Stats for Federer-Sampras (2001 Wimbledon)

[fed_rulz]

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.

[PrinceMoron]

Originally Posted by TMF

Roger won fair and square despite being a huge underdog in 2001. Dismiss his win over Sampras is like dismissing a 19 years old Sampras beat Lendl at the 1990 USO.

That was rude, as Sampras was Lendl's house guest at the time.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by shakes1975

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.

29 yrs old Sampras WAS hungry to defend his Wimbledon, especially when it's his favorite slam. He lost to a better player(Fed) that day. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by shakes1975

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.

Fed is a better returner than Agassi against Sampras on grass. He proved it in 2001.

Originally Posted by shakes1975

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.

Fed losing to a Berdych who was in his prime career isn't as bad as Sampras losing to a 19 yrs old Fed. And don't forget past prime Fed > past prime Sampras(his ranking plummet while Fed is consistently in the top 3).

[Nadal_Power]

Yeah, he proved that in one match

And they played on same grass.. for sure

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Nadal_Power

Yeah, he proved that in one match

And they played on same grass.. for sure

2001 grass was still fast. The surface gradually slow down by the year and bounce higher. The only fact we have is Agassi and Fed played Sampras on grass and Fed handle his serve better than Agassi.

[Nadal_Power]

That 2001. match was indeed very fast, no doubt. One of the last true matches of this tournament. But we can't judge by one match

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Nadal_Power

That 2001. match was indeed very fast, no doubt. One of the last true matches of this tournament. But we can't judge by one match

Had Fed never won Wimbledon, then you have a point, but Fed went on to win 7 titles. So his win over Sampras count, because that was the passing of the torch. Remember Pete beat Lendl in 1990 USO and they met only 1 time, that was also the point of passing the torch since Pete went on to win 5 titles.

Rosol beat Nadal at wimbledon, that's just one match and upset does happen. However if Rosol managed to win multiple Wimbledons in the future, his win is just as good as Federer over Sampras.

[TheFifthSet]

How does one mere match prove Federer was the superior returner to Agassi versus Sampras on grass?

Is Rosol a superior returner on grass versus Nadal than Federer is, by that logic? Do you think over the course of 10 matches versus Nadal on grass (lets say both Federer and Rosol play 10 matches against Nadal), that Rosol would have won a higher percentage of his return games versus Nadal?

It's one match, dude. One match.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

2001 grass was still fast. The surface gradually slow down by the year and bounce higher. The only fact we have is Agassi and Fed played Sampras on grass and Fed handle his serve better than Agassi.

Agassi broke Sampras 5 times at the start of his grasscourt peak in '93, at Wimby. Just because he couldn't do it against Sampras having one of the serving match of his life (1999 Wimby final, altho his performance was a tad overrated), doesn't necessarily mean Federer had a better return versus Sampras. Nobody is perfect. Everyone has an off day. Fed broke Roddick what, 1 time in 38 return games in 2009? Does that mean he's not a great returner? No, he just had an off day and Roddick was serving incredibly well. And Fed was clearly a better returner at 27-going on-28 than he was at 19-going on-20.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Agassi broke Sampras 5 times at the start of his grasscourt peak in '93, at Wimby. Just because he couldn't do it against Sampras having the serving match of his life (1999 Wimby final), doesn't necessarily mean Federer had a better return versus Sampras. Nobody is perfect. Everyone has an off day. Fed broke Roddick what, 1 time in 38 return games in 2009? Does that mean he's not a great returner? No, he just had an off day and Roddick was serving incredibly well. And Fed was clearly a better returner at 27-going on-28 than he was at 19-going on-20.

If you're going to head that route by saying one match doesn't tell the whole story then there's no argument to say Agassi is better returner than Fed on grass. In that case Del Potro isn't > Nadal at the USO or Cash isn't > Lendl at Wimbledon because it's only one match. If you feel that way, fine. For me, one match is better than nothing, at least we have some data to look into.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

If you're going to head that route by saying one match doesn't tell the whole story then there's no argument to say Agassi is better returner than Fed on grass. In that case Del Potro isn't > Nadal at the USO or Cash isn't > Lendl at Wimbledon because it's only one match. If you feel that way, fine. For me, one match is better than nothing, at least we have some data to look into.

Of course there is. How about you compare their return stats on grass? That's a start. How about compare their return stats against big servers on grass? You take refuge in one match when there's a whole body of data, contemporary opinions and common sense at hand. To imply there is no other data is patently false. The burden of proof rests on the one making the outsanding claim.

