IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Volleys (IMHO) Edberg > Rafter > Sampras = Fed
How strong was 2004 Roddick relative to the Sampras era?
- Thread starter Heuristic
- Start date
Volleys (IMHO) Edberg > Rafter > Sampras = Fed
Federer has an excellent touch at the net, can do any technical shot and moves well. Sampras "pressure volleying" was better though. I would have to give the volleying edge to Sampras overall. If they face mediocre returners, I don't think the difference between them serve volleying is very big. Against a guy like Agassi though, you would see a difference.
abmk
Bionic Poster
you don't even have much clue about Sampras. Stop talking.
Watch some matches.
Pete was an all-courter at his prime. Only became a pure SnVer later on his career.
As far as players with better volleys are concerned : Edberg, Mac,Cash, Rafter, Henman in the open era.
abmk
Bionic Poster
not what I was talking about. I was responding to a statement which said that Roddick returned badly in the 03 semi.
abmk
Bionic Poster
jeez, how the hell do you jump to that conclusion ? Just because I said Roddick returned fine or ok in one match doesn't mean his return measures upto that of Sampras.
Roddick would do fine in some matches returning vs Sampras, he'd struggle in some of them.
Point is Sampras' return was clearly better and that'd make a difference in many of their matches.
You can see Roddick returning Sampras serve very well here. Miami is slow but Sampras is Sampras...
I wonder when Federer said that Roddick is one of the best ever, if he was trying to hype up his own win? Roddick has failed in slams even without facing Federer.
As much as I love his two shot game (serve followed by big forehand) in his prime, it's difficult thinking of A-Rod in that select company, even if he had been born in Sampras era, thus without Federer.
As much as I love his two shot game (serve followed by big forehand) in his prime, it's difficult thinking of A-Rod in that select company, even if he had been born in Sampras era, thus without Federer.
abmk
Bionic Poster
he said "one of the best ever, right now in this game"
pretty sure he was thinking about that current time, not all time there. Just didn't come out correctly.
It doesn't me any sense to say "ever", if it only refers to the specific time. Anyway, it's evident that he did concider Roddick the second best player in 04. Fed mentioned that he would have liked facing Roddick in the 2004 US Open final and was surprised by Roddicks QF exit. I'm happy they had at least two slam encounters with the peak Roddick
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
It doesn't me any sense to say "ever", if it only refers to the specific time. Anyway, it's evident that he did concider Roddick the second best player in 04. Fed mentioned that he would have liked facing Roddick in the 2004 US Open final and was surprised by Roddicks QF exit. I'm happy they had at least two slam encounters with the peak Roddick
Like I said, didn't come out correctly. that's why he added right now in the game.
Fed's well aware of tennis history -- Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, Mac, Edberg, Becker, Sampras et. al to be calling Roddick as one of the best ever.
He was referring to playing skills obv since Roddick only had 1 slam. I could say that about Nalbandian, and he didn't win any slam at all. He had the game of an all-time great though. When Nalbandians game was on, it was freaky.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah and I'm talking about playing skills as well.
Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, Mac, Edberg, Becker, Sampras etc. were clearly more skilled than Roddick at any point in his career.
Even among fed's contemporaries, Safin and Nalby were clearly more skilled than Roddick, IMO.
Nalbandian is talked about as one of the most talented not to win a slam (& I agree). I am a fan of his play and he could be devastating when on, but I don't think he was necessarily more skilled than the above ATGs (mainly the serve aspect that let him down as far as skills go)
Roddick was 3-1 against Safin back then... Even though Safin had an equally good backhand, Roddick could win baseline rallies with his FH alone, so who cares about the totality of strokes. Roddick also had an excellent technique, allowing him to hit with a lot of spin and power at the same time. Add to that his laser serve.
I don't know because there is only a highlight in youtube and in general Federer hit his first volleys above the net (if he has to hit a volley).
If he S&V then he is dead.
And since 1990, only they had better volleys than Sampras, but just volleys not overheads or half-volleys
abmk
Bionic Poster
he got quite a few returns low. You can see some of them in this extended highlights one :
I said he returned fine,not that he returned like a Federer or Hewitt or Agassi or Connors at their peak on grass.
Sampras handled rocket returns from Courier, Agassi or Becker better than Edberg.
But he S&V on both serves in WImbledon for all of his career.
I have to disagree with this. Sampras had better volley techniques, especially the forehand volleys.
He volleyed fine if compared to Federer's , but below his own average level.
Not to mention that unlike Pete, Henman returned Federer serves very well in the QF, much better than when meeting Pete previously or meeting Ivanisevic in the SF. I remember that in a Henman vs Sampras match, Pete's unreturnable rate reached 80% at some point.
