Sampras does hav a ground game

AAAA

AAAA

Hall of Fame
(1)
See Becker's record here
http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=M&action=players&playerid=BEB001


Let's compare his slam performances upto and including 1991 and from '92 onwards because

A) After a slam win in 1991, Becker didn't win another slam until 1996 (almost a 5 year gap)
B) Prior to 1991 he was winning slams far more frequently and won 5 of his total 6 slams before 1992.
C) From '85 to '91 there were 7 FO events and Becker competed in all of them even though clay was his worst surface however in the 7 French Open events after '91, Becker only played in 2 of them before retiring.

So those are good reasons to compare 'upto 1991' with '92 onwards'

Becker's record in the 32 majors between 84 and 91 is
won 5 times = 15.6% {5/32} or 17.8% {5/28}
missed only 4 = 12.5% {4/32}
SF or higher 13 times = 40.6% {13/32} or 46% {13/28}

Contrast with record in 27 majors* from 92 to Wimbledon 99, his ast appearance in a slam/major
won only 1 more major = 3.7% {1/27} or 5.6% {1/18}
missed 9 of them = 33.3% {9/27}
SF or higher 6 times = 22.2% {6/27} or 33.3% {6/18}

* According to sources Becker played no majors in 1998 so if the extra 4 non-appearances figured above the numbers would show Becker paired down his slam appearances even more.

so comparing the percentages:

15.6% vs 3.7% so his winning percentage dropped big-time.
12.5% vs 33.3% so he misses twice as many majors because he's no longer able to put up with the physical grind day in day out, is saving his body or has other external distractions in his life.
40.6% vs 22.2% so he reaches the SF or higher only half as much as during what I consider his prime years - the 80s.

Also from the link above we see that Becker never won any more tournaments after 1996. We can also see that between the 1996 Aus Open(his last major) and his last major appearance, at Wimbledon 1999, there were a total of 15 majors. Of those 15, Becker only played in 3 of them. Only 3 out of 15, hardly a sign that Becker still had life in him as a top flight tennis player.


Like it or not Becker was a diminished force in the 90s and 1996 was Becker's last hurrah, his last tango, he used up whatever was left in the tank as a top flight tennis player. Fact is Sampras played a former champion who was on his last legs.





Laurie said:
AAAA, I was just mentioning some matches where Sampras dominated or where it was a level playing field like the 1996 ATP final.

However, I'm sure there are many players who would like to be washed up (Becker) by winning the Australian Open, beating krajicek in the ATP semifinal and taking the number 1 player to five sets in the final - a match that's gone down in history.See 1 above

When's the last time Roddick won a slam? I take it Roddick is washed up at the age of 24, if you consider a 29 year old who wins a major and finishes the year in the top 8 as washed up.

Here you are using Roddick to imply I was suggesting a player is 'washed up' after winning their last slam, I never said that but you want people to think I did, that's a **** poor fabrication for you to pin on me. What I did say is Becker was way past his best in 1996 as shown above.

Let's Compare :
Becker played 3 of 15 slams(20%) after his last major title and retires - supports my points

Roddick played 12 of 12 slams(100%) after his last major title and in all likelihood will play another 4 at least - doesn't support your point at all.


Mentioning Roddick didn't have the effect you were perhaps expecting.



Krajicek, 3 operations? In 1999 summer when Sampras was the hottest player around and bound to break the record at the US Open, he had to miss the US Open because of a bad back. Or is Krajicek the only one allowed to have injuries? Besides Sampras had already beaten Krajicek 6:4, 6:2 in Cincinatti quarterfinal when both men were healthy. In the 2000 US Open match, Krajicek was 6:4 and 6:2 up in the second set tiebreak and lost! He must have really wanted Sampras to win.

Here you are trying to equate Sampras's 'bad back', your words, with the physical decline after 3 knee operations. Quote from the Krajicek career biography at the ATP website:

1996-Underwent arthroscopic right knee surgery on Dec. 9 to repair torn meniscus and returned two months later...

1998 Closed year by undergoing arthroscopic left knee surgery on Nov. 9 to repair torn medial meniscus...

2000-Streak of eight consecutive years in Top 20 and nine straight seasons with at least one title came to an end...Part of reason he played in fewest matches (41) of his career was due to arthroscopic left knee surgery on Jan. 31...Lost to Escude in 2nd RD of Australian Open and in second set of that match, injured his knee...This was second time he underwent surgery to repair meniscus on his left knee (1998)...Returned to action three months later

so let's compare their slam record/attendence after these injuries

Sampras after his 'bad back'
played 12 majors in a ROW, wins two more majors and twice a finalist. Golly, that 'bad back' sure had a debilating effect on Sampras...I mean he played 12 majors in a row, won two and 'finaled' another two. That 'bad back' must really hurt.

