Having a great serve and volley is not enough. You have to break the other’s serve as well. The killer combination is actually a great serve and a great return + no discernible weakness. Only Federer has it, and I think Nadal and Djokovic are moving towards having great serves. Then men’s tennis would be deeper than ever.

In Federer’s prime 2005-2007 I dont see any mental lapses in his game. From AO and USO 2005 to Shanghai Master 2006 Federer was very fast and very tough. Federer is good in 5 setters but not Sampras. There is a big chance it’ll be a five setter matches between the two – not good for Sampras. Agassi’s return against Federer is the same, he cannot return it very well during Federer’s prime.

If serve alone is the basis, I think Federer is at par with Sampras.

Yes we can say that age has caught up with Sampras. But, could it be also because these new players has fast groundstrokes that immobilizes the serve and volley technique? In 2000 hewitt won against sampras on a grass court London / Queen’s Club 6-4/ 6-4, which the same year Sampras’s win also in Wimbledon. We cannot really say that Sampras dropped his level very much since he won the Wimbledon.

Federer already surpassed, adapated to Agassi’s on the rise shots which I think will be the key against Sampras. In a serve and volley against Sampras, Federer’s return will not be strong but fast enough to go to the other side of the court which will make sampras have a hard time volleying it for a winner. And just in case he will be able to volley – a short ball and not much placement, Federer will be hitting a passing shot.

Federer is a counter puncher and I think he is more good in returning fast balls especially fast serves. Federer will not be broken easily either especially on fast courts. Sampras lost to Agassi twice in Australian open which is a fast court. Federer doesnt need to serve and volley because he’ll just punish his opponent for his short returns.

Well we really cannot say anymore who will win between the two during their prime because its not gonna happen anymore. But lets look at the facts.

I believe the comparison should start between these 3 players below. Sampras will surely dominate the 80’s era anyway.

Sampras turned pro in 1988 and won a grand slam after 2 years in 1990. It took only 2 years at age 19. Very very good record. But his next grand slam came in 1993 already.

Agassi turned pro in 1986 but won a grand slam only 1992 in wimbledon. It took him 6 years.

Sampras turned pro 1998 but won a grand slam only in 2003. It also took him 5 years but has won a lot of slams since then till 2008.

Sampras Hewitt 4-5 by Hewitt 1998-2002 (2000-2002 Sampras only won once in US Open)
Sampras Safin 3-4 by Safin
Sampras Roddick 1-2 by Roddick

Agassi Hewitt 4-4 Tie 1998-2004
Agassi Safin 3-3 tie 1998-2004
Agassi Blake 4-1 by Agassi 2001-2005
Agassi Roddick 5-1 (ouch) by Agassi 2000-2004

Federer Agassi 8-3 by Federer 1998-2005 (Since 2003, last 8 games Agassi cant win against Federer anymore)
Sampras Federer: 2001 Wimbledon, won by Federer. I think both players are evenly matched. Federer is still young and inexperienced and Sampras getting old with experience (but his skills is still intact). And yet Federer won.

If Sampras was younger and in his prime only his speed and reaction will increase. What else will be there during his prime? He won Wimbledon from 1997-2000 and we cannot say that his level only dropped when he lost to Federer. How about saying Federer played well huh?

If Federer got older and in his prime, his arsenal against Sampras will be a lot.
His passing shots already evolved, speed, everything. The Federer that we know in 2005-2007. And the key factor I think will be the on the rise like groundstrokes of Federer just like Agassi has which will counter Sampras’s serve and volley game.

Federer has beaten these younger players in a very convincing way and I think during their prime. We cannot discredit the fact that these players are slam winners and has the potential to be no. 1 and no pushovers. Agassi were beating the young players during Federer’s time making Agassi the only player that can really compare Sampras and Federer. Again coming from Agassi: “With Pete he has his chances but with Federer he dont see any weakness”. If Agassi can beat the young players and still be be beaten by Federer convincingly, then there is a high chance in Sampras and Federer’s prime Federer has the upper hand.

Sampras’s nemesis Agassi is only a baseliner. Compared to Nadal which has already evolved,has a strong forehand and a lefty. We can even say that a lot of wins of Nadal came from clay courts making Federer a better clay court player than Sampras. Federer reached a lot of Finals in clay. Eventhough he lost, he proved he can be competetive in clay. Federer still has the better nemesis, and some say these era are just filling up the spaces.

Federer’s idols are Edberg and Sampras.
I guess Federer has the edge over Sampras because he knows Sampras’s game and is Federer’s idol.
Now if Federer and Sampras is in the same Era, we’ll never know. Maybe Federer will be rooting Rod Laver or Lendl also. It would be interesting.

Federer is now in his 11 years as a pro and we can say hmm.. not winning slams but still in the rankings as no.2. Maybe also busy with his family and as a father.

In 1997, after 11 years also in his career. Agassi was in a slump and dropped to rank 141 when he married Brooke Shields. But returned again only to be the new Agassi that we know. Good thing Federer is still in the rankings.

Anyway, history is still in the making. Only when Federer retires can we truly say what additional feats were he able to achieve and if he can be greater than Sampras in terms of records. But both in their prime, i’ll go for 51% Federer and 49%Sampras.

Peace brothers in tennis.

The serve volley is gone and until changes are made to bring it back, grass changes or raisesing the net ect, Fed will never be tested in that way. I like to watch Goran and Ricard Krajeck serving 40+ aces in a match, the game has lost much of it’s apeel to me, but Fed has never prove himself against such an onsaught. It is true That Krajeck had a winning record over Pete but the only Big match he won was the 96 QF at wimbeldon that I know of. (By big I mean Grand Slam). Has anyone ever serve 40+ aces agaist Fed in a match?

I really think History will place Nadal will be placed high in the list of all time greats then Fed. I vote Sampras