Roger Federer: The Best Ever?

On Sunday evening long reigning tennis #1 Roger Federer won his fourth consecutive U.S. Open, marking the first time anyone has taken four in a row since the ‘20s, when Bill Tilden accomplished the feat.

After watching Federer play near-perfect tennis once again, annihilating (and humiliating) the competition without breaking a sweat, it would be impossible to deny that Federer is one of the top players of all time. Consider the stats: Federer has not only won the last four U.S. Opens, but has also won five consecutive Wimbledons and two consecutive Australian Opens. He has 12 Grand Slam events in total, has been ranked #1 in the world for 189 weeks (well over three years), and he just recently turned 26 years old. Scary.

But is he the best ever?

Reader of the Month Werd Yelof was essentially asking this question when he pondered whether Federer is better than Sampras (generally considered the best of all time).

Admittedly, I’m biased. I’ve played and watched a lot of tennis, and I grew up a Sampras guy. His pure power is undeniable. His service game was nearly unstoppable and his leaping overhead slams were a sight to behold.

Lately, however, I’ve taken to Federer’s game. His motions are natural and fluid. His shots are powerful and precise. He plays tennis as it ought to be played, and he makes it look easy. The fact that I’m now a Federer fan helps me to be objective in the Federer vs. Sampras match-up.

Let’s look at the numbers:

Pete Sampras has won 14 Grand Slam events, as I’ve already said, Federer has now won 12, which puts him a year ahead of Sampras’ pace. Sampras had a career winning percentage of 78.5%. Federer now sits at 80.3%. During his prime, Sampras held the #1 ranking for 190 consecutive weeks. Federer will soon bypass that number.

In reality, their stat lines are virtually identical. Besides, stats don’t really do justice to the match-up. They played at different times, against different opponents. Sampras faced competition from tennis greats like Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, and Ivan Lendl. Aside from Nadal, there are no proven players challenging Federer day in and day out.

But looking at the match-up as someone who’s watched both Federer and Sampras play a lot of tennis, my gut tells me that if the two went head to head in their primes Federer would have the edge.

I come to this conclusion based on one factor: Sampras always had a glaring weakness. He couldn’t hit a winning backhand. When he was forced to use his backhand it was completely defensive; a survival tool. He would slice the ball deep into the court, trying to prevent his opponent from exploiting the weakness. If his opponent came to the net, Sampras was never able to pass from the backhand side.

Sampras gets the edge on the serve, but don’t underestimate Federer’s power. And both players possess pinpoint accuracy. Both have dominant forehands and fearsome net games. Both are fierce competitors.

It’s interesting to consider a Sampras championship match versus a Federer championship match. Sampras always had to work harder for his wins. Federer dominates with such ease (or maybe he just makes it look that way).

Both players are true champions, but Sampras’ lackluster backhand always held him back. Federer plays near-perfect tennis, dominates the game (I think he lost only one set in the U.S. Open), and in my opinion is the best ever.

Thanks for reading.