New spin on Federer vs Sampras debate...?

Question

Everyone always pits Roger and Pete head to head. I'd like for you to weigh in on how each would fare against the other over time. If Roger and Pete competed together over their entire career, who would be regarded as the premier player.

Here's the foundation: Roger's shot variety seems better than Pete's. Pete had his serve and his forhand as weapons. It doesn't appear that a shot exists that Roger can't pull off. However, Pete would likely hold the edge in mental stamina. For instance, in the French and even to a lesser degree at Wimbledon this year, there were times that Roger had the look of defeat in his eyes and posture. You never saw that in Pete. So it can be asked, would Pete's superior mental game be enough to counter Roger's superior arsenal?

You have the floor.

Answer 1

well then...this debate of fedex and pete will go on for decades...the arguements could come off from every angle...whatever one guy says another will rebuke it...its more of a "what if" situation more likely...

lets rip apart the player firstly::::

pistol pete sampras:

+incredible 1st and 2nd serves---THE best server in tennis history

+powerful flat forehand shots(running and stationery)

+one of the best serve and volley tacticians...bread and butter game play...

+best overhead smashes in the entire timeline of tennis "air-sampras"

-seldom able to fight from the baseline

-most likely to employ slice backhands...very few good backhand passing shots...

-not much variety in shots...predictable...but not necessary easy to return


roger the magician federer:::

+variety of shots

+most deadly forehand in todays game..in terms of pace and placement

+incredible angled backhand shots which are as deadly as the forehand

+one of the best "estimators" in the game..gets to the ball and reads the opponent very well

+very fast on the feet

+able to hit incredibly angled volley shots

+accurate serves-but not as good as sampras

-loses concentration quickly

-another weakeness 2 words---rafael nadal...hahah sorry had to say that

all in all its going to be a close match...but with todays technology and both players at their peak...i would have to go with fedex...fedex will simply crack the serve volley game of sampras and get sampras in a baseline battle...which fedex would most probably win...

however...is sampras played nadal...at his peak...higher possibility that sampras would have won...with his serve and volley tactic...cuts the response time of rafa by 1/2

anyway i am eagerly waiting for the asian tour of sampras-fedex...cant wait

Answer 2

Both Pete and Roger are great players of their time. Both play excellent on grass and hard courts and suffer the same
problems on clay courts. Neither have won on Clay. Pete has
great serve and volley game and his returns at times are
questionable only compared to Roger, but he can get the job
done. On the other hand, Roger has great overall game.
Over mental toughness, this goes to Pete just because he
has played for long. Roger in his early part of his career was
mentally weak and overtime he is developing the mental
toughness and also developing stamina to an extent but still
not there yet.

So who will win if both played, when playing on(age is not a factor):
1. Grass: Pete can beat Roger with overall game and Serve.
2. Hard Court: 50-50, slight edge to Roger
3. Clay Court: Roger can beat Pete.

Even though, Roger has beaten Pete on grass towards late
part of Pete's career.

I wish these two should play exhibition matches on all 3
surfaces and would this be a dream come true for many of us.

Answer 3

A lethal arsenal can only be executed well when paired with a balanced, controlled, and focused mind.

It's hard to say who would win, but Federer's performance at Wimbledon was a very good sign of how Federer's ability declines with a diminished mental stability.

Federer never played on the top of his game (imo) in the Wimbledon match, I don't know if this is because of his mental block with Nadal, or if Nadal was really just pushing him.

As for Pete, I'm not sure Pete would have the same effect mentally as Nadal would have, but I think, in all likelihood, it would turn into a serving match, as they are both some of the best servers I've ever seen.

Answer 4

that's the best question i ever saw! a good subject to think about for those who said that federer it's the best player ever!
my answer is definitively sampras!
it's true that federer's arsenal is superior,the variety of his game cannot be contested.he can hit the ball from every corner of the fild, from every position and he has the abillity to find so many angles.
but i really think that he didn't yet enconter somebody who could make him doubt.he has mental advantage over today's top players.that's why he keeps winning grand slam titles, exept roland garros.and he keeps loosing roland garros to nadal 'cause nadal it's not scared, he knows that on clay is much better than federer.
so, i say that federer is no 1 only because of his confidence.
as for sampras he really was a great player,indeed his weapons were his serve and forhand,his style was so diferent from federer's.but those two shots could have been enought to beat federer, to break his confidence.and federer without confidence would have been somewere in top 5 not no 1.
sampras was a true fighter,always knew the best srategy to break his oponent resistance.when you face a tough game you have to think a little at what are you going to do on the field in order to win,not to just get in there knowing that you're gonna win anyway.
so,i'll say it again, i'm 100% sure that,using your own words,the superior mental game sampras did show, would have been more than enough to bring back federer back on earth, no matter of his arsenal superiority.

Answer 5

I think crisbb and OneBigTennisFan overrate Sampras' mental stamina. There were numerous matches where Sampras proved far more fragile than Federer has ever looked in big matches: his 1995 loss in the Aussie Open final to Agassi being but one major example.

I think, rather than focusing on aspects of each players game, comparing their results is a far better strategy when evaluating both players. The dominance of the game by Federer in the last four years was unmatched by Sampras even at the height of his career. I think the Sampras vs. Federer debate will only gain maturity and perspective after Federer's retirement - whenever that may be - but as of now, it looks like Federer will prove the far greater player. The only other suitable comparison is a head-to-head record, and that shows that a 19-year-old Federer beat a 29-year-old Sampras on both players' favorite surface: grass.

In terms of more subjective criteria, I would say that Federer has Sampras' number on each: shot variety, mental toughness, fitness, you name it. Sure, Federer isn't immune to occasional bouts of mental weakness (such as at the finals at this year's Roland Garros and Wimbledon) but no one is.

A note: A lot of people get on these two players for not ever winning the French Open. But people overlook their abilities on clay - especially Federer's. In fact, Federer has reached the final at Roland Garros twice, and Sampras made the SF. When you look at second-tier clay court tournaments, Federer has won at Hamburg four times and Sampras won the Italian Open on Rome once. Federer has also won clay court titles at Gstaad and Munich, while Sampras won on clay in Atlanta and, rather suprisingly, at the Generali Open in Austria.

Answer 6

I dont know anything bout Sampras or his game , ive never seen him play .
But i know one thing , that if they played , then Federer wud win . And that's becoz hes a great returner of serve . To comfirm that , ill tell u that the avg. aces hit by Andy Roddick against other players is much more than that against Federer .
So , as u say , in a Serve vs. Serve match b/w Federer and Sampras , Federer wud definitely come out tops for reasons stated above . Federer is definitely the , and i mean THE Best player i have ever seen on the tennis court , and i want him to now win 4 consecutive U.S. OPEN titles, after kicking Nadal's butt in the Semis or in the Final .
Goooooooo Federer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yee-hah!!!!!!!!

Answer 7

Pete never won French Open and he is being called "The Greatest."
If Roger can win ONE French Open, he beat Pete forever.

Answer 8

Federer is number 1

Answer 9

federer would win