Wimbledon. Peak Sampras v Peak Federer. Who would win?

[RS]

Yeah, I can see what you mean. PETE and Fed both had their easier titles at Wimby. But I think their overall levels were great enough that it probably wouldn’t have mattered much against stronger opposition.

IMO if anyone is overrated at Wimbledon it’s Djokovic. His grass level is closer to his clay level than it is his HC level and he hasn’t looked so convincing in some of his wins.

Sampras competition on grass get overhyped due to the overrated view of the deep fields and men’s tennis being so much better back then and all these flash players suddenly ATG stuff. I don’t think Federer grass competition is overrated apart from Roddick in 03/04 actually it was more Pete.

Fair enough about Djoko.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Fed doesn't have better volleys. Likewise, Sampras doesn't have a better FH.

I'm talking about when the two were at their peaks. And it is clearly demonstrated with the videos we have of both players.

Fed has a much better volleying technique. Sampras's volleying is flattered by his big First Serve. If he hits that First Serve well and follows it in to the net, his put away volley is highly effective. But when coming into the net behind an approach shot, Federer's volleying is at another level on both sides.

Sampras has the better FH when the ball is in the slot. Federer has the better running FH.

 

[Spencer Gore]

On the original fast grass? Sampras in straight sets.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Fed has a much better volleying technique. Sampras's volleying is flattered by his big First Serve. If he hits that First Serve well and follows it in to the net, his put away volley is highly effective. But when coming into the net behind an approach shot,

Sampras has the better FH when the ball is in the slot. Federer has the better running FH.

Obviously very high level trolling. Sampras' volleying was 10 times superior to Fed, who still has lousy technique on his FH volley. And Pete's running FH was the greatest in history. This sentence is particularly epic level trollery:

Federer's volleying is at another level on both sides.

Tell that to Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, Rafter or Pete, all of whom make Fed look like a junior at net. And I say that as a Fed fan!

 

[TennisProExpert]

Are there any better?

Djokovic. 3-0 in finals vs Wimbledon GOAT.

 

[TennisProExpert]

On the original fast grass? Sampras in straight sets.

Federer 1 - 0 Sampras at Wimbledon.

your post is fantasy land.

 

[-NN-]

Sampras.

 

[King No1e]

90's grass: Sampras servebots his way to the win
00's grass: Federer gets extra time, hurts Pete's serve more.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Federer 1 - 0 Sampras at Wimbledon.

your post is fantasy land.

They played after the grass was changed. Sampras would win rather easily on the fast grass, I suspect. Not that I think he was a better tennis player than Federer -he wasn't. But the conditions suited his game perfectly.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Obviously very high level trolling.

Why is it when you don't agree with something you resort to the "trolling" option?

Sampras' volleying was 10 times superior to Fed

LOL. Sure it wasn't 20 times better? Maybe 50 times better?

Federer's volleying is at another level on both sides.

Tell that to Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, Rafter or Pete, all of whom make Fed look like a junior at net. And I say that as a Fed fan!

I was comparing Sampras and Federer.

John Newcombe was a better volleyer on Grass than all the guys you mention.

They played after the grass was changed.

The changing of the speed of the grass at Wimbledon is a complete myth that continues to grow over the years.

The pace of the grass is a function of the wear and tear of the courts surface and the weather.

The modern baseline game leaves more of the court surface in good condition over the two weeks. You can easily see that by comparing photos of Centre Court on the Final Day in the 1970s and in the 2010s. Much more court wear in the 1970s because of a lot more serve and volleying that would cut up the parts of the court the ball would bounce on. This makes the ball stay low ... which gives the illusion that the ball is travelling faster.

The court curators tried to counter that by not cutting the grass surface as much. It is typically cut 2mm less these days than before 2000. All this does is allow the ball to bounce a little more consistently and a little higher. But it does not slow the pace of the court.

Also modern tennis racquets and strings, and evolution of stroke technique means the balls are travelling faster now than in the past.

So even if the court surface was slower, which it isn't, it would be more than compensated for by the use of modern equipment.

 

[aldeayeah]

Depending on the grass, the returning side would have a hard time or a very hard time. I can see a lot of tiebreaks.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Depending on the grass, the returning side would have a hard time or a very hard time. I can see a lot of tiebreaks.

And that is one of the main reasons why the grass is left longer. Higher bounce means better chance of returning serve. But it doesn't mean the incoming ball is any slower than it ever was. Again, if anything, modern equipment and athleticism would mean the serve is actually faster.

 

[Spencer Gore]

The changing of the speed of the grass at Wimbledon is a complete myth that continues to grow over the years.

The pace of the grass is a function of the wear and tear of the courts surface and the weather.

The modern baseline game leaves more of the court surface in good condition over the two weeks. You can easily see that by comparing photos of Centre Court on the Final Day in the 1970s and in the 2010s. Much more court wear in the 1970s because of a lot more serve and volleying that would cut up the parts of the court the ball would bounce on. This makes the ball stay low ... which gives the illusion that the ball is travelling faster.

The court curators tried to counter that by not cutting the grass surface as much. It is typically cut 2mm less these days than before 2000. All this does is allow the ball to bounce a little more consistently and a little higher. But it does not slow the pace of the court.

Also modern tennis racquets and strings, and evolution of stroke technique means the balls are travelling faster now than in the past.

So even if the court surface was slower, which it isn't, it would be more than compensated for by the use of modern equipment.

What are you talking about? They literally changed the grass seed mixture before the 2001 Wimbledon Championships.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

What are you talking about? They literally changed the grass seed mixture before the 2001 Wimbledon Championships.

And interestingly at that edition, a combination of factors seemed to provide conditions not too dissimilar to years previous. Rafter, Ivanisevic, Henman and Agassi in the semis, and Federer playing Sampras with essentially the same playstyle. The last hyper aggressive Wimbledon it seems.

 

[Karma Tennis]

What are you talking about? They literally changed the grass seed mixture before the 2001 Wimbledon Championships.

I explained it. The change to the seed mix made the grass more robust to wear and tear. But it did not make the courts "slower" as demonstrated by @TearTheRoofOff in the previous post.

The AELTCC would never deliberately slow the courts down. Wimbledon operates primarily on the basis of "Tradition". Deliberately slowing courts down would be anathema to 100 years of "Tradition".

Like I said, don't confuse a higher bouncing ball with a slower bouncing ball.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

I think it would be much closer than people think and it could go either way. People tend to underestimate Peak Grasserer because of his losses against Nadal and Djokovic. Do you really think they wouldn't have been a nightmare for Sampras on today's grass ?

 

[r2473]

 

[aman92]

Would still pick Peak Fed... People underestimate how good he was on Grass from 2004-07

 

[Karma Tennis]

Would still pick Peak Fed... People underestimate how good he was on Grass from 2004-07

Fed was supreme on grass during that period. That is where he built his fame and worldwide following which continues to this day.

I would love to see the breakdown of Poll Voters by Nationality. Eliminate Americans and Swiss from the poll and see what the numbers are.