How good was Sampras?

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:

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
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...
 
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.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
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.

Check out Gonzo before making these statements. The way Sampras served at his very best -- Gonzo did basically always and his second serve whew! You just have to see to believe...

Don't take my word for it. There's practically every pro agrees with this. And his clutch was beyond belief -- even at 40...
 

cristiano

New User
Gonzalez is for me one of the two best players ever and maybe the best ever, and better than Sampras. But to say his serve is for sure better than sampras' one and every pro afree with that is simply not true. It's not easy to compare two shots with 30 years of difference between them. They're for sure two of the best service ever , and of course one can have preferences. But there's not such an evidence in favour of one or the other. Please don't confuse our own preference with a general consensus.

c.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
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...
 

cristiano

New User
Yes, I know. Anyway, there's not complete evidence that Sampras's serve was worst (and after Sampras and Ivanisevic they also changed rules, i.e. surfaces and balls).

For a lot of former champions Sampras's serve is the best ever or tied as best ever. Gonzales for sure was better in consistency day by day, they both were great in clutch moments but Gonzales will to win a match was even greater. He probably was better on clay (even if perhaps with worst claycourt opponents), he had to face maybe better players than Pete, and yes, it's possible that also his serve was better, but it's not true that only people who have never seen Pancho play say Pete's serve was the best. We can reasonably compare these two shots.

It's nothing about me, i'm a Sampras fan who think Gonzalez was a stronger Sampras and possibly the best player ever (or anyway in the top3). But I think they were technically even, Pancho being a little better in the other aspect of the game.

c.
 

cristiano

New User
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? :)
 

AndrewD

Legend
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...

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.
 

bet

Banned
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.


He didn't. To be quite frank, Gonzales FIRST serve was often more comparable to Sampras' best 2nd serves.

Gonzales had a fantastic motion, and was a great clutch server. He had a different strategy to Sampras in general, partly because the mentality of the serve has changed.

Gonzales could bring a heater on the first serve, but actually didn't go all out very often, relative to players today. Gonzales didn't feel the percentages were with him going for aces and bombs on the first serve, the thinking at the time was more to set up the point. So, he himself has said that he "never" went for flat serves but always for a bit of spin. He thought the flat serves were for "showoffs". He even told Roscoe Tanner not to go for the big heat all the time but save it and use it as a changeup!

Now this is a bit of an exaggeration on Pancho's part. He clearly went for some flat serves and hit some aces, but it's also clear that he wasn't trying to paint lines with all-out, blinding speed, nearly as often as Sampras or Ivanisevic.

He still had pretty big power on the first, which is why I say his high speed, moderate spin serve, was a bit like Sampras' big 2nd serves.

Sampras has absolutely said that he goes for an ace on "pretty much every first serve". (not in EVERY match or on clay but he wasn't referring to that). Sampras, of course, also got some spin, even on his "flat" serves, but basically, I'm saying that Sampras tried for much more outright damage on his first serves and he brought his 2nd serve to such a ridiculous level that many would have envied if for the first serve.

The truth is that, you could have told Pete to only go for huge "2nd" serves for his first serve, and he would still have won most matches, as Gonzales did. I would say this is more similar to Gonzales strategy. When you have the game these 2 have, 2 back it up, that's fine. But Sampras went for aces on the first as well.

Gonzales, by contrast, basically went for something closer to 2 Sampras 2nd serves! (his 2nd being a bit weaker than Sampras' though) The nice thing for him was that, this was still a ridiculous combination which assured him strong service games. Maybe in this era, he would have gone with a different strategy, more like Sampras, more often.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
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.

True Andrew. You know your stuff. How much have you seen of Gonzo's matches lately? How many? Have you made a direct comparison between Pancho's and Pete's game recently?

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. He murdered Laver several times when Rocket was peak and Gonzo was a fossil already. Pete never even met anyone even close to Rocket let alone when he was 40.

Pete never met any GOAT returners with clutch like Gonzo and Gonzo still overpowered them. A lot of people here read a lot but they don't follow up by watching for themselves.

Gonzo's game was greater overall while Pete had a lot of easy put-away volleys from second rate returns.

Don't diss Gonzo please...
 
Last edited:

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
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? :)

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...
 

bet

Banned
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.

No. This is unwarranted hyperbole. Gonzales was a great volleyer. Probably about comparable to Sampras. He certainly could and did hit hard volleys and end points, but Sampras does this as well...every great volleyer does.

Overall, however, he actually was not considered a power volleyer. He went for good control and good angles.

Actually, Laver was not considered a power volleyer either. He was known for consistency and accuracy at the net but not for power.
 

cristiano

New User
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?
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
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?

Yeah, something like that. Fed is a more complete player than Pete IMO (like Fed is a more complete player than Nadal) but Pete IMO would win the important matches against Fed because he was a better match-player with his proven clutch (like what Nadal is doing to Fed)...
 

flying24

Banned
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.

Excellent analysis. I completely agree.
 

cristiano

New User
I agree.

But, if Nadal wasn't there, now maybe we wuld have had Federer with 2 grand slams, 3 Roland Garros, 18 majors, and 18/18 in major finals. Or something like that.

(and if Nadal was there 5 years ago..)

Opponents are always so important... It's difficult to judge.

Maybe the periods with more dangerous players (Lacoste-Cochet-old Tilden-Vines.Perry-young Budge-Crawford-Von Cramm-Nusslein-Borotra in late 20's mid 30's and Lendl-McEnroe-Wilander-Edberg-Becker-old Connors, young Agassi, Courier, in the 80's and early 90's) are the period with no dominant players (like Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, Federer, etc)

Which is the cause? which is the consequence?

Maybe the best period (more good players, also dominant ones) is the pro-tennis in 50's and 60's. But it's a period with no high-level slams and different draws. It's a coincidence?

Sorry for the off-topic.

c.
 

cristiano

New User
about Sampras's forehand.

I wonder why all you speak about 'one' Sampras forehand. Sampras' game changed a lot during his career. His serve was always there, but in 92-94 he improved a lot his second serve and his play on grass. He also improved his volley a lot, he wasn't a so natural net player before. He improved also his body in the same years and then at the end of the decade he became athletically less good and became more a net player and a lower percentage tennis player than before. In the early 90's he had a very good forehand but it wasn't comparable to Federer or Lendl ones. The same for his late career , when his legs and run just weren't good enough to let him play mostly with his groundstrokes.

But his forehand in his best years was definitely as good as anyone's in history.

Pete's backhand wan't terrible. It was very good on low rebound shots, and it was accettable on high rebounds. He had a good, even if a little erratic, return of serve and a worst passing shot with his backhand. But it wasn't a stroke that worked for him perfectly every day.

So, in the middle and at the peak of his career, people just didn't try to test his forehand. They just played only on his backhand, again and again and again. Sometimes it was the same for Lendl, or Courier, or Federer, but not exactly in the same why. In some matches Sampras just hit a winner at his first forehand attempt. Only Agassi had the game to try to move Sampras in the opposite corners of the courts letting him hit his forehand (and often lose). Sampras ' forehand in these years was simply deadly.

But at the beginning and the end of his career it was worst, for different reasons. So i can agree to consider Lendl and Federer forehands better strokes. But please, don't underestimate Pete. Or just watch a 94-95 match :)

c.
 

Argento full

New User
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.

ME! I`m tired of Roger mental problems against Rafa, really tired. Nadal won with his HEAD
 
Top