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
Cesc Fabregas said:
Sampras 94 was better consistantly through the tournament than 99.
Click to expand...

Yes in 1999 he had some matches he was less than his best, but in the final he was unbelievable. He was being outplayed by Philipoussis until Mark got injured (I am not saying he would have lost, I still think he would have come back but he was being outplayed in the early part of the match until the injury), and in the semis vs Henman he really played a subpar match and was lucky Henman choked sort of. Henman would have beaten Sampras in the 99 semis if he played at the level he did in the 98 semis where he lost a tough 4 setter to a much better playing Sampras.

In 94 he was top form the whole tournament, virtually untouchable in every match.
 
GameSampras said:
Umm noooo.. THey began slowing the court in 2001.. Not 2002.. Check your facts
Click to expand...

i hate to agree with GS but 2000 was the first change to the court and it continued for 3 years,, its on the grounds wbsite.




lets do it like this


for everyone to debate on

Sampras = Fed - Wimbledon
Sampras = Fed - US Open
Fed > Sampras - AO
Fed >>>>>>>>sampras - FO

federer is truely a better player than sampras, its a tough fact to swallow but im sure Sampras would win his for sure, but federer would still be ahead of sampras in yearly rankings without a doubt.

but, all that being said, the person who would remove sampras from many many tourneys would be murray, because murray is a bad bad matchup for the sampras S&V game.
 
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...

Since when is Federer a great offensive returner? I'd hardly call it suicidal to S&V against a player who chips 95% of his returns. Federer isn't going to dismantle a great S&V player on old grass, especially considering how he returns.
 
Tiberius said:
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...
Click to expand...

It's an indication of the standard being higher, not a decline.
 
Sampras is a very arrogant individual. One who has to constantly defend what he has done. He just cannot accept that someone is better than him. Thats Pete though. You see, Sampras can say this and this, but to be honest-Pete would be suspect if he played Federer. Roger would stretch the court out and would force Sampras errors. Pete always has had a big mouth-and by him saying this does not suprise me.
 
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...

Conquistador said:
Sampras is a very arrogant individual. One who has to constantly defend what he has done. He just cannot accept that someone is better than him. Thats Pete though. You see, Sampras can say this and this, but to be honest-Pete would be suspect if he played Federer. Roger would stretch the court out and would force Sampras errors. Pete always has had a big mouth-and by him saying this does not suprise me.
Click to expand...

Here's a little context for you. Sampras isn't saying this over and over. He answered questions in what appears to be the same conference call interview promoting the then upcoming exo he was playing v. Safin. There have been about four articles which appear to be snippets from that same interview. Read this one which seems to include a more complete picture of what Sampras was being asked and what he actually answered in context. The big mouths in this thread are those leaping to conclusions based less than complete information.

Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim
By Raymond Lee
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Sampras: Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure, I don't think anyine could beat me in my prime on grass. From his prominent perch in the Royal Box behind a pair of stylish shades, Pete Sampras joined Hall of Famers Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Manolo Santana in watching Roger Federer break the Grand Slam record they shared.

The second-seeded Federer withstood an inspired Andy Roddick rally in the fourth set, then scored his sole service break in the last game to earn a dramatic 5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14 triumph to regain the Wimbledon championship, recapture the World No. 1 ranking and re-write tennis history in stirring style. After the match, Sampras and John McEnroe were among the former champions who dubbed Federer with the mythical Greatest of All Time title.

"I have to give it to him," Sampras said after the record-breaking 77-game final. "The critics say Laver. And (Rafael) Nadal has beaten him a few times at majors. He's won all the majors, he's won 15 now, he's going to win a few more here. So in my book he is (the GOAT)."

Yet, Sampras concedes there is one player who threatens the Federer's status as GOAT — Rafael Nadal. The World No. 2 owns a 13-7 career record vs. Federer, including three consecutive wins in major finals.

In a conference call with the media today to promote his exhibition match against Marat Safin on July 27 at UCLA on opening night of the L.A. Tennis Open, Sampras conceded the quandary Federer faces is that while many champions have named the Swiss stylist the Greatest Of All Time, you can make a clear the case he is not even the best of this time.

Skeptics point to Nadal's mastery of Federer in their head-to-head series and the fact Nadal has won six of their eight meetings in major finals — including victories on three different surfaces in the Australian Open final, Roland Garros final and Wimbledon final — as a sign the strong-willed Spaniard has the World No. 1's number.

