PDA

View Full Version : Have we forgotten how good Sampras was?


deucecourt
02-22-2007, 10:59 AM
Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count. The more we watch Fed destroy his competitors the more we forget how good Sampras was. But the Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

alfa164164
02-22-2007, 11:04 AM
Sampras himself said Fed's forehand is better than his was, so you lose some credibility off the bat.

Ztalin
02-22-2007, 11:06 AM
The only reason you're saying that Fed's competition isn't as good as Sampras's is because Fed's competition hasn't won many slams.

I think someone said it best on here that you guys think that the only way for Federer to prove his greatness, is to lose more? Because that's the only way that his competition can 'prove themselves.' Think about how illogical that is.

deucecourt
02-22-2007, 11:06 AM
How does one lose credibility based on their opinion.

ferocious4hand
02-22-2007, 11:07 AM
why doesn't wayne ferreira count?

Tchocky
02-22-2007, 11:11 AM
Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count. The more we watch Fed destroy his competitors the more we forget how good Sampras was. But the Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

I'm willing to give the edge to Pete on the serve and volley but Roger does everything better. Fed's forehand may be one of the greatest shots in the history of the game. His one handed backhand is far superior to Pete's one handed backhand. And finally, Roger is a more versatile and all court player than Pete was.

Nick Irons
02-22-2007, 11:14 AM
Most of these Fed fans have totally forgotten or were too young to remember (or just weren't paying attention during Pete's reign) how good the Pistol was.

It's almost insulting that the general attitude is dismissive when comparing the 2 players.

jelle v
02-22-2007, 11:15 AM
Also Sampras never got owned by any player

What do you mean with this?

And no I haven't forgotten how great Sampras was (YouTube) but I simply think that Federer was the better player, not way better, but definitely better. I think the only thing Sampras was better at, was serving and the running forehand. Volleys are at least equal in my opinion.

Chadwixx
02-22-2007, 11:17 AM
Ya pete was great, i capped the 2001 us open final with him vs safin last night.

Watch the last game of that match and it will dispell pete the gun slinger myth. He has has break point yet dinks it back over the net giving safin and easy shot. Much like in the fed vs sampras match, when the pressure was on, pete didnt come up with the goods.

Just watch the youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSje6Aptac

Feds volley is equal if not better than petes. He just realizes (unlike the 100 pete fans at the tw forums) that the serve and volley doesnt work against the guys today.

jelle v
02-22-2007, 11:18 AM
Most of these Fed fans have totally forgotten or were too young to remember (or just weren't paying attention during Pete's reign) how good the Pistol was.

It's almost insulting that the general attitude is dismissive when comparing the 2 players.

I am 26, I was always watching tennis on tv and I was a big fan of Sampras (I was one of the people rooting for Sampras instead of Agassi), but even back then I thought his backhand wasn't really good. I loved his forehand and thought it could never be surpassed, but then Federer came and I changed my mind.

fastdunn
02-22-2007, 11:36 AM
why doesn't wayne ferreira count?

The head to head records between Sampras and Ferreira was all
non-slam matches except one. Sampras was such a critical match
player. Their only meeting at slam was won by Sampras.

Other players like Stich has winning records over Sampras but
I think all of their slam meetings were won by Sampras.

Krajicek truely beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 1996 and he might have
overall winning head-to-head record but 1996
was only year Sampras skipped the warm-up event for Wimbledon.
And then he beat Krajicek at US Open.

fastdunn
02-22-2007, 11:39 AM
I am 26, I was always watching tennis on tv and I was a big fan of Sampras (I was one of the people rooting for Sampras instead of Agassi), but even back then I thought his backhand wasn't really good. I loved his forehand and thought it could never be surpassed, but then Federer came and I changed my mind.

Then again we having the period of forehand revolution.

I think there are many many of urrent top pros who have their
(modern) forehand better than all time great players of 90's, IMHO.

Swissv2
02-22-2007, 12:11 PM
I would take Pete's opinion over most anyone on these boards.

He has played Federer first hand.
He knows the game a BIT better than anyone of us.
He's been at the top - and has seen and played against quite a bit of the top players, therefore giving him more credibility than any of us.If he states Federer's forehand is better, then he must have some grounds to say that.

avmoghe
02-22-2007, 12:12 PM
Yes, Agassi, and almost every tennis authority in existence today have completely forgotten how good Sampras was.....

/sarcasm

Nick Irons
02-22-2007, 12:25 PM
Who's arguing ?

Hughy86
02-22-2007, 12:28 PM
I think you would be surprised just how good Fed really is at the net. He was originally are S&V player but only switched because he is so dominate from the baseline. It would be a terrible mistake to draw him into the net.

VGP
02-22-2007, 12:33 PM
How can you forget if you've never seen?

I think this applies to many people today.

alfa164164
02-22-2007, 12:36 PM
Your "opinion" lacks credibility because one of the basis for your conclusion doesn't seem accurate. Kind ol like if I said I think Rafael Nadal is a better player than Andy Roddick because Rafa's serve is better. Now you can still argue the position that Nadal is a better player, but your "opinion" on his serve makes you appear biased.
So, what do you know about Sampras' forehand that has it deemed superior to Fed's when Pete himself doesn't think so?
You could still have taken your stance and argued your position even with the acknowledgement that Federer's forehand is superior. If you had done so, a more reasonable discussion could have followed. As it stands, the perception is that you are not letting the facts (as put forth by Pete himself) get in the way of your position.

holera
02-22-2007, 12:47 PM
Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count.

i think krajicek owned sampras, even in his prime. in mid 90s, krajicek was 6-1 or 6-2 over sampras, including straights sets at wimbledon. and they liked the same surfaces. too bad krajicek struggled with injury so much.

i do think sampras has become underrated/forgotten. too many ppl think of his last years instead of 94-95 when he was almost as dominant as federer.

tricky
02-22-2007, 12:50 PM
So, what do you know about Sampras' forehand that has it deemed superior to Fed's when Pete himself doesn't think so?

Yeah, but you gotta admit that running FH of Sampras is the bee's knees. Man if Fed added that to his arsenal . . .

I kinda think it isn't so much that people underestimate Sampras's legacy, but that people see serve+volley as a "impractical" , if not outright obsolete, form of play at the pro men's level today. And with that said, Sampras's all-court style over his career was pretty varied. Only constant was his aggression.

dukemunson
02-22-2007, 01:00 PM
Ya pete was great, i capped the 2001 us open final with him vs safin last night.

Watch the last game of that match and it will dispell pete the gun slinger myth. He has has break point yet dinks it back over the net giving safin and easy shot. Much like in the fed vs sampras match, when the pressure was on, pete didnt come up with the goods.

Just watch the youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSje6Aptac

Feds volley is equal if not better than petes. He just realizes (unlike the 100 pete fans at the tw forums) that the serve and volley doesnt work against the guys today.


That is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on the TW message board (and lets be honest there are some ridiculous ones). You are basing Pete Sampras's nerves based on one shot in one match? Are you serious? Didnt Jordan miss a game winner or two in his career? Didn't Gretzky miss a relatively open slap shot from time to time? Didn't Pele ever mess up a header? While I believe Federer is playing at the highest level ever played right now it's only fractionally better then Sampras. Sampras may not have dominated quite the same way Fed is right now but he was pretty damn close (we're tossing out any extra arguments of talent level for this argument). Ultimetely I'll take Federer's game right now over anyone of all time but if it came down to who you wanted to serve out a set or match on a grandslam court (French excluded) give me Sampras anyday...

alfa164164
02-22-2007, 01:09 PM
In Pete's 3 most dominant years, he still had like 44 loses.
I think Fed has like 15 losses for the last 3 years. That's ALOT more loses.
Federer also has more wins over that same timeframe.
Now, let's wait for the "Pete's competition was better" arguements.
Any moment.............(But that's 29 MORE losses over their most dominant extended period with fewer wins.)

drakulie
02-22-2007, 01:32 PM
Sampras was an awesome player and one of the Greats. I don't think I have seen anybody deny that, so I'm unsure as to why you feel he gets no respect.