Here's Krajicek after his 3rd knee operation
Only played 3 more majors before retirement. Sure those knee operations are superficial ailments.


So for you to suggest Sampras's 'bad back' evens the playing field against Krajicek's knee operations is a stretch that only extremely fanatical Sampras fans can propose.




Muster? Over 40 titles to his name by 1997. Not worth mentioning is he?


Has muster won any hardcourt tournaments? Fed beats Nadal at Wimbledon and people under-rate Fed's win because Nadal 'really isn't a grass court' player. So why is Muster a creditable hard court player for Sampras? Does Muster have a better hardcourt record than Roddick? where is the consistency?


Kafelnikov? Two slam titles, an olympic gold medal, he must really be rubbish.

So? What I wrote was:

When Kalfelnikov won his lone Aus Open he thanked Pete for letting him win publicly during his speech - with such a deferential and perhaps inferiority complex against Pete a case can made that 'Kaf's' mind wasn't on the task of winning vis-a-vis Sampras concerns about his coach

That still stands and it's good you mentioned Kaf again because it made me think. I am 100% certain that Kaf on the eve of a FO SF match against Muster said during the pre-match interview 'I can't win' when talking about his chances against Muster. How's that for confidence or the right mental approach. If you want people to reject the stats from one Sampras match because Sampras had his mind on other things and then people absolutely have the right to stats from matches with Kafelnikov, a player whose has played more than one match in his life with a defeatist beaten mind-set. He was already beaten before he even stepped on court.
Click to expand...
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
AgassisGoneEndOfAnEra :( said:
Well, I have to defend Pete here a little bit, that kick serve kicked bakc into his body it looked like, and it's harder to adjust with his one-hander.
Click to expand...

A good kick serve actually moves away from the opponent on the ad side. Its sort of a lefty kick you get from hitting the inside of the ball.

Next excuse why pete cant even hit a backhand without threatening the umpires life pls :)
 
AgassisGoneEndOfAnEra :(

AgassisGoneEndOfAnEra :(

Rookie
lol... maybe he was upset with some calls that the chair ump would not overrule in his favor, you could be underestimating Sampras on this one, he could have been aiming directly for the chair umps dome, he's not always the nice guy he seemed to be after winning.

or, Andre could have been using a reverse kick on that one, he has that in his repetoire, he could have caught pete offguard.


haha



Pete's backhand was definetly his weakest shot and he had the most unforced errors from that side I'm sure, but when he did hit a nice one hander down the line it was a thing of beauty. I still say Agassi was more talented overall given his less then dominant serve which he made up for with wicked groundstrokes and a superhuman service return, while Sampras was blessed with a perfect body to serve and volley, as well as a great deal of talent.
 
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Chadwixx said:
At 3:19 what the hell was he aiming at? Agassi just kicked it like 95mph.

Looks to me like he lived and died by his serve. I dont see his backhand being anything special as everyone else stated. He won pts with volleys, serve's and forehands. Where is this great backhand ppl are talking about? Seems like everytime he hit a backhand he lost the pt.

Keep in mind we are comparing his backhand to other pro's. A bad pro's backhand is still really good, but compared to other pro's, it wasnt nearly as special as we have been lead to believe.

Good clip though, i always like mal in the booth. Too bad he wasnt a suck up and didnt stick around.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just a serve. A lot of people including the commentators and his peers seem to disagree with that assessment. Relative? Shall we break out the Lo-lites from this generation's "not so greatest hits" on the backhand? Even great players miss shots, shank shots, like everyone else. Perspective is a good thing. Go watch the other top ten guys through Pete's reign and really watch their backhands.

I just re-watched Sampras v. Rafter at the 2001 USO. Pre- and during the match Enberg, JMc and Carillo were already saying that Sampras had not been the same player he had been since the '90's, specifically on the return and that he had been pulling off and out of his backhand in particular. After hitting seven clean bh winners in the first set and a half, the remarks were "that's the Sampras we remember" and "Sampras is dusting off his game from the '90's." "He's stepping into it like he did in the past." "He's gaining confidence in his game since beating Youzhny in the last round, (R32) and he can still do it all". And after another clean inside out backhand winner "That's the shot he was hitting when he was winning all those Grand Slams."

Agassi being interviewed while the match was going on, was asked if Sampras can still compete he answered that sure he could and that he thought the grind of the tour had just gotten to him in the last couple of years. "Sampras gives up some holds and then all of a sudden shifts to a new gear and it's over...It's that constant pressure of that next gear in the back of your mind.

If you think Sampras had no backhand you had better go back and watch some Rafter matches, because the last three of his I watched make Sampras's look like Kuerten's in comparison in all elements. Sampras's backhand is significantly better than Rafter's and I loved and rooted for the Aussie. What do you label Rafter? A kick serve and a backhand volley?
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
Im not saying he had no backhand. Im just saying it wasnt anything special compared to the other pro's. While other parts of his game were.

