Prime Sampras (Wimbledon 1999) VS Prime Federer (You choose) at Wimbledon, who wins?

[gold soundz]

Who wins between prime Sampras and prime Federer at Wimbledon? From what I know, Sampras felt he was playing on another planet and he was unbeatable in the Wimbledon 1999 final against Agassi. But then Federer is Federer. Who would at Wimbledon win with both of them in their primes?

 

[fed_rulz]

what's with creating threads out of topics that have been beaten to death??

In regards to your Q: I'd take 2005 - 2007 Fed against any version of Sampras on any surface. Fed's just a superior player. Period.

 

[gold soundz]

what's with creating threads out of topics that have been beaten to death??

In regards to your Q: I'd take 2005 - 2007 Fed against any version of Sampras on any surface. Fed's just a superior player. Period.

Come on Sampras was also King of grass in his era. I vote Sampras.

 

[fed_rulz]

Come on Sampras was also King of grass in his era. I vote Sampras.

Yeah, but Fed didn't lose in straights at wimby during his prime. Nor did sampras go 74-1 on grass. I think Fed has the tools to win in the 90s grass too. I'm not so sure about Sampras on today's grass.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

There isnt a whole lot to discuss here. Federer is simply a better player. It probably hurts sampras fans to accept that but is a fact. Federer has more options in his tool box (and can also execute them well) than Sampras can.

Dont be under some illusion that Sampras can serve the heck out and then volley the rallies to win against federer. Sure he may win some matches but not many. Federer is simply too smart for Sampras.

 

[tennisfan78]

I like Federer more than Sampras. But, I voted for Sampras. His serve, volleys and attacking style is the best on grass.

 

[gold soundz]

Yeah, but Fed didn't lose in straights at wimby during his prime. Nor did sampras go 74-1 on grass. I think Fed has the tools to win in the 90s grass too. I'm not so sure about Sampras on today's grass.

Yeah today's grass for Sampras would be a different story probably. But say in the old grass and with Sampras at his best, he'd seem unbeatable with his serve and volleys.

 

[JeMar]

I believe the general consensus is Sampras if it's old grass in a four- or five-setter and Federer in straights or a four-setter in the new grass.

 

[Justdoit10]

I would say Pete. He was way more explosive on grass courts. He could attack the net, hit awesome serves,and penetrating groundstrokes.

 

[gold soundz]

I believe the general consensus is Sampras if it's old grass in a four- or five-setter and Federer in straights or a four-setter in the new grass.

Yeah this is quite reasonable actually.

 

[federerGOAT]

Any version of Fed would beat Prime Sampras whther old grass or new grass. Period.

Fed is the superior player.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Too close to call. Federer would have had to serve very well and not get any breaks on his serve. I think Sampras at his peak would have given Fed a lot of trouble.

It's really hard to say though, not enough data, as Fed never played Sampras even remotely close to his peak.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Any version fo Fed would beat Prime Sampras whther old grass or new grass. Period.

Fed is the superior player.

Who is the superior player, Federer or Nadal?

If you have ever played chess, you can probably anticipate what my next move will be.

 

[fed_rulz]

Yeah today's grass for Sampras would be a different story probably. But say in the old grass and with Sampras at his best, he'd seem unbeatable with his serve and volleys.

2001 was old grass, with Sampras serving at 69% (one of his best serving performances ever at wimby), yet baby Fed beat him... some of his winners were outright return winners of the sampras 1st serve.

As some one rightly pointed out in an earlier thread, it's impossible to win the battle against nostalgia. so yeah, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Old grass, new Grass or No Grass -- Federer it is.

Sure Sampras appeared unbeatable (except when he lost to Richard Krajicek) but thats because the people he played arent Federer.

With all his experience,He couldnt even handle a young federer at wimbledon.

 

[fed_rulz]

Who is the superior player, Federer or Nadal?

If you have ever played chess, you can probably anticipate what my next move will be.

neither. Delpo is

 

[TheLoneWolf]

neither. Delpo is

That's a cop out.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Old grass, new Grass or No Grass -- Federer it is.

Sure Sampras appeared unbeatable (except when he lost to Richard Krajicek) but thats because the people he played arent Federer.

With all his experience,He couldnt even handle a young federer at wimbledon.

It works both ways. Nadal beat Fed in HC in Miami when he was still learning to walk.

I find it amusing that radical *******s will be quick to derive conclusions from a single match between Sampras and Fed, yet a consistent domination in H2H by Nadal against Federer is just something to be ignored. LOLOLOLOL.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Who is the superior player, Federer or Nadal?

If you have ever played chess, you can probably anticipate what my next move will be.

Between them, it is Nadal.

