Roger Federer perfect? Sampras was better

It's really a tough call to compare Sampras' performance with Roger's. How can we tell whether it's Federer's brilliance making him so great that we don't notice how great the other players are, or whether it's everyone else being so futile, that Roger Federer can emerge easily. It's an age old question in all of sports when a dominant force arises. Do they dominate despite or because of the strength of the competition? You can never find the answer to that question. But I know what we saw of Sampras back then and what we just witnessed with Federer were both acomplishments worthy of any superlatives. So if someone wishes to call this the greatest performance, just let him do so. It is a close enough call anyways.

It is hard to know the best performance of all time. There are so many great performances out there. However, I don't think the 1999 Wimbledon final is one of them. Reason? The surface bias. Despite winning at Wimbledon, Agassi's game was not suited to grass. Only his talent enabled him to do so well on it in spite of the limitations of his style on that surface. Despite the parity of their abilities within their own respective styles, someone with Sampras' game was always going to be at an advantage over someone with Agassi's game on a surface like grass. The surface favoured one and not the other, so one was handicapped. Had the match been on a more neutral surface, the argument might be better. Also, cheap points from Sampras' serve meant he got out of playing a lot of points. For me this is not great tennis. Karlovic, Roddick and others with big serves are able to achieve higher rankings than would otherwise be the case if their serves were returned more frequently. The anomaly of a consistently unret

The anomaly of a consistently unreturnable serve, ought not to elevate a player above their more general abilities in our eyes. Sampras was an all round great player, so he does not strictly fall into this category. However, what his serve did to get him out of scrapes cannot be compared to what Federer has to do and does. Sampras was a better server than Federer, but a lesser player in general.

You cannot make those comments about Sampras' serve for a couple of reasons. Firstly, many people deemed his second serve to be his best shot, often pulling off remarkable angles. This isn't a lack of skill- no other player has ever been able to achieve his second serve success rate. Secondly, in that match Agassi played brilliantly (and he is also the best returner the game has ever seen) but Sampras was unstoppable. IF you rewatch the match, you will see that despite Sampras' big serve the standard of the rallies was incredible. And yes his serve got him out of trouble, but Federer has a very good serve himself and this is often looked over. You cannot compare the likes of Karlovic and Roddick to Sampras just because he had a good serve, and whilst I appreciate that you recognise he does not fall into the same category as these players his name should not even be uttered in the same sentence!

In the debate about who's better -- Sampras or Federer - the focus appears to me always on number of grand slams won or the level of the competition. While these are important, what I look for ultimately is the way the game is played, and in this respect Federer ranks supreme, regardless of grand slam titles or the competition. Rod laver said it best yesterday when he remarked that it's not fair for one man - Federer - to have so much talent in one body. I have watched several of Sampras's matches, but honestly when I look back I don't remember much about his game other than his serve and net game. Boom, boom, boom. End of point. That's all I remember. No "Samras-esque" moments that I can re-live over and over. With Federer, you expect and look forward to those "federer-esque" moments in every game. They remain etched in your memory. I marvel at the way he glides on the court, like a ballet dancer, always in control. And I marvel at his shot-making. No one, not even Sampras in his prime, had

Roger Federer plays in an era of choking baseliners who are afraid of coming to the net. Andy Roddick should have served and volleyed but he elected to stay back and face a crucifiction instead. The top ten of this era is incredibly weak and it is this reason why Federer has had so much success. If you were to place Federer against Pete Sampras in the mid-to-late nineties then you'd see the Swiss maestro soon become the Swiss mouse.

Agassi may have played brilliantly, but this is testament to his ability to overcome adversity and the odds, as he did in 1992. My point is, grass is not a fair surface. It gives Sampras all the advantage and Agassi none. It is not a fair match. Had Agassi annihilated Sampras on clay, same story, Sampras's serves and volleys would not have the same bite. Agassi gave Sampras a good opportunity to exhibit his wares on grass, but could never really test him in the way a Krajicek or Federer could on the low bouncing, speedy stuff. The match may as well have been rigged. It was Agassi vs Sampras and the court. Sampras can't take credit for the peformance of the court. A fair surface would have been hard court, then you would have got a match that reflected a greater truth about their respective performances.

What exactly the point we're trying to prove? Who's the best is a silly question? Who' s the best: Mozart or Bach? I mean..seriously guys... There's two main categories: what's the most brilliant game performance and what's the most brilliant battle performance. In the first category it doesn't matter what the weaker opponent does. You needn't go to a concert and conclude that the performance of the public was all wrong. It's about the artist, no his opponent. In tennis you are limited, being brilliant is knowing to execute with perfection all the possibilities the game has. And that's Federer. Federer can do just brilliantly with a percentage of 51 fist serve, Sampras doesn't. The most brilliant warrior -on the contrary- on the field is Sampras and not Federer. And the thing about the agassi return: you would need to prove that agassi's return was actually better than Federer's. Some of the things Federer does in a reflex from behind the basline when thee ball has allready passed point to very stro

I don't want this article to promt a debate on who the better player is- and I worte it because of the claims being made my many experts yesterday. In my opinion, Federer's performance yesterday was stunning but didn't have the same aura about it that the Sampras 1999 final did.

