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

[70後]

And Bruguera played all three of these guys and says Federer is 10x Sampras.

Well he did beat Fed 1 and 1 that time they met, so he might have an extra little incentive for saying that.

Incidentally Bruguera and Becker are 2-2.

One of those meetings was ATP finals sf on carpet, Bruguera was up a set and punching big holes in Becker's serve.

A little good ol BB gamesmanship, Bruguera lost concentration and that was that.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Becker is a straight shooter, which is what I respect about him. He cares about Nole's place in history and understands that the hype about Federer will continue as long as he is playing. People can say what they want about him but he has played against Sampras and understand the difference.

He cares about Nole's place in history so he decides to try to ruin Fed's? Saying he's fake for money, randomly saying Sampras is better even though Becker never had to face Fed? He can care about Djoko that's what a coach does, but targeting a fellow player to try to sell books is wrong.

 

[beltsman]

Sampras played the most smothering game of all time when he was on.

 

[Cenarius]

Dude, Sampras WAS IN HIS PRIME when he was losing to a teenage Hewitt.

Yeah Hewitt is really really underrated and for that matter also Murray.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Boris talks too much. If Agassi could return Petes serve so could Fed. If Fed gets even close to a neural rally he'd win 80% of those points.

Both guys would win the vast majority of service game leading to lots of tie breaks. I'd favor Fed.

 

[70後]

A point that I noted about Pete vs Becker and Pete vs Fed @ Wimbledon.

One of Pete's favourite shots at the net was the high backhand flick drop volley which will drop just in front of the net at the opponent's ad court side.

The exact same shot he played against Becker in their Wimbledon match, Becker was two steps behind and couldn't get to it.

Federer in the 2001 Wimbledon match not only got to it but made the passing shot. He was two steps in front.

Becker never played Federer but they had one year overlap in 1999 when they could have theoretically met.

And Fed never had problems with big serve of itself. Even baby Fed beat Ivanisevic both times they met, once indoor hard, once carpet.

 

[President]

Federer has returned equal/bigger serves than Sampras over the years very well, like Roddick, Karlovic, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, etc. I think Sampras would have more trouble breaking him than the other way around, because Federer is clearly superior off the ground.

 

[PeterHo]

90s grass - sampras
90s clay - Fed
90s hard - close

ANY current surface - Fed

Fed is better overall, sampras is better just on fast grass.

on ANY clay, sampras will get slaughtered.

 

[uliks]

Funny, when you think about it a little bit more. Sampras is arguably one of the mentally toughest players in the sports history. Movies can be made about his clutchness and unique mental and testicular fortitude, and OTOH in Federer we have a player known for his mental weakness and emotional fragility, player who absolutely despise, hate pressure moments. So when you think about it a little bit more objectively?! Hmm, it's not going to be pretty for Rogie. It's going to be slaughtering TBH...

 

[Deleted member 512391]

The biggest problem for Pete would be the Federer return of big serves. He used to block those bombs with ease back in his prime, giving his opponent nothing but a junk ball with no pace, which lands usually near the baseline. Even if Pete tries to approach the net immediately after his serve (which he usually does), the ball will return fast enough to catch him probably behind the service line (Federer's returning position, which is usually on the baseline, would be crucial) and that's far from ideal position for a volley.

I think that Pete would have better chances against Nadal than against Roger, since Nadal's customary returning position is far behind the baseline, which would allow Sampras to relentlessly attack the net.

If we are talking about fast courts, of course.

 

[70後]

The "best" Sampras is the WRONG configuration of Sampras to send up against Federer.

Pete WAS an all court attacking baseliner to start with. Same as Federer. But even then, he was a different kind of attacking baseliner. Both configured themselves to best suit the ecology of their respective battlefields. They became the opposite of how they began.

If Sampras didn't play the 90's and started out from the same starting point as Federer,

and he didn't have the blood condition limiting his endurance,

I'd actually say;

Fast grass : Federer.
Fast hard : Sampras.
Fast carpet : Sampras
Slow grass : Sampras.
Slow hard : Sampras.
Clay : Sampras! (no Thalassemia)

Yes, I am surprised to say that myself.

Nadal will still be RG King, of course, but this Sampras will, imo, have won at least one of those matches at French against him. And one out of the AO 2009 and Wimbledon 2008 finals.

