Better athlete: Federer or Sampras

[TheFifthSet]

[quote]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

Ok, fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion, however it's not one that's backed up by evidence. I personally don't think there's any reason to think Federer is better on the return against Agassi on any surface. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

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.

First of all, I thought we were comparing in which match Sampras served better (2001 Wimby 4th round or 1999 Wimby final), not overall tournament stats...serving performance can fluctuate from one day to the next. Also, Sampras was definitely a much better server in 1999 than 2001. In '99 he won 90% of his service games, compared to 86% in 2001, and won a higher percentage of first and second serve ponts. Why just use first serve percentage? That's a tad bizarre, by that logic Nadal is the best serve because he has among the highest first serve averages. There's other statistics you can use to gauge, too. In 1999 Wimby Sampras was broken 5 times in 7 matches . . . in 2001 he was broken 5 times in 4 matches, and Federer was the only quality returner he faced whereas in '99 he faced Agassi as well as Henman. He surely served better in '99.

[mattennis]

One of the most important aspects of Federer (that many times passes unnoticed) is that he was as well one of the best defenders (when needed).

Federer serve, forehand, backhand...winners in all kind of positions were absolutely great, but we all have seen great players making a ton of amazing winners in the past.

The thing with Federer is that, when he wasn't winning being the aggresor, he could grind out matches like the best ones (in his prime at least).

I've seen many times where Federer did run endlessly because he needed to do it.

I remember Federer running like crazy from corner to corner in the US OPEN'05 Final (against Agassi) in the second and third sets, because he wasn't feeling confident with his backhand.

I can not imagine Sampras or Agassi doing something like that. Agassi and Sampras would live and die playing their style: aggresion, dictating the points to death.

Obviously they could and would run like crazy in some very important points, but not for an entire match.

Federer has showed countless times in his career that, if needed, he could run and defend like the best ones, and could do it for hours.

That is one of the things of Federer that differentiates him from other great aggresive players from the 90s like Sampras or Agassi or Becker.

Usually, the players that almost always can impose their aggresive game (Sampras, Agassi, Becker,...) and so normally run way less than their rivals, they don't like to be the defending runners at all. They can do it on occasions, some important points, but you didn't see Sampras, Agassi or Becker doing it for hours, they preferred to take even more risks in their shots (and so to make the other guy run more than you again even if upping unforced errors) than to grind out matches.

Federer could and in fact was very good at that as well (very quick, great footwork and special ability to retrieve very difficult shots).

That very important aspect of his game is one of the main reasons why he had so very few losses during his prime. Even when not feeling specially inspired with his game, he could still win because he could and would run and grind if needed to win.

Agassi, Sampras, Becker, they lost many matches in which they looked as if tanking, because if they were doing a lot of unforced errors, instead of trying to cut down errors and be more conservative from the baseline (even if that meant they had to run more because the rival could then dictate more) they went on taking more and more risks in their shots and making more and more unforced errors that looked like tanking.

In that sense Federer could play like a Lendl, Wilander when needed (cutting down unforced errors), and obviously he could be a Becker, Sampras or Agassi taking risks and dictating points everytime he felt confident (the majority of his matches).

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by mattennis

One of the most important aspects of Federer (that many times passes unnoticed) is that he was as well one of the best defenders (when needed).

Federer serve, forehand, backhand...winners in all kind of positions were absolutely great, but we all have seen great players making a ton of amazing winners in the past.

The thing with Federer is that, when he wasn't winning being the aggresor, he could grind out matches like the best ones (in his prime at least).

I've seen many times where Federer did run endlessly because he needed to do it.

I remember Federer running like crazy from corner to corner in the US OPEN'05 Final (against Agassi) in the second and third sets, because he wasn't feeling confident with his backhand.

I can not imagine Sampras or Agassi doing something like that. Agassi and Sampras would live and die playing their style: aggresion, dictating the points to death.

Obviously they could and would run like crazy in some very important points, but not for an entire match.

