PDA

View Full Version : Which is better? Federer's backhand or Sampras' backhand ?


fastdunn
06-11-2006, 02:16 PM
I'm wondering... I don't think I've ever seen Sampras's backhand
failing consistantly against 1 player. Sampras's backhand did fail
occasionally but could overpower lefties like Muster or Korda
on important occasions...

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 02:20 PM
Federer's. Sampras's backhand on slow courts vs Nadal would look even worse.

fastdunn
06-11-2006, 02:25 PM
Federer's also failing on hard courts. Sampras played
absolutely fine basleine game with lefties like Korda and
Muster on hard courts. I still consider a few match with
Korda on hard courts were best baseline game I've ever
watch in last 20 years or so....

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 02:27 PM
Sampras had trouble with Korda in years like 97 when Korda was playing well, either losing or always going to 5 sets, and that was even with all the help of his serve, and winning so many points at the net, imagine what would have happened in those matches without those elemetns? Korda is not the same type of player as Nadal anyway, he hits flatter and harder, and with less spin and action. Muster is not as good on hard courts as Nadal.

fastdunn
06-11-2006, 02:33 PM
Well, he still had same complexity with lefties that Federer's having
now but it was more of systematic issue, not like Federer's 1 specific
problem of backhand. Very embarrassingly horrible oerformance of
backhand especially a guy who people call G.O.A.T.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 02:36 PM
The fact that he has so much trouble with one type of shot to his backhand, should not create a perception his backhand is that weak. There are many type of very good shots into the backhand he handles well, he simply cant handle the very high kicking topspin that Nadal has on it.

Sadyv
06-11-2006, 02:41 PM
Sampras' backhand was a more dangerous weapon for him when he was 23-25 than Federer's is to his game. Sampras was capable of ripping winners of the backhand, Roger is more of a set up, although his talent is so good he gets his share of winners from there as well.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 02:45 PM
I saw Sampras play alot when he was 23-25. He hit about 1-2 winners a match of the backhand when he played a baseliner. He hit all his winners off the forehand, volleys, overheads, and of course most of all serves.

fastdunn
06-11-2006, 02:54 PM
I saw Sampras play alot when he was 23-25. He hit about 1-2 winners a match of the backhand when he played a baseliner. He hit all his winners off the forehand, volleys, overheads, and of course most of all serves.

I wouldn't say just 1 -2 winners. People often tested Pete's backhand
and on a better day Pete's backhand was firing hard.

That's the right order anyway. The textbook says the priority should be
1. Serve, 2. forehand, 3 volley and backhand. So that's an ideal distribution
of winners anyway...

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 02:58 PM
I wouldn't say just 1 -2 winners. People often tested Pete's backhand
and on a better day Pete's backhand was firing hard.

That's the right order anyway. The textbook says the priority should be
1. Serve, 2. forehand, 3 volley and backhand. So that's an ideal distribution
of winners anyway...

I dont care what you say, I say I recall most of his matches with 1-2 winners off the backhand most maches. You remember otherwise, fine for you. You also say Nadal would beat Federer on grass, so what do you know. :mrgreen:

AAAA
06-11-2006, 03:01 PM
Fortunately for Sampras his backhand on clay was never tested by Nadal.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 03:03 PM
Fortunately for Sampras his backhand on clay was never tested by Nadal.

Exactly, that would be the ugliest thing ever. Twice as bad as Federer's backhand looked today.

fastdunn
06-11-2006, 03:10 PM
Well, we never know...

Anyway, Sampras never had this much trouble with his backhand
conststently.

He is having trouble solving this 1 particular shot with 1 player
for over 2 year now ? So much for the greatest talent of
all time.....

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 03:19 PM
Well, we never know...

Anyway, Sampras never had this much trouble with his backhand
conststently.

He is having trouble solving this 1 particular shot with 1 player
for over 2 year now ? So much for the greatest talent of
all time.....

correction.....over 1 year. The first match of Nadal-Federer was March of 2005, so that would not even come close to 2 full years. :cool:

highsierra
06-11-2006, 04:25 PM
correction.....over 1 year. The first match of Nadal-Federer was March of 2005, so that would not even come close to 2 full years. :cool:


Correction: Nadal beat Fed at the 2004 Nasdaq 100 Final for his first head to head win...So it's over two years now.

travlerajm
06-11-2006, 05:12 PM
Federer's bh fails him when he faces heavy spin. Sampras had a lot heavier racquet and tighter strings, so his bh was relatively unaffected by his opponent's spin level.

Rodical
06-11-2006, 05:34 PM
Sampras'backhand is better than Fed's. In today's match his backhand wasn't good and it's not in that match Federrer's backhand is off. Gaudio too could rivalise with Sampras ,no ??????

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 05:38 PM
Correction: Nadal beat Fed at the 2004 Nasdaq 100 Final for his first head to head win...So it's over two years now.

Sorry your right I forgot that match. Federer was sick as a dog in that match thought wasnt he? It certainly seems believeable when Nadal has not matched that scoreline since, in fact has not beaten Roger in straight sets since, and was nowhere near the player he is now at the time of that match.

Rodical
06-11-2006, 05:41 PM
Nadal plays effectively with a lot of spin and Fedderrer couldn't deal with it even though he practised with a lefty youngster to get accustomed with Nadal's game.

LowProfile
06-11-2006, 07:38 PM
Correction: Nadal beat Fed at the 2004 Nasdaq 100 Final for his first head to head win...So it's over two years now.

Correction: Nadal beat Federer in the round of 32 (I guess this translates into a second round match for Federer and a third round match for Nadal if he wasn't seeded) at the 2004 Nasdaq 100.

35ft6
06-11-2006, 11:13 PM
When the camera was court level, you could see how difficult it must have been to return Nadal's shots. His forehand to Federer's backhand was like a kick serve. Federer was way behind the baseline hitting backhands OVER HIS HEAD. Nasteeeeeeeeey.

Federer's backhand is better than Sampras'. His backhand could be neutralized by a lot of guys on clay, but Federer's backhand is only a weakness on clay against Nadal.

In the beginning it was kind of fun watching Federer trying to work Nadal's backhand, and then Nadal flipping the script and working Fed's backhand, and then vice versa, repeat.

BTW, Nadal can hit some cannons off that backhand side. If he develops a bigger first serve, who's to say he can't win Wimbledon? Heavy top spin sure didn't hurt Borg.

superman1
06-11-2006, 11:20 PM
Borg served and volleyed. He also hit the ball a lot differently than Nadal, he could do more with low bouncing balls than Nadal can. Nadal has a very slim chance at Wimbledon with his game. He'd have to change his game just like Borg did, although maybe not as drastically.

fastdunn
06-11-2006, 11:33 PM
The ball bounces higher and move slower on current type of grass
Wimbledon is using compared to Borg's or Sampras' time.

