"Both belong to the now extinct serve and volley game".

I don't think Roger is a kind of player you would call as a out and out serve-volleyer. Sampras was more of that than Fed. Federer is an all round player, he does not come to the net more often than Sampras does. He does not have, what I would call, the feel for the net as Pete. Fed is however a great ground-stroker. They both have a powerful forehand and a weak backhand. Opposition players always tried to exploit on the backhand of either players. Nadal exploited it more than anybody else. Fed wanted to make room and smash the forehand and everytime he was able to do that he came up with the goods. However, on groundstrokes, Fed had absolutely no answer to Nadal. At the end it all came down to being the fittest after a grueling finale and Nadal proved he is one of the fittest guys on tour. Lets give Roger credit. He came back from two sets down and almost losing the third to being able to hold off Rafa until the sun set at the all england where players could hardly see the ball.

Comparing Sampras to Fed is comparing apples to orange. They both had different set of game, differerent opponents altogether. Eventhough personally I believe Sampras had to keep up with more dangerous opponents than Fed .Sampras at his peak was untouchable and so was Fed. Fed is however the most complete player of the generation. Ask McEnroe. He has an allround game. Can come to the net when he wants and can stay on the baseline and rally amongst the greatest groundstrokers. But its the numbers game and Sampras has 14 whereas Fed has 12. Fed may have one of the most complete game, but until he surpasses Pete, he will play second fiddle when he comes to being the greatest.