Who was better, Sampras or Federer?

[El Dude]

If I remember well Roger beat Sampras when this last one was almost in the end of his career, a visible decline, correct?

Sampras was NOT on the decline. He went on to the US Open final that year and went on to win the US Open the next year.

He most certainly WAS on the decline, and had really started teetering a few years before. Of course he was still an elite player, but 2001 Sampras was not the same player he had been 3-4 years ago. But if you examine his record, the decline really starts in 1998.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

If I remember well Roger beat Sampras when this last one was almost in the end of his career, a visible decline, correct?

Sampras was NOT on the decline. He went on to the US Open final that year and went on to win the US Open the next year.

He most certainly WAS on the decline, and had really started teetering a few years before. Of course he was still an elite player, but 2001 Sampras was not the same player he had been 3-4 years ago. But if you examine his record, the decline really starts in 1998.

Here is the TRUTH. He was exactly the same player from several years before, he just stagnated.

Sampras fully admits he made no effort to improve his game, just to maintain it. His mantra was "maintain, maintain, maintain". The difference was Agassi had gotten out of the doldrums, Rafter improved immensely, and it was the beginning of the Luxilon era...and he took some drubbings here and there. He lost to two future hall of famers in the 2000 and 2001 US Open finals.

 

[the AntiPusher]

To me Sampras has been one of the most boring tennis player that I remember and not just his game but also his personality :cover

Fortunately Carol, we don't have to spend any time in the company of great tennis players. We just have to watch them play tennis. Pete's "personality" - much as we can glean from watching him on telly - was sufficient to the task of winning great tennis matches...

Yes Ma'am Carol Kieran is correct we only have spend any time with our champions but the endearing quality about Pete was if you wanted to choose One Player to play a match with your Life or welfare riding on that match, Sampras would be one of the top 5 players that most experts would choose What Sampras lack in personality he was extremely gifted as one of one of the game's all-time favorite Warriors. Roger is a better allcourt player but Pete had the gift from God, the best first and second serve under enormous pressure EVER

 

[Luxilon Borg]

To me Sampras has been one of the most boring tennis player that I remember and not just his game but also his personality :cover

Fortunately Carol, we don't have to spend any time in the company of great tennis players. We just have to watch them play tennis. Pete's "personality" - much as we can glean from watching him on telly - was sufficient to the task of winning great tennis matches...

Yes Ma'am Carol Kieran is correct we only have spend any time with our champions but the endearing quality about Pete was if you wanted to choose One Player to play a match with your Life or welfare riding on that match, Sampras would be one of the top 5 players that most experts would choose What Sampras lack in personality he was extremely gifted as one of one of the game's all-time favorite Warriors. Roger is a better allcourt player but Pete had the gift from God, the best first and second serve under enormous pressure EVER

Pete Sampras: 2949 double faults. Aces: 8713, Break Points faced: 3661

Roger Federer: 2390 double faults. Aces: 9576, Break points fsced: 5590

 

[the AntiPusher]

Fortunately Carol, we don't have to spend any time in the company of great tennis players. We just have to watch them play tennis. Pete's "personality" - much as we can glean from watching him on telly - was sufficient to the task of winning great tennis matches...

Yes Ma'am Carol Kieran is correct we only have spend any time with our champions but the endearing quality about Pete was if you wanted to choose One Player to play a match with your Life or welfare riding on that match, Sampras would be one of the top 5 players that most experts would choose What Sampras lack in personality he was extremely gifted as one of one of the game's all-time favorite Warriors. Roger is a better allcourt player but Pete had the gift from God, the best first and second serve under enormous pressure EVER

Pete Sampras: 2949 double faults. Aces: 8713, Break Points faced: 3661

Roger Federer: 2390 double faults. Aces: 9576, Break points fsced: 5590

The numbers you provided are they based on the exact same amount of matches?

 

[Kieran]

Sampras was NOT on the decline. He went on to the US Open final that year and went on to win the US Open the next year.

He most certainly WAS on the decline, and had really started teetering a few years before. Of course he was still an elite player, but 2001 Sampras was not the same player he had been 3-4 years ago. But if you examine his record, the decline really starts in 1998.

Here is the TRUTH. He was exactly the same player from several years before, he just stagnated.

Sampras fully admits he made no effort to improve his game, just to maintain it. His mantra was "maintain, maintain, maintain". The difference was Agassi had gotten out of the doldrums, Rafter improved immensely, and it was the beginning of the Luxilon era...and he took some drubbings here and there. He lost to two future hall of famers in the 2000 and 2001 US Open finals.