But the "best" Sampras that Becker insists on will end up against Federer as :

Fast grass : Sampras.
Fast carpet : tie.

Everything else at any time : Federer.

 

[NoleFam]

People really don't realize what kind of forehand Sampras had. He could hit these crazy cross court angles with insane power. He could do it whether he was standing there or on the run. Nobody can do that like he could, so the notion that Federer would win 80% of neutral rallies against Sampras is bogus. Also, Sampras was a rock mentally and so clutch. The higher the pressure situation was, the better he played. With Federer, he is known to crumble mentally. The higher the pressure, the more frail he becomes. Sampras would own that head to head if they played in the 90's with mostly fast surfaces and still would be about even with Federer in 2015.

 

[70後]

from what I have seen of these four over all these years; I'd say that Federer may be the most versatile in talent, but Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic are all tougher psychologically.

 

[TennisCJC]

Sampras vs Federer is tough call but I'll give slight edge to Federer. Federer is the better tennis player and just as good an athlete. Sampras might have a slight edge on serve but that's pretty much it if you compare stroke by stroke. Federer has better FH, BH, overhead and return of serve. Federer volleys as well as Pete and Federer is a better mover and a bit quicker. I think Federer would return Pete's serve better than Pete would return Federer's serve. On fast grass and hard courts, I would give slight edge to Federer say 55% to 45%. On medium or slow, Federer gets big edge say 70% to 30%.

It is tough to compare across generations with equipment, court speed, and size of average athletes changing. If Laver were born 50 years later, he likely would have used a 95"-100" graphite racket with gut/poly hybrid and in all likelihood would have been a little taller, a little faster and a little stronger athlete. And, his he would use a E to SW FH grip and played more of a baseline style. So, to look at old grainy video of Laver from 50 years ago swing a 1 lb wood racket when 3 of the slams were played on fast grass and saying he could not compete with today's players doesn't really mean much.

 

[wy2sl0]

The "best" Sampras is the WRONG configuration of Sampras to send up against Federer.

Pete WAS an all court attacking baseliner to start with. Same as Federer. But even then, he was a different kind of attacking baseliner. Both configured themselves to best suit the ecology of their respective battlefields. They became the opposite of how they began.

If Sampras didn't play the 90's and started out from the same starting point as Federer,

and he didn't have the blood condition limiting his endurance,

I'd actually say;

Fast grass : Federer.
Fast hard : Sampras.
Fast carpet : Sampras
Slow grass : Sampras.
Slow hard : Sampras.
Clay : Sampras! (no Thalassemia)

Yes, I am surprised to say that myself.

Nadal will still be RG King, of course, but this Sampras will, imo, have won at least one of those matches at French against him. And one out of the AO 2009 and Wimbledon 2008 finals.

But the "best" Sampras that Becker insists on will end up against Federer as :

Fast grass : Sampras.
Fast carpet : tie.

Everything else at any time : Federer.

hahahahaha post of the year. Sampras on clay!! hahahahahaha. For the love of god, this thread has gone to a new level.

Come on people REALLY! Sampras edges in serve/overhead department. Federer does everything else better. Everything!

 

[Chadillac]

Its better to be the person talked about than the person doing the talking. Becker embarassing himself again

 

[Chadillac]

Come on people REALLY! Sampras edges in serve/overhead department. Federer does everything else better. Everything!

Serving at 5-6 in the 5th set of wimbledon against fed, he put one in the bottom of net, lost serve and the match.

Why do people brag about overheads? Its the easiest shot in tennis and is put away 90% of the time by everyone. Why not brag about how he could put away a forehand from the service line?

 

[Bobby Jr]

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.

While you're pointing out myths which don't suit your version of the world then it's also as salient to point out that most of Sampras' career, and that of all those big servers he faced, was in the most server friendly conditions in tennis history all things considered (courts, balls, racquets and strings combined). Put Pete in this era and he he faces less server-friendly courts and opponents who all use poly strings on return. Similarly, put Federer in the main part of the 90s and he gets 10% extra free on his serve without actually doing anything different and all his opponents are hamstrung on return by their strings.

