Article - Federer at Wimbledon: No Sampras

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by laurie, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. laurie

    laurie Guest

    #1
  2. baseliner

    baseliner Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    The factual error being

    Thomas Johansson has in fact made it past the 4th round in a GS--he won the AO!
     
    #2
  3. laurie

    laurie Guest

    Make that two factual errors.
     
    #3
  4. rhubarb

    rhubarb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    I think they already changed the other error, which was that Fed lost to Ivanisevic in 2001 Wimby, when of course it was Henman who actually beat him.

    As for the rest of it, hmmm, some rather silly assumptions.
     
    #4
  5. x Southpaw x

    x Southpaw x Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    753
    Location:
    UMaryland-CP
    The article really only applies to grass: the dying surface.
     
    #5
  6. littlelleyton

    littlelleyton Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    445
    grass is a dying surface? maybe i will be able to sell my back garden soon then....haha just kidding. what makes you say this, do people not want to play on grass anymore?
     
    #6
  7. GotGame?

    GotGame? Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    264
    Grass is slowing up. Did you see all the claycourters in the second week at this year's Wimbledon? Ferrero, Gonzo, Coria, and though Lopez's game is suited to grass, he was a surprise also. Grass used to be all about serve and volleying, and this year, Roddick approached the net the most out of the semifinalists? That's a joke.
     
    #7
  8. Christopher

    Christopher New User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Sampras having a better forehand than Federer?

    Very, very debateable.

    Basically, the article is saying that all these players should be suited to hard court, and that the roster at the moment leans towards hard court players (and clay courters) and Federer has won the Australian and US allready.

    Once he wins theFrench, and I believe he will, I think he may have surpassed Sampras in many peoples eyes.
     
    #8
  9. littlelleyton

    littlelleyton Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    445
    yes the game is changing but is it dying? i think that most of the pros enjoy Wimbledon and hold it highly as the tournament they would like to win. the game on grass is changing as much as the players are. do you think that there are as many players who want to serve volley these days? i think that the quality in the baseline play, the slower courts and the willingness of players to serve and volley has changed the grass court game. i think that in the past it was though that you had to serve and volley to win on grass but i think if you at wimbledon in the last few years you can see that general play, rallys etc have become longer and more played out. for a while through the 90s the serve was so dominant on grass that when Andre won he shocked the world as they said no baseliner would ever win wimbledon but i think now that there are more players with a top drawer serve, and they have also adapted their returning game to cope better with these big serves. i find that wimbledon, even though Fed dominated, to be more enjoyable this year due to the fact there were longer rallys and more played out points. of course the art of serve and volley is something i would hate to see die, i think that if anything they way the game has changed has improved grass court tennis, all we need now is someone to challenge Fed more.
     
    #9
  10. x Southpaw x

    x Southpaw x Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    753
    Location:
    UMaryland-CP
    Everyone start pumping iron! Everyone start using eastern forehand grip and one handed backhand! Everyone practice serving all serves using the same toss! Everyone keep practicing volleys till the cow comes home!

    May the first Sampras-double take on Federer!!
     
    #10
  11. Cavaleer

    Cavaleer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    715
    While I agree with the writer's assessment of the overall state of men's tennis, esp. at Wimbledon, I'm not so certain about his conclusions on how Federer would have handled the competition.

    To say Hewitt and Roddick wouldn't stack up well against Rafter and Ivanisevic is clear. But to say that Federer would have only been average or slightly above par against them is too much.

    The only conclusion one could reach on such speculation is that the matches would have been superb and they would have forced Federer to use all his talents and perhaps discover some new ones. Rafter and Ivanisevic and Krajciek (sp) would have charged Federer's second serve again and again and thus pressured his first serve. They also would have pressed him relentlessly on their serves and even with their groundstrokes. It would have been superb, just as those matches were with Sampras.


