Comparing Federer and Sampras

Goosehead

Legend
ive just come in here and someone is claiming Federer isn't a big match player. :confused:

brain damage......brain damage everywhere. :shock:
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
ive just come in here and someone is claiming Federer isn't a big match player. :confused:

brain damage......brain damage everywhere. :shock:

Well, we are the elite we have tough standards here.

You don't qualify for being a big match player if you win 17 majors and 24 finals in a row.

No, sir, that isn't not good enough for TW.
 

Captain Ron

Professional
Well, we are the elite we have tough standards here.



You don't qualify for being a big match player if you win 17 majors and 24 finals in a row.



No, sir, that isn't not good enough for TW.


We all know the TT standards, if there is video you must be awful. The true GOAT is a self rate 4.0 who has never been on video and only loses when tanking to protect his ranking ;)
 
What does have to do with my initial post? My point is that Pete's serve stats are inflated due to friendlier surfaces. We can debate his return stats when there's a thread about it..


and my point is that sampras' return stats are deflated due to return unfriendlier surfaces. that will lead to a question i have for you - but before that, can you evaluate, in your opinion, these elements of sampras' and roger's game, on a scale 1 to 10. you can throw in some adjectives as well there to describe

return of serve, forehand, backhand, movement, passing shot

thanks
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
We all know the TT standards, if there is video you must be awful. The true GOAT is a self rate 4.0 who has never been on video and only loses when tanking to protect his ranking ;)

And TW experts here giving advice to Federer about backhand and rackets. It's hilarious.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Sampras/Federer/Nadal

BASELINE STROKES
Forehand A/A+/A+
Backhand C+/B-/B
Shots on the run A/A/A+
Passes B+/A/A+

OTHER THINGS
ROServe B-/B/B+
Serve A+/A-/C+
Volleys A-/B/C+

MORE OTHER THINGS
Clutch A+/B+/A+
Speed A/A-/A
Quickness A-/A/A+
Defence B-/A-/A+
Offence A+/A/B+
Improvisation/Creativity A-/A+/A

Overall Legend/Legend/Legend
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ultradr

Legend
Sampras never had a season where he had a winning % above 88%. Federer has had four seasons with a winning % above 88%.

Perhaps, most amazingly, despite a horrible year (by his lofty standards), if Federer wins tomorrow, his winning percentage in 2011 will be higher than 4 of the 6 years that Sampras was ranked number one!

Sampras and Federer have both been finished the year ranked in the top 3 for 9 consecutive years. Sampras finished year end #1 6 times, Federer finished year end #1 5 times. Sampras finished in the top 2 6 times, Federer finished in the top 2 8 times. In the 9 years, Sampras had three seasons with a winning % above 84% and three season with a winning percentage below 80%. In the 9 years, Federer had 6 seasons (if he wins tomorrow) with a winning % above 84% and didn't have a season with a winning percentage below 80%. In the 9 years, Sampras averaged 62 wins per season and averaged 14 losses per season. In the 9 years, Federer averaged 72 wins per season and averaged 10 losses per season.

In summary, Sampras dominated about 6-7 years and did not get dominated
until 10+ year younger players like Safin or Hewitt.

Federer dominated 4 years and forced out by Nadal and then Djokovic.
Even during Federer's peak years 2004 - 2007, Federer couldn't exactly dominate Nadal.

To me, Federer is not even Open era GOAT and just lucky #1 in a
transition era from all court tennis to modern baseline era.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
In summary, Sampras dominated about 6-7 years and did not get dominated
until 10+ year younger players like Safin or Hewitt.

Federer dominated 4 years and forced out by Nadal and then Djokovic.
Even during Federer's peak years 2004 - 2007, Federer couldn't exactly dominate Nadal.

To me, Federer is not even Open era GOAT and just lucky #1 in a
transition era from all court tennis to modern baseline era.

#1 - Sampras did NOT dominate 6-7 years
#2 - Sampras wasn't good enough on clay to keep getting to Courier/Agassi and get dominated on that surface by them. He was dominated by no-names.

