Roger Federer today vs. Pete Sampras in his prime. Who wins?

Question

Any why?

Answer 1

federer

he has a more complete game

Answer 2

Federer by a little. If they played ten times, I think Roger would win 6 out of the ten. Their games are similar Pete having a serving edge & a slight volleying edge while Roger would have an edge by far with his backhand and a slight edge speed-wise (many forget how fast Pete was!). The only reason I see Roger being stronger than Pete is because of his quality on every surface. Currently Roger would be #1 on hard court, grass, indoor, & #2 (to Nadal) on clay. At Pete's best, I would have never put him in the top 16 on clay. He made the French semi's once, but he lost in the 1st or 2nd round eight out of the thirteen times he played the French. I think even a more interesting match up would be Federer against Laver in his prime. The only reason Laver isn't the all-time Grand Slam holder is because of the years he lost after he turned pro. Until 1969, only amateurs could play the Grand Slams. Laver would added at least 10 more slams to his total if he had the chance. It's also worth noting that both Sampras & Federer see Laver as their idol! Not having seen Tilden play, I'd see those are your top three!!!

Answer 3

On clay, Federer for sure. It's too slow for Sampras's running and serve-and-volley tactics.
Hardcourt is close and will probably go back and forth at first, but Federer has an amazing ability to anticipate other players that he knows and after a few sets it'll be all his.
Grass Sampras will probably win most of the games, though Federer may take a few.

Answer 4

Sampras at his prime still have a very respectable one handed backhand. But roger has a complete arsenal. This would be my break down.

Serve: Sampras
Forehand: Equal
Backhand: Federer
S&V game: Sampras
Baseline game: Federer
Grass court match up: Equal
Hard court match up: Equal
Clay court match up: Federer

Only a time machine can answer this question if somehow we can bring a young Pete Sampras back to play Roger Federer now.

Answer 5

I say Sampras had always the faster serves. If you compare his first serve and Federer's serve its not much difference. But, If you compare their 2nd serves sampras has the advantage. Clay- Roger Federer Grass-Sampras Hard- Sampras and Carpet- Sampras. Yes its true roger federer has the #1 in atp history for almost 3 years now but consider this. You Pete Sampras 1990 all players are basicallly serve and volleyers would you rather stay in the baseline or attack first before they do? And back then there was no power in tennis it was all Speed and Encurance and Control. So sampras was warn out from all the running during his time + His 2 handed back handed was swithced to 1handed for serve and volley and wimbeldon because 1handed are good for groundstrokes. Think if Sampras had 2 handed backhand his natural more powerful back hand who would win?

Answer 6

Roger Federer, in a 5th set tie breaker. We should make it really interesting and stick them on clay!! No seriously, Federer is slightly better. This guy has amazing talent for tennis, and is creeping up on Sampras championship records etc. How ironic, that it was Federer that beat and broke Sampras win streak at wimbledon, FAR before Sampras retired.

To end this argument, all Federer has to do is win one Roland Garros (French Open) and hands down he'll be better than Sampras.

Answer 7

Federer. Only the greatest player ever. Sampras had a one dimensional game serve, forehand, volley. Federer has all of Sampras" power, but far more guile and finesse, not to mention every shot in the book. Moreover, Federer has shown he can take it to the highest level on all surfaces, unlike Sampras. Also Federer has not been knocked out before the semi-finals of a grandslam for nearly 3 years, whereas Sampras would lose in earlier rounds.

Answer 8

In my perspective, both could end up as winners. Im a big Roger Federer fan, as he is one of the most complete players in all aspects that ive seen since i got serious in tennis.

I did grow up watching my dad watching sampras (anybody understand that?). Recalling back,i would say that the competition during the Sampras Era was way tougher than now as most of the big names was there. Michael Chang, Andre Agassi, and whole host of other pro's who had very beautiful and powerful game. He struggled through all those and made a very big impact in tennis as we all know.He dominated the courts as if he was the king of tennis (and he in my opinion, was the king of tennis).

Roger Federer is what i would call the continuance of the Sampras legacy, with him dominating in most of the matches. He in a sense is a complete player, as his strokes are of the highest degree of skill (even among the pro's). Unfortunately, he lacks the competition. There are not many competitor for the type of tennis that he plays nowadays.

Put both Federer and Sampras, say, on the Rod Laver arena. For one thing the crowd would sure be a sellout. Then we give Sampras a tennis racquet that suits him, say the nCode 6-1 PS (he did use the Pro Staff during his prime). Compare both of their style, i think it would be a very tight and even match, though i would favour Sampras on his service. Federer on the other hand has a more solid and tactical strokes. Both players can generate power and control at the highest level. Both players have good court coverage. Both players can play well in front of the net, and at the baseline.

In the end, after dealing with all those perspective, i'd say that Federer would win, but in a tie-breaker.but his chances are 55-45, so its not a big winning percentage.

Conclusion:- Both are the best tennis players of their time. One is already a legend, another is a legend in the making.

Answer 9

Federer. Only the greatest player ever. Sampras had a one dimensional game serve, forehand, volley. Federer has all of Sampras" power, but far more guile and finesse, not to mention every shot in the book. Moreover, Federer has shown he can take it to the highest level on all surfaces, unlike Sampras. Also Federer has not been knocked out before the semi-finals of a grandslam for nearly 3 years, whereas Sampras would lose in earlier rounds.

Answer 10

I wanna say Pete (huge fan of Sampras) but I have to go with Roger. Federer has a more complete game then Pete Sampras had.

Answer 11

Both players are solid and consistent during their careers. If there is a weakness I would say that it is clay for both of them (but still, they are right there coming down to the semis, finals). It's just that clay court specialists always find a way. The key in most tennis matches seams to come down to mental toughness. Both Federer and Sampras are extremely tough mentally (which is why they both win so much). When it's all said and done I think Federer goes down as the greatest of all time. I say- Federer wins Aussie and Wimbeldon, neither wins the French, and Sampras wins the U.S. Open. That makes Federer a winner 2-1.