Federer would win over 20 slams and been more dominant vs weaker Sampras competition

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by GrafisGOAT, Dec 2, 2009.

  1. GrafisGOAT

    GrafisGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    45
    Federer is unlucky he didnt play in the weak era Sampras was lucky to play in. If you put Federer in Sampras's place and remove Sampras I bet he has won 7 Wimbledons by now, 7 U.S Opens, 3 or 4 French Opens, and 5 or 6 Australian Opens. He also would have ended the year #1 7 straight years already. Basically there would be hardly anyone who would have stopped him from 1993-1999 playing like he has from 2003-2009, nowhere near as much threat as he had vs the current tougher field.
     
    #1
  2. 9 posts-Yet you create a thread that will (most likely) end in flamewars and people getting banned...Something tells me you have been here before.
     
    #2
  3. MuseFan

    MuseFan Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    706
    ^^^
    gj011 perhaps?
     
    #3
  4. Hmm...-If you became a member in October- How do you know who gj011 is ? :???: He was banned during the spring i have heard.
     
    #4
  5. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    no, gj011 was a well-known fed-hater. But I do agree with the OP though.. contrary to what people believe, Sampras had no one at his heels all the time; plus the effectiveness of his serve is over-hyped due to:
    1. fast surfaces
    2. mediocre returners (compare the return quality of the top 5 or 10 in the 90s with the ones currently..)

    Under those circumstances, Fed's serve would be even more dominant than it is now, plus he has the ground game that sampras never had. Who knows, we would have probably witnessed a S & V'er in Fed if he played in the 90s.

    Turn the OP's argument around, and put Pete in this era (with Fed removed, of course), and he wins no more than 7.
     
    #5
  6. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,616
    I do agree that Federer most likely would have won more grand slam titles if he played in Sampras's era, the 90's. Sampras was a great player but he played in a weaker era that consisted of Agassi, Courier, and a bunch of serve and volley players such as Ivanisevic, Pioline, and Rafter who wouldn't even be in the top 25 if they played in Federer's era due to the slower court surfaces and string technologies. If Sampras played in this era he wouldn't have been nearly as successful, he probably would have retired with no more then 8 grand slams.
     
    #6
  7. GrafisGOAT

    GrafisGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    45
    Lets go through each:

    Australian Open- he loses in 93 to Courier or Edberg. He maybe loses to Agassi in 95. That is it. He wins easily vs the same draws Pete had in 94 and 97, no sweat. 96 he doesnt lose to Philippoussis like Pete did, and he certainly doesnt lose to a past his prime Becker on a slow hard court or Chang later in the draw. 98 he doesnt lose to Kucera as Pete did, and wont lose to Korda or Rios either. 99 he doesnt skip it and cruises to the title, heck even Kafelnikov won that year. So 5 or 6 with 95 the tossup.

    French Open- he loses in 93 as he bombed badly in 2003. No very dangerous floater like Kuerten in the 3rd round on an off day for Federer in 1994, decent chance of winning the title over Bruguera who is no Nadal. 95 no, Muster was too good that year. 1996 wins easily. 1997 probably wins, the draw collapses yet again and a pre-prime Kuerten and past his prime Bruguera were in the finals. 1998 wins easily again. 1999 decent chance, although not sure. Federer would probably be unlucky here as Sampras's potential draw to the title was alot tougher than Agassi's lucky one complete with a choke from Medvedev in the final. So likely 1996, 1997, 1998, maybe 1994, maybe but probably not 1999.

    Wimbledon- no problem. Only competition is past his prime Becker and choking headcase Ivanisevic. Federer wouldnt lose to Krajicek like Sampras did so he has 7 now.

    U.S Open- no problem. Federer wouldnt run into his early career nemisis Nalbandian in the round of 16 in 1993, instead he has a joke draw to the title other than a semi-tough opponent in Chang in the quarters. Otherwise clowns like Volkov, Masur, and Pioline. 1994 to 1998 Federer wins just like he did in 2004 and 2008 vs same draws as Pete would have had. He doesent lose to Korda or Yzaga as Pete did, Roger is too good for that. Agassi in 95 would be only threat, but Agassi isnt mentally tough enough to beat Federer in a slam other than maybe the Australian at some point. 1999 he would have gotten Agassi who struggled to win in 5 sets vs a past his prime Todd Martin, which would have been alot easier than an on fire Del Potro who destroyed Nadal in the semis. No problem.

