PDA

View Full Version : Better player at 28-29 years old towards end of career. Fed or Sampras?


Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-08-2009, 07:19 AM
Who in your opinion has been the more deadly and better player at around 28-29 years of age when reaching near the end of their careers or primes. Was it Sampras circa 99-00 or Fed circa 08-09 thus far. Fed regained the Number 1 in 09 at 28 years of age. Pete lost his Number 1 spot in 99 to agassi though many feel Sampras was still the best player destroying Andre at wimbeldon, didnt play the USO and beating Agassi at the YEC

TMF
11-08-2009, 07:32 AM
Federer is better than Sampras since the beginning of their age at 22 and up to the present time(28 yrs old). His records speak volumes.

We will have to wait and see starting 2010. Since Sampras only won 2 more slams starting 2000, I expect Roger to do better since he is a better player(barring from injury).

zagor
11-08-2009, 07:37 AM
So far Fed has the edge,won 2 slams to Pete's 1,we'll see how 2010 goes.

Carsomyr
11-08-2009, 07:43 AM
Federer is better right now than Sampras was in 1999 - but I don't think he will be in two years; Sampras had a better overall service game, and he didn't rely on lateral movement as much as Fed does.

boss-man-boss
11-08-2009, 07:44 AM
Who in your opinion has been the more deadly and better player at around 28-29 years of age when reaching near the end of their careers or primes. Was it Sampras circa 99-00 or Fed circa 08-09 thus far. Fed regained the Number 1 in 09 at 28 years of age. Pete lost his Number 1 spot in 99 to agassi though many feel Sampras was still the best player destroying Andre at wimbeldon, didnt play the USO and beating Agassi at the YEC

Hello GameSampras

TMF
11-08-2009, 07:55 AM
So far Fed has the edge,won 2 slams to Pete's 1,we'll see how 2010 goes.

Actually, their prime starting at 1993/2003 SW19 to 1999/2009(current time), Roger won 15GS to Pete's 11. In addition, Roger won much more MS, and a tremendous run at RG where Pete was a non factor.

Gorecki
11-08-2009, 08:00 AM
Hello GameSampras

Hello yourself whoever you used to be before getting banned....

Gorecki
11-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Federer is better than Sampras since the beginning of their age at 22 and up to the present time(28 yrs old). His records speak volumes.

We will have to wait and see starting 2010. Since Sampras only won 2 more slams starting 2000, I expect Roger to do better since he is a better player(barring from injury).

but how many slams did fed have at 19.... you know... before 22?

zagor
11-08-2009, 08:14 AM
Actually, their prime starting at 1993/2003 SW19 to 1999/2009(current time), Roger won 15GS to Pete's 11. In addition, Roger won much more MS, and a tremendous run at RG where Pete was a non factor.

Thread title was asking about 28-29 not their whole freakin career.Pete turned 28 in '99 and Fed this year,so far Fed has 2 slams to Pete's 1,we'll see how 2010 goes for Fed so we can compare them more(Pete won one slam in 2000,he defended his Wimbledon title against Rafter in the final).

TMF
11-08-2009, 08:32 AM
but how many slams did fed have at 19.... you know... before 22?

I'm not denying Pete wasn't a better player at the younger age, but when both hit their stride in 1993/2003, Federer became a better player from then on.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-08-2009, 09:55 AM
Im not necessarily going by achievements in this regard.. Just who you feel was the deadlier, better player at their respective ages is all.

aphex
11-08-2009, 10:59 AM
Hello GameSampras

Im not necessarily going by achievements in this regard.. Just who you feel was the deadlier, better player at their respective ages is all.

unfortunately, time away from TW didn't do you any good GAMESAMPRAS---
you're as delusional as ever...

sampras' best ever year was worse than federer's 2009...

AAAA
11-08-2009, 11:22 AM
Better player at 28-29 years old towards end of career. Fed or Sampras?

In 1999 Sampras's record in the slams was
Aus Open : DNS*
FO: 2nd round
Wimbeldon : Won
USO : DNS*

Fed's record 2009 at the same age has been
Aus Open : lost in final in 5 sets
FO: Won
Wimbeldon : Won
USO : lost in final in 5 sets

So when it mattered most Sampras may have been 'deadlier' for a few fleeting moments during the year but he definately wasn't keeping pace with Federer in terms of durability, consistency and results wise.


* Did Not Start

Tennis_Monk
11-08-2009, 11:51 AM
I guess we got to have some new categories. Federer is pretty much dominating everything.

I suggest very soon we have threads like ' who is better player at 28 yrs 3 month 4 days old' .

TheFifthSet
11-08-2009, 11:56 AM
sampras' best ever year was worse than federer's 2009...

Sampras was better in '93-'95, and perhaps even '97, than Federer in '09.

Matt H.
11-08-2009, 11:56 AM
Fed turned 28 in August....so all he has is a runner-up finish at the Open and a Cincy Masters title.

MuseFan
11-08-2009, 12:03 PM
Sampras was better in '93-'95, and perhaps even '97, than Federer in '09.

And Sampras' best can't touch Fed's 4th best year(2007). Then we're left with the "god years" of 2004-2006.

TheFifthSet
11-08-2009, 12:10 PM
And Sampras' best can't touch Fed's 4th best year(2007). Then we're left with the "god years" of 2004-2006.

It's debatable, but Sampras was deadly that year. '07 Fed was better on clay, but '94 Sampras was better on grass and HC.

