Sampras Serve of Federer Forehand?

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Federer's forehand.

Once the things get going, it is the forehand, that decides things more often than not. More universal and one get to use it several times during a point.

This is key.


A serve can be at most used twice to win a point.

A fh can be used several times - though this is dependent on the opponent.

The reality is that there are players who extremely serve reliant ...i.e. karlovic, isner etc.

But are there really that many players who are overly fh reliant? Sure some have stronger fhs, but this doesnt mean they dont know how to hit an average backhand.

Karlovic serve - best in the game and still hasnt got him that far.

Contrast to say a fh reliant player like F.Gonzalez and he has reached the australian open final and had a better career.

What about other serve reliant players ? Wayne Arthurs, J.Isner....not saying too much.

Nadal and federer in their younger days had barely passable backhands - these wings could be broken down. Federer would constantly slice and nadal would hit short backhands to get clobbered. Still they achieved very good results compared to serve only players.

In reality, an fh reliant player is going to have more success than a serve reliant player. In theory - having a serve seems better, but there are very few examples of players having a fh but absolutely no bh.

[PSNELKE]

Originally Posted by World Beater

This is key.


A serve can be at most used twice to win a point.

A fh can be used several times - though this is dependent on the opponent.

The reality is that there are players who extremely serve reliant ...i.e. karlovic, isner etc.

But are there really that many players who are overly fh reliant? Sure some have stronger fhs, but this doesnt mean they dont know how to hit an average backhand.

Karlovic serve - best in the game and still hasnt got him that far.

Contrast to say a fh reliant player like F.Gonzalez and he has reached the australian open final and had a better career.

What about other serve reliant players ? Wayne Arthurs, J.Isner....not saying too much.

Nadal and federer in their younger days had barely passable backhands - these wings could be broken down. Federer would constantly slice and nadal would hit short backhands to get clobbered. Still they achieved very good results compared to serve only players.

In reality, an fh reliant player is going to have more success than a serve reliant player. In theory - having a serve seems better, but there are very few examples of players having a fh but absolutely no bh.

Karlovic is a really bad example.
He may have a big O serve, but his physicall abilities and technique are bounded by his height.

Take an Ivanisevic and Sampras serve.
You don't even need to hit an ace, a half decent, well placed serve getting returned weak is all you need.
The rest is just a compulsive putaway.

[Metalica]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

that's like saying you may have Pete's serve, but if you don't have Pete's shoulders, you won't get similar result.

If the serve is the most important stroke, hundreds of clay courters in the 90s must've missed the memo. or Agassi, when he won his 8 slams.

That's not the same thing. I didn't say you can't hit Fed's forehand because you have weak arms, I said you don't have the foot speed to hit forehands all the time. Now when I think about being gifted Fed's forehand, I don't imagine I'd be gifted his speed and footwork as well. There are just a skill sets needed to use a good forehand effectively. Shot selection for example, knowing what kind of forehands to hit, how hard. I feel a serve is more straight forward.
A lot of posters here are underestimating the benefits of having a great serve. Yes you only serve during a service game and you only hit the serve at the beginning of a point but it will reward you with a huge amount of free point. People say Raonic and Isner and Karlovic don't get anywhere with their serve. That's because the rest of their game are really average. Bad return of serve, very bad movement, inconsistent groundstrokes, and they don't even come to the net that much behind that big serve. If anything, it's amazing they got to where they are with that serve.
On clay the serve is probably not as important as physical fitness and consistency but it's still very helpful. How else was Isner able to beat Federer at Davis Cup and take Nadal to five sets at the French? My knowledge of 90's tennis isn't that great but I'd assume those clay specialists didn't make that much impact outside of clay.
Now with all that being said, I think think Fed's forehand is the best one I've ever seen and I modeled mine after his.

[kidbourbon]

Sampras' serve is, imho, the greatest shot in the history of the game.

[helloworld]

Federer's forehand requires world class movement to execute. Sampras' serve is a standalone shot that will make someone ten times better than they actually are.

