PDA

View Full Version : Sampras or Federer?


quest01
07-23-2006, 06:09 PM
Personally i think Pete Sampras is better. When and if Federer surpasses 14 grand slams then he would be the best ever, but for right now, Sampras is king.

siber222000
07-23-2006, 06:10 PM
i would say... even though pete won more slam, i would choose fed

Volly master
07-23-2006, 06:12 PM
sampras or federer..

gee thats tough..

id have to say myself because i cannt decide between them too ;) stop beating a dead horse

chiru
07-23-2006, 06:35 PM
another fed sampras thread who's better. really, you don't say! you know what im not even gonna rip on you for this. instead, ill let stewie griffin do it for me, of course draw the metaphor for this situation but it should pretty much cover me:
"Olivia: You are the weakest link, goodbye. (laughter)
Stewie: Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. You are the weakest link goodbye. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference, reference that outside the program before. Because that's what she says on the show right? Isn't it? You are the weakest link goodbye. And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult me in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart girl you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That's so fresh too. Any, any Titanic jokes you want to throw at me too as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity. God you're so funny!"

baros
07-23-2006, 07:07 PM
federer they are equal on all services except clay which gives federer the advantage.
________
Mercury Montclair specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mercury_Montclair)

AndrewD
07-23-2006, 09:17 PM
Sampras isn't the greatest of all time and, at this point, Federer doesn't even enter the equation.

BaseLineBash
07-23-2006, 09:56 PM
Sampras isn't the greatest of all time and, at this point, Federer doesn't even enter the equation.
Cool, I didn't know you could order a computer specially equipped with a braille keyboard from Dell.

jukka1970
07-24-2006, 02:16 AM
Cool, I didn't know you could order a computer specially equipped with a braille keyboard from Dell.

LOL, great original comeback.

Ivanišević
07-24-2006, 02:54 AM
sampras.
and just because competition federer's playing in.
they're both great players, but in my opinion-rafter, goran, stich, becker, courier, agassi,, lendl, chang, muster, kafelnikov, kuerten, krajicek... are way better than perhaps-gaudio, roddick, t.johanson, coria, ljubicic, davydenko,stepanek, robredo,ferrer, nieminen and so on..

The Grand Slam
07-24-2006, 03:12 AM
To be honest with you, I think Sampras.

AndrewD
07-24-2006, 03:48 AM
Cool, I didn't know you could order a computer specially equipped with a braille keyboard from Dell.

Course you can mate, specially designed for the American tennis fan.

Duzza
07-24-2006, 03:55 AM
I like Sampras 10 percent more, but Federer is 20 percent better :D

FiveO
07-24-2006, 05:47 AM
Course you can mate, specially designed for the American tennis fan.

Well, there are some Americans, aware that tennis was being played in the Open era and before the advent of desk-tops, who would include an Australian, a Swede and an American in any discussion about a male G.O.A.T. and will include a Swiss if and when he passes a couple of more guys on the career major list and/or adds an RG.

iamke55
07-24-2006, 06:30 AM
Federer by far. I used my time machine to come up with this answer so don't bother disagreeing.:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

helloworld
07-24-2006, 06:36 AM
Better in terms of what ? If you're comparing the success between the two, Federer is probably half of Sampras.

theace21
07-24-2006, 08:15 AM
It would have been a heck of a match at the Big W when they both were in their prime...But remember Federer is still a youngster and will get better.

tennisprofl
07-24-2006, 02:31 PM
sampras is better, but if fed keeps it up he will def surpass sampras as mens goat

HAWKEYE
07-25-2006, 10:19 PM
FED SAMPRAS

serve 8 10
return of serve 10 7
net play 8 10
backhand 10 7
forehand 10 9
movement 10 9

TOTAL 56 52

But still, in clash between this two guys at their best I would go for Sampras! Lies, damn lies and statistics....

Ivanišević
07-26-2006, 05:13 AM
FED SAMPRAS

serve 8 10
return of serve 10 7
net play 8 10
backhand 10 7
forehand 10 9
movement 10 9

TOTAL 56 52

But still, in clash between this two guys at their best I would go for Sampras! Lies, damn lies and statistics....
your statistic is stupid.
but.. i would give fed 7 for serve
return of serve 10 for fed??rather 9
10 for fed's backhand? are u serious??

