How would Federer do in the 90's?

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Mustard, Gaudio was considered a lucky journeyman and Nadal was the talk of the tennis world. People couldn't believe how good he was and thought he'd walk to a RG victory. Everyone was comparing him to Boris Becker and his play in 2005 was as good or better than at any other point in his career.

I'm talking about February 2005, during the Buenos Aires tournament, the last time that Gaudio beat Nadal. Gaudio was a top 10 player, while Nadal was barely top 50.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Fed didn't throw caution to the wind, he played the whole match with a depressed/unmotivated look on his face and did the same thing he always did: Hit his backhand to Nadal's forehand. You don't need a 2 handed backhand to play big, aggressive tennis, just ask Blake (Or Kuerten or Gaudio). From the baseline Blake is a poor man's Sampras and he has beaten Nadal many times where Fed has failed.

However, on clay I think that Sampras would have easily held serve and gone for insane returns against Nadal and when he got his 1 break the set would have been over. The rallies would have been over 1 way or another in 3-4 shots.

Pete's serve broke down very often on clay, against far lesser players than Nadal. For what's it's worth, I don't think he'd even be making the Finals or the later stages for that matter, to play Nadal a whole lot. So in short, you need to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
I'm talking about February 2005, during the Buenos Aires tournament, the last time that Gaudio beat Nadal. Gaudio was a top 10 player, while Nadal was barely top 50.

Nadal had already beaten Fed on hard at that point in 2004 when Fed won 3 slams. Everyone knew how amazing Nadal was.
 

ultradr

Legend
If Federer was dropped in 90's by time machine, competing against ikes of Sampras
and Agassi, his best slam would be

  1. French Open
  2. Australian Open
 

ultradr

Legend
Federer was never going to beat Nadal going for broke. He would only rack up the unforced errors, as anyone who tries that strategy would.

But for some reasons (probably better backhand?), other players were able to
do it more regularly.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Pete's serve broke down very often on clay, against far lesser players than Nadal. For what's it's worth, I don't think he'd even be making the Finals or the later stages for that matter, to play Nadal a whole lot. So in short, you need to figure out what the hell you're talking about.

Pete never even made a FO semi. And it wasn't like he he was stopped every time by a courier, brugera, muster or kuerten either. No way in heck would he "with ease" hold serve against nadal, roflmao.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
But for some reasons (probably better backhand?), other players were able to
do it more regularly.

Guys who were able to do that are 1) fairly tall guys with big two handers I.e. tsonga, berdych, rosol, soderling, delpo, djokervic, davydenko(on hc)

Most of his shock losses have been on hc as well be it fast or slow.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Pete never even made a FO semi. And it wasn't like he he was stopped every time by a courier, brugera, muster or kuerten either. No way in heck would he "with ease" hold serve against nadal, roflmao.

He made one FO semi.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
I see the point you're making, but Sampras wouldn't have the opportunity to go for broke as much as you think he would. His backhand in particular would be very difficult to be aggressive with. Add to that the number of shots Nadal would get back and the number of errors he would force and it seems like a losing proposition.


Yes but this is my point, Sampras would be at the net most of the time. He'd hit a return as hard as he could and go in. His attitude was that he was always going to hold serve, so he just had to win 4 points in a row once on return, or 2 when it mattered in the tie break. He wouldn't say "my backhand's being destroyed, oh well! I won't change anything and I'll accept the loss".

Federer was never going to beat Nadal going for broke. He would only rack up the unforced errors, as anyone who tries that strategy would. That's now how you beat Nadal on clay. Even Soderling didn't blow him off the court the same way that, say, Tsonga in 2008 or Rosol in 2012 did. Soderling played patient tennis, hit deep, defended well. He went for big shots when he had a look, but he didn't play with mindless aggression, which is what you seem to be prescribing for both Sampras and Federer and which is why I think neither would have any success against Nadal if they played that way.

This is how you win 1-2 matches out of ten against a player who would beat you 10 times out if ten normally. It's a last resort, but it does work.
 

President

Legend
Yes but this is my point, Sampras would be at the net most of the time. He'd hit a return as hard as he could and go in. His attitude was that he was always going to hold serve, so he just had to win 4 points in a row once on return, or 2 when it mattered in the tie break. He wouldn't say "my backhand's being destroyed, oh well! I won't change anything and I'll accept the loss".



