Who is all time greatest player in Tennis…..Pete Sampras or Roger federer…and why ?
federer, because he is better than sampras, laver and any other person that has ever played tennis.
He has more slams than Sampras, Sampras never won Roland Garros, never even made the finals at RG, never won the career slam, never won a slam 5 times in a row (let alone two slams 5 times in a row), never won 3 slams in a year (let alone 3 slams in a year 3 different times), did not have the all court game that Roger does, does not have the # of masters titles Roger does, etc etc.
This was an actual argument in like 2007. But Roger has far and away surpassed Sampras and Roger is still playing to keep adding onto his greatest, while Sampras is done.
And people saying it’s Rod Laver are retarded. Laver won his one Calendar Slam against amateurs because pros could not play in the Grand Slams, and over the entirety of his career 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass court and the French was still played on clay. How easily would Federer have cruised through 2004-2008 if 3/4 slams were on grass? He never would have even lost a set in 2006-7 in slams. There were no hardcourts and the players were no where near as competent as today. It’s like saying Babe Ruth would still be the greatest player ever today just because he played so long ago and was great. Babe Ruth would not even be an average player in the modern day because pitchers aren’t throwing 50mph meatballs. Just like today, Laver wouldn’t be handling 140mph serves like he used to handle 70mph serves from so long ago.
I’m not saying Laver wasn’t great back in the day, but it’s so much harder to dominate a sport as time goes on. Look at every sport. As time marches on, players get better and better and even out the playing field.
If to do anything, i will try to support Proteach – i honestly can’t say much else on the topic than he has.
Federer is obviously the best on paper. But more importantly, he is a master of the game, all aspects of it – and that is the main goal of an athlete. His grace on the court, his perfect technique, and his flawless execution of the game, these are all definitely reasons as to why he is the best ever. There are so many exceptional players in this age of tennis, definitely much more than in the time of Sampras, and yet Federer has been able to dominate the world stage, and he would have done even more if it weren’t for Nadal. I’m not saying that Nadal hasn’t worked for his fair share as well, but there isn’t a chance on this Earth that Nadal is or ever will be better than Federer.
Federer’s career isn’t over yet, but it’s pretty much unanimous that it is him.
He has a record 16 Slams, compared to Sampras who has 14.
He’s the all-time Masters Series winner
One of 4 players (is it 4?) to complete the Career Slam (Sampras never won RG)
285 weeks at number 1
I dont really think its neccessary to go much more in depth
EDIT — How does being American make Sampras better than Fed? Lmfao
How can Pete Sampras be the GOAT, he never won the French Open, the 4 grand slams are the pinnacle of the sport and never won 1 of them.
Federer on the other has won all 4 grand slams, and already over-taken Sampras’s 14 slams, as he has won 16 slams.
No doubt Federer is the GOAT.
Among many reasons, I will expose to you the very simplest one; Roger Federer’s versatility. A player, and you will agree, is found to be master of his art, not only by the execution of this very art, but also by his excellence in this domain. Thereby, the player who proceeds with exceptional execution of further dimensions than his counterpart is by fact a better player. Pete Sampras’ domination is considerable, however though he exhibited a strong baseline game, it was certainly not a weapon among the top players; his backhand was at its best, a correct stroke and, without considering his running forehand, he couldn’t dictate the play against baseline players with his forehand either. Certainly, his serve and net game were incredible, but by many standards, if you could keep him further back, he was mathematically out of the match. For the very few who understand tennis, there is no need to say that a server-volleyer is a gambler and that he might more than often attack in unfavorable situations. His anchor is laid in his opponent’s head: if he can affect him, he’s go the hand over the match, but if not, he might be in great trouble. The tactical mistakes combined with the inability to adapt his tactics make of Sampras a quite less frightening opponent than Federer. In simple terms, he has not been as perfect as Federer. If you watched the ATP tour in the 1990’s and in Federer’s prime during the 2004-07, you have noticed some features; one being that the surfaces have been slowed down to prevent players to prefer the quick serve-and-volley over the basic baseline rally, thus making the spectacle more lively and, perhaps more importantly, longer. Federer is still a rare player able to execute properly the serve-and-volley technique; very few have noticed it, but he played his junior years as a server-volleyer… He’s said to be one of the toughest man to pass and it’s not even a need to consider the fact that his baseline game has been probably the most well-rounded mixture of deadly accuracy and power.
When we compare both eras, we can understand something, but it’s not what many think it is. People often misunderstand the difference between observed facts and conclusions and that’s why many might be perplexed at reading what follows. Sampras’ era was more competitive – the match-ups were more even while Federer’s era present a considerable gap between the number one, though all others seem to have been about as close to each others as player were in Sampras’ era. Those are the facts… two explanations are debated:
-is it Federer who rendered the work too hard for others to claim a title;
-or, is it that Sampras’ contemporaries were simply better than Federer’s.
Do you think that the second hypothesis is really valuable right now? It’s not like Federer has made a similar career to that of Sampras; we’re speaking by this day — which isn’t Federer’s last one on the tour — of a clear defeat; Federer’s statistics outclasses Sampras by a considerable margin, even if he is not done playing. Is plausible to think that this substantial gap between Federer and Sampras is solely due to the fact that Federer had an easier run?
How better he is on the sheet?
-2 more Slams in yet lesser tries;
-He has the career Slam;
-He came near by less than one set three times to complete a calendar slam (3 times more than Sampras);
-He has won two GS tournaments for five consecutive years (both sequence being better than Sampras’ best run);
-He holds the record for victories in Masters 1000 event;
-He holds a priority of some 50 weeks or so over Sampras’ 180 or so consecutive weeks as world number one…
Federer was a tougher opponent — there was, when he stood up there, one little weakness that only one player has been able to exploit and he did it on clay where he is believed to have been the best player of all time… Pete Sampras wasn’t anywhere near to threaten anyone at Rolland-Garros; Federer came so near, so often and even took the trophy.
If numbers, versatility and titles are not enough, look at Federer on a tennis court; so natural, fluent… he’s the most elegant player that has ever played the game. He swings his racket to hit that ball so hard, but it seems that he doesn’t even try. That’s only speaking of his ease to strike a ball; his footwork is the most light expression of the art ever witnessed… Sampras was good, but he wasn’t gliding over the court; he wasn’t letting his arm go as well as Federer. Roger Federer’s game is a piece of art; it will be a shame when he retires. No one, even Nadal, seems to be nearly as invincible as Roger has been in his best years… Nadal already has, in his best season, one less defeat than Federer had… however, Federer had those 9 defeats over two entire years.
Tough question to answer. Here’s a question that should help all of us answer it: If Federer and Sampras were both same age – and played on the tour at the same time – my edge goes to Pete. Pete would blast aces to Fed all over the place. Best serve ever in Tennis – Pete. Fed wouldn’t be able to return most of them. Further, since Fed is not a net player – Pete would be all over him at the net, and win most of those points. Further, when Fed slices his backhand – Pete would also be all over that as well, come in, and put the volley away. So – same age, playing at the same time, etc – nod easily goes to Pete. Too much power in Pete’s game. He would take Fed’s finesse and crush him.
But, you really need two, perhaps more, GOATs. The change in technology changed the game. Laver was a much smaller man but he was a master on the court. Today’s technology has, unfortunately, changed tennis into a serving competition, in too many cases. Today, I’d go with Roger – 3 surfaces.
Neither as we don’t know how well they would have been if they were playing in the 70s and 80s or earlier and not sure what the future has in store either.