Who was the better player in his prime?
2007-09-27 07:30:50 · 19 answers · asked by The Great Montitude 7 in Sports ➔ Tennis
In 1999 Andre played amazing tennis in the Wimbledon Finals and still got beaten 6-3, 6-4, 7-5. That is what a great Serve and Vollyer can do on a grass court.
One cannot say that Federer's return of serve is better than Agassi. I think they're both very good. Federer appears to have a better return of serve against Roddick because Roddick never follows up those huge serves with an effective net game.
Not Sampras. That serve was not the only weapon. Sampras had amazing touch at the net. He was as good of a volleyer as McEnroe and Edberg.
Since Wimbledon favors those who can serve and volley, my opinion is that Sampras would win almost every time they played.
2007-09-27 09:04:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well actually Pete Sampras is one generation before Roger Federer!The can't be compared at all.I have been playing semi-professional tennis since 4 years old and i am 18!
But anyway,if i had to choose i 've got to got with Sampras cause the days the Sampras was on the top there were so many great challengers like Boris Becker,Andre Agassi,Goran Ivanicevic,Patrick Rafter and for a little bit Jim Courrier e.t.c(i talk only for Wimbledon)..Nowadays we've got Nadal but he does not stand a chance at Wimbledon..Andy Roddick is also good but he needs not to focused only in his great service..
I would have also been chosen Sampras cause the service-volley he had was one for the ages!and at Wimbledon(grass).That's what make the difference...!!
Sampras is a legend...
Federer is a legend in the making...
2007-09-27 14:55:39 · answer #2 · answered by Koumidiator WRW VLR OS 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Pete was. He was so exciting to watch, as he had fun on the court, unlike Mr. Serious, Roger Federer. Pete would always do that "Slam Dunk" thing where he would leap in the air and finish the shot like it was a slam dunk. How cool is that? See the Sampras slam dunk vids on You Tube.
Pete didn't make a big deal out of winning all the time like Federer does which is why I'll always think of him as the better player.
2007-09-28 01:36:04 · answer #3 · answered by djb32067433_1 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My vote goes to Roger Federer. Somehow, Pete Sampras was more like Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick combined, and these two are not on Roger Federer's level. Nadal may have beaten Federer on clay, but generally Federer is still the best player in the world.
There's also that when Pete Sampras plays, there's that feeling that he may lose (like this q&a right now :lol:), but when Federer plays, it's like we're all "he'll win it easily."
2007-09-27 16:11:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mary G 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Federer hands down. Sampras has only a serve. Federer has no weakness and except for the serve (which isn't bad at all) hits every shot in the book better than Sampras.
2007-10-01 22:40:24 · answer #5 · answered by catmandu 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Federer for the fact that Sampras relied too much on his serve. Probably, in his prime, serving the equivalent of Roddick, Federer is all over that. Sampras didn't in his day have as many dimensions, options and strengths as Federer does when he was at his best.
2007-09-27 14:33:13 · answer #6 · answered by Counting down... 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends on which Wimbledon.
In the older faster courts, Sampras at his best was hard to beat. And Federer stays back, which would be to his detriment against Pete.
In the modern, slower wimbledon courts, Federer would take him out.
2007-09-27 16:28:45 · answer #7 · answered by Dr D 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would've been the luck of the day that won the player the match. Both are way up there in terms of skill.
This can never be proven, only speculation. A rhetorical question I guess. If Fed played along with Pete and Agassi I think it would've been a 3 way race instead of just Pete and Agassi. It would've been that close.
2007-09-27 18:30:33 · answer #8 · answered by NBA Phan 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
federer beat sampras at Wimbledon so federer definitely wins
2007-10-02 18:53:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the main problem here lies not with the players at their peak or not...but i think more to the technology...
if it were in the era of sampras...theres no arguement...pete would have won hands down...
if it were played with todays racket/ball technology...i would have to go with federer...
try to reflect ehh mates...
think bout this...in the days of sampras...brute power and pace won the game...the sheer power and pace of the players serve and deft touch volleys finished games rather fast...there were very few instances in which the top 10 players were unable to hold serve...the surface was soo much faster then...
look at todays game...the fastest server...a-rod would still see hardest serves come back at least 80% of the time...the surface has played such a dramatic change...that the pace of the ball has decreased...
then comes wimbledon...ppl will say how did they change the grass? its the ball...todays tennis balls are slightly larger compared to the time of pete...making the ball slower...
if anyone remembers the fedex-sampras match at wimbledon...i honestly thought it was kinda boring...no one broke serve (until 5th set) plain serve and volley....not many rallies...the game was rather server sided and thats it...
in his prime...it has to be fedex hands down...his play...his placement...his ability to dissect opponents...cannot be matched by any other player to date...
cheers
2007-09-27 20:34:28 · answer #10 · answered by Vincent K 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