Hmmmm,in 90's tennis surfaces didn't change a lot. Federer started with a fast grasscourts and if it stayed like that,he wold dominate on grass totaly. But he adopted very well on this slowing down of grass and hardcourts. Supouse that happened in 90's, I'm not sure if Sampras would have that kind of success. Then,that would aloud players like Agassi or Chang to have even more success than they had. That's why Nadal,Djoko and others are so god. Fed just has more variabillity then Sampras.
its a really good thing Fed cut that hair, he looked like a chick putting it behind his ears. doesn't really matter though,if I was the greatest tennis player of all time I'd look like whatever the hell I wanted to and wouldn't give a shit
When Pete Sampras's serve was on, and when he was at his best, he was the best ever. It's just my opinion, but I've played a lot of tennis and have watched even more. Sampras's serve was just demoralizing to the opponent when he was on.
check the stats of this match! Pete had a very good first serve percentage against Roger. I think he had a higher one then ROger and hit one more ace.
The young Roger simply had super reflexes and returns. In the year of his first wimby, he had more aces then Philipoussis who had outaced Agassi before. So, here Pete was not a weak server, just a bit worse on big points then Roger.
federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game, and Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but your doesnt count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
@Globox822 Sampras was on a streak at this time consecutively winning Wimbeldons and from what I remember he was number 1 in the world is mostly still dominating during this time. Also, Federer was no where near as good he became in the years after. In any case this was an incredible feat that many have tried but were unable to, but Federer came up with the goods. It was an great match.
@LFiers Here we go again. I have to reply to another uninformed bigot.Sampras won Wimb. 2000 and didn't win the next title in two years! in 2002 he suffered early exit at Wimbledon. 2001 was in between (in case you didn't figure it out). Sampras was done, and past his prime.
Don't know about "outsmart" and "outgunned" ....it was 5 really close sets. Great match between a 19 year old and 29 year old. Kind of like how Pete Sampras took out Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, and John McEnroe when he was 18-19 at the US Open
@khale4nia Yeah i have the match on tape and its a great match. Roger did play the big points better than Pete did and came up big when it mattered. Let's also not forget how in 1990, Lendl's US Open streak was ended by a 19 year old...Pete Sampras. lol.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmmm,in 90's tennis surfaces didn't change a lot. Federer started with a fast grasscourts and if it stayed like that,he wold dominate on grass totaly. But he adopted very well on this slowing down of grass and hardcourts. Supouse that happened in 90's, I'm not sure if Sampras would have that kind of success. Then,that would aloud players like Agassi or Chang to have even more success than they had. That's why Nadal,Djoko and others are so god. Fed just has more variabillity then Sampras.
TheDobardecko 1 week ago
demba ba is the best
hurlerbrian97 2 weeks ago
its a really good thing Fed cut that hair, he looked like a chick putting it behind his ears. doesn't really matter though,if I was the greatest tennis player of all time I'd look like whatever the hell I wanted to and wouldn't give a shit
freedomrace1 3 weeks ago
wtf is up with federers hair xD
94aman94 3 weeks ago
the best ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ thanks roger ¡
martinr345345 2 months ago
When Pete Sampras's serve was on, and when he was at his best, he was the best ever. It's just my opinion, but I've played a lot of tennis and have watched even more. Sampras's serve was just demoralizing to the opponent when he was on.
gornhorror 2 months ago
@gornhorror
check the stats of this match! Pete had a very good first serve percentage against Roger. I think he had a higher one then ROger and hit one more ace.
The young Roger simply had super reflexes and returns. In the year of his first wimby, he had more aces then Philipoussis who had outaced Agassi before. So, here Pete was not a weak server, just a bit worse on big points then Roger.
Now Rogers often sucks at big points.
ulizinho 1 month ago
@gornhorror unless he played with agassi
serena3458 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game, and Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but your doesnt count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
ILikeMarmiteALot 3 months ago
not taking anything from Federer, but Sampras was past his prime for while when they played this.
Globox822 3 months ago
@Globox822 federer wasn't in his prime that time. too
keili1212 2 months ago 7
@Globox822
i disagree. Sampras more mentally worn out rather than physically.
claus1225 2 months ago
@claus1225 talking to yourself? Where did I say anything about physically or mentally worn out?
Globox822 2 months ago
@Globox822 Sampras was on a streak at this time consecutively winning Wimbeldons and from what I remember he was number 1 in the world is mostly still dominating during this time. Also, Federer was no where near as good he became in the years after. In any case this was an incredible feat that many have tried but were unable to, but Federer came up with the goods. It was an great match.
LFiers 1 month ago
@LFiers Here we go again. I have to reply to another uninformed bigot.Sampras won Wimb. 2000 and didn't win the next title in two years! in 2002 he suffered early exit at Wimbledon. 2001 was in between (in case you didn't figure it out). Sampras was done, and past his prime.
Globox822 1 month ago
and later he lose with... henman
sampras 90s > federer
andunusblick 5 months ago
@andunusblick Currently by the record books Federer>Sampras
khemistryy 2 months ago 7
Comment removed
andunusblick 5 months ago
Don't know about "outsmart" and "outgunned" ....it was 5 really close sets. Great match between a 19 year old and 29 year old. Kind of like how Pete Sampras took out Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, and John McEnroe when he was 18-19 at the US Open
khale4nia 1 year ago
@khale4nia Yeah i have the match on tape and its a great match. Roger did play the big points better than Pete did and came up big when it mattered. Let's also not forget how in 1990, Lendl's US Open streak was ended by a 19 year old...Pete Sampras. lol.
jmk8646 1 year ago