Becker had burst onto the scene as a 17 yo in Wim ’85 and was almost a decade old with five GS (3 W, 1 USO, 1 AO) by mid ’93 and was quite burnt out. Edberg was two years older and was also pretty washed up by Wim ’93. The fact that Becker (from ’91 onwards) and Edberg (’93 onwards), at the Slams including the Wim which was their best surface, pretty much struggled with, or even lost to some European players (maybe a few Americans as well) who were never in the top 100 quite drives home the fact that these guys were not the players they were in the late 80s which was far and away their peak. EFFECTIVELY the generation of the 80s makes a ZERO difference in the comparison of the competition that Sampras and Federer had.

Its easy to belittle Fed just because he is in the present and these critics are being dishonest by trying to mix up Sampras opponents with those who were older and still around willing to get beaten up. Growing up as a High Schooler in the mid 90s I had heard many say that the 80s was a vastly superior era (than the 90s) which saw Borg, McEnroe, Connors and Nastase etc at their best from the start of the decade and the emergence and peaking of Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Cash etc in the middle and the second half. All these guys were retired or way past their primes and still sticking around in the 90s to destroy their own records and buoy Sampras’. We can safely exclude the 80s gen from Sampras’ competition.

Furthermore of the 90s generation the only guys who had the game to beat Sampras at his best at the Wim and the USO were Stich and Krajicek. Stich was insignificant at all the Slams all the years except Wim 91, 92, 93 and USO 94. Sampras faced him all of once and beat him. He won the Wim once, lost to past his prime Becker once and was handily beaten by Agassi once. ALL the other times he was losing to unknowns. Not the sign of a top player. Krajicek’s record at the Slams is even more dismal. At the Slams he faced Sampras just twice. Again not a great player. Among the guys who could play well on the faster surfaces one is left with Agassi and he too was nowhere to be seen from after USO 95 before resurfacing at FO 99. The last remaining player Ivanisevic was a 1D choker.

Crap players like Washington, Pioline etc and claycourters like Courier were making Wimbledon finals. At least Fed never faced such a crap player in a Wim final.

The fact that there was talent around stands true in Sampras’ case but that holds for Federer too (Phillippoussis, Safin, Murray, Ancic, Roddick, Djokovic, Tsonga, Berdych etc). But only one player was really around to constantly challenge Sampras and in the case of Federer too (Nadal).

In fact the similarities are so stark. Its like there is a player in the Fed era that is a replica in terms of game, power, talent and temperament of somebody in the Sampras era.
Stich – Safin (Both power players, allcourters, unbeatable at their best but very temperamental and unfocussed)
Krajicek – Ancic (Both of Eastern European origin, big S/V players, huge serves, temperamental, more often injured compared to Stich-Safin, Krajicek beat Sampras at his peak at Wim 96 and Ancic beat Fed before his peak at Wim 02)
Ivanisevic-Roddick (Both basically one-dimensional, with massive serves, ordinary games otherwise, only difference being that Ivanisevic came in while Roddick stays back. Its my opinion that Roddick has a better baseline game than Ivanisevic had a net-game. With Fed’s return of serve he would be getting back in quite a few of Ivanisevic’s serves and then with those passing shots and shotmaking it would be humiliating for the Croat if he kept coming in for there would not be too many floaters to put away. Even worse he would be clueless on Fed’s serve. Also Roddick is mentally much better)
Agassi – Hewitt (Both baseliners, adapted to play on all the surfaces including grass, the two greatest returners of serve (Hewitt was the best ever followed by Agassi))

Federer destroyed one of the greatest talents ever in Hewitt who as a teenager owned the Sampras generation (except Agassi who had a similar game) in the end 90s and early 00s. That is not something Sampras can claim. As a result it was Nadal and not Hewitt, who became Sampras’ Agassi to Federer.

I see Fed with 6 or even 7 Wimbledons as of April 2010 had he been born 10 years earlier and played instead of Sampras in the 90s as he would be facing past his prime Becker, claycourter Courier, crap guys like Washington and Pioline and a 1D choker like Ivanisevic. But I do see Agassi troubling him at the USO. Results at the AO and FO would be the same again.

The other way round, Hewitt would be troubling Sampras at the Wim and the USO. Nadal would be doing the same at the USO, the AO and the FO. Nadal is probably the greatest ever claycourter challenged only by Borg and Lendl. But again like them (and unlike the claycourters of the 90s (Kuerten and Co)), he has a stronger serve, a decent return of serve, is faster around the court, is much better at hitting on the run, and overall a much better shotmaker. For that reason if Sampras was born 10 years later and played in this decade instead of Sampras Hewitt and Nadal would have reduced his Slam count by half if not more.

Another glitch on Sampras’ record is that in his era the greatest tournament played on the most natural and best surface was reduced to completely boring servathons when in the 80s the clashes between Borg/McEnroe and Becker/Edberg had the audiences on the edge of their seats with the highest quality of S/V imaginable. Federer has brought back that joy to Wimbledon in particular and tennis in general though with a different game.

Finally and most importantly I do think Fed is more talented and at peak a better player (though by little) than Sampras. Peak to peak, it would be 55 – 45 for Fed at Wim, and 60 – 40 at the other Slams. In terms of surface, 55 – 45 to Fed on grass, 60 – 40 on fast hard, indoor carpet, rebound ace, other hard and clay courts.

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.