PDA

View Full Version : Watched Federer vs Sampras last night on DVD


kevhen
05-31-2007, 01:40 PM
Incredible match with awesome serving and all around great play except for Sampras' backhand and a couple missed jump overheads that cost him. Federer was very cool for a 19 year old and played very similar to how he does now although against Sampras he went to net quite a bit more than he does now.

Fed's girlfriend was up in the stands but the announcers never mentioned her, only Pete's woman.

alan-n
05-31-2007, 11:06 PM
Yeah, its a classic. That match had many implications.

Mr. Sean
05-31-2007, 11:12 PM
Awesome match. End of an era in my opinion in regards to how tennis is played. Dont really see matches like that anymore. Usually just two people baseline to baseline.

kevhen
06-01-2007, 09:08 AM
Even though Pete's first and second serves were each 10mph faster, Fed was getting more returns back in play than Pete was. Fed's backhand was better. Fed's forehand was slightly better too although Pete had the better volley. Pete's overhead let him down 2-3 times. Fed was faster on scrabble and reaction points. Very even match overall with it going to 7-5 in the 5th.

Fed would beat Pete on clay. Pete and Fed at the US Open would have been awesome.

Gundam
06-01-2007, 11:47 AM
Sampras looked guite tired IMO/old with too many mistakes (esp. BH) while Federer looked very fresh and determined.
Sampras from 95-97 vs. Fed of now would be great.
Are we going to see aging and slowed down Federer struggling against a new kids in 2011?

drakulie
06-01-2007, 12:39 PM
^^^^^^^ When has Pete not looked tired in a match?

snapple
06-01-2007, 12:50 PM
The real money point in that match was when Fed was down break point at 5-5 in the 5th set and had the balls (hear that Mats!) to attack off a weak Sampras return and forced Pete to lunge for a forehand pass which he hit into the net. Thought that really showed Fed's mettle and must have demoralized Pete.

Gundam
06-03-2007, 05:37 AM
^^^^^^^ When has Pete not looked tired in a match?

Hahaha, that's true. He was a great tennis player but I couldn't quite stand his slouched shoulders, facial expression, and his fashion sense. Well, I am a Edberg-Rafter-Guga camp person after all. :p


PS) Yup, Fed showed he had the balls in that match.
PS) That match somehow reminds me of Sampras df. Lendl at 1990 USOpen.

BounceHitBounceHit
06-03-2007, 05:41 AM
A classic, for sure. I received the DVD as a gift from our own Fabrice Leroy, with whom I've done dozens of trades on the boards. I watch it when I want a 'mental tune up'...........somehow watching that video seems to make me play better. Have any of you noticed this phenomena? Best, CC

BounceHitBounceHit
06-03-2007, 05:41 AM
^^^^^^^ When has Pete not looked tired in a match?

I used to wonder if he might be narcoleptic. ;) CC

War, Safin!
06-04-2007, 03:43 AM
Sampras looked guite tired IMO/old with too many mistakes (esp. BH) while Federer looked very fresh and determined.
Sampras from 95-97 vs. Fed of now would be great.
Are we going to see aging and slowed down Federer struggling against a new kids in 2011?
I don;t think was a massive shock exit for Sampras. During the first-half of 2001, he definately looked like he was slipping, in general.
He didn't go very far in any major tournaments apart from Indian Wells and Queens...and his ATP ranking had gone from #3 to #6, so even a year before that, he wasn't 'prime'.

Federer, however was on a bit of a rolling-streak: apart from his 1st title win, he was consistently hitting quarter and semi-finals on all surfaces and was tipped by experts as the man who might topple Sampras.

One thinng I noticed was how more effective the Federer serve was, compared to 2007 and also how more aggressive his returns were....

alan-n
06-05-2007, 08:55 PM
One thinng I noticed was how more effective the Federer serve was, compared to 2007 and also how more aggressive his returns were....

Federer has changed his game to suit the slower surfaces being played today. Wimbledon now is a tad slower than the US open surface, its no surprise everything was hit flatter and played faster a decade ago.

