PDA

View Full Version : Federer would win over 20 slams and been more dominant vs weaker Sampras competition


GrafisGOAT
12-02-2009, 01:06 PM
Federer is unlucky he didnt play in the weak era Sampras was lucky to play in. If you put Federer in Sampras's place and remove Sampras I bet he has won 7 Wimbledons by now, 7 U.S Opens, 3 or 4 French Opens, and 5 or 6 Australian Opens. He also would have ended the year #1 7 straight years already. Basically there would be hardly anyone who would have stopped him from 1993-1999 playing like he has from 2003-2009, nowhere near as much threat as he had vs the current tougher field.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 01:08 PM
9 posts-Yet you create a thread that will (most likely) end in flamewars and people getting banned...Something tells me you have been here before.

MuseFan
12-02-2009, 01:09 PM
^^^
gj011 perhaps?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 01:12 PM
^^^
gj011 perhaps?

Hmm...-If you became a member in October- How do you know who gj011 is ? :???: He was banned during the spring i have heard.

fed_rulz
12-02-2009, 01:18 PM
^^^
gj011 perhaps?

no, gj011 was a well-known fed-hater. But I do agree with the OP though.. contrary to what people believe, Sampras had no one at his heels all the time; plus the effectiveness of his serve is over-hyped due to:
1. fast surfaces
2. mediocre returners (compare the return quality of the top 5 or 10 in the 90s with the ones currently..)

Under those circumstances, Fed's serve would be even more dominant than it is now, plus he has the ground game that sampras never had. Who knows, we would have probably witnessed a S & V'er in Fed if he played in the 90s.

Turn the OP's argument around, and put Pete in this era (with Fed removed, of course), and he wins no more than 7.

quest01
12-02-2009, 01:19 PM
I do agree that Federer most likely would have won more grand slam titles if he played in Sampras's era, the 90's. Sampras was a great player but he played in a weaker era that consisted of Agassi, Courier, and a bunch of serve and volley players such as Ivanisevic, Pioline, and Rafter who wouldn't even be in the top 25 if they played in Federer's era due to the slower court surfaces and string technologies. If Sampras played in this era he wouldn't have been nearly as successful, he probably would have retired with no more then 8 grand slams.

GrafisGOAT
12-02-2009, 01:21 PM
Lets go through each:

Australian Open- he loses in 93 to Courier or Edberg. He maybe loses to Agassi in 95. That is it. He wins easily vs the same draws Pete had in 94 and 97, no sweat. 96 he doesnt lose to Philippoussis like Pete did, and he certainly doesnt lose to a past his prime Becker on a slow hard court or Chang later in the draw. 98 he doesnt lose to Kucera as Pete did, and wont lose to Korda or Rios either. 99 he doesnt skip it and cruises to the title, heck even Kafelnikov won that year. So 5 or 6 with 95 the tossup.

French Open- he loses in 93 as he bombed badly in 2003. No very dangerous floater like Kuerten in the 3rd round on an off day for Federer in 1994, decent chance of winning the title over Bruguera who is no Nadal. 95 no, Muster was too good that year. 1996 wins easily. 1997 probably wins, the draw collapses yet again and a pre-prime Kuerten and past his prime Bruguera were in the finals. 1998 wins easily again. 1999 decent chance, although not sure. Federer would probably be unlucky here as Sampras's potential draw to the title was alot tougher than Agassi's lucky one complete with a choke from Medvedev in the final. So likely 1996, 1997, 1998, maybe 1994, maybe but probably not 1999.

Wimbledon- no problem. Only competition is past his prime Becker and choking headcase Ivanisevic. Federer wouldnt lose to Krajicek like Sampras did so he has 7 now.

U.S Open- no problem. Federer wouldnt run into his early career nemisis Nalbandian in the round of 16 in 1993, instead he has a joke draw to the title other than a semi-tough opponent in Chang in the quarters. Otherwise clowns like Volkov, Masur, and Pioline. 1994 to 1998 Federer wins just like he did in 2004 and 2008 vs same draws as Pete would have had. He doesent lose to Korda or Yzaga as Pete did, Roger is too good for that. Agassi in 95 would be only threat, but Agassi isnt mentally tough enough to beat Federer in a slam other than maybe the Australian at some point. 1999 he would have gotten Agassi who struggled to win in 5 sets vs a past his prime Todd Martin, which would have been alot easier than an on fire Del Potro who destroyed Nadal in the semis. No problem.

As for year end #1s there is nobody who could come close to him from 1993-1999 playing at his 2003-2009 level. In 2008 he lost out to Nadal at his peak, in 2008 he would have only had to hold off Rios and Rafter, ROTFL!! In 2003 he lost #1 to Roddick in his best year ever, in 1993 the year end #2 was Stich who did almost nothing in the slams that year.

Jchurch
12-02-2009, 01:22 PM
While I agree that he would have won more slams during Sampras' era, Sampras' serve was NOT overrated.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 01:23 PM
I cant wait until Azzurri sees this :twisted::shock:

GrafisGOAT
12-02-2009, 01:26 PM
I cant wait until Azzurri sees this :twisted::shock:

Who is Azzurri?

GrafisGOAT
12-02-2009, 01:27 PM
While I agree that he would have won more slams during Sampras' era, Sampras' serve was NOT overrated.

Sampras had an amazing serve but it is overrated by those who say it is the greatest ever. Ivanisevic, Karlovic, and Krajicek all have superior serves IMO. I know many will disagree with me but how on earth would Krajicek have a winning head to head with Sampras when every other part of his game other than maybe volleying was alot weaker without having as good or better a serve. How would Ivanisevic have an almost equal head to head, and been close to going 3-1 vs Sampras at Wimbledon without his choking, despite being weaker in every other part of the game. Karlovic speaks for itself. Hate him or love him his serve is more untouchable than Ivanisevic, Pete, or Krajicek.

fed_rulz
12-02-2009, 01:28 PM
While I agree that he would have won more slams during Sampras' era, Sampras' serve was NOT overrated.

if you're referring to my post, I agree, his serve is not over-rated. however, some here would like us to believe that he had the "best" serve ever, that was untouchable blah blah blah.. It was a great weapon, but not in the league of someone like karlovic, goran, etc. The effectiveness of his serve was magnified by so-so returners.

sorry, but Karlovic has a better serve. Period. 78 aces on a slow surface (clay) must count for something. Pete's serve required the surface to assist him. If not, his serve was ineffective. That's the difference between karlovic's & Pete's serves.

GrafisGOAT
12-02-2009, 01:32 PM
If you gave Karlovic the rest of Sampras's game and they each kept their serves Karlovic would own Sampras. I would say if you gave Sampras the rest of Karlovic's game, but both of their amazing serves are far too much for the rest of Karlovic's miserable game to break serve so in that case every set would be a tiebreak and come down to nerves, in which case Sampras would win often thought not because his serve is better.

BorisBeckerFan
12-02-2009, 01:36 PM
Is there anything the mods can do to prevent people from opening multiple accounts? Sometimes it seems like there is either a Fed fan or Sampras fan or you name the player fan, and then they will use there new identities to spike the votes on polls or post nonsense or use the other account to back what they are posting. No offense meant to anyone who only has one account.

jamesblakefan#1
12-02-2009, 01:59 PM
Ridiculous thread. Ridiculous troll.

pame
12-02-2009, 02:04 PM
You can always tell when there's a hiatus in tennis. Out come the same old tired, done-to-death arguments

TMF
12-02-2009, 02:11 PM
^^^
gj011 perhaps?

Who's gj011? I keep seeing his name pop up often in this forum.

Rhino
12-02-2009, 02:19 PM
9 posts-Yet you create a thread that will (most likely) end in flamewars and people getting banned...Something tells me you have been here before.

I doubt this guy is a new poster, he just created another login name for himself. Probably someone who was previously banned.

Could this thread be any more pointless?

President of Serve/Volley
12-02-2009, 02:21 PM
Sampras had tougher players from 1990 to 1996, 1997-2000 is debateable however.

If you made the surfaces quicker, who on Earth besides Federer would beat Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Goran, Pete today? That's right none. Let's face it here, back then you had better Serve and Volleyers, can you imagine Edberg vs Murray at Wimbledon???? Or Becker vs Nadal at USO or AO? Or Goran vs Davydenko indoors?

Wouldn't be a fair sight to see. Today is all power tennis, back then touch, and attacking at the net....

fed_rulz
12-02-2009, 02:23 PM
Sampras had tougher players from 1990 to 1996, 1997-2000 is debateable however.

i'd say 1990-2000 is debatable.

GustafsonFanatic
12-02-2009, 02:23 PM
Sampras had an amazing serve but it is overrated by those who say it is the greatest ever. Ivanisevic, Karlovic, and Krajicek all have superior serves IMO. I know many will disagree with me but how on earth would Krajicek have a winning head to head with Sampras when every other part of his game other than maybe volleying was alot weaker without having as good or better a serve. How would Ivanisevic have an almost equal head to head, and been close to going 3-1 vs Sampras at Wimbledon without his choking, despite being weaker in every other part of the game. Karlovic speaks for itself. Hate him or love him his serve is more untouchable than Ivanisevic, Pete, or Krajicek.

Actually I agree with this.

Everyone says Pete had the best serve ever. But I think what they mean is that he did the best serve of all the normal players (by normal, I mean players who have more weapons than just the serve). Karlovic and Ivanisevic must have a better serve than Pete.

President of Serve/Volley
12-02-2009, 02:27 PM
Actually I agree with this.

Everyone says Pete had the best serve ever. But I think what they mean is that he did the best serve of all the normal players (by normal, I mean players who have more weapons than just the serve). Karlovic and Ivanisevic must have a better serve than Pete.



Pete had a better 2nd serve. 1st serve, obviously Goran and Ivo have that edge.

President of Serve/Volley
12-02-2009, 02:32 PM
i'd say 1990-2000 is debatable.


Pete had been kind of lucky in 1997 with Andre being MIA all year long.

1999: Andre was a bit lucky that Pete was hurt in August that year, or Pete would have won the USO.

shaysrebelII
12-02-2009, 02:32 PM
ugh. here we go again...

JankovicFan
12-02-2009, 02:36 PM
Makes you hate tennis forums.:cry:

TMF
12-02-2009, 02:40 PM
Pete had a better 2nd serve. 1st serve, obviously Goran and Ivo have that edge.


Pete 2nd serve is better but itís still an inferior to the 1st serve. Heís vulnerable when he has problem getting his 1st serve in. A good returner like Agassi and Hewitt all gave him trouble.

Anyway, this debate has been beaten to death. Roger is a superior player over Pete and the OP is just trying to rub it in.

Cyan
12-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Hmm...-If you became a member in October- How do you know who gj011 is ? :???: He was banned during the spring i have heard.

LOL. How many accounts does FedFan_2007/FedFan_2009/stapler/manco/musefan have? What a joke.


As for Pete, I'm starting to think he underachieved. He had no nemesis who made him his biatch, like Rafa did to Fed and still Pete couldn't win more than 14 slams.

GustafsonFanatic
12-02-2009, 02:46 PM
Pete had a better 2nd serve. 1st serve, obviously Goran and Ivo have that edge.

But, when you average it out, Karlovic and Isner must have better serves than Pete. Maybe Ivanisevic as well. These guys actually make a living off their serves. That wasn't the case with Pete. He had great volleys, great forehand (both stationary and on the run), OK backhand, movement...

Pete had the best serve of all the players who did not depend entirely on their serves. But no way he had the best ever.

jrepac
12-02-2009, 02:53 PM
If Fed played for the British in the 1776 American Revolution, the Brits would've won! That's how good he is!

I also think he could've flown to the moon, independently, under his own power in 1993, since he is much faster than the space shuttle.

He could've also cured all disease and world hunger, if we just gave him a chance.

All hail the Fed!

IvanisevicServe
12-02-2009, 03:07 PM
Actually I agree with this.

Everyone says Pete had the best serve ever. But I think what they mean is that he did the best serve of all the normal players (by normal, I mean players who have more weapons than just the serve). Karlovic and Ivanisevic must have a better serve than Pete.

Goran had a good ground game. He could stay back and beat some good clay court players. Very good forehand, erratic backhand that was either really good when on or, in his words, "like my golf game--I never know where the ball goes."

His problem was mostly mental. He wasn't a guy who could "get up" for every single tournament...and losing/bad moments in matches really got to him and he unraveled.

jrepac
12-02-2009, 03:11 PM
Goran had a good ground game. He could stay back and beat some good clay court players. Very good forehand, erratic backhand that was either really good when on or, in his words, "like my golf game--I never know where the ball goes."

His problem was mostly mental. He wasn't a guy who could "get up" for every single tournament...and losing/bad moments in matches really got to him and he unraveled.

I'm not sure what a normal player is....certainly not Goran:)

Pete's serve was wicked, no question. there were other very good servers as well....Edberg, Rafter, Goran...but, Pete had the uncanny ability to spit out those aces on demand, when he really needed them, even on 2nd serves...

I do miss goran;he was a lot of fun....

borg number one
12-02-2009, 03:59 PM
Head to Head, I think Sampras-Federer are very close, and not separated by much at all.

On Red Clay, Federer is significantly better.

Meanwhile, I'd give Sampras a slight edge in matches at Wimbledon, especially on the faster Wimbledon grass, but it would be about even on the current Wimbledon courts.

At the US Open, given the pro-American crowds, I think that though Federer is about even with Sampras on hard courts, Sampras could hold his own and perhaps would edge out Federer in a head to head series on hard courts.

At the current Australian Open, I'd give the edge to Federer.

So, overall, if they played about 20 matches, on those 4 surfaces, I don't think either player would win such a series by very much. Sampras, when he's on as far as his serve and forehand/volleys, would be a handful for Federer or anyone else, while Federer has a stronger return game and overall baseline game.

As far as Federer having 20 slams in the Sampras era, I think that's an overstatement, but of course this is all hypothetical. I tend to think he'd have won about the same number of slams, or perhaps a few less.

There were more really strong players near the top during the Sampras era, but no one as tough as a peak Nadal, in my opinion. So, I think Federer would not have reached so many finals, but he would have still won plenty of GS titles.

Also, the fact that Wimbledon was faster back then, would give him great difficulty when he faced big servers like Becker and Edberg there.

Then, with the slightly slower French Open Courts, he would have had a real difficult time winning any French Open titles, especially when there were many tough clay courters during Sampras' time such as Chang, Courier, Agassi, Muster, and Brugera.

He would have still won about as many US Opens though and he would still have won roughly the same number of Australian Opens.

To say he would have MANY more slams during the era of Sampras era is selling Sampras short and not recognizing many of the tough players Sampras faced during his time.

In short, both Sampras and Federer are primarily fast court players, without great prowess on slow red clay.

They have both had a feast at Wimbledon and the US Open to amass the top 2 GS totals thus far in history.

They are both among the greatest players of all time and both have certain strengths and weaknesses. I think both tend to get tired a bit too easily during really long physical matches, but Sampras was a little more "clutch" than Federer when his back was really to the wall against a tough hard-nosed player, especially at Wimbledon and the US Open.

Yet, Federer has more shots in his arsenal, as he has a more complete game than Sampras and is a bit quicker overall (quick shot adjustment and movements), though Sampras was at least as fast as Federer (covering lots of court on the dead run).

Both, like other greats, are often able to raise their level of play significantly when it's necessary.

What really differentiated Sampras from his peers was his ability at say 5-4 in a set, suddenly come up with 4 bombs for first serves to close out the set. He did that hundreds of times during his career. Federer tends to do that with his forehand to try and open up points at "crunch time".

Michael Bluth
12-02-2009, 03:59 PM
Something interesting to consider is that in the 90s Fed would have serve-and-volleyed a lot more, and his attacking game would be much better due to this more frequent use.

President
12-02-2009, 04:04 PM
I think Federer would definitely do better in Sampras's time than vice versa if he were to be transported there (with his current technology and training). His ground game would be the strongest by far, and unusually for a baseliner at the time he would back it up with a strong serve.

Federer is actually underrated on clay around here. He is a VERY good clay courter, and its ludicrous to compare him to someone of Sampras's caliber on the surface. I think he would win at least 3 FO were he to play in that time period.

crackbillionair
12-02-2009, 04:19 PM
Federer is unlucky he didnt play in the weak era Sampras was lucky to play in. If you put Federer in Sampras's place and remove Sampras I bet he has won 7 Wimbledons by now, 7 U.S Opens, 3 or 4 French Opens, and 5 or 6 Australian Opens. He also would have ended the year #1 7 straight years already. Basically there would be hardly anyone who would have stopped him from 1993-1999 playing like he has from 2003-2009, nowhere near as much threat as he had vs the current tougher field.


I saw just about every match both guys have played. I love both guys to death. Sampras left a few slams on the table due to conditioning, but once he became a man (after the terrible USO loss to Edberg), he didn't choke.

That's not to say Pete is better or Roger is better, but I have seen Roger choke in 2 slam finals this yr. I guess if you are making every final, there's a chance you may choke in a few of 'em...they were big moments...

But Pete is the man. I'd put my money on Pete. The way that Roger slices those returns back, Pete would be in and out of serve games very quickly.

coloskier
12-02-2009, 04:40 PM
no, gj011 was a well-known fed-hater. But I do agree with the OP though.. contrary to what people believe, Sampras had no one at his heels all the time; plus the effectiveness of his serve is over-hyped due to:
1. fast surfaces
2. mediocre returners (compare the return quality of the top 5 or 10 in the 90s with the ones currently..)

Under those circumstances, Fed's serve would be even more dominant than it is now, plus he has the ground game that sampras never had. Who knows, we would have probably witnessed a S & V'er in Fed if he played in the 90s.

Turn the OP's argument around, and put Pete in this era (with Fed removed, of course), and he wins no more than 7.

I like Fed as much as the next Fed fan, but if Fed played on those much faster surfaces, he would have had just as much trouble against Sampras (not counting when they started to slow down the courts before Fed beat him at Wimbledon) as the rest of the field did. He would also had trouble with Ivanisevic, Rafter, and the like. Just look at how tight his scores are with Karlovic and DelPotro, and those scores came on courts that are much slower than they were in the middle of Sampras's career. Yes, you can mention Roddick, but Roddick does not hit corners like Sampras, Ivanisevic and Rafter. And as far as the ground game is concerned, Sampras had a much better forehand (more like DelPotro) and it was the most feared forehand on tour. And, he did not shank his backhand like Fed does. That does not mean that I think Sampras had a better overall baseline game, but he didn't need it.

flying24
12-02-2009, 05:03 PM
I like Fed as much as the next Fed fan, but if Fed played on those much faster surfaces, he would have had just as much trouble against Sampras (not counting when they started to slow down the courts before Fed beat him at Wimbledon) as the rest of the field did. He would also had trouble with Ivanisevic, Rafter, and the like. Just look at how tight his scores are with Karlovic and DelPotro, and those scores came on courts that are much slower than they were in the middle of Sampras's career. Yes, you can mention Roddick, but Roddick does not hit corners like Sampras, Ivanisevic and Rafter. And as far as the ground game is concerned, Sampras had a much better forehand (more like DelPotro) and it was the most feared forehand on tour. And, he did not shank his backhand like Fed does. That does not mean that I think Sampras had a better overall baseline game, but he didn't need it.

Sampras did not have the most feared forehand on tour. It was only that in the sense that of the untouchable servers his forehand was the most dangerous shot of any of them, and against Pete one break was often the set. However outside of there were guys with more feared forehands. No way was his forehand as good as Del Potro's forehand today. At absolute best maybe comparable power without even half the consistency.

borg number one
12-02-2009, 05:21 PM
Del Potro's forehand has been extremely good and consistent for only about 1 year now. Sampras had one of the best running forehands of all time. When he was just sitting back and rallying, he tended to just keep it in play, keep it deep, and wait for an opening so he could capture the net.

Here are some examples of the Sampras forehand and how he could use it extremely effectively in case folks have forgotten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5rxZhVjrVM (vs. Becker)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ksF_0Lx_Y (vs. Edberg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzhiuDa80_U (vs. Agassi)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMQKjhEpTiA (a collection of forehands)

President of Serve/Volley
12-02-2009, 05:26 PM
Sampras did not have the most feared forehand on tour. It was only that in the sense that of the untouchable servers his forehand was the most dangerous shot of any of them, and against Pete one break was often the set. However outside of there were guys with more feared forehands. No way was his forehand as good as Del Potro's forehand today. At absolute best maybe comparable power without even half the consistency.



Del Potro cannot even compare to the running forehand of Pete Sampras.

fed_rulz
12-02-2009, 05:30 PM
Del Potro cannot even compare to the running forehand of Pete Sampras.

running FHs for Pete would be normal FHs for delpo due to his reach. Delpo's FH is much more of a weapon than Pete's.

flying24
12-02-2009, 05:34 PM
Del Potro's forehand has been extremely good and consistent for only about 1 year now.

That is a poor basis for anything. Del Potro is only 20 years old in case you have forgotten (only been 20 for a couple months now), so of course his game and weapons wont have been effective at the very top level for 5 years plus. Sampras had a great forehand, nobody is denying that, but in no way was is better than Del Potro's which was just as much a weapon, but miles more consistent, and more versatile as well. Of course Del Potro is a top baseliner, while Sampras was a top serve/volleyer who could also play well at the baseline, so that is to be expected.

IvanAndreevich
12-02-2009, 05:35 PM
running FHs for Pete would be normal FHs for delpo due to his reach. Delpo's FH is much more of a weapon than Pete's.

The level of ignorance in this post is astounding. I am not even going to point it out - it's that ridiculous.

fed_rulz
12-02-2009, 05:35 PM
I like Fed as much as the next Fed fan, but if Fed played on those much faster surfaces, he would have had just as much trouble against Sampras (not counting when they started to slow down the courts before Fed beat him at Wimbledon) as the rest of the field did. He would also had trouble with Ivanisevic, Rafter, and the like. Just look at how tight his scores are with Karlovic and DelPotro, and those scores came on courts that are much slower than they were in the middle of Sampras's career. Yes, you can mention Roddick, but Roddick does not hit corners like Sampras, Ivanisevic and Rafter. And as far as the ground game is concerned, Sampras had a much better forehand (more like DelPotro) and it was the most feared forehand on tour. And, he did not shank his backhand like Fed does. That does not mean that I think Sampras had a better overall baseline game, but he didn't need it.


His scores are tight with Karlovic; not with Delpo.. usually he has many unconverted chances. Fed has a much better FH, BH when compared to Pete (in fact, outside of the 2nd serve and volleys, Pete has nothing over Fed).
And I do think Fed would have lesser trouble returning Pete's serves, when compared to karlovic.

Pete's serve seemed monstrous to the folks of the 90s.. players of today are much better returners.

veroniquem
12-02-2009, 05:37 PM
That is a poor basis for anything. Del Potro is only 20 years old in case you have forgotten (only been 20 for a couple months now), so of course his game and weapons wont have been effective at the very top level for 5 years plus. Sampras had a great forehand, nobody is denying that, but in no way was is better than Del Potro's which was just as much a weapon, but miles more consistent, and more versatile as well. Of course Del Potro is a top baseliner, while Sampras was a top serve/volleyer who could also play well at the baseline, so that is to be expected.
Del Potro is actually 21 (minor detail I know :))

borg number one
12-02-2009, 05:37 PM
My point is we'll have to see how Del Potro's forehand (it is now a massive weapon for sure) holds up UNDER PRESSURE, over the course of some more big Grand Slam matches. He's had the big win at the US Open, but let's not be so quick to say he has one of the great forehands of all time. You've got to do it for some time in big matches, so perhaps I should have been more clear.

fed_rulz
12-02-2009, 05:42 PM
The level of ignorance in this post is astounding. I am not even going to point it out - it's that ridiculous.

please do point it out - i'm dying to hear your views. The running FH of Pete is such an over-rated shot, just like his slam-dunk smash. It's not a regular rally shot - probably its a point-ender once in a set; he most often than not missed the shot than he made it. yet, people only remember the times that he made it because it looks spectacular.

I was mocking the poster who actually pointed out the "superiority" of the running FH.

dh003i
12-02-2009, 05:43 PM
I saw just about every match both guys have played. I love both guys to death. Sampras left a few slams on the table due to conditioning, but once he became a man (after the terrible USO loss to Edberg), he didn't choke.

That's not to say Pete is better or Roger is better, but I have seen Roger choke in 2 slam finals this yr. I guess if you are making every final, there's a chance you may choke in a few of 'em...they were big moments...

But Pete is the man. I'd put my money on Pete. The way that Roger slices those returns back, Pete would be in and out of serve games very quickly.

Federer's return game is definitely better than Pete's. And Federer gets many returns back, he's done very well against big servers. The reason he slices returns back is because that is very effective against many current players. He'd have different tactics against Sampras (as he hopefully will employ different tactics against Delpo).

dh003i
12-02-2009, 05:48 PM
That is a poor basis for anything. Del Potro is only 20 years old in case you have forgotten (only been 20 for a couple months now), so of course his game and weapons wont have been effective at the very top level for 5 years plus. Sampras had a great forehand, nobody is denying that, but in no way was is better than Del Potro's which was just as much a weapon, but miles more consistent, and more versatile as well. Of course Del Potro is a top baseliner, while Sampras was a top serve/volleyer who could also play well at the baseline, so that is to be expected.

Del Potro has a great forehand. But even at its best, it isn't better than Federer's FH at his best. Nor is his backhand better, maybe equal (Delpo doesn't handle low balls nearly as well as Federer).

Del Potro has had a few great tournaments. The FO and USO mainly. It is far too early to start talking like the guy has one of the all-time great forehands.

mental midget
12-02-2009, 05:48 PM
pete was an insanely good athlete, who adopted a style of play tailored to win on fast, low bouncing surfaces. the traditional forehand grip, club of a racket, all of that was designed to facilitate a first-strike, attacking game . . . and it worked.

those choices carried with them certain mechanical limitations with regard to high balls, etc., limitations that were magnified significantly by racket and string technology, which ushered in an era of heavy topspin and a new breed of back court player.

i think it's not outrageous to speculate that pete may have won a RG title or two had he come of age a few years earlier.

as for federer, well, the stars aligned for that guy--a game that straddled two eras, in the hands of a player that could extract the maximum utility from it. right guy, right place, right time.

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 05:51 PM
Head to Head, I think Sampras-Federer are very close, and not separated by much at all.

On Red Clay, Federer is significantly better.

Meanwhile, I'd give Sampras a slight edge in matches at Wimbledon, especially on the faster Wimbledon grass, but it would be about even on the current Wimbledon courts.

At the US Open, given the pro-American crowds, I think that though Federer is about even with Sampras on hard courts, Sampras could hold his own and perhaps would edge out Federer in a head to head series on hard courts.

At the current Australian Open, I'd give the edge to Federer.

So, overall, if they played about 20 matches, on those 4 surfaces, I don't think either player would win such a series by very much. Sampras, when he's on as far as his serve and forehand/volleys, would be a handful for Federer or anyone else, while Federer has a stronger return game and overall baseline game.

As far as Federer having 20 slams in the Sampras era, I think that's an overstatement, but of course this is all hypothetical. I tend to think he'd have won about the same number of slams, or perhaps a few less.

There were more really strong players near the top during the Sampras era, but no one as tough as a peak Nadal, in my opinion. So, I think Federer would not have reached so many finals, but he would have still won plenty of GS titles.

Also, the fact that Wimbledon was faster back then, would give him great difficulty when he faced big servers like Becker and Edberg there.

Then, with the slightly slower French Open Courts, he would have had a real difficult time winning any French Open titles, especially when there were many tough clay courters during Sampras' time such as Chang, Courier, Agassi, Muster, and Brugera.

He would have still won about as many US Opens though and he would still have won roughly the same number of Australian Opens.

To say he would have MANY more slams during the era of Sampras era is selling Sampras short and not recognizing many of the tough players Sampras faced during his time.

In short, both Sampras and Federer are primarily fast court players, without great prowess on slow red clay.

They have both had a feast at Wimbledon and the US Open to amass the top 2 GS totals thus far in history.

They are both among the greatest players of all time and both have certain strengths and weaknesses. I think both tend to get tired a bit too easily during really long physical matches, but Sampras was a little more "clutch" than Federer when his back was really to the wall against a tough hard-nosed player, especially at Wimbledon and the US Open.

Yet, Federer has more shots in his arsenal, as he has a more complete game than Sampras and is a bit quicker overall (quick shot adjustment and movements), though Sampras was at least as fast as Federer (covering lots of court on the dead run).

Both, like other greats, are often able to raise their level of play significantly when it's necessary.

What really differentiated Sampras from his peers was his ability at say 5-4 in a set, suddenly come up with 4 bombs for first serves to close out the set. He did that hundreds of times during his career. Federer tends to do that with his forehand to try and open up points at "crunch time".


I hope you just got careless when writing that 1st part in bold. Saying that Fed is not great on red clay is just not true. Even if he never won the FO, Fed would still be much, much better than Sampras on clay(who isn't even in the conversation when discussing great clay-courters). At WORST, you could say that Fed is very good on clay. At best, you could say that he is one of the GOATS on clay, right behind Nadal and Borg. So he's probably somewhere in between. If he hadn't had to deal with arguably the greatest clay-courter ever, Fed would probably have 5 FOs by now. Hypothetically, I would really like Fed's chances against any of the past clay court greats, like Borg or Lendl. Especially given that a 100% healthy and rested Nadal basically doesn't lose to anyone in this era on clay (except perhaps Fed at his best). Fed is one of the only players to have consistently pushed Nadal on clay, and, save for his two wins over Nadal on clay, has come up agonizingly short several times.

Now to the 2nd bolded part. Fed is very comparable to Sampras when it comes to hitting big serves at pressure moments, it's been said many times by commentators and it's obvious when watching him. To suggest that Fed basically just uses his fh on big pts is silly (although he certainly does use it, his serve is also a big factor in clutch situations). A perfect example of clutch serving at its very best was the 2nd set tiebreak against Soderling, 2009 FO final. 4 serves, 4 aces. Amazing. Fed has hit clutch serves countless times in his career, so him and Sampras are comparable in that category. Fed has also hit his fair share of 2nd serve aces (though not as prolific as Sampras, you also have to factor in that Fed double faults much less than Sampras).

