Federer as Sampras version 2.0 ...

zipplock

Hall of Fame
This may sound crazy, but I have always viewed Fed as a 2.0 version of Sampras, almost like an evolution of sorts. To me that idea is a great compliment to both players, not a knock on either of them.

What say you?
 
I admit I was p**sed about Federer ruining Sampras chances at their one-time wimbledon match. Like, who was this 19yo guy with a funny grin, and a bandana-ponytail. Where I was glad Nadal would occasionally beat him in finals in those earlier years. But now, maestro Fed is very much my fav similar to how Pete was..
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
This may sound crazy, but I have always viewed Fed as a 2.0 version of Sampras, almost like an evolution of sorts. To me that idea is a great compliment to both players, not a knock on either of them.

What say you?
Federer would've stood no chance in Pete's era, and Pete would've stood no chance in Federer's era.
 
This may sound crazy, but I have always viewed Fed as a 2.0 version of Sampras, almost like an evolution of sorts. To me that idea is a great compliment to both players, not a knock on either of them.

What say you?
Naah, sampras was mentally stronger.
If federer was same, he'd have sealed the GOAT dispute a long time ago by putting so much distance between himself and the Djokodal.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
No, Lendl's serve and volley is nowhere near Sampras or Federer.

It's like this: Sampras -> Federer; Borg -> Nadal; Agassi -> Djokovic; and Lendl -> Murray
We all hope and pray the lineages continue: Federer -> Tsisipas; Nadal -> Thiem; Murray -> Sinner ???
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Naah, sampras was mentally stronger.
If federer was same, he'd have sealed the GOAT dispute a long time ago by putting so much distance between himself and the Djokodal.
Disagree. That doesn't pay Nadal and Djoker enough respect. Fed had to compete against two, TWO guys that are going to have 20+ slams EACH, getting 20 himself. That's just ridiculous.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
This may sound crazy, but I have always viewed Fed as a 2.0 version of Sampras, almost like an evolution of sorts.

What say you?
Fed didn't do anything to evolve Pete's serve, he always has been the vastly inferior server to Pete in velocity, clutchness and placement. Fed is the far better player across all surfaces than Pete with the monumentally greater career. But he'll never touch the Sampras serve.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Fed didn't do anything to evolve Pete's serve, he always has been the vastly inferior server to Pete in velocity, clutchness and placement. Fed is the far better player across all surfaces than Pete with the monumentally greater career. But he'll never touch the Sampras serve.
On whole he is an improvement, in my opinion. Serve is only one aspect. One could say Isner is an improvement over Pete's serve, but how many slams does he have? Don't get me wrong. Pete was my guy post-Lendl. I couldn't stand Agassi. When I say Fed is an improved version of Pete that is no knock on Pete. Anyways, we all have opinions. No worries.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Fed didn't do anything to evolve Pete's serve, he always has been the vastly inferior server to Pete in velocity, clutchness and placement. Fed is the far better player across all surfaces than Pete with the monumentally greater career. But he'll never touch the Sampras serve.
bwahahahahaha he's only clearly better on clay
 
bwahahahahaha he's only clearly better on clay
Did you happen to miss his 6 AO titles? Sampras beat such heavyweights like Muster or Moya there for his titles, lost whenever Agassi decided he wanted to play. Fed not only dominated the AO in his prime but also came through three five setters to win the title again at the age of 36. There's no comparison on hard court overall except in your head.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Did you happen to miss his 6 AO titles? Sampras beat such heavyweights like Muster or Moya there for his titles, lost whenever Agassi decided he wanted to play. Fed not only dominated the AO in his prime but also came through three five setters to win the title again at the age of 36. There's no comparison on hard court overall except in your head.
Sampras beat Courier there twice. The same Courier who beat Edberg there 3 times and took Agassi 5 in '96. The same Courier with twice as many AO titles as Federer's AO master Nadal. Federer's 2017 title is extraordinary but you mocking Pete's titles is strange given Fed's titles won over exhausted Safin, Gonzalez, Roddick, Murray, Cilic and the singular meme of his competition, Baghdatis, all of whom combined have ONE AO title. Throw in exhausted Nadal, and that's 2. So combining most of Federer's AO competition's haul gets to as many AO titles as ONE guy Pete demolished twice on the way to finals. TLDR;

Number of AO titles won by competition:
Federer: Baghdatis+exhausted Nadal+exhausted Safin+Gonzalez+Roddick+Murray+Cilic=>2
PETE: Courier=>2

HELL let's throw in Wawrinka for Feddy as well. Let's also give PETE Kafelnikov.

Federer: Baghdatis&friends+Wawrinka=> 3
PETE: Courier+Kafelnikov=>3


Fed has longevity over Pete, that's it, and clearly due to changes in medicine, tech AND the Homogenization that have nothing to do with talent and everything to do with the money grubbing times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ForehandCross

Hall of Fame
I am sorry but from whatever I have seen of Pete, which must be quite less than what would have been sufficient, he looks really different than Federer.

Federer is quite close to being a complete player, the only relative weakness he has is his OHBH ,that too which becomes a liability only and only against Nadal. The guy in his heyday defended almost as well as best defenders on tours, and attacked from all over the court(but mostly baseline)

I am sorry I see Federer as an entirely different player in terms of capabilities. (Doesn't resonate with effectiveness, just options available)

Sampras wasn't nowhere as complete,he just did those things he could do so so well and others to a decent level that nobody came close. Meanwhile Federer, almost in all areas ,is elite or near elite.


Also, I love how people here call out Federer for a weak topspin BH, when in whichever match I have watched of Sampras, he just rolls the ball back.

Rafael would absolutely annihilate that BH on clay.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
I am sorry but from whatever I have seen of Pete, which must be quite less than what would have been sufficient, he looks really different than Federer.

Federer is quite close to being a complete player, the only relative weakness he has is his OHBH ,that too which becomes a liability only and only against Nadal. The guy in his heyday defended almost as well as best defenders on tours, and attacked from all over the court(but mostly baseline)

I am sorry I see Federer as an entirely different player in terms of capabilities. (Doesn't resonate with effectiveness, just options available)

Sampras wasn't nowhere as complete,he just did those things he could do so so well and others to a decent level that nobody came close. Meanwhile Federer, almost in all areas ,is elite or near elite.


Also, I love how people here call out Federer for a weak topspin BH, when in whichever match I have watched of Sampras, he just rolls the ball back.

Rafael would absolutely annihilate that BH on clay.
Pete has:
1- GOAT contending serve
2 - ATG forehand
3 - ATG volleys
4 - ATG movement
5 - ATG court sense
6 - ATG longevity (one of 2 men to win a slam in his teens, twenties, and thirties)
7 - GOAT contending clutch

Fed has:
1 - GOAT contending forehand
2 - ATG movement
3 - ATG court sense
4 - ATG serve (being VERY generous here)
5 - GOAT contending longevity

Pete's game was more complete, and had far more "elite level" aspects to it than Fed's. Federer having a more complete baseline game doesn't make him a more complete player, it makes him a better baseliner because that's his game, just like Edberg being a FAR superior serve and volleyer to Fed doesn't make him a more complete player either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
Sampras beat Courier there twice. The same Courier who beat Edberg there 3 times and took Agassi 5 in '96. The same Courier with twice as many AO titles as Federer's AO master Nadal. Federer's 2017 title is extraordinary but you mocking Pete's titles is strange given Fed's titles won over exhausted Safin, Gonzalez, Roddick, Murray, Cilic and the singular meme of his competition, Baghdatis, all of whom combined have ONE AO title. Throw in exhausted Nadal, and that's 2. So combining most of Federer's AO competition's haul gets to as many AO titles as ONE guy Pete demolished twice on the way to finals. TLDR;

Number of AO titles won by competition:
Federer: Baghdatis+exhausted Nadal+exhausted Safin+Gonzalez+Roddick+Murray+Cilic=>2
PETE: Courier=>2

Fed has longevity over Pete, that's it, and clearly due to changes in medicine, tech AND the Homogenization that have nothing to do with talent and everything to do with the money grubbing times.
Never was really big on Courier's game to be honest.
Big forehand.
Once the tour solved him he was mostly done at the top.
Great analyst and commentator tho.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Never was really big on Courier's game to be honest.
Big forehand.
Once the tour solved him he was mostly done at the top.
Great analyst and commentator tho.
I disagree. His game was actually pretty hard to figure out, since most people made the mistake of going straight to his backhand, which he actually really liked and helped him get into a rhythm. The key was to get him out wide on the forehand and then expose his backhand because he'd be off balance and its technical weakness would be more exposed. Pete details this in his book "A Champion's Mind".

