Federer - really the greatest ever?

[Mike Rotchtickles]

You do make a valid point.
Alright then, how do you feel Sampras and Federer stacked up against each other on their more dominant surfaces of hard and grass? I see them pretty much dead even, and so that's why I tend to view their clay court records as being the deal clincher.

[Rob ITST]

I think the faster the court, the more it would favor Sampras. The slower, the more it would favor Federer.

I saw it broken down like this once: Aussie Open - Fed, Roland Garros - Fed, Wimbledon - Sampras, U.S. Open - Sampras.

But it's two different players from two different eras, you just can't really compare them.

[Saarbrigga]

While he has won all four, Pete too could have won the French in '96 had he not gotten a stomach virus. Don't forget, he lost in the semis but because he was ill

Just look which players were in the semifinal at that year:

Sampras, Kafelnikov, Stich and Rosset. All of them are more grass or hardcourt specialists.
Stich could beat Thomas Muster very easy (in 4 sets), Sampras defeated Courier. Very strange, but just if you don t take a closer look:

The May and June of 1996 were very hot, any day almost 30 degree Celsius (around 90 Fahrenheid). The courts were faster than ever before or since, it was more hardcourt than claycourt Tennis.

Pete vs. Roger on any surface:

AO (slow hardcourt) -> Advantage Federer
FO (Clay) -> Adv. Federer
Wimbledon (Grass) -> Adv. Sampras
UO (fast hardcourt) -> draw

And also you have to notice the speed change in Wimbledon. Until 2004 it was the fastest court on the planet, even before the US Open, but since 2005 it s slower.
Federer won 2003 and 2004 by playing serve and volley all the time, but had to change his game to win it from the baseline since 2005 because the courts were to slow for S&V.

Could Nadal beat Sampras in Wimbledon? At the court speed before 2005, never (and i don t think he would beat Federer)! But since 2005 at lower speed, yes.

[venom400]

You have to be careful to call Fed the GOAT.

While he has won all four, Pete too could have won the French in '96 had he not gotten a stomach virus. Don't forget, he lost in the semis but because he was ill

This is a bunch of B.S .

Either you win or you didn't if you lost because of a stomach virus on the SEMIS then it's as good as saying that Fed should had won Wimblenton last year because he was 2 points away.

[jayl0ve]

Ok, so the courts being barely slower (because IMO grass courts are still fast) have completely prevented Federer from playing serve and volley tennis? We measure how slow/fast a court is by how much the ball slows down after it bounces, right? A difference of probably 2 mph in ball deceleration is holding Federer back?? Come on. He himself even said that he stopped serve and volleying because he didn't like the element of chance, he didn't like the fact that returners could hit a lucky return and the point is immediately over.

[NARCOSIS2009]

These topics are sooo stupid, especially when people start bringing in Sampras.

Federer would beat Sampras on ANY surface (both at prime) sorry to burst peoples bubbles, People that bring sampras into the equation, have forgotten just how good Fed was when he was playing his best tennis, they compare him to how he is playing now. Also Sampras on grass vs Federer, people say but sampras had the best serve, IMO serves dont win matchs, it has been proven MANY times that fed just kills people with big serves (Roddick, Karlovic, Ancic, etc) Fed beats sampras in every other department (dont know about volley Sampras came in alot, Fed doesnt but when he comes in he was really effective(from prime)). I really see no point in whos the greatest of all time... blah blah.

And im not a "fan" of Federer.

So hate all you want at this comment.

[jayl0ve]

Soo you say the topic is stupid, but then you kinda fuel the fire by saying that 'Federer would beat Sampras on ANY surface'....

[NARCOSIS2009]

Soo you say the topic is stupid, but then you kinda fuel the fire by saying that 'Federer would beat Sampras on ANY surface'....

Well its stupid if you look at how they play and the stats.
People put sampras above fed in wimbledon why? cause he won 7 titles? feds 27/28, sampras won his last wimbledon when he was 30, so still time for him to catch up.

Sampras's serve makes him wimbledons best player ever, i dont think so. Fed is better in every other department.

Fed and Sampras played each other once in the ATP, Fed winning it in 4 sets (but, oh yeah Sampras wasnt at prime!!) IMO neither was Fed.

Also the whole tied 14 slams each, If Fed didnt happen to have the greatest clay courter of all time playing, then fed would be sitting with alot more slams.

There should be no question about whos the greatest.
Well ive made my point lol.

[Rob ITST]

Well ive made my point lol.

But your point was wrong.

And in the one match they played, Federer beat Sampras in 5 sets, not 4.

Again, you just can't compare them because they didn't play at the same time - different opponents, equipment, training, etc. I also doubt you really saw much of Sampras at his prime - you're what, 18 years old? So you would have been like 5-7 years old when he played his best.

Anyway, I'm not saying Fed isn't the best, he probably is. But if he is better than Sampras was, it's not by much.

[NARCOSIS2009]

Well ive made my point lol.

But your point was wrong.

And in the one match they played, Federer beat Sampras in 5 sets, not 4.

Again, you just can't compare them because they didn't play at the same time - different opponents, equipment, training, etc. I also doubt you really saw much of Sampras at his prime - you're what, 18 years old? So you would have been like 5-7 years old when he played his best.

Anyway, I'm not saying Fed isn't the best, he probably is. But if he is better than Sampras was, it's not by much.

Ive watched matches of sampras, When i watched the stuff i was like hes boring, not as talented as sum , but played very effective tennis. Just Fed does things better.

Plus i expected this americanised bias opinion from you Rob being he was "american" although hes basically greek. Same with your "if Roddick could serve and volley he would have a few wimbledon titles" yeah if Federer didnt exsist my friend.

[NARCOSIS2009]

*Awaits Robs huge post proving everything i said is wrong*

[Rob ITST]

I take a lot of offense to that statement. I could care less if someone is American. Federer is my current favorite player, I don't really like Roddick too much, never cared for Agassi, Courrier, or Chang. In fact, most of my favorite players are not American, such as: Guga, Philippoussis, Krajicek, Becker, Henman.... Sampras is my favorite for the same reason I like Federer - I appreciate greatness.

You might like or hate someone because of their nationality, but I don't.

[Yippie-Caiay]

chill out both of you...comparing players from different eras, is another "never ending story" for gods sake!

federer is the best and thats it!!!!




just kidding, i would say that cause im a fed fan...

if someone thinks sampras was better, and another one thinks that fed was better, a never ending story is created, cause no one can prove to the other that he is right...

btw, the nationality thing was stupid...

btw number 2, sampras was always a s&v player, while fed is all around, thats why probably it is so hard to say who is the best at playing tennis...you may say fed is great at fh bh vl srv...and sampras depended on serve and volley...(altough he had grat fh too)...

with that said,

ive made my point

[jayl0ve]

Most of us here in the United States are not wildly nationalistic/patriotic, I don't know many people who would favor anything or anybody just because it's 'American'.

[djarvik]

"Federer - really the greatest ever?"

There can never be "greatest ever". It's just not possible.

These threads lead nowhere, there will never be an agreement on this issue, even if Fed wins another 10 majors.