And I'm not sure I'd give Sampras the edge on fast grass. While I certainly can't blame anyone for thinking that, remember that a 19 year old Fed beat a 29 year old Samp at Wimby in 2001, where the grass was definitely faster than today. While drawing conclusions from a single match is not ideal, you have to remember that Fed served and volleyed the entire match, dealt with Sampras's serve extremely well, beat Sampras in almost every statistical category (despite the match being very close), and even outserved Sampras in the aces and double faults category (Sampras himself served very well that match, he had a 69% 1st serve percentage, which is better than his average %). While neither player was in his prime, I would say Fed was farther away from his than Samp, who was still 4 time defending champ. If Fed played in the 90s, you would have to think his game would be much more attacking-based and adapted to the old fast grass, and different from the way he plays on today's grass.

So I'm not saying Fed would necessarily be better than Sampras on fast grass, but you can't really logically conclude that Sampras would be better, either, when looking at the evidence.

crackbillionair
12-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Pete 2nd serve is better but itís still an inferior to the 1st serve. Heís vulnerable when he has problem getting his 1st serve in. A good returner like Agassi and Hewitt all gave him trouble.

Anyway, this debate has been beaten to death. Roger is a superior player over Pete and the OP is just trying to rub it in.


Agassi gave Peter trouble in what sense? Pete has the h2h edge and the h2h edge in slams. As for hewitt, he was young and Pete was old.

borg number one
12-02-2009, 06:07 PM
Changmaster, no I disagree with you when you say that Federer would have beaten Lendl and Borg on red clay. They would have prevailed almost every time against him, especially during 4th-5th sets.

Federer is not in the top five all time as far as clay court players, in my opinion, but he is definitely far better than Sampras was on that surface.

Lendl and Borg would have made Federer hit about 20 high backhands in every single rally, and by the 3d set and beyond, Federer would be saying "uncle".

As far as Sampras-Federer matches at Wimbledon, yes, that 1 match was a great match by Federer. I don't think Sampras would have dominated Federer on grass. It's just that I could see him winning more matches in a head to head series than Federer. Overall, it would be close on grass between the two.

TMF
12-02-2009, 06:36 PM
Agassi gave Peter trouble in what sense? Pete has the h2h edge and the h2h edge in slams. As for hewitt, he was young and Pete was old.

This is not to say Andre or Hewitt is better than Sampras. But they sure gave Sampras's problem with their great return skill, especially if it's on slow surface.

Hewitt is young and Sampras was old? Still, that doesn't necessary means that Hewitt wouldn't be a matchup problem for Pete.

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 06:43 PM
borg#1, I never said Fed would definitely beat Lendl or Borg, but he almost certainly would fare better than against Nadal, especially with Lendl. What does Lendl do better than Fed? Especially if both are at their very best, I would definitely favor Fed. And this is just on red clay, nevermind the other surfaces.

Borg would certainly be a tougher matchup on clay for Fed. But the main factors that make Nadal such trouble for Fed are that his fh might be the heaviest in history, and being a lefty, that goes right into Fed's weakest pt, the high backhand. You're comparing Borg and Lendl's backhands to Nadal's fh? Laughable, no comparison. Especially considering Lendl has a one hander like Fed, both him and Borg would certainly not pose specific problems to Fed like Nadal. And the four of them are among the fittest players in history, so I don't think stamina would really come into play in matches between them.

Watch this video of Nadal v Fed, 2005 FO semi (unfortunately the quality isn't great)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alFFPtFf05w

I can't believe how scary Nadal is in this video, it's almost impressive that the match was a somewhat close 4 setter. I don't think Lendl or Borg could look this impressive on clay. Neither Lendl nor Borg hit as big as Nadal on clay. Nadal, as it's been said by McEnroe, is like a modern-day Borg on clay (although improved by being a lefty). He is bigger, stronger, and of comparable quickness and endurance.

It's fine if you think Sampras would have a winning record against Fed on fast grass. There's just no real evidence to back you up.

borg number one
12-02-2009, 07:06 PM
Changmaster, Borg could hit heavy topspin from both wings, forehand and backhand, so he'd have no trouble attacking the Federer backhand.

Plus, he could run down most anything on clay, as Nadal does, but though Nadal's forehand as a lefty goes to Federer's backhand nicely, Borg could do that with both his forehand down the line as well as with his two handed backhand. Federer could not hurt Borg with anything on clay if they matched up, because the surface would blunt his forehand's effectiveness considerably, as well as his serve. Borg also had a extremely good forehand (the best in his day, bar none) and his first serve was very heavy.

Of course, the more powerful racket that Federer uses vs. Borg and the advances in strings is a whole different topic. Borg could have killed the ball with these modern frames and Luxilon/Gut blends and generated even more topspin than he did with his 68 sq. inch donnay frame strung at 81 pounds and pure natural gut (VS).

Also, don't forget that during Borg's time, the clay was considerably slower than it is today, so it makes it look as if the guys of today are generating MUCH more power on the clay than guys like Borg and Lendl did back then.

Don't underestimate Borg's strength either. His upper body was very strong, but of course not as strong as Nadal. Yet Nadal is still stronger than most everyone else. Anyway, it's not really arm strength that counts. It's simply being able to move the racket head as quickly as possible through the strike zone. Federer is a perfect example of that.

In my opinion, Nadal is a close second to Borg not due to peak performance, but accomplishment. They are very close as far as peak level, but the 2 extra French titles puts Borg a bit ahead of Nadal, though Nadal may very well catch him on that surface in the next few years.

As to Federer and Sampras on grass, of course I have no evidence of what would happen in a head to head series. How could I, or anyone else, answering the entirely hypothetical core question for this thread:

Would Federer have won 20 Grand Slams during the Sampras era?

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 07:37 PM
Of course Borg could attack Fed's backhand, but not as effectively as Nadal. I mean, it's pretty much just common sense to direct your attack towards Fed's backhand, because his fh is so good. You think Fed could not hurt Borg at all on clay? Come on now. If Fed can beat Nadal on clay, he can certainly beat Borg on clay. Certainly his forehand is less outright lethal on clay than on faster surfaces, but it still cuts through the court, and his ball is nearly as heavy as Nadal's. While Borg's forehand was great, it is not as deadly as Fed's fh, even on clay. Fed certainly would be able to dictate play against Borg. And you also have to factor in that Fed has more variety than just about anyone. I'm not saying Fed would consistently beat Borg on clay; but I don't think Borg would definitely have the edge. Nadal is also able to swing Fed wide on the ad court with his lefty serve, something right handers obviously can't do as effectively, so that's another thing with which Fed would have an easier time against Borg.

And yes, as of now Borg is slightly ahead of Nadal in terms of accomplishments.

Buckethead
12-02-2009, 07:50 PM
Federer is unlucky he didnt play in the weak era Sampras was lucky to play in. If you put Federer in Sampras's place and remove Sampras I bet he has won 7 Wimbledons by now, 7 U.S Opens, 3 or 4 French Opens, and 5 or 6 Australian Opens. He also would have ended the year #1 7 straight years already. Basically there would be hardly anyone who would have stopped him from 1993-1999 playing like he has from 2003-2009, nowhere near as much threat as he had vs the current tougher field.
You can't say that,because the only reason the players now are better,is because someone came before ,raised the standards and made everybody work a lot harder,and be a lot better.But i doubt Federer would win with that 400g racket that Sampras played.
However if you want to look just about what they play now,and the level before,i agree,because right now now the level is the highest in tennis,and therefore Roger would beat those guys really easily,and if Federer played in Sampras era what he plays now,he'd have 25 GS.

President of Serve/Volley
12-02-2009, 07:57 PM
please do point it out - i'm dying to hear your views. The running FH of Pete is such an over-rated shot, just like his slam-dunk smash. It's not a regular rally shot - probably its a point-ender once in a set; he most often than not missed the shot than he made it. yet, people only remember the times that he made it because it looks spectacular.

I was mocking the poster who actually pointed out the "superiority" of the running FH.

Well, since you have to mock me, I agree that Delpo has a huge forehand, and it cerrtainly helped him vs Federer in the USO. But Pete's shot isn't an overrated shot, my friend. If it's so overrated, then how come it ranks as one of the top shots of all time?

federerGOAT
12-02-2009, 09:12 PM
His scores are tight with Karlovic; not with Delpo.. usually he has many unconverted chances. Fed has a much better FH, BH when compared to Pete (in fact, outside of the 2nd serve and volleys, Pete has nothing over Fed).
And I do think Fed would have lesser trouble returning Pete's serves, when compared to karlovic.

Pete's serve seemed monstrous to the folks of the 90s.. players of today are much better returners.

Fed's 2nd serve and volleys are superior to Pete's. Pete had a good 2nd serve and volleys relative to players from the 90s.

jrepac
12-02-2009, 09:31 PM
borg#1, I never said Fed would definitely beat Lendl or Borg, but he almost certainly would fare better than against Nadal, especially with Lendl. What does Lendl do better than Fed? Especially if both are at their very best, I would definitely favor Fed. And this is just on red clay, nevermind the other surfaces.


It's fine if you think Sampras would have a winning record against Fed on fast grass. There's just no real evidence to back you up.

What did Lendl have that was better? Backhand for one...stamina for a 2nd..and a serve that I would say is equally good. And, Lendl's forehand, I'd put toe to toe against Roger's almost any day. And, surely, on clay Lendl would have an advantage. He was incredibly comfortable on that surface, over any other. I would not put any money on Roger against Ivan; against Bjorn,well he would not hit as hard as Ivan but his movement is superior, and again, terrific endurance.

Although I think Roger is a better player than pete on clay (Pete was pretty awful on it for a #1 guy), some of the other #1s are just better.

Fast grass, Fed vs. Pete, lotsa fun to see; Fed vs. Mac too...maybe Fed has the edge there.

But Fed's tremendous success in the here and now is leading many to "forget" the greatness of others who have come before...

Fed is not God, just an exceptionally good tennis player

lawrence
12-02-2009, 09:35 PM
Who's gj011? I keep seeing his name pop up often in this forum.

The greatest troll this forum has ever seen.

It all started with Nadal_Freak bashing Federer in every possible thread he could, then along came gj011 who made Nadal_Freak look like a Fedfan. If you ever disagreed with him you were a "fresh green troll". Rofl. He's come back with at least another 5 accounts before, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's still here but just not making it as obvious.

jrepac
12-02-2009, 09:37 PM
O Fed certainly would be able to dictate play against Borg.

And yes, as of now Borg is slightly ahead of Nadal in terms of accomplishments.

Um, really?? Gee, you make it sound awfully easy. Maybe ask Connors, Mac, Lendl, etc. how easy it was to "dictate play" against Borg. Two of the very best baseliners ever to play the game (Jimmy and Ivan) could not "dictate play" against Bjorn with any consistency. but, Fed can? wow....

and, Borg is more than just "slightly" ahead of Nadal in accomplishments....I think Nadal is terrific, but he's got a bit to go to catch up to Bjorn...maybe in a few years he will be up there...

President of Serve/Volley
12-02-2009, 09:40 PM
Fed's 2nd serve and volleys are superior to Pete's. Pete had a good 2nd serve and volleys relative to players from the 90s.



Uh, Federer doesn't have volleys like Pete, I am sorry to state that.... and the 1990s had far better volleyers....

2nd serve, I'd give Pete the edge.

jrepac
12-02-2009, 09:43 PM
Uh, Federer doesn't have volleys like Pete, I am sorry to state that.... and the 1990s had far better volleyers....

2nd serve, I'd give Pete the edge.

what do you mean? Fed has everything! On every surface! At every event. 24hrs a day, 7 days a week! Fed is GOD!:) He would've won 5 grand slams a year..that is how good he is...they'd give him a bonus one, for free!!

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 09:49 PM
Fed's 2nd serve and volleys are superior to Pete's. Pete had a good 2nd serve and volleys relative to players from the 90s.

Ummm, no. No matter how big a Fed fan you are, saying that is just stupid and brain-dead (assuming you're being serious). Any knowledgeable tennis fan would know that Pete had probably the best 2nd ever, although Fed's 2nd is also one of the best ever, and not far behind.

As for the volleys, you can't really say that Fed's volleys are better than Pete's although Fed has outstanding volleys. I have seen many people suggest that Pete's volleys are far better than Fed's. This makes no sense at all, and they probably just think that because Sampras was a S+Volleyer. If this is true, then that means a teenage Fed beat Sampras at Wimby with average/crappy volleys? What does that say about Sampras then? I would say Fed and Sampras are very close in volleying skill. Because of the slower courts today, Fed does not come to net as much as he would on a faster court. If Fed played in the 90s, he would certainly have come to net more and showed off his outstanding net skills even more.

Here's a video of Fed v Gonzalez, AO final 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDDHadB9SA4

After watching this video, no unbiased viewer can say that Fed has anything less than top-notch volleys. If you swapped Sampras's volleys with Fed's, and vice versa, I don't think it would make a significant impact on either's career.

Dark Victory
12-02-2009, 10:04 PM
^^^citing Federer in 2007 for his volleys is weak. I've seen that Gonzalez video several times, and he never hit anything at the net that wasn't an easy put away.

He volleyed best from 2003 to mid-2005. Late in 05 he had already begun to play that largely percentage-based baseline game he'd use to dominate 06.

The best all-courter (backcourt and net game combo) i've ever seen is early-to-mid 2005 Federer.

The best baseliner i've ever seen is 2006 Federer.

Dark Victory
12-02-2009, 10:07 PM
To say Federer's 2nd serve and volley's are better than Pete's is ridiculous.

If Fed played in the 90's maybe he would've honed his net game more, but as it stands, no.

kishnabe
12-02-2009, 10:07 PM
Hmm...-If you became a member in October- How do you know who gj011 is ? :???: He was banned during the spring i have heard.

Well gj011 is a legend on these forums:), Is he not?
The Goat Jules 0f tro11s

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 10:13 PM
Um, really?? Gee, you make it sound awfully easy. Maybe ask Connors, Mac, Lendl, etc. how easy it was to "dictate play" against Borg. Two of the very best baseliners ever to play the game (Jimmy and Ivan) could not "dictate play" against Bjorn with any consistency. but, Fed can? wow....

and, Borg is more than just "slightly" ahead of Nadal in accomplishments....I think Nadal is terrific, but he's got a bit to go to catch up to Bjorn...maybe in a few years he will be up there...

I never said Fed would necessarily be able to do it consistently, just that he would be more than capable of dictating play, especially with probably the greatest fh of all time.

TheChosenOne
12-02-2009, 10:14 PM
That is very debatable how many slams Fed would rack up in Pete's era. The polarization of the surfaces, the much steeper clay court competition with many more threats than just Nadal. With guys like Courier, Bruguera, Medvedev, Agassi, and a few others. A bit steeper grass court field IMO on a faster surface with attacker with Krajcek in 96 for instance playing lights out tennis, Goran, Becker etc.

Surfaces, racket technology, diversity in players and styles of games needed to be taken into account. How would Federer fare under these conditions? Who knows. He obviously has fared better with primarily a baseline game than his younger years where he served-volleyed and attacked more

I am under the agreement that Sampras faced steeper competition in the earlier-mid 90s than Roger has faced for most of his prime. Late 90s, the field dwindled a bit and I would argue today is a bit competitive.

TheChosenOne
12-02-2009, 10:21 PM
Pete had been kind of lucky in 1997 with Andre being MIA all year long.

