Anti-Fedal
Professional
Whose was higher in your opinion?
IMO comparing peak level doesn't really work. Simply because anybody in the top 100 has a pretty much unbeatable peak level. Even journeymen like Rosol are untouchable when playing at their peak. If everyone is unbeatable at peak, how can you compare?
IMO comparing peak level doesn't really work. Simply because anybody in the top 100 has a pretty much unbeatable peak level. Even journeymen like Rosol are untouchable when playing at their peak. If everyone is unbeatable at peak, how can you compare?
Did Sampras ever win 3 slams in a year?
Did Sampras ever win 3 slams in a year?
IMO comparing peak level doesn't really work. Simply because anybody in the top 100 has a pretty much unbeatable peak level. Even journeymen like Rosol are untouchable when playing at their peak. If everyone is unbeatable at peak, how can you compare?
Sampras.
When Pete was at his peak the field (early-mid 90s) the field was STRONG. Prime Agassi, Bruguera, A bit past prime but still awesome Becker and Edberg, Kafelnikov, Goran, Muster, Courier, Rafter, Chang etc.
When Fed was at his peak the field was crapola:
Roddick (didn't even possess a FRACTION of the talent Pete's top rivals did), Hewitt (washed up post 2005), MIA Safin and Nalbandian (Arguably just as talented as most of Pete's rivals but missing in action 95-98 percent of their career so the point is moot), Old BrokeBack Agassi, Gonzales, Baghaditis and pre puberty Nole, Nadal and Murray not even in their primes yet
I think people are not even answering the real OP question. The question is "Who has higher level peak of play?", not "Who can maintain peak level of play for longer period?".
Pete at his peak has never demolished a top 5 player in a slam final like Fed did (USO 2004)
Federer at his peak went 18-0 vs top 10 opponents in a season. Pete never did that.
Overall Federer.
That's because their games are different. Pete only breaks his opponent once per set. Federer, on the other hand, tries to break an opponent every time he has a chance. I still think Pete 1995 USO could beat any version of Federer including 2004 version. Remember, no back Agassi went 5 sets with 2004 Federer, but peak Agassi has got nothing on Sampras.
That's because their games are different. Pete only breaks his opponent once per set. Federer, on the other hand, tries to break an opponent every time he has a chance. I still think Pete 1995 USO could beat any version of Federer including 2004 version. Remember, no back Agassi went 5 sets with 2004 Federer, but peak Agassi has got nothing on Sampras.
Yes but that match was in the QF. In the final Federer was zoning.That's because their games are different. Pete only breaks his opponent once per set. Federer, on the other hand, tries to break an opponent every time he has a chance. I still think Pete 1995 USO could beat any version of Federer including 2004 version. Remember, no back Agassi went 5 sets with 2004 Federer, but peak Agassi has got nothing on Sampras.
2004 USO Agassi played better than 1995 Agassi who was tired from his exhausting summer.
That's like saying Nole has got nothing on Nadal. The H2H with Sampras and Agassi isn't like Nadal and Fed. 20-14 is a 6 match difference, not a 2:1 ratio.
If you think Agassi in 2004 played better than his peak level in 1995(who went undefeated that summer up until he met Sampras), then I have nothing more to say to you.
Just like Nadal, Sampras raises his level at high pressure moments.
Federer's game is about avoiding pressure situation so that he can hit
all those exotic shots risk-free. If he can't lead a match and things get
extended to 5 set, he becomes defensive.
However, the player's true color shows in high pressure moment.
i liked his masters final against agassi moreI think Fed's performance against Hewitt in the USO 04 final is the highest level seen in a grandslam so that's my pick.