Roger Federer-The next Pete Sampras?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jblaze, Jul 29, 2004.

  1. jblaze

    jblaze Guest

    Almost anyone would consider Roger Federer to play tennis as if he were not human. He's already won three majors that I can think of. The question is will he ever live up to GREATNESS of a pro like Sampras, Connors, Borg, or Johnny Mac? He has the skills, but will stars like Roddick be a factor in stopping him.

    My opinion is that yes, this is possible. One might argue that he already has, but what does everyone else think.
     
    #1
  2. Tolip

    Tolip New User

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    38
    If he work on his serve and as good as sampras', he will not only the next sampras but better. All his strokes are much consistent and smoother than sampras.
     
    #2
  3. If Federer gets any better than he is now, then I say, yes. As a part of a player's greatness, I look at how well he is able to meet his own personal limits, as far-fetched as they might be. Federer will need some competition to really test him. As an example, I'm thinking of all those five-setters that Sampras seemed to always eek out. For that reason, I consider Sampras "greater" than Federer so far. But Federer is sure on his way. He has broken away from players that used to own him . . .
     
    #3
  4. PistolPete

    PistolPete Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    157
    I know you have to be kidding. As much as I love Federer , he has only won 3 so far and has about 11 grand slams to go to be Pete Sampras. He has the game but lets not talk about Federer being an all-time great right now. All that said, I think Federer is just about to enter his prime, which is quite scary, and he will win quite a few more majors. But not yet, let's not over hype anything.
     
    #4
  5. Young Pete

    Young Pete Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    904
    Location:
    nor cal
    You can't compare the king of swing with fedex. Pete is superior to him
     
    #5
  6. alienhamster

    alienhamster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,658
    For me Fed is already a more interesting player than Sampras, way less predictable, more variety of shot. But it's hard to say if he'll be a greater player in terms of Slam wins. I just don't think he'll be as consistently daunting and mentally tough as Sampras for the next 8 years or so.
     
    #6
  7. laurie

    laurie Guest

    I would like to add that you can't win 14 slams or get to 18 finals plus win 64 tournaments without having having variety and all the shots. The comments that Federer has more shots is a myth which certain sections of the media keep coming up with.

    If you get the chance to see any Sampras matches from 1990 when he won the Open you'll soon see what I mean. I'm fortunate to have a sizeable collection of his matches from 1990 through 2002 so I know what I'm talkning about.
     
    #7
  8. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    I'd much prefer Federer to show people what Federer can do.
    So far I have been really impressed although I must admit the French Open showing was disappointing but at Wimbledon he was able to win without being able to play his best stuff in the final.

    Many coaches and former players are saying Federer is the most complete player they have ever seen and I honestly can't disagree with that and they know what they are talking about so I've been told. For the record the most impressive slam record I've seen belongs to Borg.
     
    #8
  9. @wright

    @wright Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,567
    I think coming from behind to beat Roddick at Wimby this year has cemented another step to glory for Roger Federer. I remember a year ago, his general reputation was incredible talent, not much resolve. Now we are seeing that he can will a match into his favor, even if he is not playing his absolute best. That is what Sampras did on so many occasions. That is what makes a true champion.
     
    #9
  10. laurie

    laurie Guest

    AAAA, my point is that you have to trust your own eyes and not just listen to so called experts. Also, you have to see some of Sampras' best performances on video/DVD to then make a valid comparison. Memory banks is not enough. Then if you still feel Federer is more complete then I can say fine, I accept that. Of course, people want to move the game on in any sport. One way of doing that is by saying the present is better than the past. In this case, I think the reason this debate has gotten overblown is that the past is so recent! We are almost talking the same era. Nearly all the players Federer is playing now Sampras played at some point.


    For me there are three shots Federer can't match, the slam dunk (that's a one off shot of course), the serve and the running forehand down the line and crosscourt when really stretched.

    I would like to see Federer play more serve and volleyers of the highest calibre, not Max Myrni but the special ones. I'll like to see him forced to go for returns that sets up passing shots. All part of the cat and mouse game that I love. Unfortunately Roddick in the Wimby final had poor positional sense at the net. He was coming in on dodgy slices and leaving one side of the court exposed. In other words, good volleyers cover the line and Roddick was leaving the line exposed. If I remember on one set point he was passed on the backhand side which was almost down the middle of the court! Partly because its not his natural game and he is forcing himself to do it.

    If Federer pulls this current level off for the next five years it wil be very intersting. Sampras won 10 slams by the age of 25 then slowed down. It could be Federer will get better and win more slams in his late 20's than Sampras did.
     
    #10
  11. alienhamster

    alienhamster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,658
    laurie--

    this is a good discussion. thanks for bringing up the point about Pete's signature shots.

    When I say Fed's got more variety in his game, I mean that on a more consistent basis, he mixes up the types of shots he's hitting in every single game: spins, height, length, angles, court position, etc. I also think he's got some crazy improv shots that I've never seen anyone else hit (e.g., a topspin half-volley (?) a few feet away from the net). And this is not to take away from Pete's greatness or anything; I just think Federer is a more interesting player.

