Sampras was better than Federer

SpeedFreak

SpeedFreak

SpeedFreak

Soldato
Joined
14 Nov 2002
Posts
7,679
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?
 
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.
 
Formula One is a bit different as there can only be one champion in a year and the car is a big part. It could be argued that he wasn't. He lost a tight championship to Hill, Villeneuve, Hakinen and Alonso and when he won they were mostly easy wins.

If you never reach your peak you cannot be the best. Federer drops very few sets, but it is inconcievable that even at his absolute best he is significantly better than Sampras at his peak. A little maybe, but massively, no. If he is not pushed to his limits by his peers, he will never reach his peak. That would be a waste of his talent as he has the ability to be a better player than sampras, but he isn't yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom