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

[superman1]

Federer has a fine serve. But it's returnable. You don't see it completely disorienting his opponents like Sampras' serve did. And Sampras came in on those serves, and could volley the return right into the other corner. If you could break that serve, congratulations, but his return game was also very tough. He hit the ball flat and as far away from his opponent as possible. When you're beating up a young, fast Andre Agassi from the baseline, you have to be good.

Agassi said that there's nowhere to go with Federer. But Federer does provide openings, we've seen them over and over again, most recently with his Blake matches. But once you drop your level for 2 seconds, which any human being must do at some point, he's still there hitting the ball right back. Sampras at his best didn't even let you into the match, no opening at all. Federer is better because his level is always high, the games go by, sets, matches, days, months, years, and he never lets, but both of those guys are pretty even in different ways.

when comparing fed with sampras, dont campare career records. so dont compare career grand slam titles and years at #1.

sampras' best year at #1 was 65-11 in 1996.
in over 2 years federer has been 177-10 in a field that is supposed to be deeper than ever.

more specifically, federer has gone 2004 70-5, and 2005 81-4. sampras' best 2 seasons was 1994 77-12, 1996 65-11.

won wimbledon and usopen back to back years.

3 grand slams in a year.

and what about 24 finals in a row winning. pete didnt even do half of that.

7-0 in grand slam finals.

federer has already won more clay court titles
than pete

federer has already matched sampras' best result at the french, a semifinal.

Federer has held the #1 spot on the ATP rankings for 113 consecutive weeks, the third longest streak in history. Pete Sampras (fourth) held that spot for 102 weeks from 1996 to '98

Federer held a record 26 consecutive wins against top ten ranked opponents

federer has already won more titles in one year(11) sampras won 10 in 1994.

federer has a 35 match winning streak, better than pete's 29

won more masters series in one year(4).


Federer shattered the record for most consecutive singles wins on U.S. soil (now stands at 47 match wins).

the list goes on and on, and so does federer's career.

you cant compare years at #1 yet or grand slam titles yet since federer's career isnt done yet. but records you can compare federer holds the majority over sampras.

[Insane90DegreeSpin]

Did you see the 2001 Sampras vs Federer? It looked like Federer based his old game on Sampras and now he's making his own version.

It's pretty obvious that a new replacement of Fed will come sooner or later. The tennis standards keep raising every decade so we can't just compare different generations of players.

Fed still has some weaknesses. Heck, the future generations will think that Roger isn't that good.

His weaknesses are... bah who cares we aren't playing against him. Just sit back and be entertained otherwise Michael Jackson will release a new album. For kids. Plastic nose included.

[!Tym]

Fastdunn, he beat Krajicek in straight sets indoors. He beat Stich easily at the US Open, and on hards just a few months later, beat Korda too same tournie. He owned Rafter and beat Rafter at Wimbledon serving and volleying much of the way(mathc of the tournament according to a BBC reporter) when he lost to him in 96 he said he was tired coming from the Olympics and didn't give as much, their last match after their French bout that year was when Bruguera wasn't playing the same level he did to start the year wheras Rafter was peaking and still a very fun match, saw it.

Did you even see his match against Sampras at the 93 Indoor year ending masters? He won the second set 6-1, when the courts were ridiculously fast and he was NOT using a Babolat or even an RD-7. In fact, he came within two points of winning the second set 6-0. Beginning of the third, Bruguera rifled a return low at Sampras' feet and Sampras just shook his head then turned around bowed down to Bruguera, after that the match was pretty much dead even. Was only one break in the first, and in the third, Bruguera played a loosed game, and Sampras two great points to get one break and close it out but even then Bruguera got some great shots in.

In the French when he lost to Sampras, he was in no shape at all, and still had a ton of break chances which he called one of the most frustrating matches of his career.

He also beat Korda indoors when the courts were lightning fast, he in the grand slam cup in 93 in fact, Korda beat Sampras and Stich in consecutive epic matches to win the title, but in the quarters he barely beat Bruguera in three sets, was like 7-5 in the third or something.

Did you see his match agianst Becker in the 94 year ending semis on Becker's home turf in the year ending championshsips? Becker said he was lucky to have won, that if Brugera didn't choke at the end of the second? In the third, he lapsed mentally Becker just rolled from there on, but it was NOT some streamroll match. He took nearly every single serve on the rise, NOT at all like Muster.

He in fact was one of the BEST indoor players of 94, only a notch below the Beckers of the world, and he also took Agassi to the limit at the masters as well, Becker watched that and se he knew it was going to very close after that.

He was an oft injured player, his fire was either there or it wasn't, as PMac said IF and WHEN he's feeling good physically and confident, THEN a great competitor...otherwise, tanker basically.