This is how you win 1-2 matches out of ten against a player who would beat you 10 times out if ten normally. It's a last resort, but it does work.

When was the last time anyone beat Nadal on a clay court with this extreme ball bashing tactic? Don't say Soderling, his groundstrokes were a lot bigger than Sampras on both sides (especially the backhand) and he was more consistent as well and had more mph on the serve to cut through a clay court. Isner's serve is much better on clay than Sampras' and he played Nadal in the first round when he was in terrible form that clay season. And he STILL lost.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
My mistake. I thought he never got past qf.

Who'd he lose to in that semi?

Pete lost to Kafelnikov, the eventual champion, in straight sets 6-7 0-6 2-6.



Edit: I was looking at Pete's playing activity for 1996 and it is hilarious how little he gave a fudge about clay. After Miami, he played 2 additional HC tournaments in China and Japan (won both of them). Then he lost both of his matches at World team tennis and then reached the SF of RG.
 
Last edited:

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
When was the last time anyone beat Nadal on a clay court with this extreme ball bashing tactic? Don't say Soderling, his groundstrokes were a lot bigger than Sampras on both sides (especially the backhand) and he was more consistent as well and had more mph on the serve to cut through a clay court. Isner's serve is much better on clay than Sampras' and he played Nadal in the first round when he was in terrible form that clay season. And he STILL lost.

Nobody plays like that anymore.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
If Federer was dropped in 90's by time machine, competing against ikes of Sampras
and Agassi, his best slam would be

  1. French Open
  2. Australian Open

I would say:

1)AO - nobody would challenge him there besides Agassi in 1995 and Sampras in 1994. A medium paced hard court would suit Federer's game perfectly.
2)US - I can see Federer sharing the US Opens with Sampras but Federer winning more in the end thx to his consistency
3)Wimbledon - dead even with Sampras/Federer, maybe a slight advantage for Samrpas but not much.
4)FO - let's not kid ourselves, in this or any other era the FO would be Federer's worst slam, he would surely win more than 1 in the 90's, though.
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
Very simple: I can watch tennis and see what is happening.

Interesting. I can watch tennis too, and I think Sampras was definitely a better fast-court player than Fed is. Much better serve (esp. 2nd) - in "cruise" mode and in clutch situations, much better overall net game - forward movement, footwork, racquet preparation+control on the volley, anticipation, better range on the OH (vital for a net rusher). Fed is better from the baseline overall, but, as Sampras has shown numerous times against Agassi/Courier, that for a few clutch points, he can beat a great baseliner from the baseline too. I don't see any reason why he cannot do the same to Fed. Absolutely none.

See this way. From 1990-2002, at the USO, Agassi NEVER won more than a set in a match. Agassi, in 2004, at 34 yrs was good enough to take Fed to 5 sets. And in 2005, with a sciatica ridden back, was very close to going 2-1 up in sets (thanks to a net cord that set up a Fed break back in that crucial 7th game in the 3rd set).
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes but this is my point, Sampras would be at the net most of the time. He'd hit a return as hard as he could and go in. His attitude was that he was always going to hold serve, so he just had to win 4 points in a row once on return, or 2 when it mattered in the tie break. He wouldn't say "my backhand's being destroyed, oh well! I won't change anything and I'll accept the loss".

All the losses he's had on clay to journeyman seem to tell a different story. If Sampras was so good, why didn't he adapt when he was losing those matches, and badly at that?

Just give it a rest. Nobody is buying what you're selling, and 90's clay is not here to pump your tires.
 

kiki

Banned
I always wished Nadal and Bruguera could have met at a RG final with both at their peak...of course, it is a wishful thinking since both belong to completely different eras and Bruguera is about 15 yrs older...
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Interesting. I can watch tennis too, and I think Sampras was definitely a better fast-court player than Fed is. Much better serve (esp. 2nd) - in "cruise" mode and in clutch situations, much better overall net game - forward movement, footwork, racquet preparation+control on the volley, anticipation, better range on the OH (vital for a net rusher). Fed is better from the baseline overall, but, as Sampras has shown numerous times against Agassi/Courier, that for a few clutch points, he can beat a great baseliner from the baseline too. I don't see any reason why he cannot do the same to Fed. Absolutely none.