Not to mention Jim was the youngest man in history to reach all 4 major finals!
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
You should probably check Pete's record against Hewitt, particulary after Hewitt's 19th birthday ;)
Never ceases to amaze me how Fedfans act like 4-5 is demolition while waving their hands at 16-24...which was 10-23 prior to Fed's 35th birthday :-D
 

tonylg

Legend
I disagree. His game was actually pretty hard to figure out, since most people made the mistake of going straight to his backhand, which he actually really liked and helped him get into a rhythm. The key was to get him out wide on the forehand and then expose his backhand because he'd be off balance and its technical weakness would be more exposed. Pete details this in his book "A Champion's Mind".

Not to mention Jim was the youngest man in history to reach all 4 major finals!
You can disagree about Courier's quality as a player, but I think we can agree he's a terrible commentator.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
You can disagree about Courier's quality as a player, but I think we can agree he's a terrible commentator.
Only seen him do some commentary at the USO where I thought he was great.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Nice deflection. So does that mean Pete didn't struggle against Hewitt after Hewitt turned 19?
Of course. 3 of those meetings happened during the worst 2 year stretch of his career.
Did Fed struggle with Nadal prior to turning 35?
 
Sampras beat Courier there twice. The same Courier who beat Edberg there 3 times and took Agassi 5 in '96. The same Courier with twice as many AO titles as Federer's AO master Nadal. Federer's 2017 title is extraordinary but you mocking Pete's titles is strange given Fed's titles won over exhausted Safin, Gonzalez, Roddick, Murray, Cilic and the singular meme of his competition, Baghdatis, all of whom combined have ONE AO title. Throw in exhausted Nadal, and that's 2. So combining most of Federer's AO competition's haul gets to as many AO titles as ONE guy Pete demolished twice on the way to finals. TLDR;

Number of AO titles won by competition:
Federer: Baghdatis+exhausted Nadal+exhausted Safin+Gonzalez+Roddick+Murray+Cilic=>2
PETE: Courier=>2

HELL let's throw in Wawrinka for Feddy as well. Let's also give PETE Kafelnikov.

Federer: Baghdatis&friends+Wawrinka=> 3
PETE: Courier+Kafelnikov=>3


Fed has longevity over Pete, that's it, and clearly due to changes in medicine, tech AND the Homogenization that have nothing to do with talent and everything to do with the money grubbing times.
Oh yeah, exhausted Nadal. Nice disclaimer to somehow disqualify the player with far more AO titles. You can't PETE your way out of this. Sorry. It's not about a title or two more, Fed has three times as many AOs as Sampras. There's simply no comparison. Oh, and Kafelnikov is no match for Murray and even an 'exhausted Nadal' or 'exhausted Safin' are tougher opponents than him.

Oh, and Sampras never beat Courier before 94 at AO so if you want to go exhausted Nadal, I will go post-prime washed up Jimmy.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Oh yeah, exhausted Nadal. Nice disclaimer to somehow disqualify the player with far more AO titles. You can't PETE your way out of this. Sorry. It's not about a title or two more, Fed has three times as many AOs as Sampras. There's simply no comparison. Oh, and Kafelnikov is no match for Murray and even an 'exhausted Nadal' or 'exhausted Safin' are tougher opponents than him.

Oh, and Sampras never beat Kafelnikov in his title runs. He also never beat Courier before 94 at AO so if you want to go exhausted Nadal, I will go post-prime washed up Jimmy.
Sampras beat Kafelnikov at the AO in '94, the year he won the title, in an epic 5 setter that went 9-7 in the fifth. He also beat Courier in that same run, who was actually the defending champion.
 