In short. Don't be that guy everytime you post. You often get your arse handed to you and plenty of people here will be happy to continue to oblige in that regard.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sampras was mentally tough but Federer is not bad as some of you think.

 

[uliks]

Sampras was mentally tough but Federer is not bad as some of you think.

Yeah is bad my friend, it's really bad. For that reason calling this mental midget tennis GOAT or whatever it's real embarrassment for tennis and for the history of our sport...

 

[Prabhanjan]

Its not physical prime, it was about Sampras had nothing left to prove and no one challenging his records (Unlike Nole/Nadal are doing to Fed).. Big difference.

A very very lame excuse. The motivation to win a slam never dries up. See, how Connors tried so hard in the 1991 USO despite knowing he had not much chance. Yes, Sampras had something more to prove, else he would declared retirement right at the end of 2000 Wimbledon itself. Long before Nadal's 2010 season, Fed had stated his desire to play on like Connors and Agassi.
Players call it a day when they are completely convinced of not able to win a slam and not when they feel there record is safe.

Thats why Fed has had stayed on playing.. He knows his records could still be in trouble. Especially if Nadal can win a few more big titles, and Nole keeps dominating.

There is not much Fed can do to prevent Nadal and Nole from breaking his record since 2010. So, he has more to lose by getting destroyed ala Pete circa 2001-2002 (till the draw opened at 2002 USO). That did not happen is the reason he is continuing to play. Fed still plays because he knows he can add to his slam count and not because of insecurity.

Sampras didn't have that. If Agassi was within arms reach of chasing Pete for slam titles, Pete would have been more motivated late in his career (Like Federer is)

Agassi is couple of leagues below by the time Nadal and Noles call it a career. Pete never had a competitor as good as Nole and Nadal. The competition in 90's sucks. Till 2000 when Pete got the slam record, the next best was Agassi at ordinary 6 count and all others were single or two time slam champions

It is a joke if somebody really thinks Pete would be dominating and winning slams post 2002 .

 

[Blocker]

"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

Agassi played Pete over a number of years, many of those years at his peak. He played Fed however when he was well past it. Nadal disproved Agassi's comments. Once you find Federer's weaknesses, you can hone in on them and it works like a charm.

 

[mtommer]

Nadal/Nole have proven otherwise. So Andre is wrong

I disagree. Nadal and Nole still had/have to bring crazy good tennis to win given their strategy.

 

[jga111]

Sampras is not really appreciated by the modern day fan with short memories, or the younger generation. For me, the marker of how good he was is by simply having a look at Agassi's career. I think everyone would agree that the quality of Agassi's play belied his years in the few years before he retired. I'm sure he did improve as a player, but the reason why he was still playing top level tennis was because of the nature of the modern day top-spin game, he was able to play fewer S&V players and play with more rhythm.

Well Sampras never gave Agassi rhythm, and even when he did - he STILL won a decent number of those baseline exchanges. What makes people honestly think Sampras wouldn't be at the top of his game even today? On the contrary, I think he would find it far easier than before - as Agassi emphatically showed just before he retired.

Modern day players really struggle to play against "rhythm-breakers". Federer himself has turned himself into a "rhythm-breaker" purely because he can no longer sustain continuous long grinding rallies. Murray always loses in straight sets to him now. Djokovic uses his better handling of the "clutch" to beat him - but a younger Federer wins by a margin.

For those that have doubt out there, think about it seriously. Sampras was a baseline AND S&V player - in the 90s when the courts were fast, players had less time to react, less time to impose themselves, less time to prepare, less time for shot selection, etc... I get the argument that in todays game S&V players don't stand a chance. No it is hard because the game is slower, so the opposing player has more time to create a passing shot. But that just means the server has to work on approach shots from the grinding exchanges - if you seriously think Sampras wouldn't be able to mould his tactics in this way then you simply don't understand the game.

 

[6august]

As said by many posters here, mental is underrated while ít plays the key role.

We talk too much about technical but look at the case of Faker vs Murray. If they play in different eras, its hard to say who will win because technically they´re very equal.

In fact, Faker owns Murray though he´s not far superior than his rival.

 

[NatF]

Becker is saying Pete would be Djokovic and Nadal too. Funny how everyone is missing this...

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yeah is bad my friend, it's really bad. For that reason calling this mental midget tennis GOAT or whatever it's real embarrassment for tennis and for the history of our sport...