Just because many people feel Fed is Better, does not mean they have fogotten how great Sampras was.

ACE of Hearts
02-22-2007, 01:39 PM
When i used to watch Sampras, i was amazed by his game.I thought he was like the best player i have seen until i saw Fed.I am surprised that we saw this dominance come so early after Sampras left the game.I guess i know why Pete has some resement, people indeed might have forgotten about him.

federerfanatic
02-22-2007, 02:01 PM
Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

Ivanisevic isnt better then Roddick you idiot. Ivanisevic is mostly just a great serve just like Roddick but Roddick gets 70% of his serves in and his second serve is much more reliable, and his ground game while not great is way better then Ivanisevic's. If Roddick and Ivanisevic just played groundstroke points with no serves Roddick would crush Ivanisevic.

Rafter is nothing special, a late blooming 2nd rate serve-volleyer who won his first U.S Open over Rusedski, then won his second over an injured Sampras and Phillipousis and spent most of his career not even a top player. He cant lick the gum of the shoes of real consistent top players like Roddick and Hewitt and Nadal.

Sampras's forehand better then Federer's, ROTFL!!! Please. The only forehand Sampras hit a bit better is the running forehand, Federer has a way better forehand down the line, prone crosscourt forehand, inside out forehand, down the middle forehand, off forehand, wide forehand, short angled forehand. Federer's forehand is the best shot all time period.

Federer is better then Sampras, that is why he is a few years away from taking or sharing every record Sampras ever had. Get over it. Federer>Sampras.

The reason Federer wins so much more is he doesnt let his competition get that great, he just chooses to win everything instead. He doesnt let Yzaga or korda beat him at the U.S open like Sampras did, he doesnt let Safin or Hewitt embarass him in the finals like Sampras did. He doesnt let nothing-but-a-serve Krajicek or a 19-year old unmatured newbie like who? Oh yeah Fed himself, beat him at Wimbledon when Fed was only the #15 seed and 10% the player he was today and Pete was the #1 seed. If Pete couldnt even beat that Federer imagine what the Federer of today would do to him, ouch. He doesnt let unseeded players like Kucera or Phillipousis knock him out of the Aussie Open, nor does he skip an Aussie Open because he needs a break. He just instead chooses to win and win, instead of letting ungreat players knock him out of slams. Dont give me this crap about Agassi and Becker, it took ungreat players to knock Pete out of slams often.

Polaris
02-22-2007, 03:23 PM
Sampras was an awesome player and one of the Greats. I don't think I have seen anybody deny that, so I'm unsure as to why you feel he gets no respect.

Just because many people feel Fed is Better, does not mean they have fogotten how great Sampras was.
Exactly. Praise for Federer need not be seen as automatic denigration of Sampras.

NamRanger
02-22-2007, 03:31 PM
Ivanisevic isnt better then Roddick you idiot. Ivanisevic is mostly just a great serve just like Roddick but Roddick gets 70% of his serves in and his second serve is much more reliable, and his ground game while not great is way better then Ivanisevic's. If Roddick and Ivanisevic just played groundstroke points with no serves Roddick would crush Ivanisevic.

Rafter is nothing special, a late blooming 2nd rate serve-volleyer who won his first U.S Open over Rusedski, then won his second over an injured Sampras and Phillipousis and spent most of his career not even a top player. He cant lick the gum of the shoes of real consistent top players like Roddick and Hewitt and Nadal.



You would be suprised how good Ivanisevic really is with his forehand if you actually watched one of his matches. Accurate and consistent? No, but plenty of pop on the ball, and it was one of those shots you don't want to be on. Not only that, but for a guy so tall he could move extremely well and had good enough volleys to back up his huge serve.


Rafter is a pretty solid serve and volley player, but what really made him better then the other S&V (other then Sampras) players of his time was that he could play from the baseline and stay in the point. Although he was no threat back there, he was good enough to find himself an opening to get to net.


It really suprises me when people talk so much trash about players of the past when they've actually never even watched a highlight clip let alone actual matches of them playing.

Chadwixx
02-22-2007, 03:33 PM
Just basing my opinion on matches i have watched recently. Im guessing you missed him miss the two volleys against fed at crunch time. Im also guessing you havent seen the safin match. Pete played very passive vs safin, he didnt go for it on big points.

I captured it last night on the comp which is why im bringing it up. So continue argueing on what you remember, I actually have these matches and saw what really happened.

Also check out the final point in the safin-sampras match, pete losses on a cross court appoach shot, ala roddick.

shakes1975
02-22-2007, 04:06 PM
this whole thread is absurd. stating that fed is a better player than sampras doesn't mean sampras is not good. it just means that: fed is a better player than sampras.

this is an ongoing scenario, something every generation sees. when sampras got similar appreciation in the mid-90's, there were people complaining about how everyone forgot about laver, borg etc.

when someone better than fed comes along, people will say the same thing.

sampras was, is, and always will be, a great player. but fed is even better.

Swissv2
02-22-2007, 04:08 PM
this whole thread is absurd. stating that fed is a better player than sampras doesn't mean sampras is not good. it just means that: fed is a better player than sampras.

this is an ongoing scenario, something every generation sees. when sampras got similar appreciation in the mid-90's, there were people complaining about how everyone forgot about laver, borg etc.

when someone better than fed comes along, people will say the same thing.

sampras was, is, and always will be, a great player. but fed is even better.

Realize that people have a tendency to cling and glorify the past, as thongs cling and get stuck in one's booty.

shrakkie
02-22-2007, 04:11 PM
Krajicek certainly had had Pete's number.

federerfanatic
02-22-2007, 04:24 PM
You would be suprised how good Ivanisevic really is with his forehand if you actually watched one of his matches. Accurate and consistent? No, but plenty of pop on the ball, and it was one of those shots you don't want to be on. Not only that, but for a guy so tall he could move extremely well and had good enough volleys to back up his huge serve.

Rafter is a pretty solid serve and volley player, but what really made him better then the other S&V (other then Sampras) players of his time was that he could play from the baseline and stay in the point. Although he was no threat back there, he was good enough to find himself an opening to get to net.

It really suprises me when people talk so much trash about players of the past when they've actually never even watched a highlight clip let alone actual matches of them playing.

You are a moron to say I have never seen these players, I have seen them play many times and that is what they were. Ivanisevic sucked except for his serve, Cliff Drysdale and Fred Stolle said so a ton of times commentating on him, "if you get serve back he is out to sea" I guess they never saw him play either. You are obviously a Sampras fanboy who is trying to build Ivanisevic up just because he was a Sampras opponent. Sorry we are not fooled by your "you must have never seen the guy play" crap. Except for his great serve, he sucked, you arent fooling anybody, and most tennis know-whos who saw him play said the same thing at the time.

Yeah I have seen Rafter play. Second rate serve-volleyer who was a very late bloomer and won his 2 slams against Rusedski and beating an injured Sampras and Phillipousis to win the other. So so ground game, weak return game. Wow player, not!

Lambsscroll
02-22-2007, 04:26 PM
Fed has no weakness. Fed has all Pete's strengths but not his weaknesses. Ask Agassi. BTW didn't Hewitt take apart Pete in a US Open final?

