Sampras without his serve and volley?

[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.

Originally Posted by samprasvsfederer123

sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and 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?

[Mansewerz]

Let me ask you this question: How good would Federer be without his forehand, how good would Ivanisevic be without his serve, etc?

True greatness is measure upon the player that a person is, not the player that he could be.

[LafayetteHitter]

How good of a typer would I be with no hands? Does it matter?

[ChrisCrocker]

realistically that would force him to improve his backhand.

i'd say he would win 3 GS max if he was lucky if he had an agassi serves and volleys.

his h2h with agassi would be different.

Wimbledon would be harder to win and USO slightly harder, but id increase his chances at AO, FO is still out of reach since he never got a feel for clay.

He would pretty much be Jim Courier without the clay and instead hard court. Another Agassi

[Dino Lagaffe]

Originally Posted by ChrisCrocker

Wimbledon would be harder to win and USO slightly, but id increase his chances at AO.

(My bold)
Just wondering how on earth removing his serve and volley would increase his chances...

[quest01]

Sampras wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful if his serve and volley wasn't as effective. Those two components were the cornerstone of his game at Wimbledon. Sampras was more of a one dimensional player and if his game wasn't working properly he wouldn't be on his game. Federer has no weaknesses so if something was off he could still find a way to win.

[matchmaker]

I think this is a ridiculous hypothesis. How good would Federer be without his FH?

No good at all, even worse than Sampras without a good serve and good volleys.

Bla, bla, bla, ...

[TheFifthSet]

It depends. Remember that Sampras abandoned his 2HBH because he wanted to adapt a S+V game . . . his backhand was a big weapon in his junior days.

All things considered, he would probably be a very good baseliner, and would have won his share of slams IMO given his movement on fast surfaces, improved backhand, great forehand, and mental fortitude.

But yeah, it's sort of unfair to take away a players two biggest strengths.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by LafayetteHitter

How good of a typer would I be with no hands? Does it matter?

how good would be pete sampras if he had feet instead of hands ?
some would argue he would move faster, possibly slide better on clay... but i think his volleying accuracy would be slightly affected.

[President of Serve/Volley]

Pete didn't volley as much as others like Rafter or Edberg for example, because he had other good weapons to hurt you.

Rafter was a better vollyer than Pete, at least, I think he was.

[35ft6]

Sampras' game was built around his serve. He had good volleys but his serve and forehands often earned him relatively manageable volleys. He wasn't like Edberg who could hit tough shoe string volleys consistently, he didn't have to.

His forehand was great but it wasn't versatile like Federer's. His forehand, like his whole game, was meant to keep points short, it was a very penetrating shot but not a shot he could use to wear people down with. He was always looking to attack. He had that blood condition, he didn't have great endurance and his incredibly aggressive, high risk game was because of that I imagine.

Sampras was a weird player. For most of the set he played like a top 20 player. Then at 3-3 or 4-4, he would turn it on become a GOAT caliber player, break serve, and then coast out the set on his serve. Agassi said something like if you play good, you lose to Sampras 7-5, 7-5. And if you play bad, you lose to Sampras 7-5, 7-5.

It's unbelievable he could turn it off and on like that. Once I get bored and stop moving my feet, I'm doomed to play like junk the rest of the night. He could do it because his serve was ridiculously reliable and potent. He held serve so easily, just imagine how much pressure that takes off you when you know that 99% of the time, even if the rest of your game is off, you're still going to win your service games.

The second most important thing, IMO, was his movement. Everybody knows he was considered a great athlete for tennis, but he really might be the most fluid and explosive attacker of the net I've probably ever seen. And on the baseline he wasn't too shabby either. That speed allowed him to pull off one or two spectacular on the run shots a match and that might be all he needed to break serve twice and win 7-5, 7-5.

[Azzurri]

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?

obviously he is clueless.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by quest01

Sampras wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful if his serve and volley wasn't as effective. Those two components were the cornerstone of his game at Wimbledon. Sampras was more of a one dimensional player and if his game wasn't working properly he wouldn't be on his game. Federer has no weaknesses so if something was off he could still find a way to win.

incorrect. Pete was far from one-dimensional.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

It depends. Remember that Sampras abandoned his 2HBH because he wanted to adapt a S+V game . . . his backhand was a big weapon in his junior days.

All things considered, he would probably be a very good baseliner, and would have won his share of slams IMO given his movement on fast surfaces, improved backhand, great forehand, and mental fortitude.

But yeah, it's sort of unfair to take away a players two biggest strengths.

agreed with everything you said. I get Hoodjems purpose for this thread, but the kiddies who have never watched Sampras play RUIN a decent opportunity to discuss the rest of his game.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by quest01

Federer has no weaknesses . . .

?????????? Someone should inform Nadal of this.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Azzurri

obviously he is clueless.

You are way too funny. (Sorry, I can't stop laughing.)

[darthpwner]

Pete would win about 4 grand slams. His athleticism and forehand would have made him like Jim Courier

[Praetorian]

I would say the amount of Grand Slams I would have won if I had his ground game without his serve and volley.

[Mick]

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

[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.