Is Roger Federer The Best..ever? Or Sampras?

Laver, more likely...

Sampras never won the French Open, and never even reached the finals.

Rod Laver won two Grand Slams, but faced a thinner field.

The game is so different now due to raquet technology. It would be like if the Major Leagues went to aluminum bats - you'd routinely see 80-home run seasons.

Serve and volley has become obsolete, now that even female pros are able to hit passing shots from ten feet behind the baseline. You could never do that with the old wooden raquets.

Interesting point. No pun intended.

How can Roger be the best ever when he has a fairly low winning % against Rafa? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but he's lost quite a bit against him. I'm not a tennis fan, nor am I trying to start an argument; just looking for discussion. Either way, R-Fed is the bomb!

waif wrote:

How can Roger be the best ever when he has a fairly low winning % against Rafa? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but he's lost quite a bit against him.

Rafa's head to head advantage is due solely to his success on clay. He has a losing record against Federer on grass and is even on hardcourt. They've played mostly on clay because Rafa is such a clay court specialist (before Wimbledon 2008) that on other surfaces he often loses in early rounds before he gets a chance to play Federer.

I'll babble on this:

I "like" Federer better. But I do think he has a bit of wuss in him. When he's pushed and challenged as Rafa has, he comes across as soft, his incredible game falls apart. Not in the forced sense, in the choke sense. This was less likely to happen with Sampras (who I never cared for). Federer's complete game at his best was better than Pete's, but if he was consistently challenged by Pete head to head, Pete may be able to break him down mentally and own him like Rafa does.

Some random comments:

Pete's serve was incredible, I grew to appreciate the invincibility of it, not just his first, but the combo of the first/second. No one could paint corners and maintain heat on the second serve as consistently as Pete. Roger's game when he's on has a majesty to it, he's brought some of the art of the game back. I do wish technology hadn't gotten so out of hand.

Your points are well taken.

what is what wrote:

Rafa's head to head advantage is due solely to his success on clay. He has a losing record against Federer on grass and is even on hardcourt. They've played mostly on clay because Rafa is such a clay court specialist (before Wimbledon 2008) that on other surfaces he often loses in early rounds before he gets a chance to play Federer.

True, but a lot of this was when Rafa wasn't very old and Federer was at his peak.

If Rafa can stay healthy, I think we may be asking who is the best tennis player of all time, Rafa or Federer in 10 years.

Sampras' game wasn't that interesting.

federer is wrote:

Sampras' game wasn't that interesting.

Neither was Pete.

federer is wrote:

Sampras' game wasn't that interesting.

I don't find Federer's any more so. Pete was a very boring person, but he had a great serve and volley attack when we wanted to switch it up; I think that was interesting.

just because Rafa is 4 1/2 years younger than Federer doesn't mean his prime hasnt come yet. Federer plays a select number of tourneys, rarely gets injured, and as a result could probably play excellent tennis until the age of 34. Rafa... as great as he is... will be done by the time he's 27. Although he's won 6 majors, he's never been able to stay healthy throughout an ENTIRE season. The only way he could ever catch up to PS or RF is by bagging 2/3 majors a year for a hell of a long time (yes he won 2last year but think... RF has won 3 out of 4 majors in three different seasons) Now to show my bias.... I say that Rafa is a good player naively ignoring the likelihood that he is doped up. Not to hijack this thread, but a friend of mine told me recently that in cycling at last, the Spaniards are always the best cheats cuz their 'roid tech is always like 4 years ahead of the counter measures

To answer the original thread... Federer is better. Right now it's close between the two, 14 slams a piece, Roger most consecutive weeks at #1, while Sampras had most consecutive seasons at #1. Sampras has Davis Cup title, RF has Oly gold in doubles. I think it boils down not only to Roland Garros but to clay in general. Sampras did NOTHING on clay, Roger has done QUITE A BIT on it

Federer has made it to the semifinals of 21 consecutive Grand Slams tournaments. To me, that kind of consistency may be more impressive than his wins total.

I dont' think Rafa will be in the discussion when it comes right down to it. First I don't think he'll ever dominate on the hard courts & grass like Pete/Roger, not that he can't have some success there (obviously) but his margin for error is much smaller on those surfaces, and imo that margin of error will be further eroded or disappear due to his physical issues. Unfortunately I think the type of game he plays will lead to a shorter "peak" level than the others. To some extent like Becker. When Becker was young and could dive around the court he was elite, but when he lost that half step (or physicality in general) he became good but not great, and didn't win slams.

Lastly, I concurr with the above, Roger isn't very interesting either...and Pete's game wasn't very "interesting", but what a serve...and running forehand.

Holy crap Federer is only 27! Man I guess since he's been around forever it seems like he should be older.

What era do you think was more competitive, Sampras/Agassi or Federer/Nadal?

Wyco Loco wrote:

Holy crap Federer is only 27! Man I guess since he's been around forever it seems like he should be older.

What era do you think was more competitive, Sampras/Agassi or Federer/Nadal?

Federer/Nadel between these two.

But, more a more competitive was McEnroe/Borg/Conners

tessis blows

waif wrote:

How can Roger be the best ever when he has a fairly low winning % against Rafa? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but he's lost quite a bit against him. I'm not a tennis fan, nor am I trying to start an argument; just looking for discussion. Either way, R-Fed is the bomb!

You realize that Rafa is basically the best player EVER on clay? It'd be like if Geb had run against Kipketer in the 800 a bunch of times and gotten 2nd. No shame in that. If not for Rafa, Federer would already have 20 majors.

Taking into account different era's- My Ranking

Federer

McEnroe

Laver

Sampras

Borg