Roger a better returner than Pete?

[Spencer]

Everyone seems to agree that Federer has a better return game than Sampras. This is because Roger broke serve more often and easily than Pete.

However...

Federer mostly blocks back big serves and then uses his dominant forehand to win the point. That is how he breaks opponents. Sampras also mostly blocked back the big serves of his opponents.

But Pete's opponents followed their big serves into the net to put away easy volleys. Federer's floaters would have been crushed by many Serve/volleyer opponents in the past.

Thus if Roger played in Pete's era, he would not have broken people as easily as he does today.

Roger breaks opponents more with his mighty forehand, than with his actual service return ability.

 

[psp2]

Have you seen the Wimby '01 match b/w Pete and Roger?

 

[tricky]

The thing that makes me scratch my head is this assumption that everybody has to play an Agassi-style attack return game in order to have a "good" return game against S&V-ers. Being able to block shots is the basis for a good return game, and to put balls in play. And that was certainly true during Sampras's era.

It's like people evaluating the quality of a service game by average MPH and # of aces. When it's about placement and variety, which adds up to service percentages and overall winners.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Everybody seems to think Federer has a better return of serve then Pete because he clearly does. It is not even debatable. Only a Sampras fanboy would argue otherwise, just like only a Federer fanboy would argue Federer has the better serve.

Federer returned serve better against other baseliners then Federer too so what is your point? It is not his fault there arent good serve-volleyers anymore.

 

[Tennis_Goodness]

Yeah, Federer's return is better then what Pete could do.

 

[tennisboy87]

Yeah, Roger has a better return of serve than Pete had.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Federer broke serve more often and more easily vs most baseliners too then Pete, and Pete also had the "mighty forehand".

 

[Spencer]

I too think Federer has a slightly better return on the serve than Pete. Roger also has more variety and options from the backcourt. But people are saying that he has one of best returns of all time.

My question is how do we know this? Alot of today's guys may return the opponent's serve as well as Roger does but they still do not win the point because they cannot backup their returns with the rest of their game. Remember Roger has probably the best forehand of all time and one of the best defensive games of all time.

I would put Agassi as a better pure returner than Federer. But once the ball is returned and in play and the server is not already at net, Federer is Alpha.

 

[tricky]

Alot of today's guys may return the opponent's serve as well as Roger does but they still do not win the point because they cannot backup their returns with the rest of their game. Remember Roger has probably the best forehand of all time and one of the best defensive games of all time.

Yeah, but good defense is a reflection of reading your opponent including serve, as well as having good movement. Fed's monster forehand is maybe the most overrated aspect of Roger's defensive game because most players will attack his BH side anyway. When he goes inside-out, it's still a product of him backing the other guy into a corner and getting his feet right. Roger happens to have maybe the best backhand return in the game right now. He's able to "squash" back gorgeous, depressing DTL passing shots just by sticking his racket out.

People often make the assumption that an attacking style is automatically superior to a blocking defensive style even against hard net games. If that were true, then S&Vers would have dominated baseliners on medium-to-slow surfaces for decades. Majority of good returners did and do not play like Agassi.

 

[Swinging Simian]

Damn it that's it someone has got to create a computer generated match betwen these guys. If it can get Rocky Balboa out of retirement I'm thinking it can for Pete as well. We can watch the Young Swiss Wall of a Champeen take on the Ol Greek Cannon.

 

[Spencer]

I guess my main point was that IMHO, it would be harder to break big servers who came in behind their serves than with those who stayed back. Placement and anticipation is all good but when you are talking about 120+ mph well placed bombs? I think even the pros are just blocking those back with the simple hopes that they stay in, not pondering where they want to place it to beat a net rusher. Pure reflexes.

