Author Topic: Sampras and Federer comparison  (Read 6050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alchemist

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1493
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2008, 10:51:14 PM »
Tennisfan, I wasn't accusing you of trying to start a goat debate.  Hopefully, I didn't come across that way.  Anyway, something that really stood out to me was their record in 5 setters so far.  Pete was 25-9 and so far Fed is 11-10.  Everything else is very close in each one's respective careers.  The biggest reason I can think of for Pete having a better 5 set record is that power is usually the last thing that goes away in a match or career.  Also, Fed, in his first couple years, wasn't the same person who systematically trains as hard and efficiently as he has done for the past couple years and still does.  Anyone else have any ideas about their 5 set records? 
"We've been stuck in a locker room for nine hours a day and he's been chilling out, maybe taking the double decker bus tour of London."

Online dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15259
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2008, 11:20:44 PM »
Just a word of warning. This tends to be a touchy subject, here and everywhere. It's not our intention to squelch debate, or keep either Sampras or Federer on that GOAT pedestal.
If this thread looks like it's going to turn into another war of words, or a bunch of blind pronouncements back and forth, it will be locked.
If you want to discuss or debate the subject, do so respectfully. But there's going to be a quick hook. :big boss:

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline thalivest

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2008, 11:28:48 PM »
A study of comparison between Sampras and Federer through wimbledon 1997/ wimbledon 2007.  Amazing how close their careers are at the same age.

  http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html


Yeah I pointed the same thing and also compared their advessairies and caught fire. Imagine that????

Offline thalivest

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2008, 11:43:58 PM »
Quote from: Alison2006
Quote from: temper27
I think Sampras is by far the superior player.   Sampras had much tougher competition with Agassi, Becker, Courier, and Edberg, 4 all time greats.   Federer only has Nadal, and does not even perform very well against Nadal at all, in fact not nearly as well as Sampras does vs any of the 4 I mentioned.   Sampras in his prime would dominate Federer on any surface except clay you have to think.   Federer is a great player, but Sampras is by far superior.

Good Lord have mercy on us  ://  

If only Tennis"I loved Pete until Fed came along and I laugh at Pete's GS victories now" Veritas was around  lol, lol, lol

I am around and I will reply very shortly, by pointing out the following:

Why??/ Did we ask for your dumbass opinion. And yes I will bit slap this rat faced pig into oblivion!!!!! :)>>>>


The era debate is "old", useless and quite annoying at the end: why? Because Time pass and Tennis does not stop of evolving (hence racquet are different, surfaces, training and so on and so forth) in one side and because spot on some "competitors" of Pete and only one of FED is just unfair and ridiculous..

It's useless yet your engaging in it. Shut the f*** up!!!!!!!!! You've already contradicted yourself before you spoke on the subject!!!!!


The first point is shown precisely by the way in which Tennis is played now: these guys are far more complete athletes than in the '90. They are prepare a lot better. Indeed, their physical preparation is just awesome (e.g. the two top players but also people like Davydenko, Djoko IMO, and several others)..
BTW: did you notice the current speed and court coverage..Come on!! LOL.. :lmao:

Far better athletes who??? Roddick?? Davydenko??? Gonzalez???? Ljubicic???? Who???
As compared to Sampras, Rafter, Kuerten, Agassi. Even Courier was better athlete than the top players today.

Current speed and court coverage. Does your dumbass know what evolution is???? Look it up before spewing off at the mouth with nonsense!!!!!!!


Then we have the last point I pointed out. This is the most disturbing one:

If you did have more than 10 years at the beginning of Pete's domination on men's tennis ('93) you would easily remember that:

a) Edberg was already at his last stage of his career during that seasons..
b) Ditto for Becker..
c) I accept Currier and Agassi even if this last one was not really the king of consistency and Courier..Come on!! Show me the talent of this guy..He was boring almost like the other phenomenon of the '90 Mr. Chang LOL... :lmao:

Said that Pete achievements ARE great : Pete Tennis was great as well and he was simply using the best of his skills to keep winning a max of Slams..But do not tell this guy was more complete player than Roger: where are the results on clay that could justify this statement?

Pete was playing during most of his career without touching the red stuff (i.e. he was preparing already Wimbledon when the other they were still in Paris)..Come on..Both are great and FED results are just great and they have a little advantage on those of Pete at the moment: the man is competitive (three season as No#2 in the red stuff  behind one of the greatest Rafa on that surface) on clay..LOL

You lying, 2way thugging, rat faced pig!!!!!!!!!

