Sampras: I could've beaten Federer on grass.

So who do you think would win?

  • Pistol Pete

    Votes: 61 41.8%

  • Fed

    Votes: 73 50.0%

  • Charlyn/Myla

    Votes: 12 8.2%
  • Total voters
    146
CyberShot

CyberShot

New User
Interesting article I found today.

From http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-random27-2009jul27,0,5642843.story


Pete Sampras says he could have beaten Roger Federer
The 14-time Grand Slam champion says Federer doesn't see true serve-and-volley players and he doesn't think anyone could beat him (Sampras) on grass in his prime.

By Mike Penner

July 27, 2009

It is a dream video-game matchup, to be sure: Pete Sampras in his prime against Roger Federer in his prime. But what if such a matchup were actually possible, and they played each other on grass?

Who would win?

Sampras casts one vote for Sampras.

"I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass is a true serve-and-volleyer, someone that's willing to come in and put pressure on him, make him pass, return," Sampras said during a recent conference call.

"With these big serves, I don't think anyone really scares him. I think my game would make Roger a little more uncomfortable. I would come in on both serves, put pressure on his backhand, and go from there.

"Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure. I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. I felt unbeatable in the mid-'90s. But he'd be a tough guy to break, especially when he's hitting 50 aces like he did at Wimbledon. It would have been a great matchup."

"Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure. I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. I felt unbeatable in the mid-'90s."
-------

Apparently, Pistol Pete is still not convinced by his 2001 upset by the Fed Express himself. :|

Remarks?
 
Pete a little a bit nostalgic of his prime? You can't blame him, but to say Federer couldn't actually have beaten him... nobody can tell, really.

Federer handles today's S&Vers quite well. You can argue that Pete is better than any of them. On the other hand Pete failed to prove his point the only time he met Fed at W.
 
The truth is, nobody knows how greats of different times will fare against each other. Asking a retired pro is a recipe for disaster - you will never get an impartial answer.

But one thing is for sure, each "great" actually had to go and win a lot of tourneys and slams. You need drive, motivation and talent in spades to do this week-in, week-out, year after year.

I suspect Pistol Pete has now had a few weeks to reflect on his slam record being broken, and he doesn't really like it...
 
wasn't it the same Pete Sampras who won the USO the same year he serve and volleyed and lost to . . . Roger Federer on the grass at Wimbledon?
 
federer would pass him left and right, although the match would be close. S&V vs federer. anyone else i can believe it. but S&V vs federer is suicidal
 
deltox said:
federer would pass him left and right, although the match would be close. S&V vs federer. anyone else i can believe it. but S&V vs federer is suicidal
Click to expand...

Federer doesn't play any good S&V's in todays game Tommy Haas is considered a great S&V and on fast grass with Sampras' serve and net game Federer is up against it.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Federer doesn't play any good S&V's in todays game Tommy Haas is considered a great S&V and on fast grass with Sampras' serve and net game Federer is up against it.
Click to expand...

Not sure how effective Sampras' S&V would be in todays game with the new racquet tech & court speeds...
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Federer doesn't play any good S&V's in todays game Tommy Haas is considered a great S&V and on fast grass with Sampras' serve and net game Federer is up against it.
Click to expand...

passing shots with todays strings are insanely easier. now rogger vs pete during the 90's.. faster grass and lesser technology i give it to pete, in todays era with the slower grass and the new strings, roger wins easily bending passing shots around the S&V'r
 
CyberShot said:
Interesting article I found today.

From http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-random27-2009jul27,0,5642843.story


Pete Sampras says he could have beaten Roger Federer
The 14-time Grand Slam champion says Federer doesn't see true serve-and-volley players and he doesn't think anyone could beat him (Sampras) on grass in his prime.

By Mike Penner

July 27, 2009

It is a dream video-game matchup, to be sure: Pete Sampras in his prime against Roger Federer in his prime. But what if such a matchup were actually possible, and they played each other on grass?

Who would win?

Sampras casts one vote for Sampras.

"I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass is a true serve-and-volleyer, someone that's willing to come in and put pressure on him, make him pass, return," Sampras said during a recent conference call.

"With these big serves, I don't think anyone really scares him. I think my game would make Roger a little more uncomfortable. I would come in on both serves, put pressure on his backhand, and go from there.

"Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure. I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. I felt unbeatable in the mid-'90s. But he'd be a tough guy to break, especially when he's hitting 50 aces like he did at Wimbledon. It would have been a great matchup."

"Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure. I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. I felt unbeatable in the mid-'90s."
-------

Apparently, Pistol Pete is still not convinced by his 2001 upset by the Fed Express himself. :|

Remarks?
Click to expand...
Here we go again,Sampras sitting at home at his bog empty house remenising the glory days,it is one thing to say it...a totally different ballgame to actually do it! As i have said before, he is feeling bitter,he is that kind of person who has a hard time accepting that there comes around another better Kid on the block who totally takes over his former business! (Mafia-terms) Pete should stfu or else someone should say to him -George Bastl. Fabrice Santoro.
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
Here we go again,Sampras sitting at home at his bog empty house remenising the glory days,it is one thing to say it...a totally different ballgame to actually do it! As i have said before, he is feeling bitter,he is that kind of person who has a hard time accepting that there comes around another better Kid on the block who totally takes over his former business! (Mafia-terms) Pete should stfu or else someone should say to him -George Bastl. Fabrice Santoro.
Click to expand...

