At their peaks - ie Roger Feder now, Pete Sampras when world no.1.
1) On grass.
2) On clay.
Give your reasons if you can please!
2007-01-28 03:59:14 · 14 answers · asked by coco ♥ 3 in Sports ➔ Tennis
Look, Roger Federer is the best tennis player ever!
When they did meet...Roger won! Fed has still not quite hit his prime and he is better than anyone ever!
Pete however great he was, did not have the shot making ability Fed has. Pete deceptively fast, still loses in foot speed to Roger.
And as many are now starting to see, Federer may be the best server in tennis as well! And Federer's return of serve would be the truly fatal blow in the Sampras game! He would see many more balls in play against Federer. And we know how much Sampras relied on at least two free points a game on serve. That's why he never came close to winning the French!
If Pete plays Federer 20 times, it would maybe be close in the first few matches and then Federer would dominate as he learned Sampras' timing! 15 out of 5 go to Federer! And forget about clay...no contest!
I'd like to see a prime Boris Becker go against a Prime Roger Federer!!! Now that would be some good tennis!
2007-01-28 07:15:40 · answer #1 · answered by CSnumber1 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Federer may not have reached his peak yet...
1. On grass
Very even... Federer would win some, Sampras would win some... What great matches they would be!
2. On clay
Federer. not even close... Sampras's inability to take out a point for 100 shots thats required on a clay surface makes him vulnerable.. And as a serve and vollyer, Sampras is prone to being passed on clay as his serves are not goiing to have the same effect. Federer's a more complete player than Sampras so he has an easier time adjusting(namely reaching the French Open final last year)
2007-01-28 04:05:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I am a long-time Pete Sampras fan and would like simply to answer Pete to your questions, but that would not be my honest opinion. First, though, I will preface my remarks by saying that Pete was a marvelous and dominant player while active, amassing an admirable record, particularly at Wimbleton, in Grand Slam wins, and as the ATP's number one player for a record six years. Now, for the not so great part: Pete's record at the French Open on clay was dismal; he reached the quarter finals once, but that was his best showing. Roger, conversely, although he has not won the French, has been in the final there, last year barely losing to Rafael Nadal; Roger may well win the French this year. Roger is probably equally as good as Pete on grass; still Pete's record at Wimbleton is definitely amazing and currently peerless. Pete's power game and dominance were dependent upon his first serve; when he was compelled to engage in a rally, he often lost the point but would come through with a giant ace with dependable frequency when faced with a break point. As for Roger, no true tennis fan (and count me as one) can fail to appreciate his finesse game which has no weaknesses; history very likely will record his accomplishments and dominance as the greatest of all time. Still, in my opinion, it is not so good for tennis that Roger Federer is apparently unbeatable...
2007-01-28 06:01:30 · answer #3 · answered by Lynci 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd say roger federer on both counts.
sampras relied too much on his serve while federer is an all court player. he can serve and volley, he can counter punch, he can be a baseliner.... sampras will have difficulty when federer unleashes his entire arsenal of shots against him. plus, federer can mix it all up so that it would be impossible to read his game.
but you can't just write off pete sampras like that and he was no. 1 for a reason. his other shots were way above average as well, it's just that he was too dependent on his huge serve. and federer eats big servers for lunch. case in point: andy roddick. (sampras is way way better than roddick though)
I would say Federer beats Sampras 4 or 5 sets on grass, straight sets on clay.
2007-01-28 04:08:18 · answer #4 · answered by rfedrocks 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I do not think Federer is at his peak now. He recently lost to Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, etc. IF Federer is at his peak, he would win the clay and lose the grass. Think about it, Pete Sampras has had many experiences with the grass court and lawn tennis, mainly because of his age and other factors. Federer, though, is likely to in on clay court, because he loses to Nadal very closely on the clay court. Right now, Nadal would be at his peak on the clay court, so Federer is likely to win against Sampras on the clay. So basically, it is Sampras on the grass court and Federer on the clay court.
2007-01-28 06:23:07 · answer #5 · answered by Jelly Shelley 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hypothetically? Why?
They played at Wimbly, everyone thought Sampras would win, what with him being fourtime defending champ... and he lost to a young Roger Federer...
2007-01-28 04:35:03 · answer #6 · answered by i_luv_tennis 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
On grass Sampras serves and volleys Roger off the court.
On clay Roger gets the nod for a better back court game.
2007-01-28 04:07:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Federer would win on both surfaces because he he is the complete player. He has everything, while Sampras's main strength was his big serve.
2007-01-28 21:07:35 · answer #8 · answered by bluenose 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
On grass - evenly matched. Both have tremendous record on grass.
On clay - Federer has the edge. Even though his clay record isn't as good as grass, still he is leagues ahead of Sampras.
My answer is purely based on records and statistics.
2007-01-28 04:10:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Federer would crush Sampras on every surface! Sampras dominated the world tennis when the opposition was extremely weak
2007-01-28 10:57:20 · answer #10 · answered by Bo V 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