Boris Becker: ´The best Pete Sampras would have beaten Roger Federer´ and more...

[Chicharito]

The Former Wimbledon champion speaks about the GOAT Question in his book ..
https://t.co/YqsJOTQiRs

'People always ask me about the best players in the history and now they ask me even more, maybe because I'm closer to one of them. The best I played was Pete Sampras. Without any doubt he had the best serve between the players I faced and he was the best of the best. Because of him I stopped to think to win Wimbledon. Apart his weakness, the backhand, he was good enough with the rest of his shots, and his movement on the court what so good that it was difficult to play on his backhand'.

Becker mentioned Federer, citing the Wimbledon 2001 fourth round where the Swiss beat Sampras in four sets. 'People ask me if Federer would have been able to beat Sampras. They played against only time and Federer won, but Sampras already had his best moment. You have to take account that tennis begins with the only shot that does not depend by your opponent, the serve, and i thonk Pete Sampras has the best serve in the history' - said Becker.

The German does not underestimate the fact that Federer won more Grand Slam titles (17) than anyone else. Rafael Nadal and Pete Sampras are behind him with 14. 'Federer is without any doubt the most successful player seeing the Grand Slams, and Jimmy Connors won more singles titles and fifth set matches'.

However according to Becker, the best Sampras would have beaten Federer and Connors: 'But had they played against Sampras in Pete's best moment, they would have been able to return his serve so good to win? I doubt it.'

After these quotes, he seems to re-think about the GOAT Question: 'I do not think you can make a comparison between different generations. No one played with Laver but be made Calendar Grand Slam twice and he was the only to do it. Saying that he is not good like Federer would not be fair.'

He then spoke about two legends like Bjorm Borg, who won 11 Slams (six Roland Garros and five Wimbledon), and John McEnroe who won seven (three Wimbledon and four US Open. 'Borg Won Wimbledon five times and from the baseline. People said that he would have not been able to do it and he made it for five times in a row, and often he won previously Roland Garros, Federer did it one time and Nadal twice, but Borg three times. Yes, it is impossible to beat Nadal at the Roland Garros, but what would have hapoened if Borg and Nadal played with the same rackets? Sometimes I speak about it with Novak.'

'You cannot say that McEnroe was not good as Federer on grass, despite Federer won seven titles and McEnroe three. I played him and he was a genious, but I think that Sampras was the best because I could not touch ball on the return games. McEnroe did serve and volley well, while against Sampras you cannot start rally, and when you made it he was so agile that put on his forehand side and dominated you or went on the net and played volleys. What could you do? The most probable thing was to lose 7/6 6/4.'

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Spot on.

Pete wasn't bringing his ''new kind of power'' in 2001. Nice fantasy match up with them both at their best. I'd fancy Pete as well.

 

[Sysyphus]

Boris gives particular hype to the man who shut him out a lot in his own career—a very common point-of-view to take.

Still, I think he is pretty much spot on regarding the impossibility of true cross-generational comparisons.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Why doesn't Boris shut the hell up? He keeps talking on and on about Fed in his book etc. Its unbelievably annoying.

 

[90's Clay]

Becker is correct..

The "best" of Sampras blitzes any opponent off the court and fast.

 

[90's Clay]

Agassi said it best, "With Pete the first thing you know you had your serve broke and Pete has already won the set in minutes"

 

[metsman]

Sampras may have had a better serve but he would have more trouble returning Federer's serve than the other way around.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras may have had a better serve but he would have more trouble returning Federer's serve than the other way around.

Thats a complete myth. Sampras faced better servers in his day than Federer (Goran, Phillopousis, even Roddick later when he beat him at Flushng in '02, etc) . The 90s had the greatest array of servers ever.

 

[metsman]

Thats a complete myth. Sampras faced better servers in his day than Federer (Goran, Phillopousis, even Roddick later when he beat him at Flushng in '02, etc) . The 90s had the greatest array of servers ever.

Did you just use Roddick and Phillipousis to argue that Sampras faced tougher servers? That's rich even by your usual standards.