Wimbledon changed the type of grass to specifically attrack more
of baseliners in 2001. Effect was immediate. Hewitt won it and
Federer won it with baseliners style and everybody plays baseliner.

I think Wimbledon will be won by clay courters in this generation.
Wimbledon made a change for it and they will get it soon.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 11:35 PM
If Nadal wins Wimbledon in the next 6 years I will eat my computer, LOL!

fastdunn
06-11-2006, 11:45 PM
If Nadal wins Wimbledon in the next 6 years I will eat my computer, LOL!

Are you in with the bet I told you with $100 or not ?

About 1 or 2 years ago at TW board, I argued Federer was
lucky because he did not have many good 1) lefties,
2) power players(with serve-and volleyers) at that time.

I think now it's proved pretty good about 1) lefty by now
since we finally have 1 good lefty.

I think claycourters will do better in Wimbledon.
Wimbledon is NOT SAME wimbledon as of 2001 or later.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-11-2006, 11:55 PM
Are you in with the bet I told you with $100 or not ?

About 1 or 2 years ago at TW board, I argued Federer was
lucky because he did not have many good 1) lefties,
2) power players(with serve-and volleyers) at that time.

I think now it's proved pretty good about 1) lefty by now
since we finally have 1 good lefty.

I think claycourters will do better in Wimbledon.
Wimbledon is NOT SAME wimbledon as of 2001 or later.

I dont remember what our bet was, please enlighten me. If it is about Nadal winning Wimbledon at any point then yes of course. I am about as worried about losing any bet that revolved around Nadal ever winning Wimbledon, as I would be worried about being murdered by the tooth fairy in my sleep.

Ztalin
06-12-2006, 12:24 AM
How is federerhoogenband ever going to win the bet though? He'll have to wait for Nadal to retire in order to get his money. And yes, he WILL win the bet.

David L
06-12-2006, 12:31 AM
I'm wondering... I don't think I've ever seen Sampras's backhand
failing consistantly against 1 player. Sampras's backhand did fail
occasionally but could overpower lefties like Muster or Korda
on important occasions...

Federer's backhand is the better backhand obviously. Sampras even acknowledged this himself during the build up to his match with Ginepri this year or it may have been slightly after.

brolycjw
06-12-2006, 01:39 AM
Nadal will only win wimbledon only if Federer wins French. If Federer wins french, it doesn't mean Nadal would win wimbledon.

Federer's backhand is better than Sampra's backhand.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 11:10 AM
How is federerhoogenband ever going to win the bet though? He'll have to wait for Nadal to retire in order to get his money. And yes, he WILL win the bet.

I think the details fastdunn and I had were he had to win Wimbledon in the next 5 years(end of 2011)or I would win the bet. I could be mistaken though, maybe fastdunn can remind me of the details of the bet so I can write them down this time. :p

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 11:31 AM
I think the details fastdunn and I had were he had to win Wimbledon in the next 5 years(end of 2011)or I would win the bet. I could be mistaken though, maybe fastdunn can remind me of the details of the bet so I can write them down this time. :p

As I recall, 5 years was my proposal and you didn't exactly take it.

My original bet was Nadal's winning any grass court tournament in 5 years
but I'm willing to limit it to Wimbledon only.

My bet is Nadal's winning Wimbledon in 5 years. Do you want to take it ?

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 11:37 AM
As I recall, 5 years was my proposal and you didn't exactly take it.

My original bet was Nadal's winning any grass court tournament in 5 years
but I'm willing to limit it to Wimbledon only.

My bet is Nadal's winning Wimbledon in 5 years. Do you want to take it ?

Ok fine, that is a good bet. If he hasnt won it after 2011 Wimbledon then you have to pay me $100, if he does do it I have to pay you directly after his win. I will print it out just so I have a reminder and I wont have to ask again. :p

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 11:40 AM
Ok fine, that is a good bet. If he hasnt won it after 2011 Wimbledon then you have to pay me $100, if he does do it I have to pay you directly after his win. I will print it out just so I have a reminder and I wont have to ask again. :p

Ok. good. Now that you took it, I'd like to remind you that Nadal
made it to 3rd round in his debut at Wimbledon at the age of 17
beating Ancic who was semi-finalist one time... :)

LowProfile
06-12-2006, 01:14 PM
Nadal will only win wimbledon only if Federer wins French. If Federer wins french, it doesn't mean Nadal would win wimbledon.

Federer's backhand is better than Sampra's backhand.

The chances of Federer winning the French are far greater than those of Nadal winning Wimbledon. Nadal ain't appearing in any semifinals or finals at Wimbledon anytime soon.

And Borg's heavy topspin game was effective on the grass during his time precisely because it was so weird at the time. He used a grip similar to what Federer uses now and everyone thought he would break his wrist with the topspin that he hit. Now western grips are not uncommon and the topspin game is pretty common. Nadal's heavy topspin is reduced to spin that takes his shots to about shoulder level at best on the grass. They also land relatively short because of the spin. The result? A perfect kill shot for most pros.

LowProfile
06-12-2006, 01:15 PM
Ok. good. Now that you took it, I'd like to remind you that Nadal
made it to 3rd round in his debut at Wimbledon at the age of 17
beating Ancic who was semi-finalist one time... :)

Yes, yes, but Federer still exists.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 02:29 PM
Ok. good. Now that you took it, I'd like to remind you that Nadal
made it to 3rd round in his debut at Wimbledon at the age of 17
beating Ancic who was semi-finalist one time... :)

Id like you to remind you that fluke matches like that happen, fluke tournaments are another matter, that you greatly overestimate Nadal in some ways, greatly underestimate Federer's abilities, greatly overestimate the sameness of the surfaces these days, and greatly overlook the sameness of being a "baseliner" as one goes from surfaces to surface. :mrgreen:

prostaff18
06-12-2006, 03:18 PM
After the French Open I would say that almost anyone's backhand is better than Fed's. Fed's backhand can be sweet, but it can also put some ink in the UE stats to.

