Are there any arguments for Federer vs Sampras serve?
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
World Beater
Hall of Fame
actually, this thread has been illuminating.
The stats show that pete's advantage on the serve over federer is not as large as some may claim.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
for a guy 6'5, berdych serve really is average if you compare him to other guys with comparable physique.
krajicek, goran have far better serves.
in order for berdych to have been a top 3 guy, his serve needs to be better...its accuracy is average and his variation is non-existent.
yes, he has the odd match where he serves well but it should be a much better weapon given that he has deficiencies in his movement and court coverage as compared to novak, nadal etc.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Prabhanjan
Professional
In the 90's what you say is true, not in this era. Pete's serve did not help him dominate AO, probably the only slam which Pete won and has not changed much. Under today's homogenized conditions where the attackers are not much helped, it would be a stretch to see Pete succeed with the serve. That Fed succeeds with his serve in spite of having better returners and homogenized conditions reflects how much better his serve is.
When you laugh at Fed's failure at 09, 12, and 14 at AO, you are unashamed in overlooking that Pete with that much better serve and way more inferior returners performed worse than Fed in 99, 02, and 04. Let not facts come in your way though.
90's Clay
Banned
Fed hasn't exactly been "dominant" per' se at the AO either. Take peak Agassi out of the equation at the Australian who Pete had to deal w/ in 1995 and 2000, and he has 4 AO titles. The same as Fed.
Meanwhile Fed being 0-3 vs. Nadal at the AO is much uglier considering Nadal isn't as good there as Andre was
Very telling. Make sure you take those rose tinted glasses off every once in a while when reminiscing of your high school days spent watching Magic play ball in your Marty Mcfly Nike's.
Sampras WAS fantastic at the net - Becker says it himself that it was the shot after Sampras' serve (usually a volley) that made him so special. Not sure how many times I have to say it, Karlovic and Isner are the two greatest servers of all-time. Their height is irrelevant. Who ever sparks outrage of Chang's lack of height when discussing who is the fastest player ever??
Great post - was expecting more capitalised words in your dribble though clay, you'r slipping. But seriously, take the knee pads off and get off your knees, I hit with the man himself, he told me karlovic/Isner had better serves than him. He didn't seem as bothered by it as you so rest easy champ knowing your God still sleeps well at night.
It's not so much Fed's second serve that gets 'ripped to shreds' by Novak/Rafa as it is they simply can get into the point on a second serve and win from the baseline. Serve is pretty much irrelevant. The only point I half-agree on with you is that I believe Pete had a better serve than Fed, but it's close. (did those last 3 words sting a little? I almost took it out to ease the pain, try a cold press cloth and some Tylenol for that burn).
I'd say that racket tech has helped everything - serve/return groundies but court conditions and ball changes have slowed things down to help counter this.
Agreed.
Great logic, just remove main rival annnnddd VIOLA! We have 2 more made up titles for our favourite 90s player, how easy is that! Collect your Tournament Simulator Tool from 90sClay - Free shipping, batteries not included.
Last edited:
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
^ I assume you meant Voilà! Wallah means something quite different. Got your message just the same. Very good post actually.
.
.
Haha you are quite right. I didn't bother searching it, just phonetically typed it in a rush.
Prabhanjan
Professional
So you subscribe that if we take Nadal out, Fed gets 05-09 + 11 FO, 08 Wimbledon, and then 09+14 AO, in the process he also gets every slam between FO 05 to USO 2007, 13 straight slams, 2CYGS, and overall 25 slams
Then Fed has 6 FO, 8 Wimbledons, 6 AO, and 5 USO. Do you happen to be the greatest Fed fan by any chance Pete at 96 losses to Philippoussis is straights who then loses next round winning a grand total of six games, loses to Kučera in 4 sets in 98, injured in 99, loses in semis dropping many sets to reach that stage, losses to Martin in 4 sets in 4th round, and losses to Safin in 4 sets in 4th roudn again. Which of these is slam winning form? Get real!
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
You can use that argument if you want, but it just makes things a whole lot more complicated when Pete served faster, which seems the most logical reason for the edge, which was not huge.
