Prefer the Federer running forehand or Sampras running forehand?

[laurie]

I was watching today the Masters semifinal today between Federer and Nadal. I was marvelling at times the way Federer runs to play his forehand and hits deep crosscourt shots putting Nadal under pressure. He did the same down the line as well.

That got me thinking, that Federer is so good at putting the ball in play transferring the pressure back to his opponent. However, I used to laugh when Sampras would run to hit a forehand either down the line or crossocurt and hit clean winners, whether his opponent was at the net or not, they always looked amazingly spectacular when they came off, also usually with Sampras out of position on the court as well. My mind thinks of the one he hit against Agassi in the 4th set tiebreak in the 2000 Australian Open semifinal when he was out of position, Agassi at the net and the ball was so low and Sampras hit a clean topspin winner crosscourt with Agassi having a sickened look on his face.

So, I think Federer keeps the ball in play more often on that shot but Pete hit more spectacular ones. I perefer the Sampras running forehand so I would like to know which one you prefer and your reasons.

 

[dpfrazier]

Sampras' big forehands usually seemed to be "go-for-broke" forehands; he's way out of position, and never had any intention of hitting another stroke during the point. Both spectacular and very demoralizing.

Federer's running forehands usually seem to be more defensive, with an eye on getting back into position to continue the rally. But I've seen Fed hit a few shots (I remember the backhands the most) where he is out of position and goes for the big winner. Very spectacular!

I'll take Pete, for the sake of argument...

 

[drakulie]

I think Rogers is definitely more consistent, but Pete's was ----well -----spectacular when he hit it!

 

[illkhiboy]

I think Federer in general has become slightly more conservative with his forehand. I have the feeling he used to be more punishing with his running forehands. But I guess he's trying to play percentages more these days. Occasionally he rips one as hard as anyone though. He did that today, going down the line off a low ball with Nadal at the net. He also hit a spectacular running forehand to break Nadal 2nd game, 1st set Wimbledon Final. That was amazing.
Do you think the faster courts of yesteryer gave more sting to Sampras' forehand?

 

[Rafa's best friend]

No contest, Pete Sampras, more power more accurate, just watch the tapes from Youtube.com

 

[Grimjack]

Fed's footwork, preparation, and anticipation reside in a completely separate universe from Pete's. What made Pete's running forehands *appear* so fantastic is that he was wildly out of position and just went for it, hard and flat. If he missed -- and he missed a lot more than he made, but history tends to forget such things -- he knew the point was over, if he converted, he knew the point was over as well.

Most of the balls Pete ran, lunging for, Fed glides to and hits a typical rally stroke. He doesn't blast as many winners off these as Pete did, because trying to blast winners is a low-percentage tactic. He stays in the rally, because staying in the rally is an ENORMOUSLY high-percentage tactic when you're the best player in the known universe. When Fed must run, he's less likely to look as spectacular as Pete did in converting, because Fed only needs to run when the ball is hit someplace truly difficult, making it a lower-chance affair in every possible way, from angles to percentages. The same factors that make Fed less likely to pull off a highlight-reel running FH winner would have left Pete staring slackjawed at an opponent's winner.

So, to answer the question, on the same difficult-to-reach ball, who do I prefer? Federer, because he gets to it easily.

I'll also take Lendl's running FH over Pete's.

 

[power_play21]

Fed's footwork, preparation, and anticipation reside in a completely separate universe from Pete's. What made Pete's running forehands *appear* so fantastic is that he was wildly out of position and just went for it, hard and flat. If he missed -- and he missed a lot more than he made, but history tends to forget such things -- he knew the point was over, if he converted, he knew the point was over as well.

Most of the balls Pete ran, lunging for, Fed glides to and hits a typical rally stroke. He doesn't blast as many winners off these as Pete did, because trying to blast winners is a low-percentage tactic. He stays in the rally, because staying in the rally is an ENORMOUSLY high-percentage tactic when you're the best player in the known universe. When Fed must run, he's less likely to look as spectacular as Pete did in converting, because Fed only needs to run when the ball is hit someplace truly difficult, making it a lower-chance affair in every possible way, from angles to percentages. The same factors that make Fed less likely to pull off a highlight-reel running FH winner would have left Pete staring slackjawed at an opponent's winner.

So, to answer the question, on the same difficult-to-reach ball, who do I prefer? Federer, because he gets to it easily.

I'll also take Lendl's running FH over Pete's.

wow. amazing how i was thinking exactly this but didnt know how to put it in words here. thank you, completely agree verbatim.

 

[psamp14]

overall federer's groundstrokes to me are better than sampras', but sampras' running forehand is the greatest running forehand in the game, ever

 

[tennisfreak]

Fed's footwork, preparation, and anticipation reside in a completely separate universe from Pete's.

Okay, Federer's footwork etc is exemplary and probably better than Pete's was. But in a completely different universe? Comon...

I have no doubt Pete was one of the best movers on the court ever. You can't play elite serve and volley/ all-court tennis at Pete's level and without being able to move extremely well.

 

[AndyC]

if u're talking the flat out running and no hope of coming back for another shot then I'd be happy to take either. they are both capable of finding the down the line or xcourt shot equally easily and both are works of art.

if u're talking the running fh where you stop on the outside of the right foot and push back into court then I'll take Fed's pls on account of his being a better mover.

 

[Morrissey]

Sampras' running forehand in slam matches were money. He'd hit winners like timework. He hit a million of them against Agassi and Courier. But the one that stands out in my mind the most was the 2000 Australian Open SF, during the fourth set tiebreak and Agassi hit a great crosscourt forehand off the short reply. Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e1l5ysv6bQ


and this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0OLzETyo44&mode=related&search=

If you hit him off the court wide on that side you really had to keep your antennas up because he could go anywhere with it.