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 03:39 PM
Id like you to remind you that fluke matches like that happen, fluke tournaments are another matter, that you greatly overestimate Nadal in some ways, greatly underestimate Federer's abilities, greatly overestimate the sameness of the surfaces these days, and greatly overlook the sameness of being a "baseliner" as one goes from surfaces to surface. :mrgreen:

I didn't say Nadal will HAVE TO beat Federer at Wimbledon.
Winning Wimbledon does not necessarily mean he has to beat Federer.
I think you're reading too much of between the lines.
(perhaps you're overly sensitive because you're huge Federer fan??)

How can I over-estimate the similarity by saying "the difference is
reduced" ? Where is overestimation in that ?

I did say "it's all played from SAME baseliner style".

There's still big difference in how to move on grass and other surfaces
like clay and hard courts. But the differences in ball speed and bounces
are greatly reduced.

You somehow mis-understood my postings by mixing two of my seperate
opinions together, I think. These are two separate issue and please
don't read too much of between the lines...

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 04:26 PM
I didn't say Nadal will HAVE TO beat Federer at Wimbledon.
Winning Wimbledon does not necessarily mean he has to beat Federer.
I think you're reading too much of between the lines.
(perhaps you're overly sensitive because you're huge Federer fan??)

How can I over-estimate the similarity by saying "the difference is
reduced" ? Where is overestimation in that ?

I did say "it's all played from SAME baseliner style".

There's still big difference in how to move on grass and other surfaces
like clay and hard courts. But the differences in ball speed and bounces
are greatly reduced.

You somehow mis-understood my postings by mixing two of my seperate
opinions together, I think. These are two separate issue and please
don't read too much of between the lines...

First of all I do fully expect to win win Wimbledon Nadal would have to beat Federer. If I gave you impression I assumed you had that same viewpoint I apoligize. However I do expect to ever win Wimbledon Nadal would not only have to go through 7 matches, but go through Federer in the semis or finals at the end too. For starters I expect the year Nadal turns 25 to be his last year as having a realistic chance of winning a Grand Slam. His game style is far too taxing to be a contender past his mid-20 period. Of course since our bet only went to that same year, whether he won it after that age is a moot point anyway. Federer would be 29, going on 30, and I would expect him to be a strong favorite at Wimbledon still at that point, although I know we have different views on how long Federer will last so already we are thinking different probably. Also in those years he is a strong favorite at Wimbledon, I just dont see Federer losing before the finals, so that is why I expect Nadal would have to take down Federer in the finals to ever win Wimbledon.


Secondly if you take away the 1 of my 5 points relating to Federer, my other 4 points would still stand. I believe there to be far more differences between surfaces then you seem to, I dont believe they have become that much more similar then they used to be, only slightly. I dont believe players being baseliners makes their game styles, and suitability to surfaces that similar at all. I do believe you inflate some things about Nadal. I also believe one huge win(beating Ancic at 17 on grass would be a huge win for him)is a good indication of his overall ability or potential on grass, particularly when two years and a French Open title later, in his two grass events of the year, he loses to a total anonymous(Waske), and a dangerous and talented player who was ranked outside the top 50 and did not play an exceptional match anything like his U.S Open upset of Roddick(Mueller)in order to take Nadal out, just an ordinary match for him.

BaseLineBash
06-13-2006, 01:19 AM
Regardless of which backhand was better, they were always a liability compared to the rest of their game.

DoubleHanded&LovinIt
06-13-2006, 08:53 AM
I had an old post in which Robert Lansdorp--who coached Tracy Austin, Pete Sampras, Lindsey Davenport, Jeff Tarango, Justin Gimelstob, Maria Sharapova, and a couple other tour players--talked about this issue. Unfortunately, Robert's home page, where he made the quotation was taken down, but here's what he thinks:

From www.Lansdorp.com:

Sampras vs. Federer

I feel that Sampras at his best would have beaten Federer at his best, except maybe on clay. I don’t really like Federer’s backhand drive. He does not drive through the ball well and has a tendency to flick his wrist way too much. This makes him come off the ball too quickly. His backhand down the line drive only works about 50% of the time. Sampras had a huge serve and great volley. Sampras would have served to Federer’s backhand and put away every return. On Federer’s serve Sampras would have attacked and with Sampras’s speed and great volley’s he would have put great pressure on Federer. Sampras in 3 or 4 sets. We all agree that Federer is a great player, but he needs to improve his backhand drive, especially down the line. Let’s not so quickly forget how great Sampras was for so many years. You know, I love replies. It keeps me on my toes. After all, I am still able to learn, I hope. So if you agree with me or don’t agree with me, let me know.

Robert

I agree with Robert. Federer comes off a lot of balls on the backhand side when he uses all of that supination. He needs to stay with the ball more--especially when Nadal's ball is coming at him with so much action.

Fischer76
06-13-2006, 09:27 AM
I had an old post in which Robert Lansdorp--who coached Tracy Austin, Pete Sampras, Lindsey Davenport, Jeff Tarango, Justin Gimelstob, Maria Sharapova, and a couple other tour players--talked about this issue. Unfortunately, Robert's home page, where he made the quotation was taken down, but here's what he thinks:

From www.Lansdorp.com:



I agree with Robert. Federer comes off a lot of balls on the backhand side when he uses all of that supination. He needs to stay with the ball more--especially when Nadal's ball is coming at him with so much action.


I also agree with Robert on his analysis of Feds backhand. BUT... there is also a plus with a wristy backhand such as Feds. Although he cannot be as effective on the drive, he can create amazing angles such as we've so far seen from Fed

DoubleHanded&LovinIt
06-13-2006, 09:39 AM
I think you really have to drive the backhand hard to play well against Nadal. Blake takes Nadal's short balls to his backhand, drives it, and comes in. Matthieu was doing this as well. Baghdatis, at the PLO, did this well the first set.

fastdunn
06-13-2006, 11:46 AM
I had an old post in which Robert Lansdorp--who coached Tracy Austin, Pete Sampras, Lindsey Davenport, Jeff Tarango, Justin Gimelstob, Maria Sharapova, and a couple other tour players--talked about this issue. Unfortunately, Robert's home page, where he made the quotation was taken down, but here's what he thinks:

From www.Lansdorp.com:



I agree with Robert. Federer comes off a lot of balls on the backhand side when he uses all of that supination. He needs to stay with the ball more--especially when Nadal's ball is coming at him with so much action.


Yeah, what a simple analysis that explains what happened last sunday.
It actually was a prediction, I guess.

He is actually only the 2nd famous expert who put Sampras above Federer.
Only other tv person I know is Pam Shriver. She thinks Sampras is
a level above Federer.

All the other famous tennis legends and tv persons made a comment that
Federer might be better than Sampras.

