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

[TMF]

God, I love me some Rod Laver.

It seem they don't have any power. Their 1st serve are not even on par with today's player 2nd serve. And the forehand is not even as good as Stosur(wta player). They volley well, but most of the ball they dealt with are slow, high, and lacks the spin. Player's today generate too much pace and spin, which heighten the level of difficulty for control or put it away for a winner. They are very agile, which is not a surprise for being only 5'7". But I don't think they are as fast as Nadal, or matched the footwork of prime Federer.

 

[gold soundz]

I must admit though, they play extremely smooth.

 

[JeMar]

It seem they don't have any power. Their 1st serve are not even on par with today's player 2nd serve. And the forehand is not even as good as Stosur(wta player). They volley well, but most of the ball they dealt with are slow, high, and lacks the spin. Player's today generate too much pace and spin, which heighten the level of difficulty for control or put it away for a winner. They are very agile, which is not a surprise for being only 5'7". But I don't think they are as fast as Nadal, or matched the footwork of prime Federer.

But it's such an elegant game, so easy on the eyes. I look at those guys play, then I look at someone like Nadal and I'm a little sad that I wasn't born 40 years ago.

 

[swordtennis]

O my lord. Neither are going 2 b blowing each other off the court on fast surfaces. Slow Federer big edge. Ahhh the historians have arrived. Tiny Tim Laver and Badazz Borg blowing Federer out. Yet Pete blows Federer out as well. Hmmm I guess Pete was the last of the real GOATS. Cool.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

But it's such an elegant game, so easy on the eyes. I look at those guys play, then I look at someone like Nadal and I'm a little sad that I wasn't born 40 years ago.

I wish you were born 40 years ago so maybe I wouldn't have to read your awful posts.

 

[Anaconda]

They would both win their fair share of matches. Out of 10 matches i say they would split it 5-5.

 

[borg number one]

I think their matches would be very close and they would split matches, going back and forth as far as wins. I also think that if the All Time Greats faced off on different surfaces against each other, all of them would have their share of wins and losses (Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer). They are each too great and too difficult to consistently defeat. Therefore, in this scenario of Sampras vs. Federer at Wimbledon, I would not expect either player to "dominate" the other.

 

[JeMar]

I wish you were born 40 years ago so maybe I wouldn't have to read your awful posts.

I heart you.

 

[slice serve ace]

I agree. The match against Barry Cowan matched Pete's brilliant straight set performances during his peak/prime: against Neil Borwick in R1 1993, Karsten Braasch R1 (1995), Jared Palmer R3 (1995), Richy Reneberg (R1, 1996), Karol Kucera (R3 1996), Petr Korda (R4 1997).


damn! that's it! against borwick! 81 % first serve! the best match of his career! lost a set!?


Against B.Cowan, Pete converted a superb 5/19 break points, while saving 3/5 BPs on his serve and despite winning a measly 56% of the total points (161/290) points, he some how managed to win it in straights, after winning the first 2 sets.


oh, you don't need to look those other stats
see the post i was originally responding
all you have to do is to look the 1st serve percentage
sampras is karlović, only shorter, obviously



The Federer match was quite the same; Pete served at 69%, converted 2/11 BPs, saved 11/14 on his own serve, and won 10 points less than Federer, and despite being in the lead when he was down 2 sets to 1, he lost in 5. I can clearly see why you think both matches were the same. However, after the match, Sampras was a sore loser when he said "i thought I played well enough to win against anyone..." -- how dare he, when there is overwhelming evidence that he sucked? Not only that, he went on to call Federer "special" (LMAO).




federer is the best player of all time
off course he is special
young federer was hot and cold player
that day he was hot against one of his idols and shoved his talent
i have no doubt federer would have been serve&volleyer in 90s wimbledons and a great one
sampras played one of his best 2001 matches up to that point
but comparing that to his prime, there is a big difference
in the return
from sampras' book (not exact quote) :
despite all it's hype tennis on grass is not about serve - it's all about return
(off course, he means it if you already have good serve)
that is exactlly why henman beat federer the next round despite having weaker serve
henman returned much better than sampras, that was the key




The stellar 13-9 record coming into wimbledon is not surprising




actually
1990. 23 - 7, 76.7 %
1991. 15 - 9, 62.5 %
1992. 30 - 10, 75 %
1993. 41 - 7, 85.4 %
1994. 59 - 4, 93.7 %
1995. 30 - 9, 76.9 %
1996. 34 - 4, 89.5 %
1997. 23 - 6, 79.3 %
1998. 25 - 8, 75.8 %
1999. 14 - 5, 73.7 %
2000. 21 - 6, 77.8 %
2001. 13 - 9, 59.1 %
2002. 15 - 11, 57.7 %

yes, those last 2 years...really stand out : D




Pete's US open run a few weeks following the wimbledon. he played arguably his worst match ever in the QF (the infamous "no-breaks-at-all" sucky quality match vs. Agassi), somehow managing to reach the finals



there was chance for a rematch here
federer played agassi in 4th round
won just 7 games
federer had bad season after sampras win
went just 9 -5 for the rest of the season

11 posts?!
if i ever get to 50, please shoot me

 

[fed_rulz]

sampras played one of his best 2001 matches up to that point
but comparing that to his prime, there is a big difference
in the return from sampras' book (not exact quote) :
despite all it's hype tennis on grass is not about serve - it's all about return
(off course, he means it if you already have good serve)
that is exactlly why henman beat federer the next round despite having weaker serve henman returned much better than sampras, that was the key

Thank you. If you want to play the "prime" game, then Fed wasn't in his prime as well. Comparing the relative performances of Fed and Sampras from that point onwards, you could argue that Sampras was more in his "prime" than Fed (relatively speaking, of course) when he played Fed.

And stats wise, it was one of his best performances; the Barry Cowan match wasn't.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

I heart you.

Tbh, you're such a cliche. Every single one of your posts are usually filled with cliches.

 

[JeMar]

Tbh, you're such a cliche. Every single one of your posts are usually filled with cliches.

I am the only one tired of seeing ignorant Americans not knowing what being British is?

BP is living in fantasy land. Nadal is faster than prime Hewitt and has a heavyer weight of shot. Hewitt in his prime never S&Ved any way, he does it more now compensate for losing a step.

Queens is a fast surface and Roddick is a big server, Roddick is never going to lose on a fast surface 6-2 6-1. Even if it was only 1 break a set, Nadal was destroying him from the baseline and Roddick's serve kept him in it.

Nadal nearly lost to Kendrick in 06 which was only his 3rd grass court tournamnet of his life! Hewitt got knocked out in the 1st round in 2000 after winning Queens and in 03 got knocked out again in the 1st round as defending champion!

Because you're such a fountain of literary innovation. I just grabbed five random posts in the wellspring of vapid, vacuous, and vacant rhetoric known as your post history.

I still heart you, though.