Wilander: Federer much better than Sampras

sureshs · Feb 15, 2007

"I think Federer is much better than Sampras. He's hitting the ball much harder." - March Tennis mag, pg 22.

Lots more ammunition in this issue:

In another article (sure to inflame the oldie supporters):

"While advancements in racquet technology receive much of the credit (or blame) for the rise of power tennis, studies by the ITF and others show that the chief causes are the improved strength and increased size of players, better training, and refined technique." - pg 67.

So much for the "oldies had more talent" theory. Note "refined technique".

On watching old tennis footage: "They look like little old men playing compared to the speed and the strength of today's athletes." - pg 67

And here is one for the Nadal haters:

Robert Lansdorp: "You get a guy like Nadal, and Nadal is built, and right away people say, 'He must be doing steroids.' I say, 'You're crazy.' Look at his uncles. Look where he is coming from. These guys have legs like tree trunks. He's one of those guys who's lucky enough to have a great build. People are so quick to put a label on people who are successful because they aren't successful."

All this shows how much this board is detached from reality.

rrhstennis · Feb 15, 2007

Good thing your balls don't determine how good you are then.

scaino · Feb 15, 2007

Though I usually respect Wilander's observations, this is a pretty extreme statement in my opinion. I rate Federer above Sampras, but only slightly, more on the basis of consistency than raw ability. Sampras could reach the same peaks as Federer, or at least close, as in San Jose 1996, where he played some of his best baseline tennis that I can remember. I also recall points from the 2001 US Open, before falling to Hewitt, where Sampras made unbelievable shots, much like the Federer 'fun house' moments on TV. Even Sampras's backhand could be as deadly as Federer's, though again, it was less consistent, and it seems Federer is still improving his stroke. I would like to know why Wilander thinks Federer is hitting the ball 'much harder' than Sampras. I see no proof.

drakulie · Feb 15, 2007

Great post suresh. I agree. People who say the oldies were better are full of it. Fed would destroy Laver, Budge, Emerson, Pancho, etc, etc, etc. Those guys would not have a prayer.

sureshs · Feb 15, 2007

This thread should get interesting very quick.

drakulie · Feb 15, 2007

scaino said:
Even Sampras's backhand could be as deadly as Federer's, though again, it was less consistent,

"Deadly"??? LMAO.

Sampras' backhand was far from 'deadly". It was a loopy topspin rally shot at best.

sloe_torture · Feb 15, 2007

sureshs said:
All this shows how much this board is detached from reality.

Actually we collectively have a sense of what's going on and can debate both sides of issues on end. This March issue sounds like several discussions we (TW Talk Tennis Board) had last Fall, around Aug./Sep. on the skill and conditioning of today's athletes compared to athletes of yesteryear. The notion was also heavily discussed on the Navratilova racquet regulation thread.

As far as I see it Tennis Magazine (and other periodicals) lag behind current topics. It's possible that this board feeds a lot of ideas to the editors.

Nick Irons · Feb 15, 2007

Wilander is one of my all time greats. I gotta listen to what he says; even I cannot subscribe to all of it.

All valid points.

scaino · Feb 15, 2007

To Drakulie:

With such a comment, I cannot believe you have seen much of Sampras.

I found highlights of the '96 confrontation I referenced above:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAtTegC3OH0

Look for Sampras dictating a point from the baseline against Agassi with the backhand, finally unleashing a perfect down-the-line backhand winner. I agree, not as consistent a weapon as Federer's, but it could be just as effective when he was in the zone. I have not done the research, but knowing Federer hits few backhand winners (usually several times more off the forehand), I suspect their backhand stats were quite similar if you compare them through 1997/2007. Certainly nothing at which to "L" your "AO."

Nick Irons · Feb 15, 2007

I agree scaino

Sampras' one handed backhand was brutal.

Think about it haters; you're making soffing remarks about the current GOAT of tennis even if it is arguably. The man just retired 5 years ago; you think the game has evolved that much in 5 years ?

Roger is looking like he is gonna be the goat when it is all said and done; but today ? He ain't it.

Sampras was lethal.

drakulie · Feb 15, 2007

To: scaino
From: drakulie

Re: sampras backhand.

Highlight are highlights. They are there to show us the great shots hit in a match . I could assure you, his backhand was a weakness, and a rally shot at best.

His backhand was riddled with errors, and a loopy shot. Sure he hit winners. I wouldn't expect a pro player who played so long and be the # 1 player to never hit a winner off that side. However, for every amazing winner he hit on the backhand side, he had about 15 errors.