Mary Carillo is very neutral. She thinks Federer is the most talented
and Sampras is the greatest. No comments I heard about who would win.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-13-2006, 11:54 AM
Robert Lansdorp also predicted Sharapova to dominate tennis the next 3-4 years at the start of 2005.

Fischer76
06-13-2006, 12:02 PM
Robert Lansdorp also predicted Sharapova to dominate tennis the next 3-4 years at the start of 2005.

Could have been true. Except Lansdorp did not forsee that Maria would be distracted by a very lucrative modelling career and the attendant effects that entails. But I also believe that Sampras is the greatest. Federer is flashier

federerhoogenbandfan
06-13-2006, 12:11 PM
Could have been true. Except Lansdorp did not forsee that Maria would be distracted by a very lucrative modelling career and the attendant effects that entails. But I also believe that Sampras is the greatest. Federer is flashier

Well what I hear about Maria is that she works her butt off in practice, and is very commited to the game, maybe I am wrong, but that is what I hear about her still today. I never felt she had the potential to dominante on all surfaces, not for one second personally. I did think it was possable she would have won 1 or 2 slams in the interim, and been a threat for the #1 ranking, but am also not stunned that she didnt win another and is not close to #1 right now either.

fastdunn
06-13-2006, 02:05 PM
I had an old post in which Robert Lansdorp--who coached Tracy Austin, Pete Sampras, Lindsey Davenport, Jeff Tarango, Justin Gimelstob, Maria Sharapova, and a couple other tour players--talked about this issue. Unfortunately, Robert's home page, where he made the quotation was taken down, but here's what he thinks:

From www.Lansdorp.com:



I agree with Robert. Federer comes off a lot of balls on the backhand side when he uses all of that supination. He needs to stay with the ball more--especially when Nadal's ball is coming at him with so much action.

That is not Robert Lansdorp's web site any more.
Where did you get that article ?

DoubleHanded&LovinIt
06-13-2006, 07:39 PM
Read what I wrote right before I posted the URL. The site www.lansdorp.com has since been taken down. But I posted this quotation a while ago on another website--that was before Lansdorp's website closed down.

avmoghe
06-13-2006, 08:17 PM
Sampras is my favorite player of all time, but I must admit that Federer's backhand is superior to Sampras' by far. In fact, aside from the serve, volley, and overhead, I would claim that Federer is superior in every way. Yes, the forehand would be a close contest, but I still give it to Federer.

Sampras' backhand was mediocre at best - only ripping off a brilliant winner every once in a long while. I recall Richard Krajicek (1996 Wimbledon), in particular, absolutely destroying Sampras' backhand with his kick serve out wide. Sampras had no answer, and Krajicek knew exactly what to do.

In all fairness, however, Sampras didn't need a good backhand.

Sampras game entirely revolved around his serve (first and second). To be blunt, Sampras did two things over and over again - hold serve and try to get 1 break to get the set. What makes him one of the greatest players of all time is the fact that he did these two things VERY well. (Even if things went to a tiebreak, his serve gave him an advantage)

Sampras often said that when he serves well, his game is "on". That's quite literally true, since the serve made up a large percentage of his game.

Fischer76
06-13-2006, 11:07 PM
Sampras is my favorite player of all time, but I must admit that Federer's backhand is superior to Sampras' by far. In fact, aside from the serve, volley, and overhead, I would claim that Federer is superior in every way. Yes, the forehand would be a close contest, but I still give it to Federer.

Sampras' backhand was mediocre at best - only ripping off a brilliant winner every once in a long while. I recall Richard Krajicek (1996 Wimbledon), in particular, absolutely destroying Sampras' backhand with his kick serve out wide. Sampras had no answer, and Krajicek knew exactly what to do.

In all fairness, however, Sampras didn't need a good backhand.

Sampras game entirely revolved around his serve (first and second). To be blunt, Sampras did two things over and over again - hold serve and try to get 1 break to get the set. What makes him one of the greatest players of all time is the fact that he did these two things VERY well. (Even if things went to a tiebreak, his serve gave him an advantage)

Sampras often said that when he serves well, his game is "on". That's quite literally true, since the serve made up a large percentage of his game.

Krajicek played "hot" in 1996 Wimbledon. I say hot because he played above his level. It was a once in a lifetime thing which obviously Richard (also one of my favorite players) would never come close to again. Still the score line was 7-5, 7-6, 6-4 . Well, i really don't see anyone "destroying" anyone with that score line!!! It was close to say the least and Krajicek was playing the game of his life. Fast forward to 2000 US open. Krajicek was leading 1 set to love and 6-2 in a tie break in the 2nd set. Sampras not only won the tie break he won the match 4-6 7-6 6-4 6-2. When ask who is the greatest player of all time Krajicek said "Sampras".

As for Federers backhand better than Sampras, I don't agree. Sampras can drive his backhand better than Federer can. Sampras has proven that against Edberg, Stich, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, and the list goes on over and over again. He was even returning so good with it against Agassi in Wimbledon in 1999!! If you doubt Pete's Backhand, I advise you to see that match. It never broke down under pressure unlike Federer's more flashier but relatively "fragile" backhand. Nadal exposed that in RG for all to see.

Of course Sampras did do things over and over again Big serve then volley. Big serve, forehand then volley. I mean what'd you expected him to do. Grind it out when he really does not need to? I mean c'mon that was his game, it did not need to have a lot of variety or artistry (actually there was artistry and art) it just needed to be effective, and extremely effective it was. What I like about Sampras' game is, he doesn't do more than what is required to win the match. He abbreviates points better than anyone else. He was not beating nobodies either.

As for the forehand, I think this is more of a perception thing. People can see what Federer can do with his forehand now while Pete's forehand is but a distant memory to most even a professed fan like you. Check the running forehand m8 it's the best this world will ever see and he did it even at crunch time.

fastdunn
06-14-2006, 12:11 AM
Sampras is my favorite player of all time, but I must admit that Federer's backhand is superior to Sampras' by far. In fact, aside from the serve, volley, and overhead, I would claim that Federer is superior in every way. Yes, the forehand would be a close contest, but I still give it to Federer.

Sampras' backhand was mediocre at best - only ripping off a brilliant winner every once in a long while. I recall Richard Krajicek (1996 Wimbledon), in particular, absolutely destroying Sampras' backhand with his kick serve out wide. Sampras had no answer, and Krajicek knew exactly what to do.

In all fairness, however, Sampras didn't need a good backhand.

