2006 Fed would have annihilated Prime Sampras

2006 Fed basically could have done almost anything he wanted on court with his racket. Although annihilating pete is a strong expression. If Pete tried to play baseilne tennis on slow courts then may be yes. But if prime Pete was bombing serves and volleying then it would have been much more interesting. Although federer does enjoy the pace and many times defeated big servers like karlovic, Roddick, Raonic, Isner etc.
 
Yeah and the level of competition he faced back then I guess was also the highest in the history of the sport ???
 
2006 Federer lost to teenage Nadal on a FAST HC and he also lost to teenage Murray.

So yeah, I think prime Sampras would've had a shot at beating him too...
 
Yes 2006 Federer from Halle to Dubai 2007 was the highest and best level of tennis I have ever seen. He lost one match, where he kind of tanked during that period and was just unstoppable.

Federer himself is the worst possible match up for Pete.

EDIT

Just look at the depth he gets on his shots. His forehand was so deep and penetrating.
 
Last edited:
Wow. This reminded me that it has been a very, very long time since Fed moved like this. His back was giving him problems as long ago as the AO09 final. Gah I'd forgotten. He still hits magic shots sometimes, but his feet, they were so fast.
 
I'm sorry mate. Watch some prime Sampras footage (see former pro sections) and then it becomes obvious that Federer, great baseliner that he is, is no Sampras.
Sampras in the mid nineties was the best allcourter you'll ever see. On any fast court, too much game for Fed 2006.
 
Would have, could have , should have wont matter.

They played once (both not in their best form) and Roger won.

Personal opinion, I fully believe Sampras is no match to Roger under current conditions. Roger simply is better player than any version of sampras.
 
Tennis_Monk said:
Would have, could have , should have wont matter.

They played once (both not in their best form) and Roger won.

Personal opinion, I fully believe Sampras is no match to Roger under current conditions. Roger simply is better player than any version of sampras.
Click to expand...

Under "CURRENT" conditions you may be right.. In Pete's era, where the courts played more to Pete's game, Sampras and his game would've rolled Fed no problem except for the mud- errr clay Sampras had to play on
 
2006 Fed MAY annihilate Sampras on clay and slow HC.
Maybe even slow grass. But on fast HC and fast grass? You've gotta be kidding me!
 
the only surface where anyone could have dominated sampras would be clay. federer would have done so as well. But it'd be competitive on other surfaces.
 
anyone who thinks that Federer would have an easy time with Sampras at USO or Wimbledon has zero knowledge of the sport. Sampras's serve alone would keep things extremely competitive.
 
Funny how a Nadal fan started this thread and all the Federer fans (rightfully) disagree. :lol:

It would have been competitive obviously, no annihilation on either side.
 
LOL. I was there for Federer's QF and F wins over Blake & Roddick at the 2006 U.S. Open. Those were both pretty competitive matches.

1. Against Blake, Federer won, 7-6 (9-7), 6-0, 6-7 (7-9), 6-4. Blake had set points in that first set tiebreaker, had several chances at an early break in the 4th set, and had a break point to level the 4th set at 5-5.

2. Against Roddick, Federer won, 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1. Roddick had Federer in a love-40 hole early in the 3rd set in the match and was right there with Roger until 6-5 in the 3rd set.

Clearly PEAK Sampras was >>>>> Roddick and especially Blake, and both of those guys gave Fed competitive 4 setters at the 2006 U.S. Open. What this tells me is that a PEAK Sampras against the Federer from the 2006 U.S. Open would have been a very competitive match, probably a 5 setter. I think that either player could have taken it.
 
dmt said:
anyone who thinks that Federer would have an easy time with Sampras at USO or Wimbledon has zero knowledge of the sport. Sampras's serve alone would keep things extremely competitive.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse. Matches between most elite pro players are typically competitive.
I am not sure if you are implying Roger wouldnt win.
Under current conditions (couldnt care less about 90's conditions) , Roger is likely to win most of their matches regardless of surface. Actually, i stand corrected. we dont even need to count clay--Sampras and clay dont go together.

Lets also not forget they actually played once (albeit not in prime) on Sampras's most favored surface. Conventional wisdom states Sampras should have won that match. He made it competitive but couldnt pull through.
 
I would not use the word annihilate when it comes to matches between these two all time greats. I think it's competitive on all surfaces, even on clay if Sampras and Federer are going prime versus prime. Sampras could raise his game very impressively for big matches and out of nowhere you'd say, "where did that come from"? I think they'd trade wins, but I'm not certain we'd have a lopsided record if they played a lot across various surfaces. Fast hard courts? Sampras could really get it going. No all time great would simply annihilate the guy. Way too tough.
 