1999: Andre was a bit lucky that Pete was hurt in August that year, or Pete would have won the USO.

Agassi was never really much of a threat for Pete overrall though even when he was around and healthy. Pete was just a horrible matchup for Andre. Different case scenario though when it comes to Fed-Nadal. Fed benefits more obviously not having to deal with a healthy Nadal.

The way Pete was playing in 97. I wouldnt even of taken Andre over Pete at the AO. Two of Andre's AO wins over Pete came at a time when Pete was had either physical or personal issues. 1995 with his coach dying, and 2000 when he tore a hip flexor. If Pete was healthy and in top form either of those years both of the matches would have went to Pete IMO. Maybe not 94. But definitely 2000. The only surface Andre would have gotten an advantage on over Pete I think is clay.

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 10:24 PM
What did Lendl have that was better? Backhand for one...stamina for a 2nd..and a serve that I would say is equally good. And, Lendl's forehand, I'd put toe to toe against Roger's almost any day. And, surely, on clay Lendl would have an advantage. He was incredibly comfortable on that surface, over any other. I would not put any money on Roger against Ivan; against Bjorn,well he would not hit as hard as Ivan but his movement is superior, and again, terrific endurance.

Although I think Roger is a better player than pete on clay (Pete was pretty awful on it for a #1 guy), some of the other #1s are just better.

Fast grass, Fed vs. Pete, lotsa fun to see; Fed vs. Mac too...maybe Fed has the edge there.

But Fed's tremendous success in the here and now is leading many to "forget" the greatness of others who have come before...

Fed is not God, just an exceptionally good tennis player

Both Lendl and Fed are among the fittest players the game has ever seen, so there's no point in giving an advantage to either player based on that. If we're talking about both players at their best, then Fed has the best one-hander in history, not to mention the most beautiful. Both have all-time great forehands, but Fed's is better: more power, heavier, more variety, and can hit better angles, not to mention it looks a LOT better. Lendl's fh, while outstanding, was extremely ugly. His arm looked like a chicken wing when hitting it (not dissing Lendl, just stating honestly what it looks like). I don't think there's anyway Lendl's serve is on par with Fed's. Fed is top 5 on the ATP in aces, and has one of the best 2nd serves ever.

No need to say that Fed is better than Pete on clay, there's no argument there:)

And no, Fed isn't God, but if a god suddenly appeared and started playing tennis, I imagine it would play like Federer:grin:

RelentlessAttack
12-02-2009, 10:30 PM
Both Lendl and Fed are among the fittest players the game has ever seen, so there's no point in giving an advantage to either player based on that. If we're talking about both players at their best, then Fed has the best one-hander in history, not to mention the most beautiful. Both have all-time great forehands, but Fed's is better: more power, heavier, more variety, and can hit better angles, not to mention it looks a LOT better. Lendl's fh, while outstanding, was extremely ugly. His arm looked like a chicken wing when hitting it (not dissing Lendl, just stating honestly what it looks like). I don't think there's anyway Lendl's serve is on par with Fed's. Fed is top 5 on the ATP in aces, and has one of the best 2nd serves ever.


Um no, Federer doesn't have the best one hander in history.
Also, I can think of another guy with an ugly forehand that gives Federer nightmares on clay... not to say that Lendl would cause the kind of problems for Federer that Nadal does necessarily, but come on, its ludicrous to list the "beauty" of Federer's backhand and the "ugliness" of Lendl's forehand in a comparison between the two players in terms of quality, matchup, hypothetical results, etc etc

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 10:42 PM
Um no, Federer doesn't have the best one hander in history.
Also, I can think of another guy with an ugly forehand that gives Federer nightmares on clay... not to say that Lendl would cause the kind of problems for Federer that Nadal does necessarily, but come on, its ludicrous to list the "beauty" of Federer's backhand and the "ugliness" of Lendl's forehand in a comparison between the two players in terms of quality, matchup, hypothetical results, etc etc

Haha well I was just stating the obvious that Fed's strokes are more attractive than Lendl's, just some lighthearted comments.

And no, I don't think Nadal's wraparound fh is ugly. His buggy-whip is not particularly eye-pleasing, but when he wraps it around his right arm, it looks good. And in both cases, he gets beautiful extension on the fh, whereas Lendl hit his with a bent elbow. One would certainly be better off today trying to copy Nadal or Fed's fh than Lendl's.

Changmaster
12-02-2009, 10:44 PM
And although Fed can certainly shank his backhand, when it's in the zone, it is definitely the best one-hander in history, especially with the Federer flick.

Agassifan
12-03-2009, 04:30 AM
Don't know about 20, but he definitely would've won more French Opens and less wimbledons.

dlk
12-03-2009, 04:38 AM
Don't know about 20, but he definitely would've won more French Opens and less wimbledons.

I could agree with this. I'd still say he'd get as many Wimbys, but certainly more French. If Nadal had'nt showed up, he'd probably be at 17 or 18 now.

prosealster
12-03-2009, 04:43 AM
dunno about 20 slams....but fed would certainly win more FOs...and Pete certainly would have a lot less than 14

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-03-2009, 04:49 AM
The Goat Jules 0f tro11s

Fantastic stuff !! :):)

borg number one
12-03-2009, 04:56 AM
Changmaster, comparing Nadal's granted more powerful shots vs. Borg's completely ignores the tech differences between 1981 and the age of graphite/modern frames. In 1981, Borg used a Borg Donnay Pro wood frame to beat Lendl, who he wore down (granted Lendl got fitter in later years) in the fifth set. Lendl was using a GRAPHITE racquet vs. Borg by the way, and Borg STILL PREVAILED.

So, how powerful would Borg be with today's frames or how hard could Federer hit that forehand with Borg's racquet instead of the modern frame? Also, factor in the quicker Red Clay courts at the French Open vs. the much slower playing surface of the late 1970's-1980's.

Federer would not have "dictated play" all the time vs. Borg, especially on Red Clay. Borg would have the fitness, quickness, speed, and yes, mental toughness advantage vs. Federer (he was much more clutch in matches than was Federer, though I would say Nadal has been comparable especially at the French Open).

Here is an example/snapshot of Borg's greatness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL__OcegrbY

He ran that dropshot down to put Lendl down 4-0 in the fifth set of the 1981 final.

Borg beat Vilas in straight sets at a French Open final, and beat Lendl in five sets in the 1981 final to win his 6th French Open by age 25 (the last year he played it).

As I've said before, I can't EVER recall Borg "visibly" breathing hard on a tennis court, no matter how much he ran. The same cannot be said of Federer who prefers cooler temperatures at the French Open and shorter matches where he is "front running".

So, we'll have to agree to disagree on the Borg vs. Federer debate at the French Open, but you are comparing the greatest clay courter in the history of the game to someone that is not nearly as accomplished and has been beaten by the following players at the French during his career:

R. Nadal (4 times), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.

I think Borg would have added to that list. He would have broken Federer's game down on that surface and would have been a handful for Federer on ANY surface.

Borg had a 7-7 career record against McEnroe, and that was only on grass, hard, and indoor courts, Mcenroe and Borg did not play on CLAY AT ALL during their careers, because McEnroe never reached the FO final until later in the 1980's vs. Lendl, when he lost in 5 sets after having a 2-0 lead in sets.

The 7-7 record vs. McEnroe (though he was 8-7 counting a big money event win in 1982 indoors) was his WORST head to head record versus any other player he faced during his career. During 1980-1981, McEnroe and Borg each won 3 majors each, though top players skipped the AO back then. Borg won 2 French Opens and his 5th Wimbledon during that time, while McEnroe won 2 US Opens and a Wimbledon title.

Anyway, back to this thread topic, but Federer over Borg on Red Clay? No, not with any consistency at all. Now 2007-2008 Nadal vs. Borg would be a legendary matchup at Roland Garros.

Agassifan
12-03-2009, 05:11 AM
Borg > Nadal (but Nadal has more time) > Fed on clay

Fed > everyone else on every other surface

lawrence
12-03-2009, 05:16 AM
Nadal vs Borg would be great indeed, but you have to concede the fact that wood just doesn't hold up. How well Borg would do with modern rackets is pure speculation (and no, exo's dont count)

GustafsonFanatic
12-03-2009, 05:18 AM
Nadal vs Borg would be great indeed, but you have to concede the fact that wood just doesn't hold up. How well Borg would do with modern rackets is pure speculation (and no, exo's dont count)

Borg tried a comeback with wood in early 1990s. Needless to say, didn't work. lol

borg number one
12-03-2009, 06:04 AM
LOL, Federer would have been beaten by Borg on Clay and they would have matched up nicely on all other surfaces. No Federer is about equal with guys like Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, and Borg even on fast surfaces. Nadal has beaten on fast surfaces and so would those other guys, maybe not a MAJORITY of the time, but head to head series would not be that one-sided.

Borg playing with a wood racquet for a few tournaments in the early 1990's has nothing to do with anything as far as peak vs. peak. He was just trying to make some money and had been away from the Game for YEARS. How would Federer have hit with wood racquets, vs. Borg or McEnroe who showed what THEY could do. Borg not being able to play with modern frames? You cannot be serious!

Here's Borg beating Lendl at 81 Master INDOORS, again with wood vs. Graphite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU&NR=1

By the way, when the year end Championship Tournament was in effect the 4th major back then, he beat McEnroe in New York indoors in the 1980 final and then Lendl indoors in the 1981 final.

He would have been JUST FINE against the more emotionally fragile Federer. Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe and even Nadal are WARRIORS when their backs were pushed against the wall, but Federer often wilts during tight matches against TOP FLIGHT players such as Nadal and the current form Del Potro at the US Open. All those guys simply had more "fight" in them when facing other legends. Borg, McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl ALL had years as #1 players, and ALL had years of nearly 90% winning percentage. Borg faced them all, including Vilas on Clay. The Semi's and Finals back then were RIDICULOUSLY tough. Borg NEVER lost a GS final to ANYONE not named either McEnroe or Connors. He won 11 of the 27 GS tournaments he played (better than Federer) and won nearly 90% of his GS matches (better than Federer). Those percentages are the best in the Open Era. His big WEAKNESS was 4 US open finals losses in New York against "crowd favorites" Connors and McEnroe. Meanwhile, the AO was not played by the top guys back then, so the year-end championships were in effect the 4th major. So, all he knew was winning, pretty much from the beginning of his career until about 25-26. So, he was missing a few more PRIME years, since most tennis players have great years 26-28, when their bodies are still strong AND they have the cumulative match experiences as well. Those years are missing for Borg entirely, which is great loss for the Game, but the guy has no regrets he says.

Only Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, Connors, and the list goes on switched to graphite didn't they? Borg, with a continued endorsement would have likely played with a Donnay graphite frames in the early 1980's if he took a much need break and if the Tour had not tried to force him to qualify for GS, given that he wanted to cut back on his schedule and focus on the Majors in 1982. The lack of appreciation of players pre-Federer is absolutely myopic on these boards. Yet, I understand that if you hadn't grown watching all of these players and comparing them to all the players that came AFTER them (and I've watched them all VERY CLOSELY), you could not appreciate the talents of prior players, such as Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, and Vilas. People have very short memories, especially when they think guys like Becker and Edberg are the "old" time players.

borg number one
12-03-2009, 06:25 AM
Borg beats McEnroe indoors at the YEC for the 1980 year, IN NEW YORK, in front of his home crowd, when about 19,000 were at MADISON SQUARE GARDEN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpgAKQ3dQfg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVwPAOpFweY&feature=PlayList&p=2213B87ACA04D63A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=53

(see Borg actually protesting a call during that MATCH, notice how he does it (a first for him) vs. the whining players these days).

McEnroe so respected him that he gives a point away to be fair. Would Federer have done that vs. Nadal?

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 06:30 AM
borg#1, you make some nice analysis. I guess my main pt is that Borg on clay would almost certainly be a better matchup for Fed than Nadal on clay, mainly because I don't think Borg could feast on Fed's backhand to the same extent that Nadal can with his monstrous lefty fh. When you listed the players that Fed has lost to at the FO, you included players that Fed lost to early in his career, before he became #1 (except Kuerten). Everyone knows that Fed is a late bloomer, so those losses are misleading. Once he hit his prime, he basically didn't lose to anyone on clay except Nadal.

I had already seen that youtube clip you showed, definitely showed off Borg's speed and remarkable agility, but it's nothing I haven't seen from Fed and Nadal, both of whom I've seen track down drop shots that made my jaw drop.

Here are some clips of Fed showing incredible quickness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqXz_-y7VvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poGafJ1owEc

These are worth watching, just as a tennis fan.

darthpwner
12-03-2009, 06:39 AM
His scores are tight with Karlovic; not with Delpo.. usually he has many unconverted chances. Fed has a much better FH, BH when compared to Pete (in fact, outside of the 2nd serve and volleys, Pete has nothing over Fed).
And I do think Fed would have lesser trouble returning Pete's serves, when compared to karlovic.

Pete's serve seemed monstrous to the folks of the 90s.. players of today are much better returners.

disagree. pete's 1st and 2nd serve, volleys,overhead, athleticism, and overall power was greater than federer. fed's forehand and backhand, movement, variety, consistency, and defense are better. The reason federer has close scores with karlovic is that ivo has no game other than his serve. Pete has a serve, net game, and forehand that could hurt federer.

borg number one
12-03-2009, 06:40 AM
Absolutely Changmaster, Federer and Nadal are incredible movers, no doubt. Those are great clips.

I've watched Federer play live on several occasions, including the YEC in Houston during 2 years when he won both years. One match against Agassi was amazing live. I have also watched almost every Grand Slam for years, ever since about 1978 on television, so I have some perspective on this topic. One day, I'll make visits to Wimbledon, the French, and the US Open live, no doubt.

Nadal and Federer are probably the two best movers on Tour still. I just wish they had the internet back then and all the video technology to capture all the great moments for players such as Borg/McEnroe as well. It tends to "skew" perceptions quite a bit. Anyway, good debate for sure.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 07:17 AM
Federer is unlucky he didnt play in the weak era Sampras was lucky to play in. If you put Federer in Sampras's place and remove Sampras I bet he has won 7 Wimbledons by now, 7 U.S Opens, 3 or 4 French Opens, and 5 or 6 Australian Opens. He also would have ended the year #1 7 straight years already. Basically there would be hardly anyone who would have stopped him from 1993-1999 playing like he has from 2003-2009, nowhere near as much threat as he had vs the current tougher field.

well, Fed did not play in Pete's era. so everything you stated makes no sense. it never happened.

I thought you were banned?

fed_rulz
12-03-2009, 07:19 AM
disagree. pete's 1st and 2nd serve, volleys,overhead, athleticism, and overall power was greater than federer. fed's forehand and backhand, movement, variety, consistency, and defense are better. The reason federer has close scores with karlovic is that ivo has no game other than his serve. Pete has a serve, net game, and forehand that could hurt federer.

So what if Pete has a better first serve / and or 2nd serve? All it matters is how fed handles the serve (and vice versa). Fed would handle pete's serve much better than Pete would to Fed's serve.

LOL at athleticism. How can he be more athletic than Fed if by his own admission, he had stamina issues due to a blood disorder? Again, overhead is not a regular shot.. Fed rarely misses overheads, and he puts them away with ease. Sampras too, but there is nothing "superior" about his overhead that would actually trouble Federer, if he were to face him.

