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

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by aphex

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.

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.)

[IvanAndreevich]

Originally Posted by boss-man-boss

Hello GameSampras

I am assuming you are another banned member? Because GameSampras was banned way before you were registered. Too dumb...

[Cyan]

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.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

It's debatable, but Sampras was deadly that year. '07 Fed was better on clay, but '94 Sampras was better on grass and HC.

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.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by zagor

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.

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.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

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.

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).

[drakulie]

Game Sampras' best posting year was never as good as Bjorkman & Johnny Mac.

[darthpwner]

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.

[TheNatural]

Sampras spanked Fed not long ago! Sampras was better than Federer even after being retired for 5 years!

[drakulie]

^^^^^^^^
Lmao!

[kishnabe]

Originally Posted by aphex

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...

Lol, That was a big blow to Petards. It acually true but then again you never really know.

[World Beater]

sampras became obsolete after wimbledon. ouch...it hurts doesn't it!

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

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.)

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.