Read that 36 yr old Pete Sampras beat 26 yr old and world No 1 Roger Federer in an exhibition match in Macau. This was part of a round of 3 exhibition matches between them. Federer won the first two.

This got me wondering.. Who do you think is the better tennis player?

Sampras when he was at his peak.. Or, Federer?

Intrested to know your views.

Think Federer would edge it, his return of serve is the best ever and Service was Sampras' main weapon. Also they've slowed the game down a bit now, the balls ain't as fast as they were in the Sampras heyday.

I think it's a fairer comparison when Federer retires, see what they've both achieved then.

But right now I'd say Federer, he certainly has the potential to achieve even more than Sampras did.

I'd have to say Federer but that does not diminish on how great Sampras was.

Tim Henman

They had an exhibition match not so long back.

Best out of 3 sets.

Federer won but Sampras still looked pretty good.

Would have been the match of all time had they both been at their peak.

Id say Federer

Federer is really good and I'd say on most surfaces he'd win but on grass I'd go with Sampras as he was just unstoppable at times.

I know Federer beat him once in 2001 but that was when Sampras was off his game for some reason.

They had 3 exhibition matches and Federer won 2 and Sampras won 1 but they were all very close.

The 2nd one Federer won on two tie breaks, it just shows though Sampras is past his best and hasn't been playing competitively for a long time but he's still a close match.

Federer has simply been phenomenal for the last few years, doubt Sampras could match him but either way it would have been some match if both met at their respective peaks, although I guess Federer might not have reached his peak yet, which is kinda scary.

I don't know the first thing about tennis, so let me ask: If Federer is better than Sampras -- assuming that -- does that make F. the best ever?

Federer has to win more grand slams and win that one French open that is missing from his CV, but having said that, he is the best Tennis player i've ever seen.

It would still be debatable. Sampras is like a Bergkamp imo, there are players who have claims to be as good if not better but you really couldn't rule out him being the best ever given what he has done. Carrying on this ludicrous comparison, I guess Federer is where Kaka is at the moment, has the plaudits, has success and if he keeps going will be revered as one of the best ever when he retires.

if Federer wins the french open and beats the record then he is the best player ever no doubt. he is a great player, and very humble as well. Federer first showed signs of his greatness when he beat sampras in 2001 although sampras was not top form, it still is the only time they played and he won.

Federer :penguin:

Rusedski

We have a joker in the house! :haha:

Federer

would have been interesting to see the two play when both in their primes in a major final

Federer appears certain to overtake sampras in the number of major victories

overall though "come on" tim henmen is better :coffee: