Why Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer ?

Why Federer was more dominant than Sampras? (select multiple options)

  • Total voters
Longevity costed Sampras. Sampras retired after his age 31 season. This is like Federer retiring after 2012.

Fed’s return of serve was much better than Sampras’. I think that this is the biggest difference. Pete’s superior serving and net game offsets Fed’s slight edge in movement and forehand. But the ROS is where Fed pulls ahead.

29-30 year old Sampras got blown out in straight sets in back-to-back USO tourneys. 29-30 year old Fed was pushing a hard court legend to 5 sets.

Longevity and ROS.

And of course, Fed was substantially better on clay than Pete was. Pete’s best result at RG was the 3rd round for 6 straight years(and 7 out of 8 years). Pete only had 3 matches against players in the top 10 at RG(1-2 record).
Sampras beat Safin, Hewitt, Peaking Agassi, Rafter from 2000-2001 Then later beat Roddick and Agassi in 2002. . I think Pete would do just fine against Novak at the USO. LOL. Novak has lost to his share of bums at the USO and underachieved by a large at Flushing for being so great on HC's if were being truthful about it.

It wouldn't be a blow out or anything but Djokovic hasn't really face anyone with the firepower of Pete who could him back on his toes with relentless big serving and chip and charging or bomb FHs.

Djokovic has a greater career but its all about matchups. I mean look at the matchup issue Roddick presented to Djokovic. Roddick!!!


Hall of Fame
Both players are similar. They have the same weight, height and built. Grass and hard court are their best surfaces and clay is their worst. Both players serve are about placement and disguise. Both play 1-handed backhand and the forehand is their primary weapon. Both didn't need to exert much extra effort to win points. So what is it that separate them since Federer is more dominant and accomplished more ?
None of these.

Fedr played in a weak era.


Sampras was absolutely dominant at his time..His only problem was he never grew up in clay like his European counterparts did.Add to that he was almost a SnVer..So he was never going to be good on clay..

I remember at that time,Tennis was almost boring because you knew he wasn't going to lose.There was an inevitability.All his upsets I still remember because they were huge news then,Jamie Ygaza,Karol Kucera,Pat Rafter.It was just so rare for him to getting beaten....

Come to think of it, Federer doesn't have anything over Sampras,atleast Novak would have pummeled Sampras after his heavy and deep Groundstrokes over Groundstrokes..


Federer's defense is better. I don't think Samp can defend for his life. His game is redlining.
Beg to disagree but this couldn't be father from truth.. Typically his career on non grass would be to stay in the rally using slices and pounce on any opportunity on both flanks..Either unleashing his deadly forehand or his backhand..

On Grass the points would even be shorter.

His backhand is now crucified, don't have a remote clue why.While it's a very steady shot but not as exceptional as his forehand..It was never even remotely his liability..


Sampras was relatively more dominant in his era than Freddy was in his era, probably because he was able to own his greatest rival at slams while Rafa owned Fed at slams.
Yes, Sampras would really have stopped Nadal from winning RG if the Nadal was born earlier. Shame on the weak era inflater and the Choker to not do better against the Nadal at RG.