Andre Agassi says In His Prime on grass sampras Would Beat Federer

[ChrisRF]

And Edberg, Becker, Wilander yes. Fed would still get around 8 slams though which is pretty remarkable in that strong era.

What is a strong era and what not? Someone has to win the titles anyway. When Fedal are gone, then the likes of Thiem, Zverev, Shapovalov will share titles just like Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Becker etc. did before. The numbers can be the same, but nobody can really measure if they are all better than the 80s players or all worse.

The same thing is true when you compare an era of dominance with a balanced era. You think all the 80s players are that good that they prevent Federer from winning. I think Federer is head and shoulders above them all and would have a walk in the park without Nadal and Djokovic. It’s just a matter of opinion.

 

[ADuck]

Wow. What a HUGE surprise you went with Fed!!!!! I so did not expect this from you. Sometimes people surprise me a lot!!

Also that most posters in this forum saying Federer, that has faced one grass specialist in a final, -Andy, is indeed better ever than Sampras was on grass.
Very surprising as well.

I was also surprised that he said Federer would beat Sampras. Very surprising @KINGROGER

 

[Prabhanjan]

1. He has won NOTHING on fast grass. No tittle.

The window of fast grass exposure for Federer was 1998-2001. So, if you want to use similar time window for Sampras, he won 1, and Agassi 0. Do you still want to use the metric? Before winning their first Wimbledon, Fed and Sampras won exactly 1 grass title.

And would you dare use the logic that since Sampras won 0 grass titles on slow grass, he would win 0 Wimbledons during 2003-18? Good luck with that then.

2. Djoko is a HC legend in particular, an ATG overall, but he is not a grass legend.

What is then the point of being a grass legend when you don't win as many Wimbledons as a non-legend?

3. Did you watch Edberg, Becker and Sampras live? Or through Youtube hightlights?

Yes, live, I am 40 years old guy!

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

I was also surprised that he said Federer would beat Sampras. Very surprising @KINGROGER

Jepp. Federer had his hands full w a clay court specialists and also lost to him on grass. Nah, doesn't mean anything.

 

[pame]

Amy Foster said: ↑

However, in his new book which came out in November 2017 , Agassi suggests that Federer despite winning a record 20 grand slams may not be the toughest opponent in history.

Since Agassi is apparently a clairvoyant, I believe him.

Had to re-quote this. Great catch, Le Master

 

[van_Loederen]

^it was mentioned that he later changed that number.

on topic:
if Fred was born 10 years earlier?
from watching his early career, i am confident that he wouldn't stand a chance against Sampras.

but if Sampras was born 10 years later it's really impossible to guess.
Sampras was not a S&V player originally. he would have been able to establish a strong baseline game in modern conditions. but how strong exactly? who knows.
his serve would be better than Fred's, but the possibilities for a volley game were limited.

 

[Fedforever]

Is there any actual source for these supposed comments by Agassi? The language and layout seems remarkably similar to that piece on abortion which included supposed remarks by Federer. Many posters didn't seem to smell a rat, presumably because Fed is so well known for commenting on controversial social issues???

As to whether peak Sampras would have beaten peak Fed on grass it's all speculation so why get so worked up about it?

 

[Pagoo]

Reminds me of someone else.

Starts w P and ends w agoo.

No, that would be you, moron! Blabbermouth with no filter. Loose talker.

And stop quoting me. You pathetic attention-seeking nutter!

You're the clown who comes on here blabbing about everything under the sun, not me. Go check the meaning of blabbermouth. Dumb clown!

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Is there any actual source for these supposed comments by Agassi? The language and layout seems remarkably similar to that piece on abortion which included supposed remarks by Federer. Many posters didn't seem to smell a rat, presumably because Fed is so well known for commenting on controversial social issues???

As to whether peak Sampras would have beaten peak Fed on grass it's all speculation so why get so worked up about it?

