helloworld
Hall of Fame
That so called GOAT didn't look good at all in 2004-2006 against baby Nadal.
Federer vs. Sampras Shot per Shot
- Thread starter Nadalgaenger
- Start date
That so called GOAT didn't look good at all in 2004-2006 against baby Nadal.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
You just lost credibility for giving Federer and Sampras same score on Serve.
forehand fan
Rookie
federer's prime 2003-2012, atleast.. you dont contend for majors and ye no 1 withour being in prime..just for the record nadal's prime 2005-?? will 2014 be the last year of his prime?
Yes, you can contend for majors even past your prime if your prime is winning 3 majors/year.
I say Fed's prime ended in 2010.
forehand fan
Rookie
more importantly what's the point of these execise? if you compare nadal and federer , apart from passing shots i think fed has the edge almos everywher.. but it doesn't look show while they play each other does it? many times a players total game is greater than the sum of parts.. of course the opposite also holds on many cases
forehand fan
Rookie
boy.. you seriously have pretty low idea about any player other than fed :???:
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think Federer had slump in 2010 and part way through 2011, sort of like Nadal during 09. I think 2012 was too good not to be prime albeit it was below all multislam years in terms of level of play.
Ok, we just have different definitions of primes.
So contending for majors is still in his prime. I guess Agassi was still in his prime at USO 2005.
This means Sampras was still in his prime when he lost to teen Fed at Wimby.
Since he won USO 2002 the following year.
Ok, fine, I have no problems using your definition. Makes Fed look even better. This means his wins vs Agassi and Sampras are worth more. Also his wins vs Rafa, Murray, Nole. Since he beat them when they were contending for slams.
That means Nole prime started at USO 2007. Murray prime USO 2008.
Fine, I like your definition. Makes Fed look even better
This so called goat at an old age was nr.1 vs peak Rafa and Nole.
While those guys weren't close vs peak Fed.
So, using your logic it means teen Rafa is better than peak Fed.
But old Fed is better than peak Rafa/Nole
.forehand fan
Rookie
if not in 2007 when did you think nole's prime start?Ok, we just have different definitions of primes.
So contending for majors is still in his prime. I guess Agassi was still in his prime at USO 2005.
This means Sampras was still in his prime when he lost to teen Fed at Wimby.
Since he won USO 2002 the following year.
Ok, fine, I have no problems using your definition. Makes Fed look even better. This means his wins vs Agassi and Sampras are worth more. Also his wins vs Rafa, Murray, Nole. Since he beat them when they were contending for slams.
That means Nole prime started at USO 2007. Murray prime USO 2008.
Fine, I like your definition. Makes Fed look even better
. and of course fed has wins over murray nadal and djoker in their primes.. who said otherwise?
Last edited:
forehand fan
Rookie
This so called goat at an old age was nr.1 vs peak Rafa and Nole.
While those guys weren't close vs peak Fed.
So, using your logic it means teen Rafa is better than peak Fed.
But old Fed is better than peak Rafa/Nole
well i will remember fed and nadal differently.. federer for winning the most.. and nadal for giving us the most epic matches
.to me the 2d part will always have more value than the first
NatF
Bionic Poster
well i will remember fed and nadal differently.. federer for winning the most.. and nadal for giving us the most epic matches
I challenge you on that one. Federer has been involved in many many epic matches. I think he's won more 5 setters than Nadal has played or close to it...
Should do a list.
torpantennis
Legend
Nadal's prime 2008-2010. Too bad Nole robbed him on year 2011, i.e 2007 of Federer career! Nadal's 2013 resurgence was Federer's 2009 resurgence, so up until now their differences are:
Baby Fed (1GS) vs. Baby Nadal (3GS)
2004-2006 Fed (8GS) vs. 2008-2010 Nadal (6GS)
2007 Fed (3GS) vs. 2011 Nadal (1GS)
2008 Fed (1GS) vs. 2012 Nadal (1GS)
2009/AO10 Fed (3GS) vs. 2013/14 Nadal (2GS?)
