Sampras was better than Federer

Soldato
Joined
14 Nov 2002
Posts
7,671
Location
Under the Hill
After the thread last week about Federer, I thought I'd start a more direct discussion. Having a good conversation with my brother last week, we got chatting about the Sampras win over Federer. We then started chatting about who was the better of the two.

Eventually, we concluded Sampras, regardless of Grand Slam wins etc. This was mainly to do with the depth of strength in the men's game throughout the 90s.
Federer has had just Nadal, a claycourt specialist, pushing him thus far in his career. Roddick and Hewitt came and went quickly, otherwise, I can think of no other real challengers to him.

Sampras had Kuerten, Moya, Courier, Agassi, Hewitt (at his peak), Rafter, Ivanisavic, Becker (just past his peak), Marat Safin, Stefan Edberg, Kafelnikov, Henman.

Obviously Federer's career is nowhere near over, but unless Djokovic and Murray improve and really put pressure on him soon, where is the challenge coming from?
 
I can see the argument but I would have to say that Federer looks to be a more complete player than Sampras, as is often said you can only beat those in front of you so even if there is less strength in depth Federer has beaten everyone he has faced even if it has to be on a rematch like Nadal.

Sampras is/was a great player and I wouldn't say that Federer has surpassed him yet but I think it is almost inevitable that he will. It is always difficult to judge between generations - techniques, materials and skill/fitness levels improve but for whatever it is worth I can see Federer getting better. I'm not sure that even Sampras would disagree that Federer is probably the more technically gifted player and perhaps the most gifted we've yet seen, technical brilliance doesn't always make for the best sportsman, application and heart also count but Federer has them both. I guess we'll have to wait for the end of his career for the final reckoning though. :)
 
Sampras could play all courts too. Federer is pretty much a grass specialist.
Wrong on both counts. Sampras never made a French Open final whereas Federer has already made two. He's far better on clay than Sampras ever was and his record at the US and Australian Opens are proof enough that he's far from a grass court specialist.
 
Sampras could play all courts too. Federer is pretty much a grass specialist.

oh dear :eek:

2 finals and 1 semi final at Roland Garros (Grand Slam on clay in case you didn't know), countless hard court tournements and several on clay! Including beating the best clay courter ever.

Sampras never even got close to the French Open. Federer would've won it 3 times if it wasn't for a certain Mr Nadal.

Obviously Federer's career is nowhere near over, but unless Djokovic and Murray improve and really put pressure on him soon, where is the challenge coming from?

err... David Nalbandian anyone? :eek: - This guy is the best player in the world right now. Although I don't expect it to last long.

Also, when Sampras was around the game was faster. The ball was smaller and had more air in it, that's why serve and volley players were everywhere. These days I can only count 5 SV's, everyone is a power baseliner (Djoko, Roddick) or retreiver (Nadal). Federer is an all court player.
 
Last edited:
IMO it's almost impossible to declare one is better than the other as they have competed in different eras, although Nokkon saying Federer is a grass court specialist when you consider he has been in 9 other Grand Slam finals, winning 7, is laughable - it's worth noting that 50% of Sampras' Grand Slam victories came on grass.


As an aside, Rod Laver's 17 Grand Slam finals (winning 11) were a pretty impressive mix on all surfaces.
 
didnt a 36 year old sampras beat federer recently ?

i know it was a series of 3 matches and sampra lost the first two, but for someone who ha snot played on the major scene for 5 years to come out and beat federer in his prime is a fantastic achievement imho.
 
Just to reiterate, Federer is an all court player and Sampras was a serve and volley player. Federer's game is much more expansive. He'll surpass Sampras easily IMO.
 
the question is though will it be down to skill or lack of serious oppostition ?

I dont really know the answer as i aint watched tennis in a long while however the op seems to suggest that the competition now is nothing like what was about when sampras was in his prime ?
 
Federer is more adaptable in certain situations, but, as we have seen in many sports, you are only as good as your opponents. Federer is certainly stronger on clay than Sampras was. For a serve volleyer to win on clay is nigh impossible, it takes too long to get to the net.

Nalbandian is a decent shout, but he was only on fire for the last 3 tournaments of the year and has had enough time to establish himself so far in his career.

Nadal is Federer's nearest opponent, but is imo similar to Kuerten. Both are clay specialists, however Nadal is a little more adept on the harder courts.

If federer was playing from 92-98, he, would have picked up 6 majors at most. Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Moya and Edberg would have provided a much steeper challenge in the slams.
 
How can you measure it? That he's so much better than everyone else is the only real yardstick :)

but thats open to debate isnt it ?

take boxing for example is lewis a great ? or was it simply that he was the best of the bunch at the time ? I personally feel he was just the best of a bad bunch however others will argue different.

Really you can only imho argue greatness if the people you were fighting / playing against were great, if they were mediocre garbage then realistically you were the best of a bad bunch.

Federer is head and shoulders above everyone around now, but would he have been head and shoulders above those that were around when Sampras was playing ? thats a debateable one.
 
Really you can only imho argue greatness if the people you were fighting / playing against were great, if they were mediocre garbage then realistically you were the best of a bad bunch.

So if Mohammed Ali had been around today he could never be considered a "great" because the heavyweights at the time are poor?
 
Because he would have still been the same fighter, regardless of who he was fighting.

no no he wouldnt.

he would have knocked them all out in 30 seconds, because he was that much better, however he would never have been tested, it would have been like watching ordinary harrison or khan is there first 5 fights for an entire career.

he probably wouldnt have even been the same fighter, if you can win that easily you wouldnt go on to improve, change styles etc etc, if Ali was around today he would have never hit the heights he did imho, especially in a sport like boxing where you are who you fight.
 
Back
Top Bottom