Agassi: Fedex is better than Sampras at his best

[Dedans Penthouse]

Agassi also made a lifetime vow to Brooke Shields and talked his way into bed with the cross-eyed, crusty Barbara Steisand.

Moral of story: if words were birds, he'd be covered in white.

Worst TW ad hominem ever.

Worst?! Hardly. lol. First off, I figured the "tongue-in-cheek" absurd tone was pretty obvious....but then again, maybe given the "passions" involved in these Fed/Pete "cheerleader" type of threads, people do get emotional/testy where tongue-in-cheek loses it's face value. These threads often morph into "my dad can beat up your dad!" type rants.

Federer wins a major and it's not enough to laud Roger on his most recent accomplishment; NO, instead (within minutes) the Fed-o-phile choir feel the irresistable NEED to bleat from the mountaintops to no one (and everyone) in particular: "ROGER IS WAY BETTER THAN THAT SAMPRAS GUY!"

Look, I respect the "who's better?" arguments between well-schooled fans of tennis....but these posts are mostly "cheerleader" in nature that ultimately seek to "rub Sampras' fans nose in dirt" which, in my humbo' opinion is Snooze-city...z--z-z-z-z-z.

At first, I thought my "he (Agassi) talked his way into bed with Barbara Streisand" comment was what you considered THE "worst" ad hominem.....but, as you referred to it as a "TW ad hominem," then I guess you took the phrase "he (Agassi) talked his way into bed with Barbara Streisand" seriously. My bad (smirk!).

 

[The tennis guy]

Agassi played great, but don't think he 'moved better than he ever did." He's 35. When he was in his early 20s, he was one of the fastest guys on tour. Was just watching the '94 Candian Open final. Stolle & Drysdale agreed that he was the 2nd fastest guy on tour (after Chang)

Agassi was quick, but never fast. He was never second fastest guy on tour. He certainly was no where near as fast as Chang and Sampras - Stolle & Drysdale were full of themselves.

 

[The tennis guy]

I agree with Lendl on this one. It is extremely difficult to say who is better by watching them playing against other people.

Q. Roger Federer, from what you've seen in degree of difficulty to play against, can you compare and contrast some of the people you played against?

IVAN LENDL: No. Because if you wanted to do that, you would have to be on the court against him to feel that ball. It's very easy to sit back and say, well, you could have done this, you could have done that. Unless you have been on that court and feel how that balls feels coming to you off the serve, off the forehand, how low the backhand stays and how hard it is to recognize where he is going with the shots, you should really not be making those comparisons.

 

[sugmasterflex]

I just don't think those types of match to match comparison works. To me, Agassi moved better in this particular match than he ever did.

The AA who is 35, who had 3 five-setters in a row, w/ a vulnerable back, playing the final w/ no days off after the semis. Agassi moved well (better than expected), but not better than his younger days. Yet, this AA still had a lead in the match at 4-2 in the third set (something he never had in any of his three finals w/ Sampras). The finals where Agassi was more in his prime. Yet, somehow Federer is better than Sampras.

However, I have posted before, many other players who have played both Sampras and Federer came out to say Federer was better for quite some time.

Maybe b/c Sampras' prime ended 7 years ago and Federer is fresh in their minds w/ Fed kicking their rear end week in and week out.

 

[The tennis guy]

The AA who is 35, who had 3 five-setters in a row, w/ a vulnerable back, playing the final w/ no days off after the semis. Agassi moved well (better than expected), but not better than his younger days. Yet, this AA still had a lead in the match at 4-2 in the third set (something he never had in any of his three finals w/ Sampras). The finals where Agassi was more in his prime. Yet, somehow Federer is better than Sampras.



Maybe b/c Sampras' prime ended 7 years ago and Federer is fresh in their minds w/ Fed kicking their rear end week in and week out.

I never said Federer is better than Sampras. I just don't think people who didn't play against them can say who is better by just watching. The answer if there is any has to come from players who have played both multiple times. You can't say one way or the other by one single match. It seems like that is what you are saying from one match. I didn't.

 

[The tennis guy]

The finals where Agassi was more in his prime.

To me Agassi plays better than many years ago. Similar with Hewitt and Roddick. They both feel they are playing better now than when they were No. 1 even though they are not as succesful record wise as they were then. I agree with their own assessment.