Sampras game entirely revolved around his serve (first and second). To be blunt, Sampras did two things over and over again - hold serve and try to get 1 break to get the set. What makes him one of the greatest players of all time is the fact that he did these two things VERY well. (Even if things went to a tiebreak, his serve gave him an advantage)

Sampras often said that when he serves well, his game is "on". That's quite literally true, since the serve made up a large percentage of his game.

Sounds like the greatest player of all time to me.

The 1st goal of this game is holding your service game.

The serve is the single most important shot in the game.

If you find yourself relying too much on the success of your backhand,
there's something important is missing in your game....

Federer should stop wanting to hear that he is the most talented
and sort out what are the key solid things in tennis and focus on them.
Improve his serve and net game so that his backhand does not
matter that much...

Federer may be highly talented and hit some variety of flashy shots
but his game has not evolved to the Sampras' level, yet, IMHO.

KuramaIX
06-14-2006, 01:25 AM
He should string his racket tighter, to freaking flatten out his shots and keep down those errors. That's what james blake's setup does to nadal.

Rob_C
06-14-2006, 02:05 AM
Krajicek played "hot" in 1996 Wimbledon. I say hot because he played above his level. It was a once in a lifetime thing which obviously Richard (also one of my favorite players) would never come close to again. Still the score line was 7-5, 7-6, 6-4 . Well, i really don't see anyone "destroying" anyone with that score line!!! It was close to say the least and Krajicek was playing the game of his life. Fast forward to 2000 US open. Krajicek was leading 1 set to love and 6-2 in a tie break in the 2nd set. Sampras not only won the tie break he won the match 4-6 7-6 6-4 6-2. When ask who is the greatest player of all time Krajicek said "Sampras".

As for Federers backhand better than Sampras, I don't agree. Sampras can drive his backhand better than Federer can. Sampras has proven that against Edberg, Stich, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, and the list goes on over and over again. He was even returning so good with it against Agassi in Wimbledon in 1999!! If you doubt Pete's Backhand, I advise you to see that match. It never broke down under pressure unlike Federer's more flashier but relatively "fragile" backhand. Nadal exposed that in RG for all to see.

Of course Sampras did do things over and over again Big serve then volley. Big serve, forehand then volley. I mean what'd you expected him to do. Grind it out when he really does not need to? I mean c'mon that was his game, it did not need to have a lot of variety or artistry (actually there was artistry and art) it just needed to be effective, and extremely effective it was. What I like about Sampras' game is, he doesn't do more than what is required to win the match. He abbreviates points better than anyone else. He was not beating nobodies either.

As for the forehand, I think this is more of a perception thing. People can see what Federer can do with his forehand now while Pete's forehand is but a distant memory to most even a professed fan like you. Check the running forehand m8 it's the best this world will ever see and he did it even at crunch time.

The reason Sampras lost early, 1st & 2nd rd, so many times at RG was because guys picked on his backhand. Thats why he lost to people like Gilbert Schaller, Phillippoussis, and Ramon Delgado. None of these guys are lefties. Except for Nadal, we've never seen Fed's backhand break down on any surface.

brolycjw
06-14-2006, 02:15 AM
I think everyone is criticising Federer's backhand because he makes so many errors on his backhand against Nadal on clay. If you had watched his other matches, you would realise that his backhand hardly breaks down and he can dictate play against many good players using his backhand.

35ft6
06-14-2006, 02:35 AM
Sampras vs. Federer

I feel that Sampras at his best would have beaten Federer at his best, except maybe on clay. I donít really like Federerís backhand drive. He does not drive through the ball well and has a tendency to flick his wrist way too much. This makes him come off the ball too quickly. His backhand down the line drive only works about 50% of the time. Sampras had a huge serve and great volley. Sampras would have served to Federerís backhand and put away every return. On Federerís serve Sampras would have attacked and with Samprasís speed and great volleyís he would have put great pressure on Federer. Sampras in 3 or 4 sets. We all agree that Federer is a great player, but he needs to improve his backhand drive, especially down the line. Letís not so quickly forget how great Sampras was for so many years. You know, I love replies. It keeps me on my toes. After all, I am still able to learn, I hope. So if you agree with me or donít agree with me, let me know.

Robert Landsdorp hates any stroke that isn't a flattish drive like Lindsay's forehand. And let's not forget -- and I know people hate it when this is mentioned -- but Pete actually played Federer on grass when both were NOT in their prime and it's not like he was serving to Fed's backhand and putting away every volley.

superman1
06-14-2006, 02:50 AM
Sampras vs Federer would have been a toss-up, certainly not a straight set victory for either guy. We saw that in the 5 set match at Wimbledon. Both of them were out of their primes, Pete moreso. At least Federer was still a young talent with a big game, not a balding, slouching guy who was being written off. I figure Sampras out of anyone in history would have had the best chance to take down Mr. Federer.

Rez_PS2
06-14-2006, 06:32 AM
This is a no brainer....Fed's backhand is far superior....I'd like to see Sampras' backhand against Nadal's forehand on a clay court (or on a hard for that matter)......If he made 5% of them, he'd be having a good day. Lansdorp's analysis is off....where Pete fell into trouble was the fact that he coundn't generate the necessary spin on his backhand so they either flew out or he dumped them into the net. The number of errors he made off that wing was unbelievable. That's where Federer's shot is better....he's able to generate more spin for consistency.

Fischer76
06-14-2006, 08:20 AM
This is a no brainer....Fed's backhand is far superior....I'd like to see Sampras' backhand against Nadal's forehand on a clay court (or on a hard for that matter)......If he made 5% of them, he'd be having a good day. Lansdorp's analysis is off....where Pete fell into trouble was the fact that he coundn't generate the necessary spin on his backhand so they either flew out or he dumped them into the net. The number of errors he made off that wing was unbelievable. That's where Federer's shot is better....he's able to generate more spin for consistency.

If Lansdorps analysis is wrong as you say, whose analysis should we take as fact? Yours? :confused:

Rez_PS2
06-14-2006, 08:28 AM
If Lansdorps analysis is wrong as you say, whose analysis should we take as fact? Yours? :confused:

No, it's my opinion. Note that Lansdorp also states that Fed would float back his returns and Pete would put them away. I'd back Federer's backhand return against Sampras' anyday. Get some matches that he played against a decent backcourt player such as Agassi and see how many errors he made withing about 4 shots of the rally starting on that wing. That's why the points were so short....he couldn't keep the ball in play. Sampras was great....one of my favourite players to watch but that backhand did not hold up that great when put under pressure. The difference is, we expect Sampras to miss backhands so we don't notice it when he does.....and we notice it everytime Federer does miss because we don't expect him to miss any. Watch Sampras vs Agassi AO SF 2000.......it really was hit or miss. Fortunately, for him, he had other ways of winning the point, which is why he's one of the greatest of all time.