Federer has showed countless times in his career that, if needed, he could run and defend like the best ones, and could do it for hours.

That is one of the things of Federer that differentiates him from other great aggresive players from the 90s like Sampras or Agassi or Becker.

Usually, the players that almost always can impose their aggresive game (Sampras, Agassi, Becker,...) and so normally run way less than their rivals, they don't like to be the defending runners at all. They can do it on occasions, some important points, but you didn't see Sampras, Agassi or Becker doing it for hours, they preferred to take even more risks in their shots (and so to make the other guy run more than you again even if upping unforced errors) than to grind out matches.

Federer could and in fact was very good at that as well (very quick, great footwork and special ability to retrieve very difficult shots).

That very important aspect of his game is one of the main reasons why he had so very few losses during his prime. Even when not feeling specially inspired with his game, he could still win because he could and would run and grind if needed to win.

Agassi, Sampras, Becker, they lost many matches in which they looked as if tanking, because if they were doing a lot of unforced errors, instead of trying to cut down errors and be more conservative from the baseline (even if that meant they had to run more because the rival could then dictate more) they went on taking more and more risks in their shots and making more and more unforced errors that looked like tanking.

In that sense Federer could play like a Lendl, Wilander when needed (cutting down unforced errors), and obviously he could be a Becker, Sampras or Agassi taking risks and dictating points everytime he felt confident (the majority of his matches).

Spot on. You can see how great his defense was in the 2005 Aussie semi-final against Safin, among others.

[mattennis]

And seriously, that shows how much he (Federer) cares about tennis and about winning.

Because why other great players didn't do that?

OK, Sampras had Thalassemia, low stamina, he couldn't physically grind out matches, so his only option was winning making winners all night long.

Becker?, OK, he was a very big and a bit heavy guy. Even though he was terrificly strong, he possibly could never win running like crazy from corner to corner for hours. He had a heavy and big body.

But Agassi?, he had great stamina, he wasn't big (5 f. 10 i.). Agassi could have done it....had he been faster. But Agassi was not a great runner, simply. It is possible that he had better results being the aggresor all the time than grinding out matches (even when being the aggresor was failing him).

Federer had the great physical gift that he indeed could do it, and could do it like the best ones.

Perhaps Sampras could have been like that had he had better stamina, because he was quick like hell and cat-like, but he always chose not to (and probably was right, because with his condition his only option was winning dictating all the points).

Federer had the whole package, could do everything, that made him an incredibly difficult player to beat.

I remember Edberg as well. Even though his game was pure serve-and-volley, Edberg was very very fast and smooth when running on the baseline, and a great defender as well when needed, but he had not the great forehand of Federer, so he could not defend that well from the forehand side (he was great hitting backhand passing-shots though, and he hit great lobs too).

[rst]

Sampras rarely had to endure long grueling baseline battles to win majors.

im not sure if a 10 shot basline rally exerts more energy than a 3 shot approach and leap. the approach may require bending more and then a blast of energy for a volly/drop. som ebasline rallys appear measured in exertion.

[rst]

Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him."

could they dunk?? could they have been as succesfula at the style of play the pete had?

[rst]

but he had the cat-like burst of speed that is rarely seen even today.........


cat like bursts over and over again take endurance...a special kind.

[rst]

aside from a couple of players today does roger play more of a sampras type of game than anyone else?

[rst]

if he does??? is it because its physically easier??? or other factors??

[rst]

unless sent from corner of baseline to corner of basleine repeatedly, i have found that sprintign forward and having to perhaps chip and then leap into a hopefulley winning volley hurts more.

[rst]

perhaps the clay surface negated petes type of moves to an extent that equalized or enhanced other atheltes games.

basketball on gravel is tough

[dangalak]

[quote=TheFifthSet;6908679]

Ok, fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion, however it's not one that's backed up by evidence. I personally don't think there's any reason to think Federer is better on the return against Agassi on any surface. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

Federer has won 7 Wimbledon titles (3 of them against Roddick). Agassi has won 1.