I'd rather have Fed's 4 true years of domination than 6-7 faux years.
 
In summary, Sampras dominated about 6-7 years and did not get dominated
until 10+ year younger players like Safin or Hewitt.

Federer dominated 4 years and forced out by Nadal and then Djokovic.
Even during Federer's peak years 2004 - 2007, Federer couldn't exactly dominate Nadal.

To me, Federer is not even Open era GOAT and just lucky #1 in a
transition era from all court tennis to modern baseline era.

sampras never dominated 6 or 7 yeasrs!!

he faced like main rival a guy in drug problems......and a guy who in peak ages with the exception of 1995 was thinking in hair and look than in tennis.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
In summary, Sampras dominated about 6-7 years and did not get dominated
until 10+ year younger players like Safin or Hewitt.

Federer dominated 4 years and forced out by Nadal and then Djokovic.
Even during Federer's peak years 2004 - 2007, Federer couldn't exactly dominate Nadal.

To me, Federer is not even Open era GOAT and just lucky #1 in a
transition era from all court tennis to modern baseline era.
When did Sampras dominate 6-7 years? He was losing early in slams much often than Federer.

Also I prefer Federer losing his no.1 ranking to all time greats like Nadal and Djokovic than Sampras losing it to all sorts of players who weren't legends at all. Federer would have never lost his no.1 ranking to Rios for example or other no names.

And Djokovic suplanted Federer when the swiss was practically 30 years of age. The same age Sampras was when he was getting his behind kicked by Safin and Hewitt

Federer dominated in a way Sampras would have only dreamt of doing
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I never understood Sampras fans using the main rival argument. Because every main rival is different. Agassi is nowhere close to Nadal in greatness. Nadal is much harder to beat than Agassi ever was. Federer would have preffered a milion times to have Agassi as main rival instead of Nadal. He would have won a calendar slam by now if that were the case.

Who's to say Sampras would have won as much had he had somebody like Nadal to deal with? Put Sampras against Nadal today and he doesn't do any better than Federer.

Put Federer in Pete's time vs Agassi and he does much better against him than against Nadal today.
 

90's Clay

Banned
I never understood Sampras fans using the main rival argument. Because every main rival is different. Agassi is nowhere close to Nadal in greatness. Nadal is much harder to beat than Agassi ever was. Federer would have preffered a milion times to have Agassi as main rival instead of Nadal. He would have won a calendar slam by now if that were the case.

Who's to say Sampras would have won as much had he had somebody like Nadal to deal with? Put Sampras against Nadal today and he doesn't do any better than Federer.

Put Federer in Pete's time vs Agassi and he does much better against him than against Nadal today.



Agassi is just as good if not better than Nadal on grass (definitely better on fast grass than Nadal would have ever been) , and a MUCH better indoor player along with an overall better hardcourt player.


Obviously Nadal is "greater" but Sampras would have had even EASIER cakewalks vs. Nadal on grass and hard and indoors than he did with Agassi
 

conway

Banned
Agassi is just as good if not better than Nadal on grass (definitely better on fast grass than Nadal would have ever been) , and a MUCH better indoor player along with an overall better hardcourt player.


Obviously Nadal is "greater" but Sampras would have had even EASIER cakewalks vs. Nadal on grass and hard and indoors than he did with Agassi

Nadal is unbeatable on clay, which prevents Federer from almost any chance of a Grand Slam. Agassi is inferior to Federer on every surface.

Nadal on the current slow grass is way better than Agassi was on the old fast grass. Now here it might be Agassi is just very unlucky, since he might have been better than Nadal on both the old fast grass, and todays new slower grass, but that means nothing to a comparision of what Federer and Sampras faced. Federer faced Nadal on the grass that both he and Agassi likely would have excelled on, and Sampras faced Agassi on the grass less favorable to a baseliner.

