Federer-Sampras

[RogerRulez]

Serve: Pete Sampras has the best serve of all time, period. He doesn't have the fastest serve, but have you seen anyone put as much spin as he could on a 129 mph serve? Although Federer's serve is up there, just about all of his serve components aren't as good as Sampras: Disguise, speed, spin, placement.

Return of Serve: Roger Federer's return of serve is extremely underrated. TENNIS MAGAZINE even said that it was just as effective as Agassi's (not as punishing though). He has a great ability to mix it up. Sometimes he drives it deep. Sometimes he goes for the inside-out forehand winner. Sometimes he slices it back to start the point. He just keeps his opponents on their toes. Sampras? Unless his serve game is untouchable, he just floats the serve back. Almost completely useless, as Agassi showed when he beat him.

Ground Strokes: Roger Federer is stronger than Sampras on both wings. His forehand is heavier and harder to adjust- it is his major weapon. His backhand is also great at carving slices or driving winners. Sampras' forehand is great, but it has very little spin. It's either going to be a winner/penatrating shot or a miss. His backhand is dependable, but not a weapon.

Net Game: Pete Sampras has great volleys, and he feels jut so natural there. Federer is good too, but he's not natural. However, his half-volleys are amazing. He swings at them like Agassi would at the baseline. This shot is only occasionally used.

Footwork: Roger Federer is just faster and more nimble than Pete Sampras.

Who would win?: It really comes down to what surface and what tournament they are playing at. Federer is more tactical, and has better footwork and fitnessthan Sampras. He would beat Sampras on clay and slow hard courts. Meanwhile, Sampras is more instinctive, so he would win on fast hard, carpet, and grass courts. At the slams, Federer would win at the Australian and the French, because he is fitter and can slide better (on the clay) than Sampras. Sampras would win at Wimbledon becuase he is so natural there. At the US Open, Sampras would win. Federer would be a threat, but he would buckle under the atmosphere of the New York crowd.

 

[troytennisbum]

Serve: Pete Sampras has the best serve of all time, period. He doesn't have the fastest serve, but have you seen anyone put as much spin as he could on a 129 mph serve?.

Nope.
Roddick's serve is better, and is probably the best serve of all time.

 

[Grimjack]

Who would win?: It really comes down to what surface and what tournament they are playing at. Federer is more tactical, and has better footwork and fitnessthan Sampras. He would beat Sampras on clay and slow hard courts. Meanwhile, Sampras is more instinctive, so he would win on fast hard, carpet, and grass courts. At the slams, Federer would win at the Australian and the French, because he is fitter and can slide better (on the clay) than Sampras. Sampras would win at Wimbledon becuase he is so natural there. At the US Open, Sampras would win. Federer would be a threat, but he would buckle under the atmosphere of the New York crowd.

Couldn't disagree more with your split-down-the-middle analysis. Pete, against what Roger has become, and especially with tour conditions as they are today, would be lucky to win one out of every ten against Roger.

The grass courts today, ESPECIALLY at Wimbledon are tailor made for Federer's game. There's a reason all the S&V'ers ##### and moan about the loss of their stomping grounds. A premium is placed on movement and variety there, now, and Pete would be utterly out of his element. Roger in straight sets virtually every time.

The clays and slow hard courts always would have favored Fed, and would continue to. Roger wins in straight sets virtually every time.

The faster hardcourts would at least give Pete's game one of the few boosts of any surface available today, but history is showing that this is Federer's strongest surface. He's absolutely untouchable at the US Open, in an era where the game has moved beyond Pete's. A fast game benefits both S&V'ers, as well as those who place a premium upon movement, variety, and knowing-where-to-be-every-shot. The tiebreaker is the very predictable bounce. That's why Pete was so dominant at Wimby for so long. With fast courts AND a sketchy bounce, it was a S&V'ers paradise. With today's bounces at Wimby, and more relevantly to this paragraph, at the US Open being so predictable and true, even the best S&V'ers are meat for the beast against those few who combine unearthly movement and untouchable groundies. Roger wins on fast HC's in straight sets five out of every ten, in four sets four out of every ten, and Pete pulls a miracle out of his ### on the tenth.

