Originally Posted by Cup8489
For pete, it was his hold game and attacking game. Come ON. Get a clue!
Two things: serve and volley. It seemed to work very well, but it's true that we can question the actual impact of these things separately as holding serve requires many things to go on as a whole and seeing his clay record might help to do so. However, we'd need to know the scores on several matches he had, as well as maybe the length of the average rally... maybe his serve had an impact only very few players could mimic, even on clay, but what if he didn't have that extra juice on the forehand or backhand from mid-court to end the point convincingly on a regular basis when playing on clay? Then, the end point blurs our vision of what was his serve simply because he couldn't finish properly what the serve allowed him to get. We might also find in some occasion a serve competition where he looses the match because he can't return well on clay. The point is that we can't jump to the conclusion as the one you responded to did.
In general, Sampras did hold his serve very well, exceptionally well, in fact and I think he was more of a threat as a server than Federer has ever been, although it's probably not that immense of an edge.