So now that Pete and Roger have 7 Wimbledons..

[Iron Man]

both players are amazing on grass but unlike many people who claim that Pete is untouchable there I feel and I think Roger is better overall , Pete had a huge weapon which is the serve plus he didn't face excellent returners and counterpunchers while Federer dealt with all types of players successfully

federer had a better forehand and more versatile backhand quicker footsteps more elegant and fluid movement ,
even the volleys he proved he can manage the toughest of them

if the grass was faster Roger would have even better result considering he has a good serve and good return

to be the king of grass you must be excellent in fast and slow grass and this is what makes the difference

 

[timnz]

The rot started in 2002

federer had more success before they slowed it down like 4 years ago. nadal is the one who benefited from them slowing it down.

Slowed it down 11 years ago. 2002 was the first slow one. Apparently it has gotten even worse in the last few years though.

 

[ibbi]

I don't really think it's too much of a debate. Sampras won Wimbledon playing in an era of guys who absolutely loved playing on the surface, and had the game to do it. I think Roddick and Philippoussis are the ones Federer has had to deal with who you could say that about, but even if it was their favourite surface they didn't reeeeeeeally have the game to do it, not on this slower 100% rye stuff.

 

[Steve132]

It's just one match in which neither were at their best, not relevant to the topic IMO.

I wouldn't attach too much significance to the result of a single match - except for the fact that Sampras fanboys regularly tout his victory over Federer in an EXHIBITION as proof of his superiority. At the same time, they ignore a Wimbledon quarter final played when Sampras was the defending champion.

 

[zcarzach]

Can't we all just get along? Sampras was an amazing player. Federer is an amazing player. Both are probably in the top three players of all time.

 

[zam88]

If the Wimbledon Roof would have been finished a year earlier in 2008 would Federer have 8 Wimbledons?

I think there's at least an 70% chance he wins that match in '08 if there was a roof

 

[Feather]

Pete was old already past his prime,also never forget surprise affect.He wasnt well prepared for Roger.Who was Roger at that time.Nobody.

That shows you are totally clueless. Someone here said Roger was ranked 15 at that point of time. Go check the video of the full match on youtube. Just listen to what the commentators say before the match, lol

 

[mistik]

If the Wimbledon Roof would have been finished a year earlier in 2008 would Federer have 8 Wimbledons?

I think there's at least an 70% chance he wins that match in '08 if there was a roof

Conditions on that day was far from ideal for Nadal.When it is rainy in Wimbledon it means lower bounce and faster play.It wasnt a dry day at all.

 

[Feather]

Roger Federer won Wimbledon in Boy's singles on the fast grass in 1998.

 

[mistik]

Roger Federer won Wimbledon in Boy's singles on the fast grass in 1998.

Who cares about boy singles.There are billions boy singles champions who didnt manage to become professional.

 

[zagor]

I wouldn't attach too much significance to the result of a single match - except for the fact that Sampras fanboys regularly tout his victory over Federer in an EXHIBITION as proof of his superiority. At the same time, they ignore a Wimbledon quarter final played when Sampras was the defending champion.

Well, people who bring up the results of an exo as a proof of anything are obviously completely delusional.

However, that still doesn't change how I feel about 2001 Sampras-Fed Wimbledon encounter, I just don't give it much significance.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Now that both have 7 it is completely subjective really and all depends on who you think is better on the surface, especialy those who watched both. If Roger wins 8 it will become a more closed debate, but right now it is just down to personal preference. Personally I still think Sampras. More dominant serve, more all court game for grass, as much or more explosive athleticsm, just a bit more of a grass court game, and I think prime to prime Sampras would win more often if they met at Wimbledon, atleast on the old fast grass.

Quoted for truth--especially the note on the game for grass.

 

[tennis_pro]

Interesting opinion. As an equally big fan of both players I am not sure I agree. It is very impressive Nadal has shown he can win on all 3 major slam surfaces, and has won multiple slams on each (with the added benefit of 2 hard court slams, and slowed grass courts of today). Nadal however has shown thus far he cant even win big on indoor hard courts, I cant imagine how useless he might be on indoor carpet. Probably worse than prime Sampras was on clay. Sampras dominated on fast hard courts, grass, medium hard courts, and indoors/carpet. Nadal only dominates on clay.