Oh, and by the way he along with agassi are my favorite players of all time.

PS: I have seen him play live several times, and practice.
PSS: I have a ton of his matches on DVD.
PSSS: I watch them very frequently.

whistleway · Feb 15, 2007

scaino said:
To Drakulie:

With such a comment, I cannot believe you have seen much of Sampras.

I found highlights of the '96 confrontation I referenced above:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAtTegC3OH0

Look for Sampras dictating a point from the baseline against Agassi with the backhand, finally unleashing a perfect down-the-line backhand winner. I agree, not as consistent a weapon as Federer's, but it could be just as effective when he was in the zone. I have not done the research, but knowing Federer hits few backhand winners (usually several times more off the forehand), I suspect their backhand stats were quite similar if you compare them through 1997/2007. Certainly nothing at which to "L" your "AO."

I had a chance to look at some youtubes as well. It is so easy to forget Sampras and how great he played because of the artistry and pure skill shot making that Federer brings to the court.
Nonetheless, I feel sad for Sampras after watching these clips. He deserved to be at the top for more time, than what, a couple of years, before media crowned Fed as the next sampras. Sampras was awesome and it is an understatement.

35ft6 · Feb 15, 2007

scaino said:
Though I usually respect Wilander's observations, this is a pretty extreme statement in my opinion. I rate Federer above Sampras, but only slightly, more on the basis of consistency than raw ability.

This goes without saying for everybody. It's consistency that distinguishes the greats from one another, since on any given day, they might be able to beat one another, but who is the one who will have more of those days. If it was simply a matter of being able to reach the highest peak, guys like Leconte and Korda might be talked about in the same breath as Sampras and Laver. Ditto for more recent examples like Safin and Gasquet.

Sampras' backhand was at its best when he could really get low and power through it, so it was fine on grass and faster surfaces. The slower the surface and higher the bounce, the less effective it became. To say Sampras' backhand is as good as Federer's is to only be thinking of Sampras at his best on his favorite surfaces, completely discounting, uh, clay.

Feña14 · Feb 15, 2007

drakulie said:
...Oh, and by the way he along with agassi are my favorite players of all time.

Same.

As I keep saying Sampras is my favourite player of all time thanks to all the great memories he gave me whilst growing up but to be honest, I think Federer is just a better version of Sampras.

It's not easy for me to say but I think Federer's sheer genius would be too much if they played in their prime.

The Gorilla · Feb 15, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPN9ZfOqVg8&NR

why couldn't he smile once in a while after hitting those great shots?Then he would have been proclaimed an artist and a genius.

Sampras's game adds up to more than fed's, better serve, equal forehand, consistant backhand that was a weapon Sampras needed it, equal movement, better volleys.

drakulie · Feb 15, 2007

Here are some stats I did to prove to people like you, Sampras did not have a great or “deadly” backhand. I watched 9 matches and counted every rally from the baseline in each match. For each error (forced or unforced) the player received one unforced error. For every clean winner, he received one winner.

Here are Sampras’ stats for each match.

95 US Open vs. Agassi
3 backhand winners vs. 9 backhand errors

Sampras vs Agassi famous "no breaks of serve" US open match.
3 backhand winners vs. 14 backhand errors

Sampras vs Courier Australian Open match.
2 backhand winners vs. 27 backhand errors

Sampras vs. Agassi 1994 Miami Final
1 backhand winners vs. 11 backhand errors

Sampras vs. Agassi 1999 Wimbledon Final
2 backhand winners vs. 6 backhand errors

1999 ATP year End Championship (Finals)
4 backhand winners vs. 5 backhand errors

Indian Wells 2001 Finals
5 backhand winners vs. 20 backhand errors

1999 Mercedez Benz Classic Finals
2 backhand winners vs. 8 backhand errors

1995 Newsweek Finals
3 backhand winners vs. 18 backhand errors

Total: 25 winners. 118 errors

Oh, by the way, his forehand didn’t do that much better.

Here is the thread if you would like to read the entire discussion:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=100334&page=15&highlight=sampras+ground+game

Bye bye!

scaino · Feb 15, 2007

35ft6,

I do think there is something to be said for the heights reached by a player. I rate McEnroe above Connors, despite Connors's far greater longevity and superiority in most statistical categories (excluding doubles). But there is a minimum level of consistency required before one can really talk about an all-time great. Safin does not qualify, Rios even less so, while Vines and Hoad certainly do, and McEnroe behind them. I would say that Sampras was capable of shots nearly as good as Federer's best, though he did it less often. And no, I have never said it was the equal of Federer's, only that it COULD be as deadly. Yes, I am thinking of faster surfaces, when the conditions were optimal. Federer's backhand may be sturdier, but it too has been known to break down at times, especially on clay. He seems to have improved it over the last six months, and I am anxious to see how it holds up over the coming clay season.