The OP has made similar threads about Federer/Sampras/Wimbledon before and it looks they're just now voicing their opinion through Agassi despite Andre not actually not saying anything.

 

[mxmx]

Sampras had an off day. Anyone can have that. You could notice it in his warmup. Look at his missed overheads in the match? This was not a normal Sampras but a below average one. He had much more to lose and Federer had nothing to lose. Sampras was by no means close to being his best that day.

Peak for peak and when lives are on the line, Sampras hungry on grass is the better bet. There is no way Federer would always have dealt with Sampras' serve. Sampras would have adapted if they were rivals and the better server and volleyer (Sampras) should have the edge and not the returner, as Agassi experienced.

Style of play also suits Sampras. His serve and approach on Federer's backhand would be too tough to handle.
Holds of serves > Tiebreaks > Sampras wins due to better serve and mental toughness.

 

[KINGROGER]

Wow. What a HUGE surprise you went with Fed!!!!! I so did not expect this from you. Sometimes people surprise me a lot!!

Also that most posters in this forum saying Federer, that has faced one grass specialist in a final, -Andy, is indeed better ever than Sampras was on grass.
Very surprising as well.

Well he already beat him once. And his serve at times as been Sampras esque.
On faster grass slight edge to Sampras.

Overall? Fed. Better return.

 

[Fedforever]

The OP has made similar threads about Federer/Sampras/Wimbledon before and it looks they're just now voicing their opinion through Agassi despite Andre not actually not saying anything.

I hadn't actually read the whole thing before posting - having now read some sections it's ludicrous to think he actually said any of this. No first language English speaker would make the sort of grammatical errors he is supposedly doing here. Having played both of them he probably does have an informed opinion on who was better on grass but why on earth would he care about it so much - supposedly having a detailed knowledge of all Federer's records, opponents etc?

 

[Bobby Jr]

But to assume that Fed would have the same consistency is close to impossible. On actual fast grass a redlining big server would have actually taken him down. In modern slower courts era, he can play defense to wait for a red hot opponent to cool down. He simply cannot do so on old grass.

Remember too, on that "actual fast grass" Federer's serve is automatically 10% better too. Sampras was a legendary server but the guys in the 80s and 90s were helped a lot more on serve than Federer was. And we've seen that Federer is probably the best returner of the biggest servers of this era (Isner, Karlovic, Raonic etc) so he's already ahead of the recent big guns if you put them all in a time machine and send them back to 1990.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

No, that would be you, moron! Blabbermouth with no filter. Loose talker.

And stop quoting me. You pathetic attention-seeking nutter!

You're the clown who comes on here blabbing about everything under the sun, not me. Go check the meaning of blabbermouth. Dumb clown!

Look at yourself and what you just wrote. Blabber away. Being insulting and rude. That's Pagoos way. Charming as always. On this forum 24/7 with nothing better to do than defending some old dudes career.
I bet you don't even have a job, no one would hire you if you don't get your act together.

 

[Otacon]

Federer beat the 4-time defending Wimbledon champion Sampras, case closed.

 

[Pagoo]

Blabbermouths will always be blabbermouths. The lack of self-awareness is telling.Not going to waste time on someone with serious issues.

Always playing the victim card when called out for her BS.If anyone is yapping 24/7 here, it certainly isn't me lol.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Sampras was not a S&V player originally.

What do you mean by "originally?" Because I recall when he beat Wilander as an 17 year old at the 1989 US open and he was already serve and volleying on virtually every first serve. From when he was an established player on the circuit he was a serve and volleyer through and through. Or do you mean when he was a child?

he would have been able to establish a strong baseline game in modern conditions. but how strong exactly? who knows.

Doubtful imo. His baseline game in modern setting would be average on account of his backhand - more like Feliciano Lopez. Poly or not his topspin backhand was basically a place-keeper. His baseline game was basically about goading an opponent until he got the one backhand he could run around and hammer with his forehand. Federer's baseline game is vastly better than any version of Sampras - forehand, backhand and patterns of play.