Chadwixx
02-22-2007, 04:38 PM
Yeah I have seen Rafter play. Second rate serve-volleyer who was a very late bloomer and won his 2 slams against Rusedski and beating an injured Sampras and Phillipousis to win the other. So so ground game, weak return game. Wow player, not!

Nah rafter was first class. He was the serve and volley version of hewitt, busted his *** on every point.

35ft6
02-22-2007, 04:56 PM
I don't think these arguments exist because we forgot -- they exist because we still remember. Think about it. If we really forgot, there would be no Roger versus Sampras threads.

In my opinion, the reason some people still hesitate to pass the GOAT crown to Roger is because it happened so soon, because the memories of Sampras being called a once in 50 or 100 years player, whose records might not be broken until everybody who's ever seen him play is dead, is still so fresh in our heads. You almost feel wishy washy when you say somebody is the greatest ever and then 4 years later you're saying it about somebody else. But here we are...

alwaysatnet
02-22-2007, 06:36 PM
Just basing my opinion on matches i have watched recently. Im guessing you missed him miss the two volleys against fed at crunch time. Im also guessing you havent seen the safin match. Pete played very passive vs safin, he didnt go for it on big points.

I captured it last night on the comp which is why im bringing it up. So continue argueing on what you remember, I actually have these matches and saw what really happened.

Also check out the final point in the safin-sampras match, pete losses on a cross court appoach shot, ala roddick.Yeah, it still amazes me. He sucks so much yet won all those grand slam titles. Isn't that amazing? Huh?

Duzza
02-22-2007, 06:39 PM
How many threads do we need about this same argument. It's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Federer is clearly winning the race at the moment, and will probably gain the complete GOAT status if he keeps going as he well as he is. Face it, please. History was good, but get over it.

yonex90
02-22-2007, 06:56 PM
I think an answer to your orginal question is that yes most people have forgotten how great he was, but I'm not saying that he's better than Federer or anything either. I think a lot of people forgot how great Borg was when Sampras was playing and etc. It's natural.
But I grew up watching Sampras and Agassi and I love those childhood memories but I always remember that Agassi had a chance to win against him going into the finals and for the last two years I haven't felt that anyone has a had a chance to beat him, so I think that this era of domination by Fed without a chance to beat him is somewhat unprecidented.
Yet Borg could win the French and Wembledon back to back two years in a row and no one has dominated on those two surfaces since then either. So in a way there's an arguement that the depth of Borg's game could trump Fed or Sampras at this point.
I don't get into these things because I think just like great music, these players have to be split into era's. Each one being very different than the one before it.

OnceWas
02-22-2007, 07:05 PM
haven't forgotten how good Sampras was on hardcourts. Also haven't forgotten how vulnerable he was on clay, either. Would still take Federer as a better all around player. No disrepect to Sampras .

caulcano
02-23-2007, 01:31 AM
Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.

I agree FED is not way better.

Each player have strengths and weaknesses. However, I like to think of FED as a more consistent player than SAMP ever was (the records show this clearly).

Fedexeon
02-23-2007, 01:34 AM
Ivanisevic was better than Roddick? o.O

TheNatural
02-23-2007, 09:08 AM
I think it w as much tougher to play consistent tennis with the equipment back then. Thats probably why Fed also used to lose a lot back then. With the equipment now, hes able to play a much lower risk game and still dominate. If Fed was playing now under the same conditionds as back in Pete's time, hed likely still be the best as he has a better rounded game than everyone else, but hed have a lot more losses also. He'd have to play a higher risk game from the baseline as he wouldnt be able to hit with as much margin as he can with present equipment, or he'd have to come to net more. With these types of game it would be harder to constantly win. When Andy Murray beat fed he said that Fed probably had 20 bad games a year which he still manages to win. Thats 20 bad games with the current equipment which makes things a lot easier. If he travels back into Petes times, those 20 bad games may become a lot more. As you can see, you can't compare eras, as in the short space of even 6 years, a lot has changed.

In Pete's 3 most dominant years, he still had like 44 loses.
I think Fed has like 15 losses for the last 3 years. That's ALOT more loses.
Federer also has more wins over that same timeframe.
Now, let's wait for the "Pete's competition was better" arguements.
Any moment.............(But that's 29 MORE losses over their most dominant extended period with fewer wins.)

fastdunn
02-23-2007, 09:21 AM
In my case, I am not so sure Fed is clearly best I've ever seen.

ATP tour playing condition has been altered severely sometime between
2001 - 2003. Federer heppened to have a right type of game at the right time.
(Sampras also had perfect game for 90's condition).

Federer seems to have better hand and those non atheletic domain factors
like game intellegence, court vision and so on. But I think Sampras
is still best player I've ever seen in physical/atheletic domain which I still
think it is the primary aspect of this sport.

I think next 3 years will be much tougher for Federer than his last 3 years.
There will be these new young up and commers. And there always will be
a few more problem lefties.

Federer is most talented player I've ever seen in terms of both atheletic
and non-atheletic domain. But my prediction is that his reign as #1 will
end within 2 years from now....and rather abruptly unlike Sampras' last
3 years of his 6 prime years.

drakulie
02-23-2007, 09:29 AM
I think it w as much tougher to play consistent tennis with the equipment back then. Thats probably why Fed also used to lose a lot back then. With the equipment now, hes able to play a much lower risk game and still dominate. If Fed was playing now under the same conditionds as back in Pete's time, hed likely still be the best as he has a better rounded game than everyone else, but hed have a lot more losses also. He'd have to play a higher risk game from the baseline as he wouldnt be able to hit with as much margin as he can with present equipment, or he'd have to come to net more.

Pretty lame argument. Fed used the same racquet as Sampras, and the racquet he has been using the last few years is a 90 square inch racquet. When you place these two racquets on top of one another the deifference in size is hardly noticeable.

Additionally, the players Fed faces today (under your premise), are using even better racquets than those used by the competition of Sampras, and he is still beating them handily with the same racquet.

TGV
02-23-2007, 10:01 AM
Federer is most talented player I've ever seen in terms of both atheletic
and non-atheletic domain. But my prediction is that his reign as #1 will
end within 2 years from now....and rather abruptly unlike Sampras' last
3 years of his 6 prime years.

It sounds like you are talking with your heart here, not head. I imagine you think 97-99 were the last 3 years of Sampras's prime. Sampras won 4 slams in these 3 years. Fed has already won the first slam of 07. So, in order for Fed to have fewer slams (i.e. less than 4) during 07-09, he would have to lose 9 out of the next 11 slams.

Among the new guys, only Murray seems to have the game to compete with Fed. I don't think Gasquet, Berdych and Baghdatis will pose any problems (0 for 12 in their last 12 matches). So unless Murray himself becomes a Sampras/Federer type of dominant champion, it's hard to imagine Federer having less success than Sampras in his last years of prime.

kimizz
02-23-2007, 10:41 AM
Federer=Great Sampras=Great Borg=Great.Who is the Greatest? Id say the only way to get an answer to this is to invent a time machine and get all the great players from the past and present to one tournament and give them equal equipment...sounds like a great idea for a movie ;)

BeckerFan
02-23-2007, 10:48 AM
I've been waiting for them to make a computer game that simulates the playing styles of the greatest players in history. I'm imagining Elly Vines, in long pants, or Pancho Gonzales staring down Sampras across the net ... who would outserve whom? Perhaps some extra games on the side as well, like a footrace between Fred Perry and Borg. Then we'd finally know who has the most goatiness. ;-)

dukemunson
02-23-2007, 11:59 AM
I think it w as much tougher to play consistent tennis with the equipment back then. Thats probably why Fed also used to lose a lot back then. With the equipment now, hes able to play a much lower risk game and still dominate. If Fed was playing now under the same conditionds as back in Pete's time, hed likely still be the best as he has a better rounded game than everyone else, but hed have a lot more losses also. He'd have to play a higher risk game from the baseline as he wouldnt be able to hit with as much margin as he can with present equipment, or he'd have to come to net more. With these types of game it would be harder to constantly win. When Andy Murray beat fed he said that Fed probably had 20 bad games a year which he still manages to win. Thats 20 bad games with the current equipment which makes things a lot easier. If he travels back into Petes times, those 20 bad games may become a lot more. As you can see, you can't compare eras, as in the short space of even 6 years, a lot has changed.

