Better athlete: Federer or Sampras

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dangalak, Sep 17, 2012.

?

better athlete?

  1. Sampras

    52 vote(s)
    28.1%
  2. Federer

    133 vote(s)
    71.9%
  1. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    Did I really say she served 125+? :confused: Pretty sure I said she had hit mid 120s in the past. Whatever though.

    You know that Nadal would easily win. :lol: Popular players always get the nod on these polls. I am much more interested in a Blake/Hewitt poll though.

    It seems silly of me to say this now, but if I was to claim that somebody else but Federer is better at taking a dump on the sidewalk, the likes of you would probably argue against it. :lol:
     
  2. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    ..............................:?
     
  3. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    bitter much? if you're certain that Sampras was the better athlete (seems like you are, because you seem to dismiss any evidence to the contrary), why did you start the thread in the first place? to troll?
     
  4. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    fastest first serve speed of Roger Federer: 135 mph 2006 AO against Haas.
    fastest first serve speed of Andy Roddick: 155 mph
    2004 Davis Cup against Volchkov
    fastest first serve speed of Pete Sampras: 135 mph 1998 US Open 4th round against Safin
    f. 2nd serve speed of Federer: 126 mph 2004 Halle against Haas
    f. 2nd serve of Roddick: 133 mph 2004 Wimby final against Fed
    f. 2nd serve of Sampras: 127 mph 2001 U.S Open against Agassi
    average fist serve speed Fed: 114-121 mph
    Roddick: 122-132 mph, Sampras: 114-123 mph
    average second serve speed Fed: 90-105 mph
    Roddick: 100-110 mph, Sampras: 90-115 mph
    I take it back about that weak serve comments form me in the past. Federer does have a real fast and potent serve.

    So you claiming that Sampras's serve had an additional 15 mph on it compared to Sampras is an utter lie as Sampras' FASTEST EVER RECORDED SPEED clocked at 135, which is nothing faster than Federer's fastest ever 1st serve.

    Those stats which I found only prove that Sampras had a consistently better 2nd serve than Federer (not even by much) which I agree with (and always has), even considering that the surfaces were way faster in the Sampras era.

    Also, for such a Federer fan you seem to favor Sampras quite heavily. Luckily, reality is on Federer's side.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  5. Who would win a wrestling match between the two? Pete
    Who would win a 50metre dash? Pete
    Who would win a high jump or long jump? Pete
    Who would win longer distance race? Roger
    Reflexes, agility, flexibility? Cant decide.
    Who could throw a javelin further? A discus? Jump hurdles? Swim better?
    If you had to pick one to do a days work on the railroads you would pick PETE. Simples! Look at the two men and you would always pick Sampras over federer for sheer athleticism!! End thread :mad:
     
  6. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    I expected people to at least stick to areas which Federer can actually be said to be superior to Sampras in.

    I didn't expect people to say ridiculous garbage in the line of "Federer jumps just as high as Sampras". :lol:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XVT2lbGYMas#t=231s Does that look like something that would some close to Sampras?

    Interesting, so Federer averaged the same first serve speeds? :)
     
  7. mental midget

    mental midget Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,433
    sampras is probably the stronger of the two, maybe the slightest of edges in straight-line acceleration.

    federer, better overall coordination and body control.

    all of this, incrementally so. it's a pretty close call on all fronts.

    in terms of the broader discussion about speed, style of play makes this a tough call. with his style of play nadal has a lot more opportunities to show off than, for example, a player like stefan edberg. but if you lined the two of them up for a 100m dash, i might actually put some money down on stefan in his prime.

    i think phau, chang and borg might be my picks for the 3 fastest guys i've seen play.
     
  8. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,976
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Pete Sampras
     
  9. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    The only good answer to who jumps higher is "no way to tell", at least not based on a couple of show-off slam dunks that Sampras performed from time to time.


    This is common knowledge. The Sampras serve wasn't know for it's speed but for it's precision, consistency and damage it made. His 2nd serve is clearly better despite hitting way more double faults than Federer (well, Federer doesn't hit double faults at all for the matter, it's just not worth going for it)
     
  10. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Proof you are new here. Nadal is by far one of the most hated, if not the most hated player on this forum. He is as unpopular and people biased against, as Federer is uber popular and people biased in favor of us around here. Any poll he by some miracle wins he would clearly deserve to.
     
  11. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    Both off them show off but Sampras is doubtlessly more airborne. :)

    Why don't you let your non tennis watching friends judge? Leave the room too, you can influence them unintentionally.
     
  12. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,973
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Sampras is more explosive and powerful and definitely has better speed. It depends on your definition of athleticism, but for most people he would clearly be the winner. Federer has great balance, anticipation, and coordination though.

    Btw, radar guns got juiced up in the 2000's so Sampras indeed probably averaged about 10 mph faster on the serve than Federer. Check their only match against each other for proof.
     
  13. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Cause it's impossible to tell based on a couple of a few biased youtube videos who's the more athletic of the 2. Even I can't make a good comparison myself, as I only got to see Sampras in his last few seasons as a kid and missed out on a big chunk of Federer's peak years as well.

    If my life was on the line, I wouldn't make a pick, it's just too dead even. Sampras had superior athleticism that was required in his time (quickness, reflexes, attacking the net), while Federer had to adjust to the present era (overall consistency, stamina, endurance, movement).

    Why I think Federer would have the slightest of edges is that I can imagine him adjusting to the fast 90's, why at the same time I can't imagine Sampras slugging it out in 5 sets against the likes of Nadal or Djokovic on slower surfaces.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  14. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    If Fed could serve and volley anywhere close to what Sampras did, he would've tried to do it against Agassi. Because Sampras was able to beat Agassi playing predominantly S/V, right ? But Fed didn't, because he knew that his netgame wouldn't stand up to Agassi's returns and passes.



    Yes, pre-1997 Sampras was a lot like Fed was in 2001-2003 (although, his overall netgame was always superior to Fed). But from 1999-2002, he was a full blown S/V'er. And at the same time, esp. in 1999 - IMO, Sampras' peak, he was very dangerous from the baseline too.

    The 1999 version of Sampras was a much more all-round player than Fed ever was. He was a great S/V'er, and when he had to, he could play great points from the baseline also.



    Do you realize that you are resorting to using ONLY clay and slower surfaces to judge Sampras' baseline game. Hewitt was a hardcore baseliner and yet he won the faster slams. Why ? Nalbandian was a hardcore baseliner, and yet his best performance was on Wim. Why ?

    Because there are variations of baseline game. Sampras' baseline game was tailor-made for faster surfaces, true, but that does not mean he didn't have a very good baseline game. Maybe not a great baseline game, but his baseline game is certainly better than Fed's netgame.


    If it's such a big factor, how did you have S/V'ers like Edberg, Becker, Rafter, Henman make FO Semi's ? Are you saying their baseline games were superior to Sampras ?

    Also, how come great baseliners like Hewitt, Nalby only make 1 and 2 SF's respectively (less than Becker, Edberg etc.) ?

    There are other important factors like stamina, endurance - which Sampras didn't have as much as many players.
     
  15. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    Nonsense. His baseline game is far behind current baseline tennis. Federer's volleying at his peak (2001-2003) was better than Sampras baseline game ever was.

    Even if you were right, no way that Sampras netgame is better than Federer's baseline game.
     
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,078
    Fed was young back then. Give Fed enough years to develop a solid s/v like Pete did you never know, especially on fast courts in the 90s.

    Agassi is better than Pete from the baseline. Just because Federer is better than Agassi from the baseline doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to beat Agassi using s/v(given enough training + reached his prime). You're just speculating.
     
  17. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    A young Fed obviously tried the best possible tactic to beat Agassi but as I said he was never going to beat him no matter what he did. He felt more comfortable from the baseline but was a pretty good volleyer at the time as well. Agassi being the best baseliner ate him alive as expected (I think we're talking about the 2001 US Open meeting now)

    Also, not quite sure what you're arguing here. If it's proving that Sampras was a better volleyer than Federer, then I agree.

    Where did Sampras prove that? In Atlanta? Cause I remember him missing both hard court slams in 1999 and being owned by Medvedev at the French in the 2nd round. He was pretty dominant at Wimbledon (and to a lesser degree Cincinnati if I remember well) but that's it. Last time I checked the definition of a "peak" means playing at your best longer than during 2 tournaments.

    I said that playing well from the baseline is ONE of the factors of being a good clay courter/slow courter. You think Nadal would dominate clay for so long if his movement/stamina sucked but his baseline game stayed the same?

    How can one compare a net game to a baseline game and throw in one box? Federer hardly ever goes to the net these days (but that doesn't mean he can't volley - see 2012 Wimbledon as the most recent example), not many players do, anyway. Sampras had to have a great net game to dominate Wimbledon and faster surfaces en general and play decent from the baseline as there were slower surfaces as well. These days there is nothing faster than medium pace.

    Just because they were serve and volleyers it doesn't mean that they "serve and volleyed" their way to the semis :) The last extreme case when this happened was Mc's attempt to win the 1984 FO.


    Quite simply Becker and Edberg are both 6-time major winners while Hewitt and Nalbandian have 2 slams combined. Also, counterpunchers like Hewitt don't excell on clay, they need a little bit of pace and a serve and volleyer hanging around the net to either hit a passing shot or a lob. Nalbandian is a good all-rounder but he's simply not in the league of Becker or Edberg.

    Agreed. As I said, to excel on clay you need a comibnation of endurance, stamina, great baseline game and most importantly PATIENCE, something that Sampras lacked later on. Why would he chip and charge on clay later on then which was a suicidal tactic on clay?
     
  18. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    The difference between Sampras and Federer is that Sampras had both a very good ground and net game while Federer has an excellent ground game and a decent/good net game.

    You could use both tactics in the 90's as both were rewarding depending on the surface/circumstances. But try serve and volleying today on every point and you'll get passed left and right.
     
  19. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    He is more aggressive than ever. :lol:
     
  20. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    This is what is most baffling, I am starting to get the impression you are basing athletic ability only on how hard a player can hit their groundstrokes (which I dont think Federer is even neccessarily superior to Sampras at anyway, remember you were referring to just pace, not overall quality, but whatever, not even important to what I am about to say). Seriously. Del Potro and Berych overall hit groundstrokes harder than any of Sampras, Federer, or Nadal, but they arent even half the athletes those three are. Then you have Soderling who some think is the hardest hitter ever, even a worse athlete than Del Potro or Berdych by a good margin though. Davenport is one of the worst athletes ever seen in the womens game, she moves about the court like a turtle, she was cumbersome in everyway, she had disgustingly bad physical fitness for over half her career, and yet hit some of the hardest ever groundstrokes seen in the womens game. She could hit off the ground as hard as the Williams sisters who wouldnt you agree were 100 times the overall athlete she is. So let me ask you do you consider Davenport a great female athlete since she hits her groundstrokes so extremely hard. Do you consider Del Potro who is relatively slow, has poor fitness, isnt very agile, and basically has none of the traits of a great athlete other than size and fairly good physical strength (and pretty good balance I guess as well, as it helps him with how well he sets and hits the ball when he gets there) as a great athlete just because of how hard he hits his groundstrokes.

    Surely you can come up with a better barometer for overall athleticsm than this.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2012
  21. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Yeah, it (Fed's volleying) was so good that he played a lot of it against Agassi in the 2001 USO 4th rd match (edit). :smirk:

    Seriously, if Fed's volleying was so good, how come he never played much of it outside of grass ?

    Yes, it was as good as Fed's baseline game. But that's not the point. My point was if we compare their weaker sides, Sampras' weaker aspect was stronger than Fed's weaker aspect.