BigServer1 · Feb 15, 2007

The Gorilla said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPN9ZfOqVg8&NR

why couldn't he smile once in a while after hitting those great shots?Then he would have been proclaimed an artist and a genius.

Sampras's game adds up to more than fed's, better serve, equal forehand, consistant backhand that was a weapon Sampras needed it, equal movement, better volleys.

I really disagree that Pete's game added up to more than Roger's game. Roger has the better forehand, better backhand, is arguably more consistent on both sides, has a better return of serve and moves better. You're right about Sampras' serve and volleys, but that's it. Everything else has to favor Federer. There are highlight reels and there's real life, and in real life Roger is just a little bit better.

scaino · Feb 15, 2007

Drakulie,

Sampras and Federer both are known to have made many backhand errors, with a low ratio of winners to errors, because their opponents are continually attacking that side. If you could present a side-by-side comparison of both players, it would be more useful. I know that one winner to every four errors is not uncommon for Federer off the backhand, similar to some of Sampras's stats. The point is that both COULD be deadly off that wing, when they were 'in the zone.'

The Gorilla · Feb 15, 2007

how about this formula for rating players:

rate them between 1-10 for their level of play

+

([rate them between 1-10 for their dominance over the field]
[rate their rivals collectively between 1-10 and subtract this from their dominance rating])

+

rate them between 1-10 for longevity of their peak.

= G.O.A.T

drakulie · Feb 15, 2007

scaino said:
Drakulie,

Sampras and Federer both are known to have made many backhand errors, with a low ratio of winners to errors, because their opponents are continually attacking that side. If you could present a side-by-side comparison of both players, it would be more useful. I know that one winner to every four errors is not uncommon for Federer off the backhand, similar to some of Sampras's stats. The point is that both COULD be deadly off that wing, when they were 'in the zone.'

Nice try. Funny how when one disagress the comeback is always something like what you stated>> "I'm sure you have never seen Sampras play."

I don't need to do a side-by-side of Fed and Sampras. I have eyes and could clearly see Fed has a way better backhand than Sampras. And like I showed with the stats I provided, "my memory" of Sampras was much clearer than posters like you who argued in that other thread that Sampras' ground game was deadly and consistent, and his backhand was "lethal".

It wasn't until I decided to do these stats and post them, that people stopped arguing tooth and nail.

Sorry, I love Sampras but am realistic. His backhand was not deadly. It was a rally shot until he could go for broke on a forehand. Period.

Too many people watch youtube highlights and want to assume or "believe" that the player was making shots like the ones in the video throughout the course of the match.

tricky · Feb 15, 2007

I would say that Sampras was capable of shots nearly as good as Federer's best, though he did it less often.

Honestly, there are shots that Fed that probably nobody else in the game can do. In regards to his FH, the combination of pace, spin and strike height variability is unlike anything the game has ever seen.

The point is that both COULD be deadly off that wing, when they were 'in the zone.'

On a fast, low bounce surface, I don't think there's any player's one-handed BH right now that can consistently win a crosscourt battle against Fed's one-handed BH. It's not quite the weapon of Gasquet, but he can mix up DTL and crosscourt shots as well as anybody, and his slice is better than perhaps everybody else in the game. He tore apart Roddick with just his BH alone.

Both Sampras and Fed's BHs would be faulty on clay. But Fed wins out due to his defensive slice.

Fed doesn't have Sampras's running FH. That was truly a magnificient shot.

35ft6 · Feb 15, 2007

scaino said:
35ft6,

I do think there is something to be said for the heights reached by a player. I rate McEnroe above Connors, despite Connors's far greater longevity and superiority in most statistical categories (excluding doubles). But there is a minimum level of consistency required before one can really talk about an all-time great.

I agree. In that regard, you're right that Federer and Sampras are closer than Korda and Sampras, but Federer has achieved heights in terms of sustained excellence, measured in different ways, that Sampras never came close to.

I would say that Sampras was capable of shots nearly as good as Federer's best, though he did it less often. And no, I have never said it was the equal of Federer's, only that it COULD be as deadly.