On carpet, the advantage is still to the S&V'er. Pete wins on that surface probably seven or eight out of ten. Sadly for him, carpet is a dying surface.

Pete was never anywhere near the tennis player Roger has become. He (and specifically his career) were in many senses "greater" than Roger's (based on accomplishment), but let's call a spade a spade. Pete was a b#### for the new breed of baseline punishers on the slower, more predictable tour long before Fed became a juggernaut, winning only the very rare miracle tournament at the end. Latter-era Pete is remembered as far better than he was, because he won that last USO, when in retrospect, that was clearly a fluke victory that came on wings of emotion long after he stopped being a real every-week threat.

 

[snark]

Nope.
Roddick's serve is better, and is probably the best serve of all time.

Are you kidding? Have you seen the final of Wimbledon? Federer was killing Roddick's serve and that was on grass. Roddick's serve may be the fastest but nowhere near as deadly as Sampras's. I would say that Sampras and Ivanisovic
are the best servers of recent years. Federer's serve is effective but does not win too many points outright, which works fine for him, since the rest of his game is so solid.

 

[35ft6]

Nope.
Roddick's serve is better, and is probably the best serve of all time.

Roddick had a FASTER serve, but Sampras' was better. Way better. Roddick would probably be the first to admit this. If not the first, the second. The FIRST might be Sampras himself.

 

[oscar_2424]

nobody gets tired to compare this 2 over and over ??/

 

[VGP]

nobody gets tired to compare this 2 over and over ??/

Guess not. Even Tennis magazine does a head-to-head in the recent issue. Sampras and Federer's careers 10 years apart. The similarities in accomplishment are striking.

There are a lot of similarities in their games and personalities and there are a lot of differences....

Plus now people are making comparisons across eras.

Also, some of the greats of the game go on and on about how Federer's the best THEY'VE ever seen (i.e. McEnroe, Connors).

Federer came up after a slight lull after Sampras' departure. It's cool tennis fans didn't have to wait 10 or 20 years. Sampras' career is still fresh in memory and there's lots of footage available to watch.

Federer's now fulfilling his potential and Sampras is the measuring stick.

 

[VGP]

Nope.
Roddick's serve is better, and is probably the best serve of all time.

Are you drunk or something?

 

[troytennisbum]

Are you drunk or something?

Nope, just pointing out the obvious fact that Roddick has the biggest serve in the game today. Combine that fact with this one: Overall, today's men's game is filled with the most competitve serves ever seen in the history of the game. We all know this.

I don't believe Roddick has the best overall game in tennis, not by a long shot. There are so many guys who move better and have a better all-court game. But that freakish, in-human serve of his allows him to be in the top 3 worldwide and it allows him to challenge for world titles all the time. Today's top 100 men's players are probably the most athletic, competitive, and capable group of tennis players the game has ever seen. Everyone of them will tell you that they fear Roddick's serve (although not his overall game).

It's simply easier for today's players to handle a 120 somehing mph serve then a 150 mph serve. Roddick also has the ability to easily control/place 125+ mph serves with that cannonball serve arm of his. This makes sense. I mean we can all relate to this idea.....that is when you serve BELOW your max serve speed it is simply easier to control/place the serve.

Put it this way.
I think Federer, who is the best player of all time (as Grimjack correctly pointed out above), would be the first to admit that Roddick's main weapon and main advantage (ONLY advantage) over him would be that freakish serve.

I get the feeling that some of you guys on this thread are just die hard Pete lovers. I don't blame you. He's a great guy and a great champion. But Federer is simply on a different level.

 

[chaognosis]

Nope, just pointing out the obvious fact that Roddick has the biggest serve in the game today. Combine that fact with this one: Overall, today's men's game is filled with the most competitve serves ever seen in the history of the game. We all know this.

I don't believe Roddick has the best overall game in tennis, not by a long shot. There are so many guys who move better and have a better all-court game. But that freakish, in-human serve of his allows him to be in the top 3 worldwide and it allows him to challenge for world titles all the time. Today's top 100 men's players are probably the most athletic, competitive, and capable group of tennis players the game has ever seen. Everyone of them will tell you that they fear Roddick's serve (although not his overall game).

