Roger Federer v. Pete Sampras at Wimbledon

[JCane]

If both are in their prime and at the top of their game, who wins this dream matchup?

Might be the toughest individual call in the history of ever.

Pete's serve at Wimbledon was almost impossible to return.

Who you got?

[Dolfan3773]

Sampras

[PhinsPhan11]

I'd go with Sampras in a close 5 set match.

[hooshoops]

tennis...i just lost some respect for jcane...

[TheWalrus]

Depends on which Wimbledon we're talking about. Today's grass courts are much slower than they were 20 years ago, with a different grass blend that's treated in such a way as to give a truer bounce (basically, the ball slides less than it used to).

Sampras was essentially unbeatable on that kind of a fast surface and would win there at his peak, probably against anyone who ever lived. The Wimbledon of today, which is routinely referred to by the players as "green clay"? Hard to say. He'd do better than Federer would on the old grass with it's utterly errant bounces. But the slower the surface the worse Sampras fared, as evidenced by the fact that he never made it passed the quarterfinals of the French Open, which is the slowest surface of any of the major tournaments.

The homogenization of tennis is really quite a shame. It's really not unlike football, where the fans' appreciation of the passing game has slowly warped the sport into a video game. With tennis, the move has been to slower courts and heavier tennis balls to facilitate longer and longer rallies, with aggressive plays and players unfortunately pushed to the wayside in favor of boring backboards like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

[Kdawg954]

It really depends on the situation. If I had to win ONE match, at Wimbledon . . . . I'd probably lean Samprass. The man's serve was as clutch as anything we have ever seen at Wimbledon. However, I think Federer had the all around "better game" for Wimbledon. Dude has all the shots and a pretty solid serve as well. It would no doubt be a classic.

[CedarPhin]

Sampras. Andre Agassi would run in and hit Federer with a folding chair.

[Harry_Bagpipe]

Depends on which Wimbledon we're talking about. Today's grass courts are much slower than they were 20 years ago, with a different grass blend that's treated in such a way as to give a truer bounce (basically, the ball slides less than it used to).

Sampras was essentially unbeatable on that kind of a fast surface and would win there at his peak, probably against anyone who ever lived. The Wimbledon of today, which is routinely referred to by the players as "green clay"? Hard to say. He'd do better than Federer would on the old grass with it's utterly errant bounces. But the slower the surface the worse Sampras fared, as evidenced by the fact that he never made it passed the quarterfinals of the French Open, which is the slowest surface of any of the major tournaments.

The homogenization of tennis is really quite a shame. It's really not unlike football, where the fans' appreciation of the passing game has slowly warped the sport into a video game. With tennis, the move has been to slower courts and heavier tennis balls to facilitate longer and longer rallies, with aggressive plays and players unfortunately pushed to the wayside in favor of boring backboards like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

yep. The serve and volleyer has pretty much become extinct. I played in college and matches were held either on outdoor hard courts or indoor courts which were even faster. Close to half the singles matches featured at least one serve and volleyer.

[Kdawg954]

Boom Boom Boris Becker was a lethal serve and volleyer at Roland Garros. Would have been tough to beat in his prime as well.