Marat Safinator
07-26-2006, 05:14 AM
10 for his backhand? go get some glasses charley.

Ivanišević
07-26-2006, 05:17 AM
10 for his backhand? go get some glasses charley.
some people are really TOO impressed with federer

zolo
07-26-2006, 08:50 AM
Totally Sampras.

Marat Safinator
07-26-2006, 08:59 AM
some people are really TOO impressed with federer

Im quite a fan of federer but his backhand is nowhere near 10, 8 at the best of times.

Marat Safinator
07-26-2006, 08:59 AM
oh yes and I'll say sampras.

HAWKEYE
07-27-2006, 03:42 AM
Im quite a fan of federer but his backhand is nowhere near 10, 8 at the best of times.
Guys those were relative figures not absolute! 10 was base point and i gave it to the guy with the better shot, not the perfect shot! Even Fed's forehand is not perfect!
But still you are underrating Fed's backhand. If his backhand is nowhere near 10 how would you rate Pete's backhand?! Below 0 i guess.
C'mon guys I will put my glasses on if you change your's.

Ivanišević
07-27-2006, 03:54 AM
Guys those were relative figures not absolute! 10 was base point and i gave it to the guy with the better shot, not the perfect shot! Even Fed's forehand is not perfect!
But still you are underrating Fed's backhand. If his backhand is nowhere near 10 how would you rate Pete's backhand?! Below 0 i guess.
C'mon guys I will put my glasses on if you change your's.
well, it's funny coz 10 is the highest number u used in this comparison

HAWKEYE
07-27-2006, 04:08 AM
Fed's forehand is obviously better shot than his backhand but i gave it both 10 because both shots are better than Pete's. OK?

Big Fed
07-27-2006, 11:30 AM
Fed all da way

fastdunn
07-27-2006, 12:46 PM
You are two generous on Fed's backhand, net play and movement, IMHO.
IMHO, Sampras has BETTER movement than Fed's.


You know the thing is that Sampras is clearly better in terms of tangibles.
It's clear as fire to me. But great thing about Federer is that he has so much
in "intangible" stuffs. He has very resilient game and mixture of different
styles...

But I don't think it was good move to use those tangible departments
of the tennis game if you wanted to claim Federer is better.



FED SAMPRAS

serve 8 10
return of serve 10 7
net play 8 10
backhand 10 7
forehand 10 9
movement 10 9

TOTAL 56 52

But still, in clash between this two guys at their best I would go for Sampras! Lies, damn lies and statistics....

David L
07-27-2006, 07:18 PM
You are two generous on Fed's backhand, net play and movement, IMHO.
IMHO, Sampras has BETTER movement than Fed's.


You know the thing is that Sampras is clearly better in terms of tangibles.
It's clear as fire to me. But great thing about Federer is that he has so much
in "intangible" stuffs. He has very resilient game and mixture of different
styles...

But I don't think it was good move to use those tangible departments
of the tennis game if you wanted to claim Federer is better.

I think HAWKEYE got it about right. Sampras had a more effective serve than Federer and a better volley, although I think the latter is mainly due to the infrequency with which Federer volleys, more so than inherent ability.

I happen to think that Federer is better in terms of tangibles. It may have been you in another thread who described Federer's ability as magical, suggesting that it might disappear, like magic, just as easily as it appeared. Federer's ability might look magical, but don't be fooled. He is a solid player with clear discernible skills. Here are some of his tangibles.

Let's start with Federer's backhand. Having read these boards for the last couple of months, I'm aware that same people will find my next statement shocking. Federer has the best backhand in the game at the moment in my opinion. Better than Gasquet's, better than Safin's, better than Gaudio's. His variety on that side is second to none. He slices with and w/o penetration, with and w/o side, his drop shots are crazy, his angles on the pass are nuts, he can whip it deep with topspin or drive it low and hard, he can just keep it solid to stay in the rally or drive it hard to force a play, he can hit it down the line or at varying angles crosscourt, he also has an array of punts, dips and flicks he can perform with it. This and more. I'll take his backhand over anyone elses any day.