See this way. From 1990-2002, at the USO, Agassi NEVER won more than a set in a match. Agassi, in 2004, at 34 yrs was good enough to take Fed to 5 sets. And in 2005, with a sciatica ridden back, was very close to going 2-1 up in sets (thanks to a net cord that set up a Fed break back in that crucial 7th game in the 3rd set).


And yet hewitt owned pete and fed owns hewitt.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Pete lost to Kafelnikov, the eventual champion, in straight sets 6-7 0-6 2-6.



Edit: I was looking at Pete's playing activity for 1996 and it is hilarious how little he gave a fudge about clay. After Miami, he played 2 additional HC tournaments in China and Japan (won both of them). Then he lost both of his matches at World team tennis and then reached the SF of RG.

Yeah, I think pete knew the red stuff was jsut not his deal
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
All the losses he's had on clay to journeyman seem to tell a different story. If Sampras was so good, why didn't he adapt when he was losing those matches, and badly at that?

Just give it a rest. Nobody is buying what you're selling, and 90's clay is not here to pump your tires.

Look at his record before his coach died. In 5 years he reached 3 QF's and a semi final at the French, with wins against Courier and Brugera. and won Rome. There is no debate whatsoever that when Sampras was motivated he was a fine clay courter.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Look at his record before his coach died. In 5 years he reached 3 QF's and a semi final at the French, with wins against Courier and Brugera. and won Rome. There is no debate whatsoever that when Sampras was motivated he was a fine clay courter.

Umm ok, a burnt out courier and a brugera coming off a major injury.

I know this isn't the first time someone pointed that out to you
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Umm ok, a burnt out courier and a brugera coming off a major injury.

I know this isn't the first time someone pointed that out to you

You can make excuses but he beat big names and he reach 3 qf's and a sf and won Rome. That's better than Ferrer, Almagro and Robredo.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
You can make excuses but he beat big names and he reach 3 qf's and a sf and won Rome. That's better than Ferrer, Almagro and Robredo.

Those aren't excuses they are facts.

Even pete himself would probably tell you those weren't the same players in peak or even decent form when he beat them
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Look at his record before his coach died. In 5 years he reached 3 QF's and a semi final at the French, with wins against Courier and Brugera. and won Rome. There is no debate whatsoever that when Sampras was motivated he was a fine clay courter.

Did he WIN the French Open? Did he have too many embarrassing losses on clay to guys he never should have lost to? There are your answers. In short, Sampras was a terrible clay courter for a top player, and as such would not beat an injured Nadal much less a healthy one at RG. His record would be worse than Federer's or Djokovic's is. That much is clear based on the FACTS we have.
 
Last edited:

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
You can make excuses but he beat big names and he reach 3 qf's and a sf and won Rome. That's better than Ferrer, Almagro and Robredo.


Put ferrer almagro and robredo in the 90's and pete probably never wins rome.

Its hard to win clay titles in the fedal and now fedalovic era
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Oh and since beating "big names" is all that matters, a guess a victory on hc over hewitt or safin in 2008 is the same as beating them in '99 or 2000?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Interesting. I can watch tennis too, and I think Sampras was definitely a better fast-court player than Fed is. Much better serve (esp. 2nd) - in "cruise" mode and in clutch situations, much better overall net game - forward movement, footwork, racquet preparation+control on the volley, anticipation, better range on the OH (vital for a net rusher)...

See this way. From 1990-2002, at the USO, Agassi NEVER won more than a set in a match. Agassi, in 2004, at 34 yrs was good enough to take Fed to 5 sets...
Yeah, as SLD76 has already posted in reply - your use of logic is spurious at best. You can bake it however you want, picking and choosing disparate elements of their games in side-by-side comparisons, but the fact is Federer is a superior player to Sampras - a fact evident by most people who understand the game well - so it stands to reason he would do better than Sampras did in the 90s.