That was in response to somebody else.

Yes, I am thinking of faster surfaces, when the conditions were optimal. Federer's backhand may be sturdier, but it too has been known to break down at times, especially on clay.

But not nearly as shaky as Sampras' backhand on clay. Not saying Pete's backhand on clay was rubbish, but in case you're suggesting that because Federer's backhand has broke down in the past against Nadal, that he and Sampras are more or less in the same boat, I just want to point out that IMO Federer's backhand is much better. I give a slight edge to Sampras's serve and volleys, but a huge edge to Federer in forehand, defense, overall movement, backhand, and fitness (mostly due to Sampras' condition). I might even say Sampras' first step was more explosive, but I think it's negated by Federer's superior anticipation. After these two, though, there's really nobody else. I'm not marginalizing Sampras at all. BTW, I also give Federer the edge in the transition game dept. Anything short is a winner. Sampras used to more often to set up a volley but it wasn't necessarily lights out as often as with Roger.

Deleted member 3771 · Feb 15, 2007

The theory is that the current string technology gives the ball a lot more spin and control. SO in response to that players are able to then swing much harder with different refined technique AND still keep the ball in. Players can also use more powerful rackets or more lead etc to complement these strings. So they technology gives them the potential to hit much much harder with more margin for error, so naturally they should hit the ball much harder than players did 5 or 10 or more years ago with lesser technology. The technology also means they should natutally be able to create faster paced shots with more extreme angles etc, due to the extra spin and control. So its no surprise that Fed and others hit the ball harder.

Oldies have more talent as they needed to hit with more precision. If todays players try to hit the way they are hitting now , with old technology that demanded more precision, the ball would miss a lot more.

sureshs said:
"I think Federer is much better than Sampras. He's hitting the ball much harder." - March Tennis mag, pg 22.

Lots more ammunition in this issue:

In another article (sure to inflame the oldie supporters):

"While advancements in racquet technology receive much of the credit (or blame) for the rise of power tennis, studies by the ITF and others show that the chief causes are the improved strength and increased size of players, better training, and refined technique." - pg 67.

So much for the "oldies had more talent" theory. Note "refined technique".

On watching old tennis footage: "They look like little old men playing compared to the speed and the strength of today's athletes." - pg 67

And here is one for the Nadal haters:

Robert Lansdorp: "You get a guy like Nadal, and Nadal is built, and right away people say, 'He must be doing steroids.' I say, 'You're crazy.' Look at his uncles. Look where he is coming from. These guys have legs like tree trunks. He's one of those guys who's lucky enough to have a great build. People are so quick to put a label on people who are successful because they aren't successful."

All this shows how much this board is detached from reality.

scaino · Feb 15, 2007

To Drakulie:

Your stats did not surprise me, and I have never argued that Sampras consistently struck winners off the backhand. That is in fact the opposite of what I have said. We agree that Federer has a better backhand than Sampras: it is more versatile, it breaks down less often, and he can hit flashy winners more frequently. All I have said, is that when Sampras was on, he could hit the same flashy winners that Federer does. I really don't think you and I disagree much, in what we see, it is just the wording. I rate Federer's backhand higher, and Federer higher overall as a player, though I do not see the 'gap' as being as wide as you do. Let's leave it at that.

drakulie · Feb 15, 2007

^^^^ I agree Sampras could hit some flashy winners as well on the backhand side. However, his backhand for the most part was not lethal or deadly. There were several times when he went for broke on the backhand and it worked. Case in point-- the year end championships in 99 against AA. He decided before the match he was not going to allow AA to push him around on that side and break him down. If you remember AA had beaten him earlier in the tourney. Anyway, he went for broke merely every time he got a backhand, and his shots were landing in. He hit some amazing shots. However, matches like these were a very rare occurence, because more often than not>> this strategy did not work for him.

Federer's backhand is a very different animal than Sampras'. It is much more rounded and polished than Sampras' ever was, and with much more variety. In no way, is it the same type of "weakness" as Sampras' was. As AA said in an interview, "With Pete you could go to his backhand, and at least increase your chances of maybe pulling out a victory. With Fed there is nowhere you could go." (I'm paraphrasing)

Fed's backhand essentially is what Sampras' backhand never was >>> a weapon. What is scary is that his backhand is getting even better. Like you said, in the past 6 months it has improved.

Peace!

stormholloway · Feb 15, 2007

I agree. Sampras seemed like if he didn't hit a winner of the backhand, it would eventually break down in a rally. The same was the case against AA at the AO in '00 (does that rhyme?). Backhand to backhand Andre would lay waste to him, which is why Pete would try to rip his backhand down the line early on.