Did you see his match against Leconte at the 95 Paris Indoors? Again, very fast surface, and Leconte played extremely fired up and inspired, surreal crowd and vibe, yet Bruguera still reversed the momentum in the third...some GREAT points, Leconte twice applauded Bruguera believe it or not.

Did you see his match against Sampras at the 97 Lipton? Bruguera played some truly unbelievable passes that match, an unbelievable tie-breaker, and in the third, Sampras broke back and tried to get the crowd into it, and yet Bruguera "called his bluff."

Bruguera had some of the best passes in the game, and one of the best backhand return of serves too. His weakness on the return was the forehand, but he did pretty decently chipping it low against Sampras making him volley up on a no pace ball, totally different philosophy than Muster against net rushers. He actually WANTED Sampras to come in before their match, said passing was one of his strengths, again not like Muster.

Also, Bruguera actually took the ball on the rise to return against net rushers on faster surfaces. His chip was the weakness against baseliners, however, who could take advantage of it, or were going for it and "on" for the day. See how Guga and Agassi whooped him at the 96 Olympic finals and the French final. THEN, his chippie return was like a sitting duck.

Brugera also matched up better then Agassi against the running forehand, because Agassi always had a tendency to smother the ball into the net at full run, stubby arms, low top, bad combo. Bruguera on the other hand could often diffuse Sampras' running forehands because he was fast enough, and much better and could flick it back deep with top to the backhand resetting the point. Sampras was the type where IF you could withstand his "knock-out" blows, for an extra shot or two, then chances went up exponentially. Agassi simply didn't have the same speed or reach.

Also, Bruguera's heavy topspin to Sampras' backhand...duh, then add that his backhand was as Tony Trabert said one of the best and most versatile in the game when on. He put on a clinic with his backhand at the Lipton, he could defend, hit moonball, open stance, down the line or cross-court, or for power when he wanted to, plus he held the direction of the ball till the last possible second on the backhand pass because of the way he cocked his wrist. Also, remember Agassi hit much flatter, but not TOO flat like Korda's skidding shots, the ideal strike zone for Sampras. His backhand could go red hot against Agassi at times because of this.

Again, just matchups. It's why Ferreira matched up well with Sampras too, but look at how he did with Agassi. Ferreira was COMPLETELY owned by Agassi. Yet against Sampras? Not so. Same deal, faster than Agassi, more reach than Agassi, just like Bruguera, could track down those running forehands, but also great on the pass.

Ferreira against Agassi though, NEVER. Agassi's the best pretty good serve eater up there ever was, it's against the great serves where he might get into trouble sometimes by gambling too much thus getting aced too much.

Matchups, Bruguera vs. Medvedev, assuming Bruguera was on, very good match up for hm. But Medvedev vs. Kuerten not as good for Kuerten, yet Bruguera's game played perfectly into Kuerten's hands because Kuerten was so tall that Bruguera's main shots, the heavy topspin, didn't bug him at all, they bounced RIGHT into his ideal strike zone, plus awesome concentration. Bruguera hated playing Muster more than anyone, because of this.

Yet, take Kafelnikov on Guga, was outright dismissive at times, basically saying the only reason he won their matches was because he let him, that when he was on his game he was dominating. Kafelnikov played just like Medvedev, yet could hang tough like Guga who even on off days like against Mike Russel fought his heart out literally. When Kafelnikov was at his best, US Open match annihilation is a great example yet one match later? Kafelnikov could do NOTHING against Hewitt.

10times better, maybe to Bruguera, but that's because his game simply matched up well with Sampras'. And also, just because someone says that does not mean he means literally 6-0, 6-0 for Federer in a real match. Of course, taking it too literally. At this level, *slight* differences in match up styles count huge. Maybe was said it was not PC enough, but don't think he meant it LITERALLY.

[Tof]

Hey cpd 222 (hy such a name, you think we want to chase you??)

Check who Pete was playing against when he made 14 grand slam: agassi at the top of his career (not now...), courier at the best, edberg at almost the best, becker, rafter.......pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fff.......

Who federer is fighting against: nadal for 1 year, when not injured and only really good on clay. What else, ljubicic, davidenko, agassi at 35, blake.....Not too impressive.

Of course federer is a giant and I love his game. But he could not have broken pete so often. Remember, the most important shot is the serve and Pete's one was by far the best.

For sure, Pete would have had a positive record in Wimbledon.
Would say tie in US open.
Federer would win on slower surfaces (agree his records on clay are already better than Pete's).

[galain]

I don't really know how Brugera can say that 90% of Sampras' game was his serve. That's really not giving credit where credit is die - Sampras had a fantastic backcourt game as well. He tore Agassi a new one from the baseline in 99 at Wimby.

What kept Pete at the top for so long wasn't his game as much as it was his mind. I love watching Federer and no doubt - he is an incredible talent, but to me he doesn't seem as mentally strong as Pete. In much the same mould as Lendl - Fed seems to be a great front runner. Put him in a corner and he doesn't really feel as sturdy as Pete did.