Please disreguard anything the announcers on cbs, nbc, espn have to say about american players. Remember the us open post match semi final interview with yafgenni kafelnikov (sp)? Mary was relentless with how poorly (she thought) he played. The same exact thing happened the next day, hewitt played no better, and she was telling pete how he was a buzzsaw and all sorts of stupid other junk. Very different interviews, the bias was pretty clear.
 
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Again I never labeled it great. It was very good through the '90's and better than many guys in the top 20 and down in the 90's. Were there backhands better than his? Yes there were. The reason he was labeled the most complete player in the 90's is the same reason Federer is now, largely by the same people. This he was only a serve crap is fanciful. His forehand volley was better than Rafter's, his forehand was feared by everyone while it was not as consistent as Agassi's it was still regarded as one of the best, his overhead was the best in the game, he was one of if not the best athlete in the sport in that era and his backhand in every element, was as good or better than almost everyone, aside from a select few in the 90's and in particular for how he played the game. Is it one of the best backhand's of all time? No. Neither was his forehand. Like Federer it was the totality of the experience but with the difference that Sampras was much more offensive, much more quick strike with much more net attack in his game. "Very good" to me means better than most. In comparison Rafter's would be "good" and Roddick's and Davydenko's would rate a "fair to poor" because they had/have signs on them "hit here win match".
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
The following are th4e totals for the 6 matches, with rally stats. Please note all 6 matches were won by Sampras.

I only counted baseline rallies that went a minimum of 4 shots landing in, in which neither player approached the net. I did this and broke it down per the player's serve.

Sampras Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 15 vs. errors= 72

Forehand winners= 21 vs errors= 61

Total winners= 36, vs. errors= 133. (minus 97)



This clearly shows Sampras' backhand was not an outstanding shot, or weapon as many people would like to believe. In addition, his forehand, as spectacular as it was, in truth was prone to breakdown, and was clearly a "go for broke" shot-Not a reliable rally shot.

Sampras' strength was clearly not the ground game. He won matches clearly on strength of serve, and getting to the net.
 
lambielspins

lambielspins

Banned
If Sampras's backhand was very good then Federer's must be excellent since his backhand is clearly better then Sampras's, and even his backhand is called vurnerable by some people.
 
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
lambielspins said:
If Sampras's backhand was very good then Federer's must be excellent since his backhand is clearly better then Sampras's, and even his backhand is called vurnerable by some people.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite...What would you classify Federer's backhand?
 
superman1

superman1

Legend
I don't know what happened to Fed's backhand. Perhaps it is the rest of his game that has made it look mediocre, but I don't think so. In his match against Sampras, I remember McEnroe constantly praising his backhand and wondering why he would run around to hit the forehand with a backhand like that. He has definitely lost some zip on it. That display against Nadal in the FO final was horrendous.
 
Phil

Phil

Hall of Fame
lambielspins said:
I would classify Federer's backhand as only quite good, Sampras's as just fairly good.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not watched Fed for awhile. Forget about the French open...in the matches I've seen, over the last few months, his backhand is absolutely smokin'. It is a powerful, compact and technically flawless stroke, and he seems to be able to pass oponents cross court or down the line whenever the heck he wants to.

Sampras' backhand was, I'd say, "quite good", at least up until the end of his career when he got lazy with his footwork.
 
S

sarpmas

Rookie
Chadwixx said:
Looks to me like he lived and died by his serve. I dont see his backhand being anything special as everyone else stated. He won pts with volleys, serve's and forehands. Where is this great backhand ppl are talking about? Seems like everytime he hit a backhand he lost the pt.
Click to expand...
Apart from some overzealous Sampras fans, most of us do acknowledge that Sampras does not have the best ground game and best bh in the tour. What we are saying is Sampras has a very good ground game and bh to compliment his serve and net game. It is not a vulnerability that is easily breakable under pressure. It's just really frustrating that some of you will go to the extend in disparaging Sampras's ground game and bh as if they are some 4.5 strokes. Again, how can someone be so dominant with a weak ground game and mediocre bh? Man! I'm rehashing my post over and over again... :(

I think FiveO sums it all in post #257.
 
illkhiboy

illkhiboy

Hall of Fame
Phil said:
You obviously have not watched Fed for awhile. Forget about the French open...in the matches I've seen, over the last few months, his backhand is absolutely smokin'. It is a powerful, compact and technically flawless stroke, and he seems to be able to pass oponents cross court or down the line whenever the heck he wants to.

Sampras' backhand was, I'd say, "quite good", at least up until the end of his career when he got lazy with his footwork.
Click to expand...