Sampras beat Kafelnikov at the AO in '94, the year he won the title, in an epic 5 setter that went 9-7 in the fifth. He also beat Courier in that same run, who was actually the defending champion.
Yes, epic fifth setter against a rookie who had never shown good results before that year. This was hardly the Kafelnikov who would go on to win slams. And as for Courier, yes, he was the defending champion but no, he was far off his peak already. You are one to talk about excuses when you desperately try to invalidate as epic a performance as AO 2017. How deep does your hate run? lol, go find some better purpose in your life. That's what your patron saint Jordan Peterson tells you all, in case you noticed.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Yes, epic fifth setter against a rookie who had never shown good results before that year. This was hardly the Kafelnikov who would go on to win slams. And as for Courier, yes, he was the defending champion but no, he was far off his peak already. You are one to talk about excuses when you desperately try to invalidate as epic a performance as AO 2017. How deep does your hate run? lol, go find some better purpose in your life. That's what your patron saint Jordan Peterson tells you all, in case you noticed.
So nothing more to say in other words.

Also, Fed's 2017 AO Win is one of the most epic slam wins in the last 2-3 decades of tennis.
 

ForehandCross

Hall of Fame
Also, I love how people here call out Federer for a weak topspin BH, when in whichever match I have watched of Sampras, he just rolls the ball back.

Rafael would absolutely annihilate that BH on clay
This actually is a point that I would really underline. I had watched Agassi Sampras USO, and Sampras rolled his topspin BH like 85% of the time.

He was saved by the fast surface and his serve dominance. I can't for the life of me imagine the massacre Nadal would cause on that side.
 
So nothing more to say in other words.
Oh God, what an original comeback, have been hearing that since the early 00s on the net.
Also, Fed's 2017 AO Win is one of the most epic slam wins in the last 2-3 decades of tennis.
Too late to act fair when you tried shamefully to disqualify it in the argument earlier. There's no slam run of Sampras on AO that remotely compares to 2017. It was his second worst slam all said and done, for whatever may have been the reasons. Nobody's saying Fed's better at USO and he is only marginally better, if that, at Wimbledon. But you're reaching too much if you try to argue Sampras is equal or better on AO. He's not. And if he was not interested etc etc, that's not Fed's fault. Fed showed up and won, time and time again.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Oh God, what an original comeback, have been hearing that since the early 00s on the net.

Too late to act fair when you tried shamefully to disqualify it in the argument earlier. There's no slam run of Sampras on AO that remotely compares to 2017. It was his second worst slam all said and done, for whatever may have been the reasons. Nobody's saying Fed's better at USO and he is only marginally better, if that, at Wimbledon. But you're reaching too much if you try to argue Sampras is equal or better on AO. He's not. And if he was not interested etc etc, that's not Fed's fault. Fed showed up and won, time and time again.
I only called Nadal exhausted after you mocked Pete's opponents. Prior to that I called Federer's run extraordinary.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
I disagree. His game was actually pretty hard to figure out, since most people made the mistake of going straight to his backhand, which he actually really liked and helped him get into a rhythm. The key was to get him out wide on the forehand and then expose his backhand because he'd be off balance and its technical weakness would be more exposed. Pete details this in his book "A Champion's Mind".

Not to mention Jim was the youngest man in history to reach all 4 major finals!
I need to order that book.
Might walk down to the library and see if there is a copy there.
He had that great 3 year run.
Won all his masters finals 5-0.
He was in that group of American tennis prodigies.
Came out of that Bollettieri big forehand baseline game.
 
This actually is a point that I would really underline. I had watched Agassi Sampras USO, and Sampras rolled his topspin BH like 85% of the time.

He was saved by the fast surface and his serve dominance. I can't for the life of me imagine the massacre Nadal would cause on that side.
Apples and oranges. That kind of BH did the job back then. Combine that with such a potent FH as Sampras used to be able to hit with nat gut off an 85 sq inch. There's no saying how much better Sampras' serve and forehand would have been with poly. The potential is mindboggling. It's possible his IO forehand would have been too hot to handle for Nadal. We really don't know and can't say. That's why cross era comparisons are futile and only end up getting acrimonious as this one has.
 
