Sergi Bruguera: "Federer is Ten Times Better Than Sampras"

Having played Pete Sampras five times in his career (and winning three of them), Sergi Bruguera is more qualified than most to compare the American’s attributes to those of current World No.1 Roger Federer. So, his assessment that Federer is ‘ten times better’ than the seven-time Wimbledon champion, carries some weight.

Bruguera, currently competing at the Merrill Lynch Tour of Champions event in Doha, believes that Federer is superior in all aspects of the game apart from their respective serves.

“Sampras had the better serve - that was 90 per cent of his game - but Federer has everything,” said Bruguera, who was answering fans’ questions in a BBC Sport website forum from Doha.

“Federer is ten times better than Sampras - there is a big difference. Sampras had one of the best serves ever, his returning was ok, and he had a very good forehand. But Federer has an even better forehand, better backhand, better return game, and better touch and feel. Their volleying is pretty even.”

The Spaniard was talking as Federer notched up a semifinal victory over David Ferrer in Miami, and Bruguera believes the Swiss may even have what it takes to win the only Grand Slam title to elude him so far – the French Open.

“Of course Federer can win Roland Garros,” said Buguera, who won the French Open in 1993 and 1994.

“He has shown that many times he is capable, winning Hamburg and playing in the semifinals of the French Open against Nadal last year losing in four sets. I think he lost that match because he didn’t really believe in himself. He has the perfect game for winning in Paris. For me he has the same chances as Rafael Nadal to win. But he has to have the same confidence. Maybe he sometimes isn’t as confident on clay like he is on other surfaces.”




Source: http://www.atptennis.com/championsto...er_sampras.asp

[scotus]

Wow, if Federer is 10X better than Sampras, then Nadal must be 8X or 9X better than Sampras.

Just what was Bruguera on when he made the statement?

Federer is at best only slightly better than Sampras.

Logically, yes, but tennis matchups are not very rational:

Check this out:

Blake > Nadal
Nadal > Federer
So logically, Blake > Federer, but this is far from the truth.

[Shaolin]

"Federer is ten times better than Sampras - there is a big difference. Sampras had one of the best serves ever, his returning was ok, and he had a very good forehand. But Federer has an even better forehand, better backhand, better return game, and better touch and feel. Their volleying is pretty even.”

This is pretty accurate. 10x is a huge exaggeration of course but I think the ability to win the French and TMS events on clay is a huge difference between Fed and Sampras, so I see where hes coming from.

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Sorry I dont like the way some backers of each agressively compare the two because it means tearing the other down. Giving opinions which is better and why you feel that way, and why you feel Roger will or wont break Sampras's 14 slams record, and will or wont tie or break Sampras's 7 Wimbledon and 6 years at #1 record, is fine, but to come up with big hyperbolic statements like "10 times better" is ridiculous and disrespectful to the great champion you are referring to being on the short side of your argument. I have seen some very agressive arguments the other way that demeen Roger too, both ways are just wrong. Almost every player who has picked up a raquet the last 20 years could only dream of playing tennis like either of those two.

[Grigollif1]

Originally Posted by Lee

Logically, yes, but tennis matchups are not very rational:

Check this out:

Blake > Nadal
Nadal > Federer
So logically, Blake > Federer, but this is far from the truth.

Lee it is way to early to say that Nadal got Fed' number. They only played four times, that is a very small number of matches. Let's wait for a few more so we can have a clear idea in Dubai Federer was completely outclassin Nadal in the First set, when he started to make a lot of unforced...i think it will be a matter of time before Federer start to Catch Nadal.

[superman1]

I don't know. Sampras at his best was pretty much unstoppable. Not just because of his serve/volley, he had a fantastic ground game as well. He was most dangerous when he was hitting on the run. Bruguera played Sampras mostly on clay so what would he know.

Federer is more talented than Sampras, more dominant in the last 3 years than Sampras ever was in 3 of his 6 years at #1...but to keep it up for another 3 years and win 7 more Slams will be tough, but doable. McEnroe was super dominant for a few years, Borg was even more dominant. But Sampras still tops the lists.

Originally Posted by Grigollif1

Lee it way to early to say that Nadal got Fed' number. They only played four times, that is a very small number of matches. Let's wait for a few more so we can have a clear idea in Dubai Federer was completely outclassin Nadal in the First set, when he started to make a lot of unforced...i think it will be a matter of time before Federer start to Catch Nadal.