Last edited:
Prime for prime, regardless of surface Federer would probably win 9 times out of 10.

Federer actually plays better on faster courts in general -- in fact his all-court repotoire is more prominently on display on such surfaces. Federer would do as well (and IMO even better) on 90s grass/hard-courts while Sampras would inevitably falter in today's slower conditions - deeming Federer as BY FAR the better player is a no-brainer. Federer also faced better overall competition. Quite a few of Sampras's victories came against pathetically weak opposition.

In addition, if you take the homogenization argument route, it actually makes the current field "tougher" because the surface doesn't allow for exploitation of surface dependent weaknesses and short-comings.
 
borg number one said:
I would not use the word annihilate when it comes to matches between these two all time greats. I think it's competitive on all surfaces, even on clay if Sampras and Federer are going prime versus prime. Sampras could raise his game very impressively for big matches and out of nowhere you'd say, where did that come from! Basically, I think they'd trade wins, but I'm not certain we'd have a lopsided record if they played a lot across various surfaces. Fast hard courts? Sampras could really get it going. No all time great would simply annihilate the guy. Way too tough.
Click to expand...

It would be close everywhere else, but yes, Federer would annihilate Sampras on clay.
 
I'd go perhaps 6-4 over ten matches and it could go either way. Over more matches played, I'd give Federer the slight edge. For just one match, especially at a big venue/major, I'd give the edge to Sampras. On clay, I'd give the clear edge to Federer. In tennis, minor details such as clay conditions (slow after a rain or dry and hot?....indoors?) make a difference. Faster clay, just one match..do not count out Sampras. Too tough in a big, single match. Over a long, drawn out clay tournament, with very slow conditions, I'd give a clear edge to Federer. On a hot day, Federer again on clay.

Sampras vs. Becker. 1996 Stuttgart Final. Fast Indoor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC3rxS9avY
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
I'd go perhaps 6-4 over ten matches and it could go either way. Over more matches played, I'd give Federer the slight edge. For just one match, especially at a big venue/major, I'd give the edge to Sampras.

Sampras vs. Becker. 1996 Stuttgart Final. Fast Indoor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC3rxS9avY
Click to expand...

Their H2H would never go either way because, while they are probably pretty equal on HC and grass (though I give Federer an edge on HC just due to his ability to absorb pace and superior footwork), Federer is a MUCH better clay court player and its insulting to him to even say that Sampras would win more than 1 or 2 matches out of 10 against him on clay.
 
President said:
Their H2H would never go either way because, while they are probably pretty equal on HC and grass (though I give Federer an edge on HC just due to his ability to absorb pace and superior footwork), Federer is a MUCH better clay court player and its insulting to him to even say that Sampras would win more than 1 or 2 matches out of 10 against him on clay.
Click to expand...

On clay over various conditions, when Sampras was moving his very best, I think he could perhaps get a couple more, but I agree that Federer would have the clear edge over Sampras on clay over say 10 matches. I don't see 3 out of 10 out of reach. The Tour is a long grind, and players are sometimes in form and sometimes out of form. Yet, if you go prime for prime, it's a bit different in my opinion.
 
borg number one said:
On clay over various conditions, when Sampras was moving his very best, I think he could perhaps get a couple more, but I agree that Federer would have the clear edge over Sampras on clay over say 10 matches. I don't see 3 out of 10 out of reach...
Click to expand...
If they were both in their prime I would be surprised if Sampras could even win 1 in 10 on clay versus Federer. On his best day he was more out of sorts on clay than Murray.

Regardless, peak Federer would beat peak Sampras on anything but the quickest courts the lion's share of the time. Wishful memories are a wonderful thing in comparing different eras of sport but the reality is Sampras wasn't as complete or consistent a player as Federer.
 
Bobby Jr said:
If they were both in their prime I would be surprised if Sampras could even win 1 in 10 on clay versus Federer. On his best day he was more out of sorts on clay than Murray.

Regardless, peak Federer would beat peak Sampras on anything but the quickest courts the lion's share of the time. Wishful memories are a wonderful thing in comparing different eras of sport but the reality is Sampras wasn't as complete or consistent a player as Federer.
Click to expand...