Federer's backhand is a thing of pure beauty. It is so loose and fluid. He commits to it. Sampras always ends his backhand with both arms high in the air as if to say "well, there it was I guess". I don't think Sampras committed himself to thinking that stroke through.

Federer has him in every department except serve.

drakulie · Feb 15, 2007

^^^^^ Sampras for the most part used his backhand as a purely defensive shot until he could get a forehand and go for broke.

and I agree, Fed has him in every dept. except the first and second serve.

Volleys I would probably give a slight edge to Sampras, but it is due to the fact that he came to the net more.

stormholloway · Feb 15, 2007

Smart guys knew to pick on the Sampras backhand. You're right his backhand was basically defensive, but he didn't want to hit backhands all day and if they kept coming he would often look for the line, and often went wide, at least in the matches I've seen against Andre.

I guess his volleys were better, but when Roger hits a volley, it looks perfect to me. It's a matter of practice I suppose. I've got the Sampras/Fed match and Roger's backhand looks better even at that stage in Roger's development.

NoBadMojo · Feb 15, 2007

sureshs said:
"I think Federer is much better than Sampras. He's hitting the ball much harder." - March Tennis mag, pg 22.

Lots more ammunition in this issue:

In another article (sure to inflame the oldie supporters):

"While advancements in racquet technology receive much of the credit (or blame) for the rise of power tennis, studies by the ITF and others show that the chief causes are the improved strength and increased size of players, better training, and refined technique." - pg 67.

So much for the "oldies had more talent" theory. Note "refined technique".

On watching old tennis footage: "They look like little old men playing compared to the speed and the strength of today's athletes." - pg 67

And here is one for the Nadal haters:

Robert Lansdorp: "You get a guy like Nadal, and Nadal is built, and right away people say, 'He must be doing steroids.' I say, 'You're crazy.' Look at his uncles. Look where he is coming from. These guys have legs like tree trunks. He's one of those guys who's lucky enough to have a great build. People are so quick to put a label on people who are successful because they aren't successful."

All this shows how much this board is detached from reality.

While your post seems structured to be more instigating than informational, it is pretty easy to counter in a number of respects

Wilander has said other controversial things and may have some jealousy of Sampras

Actually you could build a case for tennis today not really being power tennis and more safe tennis..the spin rate and ball speed are ball speed are higher tho for sure...serves are the same and returns are much better. it's certainly a lot more about shot safety now and endless baseline ralleys with big net clearance than ever before which also makes comparing even Sampras' ue's to Feds non sequitor as Pete went for more as did many other older players...ended points sooner..played more serve/volley and higher risk tennis.

landsdorp's statement is just pure speculation. there's tons of juicing on tour...gotta keep up with the competiton. i would say there is more than a 50/50 chance that Nadal is a juicer, and it has nothing to do with how his body looks..i am shocked that landsdorp doesnt seem to know that you can have the body of Petr KOrda and be a juicer, especially since Wodstock was busted for steroids....all 6'2 160 pounds of him or whatever he was

Just to counter what Wilander said, how about what I recently heard in a Courier radio interview...Courier knows Pete's game a little and knows a bit about tennis too.
-He gives the edge to Samps on the grass
-He gives a big edge to Fed on the dirt
-He gives a small edge to fed on hardcourt
I assume he is comparing Sampras in his prime to the current Fed

illkhiboy · Feb 16, 2007

drakulie said:
Here are some stats I did to prove to people like you, Sampras did not have a great or “deadly” backhand. I watched 9 matches and counted every rally from the baseline in each match. For each error (forced or unforced) the player received one unforced error. For every clean winner, he received one winner.

Here are Sampras’ stats for each match.

95 US Open vs. Agassi
3 backhand winners vs. 9 backhand errors

Sampras vs Agassi famous "no breaks of serve" US open match.
3 backhand winners vs. 14 backhand errors

Sampras vs Courier Australian Open match.
2 backhand winners vs. 27 backhand errors

Sampras vs. Agassi 1994 Miami Final
1 backhand winners vs. 11 backhand errors

Sampras vs. Agassi 1999 Wimbledon Final
2 backhand winners vs. 6 backhand errors

1999 ATP year End Championship (Finals)
4 backhand winners vs. 5 backhand errors

Indian Wells 2001 Finals
5 backhand winners vs. 20 backhand errors

1999 Mercedez Benz Classic Finals
2 backhand winners vs. 8 backhand errors

1995 Newsweek Finals
3 backhand winners vs. 18 backhand errors

Total: 25 winners. 118 errors

Oh, by the way, his forehand didn’t do that much better.