One questionable part of Fed's game that has not been tested recently is his passing shot. Guys like Hewitt and Chang had better passing shots than Roger I would think. Both these guys had winning records over Pat Rafter. Roger had a hard time beating Rafter. Federer is miles better than both of them of course, and if tested he could develop and become one of the best passers too. But his difficulty in the past with Server/volleyers make it a question mark? Hewitt, Chang, and Agassi were the best passing shot makers in my opinion.

 

[Grimjack]

I guess my main point was that IMHO, it would be harder to break big servers who came in behind their serves than with those who stayed back.

Hi.

Your Humble Opinion is wrong.

And that's not MHO. That's fact talking. That's overwhelming evidence backed by the data of every good tennis player in the world today talking.

If it were harder to break big servers who came in behind their serves, every player in the top 100 would be doing it. Do you think they stay back only because it's easier? Do you sincerely believe that in the field of professional tennis -- where players are rewarded only by performing in the way that works absolutely, unquestionably the best -- that players would choose to play in any way BUT the most effective one possible?

Serve and volley tennis didn't "go out of style," like some would have you believe. There's no such thing as "style" in the cut-throat world of professional sports technique. There's what works, and what doesn't.

Serve and volley doesn't. Not any more. It's a dinosaur. It was defeated, over and over again, at the highest levels by the modern power baseline game, until power baseliners were essentially all that was left. Power baselining, performed at a professional level, is simply too good for S&V tennis. It matches up too well, and destroys it. Coming in simply isn't a viable strategy any longer.

(Not to mention 120 isn't a big serve any more.)

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

Its hard to say.

But, Roger is consistently breaking better servers than Pete did.

Its just a thought exercise, but I think Roger could break himself easily, I also think Pete would have a harder time breaking himself.

 

[tricky]

One questionable part of Fed's game that has not been tested recently is his passing shot. Guys like Hewitt and Chang had better passing shots than Roger I would think.

Yeah, I would say that peak Hewitt is a better blocker than Federer. But remember that Hewitt (and Chang and the majority of topspin heavy pro players) is a blocker, not an on-the-rise attacker. What made Hewitt so good was that he could return the ball where it somewhat neutralized his opponent's net game, and to a degree Fed does that too. But he wasn't creating passing shots left and right like an Agassi, Rios, or even Blake does.

 

[capriatifanatic]

I guess my main point was that IMHO, it would be harder to break big servers who came in behind their serves than with those who stayed back. Placement and anticipation is all good but when you are talking about 120+ mph well placed bombs? I think even the pros are just blocking those back with the simple hopes that they stay in, not pondering where they want to place it to beat a net rusher. Pure reflexes.

One questionable part of Fed's game that has not been tested recently is his passing shot. Guys like Hewitt and Chang had better passing shots than Roger I would think. Both these guys had winning records over Pat Rafter. Roger had a hard time beating Rafter. Federer is miles better than both of them of course, and if tested he could develop and become one of the best passers too. But his difficulty in the past with Server/volleyers make it a question mark? Hewitt, Chang, and Agassi were the best passing shot makers in my opinion.

Roger was far from the player he is 2004-2006 when he played Rafter and Rafter was at his absolute peak. So of course Roger loses, means nothing to what would happen in their primes. Their one match on grass between Federer nothing like he is now and Rafter at his peak saw Rafter barely hold on from losing in straight sets by winning a tiebreak.

People also say Henman but Henman only beat Federer in 1 meeting in 2004 they had, and it was their smallest and least important match, thus less meaningful of anything. In their bigger matches, tier 1 or Grand Slam event Roger did not lose a set. 2004 was Henman's career best year too.

 

[illkhiboy]

Hi.

Your Humble Opinion is wrong.

And that's not MHO. That's fact talking. That's overwhelming evidence backed by the data of every good tennis player in the world today talking.

If it were harder to break big servers who came in behind their serves, every player in the top 100 would be doing it. Do you think they stay back only because it's easier? Do you sincerely believe that in the field of professional tennis -- where players are rewarded only by performing in the way that works absolutely, unquestionably the best -- that players would choose to play in any way BUT the most effective one possible?

