Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=ap-federer-sampras&prov=ap&type=lgns

Wow. 

that's pretty sick

a guy coming out of a 5 year retirement beats the world's number one. wow.

was federer 'taking it easy' or was he playing for real?

This is why I laugh at those who claim Federer is the Greatest ever


Federer has No Competition other than Rafeal Nadal.


Federer playing in Sampras' time, wouldn't come close to being what he is today.

Agassi and Sampras in their prime would've spanked Federer.


If Sampras can win now, he would truly have dominated Federer in his prime.


I hate Pete Sampras with a passion but to me he is the Greatest ever.

May i remind people that Federer beat Sampras twice when sampras was playing once at Wimbledon as a teenager.

I think they are really close and i think there is more depth to Tennis than you give credit D. Djokovic to name but one. there are a lot of good young players coming through. and i think the game has moved on in terms of big hitting to sampras's days.

Personally as good as Aggasi was i dont think he will ever be a Federer or Sampras.

However i belive the thing that could set federer apart from Sampras is if he wins the French. Its something Sampras could never do and to be better than him Federer will have to do that.

I think Sampras is No.1 but Federer could and probally will overtake him, especially if he wins the French

Well, David Nalbandian is 8-8 (if I'm not wrong) against Federer, and David defetead him the last two times, twice in the same week. David also defeated him at the Tennis Masters Cup in 2006 coming back from 2 lost sets.

I think the discussion about the greatest player ever should only include players that have won all 4 grand slams: Andre Agassi is one of them.


Hard to tell. I consider Federer a much more complete player than Pete. And the only time they played it was a Federer victory (in Wimbledon, 5 sets)


Do any of you REALLY THINK Federer was playing at his best in all these exhibition matches?

It's not a big deal guys, comon!

I watched one of those matches, Federer was taking it very, very easy. Sampras was winning his service games easy, so did Federer. But you could really tell the difference between both players now in the longer rallies. Sampras couldnt keep up Federer's rythm so he had to approach the net even from behind the base line to shorten the points. I'm not talking about a difference in game tactic's, I'm talking about hiting weak flat shots from the baseline to approach the net.. it reminded me when I used to play to a much better guy than myself and the difference was so big, all I'd do was approach the net with any kind of shot too see if I was lucky enough to win the point.

Sampras serve is still amazing though.

Either way Sampras was/still is a hell of a player. He is the best of all time (that'll be until Federer wins more GS's than him)..sampras retired 5 years ago after winning the US...today he's still in shape. He still has the best service game ever in the history of tennis...However, Federer beat him 6 years ago at Wimbledon in 5 sets. Federer was not even close to the player he is today and Sampras was still in his prime. So those fo you who say if Federer had been aropund at the same time Agassi and Sampras were playing is bullshit. Federer beat Sampras and Agassi way before both of them retired.

Sampras may still fave alot left..........they of course played two or three other matches and Federer beat Sampras but Sampras got better every time.......it's not like Sampras didn't get out of the game early and when he did retire, just won the US Open

Why do you hate him so much? He's too bland to hate.

I didn't even know he came back at all.

He wasn't in his prime as he retired less then a year later.

Don't forget that in tennis your "prime" starts when you're very young and ends when you're young. Especially for girls.

I still think Andre Agassi is the greatest ever.

Only Male to win all the slams PLUS a gold medal.

Also Andre was dominant WHEN HE WAS FOCUSED, he had some years where he really wasted his talent. But when he wanted to play and was healthy and in shape, he was to me the best all around all court player.

You have to win on all surfaces and that is something Sampras and Federer can't do.

I think the general level of good tennis players now is a lot lower than it was 10 - 15 years ago. So Federer looks really good when there is not a lot of competition.

I don't care much for Sampras. I do however, like Federer a lot. As a fan of almost every sport there is, I love his preparation, his attitude, and his class. He is someone to be held up as an example as to what a sports figure should be.

That being said, he needs to win the French. Sampras never got the French, and though he has the most, I feel that takes him off the top of the all-time pile. I just don't feel you can be the best ever if you could never lock down your majors at least once.

It would be like if Tiger Woods broke the record without ever winning the British Open. You need to do it all.

This is why I don't feel Dan Marino can be considered when you talk all-time greats. He never made it to the top. He was great, but not an Elway, Farve, Unitas, Manning, Brady type.

Hall of Fame caliber for sure, but not that next level status that some guys reach.