But if Henman got past Goran, then Rafter would grab his last Slam. Rafter was simply better than Henman
The problem is that in this highlight, over half of Federer's first serves are unreturnables of all kinds. I think only watching a full match will give us a better look.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, I know. I was talking about in general, across all surfaces
disagree. He volleyed fine, even by his average level. Just not close to his very best. There were some uncharacteristic errors, but he did pull off quite a few tough volleys/half-volleys.
And Federer's volleying was very good in this match, by any standards.
From what I remember, Fed served better in the sampras match and was more clutch compared to the Henman match. Granted Sampras was capable of returning better, but his return wasn't below par either.
I already gave the stats that I took down after re-watching the match (only a few months ago)
In 2003 Wim SF, 34 out of 84 service points (40.48%) of Federer's serves were unreturned.
No DFs for federer, so that means Roddick returned 50 of the 84 Federer serves. (59.52%)
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-roddick-wimbledon-2003-semi-stats.597325/
You need to watch the whole match to get how Roddick returned. I don't since I've re-watched it recently.
Last edited:
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Sampras definitely had a great overhead.
But Edberg's overhead was fantastic as well. He recovered perhaps as well as anyone to defend a lob, even though he stood very far forward in the service box to volley (gave him great angles). Edberg had amazing quickness and anticipation at the net!
Check out his athletic overheads at 06:50 and 07:25 in the 1991 USO final against Courier:
Um, I don't agree with you here.
Edberg had one of the best low, driving volleys off of return of serve. Remember that he was facing tougher return shots in general, since he didn't have the big Sampras 1st serve (and Edberg came in on many/most 2nd serves as well).
Here's a good example, again from his above match with Courier (since you brought up Courier). See 06:22, and look at Courier's bodylanguage disbelief that Edberg hit that shot for a winner! Another good one at 8:27, where Edberg leaves an approach short, but easily handles the rocket that Courier hits at him.
Last edited:
Dailymotion has the full 04 final. Roddick is in Federers serve games from start to finish of this match. Has lots of break points. Very unusual compared to later matches where Roddick struggled tremendously just to get the ball over the court.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Just recognize that coming to net behind (one of) the greatest serves ever gives a different quality of volley than coming in behind Edberg's or Rafter's (or McEnroe, Cash, etc) serve.
Agreed, no all-courter or S&V can win 14 slams with a poor volley.
But imagine how good your volley has to be to win 6 slams off Edberg's serve! Sampras' 2nd serve is often stronger than Edberg's 1st serve!
Point remains, it may have been good enough in that era but in no way was Sampras baseline play comparable with his S&V. If Sampras stays behind the baseline, 04 Roddick will blow him off the court.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nonsense.
Please. To even compare their forehands is laughable. Looks like a player from the 1800s technically compared Roddick. Sampras also made some rather unneccesary forehand errors based solely on his subpar technique, which left little margin for errors.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Well, this is obvious due to the fact that he won 7 Wimbledons with S&V (usually 1st and 2nd serve) and only made it to the French Open SF!
Yes. So saying that Sampras volley is much worse than Henman is nonsense. Sampras had to make a lot of tough volleys to win his "S&V slams".
Not to you. You labelled him an all-courter.
abmk
Bionic Poster
ignorance.
Sampras FH > roddick's fh , prime to prime
Sampras from the baseline > roddick from the baseline
Suggest you actually watch prime Sampras' play some of these before going on with ignorant statements like those :
These are a good start :
Last edited:
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
At the end of the day:
Sampras: 14 GS.
Roddick: 1 GS. Can't all be blamed on Fed, as Roddick lost to plenty of other players in earlier rounds.
abmk
Bionic Poster
all-courter doesn't mean equally good in all parts of the court. It means playing ability to play well from all parts of the court and actually playing some significant amount from all parts of the court.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I think this inhuman smash speaks for itself.
Sampras would get killed.
Both overheads were on a similar level.
Prime Roddick had a superior offensive forehand. Sampras had a better moving forehand, evident by a stronger return game from the forehand side (Roddick tended to loop 1st serve forehand returns). Both had consistently strong running forehands. Roddick had a more versatile forehand, able to go down the lines just as well as inside out. Roddick had a beastier forehand.
One of the things I noticed is that newcomer, skinny Roddick moved much faster and fluently (gliding even) on the hard courts than prime Roddick.
You can see how long baseline rallies he had against Hewitt in 2001. Prime Roddick was much heavier and couldn't defend as well side to side.
Is that normal for a player to be a completely different mover as a newcomer compared to his prime? And isn't is strange that it went in a negative direction?
