Federer versus Sampras, who is really the greatest of all time?

Question

We've all heard the arguments over which of these guys is the greatest. I personally think Federer is the greatest because he has done the things Pete has and hasn't done already at age 26 and two slams away from breaking his record and could easily break it before this year is over, but others say Sampras. So I want to know who you think is the best and why.

Answer 1

I really hate these, "greatest of all time" questions....

It dishonors the legends of the game....

All things considered: court construction changes, equipment changes, etc, etc. etc. There are so many things that players can take advantage of now (including technology) which helps their game that players of old didn't have....h**l, even the clothing is better now in terms of comfort and protection (i.e. footwear).

Suggestion: can't we just ask who we think is the greatest player in their time?

Answer 2

Right now I put them as tied.  Sampras achieved what he did during the golden era of modern tennis.  This was a tough time to play due to a high level of talent on tour at the time, as well as a lot of variety. Racquet technology was also modern and advanced, but it was at a more realistic level. Today, the technology in racquets seem to be a little past overdoing it. Sampras also stayed No.1 for a long time and of course, winning the most singles slam titles to this day.

If Federer continues what he's been doing for the past years, then he will naturally overtake Sampras.  It's just waiting for him, but he has to get there through time. Federer's big advantage is also in terms of style and technique.  He is just more fluid and natural than Sampras. He's like a modern version of the classic tennis legends. Federer appears to be more likely to take long matches and grind it out on the tour while still looking fit and fresh.  Federer is also closer to winning the French Open than Sampras was.  One person (Nadal) is just in his way.  Federer is up there with Nadal in clay matches and he has had great clay court results as well. Sampras has this gap if you imagine his career, and this was the clay.  Federer doesn't really have a gap.  He is very all-court and has no "weakness is clay" tag.

Overall, both are legends. But to ask greatest of all time has to be divided into early era and modern era because there was also the great time of Laver and his era.

Answer 3

federer

Answer 4

at this moment - I am confused......

but if it was a month before - Federer would have been my obvious choice.

Answer 5

Sampras. Pete has a record of 14 grandslams, and roger has 12.

Answer 6

FEDERER, even if he doesn't break Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slams, records aren't everything.

Answer 7

According to record it's pretty even between the two

but Sampras never got massacred so bad as Federer in his prime by Nadal

Also Sampras in his washed-up forty some year old body beated Federer in his prime last year Macau

so I say Sampras by a short margin

Answer 8

Its sampras. Federer should break the 2 records set by sampras otherwise he being the greatest is questionable.

1. 14 grand slams

2. 6 consecutive year end world #1

Answer 9

I agree with whateverdawgg and liveyourlife... The competition back during Sampras's time was much harder. People say the competition now is just as hard (some claim it's even harder now) as it was during the Sampras era. Besides Nadal (mainly on clay) and now Djokovic name me the players who are as good or even better than Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, etc. Davydenko? Roddick? Blake? Youzhny? Ferrer? lol.

Lot of people also say Sampras never made it to the french open finals and federer has made 3 thereby again making fed a better player... here's a possible reason: The best ever clay court player Rafa Nadal is ranked #2, it means he can meet Roger only in the finals. Sampras had to go through much better clay courters (none of them can be as good as Nadal but they were certainly better than the current clay courters). If Rafa was ranked lower, then he could have met Roger in the qtr's or semi's (if they were in the same half) and then roger wouldn't have made it to the french open finals. If Fed was playing in the Sampras era, I don't think he'd have even half the # of GS's he has now and he wouldn't have been anywhere close to being dominant.

Answer 10

I would say sampras. in the 90's there was more competition. in sampras's era players had all sorts of unique qualities that suited there game. now days courts are slower, rackets are better, and anyone can become an all court player. yes, federer has more of a complete game but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time. federer hasn't been through all the tough emotional times that sampras went through: coach died, health betraying him at tight moments because of his illness but was still able to pull through and win his matches(us open 96 QF v corretja). its not what sampras hasn't done, its what he did that makes him the greatest player. and who knows maybe federer might not break sampras's record. anything can happen in tennis like chang defeating lendl and winning the french. oh and federer is 3 slams short of breaking sampras's record. if he won wimbledon and the us open this year he would only tie with sampras's record at 14 so federer can't beat sampras this year since he lost the AO and the FO. he would have to win the rest this year and one slam next year. personally i am a fan of sampras and federer but i think even though federer has more quality matches, sampras had more emotional matches that really had you off your seat. that's why i think sampras is the pinnacle of all the great tennis players.

Answer 11

i completely agree with whateverdawg. sampras is the best. it says something when sampras, being 10 years older than federer, can beat him in an exhibition and then come close to beating him again in another one. if it were possible to see sampras in his prime play federer in his prime sampras would win. if he can beat federer at his age he's definitely the best ever. records mean nothing (even though sampras has him beat there too).

Answer 12

I agree with the previous answers.  Sampras had to go against much more formidable opponents than Federer did.  Looks at the players he had to fight off:  Agassi (8 grand slam titles), Edberg (6 grand slam titles), Becker (6 grand slam titles), Courier (4 grand slam titles).  He also played and defeated Wilander, Lendl and McEnroe.  That's something that Federer never had to face.  

Sampras also was much more consistent than Federer was.  From 1990 until 1999 Sampras won at least 4 titles every year.  He stayed as #1 a total of 286 weeks (which is still almost 60 weeks more than Federer so far).  Has been ranked in the top 10 for 12 consecutive years.  Reached a grand slam final for 11 consecutive years.  And of course finished as year-end #1 for 6 consecutive years.

Answer 13

Considering the Grand Slam title, and the longest period on no. 1 spot, it's Sampras. But, considering the most period of consecutive weeks in no. 1 spot, it's Federer. But, mostly, I think Sampras is still the greatest one until now!

Answer 14

It's Federer.  You can argue the titles either way, but Federer is just a more complete player than Sampras.  

Sampras was serve & volley, plus a potent forehand.  He was basically a supreme offensive player.  Federer has a good serve (not as good as Sampras), but also a devastating forehand and backhand.  He's good offensively, defensively, and plays better on more surfaces.

The fact Federer plays against Nadal, who's at the very least in the top 2 of all time greatest clay court players (and will likely be #1) has diminished how good Federer is.  Federer has been runner up in 3 consecutive French Open Finals, so he's basically the 2nd best clay court player of his generation, while being the best hard & grass court player.  Sampras was very average on clay.

Both are top 5 all-time, but Federer's game is just more complete.