    As for year end #1s there is nobody who could come close to him from 1993-1999 playing at his 2003-2009 level. In 2008 he lost out to Nadal at his peak, in 2008 he would have only had to hold off Rios and Rafter, ROTFL!! In 2003 he lost #1 to Roddick in his best year ever, in 1993 the year end #2 was Stich who did almost nothing in the slams that year.
     
    #7
  8. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    While I agree that he would have won more slams during Sampras' era, Sampras' serve was NOT overrated.
     
    #8
  9. I cant wait until Azzurri sees this :twisted::shock:
     
    #9
  10. GrafisGOAT

    GrafisGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    45
    Who is Azzurri?
     
    #10
  11. GrafisGOAT

    GrafisGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    45
    Sampras had an amazing serve but it is overrated by those who say it is the greatest ever. Ivanisevic, Karlovic, and Krajicek all have superior serves IMO. I know many will disagree with me but how on earth would Krajicek have a winning head to head with Sampras when every other part of his game other than maybe volleying was alot weaker without having as good or better a serve. How would Ivanisevic have an almost equal head to head, and been close to going 3-1 vs Sampras at Wimbledon without his choking, despite being weaker in every other part of the game. Karlovic speaks for itself. Hate him or love him his serve is more untouchable than Ivanisevic, Pete, or Krajicek.
     
    #11
  12. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    if you're referring to my post, I agree, his serve is not over-rated. however, some here would like us to believe that he had the "best" serve ever, that was untouchable blah blah blah.. It was a great weapon, but not in the league of someone like karlovic, goran, etc. The effectiveness of his serve was magnified by so-so returners.

    sorry, but Karlovic has a better serve. Period. 78 aces on a slow surface (clay) must count for something. Pete's serve required the surface to assist him. If not, his serve was ineffective. That's the difference between karlovic's & Pete's serves.
     
    #12
  13. GrafisGOAT

    GrafisGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    45
    If you gave Karlovic the rest of Sampras's game and they each kept their serves Karlovic would own Sampras. I would say if you gave Sampras the rest of Karlovic's game, but both of their amazing serves are far too much for the rest of Karlovic's miserable game to break serve so in that case every set would be a tiebreak and come down to nerves, in which case Sampras would win often thought not because his serve is better.
     
    #13
  14. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    Is there anything the mods can do to prevent people from opening multiple accounts? Sometimes it seems like there is either a Fed fan or Sampras fan or you name the player fan, and then they will use there new identities to spike the votes on polls or post nonsense or use the other account to back what they are posting. No offense meant to anyone who only has one account.
     
    #14
  15. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,824
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Ridiculous thread. Ridiculous troll.
     
    #15
  16. pame

    pame Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,435
    You can always tell when there's a hiatus in tennis. Out come the same old tired, done-to-death arguments
     
    #16
  17. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    Who's gj011? I keep seeing his name pop up often in this forum.
     
    #17
  18. Rhino

    Rhino Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,481
    Location:
    South of London, west of Moscow
    I doubt this guy is a new poster, he just created another login name for himself. Probably someone who was previously banned.

    Could this thread be any more pointless?
     
    #18
  19. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Sampras had tougher players from 1990 to 1996, 1997-2000 is debateable however.

    If you made the surfaces quicker, who on Earth besides Federer would beat Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Goran, Pete today? That's right none. Let's face it here, back then you had better Serve and Volleyers, can you imagine Edberg vs Murray at Wimbledon???? Or Becker vs Nadal at USO or AO? Or Goran vs Davydenko indoors?

    Wouldn't be a fair sight to see. Today is all power tennis, back then touch, and attacking at the net....
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
    #19
  20. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    i'd say 1990-2000 is debatable.
     
    #20
  21. GustafsonFanatic

    GustafsonFanatic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    582
    Actually I agree with this.

    Everyone says Pete had the best serve ever. But I think what they mean is that he did the best serve of all the normal players (by normal, I mean players who have more weapons than just the serve). Karlovic and Ivanisevic must have a better serve than Pete.
     
    #21
  22. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589


    Pete had a better 2nd serve. 1st serve, obviously Goran and Ivo have that edge.
     
    #22
  23. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589

    Pete had been kind of lucky in 1997 with Andre being MIA all year long.

    1999: Andre was a bit lucky that Pete was hurt in August that year, or Pete would have won the USO.
     
    #23
  24. shaysrebelII

    shaysrebelII Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Sunny SB, CA
    ugh. here we go again...
     
    #24
  25. JankovicFan

    JankovicFan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    611
    Makes you hate tennis forums.:cry:
     
    #25
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353

    Pete 2nd serve is better but it’s still an inferior to the 1st serve. He’s vulnerable when he has problem getting his 1st serve in. A good returner like Agassi and Hewitt all gave him trouble.