He is incredibly consistent. I would say the most consistent if you consider the kind of shots he goes for. His margin for error is lower than a player who loops the ball with heavy topspin, because he has sufficient control over the ball not to need a larger margin for error. Going into the final of the this year's Wimbledon, Nadal's unforced error count was over 100, Federer's was in the 70s. Why? Because when Nadal played more aggressive, as he did this year at Wimbledon, he made more errors. Federer can play aggressive and make fewer errors than others.

His forehand is the best in the game, easily! He can deal with every type of ball, with pace, and regardless of position, hurt you with it. It's also the biggest in the game when he turns the screw, and his placement is unrivaled. All of this is no fluke, he does it very comfortably and with low risk. He has been hitting so many great forehands with such regularity and for so long that one is forced to accept that this phenomena is not a flash in the pan. He just has great hands and a great sense of feel.

His serve is underrated, especially his second serve. Both have disguise, penetration, placement, variety and compliment the rest of his game so well. Slice, flat or with kick, his serve sets him up nicely for the next shot. Only Karlovic currently wins more service games at 92%, Federer wins 90%. He is ranked 1 for points won on the second serve, so even if his first serve is not working, he is still in good shape. This last fact reduces the possibilty of luck determining whether he wins or loses. 'You are only as good as your second serve'. He is also ranked 1 for points won on the return of the opponent's first serve.

His movement is his other strength. He is an athlete and can get to so much. When he gets there, he can also put enough on the ball to make it extremely difficult to outmanoeurve him. Federer also seems a bit more spritely to me than Sampras.

So many tangibles, I have to wonder if you have been paying attention when watching Federer play. I think the problem for you might be that Federer has 'too' many tangibles. When I think of Sampras, I think big serve and volley, and maybe as a side dish, the running forehand facilitated by the eastern grip. When Federer was commenting about his 'one dimensional' comment, in refererence to Nadal's game, he said Sampras was not exactly three dimensional, but nevertheless was good at what he did, which was pretty much the same thing each time, serve and volley. Federer has more variety in his game, and wins points in many different ways that, for some, it might be difficult to see a clear pattern, something tangible to grab onto. I suspect you have fallen into this trap.

BaseLineBash
07-27-2006, 07:45 PM
People forget. Out of sight...out of mind. Sampras, but not by a long shot. They are both very complete players, both can and could do everything well.

superman1
07-27-2006, 09:52 PM
The wording is crappy. I think Federer is the better player (not by much), but he has a LONG way to go to catch up to Sampras' accomplishments.

HAWKEYE
07-27-2006, 10:40 PM
I think HAWKEYE got it about right. Sampras had a more effective serve than Federer and a better volley, although I think the latter is mainly due to the infrequency with which Federer volleys, more so than inherent ability.

I happen to think that Federer is better in terms of tangibles. It may have been you in another thread who described Federer's ability as magical, suggesting that it might disappear, like magic, just as easily as it appeared. Federer's ability might look magical, but don't be fooled. He is a solid player with clear discernible skills. Here are some of his tangibles.

Let's start with Federer's backhand. Having read these boards for the last couple of months, I'm aware that same people will find my next statement shocking. Federer has the best backhand in the game at the moment in my opinion. Better than Gasquet's, better than Safin's, better than Gaudio's. His variety on that side is second to none. He slices with and w/o penetration, with and w/o side, his drop shots are crazy, his angles on the pass are nuts, he can whip it deep with topspin or drive it low and hard, he can just keep it solid to stay in the rally or drive it hard to force a play, he can hit it down the line or at varying angles crosscourt, he also has an array of punts, dips and flicks he can perform with it. This and more. I'll take his backhand over anyone elses any day.

He is incredibly consistent. I would say the most consistent if you consider the kind of shots he goes for. His margin for error is lower than a player who loops the ball with heavy topspin, because he has sufficient control over the ball not to need a larger margin for error. Going into the final of the this year's Wimbledon, Nadal's unforced error count was over 100, Federer's was in the 70s. Why? Because when Nadal played more aggressive, as he did this year at Wimbledon, he made more errors. Federer can play aggressive and make fewer errors than others.

His forehand is the best in the game, easily! He can deal with every type of ball, with pace, and regardless of position, hurt you with it. It's also the biggest in the game when he turns the screw, and his placement is unrivaled. All of this is no fluke, he does it very comfortably and with low risk. He has been hitting so many great forehands with such regularity and for so long that one is forced to accept that this phenomena is not a flash in the pan. He just has great hands and a great sense of feel.

