When was the moment Federer is considered better than Sampras?

#3
I'd say before that due to his exploits on clay

Sans clay, Federer was Sampras, plus/minus a little (which could all be put down to era strength, changes in racquets, strings, courts etc.)… no big deal

But Federer excelled on clay and was far and away the second best player on it, whereas Sampras never a big deal on the dirt
 
#12
I'd say before that due to his exploits on clay

Sans clay, Federer was Sampras, plus/minus a little (which could all be put down to era strength, changes in racquets, strings, courts etc.)… no big deal

But Federer excelled on clay and was far and away the second best player on it, whereas Sampras never a big deal on the dirt
I've rethought my position - in line with the depth of this discussion

I'd say it was about 10th August, 1981
 

Towny

Professional
#13
Mac made a comment in the 2004 USO final that Fed may well be the GOAT. Wasn't really perusing tennis forums at the time so I can't say with certainty but after 2007, once he'd got 5 in a row at Wimbledon and was on 12 slams, many thought it was a done deal that he would pass Sampras. Plus, although he hadn't won RG, he was clearly a lot better on clay.

I would say that the channel slam 2009 was the confirmation of GOAThood for Federer in most people's eyes
 
Last edited:
#17
March 13, 2019

Edit: To be serious, though, it was probably when he achieved the career slam... as well as tying Sampras for the slam count (for only a few weeks).
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#18
Already in his early matches with Agassi Roger was being talked about as a future potential ATG.

By the time he played Sampras at Wimbledon he was already considered his future successor.

When Federer annihilated Hewitt in that final the hype train was gaining speed.

By the FO 2009 the journey was completed.

The coronation took place at Wimbledon 2009.

Ever since he has been in the driver seat.

:cool:
 
#20
2009's French Open and Wimbledon was the coronation of the greatest Male player of all time, now in 2019 we have 3 of the greatest Male players of all time actively competing, what those three have accomplished during a span of 15 years will never be matched.
 
#21
Already in his early matches with Agassi Roger was being talked about as a future potential ATG.

By the time he played Sampras at Wimbledon he was already considered his future successor.

When Federer annihilated Hewitt in that final the hype train was gaining speed.

By the FO 2009 the journey was completed.

The coronation took place at Wimbledon 2009.

Ever since he has been in the driver seat.

:cool:
Agreed re: his position vs. Sampras.

But Laver was the GOAT before Federer - and I feel that Roger only surpassed him by winning W 2012.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
#26
Even Federer said if he had lost that 2nd set TB, Roddick probably would of won that Wimbledon match in '09! That choke job was monumental for Andy with at least 4 set points! Little did we know Roger would take that mantle away by dropping back to back USO Semi's to Nole with a couple match points! :unsure::cautious::rolleyes:;)
 
#27
I too believe that Fed could be considered better after winning RG '09.

However, July 2012 confirmed that he was better when he equalled the Wimbledon record and overtook him in weeks at no. 1 following his record breaking 6th YEC in 2011.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#28
Even Federer said if he had lost that 2nd set TB, Roddick probably would of won that Wimbledon match in '09! That choke job was monumental for Andy with at least 4 set points! Little did we know Roger would take that mantle away by dropping back to back USO Semi's to Nole with a couple match points! :unsure::cautious::rolleyes:;)
Not that it has something to do with my question, but "coulda, shoulda, woulda" are not interesting to me, especially when it comes to randomly rewarding wins.

:cool:
 

Enga

Professional
#29
I wouldnt say better of course its not fair to the guy because he retired without knowing someone was gonna break his records, he was hailed as the best of all time by many back then so he rested on his laurels. If you go by the achievements then the answer is clear, when Federer passed 14 slams his records were better.
 

JMR

Professional
#37
To answer seriously, I'd say RG 2009 from a statistical perspective
That's pretty much the way it worked historically as well. After Federer won the 2009 FO, Sports Illustrated put him on the cover with the headline, "Masterstroke: Winning the French, Roger Federer Makes His Case As the Best Ever." The article inside noted that the GOAT question was now very live, and commented that Federer was both tying Sampras and "breaking the tie" at the same time, since Sampras had never won the French. Then came this cruel blow to Pete: "Historians will look at Federer's resume -- at least five U.S. Open titles, five Wimbledons, three Australians and one French -- measure it against Laver's 11 and Sampras's Frenchless 14 and declare him supreme."
 
Top