    Anyway, this debate has been beaten to death. Roger is a superior player over Pete and the OP is just trying to rub it in.
     
    #26
  27. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    LOL. How many accounts does FedFan_2007/FedFan_2009/stapler/manco/musefan have? What a joke.


    As for Pete, I'm starting to think he underachieved. He had no nemesis who made him his biatch, like Rafa did to Fed and still Pete couldn't win more than 14 slams.
     
    #27
  28. GustafsonFanatic

    GustafsonFanatic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    582
    But, when you average it out, Karlovic and Isner must have better serves than Pete. Maybe Ivanisevic as well. These guys actually make a living off their serves. That wasn't the case with Pete. He had great volleys, great forehand (both stationary and on the run), OK backhand, movement...

    Pete had the best serve of all the players who did not depend entirely on their serves. But no way he had the best ever.
     
    #28
  29. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    1776

    If Fed played for the British in the 1776 American Revolution, the Brits would've won! That's how good he is!

    I also think he could've flown to the moon, independently, under his own power in 1993, since he is much faster than the space shuttle.

    He could've also cured all disease and world hunger, if we just gave him a chance.

    All hail the Fed!
     
    #29
  30. IvanisevicServe

    IvanisevicServe Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    858
    Goran had a good ground game. He could stay back and beat some good clay court players. Very good forehand, erratic backhand that was either really good when on or, in his words, "like my golf game--I never know where the ball goes."

    His problem was mostly mental. He wasn't a guy who could "get up" for every single tournament...and losing/bad moments in matches really got to him and he unraveled.
     
    #30
  31. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    I'm not sure what a normal player is....certainly not Goran:)

    Pete's serve was wicked, no question. there were other very good servers as well....Edberg, Rafter, Goran...but, Pete had the uncanny ability to spit out those aces on demand, when he really needed them, even on 2nd serves...

    I do miss goran;he was a lot of fun....
     
    #31
  32. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Head to Head, I think Sampras-Federer are very close, and not separated by much at all.

    On Red Clay, Federer is significantly better.

    Meanwhile, I'd give Sampras a slight edge in matches at Wimbledon, especially on the faster Wimbledon grass, but it would be about even on the current Wimbledon courts.

    At the US Open, given the pro-American crowds, I think that though Federer is about even with Sampras on hard courts, Sampras could hold his own and perhaps would edge out Federer in a head to head series on hard courts.

    At the current Australian Open, I'd give the edge to Federer.

    So, overall, if they played about 20 matches, on those 4 surfaces, I don't think either player would win such a series by very much. Sampras, when he's on as far as his serve and forehand/volleys, would be a handful for Federer or anyone else, while Federer has a stronger return game and overall baseline game.

    As far as Federer having 20 slams in the Sampras era, I think that's an overstatement, but of course this is all hypothetical. I tend to think he'd have won about the same number of slams, or perhaps a few less.

    There were more really strong players near the top during the Sampras era, but no one as tough as a peak Nadal, in my opinion. So, I think Federer would not have reached so many finals, but he would have still won plenty of GS titles.

    Also, the fact that Wimbledon was faster back then, would give him great difficulty when he faced big servers like Becker and Edberg there.

    Then, with the slightly slower French Open Courts, he would have had a real difficult time winning any French Open titles, especially when there were many tough clay courters during Sampras' time such as Chang, Courier, Agassi, Muster, and Brugera.

    He would have still won about as many US Opens though and he would still have won roughly the same number of Australian Opens.

    To say he would have MANY more slams during the era of Sampras era is selling Sampras short and not recognizing many of the tough players Sampras faced during his time.

    In short, both Sampras and Federer are primarily fast court players, without great prowess on slow red clay.

    They have both had a feast at Wimbledon and the US Open to amass the top 2 GS totals thus far in history.

    They are both among the greatest players of all time and both have certain strengths and weaknesses. I think both tend to get tired a bit too easily during really long physical matches, but Sampras was a little more "clutch" than Federer when his back was really to the wall against a tough hard-nosed player, especially at Wimbledon and the US Open.

    Yet, Federer has more shots in his arsenal, as he has a more complete game than Sampras and is a bit quicker overall (quick shot adjustment and movements), though Sampras was at least as fast as Federer (covering lots of court on the dead run).

    Both, like other greats, are often able to raise their level of play significantly when it's necessary.