 

[laurie]

Morrisey, exactly the shot I spoke about at the top of this thread. As I said, look at Agassi's face.

Sampras was one of the very best when it comes to movement.

 

[laurie]

So many of those Youtube videos are really poor quality which is a shame.

 

[drakulie]

He hit a million of them against Agassi and Courier.

He didn't hit the running forehand for winners as you pointed out as much as you would like to remember. Remember these are highlights. Not like he was hitting that shot every other point. He'd hit one or two a match.

 

[Morrissey]

He didn't hit the running forehand for winners as you pointed out as much as you would like to remember. Remember these are highlights. Not like he was hitting that shot every other point. He'd hit one or two a match.

You make me out to be some sort of Sampras fan. I was vehemently against Sampras. I hated the guy. I just remember watching him play my guy Courier and him just endlessly hitting running cross court forehands, some for winners but others for taking the rally from defense to offensive. YOU are the one who makes it look like it is nothing special. I never liked Sampras, but man I have to give credit and admit that he was the best at this shot, hands down.

 

[Morrissey]

You make me out to be some sort of Sampras fan. I was vehemently against Sampras. I hated the guy. I just remember watching him play my guy Courier and him just endlessly hitting running cross court forehands, some for winners but others for taking the rally from defense to offensive. YOU are the one who makes it look like it is nothing special. I never liked Sampras, but man I have to give credit and admit that he was the best at this shot, hands down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVRtfs0j9Rs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UVCUHW8JNY&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUmIsibtiwc&mode=related&search=

 

[Feña14]

They are different types of running forehand. Federer manages to get the ball back and in a difficult position for you to go on and win the point from. Sampras went for broke on all his running forehands. I looked on youtube to try and find some examples but all I could find was Federer reaching balls with time to spare, if it was Sampras chasing down those balls then a risky running forehand winner would be what he would attempt.

Federer uses his in a smart way and can do anything with it. I loved Sampras as you probably know (hence the 14 in my name) but I have alot more confidence in Federer when he is in a position that Pete would of unleashed on.

Along with Lendl, they are part of the top 3 running forehands of all time. It's all down to what you look for, the go for broke style of Sampras, or the fluid movement and tactical play of Federer.

 

[superman1]

Sampras' was ridiculous. I still have no idea how he generated that kind of pace just by flicking his racquet. Chalk it up to his monster forearm, I guess.

Federer's forehand beats Sampras' in all other aspects, though. But on the run, Sampras was better than anyone. He's the only guy I've seen that seemed to actually like being pulled off the court on the forehand side, because he could always come up with the goods.

 

[Morrissey]

Sampras' was ridiculous. I still have no idea how he generated that kind of pace just by flicking his racquet. Chalk it up to his monster forearm, I guess.

Federer's forehand beats Sampras' in all other aspects, though. But on the run, Sampras was better than anyone. He's the only guy I've seen that seemed to actually like being pulled off the court on the forehand side, because he could always come up with the goods.

Yep, precisely. Sampras just seemed to dare you to hit to that available space on the deuce court that he gives to his opponents. Just so he could run down to that side and blast that running forehand. Federer has Sampras beat on all other aspects of the forehand. Consistency, disguise, spin, angles. Sampras had more "put away" power in which he could just go for broke and end the rally quickly, especially when he played Agassi. Federer can hit high quality, precise forehands for what seems to be forever. Its rare you see that shot fly off the handle, unless if Nadal's shots are kicking up good then you could see him panic and go for too much too soon.

 

[superman1]

Especially when he played Agassi. Yup. Unfortunately for Agassi, Samps always stepped it up to the max when they were playing. At least AA got a good 14 wins under his belt.

 

[fastdunn]

Technically speaking, Federer does not hit "running forehand".
He usually put a break with his right foot and stop before he hits.
If he runs thru his forehand, it's usually a weak replies or errors.

But to my surprises, he did hit a few solid running forehand today
against Nadal. But it's very rare moment when Federer looks
somewhat uncomfortable/ not so natural, hitting it with low to
high swing, finishing high follow thru, off of his left foot(classic forehand).

Although Federer's modern forehand does not suit that type of
running forehand, I always wonder why some other modern forehand
players are able to muscle it like Blake or Baghdatis.

Sampras running forehand was great display of an athelticism
and excellent one in terms of strategy. It turns defensive situation
into an offensive one. It putts extra pressure to his opponent who
tried to stretch him wide.

 

[Lee James]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfh5Du--8xU&mode=related&search=

Just a lil proof that Sampras actually could do it repeatedly in a match.

 

[tricky]

Yeah, I absolutely agree with Fastdunn on this. Because Sampras uses a more classical swing, the pace on his FH strokes depends on his linear momentum. In other words, he creates pace through his feet. Old-school Sampras applied a baller mentality to tennis, and so his explosive step and low-to-ground mentality, set up his running FH just great.

Whatever swing style you take, that is, whatever generates your power, there's inherent limitations. If you rely on a lot of rotational energy and/or stretch-shorten timing, then your running FH won't be that great. If you rely on mostly weight transfer and linear momentum, then you won't have as great pace when trading shots with a grinder.

 

[Robbie_1988]

I still marvel at how hard Sampras hits his forehand. I reckon it's pretty damn fast still compared to today's standards on the ATP tour.

What surprises me more is that he hits all these shots, THAT hard with an 85 square inch frame. What a freak.

 

[laurie]

Sampras hit some of his best running forehands in this match. I think he only missed two in two sets:

http://www.classictennismatches.net/index_files/page0016.html

It's the 1999 Cincinatti semifinal. Don't forget you can right click your mouse and watch these in full screen.

 

[Robbie_1988]

Hey imagine how much power he'd have on his forehand if he was using a Babolat Pure Drive or something.