Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by samprasvsfederer123, Jun 23, 2009.
if you think there was one better than these 2 state so and why.
At this exact moment Sampras. Why:
-More Wimbledon titles than Roger has yet, could change of course
-More dominant serve and volley game
-Tougher overall grass court field he faced and was still as or more dominant against
Impossible to say. Grass has changed since Sampras was winning. The only time they met, neither was in their prime. Both have dominated Wimbledon and have very close winning percentages. Federer still has many years to play. Sampras is done.
I think it's a wash, but Sampras fans will no doubt say something to the effect that Sampras would wipe the court with Federer "on fast grass," blah, blah, blah, weak era, blah, blah, blah, when men were men S&V ruled Wimbledon, blah, blah, blah, Sampras serve was much better than Federer, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc....
Grass is the last thing Sampras fans can hold on to to claim their guy is the GOAT. If Federer is equal or better on grass, what leg do they have to stand on?
This is a no-brainer. Fed is greater, but Pete is the best grass court player of all time.
His game is built for it. Even today I think it'd still be successful.
Fed isnt even better than Laver or Borg on grass IMO
My order for the time being would probably be:
If Federer wins this years Wimbledon he will move up to atleast 3rd on my list though. He has a chance to be #1 or #2 on my list in the future but he isnt yet.
We need to wait until Federer's career is over before making a definitive judgment on this issue.
Well the Op is going by "better" so I dunno if better equates to most accomplished since we are now comparing eras. I think there have been a few better grass courters than Roger in history or just as good even though they may have not have won 5 wimbys either. Though the list is short. Fed is certainly one of the best at Wimby.
Becker is right up there as well with Fed I think
Well I think Federer is both more accomplished and better than everyone except Laver, Borg, Sampras already on grass, atleast of the Open Era since I dont think anyone else even today would have done what he has done already. I dont think Becker would win 5 Wimbledons in a row and reach a 6th final in a row even in todays field. During his run of 6 finals/3 titles he had a big upset loss to Doohan, lost 2 out of 3 times to Edberg, and lost to Stich in a final. So even today vs not the best grass court field perhaps I dont see quite the streak or achievements Federer already has on grass for him. McEnroe likewise I dont believe would have since he only had a 5 year peak at Wimbledon to start with then fell off drastically with personal problems, etc...
Even though Fed beat Pete on grass, I will say Sampras. But that will probably change.
I'd say Sampras even though I'm a die hard Federer fan. His serve and the way he played just fit grass much better than Federer (also that's when the grass was quicker and the balls not so heavy). Sampras has such a strong offensive game on grass and it worked well for him.
IT doesn't matter. Even if fed wins another 5 slams it won't be enough for the haters. They will still argue that times have changed blah blah blah. If anything tennis is more competative now with so many players emerging from all over. People either say hes the GOAT or not. Simple as that and it won't change no matter how his career turns out.
As for Sampras vs Fed on grass. I think its a toss up. I doubt either of them will have a definitive advantage over the other. When Sampras brings his A game I think he can control the match. Fed however has always had good passing shots and can come to net. Sampras is more confident / more imposing / covers net better but I think fed has better hands. I say 50/50
Is this really true?
what kind of grass?
Right now, I have Federer behind only Pete, Laver and Borg.
He'll surpass Borg on my list if he adds more (and he most certainly will) to his current 5. But I'd most probably peg him at number three even if he wins 7 or more Wimbledons.
Borg won his titles as a baseliner (like Fed) facing tougher comp and, in a truer grass surface that didn't favor backcourt guys. But still, Federer winning 6-8 (or even more) titles would be enough for me to place him ahead of Bjorn. The weight of how many Wimbledon's Roger has already won (and, will win even more), already puts him ahead of guys like Mac, Becker, Edberg, et al. Just imo.
sampras serve was much better than federer, blah, blah, blah
yeah its really a nonsense that sampras' serve was better than feds...
i dont think fed is any better than becker so imo comparing him to sampras is really unnecessary
Sampras is the best grass court play ever so Sampras is better.
Fast grass: Pete
Slower grass: Rog
Sampras clearly but I don't think Fed is as far behind Pete on grass as most people think here(IMO).
I don't see how Borg could be considered better than Federer on grass. Borg dominated by sheer athleticism and ice in his veins. Federer is better suited for grass.
I think Borg would have been even more successful on this slow grass, nearly unbeatable. Since "grass" can mean a lot of things, it's impossible to say who's the best on it.
Becker: 3 Wimbledons, 7 total grass court titles
Federer: 5 Wimbledons, 10 total grass court titles
Borg served and volleyed more at Wimbledon than Federer.
^^^Yes, I know that. Different era. Different technology. Different grass.
Obviously Federer would have served and volleyed under those conditions as well, and probably far better than Borg.
Neither, LAVER is the GOAT!!!
I saw an interview with Federer today on the BBC, and people should take notice of this. He clearly said that he should not be judged Re. being the Greatest until his own career is over, which he hopes will be many tears away yet!!!
He may well go on to be the GOAT, but like Federer himself says, wait until his own career is over, until then LAVER is the GOAT
Grass skill apparent directly equates with serve and volleying at times.
Sampras is better than Fed.
In my opinion for Open Era
odd, but I was thinking the same thing about your post...blah, blah, blah. you act as if you are the only one that knows something or thought of it all yourself. you state the mere obvious, you are clueless and have nothing to offer. but keep trying, it's blah, blah, blah.