Serve and volley tennis didn't "go out of style," like some would have you believe. There's no such thing as "style" in the cut-throat world of professional sports technique. There's what works, and what doesn't.

Serve and volley doesn't. Not any more. It's a dinosaur. It was defeated, over and over again, at the highest levels by the modern power baseline game, until power baseliners were essentially all that was left. Power baselining, performed at a professional level, is simply too good for S&V tennis. It matches up too well, and destroys it. Coming in simply isn't a viable strategy any longer.

(Not to mention 120 isn't a big serve any more.)

I know what your saying, but watching Myrni n Blake, Nadal-Kendrick made me think how Sampras would fare in today's game.

Maybe professionals havnt been working on their volleys enough to be confident doing it. If you noticed, Federer's been winnin majority of the points coming in against Nadal. Though Henman-Edberg type attacking doesnt work these days.
Howeever, Dent's old school style is still effective.

 

[ShooterMcMarco]

But, Roger is consistently breaking better servers than Pete did.

The better servers that Pete went up against came in after their serves. I also think Roger has a much better return than Pete.

 

[splink779]

Oh totally, thats why everytime Federer plays a serve volley player he clearly has trouble

 

[Spencer]

Hi.

Your Humble Opinion is wrong.

And that's not MHO. That's fact talking. That's overwhelming evidence backed by the data of every good tennis player in the world today talking.

If it were harder to break big servers who came in behind their serves, every player in the top 100 would be doing it. Do you think they stay back only because it's easier? Do you sincerely believe that in the field of professional tennis -- where players are rewarded only by performing in the way that works absolutely, unquestionably the best -- that players would choose to play in any way BUT the most effective one possible?

Serve and volley tennis didn't "go out of style," like some would have you believe. There's no such thing as "style" in the cut-throat world of professional sports technique. There's what works, and what doesn't.

Serve and volley doesn't. Not any more. It's a dinosaur. It was defeated, over and over again, at the highest levels by the modern power baseline game, until power baseliners were essentially all that was left. Power baselining, performed at a professional level, is simply too good for S&V tennis. It matches up too well, and destroys it. Coming in simply isn't a viable strategy any longer.

(Not to mention 120 isn't a big serve any more.)

And why would you say that serve and volley doesn't work anymore? (Besides the obvious argument that no one uses it) I can understand that Wimbledon has slowed down, but the US hard courts are the same and guys like Sampras, Rafter, Becker, Edberg all had success there.

Since you are so smart please explain what caused the dinosaur to become extinct?

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

And why would you say that serve and volley doesn't work anymore? (Besides the obvious argument that no one uses it) I can understand that Wimbledon has slowed down, but the US hard courts are the same and guys like Sampras, Rafter, Becker, Edberg all had success there.

Since you are so smart please explain what caused the dinosaur to become extinct?

I do believe out of the Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Opens, that the only one who has not slowed down is the U.S Open. So that should be a place you can be effective still serve-volleying most of all perhaps.

However todays serve-volleyers are not of the calibre of the past. Federer is not an amazing volleyer but is still probably one of the 2-3 best volleyers of today and far better then rest of the top 5-Nadal, Nalbandian, Blake, etc...Who are the best serve-volleyers today? Taylor Dent, Max Mirnyi, Mario Ancic(if you consider him one), Jonas Bjorkman, Ivo Karlovic. Actually of that group Karlovic probably is the one who pulls it off best since he has an amazing serve and fairly good volley, and alot of reach at the net. He just cant break serve or else he would a real top player, but he is harder to break then say Roddick who hits an amazing serve and stays at the baseline. Overall the serve-volleyers today just arent anywhere near as good as the past.

 

[Spencer]

People like Grimjack like to say that today's power baseline game makes serve and volley obsolete because people hit much harder and can hit winners from 2 feet behind the baseline. But then we have pros like Roddick complaining that Wimbledon is slow, and whereas he could win a point with a 1-2 shot rally in the past, now it takes 3-4.

