Well what Federer's prime was changes daily depending which ******* you speak to. When one reminds of his smackdown to a hip busted way past his prime Kuerten at the 2004 French, and his losses to Henman in late 2003 and early 2004, his prime didnt start until 2005 (and I can find quotes in conversations with past *******s that prove this line of reasoning on their behalf). When one reminds of the trouble he was having with Djokovic on hard courts and Nadal at Wimbledon as early as 2007 his prime was suddenly over after 2006. So I will let you decide when you think he his prime was as every ******* has a distinct definition of that. To some it is only 2005-2006, to some it is 2005-today, to some it is 2004-2007, or some other timeframe. What I do know is Sampras's prime was definitely 1993-1997. 1998 was the first year there was a distinct dropoff in his overall level of play.
Pete didnt start tanking regular tour events until he was no longer #1 regularly, and was no longer the face of the tour with the younger guys like Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt, and a late blooming Agassi taking over on top. A #1 player is most times the face of the tour, and has a certain responsability to uphold the tour and not do things like that. Granted Federer's time at #1 had basically ended, and he is essentialy #1 by accident again only through Nadal's miseason injuries last year, and probably even he realizes this. Still inspite of that he should be upholding his role as a long standing #1 player by atleast giving a good honest effort in most of the non slam tournaments, which no matter what you say most of even your fellow *******s seem to agree he is NOT doing.
Dominated like nobody else ever has? Is that why he did win a Calender Slam vs a killer field like Laver? Is that why he did ever match McEnroe's 82-3 record of 1984?
Sampras never a contender on clay? So you make the quarters or semis of the French Open 4 out of 5 years, beat 2 time French Open winners Courier and Bruguera at the French while they were still major contenders, also post a win over Muster at the French, you win the 2nd biggest clay court event in Rome, you single handedly win the Davis Cup crown by killing next years French Open winner Kafelnikov on clay in Russia, and you are not even a "contender" on clay.
For what it is worth put Federer in the 92-96 clay court field which was stocked full of clay court specialists rather than todays field of Nadal and the 7 dwarves on clay and see how many finals he is still making. Yes Federer was better than Sampras on clay but lets not exagerrate and make Roger some all time clay court great or Sampras some clueless dummy on clay his whole career, neither of which is true.
That is your opinion.
Year end #1s reflect that you were the best player for that overall year. Pete was that 6 times in a row, an incredible achievement particularly when Agassi, Becker, and Courier, were your main rivals.
As this thread indicates no foregone conclusion he does that. Anyway his time at #1 was over for good without Nadal's major midseason injury at the worst time last year. Even if Federer had somehow still won both the French Open and Wimbledon he never would have collected the points to take back the #1 ranking, not with his pitiful performances in Masters (outside the odd exception) and all the points Nadal was collecting. That is why stats like those are often misleading to true greatness or ability. Federer is no better a player now than he would be with no chance at the weeks at #1 record, possibly 1 or even 2 less slam titles, which is what he would have been without Nadal's major spring/ summer knee injury of last year.
Pete is even more dominant at Wimbledon, and while his dominance at the U.S Open is less his total achievements at the U.S Open overall are still more. The 2 biggest events on the planet.