On the bolded part, it does not even make sense. Are you implying that if karlovic had a better game the score won't be close (with karlovic winning, of course)?

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 07:24 AM
no, fed_rulz was a well-known Sampras-hater. But I do agree with the OP though.. contrary to what people believe, Federer had no one at his heels all the time; plus the effectiveness of his groundstrokes is over-hyped due to:
1. slow surfaces
2. mediocre players (except Nadal who OWNS Fed in h2h and has lost to Nadal in 5 major finals which has never happened to Pete let alone any other great player in the history of tennis.)

Under those circumstances, Pete's baseline game would be even more dominant than it was, plus he has the attacking game that Federer never had. Who knows, we would have probably witnessed a baseliner in Sampras if he played in the 00s.

Turn the OP's argument around, and put Federer in previous era (with Sampras removed, of course), and he wins no more than 7.

This is an excellent post and I agree with everything you said. Well stated for a dillusional, illiterate, clueless teenager. Again, great post and I agree with you!:)

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 07:26 AM
I do agree that Federer most likely would have won more grand slam titles if he played in Sampras's era, the 90's. Sampras was a great player but he played in a weaker era that consisted of Agassi, Courier, and a bunch of serve and volley players such as Ivanisevic, Pioline, and Rafter who wouldn't even be in the top 25 if they played in Federer's era due to the slower court surfaces and string technologies. If Sampras played in this era he wouldn't have been nearly as successful, he probably would have retired with no more then 8 grand slams.

Does anyone take this poster seriously? One post he thinks Sampras is the best, the next its Fed. Make up your mind.:shock:

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 07:27 AM
Who is Azzurri?

you know who I am. you would not have tried to ac "who is Azzurri" as if you are a new poster. You will be banned soon enough...again.

fed_rulz
12-03-2009, 07:34 AM
This is an excellent post and I agree with everything you said. Well stated for a dillusional, illiterate, clueless teenager. Again, great post and I agree with you!:)

Mr. "I'm-a-namecalling-know-it-all-but-mostly-ignorant" *****uri is late to the party. welcome aboard :). this thread was missing your ever-predictable name calling.

Reality check:
can you FFS pls invent some new names? your rinse-and-repeat routine is becoming lame and boring.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 07:49 AM
I think Federer would definitely do better in Sampras's time than vice versa if he were to be transported there (with his current technology and training). His ground game would be the strongest by far, and unusually for a baseliner at the time he would back it up with a strong serve.

Federer is actually underrated on clay around here. He is a VERY good clay courter, and its ludicrous to compare him to someone of Sampras's caliber on the surface. I think he would win at least 3 FO were he to play in that time period.

disagree with your first paragraph. Guys would not know what to do with a guy like Pete. His attacking game, mental attitude and baseline game would have him dominate as well (w/out Fed). The CLONES of today would shyt a brick seeing this guy come at them. funny how the clueless posters think Ivo has a better serve than Pete...LOL, very funny. Karlovic has no clue what to do with his serve...but funny the clueless think its better...

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 07:53 AM
Mr. "I'm-a-namecalling-know-it-all-but-mostly-ignorant" *****uri is late to the party. welcome aboard :). this thread was missing your ever-predictable name calling.

Reality check:
can you FFS pls invent some new names? your rinse-and-repeat routine is becoming lame and boring.

huh? I am confused by the tone of your post. I agreed with EVERYTHING you stated in your post. I even highlighted in red the more significant agreements.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 08:03 AM
disagree with your first paragraph. Guys would not know what to do with a guy like Pete. His attacking game, mental attitude and baseline game would have him dominate as well (w/out Fed). The CLONES of today would shyt a brick seeing this guy come at them. funny how the clueless posters think Ivo has a better serve than Pete...LOL, very funny. Karlovic has no clue what to do with his serve...but funny the clueless think its better...

Haha no, Karlovic's serve is better than Sampras's. Of course this is due in large part to Karlovic being freakishly tall for a tennis player, but nevertheless, his serve is bigger and better. For 2009, he has 890 aces in only 43 matches! That's averaging more than 20 aces per match. Ridiculous. Sampras definitely did not have those numbers. Karlovic's serve overall is clearly better.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 08:08 AM
Haha no, Karlovic's serve is better than Sampras's. Of course this is due in large part to Karlovic being freakishly tall for a tennis player, but nevertheless, his serve is bigger and better. For 2009, he has 890 aces in only 43 matches! That's averaging more than 20 aces per match. Ridiculous. Sampras definitely did not have those numbers. Karlovic's serve overall is clearly better.

sorry Chang, but you have no idea what I was talking about. You think the best serve is all about "aces"??? Go drink some more yoohoo.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 08:21 AM
Imagine swapping Sampras's serve with Karlovic's, and vice versa. Karlovic would be far less than what he is today (not that he's done much of anything even with an incredible serve because the rest of his game sans serve is so unspectacular). Yet I think Sampras would have been even greater with Karlovic's serve. I mean, Karlovic hit 78 aces in a single match on CLAY (funny how he still lost the match though, obviously because the rest of his game is lacking). Sampras would have been even greater with Karlovic's serve, although it's sort of a silly hypothetical because someone 6'1'' could never have the ability of a server who is 6'11''.

fed_rulz
12-03-2009, 09:40 AM
huh? I am confused by the tone of your post. I agreed with EVERYTHING you stated in your post. I even highlighted in red the more significant agreements.

thats because you're a momo

GrafisGOAT
12-03-2009, 09:43 AM
sorry Chang, but you have no idea what I was talking about. You think the best serve is all about "aces"??? Go drink some more yoohoo.

Yeah that is the whole point of the serve, to win points with it. That or to set up the point, but if you can win points with it outright all the better. Karlovic wins many more from his than even Sampras does. Deal with it fool.

drakulie
12-03-2009, 09:44 AM
Haha no, Karlovic's serve is better than Sampras's.

No, it really isn't.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 09:45 AM
No, it really isn't.

Any evidence?

kishnabe
12-03-2009, 09:50 AM
Yeah that is the whole point of the serve, to win points with it. That or to set up the point, but if you can win points with it outright all the better. Karlovic wins many more from his than even Sampras does. Deal with it fool.

He got banned in like 10 min wow!
Sampras has a sick *** serve, there are documentations and studies on how his serve is different from others. Karlovic might have better pace and maybe more aces that sampras. Sampras has a heavier ball and enough pace. And it doesn't help that Sampras is a clutch server.
Federer can return Karlovic serve with a chip but did you know he struggled to get sampras ball over the net. Sampras ball comes at 130mph and jumps 3 times as high as serve with the same speed. Since 33.47 percent of the ball is topspin which is created with the elboe bend and pronation. More than any person in tennis has ever created with the pace level of 120-140.

drakulie
12-03-2009, 09:51 AM
^^Yeah, the fact that Ivo's numbers are padded.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 09:53 AM
^^Yeah, the fact that Ivo's numbers are padded.

That's no evidence ha. You have to go into more detail than that. How are they padded?

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 09:56 AM
Fed actually could have had less in Pete's era due to the circumstances at the time. (surface polarization, lesser racket technology, players with actual gameplans and attack mode instead of baseline bashing) and Sampras may have had less slams competing today due to slower surfaces, players being able to zero in on his serve and take alot of the sting out of it on return for all we know.

Both Fed and Sampras maximized their abilities to the situation they were in. There's no way to tell if their accomplishments would have went up or down if you replaced them

drakulie
12-03-2009, 10:03 AM
That's no evidence ha. You have to go into more detail than that. How are they padded?



The DEEPER YOU GET INTO A TOURNAMENT, THE HARDER THE COMPETITION.
IF YOU DON'T **CONSISTENTLY** PLAY BETTER PLAYERS, YOUR STATISTICS ARE GOING TO LOOK BETTER. By "consistently" I mean your going deep of every say 3 of 4 tournaments you play in.It's simple math. If you play two opponents, and get 40 aces each time. That is a total of 80 aces, and you are averaging 40 aces per match.

However, if you then play your next two opponents (better ones than the first two), and you get 20 aces, and then 15, this drops your average of 40 aces per match to 28.The same goes with every single statistic for serving.

Karlovic, rarely if ever makes it to the second week of a tourney. This year, he was knocked out in the second round of AO, 1st Round of the french, Quarters of Wimbledon, and first round of US Open.

As for masters, he has been knocked out in the 2nd round of Indian wells, 1st round of Miami, 2nd round of MonteCarlo, 2nd round of Rome, 2nd round of Madrid, 1st round of Canada, 2nd round of Cincy, etc.

By not playing a lot of matches during a tournament, which would effect/test his stamina and endurance/performance, his numbers become "padded", because he is playing lower ranked players.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 10:13 AM
ok, good points. But you still haven't refuted the notion that Karlovic's serve is better than Samp's. If Karlovic went deeper into draws, perhaps his average ace count per match would lower, but he would also have hit many more aces. So it works both ways; fewer matches, more aces per match, vs. playing more matches, and hitting more total aces.

And I'm not so sure his average ace count per match WOULD drop significantly if he went deeper into draws. For example, he got to the quarters at Wimby '09, very deep for Karlovic. Although Fed dealt with him handily in straight sets, breaking his serve multiple times, Karlovic still hit 23 aces, which is slightly MORE than his average ace count per match for 2009.

akv89
12-03-2009, 10:15 AM
The DEEPER YOU GET INTO A TOURNAMENT, THE HARDER THE COMPETITION.
IF YOU DON'T **CONSISTENTLY** PLAY BETTER PLAYERS, YOUR STATISTICS ARE GOING TO LOOK BETTER. By "consistently" I mean your going deep of every say 3 of 4 tournaments you play in.It's simple math. If you play two opponents, and get 40 aces each time. That is a total of 80 aces, and you are averaging 40 aces per match.

However, if you then play your next two opponents (better ones than the first two), and you get 20 aces, and then 15, this drops your average of 40 aces per match to 28.The same goes with every single statistic for serving.

Karlovic, rarely if ever makes it to the second week of a tourney. This year, he was knocked out in the second round of AO, 1st Round of the french, Quarters of Wimbledon, and first round of US Open.

As for masters, he has been knocked out in the 2nd round of Indian wells, 1st round of Miami, 2nd round of MonteCarlo, 2nd round of Rome, 2nd round of Madrid, 1st round of Canada, 2nd round of Cincy, etc.

By not playing a lot of matches during a tournament, which would effect/test his stamina and endurance/performance, his numbers become "padded", because he is playing lower ranked players.

It doesn't prove that Karlovic's numbers would be worse against top ranked guys when compared to Sampras' numbers against top ranked guys.

JoshDragon
12-03-2009, 10:17 AM
Federer is unlucky he didnt play in the weak era Sampras was lucky to play in. If you put Federer in Sampras's place and remove Sampras I bet he has won 7 Wimbledons by now, 7 U.S Opens, 3 or 4 French Opens, and 5 or 6 Australian Opens. He also would have ended the year #1 7 straight years already. Basically there would be hardly anyone who would have stopped him from 1993-1999 playing like he has from 2003-2009, nowhere near as much threat as he had vs the current tougher field.

Andre Agassi in 1995 might have been tough for Roger and Courier was still in his prime during 1993. I agree with you on the rest though the 96-99 was a very weak period of time in the ATP. Roger would for sure have multiple French Open titles, maybe even a calendar year grand slam.

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 10:17 AM
ok, good points. But you still haven't refuted the notion that Karlovic's serve is better than Samp's. If Karlovic went deeper into draws, perhaps his average ace count per match would lower, but he would also have hit many more aces. So it works both ways; fewer matches, more aces per match, vs. playing more matches, and hitting more total aces.

And I'm not so sure his average ace count per match WOULD drop significantly if he went deeper into draws. For example, he got to the quarters at Wimby '09, very deep for Karlovic. Although Fed dealt with him handily in straight sets, breaking his serve multiple times, Karlovic still hit 23 aces, which is slightly MORE than his average ace count per match for 2009.



Karlovic has the better 1st serve maybe. No one has a better 2nd serve than Pete did

drakulie
12-03-2009, 10:17 AM
^^Go do the math. I assure you it does. His numbers drop when playing top 10 opponents.

Chadwixx
12-03-2009, 10:19 AM
Sampras couldnt even get 10 aces on a slow surface, karlovic blasted like 80 on red clay.

His serve did look pretty good against a prime hewitt, while petes was lunch.

akv89
12-03-2009, 10:23 AM
^^Go do the math. I assure you it does. His numbers drop when playing top 10 opponents.

Sampras' does as well. Everyone's do. The question is are Karlovic's serve numbers against the top players less impressive than Sampras' serve numbers against the top players. You can go do the math yourself since it was your argument. And while your doing it, keep in mind the disparity between the ground games between Sampras and Karlovic.

drakulie
12-03-2009, 10:26 AM
Sampras' does as well.

I never said they didn't.

Difference being, that Sampras **CONSISTENTLY** played top 10 opponents, and in the second week of masters/slams where all the opponents are tougher. Unlike Ivo who gets his stats padded by playing one round against a guy outside the top 100.

You get it??


To add, as far as Ivo's numbers against top 10 opponents, compared to Sampras' numbers,,,,,, we'll never know>>>> cause Ivos's serve isn't good enough to buy him a second week in a major tourney.

Chadwixx
12-03-2009, 10:29 AM
I never said they didn't.

Difference being, that Sampras **CONSISTENTLY** played top 10 opponents, and in the second week of masters/slams where all the opponents are tougher. Unlike Ivo who gets his stats padded by playing one round against a guy outside the top 100.

You get it??


To add, as far as Ivo's numbers against top 10 opponents, compared to Sampras' numbers,,,,,, we'll never know>>>> cause Ivos's serve isn't good enough to buy him a second week in a major tourney.

Kinda like his 1999 wimbledon where the avg ranking of his opponent was #141 :oops:

akv89
12-03-2009, 10:35 AM
I never said they didn't.

Difference being, that Sampras **CONSISTENTLY** played top 10 opponents, and in the second week of masters/slams where all the opponents are tougher. Unlike Ivo who gets his stats padded by playing one round against a guy outside the top 100.

You get it??


To add, as far as Ivo's numbers against top 10 opponents, compared to Sampras' numbers,,,,,, we'll never know>>>> cause Ivos's serve isn't good enough to buy him a second week in a major tourney.

So you can't prove that Karlovic's numbers are worse than Sampras' when playing against top 10 players because Karlovic can't regularly make it deep to tournaments. That's fine. But you haven't proven anything about whose serve is better. It's possible that Karlovic's unpadded numbers are better than Sampras'.

tudwell
12-03-2009, 10:38 AM
Federer served 50 aces against a top 5 opponent in this year's Wimbledon final. Why bicker about Sampras and Karlovic, when Federer is clearly the greatest server of all time. :D

Cyan
12-03-2009, 10:38 AM
Lol.............

drakulie
12-03-2009, 10:39 AM
Kinda like his 1999 wimbledon where the avg ranking of his opponent was #141 :oops:

One tournament in a 15 year career?? That's what you come back with?? LOL

Here is an ENTIRE YEAR for Karlovic:

AO, knocked out 2nd round
FO, knocked out 1st round
W, Knocked out quarters
USO, knocked out first round.