Come on now. Sampras didn't even dominate grass, more like Wimbledon but not the surface overall. On medium hard courts he wasn't even close to dominating, 2 Australian Open titles (1997 won against a bunch of clay courters including a then 20-year old Moya in the final), only a couple of IW/Miami titles. Heck, Agassi was probably the best medium hard court player in the 90's/early 00's.

 

[sunof tennis]

Who cares about boy singles.There are billions boy singles champions who didnt manage to become professional.

Billions?! love the typical internet hyperbole... Definitely gives you crebility.

 

[Feather]

Who cares about boy singles.There are billions boy singles champions who didnt manage to become professional.

There are billions who didn't manage to win boy's singles at Wimbledon, but there aren't billion single champions who didn't manage to become professionals

 

[10is]

both players are amazing on grass but unlike many people who claim that Pete is untouchable there I feel and I think Roger is better overall , Pete had a huge weapon which is the serve plus he didn't face excellent returners and counterpunchers while Federer dealt with all types of players successfully

federer had a better forehand and more versatile backhand quicker footsteps more elegant and fluid movement ,
even the volleys he proved he can manage the toughest of them

if the grass was faster Roger would have even better result considering he has a good serve and good return

to be the king of grass you must be excellent in fast and slow grass and this is what makes the difference

Exactly!

Federer IS The King of Grass (fast or slow).

 

[darrinbaker00]

If not Roger, has to be:

That dude and Bruce Jenner must be having some trans-Atlantic competition to see who can have the most work done to their face...

The question is who is the KING of Wimbledon, not the QUEEN.

 

[sadowsk2]

No brainer- SAMPRAS... Put Roger in Sampras's era of fast grass and he get 4 Wimby's TOPS... He would've gotten overpowered like Tsonga did to him last year...

 

[Bruce39]

Put Sampras in today's era, he would win zero Wimbledons.

 

[TMF]

Come on now. Sampras didn't even dominate grass, more like Wimbledon but not the surface overall. On medium hard courts he wasn't even close to dominating, 2 Australian Open titles (1997 won against a bunch of clay courters including a then 20-year old Moya in the final), only a couple of IW/Miami titles. Heck, Agassi was probably the best medium hard court player in the 90's/early 00's.

Agassi didn't play the those 2 AO which Sampras end up winning, and Agassi is undefeated against Sampras at the AO.

 

[TMF]

No brainer- SAMPRAS... Put Roger in Sampras's era of fast grass and he get 4 Wimby's TOPS... He would've gotten overpowered like Tsonga did to him last year...

Clueless. You have never watched Fed played serve and volley on grass.

 

[jones101]

Now they both have 7 does H2H factor in?

 

[mistik]

Clueless. You have never watched Fed played serve and volley on grass.

Yeah 20 years old Fed was serving and volleying only to realise he isnt all that great with it.

 

[Nicholas Warino]

Seems to me that Federer does better when the conditions are quicker and favor aggressive tennis. I suspect that if the grass was faster with a lower bounce like it was in the past, Federer probably would be more dominant, beating Nadal in 2008. Probably wouldn't have changed much vs. Berdych in 2010, as Federer was just not right that tournament and probably not in 2011, since Tsonga likes fast conditions as well and was on fire sets 3-5.

 

[Towser83]

Now that both have 7 it is completely subjective really and all depends on who you think is better on the surface, especialy those who watched both. If Roger wins 8 it will become a more closed debate, but right now it is just down to personal preference. Personally I still think Sampras. More dominant serve, more all court game for grass, as much or more explosive athleticsm, just a bit more of a grass court game, and I think prime to prime Sampras would win more often if they met at Wimbledon, atleast on the old fast grass.

One cant discount Laver though who was forced to miss Wimbledon for 5 years in his prime.

