Tell me who you think would win more matches on hard, rebound ace, clay and grass
2006-07-29 17:05:41 · 12 answers · asked by Anirudh T 3 in Sports ➔ Tennis
You see, firstly among the two Federer is more technically sound and mentally stronger. Samras just had one big weapon- His huge serve. All the other shots with the exception of the forehand were all average. Meanwhile Fed has a lot of great shots. His groundstrokes are extremely good, his serve is tricky in the sense he can change its direction and control in even though it is not as powerful as Sampras' and his volleying skills and his dropshots and lobs are also good. SO in short while Sampras was simply a serve and volleyr while fed is the all court player.
Therefor on clay Federer is much much better than sampras. If they meet 10 times a year federer will lead 9-1.
On hard courts it is a lot closer but still i believe fed has the all court game to beat Sampras. If they meet 10 times Federer will lead 6-4
On grass a lot depends on whetther they meet in 2006 or 1996. If they do in 06 Federer will win as he has got an all court game and as the grass has gotten a whole less slicker and the balls are heavier which means that will not support Smpras who is basically a serve n volleyer. But if they meet in 96 Sampras is going to win without a doubt.
So,
2006 on grass Federer 6-4
96 on grass Sampras 7-3
Remember Fedrer has beaten Sampras on Grass once in 04 if im not mistaken.
Rebound ace Federer has the edge as it is a whole lot slower than the usual Hard courts. So, fed 8-2.
CONCLUSION: On the whole fed is betrr than Sampras
2006-07-29 22:01:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Throw all the stats away for this match.
The best thing that could happen for Federer would be to run up against someone of Sampras' stature. This would be the only way to find out how good the guy really is. I don't think we've seen Federer's best tennis yet.
You could probably play this match ten times (on any surface)and get a split 5-5!
The two best players of all time goin at it head to head - wow!
2006-07-30 12:42:15 · answer #2 · answered by -:¦:-SKY-:¦:- 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Until Federer becomes the all time Grand Slam champion I think you have to go with Sampras. Sampras had the better serve and had other great players to push him. Rafter , Courier, Agassi in his prime. Nadal is the only one to push Roger and that is only on the dirt.
2006-07-30 08:12:01 · answer #3 · answered by messtograves 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federer woulda won. Sampras is not that tough mentally or physically, never was, although he had a better serve game, and was more powerful.
But that would have been a match i'll gladly pay to watch.
2006-07-30 02:51:31 · answer #4 · answered by Vetty 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Roger would have dominated with slower courts, and sampras may be able to steal a match from roger on the grass but no other court surface, and even so, it would be even. Rogers moneymaker is his ability to think of a passing shot under pressure and EXECUTE!!
2006-07-31 05:19:18 · answer #5 · answered by Charlie H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course Sampras! he is the greatest player!Federe has never had good opponent, all averages players this days, when Sampras he has to face lot of Nadals!!
2006-07-30 04:07:36 · answer #6 · answered by jamuna160180 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Federer would win because he on once when he was 19 at Wimbledon. And he's more talented!
2006-07-30 03:58:09 · answer #7 · answered by nvhp 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be a close match. Depending on the day who would win would be the conditions.
2006-07-30 04:26:39 · answer #8 · answered by Tennis_Ace 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think if they were contemporary sampras would have won as he is more skiled
2006-07-30 00:10:35 · answer #9 · answered by Mrinal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
federer.
2006-07-30 10:51:15 · answer #10 · answered by Xclusive 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