 

[whistleway]

You just didn't know. Federer's coach got killed in a car accident. It set Federer back at least a year. Then he hooked up with Peter L.

PL was coaching before Peter Carter tragically died in 2002.

 

[The tennis guy]

Maybe b/c Sampras' prime ended 7 years ago and Federer is fresh in their minds w/ Fed kicking their rear end week in and week out.

Yeah right, every player doesn't remember how well Sampras played, except you. I just don't buy that.

 

[sugmasterflex]

I never said Federer is better than Sampras. I just don't think people who didn't play against them can say who is better by just watching. The answer if there is any has to come from players who have played both multiple times. You can't say one way or the other by one single match. It seems like that is what you are saying from one match. I didn't.

If Federer had lost to the 35 year old Agassi, what would people be saying? Even though it was just one match? In his three matches against Sampras, he was beaten soundly. But he played better against Federer at a more advanced age. AA's logic doesn't follow, that's what I'm saying.

 

[sugmasterflex]

Yeah right, every player doesn't remember how well Sampras played, except you. I just don't buy that.

Hey, there are a lot of fans that don't recall.

 

[sugmasterflex]

To me Agassi plays better than many years ago. Similar with Hewitt and Roddick. They both feel they are playing better now than when they were No. 1 even though they are not as succesful record wise as they were then. I agree with their own assessment.

A few years ago Hewitt and Roddick were still reaching their prime. Agassi was already in his prime. Big difference.

 

[LendlFan]

I think Rodger is much better all around than Pete except for his net play.

Andre knew his serve was coming DTL and still couldn't get a racquet on it. Rodger need only become effecient at the net and look out .. he will be unstopable for a long time. On Pete's best day he couldn't rally BH to BH like FedEx can and people are saying his BH is weak.

Heck I pray to God every night for a weak BH like that. Also, Rodger puts rallies together very well although I was amazed at how many times Andre was able to get FedEx on the defense.

But as we've seen Rodger on D is still a dangerous place for his opponents because he can turn a D into a O with one blast DTL.

 

[The tennis guy]

If Federer had lost to the 35 year old Agassi, what would people be saying? Even though it was just one match? In his three matches against Sampras, he was beaten soundly. But he played better against Federer at a more advanced age. AA's logic doesn't follow, that's what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter what everyone would say. For the first 3 sets, I felt Agassi played as well as he ever had.

I just don't believe Agassi's answer was based on one particular match. This is what you are getting into, just the matches at US Open finals between Federer, Agassi, and Sampras and Agassi count in overall assessment.

 

[The tennis guy]

Hey, there are a lot of fans that don't recall.

That's why I wouldn't count on their opinions on who is better, Sampras or Federer.

 

[@wright]

"Heck I pray to God every night for a weak BH like that."

Teeheehee, I don't know why this is funny, but it just is, and so true.

 

[sugmasterflex]

I just don't believe Agassi's answer was based on one particular match.

Then why not say this after any of the last 7 times he lost to Federer?

 

[The tennis guy]

Then why not say this after any of the last 7 times he lost to Federer?

I don't know. He said it in subtle term before, so I wouldn't count him as one sure vote. Maybe he felt the same way I felt that he played in this one match (first 3 sets) as well as he ever played. Hewitt, who didn't say it one way or the other after his lost to Federer at the final last year, but started to give the vote to Federer this year.

 

[sugmasterflex]

I don't know. He said it in subtle term before, so I wouldn't count him as one sure vote. Maybe he felt the same way I felt that he played in this one match (first 3 sets) as well as he ever played. Hewitt, who didn't say it one way or the other after his lost to Federer at the final last year, but started to give the vote to Federer this year.

Agassi has lost to Fed 8 straight times. Hewitt has lost to Federer 7 straight times, I think. Kinda clouds your judgement a bit.

 

[bee65n]

A more rational explanation would be that they both lost to Federer that many consecutive times simply because he is the best.

 

[LendlFan]

A more rational explanation would be that they both lost to Federer that many consecutive times simply because he is the best.

Well at least one could agree 'Better' than they are at this moment. But again, I contend that we have to wait until a few years have gone by and see how many Slam titles, US Open Series Titles and Master's Titles he has to his name. Pete's record is still far and away outstanding and Rodger (not wanting to take anything away from him) has not yet had that level of accomplishment.