His serve is underrated, especially his second serve. Both have disguise, penetration, placement, variety and compliment the rest of his game so well. Slice, flat or with kick, his serve sets him up nicely for the next shot. Only Karlovic currently wins more service games at 92%, Federer wins 90%. He is ranked 1 for points won on the second serve, so even if his first serve is not working, he is still in good shape. This last fact reduces the possibilty of luck determining whether he wins or loses. 'You are only as good as your second serve'. He is also ranked 1 for points won on the return of the opponent's first serve.

His movement is his other strength. He is an athlete and can get to so much. When he gets there, he can also put enough on the ball to make it extremely difficult to outmanoeurve him. Federer also seems a bit more spritely to me than Sampras.

So many tangibles, I have to wonder if you have been paying attention when watching Federer play. I think the problem for you might be that Federer has 'too' many tangibles. When I think of Sampras, I think big serve and volley, and maybe as a side dish, the running forehand facilitated by the eastern grip. When Federer was commenting about his 'one dimensional' comment, in refererence to Nadal's game, he said Sampras was not exactly three dimensional, but nevertheless was good at what he did, which was pretty much the same thing each time, serve and volley. Federer has more variety in his game, and wins points in many different ways that, for some, it might be difficult to see a clear pattern, something tangible to grab onto. I suspect you have fallen into this trap.
You've said it all. I would just like to make a brief comment on what you have said about Fed's backhand. Variety is a key word, and people often tend to overlook it. Let's take for example Guga's backhand. Many would argue that Guga's backhand is better than Fed's. In baseline exchanges he can wheap you out of court on that side and the penetration he can get there is amazing. But can Guga produce all different kind of slices and angles that Fed can do with his backhand? Guga's backhand is heavy artillery but Fed's is complete package. The same could be said for Safin's backhand. Doublehanders generaly don't have much of a variety on their shot.
Fed definitely has the best backhand in the game today. It's not perfect but it's the best. Simple as that!

fastdunn
07-27-2006, 11:36 PM
So many tangibles, I have to wonder if you have been paying attention when watching Federer play. I think the problem for you might be that Federer has 'too' many tangibles. When I think of Sampras, I think big serve and volley, and maybe as a side dish, the running forehand facilitated by the eastern grip. When Federer was commenting about his 'one dimensional' comment, in refererence to Nadal's game, he said Sampras was not exactly three dimensional, but nevertheless was good at what he did, which was pretty much the same thing each time, serve and volley. Federer has more variety in his game, and wins points in many different ways that, for some, it might be difficult to see a clear pattern, something tangible to grab onto. I suspect you have fallen into this trap.

Well, my opinions differ with yours. That's cool.

In terms of Federer's standard, I think his foot-speed is a weakness.
Only way to beat Federer right now seems to be to stretch him left
and right turning it into a running game. Nadal, Nalbandian does it so well.

I disagree Federer's backhand is the best in the game. In fact, it's very
mediocre in his standard. I don't think I've seen many of current pro's
whose backhand fails that badly against Nadal's lefty spin.

Federer's backhand looks fine because it is buried inside complete
package of Federer's game. If you seperate it out of it and see it
objectively not as "Federer's backhand", it's only mediocre shot.

As Gilbert said, Federer is a baseliner. I'm not going to comment
much on Federer's net game. He was doing OK before 2003 and
he does not use it much after 2003 and not exaclty successful
when he does it.

Now, what is real special element of Federer's game besides his
unreal super forehand which I think is truely the best in history ?

It's the element that binds all of his tools together into a magical
one. For example, his uncanny anticipation. he seems to know what
shots his opponent is going to hit. His court sense. He knows the geomerty
of the court very well and he is as good tennis geometry master
as mcEnroe. He knows when to crank up and get offensive
un-mistakabley.
These are the same intangibles that the fellow Swiss Hingis possessed.
His resilient playing style. He can play power baseliner, pusher,
counter puncher, junk baller. All these nasty variety of shots
at the right moment. He said himself he mastered when to hit what shots.
And lastly he has this magical hands. He makes all sorts of impromptu
shots that bails him out of defensive situations.
He is a magic pool player. As Mary Carrillo said, he has supreme awareness of
his body. These are intangibles
that can not be categorized to analyze. You just know when you see
someone with a gifted hand.
These are not the typical tennis tangibles, certiany not
in the tangibles HAWKEYE originally listed.
These are really esoteric subtle tennis ingredients of Federer's game
that people are excited about