Indian Wells, 2nd round
Miami, 1st round
Monte Carlo, 2nd round
Madrid, 2nd round
Canada, 1st round
Cincy, 2nd round.

drakulie
12-03-2009, 10:42 AM
It doesn't prove that Karlovic's numbers would be worse against top ranked guys when compared to Sampras' numbers against top ranked guys.

His numbers do get worse when playing top 10 opponents, and you know this, because I have already proven it to you in another thread. And, if he would play even more top 10 guys, they would continue to drop.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 10:46 AM
One tournament in a 15 year career?? That's what you come back with?? LOL

Here is an ENTIRE YEAR for Karlovic:

AO, knocked out 2nd round
FO, knocked out 1st round
W, Knocked out quarters
USO, knocked out first round.

Indian Wells, 2nd round
Miami, 1st round
Monte Carlo, 2nd round
Madrid, 2nd round
Canada, 1st round
Cincy, 2nd round.

Listing Karlovic's poor performances does nothing to show who has the better serve, Karlovic or Sampras (*cough* Karlovic). Karlovic's extremely high service holding % is not enough to consistently win matches because his return game is so poor.

Rhino
12-03-2009, 10:47 AM
I was surprised to see this thread still going (although, this is TTW after all), so i thought I'd have a look to see what possibly people could still be posting about...

Now I see it's turned into A Karlovic vs Sampras debate...?! Exciting stuff!

akv89
12-03-2009, 10:48 AM
His numbers do get worse when playing top 10 opponents, and you know this, because I have already proven it to you in another thread. And, if he would play even more top 10 guys, they would continue to drop.

Again, so do Sampras'. I'm not arguing about whether or not Karlovic's numbers drop when playing the top 10 as opposed to when playing the entire field. Obviously they would. I want to see how good their numbers are in comparison to each other when playing the same level of competition. Whether it's top 10 or top 50 or whatever. Your pick.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 10:53 AM
Great serve here by Ivo lol. He should use it more often.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3JsfD22wHQ

drakulie
12-03-2009, 10:55 AM
Again, so do Sampras'. I'm not arguing about whether or not Karlovic's numbers drop when playing the top 10 as opposed to when playing the entire field. Obviously they would. I want to see how good their numbers are in comparison to each other when playing the same level of competition. Whether it's top 10 or top 50 or whatever. Your pick.


I don't have the time nor desire to teach you basic math.

When Karlovic begins to consistently play against top 10 guys, then you could do a comparison. Until then>>> you could keep your opinion that karlovic has an awesome serve against low ranked -players.

The same way you probably have an awesome serve against opponents that have never picked up a racquet.

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 10:56 AM
Head to Head, I think Sampras-Federer are very close, and not separated by much at all.

On Red Clay, Federer is significantly better.

Meanwhile, I'd give Sampras a slight edge in matches at Wimbledon, especially on the faster Wimbledon grass, but it would be about even on the current Wimbledon courts.

At the US Open, given the pro-American crowds, I think that though Federer is about even with Sampras on hard courts, Sampras could hold his own and perhaps would edge out Federer in a head to head series on hard courts.

At the current Australian Open, I'd give the edge to Federer.

So, overall, if they played about 20 matches, on those 4 surfaces, I don't think either player would win such a series by very much. Sampras, when he's on as far as his serve and forehand/volleys, would be a handful for Federer or anyone else, while Federer has a stronger return game and overall baseline game.

As far as Federer having 20 slams in the Sampras era, I think that's an overstatement, but of course this is all hypothetical. I tend to think he'd have won about the same number of slams, or perhaps a few less.

There were more really strong players near the top during the Sampras era, but no one as tough as a peak Nadal, in my opinion. So, I think Federer would not have reached so many finals, but he would have still won plenty of GS titles.

Also, the fact that Wimbledon was faster back then, would give him great difficulty when he faced big servers like Becker and Edberg there.

Then, with the slightly slower French Open Courts, he would have had a real difficult time winning any French Open titles, especially when there were many tough clay courters during Sampras' time such as Chang, Courier, Agassi, Muster, and Brugera.

He would have still won about as many US Opens though and he would still have won roughly the same number of Australian Opens.

To say he would have MANY more slams during the era of Sampras era is selling Sampras short and not recognizing many of the tough players Sampras faced during his time.

In short, both Sampras and Federer are primarily fast court players, without great prowess on slow red clay.

They have both had a feast at Wimbledon and the US Open to amass the top 2 GS totals thus far in history.

They are both among the greatest players of all time and both have certain strengths and weaknesses. I think both tend to get tired a bit too easily during really long physical matches, but Sampras was a little more "clutch" than Federer when his back was really to the wall against a tough hard-nosed player, especially at Wimbledon and the US Open.

Yet, Federer has more shots in his arsenal, as he has a more complete game than Sampras and is a bit quicker overall (quick shot adjustment and movements), though Sampras was at least as fast as Federer (covering lots of court on the dead run).

Both, like other greats, are often able to raise their level of play significantly when it's necessary.

What really differentiated Sampras from his peers was his ability at say 5-4 in a set, suddenly come up with 4 bombs for first serves to close out the set. He did that hundreds of times during his career. Federer tends to do that with his forehand to try and open up points at "crunch time".

Maybe not as strong as a "peak" Nadal however. But its not as though Nadal had a long peak and Nadal is not the threat on faster surfaces Andre was. There were better hardcourt players in sampras' days than Nadal as well. Agassi for one and some others. Federer has not had to deal with Nadal at all at the USO since Nadal was never good enough to even make a final. Agassi was a force at both the USO and AO (arguably the greatest rebound ace player in history). Nadal has only managed 1 Australian Open. Agassi has managed what? 4 AO titles? Agassi has reached the USO finals a few times next to Nadal's zero times. Agassi has won wimbeldon as has Nadal. And agassi was a threat on clay. Nadal obviously much better. But the point is.. Agassi was a threat EVERYWHERES on EVERY SURFACE. Nadal is not. Federer was grabbing the bulk of his slams in a time Nadal was pretty much overrall a beast on clay. But lacked on other surfaces. Nadal at his peak was great. But again... Injuries cut it short.

Sampras dealt with Andre in all 4 slams along with indoors. Fed dealt with Nadal on clay. Grass Nadal was still improving and becoming a very good grass court player when Roger was dominating wimbeldon (still is). Fed only dealt with Nadal at the AO once. Never had to deal with him at the USO. And indoors, Nadal is nothing special

akv89
12-03-2009, 11:01 AM
I don't have the time nor desire to teach you basic math.

When Karlovic begins to consistently play against top 10 guys, then you could do a comparison. Until then>>> you could keep your opinion that karlovic has an awesome serve against low ranked -players.

The same way you probably have an awesome serve against opponents that have never picked up a racquet.

17342 posts at 8.5 posts a day and you're telling me you don't have time?

I don't need you teach me anything. Just show me the numbers you claim support Sampras if you want to convince me of your opinion. If you can't or don't want to, then that's cool too.

drakulie
12-03-2009, 11:03 AM
Just show me the numbers you claim support Sampras if you want to convince me of your opinion.


There is no opinion. I already proved to you, Ivo rarely ever plays top 10 opponents, and rarely, if ever is playing in the second week of a tournament (where higher ranked players dwell).

akv89
12-03-2009, 11:07 AM
There is no opinion. I already proved to you, Ivo rarely ever plays top 10 opponents, and rarely, if ever is playing in the second week of a tournament (where higher ranked players dwell).

You're right. I feel like we're going around in cycles. You already posted this once and I already replied to you on this point once. Just go back to the post if you don't remember what I said. I gotta go work. So you can have the last word. Make it clever.

quest01
12-03-2009, 11:08 AM
The fact is Federer played in a far more dominant and competitive era compared to Sampras. Sampras played against the likes of Courier, Chang, Agassi, and a bunch of serve and volley players who in todays standards wouldn't even be in the top 25. Federer in comparison had to compete against Murray, Djokovic, Nadal who were better quality players then what Sampras had to face in his era, the 90's. As I said before if Sampras played in this era even without Federer, he most likely wouldn't have won more then 8 grand slams.

JoshDragon
12-03-2009, 11:14 AM
The fact is Federer played in a far more dominant and competitive era compared to Sampras. Sampras played against the likes of Courier, Chang, Agassi, and a bunch of serve and volley players who in todays standards wouldn't even be in the top 25. Federer in comparison had to compete against Murray, Djokovic, Nadal who were better quality players then what Sampras had to face in his era, the 90's. As I said before if Sampras played in this era even without Federer, he most likely wouldn't have won more then 8 grand slams.

Courier, Chang, and Andre were all tough competitors but Pete's competition in the late 90s - early 2000s was very weak.

LiveForever
12-03-2009, 11:23 AM
jeez who cares?

Mustard
12-03-2009, 11:36 AM
Borg beat Vilas in straight sets at a French Open final, and beat Lendl in five sets in the 1981 final to win his 6th French Open by age 25 (the last year he played it).

As I've said before, I can't EVER recall Borg "visibly" breathing hard on a tennis court, no matter how much he ran. The same cannot be said of Federer who prefers cooler temperatures at the French Open and shorter matches where he is "front running".

I can barely remember Borg showing any emotions on the tennis court and he is probably the best player I've ever seen. As for Federer, he seemingly never sweats during his matches and turns tennis into an almost perfect art form. Both men are too perfect for me to be a fan of them. That's why the likes of Vilas, Muster, Nadal and Ivanisevic appeal more to me, as they have brilliant qualities and flaws too.

With Sampras, I never got the same impression of perfection that I did with Borg and Federer, but he was excellent in every sense of the word and I usually felt he would win a big match.

borg number one
12-03-2009, 12:02 PM
I understand what you're saying Mustard. I also agree with your assesments, and respect your liking of the guys you named.

By the way, I really liked Muster, Vilas and still like Nadal a lot as well. I also have great respect for Federer and admiration for his splendid game.

I actually "liked" Federer quite a bit when he was coming on the scene and when he was winning a bunch of titles, but I have bristled somewhat as to how he has seemingly become a bit "arrogant" as to his status as one of the all time greats. He should learn to be a bit more respectful of all other players, including guys that beat him from time to time.

He does show great respect for the Game overall and there is a lot to like about the guy, as he is overall a class act, no doubt. He's a good guy and so is Nadal. I also really liked both Agassi and Sampras, but found myself rooting for Agassi as he was seemingly always the underdog and fell barely short of winning slams so very often, though he still had a great overall career.

Both Muster and Vilas were absolute clay court demons in their primes, and both are top 10 all time on Red Clay (based on peak ability), in my opinion.

Mustard
12-03-2009, 12:09 PM
Agreed borg number one, although I always went with Sampras over Agassi whenever they played.

I was just thinking about Borg and his lack of showing emotion, but there is one bit of Borg emotion that I do remember clearly and that was in his 1977 Wimbledon semi final with Gerulaitis, when he looked very annoyed at a linesman that called a shot out in the fifth set of the match and promptly lost his serve to love to go 2-3 behind. He came out of it and won 8-6.

coloskier
12-03-2009, 12:14 PM
Fed's 2nd serve and volleys are superior to Pete's. Pete had a good 2nd serve and volleys relative to players from the 90s.

Fed's 2nd serve doesn't even come close to Sampras's serve. If you compare the number of points won outright on 2nd serve between the two, saying Fed's serve is better is laughable. I would say that 20% of Sampras's 2nd serves were unreturnable, whereas Fed maybe has 5% at best. And his 2nd serve speed (from the 90's) averages 5mph higher than Fed's does in 2009. And saying Fed has a better volley????? Fed volleys great, as long as the ball is above the net. Once it goes below, he nets it more times than he makes it (especially at WTF this year). The only 3 players that half volleyed and hit low volleys better than Sampras were Edberg, Becker, and Rafter, and Fed doesn't even make the top 10. Please be reminded that I am a huge Fed fan, but obviously you have not watched many Sampras matches.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 12:23 PM
Fed's 2nd serve doesn't even come close to Sampras's serve. If you compare the number of points won outright on 2nd serve between the two, saying Fed's serve is better is laughable. I would say that 20% of Sampras's 2nd serves were unreturnable, whereas Fed maybe has 5% at best. And his 2nd serve speed (from the 90's) averages 5mph higher than Fed's does in 2009. And saying Fed has a better volley????? Fed volleys great, as long as the ball is above the net. Once it goes below, he nets it more times than he makes it (especially at WTF this year). The only 3 players that half volleyed and hit low volleys better than Sampras were Edberg, Becker, and Rafter, and Fed doesn't even make the top 10. Please be reminded that I am a huge Fed fan, but obviously you have not watched many Sampras matches.

Not saying that Fed's volleys are better than Sampras's, but I think you're underestimating Fed's volleys and half-volleys. An in-form Fed has some of the best volleys and half-volleys in history

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 12:52 PM
Imagine swapping Sampras's serve with Karlovic's, and vice versa. Karlovic would be far less than what he is today (not that he's done much of anything even with an incredible serve because the rest of his game sans serve is so unspectacular). Yet I think Sampras would have been even greater with Karlovic's serve. I mean, Karlovic hit 78 aces in a single match on CLAY (funny how he still lost the match though, obviously because the rest of his game is lacking). Sampras would have been even greater with Karlovic's serve, although it's sort of a silly hypothetical because someone 6'1'' could never have the ability of a server who is 6'11''.

LOL, it could not get much worse for Karlovic. The guy is a perennial 1st/2nd round loser. The guy can barely win even with that BIG serve you speak of.
You think its funny he lost the match because you don't anything about tennis.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 12:57 PM
Yeah that is the whole point of the serve, to win points with it. That or to set up the point, but if you can win points with it outright all the better. Karlovic wins many more from his than even Sampras does. Deal with it fool.

guess argueing with you is moot...bye bye Banned boy!

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 12:59 PM
^^Yeah, the fact that Ivo's numbers are padded.

amazing people dont realize that this guy LOSES and loses often. His serve is "padded" as you say because of who he normally plays. If he played guys like Murray, Nadal and Fed week in and out he would not have those "stats" Mr. Chang is misinforming everyone about.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 01:03 PM
ok, good points. But you still haven't refuted the notion that Karlovic's serve is better than Samp's. If Karlovic went deeper into draws, perhaps his average ace count per match would lower, but he would also have hit many more aces. So it works both ways; fewer matches, more aces per match, vs. playing more matches, and hitting more total aces.

And I'm not so sure his average ace count per match WOULD drop significantly if he went deeper into draws. For example, he got to the quarters at Wimby '09, very deep for Karlovic. Although Fed dealt with him handily in straight sets, breaking his serve multiple times, Karlovic still hit 23 aces, which is slightly MORE than his average ace count per match for 2009.

Love these "ifs" from the anti-sampras fans. there is NO "ifs", Ivo does not make it past the 2nd round in most tourney's he enters. He has no clue HOW to use this big serve. Its a shame, but to claim his is better than Pete simply because he aces #150 ranked player every week (and loses) is ludicrous. Drakulie has already spanked you red...but keep it going.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 01:08 PM
Kinda like his 1999 wimbledon where the avg ranking of his opponent was #141 :oops:

how, how in the world have you not bee banned for obvious trolling. You are a tool. Pete beat(ranking):
Agassi(4)F
Henman(6)SF
Philapoussis(7)Q

What?? Do you want him to face the #10 ranked player from the 1st round? You have no clue how even the seeding brackets wrk...miracle you can even type. You have got to be kidding.

jrepac
12-03-2009, 01:11 PM
Haha well I was just stating the obvious that Fed's strokes are more attractive than Lendl's, just some lighthearted comments.