While Sampras himself has bestowed the GOAT on Federer, he suggested today Federer must find a way to beat Nadal consistently in order to truly be called the GOAT.

"Tough question to answer. I do understand the argument as being the best ever you have to be the best of your generation and he has come up short against Nadal," Sampras said. "I can see the point and it's hard to answer it. It's not done yet. Roger's careeer isn't done yet and he has to beat (Nadal) and he's got to beat him in the final of majors. In my book he is (the greatest of all time), but he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. You've gotta be the man of your generation. Roger certainly is the man of his generation, but he's got to figure out how to beat Nadal."

Federer can play shots that only a tennis genius can produce. While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?

That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis — and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player.

"It would bother me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors," Sampras said. "Does it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest? The greatest of all time is (a label) we want to pin it on someone. With the numbers you have to give it to Roger; with (Federer's) record against Nadal you might not give it to him. If I was 7-13 against Andre it would be hard to say I was the best of my generation. It's hard to give a definitive answer when he's not done yet. Roger knows he has to figure out this kid, but it's a tough match up. Nadal is one of the few guys who believes he is better than him."

Sampras said he believes Federer's most formidable foe on Wimbledon's Centre Court could be himself — a big server who could bring the heat, attack net and pressure the multi-talented Swiss into hitting shots from defensive positions on court. Laver himself said he would give Sampras the edge on grass over Federer because of Sampras' searing serve and his ability to attack.

"A true serve and volleyer that's willing to come in and put the pressure on him (would be a threat)," Sampras said. "As big as Andy serves I don't think anyone really scares him. I think my game would make him a little bit more uncomfortable. I would obviously come in on both serves and put the pressure on his backhand. Would I beat him? I felt at my best on grass I was unbeatable there. It's a flattering comment (Laver made). 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. Roger probably feels unbeatable now. He'd be a tough guy to break, especially if he was hitting 50 aces. It would be a great match up."
Click to expand...

http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6636251

5
 
Who knows? They've been the two best Wimbledon players of the Open Era, and each of them was nearly untouchable therein at his own peak. I do consider Federer the greater overall player thanks to his vastly superior clay-court performance, but at Wimbledon I would view them as virtual equals. I see some Federer fans are haughtily touting the '01 Wimbledon match as evidence of their man's superiority, but this match ended 7-5 in the fifth, and clearly did not represent both men in their primes.
 
Clydey2times said:
Since when is Federer a great offensive returner? I'd hardly call it suicidal to S&V against a player who chips 95% of his returns. Federer isn't going to dismantle a great S&V player on old grass, especially considering how he returns.
Click to expand...

well, maybe suicidal is not the correct term, but yeah, it'd be tough to SnV against fed. The reason why he chips most of the returns these days is because very few come in. He is very capable of keeping the returns low and placing the returns right. Watch his returning vs pete,henman in 2001 and scud in 2003.

Heck watch his returning vs haas in the first set this year and compare with novak's in the match before. You an clearly notice the difference in the quality of returning vs an Snver
 
abmk said:
well, maybe suicidal is not the correct term, but yeah, it'd be tough to SnV against fed. The reason why he chips most of the returns these days is because very few come in. He is very capable of keeping the returns low and placing the returns right. Watch his returning vs pete,henman in 2001 and scud in 2003.

Heck watch his returning vs haas in the first set this year and compare with novak's in the match before. You an clearly notice the difference in the quality of returning vs an Snver
Click to expand...

It's different on faster grass. It would be much more of a struggle.
 
Clydey2times said:
It's different on faster grass. It would be much more of a struggle.
Click to expand...

2001 wimbledon was on 'fast' grass ...btw it doesn't make that much of a difference considering fed's style of returning as say when compared to agassi/djokovic/safin
 
Last edited:
Bhagi Katbamna said:
Don't see anything wrong with a 7 time champion saying he could beat a 6 time champion.
Click to expand...




Nothing wrong with what Pete is saying at all.. Something tells me once Roger has been since been retired, and someone comes along shatters both Pete and Roger's records AND has the ability to destroy even his rival out of the water, and Roger starts to talking the same thing, no one will be calling Roger bitter.

Its all just double standards. Roger has taken shots at Pete as well. Subtle shots but shots. Like when he broke Pete's record for consecutive weeks at Number 1.




If Pete says something.... Oh my HES EVIL!!!! HES BITTER!!!!


If Roger runs his mouth about Nadal. Oh its ok :-? Roger is just telling it the way it is.