Wishful memories? No. Just looking at how Sampras would look to get some wins. Look, I agree that Sampras simply stopped taking the FO very seriously in his heyday as he prepared for the FO, but that does not translate to his matches against Federer. He may not have been quite as complete, but his strengths as far as the serve forehand combo as well as underrated backhand made him anything but an incomplete player. Hypo matchups, I would be surprised if Federer got 9 out of 10 wins on even clay versus Sampras. It's possible, but I think Sampras could manage some more wins even there. He'd need a Hamburg sort of situation. Best of three would be preferable for him versus a five setter as well.
 
borg number one said:
Wishful memories? No.
Click to expand...
Yes, the same thing that brings people to claim Lendl's forehand was as good as Federer's or that Muster was as good as Nadal on clay. Wishful memories is the consistent higher rating of comparisons with things from back in the day - music used to be better, that bar used to be better, that beach used to be better etc.

It applies to tennis as much as anything.

borg number one said:
Just looking at how Sampras would look to get some wins. Look, I agree that Sampras simply stopped taking the FO very seriously in his heyday as he prepared for the FO, but that does not translate to his matches against Federer.
Click to expand...
People love to make out like he stopping taking it seriously because he wanted to concentrate on Wimbledon or something (more wishful memories which serve as convenient apology-forming for his poor results on clay). He actually stopped taking it seriously because at his very, very best he knew he would still be no match for the clay guys - even if he beat one there were two more lined up. He was strategically inept and his serve big and go for broke with his forehand tactic never stuck long enough to make a dent. Quite how him doing that already proven failed tactic would have more success against Federer is a mystery to me.
borg number one said:
...his strengths as far as the serve forehand combo as well as underrated backhand made him anything but an incomplete player.
Click to expand...
His movement on clay and his general backhand were holes in his game by today's standards. He would be no more hassle for someone as adept (strategically and movement) on clay as Federer than Tim Henman.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr said:
Yes, the same thing that brings people to claim Lendl's forehand was as good as Federer's or that Muster was as good as Nadal on clay. Wishful memories is the consistent higher rating of comparisons with things from back in the day - music used to be better, that bar used to be better, that beach used to be better etc.

It applies to tennis as much as anything.


People love to make out like he stopping taking it seriously because he wanted to concentrate on Wimbledon or something (more wishful memories which serve as convenient apology-forming for his poor results on clay). He actually stopped taking it seriously because at his very, very best he knew he would still be no match for the clay guys - even if he beat one there were two more lined up.

His movement on clay and his general backhand were holes in his game by today's standards. He would be no more hassle for someone as adept (strategically and movement) on clay as Federer than Tim Henman.
Click to expand...

His Thalassemia definitely came into play. Memories, but not wistful sorry I won't agree to that term as it implies that I want him to be better than he actually was. He was just that good at his best. I know what I saw and if you play tennis a lot, it's just not that simple in my opinion. Bars and movies have very little to do with Sampras versus Federer. I don't go to bars, but love a great movie. In his prime, Sampras could move excellent, though he definitley was no Borg or Nadal sliding around. Federer, by necessity slides and moves better as it's much more of a lateral game versus how Sampras would try and approach his matches versus Federer. Sampras vs. Henman on clay is apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:
Yea.. Because his domination over CRAP Roddick who was playing pitiful tennis, Davydenko, Blake Hewitt (already past his prime) , Kiefer, Baghaditis and his wimbleodn win over pre-puberty Nadal etc.. means soo much and is so telling when you put him up against other GOAT candidates in their peak/prime

2006 was probably the biggest SCRUB field out of any year outside from the transitional era of 2002-2003
 
dmt said:
anyone who thinks that Federer would have an easy time with Sampras at USO or Wimbledon has zero knowledge of the sport. Sampras's serve alone would keep things extremely competitive.
Click to expand...

Agassi had success against Sampras, but on hc Federer is in another league. What did Agassi say after playing both them in their prime at the big stages? Agassi said Federer was better because there's nowhere to go. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do.
 
90's Clay said:
Yea.. Because his domination over CRAP Roddick who was playing pitiful tennis, Davydenko, Blake Hewitt (already past his prime) , Kiefer, Baghaditis and his wimbleodn win over pre-puberty Nadal etc.. means soo much and is so telling when you put him up against other GOAT candidates in their peak/prime

2006 was probably the biggest SCRUB field out of any year outside from the transitional era of 2002-2003
Click to expand...

And crap Roddick, Hewitt and Safin gave Sampras a severe beating at the big stage. These guys got owned by Federer so what would you expect if Fed meet Pete more times other than Wimbledon 2001? The result will not be good for Pete.
 
buscemi said:
LOL. I was there for Federer's QF and F wins over Blake & Roddick at the 2006 U.S. Open. Those were both pretty competitive matches.

1. Against Blake, Federer won, 7-6 (9-7), 6-0, 6-7 (7-9), 6-4. Blake had set points in that first set tiebreaker, had several chances at an early break in the 4th set, and had a break point to level the 4th set at 5-5.