Rez_PS2
06-14-2006, 08:47 AM
As for the forehand, I think this is more of a perception thing. People can see what Federer can do with his forehand now while Pete's forehand is but a distant memory to most even a professed fan like you. Check the running forehand m8 it's the best this world will ever see and he did it even at crunch time.

This may be off topic, but Sampras missed a hell of a lot of these too....when he hit them well, they stuck and he usually won the point, but if he were to attempt 10, he'd make 2 or 3 and miss the rest...not too bad a return but he won't be winning overall from the back of the court. Agassi won most of his points from the backcourt against Sampras in this way....either drawing the error from the backhand or moving him into the backhand corner and then hitting it to his forehand corner, giving Pete the point if he was good enough to hit it....usually he wasn't and Agassi gets a cheap point. Again, usually we remeber the spectacular ones he makes, but he gave away a tonne freebies on it. Then again, it was good enough to get the 1 break a set so Sampras was smart oin playing to his strengths.

luishcorreia
06-14-2006, 09:04 AM
Federer backhand is obviously better than Sampras. Then again...I honestly think that Sampras, in his prime, could beat Federer.

Having said that, i think the problem with federer's backhand is his grip. he just holds the racquet with an Eastern grip, the makes him have to hit tha ball at best at waist level. That's where Nadal's high bouncing forehands hurt him. If we would hit with an Eastern Backhand Grip (like gaudio, robredo, feliciano lopez, etc) he wold get mor spin, more control and more versatility on his backhand shots.

Moose Malloy
06-14-2006, 09:32 AM
Watch Sampras vs Agassi AO SF 2000.......it really was hit or miss.

Sampras of 2000 played nothing like Sampras of '93-'96. He played mainly from the baseline then (except grass/indoors) & Agassi/Chang/Kafelnikov/Muster/Corretja/Courier types attacked backhand relentlessly & it held up quite well. Was just watching a Courier/Sampras match from '95, very long rallies, lots of great bankhands from Sampras. By 2000 he was pure S&V. He used to be an allcourter who could rally with anyone & play great transitional tennis to get to net as well. Plus he had a great serve, so it was pretty hard to get to any weakness.

habib
06-14-2006, 10:10 AM
It's ******** to argue that because Federer's BH broke down against Nadal and because Sampras' worked well against his competition, that the latter's is better than the former's. First of all, Federer's backhand doesn't break down against any other player. Second of all, Sampras wouldn't be able to hit his driving backhand on balls that kicked up to his head. His shoulder would come off - it would come right the hell off.

They had/have two completely different backhands - Sampras', much like his forehand, is good as long as he gets it in the court. His consistency from that side was always suspect, and his backhand really only looked good on fast surfaces where he could hit it as hard as possible and if it went in it would be a winner - most of the time. Federer's backhand is more geared towards consistency and being able to get more balls back with it, not to mention hit some NASTY angled shots and, when necessary, down the line winners.

In the end, I think Federer's ability to take the ball early puts him above Sampras in the groundstrokes department off of both sides. He was driving the ball with terrific success against Nadal in Rome, but for whatever reason (my guess would be that he simply hadn't worked on that driving BH enough to make it a reliable part of his game, yet) it completely shattered in Paris and he switched back to his old, ineffective tactics.

In fact, now that I've thought of that, I'm wondering if that may in fact be the reason for the backhand breakdown - a lack of time to get used to it and get the timing and technique down well enough for it to be a natural and consistent shot.

Fischer76
06-14-2006, 10:57 AM
It's ******** to argue that because Federer's BH broke down against Nadal and because Sampras' worked well against his competition, that the latter's is better than the former's. First of all, Federer's backhand doesn't break down against any other player. Second of all, Sampras wouldn't be able to hit his driving backhand on balls that kicked up to his head. His shoulder would come off - it would come right the hell off.

They had/have two completely different backhands - Sampras', much like his forehand, is good as long as he gets it in the court. His consistency from that side was always suspect, and his backhand really only looked good on fast surfaces where he could hit it as hard as possible and if it went in it would be a winner - most of the time. Federer's backhand is more geared towards consistency and being able to get more balls back with it, not to mention hit some NASTY angled shots and, when necessary, down the line winners.

In the end, I think Federer's ability to take the ball early puts him above Sampras in the groundstrokes department off of both sides. He was driving the ball with terrific success against Nadal in Rome, but for whatever reason (my guess would be that he simply hadn't worked on that driving BH enough to make it a reliable part of his game, yet) it completely shattered in Paris and he switched back to his old, ineffective tactics.

In fact, now that I've thought of that, I'm wondering if that may in fact be the reason for the backhand breakdown - a lack of time to get used to it and get the timing and technique down well enough for it to be a natural and consistent shot.

First off, you don't need to resort to personal attacks if you are expressing a point. It doesn't make your point any more valid(if it is) or otherwise. Doing things like that only reflects on the one stating it rather than to whom it is directed at. Hopefully you'll learn some manners.

Your assumption that Sampras would use a backhand drive on balls that kicked up to his head is rather based on pure baseless irresponsible conjecture that only an amateur or to use your word a ****** would ever think of.

habib
06-14-2006, 11:50 AM
First off, you don't need to resort to personal attacks if you are expressing a point. It doesn't make your point any more valid(if it is) or otherwise. Doing things like that only reflects on the one stating it rather than to whom it is directed at. Hopefully you'll learn some manners.
It was in no way a personal attack, but rather my opinion that that particular argument was inherently stupid. Hopefully you'll learn some reading comprehension and lessened sensetivity.

Your assumption that Sampras would use a backhand drive on balls that kicked up to his head is rather based on pure baseless irresponsible conjecture that only an amateur or to use your word a ****** would ever think of.
Haha. That's quite funny. "Pure baseless irresponsible conjecture." Of course. Because Sampras had such a fantastic topspin backhand. In fact, many people attribute the decline of his backhand towards the latter portion of his career to an attempt to hit his backhand with more topspin.

Please, if you are going to string together long sequences of badly selected SAT words, at least make a pertinent point with the argument which said sequences compose.

Fischer76
06-14-2006, 11:58 AM
It was in no way a personal attack, but rather my opinion that that particular argument was inherently stupid. Hopefully you'll learn some reading comprehension and lessened sensetivity.

