Originally Posted by shakes1975
Handling big servers is not a common denominator where you can directly draw analogies between players. Because what makes a hell of a difference is how the big server backs up his big serve. Fed's "superior" returns have done squat against Nadal who has one of the weaker serves among top champions. This is because Nadal backs up his serve with a tremendous game.
The entire premise of my argument is that a younger, faster & fitter, "hungrier" Sampras would've backed up his 2nd serve better than he did in this match. He would've been able to close in to the net a little faster, putting himself in a position to hit better volleys.
Also, Fed's not a superior returner to Agassi against big servers. He gets back more returns, which is useful when the server doesn't have great volleys or a great groundgame (see Roddick, Ivanisevic, Krajicek) to back up his serve.
At that stage of Fed's career - 2010 - Fed lost to Berdych in the Wim QF. By your token, I think we can agree that Fed's famed game did not pass the test against an arguably superior player.
LOL @ your point on Krajicek. you would go to any extent to make excuses for Sampras, wouldn't you?
I'm not seeing the connection to the Berdych loss. The Berdych loss shows that he could trouble Federer, and he has gotten him a few times on important occasions (duh). Sampras' loss to Federer, shows that Pete's serve would likely not work as well against Federer, as it did against the others of his time. Hewitt already exposed how Pete would fare against good returners who were also fast on their feet. it's not hard to extrapolate that Federer would enjoy more success.