Pete Sampras vs. Roger Federer at the US Open

[MasturB]

Plus Agassi was always a pure baseliner. When the conditions changed and people moved to baseline it was always his home so the new kids were coming into his house not him having to adapt.

Agassi is the exception to the rule.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Who is the greater US Open player between Pete Sampras and Roger Federer? This is the only Grand Slam tournament where you could make a logical case for Sampras over Federer. Looking at their achievements:

Titles:
Sampras = 5
Federer = 5

Runners-up:
Sampras = 3
Federer = 2

Semifinals:
Sampras = 1
Federer = 3

Quarterfinals:
Sampras = 1
Federer = 1

4th Rounds:
Sampras = 3
Federer = 4


They're both very close in every metric, and it basically comes to this: 1 runner-up vs. 2 semifinals.

A runner-up is worth a trophy and 1200 ATP points. Two semifinal runs are worth no trophies and 1440 ATP points. I think it's really close between the two, but I'll give the slightest of edges to Pete Sampras, because I value one runner-up over two semifinals considering you get a place in history and a trophy for it, but if Federer makes at least a quarterfinal this year (or the next), he might finish with the even slighter edge over Sampras.

What do you think?

Fed also has five in a row.
It's Federer over Sampras.

I think Connors just might be the USO GOAT though. It's not Sampras either way IMO - not that it isn't close.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Fed also has five in a row.
It's Federer over Sampras.

I think Connors just might be the USO GOAT though. It's not Sampras either way IMO - not that it isn't close.

I don't really value titles-in-a-row over titles-spread-out. But, yeah, I agree that Connors is easily the US Open GOAT. He's got like 6 semifinals and 2 quarterfinals against Sampras's 1 additional final.

 

[dgold44]

Who is the greater US Open player between Pete Sampras and Roger Federer? This is the only Grand Slam tournament where you could make a logical case for Sampras over Federer. Looking at their achievements:

Titles:
Sampras = 5
Federer = 5

Runners-up:
Sampras = 3
Federer = 2

Semifinals:
Sampras = 1
Federer = 3

Quarterfinals:
Sampras = 1
Federer = 1

4th Rounds:
Sampras = 3
Federer = 4


They're both very close in every metric, and it basically comes to this: 1 runner-up vs. 2 semifinals.

A runner-up is worth a trophy and 1200 ATP points. Two semifinal runs are worth no trophies and 1440 ATP points. I think it's really close between the two, but I'll give the slightest of edges to Pete Sampras, because I value one runner-up over two semifinals considering you get a place in history and a trophy for it, but if Federer makes at least a quarterfinal this year (or the next), he might finish with the even slighter edge over Sampras.

What do you think?

Only on grass could and would Sampras beat him.
On hard and Clay it would be Roger

 

[tarutani]

Federer would beat Sampras on any surface

 

[Prabhanjan]

Is
88 percent win rate v 70 percent win rate is a huge difference

Does it work that way? Then explain why Pete does not have 8 slams in a period of 10 years?

The way I would rather look at it is Pete has this streak
1R 1R 2R SF W W W QF W W W W 4R 2R over 14 years, and that Fed has
1R 1R QF 1R W W W W W F W QF QF W over 14 years. Fed has 2013-16 extra years and counting.

Now, whatever criteria one chooses to evaluate the better player among them here, the same must be used for their USO runs.

 

[shankster]

ROFLMAO at your caddieboy excuse making. How many French Open titles would Roger have in absence of the all time surface GOAT Rafa Nadal?

No such thing as the French Open exists for Sampras fans.

 

[Rago]

He will win the US Open at least once more putting this meaningless debate to end. Even a heavily underperforming Djokovic is still better than Agassi at the US Open.

Late bump.

 

[BGod]

Sampras. Went 4-0 against Agassi. Made 1 additional Final losing to Edberg-Safin-Hewitt. Lost outside of the final to 1998 Rafter (USO Triple Crown) and Jim Courier both of whom finished the year #2.

Roger had the best streak obviously but he choked to del Potro, needed 5 sets to beat 34 year old Agassi at 23 himself, lost to Delpo again then Millman. Other losses include Robredo, Berdych and Cilic.

AND the double match point meltdowns in BACK TO BACK YEARS!!!

One thing I can say for sure is Sampras wins those 2 Novak blunders and never loses to Berdych or Robredo. Pete's 2 worst losses were to Korda and Yzaga both in tight 5 setters. Korda that year was better than Robredo/Berdych and the Yzaga match was a massive anomaly where the guy was zoning. They were both 4th rounders too where Pete was typically coasting.

Robredo and Berdych simply capitalized on Roger's decline at the time.

It's Pete.

 

[DSH]

Connors in 5!

 

[BackhandDTL]

pete

 

[aditya123]

People who are voting for Fed here must be insane or clueless about Tennis

 

[BackhandDTL]

Delete

 

[Rosstour]

Fed won five in a row, that's plenty impressive.

But so is Pete's 14-year spread.