 

[mxmx]

Two big quesion for neutral fans:

1. Has Federer won anything on real grass?

2. Which grass legends Federer has defeated to claim all his Wimby?

Peak Pete on grass is about 3.5 times better than peak Fedr on grass.

People cannot be neutral here. Most people vouching for Federer has never seen Sampras play and are just fanboys. True analysis should be done by older non-fans who have seen BOTH eras outside of low quality Youtube. This excludes the "McEnroe's" who has their own personal agendas.

 

[van_Loederen]

What do you mean by "originally?" Because I recall when he beat Wilander as an 17 year old at the 1989 US open and he was already serve and volleying on virtually every first serve. From when he was an established player on the circuit he was a serve and volleyer through and through. Or do you mean when he was a child?


Doubtful imo. His baseline game in modern setting would be average on account of his backhand - more like Feliciano Lopez. Poly or not his topspin backhand was basically a place-keeper. His baseline game was basically about goading an opponent until he got the one backhand he could run around and hammer with his forehand. Federer's baseline game is vastly better than any version of Sampras - forehand, backhand and patterns of play.

he only turned into a pure S&V player in the later stages of his career.

it is ridiculous to assume that Sampras wouldn't have been able to improve his baseline game beyond Lopez levels.
it's just that he specialised more on S&V as that won him matches.
you're probably not aware of the huge difference between these 10 years.

 

[Bobby Jr]

he only turned into a pure S&V player in the later stages of his career.

He was a serve and volleyer at the beginning of his career too. Go and watch any match of his in 1989 or 1990.

it is ridiculous to assume that Sampras wouldn't have been able to improve his baseline game beyond Lopez levels.
it's just that he specialised more on S&V as that won him matches

So, what you're basically saying is that if Sampras was a different player to what he was then he would have been better? Are you nuts? Of course he would if we can just imagine him being a better player than he was. Federer would be a better clay courter than Nadal too if he had two forehands.

But they don't have those things. We can only look at what they've got and make minor adjustments for changes in equipment/court conditions. In that respect Sampras's average at-best topspin backhand shifted in the 2010s is still only average at-best.

Sampras's backhand game would have functioned more like Lopez's than Federer's without doubt - unless you give him the pointless improvement of having a completely different backhand in which case we can give Federer two forehands when we ponder theoretically how he would go in the 90s.

you're probably not aware of the huge difference between these 10 years.

I am well aware.

 

[van_Loederen]

20 years later and stupid boys try to rewrite history.

sure, Sampras' baseline game would not even have reached Roddick level in modern days.

 

[Prabhanjan]

from watching his early career, i am confident that he wouldn't stand a chance against Sampras.

And watching how dominant Federer became after 2003, people can say that Sampras does not stand a chance.

but if Sampras was born 10 years later it's really impossible to guess.

Not really, use hindsight the same as foresight and vice versa. Why should only the current era players struggle in the earlier era, the earlier generation player must also struggle in the current era.

Sampras was not a S&V player originally. he would have been able to establish a strong baseline game in modern conditions. but how strong exactly? who knows.
his serve would be better than Fred's, but the possibilities for a volley game were limited.

Sampras was very very good on the baseline game too. That gives away the answer.

Sampras had an off day. Anyone can have that. You could notice it in his warmup. Look at his missed overheads in the match? This was not a normal Sampras but a below average one. He had much more to lose and Federer had nothing to lose. Sampras was by no means close to being his best that day.

I remember the great 90's clay and Sureshs making fun of Fed's losses against Nadal in 2012 and 14 AO, even Fed's 2013 WTF loss against Nadal, and then Fed's losses against Nole in 2014/15 Wimbledon finals. But looking for problems in the warmup is a new thing for me.

Peak for peak and when lives are on the line, Sampras hungry on grass is the better bet. There is no way Federer would always have dealt with Sampras' serve. Sampras would have adapted if they were rivals and the better server and volleyer (Sampras) should have the edge and not the returner, as Agassi experienced.

