2006-11-26 10:10:10 · 30 answers · asked by Anuradha S 1 in Sports ➔ Tennis
He is a better all round player than Sampras. He has everything. He could possibly go on to be the best their was although, i don't think he has any great challengers but that could be because he is that damn good.
2006-11-26 10:12:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a big fan of both Sampras and Federer, but I do think it's hard to compare any players from different generations. Federer certainly has a much better all-round game than Sampras and really is incredibly gifted. On the other hand, Sampras had that unerring abiliting to whack down huge serves at key moments and never seemed to lose his nerve - possibly Federer's only real weakness. Maybe we need to wait a few years to judge this properly - worryingly for his rivals, Federer still seems to be improving...
2006-11-26 21:19:31 · answer #2 · answered by Phil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Federer is not a better player than Sampras. He has yet to win a record 14 grand slams that Sampras has!! And, Sampras is STILL the king of court.
2006-11-28 05:51:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
relies upon on your criteria. once you're speaking about organic expertise, i'd say Federer. Sampras had a good looking serve, an really good volley, and an explosive forehand, yet Federer is a extra finished participant. His serve and volley would no longer be on Sampras' element, yet something else of his sport is extra good. He performs both properly on the offense because the protection. His flow is fantastic and his go back of serve is between the perfect. From a historic perspective, although, it must be Sampras. 14 Slams, and six years at #a million in an really competetive era. He confronted each and every person from Becker to Agassi to Courier, and nevertheless got here out on perfect. Federer is an really good #a million, yet something else of the right ten are a step down from Sampras' era. so as that, mixed with the sheer era of time Sampras became on the right provide Pistol Pete the sparkling area.
2016-11-29 19:46:18 · answer #4 · answered by nastasi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federer did end the Sampras era at Wimbledon by beating him, but Sampras was past his best by then and Federer had youth on his side.
It's a tough one, both of them totally dominated the men's game for years, won Wimbledon many times and played some awesome tennis. It would be fascinating to watch a match between them in their prime. It would be a classic.
2006-11-26 10:13:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I now believe that Federer is the best of all time. I was going to wait to pass the crown until he passed Sampras Grand Slam record, but after watching him from Wimbledon on I now think that id Federer got hurt and could never play again he would be the greatest I have ever seen.
2006-11-26 13:55:29 · answer #6 · answered by messtograves 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's very close, Federer has steadily began creeping closer to Sampras over the last couple of years, and if he were just to win the Australian in as dominant manner as last year, I reckon most will consider him to be better than Sampras...
We'll see in due time!
2006-11-28 04:50:23 · answer #7 · answered by i_luv_tennis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they are both as good as each other. If they were to have a match together it would be very close. Federer has the youth but Sampras the experience.
2006-11-26 10:33:27 · answer #8 · answered by elaine.king79@btinternet.com 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about all the technical stuff but I would say they've got some competition and the fact that Sampras won 14 slams is telling. We'll have to watch Fed as he moves forward with his career. I think they both got game though.
2006-11-28 13:35:10 · answer #9 · answered by hyostee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in an awesome QF 5 setter contest and hasnt looked back ever since.
He is way better than anybody else who has played the game. Best ever. Period.
2006-11-27 08:32:12 · answer #10 · answered by Vetty 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