is roger federer a better tennis player than pete sampras?
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
1018991
its federer or nadal.
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.
422112
Lleyton Hewitt from Australia beat Pete Sampras.
695331
No, but he is among the greatest players of alltime. The fact of\nthe matter is, if he was able to win the US Open a few times,\nhe might not have left the game so early. He could have been\nthe greatest player ever, since the rate he was winning Slams during his peak years was even better than Sampras. His failure to win the US Open, despite four trips to the final, is what ultimately forced him to retire prematurely. If he had won even once in those four trips, I'm guessing he would have hung around the sport longer. Another factor is he didn't like to play so frequently, and the new rules that were coming into play would\nhave forced him to do that to retain his world ranking. Those two\nfactors probably had more to do with anything else for the reasons he didn't retire in his 30s, instead of his mid 20s, when\nmost players are about to hit their prime, or are in their prime.\n   No one has able to achieve the French Open-Wimbledon\ndouble in the same year since Borg did it (1976, 1978,1979,1980). Jim Courier (won 1993 French Open, lost in 1993 Wimbledon final), Rafael Nadal (won 2006 French Open and lost in 2006 Wimbledon final) and Roger Federer (lost 2006 French Open final, and won 2006 Wimbledon final) have come the closest in this regard. Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg also came close. Ivan Lendl won the 1987 French Open but lost in the 1987 Wimbledon final to Pat Cash. Stefan Edberg lost in the 1989 French Open final to Michael Chang and the 1989 Wimbledon final to Boris Becker. Bjorn Borg the French Open six times, but it wasn't in 6 consecutive years (1974, 1976, 1978-1981). Manuel Orantes won the French Open in 1975, while\nGuillermo Vilas won the 1977 French Open men's singles title.\nI think Borg didn't play the French Open in 1975 or 1977, but I'm\nnot sure. He did win Wimbledon five consecutive years (1976-1980), and made the final in 1981. Roger Federer has a chance\nto equal Borg's modern era record in 2007 and has to reach the final in 2008 to equal Borg's mark of 41 consecutive wins at \nWimbledon in the modern era. I forgot about how close John\nMcEnroe came in 1984 to winning the French Open against\nIvan Lendl. He went on to win Wimbledon and the US Open\nthat same season. I think his 1984 season is still one of the greatest seasons in tennis history for a male or female player.
42769
Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, Marat Safin, Pete Samprass
575069
The one and only Swiss tennis legend ROGER FEDERER  !!!!!!!!!
629847
Pete Sampras (USA) def. Todd Martin (USA), 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1056008
Federer, he is amazing to watch almost one of the best players of all time except when he is matched against nadal
448495
I has to be pete sampras
461638
A major reason Federer can Ace Agassi more often than he can Nadal is that Nadal is much faster on court.  You are talking about placement and speed of the ball and if you hit the outside corner on Agassi you may get it by him, but because Nadal is faster, he has more opportunity to get to the ball.  This is much the same reason Federer has problems beating Nadal on clay.  Clay is a much slower surface and Nadal's speed matched with the speed (slowness) of the ball makes it a much better surface for Nadal than Federer.
622903
Sampras was an absolutely brilliant tennis player .\nBut in my opinion Roger Federer , The Swiss tennis star ..\nhe is improving in each and every match ..\nthe way he playing every match shows he is having tgreat talent\nHe is SUPERB ..\n TALENT + HARD WORKING  that is federer
1062021
I tried to look up his record, and I didn't find any record of the person you mentioned ever playing in any of the major tournaments.  \n\nOops, I thought I was in the tennis section.
676002
The one and only Swiss tennis star ROGER FEDERER!!!!!!!!!!!
632745
Nadal grew up on clay and thrives on it. While Federer is still an excellent clay-court player, he has not mastered the slides, bounces, and overall gameplay the same way Nadal has by practicing on it his whole life. Federer's game is more geared towards clay and grass.
493078
Its going to be a tough competition between Nadal n Federer. But looking at the superb form of Nadal, I think Nadal might pull off his 2nd Grand SLam title too considering Federer has never gone past the Quarter finals of French Open.
491740
nadal was very very lucky to beat Federer on hard court and he'll have to have all the good luck available in the universe to beat him on grass.\nbut he is good on clay and I'll give him the credit for beating Federer here.but Federer is fast improving on clay also and I'll love to see him defeat Nadal in the final of French Open.