The 'Real' Reason why Sampras can STILL win Wimby and/or US Open

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Tennis Dude, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    I'm just taking a looking at the video of Sampras playing at the US Open (2002), and it seems like the REAL reason why Sampras can still win and sweep the top players is because he STILL has his serve.

    It's the serve. He's a clutch player with the serve.

    Fed is not a clutch player with the serve in the real sense. He is an all around player, because his volley talents are simply 'better' than the average player these days. His volleys are nowhere near Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and the likes of them ... McEnroe.

    When Fed is in trouble, does he serve & volley? I don't think so. He simply stays back and causes the other individual to makes mistakes. Sampras, on the other hand has a go-to shot: The Serve. Fed doesn't have a go-to shot. Sure, he may have a good serve, but it's not a tried & true, consistent go-to shot. Sampras has that go-to shot with his serve.

    Think about it. If Sampras' serve is the same as before, if not even better, then his volley game, often contingent on his serve, may still be there.

    This is why Sampras mentioned 'licking his chops'!!!!

    Sampras' big serve will simply crush the returner, whoever they are, and whoever they may be; and if it's not an ace, it will certainly place them in a defensive position for Sampras to take care of with an easy put away volley. This is why he is licking his chops when he sees everyone staying back.

    Again, when y'all mention Agassi and how he himself believes that Roger is a great player, remember, Agassi continued while tennis technology changed, and he took advantage of more powerful rackets. Sampras didn't.

    With Sampras, he continued to use the old 85, and still won. When Sampras lost to new players, did Sampras use new technology? No.

    This is why we still don't know whether or not Sampras would fail today with the new technology, because he never actually used it. Agassi did, with his HEAD rackets, didn't he? This is why, now, harnessing new tennis technology today can make Sampras as good, or if not better, especially on the serve.

    Sampras' serve is still there isn't it? If so, he may still have his chances, and capitalize on really licking his chops.

    That blog, is quite interesting. Seriously check it out and make some intelligent comments. www.tennisanalyst.blogspot.com

    Good analysis, good predictions.
     
    #1
  2. Heavy Metal Tennis Star

    Heavy Metal Tennis Star Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,162
    Location:
    U.S. And A.
    #2
  3. SempreSami

    SempreSami Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,627
    Location:
    UK
    How do you know this five years on? What if he left his serve somewhere in that time and can't remember where he put it down? And stop using the term 'licking his chops'.
     
    #3
  4. anointedone

    anointedone Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Strange, I thought the reason you were going to say is because George Bastl might retire before next years Wimbledon.
     
    #4
  5. anointedone

    anointedone Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Umm, the forehand anyone.
     
    #5
  6. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    Rubbish. There is just too much oversimplification of the games of each player that was mentioned.
     
    #6
  7. stormholloway

    stormholloway Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,832
    Location:
    New York City
    Honestly, I think there's an outrageous falsehood in every single one of TennisDude's paragraphs. I'm not even going to point them out.
     
    #7
  8. caesar66

    caesar66 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Athens, Ga
    Just like sampras' big serve "crushed" safin in the 2000 US open final? Seriously man, Sampras' serve is classic but won't hurt many modern players. Ferrer would eat it up.

    and btw i've made intelligent coments about the blog, but you dont seem to respond to them. You treat it like its the gospel of the tennis Bible, when in reality it is quite flawed. I point that out and you look the other way.

    Just because you make more threads with the same flawed postings doesnt make them any more true. Either give this subject a rest or leave.
     
    #8
  9. SempreSami

    SempreSami Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,627
    Location:
    UK
    I'm expecting his next thread to explain that Sampras has a better chance against Federer now that he's lost...
    [​IMG]
    THE PONYTAIL OF DOOM
     
    #9
  10. DashaandSafin

    DashaandSafin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    What a load of BS. Seriously, nobody takes you for real and your tennis blog is garbage. You need to be banned right now.
     
    #10
  11. shintan17

    shintan17 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    776
    Location:
    Bangkok, Thailand
    What have you been smoking?
     
    #11
  12. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    no the real reason is that georg bastl is still around.

    when georg bastl retires, pete will have a chance to win wimbledon.
     
    #12
  13. tbini87

    tbini87 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,543
    Location:
    Chico, CA
    i might agree with you here!

    also wanted to point out that fed does have a great serve, and does use it as a weapon and to get himself out of a jam. that is one thing i actually notice just about everytime i see him play. so thought i would point that out.
     
    #13
  14. Photoshop

    Photoshop Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    892
    Location:
    Florida
    never fail to advertise that blog of yours, do you?
     