Nadal is many times more consistent than Agassi period, and it doesnt matter where. Even on hard courts, Agassi is greater than Nadal, and better at his best than Nadal, but Federer has a very strong Nadal in hard court tournaments 95% of the time and Sampras had a very strong/non slumping Agassi in then about 40% of the time during his reign.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Agassi is just as good if not better than Nadal on grass (definitely better on fast grass than Nadal would have ever been) , and a MUCH better indoor player along with an overall better hardcourt player.


Obviously Nadal is "greater" but Sampras would have had even EASIER cakewalks vs. Nadal on grass and hard and indoors than he did with Agassi
So would Federer. On the faster lower bouncing courts of the 90's he would have a much easier time vs Nadal.

Put Pete today and Nadal would eat his BH alive.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Nadal is unbeatable on clay, which prevents Federer from almost any chance of a Grand Slam. Agassi is inferior to Federer on every surface.

Nadal on the current slow grass is way better than Agassi was on the old fast grass. Now here it might be Agassi is just very unlucky, since he might have been better than Nadal on both the old fast grass, and todays new slower grass, but that means nothing to a comparision of what Federer and Sampras faced. Federer faced Nadal on the grass that both he and Agassi likely would have excelled on, and Sampras faced Agassi on the grass less favorable to a baseliner.

Nadal is many times more consistent than Agassi period, and it doesnt matter where. Even on hard courts, Agassi is greater than Nadal, and better at his best than Nadal, but Federer has a very strong Nadal in hard court tournaments 95% of the time and Sampras had a very strong/non slumping Agassi in then about 40% of the time during his reign.


Bullcrap. Nadal spent half of his career barely reaching ANY hardcourt slam semis. Agassi was a hardcourt beast his entire career and probably would have managed 10-11 hardcourt slam titles if Sampras wasn't there in the 90s. Sampras stopped him from getting 4-5 (or more) USO titles

And his overall hardcourt ability and results pale in comparison to Agassi.

Don't even compare Nadal to Agassi on hard courts.

Nadal would have been lucky to even see the 3rd round on the old wimbledon surface as well. He can't even handle big hitters on SLOW grass. Agassi was reaching wimbledon finals and winning wimbledon against big hitting attackers
 

conway

Banned
Obviously Nadal is "greater" but Sampras would have had even EASIER cakewalks vs. Nadal on grass and hard and indoors than he did with Agassi

Nadal would atleast be playing Sampras (well maybe not on 90s style grass or carpet, but regularly on hard courts which have more tournaments than those other two combined) in semis and finals often. Unlike Agassi who was taking a sabatical or giving a half arsed effort to the tour over half the time.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal would atleast be playing Sampras (well maybe not on 90s style grass or carpet, but regularly on hard courts which have more tournaments than those other two combined) in semis and finals often. Unlike Agassi who was taking a sabatical or giving a half arsed effort to the tour over half the time.
Main rival argument is silly. Not everybody has the same main rival. Pete never played Nadal so we can't use this as a pro argument for Sampras against Federer
 
Last edited:

conway

Banned
Bullcrap. Nadal spent half of his career barely reaching ANY hardcourt slam semis.

Lets see:

2008- Australian and U.S Open semis, Olympic gold on hard courts.
2009- Australian Open title, U.S Open semis.
2010- Australian Open quarters, U.S Open title, WTF final.
2011- Australian Open quarters, U.S Open final.
2012- Australian Open final.
2013- U.S Open title, undefeated until October on hard courts, WTF final.
2014- Australian Open final.

Now lets compare that to any given period you want for Agassi and see who is more consistent. Especialy during the Sampras reign:

1993- no slam matches won on hard courts (one DNP and one 1st round)
1994- U.S Open title, WTF semis, great.
1995- Australian Open title, U.S Open final, great.
1996- Australian and U.S semis but lost in pitiful and one sided matches to CHANG of all people.
1997- nothing worth mentioning.
1998- again nothing worth mentioning.

