Prime Sampras v Prime Federer - Wimbledon Final, who would u Pick ?
 

Would be a real tough one !

Sampras was as unbeatable on grass at one point as Federer is now.

Who would you pick ?

Federer, he simply just has too much game. Sampras served and volleyed on both 1st and 2nd serve on grass. No way he could get away with that against Federer, he's just too good of a returner. Something Brad Gilbert said struck me last week. He said "nobody out-aces Roger Federer", meaning he's just too good at reading his opponent's serve. Even Roddick with his cannon serve can't do it. Sampras would have to stay back at least on 2nd serves and he's no match for Federer from the baseline. The only way Sampras could win is with a 1st serve % over 70%.

i think it's tough, a situation win... but how bout' that nadal kid, situation or is he the real thing?

pete in his prime.

Sampras. He was just dominant at Wimbledon.

Federer. The former players are saying he is the best/most talented ever for a reason.

Until a young Roger Federer stopped his quest for a 5th straight Wimbledon title in 2001. :)

Grass - Push
Clay - Federer
Hardcourts - Sampras

Too tough to call at this point.

But this is Sampras in his prime, and he was no longer in his prime in 2001.

Yup, but he was still the #1 ranked player in the world on grass and he had won 4 Wimbledon titles in a row. Federer was only 19 and the 15th ranked player in the world at the time.

Sampras. (A poll without a poll?)

Borg. :D

Petey

Let me add to my opinion, btw.

I think that in a few years, Federer is going to be better than Sampras ever was (and maybe the best period, bu that's another story). But Sampras in his prime beats 2005 Federer.

Sampras. And I agree with whoever posted that Sampras had much stiffer competition than Federer does. So I think in his prime pete could beat in his prime roger.

Too bad they can't play, I could make a lot of money off you guys. :)

I'd also like to hear arguments as to why Sampras would win. I've heard none of those yet. I'll repeat what I said above, Sampras won on grass because of his serve and his attacking game. On the serve specifically, I give advantage to Sampras on the 2nd serve only. But, Federer is a much better returner than Sampras ever was, i.e. Federer would have more chances to break him than vice-versa. Plus, Federer's overall game is better than Sampras, not to mention he moves a lot better on the court. Like I said above, Sampras could possibly win with a 1st serve % above 70 and pray for tie-breaks.

Ask yourselves why serve and volleyers are almost extinct. That's because of Andre Agassi who brought to the forefront, the importance of an aspect of the game that was somehow not really worked on that much, the return of serve. Most players today can return serve a lot better than anyone in Sampras's time, except Agassi.

I'm not even sure I buy that argument. People have brought up Agassi, Courrier, and Chang. Agassi fine. But Courrier and Chang? I say Federer, Roddick and Hewitt would beat Sampras, Courrier, and Chang. One reason is fairly simple, like all sports, tennis has evolved, and the players of today are simply better than those 10-15 years ago. Where would someone like Chang be today? Behind Hewitt and about 10 other baseliners from the Spanish/Argentinian armada.

I think Federer would easily win - in straight sets.

Aside from the good points already made by eXcentris, just look at Federer's passing game when his opponent is at the net. No way Sampras would get away with so many of those (half-)volleys (deep and pretty good, but still giving the opponent a half chance) he played back then.

i disagree. pete has alot more game than just a great serve and volley, he had a solid return game. I think people live in the present and forget how great pete really was, when federer wins as many grand slams, then present your argument.

This is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

How old are you?

Federer has won 21 finals in a row. He's won his last 36 matches on grass (his last grass loss was more than 3 years ago). He's won 3 out of 4 grand slams last season. Last year, he won 74 and lost 6. This year, he's at 56-3.

Pete Sampras was definitely a great player, but his talent is in no way comparable to Federer's.

And Roddick is probably the only somewhat competition on grass. Hard to compare different times.

i think this argument cannot be made until his career is over, and i was just looking at the past champions during the sampras era and the competition was alot tougher, i mean roddick- come on- besides a great serve, he does not have a great game, his forehand and backhand is not that great. Federer does not have any real competition. I also believe that aggasi, (the best returner the game has ever seen) in his prime would beat federer.

I'd say the equipment has evolved.

I'd like to see how these players of today would play with the equipment that Borg, Conners, and McEnroe used. That was the golden age of tennis. Those guys were real players.