Cesc Fabregas
Legend
40 year old Sampras wouldn't have the stamina to play best of 5 but in a best of 3 indoor grass today I think Sampras could beat Federer. He beat him indoors a few years ago.
in best of 3 could Sampras have beaten Federer today?
- Thread starter Cesc Fabregas
- Start date
Frying Pan Forehand
Rookie
But, will it blend?
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Does your mother know what you're doing?
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Do you honestly think that out of 20 matches on clay Sampras would beat Federer 7 times?
Honestly?
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
why do you lie?
fednad
Hall of Fame
zagor
Bionic Poster
He beat him in exo.
BO3 match on grass 30-31 year old Sampras would have lost to Bastl 6-3 6-2, 40 year old Sampras would have done much worse obviously.
The Pure One
Rookie
Now imagine the beating Sampras would give to Nadal!
kragster
Hall of Fame
dominikk1985
Legend
he didn't beat him. roger let him win.
Federer could have easily bagled a 40yo sampras.
xanctus
Semi-Pro
Have you guys seen those 2 plays in exhibition games. I know it's not like a real game, but in that 3 series of exhibitions, Roger won 2 out of 3. But the last one Pete won and I think Pete started to get the hang of it. The first game, roger was not used to with big serve and volley games.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
Will Pete be playing with a Babolat or has Sampras traded up to the Wilson six.one 100?
Last edited:
netlets
Professional
What a joke of a thread. Do you guys even understand tennis, exo's etc. Sampras would have lost to Federer on THIS slow grass 7 or 8 out of 10 times. This Grand Slam is one of the slowest surfaces that requires great defensive skills which Pete did not possess. Many of Fed's shots to the corners would not come back like they did today. Pete didn't develop that in his game (see French Open record). Sampras would not be successful at net on this slow surface, and his serve, while still being great, would not be overpowering like it was. Fed would win 9 out of 10 on clay, the one time winning because Fed caught a cold or stomach bug from one of his twins, and hardcourt would be 7/10 to Fed, again due to the defense and footwork issues Sampras would have.
TopFH
Hall of Fame
30 year old Sampras couldn't beat 19-20 year old Federer at Wimbledon. So, basically, no.
LOL this is really a terrible time to troll. Part of being a good troll is not being so transparent. Only a troll would make such a ridiculous thread after such a Federer triumph. From now on your trolling will be much less effective.
This goes for all of the other ****s making equally stupid threads.
This goes for all of the other ****s making equally stupid threads.
No, but he would have beaten Nadal.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
40 year-old Sampras would have no chance, but prime Sampras would have a good chance against anyone on grass. OP is trolling..
A "prime" Pete would beat a "prime" Fed 7 of 10 on the old 90's grass. You didn't need a baseline game to win back then, even though Sampras had the most feared forehand in the game in his prime. You HAD to serve and volley or get crushed because you didn't dare let the ball bounce. Shank city if you did. Even Borg and Agassi served and volleyed on the old grass.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
The fact that Federer hasn't serve-and-volleyed a lot in the last couple of years doesn't mean he's incapable of doing so. I guess you missed their 2001 match when teenage baby Fed beat the 4-time defending champion Sampras on his first visit on Centre court - I assume that must've been 1 of the 3 wins Fed would get over Sampras
Similar threads