Ive been following tennis for a long time . I ve never come across phrases such as 'ballet dancer' , ' most complete player' ' rejuvinating mens tennis' 'greatest ever' etc used so often so early in his carrer .. Federer, Dear sir, is bringing much forgotten "All Court Tennis" back into the mens game - you dont measure the greatest of Federer's game by comparing his game to anyone elses , but look at what he is doing to the whole field - Statistics dont reveal the sheer impossibility of the jaw dropping angles he creates in his shots not does it reveal the ethereal beauty of his butterfly like movement on court - Sorry to say, I never remotely felt anything like that watching Sampras. Even if Federer does not win another match in his life - he'll still be leagues above Sampras or any other post 70's Player for the sheer joy he has brought to ordinary tennis fans.

what about clay mate. he is poor in clay, do you know that

This article is not a comparison over the 2 players careers etc, this is looking at 2 individual matches. If people want to look past this then fine, but that is the basis of the article.

I am not sure what you have in mind -- But the whole article seems like an arguement for deducing Sampras is BETTER than a 'PERFECT' Federer. We need to have a better title for the article if we dont want people to get confused. Perphaps we could use : Federer's Victory not as good Sampras' or use some nested logic ...(Fed vs. Andy) vs. ( Pete vs. Andre) or something like that ... you know ..something less mischevious.

We will never know who would have won a match (not on clay) between top Federer and Top Sampras.It looks like Federer got more game,but it also look like the guys Sampras went against to win his majors and those Federer going against are not in the same league.Who exactly today is as good as prime Becker?Rafter?Sampras went against everyone from Mcenroe ,lendel all the way to Federer's own generation.And he majors against all of them.Is there anyone today who can serve and volley like pete,rafter,edberg?Roddick looked pathetic with his movement and net coverage.

This is poorly written and poorly argued, rather than an objective articulate piece of work that might stand any chance of holding merit.

That final you refer to (I did watch it... I was a huge Agassi fan) was not a display of tennis virtuosity. It was a demonstration of dominant serving on grass. Federer's game is so much more complete than Sampras' was. They are similar players, really in one respect only: Their will to win. But that will to win and focus manifested itself mostly in Sampras' clutch serving... Federer has the ability to do almost anything better than each of his opponents. There is no player in the entire field that is significantly "better" than Federer in even a single aspect of the game. Nobody in the field returns appreciably better than Federer. Nobody serves appreciably better than Federer. Nobody has a backhand appreciably better than Federer. While you can try to make an argument that Sampras was challenged by certain rivals at times... I can counter that Sampras was never better than the whole field at everything... and that the quality of the FIELD of 128 is as good if not better than what Sampras faced.

why not simply look at the last set of the wimbledon 2001 final, both players gave everything they have, Pete was at the end of his career but still perfomed at his best level

I watch tennis since 1985. The best single performance I saw in the Slam final IMO is Safin against Sampras in 2000 USO.

Well, Sampras's best surface, Agassi's worst. Federer destroyed Roddick on Roddick's best surface. Federer's performance was an impressive display, but not the best I have seen from him. He does this kind of thing so often, that's what's astonishing. Sampras always beat Agassi when they met at Slams with quick surfaces (US & Wimbledon), but never at Slams with slower surfaces(Australian & French). Sampras was able to take Agassi apart on grass(no surprises there), but he was'nt allowed to do the same when he met an underdeveloped Federer. Sampras fans have to let go. Sampras was still a great player, just not the best.

1.FEDERER 2-6 Kramer, Budge, Gonzales,Laver,Tilden ( in any order. Remember afterv they won Wimbledon,and Us they turned pro and could not play in the majors any more. 7-10 Sampres, Riggs, Perry, Von Cramm

Ask Agassi if he agrees with you.He says Roger has a greater range of shots and plays' in a way I've never seen before.'Having played Roger many times Agassi would know.

Whilst Federer clearly has the better overall game , he can hit a wider variety of shots etc, if Sampras was serving at his best, it was basically impossible to break him, and no matter how much variety Roger has, he would not be able to overcome that. People also seem to think Sampras could only serve and volley, but I can't think of one player with a more effective forehand than pete, notice I put more effective, not better, since federers forehand is probably better, but is probably no more effective.

1. The title of the article is misleading. It implies that Sampras was a great player than Federer. Most tennis experts state that Federer is the greatest of all time, and that Laver would be second, not Sampras. 2. I wonder if there is some artificial memory going on here. Maybe Tim Love remembers a bigger thumping than I do, but that scoreline was nowhere near as dominating as the Federer/Roddick game. All Sampras did was break Agassi once in eash set.