    Cavaleer
     
    #11
  12. littlelleyton

    littlelleyton Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    445
     
    #12
  13. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    Everybody is entitled their opinion. This writer has one, others might a different one from that, others a different one from both. It is always interesting to read different points of view, I would take each one with a grain of salt though.

    Nonethless the number of blatant factual, not opinionated, factual errors makes me suspect this writer is far from an expert on the game. Someday who does not even know the T. Johansson won the AO once, as uninspiring as it may have been to many; and who Federer lost to at the Wimbledon he took Sampras out; probably has little true knowledge of the current field to begin with.
     
    #13
  14. Bertchel Banks

    Bertchel Banks Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    437
    Location:
    Kursk
    I didn't read the article, but I'm surprised you didn't used Agassi as a measuring stick. Andre has beatern all those guys on grass. Andre went toe to toe with Rafter at Wimbleedon in 2001 (at age 31), had him beat, but failed to serve it out. Like Andre Federer has the hands, the return, and the footspeed. Roger also has a bigger serve, and more reach. Federer, no contest.
     
    #14
  15. Nyl

    Nyl Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    256
    the article surely does point out that the competition in men tennis nowdays is less intense than the olddays. the gap between first and second player is huge. HOWEVER, it is not indicating the second player these days is any worse than those in olddays. players r getting better over generation. the article also ignored the fact that the grass in wimbledon has become slower throughout these years. that's y baseliner can step up.
    by the way, i dun recall ivanisevic a all-round player period. neither is rafter.
    does that guy actually watch tennis ?????????????

    plus the record between
    federer vs sampras
    federer vs agassi
    hewitt vs sampras
    hewitt vs agassi
    federer vs hewitt
    knowing the fact that hewitt is a better player now than he was when he beat sampras at usopen final.... logically speaking federer is on top of many of the legendary players.
     
    #15
  16. menelaos

    menelaos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    147
    His comments are out of date. Federer had to adjust to competition....with the racquets players have today, they can pass you easily if you attempt to serve and volley. That's what Fed said in his interview after the Hewitt match. Fed adjusted his game against Roddick the past couple of Wimbledons. As far his skills on shots and intangibles, the only thing that Sampras had better was speed of serve....Fed's serve is equal in placement. Sampras possessed the heart of a champion..which Fed has. All other categories Fed is equal or better to Sampras. People seem to forget that Sampras multiple US Open titles against baseliners (Hewitt, Safin etc)...because his baseline game was not up-to-par with the rest of his skills.
     
    #16
  17. dozu

    dozu Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,546
    The author knows nothing about tennis and had his logic backwards. The evolution of anything, including tennis, takes the path of the least resistence. The modern racket technology determines that today, the game is played from the baseline. All those "great" S&Vers were great during THEIR era, but will be eaten alive by the returns from today's tour pros.

    There are some remaining S&Vers in the tour, and the lack of any consistent success is the proof.

    I think there was a post here regarding an article written by Navratilova, saying that during her peak years, a deep approach shot = 90% chance of winning the point, while today it's only 50%... you factor in the percentage of approach shots that are not very deep, it's inevitable that today pure S&V is a losing game before the first ball is hit.

    Any arguments saying that past #1 is better than the current #1 is plain silly. By that I mean there is no way Sampras can compete with Federer, just as there is no way Rod Laver can compete Borg, no way Borg can compete with Sampras.

    The game always evolves forward and leave past great champions behind. It's a fact, like it or not. The great champions are only great forever in terms of their achievements, but NOT their technical capabilities.
     
    #17
  18. Fedubai

    Fedubai Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    569
    I read this earlier as well. I noticed the errors that, while they may seem insignificant in number, are very important to his overall point, that Federer wouldn't be able to stand up very well against yesterday's players like Ivanisevic, Rafter, and Sampras at Wimbledon. Federer didn't lose to Ivanisevic, he lost to Henman, so what does that prove about Ivanisevic. And it's pretty clear to most people that Federer was NOT the player then that he is today.

