Pete Sampras vs Roger Federer

**ttwarrior1** · 02-01-10, 02:13 PM

federer at his best almost got beat by a retired sampras. Odds are neither would lose their serve or at least sampras wouldnt.

5 tiebreakers likely, except on clay

**revnecro1273** · 02-01-10, 02:26 PM

federer

**Fthenorm** · 02-01-10, 03:58 PM

Do you really think a gameplan against Pete in the final of a grandslam would be to hit to one side of the court because the groundstroke on that side is a decisive weakness? There was no such strategy against Pete. I believe most people (NOT ALL) replying to this discussion are much more familiar with tennis today and not tennis of the past 15 or 20 years.

**Boner_18** · 02-01-10, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Fthenorm

Do you really think a gameplan against Pete in the final of a grandslam would be to hit to one side of the court because the groundstroke on that side is a decisive weakness? There was no such strategy against Pete. I believe most people (NOT ALL) replying to this discussion are much more familiar with tennis today and not tennis of the past 15 or 20 years.

Are you implying that players didn't have a strategy to attack Sampras' game? Also, how does the fact that this focusing on Fed's weak backhand (a relative description) has not worked factor in to the calculous?

**Fthenorm** · 02-02-10, 01:17 AM

The second sentence I do not understand. My point is that Sampras did not have any glaring weaknesses that every tennis fan on earth is aware of.

**tltaylor89** · 02-02-10, 01:19 AM

Sampras would win outright he has the power plus precision to geet the shot where he wants it he still owns grass.

**Boner_18** · 02-02-10, 07:45 AM

Opponents played to Sampras' backhand as well. The point of the second sentence is to point out that just because players and fans call something a weakness it is relative to the rest of Feds game. Simply calling something a weakness doesn't make it so, exploiting the so called weakness must cause the player to lose.

**greekgod** · 02-20-10, 01:52 AM

Sampras would pull ahead. I feel they would be tight matches like agassi and pete had, but pete would come out on top in the majority of matches. My support is that pete came out of retirement after not having played in roughly 3 years and trained in a short time to face off with federer in the southeast asian tournaments. Granted pete lost two of the three matches BUT he beat a man that NO ONE in professional tennis had beaten aside from Nadal at the French. I think that says a lot when a man comes out of retirement and beats the proclaimed "greatest player ever". In support of Pete's loss to federer in wimbledon 01, Pete was in his 30's and contemplating retirement, he wasn't as hungry as federer was. It was the samething with Pete and Becker and someone will do the samething to federer. In conclusion I say Federer beats Pete 90% of time on clay, unless Pete loses the lead tape on his racket and adjusts to hitting 30+ balls during a point. On grass, I give Pete the majority 75% and on hard court 60% Pete. Pete does not have a weakness in his game except the inability to stay at the baseline and slide around hitting nearly countless balls at the French. Everyone says Federer can volley but he doesn't need to becuase he's that good. Well why didn't he volley during the final matches against Nadal in 07 and 08 or in the Australian in 09 or in the US Open in 09? The reason he didn't volley is simple... He can't do it effectively. Had he tried coming to the net he would have lost those matches much quicker. One his serve isn't big enough to set him up to come to the net, second he doesn't have the approach shot to work his way to the net. Watch Pete approach and you see a master at work, even watch Becker or Edberg. Know one knows how to volley anymore but this is a topic for another forum.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback

**Jive** · 02-20-10, 04:27 AM

Pete beat Fed at least twice last year indoors in exhibitions that I watched on Tennis Channel; the old man can still play. I think it would have been great to see them go toe-to-toe in their prime. Pete is too old now. He can occasionally best Fed in these exhibitions, as he has shown, because they are one match deals. If Pete had to play a match before facing Fed, like in a tournament, Fed would crush him.

Overall, I like Pete better but I think Fed is the best player ever; he is certainly the best in my lifetime. The guy can do absolutely everything well. He is incredible. Pete had a lot of weapons, but Fed seemingly has EVERY weapon. I wish we would have a chance to see him have a true rival; thought that would be Rafa but now he can't stay healthy.

**Jive** · 02-20-10, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by greekgod

Know one knows how to volley anymore but this is a topic for another forum.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback

Sad because that is such a beautiful part of the game.

**hoopster42** · 02-20-10, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by jjgold

Close

Fed is a better baseliner
Fed better on clay

Sampras much better server
Sampras a much better volly player
Sampras less chance to get tight

Hardcourts/Grass Sampras wins 60% of their matches

i agree 100% w/this analysis. sampras's serve wouldve been impossible for fed to break more than 1 or 2 times a match and sampras's return of serve much better than ppl think back in the day. if a pure baseliner with a only a decent serve like nadal could own federer in grand slams, then a serve and volleyer who hit the ball hard and w/action like sampras woulda given federer hell. believe me.

**hoopster42** · 02-20-10, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by greekgod

Sampras would pull ahead. I feel they would be tight matches like agassi and pete had, but pete would come out on top in the majority of matches. My support is that pete came out of retirement after not having played in roughly 3 years and trained in a short time to face off with federer in the southeast asian tournaments. Granted pete lost two of the three matches BUT he beat a man that NO ONE in professional tennis had beaten aside from Nadal at the French. I think that says a lot when a man comes out of retirement and beats the proclaimed "greatest player ever". In support of Pete's loss to federer in wimbledon 01, Pete was in his 30's and contemplating retirement, he wasn't as hungry as federer was. It was the samething with Pete and Becker and someone will do the samething to federer. In conclusion I say Federer beats Pete 90% of time on clay, unless Pete loses the lead tape on his racket and adjusts to hitting 30+ balls during a point. On grass, I give Pete the majority 75% and on hard court 60% Pete. Pete does not have a weakness in his game except the inability to stay at the baseline and slide around hitting nearly countless balls at the French. Everyone says Federer can volley but he doesn't need to becuase he's that good. Well why didn't he volley during the final matches against Nadal in 07 and 08 or in the Australian in 09 or in the US Open in 09? The reason he didn't volley is simple... He can't do it effectively. Had he tried coming to the net he would have lost those matches much quicker. One his serve isn't big enough to set him up to come to the net, second he doesn't have the approach shot to work his way to the net. Watch Pete approach and you see a master at work, even watch Becker or Edberg. Know one knows how to volley anymore but this is a topic for another forum.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback

excellent freaking breakdown. i think pete's serve and volley gm would be the difference

**ttwarrior1** · 02-20-10, 06:24 PM

id take lendl with the new technology over both