SAMPRAS vs FEDERER?

Question

who is the better tennis player? Sampras in his Prime or Federer now?

Answer 1

federer has a more complete game but sampras would be tough to beat when his first serves percentage is high

Answer 2

If you are comparing these players, Federer is slightly stronger. The reason is that he plays well from the base line as well as volleys & Sampras was not good from base line. Sampras has got 14 GS which is more than any one in Tennis history, but Federer is just 25, & he's 9 GS there is a long way to go for him.& I am sure he can break Sampras's record. But still Samprass is the best. He is a legend. It's true that Federer has no tough competitor except Nadal, So he hasn't yet faced some challenge whereas in Sampras's case, there were some good players like Rafter, Agasi, Beker, Goran etc. But Federer seems to be a complete player.Comparison is really very difficult.

Answer 3

Before I saw Roger close out this years season , I would have said Sampras, but Federer I believe is the most dominant player of his era. I know the argument that their was more competition back when Sampras was winning everything. I think it would have not mattered. The guys Federer is beating are amazing. Big points Federer wins . Final of a tournament Federer wins . I would put my money on Fed with both players being in there prime.

Answer 4

Stuck: You can't say Sampras because he never won a French Open either...

Sampras was unstoppable on grass because of his great serve and volley game. Federer has a touch of that, but Federer is also a great baseline player, where Sampras had a good chance to lose the point if it went more than 5 times over the net (according to Agassi in Brad Gilberts book Winning Ugly)

Depending on the surface, but I will have to say Federer on hard court and clay. Sampras would have had a chance on grass.
If Federer wipes the court with Blake and makes it look so easy, you can see why he should be considered the best player EVER.
(Sorry Mr. Sampras...)

Answer 5

I watched both play for years. I think Federer is the better player of the 2. Sampras is more of Any Rodick of our time (perfect copy), so u could imagine how many times Federer did beat Andy. Federer is a talented player & no one in the history of tennis could match him. People who say Sampras are propably Americans who hate the fact that Federer is Swiss and want to think that only Americans are the greatest in tennis.

Answer 6

Sampras in his declining years pushed Federer to 7-6(7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7(2), 7-5 at Wimbledon when Federer was just starting to move up the ATP circuit. Yes Federer is fantastic behind the baseline and at the net however no matter how dominant he is in the current game there is almost no way to compare how good he is in comparison to Sampras because Sampras simply was around more talented tennis players like Agassi, Rafter, Courier, Lendl they were the greats of tennis. Whereas now Federer is facing people like Blake, and Nalbandian who have yet to touch the achievments that Agassi, Rafter, Courier and Lendl have been able to achieve. And many may argue this is because of how dominant Federer is, yes that is true but they lack the talent to even if Federer was not there. Even when Sampras was dominant Agassi mangaged to beat him same goes to Rafter, Courier and Lendl. Federer is perhaps the greatest to ever swung a racquet in comparison to Pete who has a blocky style of play. Federer moves like a ballet dancer and is efficient at it as well. Many may believe that Federer and Sampras are the greatest but if we were to stack every player at his prime that is within the 90's until now, Marat Safin would come on top. He has beaten Federer and Sampras when they were playing their top tennis and although he is erratic if he were to be playing his BEST he could wipe the floor with any of the Top 10 from the 90's til now. Oh and Micheal Chang is a great player too... But to answer your question my personal opinion is that Sampras could win against Federer, but he couldnt do it all the time mind you just during certain matches on certain surfaces. For example he wouldnt be able to consecutively beat him on Grass but on Hardcourts yes. Federer will kill Sampras on clay and on the Australian Hardcourts they would probably be even. Federer has the more elegant game Sampras has his serve. Federer has his forehand Sampras has his running forehand. Sampras has his volleys, Federer has a predominantly baseline game that will help him on surfaces like clay but not on grass. Bjorn Borg on the other hand....

Answer 7

To me this answers the question: The only time they ever played was the 4th round at Wimbledon in 2001. Federer won 7-5 in the 5th set. It was Federer's first match on the Wimbly centre court, Sampras was the 4time defending champ and everyone reckoned he was on his way to a 5th in a row.

Stuck, get your facts straight, Sampras never even reached a final at the French, and just so you know, the French is a Grand Slam event... So how do you think he won all 4 majors if he had never even reached the finals there???

Answer 8

FEDERER, Without a doubt.

Many people would be saying that Federer is only shining now because of inferior level of competition. That would NOT be precise. Yes, Sampras shone when there was Agassi, Chang, Becker and many others to compete with. What Federer accomplished was to eclipse the names Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, Nadal, Blake, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, etc. etc., considering that these players are also Grand Slam Winners or potential winners. In short, Roger gave them no space to work with. He's just all over. In fact, to call Roger superior would be an understatement. He plays divine.

Federer is the best tennis player of all time. He already ripped Jimmy Connors' record of most consecutive weeks at the top of the heap (he had earned enough points to be at the peak of standings until end of Feb-07, would you believe that?) In fact, ATP rankings would show that Federer's yearend points equal those of Nadal, Blake and Murray COMBINED.

It's just so exciting to watch how Roger will dismantle Pete's record of 14 Grand Slams. With the pace he is taking now, he will achieve that by 2008, when he is only 27 years young. Pete had his last when he was 32. Roger just have to stay fit, maintain his discipline and continuously exude the confidence he has now.

Answer 9

Well.....I say Sampras because he was more humble............... but Federer shows off a little bit too much

When you watch a match with Sampras playing, you know he will win. When you watch Federer, he is good but he isn't really good at the net. No matter on what court you know Sampras will win. For Federer, on a certain type of court, he looses to Nadal.

Answer 10

Sampras rulessss