The Dude is right, Luxilon, Pete was in decline. It was definite and terminal. He was knackered after 1998 and skipped Oz in 1999, citing exhaustion. Imagine: it's the first slam of the season and he was too tired to attend. In terms of whether he stagnated or not (and I would say "not"), stagnation in a top player is actually a symptom of decline, just to show unstable your argument is.

But Pete didn't stagnante. In fact, had he maintained the same, he'd have been better off, but he fired Annacone and worked first with Tom Gullikson, then Jose Higueras in an attempt to improve on clay, until his results got so bad that he rehired Annacone who set him straight: "Just remember who you are!" He went back to the hit and charge style before the US Open in 2002, lost in the warm up events, but it all kicked in again when Rusedski riled him in a late night barnburner in the second round.

Agassi "coming out of the doldrums" didn't bother Pete. Agassi never bothered Pete. He enjoyed playing Agassi and the better Dre played, the more Pete liked it. And Rafter didn't defeat Pete in their final 4 matches after summer 1999, whether Pat improved, or not...

 

[the AntiPusher]

He most certainly WAS on the decline, and had really started teetering a few years before. Of course he was still an elite player, but 2001 Sampras was not the same player he had been 3-4 years ago. But if you examine his record, the decline really starts in 1998.

Here is the TRUTH. He was exactly the same player from several years before, he just stagnated.

Sampras fully admits he made no effort to improve his game, just to maintain it. His mantra was "maintain, maintain, maintain". The difference was Agassi had gotten out of the doldrums, Rafter improved immensely, and it was the beginning of the Luxilon era...and he took some drubbings here and there. He lost to two future hall of famers in the 2000 and 2001 US Open finals.

The Dude is right, Luxilon, Pete was in decline. It was definite and terminal. He was knackered after 1998 and skipped Oz in 1999, citing exhaustion. Imagine: it's the first slam of the season and he was too tired to attend. In terms of whether he stagnated or not (and I would say "not"), stagnation in a top player is actually a symptom of decline, just to show unstable your argument is.

But Pete didn't stagnante. In fact, had he maintained the same, he'd have been better off, but he fired Annacone and worked first with Tom Gullikson, then Jose Higueras in an attempt to improve on clay, until his results got so bad that he rehired Annacone who set him straight: "Just remember who you are!" He went back to the hit and charge style before the US Open in 2002, lost in the warm up events, but it all kicked in again when Rusedski riled him in a late night barnburner in the second round.

Agassi "coming out of the doldrums" didn't bother Pete. Agassi never bothered Pete. He enjoyed playing Agassi and the better Dre played, the more Pete liked it. And Rafter didn't defeat Pete in their final 4 matches after summer 1999, whether Pat improved, or not...

Preach:clap

 

[isabelle]

For me the question isn't "who's the greater" but who was the first one, the original one and its' Sampras, Federer is the copy, the second one behind Sampras

 

[Kieran]

For me the question isn't "who's the greater" but who was the first one, the original one and its' Sampras, Federer is the copy, the second one behind Sampras

There were originals before Sampras, Isabelle. It was also said of Pete that he reminded the oldsters of Pancho Gonzales, in the panther-like way that Pete roamed about the court. But when Federer started out, he looked like a "copy" of Pete in superficial ways: same swarthy colouring, physical shape, one-hander, scalpel-thrust volleys. Then Roger moved back to play more from the baseline and the similarities ended. But for a while it seemed almost as though a casual glance at the telly could mistake the younger Federer for Sampras, in how they looked when they played...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

He most certainly WAS on the decline, and had really started teetering a few years before. Of course he was still an elite player, but 2001 Sampras was not the same player he had been 3-4 years ago. But if you examine his record, the decline really starts in 1998.

Here is the TRUTH. He was exactly the same player from several years before, he just stagnated.

Sampras fully admits he made no effort to improve his game, just to maintain it. His mantra was "maintain, maintain, maintain". The difference was Agassi had gotten out of the doldrums, Rafter improved immensely, and it was the beginning of the Luxilon era...and he took some drubbings here and there. He lost to two future hall of famers in the 2000 and 2001 US Open finals.