2012 Fed (1GS) vs. ?
So up until now, Nadal lacks Fed in all but Baby years! The biggest difference was that Nole robbed Nadal in 2011, but Nadal couldn't do that to Federer in 2007. We'll see how it turns out, but I think I already know.
Right, so Sampras has the better serve but what the heck, you'll give fed a 10 anyway.
forehand fan
Rookie
wll not all 5 setters are epic.. anyway as far as i can remember
for fed:2001 vs sampras, 2005 ao semi, 2006 rome final,2007, 2008, 2009. wim final, 2009 ao and uso final, 2011 uso semi, 2005 wtf,
for nadal
2005 ao vs hewitt,2005 rome final,2006 rome final, 2007, 2008 wim, 2009 ao, 2009 madrid semi, 2012 ao final, 2013 rg, hmm. may be i was wrong
.somehow i remembered nadal's matches more.forehand fan
Rookie
if you really think fed and nadal had only 3 year's of prime.. then they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as rosewall, much less be placed above him
If Fed was playing in an era with less competition and less fitness needed, I'm sure his prime could be 20 years.
Even Nadal would extend his prime In Rosewall era. Nadal would never get injured with that type of tennis.
You are making really unfair comparisons here.
What's the problem? Fed gets special +1 goat bonus. It's logical.
forehand fan
Rookie
how do you know that?
We can see this on youtube videos. Even on the naked eye we see that fitness required in the past is only like 70% of today.
Every expert says this.
But common sense can tell you this.
But, if you still don't believe this, I don't know how to help you.
happyloman
Professional
I think 6 is too low for Federer.
Yeah. People forget how Fed dismantled big servers. Including Sampras, Karlovic, Isner, Roddick, Philly.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
At least Sampras' running forehand is superior to Federer. Federer's serve on the other hand is inferior to Sampras in every possible aspect.
Where was that superior running forehand and serve on clay?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Like I said nearly as bad...Federer has a slightly higher 1st serve percentage than Sampras across his career. That's the one category Federer has on him.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I can have 100% 1st serve percentage too. Does that mean my 1st serve is better than Sampras? Do you even play tennis?
Let's not even go into the quality of 2nd serve.
How do we even know Pete has the best serve? Maybe his serve is inflated by era of weak returners and faster surfaces.
In today's slower surfaces and era of good returners maybe his serve won't be so good.
I feel Karlovic serve is better.
The big difference in returns is that Fed would go for the safe return, Sampras would go for the winner because he knew he only needed one break of serve per set to win the set. So it depends on what you consider is better.... the safe return i.e. getting everything back into play, or going for the winner and putting more pressure on the server. I would say that Fed's return is better in today's game, and Sampras's return was better in the game of his day. But Sampras's return would be much more effective against Nadal. Chip the return back and you have already lost the point against Nadal. But chip the ball back against everyone else on tour and you are starting at even.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Your analysis is spot on. I always thought one of Federer's downfall is his habit of slicing back Nadal's serve. Nadal aims 80-90% of his serve to Federer's backhand and he always slices it back! It works against most players because Federer can beat them in a neutral rally, but against Nadal, his chances of winning a rally is very slim. This is opposite from Djokovic's strategy who is ready to pound on Nadal's serve like a tiger jumping on its prey. Aggressive mindset works much better against Nadal who excels in dominating his opponent in a long rally.
I second this. Compared to Sampras, Fed played more percentage tennis and the return is where this shows the most.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Fed is definitely a percentage player. This is why he has been able to maintain higher win% and rarely lose to low ranked player. However, against the best of the best, playing percentage tennis is obviously not enough. You have to take chances, I mean big chances in order to beat the best, and that is not where Federer is comfortable doing.
Krajicek Serve
Rookie
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
Federer gave up on slicing back the Nadal serve long time ago (2009, I would say). Since then, he's been trying to be more aggressive on return, slicing it rarely.