    Sampras was a great S/V'er who had a very good baseline game. Fed is a great baseliner who has just a "good" S/V game (it esp. breaks under pressure).

    On the most important points in slam SF's/F's, against his most important rival(s), Sampras could deliver the goods from the net or from the baseline. On the most important points against his most important rival, Fed couldn't deliver from the net, and sometimes from the baseline also.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U7lMcKJiK8&t=1m10s

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY&t=4m17s
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,078
    (Fed baseline + s/v) > (Sampras baseline + s/v)
     
  23. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    That's because his "most important rival" was Nadal. You know, the guy who would make Sampras look like Soderling. :lol:

    Not to mention I said PEAK. As in, "not around the time he played his most important rivals."

    Why don't we make THAT thread. I wonder who would win that? :lol:
     
  24. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Sampras:

    S/V = 90/100
    Baseline = 70/100

    Federer:

    Baseline = 95/100
    S/V = 50/100
     
  25. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    that explains why Sampras is a superior player to Federer and has stats backing him up.
     
  26. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    Seriously, either somebody is tremendously overrated Sampras' backcourt game, or they think Federer stopped coming foreward because of his sucky volleying skills. :lol:
     
  27. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    All agreed (except that Sampras hit harder than Federer) but what else is there to consider when you're talking about "power" and I mean this specific word only? This could literally mean everything and nothing depending on how you look at it.
     
  28. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    I agree but Federer more than evens it out cause his stronger side is better than Sampras' stronger one.

    For someone who could win the big rallies against the best baseliners (and especially for an overall GOAT contender) Sampras resume is pretty average on slow surfaces. He won the Australian Open twice only (and had rather easy draws both times) and never beat Agassi there (so much for him winning the big points against Andre on a slower surface), only once went past the quarterfinal stage at the French, won one Masters on clay having one of the biggest jokes of a draw ever. And that's only the slams as Sampras never cared about the Masters.

    And LOL at Sampras "delivering the goods" against his biggest rivals. Yeah, on grass. Let Sampras serve and volley against Nadal at the French Open cause that's exactly what Federer had to go through and what you're comparing right now.
     
  29. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,742
    is shakes still peddling his sampras nostalgia nonsense?

    Let's see.

    Federer won wimbledon playing S/V.

    Sampras won rg playing baseline tennis.

    oh wait...

    The importance of a great net game is dramatically inflated by nostalgia tards, but in today's game the net game just isnt as important as a great baseline game.

    Yes, if you sped up the surfaces and made the courts have irregular bounces - the net game would come back, and you would see more "balance" in skills between net and baseline. Players would adapt because living at the baseline wont be a consistent winning strategy.

    But the game demands a more baseline oriented style. The converse while not impossible seems more implausible. Until someone comes out of the woodwork to show off consistent net aggression and have success - i will stick to the more plausible inferences.

    I watched sampras his entire career, and he certainly handled certain types of shots better than federer does at net. Federer does a few things at net better than sampras - overall i would say the difference is not that big and the results show this because federer has been able to implement a net aggressive style at wimbledon and win.

    But i will acknowledge that sampras was a better net player - but he wasnt on the level of edberg, rafter or even henman.

    However, Sampras has not been able to grind it out in paris in long baseline rallies to win. This shows me that his baseline game was not sufficiently good enough to win there.

    Federer's net game was met with success on grass at wimbledon..pete's baseline game not so much in paris.
     
  30. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Lets just put it this way. I dont think not having a great or non overpowering backhand, which is true on Sampras to an extent, in anyway implies you arent an amazing, or even historic athlete. Just look at Steffi Graf, couldnt come over her backhand if her life depended on it, and Navratilova with that fluffy little loop de doop thing she called a backhand most of her career, yet they are considered by many the two most athletic women tennis players ever, and two of the greatest women athletes (not just in terms of greatness in their sport, but in pure overall athletic ability) ever. John McEnroe is a supreme athlete, far more the overall athlete than contemporaries like Connors, Lendl, Becker, basically all but maybe Borg, and was never considered to have a great or overpowering backhand.
     