A pretty weak argument...your telling me racket technology between the time Sampras played and Federer is playing has changed that much? Changes in style of play has less to do with technology and more to do with psychology...In todays game Sampras would still be dominating (other then Fed which would have been an all-time classic match-up) "Old techology" or not...

deucecourt
02-23-2007, 12:36 PM
Giving yourself the name "Federerfanatic" bars you from any logical arguments to this particular thread. I hope for your sake you are a female.

deucecourt
02-23-2007, 12:49 PM
HEY alfa164164 You absolutely make no sense whatsoever. Just because Sampras says Feds forehand is better does not make it fact, sure he would have a better read on it playing first hand but it is still an opinion one of which I would differ. Pete is being HUMBLE..

The tennis guy
02-23-2007, 01:08 PM
Federer is most talented player I've ever seen in terms of both atheletic
and non-atheletic domain. But my prediction is that his reign as #1 will
end within 2 years from now....and rather abruptly unlike Sampras' last
3 years of his 6 prime years.

You and many had predicted Federer's reign would end early a year ago, but what Federer has done in the past? He has improved more than others, and he actually distances himself from the rest even more. It's incredible for someone like him when he had little challenge. If he gets more challenged, as competitive Federer is - doesn't want to lose any match, he is going to get even better.

I'll bet Federer would have more success between 2007-2009 than Sampras' 1997-1999.

fastdunn
02-23-2007, 01:16 PM
It sounds like you are talking with your heart here, not head. I imagine you think 97-99 were the last 3 years of Sampras's prime. Sampras won 4 slams in these 3 years. Fed has already won the first slam of 07. So, in order for Fed to have fewer slams (i.e. less than 4) during 07-09, he would have to lose 9 out of the next 11 slams.

Among the new guys, only Murray seems to have the game to compete with Fed. I don't think Gasquet, Berdych and Baghdatis will pose any problems (0 for 12 in their last 12 matches). So unless Murray himself becomes a Sampras/Federer type of dominant champion, it's hard to imagine Federer having less success than Sampras in his last years of prime.

You're correct. It's only my only gut feeling. But I don't think there are many
factors here logically analyzed here.

But I did not mean next 3 year of Federer would be less successful
than Sampras' last 3 years pf prime. My prediction is simply he would not
last 3 more years as #1. He could win 5-8 more slams during his prime
but I don't think he will last 3 more years as number #1.

If Federer is challenged on hard courts, grass courts would NOT be as safe
as Sampras' time. Federer is playing all or nothing kind of tennis.
Federer's domination is very extreme but could end rather abruptly
unlike Sampras' extended lower degree of domination.
This does not necessarily mean Federer would be less successful than
Sampras. TGV, I hope I made myself clearer here.

fastdunn
02-23-2007, 01:20 PM
You and many had predicted Federer's reign would end early a year ago, but what Federer has done in the past? He has improved more than others, and he actually distances himself from the rest even more. It's incredible for someone like him when he had little challenge. If he gets more challenged, as competitive Federer is - doesn't want to lose any match, he is going to get even better.

I'll bet Federer would have more success between 2007-2009 than Sampras' 1997-1999.

That's true that I made a prediction that Federer would not have
successful 2006. Yep, I made a wrong prediction. What can I say, I was wrong.
I really didn't think he could better his 2005.
But I don't think I said Federer's domination would end in 2006.

I still think The end of Federer's domination would be rather sudden one
unlike Sampras' or Lendle's extended lower degree of domination.

VGP
02-23-2007, 01:28 PM
A pretty weak argument...your telling me racket technology between the time Sampras played and Federer is playing has changed that much? Changes in style of play has less to do with technology and more to do with psychology...In todays game Sampras would still be dominating (other then Fed which would have been an all-time classic match-up) "Old techology" or not...

I think it has changed "that much." Just that much is reflected by comments that Sampras himself (and Jim Courier) recently made. It's not necessarily in the racket technology as it is in the string technology. Sampras has finally switched and Courier has too after getting beaten soundly by Sampras.

Even Federer's commented that switching to a bigger headed racket and his gut/poly hybrid has improved his success rate. He made the change in '03 and subsequently won Wimbledon and became the world #1.

The transition on tour as a whole came in the late 90's early 00's. It's part of the demise of the S&V game and has made pros more successful at taking huge cuts at the ball being able to impart more spin for control.

In the 90's full gut jobs were the way to go. Pros got a lot of power and hit flatter. Now, everyone hits primarily from the baseline. For fear of coming to net on stuff that gets munched on.....

As for Federer's reign, I too thought he'd burn out relatively quickly. Lots of success early and fizzle out. It seems that he's adjusted by taking the proper amounts of rest and training at the right times. Surrounding himself with the best "consultants" doesn't hurt either.

My only question is his degree of fight when his back's against the wall (sub 0.500 five set record). His matches are getting closer and he's maintaning a mental edge over the other players on tour. Just like Sampras in the late 90's facing younger players that are a bit more naively fearless (i.e. Nadal), hit a big ball, can run all day, will Federer continue to fight or will he dip into his sour moods and start dropping crutial matches in the slams? We'll just have to wait and see......

ACE of Hearts
02-23-2007, 01:35 PM
The problem with the burning out statement is that his game is not even taxing enough for it.I think only injuries might stop him 2 to 3 years from now.We will see.The guy has too many weapons in my mind to lose it 2 to 3 years from now.He might lose a step but that wont stop him from winning matches.He is a smart player and will probably choose events that benefit him in the future.

The Nadal statement is pretty bogus, Nadal will be Hewitt 2.Also i think he will fall somewhat this year.

drakulie
02-23-2007, 01:36 PM
I think it has changed "that much." Just that much is reflected by comments that Sampras himself (and Jim Courier) recently made. It's not necessarily in the racket technology as it is in the string technology. Sampras has finally switched and Courier has too after getting beaten soundly by Sampras.

The problem with an argument like this one is that although Fed may have changed his strings>>> so has everyone else on tour. Of course, Sampras didn't have to face guys with these "new and improved" strings, but Fed does, and yet he is still dominating with a racquet extemely simialar to that of Sampras'.

fastdunn
02-23-2007, 01:36 PM
Sampras had safe place called Wimbledon and indoor carpet.
Grass court and indoor carpet tennis was so different from the rest
of the world that he could just dominate there and stay #1.

I don't think Federer has such a safe place IF he starts get challeges
here and there (on hard courts). So it's rather obvious for me to
make a prediction that his domination will end abruptly (in today's
relatively homogenized ATP surfaces conditions...)

ACE of Hearts
02-23-2007, 01:39 PM
Fed has been just as dominant then Sampras on hardcourts.So that goes out the window.He beat all of Sampras's hardcourt records.

Golden Retriever
02-23-2007, 01:42 PM
Sampras 's backhand was a real liability. His serve was the best back then but apparently not as fast as Roddick or any of the big guns nowadays (translation: no problem for Fed whatsoever.) His volley was very good though which complemented his serve perfectly.