 

[90's Clay]

Did you just use Roddick and Phillipousis to argue that Sampras faced tougher servers? That's rich even by your usual standards.

Federer is definitely below Phillipousis, Roddick, Goran in the service category

 

[metsman]

Federer is definitely below Phillipousis, Roddick, Goran in the service category

They weren't kidding about you were they.

 

[Prabhanjan]

A 3-time champion and 7-time finalist Becker can't be too wrong

It will be stupid to underestimate an expert as Becker just because he says something not too much in your fav favor.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Thats a complete myth. Sampras faced better servers in his day than Federer (Goran, Phillopousis, even Roddick later when he beat him at Flushng in '02, etc) . The 90s had the greatest array of servers ever.

Federer won't do badly against this trio for sure

 

[metsman]

Federer won't do badly against this trio for sure

yeah I bet federer would really struggle to handle phillipousis and roddick's serve lol

 

[90's Clay]

Federer didn't have the greatest of times returning Pete's serve at Wimbledon in 2001, I think Pete served up something like 20 plus aces (And lets not forget 2001 Wimbledon's surface was actually a big slower with more rye on the courts and less slippery with the awkward bounce) than they were in the 90s


And Pete was around 31 years old at the end of his career playing crappy tennis that year going 35-16 for the year with no titles and a major loss of motivation

 

[Prabhanjan]

yeah I bet federer would really struggle to handle phillipousis and roddick's serve lol

In fact I believe that he would much better against Goran than Pete and I do see him winning as much as 7 WImbledon in the 90's sans Pete

 

[Aretium]

Sampras wouldn't be top 20 these days. No offense, he was my idle growing up, but the game is so different now. It all comes down to not being able to compare different eras. And we cant compare a different kind of sampras to present day players because it is certain that pete would not play the same game had he grown up now. So we can only compare the pete we knew, and honestly, if you watch old matches even going back 10-15 years ago, the depth in field was poor and players simply weren't solid enough.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras wouldn't be top 20 these days. No offense, he was my idle growing up, but the game is so different now. It all comes down to not being able to compare different eras. And we cant compare a different kind of sampras to present day players because it is certain that pete would not play the same game had he grown up now. So we can only compare the pete we knew, and honestly, if you watch old matches even going back 10-15 years ago, the depth in field was poor and players simply weren't solid enough.

The game is different but by the same token, these grinders today probably would even be top 20 in Petes day.. It goes both ways

If Pete played today he would have a different game Im sure.

 

[MasterZeb]

Feds game would have adapted to suit the style of that was played and needed at the time

 

[Prabhanjan]

Federer didn't have the greatest of times returning Pete's serve at Wimbledon in 2001, I think Pete served up something like 20 plus aces (And lets not forget 2001 Wimbledon's surface was actually a big slower with more rye on the courts and less slippery with the awkward bounce) than they were in the 90s

IIRC, the 2001 grass was very much the same as in the 90's. It was 2002 which saw the change in rye's. Even if Fed did not have the greatest of times, he was still far from his prime.

 

[Prabhanjan]

The game is different but by the same token, these grinders today probably would even be top 20 in Petes day.. It goes both ways

If Pete played today he would have a different game Im sure.

So very true. He won't be Roanic for sure, LOL

 

[Aretium]

The game is different but by the same token, these grinders today probably would even be top 20 in Petes day.. It goes both ways

If Pete played today he would have a different game Im sure.

For once, I agree with you. It is simply too hard to compare. That being said, the game has become more and more professional and I do believe players work more on not having weaknesses than having strengths leading to what you call "boring tennis".

The old generation of players around Fed's age, have really great all round games with a touch of the old and the new. When they are gone, tennis will feel it.

 

[MasterZeb]

I dont know whos the better (or worse) troll here. Becker, or @Captain Grant Or maybe Chico was in fact really Becker

 

[NatF]

IIRC, the 2001 grass was very much the same as in the 90's. It was 2002 which saw the change in rye's. Even if Fed did not have the greatest of times, he was still far from his prime.

