Tennis fans across the world spent much of the 1990s watching Pete Sampras raking in all the big titles on the ATP tour, including a series of grand slam wins that saw 'Pistol Pete' develop a reputations as a virtually unbeatable player.
No sooner had Sampras hung up his racquet when in walked a young Swiss player by the name of Roger Federer, who proceeded to take up where Sampras had left off and single-handedly dominate men's singles tennis.
After four years spent blasting all opposition apart on the ATP tour, it was inevitable that some would begin comparing Federer to Sampras, and before we knew it a series of matches between the two legends had been arranged in Malaysia.
Youth vs. Experience
To be fair to Pete Sampras, the contest in Malaysia was skewed from the start. The American retired from professional tennis in 2002, and at age 36 is well past his best in a sport that sees players peak in their early twenties.
In comparison Roger Federer's career has reached a crescendo, with the 26 year old virtually unbeatable on the ATP tour over the last two years. Purely on the basis of the difference in age and amount of active play it was obvious from the outset that Sampras' chances were very slim indeed.
As it turned out Pistol Pete put up a fight in Malaysia after losing the first match by straight sets. In the second match Federer won a tighter game that went to tie-breaks in both sets. At this point the publicists for the tournament probably intervened, as Sampras produced a miraculous reversal in form to beat Federer by two sets in Macao.
Any tennis fans who watched the matches must have realised that the contest was in no way a genuine measure of either player's superiority over the other. The only way to realistically compare the players is to have a look at their statistics.
A look at the stats
To make an accurate comparison of Sampras and Federer's abilities one needs to look at the
achievements of the former at the age of 26. By the year 1997 Pete Sampras had won 10 grand slam tournaments including a run of four victories at both Wimbledon and the US Open. In comparison, Roger Federer has taken 12 grand slam title to date, equaling or improving on Sampras' record in each grand slam.
A tough call
Given that Roger Federer had 53 singles title to his name by the age of 26, while Pete Sampras had racked up 52 at the same stage of his career one can see that naming which player is greatest is a tough call. However, based purely on stats one has to credit Federer as the superior player.
Many of Pete Sampras' fans are likely to disagree with this conclusion. After all, Sampras played in a far more competitive era than Federer, was often injured in crucial matches and also faced down opposition from world class players such Andre Agassi, Patrick Rafter and Greg Rusedski.
Furthermore Sampras had a very different playing style to Federer that relied on incredible focus, the best serve in the history of the game and a unique style of playing both forehands and backhands. In the final equation it seems that a genuine comparison will only become viable when Federer wraps up his career, as the Swiss still needs two grand slam wins to prove once and for all that he is the greatest men's singles player in the history of the sport. With the Australian Open literally just around the corner all bets are on.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น