    If anything is a myth, it's that there is such thing as a complete player. Certainly, there are fundamentals in the game. But as we're all pointing out here, a few of these guys can actually invent new strokes/techniques, shots no one else has even thought of before.
     
    #11
  12. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,464
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    If he has the desire long enough, he could come close to winning 14 majors. But that is a long time to have that hunger.
     
    #12
  13. dander

    dander Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    321
    these days, mirnyi IS a special serve and volleyer of the highest calibre...
     
    #13
  14. frankseven

    frankseven New User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11
    I tend to agree that this has much to do with his level of competition. I am no expert, but I just don't see the same level of competition that Sampras faced. Roddick, or someone else has to step up and consistently challenge Roger F. So many greats had such wonderful rivalries. Sampras/Agassi, Conners/Mac, ect. Just in my time, I put these players ahead of Fed. And of course I could be a bit biased. In no particular order.

    Sampras
    Agassi
    Lendl
    Mac
    Conners
    Courier
    Becker

    Safin needs to become more of a challenge. And Roddick needs to grow a brain...I don't think his skill will consistently carry him. I hope he doesn't win majors galore without beating opponents that have so many holes.
     
    #14
  15. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    Bjorn Borg. Not many people talk about him around here. He competed in slams over 10(ish) years. In that time he played in something like 27 slams, winning 11 and also made a few other final appearances. People should compare what Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe and Connors achieved in their first 27 slam appearances. None come close to Borg's record in their first 27 slams and 10 years in an individual sport is not a short period of time at the top. 10 years is not a short career in pro sport.

    Laurie, Pete's biggest shot is bigger than Federer's, but when I look at the whole spectrum of shots from all points of the court Federer in My opinion is more accomplished in the vast majority of them, well most of them in my view.
     
    #15
  16. speedofpain88

    speedofpain88 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    357
    The 2 shouldn't be compared at all. 3 grandslams to 14??? If Fed doesn't run out of steam in 2-3 years (which I think he will) he has a shot at it, but still it's a long shot.

    Still, Fed is incredibly talented, but he is winning against what is in my opinion a very weak field (except for Roddick.) Pete had to play against multiple grand slam winners lots of times.
     
    #16
  17. PJVA

    PJVA Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    268
    I agree with this post. Fed is more interesting to watch, but Sampras seemed more unbeatable in his era. In the days of Sampras I wasn't watching tennis consistently but my impression was that the Sampras' serve was considered extremely fast in the 120's. Now lots of players are serving in that range. Sampras had such a consistent serve volley style that made him incredibly difficult to break.....that's what became so boring about his game.

    The interesting factor I ponder though is what would have happened in Sampras era if there had been a number 2 player with a serve in the 140's? What if there had been some 10 other guys serving in the 120's just as hard as Sampras? I have to wonder if the field of competition is deeper now, and if so that's the reason Federer would not win as many majors as Sampras.
     
    #17
  18. speedofpain88

    speedofpain88 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    357
    What's amazing about Pete's serve isn't just the speed, it's the speed and spin combination and the consistency of both his serves. It was almost too common to see Pete serve a 120mph first serve fault and then hit a 110-125mph second serve ace. I don't see that consistency in Andy. There were players that could serve at 140mph while Pete was playing - Goran (#2 in 94 the year Pete won 3 slams) and also Rusedski. And Pete's serve is extremely fast considering how much spin he puts on it. There is nothing boring about his game, what is boring is that people couldn't return his serve.

    Pete had the largest speed to spin ratio on his serve. Pete averaged 120mph on his first serve with spin at almost 3000rpm. He averaged around 105mph on his second serve with spin at around 4500rpm (the fastest spinning shot recorded was a second serve of his that was around 5400rpm at 85mph). Pete never wanted to blast his serve at 140-150mph in the middle of the court - that's returnable (as is showcased by Fed beating Andy so many times). If Pete had ever just gone for speed be assured that he would have been able to serve at 140-150mph as well.

    I disagree that the field of competition is deeper now. Sampras had to play against multiple slam winners over and over again: Agassi, Courier, and Becker to name a few. Fed is playing against Roddick. By the way Pete dominated even though he was predictable - you can't do better than that. Every knows exactly what he's going to do over and over again and still they have no answer.
     
    #18
  19. Mikael

    Mikael Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,037
    Aren't the radar guns different these days - I don't think everybody is serving harder today than 10-15 years ago. I mean, there has been no spectacular breakthrough in technology, no breakthrough in technique, no breakthrough in physical conditioning... It doesn't make sense. The guys out there are training just as hard today as before.
     
    #19
  20. hippoti8

    hippoti8 New User

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    It's definitely possible, but Federer's still got a lot to prove. He's well on his way, but I wouldn't make huge predictions. This example is kinda similar, but look at Tiger Woods. When was his last major? I'm not saying he's not going to come back and win a crap load of majors, but when's it going to happen? Federer could fall into the same type thing.

    But, for the record, I do like Federer and he's obviously a helluva tennis player. It's just a matter of whether he can keep it up.
     
    #20

Share This Page