who would win sampras or federer?

Question

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

Answer 1

Roger - far more the natural player.

Answer 2

The whole timeline thing changes everything. Back when Pete was in his prime, Serve & Volley play was money. This primarly being because of less powerful racquets that had a lot more feel then today. No matter how you look at it, you cannot generate the power that Federer is getting w/o the current technology. I'm not saying hes not good, hes a great player, but I have Pete winning on Grass (serve and volley dominates grass), close tie on hardcourts, and Federer winning on Clay (Nadal gives Federer so much improvemnet on clay).

Answer 3

Sampras would win on grass, b/c Sampras has the serve and volley, so all that Sampras would need to do is break Federer once and the set would be over. Roger is definitley a more clutch player, but he has never played someone with the talent of Sampras. On hardcourt the match would be very even and would go to a 5th set tiebreak. On clay Federer would win for one reason and only one reason he doesn't serve and volley. Nobody can win on clay serve and volleying. The matches would all be close, but Sampras wins, because he could beat Federer on GRASS the surface they both own so the tie goes to Sampras and his awesome serve.

Answer 4

Very interesting point! :)

This is actually a difficult question especially when we may never see them in action at the same time. Both of them are fantastic players and the best during their respective seasons.

Even if they did play each other, they may tie as you say, cos especially with these two men a single game (or even two) may not be enough to determine the best of them.

Your analysis is pretty good. Yes, it depends on the surface too. One thing that they have been consistent (as of now) is that neither have won the Grand Slams (I agree. Let's give Roger some more time.) And I agree with your last point as well. They may tie in grass (and clay too, if Roger never wins the French).

Personally, I've always loved Sampras, and sometimes when I see Roger, I am reminded of Sampras! I love both of them for some similarities that I really can't put my finger on. They are great champions is all what I can say.

So, shall we say both of them will win? (against different players ofcourse!) :)

Answer 5

I agree with your analysis, but the hardcourts duel would
be closer in my opinion, like 6-4 or 5-5. Grass would be a
pickem. I think if they played indoors, it would be something
like 6-4 for either guy, or 5-5. I don't think a five time US Open
champion and two time Australian Open champion would lose
7 or 8 times out of 10 to anyone, but that's just my personal
opinion. I think peak Sampras against peak Federer would
be a fascinating matchup, especially if the match was at
Wimbledon. They have only played once, and Federer
won that match at Wimbledon. Pete was nearing the end
of his career, and Roger was before his peak years, so you
really can't gauge much by that one match, since neither
player was at peak form at the time of that match.

Answer 6

USA PRIDE but,

Federer would win I say in a tie break. Federer is a machine he can do everything that is posible to do in tennis. In 2004, Federer became the first man since Mats Wilander in 1988 to win three
out of the four Grand Slam singles tournaments in the same year. In 2006, Federer repeated this feat and became the first man in the open era to win at least ten singles championships in three consecutive years. He has won nine Grand Slam men's singles titles in 30 appearances, three Tennis Masters Cup, and 12 ATP Masters Series singles titles. He is the only player to have won both the Wimbledon and U.S. Open singles titles in three consecutive years from 2004-2006.

He has been ranked No. 1 since February 2, 2004. His current lead in the rankings guarantees that on February 26, 2007, he will break the record for most consecutive weeks as the top-ranked male player, which Sampras does NOT hold.

I would say if they played it would be...
Federer vs. Sampras
7-5, 3-6, 7-9, 6-4, 8-6
Federer wins

Answer 7

I wish I could say. Pete Sampras dominated during his time, but Federer is dominating and the way is just unimaginable. But for this sake, I'll say that Federer wins 9 out of 10 times.

Answer 8

Depends on the surface.

I would say:

Grass: Pete 6-4
Hardcourt (fast) 5-5
Hardcourt (slow) Roger 7-3
Clay Roger 9-1

Answer 9

My heart says Sampras but my head says Federer. He is going to anihilate Pete's Grand Slam record barring a career ending injury. Pete's only chance would be on grass.

Answer 10

Federer still has to prove to me. It seems like his competition is Nadal, who looks too much like a girl to me. Pete had a lot of good players to play against. Federer just plays the ones that Pete did 10 years like (Andre Agassi). But I'd definatly watch the match if they'd play. It'd be amazing

Answer 11

Federer would win.
Sampras took tennis to a whole new different level in HIS time.
But Federer took that form of tennis and evolved it even more.
Some may argure Sampras's consistency on the serve would destroy Federer. Yeah thats what we thought about Roddick too.
Sampras would lose.