After seeing his play at Wimbledon this year though I think Federer will probably manage an 8th at some point in the next 4 years (I think he will play to the 2016 Olympics, unlike his fans, Olympics are a big thing for Roger and most top players today) and make it a more close debate.

yeah but best on grass is not the same as best at Wimbledon. Wimbledon is wimbledon, no matter what the surface. I think Federer has performed at Wimbledon with it's current grass, better than Pete performed at Wimbledon with it's old grass. We can't really say Sampras wouldn't have been as good on current grass, or Federer would have been worse on old grass. But we can say that federer has more finals and a slightly higher win/loss ratio. 66-7 compared to 63 - 7 I believe.

Who is a better player on the surface of grass, is way more open to debate. another parallell is Sampras with more US Open finals and same wins, is probably the better us open player at this point, but Federer is the better all round hard court player.

 

[TMF]

Yeah 20 years old Fed was serving and volleying only to realise he isnt all that great with it.

More clueless poster. Court continue to slow down til this day. Fed adapt to the style that's best suits for the condition. If he was born 10 years before, no question he would play an aggressive style tennis, which he did by beating Sampras in 2001.

 

[The_Order]

Agassi didn't play the those 2 AO which Sampras end up winning, and Agassi is undefeated against Sampras at the AO.

Stay on topic...this thread is NOT about Agassi but between Fed/Sampras.

 

[Bender]

Wait, so the current, slow grass isn't green clay anymore? When did this happen?

Oh right, just remembered that Federer won this year.

Anyway, I give the edge to Sampras atm, given he's won all his titles on the old grass, which was more upset-inducing.

 

[heftylefty]

Since Pete and Roger have the same number of W; lets look at the body of work.

Game, Set & Match: King Federer.

 

[fed_rulz]

Ba Dum Tss

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6712779&postcount=1

 

[Numenor]

Now they both have 7 does H2H factor in?

No, that only comes into play should Nadal get close to Fed's major count.

 

[BeHappy]

Sampras would DEFINITELY have won more Wimbledons with a roof!!!!!!!!!!


Having said that:

Sampras won 7 Wimbledons in 8 years.

Sampras never lost a final.

= Way more dominant. Federer's loss to Nadal hurts him in my opinion.

Sampras's final opponents were Becker (Back to his best in the mid 90's and still young!), Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Courier and Pioline.

With the exception of Pioline and Courier who weren't really grass court players that is unbelievable competition. Federer beat Philippoussis and 2004 Roddick which was great, but 2005/2009 Roddick and 2006-2007 Nadal is terrible competition.

And Federer ONLY won this Wimledon because the roof was closed. NO WAY does Federer beat Djokovic in the semi's with an open roof. The first two sets in that match only took 20 minutes each! That's how quick points on indoor grass go!

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras would DEFINITELY have won more Wimbledons with a roof!!!!!!!!!!


Having said that:

Sampras won 7 Wimbledons in 8 years.

Sampras never lost a final.

= Way more dominant. Federer's loss to Nadal hurts him in my opinion.

Sampras's final opponents were Becker (Back to his best in the mid 90's and still young!), Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Courier and Pioline.

With the exception of Pioline and Courier who weren't really grass court players that is unbelievable competition. Federer beat Philippoussis and 2004 Roddick which was great, but 2005/2009 Roddick and 2006-2007 Nadal is terrible competition.

And Federer ONLY won this Wimledon because the roof was closed. NO WAY does Federer beat Djokovic in the semi's with an open roof. The first two sets in that match only took 20 minutes each! That's how quick points on indoor grass go!

so if Federer had lost to Safin in the 2008 SF, it would boost his dominance??? wow, some are truly brain dead!!

 

[BeHappy]

so if Federer had lost to Safin in the 2008 SF, it would boost his dominance??? wow, some are truly brain dead!!

No. If he'd beaten Nadal it would have though.

 

[tudwell]

With the exception of Pioline and Courier who weren't really grass court players that is unbelievable competition. Federer beat Philippoussis and 2004 Roddick which was great, but 2005/2009 Roddick and 2006-2007 Nadal is terrible competition.