So when Nadal and Federer meet in wimbledon, it isnt like Nadal is the overwhelming favorite (like at French open). They played 3 wimby finals and federer is 2-1 )

Federer is just a better player than Sampras. Nadal got some mental edge over federer (thanks to his clear clay court prowess). Sampras doesnt enjoy the same against Federer.

 

[fed_rulz]

That's a cop out.

true; that's because you posted in the wrong thread. perhaps you were looking for this thread to compare Fed and Nadal?

 

[TheLoneWolf]

true; that's because you posted in the wrong thread. perhaps you were looking for this thread?

I was trying to make a point. If Nadal is inferior to Federer like you guys say, yet Nadal wins most matches against Fed, how is being inferior to Fed going to stop Sampras from winning most of his matches against him? I think the thread is about who would win, not who would hit the ball with better form and exhibit a greater degree of versatility and style.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

It works both ways. Nadal beat Fed in HC in Miami when he was still learning to walk.

I find it amusing that radical *******s will be quick to derive conclusions from a single match between Sampras and Fed, yet a consistent domination in H2H by Nadal against Federer is just something to be ignored. LOLOLOLOL.

Nadal is beating Federer even today. I am not sure what you are trying to point here. As long as Nadal finds federer backhand, Nadal will enjoy favorable H2h.

How is Nadal- Federer relevant for Federer- Sampras.

I am not saying that Federer will annihilate sampras (except on clay courts---oh well, lets not get sampras on clay courts. any no name journey men can have him) . However Federer has simply more options than Sampras.

 

[fed_rulz]

I was trying to make a point. If Nadal is inferior to Federer like you guys say, yet Nadal wins most matches against Fed, how is being inferior to Fed going to stop Sampras from winning most of his matches against him? I think the thread is about who would win, not who would hit the ball with better form and exhibit a greater degree of versatility and style.

Big difference being nadal wins most matches on clay, where he is clearly the superior player, and Fed's least favorite surface.

Grass happens to be Pete's and Fed's favorite surface. Plus there is nothing in Pete's game that can cause a match-up issue for Fed (a la nadal). So your parallel does not hold...

 

[abmk]

too close to call

 

[TMF]

Federer is better, hands down. Federer was more dominant. Off the top of my head:

-most consecutive matches win on grass
-7 straight finals
-beat more top 10 players
-faced less number of 5 sets match
-beat Sampras in his backyard
-better record/titles in Halle than Pete in Queen

Roger was closer to invincible than Pete.

 

[JoelDali]

Nalbanian prime would handle both of them.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Big difference being nadal wins most matches on clay, where he is clearly the superior player, and Fed's least favorite surface.

Grass happens to be Pete's and Fed's favorite surface. Plus there is nothing in Pete's game that can cause a match-up issue for Fed (a la nadal). So your parallel does not hold...

Fair enough. Fed vs Nadal H2H in hardcourt is level however.

 

[fed_rulz]

Federer is better, hands down. Federer was more dominant. Off the top of my head:

-most consecutive matches win on grass
-7 straight finals
-beat more top 10 players
-faced less number of 5 sets match
-beat Sampras in his backyard
-better record/titles in Halle than Pete in Queen

Roger was closer to invincible than Pete.

all of this was achieved in a clown-like grass field. If Fed had played against a over-the-hill prime Becker, or a mentally strong Goran, then he'd have no shot at grass court glory. If you're still not convinced, then you just have to take a look at the wimbledon finalists for the past few years -- none to the caliber of Pioline or Malivai Washington.

sorry, Fed's stats don't count.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Nadal is beating Federer even today. I am not sure what you are trying to point here. As long as Nadal finds federer backhand, Nadal will enjoy favorable H2h.

How is Nadal- Federer relevant for Federer- Sampras.

I am not saying that Federer will annihilate sampras (except on clay courts---oh well, lets not get sampras on clay courts. any no name journey men can have him) . However Federer has simply more options than Sampras.

Yes, Federer would be vastly superior to Sampras on clay.

My point is that you can't derive any lessons from a single match in which, on top of that, Sampras was at the end of his career and very far from his peak.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

all of this was achieved in a clown-like grass field. If Fed had played against a over-the-hill prime Becker, or a mentally strong Goran, then he'd have no shot at grass court glory. If you're still not convinced, then you just have to take a look at the wimbledon finalists for the past few years -- none to the caliber of Pioline or Malivai Washington.

sorry, Fed's stats don't count.

Please, what are you people smoking? I want some of it. Some of your statements are partially true. As far as Wimbledon finalists being a joke, do you think Nadal's grass skills are a joke? Can't you people make statements without exaggerating so much?

The fact is that comparing between eras is extremely difficult when you have players that haven't played each other, or which have extremely limited H2H data.