[Leelord337]

Voted the Sampras Serve..wasn't that tough of a choice because having just a serve can make you big bucks in tennis. Dr. Ivo for ex

[Joseph L. Barrow]

Originally Posted by PSNELKE

Then Ivanisevic wins it. He ain't very tall.

He's 6'4". And although his serve was monstrous, he was also a bit double-fault prone, unlike Roddick. In his career, Ivanisevic hit 10,183 aces and 3,572 double faults, and held 86% of his service games. Roddick hit 9,074 aces and 1,585 double faults, and held 90% of his service games. Roddick was the better server.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Metalica

That's not the same thing. I didn't say you can't hit Fed's forehand because you have weak arms, I said you don't have the foot speed to hit forehands all the time. Now when I think about being gifted Fed's forehand, I don't imagine I'd be gifted his speed and footwork as well. There are just a skill sets needed to use a good forehand effectively. Shot selection for example, knowing what kind of forehands to hit, how hard. I feel a serve is more straight forward.
A lot of posters here are underestimating the benefits of having a great serve. Yes you only serve during a service game and you only hit the serve at the beginning of a point but it will reward you with a huge amount of free point. People say Raonic and Isner and Karlovic don't get anywhere with their serve. That's because the rest of their game are really average. Bad return of serve, very bad movement, inconsistent groundstrokes, and they don't even come to the net that much behind that big serve. If anything, it's amazing they got to where they are with that serve.
On clay the serve is probably not as important as physical fitness and consistency but it's still very helpful. How else was Isner able to beat Federer at Davis Cup and take Nadal to five sets at the French? My knowledge of 90's tennis isn't that great but I'd assume those clay specialists didn't make that much impact outside of clay.
Now with all that being said, I think think Fed's forehand is the best one I've ever seen and I modeled mine after his.

But if your strategy is to hold serve and win the tie-break, then you should rather go with Karlovic, Raonic, or any -ic serve. Because if you consider that to use properly a Federer forehand, you need to have his footwork and his shot selection, then you also need to have Sampras serve selection (and mental fortitude) to use it properly, as well as the game to back up this serve, which also was great to set-up points. With Karlovic's you don't really need shot selection. You just have to execute well, and if you do, even if Agassi or Djokovic know exactly where it will land, they can't do a lot about it.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by World Beater

This is key.


A serve can be at most used twice to win a point.

A fh can be used several times - though this is dependent on the opponent.

The reality is that there are players who extremely serve reliant ...i.e. karlovic, isner etc.

But are there really that many players who are overly fh reliant? Sure some have stronger fhs, but this doesnt mean they dont know how to hit an average backhand.

Karlovic serve - best in the game and still hasnt got him that far.

Contrast to say a fh reliant player like F.Gonzalez and he has reached the australian open final and had a better career.

What about other serve reliant players ? Wayne Arthurs, J.Isner....not saying too much.

Nadal and federer in their younger days had barely passable backhands - these wings could be broken down. Federer would constantly slice and nadal would hit short backhands to get clobbered. Still they achieved very good results compared to serve only players.

In reality, an fh reliant player is going to have more success than a serve reliant player. In theory - having a serve seems better, but there are very few examples of players having a fh but absolutely no bh.

Read the OP again, we ain't talking just a serve, we are talking Pete's serve. You know, Pete Sampras, the guy that could serve you to love with just 4 strokes aka 4 straight aces or who could get out of 0-40 with his next 5strokes.

All this rubbish about Roddick or Ivanisevic having better serves than Sampras is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. They may have had faster serves, but they didn't have the placement, or the disguise, or the second serve or that x factor, the clutch serve.

Sampras' serve by a mile.

[Metalica]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

But if your strategy is to hold serve and win the tie-break, then you should rather go with Karlovic, Raonic, or any -ic serve. Because if you consider that to use properly a Federer forehand, you need to have his footwork and his shot selection, then you also need to have Sampras serve selection (and mental fortitude) to use it properly, as well as the game to back up this serve, which also was great to set-up points. With Karlovic's you don't really need shot selection. You just have to execute well, and if you do, even if Agassi or Djokovic know exactly where it will land, they can't do a lot about it.