[14line]

Federer looked unstoppable in the 5th set, making a superb half volley when he was down a BP at 4-4. In this sense, the match is somewhat similar to the 2012 Nadal/Rosol match, where Rosol made only 2 UEs in the deciding set.

It's also interesting to comment on Pete's low winning percentage on 2nd serve. Remember in '99 final, Pete played his greatest grass court tennis, hitting an average of 109mph 2nd serve, but won only 49% of them. Note that Pete played much better at the net and hit fewer double faults in that match. So I think it's not the return on 2nd serve that made Federer win the match. What really impressed me was he handled Pete's powerful 1st serve well in this match; cf. Safin in USO 2000 final.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by 14line

So I think it's not the return on 2nd serve that made Federer win the match. What really impressed me was he handled Pete's powerful 1st serve well in this match; cf. Safin in USO 2000 final.

Peter Fleming was one of the BBC's commentators and he thought that Federer's ability to return Sampras' first serve was a significant factor, and maybe Federer's only statistical edge (in all other categories they were pretty much tied with each other).

At 2-3 in the fourth, Federer was getting 46% of first serves and 71% of second serves back. Sampras was at 41% and 64%.

So Federer really had an edge getting back both 1st and 2nd serves. But the edge in returning 1st serves was probably of greater importance, simply because there were many more first serves than second serves in the match.

[krosero]

Moose has Federer making his first serve on 9 of 11 break points, Sampras on 10 of 14.

By my count:

Federer made 6 of 12 first serves in the tiebreaks. By tiebreak:

4 of 8 (he won all 4 of those first serves)
2 of 4 (he won 1 of those first serves)

Sampras made 8 of 13 first serves in the tiebreaks. By tiebreak:

4 of 8 (he won all 4 of those first serves)
4 of 5 (he won all 4)

So every time that Sampras made his first serve in the tiebreaks he won the point.

In the first tiebreak (won by Federer 9-7), Sampras put in a second serve at 121 mph (11 mph faster than his average for the match.

In the next tiebreak (won by Sampras 7-2), Pete’s only second serve was 120 mph. One of his first serves was at 136 mph – his high for the match. Another was at 134 mph.

Federer came in behind most of his serves in the tiebreaks; but in the first tiebreak he stayed back twice on second serve (losing one point), and in the next tiebreak he stayed back once on second serve (losing the point).

Sampras came in behind all his serves as he did throughout the match.

[14line]

Originally Posted by krosero

Peter Fleming was one of the BBC's commentators and he thought that Federer's ability to return Sampras' first serve was a significant factor, and maybe Federer's only statistical edge (in all other categories they were pretty much tied with each other).

At 2-3 in the fourth, Federer was getting 46% of first serves and 71% of second serves back. Sampras was at 41% and 64%.

So Federer really had an edge getting back both 1st and 2nd serves. But the edge in returning 1st serves was probably of greater importance, simply because there were many more first serves than second serves in the match.

Sampras' return of serve deteriorated sharply in the last few years of his career, and I think this cost him two important matches - AO 2000 against Agassi and Wimby 2001 against Federer. Sampras has often said that it’s the return of serve which wins Wimbledon. I think it also explains why he lost the match against Federer.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by 14line

Sampras' return of serve deteriorated sharply in the last few years of his career, and I think this cost him two important matches - AO 2000 against Agassi and Wimby 2001 against Federer. Sampras has often said that it’s the return of serve which wins Wimbledon. I think it also explains why he lost the match against Federer.

That's true, his return stats did deteriorate in the last years of his career.

[krosero]

I've been able to compile these service speeds for Sampras at Wimbledon.

1993 final
Fastest Serve – 123 mph
Average 1st Serve – 110 mph

1995 final
Fastest Serve – 129 mph
Average 1st Serve – 116 mph
Fastest 2nd Serve – 106 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 95 mph

1996 loss to Krajicek
Fastest Serve – 126 mph
Average 1st Serve – 117 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 100 mph

1999 final
Fastest Serve – 131 mph
Average 1st Serve – 119 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 109 mph

2001 loss to Federer
Fastest Serve – 136 mph
Average 1st Serve – 121 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 110 mph

In every category there is a slight progression upwards, with only one exception: in '95 his fastest serve was 129, the next year it was 126. But his average 1st serve still went up that year.

So how much of this is genuine increase in speed by Sampras? Or is it due to increasingly accurate radar measurements that record the speed of the ball closer to the point that it leaves the racquet strings?