Federer actually out aced Sampras anyway...

 

[Aretium]

Who had/has a better serve. Pete vs Raonic. I will say Raonic for the stats, but no one had the mentality Pete had with serving. Fed is up there on key points, but Fed doesn't have the consistent ace count Pete had.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Federer actually out aced Sampras anyway...

But that was because Sampras was no more interested in Wimbledon and focused more on USO, LOL

 

[killerboi2]

Boris seems to flip flop on the issue a lot. One minute Pete is the best, then Fed is the best, now it's back to Pete again.

 

[MasterZeb]

I dont understand what Federer as actually done to receive all this constant hate and moaning from becker. His player is top and is dominanting everyone, so whats his problem? Really thought becker was a good guy, but it turns out he's an utter ****

 

[NatF]

But that was because Sampras was no more interested in Wimbledon and focused more on USO, LOL

Ah yes of course...

Becker could be right, but then again he could be wrong. It's not that big of a deal. It's harder to return Karlovic and Isner than Sampras.

 

[gk2014]

Let's not confuse faster with better......

 

[gk2014]

...not always

 

[wy2sl0]

Everyone loves Roger and there aren't enough superlatives to use when describing him.

That means Djokovic is still in the shadow, and Becker doesn't like that. I think that we need to realize where Federer sits in history is that he has had the most tools in his toolbox. He has always been in the top echelon in all categories and that drives people nuts. Forehand, serve, movement, defense, offense, tactics. These other eras never could do what the players do now, just no. Technology changes, however the players were great with that they had then, not now. Sports improve and we just have to accept that.

Being Canadian I love hockey, but I know that even if Gretzky played in his prime right now he wouldn't hold a candle to Sidney and the other elite players. They are just more physically gifted.

 

[xFedal]

Boris seems to flip flop on the issue a lot. One minute Pete is the best, then Fed is the best, now it's back to Pete again.

He fed couldn't handle Novak thats why he now thinks Pete is better. I think Becker underrates both Nole and Fed.

 

[SpinToWin]

Power to y'all who can still take Becker seriously, particularly regarding his books.

 

[kevaninho]

The game is different but by the same token, these grinders today probably would even be top 20 in Petes day.. It goes both ways

If Pete played today he would have a different game Im sure.

This is spot on. I honestly think if Nadal and Djokovic played like they do now, but In the 90s when S & V was a lot more common, none of them would've had a sniff of Wimbledon in particular. And I say this as a fan of todays game, especially nadals.
Federer on the other hand, im sure could've still been the main man. Him V Sampras at both their primes would've been special beyond belief.

 

[90's Clay]

But that was because Sampras was no more interested in Wimbledon and focused more on USO, LOL

Pete went 35-16 for the year with ZERO titles. I would say its safe to assume he wasn't very focused at that point in his career

Sampras by 2001 had already lost alot of focus and motivation by then (as he has even stated) after he had already broke the record.


Sampras played just for the slam record after he won that he was never the same motivated player.

 

[Krish872007]

There you have it - Pete was UNDENIABLY one of the toughest players to face. Give him a modern 100sq poly stick and give him time to get in shape and that serve would be incredible even now at his age.
If it was Prime Pete... the whole tour would collectively lay a giant egg.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Pete went 35-16 for the year with ZERO titles. I would say its safe to assume he wasn't very focused at that point in his career

That is why you need to respect Fed for winning titles even in 2013, his worst year since 2002.

Sampras by 2001 had already lost alot of focus and motivation by then (as he has even stated) after he had already broke the record.

This is what I replied to your earlier post that even if the surfaces would be homogenized in fast courts style, I don't expect Pete to win more slams than what he had. He won Cincinatti a single time despite it being among the fastest of the surfaces. Pete did not really dominate like Fedalovic.

 

[TMF]

Agassi said it best, "With Pete the first thing you know you had your serve broke and Pete has already won the set in minutes"

"Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played."