It's simply easier for today's players to handle a 120 somehing mph serve then a 150 mph serve. Roddick also has the ability to easily control/place 125+ mph serves with that cannonball serve arm of his. This makes sense. I mean we can all relate to this idea.....that is when you serve BELOW your max serve speed it is simply easier to control/place the serve.

Put it this way.
I think Federer, who is the best player of all time (as Grimjack correctly pointed out above), would be the first to admit that Roddick's main weapon and main advantage (ONLY advantage) over him would be that freakish serve.

I get the feeling that some of you guys on this thread are just die hard Pete lovers. I don't blame you. He's a great guy and a great champion. But Federer is simply on a different level.

Roddick's serve, though faster than Sampras's, has much less spin and is significantly easier to read. Even in today's game, I'd wager Karlovic, Safin, and a few others have more dangerous serves than Roddick's. But my vote goes to Sampras for the best serve of all time (unless of course you believe that story about Bill Tilden hitting over 160 mph with his old wooden racket).

 

[simi]

Federer's now fulfilling his potential and Sampras is the measuring stick.

This is one of the most insightful, and probably true, commentary I've read on these boards for a long time. Good call!

 

[Richard Fromberg]

Lets just sit and wait till the end of Roger's career.
He is still 8 Slams shy of Pete the last time I looked.

I agree - his game is more complete than Pete but the amount of time discussing if he is the best ever yet is ridiculous.

 

[Cyclops]

Ignorant view

I don't know a lot about serves yet, but I thought that Michal Mertinak's serves in the Davis Cup looked pretty lethal. When Ancic missed it and the ball hit the advertising boards nehind him... man... I wouldn't like to take one of them in the stomach!! :|

 

[superman1]

Sampras' serve was the best of all time. He's the only player whose serve Agassi just tried to get his racquet on. Federer claims he can read Roddick's serve. Maybe that's why Roddick said that he doesn't feel like he's ever served well against Federer. It's not a matter of him serving badly, it's just that Federer returns everything he throws.

 

[BaseLineBash]

Pete Sampras' serve was the best ever. The greatness of his serve is not folklore people, buy a dvd or read some stats.

 

[devila]

On clay, Pete was inconsistent. He wished that he had a bigger racket for volleying on clay.

 

[Richard Fromberg]

Why would he need a bigger racquet to volley on clay?

 

[fastdunn]

Roddick's serve, though faster than Sampras's, has much less spin and is significantly easier to read. Even in today's game, I'd wager Karlovic, Safin, and a few others have more dangerous serves than Roddick's. But my vote goes to Sampras for the best serve of all time (unless of course you believe that story about Bill Tilden hitting over 160 mph with his old wooden racket).

I'm not sure about the "less spin" part but Federer indeed said
he does not have problem with Roddick's serve. Federer did say
he can read Roddick's serve pretty well. As I recall, Federer mentioned
Mark Phillippoussis' serve was more "risky" than Roddick's.

 

[fastdunn]

Pete was never anywhere near the tennis player Roger has become. He (and specifically his career) were in many senses "greater" than Roger's (based on accomplishment), but let's call a spade a spade.

I would put it this way: Federer is on his way to achieve Pete's level
and potentially surpass it.

But I think the the level Sampras achived is pretty tall order.
Roger of last 2 years has been absolutely brilliant.
I would be really surprised if he maintains similar level
for the next 2 or more years...

 

[superman1]

Sampras didn't win every single match like Federer does, but he won the matches he needed to win. When he played his best, I think he was beyond Federer's talent. Just uncanny. I'm thinking of the '99 Wimbledon Final where he was winning every single point, but he still felt the need to dive for a net shot, scrape up his elbow, and hit the winner. He would not let Agassi into that match. Federer lets you in, but he keeps on your heels and eventually tosses you out.

I think the main difference is that Federer enjoys playing whereas Sampras did not. Sampras only enjoyed winning titles. That's why Federer has unbelievable match records and Sampras has an unbelievable amount of Slams.

 

[devila]

Pete wanted a bigger racket head to compensate for his lack of footwork on clay, I guess.