Did peak Sampras win 5 Wimbledons in a row? Did he reach 7 finals in a row? Forget in a row, Sampras was no where ever closer to a 8th final. Not at all. There are so many ways Feds so much superior over Sampras over Wimbledon than Sampras is over Federer that its baffling to see how it can only be concluded in any ways that Sampras is the bigger Wimbledon champion. The kind of domination Federer has shown in the five in a row, peak Sampras is no where closer. Federer was taken to 5th set only once, and look at how many times Sampras was drawn to the fifth in his peak years.

Federer is also the same near equal server as Sampras and except the second serve, Sampras has very little over Fed. In tie-breakers, Federer is the much better winner.

Style of play also suits Sampras. His serve and approach on Federer's backhand would be too tough to handle.
Holds of serves > Tiebreaks > Sampras wins due to better serve and mental toughness.

Federer's backhand has problem only with the high topspin, and otherwise there is not much it does wrong.

Mental toughness is also to come back after the toughest loses. Fed came back after 2008 loss, after 2014/15 loss. Fed came back after two disappointing QF losses in 2010/11. Tell me, why did Sampras not come back after two disappointing losses in 2003?

 

[Bobby Jr]

20 years later and stupid boys try to rewrite history.

sure, Sampras' baseline game would not even have reached Roddick level in modern days.

Well he moved much better than Roddick so of course he would have been better.

But, again, his backhand was arse by modern standards. You can't just gift him an imaginary huge improvement there just because you want him to be competitive in a different setting. His backhand is what it was - passable for his own era when he spent a lot less time at the baseline than he would be forced to do in this era.

Go look at Sampras on clay to see how competitive he was across the prime of his career. That's what he would look like on two thirds of the hard courts in this era on top of the clay courts.

 

[van_Loederen]

^silly projection.
Sampras could play on clay. he just had to focus on grass (also with his practice) as back then the surfaces didn't play so similarly that you could dance on both weddings.

Why should only the current era players struggle in the earlier era, the earlier generation player must also struggle in the current era.

the OP was referring to only Wimbledon, where even Roddick managed to trouble Fed.

but i doubt that even a 10 years later born Sampras could seriously trouble Fed on the modern medium paced hardcourts.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Well he already beat him once. And his serve at times as been Sampras esque.
On faster grass slight edge to Sampras.

Overall? Fed. Better return.

Jepp. From a very objective source. Hehe
I'm just having fun.
Peoples opinions in here is like when your mother told you you were beautiful when you were a child.
This forum is probably the least place to discuss tennis since everybody so biased and all we do is protect our favs.

 

[mxmx]

Well he moved much better than Roddick so of course he would have been better.

But, again, his backhand was arse by modern standards. You can't just gift him an imaginary huge improvement there just because you want him to be competitive in a different setting. His backhand is what it was - passable for his own era when he spent a lot less time at the baseline than he would be forced to do in this era.

Go look at Sampras on clay to see how competitive he was across the prime of his career. That's what he would look like on two thirds of the hard courts in this era on top of the clay courts.

Outside Nadal, the clay players were much much tougher back then. The surface was as specialised as grass (not homogenous as today) and knowing they didn't stand a chance on grass, focused on clay. On clay Nadal would have won less and Federer, as Sampras probably nothing grand slam wise.

 

[deaner2211]

Career with a big edge to Federer because he can still win on the grass at 36 - granted Sampras was long retired but I don't see him competing this well at that age.

As far as peak and prime go, I'd back Federer's combination of service and return game in that 03-06 spell to edge it peak for peak, once his return declined in 2007 Sampras would have his way IMO.

Generally I'd say Federer's oppponents in his first 7 Wimbledon finals were tougher as well which factors into the break rates - especially with longer final matches. Plus there's years like 94 where Wimbledon was playing so quick there were no rallies at all which influences it too.