He hasn't even equaled Lendl's accomplishments thus far .. so we're all talking speculation on what may occur. I'm thinking he will prove his worthiness but the jury is still out.

Andre Agassi is playing with cortazone shots in his back, plus he's 35 yrs old plus he just came off 4 - 5 Set Matches. Take away all of these things and we might be praising his victory given what he brought out 50% of the match.

 

[martin]

I don't believe Agassi is much less than when he played against Sampras otherwise he wouldn't have reached the final. Now Agassi has beaten Sampras many times but against Federer he has lost 8 straight times.
I've seen Sampras play and he has a great forehand and serve but his backhand is average. I think that is what Agassi means. Sampras had a weakness in his game and Federer doesn't.

 

[supremebeing]

Fed or Pete

The Fed has the ability to crank up his level of play to levels unprecidented in the sport. It seems strainge, but he often seems tobe idling along, doing nothing special. Than wam, he is hoisting the trophy. I think in head to head, Pete wouild be just another one of guys Roger beat up on in the finals.

 

[35ft6]

These arguments lead to nowhere. Why are we even hashing this out, it all boils down to whether you like Sampras or Federer better.

Personally, that's not what it boils down to for me. I like Sampras and Federer nearly equally. I like Rios and Guga way more than either, but that's not going to get me saying that they're better than Pete and Roger.

 

[35ft6]

A more rational explanation would be that they both lost to Federer that many consecutive times simply because he is the best.

Yeah, this whole 'of course they think he's better, they lost to him 10 times in a row!" argument, as this that proves they're full of crap, is puzzling. I remember Kafelnikov calling Pete the greatest, but now I have to wonder if he was just making himself feel better for having lost to Sampras. In fact, every guy who thinks Pete is the greatest who has a losing record against him, their testimonies need to be thrown out. It's inadmissible according to the logic that TW has established.

Of course, the opposite would make even LESS sense. If Agassi said Federer was the greatest after having beaten him for the 8th time in a row, Pete supporters would be calling Agassi deluded for that as well.

Agassi has always been one of Pete's biggest supporters and admirer's. For him to say Federer is the better player really means something. I don't think he would just blurt that out in the heat of the moment. In fact, I haven't seen Agassi blurt out something stupid in an interview for a long time. When he's asked a dumb question he doesn't want to answer ('when are you going to retire?) he always has a gracious, diplomatic reply. Just saying, he's not a guy who's going to get cornered into saying something he doesn't mean, and I especially think he's given this Federer/Sampras thing a lot of thought considering how much his own history is tied into the Sampras mystique. I don't think he'd be frivolous about topic. I have a feeling if he didn't say this right AFTER the match, and instead a few weeks later, the Pete supporters would suggest he had a lot of time to think about it and found a way to spin his loss.

 

[LendlFan]

The Fed has the ability to crank up his level of play to levels unprecidented in the sport. It seems strainge, but he often seems tobe idling along, doing nothing special. Than wam, he is hoisting the trophy. I think in head to head, Pete wouild be just another one of guys Roger beat up on in the finals.

You are probably correct ... but I can't forget that often in both sides ATP & WTA someone comes along that raises the bar. Then people catch up and that player begins to have difficulty winning matches. It happened with Roddick it could have happened with Mark Phillopousus (sp) but his ground game stunk.
Happened with the Williams Sisters in that the other girls couldn't find an answer to their power until now.

I'm thinking a year from now, the scope of the ATP will look a lot different. Because an easy equation to conceive is
'If one person can do it .. another can & will'

 

[jukka1970]

I was being sarcastic. I think we agree on this one.

My fault, I apologize. I must have focused to hard on the first 2 sentences, I now see the sarcasm.

 

[LendlFan]

Personally, that's not what it boils down to for me. I like Sampras and Federer nearly equally. I like Rios and Guga way more than either, but that's not going to get me saying that they're better than Pete and Roger.

AGREED !!! I was going to say what about us that like both of them?

 

[35ft6]

My fault, I apologize. I must have focused to hard on the first 2 sentences, I now see the sarcasm.

No problem.