You point out the sets Agassi got vs Federer at the USO and the lack of sets he got vs Sampras.... that's ultimately flawed. By the same flawed logic Sergi Bruguera, Richard Krajicek and Andy Roddick are better than Sampras too. Yet their achievements combined don't even come close to Sampras's.
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
Yeah, as SLD76 has already posted in reply - your use of logic is spurious at best. You can bake it however you want, picking and choosing disparate elements of their games in side-by-side comparisons, but the fact is Federer is a superior player to Sampras - a fact evident by most people who understand the game well - so it stands to reason he would do better than Sampras did in the 90s.

There is no such fact. Both won 7 Wims and 5 USOs. Objectively, the only fact is they are equal in terms of accomplishment in those 2 slams. So, the comparision is subjective. Subjectively, my opinion is as valid as yours or any "celebrity" opinion that you want to hang your hat on. I've watched and played tennis for long enough to "see" who is a superior player to whom. And I "understand" the game pretty well, thank you.

And, no, it doesn't stand to reason that Fed would do better than Sampras in the '90's. His inability to *ever* master the S/V game - either during his 1998-2003 avatar, or during his 2004+ avatar, convinces me otherwise.

You point out the sets Agassi got vs Federer at the USO and the lack of sets he got vs Sampras.... that's ultimately flawed. By the same flawed logic Sergi Bruguera, Richard Krajicek and Andy Roddick are better than Sampras too. Yet their achievements combined don't even come close to Sampras's.

Well, Agassi played both and did better against Fed when he was quite older (and slower), than he did against Sampras. Bruguera never played Sampras at the USO, Krajicek played and lost, Roddick played and lost. So I don't think you are making a forcing point.
 

President

Legend
Sampras' record would suffer greatly, Federer would thrive in the 90's. He is great on both super fast and super slow courts. He would be great on ALL surfaces and win at least 3 titles at RG and 4+ at the other majors.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
There is no such fact. Both won 7 Wims and 5 USOs. Objectively, the only fact is they are equal in terms of accomplishment in those 2 slams. So, the comparision is subjective
Again, you fail to compare like with like. I am not comparing the number of titles/trophies they have lined up, I am comparing their tennis ability. Federer is plain a better player than Sampras regardless of their achievements. What part of that do you not comprehend?

You say you have watched tennis for a long time. Clearly you don't watch tennis as closely as you think you do if you think Sampras is as good a player as Federer or, even more incredibly, actually better. Even Sampras himself has indicated in the past he thought Federer was a better player than him.

And, no, it doesn't stand to reason that Fed would do better than Sampras in the '90's. His inability to *ever* master the S/V game...
Irrelevant.

Well, Agassi played both and did better against Fed when he was quite older (and slower), than he did against Sampras. Bruguera never played Sampras at the USO, Krajicek played and lost, Roddick played and lost. So I don't think you are making a forcing point.
So you want to split it up into surface-qualified head to heads now? Hewitt owned Sampras - and on the faster hard court which Sampras previously owned.

Similarly, Agassi was at his peak playing ability from 1999 onwards for a couple of years. His court craft is what won him the big matches, not his movement. He makes a lot of his hindered movement in his book but, during that period, he racked up some of his biggest achievements and played his best tennis. So once again the devil in the detail turns a plausible-sounding story into a bit of a truthism.

Once and for all - a straight yes or no answer from you please: is Sampras at his peak a better player than Federer at his peak?
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
...your use of logic is spurious at best...
The Sampras Jock Sniffers are a fun bunch. Can you imagine sitting next to one on a 12 hr flight? :)

You only have to look at one shot when talking Fed v Sampras - return of serve. Fed would get so many back into play than Sampras - thus more chances for the inevitable break.

So, did anyone say Fed, all things being equal (e.g. he 'figured out how to win' after a few frustrating years on Tour), would clean up?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
See this way. From 1990-2002, at the USO, Agassi NEVER won more than a set in a match. Agassi, in 2004, at 34 yrs was good enough to take Fed to 5 sets. And in 2005, with a sciatica ridden back, was very close to going 2-1 up in sets (thanks to a net cord that set up a Fed break back in that crucial 7th game in the 3rd set).


But Agassi believe Federer is better than Sampras.
"Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played."

"Pete Sampras was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger," Agassi said
 

ultradr

Legend
Sampras' record would suffer greatly, Federer would thrive in the 90's. He is great on both super fast and super slow courts. He would be great on ALL surfaces and win at least 3 titles at RG and 4+ at the other majors.