I advice you to watch that Wimbledon 2008 final and tell me where did Federer displayed mental midgetry.

Then I can proceed to tell you where he showed mental toughness.

That without turning to career achievements showing the level of his mental toughness.

 

[big ted]

its all relative i think. i remember agassi saying that federer was better than sampras and he played them both many times. federer didnt really have any weaknesses and sampras did.
when federer was on he could beat you down 6-0 or 6-1 and hit some amazing shots along the way

 

[coloskier]

Federer has returned equal/bigger serves than Sampras over the years very well, like Roddick, Karlovic, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, etc. I think Sampras would have more trouble breaking him than the other way around, because Federer is clearly superior off the ground.

On fast courts it doesn't matter how good Sampras's opponent is on the ground..... Prime Sampras never lets it get that far.

 

[TennisCJC]

Federer has returned equal/bigger serves than Sampras over the years very well, like Roddick, Karlovic, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, etc. I think Sampras would have more trouble breaking him than the other way around, because Federer is clearly superior off the ground.

Yes, Federer is excellent at getting big serves back and much better than Pete at starting points.

 

[TennisCJC]

Sampras was mentally tough but Federer is not bad as some of you think.

Yes, I always find it funny that people think Federer is weak in the mental department. He has won 17 slams and had a 6 year span where he reached the SF of better in slams. You don't win that big at the biggest events and that consistently with mental weaknesses. The fact is no one discussed yet including Pete, Andre, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray has been that good that consistently when it matters most overall. Nadal has had a great run at the French but he has had many horrible tournaments at USO, Wimby and Aussie Open during that time. Djokovic puts together a super great year and then disappears a bit - remember a year ago people where saying Djokovic should fire Becker because Djokovic wasn't winning consistently at the slams. Pete had a great run at number 1 but he had some bad losses at smaller tournaments. Federer is the most consistent at the biggest events including slams and masters over his career.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

On fast courts it doesn't matter how good Sampras's opponent is on the ground..... Prime Sampras never lets it get that far.

That is why he was more dominant than Federer, right?

 

[TennisCJC]

Becker is saying Pete would be Djokovic and Nadal too. Funny how everyone is missing this...

On fast courts, I agree. On medium to slow courts, I would give Djokovic and Nadal a slight edge over Pete. Agassi had his best wins against Pete at Aussie Open and Aussie was medium speed to slow speed hard court at the time. Djokovic would do well against Pete on that type of court.

 

[Agassifan]

Peak Fed beats Peak Pete 8/10 times on the newer grass. On the older grass, I'd think it'll be closer.. 5-5 or 6-4 in Fed's favor.

Don't even talk about the other courts. Fed wins 10/10 on clay and 7/10 on the new hard.

 

[morten]

And Bruguera played all three of these guys and says Federer is 10x Sampras.

Well he did beat Fed 1 and 1 that time they met, so he might have an extra little incentive for saying that.

Incidentally Bruguera and Becker are 2-2.

One of those meetings was ATP finals sf on carpet, Bruguera was up a set and punching big holes in Becker's serve.

A little good ol BB gamesmanship, Bruguera lost concentration and that was that.

Stich also said Fed is not as good...as Becker said

 

[djokerer]

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.'

Is there a doubt.. Sampras at 40 aced out prime Federer in an exhibition match.

 

[Razer]

Nice thread ... can't argue with Becker.... he was the boss, he knows what he is speaking about.

17>14>10

Got ya Mr @TMF

It seems you did 17>14>10 once upon a time .... now in that same vein 24>22>20

@BorgTheGOAT @THUNDERVOLLEY @NeutralFan @Kralingen

 

[Milanez82]

Interesting that Becker thought backhand was the only weakness for Pete.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Nice thread ... can't argue with Becker.... he was the boss, he knows what he is speaking about.





Got ya Mr @TMF

It seems you did 17>14>10 once upon a time .... now in that same vein 24>22>20

@BorgTheGOAT @THUNDERVOLLEY @NeutralFan @Kralingen

Good catch, I called him out on his hypocrisy already multiple times. Mr TMF was walking around for years with 17-14-10, once his hero got surpassed he did a 180 and found his love for context.