was watching fed vs sampras...

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dima, Feb 18, 2007.

  1. dima

    dima Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    727
    and it's a good thing they slowed down the courts at Wimbledon, it's either aces, or unreturnables, or 2 punch plays, no rallies at all, maybe a few.
     
    #1
  2. AJK1

    AJK1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,219
    Nah, it's just the two best grass court players of the last two decades nullifying each others games. Beautiful!
     
    #2
  3. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    That match was a nightmare for men's tennis; both player's registered over 25 Aces (yawn).
     
    #3
  4. dima

    dima Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    727
    Well, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either, 50 aces is a LOT.
     
    #4
  5. ne1410is

    ne1410is Guest

    I'm sure it FELT great for each player to PLAY that match. But yeah to watch it was painful. I prefer seeing rallies. And the bloodlust hatred that certain women players have for each other.
     
    #5
  6. caulcano

    caulcano Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,637
    Try telling that to the "S&V" lovers....
     
    #6
  7. Lambsscroll

    Lambsscroll Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,471
    Location:
    United States
    That match shows Fed has Petes strengths but doesn't have his weaknesses.
     
    #7
  8. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Yeah, and people have the nerve to say Pete didn't serve well.
     
    #8
  9. chair ump

    chair ump Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    554
    This analysis is spot on.
     
    #9
  10. dima

    dima Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    727
    Yeah, fed was returning unbelievably well in the first 2 sets.
     
    #10
  11. nickb

    nickb Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,292
    Good match but not really a good analysis of who would be the better player in their prime. People use the match to say Federer is better but you cant really say that as sampras was coming to the end of his career.
     
    #11
  12. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I beg to differ. Pete's serve percentage in that match was a whopping 69%, which is incredible. In fact, it was better than any match in his 7 Wimbledon titles. Additionally he was routinely hitting second serves in the 120's.
     
    #12
  13. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Yawn this conversation

    What are you begging to differ on ?

    1st Serve percentage isn't what interests me personally, what does interest me is the Points Won stat for 67%.

    Everyone with half a brain ..... (Broken Record)
     
    #13
  14. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    ^^^^ Interesting, you are the one that brought up the whole serve thing, and didn't include the TOTAL points won.

    However, even if he would have had a first serve perecntage of 100% you would still say he had a bad service day? LOL
     
    #14
  15. ChiefAce

    ChiefAce Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    757
    Pete served unbelievably, but Roger returned better. Roger beat Pete for the same reason that Hewitt had his number, he was able to make a high enough percentage of returns to win the match. Thus the reason why Agassi lost his career head to head with Pete, he would hit some spectacular big returns but never got a high enough percentage back in play. And the Agassi is the best returner in history theory is garbage, you can't give that title to a guy who gave up 51 aces in one match.
     
    #15
  16. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Blah blah blah

    No one is changing or dodging Rainman. Now go take your medicine.
     
    #16
  17. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    nick irons,

    i don't want to butt in, but couldn't help it. an interesting arguement was developing between u and drakulie. i wish u would substantiate ur statements with some logic or stats rather than calling drakulie names. at least he's putting up stats to bolster his point.

    sampras served at 69 % and hit some 2nd serves at 120 mph. which is something he never did in his prime. fed returned a very high %age of serves.

    sampras didn't lose that match bcos of his serve. he lost it bcos he lost some footspeed and couldn't get to the net quickly enough to close out the volley.

    btw, fed and agassi have their strengths in returns. fed is better than agassi in getting back even the biggest serves into play (fed has longer range, and doesn't guess as much as agassi) but agassi is better than fed in punishing the slightly slower serves (read 2nd serves) and gaining control of the point outright. IMO, against servers like sampras, ivanisevic, phillippoussis etc., it's better to have a return like fed's than agassi's. OTOH, against servers like henman, edberg, rafter etc., it's better to have agassi's returns.
     
    #17
  18. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    I agree !

    But when it's over, it's over. It's not suddenly 'Kind of over'.
     
    #18
  19. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    I remember watching some clips of that match recently, and what struck me was how average Fed's footwork (great speed but stood up a bit too much) was then as well as his tendency to slice his BH rather than drive. But, then what also struck me was his hand/eye coordination was so damn good that he could block back Sampras's running FH better than almost anybody I've ever seen. I guess it's clear to me that Fed's overall technique was nowhere near the level of his 2004 self.

    Sampras looked tired throughout, and his volleying wasn't crisp. But he played a very good match, certainly a terrific first week match. In any case, that game could have swung either way, and maybe the result swings 50/50 had they played a number of times then.
     
    #19
  20. aramis

    aramis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    575
    Well, to be honest, Fed was returning with a lot more conviction in that match than what he does now. If Fed were to return Pete's serve the way he returns Roddick's (by just floating it back deep), wouldn't Pete be able to punish him with his volleys? I guess my real question is that against a strong serve and volleyer, wouldn't it be better to return aggressively like Agassi or like Federer did in that match, rather than just settle for putting the ball back in play?
     