If we can't take Agassi's word for it, then I guess we'll never know. I mean he's played Pete several times. He's known him since Pete was a junior. He was there at the beginning of Pete's career, and at the VERY end. And Agassi's known for being a thoughtful person who truly understands the game of tennis. His throw away comments about tennis strategy are incredibly insightful. He truly understands the game. And he's 35 with a family and a foundation he cares about, a life outside of tennis, and his legacy is secure. He really has nothing to gain by lying or being glib about Federer's greatness.

We're not talking about a 23 year old upstart calling Federer the greatest. We're talking about Agassi, the guy who's been around for 20 years, and the one pro I desperately hope becomes a commentator after retiring. But I'm sure he won't, because he has a life. And the fact that he has a life makes his comments more credible to me. This is a guy who has a family and his foundation to give him perspective. He's not some punk shooting off his mouth.

Whatever. If we're to dismiss Agassi's comments, and the one match Federer and Sampras actually played, then I guess this conversation is like discussing if Han Solo had frost bite in Return of the Jedi.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

The paralell I see between both Pete and Roger is ... they each seem(ed) to win -- even when NOT on his "A Game."

I don't believe Roger played *well* for most of the US Open. He finally came close to "being Roger" the last set and one-half of the Final.

I've gained more respect for Pete since reviewing his matches. I have great respect for Roger's nearly "weakness-free" game.

I like 'em both.

- KK

 

[GuyClinch]

Never answer..

You can never really answer these debates..

First off. Federer has a ways to go before he matches Pete's records. I don't think you can assume that he will remain injury free or that someone new won't come along and find a way to beat him.

Secondly, you guys forget the ability for players to ADAPT. Look at the women's tour for example. It used to be that Serena and Venus were on track to smash all records and just dominate the game to some absurd level. But the tour players have caught up and can now "out Serena" Serena.

Likewise on the pro tour we will have to see how the guys eventually respond to his dominance. When your #1 like Pete was and Federer is you become a marked man. Guys will plan their whole games around beating you - because they idolized you when they grew up. It's a challenge that won't play itself out for years.

Pete

 

[ps 6.0]

I like this quote that Agassi made before the match:

If you play well against Sampras, you lose 7-6, 6-4, if you play badly against him, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play well against Federer, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play badly against Federer, you lose 6-1,6-1.

Right that may be true, but Sampras was Sampras. His game wasn't to pound his opponent the entire match... Sampras played "efficient" tennis as they called it. He served easy games, and he'd cruise then he'd find an opening. Once that opening came around he played 100% then when he got the break, he'd cruise again. He ended playing more points but less grunt-work. The box scores were misleading... just because you lose 7-6, 6-4 it doesn't mean that you were close.

 

[35ft6]

Right that may be true, but Sampras was Sampras. His game wasn't to pound his opponent the entire match... Sampras played "efficient" tennis as they called it. He served easy games, and he'd cruise then he'd find an opening. Once that opening came around he played 100% then when he got the break, he'd cruise again. He ended playing more points but less grunt-work. The box scores were misleading... just because you lose 7-6, 6-4 it doesn't mean that you were close.

I think what you said is Agassi's point.

 

[@wright]

"If we can't take Agassi's word for it, then I guess we'll never know. I mean he's played Pete several times. He's known him since Pete was a junior. He was there at the beginning of Pete's career, and at the VERY end. And Agassi's known for being a thoughtful person who truly understands the game of tennis. His throw away comments about tennis strategy are incredibly insightful. He truly understands the game. And he's 35 with a family and a foundation he cares about, a life outside of tennis, and his legacy is secure. He really has nothing to gain by lying or being glib about Federer's greatness.

We're not talking about a 23 year old upstart calling Federer the greatest. We're talking about Agassi, the guy who's been around for 20 years, and the one pro I desperately hope becomes a commentator after retiring. But I'm sure he won't, because he has a life. And the fact that he has a life makes his comments more credible to me. This is a guy who has a family and his foundation to give him perspective. He's not some punk shooting off his mouth.

Whatever. If we're to dismiss Agassi's comments, and the one match Federer and Sampras actually played, then I guess this conversation is like discussing if Han Solo had frost bite in Return of the Jedi."

This is the best post in the thread. It says it all. No one is being objective here, there is not enough evidence one way or the other, plus one side's evidence is being thrown out altogether by the other side. I hope no one is getting their feathers ruffled about this. Arguing about whether Pete or Roger is greater is stupid, because even if you win, you're still ********.