That's also one of the many reasons the GOAT concept is flawed. If Sampras had coincided with Nadal and Federer, it's conceivable Nadal would be considered the GOAT amongst the three (clearly taking all clay matches, and letting Pete and Fed duke it out on the rest of the surfaces, with the occasional upset.)

 

[hoodjem]

'99 Wimby Sampras was in the zone--best he ever played. Even his groundstrokes were great. Fed would have to be A+ to keep up.

If Fed is A or less he gets routed.

 

[gold soundz]

Any version of Fed would beat Prime Sampras whther old grass or new grass. Period.

Fed is the superior player.

Lol, ok yeah Federer in say 1998 would beat 1999 Sampras on fast grass. Yeah.

 

[abmk]

Yes, Federer would be vastly superior to Sampras on clay.

My point is that you can't derive any lessons from a single match in which, on top of that, Sampras was at the end of his career and very far from his peak.

with all due respect, sampras played very well in that match, just because he wasn't @ his peak, doesn't mean he couldn't play darn well in some matches . Other similar examples would be his matches vs andre at the USO QF the very same year and vs roddick and andre at the USO next year ..

let's not forget that it was pre-prime fed , who had barely won titles by then and had just one slam QF ( he played an excellent match too ).

While the lone match doesn't exactly show how many times they'd win if they played against each other, it certainly showed fed could handle sampras SnV game very well on grass . So its not that the match is irrelevant .

 

[frisco]

Easily Fed. Sampras is no match for any Fed. 2001 proved it. Veteran Sampras loses to diapered Fed.

 

[TMF]

Yes, Federer would be vastly superior to Sampras on clay.

My point is that you can't derive any lessons from a single match in which, on top of that, Sampras was at the end of his career and very far from his peak.

What is wrong with you? Pete was going for his 5th consecutive SW19. It was a chance for him to tie Borg, so he was even more motivated to win. Against Fed, he served 69%, higher than any of his previous 6 SW19 finals! Sampras was the king, a 19 yrs old Federer had no shot...everyone expect Pete to win. But as we all know, there will be time when a king must give up his throne. It was a HUGE upset plus a changing of the guard. Roger has taken it to another level.

 

[gold soundz]

What is wrong with you? Pete was going for his 5th consecutive SW19. It was a chance for him to tie Borg, so he was even more motivated to win. Against Fed, he served 69%, higher than any of his previous 6 SW19 finals! Sampras was the king, a 19 yrs old Federer had no shot...everyone expect Pete to win. But as we all know, there will be time when a king must give up his throne. It was a HUGE upset plus a changing of the guard. Roger has taken it to another level.

Sampras was miles better at Wimby 99.

 

[abmk]

Please, what are you people smoking? I want some of it. Some of your statements are partially true. As far as Wimbledon finalists being a joke, do you think Nadal's grass skills are a joke? Can't you people make statements without exaggerating so much?

The fact is that comparing between eras is extremely difficult when you have players that haven't played each other, or which have extremely limited H2H data.

he was only being sarcastic

That's also one of the many reasons the GOAT concept is flawed. If Sampras had coincided with Nadal and Federer, it's conceivable Nadal would be considered the GOAT amongst the three (clearly taking all clay matches, and letting Pete and Fed duke it out on the rest of the surfaces, with the occasional upset.)

would he really ? is the slam count the only measure ?

aren't versatility, consistency, dominance over the field,longevity amongst other factors important ?

 

[fed_rulz]

Fair enough. Fed vs Nadal H2H in hardcourt is level however.

Actually, Nadal leads the hard court h2h where it counts the most: AO-09 .

TLW, I may be a *******, but I do realize and appreciate the enormity of Nadal's game. He is my 2nd favorite after Federer. Part of the reason being he adds to Fed's legacy, despite pwning the h2h.

Having said that, game-wise, Fed has more of it than Nadal on anything other than clay. But nadal has more game on clay than all of Federer's excesses combined on other surfaces, and it appeared that nadal's domination on clay sapped Federer's belief even during non-clay matches. And people are not far-off if they pick Nadal over Fed (if they were to meet) on any surface. To me, the turning point in their rivalry was the Rome 2006 finals. I also believe that if Fed was a little bit worse-off on clay, and did not meet nadal as many times, his non-clay h2h would've looked quite different.

However, now that the pressure is off Fed, I expect the mental advantage that Nadal has over Fed to dwindle -- i may be wrong, only time will tell, but I have a hunch that I may be right. If I'm right, then it's good for the game -- we can see more competitive matches b/n the two.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

What is wrong with you? Pete was going for his 5th consecutive SW19. It was a chance for him to tie Borg, so he was even more motivated to win. Against Fed, he served 69%, higher than any of his previous 6 SW19 finals! Sampras was the king, a 19 yrs old Federer had no shot...everyone expect Pete to win. But as we all know, there will be time when a king must give up his throne. It was a HUGE upset plus a changing of the guard. Roger has taken it to another level.