I think Federer could handle Sampras quite handily since he could easily hold his serve by picking on Sampras' backhand liability. Without the risk of being broken all Fed needs would be just one break per set which he is surely capable of against anyone especially the big servers. If Fed can handle Roddick's serve handily he should be able to handle Sampras' serve just as well. Sampras' volley could make him more difficult to break than Roddick but Fed should be able to squeeze out one break per set somehow.

VGP
02-23-2007, 01:45 PM
The problem with the burning out statement is that his game is not even taxing enough for it.I think only injuries might stop him 2 to 3 years from now.We will see.The guy has too many weapons in my mind to lose it 2 to 3 years from now.He might lose a step but that wont stop him from winning matches.He is a smart player and will probably choose events that benefit him in the future.

The Nadal statement is pretty bogus, Nadal will be Hewitt 2.Also i think he will fall somewhat this year.

I used Nadal as an example. He's not intimidated like a lot of other people on tour (i.e. Roddick).

I think his game is taxing. Not like it was for Borg, Chang, Wilander, Hewitt et al., but as they say "effortlessness takes a lot of effort."

The problem with an argument like this one is that although Fed may have changed his strings>>> so has everyone else on tour. Of course, Sampras didn't have to face guys with these "new and improved" strings, but Fed does, and yet he is still dominating with a racquet extemely simialar to that of Sampras'.

I understand that, but Federer is much more of a spin player than Sampras ever was. As you know, Sampras played with a tightly strung natural gut heavy racket setup. Federer's taking full advantage of his lower tension gut-poly hybrid smaller gripsize setup.

Only now is Sampras finding out what he was unwilling to try as a touring pro.

VGP
02-23-2007, 01:49 PM
Sampras 's backhand was a real liability. His serve was the best back then but apparently not as fast as Roddick or any of the big guns nowadays (translation: no problem for Fed whatsoever.) His volley was very good though which complemented his serve perfectly.

I think Federer could handle Sampras quite handily since he could easily hold his serve by picking on Sampras' backhand liability. Without the risk of being broken all Fed needs would be just one break per set which he is surely capable of against anyone especially the big servers. If Fed can handle Roddick's serve handily he should be able to handle Sampras' serve just as well. Sampras' volley could make him more difficult to break than Roddick but Fed should be able to squeeze out one break per set somehow.


When are people going to get it in their heads.....IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT SPEED!

Sampras' serve was quick and it had A LOT of work on it.

Pace + Spin + Pinpoint Placement = tough serve.

Only now is Roddick tapping into effectiveness of using the slice in the deuce court and kicker on the ad to great effect.

rwn
02-23-2007, 01:49 PM
Fed has been just as dominant then Sampras on hardcourts.So that goes out the window.He beat all of Sampras's hardcourt records.

Federer is much more dominant. Sampras won 7 hardcourt majors (5 in his own country) in 12 years. Federer has won 6 hardcourt majors in 3 years. There is absolutely no comparison on hardcourts.

fastdunn
02-23-2007, 01:51 PM
In mid-90's, Agassi complained his baseline game is more taxing
than Sampras' quick game. Agassi even commented Sampras would last
until the age of 35 with his low taxing style.

It turns out that Sampras was playing on a narrower margin of error.
It was harder to maintain it in a sharp form even though he
looked effortless.

drakulie
02-23-2007, 01:52 PM
I understand that, but Federer is much more of a spin player than Sampras ever was. As you know, Sampras played with a tightly strung natural gut heavy racket setup. Federer's taking full advantage of his lower tension gut-poly hybrid smaller gripsize setup.

I agree with that. Not sure about the grip size though.

ACE of Hearts
02-23-2007, 01:56 PM
Again, i will say it once more.Injuries slowed down Sampras's career.Lets not forget that the guy won a GS before retiring.

tricky
02-23-2007, 02:01 PM
It was harder to maintain it in a sharp form even though he
looked effortless.

Yeah, serve and volley is inherently more taxing if it goes out to 4 deep, deep sets or 5 sets. Of course, Sampras also added an aggressive baseline game to that, and so his points were short on both defense and offensive sides. Again, aside from talent comparison, people shouldn't underestimate the resources and mental advantages of Sampras's style of play.

Fed's game isn't taxing, per se. But as with most who aspire for a classical all-court style, well once his movement goes, so will his domination of the game. You can't really have exquisite point construction without the ability to dance around the court. Then again, in the classic style, you actually much less active running than in the clay court retriever approach. Because you dictate, you're already moving in a direction before the other guy hits back.

Golden Retriever
02-23-2007, 02:11 PM
When are people going to get it in their heads.....IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT SPEED!

Sampras' serve was quick and it had A LOT of work on it.

Pace + Spin + Pinpoint Placement = tough serve.

Only now is Roddick tapping into effectiveness of using the slice in the deuce court and kicker on the ad to great effect.

It is impossible for any human being to serve with pinpoint accuracy throughout the whole match. His serve would be hard to break and the window of opportunity would be small but Fed would be able to take advantage of that WOP however small it maybe.

Gundam
02-23-2007, 02:25 PM
I am sick of this kind of topic.

I am glad we had players such as Sampras, Agassi, Guga, Rafter, Edberg and so on and I am glad because we have Federer and other great players.

The tennis guy
02-23-2007, 02:41 PM
Sampras had safe place called Wimbledon and indoor carpet.
Grass court and indoor carpet tennis was so different from the rest
of the world that he could just dominate there and stay #1.

I don't think Federer has such a safe place IF he starts get challeges
here and there (on hard courts). So it's rather obvious for me to
make a prediction that his domination will end abruptly (in today's
relatively homogenized ATP surfaces conditions...)

That's true for Sampras. However, Federer is a different player, and he is good every where. For someone to surpass him, that person has to be good every where as well, which makes it extremely difficult.

Federer is a great hardcourt player, but he is no where near as good as he is on grass.

35ft6
02-23-2007, 03:23 PM
Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past. Hewitt has a 3-1 winning record against Rafter. Nalbandian's the type of player who might potentially own Goran. Really bad match up in my opinion. And Roddick is a better player than Goran, straight up. Goran is way more talented, but Roddick is a better player. Nadal would destroy any of those three on clay. Look, today's players are better, even Sampras thinks so.

Golden Retriever
02-23-2007, 03:32 PM
Somehow players in the 80s and even the 90s had more flare, characteristics, personalities or whatever you call it. That made them looked "better". It is like the songs of the 70s and the 80s, IMO, were "better" musically. However technically, the songs nowadays are no doubt more advanced than those in the 70s and 80s and the same applies to tennis.

The Gorilla
02-23-2007, 03:33 PM
Hewitt has a 3-1 winning record against Rafter. Nalbandian's the type of player who might potentially own Goran. Really bad match up in my opinion. And Roddick is a better player than Goran, straight up. Goran is way more talented, but Roddick is a better player. Nadal would destroy any of those three on clay. Look, today's players are better, even Sampras thinks so.


I think Courier would beat Federer.

35ft6
02-23-2007, 03:46 PM
I think Courier would beat Federer.What are you basing this on? Sampras was 16-4 against Courier. Anyway, even Courier's come around:Tennis Week: Obviously every sport longs for rivalry, but since Federer has distanced himself from the pack so thoroughly at this point, is Federer's brilliance — and his chase of history — enough to drive viewer interest?