:shock:

You are insane. Philippoussis is a good win but Nadal is not? He was in the process of making five straight finals when Federer beat him those times. I know Nadal was fairly new to grass in 2006, but he was still a great grass player. Outside of the second round, he reached the final without dropping a set. And 2007 Nadal was even more experienced and pushed Federer up against the ropes. It's not like he played 10 times better the next year to win - he was just better rested and more confident. His level of play in 2007 was still very high. Nadal could very well end up with a better Wimbledon record than Becker, but for some reason an old Becker is a much stronger finals opponent than a young Nadal.

And Agassi is not really a great grass court player. He was lucky to win the Wimbledon that he did, and was never terribly consistent there. Djokovic and Murray will both probably finish their careers with better Wimbledon records, and Federer beat both of those guys back-to-back to win this year.

 

[BeHappy]

:shock:

You are insane. Philippoussis is a good win but Nadal is not? He was in the process of making five straight finals when Federer beat him those times. I know Nadal was fairly new to grass in 2006, but he was still a great grass player. Outside of the second round, he reached the final without dropping a set. And 2007 Nadal was even more experienced and pushed Federer up against the ropes. It's not like he played 10 times better the next year to win - he was just better rested and more confident. His level of play in 2007 was still very high. Nadal could very well end up with a better Wimbledon record than Becker, but for some reason an old Becker is a much stronger finals opponent than a young Nadal.

And Agassi is not really a great grass court player. He was lucky to win the Wimbledon that he did, and was never terribly consistent there. Djokovic and Murray will both probably finish their careers with better Wimbledon records, and Federer beat both of those guys back-to-back to win this year.

Well look at Nadal's route to the final in 2006, and look at his failure to do anything off clay until 2008.

In 2007 Nadal was being destroyed by Youzhny in the Quarter final till Youzhny hurt his back so seriously that to this day Youzhny has never recovered and Nadal won. And then in the semi final Dokovic was up a set and a break and had to retire so Nadal had no right to be there. Is that what you call a strong opponent for Federer in the final? A Nadal who was still a clay court specialist?

 

[HellBunni]

No. If he'd beaten Nadal it would have though.

by your logic, he would've. because he wouldn't have made the final (so win or lost vs nadal = none issue). Then Fed would be 7 for 7 in Wim Finals just like Pete.

 

[BeHappy]

by your logic, he would've. because he wouldn't have made the final (so win or lost vs nadal = none issue). Then Fed would be 7 for 7 in Wim Finals just like Pete.

Sampras won 7 in 8 years.

 

[Towser83]

Sampras would DEFINITELY have won more Wimbledons with a roof!!!!!!!!!!


Having said that:

Sampras won 7 Wimbledons in 8 years.

Sampras never lost a final.

= Way more dominant. Federer's loss to Nadal hurts him in my opinion.

Sampras's final opponents were Becker (Back to his best in the mid 90's and still young!), Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Courier and Pioline.

With the exception of Pioline and Courier who weren't really grass court players that is unbelievable competition. Federer beat Philippoussis and 2004 Roddick which was great, but 2005/2009 Roddick and 2006-2007 Nadal is terrible competition.

And Federer ONLY won this Wimledon because the roof was closed. NO WAY does Federer beat Djokovic in the semi's with an open roof. The first two sets in that match only took 20 minutes each! That's how quick points on indoor grass go!

So it's better to lose to Kraijeck early on than Nadal in the final? :lol:

Becker first won Wimbledon a full 8 years before Sampras did. Becker is not even in Sampras's era. 8 years after pete won his first Wimbledon he was getting beaten by baby fed. Agassi wasn't as good on grass as Djokovic or Murray, Ivanisevic was a total headcase who couldn't muster the mental strength to beat the not very good on grass Agassi, Courier wasn't a great grass court player and only won slams for a 3 year period. Pionline? are you f-ing kidding me? :lol:

And roof or no roof, Federer was going to win. It's not like he beat Djokovic on CLAY last year without a roof, where Djokovic was playing the best of any one. Grass is his worst surface by far.

 

[Towser83]

Sampras won 7 in 8 years.

So having asked this to another samptard, I ask it to you.

Better at the US Open?

Federer with 5 titles in 5 years.

Sampras with 5 titles in 12 years - but with more finals.

Who is better at the US Open based on those facts?

 

[kragster]

So having asked this to another samptard, I ask it to you.

Better at the US Open?