And you wonder why I cant stand Federer or his ridiculous fans
 
Bhagi Katbamna said:
Don't see anything wrong with a 7 time champion saying he could beat a 6 time champion.
Click to expand...

According to the title of this thread, there's nothing wrong with it and I don't see any point of this thread. I mean Krajicek can say at his best he can beat Sampras on grass, or Safin can say he can beat TMF on hc at his best. Nothing wrong with that either, but if Sampras ever say he's the better player than TMF in general, then MOST people will disagree.
 
GameSampras said:
Nothing wrong with what Pete is saying at all.. Something tells me once Roger has been since been retired, and someone comes along shatters both Pete and Roger's records AND has the ability to destroy even his rival out of the water, and Roger starts to talking the same thing, no one will be calling Roger bitter.

Its all just double standards. Roger has taken shots at Pete as well. Subtle shots but shots. Like when he broke Pete's record for consecutive weeks at Number 1.




If Pete says something.... Oh my HES EVIL!!!! HES BITTER!!!!


If Roger runs his mouth about Nadal. Oh its ok :-? Roger is just telling it the way it is.

And you wonder why I cant stand Federer or his ridiculous fans
Click to expand...

Pete is just doing what he's always done...passive-agressiveness with enough class to not get called out on it. The reason most people (including someone like me who has seen both players throughout the duration of their careers) like Federer better is because he has ALWAYS been HONEST when asked questions....even if that honesty has been less than tactful (i.e. his loss to Mantilla a few years ago, talking about Roddick after 04 Wimby final, facing Agassi in 05 Aus).

You can always trust that when you talk to Federer you will get a classy but honest answer, even if that honest answer isn't politically correct. With Sampras you could never tell, because he'd say one thing and then change once things didn't go his way...you started seeing this with how he talked about Rafter once Rafter started winning US Opens. Pete never started belittling Federer until Fed came close to breaking his records...that's classic Sampras behavior (in addition to acting like the media owed him something because he condescended to talk to them) -- completely opposite from Federer's approach.

You reap what you sow. Pete can't pretend now to be this lovable figure by the media and tennis public now, because everyone saw what he was like when he was on top -- classy, but passive-aggressive and keeping people at arm's length.

This is why there is no double standard in how Federer is treated versus Sampras. Again...you reap what you sow.

You truly find out what people are all about when things aren't going their way...that's why last year was so special to watch -- you really saw that Federer's class and dignity were genuine and not some facade constructed for the press -- his press conference after losing to Rafa at Wimbledon is a prime example. Pete should learn from Federer's example.
 
CyberShot said:
"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."
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. He'd beat Fed a few times, and Fed would beat him a few times. Each would win fewer Wimby slams.
 
drwood said:
Pete is just doing what he's always done...passive-agressiveness with enough class to not get called out on it. The reason most people (including someone like me who has seen both players throughout the duration of their careers) like Federer better is because he has ALWAYS been HONEST when asked questions....even if that honesty has been less than tactful (i.e. his loss to Mantilla a few years ago, talking about Roddick after 04 Wimby final, facing Agassi in 05 Aus).

You can always trust that when you talk to Federer you will get a classy but honest answer, even if that honest answer isn't politically correct. With Sampras you could never tell, because he'd say one thing and then change once things didn't go his way...you started seeing this with how he talked about Rafter once Rafter started winning US Opens. Pete never started belittling Federer until Fed came close to breaking his records...that's classic Sampras behavior (in addition to acting like the media owed him something because he condescended to talk to them) -- completely opposite from Federer's approach.

You reap what you sow. Pete can't pretend now to be this lovable figure by the media and tennis public now, because everyone saw what he was like when he was on top -- classy, but passive-aggressive and keeping people at arm's length.

This is why there is no double standard in how Federer is treated versus Sampras. Again...you reap what you sow.

You truly find out what people are all about when things aren't going their way...that's why last year was so special to watch -- you really saw that Federer's class and dignity were genuine and not some facade constructed for the press -- his press conference after losing to Rafa at Wimbledon is a prime example. Pete should learn from Federer's example.
Click to expand...


Im not understanding why you dont think Pete is giving an honest answer? When asked how he would do on grass, Pete said he felt unbeatable. Its just his opinion.. And many would feel Pete was untouchable when he was on his game. I dont see how that sounds bitter, or saying Roger needs to one up Nadal at the slams to truly be considered the best.

When a player has gotten the best of Fed at the slams on a consistent basis and now on all surfaces, that does hurt Roger's claim to GOAT status IMO regardless of his overrall achievements..


