who is the best tennis player ever? Federer or Sampras?
604005
Of the 2, it's still Sampras. Federer has done some amazing things.- 24 straight wins in finals, longest hard-court winning streak, 7 Slam titles so far. He's also possibly the most gifted player in history. He can routinely hit shots that noone else ever tries. He can play offense and defense equally well. \nEven so, if you look at what Pete acheived (14 Slams, #1 for six straight years, the competition he faced), it's hard to argue that Federer is better. In a few years he may well be, but he'll need to win a few more Majors first.
548645
Theres no doubt that Nadal is a great player, however, he only truly shines when playing on clay.  Federer on the other hand, has mastered all surfaces and has become a legend when compared to Nadal.  BUT, at the Roland Garros, since it IS a clay tournament, Nadal definitely may have an upper hand, as he has shown in the past when playing Federer.  It is a tough prediction, and, considering Nadal has had a lot of down time from being injured, I think that Federer might be able to pull out the next French.
1026809
I think this is Federer's turn to finally beat Nadal on clay because his reign of however many consecutive wins is up.  Believe me, I'm not taking anything from the youngster because he's damn good but I think this is Federer's French open.  Maybe I'm just thinking ahead.
1026982
Me too. Federer is unbeatable on grass & is the hot favorite for Wimbledon. Nadal will progress only upto 3rd rd or even before that like last yr. He has problems on all surfaces except clay. He is an incomplete player. Here he cant run down every ball of Roger unlike on clay where he has plenty of time to stay in the point. Nadal has the foll dismal record in other Grandslams:\nWimbledon 2005:R64 lost to G. Muller\nUS Open 2005:R32 lost to J. Blake
676002
The one and only Swiss tennis star ROGER FEDERER!!!!!!!!!!!
46056
Federer would win against all of these players. His return and passing shots are sufficiently strong to break Sampras and McEnroe. Borg vs. Federer would be interesting, with Borg's speed and topspin shots. However, Federer's pace and angles give him an edge. \nFederer truly has it all--strong serve (though not overpowering), fabulous topspin groundstrokes, excellent slice, solid volleys, the best footwork I've ever seen, and the ability to change strategies to cope with any opponent. The ONLY things mildly lacking to date is his fitness level (capitalized on by Nadal) and his willingness to be ruthless in closing out a match. For example, when Baghdatis was cramping in the fourth set of the Australian, instead of keeping his intensity and rolling through the set, Federer eased up and coasted.\nAll of this must be qualified by the surface. Sampras, Becker, Borg, and McEnroe all might win on grass. On clay, Federer beats these but could be beaten on a given day by any number of clay court specialists. I'll make it easy, though--if Federer played any other player in history one match on each of the four surfaces, he clearly should win at least three of four.\nIf Federer is on his game I would pick him against anyone else.
403337
For now, I would say Sampras because he did it for longer.  They both can play various styles but within that variety,  I'd say Sampras was more of a classic power player and Federer the more "artistic", touch player.\n\nWhen it's all said and done, and if Federer has a few more dominant years, I think that most people will answer your question with "Federer".  I'm definitely pulling for him to break Sampras' record for most majors won in a career.
412582
Roger Federer.He is from Switzerland and the Swiss Government awarded him a cow for winning the Wimbledon.
1172202
Federer, Agassi, Nadal, Roddick, Mayer,and Hewitt!
746977
Rodger Federer? Tiger Woods?
609040
Rafael Nadal and David Nalbaldian both have superior head to head records. Most of these wins have come on clay courts in which these two are more adept than Federer at the tytpe of gameplay. While Federer is still a great clay court player, the two Spaniards grew up on clay, and Federer's game caters more toward hard surfaces and grass surfaces.
666402
For men, you'd have to say Pete Sampras.  He won Wimbledon 7 times, against relatively tough competition.  For clay, I'd probably pick Borg who won the French Open six times.  Although I'd believe a modern player like Nadal would beat Borg, that has as much to do with modern equipment as anything.  For hard courts, I'll pick Ivan Lendl.  Lendl had perhaps the worst win record of anyone of his talent, but he reached the U.S. Open final from 1982-1989, which is 8 consecutive years in a row, and he won it 3 years in a row.  Had Lendl been just a little tougher mentally, he would be considered the best player ever.\n\nFor doubles, hmm, I'll go with the classic of John McEnroe and Peter Fleming, although there were many very talented doubles teams.  Its popularity has fallen due to a lack of a top singles player.\n\nFor women on grass, I'll pick Martina Navratilova. I know. She won Wimbledon 9 times, and she was a finalist 3 more times.  That's a lot of times to reach the finals.  Steffi Graf won 7 times as a baseliner, but I prefer to see a serve and volleyer on grass, especially considering how few women play this style of tennis anymore.  On clay, Chris Evert was the queen of clay, winning the French Open 7 times and reaching the finals twice more.  Women's hard courts is a close call.  Martina won the US Open on hard court 4 times, but was finalist 4 more times.  Steffi Graf won it 5 times, and was finalist 3 more times.  I'll give the edge to Graf. \n\nFor women's doubles, I'd pick Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver.  They're the only doubles player to win the Grand Slam.  They won 109 matches in a row, a record.\n\nIf you had to pick mixed doubles, you'd have to pick Margaret Court who won a mixed Grand Slam in 1963 with Ken Fletcher, then again in 1965, with three different partners (John Newcombe, Ken Fletcher, Fred Stolle).
896237
i prefer nadal although without a doubt federer is a much more superior player at the moment but nadal is a few years his junior and i think he can catch up to him
970906
i couldn't really say yes basing solely on federer's winning titles and the fact that he has acquired more than sampras at the same age.\n\n\nthe deal is, in the pete sampras era, another tennis great was co-dominating the circuit --- andre agassi. federer had no real competition (the competition that agassi gives to sampras is incomparable to that of nadal-roddick.) which is the reason why he has won more tennis matches
627950
Nadal does make Federer work very hard. But that's what Roger has lacked, good competition. I think it will improve his game as such. You must fall into a rut when you don't have opposition that challenges and pushes you to stay at your best. You are only as good as your competition and it's good that he now has some. I think Roger will be grateful for Nadal and will rise to the challenge. It's good for tennis.  But overall Federer is one of the most talented players I think I will ever have the pleasure to witness. So I will say Federer.
622241
Roger Federer is getting there boys.  He might do it.  Just keep watching, he might be the best in the world in the history of tennis in a couple of years.
1034312
Federer seems like a pretty good bet. He's won the last three and he looks like he's adjusting to grass well this year.\nOn the women's side there's not really a clear favorite but Sharapova's got a decent chance. Maybe Mauresmo too.