See this is a little unfair on Sampras if you ask me. Sure, Federer has the most slams and should rightfully be considered one of the top 2 GOAT contenders (if there is such a thing as a GOAT). But from what I have seen, and I have seen both of them enough at the AO live, Sampras is as good as Federer.
Sampras did make it his priority to win as many slams as possible and he was very public about it. However, how was he to know that only 10 years later, his record would be broken? These are the sort of records that last 30, 40 years, right?
My point is, Federer has always had the benefit of hindsight. He has always had the target. Once he knew he was good enough to dominate the sport as Sampras did, that target became 15. 15 slams is all it would take for him to be the GOAT.
Even when they played their one and only match at Wimbledon, Federer knew exactly who he was up against, Sampras had no idea who he was up against. To Sampras, Federer was just another challenger to his Wimbledon throne. To Federer, he was up against the greatest Wimbledon champ of all time. If Sampras knew who he was up against, what Federer would eventually become, would he have approached that match differently from the first point? Would he have trained harder for the event? Would the result have been different? Maybe. Who knows? Who cares?
What if we were to swap them? Put Federer in the 90s and put Sampras in the 00s/10s. Let’s make it so Sampras has the target to aim for. Let’s assume the target is 18 (17 slams Fed has won plus the extra slam needed to break it). Better yet, let’s assume the target is 21 (20 + 1). Lets assume also that the courts are not homogenised and they are as they were in the 90s. We all know Sampras is good enough. We all know he would dominate at the USO and Wimbledon and win his fair share at the AO. Would Sampras be trying to break the record of 20? Well once he knew he was good enough, and the slams started to roll in his favour, 4 slams becomes 5, 5 becomes 6, 6 becomes 7 and so on and so on, until the 20 becomes a distinct possibility, of course he would be trying to break it. You see he would have the target to aim for. He would aspire to the target. He would be chasing history. Would he get to the target? Who knows, but I have no doubt in my mind that he would have applied himself alot more from the very beginning, he would have got fitter from the very beginning, he would have trained harder from the very beginning, he would have played every slam from the very beginning as if he was chasing history, he would have left nothing to chance, did everything within his means to become a better tennis player, to try and reach the target set by Federer. You see, this has been Federer’s advantage all along. He has had the benefit of knowing what was in front of him and doing what he had to do to become the GOAT. This seems to be lost on most of you. Throughout all of Federer’s career, it has been a case of “can you get to Sampras, can you break Sampras’ record, do you think you can overtake Sampras?” Sampras Sampras Sampras. Sampras’ record this, Sampras’ record that. 14 this, 14 that. Of course Federer is going to try ands reel in Sampras, he knew the target and he went for it pretty much the day after he smashed Phillipousis at Wimbledon.
While Federer is still able, he will continue to play to try and win slams because he does not want to have happen to him what happened to Sampras. Federer knows that someone breaking his record within 10 years is now a possibility, something that Sampras could not have possibly thought in his last few years of playing, especially now with homogenised courts.
Put them in the same era, both starting and finishing at the same time, and I’m pretty sure that they would have split their H2H and slam victories. Like I said, I have seen them both play at the AO. I saw Sampras take Moya apart in the 1997 final. If ever you want to see some of the best strokes ever played, watch the highlights of that match. Sampras pulled Moya apart from all over the court. I am talking a Sampras in full flight. Was superb to watch. Don’t believe me? Try and get a copy of that final and witness it for yourself. And yet I also saw Baghdatis nearly go 2 sets to love up against a peak Federer 9 years later. Put it this way, based purely on what I saw live in both those finals, Sampras 1997 AO final vs Federer 2006 AO final, Sampras would have tore Federer apart in straight sets. Yes, in straight sets. Again, this is based from what I saw with my own eyes.
Federer will probably be seen as the GOAT and that’s fine by me. I have no problem with that because I am not a fanboy. I won’t lose sleep at night over this put it that way. I love tennis and so I will watch anyone. But you need to put this whole thread and the comments discussed in it into perspective. Most people are talking numbers alone which is quantitative over qualitative. There are stories behind those numbers though and that needs to be factored in. If we are talking purely numbers, then the bottom line is that Federer did not exist during the majority of Sampras’ time on the tour, but when Federer came into his own, like I said above, Sampras’ record this, Sampras’ record that, Sampras’ record bla bla bla. It all became about whether or not Federer could get to Sampras’ record.
If in 10 years time someone breaks Federer’s record does that suddenly leave Federer in no man’s land? Because that is what some of you are suggesting with Sampras. Like I said, unfair.
Never saw Borg play live so I can’t comment about him.