Here is the thread if you would like to read the entire discussion:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=100334&page=15&highlight=sampras+ground+game

Bye bye!

Here's the problem with your stats, Drakulie. First of all, they don't take into account the first three shots of the point. So all return winners are discounted. I can understand if you want to eliminate the 3rd shot of the point, which in Sampras' case would normally be a putaway, and it might be misleading to suggest that those winners prove how strong his groundstrokes were.

Here's my second problem with your stats, you cluster the unforced errors with the forced. So in a scenario where Sampras was lunging for a ball - that most players would not get to - with his backhand and hit it into the bottom of the net you would count that as an "error." So instead of getting credit for getting his raquet on a ball most wouldn't get to, your discrediting Sampras for making an "error."

Lastly, you didn't count the number of times Sampras' strokes forced an error from his opponent. What about the backhand shots his opponent couldn't return? And what about those backhand shots that opened up the court and set up the putaway volley?

I agree that Sampras did not have a great backhand, but using you're stats to prove that point is not a great way to go about it IMO. Of course, I might be wrong.

Deleted member 3771 · Feb 16, 2007

I agree Feds topsin backhand is stronger than Sampras. But dont forget hes playing with new string technology that gives that ball better control, so hes able to swing a bit more freely and still gett he ball in. Either was his topsin backhand is more fluent and better than Sampras's. Fed also uses the backand as a rally shot and uses his other big shots to win. In the AO final vs Gonzo I think his only backhand winner when both were at the back was the last point of the match. He rarely even hits backhand winners on returns of serve. A few times a match he'll go for broke on a backhand, he makes them half the time and misses half the time. I think Sampras had a better slice, but Roche has been helping Fed steadily improve his slice.

christopher07 · Feb 16, 2007

I think that this discussion as a viable debate exists only in the minds of Americans, to be absolutely frank. Everyone that i know who plays (and teaches) tennis (including ranked juniors, coaches and people that simply follow tennis) understands Roger Federer to be in totally different league, technically to Sampras - and certainly far better in terms of being being a complete player. The only feature/fundamental stroke in which Sampras was superior was on serve, which was of astonishing quality.

I find it incredible that this is even being debated ....

It is worth noting that Agassi stated that Federer was the 'best ever', the best player that he had ever played during his long career. I hardly think this is said through 'jealously' (as maybe suggested), either - as, before Federer, Agassi clearly viewed Sampras as the 'best player', certainly of his generation.

deluxe · Feb 16, 2007

illkhiboy said:
Here's my second problem with your stats, you cluster the unforced errors with the forced. So in a scenario where Sampras was lunging for a ball - that most players would not get to - with his backhand and hit it into the bottom of the net you would count that as an "error." So instead of getting credit for getting his raquet on a ball most wouldn't get to, your discrediting Sampras for making an "error."

Lastly, you didn't count the number of times Sampras' strokes forced an error from his opponent. What about the backhand shots his opponent couldn't return? And what about those backhand shots that opened up the court and set up the putaway volley?

Very true. Winners vs Errors is a completely meaningless statistic. You should check out John Yandell's stuff about the "Aggressive Margin". In fact he has done some charting of both Federer and Sampras matches, split by shot.

illkhiboy · Feb 16, 2007

Thanks, I will check it out.

caulcano · Feb 16, 2007

whistleway said:
I had a chance to look at some youtubes as well. It is so easy to forget Sampras and how great he played because of the artistry and pure skill shot making that Federer brings to the court.
Nonetheless, I feel sad for Sampras after watching these clips. He deserved to be at the top for more time, than what, a couple of years, before media crowned Fed as the next sampras. Sampras was awesome and it is an understatement.

At least 3 years more .... hopefully in that time, FED would have won a calendar GS & surpassing SAMPs GS total.

35ft6 · Feb 16, 2007

christopher07 said:
I think that this discussion as a viable debate exists only in the minds of Americans, to be absolutely frank. Everyone that i know who plays (and teaches) tennis (including ranked juniors, coaches and people that simply follow tennis) usnderstands Federers to be in totally different league, technically - and certainly in terms of being being a complete player. The only feature/fundamental stroke in which Sampras was superior was on serve, which was of astonishing quality.

I find it incredible that this is even being debated ....