Federer with 5 titles in 5 years.

Sampras with 5 titles in 12 years - but with more finals.

Who is better at the US Open based on those facts?

Your point is very valid but in the thread comparing Fed to Sampras at USO , most Fed fans chose Fed over Sampras .

 

[World Beater]

Sampras won 7 in 8 years.

he also won 7 in 9,10,11 years...he would also win 7 in 30 years as he gets older.

really...

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras won 7 in 8 years.

how? wasn't he part of wimbledon 2001 and 2002?

 

[Towser83]

Your point is very valid but in the thread comparing Fed to Sampras at USO , most Fed fans chose Fed over Sampras .

that is true, but in any case the test is to ask both and see what the answer is and whether it is consistant.

Overall I feel like with 2 more finals Sampras has the edge at the US Open, though it is a fine edge seeing as federer has been a point away from making the final the last 2 years, 2 points away from winning 6 in a row, and Pete also had some heavy defeats in his 5th and 6th finals to young guns before making the final again agaisnt a guy older then him.

BUT, 5 wins from 7 finals is still a better record than 5 wins out of 6 finals in my eyes, as a final is better than a semi. I mean you can argue Federer is the better player at the US Open but Sampras has the better record, just like Federer now has a better record at Wimbledon.

 

[BeHappy]

So having asked this to another samptard, I ask it to you.

Better at the US Open?

Federer with 5 titles in 5 years.

Sampras with 5 titles in 12 years - but with more finals.

Who is better at the US Open based on those facts?

Obviously Federer was better at the USO.

 

[SLD76]

so if Federer had lost to Safin in the 2008 SF, it would boost his dominance??? wow, some are truly brain dead!!

how was Pete more dominant...didnt he lose one year in the first or second round?? And this was years after he won his first WB?

Also, again, how was it 7 wb in 8 years when he lost early in 2001 and 2002?

 

[paulorenzo]

Well look at Nadal's route to the final in 2006, and look at his failure to do anything off clay until 2008.

In 2007 Nadal was being destroyed by Youzhny in the Quarter final till Youzhny hurt his back so seriously that to this day Youzhny has never recovered and Nadal won. And then in the semi final Dokovic was up a set and a break and had to retire so Nadal had no right to be there. Is that what you call a strong opponent for Federer in the final? A Nadal who was still a clay court specialist?

pete's route to wimby win in 2000


Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Jiri Vanek (CZE) 80 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R64 Karol Kucera (SVK) 44 W 7-6(9), 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
R32 Justin Gimelstob (USA) 99 W 2-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 Stats
R16 Jonas Bjorkman (SWE) 78 W 6-3, 6-2, 7-5 Stats
Q Jan-Michael Gambill (USA) 56 W 6-4, 6-7(4), 6-4, 6-4 Stats
S Vladimir Voltchkov (BLR) 237 W 7-6(4), 6-2, 6-4 Stats
W Patrick Rafter (AUS) 21 W 6-7(10), 7-6(5), 6-4, 6-2 Stats

although pete never had to face a top ten player, his win at wimby that year was still legitimate, much like any of nadal's finals.

 

[purge]

i think this year has seen some decisive breakthroughs when ranking players according to surfaces. the way i see it is this:

on grass
1. federer
2. sampras
3. borg
.
then nothing for a long time..
.
then players like lendl, becker,..

on clay
1. nadal
2. borg
.
then nothing for a long time..
.
then players like kuerten, wilander, muster

on hard
1. federer
.
then nothing for a long time..
.
then players like sampras, agassi, connors, mcenroe


not ranking generations older than connors, borg, etc cause it gets increasingly senseless to try and compare achievements by going even further back

 

[War Safin!]

Playing on Wimbledon's traditional rye/fescue grass, with both guys using non-Luxillon polyester strings, you have to go with Pete Sampras (regardless of Roger Federer beating him because due to that logic, Tim Henman has an identical win/loss record and therefore must be considered better than Federer)

On a post-2001 slower full-rye grass, I go with Roger Federer: gets a better read on Sampras' serve (which sits up nicely for him also) and is confident enough to go for his passing shots.

 

[jones101]

pete's route to wimby win in 2000