I base my judgement from this year's performance. Of course, once Federer figures out how to flatten out those high backhands (hopefully by Roland Garros this year) he will be able to handle Nadal.

[Simon Cowell]

He (Bruguera) is obviously an idiot.

[tennissavy]

I think Federer is better than Sampras because he is about even with his serve but better in all other aspects of the game.

FedererHoogenbandfan, I know you love s l u t skaya but not only did an American kick her rear end again, a Japanese did too!!! She is done, career over.

[joesixtoe]

mcenroe wasnt really known for his forehand and backhand. but was able to win in other ways, and still is known to be a great great tennis player. what i'm trying to say is, federer may be known to out class sampras in some aspects of the game, but that doesn't mean sampras wouldn't be as good or if not better than federer. i hope i made that clear. lol

p.s federers volleys just as good as sampras?? i don't think so,,, that was sampras game.

[ragnaROK]

I won't give Federer the advantage at net. Sampras was better at net than Federer in my opinion. Sampras never seemed out of place at net, Federer sometimes seems awkward and indecisive about coming in.

[flymeng]

Serve to Sampras - By a bit. It had more sting.
Return of serve to Federer - Sampras blocks back. Federer is more versatile.
Forehand - About equal.
Backhand to Federer - Sampras slices a lot. Federer is more versatile.
Volley to Sampras. By a bit.
Mental toughness to Federer. By a bit.

I think Federer has a better chance to win the FO than Sampras. Federer's all court game is more versatile. Sergei is way off. Federer is 1.5X better, maybe.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by flymeng

Serve to Sampras - By a bit. It had more sting.

I think the word u're looking for is "lot". By a LOT.

[StraightSets]

Originally Posted by ragnaROK

I won't give Federer the advantage at net. Sampras was better at net than Federer in my opinion. Sampras never seemed out of place at net, Federer sometimes seems awkward and indecisive about coming in.

I agree. And I think Pete had a much stronger serve than Federer did.

[flymeng]

Originally Posted by Andres Guazzelli

I think the word u're looking for is "lot". By a LOT.

Nope. A lot is like comparing Sampras to Chang's serve.

Sampras had more sting. Federer places his serve better and sets it up for an easy point. Sampras got more aces. Both held their serve easily.

[arosen]

Originally Posted by scotus

Wow, if Federer is 10X better than Sampras, then Nadal must be 8X or 9X better than Sampras.
Just what was Bruguera on when he made the statement?
Federer is at best only slightly better than Sampras.

Yeah, you tell'm Scotus, the guy cannot possibly know what he is talking about, I mean, he only beat Sampras, like, 3 times. You on the other hand, heck, you post on TW message board. That's gotta count for something, right?

[diegaa]

Originally Posted by arosen

Yeah, you tell'm Scotus, the guy cannot possibly know what he is talking about, I mean, he only beat Sampras, like, 3 times. You on the other hand, heck, you post on TW message board. That's gotta count for something, right?

lol. Well said.
Come on, you´ve gotta gave some credit to Bruguera. He could be wrong about the 10x issue but he was out there playing top pro tennis for several years... so he probably knows 1000x more about the game than anyone of us.

[darkdreaming]

lol well said arosen ..gosh those punk and wannabe on the forum they amazed me ..some dudes used to play professional tennis ..this dudes played Sampras ...is much much more qualified than any of us and he came up with a conclusion of course it was an hyperbole 10x better but the meaning gets accross ....according to him federer is better than Sampras doesnt mean hes going to win as much and so on ....too many factors but gosh ...even agassi went along those lines ..so what the fudge is it with those knows it all in here that would contradicts professional players .. guys! what are your credentials to argues with the Bruguera Agassi ..and so on ...i personally dont think that federer will beat Sampras record of slams but i do see with my own eyes that Fed is a better player ....

[superman1]

No one's arguing that Federer's the better player, but Bruguera definitely sold Sampras short. I don't need to have played Sampras to know how much better he was than anyone in history whose name isn't Federer. I've seen enough Sampras records and highlights and matches to have figured that one out. If you say Federer is 10X better than Sampras, than he must be at least that much better than Borg and McEnroe and Lendl and Laver and Agassi and everyone else.