Who is better sampras or federer

When your judging who is the best you have to look at players that play each other and take their head to heads into account. Sampras and Federer only played each other once, so you can't really decide much from that.

But when you look at how many times Nadal has faced Federer- then you'll see that Nadal has beaten Federer more times than Federer has beaten him. Then you look at the head to head of Murray and Federer and you'll see that Murray has beaten him on more occasions as well. Now don't take anything away from Nadal because he is a top class player but to get beaten by Murray on more occasions??? My brother went and got like a hundred bobby pins to hold my hair.

The last thing I was worried about was winning the French Open. I hated what I did tennis. I saw what it did to our family dynamics. Dad had rules: Wake up, play and then brush teeth, in that order. The angst and the conflict started early.

There were so many feelings tied to survival and not having a choice. I thought winning and reaching No. I turned No. When I turned No. I lost in Germany in the first round and my coach locked me up in the room. The decision was either we quit or we start over.

I never hated tennis as much as that moment. Looking out of the window, I wondered how many people chose their life, and I had an epiphany—nobody does.

It gave me an opportunity to change my life. I saw a programme on TV 60 Minutes, on kids having no choice in their life and there was a connection. People talk about love-hate; mine was hate-love. Tennis gave me a life, my wife and I was grateful to play longer than my body allowed.

An athlete spends one-third of his life not preparing for two-thirds of his life. Failure and success are an illusion. Failure is an interpretation of an event.

You have that in sport. India Matches. Football Matches. All Matches. Fantasy Tips. Story Progress Back to home. One is a time Grand Slam winner. Out of the seven times he lost, Rafael Nadal captured the trophy six times. So, you take one man out of the equation, Federer would have at least won 20 titles by now! He played alongside people who were at their peak. Sampras played loads and loads of five set thrillers that could go either way. Obviously, Federer and Sampras belong to different eras.

But Federer had the advantage of playing in an era which had less competition. Take nothing and absolutely nothing away from Roger Federer. You can only beat who is in front of you and Federer did just that. That is one of the main reasons why he has 16 titles now. Sampras too was not injury-prone. He too was consistent but the competition meant that he always had to put in that extra bit as compared to Federer.

So, the eras do matter. Sampras defeated players who were in their prime. His first six Grand Slam victories came against five different players.

By the time Nadal reached his best, Federer already had titles in his bag. It is unfair to predict that Sampras would have done better than Federer if he had played in this era but then again, who knows?