Check Alison's Steffi Graf thread.....
You claim Agassi for Federer and dismiss Edberg for Sampras. Federer NEVER beat Dre 'til he turned 33!!!! And that fact that he struggled so much(4 of 8 matches) with broke back middle aged Dre is a f***ing disgrace!!!!!!!!

Ditto for Becker!!!!!! So you're still with Tina I see. Becker up til 1996 was top 5 and age 29. Agassi's #'s were....???
Tell us jackass!!!!!!!!!

Consistency of Courier?!? From 92 US Open to 96 French in 6 of those 15 slams he was beaten in the QF or later 6 times by Sampras. 2 more by Bruguera on clay(in slams he won), and Agassi in 5.
Now Hewitt 10 of 20 slams since 2003 has gone out by 3rd rd!!!!! You want Safin and Ferrero as well??? And the rest of the clowns from this pitiful era????

Didn't think so... now shut up!!!!!!!!



BTW: Alison.. I never "laugh at Pete's GS victories" :;:-| ..I really do not know how you reach this conclusion. :( .Anyway..I cannot expect nothing better from you I guess ( and this simply because you are so desparete that FED has won another Wimbledon  :lmao: ..poor little Alison)

There's a saying "stay quiet and let people assume you're stupid, don't open your mouth and confirm it. Yet you like to open your mouth time and time again and confirm it. Then to add to that you cry like a bithch when Alison b**ch slaps you for it. Take it like man!!!! or pretend to be a man and take it anyway.

Offline thalivest

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2008, 11:48:33 PM »
Quote from: tennisfan78
A study of comparison between Sampras and Federer through wimbledon 1997/ wimbledon 2007.  Amazing how close their careers are at the same age.

  http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html


Thanks, that was very interesting. :H

Too bad Sampras wasn't in the mix now to contend with both Federer and Nadal.  That would be some dynamite tennis!!!


Let me look into my crystal ball, allow me to get my Dionne Warwick on for a minute.....

Nadal owns the clay.
Sampras beats the hell out of Nadal everywhere else!!!!
Sampras gets the nod on Federer on grass.
Hard.... Sampras and Federer...... Nadal not really a factor.

Any questions????

Offline kittens25

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2008, 11:55:08 PM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.   Federer's French Open record is better, but people wont care much about that unless he wins the French.    After all people dont bring up often that Lendl's Wimbledon record, and Borg's U.S Open record, are both better then Sampras's French Open record.   In the end they are put in that same boat as far as their "weakest slam" since they didnt win it, when you are talking about players of that calibre that is all that really matters, and if Federer does not never win the French it would be all that matters regarding his French Open record as well.    Furthermore, as noted before by those of us who followed the 90s with any interest, Sampras had far superior competition to Federer.   However this argument only needs to be weighed further if Federer surpasses Pete's achievements, at this point Pete has achieved more then Federer has in almost every conceivable department.    Roger has the edge of more dominant best years, that is an advantage in his corner, but that does not outweigh all the things he is still trailing in at this point.

I would like to touch on something else, I know I will be flamed for saying this but it is my opinion.    While I concede Federer is definitely a better clay courter then Sampras, Sampras from 93-97 was still a darn good clay courter and better then people credit him for, while Federer while an extremely good clay courter still benefits somewhat from the lack of depth on clay today.     However more importantly, and the main thing I see is the fact Federer is a better clay courter then Sampras, while a positive in one respect, actually leads to a knock against him in another respect.   I say that since unlike Sampras he is good enough on clay to come close that many times at the French but keeps coming up short, I tend to think Sampras were as good a clay courter as Roger he would have won the French by now (in either time period, then or now).   Yes if that time period where Pete hypothetically was equally good to Roger on clay had him playing today, that would mean Nadal also being better then him on clay to the same extent he is better then Roger on clay, but the gap between Nadal and Roger on clay (and thus in this hypothetical of Pete being as good as Roger on clay between Nadal and Pete) is not big enough to keep Sampras's determination and sheer internal drive from having won it atleast once by now.    The gap between Nadal and Roger on clay ability wise isnt as big as made out to be, if it were Roger would not be able to take atleast a set off Nadal, and have chances to do more then that, every single best 3-of-5 match they have ever played on clay.     Roger I think is just not comfortable when he isnt dominant or clearly better then his opponent and simply isnt willing to dig down enough, even when he is close enough to be in with a shot, and even with the potential huge implications at stake.   I think Pete with such a major prize would not allow himself to not have won the French at some point vs Nadal with the same ability as Roger on clay, the gap is simply not big enough in clay court ability to keep him from gutting it out at some point.

Offline thalivest

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2008, 12:09:13 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.   Federer's French Open record is better, but people wont care much about that unless he wins the French.    After all people dont bring up often that Lendl's Wimbledon record, and Borg's U.S Open record, are both better then Sampras's French Open record.   In the end they are put in that same boat as far as their "weakest slam" since they didnt win it, when you are talking about players of that calibre that is all that really matters, and if Federer does not never win the French it would be all that matters regarding his French Open record as well.    Furthermore, as noted before by those of us who followed the 90s with any interest, Sampras had far superior competition to Federer.   However this argument only needs to be weighed further if Federer surpasses Pete's achievements, at this point Pete has achieved more then Federer has in almost every conceivable department.    Roger has the edge of more dominant best years, that is an advantage in his corner, but that does not outweigh all the things he is still trailing in at this point.

I would like to touch on something else, I know I will be flamed for saying this but it is my opinion.    While I concede Federer is definitely a better clay courter then Sampras, Sampras from 93-97 was still a darn good clay courter and better then people credit him for, while Federer while an extremely good clay courter still benefits somewhat from the lack of depth on clay today.     However more importantly, and the main thing I see is the fact Federer is a better clay courter then Sampras, while a positive in one respect, actually leads to a knock against him in another respect.   I say that since unlike Sampras he is good enough on clay to come close that many times at the French but keeps coming up short, I tend to think Sampras were as good a clay courter as Roger he would have won the French by now (in either time period, then or now).   Yes if that time period where Pete hypothetically was equally good to Roger on clay had him playing today, that would mean Nadal also being better then him on clay to the same extent he is better then Roger on clay, but the gap between Nadal and Roger on clay (and thus in this hypothetical of Pete being as good as Roger on clay between Nadal and Pete) is not big enough to keep Sampras's determination and sheer internal drive from having won it atleast once by now.    The gap between Nadal and Roger on clay ability wise isnt as big as made out to be, if it were Roger would not be able to take atleast a set off Nadal, and have chances to do more then that, every single best 3-of-5 match they have ever played on clay.     Roger I think is just not comfortable when he isnt dominant or clearly better then his opponent and simply isnt willing to dig down enough, even when he is close enough to be in with a shot, and even with the potential huge implications at stake.   I think Pete with such a major prize would not allow himself to not have won the French at some point vs Nadal with the same ability as Roger on clay, the gap is simply not big enough in clay court ability to keep him from gutting it out at some point.

Thank you. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! :thank-you: :thx!) :thank-you:

This whatI've been saying. he faces no true clay courters skates to the final vs Nadal and federphiles act like he's some supreme clay courter. I said this to JadeFox and well.... he/she put their Nike's on and started runing like atrack star!!!!!!!!!!

Take Sampras @ Roland Garros
1992 QF Agassi
1993 QF Bruguera
1994 QF Courier
1996 QF Courier(after beating Bruguera)

Federer @ Roland Garros
2005 QF Hanescu
2006 QF Ancic
2007 QF Robredo

I mean be serious. If you can't see the point, you gotta be Stevie Wonder or something!!!!!!

Also Sampras has conquered Muster, Agassi, Bruguera, Courier and Kafelnikov on clay. Thomas, Sergi and JC right in RG.
Federer......
-Kuerten(the Bo jackson hipped version)
-Moya(at almost 30)
-Coria(who's been non the back of milk carton the last 3-4 yrs)
-Gaudio(the fact his name gets mentioned says a lot!!!)
-Ferrero(who got chicken pox and had done what since end of 2003??)
-Nadal(a tired one who played Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome, also some doubles, while Fed didn't pay Barcelona, and went out early in Rome... when Nadal was fully rested 3 weeks later in Paris what happened???)

Now I give Federer the nod on clay, but what does it say when Sampras has greater cnquests...yet inferior results?????
Food for thought. Federphiles you can do the dishes!!!!!