"Pete Sampras was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger," Agassi said.
Federer the best ever, says Agassi

 

[dh003i]

Pete went 35-16 for the year with ZERO titles. I would say its safe to assume he wasn't very focused at that point in his career

Sampras by 2001 had already lost alot of focus and motivation by then (as he has even stated) after he had already broke the record.

Sampras played just for the slam record after he won that he was never the same motivated player.

Yet he went on to win 1 more. Sampras may have lost motivation, but if you think he wasn't playing to win that Wimbledon match vs. Federer, you're nuts. And it isn't like Federer was in his prime physically, shot-wise, movement-wise, etc either.

Instead of trying to draw any definitive conclusions from that match, why not just accept that neither player was in their prime, yet they played a very good tight match, and that had they both been in their primes at the same times under the same conditions, they probably would have played some exceptional matches? Maybe Sampras comes out ahead, maybe Federer does if they play each other 10 times at Wimbledon in their primes, who knows.

It is funny, however, that in these comparisons clay court tennis is completely ignored, as if it doesn't matter. I don't think if you asked Pete Sampras himself, he'd say he'd come out ahead in matches against Federer on clay, nor do I think any reasonable person would.

I do think that the athleticism of Pete is underestimated by many, however. He may not have had the mentality and game to grind enough to be a serious threat at the French Open, but everywhere else you watch him, his motion was just explosive. People talk about the serve a lot, but what's ignored is how fast he closed to the net after serve, how agile he was, and really just how explosive he was in general. Of course, also in his early prime before he become a S&V player, he was also better from the baseline than Agassi.

 

[stringertom]

Fast grass: Fedpras would have been a rivalry for the ages. Coin toss

Current grass: Pete wins a few but Federer gets the lion's share FTW

Clay: Federer in a walk

Fast HC: A good rivalry but Federer with the edge

Slow HC: Again, competitive but Fed's defense-to-offense transition gives him the edge

 

[90's Clay]

"Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played."

"Pete Sampras was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger," Agassi said.
Federer the best ever, says Agassi

Nadal/Nole have proven otherwise. So Andre is wrong

 

[TMF]

"Federer is the best player I have ever met in my career. His game is complete under every aspect. For example, when I used to play against Pete Sampras I knew it was going to be very hard to break his serve, but I also knew that his return wasn't really the best in the world. When you play against Roger you are not allowed to think the same way. He is serve, return, play from the baseline, attack at the net. He really has a lot of strong points" said Tim to the English media.

"At the start of his career, Roger used to attack a lot more and come to the net. Courts back then were faster, especially grass. Considering how the surfaces are slower now, Federer can't really do a lot of Serve&Volley, but from the baseline he has managed to become more aggressive" explained Tim.

Roger Federer the Best Player I Ever Met

 

[Backspin1183]

You gotta respect Becker's view on this even if you disagree. He knows what he's talking about. Pete was the best player Boris ever played against.
But did Boris ever play Federer? Had he played against Roger too, I don't know if he'd still put Sampras ahead of Federer.

 

[TMF]

Nadal/Nole have proven otherwise. So Andre is wrong

17>14>10

 

[Cenarius]

Sampras wasn't that far from his prime(aged 29) when theirs lone match took place.Federer for his part was still a teenager(19) and pretty far from the peak of his powers,still brought to his knees to the king of swing when the american was expected to win a couple more W crowns.

 

[KG1965]

I agree with Boris .

Federer & Connors won more than Sampras , but the peak of Sampras in a match is over Roger

 

[KG1965]

In a single match Sampras is 1th on indoor, hc & grass (Rafa on clay..)

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras wasn't at his peak in that only match against Federer but the american was a lot closer than the mighty swiss.

Fed played beyond his years that day.. Pete was having an awful tournament at Wimbledon that year. I think he went 5 sets with Barry Cowan? Who???

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Why doesn't Boris shut the hell up? He keeps talking on and on about Fed in his book etc. Its unbelievably annoying.

he was talking about Sampras here, not Federer.