[scotus]

Originally Posted by krosero

So how much of this is genuine increase in speed by Sampras? Or is it due to increasingly accurate radar measurements that record the speed of the ball closer to the point that it leaves the racquet strings?

Hard to tell, but I believe Sampras' faster serves would be clocked at 130-140 mph by today's radar guns.

Here's why:

(1) I saw Sampras' exhibition match against Courier during a WTA tournament a few years ago. His fastest serve that evening was clocked at 136 mph down the side line. I'm sure if that same serve were aimed at the T, it would have been clocked at around 140 mph. If a retired Sampras can serve that fast, the prime Sampras would have served in the 130s routinely.

(2) In The Tennis Channel's "Signature" featuring Sampras, Andre Agassi describes returning Pete's serves as having to defend 135-mph serves to the deep corners and also guard against a 140-mph serve straight to the body. I think Andre who had such a long career and experience of returning those 120-mph serves of Pete, Becker, Goran, as well as the 140-mph serves of the younger greats is uniquely qualified to comment on how Pete's serves would be clocked on radar today.

[corners]

Originally Posted by krosero

I've been able to compile these service speeds for Sampras at Wimbledon.

1993 final
Fastest Serve – 123 mph
Average 1st Serve – 110 mph

1995 final
Fastest Serve – 129 mph
Average 1st Serve – 116 mph
Fastest 2nd Serve – 106 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 95 mph

1996 loss to Krajicek
Fastest Serve – 126 mph
Average 1st Serve – 117 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 100 mph

1999 final
Fastest Serve – 131 mph
Average 1st Serve – 119 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 109 mph

2001 loss to Federer
Fastest Serve – 136 mph
Average 1st Serve – 121 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 110 mph

In every category there is a slight progression upwards, with only one exception: in '95 his fastest serve was 129, the next year it was 126. But his average 1st serve still went up that year.

So how much of this is genuine increase in speed by Sampras? Or is it due to increasingly accurate radar measurements that record the speed of the ball closer to the point that it leaves the racquet strings?

I think it's definitely a measurement issue. I don't think a server of Sampras' quality could possibly increase his fastest 1st serve by a full 10 mph between the ages of 23 and 30.

I suppose it could be possible that he was spinning it more on both 1st and 2nd when younger, which would mean that his accuracy got so good as he got older that he could hit flatter and still keep his percentages up. But this seems unlikely.

So, by the numbers, it looks like the measurement method changed sometime between '96 and '99. Should we really be adding roughly 10 mph to serves clocked before '99? This would make sense. I remember seeing some serve speed stats for Becker at Wimbledon and being somewhat shocked that his numbers were very similar to Federer's typical tournament averages: Fastest 1st ~ 130 mph, Average 1st ~ 116 mph, Average 2nd ~ 95 mph. After seeing that I thought that Becker may have had the most overrated serve of all time, which is a silly notion easily disproved by watching a match like the '96 Masters final. Adding 10 mph would give Becker: Fastest 1st ~ 140 mph, Average 1st ~ 126 mph, Average 2nd ~ 105 mph. Is that more realistic or less?

But, given that Federer's numbers in 2001 are nearly identical to those he posts today, I think we can be pretty sure that Sampras' 2001 numbers can be compared directly to serve speeds of today's players. And by that standard, his 121 avg. 1st is very good and his 110 avg. 2nd is simply amazing.

And yet, despite that incredible 2nd serve, his career 2nd serve points won percentage (53%) is lower than Federer's (56%), whose avg. 2nd serve speed is nearly 15 mph slower than Sampras' was.

[Bursztyn]

Originally Posted by corners

I think it's definitely a measurement issue. I don't think a server of Sampras' quality could possibly increase his fastest 1st serve by a full 10 mph between the ages of 23 and 30.

Why is it so? If Sampras was such as good server (I guess this is what you mean) then perhaps he could increase his fastest 1st serve by a full 10 mph between the ages of 23 and 30.

Had the increase in serve speed readings been solely caused by measurements technology I would expect the readings for the first serve to go up more than the readings for the second serve because the increase in reading should be positively correlated with the service speed.

Originally Posted by corners

So, by the numbers, it looks like the measurement method changed sometime between '96 and '99.

We should look at serve speed readings stats for other players from that era to see if similar trends can be observed.

Originally Posted by corners

And yet, despite that incredible 2nd serve, his career 2nd serve points won percentage (53%) is lower than Federer's (56%), whose avg. 2nd serve speed is nearly 15 mph slower than Sampras' was.

Roger hasn't finished his career yet, so these stats are not comparable at the moment.