IMO the highest level of grass tennis in the last 30+ years waa Federer in 2003. That SF and F was on another planet imo.

When it comes to Federer and Sampras there is on thing that is 100 percent true and that is; if Federer played in Sampras's era he would not have 20 slams and he would not have won a slam at 36. Now it is debatable how many slams Sampras would win if he played in Federer's era.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Blabbermouths will always be blabbermouths. The lack of self-awareness is telling.Not going to waste time on someone with serious issues.

Always playing the victim card when called out for her BS.If anyone is yapping 24/7 here, it certainly isn't me lol.

You're like a broken record. Saying the same things over and over.
Cheer up, let the f go. Be nice and friendly. You are probably one of the most ignored poster in this forum. I know many that have you on ignore, even Fed fans. It's your life, you can change it to something better. Take control of your life and make something good out of it. Being here saying the same things over and over will only make you more depressed. Normal happy people don't have that kind of language you are having. Im just saying and being completely honest with you.

 

[NatF]

When it comes to Federer and Sampras there is on thing that is 100 percent true and that is; if Federer played in Sampras's era he would not have 20 slams and he would not have won a slam at 36. Now it is debatable how many slams Sampras would win if he played in Federer's era.

And Sampras wouldn't have 14 if he had to contend with Federer, that's just how it goes. As far as the slam at 36 goes, who knows depends how much sports medicine etc...has evolved in the last 10 years to enable Federer to play at this level still.

 

[zagor]

And Sampras wouldn't have 14 if he had to contend with Federer, that's just how it goes. As far as the slam at 36 goes, who knows depends how much sports medicine etc...has evolved in the last 10 years to enable Federer to play at this level still.

Considering the current age of the tour (old farts galore) and that the 90s players were usually dropping like flies by the time they've reached 29/30 in age I'd say it's a considerable factor.

Of course, Fed's still an outlier but yeah it's hard to say how big of a one.

Young guys sucking probably contributes a fair deal too in older guard sticking around.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Considering the current age of the tour (old farts galore) and that the 90s players were usually dropping like flies by the time they've reached 29/30 in age I'd say it's a considerable factor.

Of course, Fed's still an outlier but yeah it's hard to say how big of a one.

Young guys sucking probably contributes a fair deal too in older guard sticking around.

At least Fed at that age was competitive with rest of the big three/four/"healthier" tour.

 

[KINGROGER]

Jepp. From a very objective source. Hehe
I'm just having fun.
Peoples opinions in here is like when your mother told you you were beautiful when you were a child.
This forum is probably the least place to discuss tennis since everybody so biased and all we do is protect our favs.

Fair enough dude. I’m definitely biased at times with a username like this

 

[NatF]

Considering the current age of the tour (old farts galore) and that the 90s players were usually dropping like flies by the time they've reached 29/30 in age I'd say it's a considerable factor.

Of course, Fed's still an outlier but yeah it's hard to say how big of a one.

Young guys sucking probably contributes a fair deal too in older guard sticking around.

Federer is a pretty special athlete in this regard IMO. I think he'd have a good career post 30, probably not winning slams at 36 but it's possible he could do some damage at 33'ish depennding on the draw.

 

[zagor]

Federer is a pretty special athlete in this regard IMO. I think he'd have a good career post 30, probably not winning slams at 36 but it's possible he could do some damage at 33'ish depennding on the draw.

It's also possible he might even have had had a better post 30 career than he did in this era (mainly because he wouldn't have had two younger ATGs to deny him) but yeah, winning Wimbledon at 35-36 without dropping a set? That's some utterly ridiculous stuff. There's Nadal still running like a rabbitt and playing a packed CC schedule at 31-32 which I simply don't believe he'd be doing in past eras either.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Fair enough dude. I’m definitely biased at times with a username like this

Hahahaha yes. We all are biased
But you sort of scream bias w that avatar and that name!
Im not a dude

 

[Eren]

Obviously Sampras in his prime would beat Federer at least once and vice versa.

