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

[jackson vile]

I just want to remind everyone that Roddick alomst beat Roger last year and in previous years.

So if Roddick can get that damn close to beating Roger, and Roger was saved by rain if you remember in previous years.

Then how sould Sampras do, Sampras is a hell of a lot better than Roddick

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I just want to remind everyone that Roddick alomst beat Roger last year and in previous years.

So if Roddick can get that damn close to beating Roger, and Roger was saved by rain if you remember in previous years.

Then how sould Sampras do, Sampras is a hell of a lot better than Roddick

"Almost beat" ? is that a category that is newly added. How many points does one get for almost beating the other player?

 

[zagor]

I just want to remind everyone that Roddick alomst beat Roger last year and in previous years.

So if Roddick can get that damn close to beating Roger, and Roger was saved by rain if you remember in previous years.

Then how sould Sampras do, Sampras is a hell of a lot better than Roddick

Yes and Goran also "almost beat" Sampras a few of their grasscourt encounters as well,he pushed Sampras twice to 5 sets unlike Roddick who only did that once to Fed.

Not to mention that Krajicek gave prime Pete a straight set spanking at Wimbledon while Fed's only loss in his prime at Wimbledon was a 5 setter.

Then how should Federer do,Federer is a hell of a lot better than Ivanisevic and Krajicek.

 

[The-Champ]

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.

Sampras wins!

Sampras has never lost to a clay courter at wimbledon.

 

[TMF]

I just want to remind everyone that Roddick alomst beat Roger last year and in previous years.

So if Roddick can get that damn close to beating Roger, and Roger was saved by rain if you remember in previous years.

Then how sould Sampras do, Sampras is a hell of a lot better than Roddick

Sampras faced 5 setters countless of times, but you use Roddick's match to hold against Federer? BTW, Roddick served 79% against Fed., and couldn't beat him. Something Sampras never had to deal with such high 1st serve % and pace in his entire career.

 

[TMF]

Sampras wins!

Sampras has never lost to a clay courter at wimbledon.

But he lost to a 19 yrs old kid!

 

[jackson vile]

Sampras faced 5 setters countless of times, but you use Roddick's match to hold against Federer? BTW, Roddick served 79% against Fed., and couldn't beat him. Something Sampras never had to deal with such high 1st serve % and pace in his entire career.

So then you contest that Roddick is a better player than Sampras???

 

[jackson vile]

Yes and Goran also "almost beat" Sampras a few of their grasscourt encounters as well,he pushed Sampras twice to 5 sets unlike Roddick who only did that once to Fed.

Not to mention that Krajicek gave prime Pete a straight set spanking at Wimbledon while Fed's only loss in his prime at Wimbledon was a 5 setter.

Then how should Federer do,Federer is a hell of a lot better than Ivanisevic and Krajicek.

1) Fed is possibly entering a decline, we will see who and how he ends up losing as well and you story will change.

2) So you contest that Federer is better than Ivan or Kraji, on old grass correct?

3) the point is that if a lesser player can get that close, then how would a greater player fair???

It will be interesting to see how Wim. turns out this year since Roger was knocked out early in FO.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

So then you contest that Roddick is a better player than Sampras???

Well, Andy Roddick has 2-1 H2H over Sampras. Should we just throw it out of the door.

 

[Chadwixx]

Fed has already proven he is the better player. Sampras was a 4 time defending champion, only losing 1 other match in the past 8 years.

Yet fed beat him and retired him (pete was never the same after that loss).

 

[Chadwixx]

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?

Beating agassi on a fast court is something special for pete now?

 

[gold soundz]

Fed has already proven he is the better player. Sampras was a 4 time defending champion, only losing 1 other match in the past 8 years.

Yet fed beat him and retired him (pete was never the same after that loss).

Federer hasn't had any great and prime grass court players in this era when he's one Wimbledon all those times.

 

[TMF]

So then you contest that Roddick is a better player than Sampras???

Your argument is heading nowhere. There's no point in comparing Roddick to Sampras, and all the players(forced Pete to 5 setters) to Federer. You are saying Fed isn't allow to face a 5 setters but it's perfectly fine for Pete???

 

[gold soundz]

Beating agassi on a fast court is something special for pete now?

I was more focusing on Pete's level rather than Agassi.

 

[JustBob]

'99 final Sampras beats pretty much anybody. The only player who could live with him would be '84 final McEnroe.

Further proof that trying to win an argument against nostalgia is an exercise in futility.

 

[Limpinhitter]

sampras incredibly overrated by the nostalgiatards as usual.

the match against agassi was good but he was just solid that day. served well, volleyed well and played well enough on the baseline to break dre when it mattered. Nothing more.

i found sampras vs agassi at the year end masters to be a better performance for sampras...but that was not grass of course.

unless sampras is playing lights out A+ game. he loses this match. why???

Because sampras has a much riskier game than federer and has less margin in everything except the serve. Unless he is performing at the peak of his abilities, federer has too much game.

sampras served at 69% agaisnt federer and still lost. What does that tell you? Even arguably the greatest serve of all time functioning at its peak intensity could not take down federer.

sampras isnt going to serve/volley past federer..he is going to have play full blast and from everywhere on the court and display a higher level of performance than he did in his career.

the performance against agassi in 1999 will not be enough to beat federer.

Nostalgiatard would be your pejorative (look it up) for someone who actually knows what he's talking about? Well, the counterpart would be an IGNORAMUS! Never mind that Sampras had a winning record against Federer. But, why confuse the mouth breathing, pimple faced, factory trained, 18 year old with reality!

 

[fed_rulz]

Federer hasn't had any great and prime grass court players in this era when he's one Wimbledon all those times.

please remind me which "great and prime" grass court players Pete had to beat?

 

[fed_rulz]

Nostalgiatard would be your pejorative (look it up) for someone who actually knows what he's talking about? Well, the counterpart would be an IGNORAMUS! Never mind that Sampras had a winning record against Federer. But, why confuse the mouth breathing, pimple faced, factory trained, 18 year old with reality!

Am I missing something here?

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Too close to call. Would be LOTS of fun to watch. BHBH

 

[Chadwixx]

Am I missing something here?

 

[JustBob]

Am I missing something here?

Very few people know this but Sampras and Federer met secretly a number of times to play ping pong. The only other person present at those matches was a homeless guy squatting the basement of the abandonned building where the secret meetings took place. In his memoirs entitled "I was High and Drunk: That Little White Ball was so Shiny!", he claims that Sampras won 7 of the 10 matches played between the two tennis legends and often shouted "BOOYA!" after every point he won which, in retrospect, was a little annoying.

 

[hawk eye]

Fed has already proven he is the better player. Sampras was a 4 time defending champion, only losing 1 other match in the past 8 years.

Yet fed beat him and retired him (pete was never the same after that loss).

This has nothing to do with any proof that Fed 's a better player.
Sampras was already decling for a few years then. But 2001 definately was the worst year of his carreer since 1992. He could lose to any player in those days. In 2002 he lost to another Swiss player, journeyman George Bastl, also in five sets. Before retiring that year Sampras made one epic final run at the US open, beating Agassi comfortably in the final.
Sampras past 1999 was a streaky player who could lose to anyone on the day, including Bastl. So Federer's performance wasnt't that special taking every thing into account. And you can't say 2002 Sampras was worse than 2001 because in 2002 he finished his career with a memorable GS Victory, after winning no slams in 2001.

 

[Chadwixx]

Losing 1 match in the past 8 years doesnt sound like a slump to me. After the match he did slump though.

Stat wise sampras played one of the best matches of his life (69% first serves), he just choked in his final service game on the two routine volleys.

 

[hawk eye]

Losing 1 match in the past 8 years doesnt sound like a slump to me. After the match he did slump though.

Stat wise sampras played one of the best matches of his life (69% first serves), he just choked in his final service game on the two routine volleys.

Well, whenever you call that choking or not, Sampras of 1999 and before would have put those volleys away for sure. It's not like he has been outplayed, far from that.
But anyway Fed's win over Sampras in 2001 is like Bastl's win in 2002, nothing more. Prime Sampras and before would have taken both in 3, cruising.

 

[davey25]

Definitely prime Sampras on the old grass. The new grass would be a closer call.

 

[fed_rulz]

Very few people know this but Sampras and Federer met secretly a number of times to play ping pong. The only other person present at those matches was a homeless guy squatting the basement of the abandonned building where the secret meetings took place. In his memoirs entitled "I was High and Drunk: That Little White Ball was so Shiny!", he claims that Sampras won 7 of the 10 matches played between the two tennis legends and often shouted "BOOYA!" after every point he won which, in retrospect, was a little annoying.

LOL...........