Yea I haven't even watched any Sampras match so I would also take a Raonic/Karlovic serve. It's just that Sampras was mentioned in the OP and I wanted to make the point that it's better to have a great serve than a great forehand.

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

What the heck.. No he isn't.

Sampras is wayyy more all court player.. Better transition to the net, better feel, better net play, more athleticism and pure speed

Feds got a better inside-out FH, but Pete's is better on the run

Similar BH's though Fed's is a bit better

Fed isn't better at everything. Take your pink Fed shades off

And you, don't you want to take off your anti-Fed shades off to be fair?!

[Joseph L. Barrow]

The option was not "any serve you like," but "Sampras' serve." As such, why don't we quit bringing Karlovic's serve into the equation? Otherwise, in point of fact, some might be interested in having, say, a peak Fernando Gonzalez's forehand instead of Federer's-- but again, that isn't the question.

Of the two strokes, I would certainly prefer Sampras' serve, because the serve is a more important stroke than the forehand; if you had no other major assets to back either stroke up, you could still win quite a few matches on the strength of that serve, while the forehand wouldn't do you nearly so much good.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by President

Federer forehand is the best of all time, Sampras serve wasn't. IMO Roddick had a better serve even if we are excluding very tall people.

Please, Roddick's serve is nowhere near Sampras's. No player would rather face Sampras's serve than Roddick's. Most people do consider Sampras the greatest server of all time btw, especialy when taking into account the second serve.

[mattennis]

The forehand is the most important shot in tennis, and I'd choose Federer's forehand as the greatest tennis shot ever.

Some say Karlovic got to nº14 in the world and one Wimbledon QF with basically a great serve.

Alberto Berasategui had a great forehand, a horrendous backhand (he always tried to only hit forehands), a horrible serve (he was only 1.72 m or 5' 8'' ) and good legs. He got to nº 7 in the world, was runner-up at RG and won 14 titles. He was basically a great forehand.

[Joseph L. Barrow]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Please, Roddick's serve is nowhere near Sampras's. No player would rather face Sampras's serve than Roddick's. Most people do consider Sampras the greatest server of all time btw, especialy when taking into account the second serve.

Fashionable as it may be on internet forums to look down on Roddick, Roddick hit more career aces, fewer double faults, had a higher average first-serve percentage, and had a higher career service-games won percentage than Sampras.

[nikdom]

Depends which Federer forehand - Fed forehand from 2006 or Fed forehand from 2013.

Fed's forehand isn't what it used to be.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Joseph L. Barrow

Fashionable as it may be on internet forums to look down on Roddick, Roddick hit more career aces, fewer double faults, had a higher average first-serve percentage, and had a higher career service-games won percentage than Sampras.

Nope, Roddick is terribad.

On the other hand, I checked serve statistics for Sampras and found that on all the points that Sampras cared about, he hit a second serve ace. One hundred percent!

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by Joseph L. Barrow

Fashionable as it may be on internet forums to look down on Roddick, Roddick hit more career aces, fewer double faults, had a higher average first-serve percentage, and had a higher career service-games won percentage than Sampras.

Don't forget the fact that Roddick accomplished all of this under slower conditions as well.

[mattennis]

Sampras had a great serve (first and most so second serve), yes, but I think many people overestimate it.

Wayne Arthurs, Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Mark Philippoussis, Guy Forget, obviously Boris Becker, Mark Rosset,.....those were some players from his era that made, at least, equal or more service points (aces+unreturnables per match played) than Sampras.

With Sampras (like it is with Federer), it is the whole package that was such successful.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

pfttt. Roddick doesn't have the disguise or placement nor the 2nd serve Pete had.. Thus why Fed could totally pick Roddick's serve apart.. Its fast but also pretty readable

career hold percentage:

roddick: 90%
pete: 89%

so roddick has actually a higher hold percentage dispite playing his whole career on slow courts against grinders and baseliners.
karlovic and isner also have higher hold percentages than pete.

I'm not sure if I would call petes serve the best ever.