    He seems to shove off TJ as some classic baseliner of the '90's who can't really cut it. The fact is he's won a Grand Slam and challenged Roddick seriously in the semis of another. And if you take the time to watch him play, you'll see that he's no pushover of a player, whatever his style, at least not on grass.

    "Clear evidence"? Come on. That was 2001. Four years ago, Federer was a kid, 19 years old. He's almost 24 now and he's a champion. That is a very contentious point that the author makes there.

    This must be some collegiate project, no professional journalist writes these things. This is merely the author's opinion and cannot be stated as fact.

    This is, again, highly debatable.

    The grass has changed since 2001. Serve/volleyers are few and far between, and the grass has slowed down. That is indisputable. Whether the serve/volleyers of the past would be able to dominate as they once did is not known, so to say that the new breed cannot take advantage...take advantage of what? It's speed? Grass is slower now.

    So to sum up, this sounds like a collegiate project, and while interesting at some points, the writer has, in my opinion, ignored some key facts about today's grass court game, and he seems to make a lot of points that are clearly his opinions and then state them as if they were fact.
     
    #18
  19. Hardball

    Hardball Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Omg

    A few word for the writter of that article....PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE and actually watch the matches.
     
    #19
  20. snark

    snark Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    You are saying Sampras around 1995 would have difficulty with modern returns? I don't see much evidence that Roddick, etc have better returns then , say, Agassi.
     
    #20
  21. ty slothrop

    ty slothrop Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Messages:
    552
    can anyone say "balderdash"?

    yeah, the game is slipping somuch that agassi, rafter, and even hewitt (who was not only around at the end of the sampras era, but was number 1) all wax poetic at how the game gets harder every year. it's a patently ridiculous argument.

    laurie, as someone who has expressed repeated admiration for the greatness of sampras, what do you think about the article?
     
    #21
  22. newnuse

    newnuse Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    986
    I would take Sampras over any of these players any day of the week. Always favor the guy with the biggest weapon. Sampras had the biggest weapon of them all. His serve was just great. The first and second serves combination were by far the best I've seen. You can talk about Roddick's mph, but it is just not about raw power. The power, placement, spin and variety of Pete's serve was amazing.

    Great returners like Chang and Agassi got basically blown away by that serve. I don't see how any of the current players would fair any better. Sampras would win his sets by only one or two breaks. His opponents would win 3,4,5 services games in a row, but one sloppy game was all that Sampras needed. Once he got up a break, the set was basically over.

    The Sampras serve was the difference maker. I don't care how good of an all court game Fed plays.

    By the way, if you read some of my earlier posts, you know that I'm not really a Sampras fan. But I must acknowledge his greatness, especially on grass.
     
    #22
  23. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    Agree. This guy wrote almost garbage. Whoever wrote today's player can't beat yesterday's player is garbage to me. How do you know? No one knows. To write it in a definite, self assured way is pure garbage.
     
    #23
  24. dozu

    dozu Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,546
    Roddick's return game is among the poorest on the ATP tour, give me the returns of Federer, Safin, Hewitt, Coria, Nalbadian (they all return BETTER than Agassi), and I am willing to bet my wallet against Sampras' service game.
     
    #24
  25. newnuse

    newnuse Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    986
    Agassi at his peak was widely consider the best returner in the game. I would take his return game over any of these guys.

    Who is the best return guy right now?
     
    #25
  26. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    Another garbage. How do you know for sure? Chang was a great returner? Who gave him that title? It seemed Hewitt and Safin returned Sampras' serve pretty well. Yes, I know, you are going to say Sampras passed his prime, or whatever.

    I honestly don't know how to compare players from different era. No one has come up with the criteria. Circustances change over time. Even grass court at Wimbledon changed dramatically.