 

[NoBadMojo]

Coming in to this thread very late. I am pleasantly surprised to discover it seems to have remained civil usually when you see a high post count it is because there is alot of infighting and name calling and little private fights going on...so props to all for keeping a thread with no real answer 'gentlemanly'. my instincts tell me that agassi is a bit biased as he got the worst end of the deal in a long rvalry with sampras so he 'MAY' be reticent about giving Pete hs just due (it's human nature). With Fed on the otherhand it really cant be considered a rivalry because of the age difference. . the who is better than who conversation isnt relevant when the two players arent contemporaries in my mind....the clear question is who is better Agassi or Sampras, and the answer is a resounding Sampras! and I think that is why Agassi view is a bit tainted. I do think that the who is better than who conversations when the two are from vastly differng eras (Laver vs sampras) is easier to answer as the latest athlees are always better than the athletes from other eras unless you dont believe in the evolution of things like athletics

 

[NoBadMojo]

to directly respond to this thread from a techncal point of view i think the federer and Sampras games are remarkably similar with the main exception of the Sampras game being less margin for error (i am reluctant to use the term less spinny here because that invites controversy, because sampras hit with alot of spin...it's just his trajectory was flatter than Feds on groundstrokes). I think what is most similar are ther returns of serves..that is the least of the weapons for both players as for the large part, both were mostly content to chip or float their backhand returns and just try and be able to hit their service returns well enough to not get punished and to start the point off neutral.
Serving? advantage Sampras just becase it is a bit more intimidating and heavy and Pete's second was more of a weapon than feds.
Volley? advantage Sampras but mostly because Sampras had the opportunity to fine tune that aspect of his game in match play. fed looks as though his volley skills may have actually atrophied a bit due to lack of use especially on the forehand wing.
Everything else i give the edge to Fed on. i could go on and on and compare each stroke, and i give the biggest edge to Fed on the forehand, becase fed i believe has the best one of those ever by a large margin. conditioning the edge goes to fed as well and also strategically, and a slight edge to Fed on movement. bigger edge to fed on the backhand altho the Samras backhand was not a liablity as some seem to indicate. mentally both were the same as far as not allowing things to bther them and disrupt the quality of play and both played big points equally well.....<end>

 

[dozu]

technical aspects aside, Federer is contributing so much to the sport, and setting a great role model for the kids.

Off the court, he gives hours and hours of interview to the media, and when he has chance, signs for the fans as many as possible. Sampras didn't do as much, instead mostly he was a "loner" and concentrate on his own stuff.

On the court, Federer displays a consistent temperment, a great example for the juniors to follow, whether he is winning or losing. Sampras was not the same... when he faced weaker opps, he does this in-your-face sky overhead, 90% of which was totally unnecessary as he could easily do a conventional overhead and win the point. when he is losing, he displays that sorry-ass attitude like vomitting/crying that totally threw off his opps, Courier and Corretja included. I don't deny Sampras is a great player, but it's this kind of on-court display that made me almost a Sampras hater. ok, i know i know, he couldn't have faked that vomit, but that interupted the normal flow of the match, and was in violation of the 25-second rule if that rule was enforced strictly. So to me, he wouldn't have won at least 2 of his 14 GS, if not for the use of some strange body fluids other than sweat.

l totally agree with Dick Enberg when he said (about Federer) that it's great for the sport when the number one player is such a good guy.

 

[@wright]

"when he faced weaker opps, he does this in-your-face sky overhead, 90% of which was totally unnecessary as he could easily do a conventional overhead and win the point. when he is losing, he displays that sorry-ass attitude like vomitting/crying that totally threw off his opps"

This is hilarious. I can just picture Pete crying a little to throw off his opponent's rhythm after Pete goes down a break. LMAO

Ed - put your fireproof underwear on, you just said that tennis has evolved, a big no-no to the past-worshipping traditionalists on the board. hehe

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Some of things I am reading from both sides are just ridiculous.