    #20
  21. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423

    I think Federer returns MUCH harder and with more conviction now then he ever has. You can see the difference just by watching a video of Federer now and then.
     
    #21
  22. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    It was pretty boring IMO.
     
    #22
  23. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    Yeah, I think it's better to take on the serve like Agassi, because a good S&Ver is going to control majority of his points anyway if the passing shot isn't too fine.

    Fed's return game actually wasn't nearly as exceptional in that match. For example, Fed's passing shots, particularly on the BH side, are now hit with more angles and spin than at that time. The difference was that Sampras just wasn't moving as well as he normally did on his approach shots. Slower to react and so he was passed more than normal.

    Again to reiterate: Fed was very, very average for him in that match. And Sampras looked like a guy who just played a marathon the match before. Neither was near their peak.
     
    #23
  24. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    If he doesnt hit a winner he is stuck in no mans land on one side of the court, making typical volley a winner. At least when you hang back some you have a better shot at the pass.

    Fed and hewitt do it right, keep the ball low and win the pt on the 2nd shot.
     
    #24
  25. VGP

    VGP Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,311
    Location:
    Location: Location
    Honestly, I think Federer zoned that day. He even alluded to that in his interview clips from the "Legends of Wimbledon: Pete Sampras" program.

    His consistent level of play in 2001 was not what it is now.

    Good for him to be able to really tap into the potential he had in '01 and be able to work it over the whole year.

    Sampras was pushed and just dropped his level on his last service game. He got himself in a hole at 15-40 and his slice serve just slipped right into Federer's forehand. One swipe and it was over.
     
    #25
  26. ACE of Hearts

    ACE of Hearts G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    14,074
    Fed had so many break chances in the first 2 sets, he could have been up 2 sets to start.
     
    #26
  27. mileslong

    mileslong Professional

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,396
    Location:
    newport beach, california
    neither man was in his prime, sampras had just passed his and federer had yet to reach his, so who is/was better?
     
    #27
  28. jaisrh

    jaisrh New User

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    29
    Sampras only won 1 title in 2000 which was at Wimbledon and none in 2001. He went two years without a title from Wimbledon 2000 until US Open 2002. Compare that to the 90's when he averaged about 6 titles a year. He still won 5 titles in 1999 even though he missed over 2 months near the end of the year because of a back injury before the US Open. I remember he had beaten Agassi 3 straight times in winning 3 titles in a row. He beat Agassi in the Wimbledon final, Agassi again in the LA final, Agassi in the Cincinnati semifinals and Rafter in the finals of that tournament. He had to retire against Spadea in Indianapolis and did'nt play again until the Paris indoors in early november. Sampras was shaping up to be the heavy favorite at the US Open that year after beating Agassi 3 straight times, 2 of them on hard court while also beating 2-time defending US Open champion Pat Rafter in straight sets at Cincinnati. Those two guys were the 2 favorites after Pete. His injury allowed Agassi to take the '99 US Open otherwise Pete very likely would have gotten another Slam and ended up number 1 for the 7th straight year instead of dropping to a year end number 3.

    Sampras' 1999 matches http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/playe...=Singles&selTournament=0&player=S402&x=14&y=3

    Anyway, Sampras met his future wife while rehabbing in LA and I think that was the beginning of the end for his career. Sampras came back strong to win the year-end championships beating Agassi in the final but he only won 2 titles in his last 3 years from 2000-2002 (inclusive) vs the 6 per year he averaged in the 90's. Personally I think he lost his focus and singlemindedness about tennis as opposed to losing it physically. He used to be obsessed about winning but lost some of that after his injury and meeting Bridget Wilson. They were engaged by June 2000 and married before the end of that year. I think he was less committed to putting in the same intensity and effort in training he used to do and it showed in his results. Besides the US Open in 1999 that he probably would have won if not for his injury, Pete could have won a few more than he did from 2000-2002 if he had'nt lost his obsession with winning before his injury and meeting his future wife.

    So Sampras was definitely past his peak when he faced Federer in 2001.

    Federer on the other hand was still 2-3 years from the complete game he has shown today. He played well that day but his overall game was a notch or two below his current level. His backhand and serve have both improved and I am comparing his average level back then to his average level now as opposed to individual matches where his level can spike or dip below his average. Federer is scary nowadays because of how high a level he can consistently maintain. Even when he struggles it's hard to other guys to beat him whereas Sampras usually lost at least a handful of early round matches per year even in the 90's. Federer gets to the finals almost every time and wins them most of the time.

