at the net. Nobody said Federer would be helpless, I just think Sampras would win.