The Dude is right, Luxilon, Pete was in decline. It was definite and terminal. He was knackered after 1998 and skipped Oz in 1999, citing exhaustion. Imagine: it's the first slam of the season and he was too tired to attend. In terms of whether he stagnated or not (and I would say "not"), stagnation in a top player is actually a symptom of decline, just to show unstable your argument is.

But Pete didn't stagnante. In fact, had he maintained the same, he'd have been better off, but he fired Annacone and worked first with Tom Gullikson, then Jose Higueras in an attempt to improve on clay, until his results got so bad that he rehired Annacone who set him straight: "Just remember who you are!" He went back to the hit and charge style before the US Open in 2002, lost in the warm up events, but it all kicked in again when Rusedski riled him in a late night barnburner in the second round.

Agassi "coming out of the doldrums" didn't bother Pete. Agassi never bothered Pete. He enjoyed playing Agassi and the better Dre played, the more Pete liked it. And Rafter didn't defeat Pete in their final 4 matches after summer 1999, whether Pat improved, or not...

Woah, let's put on the brakes here!

First, let us address Sampras skipping the AO because he was "too tired" in 1999. How absurd would that seem today? Imagine one of the big four skipping a Slam because they were "tired". The only reason has been injury.

Now to Agassi. their record was 20-14 in favor of Sampras. Hardly domination. A clear edge, yes. but no where near domination.

And their last 6 meetings were split 3 matches each. I would say that is being bothered. One loss to Andre was the 2000 AO.

I absolutely believe Sampras was NO worse a player in 2001 then he was in 1997. The fact is he got stale ...and for years he had it easy with no body except Agassi being able to get into a rally with him. He got spoiled. Then when guys like started making him, play, he was not able to physically cope.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Yes Ma'am Carol Kieran is correct we only have spend any time with our champions but the endearing quality about Pete was if you wanted to choose One Player to play a match with your Life or welfare riding on that match, Sampras would be one of the top 5 players that most experts would choose What Sampras lack in personality he was extremely gifted as one of one of the game's all-time favorite Warriors. Roger is a better allcourt player but Pete had the gift from God, the best first and second serve under enormous pressure EVER

Pete Sampras: 2949 double faults. Aces: 8713, Break Points faced: 3661

Roger Federer: 2390 double faults. Aces: 9576, Break points fsced: 5590

The numbers you provided are they based on the exact same amount of matches?

Sampras: 984
Federer: 1307

 

[the AntiPusher]

Pete Sampras: 2949 double faults. Aces: 8713, Break Points faced: 3661

Roger Federer: 2390 double faults. Aces: 9576, Break points fsced: 5590

The numbers you provided are they based on the exact same amount of matches?

Sampras: 984
Federer: 1307

Thanks LB. That stat shows just how lethal Pete serves were . He had a "Hammer"

 

[Kieran]

Woah, let's put on the brakes here!

First, let us address Sampras skipping the AO because he was "too tired" in 1999. How absurd would that seem today? Imagine one of the big four skipping a Slam because they were "tired". The only reason has been injury.

Here we go:

He obviously had a very long end of the year, and he's worn out and needs to take a rest, said the tournament's director, Paul McNamee, who was informed of the decision by Sampras's manager.

Now to Agassi. their record was 20-14 in favor of Sampras. Hardly domination. A clear edge, yes. but no where near domination.

Yes, a very clear edge.

And their last 6 meetings were split 3 matches each. I would say that is being bothered. One loss to Andre was the 2000 AO.

I would cite that Oz victory as Dre's best performance. Ever. He was two points from defeat but he continued to pound away at Brad Gilbert's plan to body-shot Pete when Sampras attacked the net. It paid off, and he won it pulling away in the fifth. But in general, in big matches, Pete enjoyed playing Agassi. As for the last six matches being tied 3-3 and Pete being "bothered", it's an odd description. He was so bothered, he won the last three of them.

I absolutely believe Sampras was NO worse a player in 2001 then he was in 1997. The fact is he got stale ...and for years he had it easy with no body except Agassi being able to get into a rally with him. He got spoiled. Then when guys like started making him, play, he was not able to physically cope.

I dunno if you really believe that, or if the fact you hate the guy is altering your perception of him, but the fact is, players didn't get better at playing Pete, they played the same old way. he just slowed down and got old and declined. His back went before the US Open in 1999, a tourney he was prohibitive favourite to win. He definitely showed signs of decline when George Bastl defeated him at Wimbledon in 2002 - unless you think that's a guy "making him play." So was Barry Cowan in 2011? Players get older, they decline. But he stirred Old Glory to one last menacing charge in 2002, and got out at the right time...