So which is it? Is it harder to hit outright winners from the baseline today or in the 90s? If the ball was moving faster in the 90s doesn't that negate all this talk about the power of today's players? Does anyone seriously believe that "slowed down" grass however slow is actually slower than a hardcourt?

 

[civic]

Since you are so smart please explain what caused the dinosaur to become extinct?

What did I say, umpire? Tell me, please tell me, please tell me.

So which is it? Is it harder to hit outright winners from the baseline today or in the 90s?

I think it's about the same.

 

[travlerajm]

Pete had a losing record against Krajicek and Stich. And he lost a lot matches to Becker, Edberg, and Ivanisevic.

Of course, Fed is 0-3 against Rafter. Who said serve and volley doesn't work?

 

[OK.]

But Pete's opponents followed their big serves into the net to put away easy volleys. Federer's floaters would have been crushed by many Serve/volleyer opponents in the past.

So someone with a big serve and who serves and volleys would hold their serve easily against federer. Does that mean someone like philipousous, who has a big serve, who served and volleyed 100% of the time at wimbledon (no joke 100% crazy huh) would hold their serve against federer becuase he woud float the return back for an easy volley. hmmmmm...... EDIT: And for someone who 'supposely' floats their returns back over the net, he sure does domminate the game

 

[superman1]

Yeah, but Sampras can volley a hell of a lot better than anyone in the game today. Except maybe Henman, but Henman doesn't have the serve or the ground game of Sampras.

I don't understand why people think that Sampras would have failed in today's baseline power game. Agassi crushed the ball as hard as anyone ever has, and Sampras was able to deal with that. Sampras was never as dominant as Federer, but you could really see him lift his game up when he was on the big stage, or when he was playing Agassi. I think Federer is the best of all time, but I think that Sampras at his absolute best would have beaten anyone in history. If they played in the same era, I'd give the edge to Sampras, because I think Pete was a guy that would rise up to any challenge and work as hard as necessary to be the best. He didn't need to win every single tournament, but he had to win the Slams and end the year #1. Federer has taken it a step further. If Sampras was a teenager right now and started playing today, people would be hyping him up as the guy who could potentially beat all of Federer's records. The present always tries to one-up on the past, because the present has the advantage of knowing what worked and what didn't work in the past.

 

[tykrum]

Yeah, but Sampras can volley a hell of a lot better than anyone in the game today. Except maybe Henman, but Henman doesn't have the serve or the ground game of Sampras.

I don't understand why people think that Sampras would have failed in today's baseline power game. Agassi crushed the ball as hard as anyone ever has, and Sampras was able to deal with that. Sampras was never as dominant as Federer, but you could really see him lift his game up when he was on the big stage, or when he was playing Agassi. I think Federer is the best of all time, but I think that Sampras at his absolute best would have beaten anyone in history. If they played in the same era, I'd give the edge to Sampras, because I think Pete was a guy that would rise up to any challenge and work as hard as necessary to be the best. He didn't need to win every single tournament, but he had to win the Slams and end the year #1. Federer has taken it a step further. If Sampras was a teenager right now and started playing today, people would be hyping him up as the guy who could potentially beat all of Federer's records. The present always tries to one-up on the past, because the present has the advantage of knowing what worked and what didn't work in the past.

This is a great post, pretty much sums up what I believe the differences are between Federer and Sampras.

 

[Dark Victory]

So someone with a big serve and who serves and volleys would hold their serve easily against federer. Does that mean someone like philipousous, who has a big serve, who served and volleyed 100% of the time at wimbledon (no joke 100% crazy huh) would hold their serve against federer becuase he woud float the return back for an easy volley. hmmmmm...... EDIT: And for someone who 'supposely' floats their returns back over the net, he sure does domminate the game

I agree that big servers who can S&V---guys like Pete and Krajicek---match up very well against Federer. In fact, they're the only kind of S&V players who I think would do well in today's game. It has to do with that first-strike capacity which weaker S&V'ers don't have. A bigger serve means a more difficult return, harder passes and often easier put aways. Philippousis may have a big serve, but he's not really a great net player. Too bad hard hitters like Ancic and Karlovic aren't, either.