Jim Courier: Let's start with the premise tennis is best served by having full-blooded rivalries, which is a premise I subscribe to, but one thing that is so special about Federer is his appeal even without a rivalry. If Nadal goes away — and I still think that's a pick 'em match right now on any surface even though they've only played once since Wimbledon and that Shanghai match was one that certainly wasn't on the radar for a large part of the American audience because of the time difference — Federer is such an artist on the court and he has such a strong wow factor, his ability to demonstrate his artistry is enough right now to drive interest in tennis. I don't think the American tennis fan has been exposed enough to Roger Federer and with the absolute force of his numbers and his astonishing ability to perform at such a high level. As Federer continues to play at such a high level it is going to force sports fans to see what the fuss is all about. Roger Federer is the most dominant, easy going, natural athlete in any sport in the world right now, there's no question in my mind about that. His story has continued to be under publicized in U.S. media circles, but his record is now dictating that sports editors and the public must recognize that he is the most dominant and impressive athlete currently competing in any sport, anywhere — if they are made aware of it. The numbers don't lie. He is much more dominant than Tiger, his nearest competitor for that crown. I've been number one in the world, I've watched many world number one players and I am in awe of Roger Federer. Am I crazy to think that this last sentence is alluding to Sampras, who is one of many number one players he's seen, and then by him ending it with "I'm in awe of Federer" somehow means Roger is more impressive to him than all of the other number ones? Three years earlier, in a different interview:If Pete Sampras at his best played Roger Federer at his best in a Wimbledon Final, who would win and what would the score be?
Mike, USA

That's a tough question. Roger Federer beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon although Sampras wasn't at his best the year that Federer got him. I just find it hard to believe that anyone could beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon when he was at his best because he played the big points so well.

Maybe in five or six years we will say that Federer has the same ability and then it will be a really interesting question, but Federer has a little bit more to prove that he can be at Sampras's big-match level. Quotes aside, I think Courier versus Federer is a bad matchup. Courier relied on fitness and was one of the second generation of Lendl type players, relying mostly on his inside our forehand to control points, but his serve was top 15 quality, and his backhand was top 75 quality. He did very well on sheer persistence, an incredibly work ethic, super fitness, and just will power, which aren't the kind of things that are going to rattle Federer. Nadal has these things but he also has the physical tools to back it up, and Courier didn't. I just can't even imagine how Courier would really even make much of an impression on an in form Federer.

The Gorilla
02-23-2007, 03:53 PM
his backhand was top 75 quality!?!?!
What are you smoking!?!?!

I think courier would beat Federer, I think he matches up well against him.Obviously you don't agree but how about Muster?

ACE of Hearts
02-23-2007, 03:57 PM
Are u kidding me, Jim Courier?Dont think so.

35ft6
02-23-2007, 04:01 PM
his backhand was top 75 quality!?!?!
What are you smoking!?!?! Okay, I'm not being a smart ***** when I say, maybe top 50 quality. Very limited backhand. Limited because of his technique. It just needed to be good enough to keep him in the point so he could unleash off his forehand, but for the most part it couldn't really create anything. Roddick's backhand is the same way.I think courier would beat Federer, I think he matches up well against him. I'd like to hear why.Obviously you don't agree but how about Muster? I think Muster and Federer on clay would be very very interesting. Federer would have to be more of an all court player, I think, than against most other people. The Federer of three years ago, I would say Muster had the clear edge on clay. Today, not so sure but I would still cut off a person's finger, not mine though, to see this match. Drool.

Wimby
02-23-2007, 06:57 PM
his backhand was top 75 quality!?!?!
What are you smoking!?!?!

I think courier would beat Federer, I think he matches up well against him.Obviously you don't agree but how about Muster?

probably one time in 20 matches if Courier is lucky

DiabloTS
02-23-2007, 08:54 PM
omg how many times has this been discussed?

ipodtennispro
02-23-2007, 10:19 PM
Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count. The more we watch Fed destroy his competitors the more we forget how good Sampras was. But the Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

Of course not. Nobody, NOBODY has been able to copy his service motion:

http://iws.punahou.edu/user/lcouillard/GOAT_Serve.mov

www.ipodtennispros.com

danb
02-23-2007, 10:22 PM
Another boring thread. We will NEVER find out who would be better: Pete or Roger. These are players in different generations. That simple.

federerfanatic
02-24-2007, 12:49 AM
Okay, I'm not being a smart ***** when I say, maybe top 50 quality. Very limited backhand. Limited because of his technique. It just needed to be good enough to keep him in the point so he could unleash off his forehand, but for the most part it couldn't really create anything. Roddick's backhand is the same way. I'd like to hear why. I think Muster and Federer on clay would be very very interesting. Federer would have to be more of an all court player, I think, than against most other people. The Federer of three years ago, I would say Muster had the clear edge on clay. Today, not so sure but I would still cut off a person's finger, not mine though, to see this match. Drool.

Remember you are trying to argue with a dimwit who rates Lendl as the best backhand of the greatest players of the last 25 years over Agassi, Federer, Connors, and Borg.

Your rating Courier's backhand a top 50-top 75 is pretty accurate. His legs took a pounding hitting all those runaround forehands since he had to be hitting a forehand 80% of the time to stay near the top. His serve at top 15 is generous, I would rate it more top 30.

Federer would murder Courier on anything but clay. Federer does everything much better then Courier-forehands, backhands, variety, net play, serve and return serve, moves better, much smarter player. Courier might be a smidge ahead in fitness and close to equal in tenacity in fight, but that is it.
Federer would take him to pieces on hard courts, grass, or carpet.

Federer would murder Muster even worse on anything but clay. Those heavy topspinners and playing so far behind the baseline would get him nowhere but a quick shower on hard courts.

federerfanatic
02-24-2007, 12:52 AM
Sampras had safe place called Wimbledon and indoor carpet.
Grass court and indoor carpet tennis was so different from the rest
of the world that he could just dominate there and stay #1.

I don't think Federer has such a safe place IF he starts get challeges
here and there (on hard courts). So it's rather obvious for me to
make a prediction that his domination will end abruptly (in today's
relatively homogenized ATP surfaces conditions...)

You are right that Federer's dominance will end abruptly someday......... The day he retires that is. :p Whether he chooses that to be 6 years from now or 9 years, it will be all up to him. He wont let another player stop him from dominating while he chooses to play, he simply does not choose to do that.

The tennis guy
02-24-2007, 09:39 AM
his backhand was top 75 quality!?!?!
What are you smoking!?!?!

I think courier would beat Federer, I think he matches up well against him.Obviously you don't agree but how about Muster?

You are the one who forgets his medication. Courier had average backhand even in his dominating days. Go back watch some old videos after you take your medication.

TheNatural
02-24-2007, 09:41 AM
Now thats lame.

The racket and strings make a huge difference. Experts are saying ithat he strings are the biggest breakthrough in tennis in 15 years. So obviously the strings and Feds custom racket to complement these strings all make a big difference in control etc. If it wasnt the all the players and commentators wouldn't rave about the technology, and Sampras would stick with his old racket and old strings now if there was 'hardly any difference'. Check the internet and you will find quotes all over the place from players and commentators talking about the string technology etc. Or are you saying that everyone benefits except Fed, and that Fed would be dominating everyone now with his 85 square inch racket and gut only strings(or mabe even wood), but he just happens to choose different equipment than he used to just for the hell of it?

The players now are using better rackets but they're not playing any smarter than in past eras. Too many players are a bit carried away with their western grips and 1 dimensionsl baseline bashing. Mabe soon players will start playing a little smarter like in past eras and guys like Murray can start beating Fed more regularly. I want to see the other players raise their game, and develop more versatile games.

Anyways i think its time to put this issue to rest. I just want to see some good tennis.

cheers.


Pretty lame argument. Fed used the same racquet as Sampras, and the racquet he has been using the last few years is a 90 square inch racquet. When you place these two racquets on top of one another the deifference in size is hardly noticeable.

