Who is the greatest amongst Borg, Sampras & Federer?

Question

Whom you would like to see playing wrt quality of play?

There are some players who win a lot of matches but there tennis is not so eye soothing. But there are certain classical players who used to bewitch the crowd. All these players have been/are great as they have a lot of grand slam titles, but I intend to know whom would you like to see playing and enjoy the classical tennis.

Answer 1

During the era when Borg played, tennis was not a power game as was translated into by players like Rosco Tanner and then Pete Sampras. The running forehand of Sampras is still considered to be the best. If you compare the matches played by the three, you would find Borg to be on the slower side and might be he was the best then, but over a period of time, Sampras looks to be the most elegant player with all the shots in the game: the volley, slice, lob, drop shots, etc. I consider Sampras to be the best of the three.
Federer is icy cool like Borg. He too has all the shots in the game but I find he is only second to Sampras.
During the Borg era and before I was impressed and spell bound some of the lesser known players like R Krisnan of India, Stefan Edberg of Sweden. Rod Lever is told to be one of the best, but honestly I have not seen him play.

Answer 2

Federer by far. The reasons are as follows:

I don't like Borg. His icy demeanor on the court and the incredible 5 Wimbledons in a row is very appealing. But... He was a sore looser. I saw the last match of his career when he lost in the 1981 US open finals to McEnroe. He just walked off the court, skipping the trophy presentation. You can't be called a greatest if you have very understanding about sportsmanship. And several recent tennis magazine articles pretty much concluded that he does not have any passion for tennis. Example: he shows up for celebrity tennis functions and go through a very half-hearted and clearly uninterested motion and collects his check and leaves.. Borg probably has his reason why he even shows up to these celebrity tennis crap.. but I cannot understand it..

On the court, Sampras was awesome. However, he got all those championships when Agassi went on his "walkabout" for several years. Another reason why I don't think Samprass deserves the "greatest" title is that he was the best player during the period when the tennis popularity pretty much sunk way below golf. Samprass must take some responsibility for that..

That leaves Federer as the greatest among the 3 you mentioned. He is a much better shot maker. And has much more polished all-around game. Borg was a baseliner and Samprass was a 90% serve-N-volleyer. Federer is also a good sportsman.

Answer 3

It is pretty hard to compare Borg to Sampras and Federer. Borg's era was not based on power tennis, most of the guys were still playing with a wooden racket back then. But they were hitting pretty hard already back then. However, Borg and Sampras had a lot more competition than Federer.

Borg had to constently compete with Conners, McEnroe, and Lendl. Sampras' competition was even tougher. Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Lendl, McEnroe, Rafter, Ivanisevic, the list goes on during Sampras' era. Pete has a LOT more competition back then.

Federer is no doubt the best player right now and his game is just beautiful to watch, but Roger does not really have any real competition. Sure Nadal can give Federer a real challenge on clay, but you can forget about other surfaces. Yes, he got to the Wimbledon final, but how quickly Federer turned that match into a clinic. Roddick and Safin both have very good power game, but the don't have the mental toughness. In other words, Roddick and Safin are head cases. Blake and Nalbandian sure can give Federer a good practice, but that's it. None of these guys have talents like Becker, Edbert, Agassi, etc when Sampras was competing to really give Roger any competition.

I like all these 3 players, their games are just beautiful to watch. I can't really rank them because of the different levels of competition each of them have to compete with.

Answer 4

It is a very interesting question.
Borg had a very good baseline game but the power of the shots increased with the appearance of Ivan Lendl, the man that everyone conveniently forgets. He was an 8-time Grand Slam champion (lest everyone forget) and was the father of modern power tennis and scientific conditioning. The much celebrated running forehand mentioned, was invented by Ivan Lendl and not Sampras. Of course, Sampras was also an excellent allc court player with a complete arsenal. I think his lack of a French title was more a mental than a physical issue.
The most important thing to remember is that as an athlete you are only as good or better as your nearest rival. Whatever level of play achieved by Borg or Sampras was adequate to overcome opponents of his time. But compare this to the power and speed of athletes of the current era like Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Safin Gonzalez.
Safin and Gonzalez have sheer brutal power of shots , and Nadal and Hewitt have super speed on court, while Roddick has a cannon of a serve. It is only a player of the calibre of Federer who is able to parry their shots and unleash some of his own.
So if you compare players by their atheleticism and skills, Federer stands head and shoulders above Borg and Sampras.
Federer is able to neutralize a Roddick serve, and flatten the power of Safin or Gonzalez or even out run Hewitt and Nadal.
In fact, i feel Federer would have actually been in trouble against a specialized player like Stefan Edberg, with his high-kick serve and a sharper vollleying capablities. But probably would have eaten Edberg on his own service game.

Answer 5

right now, sampras. in 2 years, federer. sampras was the most boring to watch because he served so well that no one could touch him. he was a roddick with a better serve, better volleys, a weaker backhand, and less athleticism. federer is the smoothest and most complete tennis player of all time and soon to be the best ever. classic tennis...depends how you define "classic." if you define classic as old school, short strokes with no spin, then borg is the most classic. if you define classic any other way, it's federer.

Answer 6

As others have said above, Pete Sampras easy. Just look at his track record with the tournaments he has won. This guy was just simply amazing. I do also agree though the Federer will be the best tennis player ever when he does retire. No doubt about that.

Answer 7

For right now it would still be Borg but in the future it will be Roger Federer. Talking about eye catching and who would I like to see playing more than anything, it would be Federer. His beautiful backhand with a lot of spin is one no one can duplicate. His strong forehand which is accurate and fast. His drop shot and awareness around the court is incredible. Not to mention about his Hawk's eyes, he is so accurate in calling a challenge (11 of 17 in Australian Open). Plus, he handle himself very well on and off the court.

Answer 8

federer is well on his way to being greater than both, being great is all about the records, some which sampras still has, so that makes him the greatest at the moment

i would like to add that i think that federer is the guy with the best game, he is technically the most sound than either of the other 2 ever were.

Answer 9

Roger Federer

Answer 10

sampras is currently the best but federer will the greatest mens tennis player of all time. but borg is still awsome