They played three matches recently ; Federer vs, Sampras (for charity i think?… I’m not sure). Anyways, Sampras won one out of the three!!
When I heard that i was like WOW! I know Roger is in his PRIME and hardly ever lose to anyone. Then recently i saw one of the matches ’cause they re-aired it….
The match you’re refering to is actually their 4TH exhibition, the one in Madison Square Garden. So Federer won 3 out of 4.
Now die hard Federer fans will have you believe that Federer went easy and perhaps even allowed Sampras to win one. That is the biggest boat load of crap I have ever heard. What would you do if you were Federer? Your legacy has been tainted by allegations of this being a week era in tennis. Would you have gone easy on Sampras? No way. You’d make sure you hand him a good sound beating. Once those matches were close, Sampras fans could always say Pete was better. Federer would never allow that … if he could.
The real truth is that Federer could not handle Sampras’ serve on the fast surfaces. He is a great returner, but modern courts are slower. So if Pete was at his prime now, I’d give the edge to Federer. In the 90s fast courts, Sampras all the way. Yes their head to head is 1-0, but you can’t draw statistical conclusions based on one close match (7-5 in the 5th).
Federer has a prettier all round game, which is beautiful to watch when he’s on (ugly to watch when he’s off). Sampras was just serve-ace, serve-volley-win the point. He rarely got into rallies on his serve, so perhaps his matches were less fun to watch. He rarely ever played at full potential because he didn’t have to. All he needed was one break of serve and he would just cruise. He developed real mental toughness toward the middle of his career, which is seen in his fabulous tie break and 5 set records. Federer uses his whole game to win points, so when he is slightly off form, he struggles. Even though Federer is a better all round player, Sampras won his matches with more ease. Now tell me which is more important.
Well, in grandslams, Roger would walk away with the Australian and the French, but Sampras would have taken the Wimbledon in five sets. As for US Open, it would be a tough fight again, since Pete would have been the crowd’s favorite whreas Roger is not distracted by the crowd at Flushing Meadows as seen earlier when playing Andy Roddick. It would depend on whoever has the best shots for that day.
Tough question ya have kid.
I pick Sampras. I followed the games of Pete. He is a 1-2-score machine, his point. He rarely prolong rallies & tire himself to win. He had that power serve like Roddick, (aces) so just 1-immediate point for him. Therefore, Fed’s style of winning is more tedious. I am a Fed fanatic, but with your case, sorry Fed, you can’t snatch it from Pete during his times.
I think the figures and the trophies would have spoken for themselves. Tennis is now more competitive than it was 10 years back, and I still think that Fed-ex will win over Sampras. He’s a young and talented player, and still have many years to go!
without a doubt roger federer . he has won countless trophies and it is better then samprases days.
i would have woned more often