Roddick's serve's cute to the 15 year olds. Otherwise, it's ineffective --no one can advise him, "You have to lose that fat stomach, adjust your ball tosses and court positioning!"
On US TV, they used to show a clip of Roddick outmaneuvering Pete on Houston clay. 7-6 6-3
The next year, Roddick let Agassi win in 3 sets. He threw away a 6-4 3-1 lead. Too busy surrendering drop shots.

 

[superman1]

Roddick's serve ineffective? Ridiculous. He has one of the top 3 serves in the game today. Roddick, Karlovic, maybe Joachim Johansson. And he has very underrated court movement. I've seen him run some crazy sprints.

 

[mellofelow]

Take golf for example, Tiger has yet to surpass Jack in major titles. But if you ask all the players (pro or not) had played with both who's got game... there's no doubt!!!!

Roger's streak of getting to the finals and winning consistently is just ridiculous... probably better than Tiger's.

 

[devila]

Bad fitness creates bad serves and lazy shotmaking.

These players don't have that much trouble reading Roddick's serve:
Agassi, Federer, Mirnyi, Hewitt, Muller, Acasuso, Mathieu, Henman, Nalbandian, Massu, even Karlovic. They either block it back, crack backhands dtl, or volleyed out of trouble. Roddick still plays like he's still 5'10' tall.

Roddick's serve has been a joke on grass and hardcourt. Poor ball placement on clay too. He did move a lot better in Houston, but the competition wasn't that good.

He shouldn't have let Karlovic win just because he faced half a dozen bad line calls and wasted match points.

Mathieu benefitted from bad calls and Roddick didn't bother to serve patiently. He mindlessly bashed serves and volleyed with no footwork either.

 

[Galactus]

Nope, just pointing out the obvious fact that Roddick has the biggest serve in the game today. Combine that fact with this one: Overall, today's men's game is filled with the most competitve serves ever seen in the history of the game. We all know this.

I don't believe Roddick has the best overall game in tennis, not by a long shot. There are so many guys who move better and have a better all-court game. But that freakish, in-human serve of his allows him to be in the top 3 worldwide and it allows him to challenge for world titles all the time. Today's top 100 men's players are probably the most athletic, competitive, and capable group of tennis players the game has ever seen. Everyone of them will tell you that they fear Roddick's serve (although not his overall game).

It's simply easier for today's players to handle a 120 somehing mph serve then a 150 mph serve. Roddick also has the ability to easily control/place 125+ mph serves with that cannonball serve arm of his. This makes sense. I mean we can all relate to this idea.....that is when you serve BELOW your max serve speed it is simply easier to control/place the serve.

Put it this way.
I think Federer, who is the best player of all time (as Grimjack correctly pointed out above), would be the first to admit that Roddick's main weapon and main advantage (ONLY advantage) over him would be that freakish serve.

I get the feeling that some of you guys on this thread are just die hard Pete lovers. I don't blame you. He's a great guy and a great champion. But Federer is simply on a different level.

It all depends on how often Roddick hits the 140-145+ mph mark.

If Roddick was more 'in the groove' and placing those serves better, he'd have a much better chance of a) beating Federer and thus b) winning more titles.

A friend of mine who has faced guys in practice such as Ivanisevic, Rusedski and also Sampras way back in the 90s, remarked that the flat-out speed serves of the pros were easier to return: you just get into position and defensively block the ball back, much as Federer does with Roddick each time they play.
With Sampras, he said that there was easily a lack of speed in comparison, but the spin, placement and overall 'heaviness' of the ball made it almost impossible to read and consequently, you'd find yourself being pushed back beyond the baseline when on the reeceiving end of a 120-125mph serve.

And as Roddick has proved in not winning many titles in the last 3-4 years, having the 'biggest' serve isn't anywhere near having the 'best'.

Roddick v Karlovic, anyone?