First of all a certain renowned Sampras fanatic saying that Agassi was matching Federer forehand winner for forehand winner until 4-2 up in the 3rd set is hogwash, and that Sampras used to dominate Agassi in the forehand rallies is as well. Federer had over twice the number of forehand winners as Agassi for the match, even at the point when he was down 4-2 in the 3rd set, the excessive number of backhand errors he was making was the biggest reason the match was close at that point, until Federer found his backhand in the 3rd set tiebreaker and 4th sets that is. Secondly Sampras did not dominate Agassi for the overall whole of a match in any way in baseline exchanges when Agassi was playing well, at best he won an even share of forehand rallies and lost the vast majority all the backhand rallies, in most of the matches, in years Agassi was a top 5 player; his serve and net game, along with his mental strength and athleticsm are the main reasons he won alot of their matchups however.

On the other hand some others saying Agassi was moving better than ever is also completely untrue. That is one area he cant possability be as strong as 10 years ago(94-95) . That being said he was never the second-fastest player on tour, behind Michael Chang even in his prime. His movement was very good once, but never one of the very best.

 

[The tennis guy]

Again, comparison between Federer vs Agassi, Sampras vs Agassi in US Open final is not equal comparison. Sampras is an American, Federer isn't. You can't discount the different environments those matches were played. Federer played more cautious than usual against Agassi in this hostile environment.

 

[Thunder]

I don't believe Agassi is much less than when he played against Sampras otherwise he wouldn't have reached the final. .

He is.

AA is not going to say he is not bcause of pride. Andre's convincing himself that FED has to the best because he is constantly being defeated by FED. IT GIVES HIM MOTIVATION AND WE CANNOT BLAME ANDRE FOR THIS.

Agassi in his heydey would be at the level of the 2nd set for the whole match, constant pressure.

 

[Ray Wong]

Why someone here so certainly that Fed is better than Pete in their prime. Fed has advantage in some aspect and Pete has others, although they play a match in their best performance, I don't think Pete will lose in straight three sets like someone said, it will be a very exciting match.
I like both, but everyone have their weakness, Fed & Pete also.

 

[Speedy_tennis]

IIRC, after his loss in the final of the 2001 US Open, during the press conference, Sampras stated that Lleyton Hewitt was a better returner than Agassi. Now, Hewitt is a terrific returner, but he's not better than Andre. But for Sampras, it was right after the match, when the sting was still very fresh. It would be interesting to see what Agassi says in a couple of months when this loss is not fresh in his mind.

I agree with this, is the same thing, like 2001

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Secondly, you guys forget the ability for players to ADAPT. Look at the women's tour for example. It used to be that Serena and Venus were on track to smash all records and just dominate the game to some absurd level. But the tour players have caught up and can now "out Serena" Serena.

"Maybe...." Serena's lack of training, practice and fitness surely contributed to her crumble.

- KK

 

[laurie]

A well known Federer fanatic seems to have to change his "stage" name every few months to cover his aggressive behaviour. Bit of chicken perhaps? He started out well with his new name, been quite civil but now as Rabbit pointed out last month, he's back to his bad behaviour again.

I feel I contributed to this guy changing his name last time because I had him cornered. I'm prepared to do it all over again. In fact, it will be a pleasure.

Certainly a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[Rabbit]

A well known Federer fanatic seems to have to change his "stage" name every few months to cover his aggressive behaviour. Bit of chicken perhaps? He started out well with his new name, been quite civil but now as Rabbit pointed out last month, he's back to his bad behaviour again.

I feel I contributed to this guy changing his name last time because I had him cornered. I'm prepared to do it all over again. In fact, it will be a pleasure.

Certainly a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I'm glad someone else saw the same thing I did. The guy is a loon.

 

[laurie]

Rabbit, but no only that. I have too much wit for this guy. I will take him to the cleaners if he rubs me up the wrong way. I'll be monitoring him.

 

[Rabbit]

Laurie, if I were wearing a hat, I'd take it off in your honor.

 

[@wright]

Not to ask you to name names, but who are you talking about?

 

[lude popper]

I'd hate to see Federer beat Pete's record because it seems like Pete's life rotates around his tennis accomplishments. If he no longer had the image of "Best Player Ever", I think he would be miserable. Sampras is very image conscious.

 

[fastdunn]

I like this quote that Agassi made before the match:

If you play well against Sampras, you lose 7-6, 6-4, if you play badly against him, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play well against Federer, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play badly against Federer, you lose 6-1,6-1.

Does this mean Sampras is better or Federer is better ?

The score is Sampras' call no matter how well you play. You'll lose.
You can improve your score against Federer or maybe beat him
if you play insanely good. But you won't be able to play that good.