I don't see any of them getting a huge advantage over the other.

Overall, advantage Federer given his 11 finals and 8 titles. Sampras didn't even come close to an eighth final.

 

[Prabhanjan]

When it comes to Federer and Sampras there is on thing that is 100 percent true and that is; if Federer played in Sampras's era he would not have 20 slams and he would not have won a slam at 36. Now it is debatable how many slams Sampras would win if he played in Federer's era.

It all depends on whether Sampras is still there or not. Fed is outstanding in handling fewer slam winners and he would dominate clay too as clay has not changed much in the current state. Most of the 90s specialists caved in the presence of a big name, and Fed's dominated way bigger than Sampras ever did. Also, it is not that Fed kind of domination (in a year) was unheard off. Just because Pete did not win 3 slams in a year, it does not mean Fed can't. And once Fed dominates as in 2003-07, the rest of 90's specialists would choke the same as the 2000's players, and in absence of Nadal and Djokovic, it is even more easier for Fed to win 20 well before 2002/03.

 

[qindarka]

People who pretend to be objective are the worst.

(I'm not referring to Agassi).

 

[robthai]

Sampras at his peak never faced a player that was so good at passing shots like Federer on grass.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Outside Nadal, the clay players were much much tougher back then. The surface was as specialised as grass ..and knowing they didn't stand a chance on grass, focused on clay....

This is what made grass in Sampras's era easier to dominate. Not only did it hugely favour serve/volleyer and short point specialists, but a big chunk - as much as 1/3 of the top 30 players - either didn't bother to show up or were comparably more poor on that surface than those same bunch of players in Federer's era.

In Fed's era Wimbledon has been won by players who neither had big serves or volleyed all that great 7 of the last 15 years (Nadal x2, Murray x2, Djokovic x3). In Sampras's era do you know how many players who fit that bill won Wimbledon? 1 in his entire career - Agassi in 1992. Maybe 2 if you include Hewitt in 2002 who is the only other player who wasn't a heavily serve dominant type player to win Wimbledon going right back until the early 1980s.

Specialist player or not, the conditions in Sampras's era suited him more (than Fed's did in his era) and the field of players was diminished more by the surface characteristics of the time. In this era the likes of Bruguera and Muster would be getting to the last 16 at Wimbledon. Muster in fact never got past the 1st round of Wimbledon in his career despite being regarded as one of the greatest (albeit also very unlucky) clay courters of the 90s. Bruguera won back to back French Opens and made it to the 4th round at Wimbledon just once. That's how much polarised surfaces reduced the viable field of grasscourt players. No doubt about it the conditions of the time helped Sampras significantly. Having some of that advantage removed by the slowing of grass - where Federer excelled - can't plausibly result in Sampras being even better on grass as others have tried to conjure up arguments for here.

They played in different eras. People should leave it at that. I personally think Federer would wipe the floor with Sampras most of the time peak for peak. Pete's backhand was just too poor for him to handle a player who moved as well and could strike as well as Federer. He could manage against guys in his era but you only have to see how he fared against the likes of Hewitt who could keep him pinned in his backhand corner and deny him the easiest routes to the net to see where his limits were. And Federer was a much better player than Hewitt.

 

[Bobby Jr]

When it comes to Federer and Sampras there is on thing that is 100 percent true and that is; if Federer played in Sampras's era he would not have 20 slams and he would not have won a slam at 36. Now it is debatable how many slams Sampras would win if he played in Federer's era.

Well, Federer would probably have won 5 French Opens though so it kind of balances out. And more US Opens too...

 

[deaner2211]

Well, Federer would probably have won 5 French Opens though so it kind of balances out. And more US Opens too...

How could Fed have won 5 FO in the golden age of tennis when he can't even win 2 in this weak age?

 

[Prabhanjan]

How could Fed have won 5 FO in the golden age of tennis when he can't even win 2 in this weak age?