 

[The Gorilla]

I agree that big servers who can S&V---guys like Pete and Krajicek---match up very well against Federer. In fact, they're the only kind of S&V players who I think would do well in today's game. It has to do with that first-strike capacity which weaker S&V'ers don't have. A bigger serve means a more difficult return, harder passes and often easier put aways. Philippousis may have a big serve, but he's not really a great net player. Too bad hard hitters like Ancic and Karlovic aren't, either.

I think ancic is actually.rafter and henman aren't big hitters and they have done very well against him.

 

[OrangeOne]

Federer's floaters would have been crushed by many Serve/volleyer opponents in the past.

Thus if Roger played in Pete's era, he would not have broken people as easily as he does today.

You're somewhat mistakenly assuming that some things would remain precisely constant (Federer's 'floaty' returns) while others change (the era). You somehow thing Fed wouldn't shift his game to meet a new challenge?

And why would you say that serve and volley doesn't work anymore? (Besides the obvious argument that no one uses it) I can understand that Wimbledon has slowed down, but the US hard courts are the same and guys like Sampras, Rafter, Becker, Edberg all had success there.

Since you are so smart please explain what caused the dinosaur to become extinct?

One word to start the discussion: Luxilon. (Poly Strings - more spin, more deadly a combination when mixed with gut, and suddenly volleying is that much harder again). Combine that with a slowing Wimbledon, an AO surface that prefers baseline to S&V, and the FO - everything's changed to the detriment of S&V, which was dying over the last 10-20 years even before the changes of the last 5 or so.

 

[babySuri]

Federer is superior to Sampras in several areas and he will break that silly grandslam record to officialy dethrone him as the GOAT. When that day comes, I will be back on these boards to kick the Sampras fans when they are already down.

 

[Eviscerator]

Hi.


Serve and volley tennis didn't "go out of style," like some would have you believe. There's no such thing as "style" in the cut-throat world of professional sports technique. There's what works, and what doesn't.

Serve and volley doesn't. Not any more. It's a dinosaur. It was defeated, over and over again, at the highest levels by the modern power baseline game, until power baseliners were essentially all that was left. Power baselining, performed at a professional level, is simply too good for S&V tennis. It matches up too well, and destroys it. Coming in simply isn't a viable strategy any longer.

It might just be a matter of semantics, but S&V would come back in a heart beat if the venues would return to fast surfaces and faster balls. Slowing the surfaces down is the primary reason S&V's are not as effective as they use to be. Granted racquet technology has a lot to do with it, which as a cause and effect caused the promoters to slow the surfaces down to get more rallies instead of serve-fests. Just as Federer use to S&V much more at Wimbledon pre 2001, he would return to it if the conditions were faster.

 

[tennis_hand]

It is true that Fed is better than Pete in several areas, as are a lot of other players. But Pete is simply the best in S&V, which is how he defeats those who are better than him in other areas. If Pete is playing Fed's game, Pete won't win, but Fed won't be allowed so easily to play his all-court game either when Pete is always at the net. So a game's winning situation is not comparisons of skills.
I doubt anyone can predict who will win between them, but what is the point of the prediction between 2 people who live in different time? They played head to head once, but one game alone does not say much, since one was on the decline while the other was on the rise in 2001.

 

[superman1]

You can say the same thing about Agassi vs Sampras. Agassi's backhand was much better, and you could argue that his forehand was just as good. Return of serve was better, he took the ball on the rise better. So why was he 14-20 against Sampras?

Fast surfaces is one reason, but the main reason is that when Sampras was at his best, no one could touch him. If he's painting the lines with his serves and coming in behind them with animal-like swiftness, what can you do?