 

[El Dude]

(Forgive the length of this - but I got inspired)

I absolutely believe Sampras was NO worse a player in 2001 then he was in 1997. The fact is he got stale ...and for years he had it easy with no body except Agassi being able to get into a rally with him. He got spoiled. Then when guys like started making him, play, he was not able to physically cope.

This really seems like a stretch to me, Lux, although it is an interesting statement. I was only a casual fan back then so can't really comment on his on-court performance, but his record disagrees with you. Consider, for instance, his winning percentage from 96 to 2002: 86%, 82%, 78%, 83%, 76%, 69%, 61%. There's a clear trend of decline, especially from 1999 to 2002.

But your opinion inspired me to research a bit further, so I thought I'd look into who and where Pete lost, comparing 1997 and 2001.

Key: Rank - Player - round, tournament (surface type)
1997 (12 losses)
25 - Magnus Larsson - RR, Davis Cup (indoor carpet)
7 - Carlos Moya - RR, World Tour Finals (indoor hard)
15 - Richard Krajicek - R16, Stuttgart Masters (indoor carpet)
16 - Petr Korda - R16, US Open (outdoor hard)
37 - Magnus Larsson - R16, Indianapolis (outdoor hard)
24 - Jonas Bjorkman - QF, Aegon (outdoor grass)
65 - Magnus Norman - R32, Rland Garros (outdoor clay)
21 - Mark Philippoussis - RR, World Team Cup (outdoor clay)
24 - Jim Courier - R64, Rome Masters (outdoor clay)
43 - Magnus Larsson - R32, Monte Carlo Masters (outdoor clay)
35 - Sergiy Bruguera - SF, Miami Masters (outdoor hard)
43 - Bohdan Ulihrach - R32, Indian Wells Masters (outdoor hard)

Comments: What is most striking to me--aside from Larsson's dominance of Pete, 3-1 that year, although 1-6 in other years--is that all but one of Pete's losses in 1997 were to players outside of the top 10. Against top 10 opponents he was 13-1, a 93%, while against everyone else he was 42-11, or 79%. This implies that he saved his best for the best, and relaxed a bit (too much) against non-elites.

2001 (16 losses)
53 – Max Mirnyi – QF, Stuttgart Masters (indoor hard)
4 – Lleyton Hewitt – F, US Open (outdoor hard)
16 – Tommy Haas – F, Long Island (outdoor hard)
38 – Alberto Martin – R32, Cincinnati Masters (outdoor hard)
3 – Andre Agassi – F, Los Angeles (outdoor hard)
15 – Roger Federer – R16, Wimbledon (outdoor grass)
6 – Lleyton Hewitt – SF, Aegon (outdoor grass)
76 – Galo Blanco – R64, Roland Garros (clay)
2 – Marat Safin – RR, World Team Cup (clay)
50 – Alex Calatrava – R64, Hamburg Masters (clay)
54 – Harel Levy – R64, Rome Masters (clay)
119 – Andy Roddick – R32, Miami Masters (outdoor hard)
4 – Andre Agassi – F, Indian Wells (outdoor hard)
43 – Andrew Ilie – R32, Scottsdale (outdoor hard)
96 – Chris Woodruff – R32, Memphis (indoor hard)
54 – Todd Martin – R16, Australian Open (outdoor hard)

Comments: The first noticeable difference is that Pete lost to a lot more top 10 opponents, going 5-5 overall (50%) compared to 30-11 to everyone else (73%). So while he played worse overall, it was most marked against the elite. He also lost to a lot of young and up-and-coming stars: twice to Hewitt, once each to Haas, Safin, Federer, and Roddick. He also played poorly against Agassi, going 1-2.

Conclusions: The record shows decline overall, but most especially against two, sometimes overlapping, demographics: top 10 opponents, and younger players. This leads me to believe that the main differences in Sampras in 1997 vs. 2001 was that the older Sampras didn't have quite the same competitive edge, and secondarily that he couldn't adjust to this new generation. Whether or not his actual physical skills had eroded is hard to say, but given the clear importance of mentality to a player's overall performance, even if he “only” declined in terms of his confidence and competitiveness, there is clear signs of decline, at least as reflected in the record.

