Better athlete: Federer or Sampras

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by dangalak

I wanted to compare Sampras and Nadal, but many would dismiss Pete because of his lack of stamina.

So I am comparing him to a lesser athlete in Federer. Who is more athletic in your opinion.

I dispute your premise that Federer is the lesser athlete than Nadal. He may not have the pure strength or footspeed, but, athleticism is more than that. It also includes balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination.

With that in mind, IMO, Sampras was faster and stronger than either of them. But, I still give Federer the edge over Sampras in terms of balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination. The proof, I submit, can be found in Federer's superior return game. Federer can stand in close and still handle the biggest serves. Sampras could do that, but, not at the level Fed does, or did.

So, on balance, I have to call it a draw between Federer and Sampras, and I give both of them an edge over Nadal.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I dispute your premise that Federer is the lesser athlete than Nadal. He may not have the pure strength or footspeed, but, athleticism is more than that. It also includes balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination.

With that in mind, IMO, Sampras was faster and stronger than either of them. But, I still give Federer the edge over Sampras in terms of balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination. The proof, I submit, can be found in Federer's superior return game. Federer can stand in close and still handle the biggest serves. Sampras could do that, but, not at the level Fed does, or did.

So, on balance, I have to call it a draw between Federer and Sampras, and I give both of them an edge over Nadal.

I'm one of Pete's biggest fans but he didn't have a very good balance when playing on clay. Fedal moves great everywhere..

[Bjorn99]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Still nonsense.. Fed at no time was a better ROS then Andre. Please... Andre is hands down the best ROS in history

Agassi is NOT a better returner than Federer. Federer totally dismantles big serves. Negates them entirely. And that is why Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon really. Sampras kept cranking up, and the ball kept coming back at angles and depth that Pete couldn't adjust to.

Federer beat Sampras when he was a teenager at the worlds biggest stage, and at the place where Sampras least wanted to be beaten at.

Athlete? Who cares about that? Tennis player? Federer, by a mile. And Pete was great. But Pete relied mostly on the big serve. And I am saying that Federer delighted in their one and ONLY encounter in returning it with ease. No contest really. And strokes and movement. WATCH THE MATCH.

[Bjorn99]

Words are lost on most people. Myself included from time to time,but pictorially, this clip on youtube should demonstrate what I am talking about.

Richard K. had a better serve than anyone, including Pete, and this is almost cruel, what Federer did to the guy. Cruel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN1Vh0WA

[Dharmaboy]

Speed. Sampras easy. He was on you so fast if there was a short ball and unless you were Agassi, your pass was handled with ease.

Fed's mental endurance as well as the physical has made him win some tough battles

[mattennis]

By the way, (and a bit off topic here but I have just seen it). There were very slow outdoor hardcourts in the 90s as well, look at how slow conditions (specially balls) were in the Australian Open of 1997 (baseliners, most of them clay-courters, reached QF or better that year like Muster, Moya, Costa, Mantilla, Rios, Chang). Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l7YhNCmVCo

But the thing is that there were obviously very fast hardcourts as well and indoor carpet.

Today, almost all outdoor harcourts (and balls) are like this one of AusOpen'97 or even slower (and there's no carpet anymore).

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Bjorn99

Agassi is NOT a better returner than Federer. Federer totally dismantles big serves. Negates them entirely. And that is why Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon really. Sampras kept cranking up, and the ball kept coming back at angles and depth that Pete couldn't adjust to.

Federer beat Sampras when he was a teenager at the worlds biggest stage, and at the place where Sampras least wanted to be beaten at.

Athlete? Who cares about that? Tennis player? Federer, by a mile. And Pete was great. But Pete relied mostly on the big serve. And I am saying that Federer delighted in their one and ONLY encounter in returning it with ease. No contest really. And strokes and movement. WATCH THE MATCH.

You are actually using a match where young Federer played OUT OF HIS MIND against one of Sampras' worst days at Wimbledon? Good luck with that!

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

You are actually using a match where young Federer played OUT OF HIS MIND against one of Sampras' worst days at Wimbledon? Good luck with that!

WRONG.

Sampras serving that day was well above his normal standard. He served 69% that day and had more pop on it than during his prime years. Sampras normally don't serve this high %, and many of previous Wimbledon matches his serve % was in the 50, yet he still win because the other player's return are inferior to Roger.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by TMF

WRONG.

Sampras serving that day was well above his normal standard. He served 69% that day and had more pop on it than during his prime years. Sampras normally don't serve this high %, and many of previous Wimbledon matches his serve % was in the 50, yet he still win because the other player's return are inferior to Roger.

WRONG. As Brad Gilbert said, Sampras was most dangerous when his 1st serve % is around 50%. This is when he was most confident with his serve and will go the the biggest serves. His high % meant he wasn't going for his 1st serve, and was resorting to playing safe usually when he had a bad day, and had to rely on high percentage on 1st serve. Unless you think you know more than Brad Gilbert, who was Agassi's coach and studied Pete's game very thoroughly.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

WRONG. As Brad Gilbert said, Sampras was most dangerous when his 1st serve % is around 50%. This is when he was most confident with his serve and will go the the biggest serves. His high % meant he wasn't going for his 1st serve, and was resorting to playing safe usually when he had a bad day, and had to rely on high percentage on 1st serve. Unless you think you know more than Brad Gilbert, who was Agassi's coach and studied Pete's game very thoroughly.

