Originally Posted by federerGOAT
Pete has NOTHING over Roger. Not even the serve. Pete's 2nd serve is incredibly overrated, its as if nobody could break him ever. Roger has a better 1st and 2nd serve with more disguise.
As much as I like Federer, Sampras had a 1000 aces year... in relative terms, he did the job better than many other people and I don't see Federer relying as heavily as Sampras did on his serve to win a match. With that said, many other strokes in Pete's arsenal were overrated; from what I have seen of the 80's and 90's tennis, Sampras is more or less a big serve and a wonderful net game... it did get him titles, but his limited abilities at the baseline showed off very easily when he had to face the situation: he lost more than often to guys nobody recalls on clay where the baseline game is put to the harshest of tests -- his was that of a 30th rank player, not of a world number one.
He had a good running forehand his fans will say and, surely he did make a few get into the highlights, but the fact of the matter is that no one spoke of Pete as if he was hammering his opponents with his forehands, doing a lot of damage with it, unlike we do remember of Federer or even Nadal by times... it was a good shot, but not an exceptional shot. As for his backhand have you ever seen Pete hit a big winner off of it? It was rare. Ever seen him leave short balls and have a hard time with it: that happened a lot. Again, we cannot say the same of Federer as, in the last two representations of the end of year championship, he out-hit players with specifically his backhand. Overall, at the baseline, Pete had something that could keep him in the match with players along the top 20-30, but as you got closer to top 10 ground stroke quality, his game was getting obviously insufficient at the baseline. That's why you see the results he had on clay: his baseline game wasn't good enough.
That's also why you see Federer on clay: his baseline game, even at 30 years old, is enough -- well, not only enough to play, but enough to win RG, enough to beat Djokovic in his best form, enough to take Nadal to a 5th set a few times... that's a baseline game. As for serving and receiving, I do grant Pete an edge on the serve as he did produce shots that were substantially superior to what was seen back then. On the return, however, all goes to Roger as we know him to be a very efficient returner, especially against players who hit bombs.
In the end, you look at the record and the question seems void: Federer is better a player than Sampras has ever been... even that dumb argument they made about Federer having an easier is void since he did in fact win A LOT more. In case people wondered, with limited titles, these statistics can be explained either by a weak competition or by the exceptional level Federer presented -- the facts only means there was a substantial relative difference between Federer and others; it states nothing about their actual abilities in an absolute sense. In short, these claims are complete non sequitur as they are not sufficient to force either conclusion over the other one. However, judging by the results Federer gets against much harsher competition when he is in his 31st year (he's 30) as opposed to what Sampras did, I think we can extrapolate he was in fact a better, much hard to defeat opponent than Sampras was. That, on the other hand, isn't a non sequitur.