Borgforever
Hall of Fame
I must also add that on clay though Fedex would lead Sampras H2H where they in the same era IMO -- but only on clay...
Last edited:
I have the Pancho beating Laver at the Garden in five 1970 (oboy, oboy, oboy what a match) and the R1 Wimby classic 1969 -- one of my top ten matches of all time...
Gonzales had the best and most consistent serve I've ever seen bar none...
Im not an expect on Pancho Gonzales but I highly doubt he had a better second serve than Sampras and Gonzales had the same struggles on clay that Pete had.
They actually wanted to change the rules because Gonzo's serves were too heavy for everybody and he met some real dang great players during this time -- that says something...
Im not an expect on Pancho Gonzales but I highly doubt he had a better second serve than Sampras and Gonzales had the same struggles on clay that Pete had.
Absolutely laughable. Gonzalez had a truly great serve, possibly the best of all time, and it was a handful for any player, on any surface - same as Fraser's, Arthur's, Karlovic's, Sampras' or any number of other players who had great serves. HOWEVER, it was only on the ridiculously fast and notoriously uneven surfaces the pros were forced to play on (hockey rinks, gym halls, etc) that it could turn the game into a farce. Hell, even Barry McKay was a nightmare on those courts. Outdoors or on a slightly slower surface, Gonzalez's serve was still great but that's about it.
The only 'They' who might have ever considered changing the rules because of Gonzalez's serve were the same 'They' who didn't want to foot the bill for better courts and slower surfaces.
For you it's reasonable to compare, on one side, Gonzalez and Sampras, and on the other side, Laver and Federer?
I often do these comparisons in my mind, but i have some problems.
1)Federer is for me probably even with Sampras, and probably better than Pete at the end of Roger's career
2)Gonzalez is for me a little better than Laver (even if it's like saying, 'x is a little better than God', so i'm obviously not sure)
3)Gonzalez is probably better than Sampras, but only a little-little bit.
4)Laver is for sure better than Federer, Roger having nothing that Laver had not.
So, the syllogism here is not correct. According to you, which of the previous statements is less true?
![]()
Gonzo had better anticipation than Pete IMO easily on the first volley and what a volley (like Laver he killed with his first volley more often than not) -- disguised his serve and varied it like crazy but mostly flattened you. Aced his second a lot.
Sampras volley was very good but helped by his serve -- Gonzo could hack your head off with the most stunning volleys you'll ever see even on bullet clear winner returns.
1) Pete had clearly better clutch than Fed -- although not as versatile as Fed and skilled as him in every aspect of shotmaking.
2) Don't agree. Laver was more versatile -- better on clay and could mix up his game better. I have them even. Now they really never met when they were at the same age and peak and of course that would spark their ambitions and make them fine tune their games to their advantages so it's a very tough call. For me they are equally great -- with a slight advantage for Laver on slower surfaces -- but it doesn't matter for me...
3) Agree...
4) Laver had better slice, volley, anticipation, clutch and smash other than that even steven...
so, tell me if i'm wrong.
For you this comparison Gonzalez/Sampras vs Laver/Federer is possible (clutch-less percentage tennis player vs more complete-versatile player) with the 'old' duo even with an advantage over the new duo , also even between them. Something like that?
This is not true. This is not true vs most opponents, but certainly not all. In the early 90s when he played Courier and even an aging Lendl he lost more of the forehand exchanges than he won despite winning alot of the matches. If I had ever kept stats on things like this in the matches I think you would be surprised how clear it would be too. Agassi even probably won as many or more due to his much greater consistency, even though Sampras had more firepower off this side.
Absolutely nobody talks about Blake, Roddick, or even Djokovic having an all time great forehand, so except for Federer I dont know what you are getting at here. Federer's forehand would rate over Sampras's though, along with the others I mentioned.
I wonder if anyone else had this feeling. While watching the Australian Open final and last years Wimbledon final I had the feeling in both cases that Sampras would wipe both players of the court.
In the case of the AO final Federer had breaks during the match which he gave away from poor serving. I remember watching Sampras just slam down aces in these cases and hold his serve to consolidated the break but Federer played poor service games. The same thing happened in the Wimbledon final (in particular in the second set).
When serving in the AO third set to get the match to 5-5 or 6-6 Federer missed the first six first serves and the game went to deuce. Then he got the next two first serves and won the game.