And no, I don't think Nadal's wraparound fh is ugly. His buggy-whip is not particularly eye-pleasing, but when he wraps it around his right arm, it looks good. And in both cases, he gets beautiful extension on the fh, whereas Lendl hit his with a bent elbow. One would certainly be better off today trying to copy Nadal or Fed's fh than Lendl's.

Yes, Lendl's forehand was quite ugly...chicken wing an apt description, but it was pretty freaking deadly. His serve was overlooked relative to let's say a McEnroe, but he could certainly bang out the aces w/regularity....keeping in mind that only the very top guys could get a groove on his serve..

While Fed has a much more fluid and prettier game to watch, Ivan was the "beast" of his day...and i say that w/all kindness :)

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 01:13 PM
The fact is Federer played in a far more dominant and competitive era compared to Sampras. Sampras played against the likes of Courier, Chang, Agassi, and a bunch of serve and volley players who in todays standards wouldn't even be in the top 25. Federer in comparison had to compete against Murray, Djokovic, Nadal who were better quality players then what Sampras had to face in his era, the 90's. As I said before if Sampras played in this era even without Federer, he most likely wouldn't have won more then 8 grand slams.

LOL...my god. dominant? who is dominant? Nadal and Fed. who else? You don't even realize the modern game is different than 15 years ago. Murray??? He is a clown. Djokovic has one major. So Murray and Novak are better players than anyone else besides Sampras in his ERA??? LOL..I cannot stop laughing at you!

zapvor
12-03-2009, 01:15 PM
i want to see what all the sampras ***** are going to say when Federer keeps adding to his record next year. lets try not to go back and edit posts, eh lol

jrepac
12-03-2009, 01:15 PM
He got banned in like 10 min wow!
Sampras has a sick *** serve, there are documentations and studies on how his serve is different from others. Karlovic might have better pace and maybe more aces that sampras. Sampras has a heavier ball and enough pace. And it doesn't help that Sampras is a clutch server.
Federer can return Karlovic serve with a chip but did you know he struggled to get sampras ball over the net. Sampras ball comes at 130mph and jumps 3 times as high as serve with the same speed. Since 33.47 percent of the ball is topspin which is created with the elboe bend and pronation. More than any person in tennis has ever created with the pace level of 120-140.

there is far more to a "good serve" than just banging out aces....see: McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Navratilova, etc., etc.

EFFECTIVE serving I'd say is a combo of aces, placements and speeds and spins....plus, having enough disguise on your serve so that the opponent does not know what the hell is coming....and hitting those "big" clutch 2nd serves, even if not acing, but getting the winner (which Pete was so good at)

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 01:18 PM
LOL, it could not get much worse for Karlovic. The guy is a perennial 1st/2nd round loser. The guy can barely win even with that BIG serve you speak of.
You think its funny he lost the match because you don't anything about tennis.

Haha are you saying that Karlovic doesn't have one of the best serves ever? Because it's very clear that he does. He just can't break serve.

Of course it's ironic that someone who hits that many aces still ends up losing the match. That's why it's funny.

And I probably know more about tennis than you.

jrepac
12-03-2009, 01:19 PM
LOL...my god. dominant? who is dominant? Nadal and Fed. who else? You don't even realize the modern game is different than 15 years ago. Murray??? He is a clown. Djokovic has one major. So Murray and Novak are better players than anyone else besides Sampras in his ERA??? LOL..I cannot stop laughing at you!

Um, aside from Fed and Nadal, and maybe DelPo, I'm not sure these other fellows could hold up against a Courier, Agassi, or even a Chang for that matter. They are a rather fragile bunch....yet many here seem to think they would beat Bjorn Borg into the ground easily.....shoot, I think they'd crap themselves playing a 40 yr old Connors...there is something to be said for the mental fortitude exhibited by the very best....

AM95
12-03-2009, 01:21 PM
what do you mean? Fed has everything! On every surface! At every event. 24hrs a day, 7 days a week! Fed is GOD!:) He would've won 5 grand slams a year..that is how good he is...they'd give him a bonus one, for free!!

im sorry but im going to have to agree that the serve goes to sampras. Federer has to struggle to hold, Sampras new he could hold every game and only tried to break once in the set.

as for the volleys, i think roger has better volleys (yes debate against me if you must) because he has better touch then sampras IMO

Chadwixx
12-03-2009, 01:24 PM
how, how in the world have you not bee banned for obvious trolling. You are a tool. Pete beat(ranking):
Agassi(4)F
Henman(6)SF
Philapoussis(7)Q

What?? Do you want him to face the #10 ranked player from the 1st round? You have no clue how even the seeding brackets wrk...miracle you can even type. You have got to be kidding.

Do you know what "average" means? Take the rankings of his 7 opponents, add them up, then divide by 7. I think you will learn this in 4th grade (next year).

Come on assuri, i know your not the brightest guy but jeez.

Btw, it was 125 not 141. You want me todo his AO next since you dont understand simple math?

jrepac
12-03-2009, 01:28 PM
im sorry but im going to have to agree that the serve goes to sampras. Federer has to struggle to hold, Sampras new he could hold every game and only tried to break once in the set.

as for the volleys, i think roger has better volleys (yes debate against me if you must) because he has better touch then sampras IMO

I was being obnoxious:twisted: I also think Sampras has a better serve overall:)

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 01:30 PM
im sorry but im going to have to agree that the serve goes to sampras. Federer has to struggle to hold, Sampras new he could hold every game and only tried to break once in the set.

as for the volleys, i think roger has better volleys (yes debate against me if you must) because he has better touch then sampras IMO

Fed definitely doesn't have to struggle to hold, he held 90% of the time in 2009. But Sampras on average probably held a bit easier. And it's not like Sampras's service games were untouchable.

I don't think Fed's volleys are BETTER than Sampras's. However, I would say they are VERY close in volleying ability, and one couldn't be faulted for choosing either's volleys. Fed's comparable volleying skills to Sampras was proven during their clash at Wimby 2001.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 01:48 PM
Haha are you saying that Karlovic doesn't have one of the best serves ever? Because it's very clear that he does. He just can't break serve.

Of course it's ironic that someone who hits that many aces still ends up losing the match. That's why it's funny.

And I probably know more about tennis than you.

no, not even close. You would not argue logic (Drakulie fed you plenty), so its very obvious how ignorant you truly are. But hey, you are a new poster so maybe you will learn as you go. good luck!

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 01:52 PM
Um, aside from Fed and Nadal, and maybe DelPo, I'm not sure these other fellows could hold up against a Courier, Agassi, or even a Chang for that matter. They are a rather fragile bunch....yet many here seem to think they would beat Bjorn Borg into the ground easily.....shoot, I think they'd crap themselves playing a 40 yr old Connors...there is something to be said for the mental fortitude exhibited by the very best....

great point about Connors. This guy played with all heart and guts, incredible mental player (or very desperate for money...which Mac alludes to..Connors being a big money hungry freak). I like Delpo..lets see how he does this year. I think he has a great shot at the AO. That is my pick.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 01:53 PM
Do you know what "average" means? Take the rankings of his 7 opponents, add them up, then divide by 7. I think you will learn this in 4th grade (next year).

Come on assuri, i know your not the brightest guy but jeez.

Btw, it was 125 not 141. You want me todo his AO next since you dont understand simple math?

again, you don't know how the rating system works and Pete can't help who he plays. But look at the last 3. He did not beat a bunch of creampuffs.

pame
12-03-2009, 02:00 PM
Azzurri, the very fact that you find it so necessary, so often, to attempt to denigrate people's knowledge and/or playing experience, suggests that you yourself aren't on particularly solid ground.

Chadwixx
12-03-2009, 02:00 PM
Henman??? Such a threat in big tournaments

Agassi??? 1999, was still in rehab

Philapoussis, LOL. Only women think he was a great player because he is good looking (basically safin without any gs's). The male kournakova.

"Pete can't help who he plays", yet feds head 2 head with nadal means something :oops:

Chadwixx
12-03-2009, 02:01 PM
Azzurri, the very fact that you find it so necessary, so often, to attempt to denigrate people's knowledge and/or playing, suggests that you yourself aren't on particularly solid ground.

Little trash talk keeps it interesting :)

borg number one
12-03-2009, 02:06 PM
Federer's serve/forehand combo is lethal, while Sampras mixed it up with S&V AS WELL as sometimes hitting service bombs and looking to open things up with his also very big forehand (perhaps not quite as big as Federer's, but also excellent). Sampras' serve was VERY HEAVY with tons of spin at times. Federer does also have an excellent kick serve though, but not quite as good as Sampras did.

I'd put Borg and Sampras a bit under Federer as far as JUST the forehand, but not by too much actually, in that when they are really on, all 3 just don't miss off that side very much. Plus, all three basically control/controlled play by hitting plenty of forehand winners as well.

I think Sampras definitely had a better overall serve than Federer, but I think Federer's devastating forehand gives him a great 1-2 punch, so he wins a ton of service games.

Sampras could win more points outright with just his serve.

Meanwhile, overall, as the previous poster mentioned, Sampras was able to volley well even off low balls.

Sampras just had better "range" as a volleyer overall, often hitting great volleys from ALL parts of both service boxes, short and deep in the boxes, all the way to the left and right of the boxes, off both his forehand and backhand side.

Federer is great at basically (usually) hitting one volley and THEN looking for the putaway shot. You rarely see him able to hit 3-4 volleys and still control the point the whole time the way Sampras did.

Yet, I'd say Edberg was an overall better volleyer than even Sampras, and McEnroe was probably the best pure volleyer in the history of the Game.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 03:37 PM
no, not even close. You would not argue logic (Drakulie fed you plenty), so its very obvious how ignorant you truly are. But hey, you are a new poster so maybe you will learn as you go. good luck!

Actually I probably have better logic than just about everyone here. Do you even play tennis? How good are you? Being a longtime poster here does not correlate with tennis knowledge:).

Making idiotic insults just makes you look stupid. But hey, maybe you want to look stupid.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 08:14 PM
Henman??? Such a threat in big tournaments

Agassi??? 1999, was still in rehab

Philapoussis, LOL. Only women think he was a great player because he is good looking (basically safin without any gs's). The male kournakova.

"Pete can't help who he plays", yet feds head 2 head with nadal means something :oops:

yep. Nadal owns Fed. facts are facts.

Azzurri
12-03-2009, 08:15 PM
Actually I probably have better logic than just about everyone here. Do you even play tennis? How good are you? Being a longtime poster here does not correlate with tennis knowledge:).

Making idiotic insults just makes you look stupid. But hey, maybe you want to look stupid.

yep, your 28 posts surely shows your logic.:rolleyes:

President of Serve/Volley
12-03-2009, 08:25 PM
im sorry but im going to have to agree that the serve goes to sampras. Federer has to struggle to hold, Sampras new he could hold every game and only tried to break once in the set.

as for the volleys, i think roger has better volleys (yes debate against me if you must) because he has better touch then sampras IMO


I like Federer's volleys, Sampras had more touch with both sides of the volleys, Fed falls a bit short in that department.

But both fall very far behind Edberg, Rafter, and John McEnroe. 3 of the best pure volleyers.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 08:26 PM
yep, your 28 posts surely shows your logic.:rolleyes:

Quality over quantity:)

President of Serve/Volley
12-03-2009, 08:27 PM
Federer's serve/forehand combo is lethal, while Sampras mixed it up with S&V AS WELL as sometimes hitting service bombs and looking to open things up with his also very big forehand (perhaps not quite as big as Federer's, but also excellent). Sampras' serve was VERY HEAVY with tons of spin at times. Federer does also have an excellent kick serve though, but not quite as good as Sampras did.

I'd put Borg and Sampras a bit under Federer as far as JUST the forehand, but not by too much actually, in that when they are really on, all 3 just don't miss off that side very much. Plus, all three basically control/controlled play by hitting plenty of forehand winners as well.

I think Sampras definitely had a better overall serve than Federer, but I think Federer's devastating forehand gives him a great 1-2 punch, so he wins a ton of service games.

Sampras could win more points outright with just his serve.

Meanwhile, overall, as the previous poster mentioned, Sampras was able to volley well even off low balls.

Sampras just had better "range" as a volleyer overall, often hitting great volleys from ALL parts of both service boxes, short and deep in the boxes, all the way to the left and right of the boxes, off both his forehand and backhand side.

Federer is great at basically (usually) hitting one volley and THEN looking for the putaway shot. You rarely see him able to hit 3-4 volleys and still control the point the whole time the way Sampras did.

Yet, I'd say Edberg was an overall better volleyer than even Sampras, and McEnroe was probably the best pure volleyer in the history of the Game.



Well Said and Pat Rafter was a excellent volleyer as well, up there with Edberg....

jrepac
12-04-2009, 08:10 AM
Well Said and Pat Rafter was a excellent volleyer as well, up there with Edberg....

Gee, people who actually know what they are talking about for a change! How nice!:)

Fed is a terrific, all court player with an exceptional forehand and a very, very good serve.

But this does not make all parts/aspects of his game bulletproof, nor "greatest of all time" (on a stroke by stroke basis, but collectively, a very possible YES)

mandy01
12-04-2009, 08:12 AM
Both Sampras and Federer are all-time greats ,are happy with their achievements and have enjoyed winning whatever they have in the eras that they've played in.
[/ thread]

borg number one
12-04-2009, 08:23 AM
Thank you President of Serve/Volley. I think you are right about Pat Rafter as well. He was one of the best pure volleyers of all time, using his athleticism so effectively at net. He had it all at net, both volleys and overheads.

During those wins at the US Open in 1997-1998, when he took the title twice, I've rarely seen another player that was so "in the zone" as far as big-time volleying. It seemed like he literally couldn't miss up there, hitting one half-volley after another and putting so many shots away.

jrepac
12-04-2009, 08:49 AM
great point about Connors. This guy played with all heart and guts, incredible mental player (or very desperate for money...which Mac alludes to..Connors being a big money hungry freak). I like Delpo..lets see how he does this year. I think he has a great shot at the AO. That is my pick.

Delpo put on a very gutsy performance to win the USO; a lot of other guys would've folded up like a tent. Definitely earned my respect. Let's see how he does in 2010. He has a lot of talent and a lot of heart.

Changmaster
12-04-2009, 08:52 AM
Gee, people who actually know what they are talking about for a change! How nice!:)

Fed is a terrific, all court player with an exceptional forehand and a very, very good serve.

But this does not make all parts/aspects of his game bulletproof, nor "greatest of all time" (on a stroke by stroke basis, but collectively, a very possible YES)

I'd agree with everything here.

Azzurri
12-04-2009, 09:18 AM
I like Federer's volleys, Sampras had more touch with both sides of the volleys, Fed falls a bit short in that department.

But both fall very far behind Edberg, Rafter, and John McEnroe. 3 of the best pure volleyers.

How can you say that? Sampras won 7 W titles with his S&V game. That is more than Ed/mac combined and you say "far behind"? I agree that Mac/Ed are the best S&V I have ever seen, but to suggest Rafter is far and away too...that is just a bit off.

prosealster
12-04-2009, 04:39 PM
I like Federer's volleys, Sampras had more touch with both sides of the volleys, Fed falls a bit short in that department.