 

[joy]

I would be the happiest human being if Federer goes on to achieve the most unthinkable feet of surpassing Pete's grand slam record. I like Federer because he has a very good attitude. He seems to be a very kind, cool, friendly and benevolent person unlike Sampras who always bore a hostile appearance and looked as if to kill his opponent. Sampras's victories made me very disturbed because he does not seem to be a nice and friendly guy which Federer is. Thus, I enjoy Federer's success very much and his game is very pleasant and refreshing. And coming to the match up between the two guys, I feel definitely peak Sampras would prevail over peak Federer beacuse of his extraordinary service, volley, reflexes and above all his ruthlessness and toughness which Federer seems to lack. Remember, in this world always nice people end up losers and mostly selfish people triumph. Thus I think Federer would be beaten badly by Sampras at his peak. Thus I am very happy that Federer some how managed to beat Sampras in their one off meeting and did not get to meet him again for Sampras to take revenge. But I would really love to see Federer win many precious titles and records and continue his domination (though he needs a bit more fortune) because I would like to see a champion who is also extremely nice and friendly and I am bored with the ego and arrogance of the 1990s. I don't like to see aggression, ruthlessness and hot blood which Sampras displayed throughout his career as he looked upon tennis as a war and his opponent as a deadly enemy. But Federer is on completely opposite poles and displays a friendly, pleasing,cool attitude and always bears a good smile and merciful heart which is what I love to see in a champion.

 

[devila]

Exactly. I can't imagine why a lot of people believe that Roddick's rushed serve and poor knee bend, immediately after serving, automatically mean that he needs little serve improvements.
He told Brad Gilbert that he didn't move his legs. He twisted his ankle in the next match. Maybe he didn't lose weight.

The return game is worthless if you don't have Plan B and C. Roddick has a stubborn streak, and can't accept that the ball will zip back by if he won't add sidespin or lower the speeds.

He didn't have a fast serve until he was 16, and suddenly, everyone gushes that he reached his potential already!

 

[RogerRulez]

Roddick's serve ineffective? Ridiculous. He has one of the top 3 serves in the game today. Roddick, Karlovic, maybe Joachim Johansson. And he has very underrated court movement. I've seen him run some crazy sprints.

right on!

 

[Shabazza]

Sampras didn't win every single match like Federer does, but he won the matches he needed to win. When he played his best, I think he was beyond Federer's talent. Just uncanny. I'm thinking of the '99 Wimbledon Final where he was winning every single point, but he still felt the need to dive for a net shot, scrape up his elbow, and hit the winner. He would not let Agassi into that match. Federer lets you in, but he keeps on your heels and eventually tosses you out.

I think the main difference is that Federer enjoys playing whereas Sampras did not. Sampras only enjoyed winning titles. That's why Federer has unbelievable match records and Sampras has an unbelievable amount of Slams.

Agree with you, except for the more talented part of Sampras. He wasn't as talented as Fed is. Don't get me wrong, I still think Pete did have a good shot at winning at his best against Fed at his best, cause he most likely wouldn't let Fed getting into his "zone", by playing fast and short points.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Tho faster, the roddick serve isn't a patch on the Sampras delivery. Sampras's is diguised better, more variety, more penetrating second serve, more consistent and plenty more. I also believe that for HIMSELF, Fed's return of serve is better than Agassi. Look at the sheer amount of ball he gets back into play, especially off big serves, unless it near hits the lines he makes a 135mph serve look about 110. His returning in back to back matches at the big W against Flipper and Roddick had to be seen to be believed. Agassi goes for more but gets less back, whereas once Fed has a ball back in play, even a weak one, he is the best defender to ever play the game. Even when making weak returns he still can carve out a point better than anyone i have ever seen.

 

[devila]

Mark Phil. and Roddick's serves are overrated by Fed fans. How many easy matches have they played? Roddick can work with better coaches, but obviously, he wants to change careers in a few years. He said, "I may retire by 30." He will never have belief with Federer in his face.

 

[superman1]

Right, Federer is more talented than Sampras simply because he can do anything on the court, but I meant to say that Sampras at his best could dominate anyone, including Federer. He'd just blow you away and wouldn't give you a chance. The problem was that he didn't enjoy playing and would sometimes lose in small tournaments to no-names, whereas Federer treats every match like it's big.

