Roger Federer > Pete Sampras

[MasterAndCommander]

I think it was something like 6-3, 6-4 , 6-4 or something like that. According to the newswire, Agassi was never in control of the match.

 

[Miramonti]

What will make Federer perhaps one of the greatest or the greatest isn't what he's done already, but what does in the future along with what he's already done. At this point, retiring today, there's no way he's the greater than Sampras.

 

[BullsOnParade]

I'm not sure about that, I've been watching tennis since the early 90's Kafelnikov, Sampras, Courier, Korda, Steich, Kriajeck, Phillipousis, Muster you name it, none have
possesed the game Federer has. I'm not saying they haven't had their brilliant runs but not like Federer.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
I'll admit that Roger Federer is the most complete player I have ever seen since Sampras.

Sampras was not a complete player. He just happened to have an incredibly dominant service game that hardly ever faltered; he was very good at net but not brilliant.

 

[CTrain]

Better talent ??...maybe.
Better player ??...Not even close..yet.

Yeah, he has an all around game that few can compared but he has a long way to go before becoming a better player than Sampras.
The biggest obstacle is probably desire.
After of a couple of years being the worlds best...can he be motivate to continue ??
Maybe....players will figure his game out and give him better competition.
And of course you mentioned his health.

I remembered Monica Seles used to dominate.
Martina Hingis was untouchable for a while.
People thought Serena Williams were unbeatable.

All I've saying you're jumping to conclusion a little too soon.

While its not tennis, look at Tiger Woods.
Everybody thought he would be better than everyone else for a long long time.
Seems like alot of golfers have gotten better to challenge him or that he lost focus.
Same thing can easily happen to Federer.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade
I'm not sure about that, I've been watching tennis since the early 90's Kafelnikov, Sampras, Courier, Korda, Steich, Kriajeck, Phillipousis, Muster you name it, none have
possesed the game Federer has. I'm not saying they haven't had their brilliant runs but not like Federer.

I agree with this. But for a short period of time I thought the same thing about Safin. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Tates]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade
I'm not sure about that, I've been watching tennis since the early 90's Kafelnikov, Sampras, Courier, Korda, Steich, Kriajeck, Phillipousis, Muster you name it, none have
possesed the game Federer has. I'm not saying they haven't had their brilliant runs but not like Federer.

I agree with this. But for a short period of time I thought the same thing about Safin. Draw your own conclusions.

Funny you should mention Safin.....

 

[torpid]

It's no coincidence.

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
I'll admit that Roger Federer is the most complete player I have ever seen since Sampras.

Sampras was not a complete player. He just happened to have an incredibly dominant service game that hardly ever faltered; he was very good at net but not brilliant.

incorrect. Sampras did have a good serve that relied on good placement and alot of topspin kick instead of speed and he did serve and volley semifrequently but that is not the reason he won.

Sampras also held a killer passing shot and was able to play baseline rallies if forced to.

 

[johnjbruin]

he just got pwned

 

[dr150]

So much for Feddy. Lost to "Safron."

 

[ElFenix]

doh!

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Scweet!...like Federer, but I also like Safin too...although he did rip Pete a new one in the 2000 US Open finals. A rivalry is good for Men's Tennis. And anyone that thinks that Pete just had a serve is an idiot. He had some oustanding groundstrokes as well..watch the 1990 US Open Men's final where he outslugged a heavily favored Andre Agassi in the final. Although, in his later years - his serve bailed him out a lot since he lost some of his quickness and court coverage. Go Roddick in the other semi!

 

[torpid]

His groundstrokes were good enough, but it was his volleying that really was his stronger game. Not that he was the greatest volleyer, just very good.

His running forehand was so good that it is often used to teach the stroke.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Yup, Pete's running forehand was a real beaut to watch - when he got older, the deficiencies in his backhand were really apparent - though it was still pretty damn good, but no where like Fed's.

 

[rocadelpunk]

both players are beautiful to watch.

 

[Atomicus]

Dang it.... I missed "eat my boxers" Safin beat Federer Express

 

[Ranger X]

Sampras has a hot wife.

 

[Miramonti]

They're on espn2 right now (tape delayed, 4pm cst). Its the end of the 4th set, still time to see the 5th set - some of the most brutalizing tennis ever.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade
I'm not sure about that, I've been watching tennis since the early 90's Kafelnikov, Sampras, Courier, Korda, Steich, Kriajeck, Phillipousis, Muster you name it, none have
possesed the game Federer has. I'm not saying they haven't had their brilliant runs but not like Federer.

Ditto BUT at the moment it is Pete Sampras > Roger Rederer

Time will tell if Roger Rederer is better. If he can be as 'consistent' and dominant over the next 6yrs. If he can be No1 for 6 seasons in a row. How many GrandSlams he can win.

Roger is the MOST complete player to grace Tennis so far though. He has a crazy range and talent to match. His shot making skills are the most complete.

Can't wait until the weather is better so I can play Tennis again

Koing