Offline kittens25

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2008, 12:37:40 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.   Federer's French Open record is better, but people wont care much about that unless he wins the French.    After all people dont bring up often that Lendl's Wimbledon record, and Borg's U.S Open record, are both better then Sampras's French Open record.   In the end they are put in that same boat as far as their "weakest slam" since they didnt win it, when you are talking about players of that calibre that is all that really matters, and if Federer does not never win the French it would be all that matters regarding his French Open record as well.    Furthermore, as noted before by those of us who followed the 90s with any interest, Sampras had far superior competition to Federer.   However this argument only needs to be weighed further if Federer surpasses Pete's achievements, at this point Pete has achieved more then Federer has in almost every conceivable department.    Roger has the edge of more dominant best years, that is an advantage in his corner, but that does not outweigh all the things he is still trailing in at this point.

I would like to touch on something else, I know I will be flamed for saying this but it is my opinion.    While I concede Federer is definitely a better clay courter then Sampras, Sampras from 93-97 was still a darn good clay courter and better then people credit him for, while Federer while an extremely good clay courter still benefits somewhat from the lack of depth on clay today.     However more importantly, and the main thing I see is the fact Federer is a better clay courter then Sampras, while a positive in one respect, actually leads to a knock against him in another respect.   I say that since unlike Sampras he is good enough on clay to come close that many times at the French but keeps coming up short, I tend to think Sampras were as good a clay courter as Roger he would have won the French by now (in either time period, then or now).   Yes if that time period where Pete hypothetically was equally good to Roger on clay had him playing today, that would mean Nadal also being better then him on clay to the same extent he is better then Roger on clay, but the gap between Nadal and Roger on clay (and thus in this hypothetical of Pete being as good as Roger on clay between Nadal and Pete) is not big enough to keep Sampras's determination and sheer internal drive from having won it atleast once by now.    The gap between Nadal and Roger on clay ability wise isnt as big as made out to be, if it were Roger would not be able to take atleast a set off Nadal, and have chances to do more then that, every single best 3-of-5 match they have ever played on clay.     Roger I think is just not comfortable when he isnt dominant or clearly better then his opponent and simply isnt willing to dig down enough, even when he is close enough to be in with a shot, and even with the potential huge implications at stake.   I think Pete with such a major prize would not allow himself to not have won the French at some point vs Nadal with the same ability as Roger on clay, the gap is simply not big enough in clay court ability to keep him from gutting it out at some point.

Thank you. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! :thank-you: :thx!) :thank-you:

This whatI've been saying. he faces no true clay courters skates to the final vs Nadal and federphiles act like he's some supreme clay courter. I said this to JadeFox and well.... he/she put their Nike's on and started runing like atrack star!!!!!!!!!!

Take Sampras @ Roland Garros
1992 QF Agassi
1993 QF Bruguera
1994 QF Courier
1996 QF Courier(after beating Bruguera)

Federer @ Roland Garros
2005 QF Hanescu
2006 QF Ancic
2007 QF Robredo

I mean be serious. If you can't see the point, you gotta be Stevie Wonder or something!!!!!!

Also Sampras has conquered Muster, Agassi, Bruguera, Courier and Kafelnikov on clay. Thomas, Sergi and JC right in RG.
Federer......
-Kuerten(the Bo jackson hipped version)
-Moya(at almost 30)
-Coria(who's been non the back of milk carton the last 3-4 yrs)
-Gaudio(the fact his name gets mentioned says a lot!!!)
-Ferrero(who got chicken pox and had done what since end of 2003??)
-Nadal(a tired one who played Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome, also some doubles, while Fed didn't pay Barcelona, and went out early in Rome... when Nadal was fully rested 3 weeks later in Paris what happened???)

Now I give Federer the nod on clay, but what does it say when Sampras has greater cnquests...yet inferior results?????
Food for thought. Federphiles you can do the dishes!!!!!

Yep, the clay court depth today is pathetic.   Nadal is still on his way to being one of the greatest all time clay courters probably, lack of competition or not it is hard to deny the record he is likely to have on clay.   However as for Federer he cruises to the finals on clay since there is nobody else there basically, all the players today are most comfortable on hard courts (a guy like Nadal being one of the rare exceptions) leading to a real lack of depth on both clay and grass (if you can even consider the current stuff grass), and then vs the only real challenge he faces on clay in Nadal he is almost always in the match, so it is not like he is without chances, but when it comes to crunch time he folds over like a flat pancake.   