  31. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,742
    Forget that.

    Shakes categories dont even make sense.

    It should be:

    Baseline Game
    Net Game

    NOT

    Baseline game
    S/V

    S/V is a subset of having a great net-game. You can't S/V on a return game.

    I agree that Pete had a great S/V Game. Maybe the greatest from a historical POV.

    But his net game, nope...
     
  32. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Can't you read? He said that it was unnecessary for Sampras to do a slam dunk each time, not that Sampras can't smash well.

    Both Federer and Roddick have better overheads than Sampras, they rarely miss one while Sampras could attempt a slam dunk in a crucial moment and fail at times.
     
  33. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,130
    Roddick was a better athlete then Sampras. Remember he was called "Sampras on Steroids'. I cringe when I remember that.
     
  34. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    609
    Good God in heaven......

    Sampras killed lobs that others would put away awkwardly. And yes, without jumping.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZmRzR8BYaHc#t=80s Would Roddick ever be able to backpedal this efficiently?
     
  35. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,695
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Roddick made the overhead look like a routine shot, while Sampras had to introduce needless acrobatics to get more credit. Anyway, I'm not saying that Sampras had a weak smash, not by any means, he had an excellent overhead, just think that Roddick and Federer have better.

    Besides, Sampras didn't have to backpedal much to get to that lob, the ball would land midcourt if he let it bounce.
     
  36. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    While most pros rarely miss overheads, Sampras' vertical leap was definitely a plus because it meant that the lob had to be much "higher" (and, therefore, nearly perfect) to clear his "wing span". Backpedalling also works fine, but it robs the smash of power and forces you to rely on placement instead and there is a chance that the opponent can get it back if he guesses right.
     
  37. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Sampras had a great net-game. I wouldn't say he was the greatest, but he is right up there.
     
  38. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,300
    To be fair, the radar guns they used back then (up til the late 90's) tracked the speed of the ball as it crossed the net, which resulted in slower speeds. Now they track the speed when the ball hits the court, part of the reason why guys are serving "faster" now. In the 2001 Wimby match between Sampras and Fed, Sampras's first serve averaged 125 and his second serve 111. For Fed it was 114 and 98. That's a big discrepancy. Near the end of Pete's career (using the same guns they use today) Pete regularly averaged 121-122 on his first serve per match.

    Fed, in all the years of looked at post-match stats (which is pretty much every match) I've never seen him average higher than 120 over the course of a whole match. He tops out around 117-119, and is usually at 115-116. Sampras topped out at 125-126 and usually was at 121-124. So yes, Sampras was definitely a faster server.

    As far as the speed issue goes though, I agree with edberg505. It's pretty negligible. Federer from 2004-2006 was a speed demon. He's lost a step, sure, but the difference isn't massive between Federer and Sampras IMO. Although I agree that Pete had the higher vertical leap. In the other aspects Fed mostly has him beat -- balance, coordination, stamina, etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  39. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,300
    Let's be real here. Federer is an infinitely better at the service line, and better at the net, but he's not better at the baseline. Agassi is arguably the greatest from the baseline of all time (or up there).
     
  40. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    695
    Disagree with that. Federer is better from the baseline than Agassi on every surface. Federer is faster, has more power, better passing shots, better forehand and a better slice. Agassi has a better and more steady backhand.

    EDIT
    Back on topic it's hard to vote.

    Sampras was stronger and could jump higher. As I said before speed is hard to choose, but probably edge to Federer. Federer is fitter too and more agile. If they had to compete in a Decatholon, my money would be on Sampras.
     
  41. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,078
    They played a lot on hc and I say that's a neutral surface. I think Fed is better because he's a superior mover behind the baseline, cover the court better(better defense), his superior fh make up for his disadvantage bh.
     
  42. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,078
    Exactly. If Agassi had Fed's calibre from the baseline he would have achieved more.
     