It is worth noting that Agassi stated that Federer was the 'best ever', the best player that he had ever played during his long career. I hardly think this is said through 'jealously' (as maybe suggested), either - as, before Federer, Agassi clearly viewed Sampras as the 'best player', certainly of his generation.

Welcome to the boards. Post often. Get your friends to register.

galain · Feb 16, 2007

Drakulie's stats are interesting.

As much as I love Fed and as much as I want him to just keep on winning everything in sight to cement his legacy, it's really hard imagining him matching Sampras at Wimbledon in 99. Maybe I'm fogged by memory and old age, but as a non fan of Sampras, i was so incredibly impressed with his play that day it left a pretty deep impression on me.

Consistently I think if his brain and nerves held up (and who's going to forget his matchpoint against Safin a few years ago at the AO?) he'd win more than he'd lose against Sampras - but that Wimby final - to make Agassi look like an observer at the baseline was something else.

caulcano · Feb 16, 2007

galain said:
Drakulie's stats are interesting.

As much as I love Fed and as much as I want him to just keep on winning everything in sight to cement his legacy, it's really hard imagining him matching Sampras at Wimbledon in 99. Maybe I'm fogged by memory and old age, but as a non fan of Sampras, i was so incredibly impressed with his play that day it left a pretty deep impression on me.

Consistently I think if his brain and nerves held up (and who's going to forget his matchpoint against Safin a few years ago at the AO?) he'd win more than he'd lose against Sampras - but that Wimby final - to make Agassi look like an observer at the baseline was something else.

He was "In The Zone". I'm sure AA has been "In The Zone" & beaten SAMP.

David L · Feb 16, 2007

galain said:
Drakulie's stats are interesting.

As much as I love Fed and as much as I want him to just keep on winning everything in sight to cement his legacy, it's really hard imagining him matching Sampras at Wimbledon in 99. Maybe I'm fogged by memory and old age, but as a non fan of Sampras, i was so incredibly impressed with his play that day it left a pretty deep impression on me.

Consistently I think if his brain and nerves held up (and who's going to forget his matchpoint against Safin a few years ago at the AO?) he'd win more than he'd lose against Sampras - but that Wimby final - to make Agassi look like an observer at the baseline was something else.

Well, of course he made Agassi look like an observer. Sampras plays grass court tennis, Agassi does'nt. Agassi does not have the weapons to hurt Sampras on grass, Federer does. It was always going to be an up hill struggle for Agassi on a surface like grass. Had they played on clay, the story would have been different. In any match up, you can't discount what an opponent will allow the other to do. This is not golf.

sureshs · Feb 16, 2007

NoBadMojo said:
landsdorp's statement is just pure speculation. there's tons of juicing on tour...gotta keep up with the competiton. i would say there is more than a 50/50 chance that Nadal is a juicer, and it has nothing to do with how his body looks..i am shocked that landsdorp doesnt seem to know that you can have the body of Petr KOrda and be a juicer, especially since Wodstock was busted for steroids....all 6'2 160 pounds of him or whatever he was

Accusing people of doping without evidence (more than 50% claim is basically accusation) is pure speculation.

The article interviews many people, including the enforcers. There is not a shred of evidence.

As I said, there is much nonsense on this board which cannot stand up to reason when required to present on an edited, accountable forum (like a tennis magazine).

bluegrasser · Feb 16, 2007

sureshs said:
"I think Federer is much better than Sampras. He's hitting the ball much harder." - March Tennis mag, pg 22.

Lots more ammunition in this issue:

In another article (sure to inflame the oldie supporters):

"While advancements in racquet technology receive much of the credit (or blame) for the rise of power tennis, studies by the ITF and others show that the chief causes are the improved strength and increased size of players, better training, and refined technique." - pg 67.

So much for the "oldies had more talent" theory. Note "refined technique".

On watching old tennis footage: "They look like little old men playing compared to the speed and the strength of today's athletes." - pg 67

And here is one for the Nadal haters:

Robert Lansdorp: "You get a guy like Nadal, and Nadal is built, and right away people say, 'He must be doing steroids.' I say, 'You're crazy.' Look at his uncles. Look where he is coming from. These guys have legs like tree trunks. He's one of those guys who's lucky enough to have a great build. People are so quick to put a label on people who are successful because they aren't successful."

All this shows how much this board is detached from reality.