[mucat]

Originally Posted by flymeng

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.

Federer does NOT place his serve better. Sampras is deadly with both of his 1st and 2nd serve placement.

[lucky leprechaun]

Sampras has the best 2nd serve ever, and I mean EVER! in the game of tennis. You will not see the likes of him in that part of the game ever again, just like you will never see the hands of mcenroe ever again either. Sometimes perfection is reached and you can do no better.

[morten]

well said Tym. I think competition at the very top was tougher 10 years ago, but the top 100 level is better now. Even top ...1000.

[35ft6]

Dude, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. There's plenty of guys here who not only never played on the pro tour but never played Sampras who could tell you who was really better! I hate these pro players who want to re-write history. Next thing you know they'll say Tilden is better than Agassi.

[Christopher]

Both awesome players. But for me, Rodge takes it comfterbly. Thats my personal opinion though, I just dont believe Sampras ever had the ability to decide which type of style he was going to win with on a certain day the way Federer does.

[slice bh compliment]

Originally Posted by 35ft6

Dude, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. There's plenty of guys here who not only never played on the pro tour but never played Sampras who could tell you who was really better! I hate these pro players who want to re-write history. Next thing you know they'll say Tilden is better than Agassi.

Good one. Tilden over Agassi, heheheh...
I think Tilden would have had his hands full with Donald Young!

Yeah, man, inter-era comparisons are preposterous.....you can't win. They are fun to debate. So, you can't lose either.

Sergi knows the game. Sounds like he was happy to be heard and may have added a little starch to his opinions. Let's not crucify him over semantics.

[bluegrasser]

I think with both players in their prime, they'd split matches quite a bit, with Sampras getting the edge on grass = better serve, better volley IMO.

[tlm]

Sampras was better than fed will ever be,wake up you fed lovers.

[Galactus]

Given that he's played Sampras 34 times and Federer 11 times, I'll always go with Andre Agassi's assessment of the both of them:
"Roger is the best I've ever played against - there's nowhere to go. He makes you play on the edge. You need to play the best tennis you've ever played. Pete 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 Federer"

The only possible loophole in his argument is that his matches vs. Federer came in the last 4-5 years, not in his prime.

[Pistol Pete]

I am a huge Pete fan and for me to sit here and argue Pete is better will just get me yelled at. Pete Sampras in my opinion made the game look easier than federer. Pete Sampras' sheer power was just awsome and he did not set points up the way federer does he just would basically over power with his huge flat forehand and use his heavy topspin backhand to get the forehand. I honestly do not see the federer of today beating the Pete Sampras the beat Agassi at the 99 wimbledon final... I also do not see federer beating the Sampras that beat Agassi in the 01 U.S. Open quaters...Pete beat Andre with his Serve his volley and his groundies...
They are both just out of this world and the fun is we try to compare them...but it just can never be said who is the better...just remember this when Roddick came on tour they said he had a better serve than Pete...when Hewitt came on tour they said he had the best return in the history of the sport...so things get hyped up for the audience and enterainment

[diegaa]

Originally Posted by tlm

Sampras was better than fed will ever be,wake up you fed lovers.

I bet you r american....

[Tennis_Goodness]

Typo, Please Read Below

[Tennis_Goodness]

I think the only thing Pete did better then Roger was serve and volley. Everything else, Federer is better in.

Also Federer is better on clay and is heads and shoulders above his competition, more so then even Sampras was.

The competition these days are bigger and stronger and faster then players from the Sampras era. They might not be better (although some might be) but the players these days are phsycially superior. We have quite a few players serving over 130 on a consistant basis unlike the Sampras era when there were not nearly as many. Also EVERYBODY these days are in top phsycial shape, even ranked number 130. I think it's tougher to be number 1 these days then anytime before in the history of the game!

Pete's biggest weapon was his serve, but we have seen Federer face Petes serve. Pete had lost a step when they met in there only meeting, but Petes serve was perfectly fine and Federer was able to handle Petes biggest weapon.

Also Federer has a very good serve as well and Pete would definately have trouble with it. Pete never returned as good as Federer does and Federer's serve might even be a bigger weapon in there head to head match then Sampras's.

I just don't see how Pete's strengths would beat Federer when Roger's strengths are just more well rounded. Federer has more bigger weapons then Sampras and has better defense.

[kooyah]

Originally Posted by The tennis guy

More competition in 90s? How do you measure that? Could it be that Federer is just too good for the rest of the competition right now?

I always have to roll my eyes whenever people say "there just isn't as much competition" when discussing Federer. Isn't that the same thing as saying "Federer wins too much"? After all, there's plenty of competition. It just so happens that the majority of the time, the competition loses.