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

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Bjorkman & Johnny Mac, Nov 8, 2009.

  1. Bjorkman & Johnny Mac

    Bjorkman & Johnny Mac Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    127
    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
     
    #1
  2. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    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).
     
    #2
  3. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    So far Fed has the edge,won 2 slams to Pete's 1,we'll see how 2010 goes.
     
    #3
  4. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,210
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    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.
     
    #4
  5. boss-man-boss

    boss-man-boss Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    13
    Hello GameSampras
     
    #5
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    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.
     
    #6
  7. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,227
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    Hello yourself whoever you used to be before getting banned....
     
    #7
  8. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,227
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    but how many slams did fed have at 19.... you know... before 22?
     
    #8
  9. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    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).
     
    #9
  10. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    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.
     
    #10
  11. Bjorkman & Johnny Mac

    Bjorkman & Johnny Mac Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    127
    Im not necessarily going by achievements in this regard.. Just who you feel was the deadlier, better player at their respective ages is all.
     
    #11
  12. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    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...
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2009
    #12
  13. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    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
     
    #13
  14. Tennis_Monk

    Tennis_Monk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    3,476
    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' .
     
    #14
  15. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    Sampras was better in '93-'95, and perhaps even '97, than Federer in '09.
     
    #15
  16. Matt H.

    Matt H. Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,279
    Fed turned 28 in August....so all he has is a runner-up finish at the Open and a Cincy Masters title.
     
    #16
  17. MuseFan

    MuseFan Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    706
    And Sampras' best can't touch Fed's 4th best year(2007). Then we're left with the "god years" of 2004-2006.
     
    #17
  18. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    It's debatable, but Sampras was deadly that year. '07 Fed was better on clay, but '94 Sampras was better on grass and HC.
     
    #18
  19. GustafsonFanatic

    GustafsonFanatic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    582
    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.
     
    #19
  20. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    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.
     
    #20
  21. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    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.)
     
    #21
  22. IvanAndreevich

    IvanAndreevich Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    I am assuming you are another banned member? Because GameSampras was banned way before you were registered. Too dumb...
     
    #22
  23. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    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.
     
    #23
  24. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    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.
     
    #24
  25. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    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.
     
    #25
  26. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    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).
     
    #26
  27. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,465
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Game Sampras' best posting year was never as good as Bjorkman & Johnny Mac.
     
    #27
  28. darthpwner

    darthpwner Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    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.
     
    #28
  29. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    Sampras spanked Fed not long ago! Sampras was better than Federer even after being retired for 5 years!
     
    #29
  30. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,465
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    ^^^^^^^^
    Lmao!
     
    #30
  31. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,159
    Location:
    Toronto
    Lol, That was a big blow to Petards. It acually true but then again you never really know.
     
    #31
  32. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    sampras became obsolete after wimbledon. ouch...it hurts doesn't it!
     
    #32
  33. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    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.
     
    #33

Share This Page