I only called Nadal exhausted after you mocked Pete's opponents. Prior to that I called Federer's run extraordinary.
Nice try but you listed Fed's opponents and carefully avoided mentioning Nadal. I hadn't even posted yet on this topic at that time. Don't you think without Nadal and Djokovic, Fed would have easily got to double digits at AO? I don't think Sampras fans of all people can dare attack Fed's competition because a large part of Sampras' success, as in the case of Graf, was simply him being so much better than the rest.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Nice try but you listed Fed's opponents and carefully avoided mentioning Nadal. I hadn't even posted yet on this topic at that time. Don't you think without Nadal and Djokovic, Fed would have easily got to double digits at AO? I don't think Sampras fans of all people can dare attack Fed's competition because a large part of Sampras' success, as in the case of Graf, was simply him being so much better than the rest.
False, I specifically mentioned Nadal and called the run extraordinary.

I think Fedfans are the last ones who should bring up competition lol. I'll leave it at that.
 

tonylg

Legend
I answered you
Never ceases to amaze me how Fedfans act like 4-5 is demolition while waving their hands at 16-24...which was 10-23 prior to Fed's 35th birthday :-D
Did Fed struggle with Nadal prior to turning 35?
And what direct, non-evavasive answers they were to a question about Sampras and Hewitt :-D :-D :-D

I think what you're trying to say is "Yes, Pete struggle with Hewitt after Hewitt turned 19".

You're welcome.
 
False, I specifically mentioned Nadal and called the run extraordinary.
You lie.

Pete would only have struggled with Baghdatis, Philippousis, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Bjorkman, Kiefer, Starace, Srichaphan from Fed's era. He'd handle everyone else. Oh, wait...
I think Fedfans are the last ones who should bring up competition lol. I'll leave it at that.
And I didn't before you did. Not like your boy didn't benefit from the lack of heavyweights in prime form. Meth-gassi was his best opponent, er, opposed to Nadal or Djokovic? Where's the competition?
 

ForehandCross

Hall of Fame
Pete has:
1- GOAT contending serve
2 - ATG forehand
3 - ATG volleys
4 - ATG movement
5 - ATG court sense
6 - GOAT contending clutch

Fed has:
1 - GOAT contending forehand
2 - ATG movement
3 - ATG court sense
4 - ATG serve (being VERY generous here)

Pete's game was more complete, and had far more "elite level" aspects to it than Fed's. Federer having a more complete baseline game doesn't make him a more complete player, it makes him a better baseliner because that's his game, just like Edberg being a FAR superior serve and volleyer to Fed doesn't make him a more complete player either.
I am not going to defend Federer much , but big 3 > Sampras for me .

Also, you forgot
Federer had ATG defense (Movement != defense. There is a big difference between moving well and defending well)
Federer had GOAT Contending Variety
Federer had ATG return (Specifically the 1st serve return, second serve return hasn't ever been that good but his Federer's 1st serve return is definitely up there. )
Federer has GOAT contending slice

Also Federer BH > Sampras BH. Federer FH > Sampras FH . Federer defense >Sampras defense. Federer return > Sampras return. Federer footwork > Sampras Footwork.

Sampras has edge in mentality ,serve and net play but he definitely lags behind in others. This is the same with Djokovic/nadal comparison.

Don't know who would win h2h but in terms of being complete and ability : Big 3 > Sampras.

Now come at me Nostalgia ****s.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
You lie.





And I didn't before you did. Not like your boy didn't benefit from the lack of heavyweights in prime form. Meth-gassi was his best opponent, er, opposed to Nadal or Djokovic? Where's the competition?
Nadal was not a main rival of Fed on his favored surfaces during his winningest years. He played Fed a grand total of twice on either grass or hard during Fed's golden years of 03-07. Compare that to Roddick who played him 6 times on his favored surfaces. Even if we factor in clay, Nadal played Fed 5 times in that period.

I will happily go toe to toe with you comparing Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov, and Rafter to Baghdatis, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt, but please let's make it a separate thread.
 
Top