Better athlete: Federer or Sampras

[firepanda]

Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by scotus

Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)

In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.

I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by firepanda

Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

Athleticism cannot be defined by endurance alone.

Even when Agassi was at the height of his fitness and had arguably better endurance than most of the ATP pros today, Sampras could come out, even when he wasn't at his best, and defeat Agassi.

Sampras may have lacked endurance, but he had the cat-like burst of speed that is rarely seen even today.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.

Unlike Federer who tries to win every tournament he enters, Sampras didn't take the lesser tournaments as seriously, hence the lower percentage.

Even so, the percentages are quite close. I don't know how you define "miles".

[scotus]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.

Yes!!!!!!!

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by scotus

Unlike Federer who tries to win every tournament he enters, Sampras didn't take the lesser tournaments as seriously, hence the lower percentage.

Even so, the percentages are quite close. I don't know how you define "miles".

If you've played that much matches, a difference of five percent is pretty decent.

Federer has won more than a hundred matches than Sampras.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by scotus

What have you been drinking?

Ice-tea mostly but I'm sober don't worry.

Originally Posted by scotus

I would refer you back to my Post #31.

OK, I agree overall that because player A has more slams than player B it doesn't mean that player would beat player B more often than vice versa, I mean that's kinda obvious, matches aren't decided on paper, they have to be played out.

However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.

Also as I said, Nadal beating Fed mostly at FO has no bearing on how a hypothetical match-up between Sampras and Fed would go, every match-up is unique and all we have to go regarding Fed and Sampras is one single match which is far too small of a sample and neither player was anywhere near his best on top of that (Fed was still years from his peak/prime while Sampras was years past it).

[zagor]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.

Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

Nadal is a completely different player than Sampras so drawing parallels there requires simplifying things to a ridiculous degree i.e Nadal is a great player so him having a dominant H2H against Fed in slams automatically means Sampras would as well because he's also a great player.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by zagor

However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.

You are still not following the thread closely.

There is no disagreement over whether or not Fed is a more complete player or more accomplished than Sampras.

In the context of this thread which compares the athleticism of the two players, if someone says Federer is no doubt the better tennis player, I would be inclined to interpret that as a claim that Federer would have had a clear head-to-head advantage over Sampras.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by firepanda

Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

Endurance/fitness doesn't = athleticism.

I'd say Sampras was faster than almost any other player today, especially in forward movement, he was a cheetah in that regard.

I'd say he's a better pure athlete than Fed but Fed has better anticipation (one of the best I've ever seen in that regard), footwork and transition from defense to offense.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

Nadal is a completely different player than Sampras so drawing parallels there requires simplifying things to a ridiculous degree i.e Nadal is a great player so him having a dominant H2H against Fed in slams automatically means Sampras would as well because he's also a great player.

yes although i dont think this particular poster was getting at that though. i think he was merely saying, just because federer is the better or more accomplished player, doesn't mean sampras wouldnt have given him fits, and pointed to nadal as an example of someone who fits the mould of someone who is less accomplished but is hard for fed to beat. I could be wrong but i think it was more of a defense of sampras rather than an attack of federer.

however i do agree with you on your point that sampras fans do take it overboard at times with the nadal-federer h2h (not saying scotus is doing that, just in general), given the distribution of matches on each surface and the slowing of the surfaces and how their games match up. i think if you put sampras in federers shoes, he'd probably fare worse against nadal than fed did. its highly doubtful he'd beat nadal even once in 14 attempts on clay, something federer did twice. and on todays slow hardcourts rafa would get his scalps and the occasional win on one of the faster surfaces. but i think nadal would win the head to head. at the same time i think if you match up fed/sampras against nadal against the 90s surfaces, rafa be overwhelmed most of the time.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

If any Sampras fan made that argument, that would be a logical fallacy.

The Nadal-Fed H2H only serves to argue that the slam count differential does not dictate the H2H outcomes.

[Russeljones]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

highly doubt sampras wouldve been able to keep up with nadal in tough 5 setters physically

Pete in 3 - problem solved!

[Sabratha]

I'm going to say Federer.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by scotus

There is no disagreement over whether or not Fed is a more complete player or more accomplished than Sampras.

More accomplished no doubt, complete player? I have my doubts, Sampras was more of an all-courter than Fed, people forget that he used to play a lot from the baseline as well at his peak, I'd say he used the whole court more than Fed.

That said, complete player doesn't always mean better player, I feel Fed is a slightly better player than Sampras.

Originally Posted by scotus

In the context of this thread which compares the athleticism of the two players, if someone says Federer is no doubt the better tennis player, I would be inclined to interpret that as a claim that Federer would have had a clear head-to-head advantage over Sampras.

We obviously have different views in that regard, for me a better player is a player who does better against the field as a whole with H2H factoring very little if at all.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by zagor

More accomplished no doubt, complete player? I have my doubts, Sampras was more of an all-courter than Fed, people forget that he used to play a lot from the baseline as well at his peak, I'd say he used the whole court more than Fed.

That said, complete player doesn't always mean better player, I feel Fed is a slightly better player than Sampras.



We obviously have different views in that regard, for me a better player is a player who does better against the field as a whole with H2H factoring very little if at all.

Okay, let's say between Zarfot and me, there's no such disagreement. Now that you've entered the conversation, I should have been clearer about that.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by scotus

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.

...but still managing to get beaten by nobodies at a rate Federer hasn't stooped to in a decade.

[mattennis]

Both great athletes, effortless fluid movements.

Federer endurance miles better than Sampras (Pete had stamina problems).

Sampras more explosive perhaps, quicker going into the net and really quick and smart there.

In Sampras's era it still was rewarded to be very quick and smart at the net, but now....(I think if Federer had played in the 90s we could have seen him doing much better at the net than what he has done in this era).

Look at this for example: conditions still rewarded quick and talented players at the net that went full pressure on the opponent (like McEnroe, Cash, Edberg or young Sampras here that sometimes chose to attack the net relentlessly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMGd3wUju94

Will we ever see this beautiful net-game show type of tennis again?

[MurrayMyInspiration]

Who would win a wrestling match between the two? Pete
Who would win a 50metre dash? Pete
Who would win a high jump or long jump? Pete
Who would win longer distance race? Roger
Reflexes, agility, flexibility? Cant decide.
Who could throw a javelin further? A discus? Jump hurdles? Swim better?
If you had to pick one to do a days work on the railroads you would pick PETE. Simples!