2. Against Roddick, Federer won, 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1. Roddick had Federer in a love-40 hole early in the 3rd set in the match and was right there with Roger until 6-5 in the 3rd set.

Clearly PEAK Sampras was >>>>> Roddick and especially Blake, and both of those guys gave Fed competitive 4 setters at the 2006 U.S. Open. What this tells me is that a PEAK Sampras against the Federer from the 2006 U.S. Open would have been a very competitive match, probably a 5 setter. I think that either player could have taken it.
Click to expand...

More evidence of Pete-fanboi stupidity.

Peak Sampras lost to Jamie Yzaga; out of prime Roddick >>>> peak Yzaga. I'll leave you to draw the conclusion using your logic.

Let's deal with some facts:
Baby Roddick leads Sampras 2-1 (yes, the same Sampras who played one of his finest matches at USO against Agassi later that year)
Baby Federer leads Sampras 1-0 (4-time defending & 7-time Wimbledon champion)

Both Roddick and Federer would go on to win their first slams a year after Pete won his last (a year after Pete's defeats).
The rest is speculative nonsense on how great Sampras would've performed.

To the OP:
ANY version of Federer in [2003 - 2010] >>> Peak Sampras. Peak Sampras does have a chance against reduced foot speed Federer (i.e. post 2010 Federer), that too only on faster surfaces.
 
TMF said:
Agassi had success against Sampras, but on hc Federer is in another league. What did Agassi say after playing both them in their prime at the big stages? Agassi said Federer was better because there's nowhere to go. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do.
Click to expand...
I agree that Federer is a better player

but do you honestly believe Agassi is unbiased? Sampras denied Agassi a heck lot more than Federer did. Sampras's defeat of Agassi in the US open and Wimbledon were painful for him, much more so than when Federer beat him.

Agassi took Federer to five sets at USO. He never did that with Sampras.

do you really think Federer destroying Roddick or Blake meant he would "annihilate" Sampras? The title of this thread is insulting unless you are talking about clay.
 
fed_rulz said:
More evidence of Pete-fanboi stupidity.

Peak Sampras lost to Jamie Yzaga; out of prime Roddick >>>> peak Yzaga. I'll leave you to draw the conclusion using your logic.

Let's deal with some facts:
Baby Roddick leads Sampras 2-1 (yes, the same Sampras who played one of his finest matches at USO against Agassi later that year)
Baby Federer leads Sampras 1-0 (4-time defending & 7-time Wimbledon champion)

Both Roddick and Federer would go on to win their first slams a year after Pete won his last (a year after Pete's defeats).
The rest is speculative nonsense on how great Sampras would've performed.

To the OP:
ANY version of Federer in [2003 - 2010] >>> Peak Sampras. Peak Sampras does have a chance against reduced foot speed Federer (i.e. post 2010 Federer), that too only on faster surfaces.
Click to expand...
If you think even a peak Federer would ever have an easy time vs Sampras on any other surface barring clay, you are the fan boy. On faster surfaces, Sampras's serve is a bigger weapon than anything Federer has in his aresenal. Infact on a surface like USO and old Wimby, it would probably be 5-5.
 
TMF said:
And crap Roddick, Hewitt and Safin gave Sampras a severe beating at the big stage. These guys got owned by Federer so what would you expect if Fed meet Pete more times other than Wimbledon 2001? The result will not be good for Pete.
Click to expand...

lol :) Since a 34 year old Agassi took a prime Federer to five sets at the US open, and since he could never take Sampras to five sets at the USO means that if Sampras and Federer met at USO, Sampras would smash Federer no? The results would not be good for Federer.
 
it seems to be a given that federer would hold the edge over sampras on slow surfaces, clay in particular. i agree with that.

but i really don't see pete having the edge on quicker surfaces, either. federer is the best reflex returner and low-ball baseliner i've ever seen. there's an old match of federer at around 18 or 19 playing goran on indoor carpet, it's ridiculous how easily he handles goran's serve.

i'm a huge pete fan but federer is a very bad matchup for him, and i tend to agree that fed at his best would take care of any version of sampras, on any surface.
 
dmt said:
lol :) Since a 34 year old Agassi took a prime Federer to five sets at the US open, and since he could never take Sampras to five sets at the USO means that if Sampras and Federer met at USO, Sampras would smash Federer no? The results would not be good for Federer.
Click to expand...

You do realize that almost unplayable wind contributed to that match right? Federer was really off his game.
 