    #14
  15. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    Karlovic has a bigger serve than Sampras ever did. The last time I checked his head to head record against Federer was 0-5.
     
    #15
  16. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    but karlovic's serve is DIFFERENT


    yes, karlovic may have a better serve than samp, but i don't think he can follow it up with nice volleys as samp can

    look, guys, i'm not saying samp is going to storm onto the scene, with an s&v style; i think he's smart enough to realize that he will have to develop perhaps a tad, his baseline game, and start contending with the great baseliners such as nadal, fed, roddick, and the likes. but the fact that samp still has his serve, means that he can still volley as well.

    look at fed; does he often do a s&v style of play? i haven't really seen it; it's when he does some sort of serve & volley and sometimes, just sometimes, hits a little over 2 or 3 volleys at a time, and the whole crowd, the whole world 'wow's' at the talent, the skill, "the next greatest player....";

    no no no no no! and again, i say, no!!!!

    fed has not proved himself to be an all around player at the net; it's just that his back baseline game is very good; he's simply another lendl, with a better, much better volley than lendl.

    the dynamics of a serve & volleyer is completely different; the mindset is completely different; you're either an s&v'er or baseliner. fed is a baseliner; samp is a s&v'er.

    if samp returns, i think his mentally will be to seriously stay back more, and more, and simply do what fed does: volley as necessary, when needed ... but, samp may volley a lot lot lot more ... and oh yes, he WILL be lickin' his chops; even now, with his technology (just a guess), he may be salivating like salivating for a nice juicy steak and fries (or frites?) as he watches other players.

    he knows the mental game.

    example: do you guys know why santoro has such a great run? why nalby too?

    because they're smarter, and know the game.

    why is murray so good now, all of a sudden? i think it's because he's smarter, due to his being coached by gilbert, perhaps.

    and samp's mental game, rested for a few years may be the ticket to his comeback, teaching these young 'uns some lessons, and perhaps some new tricks from his bag.

    that blog, by the way, if y'all read it, has a totally completely different tone of writing than that is written here. c'mon.
     
    #16
  17. HBK4life

    HBK4life Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    144
     
    #17
  18. caesar66

    caesar66 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Athens, Ga
    Tennis Dude-
    If you're 36 and know the mental game and playing against 26 year olds, unless you're in excellent shape, you're going to lose (at the pro level). New technology or not, Sampras wouldnt beat them. You act like he can get back to peak level performance in the next 2-3 years. he couldnt. You mention that he's "rested" for a few years. "Rested" is a bit of a confusing term; he put down a racquet completely for three years and has now decided to play exhibitions and champions tour tournaments, with enough practice to keep him fresh for those. I am sure his training will pick up a bit before fed. But that is highly different from someone who rests, keeps a high level fitness and practice regimen, then comes back. Pete's out of practice for the top of the game, and his body is not in the shape it would need to be to outlast any players you list above. Why wont you let him rest on his already immortal career? Even if Fed wins the FO and 15 GS people will still debate that pete was better. Thats because his legacy speaks for itself. Pete was amazing, no ones arguing that. Can he return to a level of play like that of 6-7 years ago? no. let it rest man.

    And I have read every post of that blog, and the tone is different, but that doesnt make it accurate in any way. I read them and then post the inaccuracies/fallacies on here. I encourage others to rip it apart as well.
     
    #18
  19. harleywilson

    harleywilson Rookie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    Georgia
    I loved watching Pistol Pete but you're insane if you think he could win any slam, much less a tournament. Wimbledon is not the same as it was. You can sit back much more now than you could. Can you imagine Sampras having to deal with Nadal's spin on his backhand (never Pete's strength) He's done and he doesn't need to join those who came back way too late.
     
    #19
  20. harleywilson

    harleywilson Rookie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    Georgia
    What set Pete's serve apart from anyone else was the pace + spin, especially on the second serve. It was the best serve ever, IMO.
     
    #20
  21. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
     
    #21
  22. Heavy Metal Tennis Star

    Heavy Metal Tennis Star Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,162
    Location:
    U.S. And A.
     
    #22
  23. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    Simple Logic

    Q: Did anyone ever think that Samp would hit 14 Slams?
    A: No.
    Result = He did

    Q: DId anyone ever think that Fed would be records as he is doing today?
    A: No.
    Result = He did .. and counting.

    Q: Did anyone ever think that Agassi could win Wimbledon?
    A: No.
    Result = He did.

    Q: Does anyone think Samp can come back with a storm?
    A: No.
    Result = He can.
     
