Sampras without his serve and volley?

[Matt H.]

i think i'm alone on this, but i really don't think Pete's backhand is all that bad.

His slice was pretty low and had great depth most of the time, and in every big match or classic match i've seen of Pete, he's ripped a few incredible backhand shots down the line.

In some of his matches against Guga, who has a backhand that everyone drools over on this board, Pete was trading them back and forth with no problem.

[li0scc0]

Who knows how good he would have been? Probably not as good as he was, of course. But from a young age he would have worked on being, say, a power baseliner. And thus developed his skill in that manner.

The real answer is..we do not know. Certainly there are players I know of who 'converted' from serve and volleyers to baseliners, with success. And, of course, vice-versa. But not everybody can. Could Pete Sampras have done so? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows, however.

[Matt H.]

if he had a regular serve and volley, he'd have been Tim Henman.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by Mick

agassi would have owned sampras if sampras could not serve and volley like he could.

and Brad Gilbert.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by TennisLurker

A better question would be, How good would Sampras have been with the serve of Edberg or Rafter?

Both had serves good enough for serve and volley, but were not big servers like Pete.

good question and a simple answer:

with an Edberg or Rafter serve he would have won 8 majors. Edberg had a very good serve as did Rafter. But his volley/quickness and baseline game being heads above the other two I would guess 2 more majors than Edberg.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

if he had a regular serve and volley, he'd have been Tim Henman.

wooa, lets not go crazy. don't forget Pete had a very good baseline game. Rafter, Henman, Martin, Goran, Kraijek and some other S&V players had no where near the baseline game...Pete was an all-court player. Henman was not.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by li0scc0

Who knows how good he would have been? Probably not as good as he was, of course. But from a young age he would have worked on being, say, a power baseliner. And thus developed his skill in that manner.

The real answer is..we do not know. Certainly there are players I know of who 'converted' from serve and volleyers to baseliners, with success. And, of course, vice-versa. But not everybody can. Could Pete Sampras have done so? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows, however.

You are correct. In Pete's book he clearly states he did not have a serve until the year he won his first USO. He was a marginal server. I was also a bit surprised and re-read it to be sure...he somehow grea this monster serve just a few months before the Open. He already HAD a power baseline game because he was not a great server until near age 19. I always thought he was born that way...he always had a big serve, not true according to Pete.

[35ft6]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

i think i'm alone on this, but i really don't think Pete's backhand is all that bad.

It wasn't terrible, and he could definitely rip it, but his normal body shot was pretty short and loopy. Not short like Nadal forehand kicking like a kick serve short, but just short. Never understood how he could come over the ball on the backhand with a bent elbow.

Maybe my memory is bad, but I don't remember Sampras hitting a lot of crosscourt backhand winners. It almost seemed like he only had two speeds on his top spin backhand: a loopy one he used to keep the point neutral by hitting crosscourt, and a down the line bomb. No heavy, 85% speed backhand he could use to push his opponent back.

[tennisdad65]

It is ridiculous to take away both the serve and volley

Assume his serve was 'only' as good as edberg/mac/rafter, he would have developed into a much better volleyer.. He would probably be closer to edberg/mac on the volleys. Those guys won 6-7 slams. Pete had a better ground game than mac or edberg. I think Pete would still have won 8-10 slams even if his serve was 'only' as good as edberg/mac.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

In another thread on here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=298502

samprasvsfederer123 opined that Pete Sampras would have been a "dazzling" player, even without his serve and his volleying.

I do regard Sampras as a great player. But I happen to believe that his three best weapons on which he built his game were:
1) his serve
2) his volleying
3) his forehand

samprasvsfederer123 suggests to truly measure Sampras's greatness, we should erase the first two of these. That leaves Sampras with his big forehand and his backhand, and hypothetically (because we have removed his serve and volleying), we must relegate him to the backcourt with a mediocre serve.

So how good would Sampras have been--in your opinion--as a purely backcourt player with a really good forehand?

Was the poster samprasvsfederer123 referring to taking away Sampras's serve and his volley, or his serve-and-volley?

I think it would make quite a difference in this discussion if we allow Sampras to retain all his strokes but keep him from using the serve-and-volley strategy.