    What really differentiated Sampras from his peers was his ability at say 5-4 in a set, suddenly come up with 4 bombs for first serves to close out the set. He did that hundreds of times during his career. Federer tends to do that with his forehand to try and open up points at "crunch time".
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
    #32
  33. Michael Bluth

    Michael Bluth Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    758
    Something interesting to consider is that in the 90s Fed would have serve-and-volleyed a lot more, and his attacking game would be much better due to this more frequent use.
     
    #33
  34. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,054
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    I think Federer would definitely do better in Sampras's time than vice versa if he were to be transported there (with his current technology and training). His ground game would be the strongest by far, and unusually for a baseliner at the time he would back it up with a strong serve.

    Federer is actually underrated on clay around here. He is a VERY good clay courter, and its ludicrous to compare him to someone of Sampras's caliber on the surface. I think he would win at least 3 FO were he to play in that time period.
     
    #34
  35. crackbillionair

    crackbillionair Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    238

    I saw just about every match both guys have played. I love both guys to death. Sampras left a few slams on the table due to conditioning, but once he became a man (after the terrible USO loss to Edberg), he didn't choke.

    That's not to say Pete is better or Roger is better, but I have seen Roger choke in 2 slam finals this yr. I guess if you are making every final, there's a chance you may choke in a few of 'em...they were big moments...

    But Pete is the man. I'd put my money on Pete. The way that Roger slices those returns back, Pete would be in and out of serve games very quickly.
     
    #35
  36. coloskier

    coloskier Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,574
    I like Fed as much as the next Fed fan, but if Fed played on those much faster surfaces, he would have had just as much trouble against Sampras (not counting when they started to slow down the courts before Fed beat him at Wimbledon) as the rest of the field did. He would also had trouble with Ivanisevic, Rafter, and the like. Just look at how tight his scores are with Karlovic and DelPotro, and those scores came on courts that are much slower than they were in the middle of Sampras's career. Yes, you can mention Roddick, but Roddick does not hit corners like Sampras, Ivanisevic and Rafter. And as far as the ground game is concerned, Sampras had a much better forehand (more like DelPotro) and it was the most feared forehand on tour. And, he did not shank his backhand like Fed does. That does not mean that I think Sampras had a better overall baseline game, but he didn't need it.
     
    #36
  37. flying24

    flying24 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,924
    Sampras did not have the most feared forehand on tour. It was only that in the sense that of the untouchable servers his forehand was the most dangerous shot of any of them, and against Pete one break was often the set. However outside of there were guys with more feared forehands. No way was his forehand as good as Del Potro's forehand today. At absolute best maybe comparable power without even half the consistency.
     
    #37
  38. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Del Potro's forehand has been extremely good and consistent for only about 1 year now. Sampras had one of the best running forehands of all time. When he was just sitting back and rallying, he tended to just keep it in play, keep it deep, and wait for an opening so he could capture the net.

    Here are some examples of the Sampras forehand and how he could use it extremely effectively in case folks have forgotten:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5rxZhVjrVM (vs. Becker)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ksF_0Lx_Y (vs. Edberg)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzhiuDa80_U (vs. Agassi)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMQKjhEpTiA (a collection of forehands)
     
    #38
  39. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589


    Del Potro cannot even compare to the running forehand of Pete Sampras.
     
    #39
  40. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    running FHs for Pete would be normal FHs for delpo due to his reach. Delpo's FH is much more of a weapon than Pete's.
     
    #40
  41. flying24

    flying24 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,924
    That is a poor basis for anything. Del Potro is only 20 years old in case you have forgotten (only been 20 for a couple months now), so of course his game and weapons wont have been effective at the very top level for 5 years plus. Sampras had a great forehand, nobody is denying that, but in no way was is better than Del Potro's which was just as much a weapon, but miles more consistent, and more versatile as well. Of course Del Potro is a top baseliner, while Sampras was a top serve/volleyer who could also play well at the baseline, so that is to be expected.
     
    #41
  42. IvanAndreevich

    IvanAndreevich Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    The level of ignorance in this post is astounding. I am not even going to point it out - it's that ridiculous.
     
    #42
  43. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622

    His scores are tight with Karlovic; not with Delpo.. usually he has many unconverted chances. Fed has a much better FH, BH when compared to Pete (in fact, outside of the 2nd serve and volleys, Pete has nothing over Fed).
    And I do think Fed would have lesser trouble returning Pete's serves, when compared to karlovic.

    Pete's serve seemed monstrous to the folks of the 90s.. players of today are much better returners.
     