People would be saying the same thing about Pete, as he mentioned himself, If Agassi got the best of Pete overrall in the slams, this would come to fruition as well.

Pete was asked 2 years ago what era would he would like to play.. he mentioned today about there being good players and not many great players.. I think thats pretty damn plausible. Only 2 players have established themselves as truly great and even CAPABLE OF WINNING SLAMS. No one else has.. IS that a lie?
 
Last edited:
Sampras is the best ever on grass. If both Fed and Sampras played at their prime againist each other, Sampras would win. Fed does not have the return of serve to beat Sampras, Fed mostly chips his returns on the backhand side, he never had to develop a offensive return cuz no one serves and volleys now a days.......
 
GameSampras said:
Im not understanding why you dont think Pete is giving an honest answer? When asked how he would do on grass, Pete said he felt unbeatable. Its just his opinion.. And many would feel Pete was untouchable when he was on his game. I dont see how that sounds bitter, or saying Roger needs to one up Nadal at the slams to truly be considered the best.

When a player has gotten the best of Fed at the slams on a consistent basis and now on all surfaces, that does hurt Roger's claim to GOAT status IMO regardless of his overrall achievements..


People would be saying the same thing about Pete, as he mentioned himself, If Agassi got the best of Pete overrall in the slams, this would come to fruition as well
Click to expand...

That's it...Pete finally IS giving an honest answer, which is a 180 degree turn from the statements he said after Federer won 2009 Wimbledon. Back then, he totally downplayed the impact of Nadal. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08yYv-TwaJ4

Now he's changing his tune -- this is what annoys me and many other people about Sampras (even if Federer wasn't a likable guy).

Of course Federer's losing H2H against Nadal hurts his GOAT claim (although he still is GOAT)...its just that this waffling by Sampras is characteristic of what I remember about him during his prime and post-prime as well.

When Pete was on top of his game, he wasn't untouchable (never won 3 slams in a year, and was always vulnerable on clay to subpar players), but could be pretty close...this usually occurred in when he was able to hit winners consistently off the backhand wing from the baseline -- he wasn't able to keep up this level for too long, but didn't need to b/c of how great his serve was.
 
papatenis said:
Sampras is the best ever on grass. If both Fed and Sampras played at their prime againist each other, Sampras would win. Fed does not have the return of serve to beat Sampras, Fed mostly chips his returns on the backhand side, he never had to develop a offensive return cuz no one serves and volleys now a days.......
Click to expand...

How did Fed beat Sampras in 2001? By chipping his BH returns?

How did Fed win Wimby in 2003? By chipping?

You're vastly underestimating the guy.
 
drwood said:
That's it...Pete finally IS giving an honest answer, which is a 180 degree turn from the statements he said after Federer won 2009 Wimbledon. Back then, he totally downplayed the impact of Nadal. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08yYv-TwaJ4

Now he's changing his tune -- this is what annoys me and many other people about Sampras (even if Federer wasn't a likable guy).

Of course Federer's losing H2H against Nadal hurts his GOAT claim (although he still is GOAT)...its just that this waffling by Sampras is characteristic of what I remember about him during his prime and post-prime as well.

When Pete was on top of his game, he wasn't untouchable (never won 3 slams in a year, and was always vulnerable on clay to subpar players), but could be pretty close...this usually occurred in when he was able to hit winners consistently off the backhand wing from the baseline -- he wasn't able to keep up this level for too long, but didn't need to b/c of how great his serve was.
Click to expand...

Read post #211 in this thread. The cited article and quotes seem to be taken from the same cell phone press conference. They are identical, however the tennisweek article seems to provide the context and more of Sampras's answers in total. In short there is no 180 degree turn, no flip-flop, period.

I do enjoy the irony however, watching some of the same posters who defend their current favorite, whether that be Fed, Nadal, or other, tooth and nail, from the broad brush conclusions regarding a particular player's class level or character, who then engage in the identical behavior toward another player, based this time on what plainly appear to be highly edited quotes which tend to completely alter the context in which they were made.

5
 
Last edited:
Of course he could. I'd give him an edge. But Sampras wouldn't dominate Federer on grass, nor would Federer dominate Sampras on fast HC. Slow HC and mostly clay are different story...

I'm pretty sure that if they both played in the 90s noone besides them would have won Wimbleodn though.
 