Federer was never truely successful on real fast surfaces until they slowed down from 2001-2003.

Federer, after a few years after debut, was expected to win slam soon but
often overpowered by booming serve and volleyers and his serve wasn't as overpowering.

His neutral game wasn't offensive enough for highly specialized game on fast surfaces of 90's.

In 90's, his best bet is either French Open or Australian Open, just like Nadal
or other top players in this power baseline era.
 
Last edited:

ultradr

Legend
3)Wimbledon - dead even with Sampras/Federer, maybe a slight advantage for Samrpas but not much.
4)FO - let's not kid ourselves, in this or any other era the FO would be Federer's worst slam, he would surely win more than 1 in the 90's, though.

Federer's serve, the absolute best in this era, is control oriented one
but not as overpowering as other great servers of 90's in highly specialized era.
He would take 2-3 off Sampras's 7 at Wimbledon with his GOAT gound games
and all court flavours. But his defense will suffer against great servers of 90's.

Federer is great clay courter. Maybe potential to be one of the clay court greats.
Like Borg or Lendle.
Clay court hardly changed since 90's (unlike Wimbledon and US Open).

He competed against Nadal, the monstrous greatest ever on clay.
Are you kiding me here?
He would easily take 3-4 FO if he was dropped in any era of entire tennis history.
 
Last edited:

The-Champ

Legend
LOL at the vast majority of that!

guess you're forgetting about Kuerten >> Muster, Bruguera and even Ferrero, Agassi or Courier at RG.

and Sampras >> Agassi, Ivanecivic, Krajicek, Rafter, Henman on pre-firm grass Wimby.

and Sampras, Agassi (who even gave Federer fits on HC post his prime) at HC slams...

Federer is a lot better than all of those. Kuerten might have beaten him 97, but that's after Federer has won 7 times already (1990-96). At least 7 FO in the 90s.

He will be splitting titles at wimbledon and USO with Pete but I think that Andre would still win USO99.
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
Federer's serve, the absolute best in this era, is control oriented one
but not as overpowering as other great servers of 90's in highly specialized era.
He would take 2-3 off Sampras's 7 at Wimbledon with his GOAT gound games
and all court flavours. But his defense will suffer against great servers of 90's.

Federer is great clay courter. Maybe potential to be one of the clay court greats.
Like Borg or Lendle.
Clay court hardly changed since 90's (unlike Wimbledon and US Open).

He competed against Nadal, the monstrous greatest ever on clay.
Are you kiding me here?
He would easily take 3-4 FO if he was dropped in any era of entire tennis history.

This is a pretty solid post, I agree with most of this.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Federer's serve, the absolute best in this era, is control oriented one but not as overpowering as other great servers of 90's in highly specialized era.
His serve is better than most of the biggest servers of the 90s. Probably not Sampras but certainly a fair few.

Big servers were aided considerably by the generally much faster conditions. If you put Federer in the 90s his ace count and second serve potency would go through the roof.

Point: people love to play the "the conditions were faster back then" card looking at only one side of the coin - omitting to consider how it could positively affect -sometimes significantly - current players if they were magically transported back to the 90s. Similarly, if Sampras was playing nowdays - his service winner count would be halved, not only by speed but the significantly leaps in average serve return ability.
 

Vish13

Semi-Pro
Federer was never truely successful on real fast surfaces until they slowed down from 2001-2003.

Federer, after a few years after debut, was expected to win slam soon but
often overpowered by booming serve and volleyers and his serve wasn't as overpowering.

His neutral game wasn't offensive enough for highly specialized game on fast surfaces of 90's.

In 90's, his best bet is either French Open or Australian Open, just like Nadal
or other top players in this power baseline era.

He turned pro in 1998 but he didn't make it to a final till 2001. Infact he got noticed only when he beat Pete in 2001 at Wimbledon. What performance, except beating Sampras, did he gave that people like you started expecting him to win a slam soon. By the same token, are you expecting a slam from Rosol in near future ???

Also please STOP talking about how he fared in the 90's. He turned pro in 1998 and you have to give him at least 2-3 years to find his feet. Not everyone is a Boris Becker.
 