It is my opinion is that the players who remain successful deep into their 30s—Connors, Agassi, and Federer come most readily to mind—are those that are able to fuel the competitive fire, play for love of the game, and do the extra work that is necessary to compensate for declining physical skills. As anyone over 30 knows, the body changes – it takes more and more work to maintain fitness as the law of diminishing returns begins to take effect. It may be that those who decline in their late 20s, are those that lose that extra bit of fire, and perhaps those that can't quite deal with the fact that their physical skills aren't quite as sharp. It seems that Pete Sampras might be such an instance. He had enough left to light the flame and win the 2002 US Open, but perhaps he knew that he wouldn't be able to do it again so called it quits.

This has relevance today, as we see a similar situation playing out with Rafael Nadal, who looks similar to latter-day Pete, although may be showing more physical decline than Sampras did. But maybe Rafa can muster that fire once more and push through and win another Slam. We'll see in a few months.

Warning: Federer adulation to come. If you're sick of Fedlove, end reading now

On the other hand, we have Roger Federer, who is now many years from his best, but still better than almost everyone, and clearly loves playing enough to keep going. One thing that is remarkable about his performance is that he's doing it despite the fact that he's so far removed from 2004-07. I imagine that after Rafa took the #1 ranking in 2008, he thought "I've got to get it back." And then he did, and looked great going into 2010, after winning the AO. But then he slipped a notch, and this having nothing do with the young players coming up. Rafa's dominance over him continued, and this was before Novak rose to greatness in 2011. But he weathered on, and even managed to win "one more" in 2012, just like Pete did in 2002 - and at the very same age. But then he did something that Pete didn't do. He continued and then had his worst year on a decade. But did he retire? No, he adapted his game, and now he looks like he could remain a top 5 player to the age of 40.

 

[Kieran]

I skipped the Fed-love part :snicker but that's a great post, brother! :clap

 

[Luxilon Borg]

(Forgive the length of this - but I got inspired)

I absolutely believe Sampras was NO worse a player in 2001 then he was in 1997. The fact is he got stale ...and for years he had it easy with no body except Agassi being able to get into a rally with him. He got spoiled. Then when guys like started making him, play, he was not able to physically cope.

This really seems like a stretch to me, Lux, although it is an interesting statement. I was only a casual fan back then so can't really comment on his on-court performance, but his record disagrees with you. Consider, for instance, his winning percentage from 96 to 2002: 86%, 82%, 78%, 83%, 76%, 69%, 61%. There's a clear trend of decline, especially from 1999 to 2002.

But your opinion inspired me to research a bit further, so I thought I'd look into who and where Pete lost, comparing 1997 and 2001.

Key: Rank - Player - round, tournament (surface type)
1997 (12 losses)
25 - Magnus Larsson - RR, Davis Cup (indoor carpet)
7 - Carlos Moya - RR, World Tour Finals (indoor hard)
15 - Richard Krajicek - R16, Stuttgart Masters (indoor carpet)
16 - Petr Korda - R16, US Open (outdoor hard)
37 - Magnus Larsson - R16, Indianapolis (outdoor hard)
24 - Jonas Bjorkman - QF, Aegon (outdoor grass)
65 - Magnus Norman - R32, Rland Garros (outdoor clay)
21 - Mark Philippoussis - RR, World Team Cup (outdoor clay)
24 - Jim Courier - R64, Rome Masters (outdoor clay)
43 - Magnus Larsson - R32, Monte Carlo Masters (outdoor clay)
35 - Sergiy Bruguera - SF, Miami Masters (outdoor hard)
43 - Bohdan Ulihrach - R32, Indian Wells Masters (outdoor hard)

Comments: What is most striking to me--aside from Larsson's dominance of Pete, 3-1 that year, although 1-6 in other years--is that all but one of Pete's losses in 1997 were to players outside of the top 10. Against top 10 opponents he was 13-1, a 93%, while against everyone else he was 42-11, or 79%. This implies that he saved his best for the best, and relaxed a bit (too much) against non-elites.