Agassi was a hardcourt beast his entire career

Read above. You are talking out of your arse here.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Nadal would atleast be playing Sampras (well maybe not on 90s style grass or carpet, but regularly on hard courts which have more tournaments than those other two combined) in semis and finals often. Unlike Agassi who was taking a sabatical or giving a half arsed effort to the tour over half the time.



Please stop.. Everyone with a brain knows Nadal poses NO THREAT to Pete on hards and grass. Pete would just blitz Nadal off the court before he even knew what hit him.

Pete is a NIGHTMARE matchup for Nadal on everything off of clay.

Agassi is one of the greatest hardcourt players ever. Probably AO GOAT as well, Taking close to peak Fed 5 sets at the USO in his mid 30s and Sampras stopping him from 9-11 hardcourt slams.


Nadal is a 2nd tier all time great on hardcourt IF THAT.. :shock::shock:

Agassi's game also translated well to all speed of hard courts. Nadal's game translates to slow as molasses surfaces. Agassi's game can translate on any surface regardless of what it is.


Nadal wouldn't even be reaching slam finals on hard courts (If so very few) for Pete to even have to deal with him anyways
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I swear some posts just randomly disappeared.

I don't see why Nadal wouldn't do well against Sampras on the rebound ace or plexicushion AO surfaces. He has a good return, killer passes and would have liked the volatile and lively bouncy conditions of the rebound ace. We've seen his standard of play since 2008 at the AO, and it's been very good.
 
Main rival argument is silly. Not everybody has the same main rival. Pete never played Nadal so we can't use this as a pro argument for Sampras against Federer
That's true. I guess the one thing we can agree on though is that when you play someone 33 times and only win 10 of them while losing over twice as many to that same person , that THAT person owns you. So the question isn't whether Fed's the GOAT so much as it is Nadal or some other guy …
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Agassi is just as good if not better than Nadal on grass (definitely better on fast grass than Nadal would have ever been) , and a MUCH better indoor player along with an overall better hardcourt player.


Obviously Nadal is "greater" but Sampras would have had even EASIER cakewalks vs. Nadal on grass and hard and indoors than he did with Agassi
Agassi is nowhere near as good as Nadal on grass.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
and my point is that sampras' return stats are deflated due to return unfriendlier surfaces. that will lead to a question i have for you - but before that, can you evaluate, in your opinion, these elements of sampras' and roger's game, on a scale 1 to 10. you can throw in some adjectives as well there to describe

return of serve, forehand, backhand, movement, passing shot

thanks

well, my point is that his returns were mediocre to begin with, so the perceived "disadvantage" is negligible.

Element: Sampras, Federer (during their primes)
RoS: 6, 8 (Comparison: Djoker - 10; Agassi, Murray - 9)
FH: 8, 10
BH: 5, 7
movement: 9, 9
passing shot: 7, 9 (string advantage for Fed)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
And if Lleyton Hewitt can beat Sampras on fast grass, why can't Nadal?
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Well he beat Sampras in best of 3 at Queens in 2000 and 2001 but they never played best of 5 at Wimbledon.
He nearly beat him at Queens in '99 too as an 18 year old, and this wasn't prime Hewitt.. I'd back prime Hewitt against Sampras at Wimbledon in a best of five format, and Nadal has way more weapons than Hewitt did/does..
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Well he beat Sampras in best of 3 at Queens in 2000 and 2001 but they never played best of 5 at Wimbledon.

Probably a good job they didn't... Hewitt might well have feasted on Sampras post 2000.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Probably a good job they didn't... Hewitt might well have feasted on Sampras post 2000.

Yes, post 2000. If both players are at their best Hewitt is not in the running, the age gap helped Hewitt especially in the 2001 US Open final when Sampras had that less than 24 hours turnaround. Its a lot better now where both finalists at the US Open get a day off.

When I watch the way Sampras bullied Hewitt from the baseline in the 2000 Miami semi, that's why I come to that conclusion. Sampras at his best didn't come in on 2nd serves all the time because he was moving much better, that's where I think the difference lies, not giving Hewitt a target all the time, I think he would have played him like how he ended up playing Chang througoht the 1990s.