Additionally, the players Fed faces today (under your premise), are using even better racquets than those used by the competition of Sampras, and he is still beating them handily with the same racquet.

35ft6
02-24-2007, 12:15 PM
The racket and strings make a huge difference. Experts are saying ithat he strings are the biggest breakthrough in tennis in 15 years. So obviously the strings and Feds custom racket to complement these strings all make a big difference in control etc. If it wasnt the all the players and commentators wouldn't rave about the technology, and Sampras would stick with his old racket and old strings now if there was 'hardly any difference'. Check the internet and you will find quotes all over the place from players and commentators talking about the string technology etc. Or are you saying that everyone benefits except Fed, and that Fed would be dominating everyone now with his 85 square inch racket and gut only strings(or mabe even wood), but he just happens to choose different equipment than he used to just for the hell of it? Some people benefit more from Big Banger type string than others. Like a guy like Gonzalez benefits big time. In general, I think big hitting baseliners who hit with a lot of top spin benefit the most. The people who would benefit least are serve and volleyers. Sampras was really anal about his racket specs, and he used very tightly strung 17 gauge natural gut I'm pretty sure. Serve and volleyers need more feel, and Big Banger is terrible for that even when you're using a combo. Who knows if Sampras would have truly benefited. Is he even using it now on the senior tour?

dave333
02-24-2007, 01:37 PM
[QUOTE=deucecourt;1269706] [sampras]has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his [QUOTE]

are you joking?

federerfanatic
02-24-2007, 01:55 PM
Mabe soon players will start playing a little smarter like in past eras and guys like Murray can start beating Fed more regularly. I want to see the other players raise their game, and develop more versatile games.

No chance in hell Murray will start beating Federer regularly ever. If he starts beating him sometimes that will already be amazing for him, and I doubt he even does that. The best he will ever do is beat him occasionaly. If he is beating him sometimes he will already gauranteed to be Federer's biggest rival. If he beats him occasionaly he still might be his biggest rival.

ckthegreek
02-24-2007, 01:57 PM
Ya pete was great, i capped the 2001 us open final with him vs safin last night.

Watch the last game of that match and it will dispell pete the gun slinger myth. He has has break point yet dinks it back over the net giving safin and easy shot. Much like in the fed vs sampras match, when the pressure was on, pete didnt come up with the goods.

Just watch the youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSje6Aptac

Feds volley is equal if not better than petes. He just realizes (unlike the 100 pete fans at the tw forums) that the serve and volley doesnt work against the guys today.

Great to see once again the best points from this great match. Shame these two are not playing in the same era. There would be some very, very close matches providing great entertainment.

I think Sampras would still prevail at Wimbledon but Federer would have the edge on most other surfaces.

tennis_nerd22
02-24-2007, 02:00 PM
sampras? who's that?

ckthegreek
02-24-2007, 02:11 PM
sampras? who's that?

He's a legend. He did really exist.

jktennis59
02-24-2007, 04:16 PM
Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count. The more we watch Fed destroy his competitors the more we forget how good Sampras was. But the Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

I consider myself one of the greates Pete's fan. But we never saw Sampras at his best playing against Federer, so we can't compare these great players. In this match in Wimbledon Sampras was in decadence and Federer was raising his game. In any case, it was a great match for both players but I'm wondering how would be a match between Sampras of '90s and the Federer of today?
Seems to me that the only strokes in which Sampras edges Federer are serve and volley. Sounds simple but in my opinion this is enough to beat the great Fed.
Federer will break all Pete's records but we'll NEVER know who was better.

35ft6
02-24-2007, 04:39 PM
^ Some of us already know, and others will never be convinced.

BounceHitBounceHit
02-24-2007, 05:21 PM
Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count. The more we watch Fed destroy his competitors the more we forget how good Sampras was. But the Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

Pete is a LEGEND. Fed certainly seems to be well on his way to eclipsing Pete's records, but that will not diminish Sampras' accomplishments in my mind. ;) And BTW, I absolutely LOVE both of their games. CC

The Gorilla
02-24-2007, 07:27 PM
Remember you are trying to argue with a dimwit who rates Lendl as the best backhand of the greatest players of the last 25 years over Agassi, Federer, Connors, and Borg.

Your rating Courier's backhand a top 50-top 75 is pretty accurate. His legs took a pounding hitting all those runaround forehands since he had to be hitting a forehand 80% of the time to stay near the top. His serve at top 15 is generous, I would rate it more top 30.

Federer would murder Courier on anything but clay. Federer does everything much better then Courier-forehands, backhands, variety, net play, serve and return serve, moves better, much smarter player. Courier might be a smidge ahead in fitness and close to equal in tenacity in fight, but that is it.
Federer would take him to pieces on hard courts, grass, or carpet.

Federer would murder Muster even worse on anything but clay. Those heavy topspinners and playing so far behind the baseline would get him nowhere but a quick shower on hard courts.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rKeY6jseSs



go fullscreen

35ft6
02-24-2007, 07:40 PM
^ Lendl had a great backhand, but the best of whatever? No. I think Lendl is the most under-appreciated player of at least the open era, but there are a number of players who had better backhands. Forehand is probably top 5 of all time, but his backhand is maybe top 15 or 20 of all time. Off the top of my head, I would put Connors, Agassi, Guga, Federer, Safin, Kafelnikov, and even Corretja and Hewitt ahead of him. His backhand is more than just a non-weakness -- as with guys like Moya, Roddick, Courier, and Blake of three years ago -- I mean, he could actually create offense with it, but his game was built around his forehand.

aznspongehead
02-24-2007, 07:56 PM
Stop starting these useless threads. You know as well as I that as seen in the hundreds of other threads like this that these threads never go anywhere, and usually develops into some kind of never-ending debate.

This one is going way off topic anyways.

The Gorilla
02-24-2007, 08:00 PM
^ Lendl had a great backhand, but the best of whatever? No. I think Lendl is the most under-appreciated player of at least the open era, but there are a number of players who had better backhands. Forehand is probably top 5 of all time, but his backhand is maybe top 15 or 20 of all time. Off the top of my head, I would put Connors, Agassi, Guga, Federer, Safin, Kafelnikov, and even Corretja and Hewitt ahead of him. His backhand is more than just a non-weakness -- as with guys like Moya, Roddick, Courier, and Blake of three years ago -- I mean, he could actually create offense with it, but his game was built around his forehand.



I disagree, his backhand was as powerful as any of those players you mentioned, as consistant as hewitt;s, not to mention he could return very powerfully and with wide angles with it.

Federer's isn't as consistant, can't handle high balls and isn't quite as powerful.

Safin's is as powerful but sometimes is terrible and he doesn't have the variety from it that lendl had.

Connor's two handed backhand couldn't create any pace of it's own, Brad Gilbert stated in his book that he beat Connors by feeding him slow junky balls that he couldn't hit winners off.

Guga: Different type of backhand, not as powerful but very very very good in it's own way.Guga's backhand is to lendl's as Nadal's forehand is to Federer's.

Agassi hit with similar pace off that wing, but had no variety whatsoever, and the fact that it was a two hander coupled with his relative slowness made him hugely vulnerable toshort angles off that wing throughout his career.Couldn't really carve open the court with sharp angles either, which is why sampras beat him when at the net imo.

Kefelnikov: Didn't have the pin point accuracy or the variety off that wing, not to mention the incredible power.