 

[fed_rulz]

Well, whenever you call that choking or not, Sampras of 1999 and before would have put those volleys away for sure. It's not like he has been outplayed, far from that.
But anyway Fed's win over Sampras in 2001 is like Bastl's win in 2002, nothing more. Prime Sampras and before would have taken both in 3, cruising.

can pete-****s ever make a decent argument without woulda/shouldas?

 

[statto]

Very few people know this but Sampras and Federer met secretly a number of times to play ping pong. The only other person present at those matches was a homeless guy squatting the basement of the abandonned building where the secret meetings took place. In his memoirs entitled "I was High and Drunk: That Little White Ball was so Shiny!", he claims that Sampras won 7 of the 10 matches played between the two tennis legends and often shouted "BOOYA!" after every point he won which, in retrospect, was a little annoying.

That's nothing - Fed is rubbish at ping pong. Even Wayne Rooney can beat him easily.

 

[JeMar]

Nostalgiatard would be your pejorative (look it up) for someone who actually knows what he's talking about? Well, the counterpart would be an IGNORAMUS! Never mind that Sampras had a winning record against Federer. But, why confuse the mouth breathing, pimple faced, factory trained, 18 year old with reality!

Loved the condescension (look it up) followed by the epic, epic failure.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Fed has a better return of serve.

7-6(12), 7-6(11), 6-4

 

[hawk eye]

can pete-****s ever make a decent argument without woulda/shouldas?

Well the who question of the OP is a total would-issue, like all the topics would prime [insert] beat prime/preprime [insert]. Like there are a zillion around here. So no wonder there's always a would involved.
Nothing to do with Fed-or Pete-****s whatsoever.

 

[zagor]

1) Fed is possibly entering a decline, we will see who and how he ends up losing as well and you story will change..

Which story? I consider Fed to be past his peak and in slight decline ever since AO 2007(the last time he played his best tennis IMO).I'm talking about his game not about results,he could win Wimbledon this year without dropping a set and it still wouldn't change my mind that his game is on decline.

2) So you contest that Federer is better than Ivan or Kraji, on old grass correct?

Yes,I contest Fed is a better player than Goran or Krajicek on any surface there is/was.

3) the point is that if a lesser player can get that close, then how would a greater player fair???

Yes,and it's a pretty poor point/logic.Every player,even all time tennis greats got pushed at one time or another by "lesser" players even on their best surfaces.

Roddick pushed Fed to 5 once,Goran pushed Sampras to 5 sets twice and Richard beat him in straights so given your logic Fed should beat Sampras handily.

It will be interesting to see how Wim. turns out this year since Roger was knocked out early in FO.

Yes,it will.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

For what its worth, Rusedski who disliked Sampras in his playing days said he would go for Sampras ahead of Federer on grass.

 

[West Coast Ace]

For what its worth, Rusedski who disliked Sampras in his playing days said he would go for Sampras ahead of Federer on grass.

Of course that is very self-serving. Considering Sampras kept him from winning a few majors...

 

[Chadwixx]

For what its worth, Rusedski who disliked Sampras in his playing days said he would go for Sampras ahead of Federer on grass.

Wimbledon quarterfinalist, not exactly the authority on the grass is he?

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Wimbledon quarterfinalist, not exactly the authority on the grass is he?

Well, I value his opinion more than clowns like you and TMF.

 

[jackson vile]

Which story? I consider Fed to be past his peak and in slight decline ever since AO 2007(the last time he played his best tennis IMO).I'm talking about his game not about results,he could win Wimbledon this year without dropping a set and it still wouldn't change my mind that his game is on decline.



Yes,I contest Fed is a better player than Goran or Krajicek on any surface there is/was.



Yes,and it's a pretty poor point/logic.Every player,even all time tennis greats got pushed at one time or another by "lesser" players even on their best surfaces.

Roddick pushed Fed to 5 once,Goran pushed Sampras to 5 sets twice and Richard beat him in straights so given your logic Fed should beat Sampras handily.



Yes,it will.

Consider the fact that Roger has been saved by rain many times including with Roddick, and would have had his @$$ handed to him in 3 straight sets against Nadal in 2008 and was only in a "slight decline" as you put it.

Oh and the fact that he lost to Hewitt who is way past his prime.

On old grass there is not doubt that Federer would do well, but the fact of the matter is that serve rains king and as a result those who serve best are most likely to win.

Finally what is Roger's record against Goran and company specificly on the old grass ie pre 2000? That would really back up your arguement, or kill it.

