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

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac · Nov 8, 2009

Who in your opinion has been the more deadly and better player at around 28-29 years of age when reaching near the end of their careers or primes. Was it Sampras circa 99-00 or Fed circa 08-09 thus far. Fed regained the Number 1 in 09 at 28 years of age. Pete lost his Number 1 spot in 99 to agassi though many feel Sampras was still the best player destroying Andre at wimbeldon, didnt play the USO and beating Agassi at the YEC

TMF · Nov 8, 2009

Federer is better than Sampras since the beginning of their age at 22 and up to the present time(28 yrs old). His records speak volumes.

We will have to wait and see starting 2010. Since Sampras only won 2 more slams starting 2000, I expect Roger to do better since he is a better player(barring from injury).

zagor · Nov 8, 2009

So far Fed has the edge,won 2 slams to Pete's 1,we'll see how 2010 goes.

Carsomyr · Nov 8, 2009

Federer is better right now than Sampras was in 1999 - but I don't think he will be in two years; Sampras had a better overall service game, and he didn't rely on lateral movement as much as Fed does.

boss-man-boss · Nov 8, 2009

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac said:
Who in your opinion has been the more deadly and better player at around 28-29 years of age when reaching near the end of their careers or primes. Was it Sampras circa 99-00 or Fed circa 08-09 thus far. Fed regained the Number 1 in 09 at 28 years of age. Pete lost his Number 1 spot in 99 to agassi though many feel Sampras was still the best player destroying Andre at wimbeldon, didnt play the USO and beating Agassi at the YEC

Hello GameSampras

TMF · Nov 8, 2009

zagor said:
So far Fed has the edge,won 2 slams to Pete's 1,we'll see how 2010 goes.

Actually, their prime starting at 1993/2003 SW19 to 1999/2009(current time), Roger won 15GS to Pete's 11. In addition, Roger won much more MS, and a tremendous run at RG where Pete was a non factor.

Deleted member 21996 · Nov 8, 2009

boss-man-boss said:
Hello GameSampras

Hello yourself whoever you used to be before getting banned....

Deleted member 21996 · Nov 8, 2009

TMF said:
Federer is better than Sampras since the beginning of their age at 22 and up to the present time(28 yrs old). His records speak volumes.

We will have to wait and see starting 2010. Since Sampras only won 2 more slams starting 2000, I expect Roger to do better since he is a better player(barring from injury).

but how many slams did fed have at 19.... you know... before 22?

zagor · Nov 8, 2009

TMF said:
Actually, their prime starting at 1993/2003 SW19 to 1999/2009(current time), Roger won 15GS to Pete's 11. In addition, Roger won much more MS, and a tremendous run at RG where Pete was a non factor.

Thread title was asking about 28-29 not their whole freakin career.Pete turned 28 in '99 and Fed this year,so far Fed has 2 slams to Pete's 1,we'll see how 2010 goes for Fed so we can compare them more(Pete won one slam in 2000,he defended his Wimbledon title against Rafter in the final).

TMF · Nov 8, 2009

Gorecki said:
but how many slams did fed have at 19.... you know... before 22?

I'm not denying Pete wasn't a better player at the younger age, but when both hit their stride in 1993/2003, Federer became a better player from then on.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac · Nov 8, 2009

Im not necessarily going by achievements in this regard.. Just who you feel was the deadlier, better player at their respective ages is all.

aphex · Nov 8, 2009

boss-man-boss said:
Hello GameSampras

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac said:
Im not necessarily going by achievements in this regard.. Just who you feel was the deadlier, better player at their respective ages is all.

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...

AAAA · Nov 8, 2009

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

In 1999 Sampras's record in the slams was
Aus Open : DNS*
FO: 2nd round
Wimbeldon : Won
USO : DNS*

Fed's record 2009 at the same age has been
Aus Open : lost in final in 5 sets
FO: Won
Wimbeldon : Won
USO : lost in final in 5 sets

So when it mattered most Sampras may have been 'deadlier' for a few fleeting moments during the year but he definately wasn't keeping pace with Federer in terms of durability, consistency and results wise.

* Did Not Start

Tennis_Monk · Nov 8, 2009

I guess we got to have some new categories. Federer is pretty much dominating everything.

I suggest very soon we have threads like ' who is better player at 28 yrs 3 month 4 days old' .

TheFifthSet · Nov 8, 2009

aphex said:
sampras' best ever year was worse than federer's 2009...

Sampras was better in '93-'95, and perhaps even '97, than Federer in '09.

Matt H. · Nov 8, 2009

Fed turned 28 in August....so all he has is a runner-up finish at the Open and a Cincy Masters title.

MuseFan · Nov 8, 2009

TheFifthSet said:
Sampras was better in '93-'95, and perhaps even '97, than Federer in '09.

And Sampras' best can't touch Fed's 4th best year(2007). Then we're left with the "god years" of 2004-2006.

TheFifthSet · Nov 8, 2009

MuseFan said:
And Sampras' best can't touch Fed's 4th best year(2007). Then we're left with the "god years" of 2004-2006.

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

GustafsonFanatic · Nov 8, 2009

Sampras was 28 in 1999, and 29 in 2000. Federer is still more dominant at 28. We'll see next year when he's 29.

aphex · Nov 8, 2009

TheFifthSet said:
Sampras was better in '93-'95, and perhaps even '97, than Federer in '09.

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.

in fact, sampras's best year would be about federer's about 6th best.
that's how much better federer is.

TheFifthSet · Nov 8, 2009

aphex said:
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 · Nov 8, 2009

boss-man-boss said:
Hello GameSampras

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

Cyan · Nov 8, 2009

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 · Nov 8, 2009

TheFifthSet said:
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 · Nov 8, 2009

zagor said:
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 · Nov 8, 2009

TheFifthSet said:
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 · Nov 8, 2009

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

darthpwner · Nov 8, 2009

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.

Deleted member 3771 · Nov 9, 2009

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

drakulie · Nov 9, 2009

^^^^^^^^
Lmao!

kishnabe · Nov 9, 2009

aphex said:
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 · Nov 9, 2009

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

World Beater · Nov 9, 2009

TheFifthSet said:
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.

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

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Banned

Legend

Banned

Banned

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Deleted member 3771

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Similar threads