NatF said:
You do realize that almost unplayable wind contributed to that match right? Federer was really off his game.
Click to expand...

And Agassi was 34-35 years old.. :shock: Past his best. Not to mention he played THREE 5 set setters before the match with Fed in 2005 in the USO finals

Pete was putting the thump down on a much younger closer to his prime Agassi at the USO.
 
Last edited:
hawk eye said:
I'm sorry mate. Watch some prime Sampras footage (see former pro sections) and then it becomes obvious that Federer, great baseliner that he is, is no Sampras.
Sampras in the mid nineties was the best allcourter you'll ever see. On any fast court, too much game for Fed 2006.
Click to expand...

2006 Federer would make Sampras look like the one-dimensional player he was.
 
90's Clay said:
Not to mention he played THREE 5 set setters before the match with Fed in 2005 in the USO finals
Click to expand...

Do you actually know that Agassi's 5-set SF against Ginepri took 2,5 hours while Federer needed 3 hours to beat Hewitt in 4 sets in the same round?
 
sadowsk2 said:
Under "CURRENT" conditions you may be right.. In Pete's era, where the courts played more to Pete's game, Sampras and his game would've rolled Fed no problem except for the mud- errr clay Sampras had to play on
Click to expand...

Lol nobody would've rolled over peak Federer on any surface. Prime Nadal didn't roll over Federer on clay (except 2008 FO and 2013 Rome) and you think Sampras would? Sure thing.
 
tennis_pro said:
Lol nobody would've rolled over peak Federer on any surface. Prime Nadal didn't roll over Federer on clay (except 2008 FO and 2013 Rome) and you think Sampras would? Sure thing.
Click to expand...

:shock::shock:

Nadal has been "rolling" fed since Day 1 in 2004 (outside of indoors) overall for the most part. GTHO here.


He owns a the decisive advantage overall on outdoor surfaces and it only would have been worse if Fed met Nadal more post 2008 (as we all know).
 
NatF said:
You do realize that almost unplayable wind contributed to that match right? Federer was really off his game.
Click to expand...

yes, because we know wind only affected Federer, right? And appearently a 34 year old Agassi was in his prime too, no?
 
dmt said:
If you think even a peak Federer would ever have an easy time vs Sampras on any other surface barring clay, you are the fan boy. On faster surfaces, Sampras's serve is a bigger weapon than anything Federer has in his aresenal. Infact on a surface like USO and old Wimby, it would probably be 5-5.
Click to expand...

lol - Fed's serve on faster surfaces is as effective as Pete's (compare their 2001 wimby match -- Pete served at 69% first serves in.. that's ridiculously high for his standards). So combine that with a RoS that's magnitudes higher than Pete's, the end picture turns out to be one where Pete has a much tougher time breaking Fed than Fed would have breaking Pete.

I'm a Fed fanboi, but you sound like a butthurt Pete worshipper.
 
dmt said:
yes, because we know wind only affected Federer, right? And appearently a 34 year old Agassi was in his prime too, no?
Click to expand...

Agassi was a great wind player, don't be dense and think that everyone deals with wind in the same way. Obviously it hindered Agassi as well, but he was also better in windy conditions than Federer.
 
90's Clay said:
:shock::shock:

Nadal has been "rolling" fed since Day 1 in 2004 (outside of indoors) overall for the most part. GTHO here.


He owns a the decisive advantage overall on outdoor surfaces and it only would have been worse if Fed met Nadal more post 2008 (as we all know).
Click to expand...

Learn how to read, already. ROLLING OVER = winning with the score of 6-1 6-2 or something similar, winning decisevely. How did Nadal roll over Federer on clay when 90% of their matches were competitive?
 
NatF said:
Agassi was a great wind player, don't be dense and think that everyone deals with wind in the same way. Obviously it hindered Agassi as well, but he was also better in windy conditions than Federer.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that Sampras would have an easy time vs Federer on any surface. I was just responding to TMF'S comical post with an equally absurd argument.

As for your point, Federer is no slouch in the wind, not to mention that Andre was friggin 34 years old and far from his prime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Federer vs Blake USO 2006
Replies
2
Views
857
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
Nadalgaenger
What is the greatest match for each of the following players in terms of peak level?
Replies
49
Views
4K
InsideOut900
InsideOut900
W
Was Wimbledon 2009 the most exciting?
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
kOaMaster
kOaMaster
MasterSlice74
Was Alcaraz's Doha Run the highest level of tennis ever?
Replies
48
Views
613
Hitman
Hitman
Nadalgaenger
2006 Federer versus Borg on clay
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
Sysyphus
Sysyphus
Back
Top