[hoodjem]

^^^You got me.? Here's the OP:

Originally Posted by samprasvsfederer123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GPm...eature=related

federer only had nadal to stop him, sampras had a much harder time, federer might be the better overall player cause he could do something good in clay but when these two face each others' strengths like grass, or hard court no matter the speed of the courts i think sampras would win. sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and volleying.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

^^^You got me.? Here's the OP:

Well, he did not say "serve and volley" or "serving and volleying".

Which makes it very likely that his phrase "serve and volleying" refers to the S&V strategy rather than taking away both the serve and the volley from Sampras' arsenal.

But why am I analyzing someone else's sentence (After all, he is no Immanuel Kant)?

Let him come up with his own reply.

[President of Serve/Volley]

How many MORE slams Sampras would have won if his Volleys were as good as Edberg or J-Mac? and with that serve he had, I say 17.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by President of Serve/Volley

How many MORE slams Sampras would have won if his Volleys were as good as Edberg or J-Mac? and with that serve he had, I say 17.

probably still 14. Ed/Mac weren't perfect either. Pete was darn close regardless. besdies, Pete won so often because of his all-court game. if you give him better volley skills, it would be assumed his back-court game would suffer slightly. so maybe even less than 14.

[darthpwner]

I have a question about Pete's backhand. Ive heard that Sampras used an eastern backhand grip. I personally use an eastern backhand grip with the base knuckle at the top of the handle. I find it hard to believe that Pete used an eastern backhand because he hit with a bent elbow. Considering he used a 2 handed backhand in his younger days, I believe that Pete Fischer neglected to change Sampras' grip over from continental to eastern backhand grip during the switch. Does Pete use an eastern backhand or a continental backhand?

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

i think i'm alone on this, but i really don't think Pete's backhand is all that bad.

His slice was pretty low and had great depth most of the time, and in every big match or classic match i've seen of Pete, he's ripped a few incredible backhand shots down the line.

In some of his matches against Guga, who has a backhand that everyone drools over on this board, Pete was trading them back and forth with no problem.

no, you are not alone on this. count me in !

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by scotus

Well, he did not say "serve and volley" or "serving and volleying".

Which makes it very likely that his phrase "serve and volleying" refers to the S&V strategy rather than taking away both the serve and the volley from Sampras' arsenal.

But why am I analyzing someone else's sentence (After all, he is no Immanuel Kant)?

Let him come up with his own reply.

I know, he said "serve and volleying."

[pc1]

I'm not sure what to make of this thread. The serve and volley game is a game of the Sampras style and makes Pete what he is, the greatest player of the 1990's. Sampras held serve by percentage more often than anyone in the 1990's and he didn't do it by staying at the baseline after serving.

That being written, Sampras obviously had a lot of great physical talent. The guy was a very smooth and quick movement with a very penetrating forehand, arguably the best forehand in tennis. If he didn't serve and volley I'm sure his backhand would have been different because he would have had to adapt to the baseline game.

I don't think Sampras had the greatest backhand but it was good in that it fit into his style of play, which was to often be used to slice and approach the net. Sampras' backhand was excellent for that purpose and for many other reasons.

If we assume Sampras just served (assuming his serve was the same type of serve) and also never followed it to the net, he would still control the point because that awesome serve (and second serve) would not allow his opponent to hit an offensive return. I think Sampras would be excellent if he didn't serve and volley.

Would it allow him to win as many Wimbledons? Maybe not but maybe he may have won a lot more clay court titles and maybe a French or two.

It's hard to imagine Sampras getting better if he changed his style considering the great results he actually had but I think he would have been a tremendous player. The man had a great will to win and he would have found a way if he played with a different style. The Newcombe comment about Sampras when the Aussies played against the United States was very impressive to me about Pete's will to win.

Now if his serve was average and he rarely volleyed, well you're removing one of the great weapons in the history of tennis and that has to hurt him. I think he would have compensated in other areas but it would be very hard to replace that serve in total. I think he would have still been a terrific player but it kind of nice to have a serve that erases mistakes. Agassi said that Pete can play lousy for 43 minutes, play well for a minute or two and win the set. That's because of the awesome serve.

His movement as always would be superb, you figure that he would even work harder to improve his stamina and you figure his backhand would be more of a drive from the backhand. I think he would still be excellent.

[Q&M son]

Originally Posted by Azzurri

incorrect. Pete was far from one-dimensional.

Exactly. Not at all.