Pete is just a fickle waffle. One day Fed is GOAT, next he's not. He never says anything concrete because he has no clue really what to say so as to keep his "friend" Fed happy and at the same time not jeopardize his own legacy. I think the world has decided Sampras is now second best. Please no Laver, Budge, and Borg freaks respond here.
 
bruce38 said:
Pete is just a fickle waffle. One day Fed is GOAT, next he's not. He never says anything concrete because he has no clue really what to say so as to keep his "friend" Fed happy and at the same time not jeopardize his own legacy. I think the world has decided Sampras is now second best. Please no Laver, Budge, and Borg freaks respond here.
Click to expand...

Read post #211.

5
 
FiveO said:
Read post #211.

5
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should re-read it in a better effort to read between the lines:

Here is the essential quote:
"While Sampras himself has bestowed the GOAT on Federer, he suggested today Federer must find a way to beat Nadal consistently in order to truly be called the GOAT." = you are GOAT, but you are NOT GOAT.

"Truly" --> is semantics. It's called waffling. He has no clue what to say. This point was essentially proven in the post-Wimbledon interview by McEnroe when he asked Sampras who is GOAT and he just waffled not sticking to any concrete answer. He's a wuss.
 
bruce38 said:
Perhaps you should re-read it in a better effort to read between the lines:

Here is the essential quote:
"While Sampras himself has bestowed the GOAT on Federer, he suggested today Federer must find a way to beat Nadal consistently in order to truly be called the GOAT." = you are GOAT, but you are NOT GOAT.

"Truly" --> is semantics. It's called waffling. He has no clue what to say. This point was essentially proven in the post-Wimbledon interview by McEnroe when he asked Sampras who is GOAT and he just waffled not sticking to any concrete answer. He's a wuss.
Click to expand...

Today? The dates are when the piece was "published", not necessarily when he was quoted. I find it very, very unlikely that Sampras, chose the identical words in the identical order on two different dates (highlighted in red in the two articles) for an answer. Further, if Sampras somehow did that, it would demonstrate that he was not waffling in the slightest.

In the post Wimbledon final interview with JMc, are you referring to his qualifying his answer "in front of Laver"? That's like a joke right? Probably the dumbest spot McEnroe could have put any one of those four greats on at that moment when JMc at that particular moment, should have found the great good sense, (in today's vernacular) to STFU and savor the moment. But Mc had to interject himself into it. Brilliant. And you're going to characterize that audible pause on Sampras's part as evidence of waffling instead of reverence toward Laver? Classic.

If you said McEnroe waffled I wouldn't have a problem with it as his public statements have been completely all over the map.

IMO you're over-reaching when "reading into it" snipping out the parts where he re-iterates his opinion. When one reads the entire tennisweek piece it is clear that he was cornered with the question re: the h2h. labelling it a difficult one. He re-iterates even while addressing that question that Fed is still in his opinion the GOAT and IMO suggests beating Nadal would silence that question which was obviously on the mind of some reporter asking it, rendering the issue moot.

Sampras never comes off his feeling of Fed being the GOAT before or after answering that direct question. Sorry that's neither waffling nor being a wuss.

5
 
sampras had a bad day playing against federer in 2001 wimbledon and almost won. slam dunk smash he misses in the match (I saw him never miss before). his first serve percentage was bad, but just look on the way he moves his body (like he has air in his feed), federers movement looks clumsy. he is way more athletic than federer. and think ahead federer not won 2001 wimbledon, also 2002 federer not won us open, sampras did! look matches before how easy agassi beat federer in basel indoors. corretja beat federer a few times easy and corretja wasnt in his prime, 90 s tennis against todays tennis no comparison, tennis now is slow and dead!
 
Hi
reini0100 said:
sampras had a bad day playing against federer in 2001 wimbledon and almost won. slam dunk smash he misses in the match (I saw him never miss before). his first serve percentage was bad, but just look on the way he moves his body (like he has air in his feed), federers movement looks clumsy. he is way more athletic than federer. and think ahead federer not won 2001 wimbledon, also 2002 federer not won us open, sampras did! look matches before how easy agassi beat federer in basel indoors. corretja beat federer a few times easy and corretja wasnt in his prime, 90 s tennis against todays tennis no comparison, tennis now is slow and dead
Click to expand...
His serve pct was high actually, the problem is the rest of his game.
 
sampras had a few bad calls go against him when he played federer
but even if prime sampras gets pass prime fed on grass a prime alcaraz would destroy sampras
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kimbahpnam
"Pete Sampras says he could have beaten Roger Federer"
Replies
3
Views
964
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