The way things looked like and the way they turned out to be are different things. Pete was at the end of his career and far from his peak. Serving percentage is only part of the story.

 

[Dark Victory]

2005 would be the best version of Fed to match up against Pete in his 1999 Wimbledon finals form.

Still, Pete would win. Fed might take a set away from him though.

Pete at Wimbledon in 1997 was better than 1999, at least for the span of seven straight matches.

 

[TMF]

Sampras was miles better at Wimby 99.

Yes, but as fed_rulz already pointed out...Fed 2005-07 would beat Pete 99.

My post was to TheLoneWolf when he try to discredit Fed win in 2001. Even an insane person wouldn't pick a kid(Roger) to beat the king in his backyard. Capiche?

 

[fed_rulz]

Please, what are you people smoking? I want some of it. Some of your statements are partially true. As far as Wimbledon finalists being a joke, do you think Nadal's grass skills are a joke? Can't you people make statements without exaggerating so much?

The fact is that comparing between eras is extremely difficult when you have players that haven't played each other, or which have extremely limited H2H data.

That's also one of the many reasons the GOAT concept is flawed. If Sampras had coincided with Nadal and Federer, it's conceivable Nadal would be considered the GOAT amongst the three (clearly taking all clay matches, and letting Pete and Fed duke it out on the rest of the surfaces, with the occasional upset.)

take it easy .. i was just being sarcastic. just wait for a few posts, and you'll see what I mean (weak-era theorists).

 

[TheLoneWolf]

he was only being sarcastic

Yes, you are right ambk. I responded on impulse before reading the part about Pioline. LOL

would he really ? is the slam count the only measure ?

aren't versatility, consistency, dominance over the field,longevity amongst other factors important ?

Yes, all those are important factors. But throwing Pete into the mix would have changed everything probably. Fed wouldn't have been as dominant if he had to share Final spots with Pete on a consistent basis. He might have missed some SFs too. But I agree that Fed is more versatile than Sampras and Nadal.

 

[gold soundz]

Yes, but as fed_rulz already pointed out...Fed 2005-07 would beat Pete 99.

My post was to TheLoneWolf when he try to discredit Fed win in 2001. Even an insane person wouldn't pick a kid(Roger) to beat the king in his backyard. Capiche?

Fair enough, I agree with that.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Actually, Nadal leads the hard court h2h where it counts the most: AO-09 .

TLW, I may be a *******, but I do realize and appreciate the enormity of Nadal's game. He is my 2nd favorite after Federer. Part of the reason being he adds to Fed's legacy, despite pwning the h2h.

Having said that, game-wise, Fed has more of it than Nadal on anything other than clay. But nadal has more game on clay than all of Federer's excesses combined on other surfaces, and it appeared that nadal's domination on clay sapped Federer's belief even during non-clay matches. And people are not far-off if they pick Nadal over Fed (if they were to meet) on any surface. To me, the turning point in their rivalry was the Rome 2006 finals. I also believe that if Fed was a little bit worse-off on clay, and did not meet nadal as many times, his non-clay h2h would've looked quite different.

However, now that the pressure is off Fed, I expect the mental advantage that Nadal has over Fed to dwindle -- i may be wrong, only time will tell, but I have a hunch that I may be right. If I'm right, then it's good for the game -- we can see more competitive matches b/n the two.

Very good post, fed_rulz. I actually have very few objections to what you are saying. Perhaps the only one is the belief that Fed's mental pressure against Nadal is gone. I actually think it can work both ways. If their H2H keeps getting worse, Fed has more to lose than Nadal as far as his legacy is concerned. But I might be wrong.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

take it easy .. i was just being sarcastic. just wait for a few posts, and you'll see what I mean (weak-era theorists).

LOL. I got it now, sorry. Pioline...

 

[frisco]

2006 Federer would destroy any version of Pete on any surface. No comparison.

 

[urban]

Last Wimbledon some like Mac and Laver said Sampras.I would expect many tiebreaks in such a match, but maybe Sampras would have a slight advantage in the mental department. If you gave him a little finger, he took the hand.

 

[gold soundz]

2006 Federer would destroy any version of Pete on any surface. No comparison.

Haha now come on. Destroy?

 

[abmk]

Last Wimbledon some like Mac and Laver said Sampras.I would expect many tiebreaks in such a match, but maybe Sampras would have a slight advantage in the mental department. If you gave him a little finger, he took the hand.

federer is the better tie-break player, his GS tie-break record is perhaps the best ever