    #23
  24. veritech

    veritech Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,002
    Location:
    california

    Q: Did anyone think Roddick would win more than one slam?
    A: Yes.
    Result = He didn't.

    Q: Did anyone ever think Chang's FO was the first of many slams?
    A: Yes.
    Result = It wasn't.

    your opinion is definitely skewed by your love of sampras.
     
    #24
  25. laurie

    laurie Guest

    I haven't looked at or read the blog, but I will answer this post.

    I don't agree with this. Sampras never lost his serve, why should he? What he lost was his movement and his groundstroke game (as a result of loss of movement). I talked about this a couple of weeks ago in another thread. Sampras made significant changes to his game for the 2002 US Open campaign as opposed to the 2000 and 2001 US Open campaigns. You may recall he started working again with Paul Annacone for the 2002 Canadian Open. They must have had a good clear the air chat and look for new ideas, or at least rekindle old ideas.

    What I said before was that Sampras played himself into form in that tournament. And he did that by playing more rallies and cutting down on the chip charge tactic. In 2000 and 2001 he was doing it constantly, regardless of the state of the game. In 2002 he did it when the situation was 15-40 2nd serve, he only did it at certain moments to put the pressure on his opponent.
    In his first match against Portas I think, he stayed back on his own second serve a lot, something he hadn't done on hardcourts since 1999. That carried on against Rusedski, Haas and Roddick. In fact, against Haas and Roddick, it was a delight to see Pete hit the kick serve to the backhand and then hit the forehand down the line for a winner, he did that on a set point against Haas for instance and won about 5 points with that play in the 1st 2 sets of that rd 16 match. So he was mixing up his own game more than he'd been doing and played a really nice semifinal against Schalken with lots of lovely long rallies.

    By the final, Sampras was in much better shape than he was in 2000 and 2001. And by staying back more meant he was playing a much better game and his forehand was really back with a vengeance. And in the final against Agassi, he hit 10 backhand winners, more than Agassi did.

    Had Sampras been willing to mix up his game more in 2000 and 2001, I don't think he would have suffered such a slump but at least he made the adjustments in time.

    It wasn't the serve that won Sampras the Open, it was his willingness to employ aspects of his game that he had neglected for over 2 years.
     
    #25
  26. caesar66

    caesar66 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Athens, Ga
     
    #26
  27. power_play21

    power_play21 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    679
    let me point out to you all that sampras recently dropped a set to mcenroe. that should should put a couple periods on this thread lol.
     
    #27
  28. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    A serve that hits the line is effective no matter how old you are. A 130 mph 36 year old Sampras serve down the T is tougher to return than a 145 mph Roddick serve that is 6 inches inside the box. No one can hit the lines like Sampras did.
     
    #28
  29. laurie

    laurie Guest

     
    #29
  30. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    you said it, superman!


    yes, superman! you said it!

    that's one of my points. his age is irrelevant right now during this 2-3 year period window while his serve can still be "H - O - T".

    If his serve is hot, his volley can follow.
     
    #30
  31. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    cure aids, cancer? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?

     
    #31
  32. caesar66

    caesar66 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Athens, Ga
     
    #32
  33. kingdaddy41788

    kingdaddy41788 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,753
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    When you say he doesn't have a go-to shot, you mean because all of his shots are equally go-to shots, and he could choose from any of them, right?
     
    #33
  34. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    no

    no, he just doesn't have a go to shot.
     
    #34
  35. caesar66

    caesar66 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Athens, Ga
    tell me why his forehand and serve aren't go to shots. Even his volleys when he does go to the net. Pleeease tell me how they aren't go to shots.
     
    #35
  36. Joeyg

    Joeyg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Sarcasm, USA
    MORON! Find another site to publisize your inane blog.
     
    #36
  37. Tennis Dude

    Tennis Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    hey hey hey - no need to call names here

    Hey, no need to name-call here. No need to broadcast your immaturity on this site.

    ... now back to business.

    fed's forehand is good; so is his backhand; so is his serve; so is his volley.

    but what does that have to do with it or all being his go-to shots.

    a go-to shot is one to which a player uses during times of trouble.

    and you, the devil's advocate says: "yeah, and fed is never in trouble" or "that's why all his shots are go-to shots"

    this makes no sense; purely nonsensical.

    fed is simply another lendl with a good volley.

    don't discredit or take away from lendl; this guy was the best for some time; he was impenetrable; he didn't need to volley; his baseline game was almost impeccable; that said, lendl is still not THE GREATEST.

    Enter Pete.