RMB
06-06-2007, 01:04 PM
Awesome match. End of an era in my opinion in regards to how tennis is played. Dont really see matches like that anymore. Usually just two people baseline to baseline.

And thaks God to that. I thank HIM every nigth for the disap. of the boring S&V that killed tennis popularity.

stormholloway
06-06-2007, 02:08 PM
And thaks God to that. I thank HIM every nigth for the disap. of the boring S&V that killed tennis popularity.

Are you kidding? Tennis popularity is extremely low compared to yesteryear.

superstition
06-06-2007, 03:32 PM
Serve and volley was great when tennis was played with wood. The game, in general, was better. There was more finesse, and the fact that there were more grass courts led to longer playing careers. Tennis was very tactical, not just about brute force. Tilden's book discusses side spins, not just topspin and underspin. How many people use side spin today? He was using it with a tiny wood racquet that had a dense string pattern.

Tennis today is increasingly dull, and the women's game is filled with injuries.

laurie
06-07-2007, 12:36 AM
Serve and volley was great when tennis was played with wood. The game, in general, was better. There was more finesse, and the fact that there were more grass courts led to longer playing careers. Tennis was very tactical, not just about brute force. Tilden's book discusses side spins, not just topspin and underspin. How many people use side spin today? He was using it with a tiny wood racquet that had a dense string pattern.

Tennis today is increasingly dull, and the women's game is filled with injuries.

That's an interesting point. Sampras employed sidespin quite a lot throughout his career, particularly on inside out volleys and the running forehand down the line, curling the ball around the opponent at net. He did curling forehand against Federer in the 2nd or 3rd set, when Federer broke Sampras' serve and Sampras broke back.

You don't see sidespin as much now.

RMB
06-07-2007, 06:45 AM
Are you kidding? Tennis popularity is extremely low compared to yesteryear.

For me grass courts, S&V and faster tennis courts is are resp. for the decline of the game popularity. The ATP knows it and took action by supporting more slow surfaces tournaments. Wimbledon also knows it and changed the type of grass and opened the cans of balls weeks before the tournament in order to slow the 90's quick game.

Tennis in quick surfaces is simply boring to watch, no matter how you try to put it or try to sell it. At least, it surely is for the occasional spectator and the beginner or developing player, who by the way do not play that kind of game in the clubs. To me “that” tennis is super one-dimensional. Do you like to watch lots of games won by the guy who just served ace after ace? Or by seeing a player that just served and made a point by volleying too easy because of a weak or “sitting duck” return? I rather see some people throw some darts, play cards, dominos, etc., than having a “competition” (if you can call it that way) between two powerful servers and almost NO rallies. No rallies = boring game. At least, in playing darts the other or opposing player can “do” something and try to win. I mean, a sport is supposed to be about a confrontation or competition between two of parties or more. Quick surfaces mean a one-dimensional sport. It is not a tennis game, is just a serve competition.

GOD forbids the following: A player that possesses a huge and consistent serve (145+ MPH) and nothing more (like a super or polished Ivo Karlovic) and he goes out and win 15 GS (10 Winby and 5 USO), but never won a single clay court, rebound ace or slower court tournament, IS HE THE GOAT JUST BECAUSE HE WON MORE GS (with that type of game)? WHERE IS THE FINESSE THERE???

Thank GOD we have clay and other slow court tournaments. That is the way to recover the loss of popularity.

Just say NO to GRASS!

AAAA
06-07-2007, 07:42 AM
Serve and volley was great when tennis was played with wood. The game, in general, was better. There was more finesse, and the fact that there were more grass courts led to longer playing careers. Tennis was very tactical, not just about brute force. Tilden's book discusses side spins, not just topspin and underspin. How many people use side spin today? He was using it with a tiny wood racquet that had a dense string pattern.

Tennis today is increasingly dull, and the women's game is filled with injuries.

It's more difficult to play finesse tennis shots against bludgeoning power shots, the time just isn't there and finessing missile like shots like Hingis tried to do against the power hitters just isn't very feasible. I find it interesting players in the 90s could get away with side spin finesse shots.