Finally Roger's serve was certainly not his strongest aspect of his game in his "prime".

You have to remember Roger had to do a lot to bring that serve up to par, and by that time he was consider out of his "prime".

So there is a situation there that needs to be addressed.

 

[AM95]

my instinct is to say 2006/2007 federer with 2009 wimby final serving would rock 1999 sampras.

however, we need to consider what type of grass this would be played on...

if its on slow 2008 grass, then the clear advantage goes to federer, and i would be surpised if fed would lose more than 4 games the entire match.

if its on fast 2000-2001 grass, fed still has the advantage imo, but sampras can create a much more competitive match, possibly pulling it out in 5.

 

[davey25]

I think if they played 6 times at Wimbledon on old grass Sampras probably wins 4 and Federer wins 2. On new grass they both win 3 times.

 

[piece]

Loved the condescension (look it up) followed by the epic, epic failure.

Come on guys, he was obviously just following his 'ignoramus' accusation with a real-life example of the kinds of things an ignoramus actually says.

You're being too hard on him.

 

[abmk]

Come on guys, he was obviously just following his 'ignoramus' accusation with a real-life example of the kinds of things an ignoramus actually says.

You're being too hard on him.

LOL, ha ha

 

[Justdoit10]

I think if they played 6 times at Wimbledon on old grass Sampras probably wins 4 and Federer wins 2. On new grass they both win 3 times.

That is pretty reasonable.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Consider the fact that Roger has been saved by rain many times including with Roddick, and would have had his @$$ handed to him in 3 straight sets against Nadal in 2008 and was only in a "slight decline" as you put it.

Oh and the fact that he lost to Hewitt who is way past his prime.

On old grass there is not doubt that Federer would do well, but the fact of the matter is that serve rains king and as a result those who serve best are most likely to win.

Finally what is Roger's record against Goran and company specificly on the old grass ie pre 2000? That would really back up your arguement, or kill it.

Finally Roger's serve was certainly not his strongest aspect of his game in his "prime".

You have to remember Roger had to do a lot to bring that serve up to par, and by that time he was consider out of his "prime".

So there is a situation there that needs to be addressed.

Makes a lot of sense to sell Sampras on the record of a 18 yr old federer, especially considering that he turned pro in 1998.

Roger's serve doesnt need to be strongest to beat Sampras. He has enough of other stuff to take care of Sampras. I know its hard for Sampras fans to belive it but truth be told, Sampras is a great player --just isnt as great as federer , any version of sampras isnt good enough for an average federer.Even if his serve wasnt strongest aspect of his game, his serve is still good enough to match up with Sampras.

Even if sampras can serve lights out and hold serve, isnt going to cut it (just like it didnt work when the only time they faced each other)

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I think if they played 6 times at Wimbledon on old grass Sampras probably wins 4 and Federer wins 2. On new grass they both win 3 times.

Old grass -- Fed 4 , Samp 2 (being generous towards sampras here)
New grass - Fed 5, Samp 1(being even more generous to sampras)
No grass -- Fed 6, Samp 0 (if no grass(ie like clay), Sampras would be lucky to make it out of first few rounds )

 

[JayChu]

Ok, i don't like these types of threads because

A) You are comparing apples and oranges
B) These two played in two different eras
C) The grass at Wimbledon has changed considerably during the times these two played in their "prime"
D) These two players are using different types of technologies

So it is extremely hard to choose and to pick from one to another

 

[samprasvsfederer123]

i created tons of threads, like this even better, on similar topics, and didnt get half the responses,

you racist *******s....

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Prime Sampras at Wimbledon is 7-0 in Wimbledon Finals, he's untouchable! Fed has to settle for 2nd best here.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Prime Sampras at Wimbledon is 7-0 in Wimbledon Finals, he's untouchable! Fed has to settle for 2nd best here.

Sure. Sampras and Federer are yet to win Pilot Pen tennis tournament. shall we consider him not to be the best ?

 

[TennisandMusic]

I think Pete would have the advantage on 90's grass, Federer would probably have the advantage on 2000's grass (maybe, not positive) and that they would surely get matches off of each other in the process.

Sampras fanboys also have to let go of this idea that Pete was a tennis god and Federer is a scrub who would be dominated.

 

[vortex1]

Federer easily. Prime Federer makes Sampras look like an all serve clown, sorry to say. There is NO weapon except the serve that Sampras has that isn't totally outclassed by Fed.