But both fall very far behind Edberg, Rafter, and John McEnroe. 3 of the best pure volleyers.

well said, shows that u actually watched those guys played in the past and not some random youtube highlights.....sampras was not a natural volleyer hence lacked the soft hands of the afforementioned big 3......his volleys looked good coz his serve was just so fantastic....however, I do think his half volley pick up was better than the one rafter possessed

President of Serve/Volley
12-04-2009, 05:15 PM
How can you say that? Sampras won 7 W titles with his S&V game. That is more than Ed/mac combined and you say "far behind"? I agree that Mac/Ed are the best S&V I have ever seen, but to suggest Rafter is far and away too...that is just a bit off.


Well, Pete certainly used his S&V skills when he truly needed to, but he had other weapons, like his forehand and running forehand, what I was trying to state was that Pete didn't always need to use his volleys like Edberg or Mac or Rafter because he had other key weapons to win, yes I know Pete had excellent forehand volleys, but I think Edberg, Rafter, Mac had a tad better volleys on both sides.

Azzurri
12-04-2009, 06:51 PM
well said, shows that u actually watched those guys played in the past and not some random youtube highlights.....sampras was not a natural volleyer hence lacked the soft hands of the afforementioned big 3......his volleys looked good coz his serve was just so fantastic....however, I do think his half volley pick up was better than the one rafter possessed

Sampras was an exceptional volleyer. soft hands?? Mac yes, but to compare rafter with Mac and Edberg is a stretch..a big one. I saw Sampras play, hundreds of times and he had great hands, great reflexes and won 7 W titles because he could volley better than anyone of his generation (except Edberg/mac).

Azzurri
12-04-2009, 06:53 PM
Well, Pete certainly used his S&V skills when he truly needed to, but he had other weapons, like his forehand and running forehand, what I was trying to state was that Pete didn't always need to use his volleys like Edberg or Mac or Rafter because he had other key weapons to win, yes I know Pete had excellent forehand volleys, but I think Edberg, Rafter, Mac had a tad better volleys on both sides.

LOL...I noted W for a reason. HE S&V his way to 7 W titles. I know his game. You don't need to point out the obvious.

JoshDragon
12-04-2009, 11:24 PM
Sampras had tougher players from 1990 to 1996, 1997-2000 is debateable however.

If you made the surfaces quicker, who on Earth besides Federer would beat Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Goran, Pete today? That's right none. Let's face it here, back then you had better Serve and Volleyers, can you imagine Edberg vs Murray at Wimbledon???? Or Becker vs Nadal at USO or AO? Or Goran vs Davydenko indoors?

Wouldn't be a fair sight to see. Today is all power tennis, back then touch, and attacking at the net....

Just because those guys were great fast court players, doesn't mean that they were the better players. Can you imagine what it would be like if they played the current generation on a slower surface?

prosealster
12-04-2009, 11:30 PM
Sampras was an exceptional volleyer. soft hands?? Mac yes, but to compare rafter with Mac and Edberg is a stretch..a big one. I saw Sampras play, hundreds of times and he had great hands, great reflexes and won 7 W titles because he could volley better than anyone of his generation (except Edberg/mac).

I don't think Rafter is as far behind mac or Ed than Pete is behind rafter interms of volleying ability. Pete won 7 Ws not because he was the best volleyer of his generation, it was because he was the best grass courter of his generation. Guys like Woodbridge had better volleys than pete but never won any Ws because the rest of his game was not up to scratch. I dont doubt that u've seen him play heaps of times...and that his volleys do look great..but a big reason was because he was coming behind that sick serve of his or that monster forehand of his......IMHO sometimes the subtleties of tennis stroke is difficult to appreciate unless you have played at a very high level yourself.. (I am not trying to offend you with the aforementioned statement because I have no idea of what level tennis player you are, so I could be totally wrong on this..and also this is largely a matter of opinions)

Dark Victory
12-05-2009, 01:58 AM
Sampras was an exceptional volleyer. soft hands?? Mac yes, but to compare rafter with Mac and Edberg is a stretch..a big one. I saw Sampras play, hundreds of times and he had great hands, great reflexes and won 7 W titles because he could volley better than anyone of his generation (except Edberg/mac).
True.

Plus, while Edberg and Mac were better overall volleyers, Pete's half-volley is/was better.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
12-05-2009, 03:41 AM
i kind of annoyed some great volleying exhibitions of the 90's
aren't on youtube at least for some kids on here to chew on.

Krajicek vs sampras(both matches) have gone missing, as have many of the rafter matches...here's some to chew.

rafter vs chang 97 US Open.
edberg vs courier Us open
edberg vs sampras 92 US open (more than last game thanks)
Masters cup 93 stich vs sampras
masters cup 95 becker vs sampras
GSC 97 sampras vs rafter
and of course becker vs sampras 95 wimby needs to be there too..

I'd like to add becker to this conversation..he was an absolute monster as well...greta 1st volleys too although not as good as pete when low(figures as he was taller)

Agree with everything you say pres but sampras was hoping to end points so he wouldn't have to hit 2 or even 3 volleys. One exception is maybe his matches with kuerten...2000 kB final is good viewing too if you have it demonstarting pete's game here..kuerten stood further back giving pete
more "lead time" to prepare the volleys...made for some spectucalar
points....eg lots of "egg catcher volleys" if you like them...they are cool.

PS: "lead time" is a concept where a ball travelling very fast but from further away is easier to handle than a ball that may be travelling quite a lot slower
actually but from a closer position.. It's used in cricket alot.

aphex
12-05-2009, 05:34 AM
Actually I probably have better logic than just about everyone here. Do you even play tennis? How good are you? Being a longtime poster here does not correlate with tennis knowledge:).

Making idiotic insults just makes you look stupid. But hey, maybe you want to look stupid.

you are very perceptive---he is in fact very stupid and one of the biggest jokes in TT.

President of Serve/Volley
12-05-2009, 06:27 AM
Just because those guys were great fast court players, doesn't mean that they were the better players. Can you imagine what it would be like if they played the current generation on a slower surface?



While today's current crop would win on a slower surface, yes, but they stand no chance on a super fast surface, except for Roger Federer.

JoshDragon
12-05-2009, 11:06 AM
While today's current crop would win on a slower surface, yes, but they stand no chance on a super fast surface, except for Roger Federer.

Ok, I'll agree with you on that, but why did you say that Pete had tougher competition from 1990-96? It sounds more like Pete had different kinds of competitors (S&V) than Roger. Not necessarily better.

Chadwixx
12-05-2009, 11:18 AM
Players today serve harder than those in the 90's. Thats all that is needed on fast surfaces. Doesnt matter if you volley it for a winner or let it bounch then hit the winner.

Success on fast surfaces stems from the serve. Something players today are doing better (I use radar guns, not personal opinion). So please dont tell me how hard gorans 115 is to return while solderling is hitting 140+.

Azzurri
12-05-2009, 06:51 PM
I don't think Rafter is as far behind mac or Ed than Pete is behind rafter interms of volleying ability. Pete won 7 Ws not because he was the best volleyer of his generation, it was because he was the best grass courter of his generation. Guys like Woodbridge had better volleys than pete but never won any Ws because the rest of his game was not up to scratch. I dont doubt that u've seen him play heaps of times...and that his volleys do look great..but a big reason was because he was coming behind that sick serve of his or that monster forehand of his......IMHO sometimes the subtleties of tennis stroke is difficult to appreciate unless you have played at a very high level yourself.. (I am not trying to offend you with the aforementioned statement because I have no idea of what level tennis player you are, so I could be totally wrong on this..and also this is largely a matter of opinions)

you just seem to give too much credit to Rafter, that's all. I loved Rafter...great voyller and in the 2nd tier along w/Pete, below Mac/Edberg.:)

Azzurri
12-05-2009, 06:53 PM
you are very perceptive---he is in fact very stupid and one of the biggest jokes in TT.

oh god, if you only knew.

Azzurri
12-05-2009, 06:54 PM
Ok, I'll agree with you on that, but why did you say that Pete had tougher competition from 1990-96? It sounds more like Pete had different kinds of competitors (S&V) than Roger. Not necessarily better.

Edberg, Becker, Stich...I could go on. Better than today.

lawrence
12-05-2009, 08:24 PM
LOL...I noted W for a reason. HE S&V his way to 7 W titles. I know his game. You don't need to point out the obvious.

Well, one could just argue that Sampras had less competition on grass than Mac etc.

Must have been a weak era

President of Serve/Volley
12-05-2009, 08:27 PM
Edberg, Becker, Stich...I could go on. Better than today.



I agree with this....

Chadwixx
12-05-2009, 10:04 PM
Edberg, Becker, Stich...I could go on. Better than today.

Your entering the indy500 with a horse and buggy :)

JoshDragon
12-05-2009, 10:07 PM
Edberg, Becker, Stich...I could go on. Better than today.

Those guys weren't at the top of their games throughout the 90s though. Becker's best years were from 1985-92 and Edberg retired in 1996. What about the time from 1995-99?

SuperDuy
12-05-2009, 10:17 PM
Let's put it Roddick in Samperences place. How many slams would Roddick would have won?

borg number one
12-06-2009, 10:08 AM
When trying to envision Federer playing in Sampras' era, lets not overlook racquet advances and string advances from Sampras' era till now. So, in this thread, it's not as simple as putting Federer in place of Sampras with Federer's racquet/strings. The players he'd be playing against would be at a technological disadvantage, compared to him.

I'm watching Sampras play Cash in the Outback Series that was recently played, and Sampras is playing with a larger modern Wilson frame now, instead of his tried and true Wilson Pro Staff.

Leif Shiras commented and I think it's true, that Sampras' backhand is as forceful or perhaps more forceful currently when he's able to take a good cut at it, relative to his heyday.

His backhand especially, is now being helped by the slightly larger sweet spot and the materials used to make the modern frame. It's easier for him to generate more pace with it, as he is able to hit out freely with a larger sweet spot.

I'm curious, does anyone know what racquet he is currently using? It's looks to be a black Wilson, and it's perhaps just an updated Pro Staff. I don't know. It's perhaps a 95 or 98 sq. inch. frame.

President of Serve/Volley
12-06-2009, 10:15 AM
When trying to envision Federer playing in Sampras' era, lets not overlook racquet advances and string advances from Sampras' era till now. So, in this thread, it's not as simple as putting Federer in place of Sampras with Federer's racquet/strings. The players he'd be playing against would be at a technological disadvantage, compared to him.

I'm watching Sampras play Cash in the Outback Series that was recently played, and Sampras is playing with a larger modern Wilson frame now, instead of his tried and true Wilson Pro Staff.

Leif Shiras commented and I think it's true, that Sampras' backhand is as forceful or perhaps more forceful currently when he's able to take a good cut at it, relative to his heyday.

His backhand especially, is now being helped by the slightly larger sweet spot and the materials used to make the modern frame. It's easier for him to generate more pace with it, as he is able to hit out freely with a larger sweet spot.

I'm curious, does anyone know what racquet he is currently using? It's looks to be a black Wilson, and it's perhaps just an updated Pro Staff. I don't know. It's perhaps a 95 or 98 sq. inch. frame.

Sampras is using the KP88, I think. 88 square inches.

borg number one
12-06-2009, 11:00 AM
Thank you President of Serve/Volley. Got it. That looks like it may be the one and I think you're absolutely right after looking this up.

So that's 3 sq. inches larger than his original 6.0 85 sq. inch frame.

Here's the rundown from TT racquet finder:

"A racquet so hefty it makes the ProStaff Original 6.0 85 and KSix-One Tour 90 feel light and maneuverable in comparison, the KPro Staff 88 was designed especially for Pete Sampras and features his signature on the frame. Although now playing only senior tour and exhibition tennis, Sampras is striking the ball as well as ever. The KPro Staff 88 has replaced his trusted ProStaff Original 6.0 85 and brings with it a higher swingweight and a less head light balance in stock form. Offering a tremendous amount of plough through, the KPro Staff 88 provides rock solid stability on every shot."

zapvor
12-06-2009, 01:29 PM
the kps88 is so heavy. it felt heavier than the ps85 when i swung them

Azzurri
12-06-2009, 02:05 PM
Your entering the indy500 with a horse and buggy :)

you seem to lose concentration very easily. there are doctor's that can help, but YOU NEED TO GO SEE ONE. C'mon Chad..please follow along. Its almost as if you never know the context in which something is stated.

Azzurri
12-06-2009, 03:56 PM
Those guys weren't at the top of their games throughout the 90s though. Becker's best years were from 1985-92 and Edberg retired in 1996. What about the time from 1995-99?

you stated 90-96. Becker made finals at W in 90,91 and 95. Won 2 AO's in 91 and 96. He also made 5 SF appearnces in other years majors...in other words he was still a top notch player until 1996..he also won 2 masters year end (and one final). Again, he was still ranked top (from 90 to 96)2, 3, 5, 11, 3, 4 and 6. Now, how this clearly shows Becker was still a force.

Edberg? I won't even bother. He was a stud until 1994. You asked about 90-96. I was not talking 95-99. look it up yourself.

Azzurri
12-06-2009, 04:09 PM
Thank you President of Serve/Volley. Got it. That looks like it may be the one and I think you're absolutely right after looking this up.

So that's 3 sq. inches larger than his original 6.0 85 sq. inch frame.

Here's the rundown from TT racquet finder:

"A racquet so hefty it makes the ProStaff Original 6.0 85 and KSix-One Tour 90 feel light and maneuverable in comparison, the KPro Staff 88 was designed especially for Pete Sampras and features his signature on the frame. Although now playing only senior tour and exhibition tennis, Sampras is striking the ball as well as ever. The KPro Staff 88 has replaced his trusted ProStaff Original 6.0 85 and brings with it a higher swingweight and a less head light balance in stock form. Offering a tremendous amount of plough through, the KPro Staff 88 provides rock solid stability on every shot."

Its actually a 90 SI racquet head. Its been noted in a few threads. I agree, Sampras has a really nice BH with the bigger sticks.

borg number one
12-06-2009, 04:42 PM
Got it Azzurri, that's tricky, calling it an 88 when it's actually 90 sq. inches. So, Sampras is now using a frame 5 sq. inches larger than in his prime, which makes sense. Good for him, that's smart, and he seems to be taking that Seniors Tour pretty seriously.

He can still play some extremely good tennis. I can see though that he obviously can't rush the net, especially mid-point, with great closing speed the way he used to, so he relies more on slugging shots out from the baseline now, unless he's serving and volleying.

Azzurri
12-06-2009, 05:40 PM
Got it Azzurri, that's tricky, calling it an 88 when it's actually 90 sq. inches. So, Sampras is now using a frame 5 sq. inches larger than in his prime, which makes sense. Good for him, that's smart, and he seems to be taking that Seniors Tour pretty seriously.

He can still play some extremely good tennis. I can see though that he obviously can't rush the net, especially mid-point, with great closing speed the way he used to, so he relies more on slugging shots out from the baseline now, unless he's serving and volleying.

yes, if you have seen him play enough times, watching him now shows he is waaay slower than his prime years, but as you noted his still has a nice baseline game. I can't recall the threads, but I believe (maybe jack&coke, pro_tour 630, someone else???) measured the racquet head of the 88 and it has been noted it is indeed a 90. Why they call it an 88 is probably due to market strategy.