I agree with this observation. Federer has one of the best backhands in the game today. People constantly praise Gasquet's, which is excellent but Federer comes out on top quite a lot in the backhand exchanges between them. Obviously a lot comes down to the surface. At Wimbledo, where the ball was staying slow and skidding, Federer was pounding his backhands down the line for winners. On hard and grass, I 'd say Federer's backhand is top 5. On clay, not so much. Even then it's a top 10 backhand IMO. He can flatten it out, hit absolutely sick angles angles with it by heavily spinning it, rally all day and keep his slices really low. Nothing wrong with that shot, except when it comes to overpowering Nadal's fourhand spin.
 
A

avmoghe

Semi-Pro
drakulie said:
The following are th4e totals for the 6 matches, with rally stats. Please note all 6 matches were won by Sampras.

I only counted baseline rallies that went a minimum of 4 shots landing in, in which neither player approached the net. I did this and broke it down per the player's serve.

Sampras Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 15 vs. errors= 72

Forehand winners= 21 vs errors= 61

Total winners= 36, vs. errors= 133. (minus 97)



This clearly shows Sampras' backhand was not an outstanding shot, or weapon as many people would like to believe. In addition, his forehand, as spectacular as it was, in truth was prone to breakdown, and was clearly a "go for broke" shot-Not a reliable rally shot.

Sampras' strength was clearly not the ground game. He won matches clearly on strength of serve, and getting to the net.
Click to expand...


I'll echo the chorus here and thank you for your hard work.

Needless to say, I'll stand by my position on the Sampras backhand:

1. It being mediocre (where mediocre is in comparison to players who regularly made the slams)

2. There being at least 50 players in the entire 1990's decade who had more powerful, reliable, and precise backhands than Sampras.

PS - Amusingly enough, these stats may even make some other folks doubt the claim that the Sampras forehand was the best in his era. That's a whole another issue though...
 
L

laurie

Guest
avmoghe said:
I'll echo the chorus here and thank you for your hard work.

Needless to say, I'll stand by my position on the Sampras backhand:

1. It being mediocre (where mediocre is in comparison to players who regularly made the slams)

2. There being at least 50 players in the entire 1990's decade who had more powerful, reliable, and precise backhands than Sampras.

PS - Amusingly enough, these stats may even make some other folks doubt the claim that the Sampras forehand was the best in his era. That's a whole another issue though...
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a pain, but they are not official statistics so we should be careful about how they are interprated.

And no....I'm not implying Sampras had an amazing backhand. Just giving my view.

It would be interesting to see something similar for a specialist baseliner to see their winners/errors ratio over a period of matches.

My personal view is that the stats Drakulie made up over those matches didn't disgrace Sampras at all. He (Sampras) won a high enough percentage of those type of rallies to help turn matches his way, along with his other more obvious assets. There are of course, the intangibles. Some of those baseline exchanges came at crucial times like set point in the 1995 US Open final, Sampras won that rally with a backhand and literally set the tone for the rest of the match because Agassi was deflated and knew it would be an uphill struggle for the rest of the match. That rally was one of the best rallies of all time.

That's why I keep stressing tennis is not just about perfect technique, there are other factors.
 
AAAA

AAAA

Hall of Fame
suckmeneinei said:
THanks for your analysis drakulie... i can't imagine how much time it took :)

I remember watching so many of sampras' matches in the past... coz I loved the flair on his groundies (go-for-broke)... certainly not consistent... some days he would be on fire... but more often than not he wins matches with other aspects of his game. ie S & V, movement (I don't remember his volleys ever let him down) and when his serve wasn't on he would loose against good opponents... I think people tend to remember the big shots he made, but forgets that for every one he made he missed 4 or 5... if he was 'consistent' (comparing him to other baseliners), he would be more successful on clay (which is the least forgiving surface on 'inconsistent' ground strokes)
Click to expand...

Clay court tennis sure is a test of a players ground game because the player doesn't have the comfort of knowing they can easily hold serve by brilliant serving.
 
A

avmoghe

Semi-Pro
laurie said:
Sorry to be a pain, but they are not official statistics so we should be careful about how they are interprated. And no....I'm not implying Sampras had an amazing backhand. Just giving my view.
Click to expand...

No doubt. It's entirely possible that he is making up these stats, but I don't think that's the case. In either case, they are in agreement with my recollections of the Sampras backhand. You're right though.. perhaps someone on the other side of the argument (you or FiveO, for example) can verify these numbers?

Rest assured that (in this case, at least) you bring up a valid point and are not being a pain.

It would be interesting to see something similar for a specialist baseliner to see their winners/errors ratio over a period of matches.
Click to expand...