    Sampras was the greatest champion of his era, and has the most grand slam titles in the history of tennis. Just leave it there. Whether he would beat older generations of players or today's players, NO ONE KNOWS.
     
    #26
  27. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    I would take Safin, Hewitt, and Federer's return right now. Agassi is one of the greatest gambling returner, and also gets aced more than any other top returners.
     
    #27
  28. Aykhan Mammadov

    Aykhan Mammadov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    To post 1.

    Stupid conclusion in that article. It is not true that Fed dominates because there are not good players. Conversely, every of these players such as Hewitt, Roddick, Johansson, Safin,Coria and etc.. could give a tough battle against predecessors. Say even Nadal on grass could be enough for Edberg.

    Simply Fed is higher for 1 head.
     
    #28
  29. AngeloDS

    AngeloDS Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,676
    You have to also compare the courts back then and now.

    The grass courts now are near perfect and replicate hard surfaces. A few hits skid, but there's hardly any bad bounces. I think there would be more serving and volleying if there were dead spots and more bad-bounces and skidding.
     
    #29
  30. newnuse

    newnuse Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    986
    Okay, Chang was just a "good" returner. Why do I know that. That's his game. Chang was not a S&V player if you don't know that. BTW, he made it to #1 for awhile. I'm sure that wasn't due to his poor return game. Agassi was widely considered the best during his peak.

    You guys act like Sampras played in the wooden age. It was not that long ago. It's not like we are comparing Borg to Fed. The Sampras serve was the best. He would get so many easy points.
     
    #30
  31. dozu

    dozu Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,546
    regarding the games of Agassi and Chang:

    Agassi: true, at his peak, his return was considered the very best, and the qualifier is "during his peak". Also, the definition of "the best returner" is probably measure by % of service breaks. In that sense, Agassi against the entire tour, he was the best returner of his time, but against Samprass, Agassi's game does not match up well on fast surfaces, Agassi does not have the foot speed and the reach needed to track down the bullets off Sampras' racket. Against other players, who don't serve as big and as accurate and with as much disguise, Agassi was able to take the ball early and he was the ultimate ball striker and he was able to put the server on the defensive instantly.. but he was not able to do that against Sampras.

    The new generations of players, like Safin and Hewitt, has better foot speed and longer reach and was able to deal with Sampras serve, not to mention Federer has even better reach than the above two, plus much more superior anticipation. Fed's win over Sampras at Wimbledon, on Sampras' best surface, when Fed's game was still developing and he was still in the middle of the pack in the top 100, shows that the torch has been passed.

    Chang: Chang was the ultimate retriever, but again the qualifier is of his era. In the years near his retirement, it was clear that the game has way passed him. the modern version of Chang is Hewitt, who is just as fast as Chang, if not faster, but with bigger serves and bigger ground strokes than Chang. We also have the clay version of Hewitt in Coria, whose movement on the dirt is unmatched by anybody on the tour. By the way Chang never reached #1 ranking, he was very close one year but lost to Sampras in the US Open and it was downhill for him ever since. If Chang were still active on the tour today, with the same game he had in the 80's and 90's, he will not make top 50. and against the top gun Federer, his fate will be even worse than Hewitt, who has coughed up multiple 6-0 sets to Fed..

    I think we casual fans can debate over this till the end of time without reaching a conclusion one way of the other, but if you look at the players' point of view, the consensus is that the tour today is much deeper than 10 years ago. I reach this consclusion from reading many of Safin's post-match interviews. The guy is considered the most straight-forward-say-whats-on-his-mind on the tour, and you can clearly see his sentiment that in today's tour the top seeds have to battle from round 1, while during the Sampras/Agassi/Courier era, the top seeds mostly walk over the initial rounds.

    We can somehow see this evolution in today's WTA tour, it's gradually evolving from a scene of the "usual suspects" in the semi's and finals, to a situation where more top seeds may face upset crisis in the early rounds.