Of course, he is top world class athelete. He has superb atheletic
ability to execute basic strokes of tennis game. But I don't think
his tangibles are that special. His forehand stands out and maybe
the best I've ever seen last 20 years or so. But we're living in era
of forehand revolution. Everybody has stout forehand.
Without that last magic ingredient
of intangibles that strings all together, his game would become
something like Pioline's , IMHO

HAWKEYE
07-28-2006, 12:47 AM
Well, my opinions differ with yours. That's cool.

In terms of Federer's standard, I think his foot-speed is a weakness.
Only way to beat Federer right now seems to be to stretch him left
and right turning it into a running game. Nadal, Nalbandian does it so well.

I disagree Federer's backhand is the best in the game. In fact, it's very
mediocre in his standard. I don't think I've seen many of current pro's
whose backhand fails that badly against Nadal's lefty spin.

Federer's backhand looks fine because it is buried inside complete
package of Federer's game. If you seperate it out of it and see it
objectively not as "Federer's backhand", it's only mediocre shot.

As Gilbert said, Federer is a baseliner. I'm not going to comment
much on Federer's net game. He was doing OK before 2003 and
he does not use it much after 2003 and not exaclty successful
when he does it.

Now, what is real special element of Federer's game besides his
unreal super forehand which I think is truely the best in history ?

It's the element that binds all of his tools together into a magical
one. For example, his uncanny anticipation. he seems to know what
shots his opponent is going to hit. His court sense. He knows the geomerty
of the court very well and he is as good tennis geometry master
as mcEnroe. He knows when to crank up and get offensive
un-mistakabley.
These are the same intangibles that the fellow Swiss Hingis possessed.
His resilient playing style. He can play power baseliner, pusher,
counter puncher, junk baller. All these nasty variety of shots
at the right moment. He said himself he mastered when to hit what shots.
And lastly he has this magical hands. He makes all sorts of impromptu
shots that bails him out of defensive situations.
He is a magic pool player. As Mary Carrillo said, he has supreme awareness of
his body. These are intangibles
that can not be categorized to analyze. You just know when you see
someone with a gifted hand.
These are not the typical tennis tangibles, certiany not
in the tangibles HAWKEYE originally listed.
These are really esoteric subtle tennis ingredients of Federer's game
that people are excited about

Of course, he is top world class athelete. He has superb atheletic
ability to execute basic strokes of tennis game. But I don't think
his tangibles are that special. His forehand stands out and maybe
the best I've ever seen last 20 years or so. But we're living in era
of forehand revolution. Everybody has stout forehand.
Without that last magic ingredient
of intangibles that strings all together, his game would become
something like Pioline's , IMHO
Who would you rather play approach shot to his backhand side: Fed, Nalbandian or Safin? I guess you would say Fed. So would I! But you would say because of his intangibles not because of his backhand. But eventually you would be passed by his backhand because his intangibles are not cappable of doing that by themselves. They need something tangible to make the pass!
I can't understand how can you distinguish between intangibles and tangibles in each Federer's shot. I can argue with you that there is so much of the intangibles behind Fed's forehand which you have praised for its tangibles.
All we can discuss is how effective certain shot is. The rest is methaphysics.

shrakkie
07-28-2006, 01:06 AM
Personally i think Pete Sampras is better. When and if Federer surpasses 14 grand slams then he would be the best ever, but for right now, Sampras is king.

well i mean i have never ever even come across a question like this i mean it really is original!lol:)

no seriously i think its way too early to say who is better as roger is still only 25!he has a lot of tennis left in him yet.lol:)

Rickson
07-28-2006, 02:48 AM
i would say... even though pete won more slam, i would choose fed
Roger's on his way to 9 this year. 14 will be history by 2008.

ben_slammer
08-01-2006, 03:50 AM
Sampras Federer

Serve 10 9
Forehand 9 10
Backhand 8 8.5
Net play 9 8.5
Movement 8.5 8.5

At their bests