Better athlete: Federer or Sampras

[NadalAgassi]

Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

Only probably?

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

That's not the point, I was just giving an extremely biased version of their respective attributes. The point of my post was that 90s clay should atleast try to post a somewhat objective account rather than shortchanging Roger and excusing Pete's weaknesses. My post is clearly NOT an objective one either.

Also Fed does not "probably" have a better backhand. He does. Period. That's like me saying that Sampras "probably" has a better serve. Does that not sound ridiculous?

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Demolish from the baseline? Hardly. Pete was a great baseliner, especially in his prime, but not an elite one.

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

Here you're just avoiding the elephant in the room, which is that Federers forehand is far superior than Sampras's. I/O and I/I FH? Federer. Overall rally forehand? Federer. Angles, explosiveness and consistency? Federer. CC forehand? Federer. DTL forehand? Federer. FH pass? Federer. Pete had a great running FH although I think Federer's running FH is very underrated. You're so quick to amplify all the categories in which Pete has an advantage, but you won't even concede one of the most obvious disparities.

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

Did I just hear this? Federers backhand slice is much better than Pete's. Even now it's among the best on tour, barring Murray whose slice is also sick. Pete's BH was also more attackable and he was less deadly on the pass than prime Federer. Put it this way, AT BEST their BH drives are comparable, but given how much better Federer's slice is (which isn't comparable) its definitely not a moot point.

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.

At the very most it's close in the mental aspect. While Sampras seemed to keep it together better in grand slam finals, Federers knack for getting over tough loses is almost unparalleled. When Sampras lost to Kafelnikov at RG in '96, it's sort of like he mailed it in on clay after that. For somebody to falter so often on a surface that consistutes 30-40% of the tours tournaments, it's not good. At the end of the day though, I don't think that there's a BIG difference between the two mentally. Heck they're the two most successful players of the open era, and you can't do that if you're not close to unflappable between the ears.

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

To say Pete was no slouch is an understatement, but he's also clearly 2-3 notches below Federer here.

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

This is debatable. There's more to being an athlete than running fast and jumping high. Federer has immaculate footwork, supreme balance and coordination, better stamina (I don't see how this isn't part of the discussion), and a game that is expolosive yet simuletaneously easy on his body. Also, Federer excelled in soccer, cricket, basketball and other racquet sports as a youth. It's at least close.

BTW, if you wanna chalk up Sampras's inferior stamina to it being a genetic trait therefore not fair, fine. Sampras said his shoulder was freakishly flexible, which is one of the primary reasons he had such a formidable serve. Is that not due to genetics too? Or do we only count it when it is negative?

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

Pete had thalassemia minor, a common disorder in mediterranean people, which is far less debilitating than thalassemia major. It's an overused excuse, and it hindered him less than you seem to think. And even if it did hurt him in the stamina category, Federer still deserves credit for being an incredibly fit player. You make it seem as if Federer only wins this by default.

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Yup, no doubt although Federer probably would have been much better than he currently is at the net if he had played in the 90s fast surfaces. Not better than Pete at the net but better than he is now. However, yes, Pete has the clear edge here.

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

No doubt.

Footwork- Federer

May I add -- "by a mile".

Speed-Sampras was faster

Yup.

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

Federer has the forehand, drive BH, BH slice, return, footwork, defense, passing shots, drop shots. Pete has 1st and second serve, FH and BH volleys, overall net play, speed afoot, and overhead. Although the overhead is a moot comparison, because it registers as a minor shock when either of them fail to put away an overhead or miss it. It's about as sure a thing as anything, so its not much of an advantage.

Yes, I saw Sampras play in his prime btw.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Here you're just avoiding the elephant in the room, which is that Federers forehand is far superior than Sampras's. I/O, I/I FH? Federer. Overall rally forehand? Federer. Angles, explosiveness and consistency? Federer. CC forehand? Federer. DTL forehand? Federer. FH pass? Federer. Pete had a great running FH although I think Federer's running FH is very underrated. You're so quick to amplify all the categories in which Pete has an advantages, but you won't even concede one of the most obvious disparities.

THANK YOU! You phrased that much better than I could.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

THANK YOU! You phrased that much better than I could.

thanks mate to me, having seen both forehands at their respective peaks, theres just no way you can compare the two strokes and not come to the resounding conclusion that fed's is better.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

How does Federer not have a 7/10 BH at the least? Nadal takes every OHBH to pieces. In fact, people who are considered to have better OHBH than Federer often have worse records against Nadal than Federer himself. (Gasquet, Haas, Wawrinka, Almagro etc)

Djokovic never was capable of "terrorizing him of that side". If anything it's the reverse. Murray, I'll give you that one. (even though peak Federer embarrassed him at the AO ) Nalbandian gives him fits but not because of BH to BH exchanges. Old Agassi was Federer's pidgeon. Kuerten didn't exactly crush Federer. He beat Federer before his clay prime on clay. He also has the best OHBH drive of all time. Not a huge suprise really.