But again, as we saw, post beating Hewitt at the 2000 US Open semi, Sampras was not the same player after that tournament which in his mind expected to win and then got the shock of his life in the final.
 

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
There is no ''if'' regarding Hewitt's higher probability of beating Smapras on fast grass than Nadal.

Hewitt grew up playing a lot more on fast grass than Nadal ever did.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Yes, post 2000. If both players are at their best Hewitt is not in the running, the age gap helped Hewitt especially in the 2001 US Open final when Sampras had that less than 24 hours turnaround. Its a lot better now where both finalists at the US Open get a day off.

When I watch the way Sampras bullied Hewitt from the baseline in the 2000 Miami semi, that's why I come to that conclusion. Sampras at his best didn't come in on 2nd serves all the time because he was moving much better, that's where I think the difference lies, not giving Hewitt a target all the time, I think he would have played him like how he ended up playing Chang througoht the 1990s.

But again, as we saw, post beating Hewitt at the 2000 US Open semi, Sampras was not the same player after that tournament which in his mind expected to win and then got the shock of his life in the final.
Except the Hewitt Sampras faced wasn't at his best either. I don't see Sampras playing Hewitt the same way he played Chang, Hewitt's groundstrokes are way better than his, Hewitt's serve is better and their movement is equal. Hewitt is a superior version of Chang, meaning he was a better player/harder to deal with.

Hewitt was also troubling prime Sampras on grass as an 18-year-old, I don't see him beating him on the surface all the time prime for prime.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Also, even if Sampras had a whole day to recover, he is not beating 2001 USO Hewitt. Not when he demolished him with a scoreline of 6-1, 7-6, 6-1.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
There is no ''if'' regarding Hewitt's higher probability of beating Smapras on fast grass than Nadal.

Hewitt grew up playing a lot more on fast grass than Nadal ever did.
But if Nadal played in the 90s, wouldn't he be a better player than Hewitt was on fast grass? Considering Nadal has a lot more weapons and their movement is equal.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Uh oh, when I see the phrase "way better" I know groundhog day is on the way, best for me to avoid that.

Anyway, if Sampras can beat Rafter, Agassi and Safin back to back, the champions of the previous three tears, then I see no reason why he can't beat Hewitt with a proper turnaround which is how it is supposed to be at a grand slam tournament. Especially as he beat Hewitt in straight sets the year before.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I don't really see Hewitt's groundstrokes as being better than Chang's at all, and his serve is barely better. I just think Hewitt was a superior competitor and was a sharper passer. Chang was probably better at ripping winners in the middle of seemingly neutral rallies.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Uh oh, when I see the phrase "way better" I know groundhog day is on the way, best for me to avoid that.

Anyway, if Sampras can beat Rafter, Agassi and Safin back to back, the champions of the previous three tears, then I see no reason why he can't beat Hewitt with a proper turnaround which is how it is supposed to be at a grand slam tournament. Especially as he beat Hewitt in straight sets the year before.
Hewitt owned Rafter for one, and Agassi was his only real competition. Safin wasn't the same as he was during the 2000 final either. He wouldn't beat Hewitt with a proper turn around because he had his number by then; he hadn't lost to him since that SF in 2000 when Hewitt was still a teenager, and even that match went to 2 tiebreaks Sampras could have lost to be down 2 sets to 1..
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Not to me it doesn't, over the course of their careers. If Hewitt actually had way better groundies than Chang on top of his superior competitiveness and touch/finesse with the volleys and lobs, then their career achievements would be far less comparable. Chang and Hewitt were both very good players from the baseline, so yeah, I find it highly dubious that either would be way better than the other in that area. Hewitt with Chang's mentality and levels of finesse and general talent probably wins 1 Slam like Chang, maybe doesn't end a year as #1, though he might have done as the period was ripe, and wouldn't have won at least on of his YEC's.