Agreed again. Unfortunately, patience and dedication aren't my strongest suits where forum discussions about tennis are concerned. Not to mention, my collection of tennis matches is virtually empty. :-|

My personal view is that the stats Drakulie made up over those matches didn't disgrace Sampras at all. He (Sampras) won a high enough percentage of those type of rallies to help turn matches his way, along with his other more obvious assets. There are of course, the intangibles. Some of those baseline exchanges came at crucial times like set point in the 1995 US Open final, Sampras won that rally with a backhand and literally set the tone for the rest of the match because Agassi was deflated and knew it would be an uphill struggle for the rest of the match. That rally was one of the best rallies of all time.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is no way to statistically record these "intangibles" and use it to prove a claim. I doubt we have any statistic that can account for the fact that not all points in a tennis match are of equal importance. Hell, the way our sport works...the player winning fewer points may actually win the match. How are statistics to account for this? I don't think they can.

However, we march on with the stats quest due to the simple reason that they are the only things we as humans can agree on. We take it on faith that better statistics mean a better backhand because we can do nothing else.


That's why I keep stressing tennis is not just about perfect technique, there are other factors.
Click to expand...

Indeed. However, for the purposes of these discussions, the only way to convince each other of anything is to ignore them all and rely on the undisputed stats.
 
T

tricky

Hall of Fame
It is a powerful, compact and technically flawless stroke, and he seems to be able to pass oponents cross court or down the line whenever the heck he wants to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the thing is, because Federer uses such a "light" racket, he has to hit the heavy pro ball absolutely cleanly on his BH side. And because (I think) he uses a classical grip, he can't really drive the heavy, high bounce. So, there's inherent limitations whenever he plays a high bounce surface, where he must default to slicing the ball.

On a fast, low-bounce surface, Federer's BH is lethal. The combination of natural pace and being able to rally from a lower ball height means he can hit the ball more cleanly without having to always be perfect. The combination of a more natural swing plane and his light racket also opens up his shot selection: enabling him to hit the ball with pace and more topspin than typical classical BH, thus opening up angles and easy winners. And of course, his footwork enables him to hit DTL flat shots with some regularity.

But that isn't to say Fed's BH is necessarily "the best suited" for today's game. Guys with extreme BHs are better suited for taking on today's topspin-heavy game, playing way behind the baseline, and on the generally slower surfaces nowadays. And with the example of Gasquet, the slower speed in turn enables him to take bigger swings, enabling them to crank on the ball while keeping it heavy.

Not sure how Sampras BH would hold up in current era.
 
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
avmoghe said:
No doubt. It's entirely possible that he is making up these stats, but I don't think that's the case. In either case, they are in agreement with my recollections of the Sampras backhand. You're right though.. perhaps someone on the other side of the argument (you or FiveO, for example) can verify these numbers?

Rest assured that (in this case, at least) you bring up a valid point and are not being a pain.



Agreed again. Unfortunately, patience and dedication aren't my strongest suits where forum discussions about tennis are concerned. Not to mention, my collection of tennis matches is virtually empty. :-|



Unfortunately, there is no way to statistically record these "intangibles" and use it to prove a claim. I doubt we have any statistic that can account for the fact that not all points in a tennis match are of equal importance. Hell, the way our sport works...the player winning fewer points may actually win the match. How are statistics to account for this? I don't think they can.

However, we march on with the stats quest due to the simple reason that they are the only things we as humans can agree on. We take it on faith that better statistics mean a better backhand because we can do nothing else.




Indeed. However, for the purposes of these discussions, the only way to convince each other of anything is to ignore them all and rely on the undisputed stats.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw it, but originally drakulie had put up all 6 of the matches stats, based on those very narrow parameters, breaking each match down individually as well as Agassi's which is why I asked him to repost them.

I don't know if drakulie saw what I did in those breakdowns but I'd be careful in using the distilled numbers in post #258 as proof for your side of the argument. I think drakulie saw what I saw in those stats and it didn't look good for his and your side of this debate.
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
FiveO, yes I saw it when I got home from work. Unfortunately, they are on my computer at work. When I get to work, I will repost it.

And no, it did look good for my side of the argument. I took them down, because the post was so long I didn't think people would bother to look through it. Samrpas, even though he won all those matches, did not win have a higher baseline winng percentage than his opponent in any match.

Even at Wimbledon 99 against Agassi, or the ATP 99 Finals against Agassi---- Where we can all concede Sampras absolutely demolsihed Agassi.
 
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
drakulie said:
FiveO, yes I saw it when I got home from work. Unfortunately, they are on my computer at work. When I get to work, I will repost it.

And no, it did look good for my side of the argument. I took them down, because the post was so long I didn't think people would bother to look through it. Samrpas, even though he won all those matches, did not win have a higher baseline winng percentage than his opponent in any match.

Even at Wimbledon 99 against Agassi, or the ATP 99 Finals against Agassi---- Where we can all concede Sampras absolutely demolsihed Agassi.
Click to expand...

If and when you can re-post them I can show you where I'm coming from.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Hi Drakulie, did you watch those 1999 Cincinatti semifinal clips?