How ever, Federer's BH >>> Sampras. Let's not be ridiculous.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by dangalak

How does Federer not have a 7/10 BH at the least? Nadal takes every OHBH to pieces. In fact, people who are considered to have better OHBH than Federer often have worse records against Nadal than Federer himself. (Gasquet, Haas, Wawrinka, Almagro etc)

Yeah since Federer doesnt far trump those players you mentioned in every aspect of the game besides the backhand right. If you actually watch the matches Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Almagro have nowhere near as much trouble off the backhand side vs Nadal as Federer does. They just dont have enough game in most areas or staying power to ever beat Nadal.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yeah since Federer doesnt far trump those players you mentioned in every aspect of the game besides the backhand right. If you actually watch the matches Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Almagro have nowhere near as much trouble off the backhand side vs Nadal as Federer does. They just dont have enough game in most areas or staying power to ever beat Nadal.

I think it's the western grip, really.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

Fed has a better bh and that's just about everyone have agreed on. He's playing in the most toughest era when the conditions rewards for a two handed bh since the ball bounce high and the courts are slowing down. Despite being successful as he is, his bh would be even better(and suited) in the 90s.

[okdude1992]

Well it depends how you define athleticism doesn't it. If we are talking pure athleticism (how its conventionally defined) as in strength, explosiveness, speed over a short distance, power, jumping ect its obviously Sampras.

But then again, some people are talking about Tennis athleticism. (as in the specific abilities most suited to tennis) This includes anticipation, quickness, footwork, balance, flexibility, endurance. In this way Federer is more athletic.

Overall, I prefer the first definition more, because more people identify athleticism like that. So Sampras is more "athletic" than Federer in a conventional sense. But Federer has alot more tennis specific athleticism working in his favor. Especially for the modern game of slower courts and longer rallies.

[edberg505]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

Probably? Hahahaha, that is freaking hilarious. And I guess Michael Jordan probably had a better jump shot than Lebron James. You have such contempt for Federer. I don't know why that is. But it hardly renders your comment objective. Look, I was a huge Pete fan. I've seen too many of his matches to count. And in no universe was Federer's backhand "probably" better. It was definitely better in every aspect!

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by okdude1992

Well it depends how you define athleticism doesn't it. If we are talking pure athleticism (how its conventionally defined) as in strength, explosiveness, speed over a short distance, power, jumping ect its obviously Sampras.

But then again, some people are talking about Tennis athleticism. (as in the specific abilities most suited to tennis) This includes anticipation, quickness, footwork, balance, flexibility, endurance. In this way Federer is more athletic.

Overall, I prefer the first definition more, because more people identify athleticism like that. So Sampras is more "athletic" than Federer in a conventional sense. But Federer has alot more tennis specific athleticism working in his favor. Especially for the modern game of slower courts and longer rallies.

That definition of athleticism is only conventional to mostly Americans who think that 40 yard dashes, vertical leaps, and Bench presses are what athleticism is all about. The second definition is the one that makes sense. The first one is just stupid and makes it seem like only NBA and NFL players qualify as athletes.

This guy is one of the most adored athletes in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi

He is only 5 ft 7 and weighs less than 150 lbs. I guess his 40 million fans on facebook need to look up what a "true athlete" is.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

That definition of athleticism is only conventional to mostly Americans who think that 40 yard dashes, vertical leaps, and Bench presses are what athleticism is all about. The second definition is the one that makes sense. The first one is just stupid and makes it seem like only NBA and NFL players qualify as athletes.

This guy is one of the most adored athletes in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi

He is only 5 ft 7 and weighs less than 150 lbs. I guess his 40 million fans on facebook need to look up what a "true athlete" is.

Tbf, Messi isn't very athletic. Ronaldo (both of them) and Kaka would be better examples.

[Vcore89]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Tbf, Messi isn't very athletic. Ronaldo (both of them) and Kaka would be better examples.

I agree on Messi not on par with Ronaldo and Kaka in terms of athleticism but he is great at what he does. Frankly, I give Mascherano my vote of confidence over Messi but Messi always comes up with something when it matters.

Sorry OP for hijacking the thread with off-topic...

[dominikk1985]

Federer. Sampras might be a much better jumper but overall fed moved much better and did so with much greater endurance.

Feds endurance is greatly underrated because he has that asymmetrical body and no razor abs but he is probably the tennis player with the greatest endurance in tennis history. he never gets tired even in a 5 setter (even now at age 30-unless some very rare occasions) while sampras sometimes had stamina issues (yeah I know he had this blood illness but being healthy is part of the game).

[Sabratha]

Federer is also decling slower than Sampras did.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Did I just hear this? Federers backhand slice is much better than Pete's. Even now it's among the best on tour, barring Murray whose slice is also sick.....

While the rest of your post was pretty much spot on I'm struggling with how you could be astute enough to make all those comments and then somehow think Murray's slice backhand is even remotely comparable to Federer's. OR have I misread what you meant?

Murray's slice is good as an addition to his 2HBH -solid enough. Federer's, by contrast, is without compare on the tour currently (granted: there may be some 200th ranked player with an arguably better on but with a worse *everything else*). You'd be hard pressed to name someone who outshines him in this department in the last 20 years.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

THANK YOU! You phrased that much better than I could.

Ditto... it was well put indeed.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

While the rest of your post was pretty much spot on I'm struggling with how you could be astute enough to make all those comments and then somehow think Murray's slice backhand is even remotely comparable to Federer's. OR have I misread what you meant?

Murray's slice is good as an addition to his 2HBH -solid enough. Federer's, by contrast, is without compare on the tour currently (granted: there may be some 200th ranked player with an arguably better on but with a worse *everything else*). You'd be hard pressed to name someone who outshines him in this department in the last 20 years.

Youzhny? Lopez? They aren't better than him, but not that inferior either.