You can see how long baseline rallies he had against Hewitt in 2001. Prime Roddick was much heavier and couldn't defend as well side to side.
Is that normal for a player to be a completely different mover as a newcomer compared to his prime? And isn't is strange that it went in a negative direction?
abmk
Bionic Poster
sampras had a better offensive forehand/forehand in general . could generate pace more easily than roddick could, could take it earlier. both could reach similar top end speeds with thier fhs.
Roddick just had the better I/O forehand.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Roddick's forehand was a bit heavier but yeah no doubt Sampras had the better shot.
abmk
Bionic Poster
agree.
There's a difference between countering forehands on the move compared to forehands that dictate play side to side. Roddick had the far superior forehand from static positions in average paced rallies. He did use more body behind his shots than Sampras flick of the wrist magic, but Roddicks also worked in a broader range of circumstances.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, he didn't. Roddick's static FH was no better than Sampras'. Sampras could dictate play left right with his FH.
But then you don't know much about Sampras at his prime. you even think his average 1st serve pace was about the same as Federer.
Just because Sampras' running FH is talked about that much doesn't mean his FH when still wasn't very good.
Just watch those videos of Sampras vs Agassi that I posted - it would be a start !
Last edited:
no, he didn't. Roddick's static FH was no better than Sampras'. Sampras could dictate play left right with his FH.
But then you don't know much about Sampras at his prime. you even think his average 1st serve pace was about the same as Federer.
Just because Sampras' running FH is talked about that much doesn't mean his FH when still wasn't very good.
Just watch those videos of Sampras vs Agassi that I posted - it would be a start !
Oh so you know Federers average first serve speed based on his match against Sampras when Fed was still in his diapers?
abmk
Bionic Poster
Oh so you know Federers average first serve speed based on his match against Sampras when Fed was still in his diapers?
Nope, based on plenty of their matches that I have seen, unlike you hardly knows anything about Sampras.
Federer vs roddick in uso 06 final :
115.57 mph 1st serve speed average
93.83 mph 2nd serve speed average
Federer vs roddick in wim 03 semi :
115.57 mph 1st serve speed average
97.56 mph 2nd serve speed average
Federer vs roddick in wim 04 final :
117.44 mph 1st serve speed average
97.56 mph 2nd serve speed average
Federer vs Sampras in wim 01 4r :
114 mph 1st serve speed average
97 mph 2nd serve average
Yeah, big a** difference in serve speed of young fed and older fed.
Meanwhile Sampras in that wim match :
121 mph average on 1st serve
110 mph on 2nd serve
Radar guns used to measure the speed at the net earlier (in the 90s if I am not wrong), but they measure it from the server's point of contact(i.e when it hits the serve) from some time in the 00s (if I am not wrong)
Anyone who actually saw them both play and has half decent eyes and head can tell that Sampras's serve was clearly faster. (By a significant amount)
Nope, based on plenty of their matches that I have seen, unlike you hardly knows anything about Sampras.
Federer vs roddick in uso 06 final :
115.57 mph 1st serve speed average
93.83 mph 2nd serve speed average
Federer vs roddick in wim 03 semi :
115.57 mph 1st serve speed average
97.56 mph 2nd serve speed average
Federer vs roddick in wim 04 final :
117.44 mph 1st serve speed average
97.56 mph 2nd serve speed average
Federer vs Sampras in wim 01 4r :
114 mph 1st serve speed average
97 mph 2nd serve average
Yeah, big a** difference in serve speed of young fed and older fed.
Meanwhile Sampras in that wim match :
121 mph average on 1st serve
110 mph on 2nd serve
Radar guns used to measure the speed at the net earlier (in the 90s if I am not wrong), but they measure it from the server's point of contact(i.e when it hits the serve) from some time in the 00s (if I am not wrong)
Anyone who actually saw them both play and has half decent eyes and head can tell that Sampras's serve was clearly faster. (By a significant amount)
Depends on who Federer is playing.
Last edited:
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
But then you don't know much about Sampras at his prime. you even think his average 1st serve pace was about the same as Federer.
Well in fairness the MPH speeds on the radar were comparable I believe, but I think a lot of that is just the surfaces, and some even speculate the radar guns were juiced at one point. I remember 35 year old Brenda Schultz McCarthy, coming out of retirement, not looking to be serving as powerfully as her absolute prime (the serve being the only thing she was really known for) and breaking her previous serve MPH record by 12 mph or more, and breaking the Williams serve speed WR. That alone tells you a lot. So despite the radar guns, I am pretty sure Sampras's serve pace was clearly higher than Federer.
Edit- sorry had not noticed you already pointed out the difference in the radar guns in later time vs old ones.