??????????????????????????????

You're saying Pete's 1st serve is easier to deal with than his 2nd serve.

So instead of him serving 69% against Roger in 2001, had he serve 50%, he would have won the match.

[TheFifthSet]

Agassi has a case for being the greatest returner in the open era although he has stiff competition with Conners, Borg, Nole and Murray among others.

Feds return of serve is one of the best of his era, particularly the first serve return. He's definitely better than Sampras in that regard, but not Agassi.

PS - a big reason Fed might do better against big serves than Agassi is that he is a better player overall. There's more to winning than a great return of serve . . . if we wanna make an accurate comparison we could compare % of return games won against big servers.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

If Fed had the return of Agassi on grass, he wouldn't beat Pete at 2001 Wimbledon.

I don't think one match is a big enough sample size to make that conclusion.

[Lambo]

I do not understand what the confusion is all about....

Fed a better athlete by a mile. His longevity and winning grandslams at his age is a testament to that.

Add to that the game is far more physical in the current day and age and for fed to dominate for so long proves the guy is a great athlete........he plays the in a manner and a style others dream of......

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by Lambo

I do not understand what the confusion is all about....

Fed a better athlete by a mile. His longevity and winning grandslams at his age is a testament to that.

Add to that the game is far more physical in the current day and age and for fed to dominate for so long proves the guy is a great athlete........he plays the in a manner and a style others dream of......

I second this but Sampras had more explosive power than fed otherwise I'm with you

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

I don't think one match is a big enough sample size to make that conclusion.

Yeah, but had they met more on grass, one can't conclude that Roger would do better or worse. Who knows, but most likely it would be the same. Match up issues doesn't change.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

Yeah, but had they met more on grass, one can't conclude that Roger would do better or worse. Who knows, but most likely it would be the same. Match up issues doesn't change.

So then why assume Federer would have done worse on grass against Sampras if he had Agassis return? By saying he would do worse, you kinda did conclude that.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

So then why assume Federer would have done worse on grass against Sampras if he had Agassis return? By saying he would do worse, you kinda did conclude that.

I concluded that Fed return better than Agassi on grass. If you compare Agassi return against Pete 1999 Wimbledon to Federer 2001 Wimbledon, Fed had more success. Pete won 89% of his 1st serve against Agassi, but 76% against Federer. Agassi had 4 break chances, Fed had 11, and Fed had to face a higher 1st serve percentage(69 to 66). I also believe Sampras serve better in 2001 than in 1999.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

I concluded that Fed return better than Agassi on grass. If you compare Agassi return against Pete 1999 Wimbledon to Federer 2001 Wimbledon, Fed had more success. Pete won 89% of his 1st serve against Agassi, but 76% against Federer. Agassi had 4 break chances, Fed had 11, and Fed had to face a higher 1st serve percentage(69 to 66). I also believe Sampras serve better in 2001 than in 1999.

Well that's a little misleading, you said return of serve, not comparative return stats over their respective matches against Sampras. And you were backing up a poster who said that Federers return was better than Agassi's and Connors combined, so it's not hard to deduce that you were trying to argue that Federer's return on grass was better than Agassi's.

Also, almost everyone who say the 1999 Wimbledon final in its entirety would agree that it was one of the finest serving performances in Sampras's career. Not that it matters much, people can be wrong, but if you watch both matches it's pretty clear Sampras served better in '99. His placement and variety was extraordinary even for Sampras, and it had Andre baffled.

[Al Czervik]

This is a great question. I think you have to give it to Roger. Sampras had better technique on volleys and could jump higher. Pete was somewhat catlike, but if he was that good of a mover, he wouldn't have stunk so bad on clay. Plus, he just flat out won a lot of points with aces and bludgeoning groundies. Roger's game is all about movement.

Pete's snow job of battling through while sick/tired always annoyed me. It was very Rafa like. He acted dead and struggling between points, but played just fine between the lines.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Well that's a little misleading, you said return of serve, not comparative return stats over their respective matches against Sampras. And you were backing up a poster who said that Federers return was better than Agassi's and Connors combined, so it's not hard to deduce that you were trying to argue that Federer's return on grass was better than Agassi's.

Nope. I never mentioned a word about Connors. I just pointed out that Bjorn99 was referring to a prime Fed, not a 31 yrs old Fed. I could be wrong if Bjorn99 really meant the current Fed. My view is Fed return better than Agassi on grass.

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Also, almost everyone who say the 1999 Wimbledon final in its entirety would agree that it was one of the finest serving performances in Sampras's career. Not that it matters much, people can be wrong, but if you watch both matches it's pretty clear Sampras served better in '99. His placement and variety was extraordinary even for Sampras, and it had Andre baffled.

Sampras serve % in 1999
R128 - 62%
R64 - 73%
R32 - 74%
R16 - 69%
QF - 50%
Semi - 52%
Final - 66%

Sampras serve % in 2001
R128 - 67%
R64 - 69%
R32 - 60%
R16 - 69%

You can argue Fed serve better in 2001.