As for Pete vs Fed, to me they were the best of their eras, and that's good enough for me. Both Pete and Fed during the peaks were hugely exciting players to watch. I got tired of seeing both of them for awhile, because other than clay it seemed like it was the Pete show in the 90s, and it was the Fed show during the early to middle 2000s. Then when they started getting older, I started fully appreciating both of them.
fighting123
Rookie
The speed of the surface and the quality of the return shot have to be taken into consideration also.
I would rate Pete's serves above Fed's ones just because he was the best server in his era, and Federer is clearly not.
I would rate Pete's serves above Fed's ones just because he was the best server in his era, and Federer is clearly not.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Again, you are confusing serve with service game. Pete got more free points on clay than Fed. But Pete clearly won a lower % of service GAMES on clay.
On HC Pete won less than 1% more of all his service games on HC, very small margin, but he clearly won more free points on HCs.
And again, Pete's serve was better, but not hugely so, and both Pete and Fed did not come close to the free points that Roddick and Isanisevic got.
So you guys are not even arguing between the two best serves.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Again, you are confusing serve with service game. Pete got more free points on clay than Fed. But Pete clearly won a lower % of service GAMES on clay.
On HC Pete won less than 1% more of all his service games on HC, very small margin, but he clearly won more free points on HCs.
And again, Pete's serve was better, but not hugely so, and both Pete and Fed did not come close to the free points that Roddick and Isanisevic got.
So you guys are not even arguing between the two best serves.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Yeah, if giants like Isner and Karlovic played during 90's Sampras wouldn't be in top 2. Then add Roddick to the mix, not to mention slowing down of courts in the last decade or so.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Right, a better comparison will be between Isner and Karlovic.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Sampras was also serving 13 mph FASTER than Federer, so you'd expect him to have more double faults. Bottom line, it was an outstanding serving day for Federer, and a mediocre serving day for Sampras. But one match hardly determines who was a superior server throughout the course of a career. The biggest difference between Sampras and pretty much every other player who is considered to be a "good server" is his second serve. Pete had the best second serve in the game and would often ace his opponents outright on the second serve. In the stats that you provided, Sampras' AVERAGE second serve speed was 110 mph. Who else consistently serves that fast on the second?Huh? Federer had as many aces as Sampras, and fewer double faults:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
You have stats for the speed. That's impressive, but you still can't use any one stat to compare 2nd serves unless you have stats for 2nd serve aces.
Saying that Pete had the best 2nd serve is just not the same as talking about his service game. Even so, being #26 on the list of % of points won doesn't speak well considering that far poor players with far poorer weapons were better, when Isner is in 3rd play with far fewer weapons to back up the serve.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
He wasn't the best server of his era. He was the best at winning service games, and limit that to grass and HCs.
Again, you are mixing up service with service game.
Feather
Legend
Same here Hitman, I too was a Pete Sampras fan
Pete Sampras had a better first and second serve than Roger Federer.
Feather
Legend
Awesome logic!
Let us take Rafa out of the equation and Roger has two calendar slams, five or six RGs. I suppose you don't have any problem to admit that Roger is the best player ever, and third best clay courter ever after Rafa and Borg
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
What's wrong with that? This is TW, here faith = evidence.
Feather
Legend
Perhaps you need to understand the context
I was merely telling Hitman, with whom I have had many friendly exchanges, that I too was a Pete Sampras fan. I didn't mean to say that I consider Pete Sampras had a better serve than Roger because I was a Sampras fan :lol:
Please stop assuming!
If you can prove me and convince me wrong that Roger has better serve than Sampras then plz go ahead. In my life, I have never admired any sports player like I admire the Swiss Maestro
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Read my other posts in this thread. Pete got more free serves even on clay. His serve, by itself, was more of a weapon. But that's his 1st serve. And it was not by a huge amount.Perhaps you need to understand the context
I was merely telling Hitman, with whom I have had many friendly exchanges, that I too was a Pete Sampras fan. I didn't mean to say that I consider Pete Sampras had a better serve than Roger because I was a Sampras fan :lol:
Please stop assuming!
If you can prove me and convince me wrong that Roger has better serve than Sampras then plz go ahead. In my life, I have never admired any sports player like I admire the Swiss Maestro
The 2nd serve can't be analyzed alone, but since Pete had weapons to back up 2nd serve, he should have been up with Fed in % of 2nd serves won. And he isn't.
Feather
Legend
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Take AO goat Novak out and Fed has 6, 3 times the amount of Pete.
See how this game goes?