It is how he performs vs Nadal on clay, and now you could add Djokovic on hard courts, that is going to be most telling to how people look at him when we are talking about the very top in history.  I say that since those are the only real legitimate challenges he faces, the rest are mainly snacks for Federer, and Roger has to atleast stand up to those few legitimate challengers per surface he faces, and show the balls to do it as Mats Wilander would put it, and so far he done pretty poorly in that regard.

Offline TennisVeritas

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2008, 02:08:53 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.

Well kittens I really believe this is not fair: You are taking the end of career results of Pete and then compare to an ongoing career by FED..From my point of view, at the same age the two careers are very similar even if the fact that FEd was able to have 5 Wimbledon in a row as well 4 USO it is a huge achievement..More, I really do not understand why you are not considering the N# weeks spent as N#1 of the ranking?

This is also a great result on FED current record..

So, IMO, both careers at the moment are very close, so I do not agree to tell that Pete has the edge in almost every important dep..But OK, it is my opinion.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 02:11:59 AM by TennisVeritas »
"The more you lose, the more they believe they can beat me. But believing is not enough, you still have to beat me" Roger Federer.

We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, we can only be wise with our own wisdom

Offline kittens25

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2008, 02:14:20 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.

Well kittens I really believe this is not fair: You are taking the end of career results of Pete and then compare to an ongoing career by FED..From my point of view, at the same age the two careers are very similar even if the fact that FEd was able to have 5 Wimbledon in a row as well 4 USO it is a huge achievement..More, I really do not understand why you are not considering the N# weeks spent as N#1 of the ranking?

This is also a great result on FED current record..So, IMO, both careers at the moment are very close, so I do not agree to tell that Pete has the edge in almost every important dep..But OK, it is my opinion.

Yes I do realize Federer's career is not over and he could achieve more in the future and probably will.  However alot of people are hyping Federer as the best ever NOW, they arent even saying when he retires, in the future, etc....some are hyping him that he is at this moment.   So in that context it is completely fair to look at what he has achieved now vs Sampras.    At this point in time is behind Sampras in almost every major category and vs weaker competition to boot, so at this point in time there should not be any talk of him being THE best ever.   One of the best yes, but not THE best, or regardless whether you consider Sampras the best ever or not, Federer has to be below him at this point IMO.

Offline TennisVeritas

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2008, 02:23:43 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.

Well kittens I really believe this is not fair: You are taking the end of career results of Pete and then compare to an ongoing career by FED..From my point of view, at the same age the two careers are very similar even if the fact that FEd was able to have 5 Wimbledon in a row as well 4 USO it is a huge achievement..More, I really do not understand why you are not considering the N# weeks spent as N#1 of the ranking?

This is also a great result on FED current record..So, IMO, both careers at the moment are very close, so I do not agree to tell that Pete has the edge in almost every important dep..But OK, it is my opinion.

Yes I do realize Federer's career is not over and he could achieve more in the future and probably will.  However alot of people are hyping Federer as the best ever NOW, they arent even saying when he retires, in the future, etc....some are hyping him that he is at this moment.   So in that context it is completely fair to look at what he has achieved now vs Sampras.    At this point in time is behind Sampras in almost every major category and vs weaker competition to boot, so at this point in time there should not be any talk of him being THE best ever.   One of the best yes, but not THE best, or regardless whether you consider Sampras the best ever or not, Federer has to be below him at this point IMO.

Ok: Fair points from you: I see..As usual we have simply to wait and see what FED will be able to achieve in (near) future (from my perspective a really great achievement will be already the 6 Wimbledon titles in a row, i.e. record in the most prestigious GS event)..

A part from that: You know that I disagree on today "weaker competition"..I do not want to re-start everything here: It is a matter of perspective..Simply , I do not see this business in the same way than you..

Finally, FED being the GOAT now: No, too early IMO..Wait and see and the final count will be done at the end of his career..Until then..He is already in the top league of great champions of our sport , nothing more nothing less..
 :)) :))
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 02:26:43 AM by TennisVeritas »
"The more you lose, the more they believe they can beat me. But believing is not enough, you still have to beat me" Roger Federer.

We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, we can only be wise with our own wisdom

Offline kittens25

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2008, 02:29:41 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.

Well kittens I really believe this is not fair: You are taking the end of career results of Pete and then compare to an ongoing career by FED..From my point of view, at the same age the two careers are very similar even if the fact that FEd was able to have 5 Wimbledon in a row as well 4 USO it is a huge achievement..More, I really do not understand why you are not considering the N# weeks spent as N#1 of the ranking?