Haha. That's quite funny. "Pure baseless irresponsible conjecture." Of course. Because Sampras had such a fantastic topspin backhand. In fact, many people attribute the decline of his backhand towards the latter portion of his career to an attempt to hit his backhand with more topspin.

Please, if you are going to string together long sequences of badly selected SAT words, at least make a pertinent point with the argument which said sequences compose.

lol if you are going to make criticisms about my reading comprehension, at least learn how to spell first.... That's sensitivity to you. :rolleyes:

Wrong on Petes backhand... The decline of Petes backhand is not because he was learning to hit a topspin but because in the later stages of his career, he "morphed" into a pure serve and volleyer.

habib
06-14-2006, 12:56 PM
lol if you are going to make criticisms about my reading comprehension, at least learn how to spell first.... That's sensitivity to you. :rolleyes:

Oh no. You caught me in a thoughtless typo. Whatever shall I do. Oh dear, oh no. Mother. Did you actually have a point?

Wrong on Petes backhand... The decline of Petes backhand is not because he was learning to hit a topspin but because in the later stages of his career, he "morphed" into a pure serve and volleyer.
In part, yes. It is also rather well known that his coach advised him, and worked with him, to adopt more of a topspin backhand.

Furthermore, the reason that Sampras didn't do well at the French, and on clay in general, was that his flat strokes were not suited for such a surface. It nullified his main weapons. Unfortunately, he also did not have the stamina, or consistency with his array of strokes, to make up for not hitting a winner within the first 3 shots. Now, one can argue that if he had been willing to modify his game for the French, he would have had a better shot to win it, but that's irrelevant because Sampras steadfastly refused to change what was so successful for him on all other surfaces. The point of all this digression, is that taking Sampras' game as it was - ie: flat strokes, offensive mentality, relatively poor consistency off of the backhand side, his backhand would have crumpled under the type of shots Nadal is capable of hitting to it.

So to your earlier assertion that assuming Sampras would be hitting flat drives off of high balls is amateurish and ********, I ask you how he would have hit a topspin backhand when he didn't even really have one? He could have sliced it, but even then, Sampras' slice, when not an approach shot, was inferior to Federer's as well.

fastdunn
06-15-2006, 01:18 AM
Robert Lansdorp also predicted Sharapova to dominate tennis the next 3-4 years at the start of 2005.

I meant the "prediction" about Federer's backhand.
Not about Sampras would beat Federer.
I think Lansdorp's analysis hit the nail on what happened
to Federer's backhand last sunday.....

laurie
06-15-2006, 05:14 AM
Oh no. You caught me in a thoughtless typo. Whatever shall I do. Oh dear, oh no. Mother. Did you actually have a point?

In part, yes. It is also rather well known that his coach advised him, and worked with him, to adopt more of a topspin backhand.

Furthermore, the reason that Sampras didn't do well at the French, and on clay in general, was that his flat strokes were not suited for such a surface. It nullified his main weapons. Unfortunately, he also did not have the stamina, or consistency with his array of strokes, to make up for not hitting a winner within the first 3 shots. Now, one can argue that if he had been willing to modify his game for the French, he would have had a better shot to win it, but that's irrelevant because Sampras steadfastly refused to change what was so successful for him on all other surfaces. The point of all this digression, is that taking Sampras' game as it was - ie: flat strokes, offensive mentality, relatively poor consistency off of the backhand side, his backhand would have crumpled under the type of shots Nadal is capable of hitting to it.

So to your earlier assertion that assuming Sampras would be hitting flat drives off of high balls is amateurish and ********, I ask you how he would have hit a topspin backhand when he didn't even really have one? He could have sliced it, but even then, Sampras' slice, when not an approach shot, was inferior to Federer's as well.

I think this is something Sampras has himself acknowledged more than once since he retired.

Having said that, I saw Sampras try all sorts of different plays and ways to win at Roland Garros. I think in the end mentally he wasn't prepared to put in the extra work to win that particular tournament. He got comfortable been the favourite for Wimbledon.

I would also say Sampras did always put a lot of topspin on his backhand. He was prone to hitting the ball quite high over the net unless he went for winners. He certianly didn't hit flat shots in the way an Anastasia Myskina does. I've seen her live and her shots barely go over the net. Sampras hit much more topspin than that on both sides but still not as much compared to his comtemparies like Chang, Courier and the Spaniards. I think a lot of people become pedantic about flat shots. But in Sampras' case you really have to look closely at how high he hit his groundshots over the net off both wings, then you will see that actually he hit with topsin. You also have to look at his stance, very modern stance to hit his shots, with a lot of rotation. Sampras' best topspin shots were off low mid court balls where he could really whip the wrist and generate pace with a lot of spin. Again that helped him out more on grass than clay.

Having said that, a lot of players with fantastic one handed backhand techniques for clay have not won Roland Garros. Alex Corretja, Petra Korda, Michael Stich, Stefan Edberg.

Therefore, this is a question I've been wanting to ask for sometime. Who is the last player to win at Roland Garros using and eastern grip on the forehand?

AAAA
06-15-2006, 07:12 AM
If Lansdorps analysis is wrong as you say, whose analysis should we take as fact? Yours? :confused:

Until we see Sampras on a clay court facing Nadal we truly cannot know if Sampras would shank his backhands, often like Federer, in an attempt to hit deep and stop Nadal controlling the point. We can speculate, extrapolate, make projections all we like but as Lendl said we don't know until 'you face his ball'.

erik-the-red
06-15-2006, 07:17 AM
Therefore, this is a question I've been wanting to ask for sometime. Who is the last player to win at Roland Garros using and eastern grip on the forehand?

Probably Yevgeny Kafelnikov (1996).

Everybody since then has used a grip that is at least weak semi-western.

Rickson
06-15-2006, 07:38 AM
I'm wondering... I don't think I've ever seen Sampras's backhand

Neither have most posters here because they're too young.

fastdunn
06-15-2006, 11:11 AM
Neither have most posters here because they're too young.

Yeah, lots of poster here started watching Sampras after Sampras got
injured with herniated disc and subsequently lost foot-speed and ground
strokes (2000?) Lots of people remember him serve-and-volleying...

I own every single televised match of Sampras from 1989 Canadian open.
I never saw Sampras's backhand let him down big time in a big match.
In fact, his backhand suddenly rises in big matches..

Only time I remember is that he lost it at semi-final of Newsweek
championship against the lefty Ivanisevic. Even that time, not as
embarrassing as Federer's last sunday...

laurie
06-15-2006, 12:16 PM
Yeah, lots of poster here started watching Sampras after Sampras got
injured with herniated disc and subsequently lost foot-speed and ground
strokes (2000?) Lots of people remember him serve-and-volleying...