UPDATE:
I don't agree with this part. The slice actually gives Nadal time to setup himself optimally to hit his forehand. Since he doesn't have problems with the low bouncing balls, he can put Federer in defensive (not neutral!) position after ripping his forehand.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Quoted for truth. There were times when hitting a ball to the Fed forehand basically meant an automatic loss of the point, irrespective of whether or not Fed had to "run" for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
No way Federer and Sampras are equal on serve. Sampras would be a 10 and Federer would be around an 8.
For return of serve, Federer was better in his younger days (he no longer is) on the return of serve and he was better overall than Sampras in this area imo. I would give Federer in his prime an 8 and Sampras a 6.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
How did this get turned into a Fed vs. Nadal thread?
And in scoring the two serves as 10, I am merely stating that both have nearly perfect serve technique and achieve optimal results for men of their height (a beast like Isner may have the best serve ever but I find Sampras' serve much more technically perfect).
Federer20042006
Banned
I think the surface speed has much less effect on the effectiveness of serves than it does on other shots...which is why you still see plenty of aces today from the top servers.
130 down the T (which would be scored as 120 or so on the old guns) is an ace or short return almost every time, regardless of what you're playing on.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
agreed. fed gets the edge off the ground by at least 10-15%, but sampras gets the same edge of serve, no question.
sampras gets the edge on volleys, fed might have slight edge on touch but pete was better at shutting it down and ending the point, and that's what it's all about at the net.
roger gets the nod off returns--however he accomplished it (bunting, slicing, coming over it) he just gets into more of his opponent's serve games.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
We have to account for the fact that Sampras was dealing with faster conditions, making it harder to return serve.
I agree with those here arguing that Sampras took more risks on his return. That is exactly what Fed never seems able to do with his BH return against Nadal.
torpantennis
Legend
Had to silent some trolls who brought Fedal into this, with the facts.
torpantennis
Legend
BTW OP, why didn't you include speed and quality of footwork into this? Tennis is really ALL about movement, not about how well you can bash the ball from static position.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
There seems to be this prevailing myth that sampras was somehow this uber aggressive returner and will make mince-meat of nadal's lefty serve.
The statistics of sampras career actually dont support that. Sampras returning stats are not that impressive.
he might be able to hit a purple patch by hitting several big returns in a row, but over the course of a 5 set match, the odds are against him.
The statistics of sampras career actually dont support that. Sampras returning stats are not that impressive.
he might be able to hit a purple patch by hitting several big returns in a row, but over the course of a 5 set match, the odds are against him.
Sampras had the most feared forehand on tour in his day, especially the running crosscourt, but it still does not compare to what Fed can do with his FH. Sampras won probably twice as many points with his serve alone as Fed does (aces and unreturnables).
droliver
Professional
Absolute rubbish. Sampras could hit big,flashy shots but his forehand was not some extraordinary shot day in and out. In no way would I consider it one of the best of his generation overall. Sampras' success started and ended with his ability to hold serve 90%+ and then take some risks for a break or tiebreak. This was a brutally effective strategy, but don't make the mistake of overrating his ground game which was much closer to tour average-above average range.
Federer OTOH could take control of the point on any surface with extraordinary power, precision, and consistency off the FH wing. Arguably the GOAT.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
There is a law of tennis forums which states that all threads will eventually involve Fed vs. Nadal in some way. All that differs is how heavily veiled the argument is.
Sampras only needed to be good at returns one game a set. With the court speed and ball bounce height of the 90's, no one was going to break his serve more than once a match, unless he was the best returner of all time, Agassi. If the players of today had to play with 90's court speed's, balls, strings, and rackets, Sampras would have handled everyone but Fed with ease.
Nicholas Warino
New User
Serve: Sampras 10, Federer 9
FH: Federer 10, Sampras 8
TSBH: Federer 8, Sampras 6
Slice BH: Federer 10, Sampras 9
RoS: Federer 9, Sampras 7 (Federer is one the best ever at returning big serves)
Volley: Sampras 10, Federer 9
FH: Federer 10, Sampras 8
TSBH: Federer 8, Sampras 6
Slice BH: Federer 10, Sampras 9
RoS: Federer 9, Sampras 7 (Federer is one the best ever at returning big serves)
Volley: Sampras 10, Federer 9
Similar threads