2001 (16 losses)
53 – Max Mirnyi – QF, Stuttgart Masters (indoor hard)
4 – Lleyton Hewitt – F, US Open (outdoor hard)
16 – Tommy Haas – F, Long Island (outdoor hard)
38 – Alberto Martin – R32, Cincinnati Masters (outdoor hard)
3 – Andre Agassi – F, Los Angeles (outdoor hard)
15 – Roger Federer – R16, Wimbledon (outdoor grass)
6 – Lleyton Hewitt – SF, Aegon (outdoor grass)
76 – Galo Blanco – R64, Roland Garros (clay)
2 – Marat Safin – RR, World Team Cup (clay)
50 – Alex Calatrava – R64, Hamburg Masters (clay)
54 – Harel Levy – R64, Rome Masters (clay)
119 – Andy Roddick – R32, Miami Masters (outdoor hard)
4 – Andre Agassi – F, Indian Wells (outdoor hard)
43 – Andrew Ilie – R32, Scottsdale (outdoor hard)
96 – Chris Woodruff – R32, Memphis (indoor hard)
54 – Todd Martin – R16, Australian Open (outdoor hard)

Comments: The first noticeable difference is that Pete lost to a lot more top 10 opponents, going 5-5 overall (50%) compared to 30-11 to everyone else (73%). So while he played worse overall, it was most marked against the elite. He also lost to a lot of young and up-and-coming stars: twice to Hewitt, once each to Haas, Safin, Federer, and Roddick. He also played poorly against Agassi, going 1-2.

Conclusions: The record shows decline overall, but most especially against two, sometimes overlapping, demographics: top 10 opponents, and younger players. This leads me to believe that the main differences in Sampras in 1997 vs. 2001 was that the older Sampras didn't have quite the same competitive edge, and secondarily that he couldn't adjust to this new generation. Whether or not his actual physical skills had eroded is hard to say, but given the clear importance of mentality to a player's overall performance, even if he “only” declined in terms of his confidence and competitiveness, there is clear signs of decline, at least as reflected in the record.

It is my opinion is that the players who remain successful deep into their 30s—Connors, Agassi, and Federer come most readily to mind—are those that are able to fuel the competitive fire, play for love of the game, and do the extra work that is necessary to compensate for declining physical skills. As anyone over 30 knows, the body changes – it takes more and more work to maintain fitness as the law of diminishing returns begins to take effect. It may be that those who decline in their late 20s, are those that lose that extra bit of fire, and perhaps those that can't quite deal with the fact that their physical skills aren't quite as sharp. It seems that Pete Sampras might be such an instance. He had enough left to light the flame and win the 2002 US Open, but perhaps he knew that he wouldn't be able to do it again so called it quits.

This has relevance today, as we see a similar situation playing out with Rafael Nadal, who looks similar to latter-day Pete, although may be showing more physical decline than Sampras did. But maybe Rafa can muster that fire once more and push through and win another Slam. We'll see in a few months.

Warning: Federer adulation to come. If you're sick of Fedlove, end reading now

On the other hand, we have Roger Federer, who is now many years from his best, but still better than almost everyone, and clearly loves playing enough to keep going. One thing that is remarkable about his performance is that he's doing it despite the fact that he's so far removed from 2004-07. I imagine that after Rafa took the #1 ranking in 2008, he thought "I've got to get it back." And then he did, and looked great going into 2010, after winning the AO. But then he slipped a notch, and this having nothing do with the young players coming up. Rafa's dominance over him continued, and this was before Novak rose to greatness in 2011. But he weathered on, and even managed to win "one more" in 2012, just like Pete did in 2002 - and at the very same age. But then he did something that Pete didn't do. He continued and then had his worst year on a decade. But did he retire? No, he adapted his game, and now he looks like he could remain a top 5 player to the age of 40.

agree with Mr. K!!!

Great, post. Great read, and very thorough...very enjoyable analysis. :clap

 

[Luxilon Borg]

(Forgive the length of this - but I got inspired)

I absolutely believe Sampras was NO worse a player in 2001 then he was in 1997. The fact is he got stale ...and for years he had it easy with no body except Agassi being able to get into a rally with him. He got spoiled. Then when guys like started making him, play, he was not able to physically cope.

This really seems like a stretch to me, Lux, although it is an interesting statement. I was only a casual fan back then so can't really comment on his on-court performance, but his record disagrees with you. Consider, for instance, his winning percentage from 96 to 2002: 86%, 82%, 78%, 83%, 76%, 69%, 61%. There's a clear trend of decline, especially from 1999 to 2002.

But your opinion inspired me to research a bit further, so I thought I'd look into who and where Pete lost, comparing 1997 and 2001.

