Roger Federer defeated Pete Sampras at Madison Square Garden on Monday night.
The highly anticipated exhibition match brought tennis back to Madison Square Garden for the first time since 2000, and certainly did not disappoint.
The sellout crowd of more than 19,000 fans was treated to a thrilling three-set match.
There were some great tennis from both players, but Federer defeated Sampras 6-3, 6-7, 7-6.
If both players were in their prime, who would have won the match?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Hard to answer since it is not clear that Federer has reached his prime. However, given the 10 year age difference and that Sampras is no longer playing on the pro. tour, you would have to give the edge to Sampras on a fast to medium fast indoor surface.
Both [layers play with so much passion and heart. Federer has dominated tennis more than Sampras did, but Sampras definately had to get by stronger opposition. It’s still to close to call how they’d match up in their primes, but it’ve been fun to watch.
Definitely Sampras would have won if both of them are in prime. See the current score 6-3, 6-7,7-6, which clearly shows that Sampras is very good after 10 years of his retirement.
I would have to agree with the
comment just prior to mine. Sampras
would seem to have the edge as he
effectively had the match in the 3rd
set, up 5-3, and lost, perhaps
because he’s older and no longer
on the tour. Secondly, in the
exhibition match prior to this one,
Sampras won (a couple of months
ago). Given Federer is in his prime,
or close to it, the fact that
Sampras can still beat him and
also make it very close, would indicate to me that Sampras may have been the stonger player.