Let me first correct the facts : Sampras has won 14 grand slams. He won 7 wimbledon and 5 US open singles. The last was one of my favs, I saw that live Agassi vs Sampras in 2001. What a final that was.

Federer has 12 slam singles. 3 Australian, 5 wimbledon, and 4 US open.

Why I am raising this topic here is Federer and Sampras both have a lot of similarities. They both are king of grass courts. They both have never ever won any single title in French opens where Borg or Nadal or even Agassi  have won. Both belong to the now extinct serve and volley game. Remember  Agassi was a great baseline player, so he did really well in clay courts. Nadal is kind of a power player like Marat Safin. With Federer the classic serve and volley game will be gone for ever. These days its more of powerful stroke than the skills of Sampras or Federer.

To me # of grand slams won is just a number. I have watched both play, but the CLASS of Sampras was out of the world. Federer has to be one of the best probably best for a lot but he can never match that Sampras show in 1999 when Sampras won against Agassi in 3 straight sets.

That day, Agassi played really well, but  Sampras took tennis to the level never seen before. That's why Agassi said that day " HE WALKED ON WATER TODAY".

I kind of bear an analogy in cricket though, in their peak Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Charles Lara were the best batsmen of 1990s or for that matter of our gneration but given a choice I will always watch Lara first just because of that audacity and grace of his batsmanship. In his peak Tendulkar was the best batsman in the earth, but Lara was the best batsman in the universe, he would take his game to heights mortals can only dream of, even someone as great as Tendulkar.

So my friends numbers are just numbers. Skillwise, charismawise,  I still rate Sampras slightly ahead of Federer.