Feather
Legend
lolz, 90s clay's logic are certainly at GOAT level
Enga
Hall of Fame
Federer and Sampras have a similar serve. Federer's serve was much more heavily inspired by Sampras' early in his career.
The key points to Sampras' serve was a platform stance, back turned to opponent, deep knee bend and good arch. Federer was nearly a carbon copy earlier in his career, but adapted the serve over time.
Now Federer serves with less an arch to his back, possibly due to back injuries. He still maintains key points such as the platform stance, and knee bend however.
The main difference is how they used their serves. Federer goes for quality each time, aiming his serve smartly and attempting to mix it up a lot. When under pressure, or feeling confident, he goes for aces right away.
Sampras would use his serve to overwhelm his opponent and set up his volley. His serve was both spinny and fast. He too could use variety, but often did not need to use it because his main serve, a topspin serve, was often good enough. He would hit aces, but I dont believe acing was often his intention, but more of a side effect of his extreme spin and placement.
When Sampras' was under pressure, he would not go for more, he would hit the same. He had extreme confidence in his serve, and second serve. That's why he was often thought of as having two first serves. Because he had the confidence in his ability to hit a second serve nearly the same pace as his first. Here was almost little difference between his first and second.
Federer's second serve however is very different from his first. He intends to neutralize the point with extreme spin, often times a twist spin. Its different from Sampras in that with the second serve, he doesnt intend to overpower his opponent like Sampras' did. This might be due to he difference in eras, where Sampras' is confident he can overpower with his second serve, Federer feels he has to neutralize the point with extreme spin because of stronger returners.
In any case, they're both very good serves, but my vote still goes to Sampras because the man had supreme confidence in his time, and his service motion is even more beautiful and relaxes than Federer's. Fed still has things over Pete, like his forehand.
The key points to Sampras' serve was a platform stance, back turned to opponent, deep knee bend and good arch. Federer was nearly a carbon copy earlier in his career, but adapted the serve over time.
Now Federer serves with less an arch to his back, possibly due to back injuries. He still maintains key points such as the platform stance, and knee bend however.
The main difference is how they used their serves. Federer goes for quality each time, aiming his serve smartly and attempting to mix it up a lot. When under pressure, or feeling confident, he goes for aces right away.
Sampras would use his serve to overwhelm his opponent and set up his volley. His serve was both spinny and fast. He too could use variety, but often did not need to use it because his main serve, a topspin serve, was often good enough. He would hit aces, but I dont believe acing was often his intention, but more of a side effect of his extreme spin and placement.
When Sampras' was under pressure, he would not go for more, he would hit the same. He had extreme confidence in his serve, and second serve. That's why he was often thought of as having two first serves. Because he had the confidence in his ability to hit a second serve nearly the same pace as his first. Here was almost little difference between his first and second.
Federer's second serve however is very different from his first. He intends to neutralize the point with extreme spin, often times a twist spin. Its different from Sampras in that with the second serve, he doesnt intend to overpower his opponent like Sampras' did. This might be due to he difference in eras, where Sampras' is confident he can overpower with his second serve, Federer feels he has to neutralize the point with extreme spin because of stronger returners.
In any case, they're both very good serves, but my vote still goes to Sampras because the man had supreme confidence in his time, and his service motion is even more beautiful and relaxes than Federer's. Fed still has things over Pete, like his forehand.
Last edited:
Wrong on all counts. Serving at 70% first serves over a 5-set match is phenomenal by Pete's standards. 9 double faults over 5 sets is pretty normal for Pete. Isner has a better 2nd serve than Pete. For all the hype about Pete having the best 2nd serve ever, on much faster surfaces, he is ranked 26th in %2nd serve points won. Roddick, Isner and Federer are in the top 5. Roddick and Isner have much worse ground games than Pete..
But that might just mean Fed had a poor returning day
.Now, did Federer have a poor returning day because Pete's serve made him?
Or he had a poor returning day, because his return level was sub par that day, and that made it look like Pete was serving great?
But that might just mean Fed had a poor returning day
Now, did Federer have a poor returning day because Pete's serve made him?
Or he had a poor returning day, because his return level was sub par that day, and that made it look like Pete was serving great?
Pete made 70 % of his first serves, and won more than 85% of them (IIRC - could be wrong). While the % points won on 1st serve could reflect Federer's returning ability on that day, I'm not sure the % 1st serves landed in would be a good measure.