He turned pro in 1998 but he didn't make it to a final till 2001. Infact he got noticed only when he beat Pete in 2001 at Wimbledon. What performance, except beating Sampras, did he gave that people like you started expecting him to win a slam soon. By the same token, are you expecting a slam from Rosol in near future ???

Also please STOP talking about how he fared in the 90's. He turned pro in 1998 and you have to give him at least 2-3 years to find his feet. Not everyone is a Boris Becker.

For starters, he won Wimbledon for Juniors in Singles AND Doubles. He won the Orange bowl as well.

Also, his fluid game was the first thing that springs to mind, when I recall memories from his matches back then (even when he was losing against Agassi quite comfortably). His game needed a lot of polishing and developing, but the promise was there.

Watch his match with Sampras. Before the match the comentators were praising Federer to the high heaven (to an extend, that one had to wonder whether he or Sampras was the multiple Wimbledon champion).

And, be careful with the comparisons. Rosol's situation and Federer's situation have NOTHING in common. It is funny, when people take one fact , that somehow they think that supports their argument out of the context and proceed to use it to construct their argument around it. A kind of self supporting ignorance.
 
Last edited:

Vish13

Semi-Pro
For starters, he won Wimbledon for Juniors in Singles AND Doubles. He won the Orange bowl as well.

Also, his fluid game was the first thing that springs to mind, when I recall memories from his matches back then (even when he was losing against Agassi quite comfortably). His game needed a lot of polishing and developing, but the promise was there.

Watch his match with Sampras. Before the match the comentators were praising Federer to the high heaven (to an extend, that one had to wonder whether he or Sampras was the multiple Wimbledon champion).

And, be careful with the comparisons. Rosol's situation and Federer's situation have NOTHING in common. It is funny, when people take one fact , that somehow they think that supports their argument out of the context and proceed to use it to construct their argument around it. A kind of self supporting ignorance.

Gud that you found it funny. I guess it doesn't take much to amuse you.You will find it even funnier that you are inadverently doing the same thing that you are falsely accusing me of doing.

You are using achievement at Junior level to answer my question on what he achieved before winning against Sampras. Leander Paes won junior Wimbledon and US open, was number 1 in junior rankings and ended up winning only 2-3 matches in GS. Gael Monifils won AO, FO and WIM in 2004 at junior level and no GS final so far. Sounds any bell on how much to read in to Junior level achievements?

If you re-read my post you will find that I was not even slightly suggesting that Rosol is the next Federer. I wanted to drive home the point that because Federer won against Sampras, that did not automatically marked him for greatness. His game was still far from complete at that time. ultradr is suggesting that it was not the case. He thinks that with the same game Federer started winning once the field got clear of booming serve and volleyers.
 

tudwell

Legend
Yes but this is my point, Sampras would be at the net most of the time. He'd hit a return as hard as he could and go in. His attitude was that he was always going to hold serve, so he just had to win 4 points in a row once on return, or 2 when it mattered in the tie break. He wouldn't say "my backhand's being destroyed, oh well! I won't change anything and I'll accept the loss".



This is how you win 1-2 matches out of ten against a player who would beat you 10 times out if ten normally. It's a last resort, but it does work.

It doesn't against Nadal. Show me one match on clay where someone beat Nadal by pounding every return and getting into net. And good luck to Sampras with that strategy as he watches Nadal make 70% first serves and pulls Sampras past the doubles alley with his slice out wide. Even his second serve is not so easy to attack. It's not the biggest, but Nadal makes up for it with spin. It's surprisingly hard to consistently attack. I can only think of Davydenko and Djokovic as players who regularly don't have trouble with it and pound it into submission, and Sampras obviously does not have as good a backhand return as they do.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
He turned pro in 1998 but he didn't make it to a final till 2001. Infact he got noticed only when he beat Pete in 2001 at Wimbledon. What performance, except beating Sampras, did he gave that people like you started expecting him to win a slam soon. By the same token, are you expecting a slam from Rosol in near future ???

Also please STOP talking about how he fared in the 90's. He turned pro in 1998 and you have to give him at least 2-3 years to find his feet. Not everyone is a Boris Becker.

Ummm. I remember watching that tennis match agaisnt sampras and I remember the commentators calling him "fed express" and specifically saying that people in the tennis world viewed him as a player with alot of potential who could win a slam someday.
 
Top