Sampras was very tired and 3 years past his prime when he lost to a peak prime Fed in 2001.

It would be illosophical to say any different.

On carpet, I think 50:50.

I think that overall, Federer would win more matches.

60-40% to Sampras on grass, and that’s being relatively generous. Remember, Federer’s won 5 straight Wimbledons, equaling Borg. And he won 2003 predominantly S&V’ing, and playing a huge-serving player in the final. That was his most beautiful Wimby final, imo. The reason he serves and volleys less these days, is because they have ruined Wimbledon by making it slower and higher-bouncing. It’s like green clay; and you can tell it when grass-court players like Roddick don’t make it to the SF, but clay-courters do.

On hard-court, I’d say 50:50.

And on clay, there’s just really no competition. Federer may never win the FO — he has a chance this year, but Nadal is playing great, Fed will really have to do something special — but he’s only been beaten by arguably the GOAT on clay. 16 straight SF, and of the times he didn’t make it to the finals, he lost to the eventual winner. He’s gotten to 1 SF, and 3 F, losing the 1 SF to Nadal and 2 F to Nadal. That’s more impressive than Sampras’ 1 SF at the FO.

I think all-around, Federer is the best player ever. He may not be the best ever on grass (although he has a good argument for sharing greatest-ever), but even there, I think only Sampras would be ahead of him. He also isn’t the best ever on clay — Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Nadal, Cochet, etc all ahead of him. However, he is a great clay-court player, and would almost certainly have had several FO’s if not for Nadal (likewise, Nadal re Wimbledon; although Wimbledon’s been slowed down).

But Federer is, in my mind, undoubtedly the best hard-court player ever. People talk about Nadal’s impressive record on clay, Federer’s impressive record on grass. Both pale in comparison to his record on hard-courts, where there is enormous depth and strength today.

In their prime, I would pick Federer to win most of the time, just because his consistency is ridiculous. Very very rarely does/did he have a bad day and lose to a low-ranked player (something not true of Sampras).

With both players playing at their absolute best, it is very hard to say who would win. Both players only lost matches when they made a lot of unforced errors, which is something neither do much of while playing at their best. At his best, Sampras is the most aggressive and efficient serve-and-volleyer of all-time. Federer is probably the best shotmaker of all-time (no one can find the lines better than he can). Assuming they were playing at their absolute best, their respective styles would probably neutralize the other. This may make winning service games more important, and would thus, in my opinion, favor Sampras, though Federer has shown he can serve as well as ANYONE when he needs to.

The course of a match would also be highly dependent on who wins the first set. It would be more crucial for Sampras to win the first set, as Roger statistically becomes very very difficult to beat (as opposed to the other way around) in a five-setter when winning the first set. Once Federer finds his feet after winning the first set and finds his “next gear”, he puts the best players in the world to shame, often cruising 6-2, 6-1 to finish out matches. Federer, in his prime, just didnt/doesnt lose many sets to anyone, even in five-setters, something not true of Sampras. Sampras won, but on average in longer matches (not just because his competition was better). However, Roger may have slightly less mental toughness, and so if Sampras can take the first set, he could unnerve Roger and get him out of his zone, something Nadal was able to do in the Wimbledon 2007 final.

Quite frankly, I think it is a toss-up. Federer’s “next gear” is as scary as Sampras’s. Federer may be so dominant because he is in a league of his own, or at least, because he is in a league with Sampras (and maybe a few of those other guys…)

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion on this blog. I can tell you’ve been following professional tennis for many years.

Good observations!

The argument that Sampras opponents were not dominated as Federer’s opponents can be turned around in that because Sampras faced greater champions and a greater number of them, they would not allow themselves to be dominated the way today’s players allow. Further Sampras faced a greater variety of players, grass court specialists like Stich and Edberg as well as clay court specialists like Muster and Bruguera.

Also, look at the strategy behind today’s players, the tactics employed; and sometimes I don’t think that is at the same level it was in the 90s. The serve and volley game will beat the baseline game other things being equal because the serve and volley game makes for shorter points and when on fire makes for a practically unbreakable service game with aces and short rallies ending in a put-away volley. The window for winning such points is not as open as when there is a rally from the baseline after a serve where with a round of spectacular shots a player like Sampras can run off a few winners and break serve as Becker stated above.

Serving and volleying with a serve like Sampras’s when in fine form is in effect unbreakable, the only hope is in a tiebreaker–there again the more aggressive serve and volleying style would allow less margin for error for the returner.

Courier at his peak in the early 90s displayed the ability of an Agassi, the ability of truly great baseliners to grind out points for 40 or 60 strokes if necessary. Agassi and Courier at their peaks would continually pound the ball crosscourt playing the more high percentages and let their fitness and consistency overtake their opponents. The temptation in such rallies is to forego the heavy spin for a flat winner attempt up the line and that is pretty much all I see baseliners doing today on tour. They tend to slap up the line or simply intuitively hit as hard as possible to the more open side of the court when like a chess player biding his time for future checkmate they’d be better served to wear away the opponent with higher percentage crosscourt play until the perfect opening presents itself for an outright winner or an almost unreturnable approach shot.