It's impossible to calculate the level of play based on statistics, that was my point.
Because those statistics are relative to how good opponent lets you play.
It's impossible to determine if your opponent made you play worse or your level of play was really worse.
That's why it's circular to use those stats and will be useless.
I'll buy that as a general argument, but % first serves is an almost independent quantity with little bearing on the opponent (note that I said "almost" -- the opponent could still have some influence on how many 1st serves one lands -- for e.g., the player may be forced to go for bigger 1st serves (and miss more) if the returner is having a relatively easy time reading the 1st serve).
federerGOAT
Rookie
If Fed were playing in the 90s and swapped places with Sampras, we would be talking about Fed having the best serve of all time.
The Sampras serve is inferior to Fed's serve in EVERY aspect, including pace. Sampras has never cracked 140mph ever.
The Sampras serve is inferior to Fed's serve in EVERY aspect, including pace. Sampras has never cracked 140mph ever.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Roger's serve is techinically flawed. where as Pete's serve is pretty close to perfect.....
Couldn't disagree with this anymore
Candide
Hall of Fame
If these stats are accurate then this is devestating for the usual misty eyed nostalgia merchants around here.
Originally Posted by 90's Clay
No arguments can be made for Federer over Sampras in the service department. None at all.
It's interesting the amount of emotional blather spouted by folks just because Sampras, Boom Boom, Laver or whoever comprises part of their formative memories of tennis. Most of their assertions are simply articles of faith based on personal preference and empty value judgements.
What is unique about Federer is his (unprecedented) marriage of sheer artistry and aesthetics of the game with incontrovertible rock solid results and moneyball numbers that are second to none.
Personally I could live without the moneyball chiseling of percentages in every conceivable category. I just find it incredible that he has managed to combine such consistency with such beauty.
rossi46
Professional
Whatever it is you are smoking please send some my way.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
'No' vote from me.
If Fed had Sampras' serve with the rest of his game his years with 3 of 4 majors would have probably been CYGS's. And he'd probably have 2 or 3 more Wimbledon and USO crowns.
Sampras served with complete confidence. Especially at Wimbledon; he routine hit another 1st serve if the 1st was a fault. He won so many games when falling behind 0-40. If you think Roddick had trouble with Fed's serve at Wimbledon (with today's slower grass), everyone had that much trouble with Sampras. To the extent that Sampras didn't even push that hard to break - he knew he'd win the TB's.
If Fed had Sampras' serve with the rest of his game his years with 3 of 4 majors would have probably been CYGS's. And he'd probably have 2 or 3 more Wimbledon and USO crowns.
Sampras served with complete confidence. Especially at Wimbledon; he routine hit another 1st serve if the 1st was a fault. He won so many games when falling behind 0-40. If you think Roddick had trouble with Fed's serve at Wimbledon (with today's slower grass), everyone had that much trouble with Sampras. To the extent that Sampras didn't even push that hard to break - he knew he'd win the TB's.
Surely the playing conditions contributed to this. Sampras benefited from the days when grass was faster and lower bouncing. His serve would not have been as dominant on the grass Federer has played much of his Wimbledon career on.
However, I think the slower grass actually helped Federer more than it hurt. His all around game was so strong and his serve so good, he was going to be very tough to break either way. Where it helped him, IMO, is against a guy like Roddick. Those slower conditions made it easier for him to generate some break chances against Roddick.
I think Federer's game is almost perfectly suited for the modern conditions at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows. Just like Sampras was perfectly suited for those two events in his glory days.
Enga
Hall of Fame
Thats all it really comes down to for me as well. What my eyeballs tell me.
In any case, second serve stats can be affected by things other than the quality of the serve. Such as Pete's tactic of net rushing even behind second serves to continue forcing his gameplan upon his opponent, giving them less rythym.
When you see a stat such as points won % off of second serve, what it tells you is that he won a certain amount of points during points where he used his second serve. Anything more is conjecture or bias. It is not that his second serve is better or worse when compared to the percentage of another player.
I dont think there is a way to prove that a player has a better serve using statistics... the best way is to decide for yourself based on what your eyes tell you.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I don't agree with you either.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Are you serious? How is Roger's serve technically flawed?
Feather
Legend
Yeah, I agree with this
Similar threads
- Poll
