NOT a GOAT thread, but Fed is better than Sampras

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Fedfan34, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    That's only 1 year. But, even in 1998, 5 of the top 10 were major champions. That's what is meant by: ". . . depth of championship level competition . . . ."
     
  2. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,406
    i agree, that this is a well thought and balanced post.
    the point that i find particularly interesting and where i would ask you to elaborate is, when you say Federer has the edge with the volley because he had to play against Nadal.
    the way i see it, Federer has come to the net much less because of the groundstrokes of Nadal and company. i can understand his reasoning, but how does that make him a better volleyer than Sampras?:confused:
     
  3. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Because he routinely hit amazing touch volleys like this when the ball was coming at him much faster and with more spin than in the days o' Pete.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOfUMrsXgjA
     
  4. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Goran would hit a load of aces with any kind of balls on any kind of surface. They tried to slow him down at the time, and failed, dismally.
     
  5. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    570

    seems to me you proved that ivo is a better server than goran 3-4 different ways
     
  6. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    570
    for the ivo vs goran debate. afg proved that ivo was a better server. goran was a much better athlete and a better tennis player.

    the goran vs edberg 1996 qf us open match is on youtube.

    goran was serving bombs. easily 135 plus, great watch for the fed kids who never saw the 90s players.


    (they measured mph different then. now they measure it more accurately)
     
  7. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Your explanation goes against physics. And all this just to inflate Sampras and make him look better than Federer. Pathetic.
     
  8. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,678
    For the statement to hold true you need to prove that Pete can't hit such volleys.

    To imply that Pete was a poorer volleyer because returners today are better is a logical fallacy. That's like saying players in the 60s were physically stronger because rackets were heavier.

    We do not know how Pete would do against Rafa's passing shots so we can't make assumptions or comparisons.
     
  9. CMSlam

    CMSlam New User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    10
    It's amazing that so many fans are polarized like this. I admire aspects of both Federer's and Sampras' games.

    I really don't think anyone can predict with any accuracy who would 'dominate' if they were in the same era.

    The fact of the matter is Pete won 14 Slams and Roger won 16 because they both had some intangible that drove them to win at that kind of level.

    And by intangible I mean a drive to win. A confidence that they could win. Which at the top is worth so much more than mere gifts with their technique.

    People always point to conditions, like the courts, balls, rackets, etc to say "so and so" would dominate. The fact of the matter is, both players structured the game to get the most out of their game considering all these conditions.

    If we were talking one slam wonders, then I'd buy the conditions argument. But you don't win 14 or 16 if there just isn't something in extra in you.

    And I don't buy the talent argument. Sure, they both have gifts. But lets not underrate how hard they worked to hone those gifts to truly be in a class by themselves.

    And the other big "intangible" is there presence on the court in peak times. Let's face it, we've all seen important games where Fed or Sampras are at break point and they fire 2, 3 or 4 consecutive aces and nonreturnables to shut down their opponent. We've seen Sampras chase down blistering running forehands or making full-stretch, diving drop volleys that left his opponent shaking in disbelief. Same goes for Federer. How many times have we seen him chase down a ball and hit winners from absolutely no where, between the legs, over the shoulder, etc. only to leave his opponent looking pretty much stunned?

    And sure, Pete only won 14. He didn't win the French. But that was a different era. I grew up a competitive swimmer and it was pretty much the same mentality in swimming in that 80s to 90s era. People grew up training thinking you had to specialize in strokes and distances. At some point in the 2000s (with Phelps leading the charge) there was a dynamic shift. The culture changed and now there was this belief an athlete can be successful in a wider variety of events and distances at that top level.

    Multi-stroke winning was a mountain of a challenge for that era. Just because of the culture we trained in. Everyone believed it. The coaches. The athletes. Now, it's a mole hill of a challenge. I tend to think it's the same with tennis and the different surfaces.
     
  10. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    Thank you -- very well put reasoning! I hope the Peteclowns keep this in mind when they claim Sampras would eat today's top players alive on fast courts, and assert that Sampras would have the edge on fast grass vs Federer (the ONLY piece of evidence suggests otherwise..).

    But what has been proven BEYOND reasonable doubt is how well Sampras fared on slow molasses (borrowing the term from monfed) -- not very well, to put it mildly. Ergo, it is not a stretch to claim that Sampras would not win ANY slams on today's surfaces (I wait for the Pete apologists to offer inane, irrelevant arguments such as "14 slams, 286 wks #1, champion, running FH, slam dunk overhead, GOAT serve, blah, blah ...." as proof that he'd win some, but the facts beg to differ)
     
  11. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    The ball was not moving faster..... -_-. Sure, more spin, but then Federer doesn't handle the Nadal passing shot too well, does he? That's why he tries to beat him from the baseline, because he can't beat him if he's coming to the net a bunch. Sampras won 7 wimbledon titles serve and volleying, and many of his later titles EVERYWHERE were won that way. Sampras has just as much touch as Federer at the net, and just as good at stab volleys. There isn't really any good quality Sampras worship videos like the one you just posted of Fed, but Sampras was just as capable, if not more so, at the net than Federer.
     
  12. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    570

    i thinks its rather safe to infer that sampras had better volleys and better net coverage than fed. just on the bases that he went up more often and succeeded. fed stays back more than sampras does, rarely serves and volleys.
     
  13. IvanisevicServe

    IvanisevicServe Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    858
    I don't think Goran would be too affected by slower courts. The serve is the one shot that is hardest to slow down. You look at Wimbledon these days, it's still extremely difficult to return, but once the rallies start, it's slow as molasses.
     
  14. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    While your argument is well-laid out, it is completely unacceptable, simply because you seem to paint both Sampras and Federer using the same brush, suggesting something to the effect of "they're both top players of their respective eras, so they're essentially in the same ballpark".. which is not true. Sampras is much more limited in terms of ability when compared to Federer, and it's high time Petetards (I'm not referring to you) woke up to that fact.

    - Sampras did not get the MOST out of his era. He missed out on 25% of the tennis season.
    - his arch-rival Agassi had a more balanced resume, being successful across all surfaces, so your point about "specializing" for certain surfaces points more towards inability rather than culture of that era (case in point: other greats like lendl, Borg, Mac, Edberg etc., performed quite well across all surfaces, where as Pete came a cropper on clay)
    - Sampras was opportunistic, and should thank his stars that > 50% of the surfaces suited his style of play.
     
  15. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Sampras only won 2 AOs which was played on Rebound Ace in his time, a surface that is quicker compared to Plexicushion of today.Also, Sampras didn't even make an RG final, given that there wasn't a clay phenom who was stopping him,he lost to nobodies.

    Yet,even with all the evidence, the staunch tards argue that he'd win plenty on the molasses courts of today which goes against his game. But it's preposterous to suggest Federer would win left n right on faster surfaces which actually suit his game.

    Oh the madness. :lol:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2012
  16. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,678
    This is not true. I think you are equating clay with slower surfaces. They are not the same. Movement on clay is very different from movement on slow hard courts. Sampras's main issue with clay was movement, something that does not translate to performance on slow HC or slower grass.

    Sampras had 5-6 titles on slower hardcourts (old AO was still not fast, and he had titles in IW and Miami). This means that he was certainly competent on these surfaces unlike clay.

    Also like every 'era' vs 'era' discussion, you need to realize that players do adapt to the surfaces around them, eventually honing some skills more than others. If Sampras played today, he would have had more exposure to slow surfaces and hence tweaked his game accordingly. Rafa started out as a clay courter but made adjustments over time. Djokovic has improved his forehand. If Fed had played in the 90's he would have served and volleyed more. Players adapt and are a product of the surfaces around them.
     
  17. slice serve ace

    slice serve ace Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    185

    these stats for Sampras are wrong, as well as for any other 90s player, specially those who served a lot of aces and double faults

    reason - grand slam matches on atp site, for whatever reason, counted aces and double faults twice untill year 2000...from that year on stats are correct...important - only grand slam matches have wrong stats, the rest of the tour has correct stats

    how do i know - making stats is my hobby, and i have tons of matches from all slams in the 90s...i notticed the difference and the pattern pretty soon

    what makes me believe that all GS matches untill 2000 have wrong stats - well, my sample size is about 100 matches from pretty much all these slams...and never, not once did the stats match one another, the difference always being aces and double faults counted twice (i'll explain how that works little later)

    if only some and not all matches are "infected", i should be able to hit some of the matches with correct stats by now...but zilch


    ok, so how does it work - here, some random example...


    lets say that player is (for simplicity sake lets take round numbers)

    30 of 50 on a 1st serve (60 %)
    24 of 30 1st serve pts won (80 %)
    10 of 20 2nd serve pts won (50 %)


    and ATP has him on 10 aces and 5 double faults


    ATP will add
    10 of 15 on the 1st serve
    10 of 10 on the 1st serve pts won
    and 0 of 5 on the 2nd serve pts won


    so ATP (wrong) stats will be

    40 of 65 1st serve (62 %)
    34 of 40 1st serve pts won ( 85 %)
    10 of 25 2nd serve pts won ( 40 %)


    conclusion - the more aces and double faults player hits, the more wrong ATP stats are

    1st serve % is usually higher, but it can go lower as well - depends on a ratio of aces per aces + double faults

    1st serve pts won is higher

    2nd serve pts won is lower


    and this should be repeated by someone who has much more time than me to post, because nobody seems to know about this, and ATP stats are frequently used...
     
  18. slice serve ace

    slice serve ace Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    agreed. also


    2nd serve points won %
    Nadal 57 Sampras 53

    i told you, Nadal has better serve than Sampras


    2nd serve points won %
    JCFerrero 55 Sampras 53

    i told you, Ferrero has better serve than Sampras


    2nd serve points won %
    Agassi 54 Sampras 53

    told you, Agassi has better serve than Sampras


    2nd serve points won %
    Muster 54 Sampras 53

    even Muster has better serve than Sampras:oops:
     
  19. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Gosh, you have a wild imagination.
     
  20. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    Interesting. I do recall discussing this issue before. This error should mean that for players' in the 90's:
    1st serve % may go higher or lower
    1st serve pts won is higher
    2nd serve pts won is lower (which would explain Sampras' surprisingly low number in this category)
    1st serve return pts won is lower
    2nd serve return pts won is higher

    And none of the other stats should be affected.

    It would be too time consuming to count all of Pete's DFs from his GS matches in the 90s. To give some context to how much this error affects the numbers, I made some very rough estimations.
    I think Pete played about 200 matches in GS in the 90s. Let's say he averaged 12 aces and 5 DFs a match, which comes out to 2400 aces and 1000 DFs total.
    Then his career serve stats would be affected in the following way:


    1st serve won%: 79.7% (Previously listed as 81%)
    2nd serve won%: 54.5% (Previously listed as 53%)
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2012
  21. slice serve ace

    slice serve ace Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    actually no, 1477 is without Grand Slam Cup, i know this for a fact...with gsc is about 1570 (heard the exact number long time ago but forgot) - i know the numbers for the semi and final match - 42 aces against Kafelnikov and 12 against Becker

    checked goran's 1996 - 2 DC matches and 1 from olympics lack stats...
     
  22. slice serve ace

    slice serve ace Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    185

    exactly

    theoretically, you could calculate the real numbers, but even for a one player that's a lot of wotk, let alone for all of them
     
  23. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    You simply cannot charge the net with the way the game is today. When Fed was 19 he beat Pete doing SERVE AND VOLLEY. If as a 19 year old he beat a 7 time defending champion with serve and volley, *I* think its rather safe to infer that Federer would be completely capable of serve and volley in the 90s. If Sampras tried to come in on the slower courts of today via serve and volley, he would be toast. Fed is as good a volleyer, if not better than Sampras. Face it and move on.
     
  24. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,865
    seems like there are other issues, no matches beyond 6-6 in the 5th have stats. and they are wrong about total breaks in some matches as well. what a mess, can't believe they are allowing fans/media to think these stats on older players are in any way correct.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=207411
     
  25. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    if "movement" was Pete's only problem on clay, then why is it he has never beaten Agassi at the FO or AO? Sampras is competent even on clay, but that's not what I'm debating here. His performance/success is in direct proportion to the success of his serve. That is not the case with other greats such as Federer, Borg, etc.

    Also, it is baloney to argue that Sampras would've "adapted" if he played now, when evidence shows that he did NOT "adapt" to clay during his time -- what do you base your "sampras would've adapted" theory on? Nadal or Djokovic adapting is not proof that Sampras would've adapted. I'm going to stick to my claim that Sampras is an opportunistic champion, who benefitted greatly from the conditions that existed in his time, and he is not one that would transcend time i.e. success in his era would not necessarily translate to success in any other era (certainly not in this era).
     
  26. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Just because you believe this to be true, there's no way to prove you're right.

    Face it and move on, you cannot truly say one or the other is better at volleying.

    Fact: Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals, never lost any, serve and volleying.

    Fact: Federer won 1 wimbledon final serve and volleying, 5 from the baseline, and lost 1 final.

    Fact: The single match between them ended 7-5 in the fifth. There is no reason to extrapolate that Federer would have been as successful, Or less successful, than Sampras on 90's grass.