About Agassi's return VS Federer's, I pick Agassi. Even if Federer gets every ball back, most players would rather have the ball come back on every serve than get more aces but have half of the returns flying into their feet or down the lines as winners. Johnny Mac says it about 100 times on average in each Agassi match, and I agree with him - Agassi is the best returner of all time.

 

[a10best]

watching Sampras- Agassi 2000 AO SF. I forgot Pete had such a fast serve at 129-130's back then.
With today's racket technology he'd easily be at 140.
Now that we have seen each player's peaks
Volleys - Pete's volleys are better than peak Fed w/o question
Serve - Pete's serve was just dominant, Pete
BH - Federer but not by much
FH - close but I give it to Fed. Pete wins with the running cross ct FH
Defense - Fed easily
*** winner when both are peak form at Wimbledon? Sampras 13-12 in 5th set or a toss-up.

 

[Antónis]

watching Sampras- Agassi 2000 AO SF. I forgot Pete had such a fast serve at 129-130's back then.
With today's racket technology he'd easily be at 140.
Now that we have seen each player's peaks
Volleys - Pete's volleys are better than peak Fed w/o question
Serve - Pete's serve was just dominant, Pete
BH - Federer but not by much
FH - close but I give it to Fed. Pete wins with the running cross ct FH
Defense - Fed easily
*** winner when both are peak form at Wimbledon? Sampras 13-12 in 5th set or a toss-up.

Sampras lacked stamina for a 13-12 5'th set
At Wimbledon Sampras would be favorite on fast grass, with current grass it would be way closer

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Pete: First and Second Serve, Forehand, Net play, speed, athleticism
Rodge: Return, Backhand, dropshot, lob, footwork, stamina

Intangibles: Shotmaking is even, mental intangibles go to Pete, especially on big points, and Rodge has pretty backhand

Going tournament by tournament is hard, but slam wise, Pete takes the Open and Wimbledon, Rodge takes Australia and Rolland Garros. Wimbledon and Rolland Garros are decisive victories for Pete/Rodge, while NY and Australia are harder wins decided by fine margins

 

[Deleted member 777746]

watching Sampras- Agassi 2000 AO SF. I forgot Pete had such a fast serve at 129-130's back then.
With today's racket technology he'd easily be at 140.
Now that we have seen each player's peaks
Volleys - Pete's volleys are better than peak Fed w/o question
Serve - Pete's serve was just dominant, Pete
BH - Federer but not by much
FH - close but I give it to Fed. Pete wins with the running cross ct FH
Defense - Fed easily
*** winner when both are peak form at Wimbledon? Sampras 13-12 in 5th set or a toss-up.

One of their best matches imo, probably my favorite to watch. Andre's comeback to win showed amazing mental toughness and even as a Pete fan I felt good watching him pull it off

 

[Sport]

I think Federer has a better backhand than Sampras. Not a gigantic difference, but a noticieable one.

Federer also displayed a superior baseline game than Sampras.

Sampras a superior net play and second serve though.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

I think Federer has a better backhand than Sampras. Not a gigantic difference, but a noticieable one.

Federer also displayed a superior baseline game than Sampras.

Sampras a superior net play and second serve though.

'greed on the backhand. I think forehands is a different story, and Pete's is bigger and could drill his through Rogi's (similar to how Nole does) as a pretty reliable play pattern. Fed's baseline game is definitely superior to Pete's too, no disagreement there.

Pete's serve as a whole is much better than Fed's who isn't even an ATG in that area, and obv net game is better too. Ultimately their matches will be decided by the important moments, and in the all important mental clutchness Pete is clearly better so I favor him more often than not unless its clay

 

[xFedal]

'greed on the backhand. I think forehands is a different story, and Pete's is bigger and could drill his through Rogi's (similar to how Nole does) as a pretty reliable play pattern. Fed's baseline game is definitely superior to Pete's too, no disagreement there.

Pete's serve as a whole is much better than Fed's who isn't even an ATG in that area, and obv net game is better too. Ultimately their matches will be decided by the important moments, and in the all important mental clutchness Pete is clearly better so I favor him more often than not unless its clay

Fed is deffo ATG in serve category. Petes serve obviously better but Feds serve is great!.... Name a another 6'1 player that has a better serve than Fed? Only Mr Pete.