I still don't see why Sampras has to be judged by how many points he won from the baseline. His speciality was to do his opponent in with a variety of ways, and going for baseline winners was one of those ways. He knows his own game and knows he will make errors, but makes a calculated risk to go for it at certain times.

That's why I think his percentages (from what you came up with) are good. Plus the proof is in the pudding because he won those matches, some by demolishing his opponent.

The most interesting thing of all this is that he (Sampras) doesn't even consider himself a baseliner anyway.

Please let me know what you think of those Cincinatti clips
 
F

fastdunn

Legend
I can't believe this discussion still going on.

The basic mold of Sampras game was the baseliner with big serve.
Many experts, for example, dubbed Safin as "Sampras of 21C" when he
first broke the scene. Sampras game has same mold as Safin's and
Ivanesvic. Big groundies and big serves...

His gig at Wimbledon as a S&Ver was a heck of an acting job.
He pretended like he is a S&Ver all the time !
 
A

avmoghe

Semi-Pro
fastdunn said:
I can't believe this discussion still going on.

The basic mold of Sampras game was the baseliner with big serve.
Many experts, for example, dubbed Safin as "Sampras of 21C" when he
first broke the scene. Sampras game has same mold as Safin's and
Ivanesvic. Big groundies and big serves...

His gig at Wimbledon as a S&Ver was a heck of an acting job.
He pretended like he is a S&Ver all the time !
Click to expand...

This is a bit off topic, but Goran Ivanisevic certainly did not have "big groundies".
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Here are the stats:

95 US Open vs. Agassi

50 of these rallies were played in this match. 14 on the Sampras serve, 36 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 18 (36%) of these point and Agassi 32 (64%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 9 backhand errors
5 forehand winners vs. 13 forehand errors

Total 8 winners vs. 22 errors = -14

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 4 backhand errors
8 forehand winners vs. 6 forehand errors

Total 10 winners vs. 10 errors = even


Sampras vs Agassi famous "no breaks of serve" US open match.

55 of these rallies were played in this match. 0 on the Sampras serve, 55 on Agassi’s.

Sampras won 19 (35%) of these points and Agassi 36 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 14 backhand errors
4 forehand winners vs. 13 forehand errors

Total 7 winners vs. 27 errors = -20

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 1 backhand errors
6 forehand winners vs. 11 forehand errors

Total 9 winners vs. 12 errors = -3


Sampras vs Courier Australian Open match.

102 of these rallies were played in this match. 20 on the Sampras serve, 82 on Courier’s

Sampras won 36 (35%) of these points and Courier 66 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 27 backhand errors
4 forehand winners vs. 17 forehand errors

Total 6 winners vs. 44 errors = -38

Breakdown of Courier’s Points won vs. Lost:

7 backhand winners vs. 15 backhand errors
15 forehand winners vs. 15 forehand errors

Total 22 winners vs. 30 errors = -8


Sampras vs. Agassi 1994 Miami Final

44 of these rallies were played in this match. 15 on the Sampras serve, 29 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 19 (43%) of these points and Agassi 25 (57%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

1 backhand winners vs. 11 backhand errors
6 forehand winners vs. 11 forehand errors

Total 7 winners vs. 22 errors = -15

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:

1 backhand winners vs. 7 backhand errors
2 forehand winners vs. 5 forehand errors

Total 3 winners vs. 12 errors = -9


Sampras vs. Agassi 1999 Wimbledon Final

23 of these rallies were played in this match. 0 on the Sampras serve, 23 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 10 (43%) of these points and Agassi 13 (57%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 6 backhand errors
1 forehand winners vs. 4 forehand errors

Total 3 winners vs. 10 errors = -7

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:

1 backhand winners vs. 4 backhand errors
2 forehand winners vs. 3 forehand errors

Total 3 winners vs. 7 errors = -4


1999 ATP year End Championship (Finals):

15 of these rallies were played in this match. 1 on the Sampras serve, 14 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 6 (33%) of these points and Agassi 9 (67%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

4 backhand winners vs. 5 backhand errors
1 forehand winners vs. 3 forehand errors

Total 5 winners vs. 8 errors = -3

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:[i/]

0 backhand winners vs. 0 backhand errors
1 forehand winners vs. 1 forehand errors

Total 1 winners vs. 1 error = even


Sampras Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 15 vs. errors= 72

Forehand winners= 21 vs errors= 61

Total winners= 36, vs. errors= 133. (minus 97)


Opponent’s Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 14 vs. errors= 31

Forehand winners= 34 vs errors= 41

Total winners= 48, vs. errors= 72. (minus 24)


Edited: I incorrectly added sampras' errors in the "no breaks of serve match". I put "25 errors insted of 27".
 