Interesting and true to a degree - I really don't like comparing players from different time periods. The game has evolved and if those same players were born in this time period, they would hace succeeded much the same IMO.

sureshs · Feb 16, 2007

bluegrasser said:
Interesting and true to a degree - I really don't like comparing players from different time periods. The game has evolved and if those same players were born in this time period, they would hace succeeded much the same IMO.

Assuming they would also have been bigger due to better health and nutrition facilities? Would Rod Laver have succeeded today if he was still 5'9" but enjoying newer racquets, training, medical help and prize money? I have my doubts.

bluegrasser · Feb 16, 2007

sureshs said:
Assuming they would also have been bigger due to better health and nutrition facilities? Would Rod Laver have succeeded today if he was still 5'9" but enjoying newer racquets, training, medical help and prize money? I have my doubts.

I think so - Chang comes to mind, and other great players in that size - Hewitt also and others. Maybe Laver wouldn't be numero uno,but he'd be there with the big boys battling.

kaiotic · Feb 16, 2007

BigServer1 said:
I really disagree that Pete's game added up to more than Roger's game. Roger has the better forehand, better backhand, is arguably more consistent on both sides, has a better return of serve and moves better. You're right about Sampras' serve and volleys, but that's it. Everything else has to favor Federer. There are highlight reels and there's real life, and in real life Roger is just a little bit better.

Pete's serve and volley is most likely what is required to beat Fed on a regular basis. so, the decision still goes to Pete even though he has the more inconsistent but heavier groundies.

shavenstringer · Feb 16, 2007

I rate Mickey Mouse above both of them in sheer backhand power.

ACE of Hearts · Feb 16, 2007

Fed's performance last year in the masters cup final against Blake told me how lethal his backhand can be.I agree, its not even an issue on the backhand, i favor it for Fed.

drakulie · Feb 16, 2007

illkhiboy said:
Here's the problem with your stats, Drakulie. First of all, they don't take into account the first three shots of the point. So all return winners are discounted.

You are correct. There is a problem with the stats I did. If I took into acount, as you suggested, the retrun of serve >>>> his numbers would be even worse on both wings. If you seriously think the number of winners he hit on return of serves to "error ratio/non-returned serves" would somehow "balance out" his ground game in his favor >>>>you are seriously mistaken.

But just to get a kick out of this I went ahead and did his return of serve stats. I looked at what Pete himself called his "best match ever">> the 99 Wimbledon final where he crushed Agassi. Here are his return of serve stats for that match:

Backhand winners= 1
Backhand errors= 16

So doing it your way, as I stated above, his numbers would look worse than what I originally posted: Backhand winners= 2, Backhand errors= 6

Now counting his return of serve stats for that match with ground stroke rallies here are his numbers:

backhand winners= 3
backhand errors = 22

You guys seriously need to get out of the clouds in thinking Sampras' backhand was lethal, deadly, or whatever.

Bye, bye! Have a nice day!

illkhiboy · Feb 16, 2007

Drakulie,

Those backhand "errors" that you count, they also include forced errors right? So if Sampras lunged for a backhand and miraculously got to it, but still missed it, you would count that as an error right? Ditto for a service return he got a raquet on but couldnt put into play, right?

Anyway, I never claimed that Sampras' backhand was "lethal" or "deadly" as some others have claimed. If it was, then Sampras would simply be beating every player 0, 1 and 0.
Fact is though, when he was on Sampras could hit great shots off his backhand like against Moya at the Australian Open Final, '97.

Drakulie,

I remember a few days ago Laurie cited some points in the Wimbledon final where Sampras made backhand winners off the return. He cited at least 3 points, and likely more. You did not refute his claim, but instead said that you were not counting return winners. I don't have the match on me. So which one of you is right, how many backhand return winners did Sampras actually hit? You're saying 1, Laurie said a higher number (you didn't refute his claim).

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to count Sampras' backhand shots that forced errors from Agassi?

The Gorilla · Feb 16, 2007

according to my dream match tennis pro game, all return winners sount as winners, all return errors don't count unless the ball is served at < 45mph, if you just hit the ball out and are not on the run then it is an unforced error, if you are running from one side of the court to another then it is a forced error and is not counted.

the problem with the way drakulie is taking the the score is he is using his judgement to decide whether or not he considers the shot is an unforced error or a forced error, and we all know from boxing how subjective that method is.

Wilander: Federer much better than Sampras

Bionic Poster

Rookie

New User

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Rookie

Semi-Pro

New User

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

New User

Legend

New User

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Legend

Deleted member 3771

Guest

New User

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 3771

Guest

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Banned

Similar threads