 

[West Coast Ace]

After the 1st post I was going to play the Troll Card. But he seems so earnest.

Your premise that 'blocking' is an inferior brand of returning is just senseless. The key to a successful return is to eliminate the server's advantage and bring the point back to equilibrium - or as close as possible. Fed's block certainly does that quite frequently, allowing him to 'get into the point.'

If you're not into Architecture you may not have heard of Frank Lloyd Wright and his famous line: 'form follows function.' Think about it.

 

[Spencer]

After the 1st post I was going to play the Troll Card. But he seems so earnest.

Your premise that 'blocking' is an inferior brand of returning is just senseless. The key to a successful return is to eliminate the server's advantage and bring the point back to equilibrium - or as close as possible. Fed's block certainly does that quite frequently, allowing him to 'get into the point.'

If you're not into Architecture you may not have heard of Frank Lloyd Wright and his famous line: 'form follows function.' Think about it.

Hello? Did you read my post? I was talking about blocking against serve/volleyers. Federer is able to get into the point because no one rushes to net to volley his block returns anymore. If he were facing big serve/volleyers I'm sure he would probably go for more and try to crush more return winners. But then his errors would go up. Either way it would be harder for him to break serve/volleyers than those who allow him to get to equilibrium by allowing him to get back into position and then exchanging with him from the baseline. Think about it.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Hello? Did you read my post?

Yeah, I read it. It doesn't make any sense. I don't need to think any more about it.

Fed's block would work fine against S&V players. You forget that their pace would be used against them - the ball would get back faster; they wouldn't be in optimum volleying position (e.g. where Sampras and Edberg got to in the 90's) and they'd be volleying up. And then we know what Fed would do with the next shot. Pass.

 

[tennis_hand]

You can say the same thing about Agassi vs Sampras. Agassi's backhand was much better, and you could argue that his forehand was just as good. Return of serve was better, he took the ball on the rise better. So why was he 14-20 against Sampras?

Fast surfaces is one reason, but the main reason is that when Sampras was at his best, no one could touch him. If he's painting the lines with his serves and coming in behind them with animal-like swiftness, what can you do?

Agree wholeheartedly.

 

[WhiteSox05CA]

Sampras without question.

 

[superman1]

Fed's block would work fine against S&V players. You forget that their pace would be used against them - the ball would get back faster; they wouldn't be in optimum volleying position (e.g. where Sampras and Edberg got to in the 90's) and they'd be volleying up. And then we know what Fed would do with the next shot. Pass.

You know who was good at passing shots? Andre Agassi. You know who was good at moving across the net like a lion and cutting them off? Pete Sampras.

That being said, Federer would do just fine against serve and volleyers. But I think he'd lose more often if he played in the 90's. He'd roll through the first few rounds, but by the quarters/semis, he'd face some tough opposition.

 

[West Coast Ace]

You know who was good at passing shots? Andre Agassi. You know who was good at moving across the net like a lion and cutting them off? Pete Sampras.

It was a different era. And the racket technology has grown leaps and bounds since then. As I said earlier, Sampras (and Edberg, etc...) got tighter into the net - they wouldn't have the time to get in that far this century. In some regards and counterintuitively, the speed would kill them.

Back to the topic: Fed by a wide margin. He has equal or better reflexes than Sampras and far superior footwork.

 

[Spencer]

It was a different era. And the racket technology has grown leaps and bounds since then. As I said earlier, Sampras (and Edberg, etc...) got tighter into the net - they wouldn't have the time to get in that far this century. In some regards and counterintuitively, the speed would kill them.

Back to the topic: Fed by a wide margin. He has equal or better reflexes than Sampras and far superior footwork.

The speed would kill them?!? The game has slowed down, not sped up. Your post doesn't make any sense.