L

laurie

Guest
Oh , try going into properties and opening it up in another format you may have, like Power DVD or Nero Showtime or something similar.
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
Use vlcmedia player. Its a codecless player that will play anything. That or throw the file into gspot (if its avi) and see which codec you need.
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
3 more matches I did “ground stats for”. This time I counted all rallies from the baseline---as long as the serve was returned in play.

Indian Wells 2001 Finals
74 rallies were played in this match. 7 on the Sampras serve, 67 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 26 (35%) of these point and Agassi 48 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

5 backhand winners vs. 20 backhand errors
3 forehand winners vs. 15 forehand errors

Total 8 winners vs. 35 errors = -27

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

5 backhand winners vs. 8 backhand errors
8 forehand winners vs. 10 forehand errors

Total 13 winners vs. 18 errors = -5


1999 Mercedez Benz Classic Finals
48 rallies were played in this match. 15 on the Sampras serve, 33 on Agassi’s.

Sampras won 17 (35%) of these points and Agassi 31 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 8 backhand errors
3 forehand winners vs. 13 forehand errors

Total 5 winners vs. 21 errors = -16

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 9 backhand errors
7 forehand winners vs. 3 forehand errors

Total 10 winners vs. 12 errors = -2


1995 Newsweek Finals
95 rallies were played in this match. 27 on the Sampras serve, 68 on Courier’s

Sampras won 41 (43%) of these points and Agassi 54 (57%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 18 backhand errors
10 forehand winners vs. 16 forehand errors

Total 13 winners vs. 34 errors = -21

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:[i/]

6 backhand winners vs. 18 backhand errors
14 forehand winners vs. 10 forehand errors

Total 20 winners vs. 28 errors = -8


Sampras Total points won vs lost for 3 matches:

Backhand winners= 10 vs. errors= 46

Forehand winners= 16 vs errors= 44

Total winners= 26, vs. errors= 90 (minus 64)



Opponent’s Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 14 vs. errors= 35

Forehand winners= 29 vs errors= 23

Total winners= 43, vs. errors= 58. (minus 15)



This is now 9 matches I have done related to the baseline game. Sampras won 8 of the 9. (Indian Wells the only loss). In none of them did Sampras win the majority of baseline rallies. This clearly shows his backhand was not a weapon. In addition, shows his forehand, as "great as it was"--was also very prone to error and breaking down, and not even close to a rally shot.
 
H

Hal

Rookie
I'm not sure how big of difference it would make, but I'm not sure why you limited it to four or more shot rallies. Also, these stats can be skewed because they are a limited sample against two excellent baseliners (Agassi and Courier). I'm pretty sure they we expected to win the baseline battle and for Sampras any points won against these guys at the baseline were gravy. What he was concerned about was winning the battle of volley's versus passing shots and Serves versus returns. If he won a long rally, so much the better. I think you might find a different set of conclusions if you watch Sampras's matches against a weaker baseliners or serve and volley'rs. It'd be interesting to see what the stats show against Becker, Edberg, or Rafter?
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Hal, in my last post (#282), I did not limit it to "4 shot rallies". As long as the serve was returned I counted it.

I did this because in my earlier stats (post # 282), I had limited it to 4 shot rallies, and several people were arguing the numbers would be different (in Sampras' favor), if I counted all rallies. Of course as you could see, it is not-it is about them same.

I agree it would be interesting to see how he would fair against some of the guys you mention. However, I believe his "errors" would still heavily outweigh his winners, and his opponents percentages would still be higher. This is simply because Sampras' ground game was a "go for broke" attitude.

I also did these stats to show Sampras' forehand and backhand were not as great as everyone believes, and his forehand as great as it was, was not the best.
 
H

Hal

Rookie
drakulie said:
Hal, in my last post (#282), I did not limit it to "4 shot rallies". As long as the serve was returned I counted it.
Click to expand...

drakulie said:
I agree it would be interesting to see how he would fair against some of the guys you mention. However, I believe his "errors" would still heavily outweigh his winners, and his opponents percentages would still be higher. This is simply because Sampras' ground game was a "go for broke" attitude.
Click to expand...
You could be right, but I guess I'd like to see the stats that prove this. However, I'm not willing to spend my time compiling them. :D
drakulie said:
I also did these stats to show Sampras' forehand and backhand were not as great as everyone believes, and his forehand as great as it was, was not the best.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that your point is proven. This is a small sample of matches against only two opponents. The stats could be skewed because of this. You certainly can't use this sample to extrapolate his career. You'd have to pick a higher number (I'd have to do some calculations to determine the correct number) of randomly selected matches, then give yourself some +/- rate of error.
 
T

tennisfreak

Semi-Pro
I just quickly looked over drak's compilation of stat's in the Sampras vs Agassi and Sampras vs Courier matches. While it is certaiinly impressive, I don't think these stats prove what drak is trying to say. The result, in my opinion, is seriously biased towards the two baseliners. Let me explain why.