GustafsonFanatic
11-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Sampras was 28 in 1999, and 29 in 2000. Federer is still more dominant at 28. We'll see next year when he's 29.

aphex
11-08-2009, 01:28 PM
Sampras was better in '93-'95, and perhaps even '97, than Federer in '09.

oh really? i don't remember sampras making 4 slam finals any of those years.

in fact i don't remember sampras ever getting more than 2 slams in a year. ever.

in fact, sampras's best year would be about federer's about 6th best.
that's how much better federer is.

TheFifthSet
11-08-2009, 01:34 PM
oh really? i don't remember sampras making 4 slam finals any of those years.

in fact i don't remember sampras ever getting more than 2 slams in a year. ever.


so by that logic would you say federer in '09 was better than nadal in '08? ridiculous. both won two slams -- and sampras also won other significant tournaments. to me the 4 slam finals is negated by the fact that sampras won more events.

also, his form was waaay more impressive at ao/wimby '94 (or uso/wimby '93/95, for that matter.)

IvanAndreevich
11-08-2009, 01:54 PM
Hello GameSampras

I am assuming you are another banned member? Because GameSampras was banned way before you were registered. Too dumb...

Cyan
11-08-2009, 03:20 PM
Sampras was the better player when young and I think Sampras will also be the better player when older... Fed the better player in the prime years.

zagor
11-08-2009, 03:35 PM
It's debatable, but Sampras was deadly that year. '07 Fed was better on clay, but '94 Sampras was better on grass and HC.

Highly debatable,Fed won AO without dropping a set,won USO with dropping 2 sets and won Cinncinati and aside from the Gonzo match crushed everyone at TMC(including Nadal)while Sampras while winning AO(in much less impressive fashion than Fed as he was pushed in several matches)and Miami+IW double lost in the 4th round at USO to Yzaga,he also won TMC.So Sampras edge lies in winning one more HC masters than Fed while Fed's edge is in winning USO(while Pete lost in the 4th round)and winning AO in a more impressive fashion,I'll personally still take 2007 Fed on HC over Pete comfortably.

On grass I agree Pete was more impressive in 1994 than Fed in 2007.

TheFifthSet
11-08-2009, 03:40 PM
Highly debatable,Fed won AO without dropping a set,won USO with dropping 2 sets and won Cinncinati and aside from the Gonzo match crushed everyone at TMC(including Nadal)while Sampras while winning AO(in much less impressive fashion than Fed as he was pushed in several matches)and Miami+IW double lost in the 4th round at USO to Yzaga,he also won TMC.So Sampras edge lies in winning one more HC masters than Fed while Fed's edge is in winning USO(while Pete lost in the 4th round)and winning AO in a more impressive fashion,I'll personally still take 2007 Fed on HC over Pete comfortably.

On grass I agree Pete was more impressive in 1994 than Fed in 2007.

I'd say it's pretty close. In terms of results I would go with Federer, but I think in terms of sheer dominance Sampras had the slight edge simply because Fed had so many bad losses on HC that year. Either way it's close, but on grass Sampras was CLEARLY better that year.

zagor
11-08-2009, 03:50 PM
I'd say it's pretty close. In terms of results I would go with Federer, but I think in terms of sheer dominance Sampras had the slight edge simply because Fed had so many bad losses on HC that year. Either way it's close, but on grass Sampras was CLEARLY better that year.

It's true that Fed did have those bad losses to Canas in IW and Miami but other than that he lost to an on fire Novak in Montreal and Nalbo playing the tennis of his life in Madrid and Paris,not bad losses IMO.

What hurts Sampras is USO,4th round loss against the title for Fed doesn't stand well,If I remember well Pete was coming off from an injury but results are results.

Also Fed was really playing amazing in AO that year,some of the best HC tennis of his life and it will almost definitely remain the only slam he ever won without losing a set.Sampras didn't win AO that year in such dominant fashion,not even close.

Thier Masters Cup performances were similar,one RR loss and dominant display afterwards.

I still pick 2007 Fed on HC mostly because he was more dominant in HC slam that year than Pete in 1994 but it's debatable,I consider 1994 to have been Pete's best year gamewise(for Fed I think it's 2005).

drakulie
11-08-2009, 05:25 PM
Game Sampras' best posting year was never as good as Bjorkman & Johnny Mac.

darthpwner
11-08-2009, 05:41 PM
Federer obviously. Sampras never won 2 grand slams a year after 1997, while Federer just got 2 this year. Federer also has broke the slam record at a younger age than Pete.

TheNatural
11-09-2009, 09:37 AM
Sampras spanked Fed not long ago! Sampras was better than Federer even after being retired for 5 years!

drakulie
11-09-2009, 09:39 AM
^^^^^^^^
Lmao!

kishnabe
11-09-2009, 10:14 AM
unfortunately, time away from TW didn't do you any good GAMESAMPRAS---
you're as delusional as ever...

sampras' best ever year was worse than federer's 2009...

Lol, That was a big blow to Petards. It acually true but then again you never really know.

World Beater
11-09-2009, 04:47 PM
sampras became obsolete after wimbledon. ouch...it hurts doesn't it!

World Beater
11-09-2009, 04:50 PM
so by that logic would you say federer in '09 was better than nadal in '08? ridiculous. both won two slams -- and sampras also won other significant tournaments. to me the 4 slam finals is negated by the fact that sampras won more events.

also, his form was waaay more impressive at ao/wimby '94 (or uso/wimby '93/95, for that matter.)

in the words of the great pistol himself "its the slams that matter".

pete was the master of collecting pts in indoor mms during the fall season to get the #1 ranking each of those years.

btw. sampras form is not more impressive - highly debatable.

sampras faced agassi - a player he owned on fast surfaces. federer faced nadal, his nemesis, a bad matchup and an alltime great player in his own right - yes, nadal will be greater than agassi by the time he is done. Federer's 5 set win was much more impressive.