This is also a great result on FED current record..So, IMO, both careers at the moment are very close, so I do not agree to tell that Pete has the edge in almost every important dep..But OK, it is my opinion.

Yes I do realize Federer's career is not over and he could achieve more in the future and probably will.  However alot of people are hyping Federer as the best ever NOW, they arent even saying when he retires, in the future, etc....some are hyping him that he is at this moment.   So in that context it is completely fair to look at what he has achieved now vs Sampras.    At this point in time is behind Sampras in almost every major category and vs weaker competition to boot, so at this point in time there should not be any talk of him being THE best ever.   One of the best yes, but not THE best, or regardless whether you consider Sampras the best ever or not, Federer has to be below him at this point IMO.

Ok: Fair points from you: I see..As usual we have simply to wait and see what FED will be able to achieve in (near) future (from my perspective a really great achievement will be already the 6 Wimbledon titles in a row, i.e. record in the most prestigious GS event)..

A part from that: You know that I disagree on today "weaker competition"..I do not want to re-start everything here: It is a matter of perspective..Simply , I do not see this business in the same way than you..

Finally, FED being the GOAT now: No, too early IMO..Wait and see and the final count will be done at the end of his career..Until then..He is already in the top league of great champions of our sport , nothing more nothing less..
 :)) :))

Fair enough.   All I will say is these next few years are crucial to how exactly he will be remembered.   

Offline TennisVeritas

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2008, 02:55:23 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.

Well kittens I really believe this is not fair: You are taking the end of career results of Pete and then compare to an ongoing career by FED..From my point of view, at the same age the two careers are very similar even if the fact that FEd was able to have 5 Wimbledon in a row as well 4 USO it is a huge achievement..More, I really do not understand why you are not considering the N# weeks spent as N#1 of the ranking?

This is also a great result on FED current record..So, IMO, both careers at the moment are very close, so I do not agree to tell that Pete has the edge in almost every important dep..But OK, it is my opinion.

Yes I do realize Federer's career is not over and he could achieve more in the future and probably will.  However alot of people are hyping Federer as the best ever NOW, they arent even saying when he retires, in the future, etc....some are hyping him that he is at this moment.   So in that context it is completely fair to look at what he has achieved now vs Sampras.    At this point in time is behind Sampras in almost every major category and vs weaker competition to boot, so at this point in time there should not be any talk of him being THE best ever.   One of the best yes, but not THE best, or regardless whether you consider Sampras the best ever or not, Federer has to be below him at this point IMO.

Ok: Fair points from you: I see..As usual we have simply to wait and see what FED will be able to achieve in (near) future (from my perspective a really great achievement will be already the 6 Wimbledon titles in a row, i.e. record in the most prestigious GS event)..

A part from that: You know that I disagree on today "weaker competition"..I do not want to re-start everything here: It is a matter of perspective..Simply , I do not see this business in the same way than you..

Finally, FED being the GOAT now: No, too early IMO..Wait and see and the final count will be done at the end of his career..Until then..He is already in the top league of great champions of our sport , nothing more nothing less..
 :)) :))

Fair enough.   All I will say is these next few years are crucial to how exactly he will be remembered.   

For sure man..Starting from this year RG/Wimbledon GS couple....At the contrary he should start to pay less attention to be always the No#1 in the ranking, i.e. he should start focusing in what mattes more for his final prestige, i.e. GS..

In terms of No of weeks as No#1 is already at a great (top) level IMO: Here , might be the advice of a trainer-part time coach- will be great: I really hope that Andre (who had a very good relationship with him) will be this person:

With Andre on board I really believe FED would be even better prepare for reaching his objectives. :)~ :)~ More, Andre game share some similarities with Djoko's Tennis, IMO: Maily I saw both being great serve (agressive) retrival, so Andre would be an help for FED on that  as well.. ;-() :)~
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 03:46:22 AM by TennisVeritas »
"The more you lose, the more they believe they can beat me. But believing is not enough, you still have to beat me" Roger Federer.

We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, we can only be wise with our own wisdom

Offline Swish

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 10213
  • Gender: Male
  • How Many Times?
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2008, 05:18:15 AM »
I didn't want to jump in on this one but the bait looked too good.  :)

I have to put Fed as the best now, he's got enough GS's but what I'm looking is his level of play. He's played better, moved better and controlled the court like no one I've ever seen. I don't know how long he has to do it to convince everybody.

So many of the top retired players have the same opinion, how can you argue with that?