35ft6
02-24-2007, 08:14 PM
Federer's isn't as consistant, can't handle high balls and isn't quite as powerful. If Lendl got a high ball, he floated it back deep, which is a very smart play, but isn't necessarily a demonstration of an incredible backhand. Federer's backhand is better by quite a bit IMO.Safin's is as powerful but sometimes is terrible and he doesn't have the variety from it that lendl had. Safin's backhand is more powerful, but you have a point that he's streaky not just with his backhand but in general.Connor's two handed backhand couldn't create any pace of it's own, Brad Gilbert stated in his book that he beat Connors by feeding him slow junky balls that he couldn't hit winners off. Was he talking about his backhand?Guga: Different type of backhand, not as powerful but very very very good in it's own way.Guga's backhand is to lendl's as Nadal's forehand is to Federer's. More powerful than Lendl's. People go on and on about how mechanical Lendl was but I think his forehand was a very flamboyant, flowing shot. His backhand on the other hand was very mechanical, hit very deliberately. He got good results but it's not a genius shot like Guga's backhand, which was just as consistent but he could put it in more places with more power than Lendl and with way less effort. No knock against Lendl, IMO Guga has quite possibly the best one handed top spin backhand ever.Agassi hit with similar pace off that wing, but had no variety whatsoever, and the fact that it was a two hander coupled with his relative slowness made him hugely vulnerable toshort angles off that wing throughout his career.Couldn't really carve open the court with sharp angles either, which is why sampras beat him when at the net imo. Huh? For one thing, Agassi didn't need to be that fast because he hit the ball so early. He cut off angles, which meant he didn't cover as much court. It was a rite of passage for guys to play Agassi, other players would warn them that they would run more than they ever have in their lives. Agassi's backhand was his better shot. His forehand was money, too, but his backhand was automatic. As economical as any stroke in tennis, I don't think Lendl would have to even think for a second if you asked him if he had a better backhand than Agassi. And variety in and of itself doesn't equal "better." Feliciano Lopez and Rusedski have more variety on their backhand than, say, Mardy Fish or Davydenko, but is there any doubt as to who has the better backhand?Kefelnikov:Didn't have the pin point accuracy or the variety off that wing, not to mention the incredible power. Pin point accuracy? Haha. His backhand is one of the most accurate ever.

To me, being able to change directions on the backhand, the ability to take a crosscourt shot and rip it down the line is synonymous with "great backhand." That's basically how a great backhand is defined when you really get down to it, the ability to hit it down the line off a cross court rally ball. In general, every pro can hit cross court backhands all day long. Roddick can, Rusedski can, everybody can. But what makes a backhand a weapon is being able to consistently rip it suddenly down the line. As far as that goes, Kafelnikov is in the top 5 of the open era. His backhand was money.

The Gorilla
02-24-2007, 08:31 PM
If Lendl got a high ball, he floated it back deep, which is a very smart play, but isn't necessarily a demonstration of an incredible backhand. Federer's backhand is better by quite a bit IMO. Safin's backhand is more powerful, but you have a point that he's streaky not just with his backhand but in general. Was he talking about his backhand? More powerful than Lendl's. People go on and on about how mechanical Lendl was but I think his forehand was a very flamboyant, flowing shot. His backhand on the other hand was very mechanical, hit very deliberately. He got good results but it's not a genius shot like Guga's backhand, which was just as consistent but he could put it in more places with more power than Lendl and with way less effort. No knock against Lendl, IMO Guga has quite possibly the best one handed top spin backhand ever. Huh? For one thing, Agassi didn't need to be that fast because he hit the ball so early. He cut off angles, which meant he didn't cover as much court. It was a rite of passage for guys to play Agassi, other players would warn them that they would run more than they ever have in their lives. Agassi's backhand was his better shot. His forehand was money, too, but his backhand was automatic. As economical as any stroke in tennis, I don't think Lendl would have to even think for a second if you asked him if he had a better backhand than Agassi. And variety in and of itself doesn't equal "better." Feliciano Lopez and Rusedski have more variety on their backhand than, say, Mardy Fish or Davydenko, but is there any doubt as to who has the better backhand? Pin point accuracy? Haha. His backhand is one of the most accurate ever.

To me, being able to change directions on the backhand, the ability to take a crosscourt shot and rip it down the line is synonymous with "great backhand." That's basically how a great backhand is defined when you really get down to it, the ability to hit it down the line off a cross court rally ball. In general, every pro can hit cross court backhands all day long. Roddick can, Rusedski can, everybody can. But what makes a backhand a weapon is being able to consistently rip it suddenly down the line. As far as that goes, Kafelnikov is in the top 5 of the open era. His backhand was money.



You didn't address the fact that Lendl's backhand was more consistant than Federer's, and more powerful.
It'sa testament to Roche that he turned two players who basically sliced all day into players wielding two of the best one handers in the history of the game.

Variety is an embellishment to a powerful shot, if you have a vicious slice like Lendl had then, assuming two backhands are roughly as powerful, I'd choose Lendl.
Also you seem to have interpreted variety as slice, rusedski and lopez have no variety either, they only slice.And inconsistantly at that.

Lendl ripped it suddenly down the line from post Roche onwards.and in that clip.

I disagree with you about agassi, his backhand was incredibly powerful and consistant, but when you got him on the run on that wing he was in serious trouble.He didn't have a good slice to get himself out of trouble and give himself time to cover the court.And against Sampras that weakness was exposed.Lendl took the ball early too btw, but had the speed and variety to recover the situation when oushed out wide.He could slice it (1)to a great length.(2) at a very wide angle.Or he could drill it(1)at length.(2)at a very wide angle.He returned just as powerfully with it as agassi too.

I'll give you Guga though.

TheNatural
02-24-2007, 10:08 PM
Lendl had a reasonable mechanical backhand, but Edbergs backhand was in a whole different class.

You didn't address the fact that Lendl's backhand was more consistant than Federer's, and more powerful.
It'sa testament to Roche that he turned two players who basically sliced all day into players wielding two of the best one handers in the history of the game.

Variety is an embellishment to a powerful shot, if you have a vicious slice like Lendl had then, assuming two backhands are roughly as powerful, I'd choose Lendl.
Also you seem to have interpreted variety as slice, rusedski and lopez have no variety either, they only slice.And inconsistantly at that.

Lendl ripped it suddenly down the line from post Roche onwards.and in that clip.

I disagree with you about agassi, his backhand was incredibly powerful and consistant, but when you got him on the run on that wing he was in serious trouble.He didn't have a good slice to get himself out of trouble and give himself time to cover the court.And against Sampras that weakness was exposed.Lendl took the ball early too btw, but had the speed and variety to recover the situation when oushed out wide.He could slice it (1)to a great length.(2) at a very wide angle.Or he could drill it(1)at length.(2)at a very wide angle.He returned just as powerfully with it as agassi too.

I'll give you Guga though.

35ft6
02-25-2007, 02:07 AM
You didn't address the fact that Lendl's backhand was more consistant than Federer's, and more powerful. I said it was better by quite a bit, which I thought addressed these things by implication, but, okay, Federer's backhand is more powerful and consistent. Go ahead, start a poll. I think even the people living in the past will agree Federer's backhand is better.

Wolbo
02-25-2007, 02:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rKeY6jseSs

Nice backhand shot but nothing special. Youzhny played several better backhands winners yesterday in his win over Djokovic.

The Gorilla
02-25-2007, 03:08 AM
I said it was better by quite a bit, which I thought addressed these things by implication, but, okay, Federer's backhand is more powerful and consistent. Go ahead, start a poll. I think even the people living in the past will agree Federer's backhand is better.

it's not as consistant.I think his flood of winners against nadal and blakecan be explained by the fact that absolutely no one saw it coming.He literally started using it offensively overnight.Both players positioned themselves crosscourt from Federer's backhand and so could only watch helplessly as Federer ripped it down the line.It's not quite as powerful either.