    Pete's forehand: a tornado
    backhand=whipping
    volley=corners his opponents
    serve = unmatched
    fitness=excellent
    finesse=the likes of mcenroe, but not as fluid-looking
     
    #37
  38. power_play21

    power_play21 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    679
    youre right.

    but the reason youre right is because he doesnt need one. theyre all top notch shots. nothing 'breaks down' like with other players that they need a 'go to shot' that always works. All of fed's shots seem to work all the time (well 99% lol)
     
    #38
  39. power_play21

    power_play21 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    679

    i think youre pete sampras hyping us up for the upcoming friendlies!!!

    am i right!!????
     
    #39
  40. veritech

    veritech Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,002
    Location:
    california
    this guy is worse than those sharapova fans on this forum.
     
    #40
  41. JohnP

    JohnP Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    308
    Look guys, stop arguing with him; he played #1 for his high school.
     
    #41
  42. anointedone

    anointedone Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Excellent, but still arguably below Federer's who some consider to have the best forehand ever, or atleast one of.

    Definitely inferior to Federer's backhand, and even Federer's is not in the top 2 or 3 in todays game many feel.

    within reason.

    within reason.

    Highly debateable.


    Even if all you said were true it still wouldnt matter. He is 36 years old and has been away from top level tennis for years. Agassi aged better then Sampras did, Agassi kept playing full time on tour until 36 as well, and even he was finally close to worthless last year by 36 last year, a first week loser at almost every event he played in his Swan Song, including Wimbledon and the U.S Open.
     
    #42
  43. Tennis_Bum

    Tennis_Bum Professional

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    997
    Right on. YAWN! Blah, blah, blah. Sampras blah blah blah. Too slow, can't play on ATP anymore. Just give it up. I saw how slow he was in the Outback events. He won but he can't play like that and expect to win. Check out the Sam Warburg, he ranks 148, but repeatedly beat Sampras at Team Tennis. Say what you will, Sampras is done. He likes to brainwash his fans about technology, but do you hear Laver or Mac or Connors ever talked about if they had a graphite racket they would win a lot more GS? NO! They just retired and be content with what they accomplished.

    What the Sampras vs. Fed match in 2001 to see for yourself who played better that match. Fed read Sampras' serve like reading a 6 grader-level book.
     
    #43
  44. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    Sampras sucks now, Federer doesn't.
    Roddick has a better chance of winning Wimbledon and US Open than Sampras right now, and we all know how hard Roddick has been trying.

    All of Federer's shots are "go-to shots" when you compare them to Sampras. If you want a big serve, ask Isner, Karlovic, and Roddick what went wrong when they played Federer.
     
    #44
  45. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,362
    Sampras won't suck if he would only play in the senior tour. He's the best player there right now :)
     
    #45
  46. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    This OP probably sees a therapist 4-6 times a week. That therapist probably advised him to join a message board so he could interact with people. As many of you pointed out, he lacks a clue. Don't blame the OP, blame the therapist.
     
    #46
  47. origmarm

    origmarm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,207
    Location:
    London
    Its true!

    There was some Graf nut on a while back also (Condi? is that right?), everything became about Graf!

    I have vids of many many of Pete's games that I still love to watch. I recommend this as a form of therapy for the OP to get over the loss of the heat from the ATP
     
    #47
  48. JRstriker12

    JRstriker12 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,366
    The real reason is so you can pimp your blog.
     
    #48
  49. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    I think the serve is still the most important shot in this game.
    Even for Federer, his longevity depends on his serve.

    It's just that you do 'Serve and big forehand" instead of serve-n-volleys of old times.

    But the tennis of now is so much different from past. The surface is slow and the ball is heavy and bigger. That is a huge difference in top echelon of tennis. Players need a few years to adjust for world class tennis. So returning of Sampras at Wimbledon or US Open is pretty unrealistic.
     
    #49
  50. Tennis_Bum

    Tennis_Bum Professional

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    997
    But that doesn't stop Sampras from brainwashing his fans to root for him so that they enshrine him greater than he really was. Big deal, nobody really cares about senior events. They watch it because nothing else better to watch and the tickets are cheap relative to ATP events.

    I would respect Sampras more if he just shut up about weak era, technology and serve and volley game craps. Tennis is not just about serve and volley. You exploit your opponent's weaknesses and play with the conditions and environment. Not everyone has to play serve and volley. It's a good game when the surface is fast but now, the surface is different from those of past years. I wish Sampras would just shut up and be more realistic and be content with what he accomplished.
     
    #50

Share This Page