Key: Rank - Player - round, tournament (surface type)
1997 (12 losses)
25 - Magnus Larsson - RR, Davis Cup (indoor carpet)
7 - Carlos Moya - RR, World Tour Finals (indoor hard)
15 - Richard Krajicek - R16, Stuttgart Masters (indoor carpet)
16 - Petr Korda - R16, US Open (outdoor hard)
37 - Magnus Larsson - R16, Indianapolis (outdoor hard)
24 - Jonas Bjorkman - QF, Aegon (outdoor grass)
65 - Magnus Norman - R32, Rland Garros (outdoor clay)
21 - Mark Philippoussis - RR, World Team Cup (outdoor clay)
24 - Jim Courier - R64, Rome Masters (outdoor clay)
43 - Magnus Larsson - R32, Monte Carlo Masters (outdoor clay)
35 - Sergiy Bruguera - SF, Miami Masters (outdoor hard)
43 - Bohdan Ulihrach - R32, Indian Wells Masters (outdoor hard)

Comments: What is most striking to me--aside from Larsson's dominance of Pete, 3-1 that year, although 1-6 in other years--is that all but one of Pete's losses in 1997 were to players outside of the top 10. Against top 10 opponents he was 13-1, a 93%, while against everyone else he was 42-11, or 79%. This implies that he saved his best for the best, and relaxed a bit (too much) against non-elites.

2001 (16 losses)
53 – Max Mirnyi – QF, Stuttgart Masters (indoor hard)
4 – Lleyton Hewitt – F, US Open (outdoor hard)
16 – Tommy Haas – F, Long Island (outdoor hard)
38 – Alberto Martin – R32, Cincinnati Masters (outdoor hard)
3 – Andre Agassi – F, Los Angeles (outdoor hard)
15 – Roger Federer – R16, Wimbledon (outdoor grass)
6 – Lleyton Hewitt – SF, Aegon (outdoor grass)
76 – Galo Blanco – R64, Roland Garros (clay)
2 – Marat Safin – RR, World Team Cup (clay)
50 – Alex Calatrava – R64, Hamburg Masters (clay)
54 – Harel Levy – R64, Rome Masters (clay)
119 – Andy Roddick – R32, Miami Masters (outdoor hard)
4 – Andre Agassi – F, Indian Wells (outdoor hard)
43 – Andrew Ilie – R32, Scottsdale (outdoor hard)
96 – Chris Woodruff – R32, Memphis (indoor hard)
54 – Todd Martin – R16, Australian Open (outdoor hard)

Comments: The first noticeable difference is that Pete lost to a lot more top 10 opponents, going 5-5 overall (50%) compared to 30-11 to everyone else (73%). So while he played worse overall, it was most marked against the elite. He also lost to a lot of young and up-and-coming stars: twice to Hewitt, once each to Haas, Safin, Federer, and Roddick. He also played poorly against Agassi, going 1-2.

Conclusions: The record shows decline overall, but most especially against two, sometimes overlapping, demographics: top 10 opponents, and younger players. This leads me to believe that the main differences in Sampras in 1997 vs. 2001 was that the older Sampras didn't have quite the same competitive edge, and secondarily that he couldn't adjust to this new generation. Whether or not his actual physical skills had eroded is hard to say, but given the clear importance of mentality to a player's overall performance, even if he “only” declined in terms of his confidence and competitiveness, there is clear signs of decline, at least as reflected in the record.

It is my opinion is that the players who remain successful deep into their 30s—Connors, Agassi, and Federer come most readily to mind—are those that are able to fuel the competitive fire, play for love of the game, and do the extra work that is necessary to compensate for declining physical skills. As anyone over 30 knows, the body changes – it takes more and more work to maintain fitness as the law of diminishing returns begins to take effect. It may be that those who decline in their late 20s, are those that lose that extra bit of fire, and perhaps those that can't quite deal with the fact that their physical skills aren't quite as sharp. It seems that Pete Sampras might be such an instance. He had enough left to light the flame and win the 2002 US Open, but perhaps he knew that he wouldn't be able to do it again so called it quits.

This has relevance today, as we see a similar situation playing out with Rafael Nadal, who looks similar to latter-day Pete, although may be showing more physical decline than Sampras did. But maybe Rafa can muster that fire once more and push through and win another Slam. We'll see in a few months.

