Sampras vs. Federer in Their Prime – Who Wins?
I received this interesting question from one of the readers.
And since Pete Sampras and Roger Federer will actually play an exhibition match on 22nd of November in Kuala Lumpur, this may be the right time to ponder such a question.
In my opinion, the end result depends mostly on the surface.
I’ve seen both players play their best tennis and will try to make my best guess at who wins if we were somehow able to have Pete Sampras play Roger Federer when they were at their best.
 |
 |
Grass: Sampras – Federer: 60% – 40%
When Pete Sampras played his best tennis on grass like in the Wimbledon final 1999 against Andre Agassi, he was virtually unbreakable.
His second serves were over 180 km / h and his volleys were impeccable.
Even Agassi who in my opinion is better returner than Federer wasn’t able to come even close to breaking that serve except once when Sampras came back from 0:40 with 5 first serves.
Indoors Fast Carpet: Sampras – Federer: 50% – 50%
Again, Sampras’ serve would keep him out of trouble and he would be able to take huge risks on Federer’s serve and eventually make a break or two.
Roger in the other hand is capable of playing every shot in the book and would be able to adapt his tactics to exploit any weakness in Pete’s game.
Hard court: Sampras – Federer: 40% – 60%
Here I see Roger Federer being able to get a few more solid returns on Pete’s serve and have more chances to break.
He would have the upper hand from the baseline if he could avoid Pete’s forehand for the most of the time.
Remember that we are talking about Pete Sampras at his best and at those times he could hit a winner off his forehand from almost any part of the court.
Clay: Sampras – Federer: 10% – 90%
Roger Federer basically loses only to Rafael Nadal on clay if he is in his prime. I give Pete Sampras a slight chance based on his fantastic performance in 1996 French Open when he reached semi-finals.
Here are the players that Pete beat on his way to semi-finals:
Magnus Gustafsson 6-1, 7-5, 7-6
Sergi Bruguera 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 2-6, 6-3
Todd Martin 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2
Scott Draper 6-4, 7-5, 6-2
Jim Courier 6-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
Pete eventually lost to Yevgeny Kafelnikov but not because Kafelnikov was a better player but because Pete was totally exhausted from all those 5 setters.
So what are your thoughts on Sampras – Federer match up if they were at their best?
- Related posts:
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Yes, Sampras was an amazing player, definately one of the greats….however for me Federer is the supreme master!
He is very exciting to watch and totally dominates this sport despite the fact that there are so many superb, strong, quality players on the circuit currently.
He does not posess any weaknesses and can produce any shot in the book at his disposal. His focus is incredible, and his fitness levels are inhuman.
If you watch him closely, he dosen’t really look like he is trying at all, he barely breaks a sweat…he is just awesome and inspiring.
I had a passion for tennis many years ago (Borg Mcenroe era), that literally stopped dead, period, in the early eighties..fast forward to 2000 and Roger Federer has re-ignited that passion again for me.
So much so that I have joined a club, taken my own tennis to new highs, coached my son to a good standard, and just can’t get enough of the game.
My ambition (and my son’s too) is to see him play ‘live’. If I could fulfil that then I will die happy!!!
Thanks Roger Federer….the best tennis player past, present and probably future.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, John.
I hope you get to see Federer live soon. I also haven’t seen him live and he and Pete will be playing 2 hours flight time from where I stay right now but unfortunately I don’t think I’ll be able to see them. Still not totallly free but I will be in 3 months.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:41 am
John
We’re probably around the same age, I too was a big fan of Borg and loved the Borg McEnroe encounters. I totally can relate to the Federer phanomenon, Federer is truly amazing I too doubt that there will be a better player ever. I hope to see him play live at the Australian Open in 08, can’t wait.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
hi,
i saw both players play at their prime.and i can assure you that roger federer is lucky to be now in his prime and not in the 90´s where there were much more champions playing and more important, very good players playing serve and volley which fed is not used to play.At that time federer would have had to play at a very high level to reach the quartel final of a slam facing names like Becker.Courier,Agassi and of course Sampras in almost every tournement and i really dont know if he would have dominated like he is doing now.When he has to face Nadal,a ver good player in the final of a tournement he has big troubles also on grass.but lets have a look on the statistics: Nadal vs Federer: 8:5. Pete would have dominated him with his aggressive play.this is my opinion.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hi Clark,
Thanks for the comments and you raise some very good points there. I agree that 10 years ago there were more players in the top 10 of Federer’s and Nadal’s level. Now we have only two great champions.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:23 am
there is no doubt that sampras pales in comparision to federer…we are no judges as to who had better opposition and the only player who has played both of them in their prome….agassi, gives the verdict in favour of federerDESPITE being one of sampras’s best friends!!!!the streaks thegrand slams the wins are all in favour of fedex and the fact that his consistent perfomances on clay definitely rule in favour of federer
November 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
It is a tough question. Who is better? Sampras or Federer? I was lucky during my career to have played Pete on a number of occasions but retired years before the magic of Roger hypnotized the whole world.
You truly can’t say. Sampras was exceptional no clue and probably I knew deep inside that I could not win a slam while Pete was at his peak.
I think that nobody matched Pete when he was at his best and I think that if Roger and Pete played at their best it would be frankly very interesting. Pete had an extraordinary faculty of gearing up his level when playing better players. And I think that he would have found a way to outplay Roger with all respect I have for his exceptional talent. Boris Becker
November 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Hey Boris,
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your tennis thoughts! So what’s going on with your life right now? How many times per week do you play tennis? Playing any tennis exhibitions?
November 13th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I wish that they could have played more while Sampras was in his prime too. These matches at the end of november (they play three times, 11/20, 11/22, 11/24) are going to be great fun to watch but i feel sampras may have been retired too long. however, the seemingly unstoppable Federer has faltered recently, having just lost to Fernando Gonzalez. maybe Samp has a chance.
fyi, the matches will be on the tennis channel live, and tape delayed in prime time. for people who don’t get TC, like me, they will have streaming video of the entire match online at http://www.thetennischannel.com/federer_sampras/
November 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hi Gabriel,
Yes, I Sampras - Federer matches are going to be a lot of fun and also very interesting for us, tennis experts.
And thanks for the link to the tennis channel streaming video!
November 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Sampras Vs Federer-Sampras 70% Federer 30%. In Sampras’ day there was a deeper field, tougher to make the final, guys that knew what it felt like to win slams. (Grass was faster at Wim. as was court at Oz, then as well; slower grass helps Fed. hurts serve and volley guys), Fed gets to much respect from the other players, is given to much time. In Sam. day more serve and volley guys take away the time. Fed. needs time guys that hurt him don’t give him time. I think for true match up must look at early Sam. game. His game was much more all court-good back hand- fine tuned his game- didn’t need other weapons later in career.
Sampras: bigger serve-best ever?, serve and volley-best ever? maybe with Laver?, Good all court game, fighter, knew how to figure people out, very very hard to break. bigger intangible factor than Federer.
Federer:greatest shot maker all time, serve excellent,not par with Sampras), drops some service games and occasionally sets Sampras never let him have those back. Sampras harder to break better at holding than Federer. Federer proven that he can be flustered. Sampras had to work harder in his career every match, every tournament many grand slam winners in there prime. Now how many? French open what four five setters? before loss?
I think games to be played now all go to Federer. Maybe Sampras do it again next year be fired up and maybe take it to Fed- not this year though. Mayber needs to realize he hates to lose again.
Real slam winner Laver 18 slams if you count the pro opens played in the interim period between amateur and pro years.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
grass 40 and 60 . .
fed is best player in faster courts . . .
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I tend to agree with what Brett says, but not as high a percentage. 60-40 Sampras. Federer shows that agressive players make him falter and there weren’t as many as agressive as Sampras. I also agree with the tough holding part as is shown by the second duel of the aging superstar against the maybe best of all time in his prime no breaks and fed wins in tie breakers.
As well there just aren’t as many grand slam winning players in the field currently, grand slam winners have that intangible they know how to win the big points. Doesn’t it seem odd that the only guy to really challenge fed on grass is the only other grand slam winner in the last three years? Wierd that he’s the best clay court player and challenges the current best grass player on grass. Every other player is just fodder. Fed doesn’t seem to have to fight as hard to get to the final’s thus is fresher. In the period Sampras played there were how many all time greats? Early year’s; Mac., Conners, Edberg, Lendl…, then Courier, Becker, All those clay court guys, Agassi, Rafter, Safin (my personal favorite male slut), then you can throw in Hiewit, Roddick, etc.. as well as another dozen guys that one slams like Chang Stich, did I miss anyone? Who in the curren day and age will go down as all time greats? other than maybe the greatest Federer? How many slam winners are playing now in even the top twenty? Nadal, Moya, Safin, Roddick, Hiewit, are any of these other than Nadal and Fed. even close to a top 50 all time greats list? It’s easy to say that it’s because Feds. so good that they don’t have a chance. I don’t think that’s a valid arguement like Sampras he loses to lesser talented guys occasionally maybe a little boredom setting in? But other Nadal when was the last time you saw Fed in an all time great match. Certainly not at the French he got smoked, maybe the Wim. Final with Nadal. that was a fantastic couple of sets… Until he got injuried Nadal looked in form to take it.
I think mens tennis now plays like most womens sports you got three or four players worth a damn and the rest are just filling space (I’m a woman). Theres was more depth ten years ago than now. Finally Sampras was just so pretty when he won his first slam, though like most guys you all get neadertholic as you get older.
Anyway that’s my take and I’d bet my e cups I’m right.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Pistol Pete is the king of all time. He put any lingering doubt to his greatness when he took Federer to two tiebreakers in Malaysia and ultimate derailed the Fed-Express in Macao with a 7-6, 6-4 win. Who would have thought Pistol Pete can derail the Fed-Express after five years of retirement? Fed is overachieving because he had too much time against most of the current ATP lackies. You can see that Pete games of relentless attack bothers Federer so much because he had no time to run around his backhands or getting away with defensive shots. Before, every time when Federer was in defensive situations he was able to get out of trouble with defensive slices but he couldn’t do that against the mighty Pete because Pistol Pete would be at the net and put away any weak shots Federer threw his way. Basically, the only way Fed can win any point in defensive mode is by hitting great passing shots and the odds are astronomically in favor of Mr. Pete winning most of those points because even as great a player as he is Federer can’t hit out of this world passing shots all the time in rushed situations. I honestly don’t think Federer can’t even come close to Pete if the situation is reversed. GO PISTOL PETE !!!!!!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Hey Tung,
That’s some good analysis you wrote here. Yes, Pete’s game definitely bothers Federer (and anyone else for that matter
) especially on fast sufaces.
I’m very glad that Federer and Sampras agreed to play these matches since we can learn from them and enjoy the complexity and diversity of tennis through our different views on the game and players.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I too, have watched both players in their prime and I am a big fan of Federer and Sampras. I have to agree with one of the comments above that Sampras was capable of raising his game to a level that would probably top Federer if both players played against each other in their prime. I watched the exhibitions in Malaysia and China and was blown away by Sampras’s game particularly in the last match. I hope that Pete considers playing Wimbledon in 08 because he would definitley do some damage. Returning to the tour full time is a joke because no one could hold up at 36 years old but I am convinced that Pete would have a very good shot of winning Wimbledon on the verge of 37 years old if he committed to training hard for one major tournament.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Pete is the best ever in serve and volley I’ve ever seen it’s scary. But that style of game has slowly died away because the game has changed and newer players have caught on so it’s harder to do that kind of game. Pete would have to work even harder if he was playing in his prime in today’s game. I think federer can figure out pete’s game. I’m not saying it would be a stomping, but I don’t think pete can dominate federer. Hewitt has a winning record against Sampras and sampras’ clay is not the best (so he doesn’t compete on clay as much as he should have). Still, you don’t win 14 grand slams as a chump. I’ve seen him play and he’s scary.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Federer would win 75% of their matches. He is much better than Sampras.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
In their only official professional meeting at Wimbledon 2001, Pete was only slightly past his prime and Federer a 19 year old junior. Then unknown Federer won in five sets in the round of 16. Pete won the US Open the following year while Federer didn’t reach his prime until 3-4 years later.
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.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
One writer makes reference to Hewitt’s winning record over Sampras. Hewitt is one of the few players who faced both players during their prime while still in his own. Federer’s record against Hewitt is impeccable. There is no doubt that Pete is the greatest serve and volley player, but the game has changed so much that serve and volley players no longer dominate. Even the Wimbledon commentators have noticed that in year’s past the grass by the net area used to be torn up by early in the second week, and yet in the last two years the grass is now greenest at the net area by week two as serve an volley players have come to realize they don’t have a chance.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I think sampras should play wimbledon i seriously think if gets himself in the right shape he could win wimbledon it would not surprise me at all
March 21st, 2008 at 6:32 am
Just because there are fewer serve and volleyers doesn’t mean it’s because that style won’t hack it anymore. The reason less serve and volleyers is probably that the game is taught from the baseline first, major tennis academies like Bollieteri’s don’t focus on that style of game, and due to individual player preferences. Perhaps even a player like Agassi had a lot to do with it, making the baseline game look so glamorous. Those short points that were smooth like James Bond in their ruthless efficacy that Sampras played, require more precision, a better serve and a more aggressive mindset. It’s easier when learning the game to just stand back and do the up and down rhythmic cardio of baseline practice rather than the continual sprint to the front line of fire following a serve with a volley.
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)?
March 21st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Hey Jeffrey,
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!
April 10th, 2008 at 3:36 am
I think this question can be considered from a number of angles:
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…)
June 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I have to agree largely with the original author of the article.
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.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Edit, I meant to say 60% or greater wins for Fed vs. Sampras on HC.
On carpet, I think 50:50.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
As Boris Becker said, it would be close but Pete Sampras would prevail.
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.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 am
Sampras is the Rocky Balboa of tennis. I dont know whether he’d beat Federer or not, but I’d be rooting for him.