Golden age of musical chairs at FO, and no competitive clay rivalry with anybody reaching even 4 finals, some competition that was

 

[Bobby Jr]

How could Fed have won 5 FO in the golden age of tennis when he can't even win 2 in this weak age?

Because Nadal is the person who stopped him winning another 3 in this era and half the guys who won it in the 90s are nowhere near as good as Federer on clay.

(yes, pie-in-the-sky thinking which omits the usual string component of transferring a player back 20+ years.)

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Apart from the usual "Federer will not win against Sampras" mindless tripe repeated by the usual ignorants around here, did we at least get a confirmation of what Agassi really said?

 

[abmk]

And Edberg, Becker, Wilander yes. Fed would still get around 18 slams though which is pretty remarkable in that strong era.

I think you had a typo there.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

This is what made grass in Sampras's era easier to dominate. Not only did it hugely favour serve/volleyer and short point specialists, but a big chunk - as much as 1/3 of the top 30 players - either didn't bother to show up or were comparably more poor on that surface than those same bunch of players in Federer's era.

In Fed's era Wimbledon has been won by players who neither had big serves or volleyed all that great 7 of the last 15 years (Nadal x2, Murray x2, Djokovic x3). In Sampras's era do you know how many players who fit that bill won Wimbledon? 1 in his entire career - Agassi in 1992. Maybe 2 if you include Hewitt in 2002 who is the only other player who wasn't a heavily serve dominant type player to win Wimbledon going right back until the early 1980s.

Specialist player or not, the conditions in Sampras's era suited him more (than Fed's did in his era) and the field of players was diminished more by the surface characteristics of the time. In this era the likes of Bruguera and Muster would be getting to the last 16 at Wimbledon. Muster in fact never got past the 1st round of Wimbledon in his career despite being regarded as one of the greatest (albeit also very unlucky) clay courters of the 90s. Bruguera won back to back French Opens and made it to the 4th round at Wimbledon just once. That's how much polarised surfaces reduced the viable field of grasscourt players. No doubt about it the conditions of the time helped Sampras significantly. Having some of that advantage removed by the slowing of grass - where Federer excelled - can't plausibly result in Sampras being even better on grass as others have tried to conjure up arguments for here.

They played in different eras. People should leave it at that. I personally think Federer would wipe the floor with Sampras most of the time peak for peak. Pete's backhand was just too poor for him to handle a player who moved as well and could strike as well as Federer. He could manage against guys in his era but you only have to see how he fared against the likes of Hewitt who could keep him pinned in his backhand corner and deny him the easiest routes to the net to see where his limits were. And Federer was a much better player than Hewitt.

Well done for debunking the homogenisation arguments which pass for gospel on this forum.

It’s particularly hilarious that these arguements are propagated by posters who weren’t old enough to be watching tennis at the time.

As you conclude it is not wise to compare the eras, but I have little doubt that Federer would routine Sampras ceteris paribus.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Because Nadal is the person who stopped him winning another 3 in this era and half the guys who won it in the 90s are nowhere near as good as Federer on clay.

(yes, pie-in-the-sky thinking which omits the usual string component of transferring a player back 20+ years.)

What we can say with more confidence, is that none of the so called ‘clay specialists’ would have won Roland Garros in the Nadal era.

In fact, it would surely solicit an ironic chuckle even to refer to them as ‘clay specialists’.

 

[pame]

When it comes to Federer and Sampras there is on thing that is 100 percent true and that is; if Federer played in Sampras's era he would not have 20 slams and he would not have won a slam at 36. Now it is debatable how many slams Sampras would win if he played in Federer's era.

I just love these backward-looking crystal balls, don't you? "100 percent true that blah blah blah". Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the truest of them all?" rofl

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I just love these backward-looking crystal balls, don't you? "100 percent true that blah blah blah". Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the truest of them all?" rofl

Those hindsights also always come from posters that accuse the Federer fanbase of irrational bias.

Always.