Even if Laver is the greatest ever and the greatest ever on grass exlusively as well, that doesnt mean one cant discuss who is greater either in general or on grass specifically between Sampras and Federer right? I mean I am sure you get into debates who is better between Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe, and none of those is the GOAT on any surface but I am sure you are no less passionate about it.
It was incredible how Borg changed his game so much from clay to grass. I really respect that about him, amongst many other things of course. It is funny how many ask how a baseliner could have been so dominant on grass back then, but he wasnt a baseliner on grass really.
I think Federer is a better player than Sampras and would beat him easily if they both were in their primes. Obviously. And the matches they had that were close and didn't count, Federer was going easy on him. Sampras is a great player, don't get me wrong, but my God Fed is legendary.
simple...whoever had/has the bigger serve. that would be Pete. Fed has a better all-around ground game, but Pete would not play that way. He would S&V and attack. Roger would have to do the same because I doubt he would stay back (what would be the point?). I think Roger is a great grass player like Borg, Edberg, Mac, Becker and Pete. But Pete's serve trumps anything Roger has. The serve is so important at Wimby (at least it is when someone has one ala Roddick) so Pete gets the nod. I could not decide a ranking, but I think Mac, Edberg, Becker and Fed are just a tad below Pete.
I just found out that Borg has a higher winning % than Pete had..amazing. Borg was something else. I did not get to watch him much and was pretty young. he must have been awesome.
no doubt you are 13 years old. thanks for your way off base comment...love these kids on this forum.:roll:
Nadalol. All of you can sit here and argue about Federer or Sampras being the GOAT of grass court, but in reality the GOAT of grass is Nadalol. Do you have any idea, how impossible Nadalol is to play on grass?
Most of you forgot the fact that Nadalol beat Federer last year at Wimbledon. Just wanted to point that out, for more proof of Nadalol being the best.
um federer beatr him 2 years in a row when he was still in prime nadal coundlt touch him, and your telling me hes better than sampras on grass cmon, he would have obviously have gootten toasted on the 90s because of the speed, and even now pete would beat nadal
well nadal and pete in their best in slow wimbledon i mean
Agree with every word there.
Pete will and would never beat Nadalol. And besides, the only reason Federer managed to beat Nadalol 2 years before that was because he was suffering from knee cancer from playing 5 days in a row from all the rain delays.
And before that, he was inexperienced. NADALOL IS KING LOLOLGKJ;SJL:BCVPXO
IMO Sampras had a harder competition than Borg, but I havent watch much of Borg either.
Who the heck is Nadalol?
Sampras has the better serve and actually it's the best serve ever. It was always his biggest weapon and it's always going to be a player's biggest weapon on grass. It would all come down to how well Federer could handle the Sampras serve on grass. He handles Roddick's serve pretty easily but Pete's serve was much more formidable than Roddick's will ever be. Also Federer would serve and volley more against a player like Sampras because he would have to. He came to the net at every opportunity during their only meeting. Federer doesn't serve/volley constantly against the current field because he doesn't have to. Just because Borg serve/volleyed on the fast grass more than Federer does now doesn't necessarily automatically make him a better player then Federer.
Federer has already equaled Borg's achievement of 5 in a row and he'll probably get his 6th this year which would equal Sampras who won 6 out of 7 years before winning his 7th and last title to make it 7 out of 8 years. I would put Federer over Becker, McEnroe and Borg at this point on grass with only Sampras and Laver above him and Federer will move up to #2 if he wins this year because Sampras never won 5 in a row.
no way of knowing because the grass of Sampras and the grass now are two different surfaces. if they had played on the same type of grass for a significant period of time then we'd be able to guess.
Pete was better on his serve, but Fed has a better return game on grass. Fed gets a lot of balls back in play which pretty much neutralizes big servers.
Sampras. His serve and volley and attacking style is more suited for grass. He is unbelievably tough to break on grass and can hold his own from the bseline. Federer's no slouch, but Sampras is better on grass.
Hi Pistol, good to see you back.
Thank you. Got two weeks cuz I said I'd slap a certain poster in here who was irritating me. Poster's still a little runt though.
Yes Sampras played on real grass, Federer played on bootleg grass. I'll let y'all figure out the rest if we're talking about the better grasscourt player here.
I'll Layman's terms this for those who don't know....
Real grass: Pete
Bootleg grass: Rog
This has been addressed... see above.
I have a pretty good idea who that poster is and yes he is definitely still a little runt.
LOL, Kramer, Laver, Hoad, Gonzalez, McEnroe, etc, etc, etc. Anyone with the vaguest idea about tennis should know exactly why that's the case. Anyone without the vaguest clue can cling to the notion that Federer or Sampras were the game's best on grass.
McEnroe is not better than Sampras on grass. If you asked him even he would laugh at the idea.
I watched McEnroe at his best on grass. I think Sampras' best was better. Also, in spite of the fact that Edberg and Becker are two of my all time favorite players, I think Sampras would have bested both of them on grass. Federer reminds me much more of Laver than Sampras, and I think both Laver and Federer would be equal to Sampras on grass, any grass.
Laver is debatable, because he's arguably the GOAT... I mean, the guy could hang with a young Borg when he was in his mid to late 30s. Many saw him play in his prime, which I didn't really see, but if he was that good that late, he must have been unbelievable in his 20s. Never saw Kramer, Hoad, or Gonzalez play on grass.
Of course, all of this is speculative. They'll never play.
Separate names with a comma.