Because of the Sampras's tendency to attack the net on his serve, along with his opponents tendency to stay back, the majority of the baseline points were played on his opponent's serve (courier and agassi). Because of the inherent advantage of starting a point off serve, most of the baseline points will have proceeded while Agassi or Courier already has a positional advantage against Sampras. It follows that Agassi or Courier would win a majority of those points, which your stats show.

If you take any random match between two equally matched baseliners, you will find that the server will have won a majority of the baseline points, because of the inherent advantage of starting out on serve. For all intents and purposes, that is what you are doing in the analysis of these stats, since Sampras mostly ventured to net on his serve.

The only true way to be unbiased in this analysis is to include only rallies where both players are in a NEUTRAL position at the start of the rally, and see who wins the majority of those points. My hunch is that you would find it to be a lot closer if you did this.
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Tennisfreak, in actuality most of the points where Sampras stayed back on his OWN serve were won by the other player. The percentages were almost identical to the overall percentages I showed. In none of the matches I compiled stats for did he win the majority of baseline rallies on his own serve.

In addition, all of the rallies that I did stats for in post 282 were 4 shots or more, and for the most part were neutral rallies- Backhand to backhand.

When I did the 4-shot minimum rally stats, in which the stats clearly favored the opponent people said they were skewed because he would probably be winning more of the shorter rallies. So, I did 3 more matches to include all rallies. Again, the percentages were the same as the longer rallies.

Now you are saying "neutral" rallies. Again, as I said most of the rallies were neutral. The problem is, his backhand and forehand would break down. Period. The percentages are not going to swing in his favor. You need to keep in mind. Sampras won 8 of these 9 matches.

The ground game was simply not his "strength". Did he have a very good ground game? Absolutely. But no matter how many different ways you want to cut it, the percentages are not going to go his way.

Sampras was a "blitzkrieg" (spelling?) type player. He attacked, and was relentless. More often than not he failed. Meanwhile he is holding serve easily. Sooner or later---BAM! He hits a forehand winner. Love - 15

Then gets a double fault. Love - 30

Then rushes the net on second serve. Love - 40

Then BAM! another forehand winner, and he has the break.

Then proceeds to serve it out.
 
T

tennisfreak

Semi-Pro
drakulie said:
Tennisfreak, in actuality most of the points where Sampras stayed back on his OWN serve were won by the other player. The percentages were almost identical to the overall percentages I showed. In none of the matches I compiled stats for did he win the majority of baseline rallies on his own serve.

In addition, all of the rallies that I did stats for in post 282 were 4 shots or more, and for the most part were neutral rallies- Backhand to backhand.

When I did the 4-shot minimum rally stats, in which the stats clearly favored the opponent people said they were skewed because he would probably be winning more of the shorter rallies. So, I did 3 more matches to include all rallies. Again, the percentages were the same as the longer rallies.

Now you are saying "neutral" rallies. Again, as I said most of the rallies were neutral. The problem is, his backhand and forehand would break down. Period. The percentages are not going to swing in his favor. You need to keep in mind. Sampras won 8 of these 9 matches.

The ground game was simply not his "strength". Did he have a very good ground game? Absolutely. But no matter how many different ways you want to cut it, the percentages are not going to go his way.

Sampras was a "blitzkrieg" (spelling?) type player. He attacked, and was relentless. More often than not he failed. Meanwhile he is holding serve easily. Sooner or later---BAM! He hits a forehand winner. Love - 15

Then gets a double fault. Love - 30

Then rushes the net on second serve. Love - 40

Then BAM! another forehand winner, and he has the break.

Then proceeds to serve it out.
Click to expand...

Four stroke minimum rallies would tend towards ones that are on the neutral side. So data that only included rallies that were four strokes or over would definitely buttress your argument more. If the percentages are similar, that would indeed indicate courier and agassi had a superior ground game, which frankly, is not too surprising. (Since Agassi and Courier were two of the best baseliners of their generation.) If you were arguing that Agassi and Courier had a superiour ground game, I would agree. However, I don't think that necessarily indicates Sampras's ground game was mediocre, since he was playing against two of the best baseliners ever.

You would definitely get the most sense of what is actually happening during the matches since you have the luxury of watching on tape. Most of us, on the other hand, have to settle for blurry 5 min youtube videos :) -- Although, I did see some of these matches live a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Sampras's ground game...
Replies
7
Views
754
Lleytian3
Lleytian3
T
Cant bevieve this! Does nadal have a Girl friend
Replies
26
Views
7K
asintu
asintu
The Gorilla
roddick versus sampras
Replies
6
Views
553
saram
saram
federerfanatic
Roddick vs Sampras-2001 Nasdaq match.
Replies
14
Views
1K
armand
armand
psamp14
sampras-agassi 1996 (sybase open) san jose final
Replies
18
Views
2K
The tennis guy
T
Top