Judging by his achievements, Pete is the only man who has the right to make such a statement. I think he deserves some respect.
 
DarthMaul said:
Judging by his achievements, Pete is the only man who has the right to make such a statement. I think he deserves some respect.
Click to expand...
Of course he deserves some respect, but wht is the point of him making these statements?? We will never know,they played once when Fed was 19 and Sampras 29 and Fed spanked his butt.
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
Here we go again,Sampras sitting at home at his bog empty house remenising the glory days,it is one thing to say it...a totally different ballgame to actually do it! As i have said before, he is feeling bitter,he is that kind of person who has a hard time accepting that there comes around another better Kid on the block who totally takes over his former business! (Mafia-terms) Pete should stfu or else someone should say to him -George Bastl. Fabrice Santoro.
Click to expand...

Seens that the one feeling bitter is you. What's wrong in his statement? Should he bow down to Federer and kiss his ***? He made a valid point about Federer not playing a true S&V (using the 2001 match as an example fails since Sampras was way beyond his prime) and stated how he felt back then but still being respectful to Roger.

He has the right to think he could Federer and you are no one to say he should stfu. Not everyone thinks RF is perfect or has a mancrush like you, deal with it.
 
Brned said:
Seens that the one feeling bitter is you. What's wrong in his statement? Should he bow down to Federer and kiss his ***? He made a valid point about Federer not playing a true S&V (using the 2001 match as an example fails since Sampras was way beyond his prime) and stated how he felt back then but still being respectful to Roger.

He has the right to think he could Federer and you are no one to say he should stfu. Not everyone thinks RF is perfect or has a mancrush like you, deal with it.
Click to expand...
Im not even gonna comment on that,you have ur opinion,i have mine. Great.
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
Of course he deserves some respect, but wht is the point of him making these statements?? We will never know,they played once when Fed was 19 and Sampras 29 and Fed spanked his butt.
Click to expand...
Check the score of that match, doofus. A close five-setter is hardly a spanking.

Amazing that people on this board-*******s especially-are still comparing Sampras v. Federer based on a single match that was played when Sampras was past his prime. Hell, Nadal owns Federer-and Federer is still well in his prime. No one in the top 5 owned Sampras in his prime.
 
Phil said:
Check the score of that match, doofus. A close five-setter is hardly a spanking.

Amazing that people on this board-*******s especially-are still comparing Sampras v. Federer based on a single match that was played when Sampras was past his prime. Hell, Nadal owns Federer-and Federer is still well in his prime. No one in the top 5 owned Sampras in his prime.
Click to expand...

He's quite clearly worse than he was in 2004-7. The fact that Federer is still winning slams doesn't mean he's still in his prime.
 
Rippy said:
He's quite clearly worse than he was in 2004-7. The fact that Federer is still winning slams doesn't mean he's still in his prime.
Click to expand...
I think he's still in his prime, only, not at the TOP of that prime-if there's a decline, it's gradual relative to the rest of the field (look at his overall record-it's still ridiculously good). His prime years look a bit like a bell curve. To say that anyone who wins two slams in a single season (a career for most players) is no longer in his prime, really doesn't seem to make sense.
 
Phil said:
Check the score of that match, doofus. A close five-setter is hardly a spanking.

Amazing that people on this board-*******s especially-are still comparing Sampras v. Federer based on a single match that was played when Sampras was past his prime. Hell, Nadal owns Federer-and Federer is still well in his prime. No one in the top 5 owned Sampras in his prime.
Click to expand...
Doofus? Yeah,fascinating,isn`t it? Well what are ppl gonna compare with then?? Any good suggestion? Because you seem to be sucj´h a classy smart guy
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
Doofus? Yeah,fascinating,isn`t it? Well what are ppl gonna compare with then?? Any good suggestion? Because you seem to be sucj´h a classy smart guy
Click to expand...

tou are the one making claims of greatness based one one match. why dont you come up with some logical reasoning besides that "16th century science speech style" arguments...
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
Doofus? Yeah,fascinating,isn`t it? Well what are ppl gonna compare with then?? Any good suggestion? Because you seem to be sucj´h a classy smart guy
Click to expand...
They really CAN'T be compared-different eras. But if someone's gonna try and do it, a single match doesn't cut it. Not one that close, and with Sampras a decade older than Federer.
 
Phil said:
I think he's still in his prime, only, not at the TOP of that prime-if there's a decline, it's gradual relative to the rest of the field (look at his overall record-it's still ridiculously good). His prime years look a bit like a bell curve. To say that anyone who wins two slams in a single season (a career for most players) is no longer in his prime, really doesn't seem to make sense.
Click to expand...

well then we think sampras was in his ultimate prime.
 