[rst]

trying to cut down errors and be more conservative from the baseline......


is that being less atheltic??? ill lift 100 lbs instead if 200 lbs, ie??

[Sadyv]

Pete's a considerably better athlete, but Roger is a more skilled tennis player.

Roger is a very good athlete, who happened to have found the sport that best suits his particular set of talents most comfortably.

Sampras was a superb athlete who could have used his athleticism to get to a high level in many sports. Tennis at the time was best suited for him, these days the game has probably become too dependent on more continuous stamina output for it to be his best fit, though he'd still be very good.

It's easy to see Sampras wrestling freestyle in the Olympics or playing judo, playing in the backfield in American football, sprinting down the track or hurdling, chasing down a fly ball in baseball or cricket, even crossing someone up and dishing out a pass on the basketball court or hanging from the rings in gymnastics.

For Federer, other than maybe figure skating or football, he just seems grooved perfectly in his frame and athletic gifts to be a tennis player, but not those other things.

[90's Clay]

Thats nonsense.. Pete was obviously very skilled and more of an "all courter" then Roger is. Roger was superior from the baseline.. Sampras superior all around the court. It takes more skill to be both dominant from the baseline AND at the net.

Sampras was a better player between both the baseline and the net.

The poll results are a major LOL here but then again any poll with Federer in it on Planet TW is worth a major LOL.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Thats nonsense.. Pete was obviously very skilled and more of an "all courter" then Roger is. Roger was superior from the baseline.. Sampras superior all around the court. It takes more skill to be both dominant from the baseline AND at the net.

Sampras was a better player between both the baseline and the net.

True and Sampras from the baseline >>>> Federer at the net. Sampras has had many matches he outplayed Agassi and Courier from the baseline. I fail to see a hypothetical Federer having any days he would outplay prime McEnroe or prime Edberg (or prime Sampras) strictly from the net.

[90's Clay]

I agree.. When people say Fed is more "skilled" all around I question that. Fed is more skilled in certain aspects. But "overall" skill his very highly debatable considering Pete was known to demolish guys from both the net and the baseline.

I don't think people realize how skilled you have to be to do that.

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras by a mile

FH- Fed was better standing still hitting the inside-out FH, Pete was better on the run with his FH and many can argue its just as much of a bullet is as Fed's is

BH- Neither their strong points but both could do damage with it at times. Kind of a moot comparison.

Mental toughness- Pete was certainly more clutch under pressure then Roger. Pete seemed to "welcome" the big points and clutch situations more then Roger who I never felt was ever that comfortable in those situations. At least not as much as Pete was.

Defense-Roger was superior... But Pete was no slouch on the defensive end tracking those balls down for some running FH winner

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

Stamina- Roger due to Pete's blood disorder which caused him to fatigue faster then other guys

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

Footwork- Federer

Speed-Sampras was faster



Fed really only has Pete in a few categories. This place is crazy sometimes.. I swear some people didn't watch Pete in h is prime here.

Its almost as if people here want to compare Roger at his peak to Pete at the end of his career and not the pete of the early-mid 90s

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I agree.. When people say Fed is more "skilled" all around I question that. Fed is more skilled in certain aspects. But "overall" skill his very highly debatable considering Pete was known to demolish guys from both the net and the baseline.

I don't think people realize how skilled you have to be to do that.

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras by a mile

FH- Fed was better standing still hitting the inside-out FH, Pete was better on the run with his FH and many can argue its just as much of a bullet is as Fed's is

BH- Neither their strong points but both could do damage with it at times. Kind of a moot comparison.

Mental toughness- Pete was certainly more clutch under pressure then Roger. Pete seemed to "welcome" the big points and clutch situations more then Roger who I never felt was ever that comfortable in those situations. At least not as much as Pete was.

Defense-Roger was superior... But Pete was no slouch on the defensive end tracking those balls down for some running FH winner

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

Stamina- Roger due to Pete's blood disorder which caused him to fatigue faster then other guys

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

Footwork- Federer

Speed-Sampras was faster



Fed really only has Pete in a few categories. This place is crazy sometimes.. I swear some people didn't watch Pete in h is prime here.