    Back to the Fed being No Sampras topic. it's true that Sampras was dominating not too long ago, and the difference in the game maybe very subtle. But over long period of time, the difference adds up and it is big. I was one day watch ESPN Classic a Wimbledon match between Evert and Nav, and I couldn't believe now SLOW the ball goes back and forth. Yes the difference maybe subtle, but at the very top, all you need is 1 more mph on the serve, 1 more foot in court coverage and 1 more degree of shot angle to win the match up.

    Imagine a match up between today's Fed against Sampras at his peak. Sampras will need to have a VERY good serving day to stay ahead in his own service game. If his serve does not immediately put Fed on the defensive, and they get into a baseline battle, I'd say Fed has 75% odds of winning the point. I don't see Sampras' return game will generate more than 2 breaks over a 5-set match. This will result in 1 or 2 tie-breaks, if his own serve holds up. My guess is if the peak Sampras is active today, he'd have 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance against Federer.

    I wish I could have 1-on-1 talk with guys like McEnroe/Cash or even someone like Bud Collins (if they are unbiased) and get a feel what their opinion is. These people understand pro tennis and maybe able to give some verdict over this... I feel most of the posts (maybe including my own) are biased one way or the other, based on personal preference, and without much deep understanding of the pro's game.
     
    #31
  32. newnuse

    newnuse Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    986
    I don't know how much faster these players are now. Agassi was pretty fast during his peak. Having good foot speed does not equate to being a good returner. That is not a valid point. Service return is more about reaction time and technique.

    Better reach, foot speed, anticipation? How did you come to that conclusion?

    Please don't compare Evert/Nav vs Sampras. Those two grew up with the wooden racket and made their WTA debut almost 20 yrs before Sampras.

    You guys make it sound like these great players of today would return anything. They would handle the Sampras serve with ease. You guys have been smoking too much Fed butt crack.

    The server has a huge advantage. This still applies today. I don't care how good of a returner you are, a big server has a huge advantage. They always did and always will. That is why it's so hard to break. This is more so on grass.

    Sampras was good enough to break his opponents serve. His return game was pretty decent. He could and would have broken Fed's serve. Can you say the same about Fed's return game vs the Sampras serve? I couldn't with as much confidence.

    Oh yeah, Chang was #1 for a brief period if I recall correctly. He wasn't #1 at the end season though. I remember Mac giving him crap as being not worthy. Or was that because he reach #2? Any ways that's not important.
     
    #32
  33. Kevin Patrick

    Kevin Patrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,025
    First, the original article is rather silly(& from a college paper, so don't know why any of you are getting riled up)

    But some of the posts in this thread are absurd. Yes, it's unfair to say today's players aren't better than past players. But, it's also unfair to say that just because a player plays TODAY he can easily beat Chang, Agassi, Sampras of just a few years ago(playing with virtually the same equipment)
    Sampras won the 2002 US Open at the age of 31, when he clearly wasn't the player he was in, say '95. Yet, when Federer won 2003 Wimbledon, Sampras becomes a player from a different era, who can't compete with "modern" players? What happened in 9 months? Did everyone get so much better stronger, etc? Complete BS.

    Dozu, I sat ********* during a Chang Davis Cup match vs. Philippoussis in '97. Flipper could get it up to 140 in '97. Chang's returning was amazing. Not as flashy as Agassi, but he could get anything back. He was able to return truly massive serves (Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc) on much faster surfaces than today. Yeah, I'm sure he couldn't compete with these ultra modern players of today. Injuries that took away his speed were responsible for his decline, not the game passing him by.

    I can't believe you brought up a women's match from the 80s to demonstrate how much "faster" the game has become. I just watched an indoor match between Sampras-Becker from '95. It made Roddick-Federer look slow. You are either very young or didn't watch tennis much in the 90s. It was anything but "slow."