 

[MeatTornado]

watching Sampras- Agassi 2000 AO SF. I forgot Pete had such a fast serve at 129-130's back then.
With today's racket technology he'd easily be at 140.

Modern rackets don't add 10mph to how you currently your serve. If they did then Roger should've been serving rockets ever since he switched in 2014.

Pete's not going to start hitting his serve harder just because he could, placement would still be more important to him.

 

[MeatTornado]

Lets just sit and wait till the end of Roger's career.
He is still 8 Slams shy of Pete the last time I looked.

I agree - his game is more complete than Pete but the amount of time discussing if he is the best ever yet is ridiculous.

If he only knew

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Fed is deffo ATG in serve category. Petes serve obviously better but Feds serve is great!.... Name a another 6'1 player that has a better serve than Fed? Only Mr Pete.

Roddick is 6'2" but yes, I sometimes confuse "ATG" with "GOAT Contender". Fed has a top 20 serve. Pete's is top 2-3

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Modern rackets don't add 10mph to how you currently your serve. If they did then Roger should've been serving rockets ever since he switched in 2014.

Pete's not going to start hitting his serve harder just because he could, placement would still be more important to him.

Wrong. Strings and headsize do wonders for power and ballstriking. Agassi was the most famous example of someone who was hitting the ball better than ever in his early/mid 30s because of the new technology.

 

[a10best]

Pete: First and Second Serve, Forehand, Net play, speed, athleticism
Rodge: Return, Backhand, dropshot, lob, footwork, stamina

Intangibles: Shotmaking is even, mental intangibles go to Pete, especially on big points, and Rodge has pretty backhand

Going tournament by tournament is hard, but slam wise, Pete takes the Open and Wimbledon, Rodge takes Australia and Rolland Garros. Wimbledon and Rolland Garros are decisive victories for Pete/Rodge, while NY and Australia are harder wins decided by fine margins

I forgot about Pete's stamina.
I disagree with you about the better dropshot is by Roger? I recall far more droppers by Pete than Roger.

 

[MeatTornado]

Wrong. Strings and headsize do wonders for power and ballstriking. Agassi was the most famous example of someone who was hitting the ball better than ever in his early/mid 30s because of the new technology.

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

But if you want to believe Pete would be consistently touching 140 I guess I can't prove you wrong.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

But if you want to believe Pete would be consistently touching 140 I guess I can't prove you wrong.

You're correct he'd prioritize placement over pace, as all the Greats do, but he'd be serving bigger and a higher percentage on average with a customized Prostaff and poly
Edit: Roddick was able to hit his spots when serving in the high 130s/low 140s thanks to modern tech...Pete's going to as well

 

[a10best]

Modern rackets don't add 10mph to how you currently your serve. If they did then Roger should've been serving rockets ever since he switched in 2014.

Pete's not going to start hitting his serve harder just because he could, placement would still be more important to him.

Yes, of course he'd continue with his great placement. The new strings and racket technology has been mentioned ad nauseam by many ex-touring pros to add more mph and better spin. They say it's the biggest reason why we see less serve and volley.

 

[ChrisRF]

I forgot about Pete's stamina.
I disagree with you about the better dropshot is by Roger? I recall far more droppers by Pete than Roger.

Sampras played many drop volleys, but the normal dropshot was almost non-existant in his game.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

I forgot about Pete's stamina.
I disagree with you about the better dropshot is by Roger? I recall far more droppers by Pete than Roger.

If by "drop shot" you include drop volleys, then yes, Pete's is better. But I assume we're talking about drop shots as being from the baseline and a drop volley being exclusively from net, in which case I would say Roger's drop shot from baseline is significantly better and more utilized than Pete's

 

[a10best]

If by "drop shot" you include drop volleys, then yes, Pete's is better. But I assume we're talking about drop shots as being from the baseline and a drop volley being exclusively from net, in which case I would say Roger's drop shot from baseline is significantly better and more utilized than Pete's

Yes you're correct. I meant drop volley for Pete. Fed's drop shots and BH slices were sick.