I'm not alone in my assessment and have some great players on my side.

Those greats don't talk much about the strength of era, they talk about level of play which is the correct way in my opinion of evaluating the greats.

About Fed not being able to knock Nadal off on clay, Nadal's that good, the best ever in my opinion on clay. Again, looking at his level of play.

I have respect for all the other greats, but I have to pick someone, and that's Fed.

 :king:



« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 05:22:06 AM by swish »

Offline alchemist

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1493
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2008, 07:31:50 AM »
Here is my comparision:

Sampras 14 slams vs Federer 12 slams
Sampras 7 Wimbledons vs Federer 5 Wimbledons
Sampras 6 year end #1s vs Federer 4 year end #1s
Sampras 5 U.S Opens vs Federer 4 U.S Opens
Sampras no career slam vs Federer no career slam
Federer best year 3 slams wins vs Sampras best year 2 slam wins

Sampras at this point has the edge in almost every important department.

Well kittens I really believe this is not fair: You are taking the end of career results of Pete and then compare to an ongoing career by FED..From my point of view, at the same age the two careers are very similar even if the fact that FEd was able to have 5 Wimbledon in a row as well 4 USO it is a huge achievement..More, I really do not understand why you are not considering the N# weeks spent as N#1 of the ranking?

This is also a great result on FED current record..So, IMO, both careers at the moment are very close, so I do not agree to tell that Pete has the edge in almost every important dep..But OK, it is my opinion.

Yes I do realize Federer's career is not over and he could achieve more in the future and probably will.  However alot of people are hyping Federer as the best ever NOW, they arent even saying when he retires, in the future, etc....some are hyping him that he is at this moment.   So in that context it is completely fair to look at what he has achieved now vs Sampras.    At this point in time is behind Sampras in almost every major category and vs weaker competition to boot, so at this point in time there should not be any talk of him being THE best ever.   One of the best yes, but not THE best, or regardless whether you consider Sampras the best ever or not, Federer has to be below him at this point IMO.

Ok: Fair points from you: I see..As usual we have simply to wait and see what FED will be able to achieve in (near) future (from my perspective a really great achievement will be already the 6 Wimbledon titles in a row, i.e. record in the most prestigious GS event)..

A part from that: You know that I disagree on today "weaker competition"..I do not want to re-start everything here: It is a matter of perspective..Simply , I do not see this business in the same way than you..

Finally, FED being the GOAT now: No, too early IMO..Wait and see and the final count will be done at the end of his career..Until then..He is already in the top league of great champions of our sport , nothing more nothing less..
 :)) :))

Fair enough.   All I will say is these next few years are crucial to how exactly he will be remembered.   

For sure man..Starting from this year RG/Wimbledon GS couple....At the contrary he should start to pay less attention to be always the No#1 in the ranking, i.e. he should start focusing in what mattes more for his final prestige, i.e. GS..

In terms of No of weeks as No#1 is already at a great (top) level IMO: Here , might be the advice of a trainer-part time coach- will be great: I really hope that Andre (who had a very good relationship with him) will be this person:

With Andre on board I really believe FED would be even better prepare for reaching his objectives. :)~ :)~ More, Andre game share some similarities with Djoko's Tennis, IMO: Maily I saw both being great serve (agressive) retrival, so Andre would be an help for FED on that  as well.. ;-() :)~


Agassi would be an excellent coach for any player.  His return of serve/backhand/longetivity on tour were all amazing, possibly best ever.  I also value his opinions a lot.  The guy is an all time great and I consider him the link between the Pete and Fed generations. 
"We've been stuck in a locker room for nine hours a day and he's been chilling out, maybe taking the double decker bus tour of London."

Offline tennisfan78

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 4634
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sampras and Federer comparison
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2008, 05:57:00 PM »
Tennisfan, I wasn't accusing you of trying to start a goat debate.  Hopefully, I didn't come across that way. Anyway, something that really stood out to me was their record in 5 setters so far.  Pete was 25-9 and so far Fed is 11-10.  Everything else is very close in each one's respective careers.  The biggest reason I can think of for Pete having a better 5 set record is that power is usually the last thing that goes away in a match or career.  Also, Fed, in his first couple years, wasn't the same person who systematically trains as hard and efficiently as he has done for the past couple years and still does.  Anyone else have any ideas about their 5 set records? 

Hey buddy, no problems. I know that you weren't accusing me of anything. :H