    Also, your comment "while during the Sampras/Agassi/Courier era, the top seeds mostly walk over the initial rounds" is ridiculous. If anything the depth is less today than it was in the 90s. Go look at some drawsheets from slams in the 90s. They had upsets galore, Sampras/Agassi/Courier didn't have anything easy.
     
    #33
  34. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    Against a rising chorus of past pros, journalists, and fans already claiming Federer as the best they've ever seen, the article is an attempt to swing judgements the other way.
     
    #34
  35. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,426
    What? No mention of Edberg in the article? A pretty glaring omission IMO.

    Talk about a guy that had a decent volley. :eek:
     
    #35
  36. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,426
    Chang NEVER made it to #1, even for a day, AFAIK. His best chance was in 1996 at the US Open final. Had he beat Sampras in that final, he would have been ranked #1 the following day for the first time. Since he lost, he stayed at #2. He was #2 in the world for quite some time, though.
     
    #36
  37. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    It's not really possible to compare players from different era and make
    any conclusion. But I guess it's still entertaining to compare them.

    I just have couple of things to add in this thread.

    Chang has somewhat strange game. He may be in retriever's mold
    but his true color is attacking kind. When he won french, he carefully
    chose moments to hit winners. We all remember him having a muscle
    cramp and retrieving balls. He kept trying to sharpen his attacking games.

    During Chang's career, his best records are hard courts. he was top 3 hard
    court specialists. I can not dispute if someone calls him a retriever but
    I just want to point out that his true color was not and he had attacking
    frame of mind. Just played a role of retireving. This is subtle thing.
    But he is different from Hewitt whose game firmly based on percentage
    tennis.

    Agassi at his peak was a true monstor returner. I have never seen
    a tennis player whose return game can be as huge threat as Agassi.
    I have yet to see a player who can use opponent's service game
    as one's advantage like Agassi.

    All monster servers of 90's were litterally "serving" for Agassi to be
    eaten alive. Even Sampras did not really serve AND volley against
    Agassi. He basically went all for 2 1st serves. I have never seen
    returner's eyes as scary as Agassi's waiting for serves.


    Going back to original topic: I don't think the article is written
    intelligently but I tend to agree its general sentiments.
    Tennis in Wimbledon is strange now. All baseliners and even former
    serve and volleyer's playing baseliners. It's very strange time.
    And I don't think Federer would be as successful as now
    if he played among all these super S&Ver's of 1990's:
    Becker,Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras, Ivanisvich, Stich and so on...
     
    #37
  38. Stuck

    Stuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    227
    Fed sux
    Samp rules
     
    #38
  39. zorroman

    zorroman New User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    Is This A Joke, Aykhan ???

    Aykhan, please stop embarrasing yourself with these comments!! Edberg is the only player since the Connors-Borg era who possibly volleyed better than John Mcenroe. Nadal would be easy pickings for Edberg at Wimbledon.
     
    #39
  40. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    Get your fact straight first. Chang never got to No. 1, not even for a week. The highest he got to was No. 2.

    Sampras has one of the greatest serve, no one argues about that. But you got carried away by sounding like no one among today's players can break his serve.

    Yes, it was very difficult to break his serve at W. The grass was different back then. Overall, Sampras didn't rank No. 1 in holding serve most of years he dominated. Ivanesevic's serve was as good if not better. But other parts of Sampras' game was so much better than the like of Ivanesevic's.
     
    #40
  41. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    Well, I guess there are always blind people who refuse to accept the concept that grass at W has changed completely starting in 2002. Grass at W is a medium hard court with some bad bouce right now. It's completely different from the soft grass I grew up playing on where coming to the net had great advantage.

    On the last part of your posting, playing on what type of grass, soft grass the ball skids or firm grass the ball sits up? Federer as an immature player still beat Sampras on soft grass in 2001. I know excuse is coming up. I just don't see what proof you have with that claim. Maybe just your guess.

    Give me some proof, or concrete evidence, then I might buy your guess.
     