Warning: Federer adulation to come. If you're sick of Fedlove, end reading now

On the other hand, we have Roger Federer, who is now many years from his best, but still better than almost everyone, and clearly loves playing enough to keep going. One thing that is remarkable about his performance is that he's doing it despite the fact that he's so far removed from 2004-07. I imagine that after Rafa took the #1 ranking in 2008, he thought "I've got to get it back." And then he did, and looked great going into 2010, after winning the AO. But then he slipped a notch, and this having nothing do with the young players coming up. Rafa's dominance over him continued, and this was before Novak rose to greatness in 2011. But he weathered on, and even managed to win "one more" in 2012, just like Pete did in 2002 - and at the very same age. But then he did something that Pete didn't do. He continued and then had his worst year on a decade. But did he retire? No, he adapted his game, and now he looks like he could remain a top 5 player to the age of 40.

Whether or not his actual physical skills had eroded is hard to say, but given the clear importance of mentality to a player's overall performance, even if he “only” declined in terms of his confidence and competitiveness, there is clear signs of decline, at least as reflected in the record.

I can live with the above.:idea:

 

[Haelfix]

Always the same thing with this debate. What court conditions (pre turf change wimbledon (eg 90s), mid speed wimbledon (pre 2008), closed/open roof etc.

What type of rackets are allowed?

The latter is the big one, b/c it directly benefits the return game more than anything else.

The big problem for Pete is that if you take away his serve he really could struggle. By the end of Pete's career, Lleyton Hewitt was making Pete's vaunted hold game (which was still nearly as good as his prime) look extremely dated and honestly i'm inclined to think the next generation of great returners would have had similar success against it.

In the 2001 match, Federer didn't even have much of a forehand yet, and actually out served and volleyed Pete for the most part rather than winning the baseline war. The advantage would have strongly tilted in Rogers favor with more modern rackets and a slowing of the court. Quite honestly, Federer is a bad matchup for a true serve and volleyer like Pete, precisely b/c he could win the war to the net and his ability to neutralize big serves was pretty ridiculous.

And as far as i'm concerned, Federer's overall level in his prime on grass and fast hards was superior to any player i've ever seen by a considerable margin.

I think prime Pete would have had much more success against prime Rafa and especially Novak relatively speaking, although on slow grass yea there would definitely be some serious problems there.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Always the same thing with this debate. What court conditions (pre turf change wimbledon (eg 90s), mid speed wimbledon (pre 2008), closed/open roof etc.

What type of rackets are allowed?

The latter is the big one, b/c it directly benefits the return game more than anything else.

The big problem for Pete is that if you take away his serve he really could struggle. By the end of Pete's career, Lleyton Hewitt was making Pete's vaunted hold game (which was still nearly as good as his prime) look extremely dated and honestly i'm inclined to think the next generation of great returners would have had similar success against it.

In the 2001 match, Federer didn't even have much of a forehand yet, and actually out served and volleyed Pete for the most part rather than winning the baseline war. The advantage would have strongly tilted in Rogers favor with more modern rackets and a slowing of the court. Quite honestly, Federer is a bad matchup for a true serve and volleyer like Pete, precisely b/c he could win the war to the net and his ability to neutralize big serves was pretty ridiculous.

And as far as i'm concerned, Federer's overall level in his prime on grass and fast hards was superior to any player i've ever seen by a considerable margin.

I think prime Pete would have had much more success against prime Rafa and especially Novak relatively speaking, although on slow grass yea there would definitely be some serious problems there.

Spot on analysis. Dated is the word I was searching for.

As devastating as the first serve and mental toughness was...there would have been big problems today...As I mentioned above..Fed beat him on Pete's best surface, playing his worst strategy..S&V on both serves...His forehand was barely a factor.

If Roger had played that Wimbledon match the way he started playing around 2004/2005...first serve..inside out forehand...angled slices, topspin back hand down the line.. it would have been a straight set drubbing..MAYBE one tie breaker.

 

[Busted]

For me the question isn't "who's the greater" but who was the first one, the original one and its' Sampras, Federer is the copy, the second one behind Sampras

:laydownlaughing Fed's game is nothing like Sampras' so it would be hard for him to be a "copy." Not even close. Sampras didn't have half the shots in his arsenal that Roger has. That's not a knock on Pete. He played in a different era and had a different skill set. When his game started to fall behind the younger players he wasn't able to make adjustments to be competitive week in and week out the way Roger has. In the end though Pete was able to win 1 final Slam before hanging it up. The question is - will Roger be able to say the same? Never say never - but let's just say it's unlikely he'll get to #18 unless someone else takes out Djokovic for him. And given that Roger is the only player to have beaten Djokovic more than once last year? I'm not holding my breath waiting on that.