But this more careless slapdash play leads to more errors and ironically going down the line makes it easier for an opponent to retrieve the ball and pull it cross court and put you on the run. The percentages favor majority cross court and only down the line as an approach shot or finishing pummel off a short ball. That’s the tennis Agassi and Courier (before he lost his baseline discipline) displayed so well in their grand slam victories.

Forget just about the fact that it was a more crowded field in Sampras’s day. Most people will not argue that Sampras had one of the very greatest first and second serves of all time (with incredible precision placement on both serves coupled with exceptional power especially compared with most other player’s second serves). Plus, who would argue that Sampras had some of the finest volleying ability of all time? On the other end of the net, we see that Andre Agassi had arguably the greatest return of serve of all time and his baseline game is truly one of the greats. Of course there were plenty of good all-court and baseline players in the 90s just as there are today, but there were also a whole breed of exceptional volleyers who backed that up with great serves that propelled them toward the net and whose returns also led them close to the net putting an incredible pressure on the receiver still back at the baseline.

These incredible serve and volleyers like Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Goran Ivanisevic also had serviceable baseline games, but the point is that they employed an entire, more high percentage, and aggressive dimension of the game that players today simply don’t as they primarily stay at the baseline.

The argument that the game has changed such that serve and volleyers simply can’t hack it anymore with the amazing groundstrokes of today’s players is bunk! Serving and volleying done well is a high percentage, efficiently effective way to win points (check with tennis coaches). If groundstrokes really have reached such advancement why do doubles teams still rush the net?

Why if the most superb groundstrokes of today destroy the ability of players to even exploit the entire aspect of serve and volleying did perhaps the greatest baseliner of the modern era in Agassi not destroy the ability of Rafter and Edberg? No, he did not. The great serve and volleyers of the 90s competed very well with Agassi and they won Wimbledons and other fast surface titles despite he and other formidable baseliners competing.

Lastly, when Sampras’s serve was on target in perfect pitch, not even Agassi perhaps the greatest returner of all time had much chance to break his serve such as in the 1999 Wimbledon. Is Federer’s return of serve or baseline game on par with Agassi’s? I don’t think so. So how would he have a chance when Pete’s gunning those forehands, chipping and charging on the backhand returns and then holding serves at will? With that kind of incredible pressure on Federer, Sampras would capture breaks and win. And Federer would stand helpless as service aces whizzed by him.

I think the level of serves in the 90s was higher than now. There were more servers serving more aces, maybe not quite as fast and hard as now, but remember those matches where Goran would serve 4 aces and then Sampras would serve 4 aces or unreturnable serves, and entires sets would go by like that until tiebreaks or incredible mini outbreaks of sterling winners leaped off of one player’s racket in rapid succession to capture a rare break of serve? The battle of big servers and those ridiculously short one to three shot points that made tennis at times a bit boring in the 90s is not really a fact of life for Roger on tour now. There are many more rallies. And who out there has the counterpoint return of serve game that Agassi had toward Sampras?

The hard servers of today simply don’t have Sampras’s precision or disguise, which even if 10 miles/hour faster in Roddick’s case makes them in some ways easier to return. And baseline bangers today don’t play with the relentless consistency and strategy as Agassi did with their prone-to-impatience, not-as-wise and precise shot selection and greater unforced errors. Federer can outsteady these players and he’s better at winning on serve.

But if Sampras, when he’s on, serves better and is more aggressive in coming in for follow up volleys after the serve for easy points, even able to make holding serve look easy against players with Agassi caliber returning skills; and then Pete captures an occasional break of serve by outslugging even people like Agassi from the baseline on choice points in order to win sets–how could Roger Federer expect to beat Sampras in his prime? How, without Agassi’s return of serve, and with Pete’s incredibly competitive derring do chance-taking shotmaking during return games, and ability to elevate his own game on big points, could Federer beat Pete in his prime?

No, Pete faced a greater variety of opponents who played more aggressively and served more precisely, and played from the baseline with more skill and talent like Agassi. There are not even any players at the top now who take most advantage of a surface like grass with the style best suited to it–serving and volleying. Sampras had to face Macenroe, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevich, Edberg, Rafter, all masters of grass and he still won 7 Wimbledons.

I don’t think the game has changed all that much in the few years since Pete and Agassi retired and Federer began dominating. What is the revolutionary training that makes the athletes better tennis players today (more running, better ball machines, ha come on, so what if the rackets and the shoes are little more aerodynamic)?

In my book 3 set exhibitions don’t mean much and you could see Federer didn’t play seriously. Sorry folks, Roger has the upper hand.