    #41
  42. Fedubai

    Fedubai Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    569
    Look, this is getting rediculous. Current players are not better than past players by definition. Just because time ticks on and things in the game are changing doesn't mean that the players are better. This logic is faulty.

    The bottomline is that perspective is needed. We can seriously argue all day about this and NEVER get an answer. It's just that simple. Pretty much everything is an opinion. That's why definitive statements like ones that the author made always lead to arguments.

    And lastly, I have noticed some people becoming completely rediculous when talking about Federer. He isn't Sampras. This seems to be hard for some people to take but it's the truth! There is no reason for old Pete fans to be turned away from Federer by a few over-zealous fans, and I see no reason for Federer fans to disrespect Pete by jumping the gun and saying Federer is better. Stroke by stroke analysis is great and fine, but that's about where it stops IMO.
     
    #42
  43. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    I didn't hear anyone who actually says today's players can beat the likes of Sampras easily. They are trying to counter the idea that today's players are inferior to players in the 90s. You got carried away, no one said Sampras can't compete with modern player. They are talking about player in general term, as time goes by, overall play level goes up.

    As of Chang, one of few players you actually can compare, I'd take Hewitt any day.
     
    #43
  44. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    How do you know Federer isn't Sampras? I am not saying he is and will be. You have to wait and see how much Fedferer can achieve when his career ends.

    The argument goes both ways when compare them. Federer is only 23 years old. Those who say he is better than Sampras are the same as those who say he difinitely isn't.

    I would like to hear people who honestly say I just don't know how to compare them.
     
    #44
  45. Dr.Lobster

    Dr.Lobster Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    181
    i personally like grass, you can do many things with it
     
    #45
  46. araghava

    araghava Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    390
    There's been so much debate about how the grass in wimbledon has slowed down and provides more true bounce. I wonder how the officials at wimbledon feel about this. I think they overreacted to the speed of the game during the 90's and are now paying the price.

    For all intents and purposes wimbledon is just another hard court tournament. There was a time when you could watch wimbledon and watch grass court tennis. That's no longer true. We might well be nearing the day when wimbledon replaces it's grass just as the US open and Australian did.
     
    #46
  47. Dr.Lobster

    Dr.Lobster Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    181
    i hope that doesn't happen, i think there's room for every court surface
     
    #47
  48. Fedubai

    Fedubai Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    569
    I did not say he will never "be Sampras" as in beat the record. I said he isn't.
     
    #48
  49. newnuse

    newnuse Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    986
    Good post Kevin,

    Sampras sounds like a dinosaur according to some of these post. These guys are killing me. It just was not that long ago.

    These current crop of players are faster, quicker, stronger....etc... I didn't know humans evolve that quickly. Chang was the fastest player I've seen. I'll put his foot speed up against anybody.

    The draw by then had many more upsets due the variety of players. The tops seeds would go up against a big serving S&V'er and lose early ... here and there.

    Nobody is saying the players don't get better with time. It has not been that long!!!! An old guy like Agassi is still a top ten player. According to your logic, Agassi should not be able to compete. Sampras is the equivalent of Bob Beamon, the guy who set the long jump world record that stood forever. Just because there are a new crop of players, it does not mean they are better. Some world records last a long, long time.

    You need to recognize the importance of the serve, especially on grass. It's very hard to break serve against a good server, even if you are Agassi. This is not the ladies game where service breaks are frequent. The serve is the ultimate weapon. Look at Roddick. The rest of his game is pretty much average, yet he is #3. (yes he does have a pretty good FH). I don't care how many aces Goran had. Sampras had the best serve. His 1st was good, but many S&V'ers had good serves at that time. His second serve was far superior to any. He backed it up with a solid volley game. He ruled Wimbledon and still would today.
     
    #49
  50. newnuse

    newnuse Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    986
    This is the best post of this thread. :mrgreen:
     
    #50

Share This Page