Federer or Sampras?

[HughJass]

that was the thing about him the second serve was as powerful as the first, I grew up watching him I used to love the Agassi/Sampras battles.

yeah me to,as a brit i used to love the henman battles two serve and volley players duking it out and from what i remember also the becker rivalry and the rafter battles

[hayZ]

Federer.

On the grass of today: Federer would have the advantage 60/40
On the 90's Grass (with the lighter balls): Sampras would have the advantage 60/40
On Clay: Not even close, Federer destroys him. Sampras' backhand was exposed on this surface and his stamina is not on the level of Federers (due to some illness he has allegedly).
On Slow hard (Australian Open for e.g.): Federer has the advantage because the serve bounces a bit higher and the surface is slower which nullifys Sampras' serve A BIT...don't get me wrong it's still very potent.
On fast hard (Us open): Tight affair but I'd give it to Sampras'...just about. Federer loves the US Open surface because of the low bounce and the speed but Sampras' game on it was amazing.
Indoor: I honestly think Federer would win. He is not as good when it's windy and I mean watching some games of him in 2006 during his indoor season is mind-blowing how well he played. Though once again, it's a toss-up.

I think the match-up is very dependant on the surface, anything slow to medium favours Federer which is pretty much 90% of the courts on the tour at the moment and the fast courts favour Sampras (USOpen/Cinci/Wimbledon).

Federer has a better forehand, backhand, more fit, quicker and better shot-making ability. Sampras has a better serve and a better net game but Federers passing game in his peak was amazing. Look what a GREEN Federer did to Sampras in Wimbledon 2001.

Federer is just so well-rounded and such a natural talent/athlete. I don't think we will see anyone like him ever again. You watch any of his matches from his prime and you KNEW he would do something outrageous every match and he was so consistent, still is. At the age of 31, which is ANCIENT in tennis terms probably like 36 in Boxing terms. Tennis players peak usually around 22-25 and then it's downhill from there. Federer peaked at age 24 (2006) and played his best tourny at Australian Open 2007 (still aged 24) after that he started slowing down slowly but he remains in great shape, has adapted a bit by not keeping the rallies as long and going to the net a bit more also using the dropshot more combined with the amount of talent he possesses has allowed him to remain at the top.

[4Corners]

Sampras was the f**king man, but I think Federer is greater.

[TensionKiller]

In today's age, and grass courts, sampras game would be less effective. sampras had it easier to get the finals. Federer has so much control of rallies in his prime. his foot speed and touch we're amazing. his serve is hard to read and very good, but his returns, his shot selection, pace and touch are excellent.


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[El Fenomeno]

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic > Sampras.

I went there.

[hayZ]

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic > Sampras.

I went there.

Nadal would suffer playing on the courts Sampras played on week in week out. He would rule clay though. Him vs Kuerten would have been great to watch at RG. Djokovic would do well though. Federer would still be immense. Racket technology has also changed as well, giving the modern player an advantage.

[damuttz112]

Sorry man, the fact that Federer gets his ass handed too him by Nadal just doesn't sit well.

[hayZ]

Sorry man, the fact that Federer gets his ass handed too him by Nadal just doesn't sit well.

If you think that is bad, Nadal would execute Sampras if they played in todays conditions. He targets Federers ONE weakness, that weakness is still better than like 90% of the tours strength, hitting it high/plenty of spin to his backhand. He isn't really as effective with it OFF clay and OFF really slow high bouncing courts like Australian Open/IW/Miami. Federers backhand is better than Sampras' in every way, their forehands are more tightly contested but Federer just a bit more variety with his with more topspin which relates to all surfaces.

Federer has also beaten Nadal on every surface and is unbeaten against him in the World Tour Finals (four times). Federer has also bageled him on EVERY surface, something which Nadal only did once (Clay) when Federer was playing pretty poorly due to mono. Nadal is a TOUGH match up for him but it's not like Federer never beats him. At the end of the day it would have been A LOT closer if Nadal was good enough to reach finals on all surfaces when Federer was at his peak during 2004-2007.

[damuttz112]

I really think because of that weakness, Federer mentally cracks against Nadal. I'm mean he had great form going into the Aus Open then completely played shit when he met Nadal.

[TensionKiller]

I really think because of that weakness, Federer mentally cracks against Nadal. I'm mean he had great form going into the Aus Open then completely played shit when he met Nadal.

The players are much fitter today. They hit faster and getting into a final is tougher.

Leyton Hewitt kinda changed things when fast legs and agility helped win matches. The players travel much faster across the court today.