  43. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Agassi had as good a sense and the shots. Just not the movement.
     
  44. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,300
    I think it seems that way because Federer is a much better all-around player. But if we judge "who was better at the baseline" by "who would win more points only from the baseline", then I think it has to go to Agassi IMO. His steadiness, lack of errors and punishing groundstrokes were amazing. Federer has more variety but if it was entirely a baseline war -- no drop shots allowed, no coming to the net, and their serves were equal (Federers serve is hugely superior, of course) -- Agassi would have the advantage I would say.

    Federer is undeniably the better "baseliner" (in that he is primarily a baseliner just like Agassi, and is a better player) but "at the baseline" I think it's Andre. But to each their own. Two of my favourites of all time...I just wish prime Fed and prime Agassi would have squared off. Fed would have the advantage but I think they would have had some amazing matches. Their 2004 US Open match was sublime for the first three sets, but unfortunately the wind derailed it and the last 2 weren't quite as good.


    PS I gotta disagree with the passing shots one a lot, to me Agassi was far more consistent on the pass.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  45. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,300
    Well....it could be because Federers serve is 10 times better, his net game is 10 times better, he's mentally stronger and is a much better mover. Just because Federer is a better tennis player doesn't have to mean he's better at everything.
     
  46. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,742
    debatable.

    Sampras was the greatest s/v player i saw. mainly the combo of his great serve and good volleys.

    but there are quite a few players i hold in higher esteem than pete at net.

    rafter, edberg, mcenroe, henman, laver, stich all had better volleys, anticipation at net.

    sampras is slightly better than becker.

    pete was much more well rounded skillswise than all those players mentioned except perhaps stich. sampras was better in the areas of athleticism and much more mentally determined than stich.
     
  47. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,742
    on hardcourts, you could say andre was more steadier than federer. But i think federer's fh makes up for the difference in the bhs. Federer also has the slice which can hurt andre agassi. But i can understand that some would favor andre on the baseline strictly in terms of fh/bh with no footwork or movement in consideration.

    On clay though, i would give the decisive edge to federer, and this is because fed's shots are weightier due to the spin he imparts on the ball.

    On grass its a similar story except that federer covers up his bh inconsistency better with his slice which stays lower. The ball also stays in his strike zone longer on grass - fed likes the ball from knee to hip height. Andre like the ball higher especially on the backhand.
     
  48. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I love Agassi but his movement was not good enough for him to be the best ever from the baseline. It is true he would have won more than he did if he were truly the best baseliner ever. Nadal has a weaker serve than Agassi, nowhere near the return, probably volleys better but it is such an almost non factor for both players that it is moot, and has already surpassed Agassi's career by a good margin. So obviously Nadal's game is more effective overall from the baseline than Agassi was in their overall careers as Nadal has hardly anything else which contributed to his success other than his fitness and strong mind, vs Agassi who also had a historic GOAT service return. That said Nadal probably isnt even the best or most effective baseliner ever, so Agassi certainly is not.

    Did Agassi have the best ever forehand and backhand combination in history though? Perhaps yes. So one could say he is arguably the greatest groundstroker in history. That is very different from the best baseliner, and there is alot more components to baseline play than just the quality of ones groundstrokes.

    Comparing Federer to Agassi, Federer's forehand is better, Agassi's backhand is better by a bigger margin than the forehand, so overall just groundstrokes Agassi wins I would say, but then Federer's movement is better by an even bigger margin than the backhand difference, so now going into overall baseline play Federer is already clearly ahead now, and that is before even considering overall defense (clearly Federer again), point construction (very close), court positioning (very close, maybe Agassi by a bit), variety (clearly Federer).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2012
  49. above bored

    above bored Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    484
    I was never impressed with Sampras' slam dunk smashes. I thought they were ugly and unnecessarily theatrical. Better to just put the ball away without making a song and dance about it.
     
  50. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,202
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    This thread will survive the apocalypse
     

Share This Page