    #43
  44. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York
    Del Potro is actually 21 (minor detail I know :))
     
    #44
  45. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    My point is we'll have to see how Del Potro's forehand (it is now a massive weapon for sure) holds up UNDER PRESSURE, over the course of some more big Grand Slam matches. He's had the big win at the US Open, but let's not be so quick to say he has one of the great forehands of all time. You've got to do it for some time in big matches, so perhaps I should have been more clear.
     
    #45
  46. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    please do point it out - i'm dying to hear your views. The running FH of Pete is such an over-rated shot, just like his slam-dunk smash. It's not a regular rally shot - probably its a point-ender once in a set; he most often than not missed the shot than he made it. yet, people only remember the times that he made it because it looks spectacular.

    I was mocking the poster who actually pointed out the "superiority" of the running FH.
     
    #46
  47. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,136
    Federer's return game is definitely better than Pete's. And Federer gets many returns back, he's done very well against big servers. The reason he slices returns back is because that is very effective against many current players. He'd have different tactics against Sampras (as he hopefully will employ different tactics against Delpo).
     
    #47
  48. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,136
    Del Potro has a great forehand. But even at its best, it isn't better than Federer's FH at his best. Nor is his backhand better, maybe equal (Delpo doesn't handle low balls nearly as well as Federer).

    Del Potro has had a few great tournaments. The FO and USO mainly. It is far too early to start talking like the guy has one of the all-time great forehands.
     
    #48
  49. mental midget

    mental midget Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,434
    pete was an insanely good athlete, who adopted a style of play tailored to win on fast, low bouncing surfaces. the traditional forehand grip, club of a racket, all of that was designed to facilitate a first-strike, attacking game . . . and it worked.

    those choices carried with them certain mechanical limitations with regard to high balls, etc., limitations that were magnified significantly by racket and string technology, which ushered in an era of heavy topspin and a new breed of back court player.

    i think it's not outrageous to speculate that pete may have won a RG title or two had he come of age a few years earlier.

    as for federer, well, the stars aligned for that guy--a game that straddled two eras, in the hands of a player that could extract the maximum utility from it. right guy, right place, right time.
     
    #49
  50. Changmaster

    Changmaster Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    316

    I hope you just got careless when writing that 1st part in bold. Saying that Fed is not great on red clay is just not true. Even if he never won the FO, Fed would still be much, much better than Sampras on clay(who isn't even in the conversation when discussing great clay-courters). At WORST, you could say that Fed is very good on clay. At best, you could say that he is one of the GOATS on clay, right behind Nadal and Borg. So he's probably somewhere in between. If he hadn't had to deal with arguably the greatest clay-courter ever, Fed would probably have 5 FOs by now. Hypothetically, I would really like Fed's chances against any of the past clay court greats, like Borg or Lendl. Especially given that a 100% healthy and rested Nadal basically doesn't lose to anyone in this era on clay (except perhaps Fed at his best). Fed is one of the only players to have consistently pushed Nadal on clay, and, save for his two wins over Nadal on clay, has come up agonizingly short several times.

    Now to the 2nd bolded part. Fed is very comparable to Sampras when it comes to hitting big serves at pressure moments, it's been said many times by commentators and it's obvious when watching him. To suggest that Fed basically just uses his fh on big pts is silly (although he certainly does use it, his serve is also a big factor in clutch situations). A perfect example of clutch serving at its very best was the 2nd set tiebreak against Soderling, 2009 FO final. 4 serves, 4 aces. Amazing. Fed has hit clutch serves countless times in his career, so him and Sampras are comparable in that category. Fed has also hit his fair share of 2nd serve aces (though not as prolific as Sampras, you also have to factor in that Fed double faults much less than Sampras).

    And I'm not sure I'd give Sampras the edge on fast grass. While I certainly can't blame anyone for thinking that, remember that a 19 year old Fed beat a 29 year old Samp at Wimby in 2001, where the grass was definitely faster than today. While drawing conclusions from a single match is not ideal, you have to remember that Fed served and volleyed the entire match, dealt with Sampras's serve extremely well, beat Sampras in almost every statistical category (despite the match being very close), and even outserved Sampras in the aces and double faults category (Sampras himself served very well that match, he had a 69% 1st serve percentage, which is better than his average %). While neither player was in his prime, I would say Fed was farther away from his than Samp, who was still 4 time defending champ. If Fed played in the 90s, you would have to think his game would be much more attacking-based and adapted to the old fast grass, and different from the way he plays on today's grass.

    So I'm not saying Fed would necessarily be better than Sampras on fast grass, but you can't really logically conclude that Sampras would be better, either, when looking at the evidence.
     
    #50

Share This Page