I think Chang won 34 titles including a lot of Masters, and Hewitt is currently on about the same number.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Not to me it doesn't, over the course of their careers. If Hewitt actually had way better groundies than Chang on top of his superior competitiveness and touch/finesse with the volleys and lobs, then their career achievements would be far less comparable. Chang and Hewitt were both very good players from the baseline, so yeah, I find it highly dubious that either would be way better than the other in that area. Hewitt with Chang's mentality and levels of finesse and general talent probably wins 1 Slam like Chang, maybe doesn't end a year as #1, though he might have done as the period was ripe, and wouldn't have won at least on of his YEC's.

I think Chang won 34 titles including a lot of Masters, and Hewitt is currently on about the same number.

From forum experience, whenever I see guys use phrases like "way better" I know there's trouble.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
If Sabratha was only talking about my last point and not their overall ground-game, then they could be right that Hewitt was in fact better at blitzing sudden winners, but Chang was elite in his abilities to redirect the ball and probably better than Hewitt there off the ground, not that Hewitt is any slouch in that department either. Obviously, Hewitt has the better legacy overall and was the slightly superior player, but Chang was a legitimate achiever in the game of tennis.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
If Sabratha was only talking about my last point and not their overall ground-game, then they could be right that Hewitt was in fact better at blitzing sudden winners, but Chang was elite in his abilities to redirect the ball and probably better than Hewitt there off the ground, not that Hewitt is any slouch in that department either. Obviously, Hewitt has the better legacy overall and was the slightly superior player, but Chang was a legitimate achiever in the game of tennis.
Overall groundgame? No, Hewitt isn't better than Chang in EVERY aspect, but he is better than him when it comes to power off the ground at least, peak for peak.
 

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
But if Nadal played in the 90s, wouldn't he be a better player than Hewitt was on fast grass? Considering Nadal has a lot more weapons and their movement is equal.

I'd say Nadal would still collect the bulk of his slams at RG and his total would still be far better than Hewitt. But if they ever meet say, 5 times at the final of Wimbledon, I'll bet Heiwtt wins every single time; ownage.

Nadal blossomed later on hardcourts so I'd say (about) even money but Nadal would win 10 out of 10 on red clay at RG.
 
well, my point is that his returns were mediocre to begin with, so the perceived "disadvantage" is negligible.

Element: Sampras, Federer (during their primes)
RoS: 6, 8 (Comparison: Djoker - 10; Agassi, Murray - 9)
FH: 8, 10
BH: 5, 7
movement: 9, 9
passing shot: 7, 9 (string advantage for Fed)


ok, so here is the question(s)


comparing federer and sampras return games won on hard courts (they were faster in pete's time, faster courts - tougher to break)


1)on hard courts 91-99/01-09

federer 27.9%
sampras 27.3%

how is it possible that sampras trails only 0.6% for almost a decade worth of stats on a surface that was quicker in his time, with such deficits on a return of serve, groundstrokes and passing shot when compared to federer?


2)on hard courts 93-99/03-09

federer 28.5%
sampras 27.1%

even if we skip the first 2 years of each decade, the difference is still just 1.4%. again i have to scratch my head and wonder how.

3)year by year comparation, starts with 91/01

federer.. 24.4, 25.1, 27.7, 29.4, 30.5, 31.7, 28.7, 25.4, 25.5
sampras 26.5, 30.2, 28.0, 33.1, 26.2, 22.1, 30.8, 26.4, 22.9

sampras is actually better in 6 out of 9 years. 4 out of 7 if we start with 93/03. there is only 1 year in which federer has the expected huge advantage, 96/06.


