I can't help but think that Federer is dominating one of the weakest men's fields in decades. I don't think he'd be as dominant in the era the Pete played in.
2006-11-29
07:35:50
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Sports
➔ Tennis
Keep in mind. Federer is playing against a mediocre field, Sampras competed against many furure, and present hall of famers. So naturally it's easier for Federer to look awesome these days. He has little or no competition. Nadal. That's it. Let's keep that in mind.
2006-11-29
08:55:02 ·
update #1
Alan. Some good points. You forget about Becker, Edberg, (Prime) Agassi, Courier, Chang, Muster (Nadal's equal), Rafter.....I could go on. Today's top ten don't even compare.
Hewitt and Roddick haven't even made 5-6 slam finals ... Neither of them are Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Courier material.
And there are no top ten serve and volleyers to challenge Federer on the hard courts, carpet or Wimbledon.
And as for Federer beating Sampras in his prime? He beat Pete one year before he retired! I don't think that's "prime".
Some good points though.
2006-11-30
16:43:28 ·
update #2
Also, Nadal has a 6-3 record against Roger. Nobody ever owned Sampras like that.
2006-12-01
04:53:44 ·
update #3
federer. even in pete's prime.
2006-11-29 08:06:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by question man 911 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
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. He makes them look weak, but they are actually NOT. Even Rafael Nadal himself said that he could had been No.1 by now if he played on a different (Roger-less?) era. Andy Roddick, before Federer dethroned him, exuded the same level of confidence as Sampras and Agassi on their prime. 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 2006 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.
2006-11-29 14:13:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by alan agrao 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
That is a super difficult one. If I'm not mistaken, Sampras won 7 Wimbledon. Federer only has 5. If Federer wins this Wimbledon, it could change my answer. But now, I'd say Sampras. He had the ideal grass serve and always attacked net, which was the traditional way of playing grass. I'd have to say Pete Sampras overall.
2016-05-23 02:42:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Keep in mind when Sampras was dominating the game, his
competition was rather weak. It was only when Agassi was motivated, that he had anything close to a rival. Pete's peak coincided around the time Becker and Edberg were just pas their prime years, and Lendl was on his way out of the sport, and McEnroe had already retired. Jim Courier was on the way down from his peak when Sampras was on the way up. Roger Federer received praise from Pete himself. It looks like Roger's career at the same stage is pretty close to what Pete has achieved. Roger's era includes Safin, Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt,
Blake, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Agassi (until he retired), Sampras,
and others. The reality is no one has achieved winning the
Wimbledon and US Open in three consecutive years. For this
reason, you would have to give Federer the edge. Roger is
superior to Sampras on clay. Roger made the final of the French Open, and has claycourt titles under his belt. Roger might match or break the number of Slam titles Sampras has at Wimbledon
and the US Open when all is said and done. He has already matched Sampras in terms of Australian Open wins. He is 3
Wimbledon titles and 2 US Opens from tying him in terms of number of titles at those Slams. Pete Sampras at the end of
1996 had the following Slam titles:
Australian Open (1): 1994
French Open (0): He reached the semifinals that year, losing
to Kafelnikov, the eventual champion
Wimbledon (3):1993, 1994, 1995. He lost in the quarterfinals to Richard Krajicek that year.
US Open (4): 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996
Since Federer is roughly 10 years younger than Sampras, here's
Federer at the end of 2006:
Australian Open (2):2004, 2006
French Open (0): He made the French Open final, which is Sampras couldn't do, and is a superior claycourter to Sampras
Wimbledon (4): 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
US Open (3): 2004, 2005, 2006
At this stage in their careers, Sampras has 8 Slams, and Federer
has 9 Slams using that as the argument for who is greater. From
a comparison standpoint, as great as Sampras is, Federer is even better at the same stage in their careers.
2006-11-29 15:46:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Answerer17 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I see your point about Pete playing future hall of famers and all, but do you ever consider that these guys would be future hall of famers had it not been for Federer winning every major? Hewitt and Roddick could have 5-6 majors by now had it not been for Roger. Here is how I break it down, Pete lost to Roger in PETE's prime on his best surface. Not much more needs to be said. And as far as Pete beating hall of famers, lets review some of his major title opponents- Cedric Pioline, Todd Martin, Carlos Moya, and Ivanesevic.
Lets break this down on each surface-
Grass - both amazingly tough, but again, Sampras lost to Roger before Roger was even top 10 quality at Wimbledon, so the edge is to Roger.
Clay - obviously not even close here. Roger would have won in straight sets. Pete played good on clay once, Davis Cup 1995 in Russia.
Hard - again a tight race and to me the most interesting matchup, but Roger would win and has proven he can do so at the US Open many times already, and also at the aussie open, a place Pete only took one title home without a home american crowd cheering him on like Pete always had at the Open.
2006-11-30 16:00:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Skywalker_NatureBoy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You cant compare eras , Comparisions acroos generations are just NOT fair.Sampras was in his own place and Federer is in his .Wait till Federer is done , then compare his results to that of Sampras' .Then you can say , who was/is better.
Federer is a better all-round player than Sampras , though I do agree that the players are rather weak.He doesnt have rivals like Agassi , except Nadal
But yeah , you cant blame Federer for the fact that his fellow pros are not quite up to the mark.
2006-11-29 21:51:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I guess it all depends on the surface. Pete woul lose 9 out of 10 times on clay and would lose 7 or 8 out of 10 times on hardcourts. Pete was the king of grass and Roger is now. I would say Federer and pete would tie 5-5 on Grass.
Pete 7-0 in Wimbeldon Finals
Pete 5-3 In U.s Open Finals
Pete 2-1 In Australian Open Finals
Pete never reached the Finals of the French Open
Roger 4-0 in Wimbeldon Finals
Roger 3-0 in U.S open Finals
Roger 2-0 in Australian Open Finals
Roger 0-1 in French Open Finals
2006-11-30 03:02:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Luke 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that if roger federer and Pete sampras went to battle it out now federer would beat him but Pete would put up a fight but if Roger could verse sampras when he was younger sampras wouldn't let federer get a game on him.
2006-11-29 07:58:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by sp0r710 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Federer is the better player. Sampras was dominant on grass, great on the hard court and mediocre on clay. Federer is dominant on all but clay. If he wins the French, he will be the best ever.
2006-11-29 08:44:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
federer is way more consistant and injury free.
sampras was so up and down due to injuries but was still unbelievable.
if sampras was 100% he could be federer any day. but out of 10 matches - i give the edge to federer - 6-4
2006-11-29 08:06:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ah, but Nadal is CLAY COURT SPECIALIST!!!! Federer is an all rounder. Federer is better. He is getting ready to slam some of Sampras' records.
2006-12-02 11:38:11
·
answer #11
·
answered by A Random Dude 2
·
0⤊
0⤋