I own every single televised match of Sampras from 1989 Canadian open.
I never saw Sampras's backhand let him down big time in a big match.
In fact, his backhand suddenly rises in big matches..

Only time I remember is that he lost it at semi-final of Newsweek
championship against the lefty Ivanisevic. Even that time, not as
embarrassing as Federer's last sunday...

None more illustrated than the last match Sampras played in his career. At the end of the second set of the US final, the statistics read Sampras: 7 backhand winners, Agassi:0 backhand winners. Footwork is vital to any stroke production and in that match, Sampras was energised and the winners flowed off his racket from the backcourt.

Moose Malloy
06-15-2006, 12:27 PM
I own every single televised match of Sampras from 1989 Canadian open

Really? Anyway I can get some copies of some?

fastdunn
06-15-2006, 12:53 PM
Really? Anyway I can get some copies of some?

Well, I exaggerated a bit. I basically tried to tape all televised
matches since 1990 US Open. I'm not so sure about before 1990.
I do have a few matches of 1989 - 1990 before US Open.

But all the tapes are horribly orginized and some are not labled.
They are in two boxes. It would be lots of hasseles to find what
you want.

So basically the answer is "no" at this point. Sorry.
Soon I'll be making them into DVD's.
Then I'll be better organized.

sureshs
06-15-2006, 01:00 PM
Sampras said in a recent interview that Federer's BH is slightly better than his.

Moose Malloy
06-15-2006, 01:03 PM
So basically the answer is "no" at this point. Sorry.
Soon I'll be making them into DVD's.
Then I'll be better organized.

That's cool. Keep me in mind if you get them sorted.

habib
06-15-2006, 01:30 PM
Sampras said in a recent interview that Federer's BH is slightly better than his.

He lies! LIES!

Rez_PS2
06-15-2006, 09:19 PM
I think this is something Sampras has himself acknowledged more than once since he retired.

Having said that, I saw Sampras try all sorts of different plays and ways to win at Roland Garros. I think in the end mentally he wasn't prepared to put in the extra work to win that particular tournament. He got comfortable been the favourite for Wimbledon.

I would also say Sampras did always put a lot of topspin on his backhand. He was prone to hitting the ball quite high over the net unless he went for winners. He certianly didn't hit flat shots in the way an Anastasia Myskina does. I've seen her live and her shots barely go over the net. Sampras hit much more topspin than that on both sides but still not as much compared to his comtemparies like Chang, Courier and the Spaniards. I think a lot of people become pedantic about flat shots. But in Sampras' case you really have to look closely at how high he hit his groundshots over the net off both wings, then you will see that actually he hit with topsin.

I agreee with the trajectory on the ball. Pete got quite a lot of net clerance and hit quite loopy backhands, but hitting the ball with a lot of loop does not gurantee you actually get a lot of topspin. You still have to generate the racquet head speed to get the number of revs on the ball.....that's why Nadal's loopy groundtrokes are so heavy.....not only does it clear the net by a lot, guaranteeing a high bounce, it also jumps and kicks off the court once it bounces because of the revs on the ball he can generate....Pete's backhand was comparatively 'lighter'....high clearance not enough revs meaning it sits up. Sampras' forehand didn't actually get much clearance but a study showed that he generated a lot of revs on it which means it probably felt a lot heavier after the bounce despite the lower clearance.

habib
06-15-2006, 10:55 PM
I believe that the study you refer to actually found that he produced far more RPM's on his backhand than his forehand, and that the latter was actually one of the flattest strokes in the higher echelons of men's tennis.

Rez_PS2
06-16-2006, 06:28 AM
I believe that the study you refer to actually found that he produced far more RPM's on his backhand than his forehand, and that the latter was actually one of the flattest strokes in the higher echelons of men's tennis.

laurie
06-16-2006, 09:37 AM
Moose, I've got many matches of Sampras. send me an email if you like.

Have a look at

http://www.classictennismatches.net

Fischer76
06-16-2006, 10:08 AM
Moose, I've got many matches of Sampras. send me an email if you like.

Have a look at

http://www.classictennismatches.net

How's the quality? Format? Commentary language?

Moose Malloy
06-16-2006, 11:24 AM
believe that the study you refer to actually found that he produced far more RPM's on his backhand than his forehand, and that the latter was actually one of the flattest strokes in the higher echelons of men's tennis

Interestingly Pete Sampras hit the most forehand spin among players with classical style, an average of 1842rpm. Surprisingly, Andre Agassi's forehand actually measured slightly less spin than Sampras, despite his semi-western grip, averaging 1718rpm.

Pete Sampras was unique among all the players, both men and women, in that he hit significantly more topspin on his backhand drive compared to his forehand. His average of 2204rpm was the third highest we recorded, and 20% higher than his forehand topspin average of 1842rpm.

http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Project/usspin-05.html

fastdunn
06-16-2006, 11:39 AM
People concluded Sampras had ideal ratio of spin/pace (at his time)
which is probably secret of "heavy" balls.

The spin he had was definitley influence of Tim Gulikson.
Before Tim, Sampras hit very flat strokes/serves. Tim polished Pete's
game with top spins.

In general, current tennis players seem to hit with higher spin ratio
these days.

laurie
06-16-2006, 01:09 PM
How's the quality? Format? Commentary language?

Fisher, all the information is on there my friend. Double click and have a look.

kaiotic
06-20-2006, 08:17 PM
I had an old post in which Robert Lansdorp--who coached Tracy Austin, Pete Sampras, Lindsey Davenport, Jeff Tarango, Justin Gimelstob, Maria Sharapova, and a couple other tour players--talked about this issue. Unfortunately, Robert's home page, where he made the quotation was taken down, but here's what he thinks:

From www.Lansdorp.com:
I agree with Robert. Federer comes off a lot of balls on the backhand side when he uses all of that supination. He needs to stay with the ball more--especially when Nadal's ball is coming at him with so much action. nice.

btw, would you pls direct me to an Estusa PB? i need one. i am dying.
i regret not picking one up when they were avail on TW. damn!
overall, i just think Pete's groundies seem to be heavier than Roger's.
Pete's backhand is more fierce and definitely has more character. Pete has a better commmand/use of the bh slice. It just seems that the calibre of players Roger is playing aginst these days aren't altogether on par with the crew Pete had to contend with.

Becker, Agassi, Courier, Kracjik, Safin, Edberg.. just to name a few.