4)best performance on hard courts in a year

federer 31.7% in 2006
sampras 33.1% in 1994

some other notable players, known for their return game

nadal 31.8%
hewitt 35.4%
davydenko 31.9%
nalbandian 32%
ferrer 32.9%
safin 24.8%


sampras with actually higher best performance than any of these players except hewitt? and he played on a faster hard courts than these guys in general? with mediocre RoS, and even worse backhand? again, how is this possible?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not to me it doesn't, over the course of their careers. If Hewitt actually had way better groundies than Chang on top of his superior competitiveness and touch/finesse with the volleys and lobs, then their career achievements would be far less comparable. Chang and Hewitt were both very good players from the baseline, so yeah, I find it highly dubious that either would be way better than the other in that area. Hewitt with Chang's mentality and levels of finesse and general talent probably wins 1 Slam like Chang, maybe doesn't end a year as #1, though he might have done as the period was ripe, and wouldn't have won at least on of his YEC's.

I think Chang won 34 titles including a lot of Masters, and Hewitt is currently on about the same number.

Hewitt had better groundstrokes for sure imo. Not much better but better. I've seen him overpower Agassi from the baseline. He definitely hit bigger.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
ok, so here is the question(s)


comparing federer and sampras return games won on hard courts (they were faster in pete's time, faster courts - tougher to break)


1)on hard courts 91-99/01-09

federer 27.9%
sampras 27.3%

how is it possible that sampras trails only 0.6% for almost a decade worth of stats on a surface that was quicker in his time, with such deficits on a return of serve, groundstrokes and passing shot when compared to federer?


2)on hard courts 93-99/03-09

federer 28.5%
sampras 27.1%

even if we skip the first 2 years of each decade, the difference is still just 1.4%. again i have to scratch my head and wonder how.

3)year by year comparation, starts with 91/01

federer.. 24.4, 25.1, 27.7, 29.4, 30.5, 31.7, 28.7, 25.4, 25.5
sampras 26.5, 30.2, 28.0, 33.1, 26.2, 22.1, 30.8, 26.4, 22.9

sampras is actually better in 6 out of 9 years. 4 out of 7 if we start with 93/03. there is only 1 year in which federer has the expected huge advantage, 96/06.


4)best performance on hard courts in a year

federer 31.7% in 2006
sampras 33.1% in 1994

some other notable players, known for their return game

nadal 31.8%
hewitt 35.4%
davydenko 31.9%
nalbandian 32%
ferrer 32.9%
safin 24.8%


sampras with actually higher best performance than any of these players except hewitt? and he played on a faster hard courts than these guys in general? with mediocre RoS, and even worse backhand? again, how is this possible?

Ahem - nice try.
Since you seem to have the stats handy, please provide number of matches across which you compute the %. Obviously, the deeper you go into tournaments, the less success you can expect in breaking serve. Also include the metric "avg matches won per tournament". A better metric would be return points won, instead of return games won (Fed sucks at bp conversion - not really reflective of his return ability).
 
L

Laurie

Guest
ok, so here is the question(s)


comparing federer and sampras return games won on hard courts (they were faster in pete's time, faster courts - tougher to break)


1)on hard courts 91-99/01-09

federer 27.9%
sampras 27.3%

how is it possible that sampras trails only 0.6% for almost a decade worth of stats on a surface that was quicker in his time, with such deficits on a return of serve, groundstrokes and passing shot when compared to federer?


2)on hard courts 93-99/03-09

federer 28.5%
sampras 27.1%

even if we skip the first 2 years of each decade, the difference is still just 1.4%. again i have to scratch my head and wonder how.

3)year by year comparation, starts with 91/01

federer.. 24.4, 25.1, 27.7, 29.4, 30.5, 31.7, 28.7, 25.4, 25.5
sampras 26.5, 30.2, 28.0, 33.1, 26.2, 22.1, 30.8, 26.4, 22.9

sampras is actually better in 6 out of 9 years. 4 out of 7 if we start with 93/03. there is only 1 year in which federer has the expected huge advantage, 96/06.


4)best performance on hard courts in a year

federer 31.7% in 2006
sampras 33.1% in 1994

some other notable players, known for their return game

nadal 31.8%
hewitt 35.4%
davydenko 31.9%
nalbandian 32%
ferrer 32.9%
safin 24.8%


sampras with actually higher best performance than any of these players except hewitt? and he played on a faster hard courts than these guys in general? with mediocre RoS, and even worse backhand? again, how is this possible?