Its almost as if people here want to compare Roger at his peak to Pete at the end of his career and not the pete of the early-mid 90s

ITA with all you said, especialy the last sentence. Although I must say Sampras's inside out forehand scared opponents to heck as well, people would be scared to his forehand in his prime and would desperately try to work over his backhand corner, but eventually would have to go to the open court and face that dreaded running forehand. It was tough to know where to go vs prime Sampras from the baseline, except on clay sometimes where just made lazy errors, and not enough mental resilence or patience at times. Sampras's down the line forehand was amazing and IMO better than Federer's, and his inside out forehand was almost as great, only Federer's crosscourt forehand without being on the run (without either Sampras or Federer hitting it on the run, but more from a standstill) is more clearly better I guess. I wont even get into Federer's backhand which is so overrated on this forum it isnt even funny, it isnt bad of course, but it is closer to Sampras's than what people on this forum view it as being which is much superior to Gasquet, Kuerten, Nadal, Murray (who all have a much better backhand than Federer does), basically supposably better than anyone but Nalbandian, Agassi, and Djokovic on Planet TW.

Anyway that all aside this thread is purely about who is the better athlete so even those who feel Federer has a way better and more complete tennis game, Sampras should still come out ahead here. He is no doubt physically stronger, jumps higher by a long ways, is faster, is atleast as agile and flexible. In no way is Federer a better athlete. In a decathalon I would be willing to bet money Sampras comes out ahead easily.

[helloworld]

I've watched both played, and I must say Sampras relied a lot more in his superior athleticism than Roger does. Pete wins this by a clear margin.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I agree.. When people say Fed is more "skilled" all around I question that. Fed is more skilled in certain aspects. But "overall" skill his very highly debatable considering Pete was known to demolish guys from both the net and the baseline.

I don't think people realize how skilled you have to be to do that.

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras by a mile

FH- Fed was better standing still hitting the inside-out FH, Pete was better on the run with his FH and many can argue its just as much of a bullet is as Fed's is

BH- Neither their strong points but both could do damage with it at times. Kind of a moot comparison.

Mental toughness- Pete was certainly more clutch under pressure then Roger. Pete seemed to "welcome" the big points and clutch situations more then Roger who I never felt was ever that comfortable in those situations. At least not as much as Pete was.

Defense-Roger was superior... But Pete was no slouch on the defensive end tracking those balls down for some running FH winner

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

Stamina- Roger due to Pete's blood disorder which caused him to fatigue faster then other guys

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

Footwork- Federer

Speed-Sampras was faster

Fed really only has Pete in a few categories. This place is crazy sometimes.. I swear some people didn't watch Pete in h is prime here.

Its almost as if people here want to compare Roger at his peak to Pete at the end of his career and not the pete of the early-mid 90s

Now let me use your logic -

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras although Federer is no slouch.

FH- Federer all day every day. Yes Sampras running forehand was great. HELL to the NO as an overall stroke, Federer is definitely superior.

BH- Federer by a CONTINENTAL mile.

Mental toughness in a big match - Pete is better.

Mental toughness displayed over the year/average level of play in prime - Federer

Defense- Again Roger, not even debatable

Stamina- Federer by a gap that is big enough to fit the grand canyon.

Athleticism - Pete by a hair.

Net Play- Pete

Footwork- Federer

Half volleys - Federer

Drop shots - Federer

Overhead - even, although Sampras had a more dramatic one for sure

-----------------------------------

Oh look, I can paint a picture with rose coloured glasses too!!! It is just as easy to shortchange Pete and exaggerate Fed's strength as it is to do the opposite. Furthermore I have also included some bullsh*t categories like you, e.g. having Speed and athleticism as two different categories. Net play and "Transition to net" also . Oh wait I forgot to include "Transition from defense to offense from the baseline" which btw Federer also wins.