    Opinion: You think Fed has better volleys.

    See the difference? I hope so. Otherwise, you're just a fool, like all the other *******s.
     
  27. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Fact: Sampras faced jokes like one dimensional serving Ivanisevic and PIOLINE in Wimbledon finals, and actually needed five sets to beat Ivanisevic. Amazing accomplishment to beat a clay court specialist like Pioline or Courier while serve and volleying on grass yes?

    What remarkable competition Sampras faced! Ironically the one time he faced a truly competent serve and volleyer who was having a good day (Kracijek) he got trounced in straight sets.

    Fact: Grass slowed down at Wimbledon from 2002 up to nao. Invite Sampras to serve and volley there today. It will be very fun to watch.

    Fact: 19 year old Federer beat Sampras having never played on Centre court in his life, despite Pete having all the experience and record on his side.

    Fact: Roger will walk all over Sampras in a match at Wimbledon, 90s or 2000 style surface.
     
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,063
  29. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Good grief. Where's the Picard facepalm?
     
  30. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    570
    fed was so lucky to win that match. sampras steamrolled him in the 4th set tiebreaker then sampras played a few lose games in the 5 set and fed was able to hang on for dear life.
     
  31. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Weird that the only fact you have is the centre court fact. the rest are still your very skewed opinions. LOL.
     
  32. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    I dont know why people act like he crushed Sampras, it was a 7-5 fifth set lol.
     
  33. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    So lucky to win that match despite winning ten more points than Sampras? Yeah, okay.
     
  34. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    And Sampras' biggest mistake was that overhead smash he hit long when set point down in the third set. 2 sets to 1 down, instead of 1 set all and still on serve, put Sampras in serious trouble. In my opinion, that missed smash was the most crucial thing that cost Sampras the match. But, an inexperienced 19 year old Federer still had to hold his nerve under huge pressure and seize his chance of victory, and Federer did that superbly, especially when saving 2 break points at 4-4 in the fifth set, and of course, hitting that forehand return of serve winner to win the match.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2012
  35. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    I believe Federer was in a very similar position himself on set point while serving at 5-6 during the 2nd set. He had a putaway forehand volley that he hit out, giving the set to Sampras.

    It was a very close match with high quality tennis, but neither player at the peak of their abilities. Considering the tight score, it does neither player any justice to draw broad conclusions from this one match.
     
  36. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Lol@petetards.
     
  37. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,678
    Good summary of this discussion! A one match sample that went to 7-5 in the 5th with both players not in their primes.
     
  38. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Utterly uninformed post! You have no idea what you're talking about.
     
  39. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Actually, IMO, that was the highest level of play I've ever seen Fed play at Wimbledon. He was just on. And Pete was not quite at his best. However, peak Pete against peak Fed on grass, Pete wins 2/3, maybe 3/4.
     
  40. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    thanks for confirming that you've never watched Fed play (at least since 2001, it would seem like..)
     
  41. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    Or maybe he only wins 1/4 or 0/3 :shock:

    Just adding a couple of alternatives that are just as possible when it's all based on subjective opinion/speculation :)
     
  42. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,353
    To be honest when Federer met Sampras at Wimbledon, Sampras despite winning a major the next year was playing badly and had not won a tournament in a long time and Federer wasn't nearly the player he would be. It would have been better in the Sampras of 1994 played the Federer of 2006.

    All subjective arguments. We will never know.
     
  43. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    It was a pretty terrible match overall yes. That was the year Sampras stopped training (Courier said this in some documentary), having broken the Grand Slam record and had kids. Federer was a long was off his best too.
     
  44. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    you're wrong -- limpin's subjective opinion is based off of his objective analysis, derived from watching players from 1950s - 90s.
     
  45. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    OK, so Sampras played a terrible match because he lost? wow, Sampras' serve must've sucked if after sending in 69% 1st serves, he still played a "terrible match". never mind the fact that he had a +ve winners-errors differential.

    sorry, Sampras disagrees with you. In his post match interview, he said he thought he played "well enough to win"
     
  46. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I've seen Fed play about 5 times, live, in addition to dozens of times on TV, since 2001. You?

    Next!
     
  47. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    From the 60's to the 2010's. You?
     
  48. _craze

    _craze New User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    wat.

    you jest, i'm sure
     
  49. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    surely, you don't find an assertion that a slice bh could be hit at "80 miles per hour" funny?
     
  50. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Only if you're an ignoramus!
     

Share This Page