    Anyway those two guys are my all-time favorite players to watch. Sampras was my favorite serve and volley player. Federer is my favorite all court player. Sampras had the edge on serves and volleys where Federer has the edge on his groundstrokes and return game. Even though Sampras had the better serve and volley, Federer has a pretty good serve and net game of his own so he is more well-rounded. Federer has both a strong service game and a strong return game which is the main separation point between him and Sampras.
     
    #28
  29. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    10 Minute Highlight of Match on Youtube. It seems to be focused more on Federer so lets not use this as evidence, but it's a lot more entertaining than the match itself I think. Comment left for video:
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2007
    #29
  30. scotus

    scotus Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,710
    Sampras probably looked tired, because he was playing a nobody, hence no motivation. Federer, on the other hand, was playing against a living legend, so he was maximally motivated.

    Had Sampras known that he was up against a future king of tennis, one who could possibly break his record, then he would have come into the match with a different mindset.
     
    #30
  31. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    I figured Sampras playing a marathon match prior affected his movement too. Probably should be noted, Sampras played well in that match. Given that players at that time were still either/or when it came down to baseline and net approach styles, Sampras hadn't worked out a strategy against this kid. As you and Fastdunn have said another time, Sampras would have played Fed much differently were they to meet again.
     
    #31
  32. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    Yeah, as I said, I think Sampras under-estimated fed's return game.
    I think many people didn't notice his return game in Fed's early days.
    (scotous, I don't know if Fed was nobody at the time, though.
    AFAIK, Sampras was #10 and Federer was #15 or something like that...)

    As you said earlier tricky, I found Fed's footwork was not as good as
    today's. To me, Fed's footwork looked a bit stiff compared to today.
    When he served, for example, his footwork was kinda stiff, almost
    reminded me of Brad Gilbert's serving motion.... (Ok not that bad.but..)
     
    #32
  33. ibemadskillzz

    ibemadskillzz Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    pete played so bad that day. he looked way too stiff, even missed a slam dunk.
     
    #33
  34. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Yeah, Pete played horribly THAT particular day, and especially played horribly THOSE 3 sets he lost.

    The two set he won>>>>> he just happened to be in his prime.
     
    #34
  35. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    drakulie, I've seen some good postings by you but you seem to have
    unusual fixation on this issue....

    what are you trying to prove here ? you want to prove even immature
    Federer can beat Sampras in prime ? Do you want everybody in this
    world agree with you ?
     
    #35
  36. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    fast, just calling it like I see it. Your opinion>> he played horribly.

    My opinion>> he played very well, and served extremely good. Just so happens as it often does, you can't win every match. In this case, he came up short.

    PS: I didn't start this thread, and am replying in it as I see fit>>>>>> same as you. :)
     
    #36
  37. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    Making your own opinion is fine but don't make a false accusation.

    I did not say he played "horribly". I said he did not play his best game
    that day and he was already off his prime. In fact, I said neither of
    Sampras or Federer played their best game that day...
     
    #37
  38. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    ^^^^ OK. I think you get my point.
     
    #38
  39. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,949
    I think people place way too much importance on one single match. All a single match shows is that one player was in slightly better form that particular day. Fed or Sampras would both have their hands full each time they played if they were to have played more. Fed has his hands full against a young Murray, nevermind a 14 time slam winner.

    One thing that really stood out in that Fed Sampras match was Feds aggresive returning. He looked to be in the zone that day. He blocks way more now.


    ..and I migth just add that I think Fed would make a fantastic cricketer with those superb blocks.

     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2007
    #39
  40. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,046
    ^Good point about RF's returns.^

    I think he blocks a lot more now because it is a better and safer way to get into points against big servers who do not come in very much.
    Against a guy like Pete, who could volley well enough to take RF out of a point quickly, I think the more aggressive returning was a calculated risk.

    These days, Rog mixes in some aggressive returning.....just depends upon the opponent and the circumstance. You do not find him blocking as often against a Mirnyi, a Henman or a Bjorkman....at least not when it is time for a break.
     
    #40
  41. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Great point, however you unfortunately contradicted yourself with the following statement:

    The aforementioned is ONE match, and he did beat a 14 time slam winner.
     
    #41
  42. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    No, I'm afraid that's not the case. It's not about agreeing on issues.

    The whole point is that it's hard to get your point from your postings.
    You often lose some control in your posting fixating on Federer's greatness.
     
    #42
  43. iamke55

    iamke55 Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,084
    Wasn't Sampras on a 31-match winning streak before he lost to Federer? If that's not his prime, then the competition must have been terrible in 2001. Sampras also did much better in slams that year than Federer did, making you wonder which player was really closer to his prime.
     
    #43
  44. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    What is so hard to understand from my posts??

    Here it is again>>> I feel Pete served very well, and well enough to win.

    Maybe what is confusing you is that I don't make excuses for Pete losing.
     
    #44
  45. Lambsscroll

    Lambsscroll Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,471
    Location:
    United States

    Playing against Fed will make you look bad.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2007
    #45

Share This Page