Hehe. I am sure some of the guys here will find a way to make a "counter argument".
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
ok, so here is the question(s)


comparing federer and sampras return games won on hard courts (they were faster in pete's time, faster courts - tougher to break)


1)on hard courts 91-99/01-09

federer 27.9%
sampras 27.3%

how is it possible that sampras trails only 0.6% for almost a decade worth of stats on a surface that was quicker in his time, with such deficits on a return of serve, groundstrokes and passing shot when compared to federer?


2)on hard courts 93-99/03-09

federer 28.5%
sampras 27.1%

even if we skip the first 2 years of each decade, the difference is still just 1.4%. again i have to scratch my head and wonder how.

3)year by year comparation, starts with 91/01

federer.. 24.4, 25.1, 27.7, 29.4, 30.5, 31.7, 28.7, 25.4, 25.5
sampras 26.5, 30.2, 28.0, 33.1, 26.2, 22.1, 30.8, 26.4, 22.9

sampras is actually better in 6 out of 9 years. 4 out of 7 if we start with 93/03. there is only 1 year in which federer has the expected huge advantage, 96/06.


4)best performance on hard courts in a year

federer 31.7% in 2006
sampras 33.1% in 1994

some other notable players, known for their return game

nadal 31.8%
hewitt 35.4%
davydenko 31.9%
nalbandian 32%
ferrer 32.9%
safin 24.8%


sampras with actually higher best performance than any of these players except hewitt? and he played on a faster hard courts than these guys in general? with mediocre RoS, and even worse backhand? again, how is this possible?

first off, I think fed_rulz does tend to under-rate sampras ....

But overall, neither sampras' return or passing shots or ground strokes come near federer's.

Let's look @ your stats :

1. it does not consider that federer went in deeper clearly more than sampras did , consistently

2. Regarding sampras' 94, sure looks impressive on paper, but he missed a portion of the fast HC season, otherwise his stats would've gone down easily, no question
 

conway

Banned
Sampras's groundstrokes were pretty good, especialy his forehand which was a killer and probably had more raw penetration and pace than Federer (but less variety and consistency). His passing shots didnt seem ever feel like they were that good, but then again he dominated most of his fellow serve and volley opponents so they are probably better than one would think they are.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Sampras's groundstrokes were pretty good, especialy his forehand which was a killer and probably had more raw penetration and pace than Federer (but less variety and consistency). His passing shots didnt seem ever feel like they were that good, but then again he dominated most of his fellow serve and volley opponents so they are probably better than one would think they are.

Sampras returned and passed Rafter and Becker as much as Agassi did.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1...-to-ballkid-after-sampras-passing-shots_sport
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
first off, I think fed_rulz does tend to under-rate sampras ....

But overall, neither sampras' return or passing shots or ground strokes come near federer's.

Let's look @ your stats :

1. it does not consider that federer went in deeper clearly more than sampras did , consistently

2. Regarding sampras' 94, sure looks impressive on paper, but he missed a portion of the fast HC season, otherwise his stats would've gone down easily, no question
How do you know that Fed's passing shot is better than Sampras when Fed never had to contend with the beet volleyers in history. Sampras ruled in an era of serve and volleyers. He's more than capable of producing great passing shots. Federer on the other hand, never has a chance to compete with the best volleyers in tennis, thus it is delusional at best to call Fed's passing shots being better than Sampras'.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
How do you know that Fed's passing shot is better than Sampras when Fed never had to contend with the beet volleyers in history. Sampras ruled in an era of serve and volleyers. He's more than capable of producing great passing shots. Federer on the other hand, never has a chance to compete with the best volleyers in tennis, thus it is delusional at best to call Fed's passing shots being better than Sampras'.

Ok, the problem is that Pete and Fed are products of their eras.

I'm sure Fed would do better if he was playing in the 90s. I'm sure Sampras baseline game would be also better today.

What's the problem really?
 
Top