Phil said:
I think he's still in his prime, only, not at the TOP of that prime-if there's a decline, it's gradual relative to the rest of the field (look at his overall record-it's still ridiculously good). His prime years look a bit like a bell curve. To say that anyone who wins two slams in a single season (a career for most players) is no longer in his prime, really doesn't seem to make sense.
Click to expand...

Well yes in a way but look at the way he won his slams this year and his overall season...He went through a lot of tough matches which is an indication of a decline in his game...

I know others have improved as well but to me its pretty obvious that there has also been a dip in his movement and game...In the end its a combination of the two...
 
Last edited:
Phil said:
Check the score of that match, doofus. A close five-setter is hardly a spanking.

Amazing that people on this board-*******s especially-are still comparing Sampras v. Federer based on a single match that was played when Sampras was past his prime. Hell, Nadal owns Federer-and Federer is still well in his prime. No one in the top 5 owned Sampras in his prime.
Click to expand...




If I'm not mistaken Federer had over 20 BP chances that match, and just didn't capitalize as often as he should have. He played a little too nervous / tentative on those points. However, Federer was clearly in control of that match until the 5th set where Sampras had bps against Federer. Federer however, saved himself, and Sampras didn't in the end.
 
Brned said:
Seens that the one feeling bitter is you. What's wrong in his statement? Should he bow down to Federer and kiss his ***? He made a valid point about Federer not playing a true S&V (using the 2001 match as an example fails since Sampras was way beyond his prime) and stated how he felt back then but still being respectful to Roger.

He has the right to think he could Federer and you are no one to say he should stfu. Not everyone thinks RF is perfect or has a mancrush like you, deal with it.
Click to expand...

What's the point of his statement? Pete did get one chance, and failed to deliver, plus pete being "way past his prime" is BS. Agreed, he was slightly off his prime, but he had an excellent USO a month later - whereas federer was no where close to his prime, and would take a good 2 yrs to come good. May be he should have used more of his S & V attacking game when he got owned by Ferreira on carpet a couple of times in his prime.

As part of the same conversation, he goes on to say how fed must reverse his h2h with nadal for unquestionable GOATness - agreed! but he shoulda stopped there; he had to say "I would not feel good if i had a losing record against andre" or something to that effect. This is hypocritical to me because he had no issues anointing himself the GOAT without a FO; sounds bitter to me...
 
fed_rulz said:
What's the point of his statement? Pete did get one chance, and failed to deliver, plus pete being "way past his prime" is BS. Agreed, he was slightly off his prime, but he had an excellent USO a month later - whereas federer was no where close to his prime, and would take a good 2 yrs to come good. May be he should have used more of his S & V attacking game when he got owned by Ferreira on carpet a couple of times in his prime.

As part of the same conversation, he goes on to say how fed must reverse his h2h with nadal for unquestionable GOATness - agreed! but he shoulda stopped there; he had to say "I would not feel good if i had a losing record against andre" or something to that effect. This is hypocritical to me because he had no issues anointing himself the GOAT without a FO; sounds bitter to me...
Click to expand...
Well said,totally agree.
 
I start to lose a lot of respect for Sampras when he makes all of these comments.

I know a lot of former pros from all sports say that they were "unstoppable, unbeatable, etc" in their primes, but it seems like every week now there's something new from Pete a/b him and Fed. Am I the only one who thinks he should STFU?
 
Pete could and would. He was much deadlier player on grass than Roger is.. Where Roger's game is tailor made for slower courts, Pete's is tailor made for Grass, carpet, USO type surfaces



Of course, I dont think pete needs to continually bring it up as much as he has. Everyone knows Pete is the superior fast court player than Roger. Whereas Roger is the better slower court player most likely
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
I start to lose a lot of respect for Sampras when he makes all of these comments.

I know a lot of former pros from all sports say that they were "unstoppable, unbeatable, etc" in their primes, but it seems like every week now there's something new from Pete a/b him and Fed. Am I the only one who thinks he should STFU?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not, i am also losing respect for him. I know (to all sampras-****s) he doesnt care,but still.
 
GameSampras said:
Pete could and would. He was much deadlier player on grass than Roger is.. Where Roger's game is tailor made for slower courts, Pete's is tailor made for Grass, carpet, USO type surfaces



Of course, I dont think pete needs to continually bring it up as much as he has. Everyone knows Pete is the superior fast court player than Roger. Whereas Roger is the better slower court player most likely
Click to expand...
You just had to write "most likely" huh? Most definetely is probably what you meant,i forgive you:twisted:
 
Doesn anyone understand how much more physical the game of tennis has become even in the last 10 years. Federer would beat Smapras and DID!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kimbahpnam
"Pete Sampras says he could have beaten Roger Federer"
Replies
3
Views
963
jukka1970
J
T
Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim
6 7 8
Replies
364
Views
31K
Talker
Talker
A
Andre Agassi says In His Prime on grass sampras Would Beat Federer
9 10 11
Replies
530
Views
42K
reini0100
R
DoubleDeuce
Pete would love to Play Roger on Grass
Replies
37
Views
3K
BallzofSkill
B
M
Federer vs. Sampras
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
serveitup911
serveitup911
Back
Top