Federer is a better returner but Sampras has better overall reflexes. Sampras has a much better winning percentage on carpet, the fastest surface which rewards those with fast reflexes. His incredible half/volleys in midcourt showed that he was able to handle the heat of big returns just fine even if he did not make it to up to net.

To Federer's credit, he is able to adjust his game better than anyone I have seen and there is no reason to believe he would not find a way to compete or even win against Sampras. But I would still give Pete the edge on his best days to pull out the win. Overall Federer should probably win more and lead in the overall head to head.

Finally, to all those who think they know better. Federer said it himself, the way to beat him would be to serve and volley. The way to beat Federer would be to HOLD SERVICE GAMES, and then try to break Fed's serve. See where I am going with this? Game, set, match.

 

[superman1]

It was a different era. And the racket technology has grown leaps and bounds since then. As I said earlier, Sampras (and Edberg, etc...) got tighter into the net - they wouldn't have the time to get in that far this century. In some regards and counterintuitively, the speed would kill them.

Back to the topic: Fed by a wide margin. He has equal or better reflexes than Sampras and far superior footwork.

A different era? So...how long has Agassi been retired again? And Sampras won the US Open in 2002. That's a year after 9/11...doesn't seem THAT prehistoric, does it?

Watch some old matches. Or at least watch some clips on YouTube. When I saw some clips from the 1992 Wimbledon final, I was amazed to see that the ball was being crushed. I did not see a noticeable difference between then and now.

 

[Polaris]

Roger a better returner than Pete?
Yes, definitely. No question. In my book, other than serves and volleys, Roger is equal to or better than Pete in all other departments. Also, the Agassi comparison is unhelpful because I consider Roger to be equal to or better than Agassi in *all* departments. Note that I am not considering Roger v. Pete when I answer the question. I'm considering Roger v. Everybody and Pete v. Everybody.

I don't know how much truth there is in the opinion that, "When Pete was on, nobody could beat him." Steve Tignor makes the argument repeatedly, and so do many others on this board. Perhaps that is true. Perhaps it is only wishful thinking. This argument cannot be applied to Roger v. Pete because, apart from their only 5-set encounter which was won by Roger, there is little evidence that can be brought to bear on the matter. So I don't bother about it that much. It is in the realm of speculation.

 

[christos_liaskos]

I remember the Wimby 2003 semi when Roger beat Andy and neutralised his serve by blocking it back high and deep. I remember at the time thinking 'if thats all he can do with a big serve then he wont have a good chance against Philipoussis in the final when he serve and volleys with his big serve'. Surpise surpise he won in straights.

Federer may not play in the age of the serve and volleyer but he has shown he can handle that style of game on the fastest surface there is against Mark, oh and the other guy in question, Mr Pistol Pete.

Roger's return is definitely better against the baseliners than Pete's because its more offensive rather than just getting it in and he's shown the big serves dont bother him either.

 

[fastdunn]

Federer did striggled against S&Vers up until 2001-2002:
Henman and Rafter were good example. Remeber that match
against Henman where Federer cried ? He looked pretty helpless
"sometimes" against relentless attacks from Henman although
it was pretty close match.

Everything changed like night and day in 2003.
Federer finally matured to his potential, tour surface condition slowed
and not many S&Ver left for Federer to play...

 

[katarddx]

Everybody seems to think Federer has a better return of serve then Pete because he clearly does. It is not even debatable. Only a Sampras fanboy would argue otherwise, just like only a Federer fanboy would argue Federer has the better serve.

Federer returned serve better against other baseliners then Federer too so what is your point? It is not his fault there arent good serve-volleyers anymore.

couldn't say it better myself!

 

[AAAA]

Federer did striggled against S&Vers up until 2001-2002:
Henman and Rafter were good example.

up until 2002 Federer was 1-4 against Henman a serve volleyer
up until 2002 Federer was 0-3 against Rafter a serve volleyer
up until 2003 Federer was 0-5 against Nalbandian a baseliner
up until 2002 Federer was 2-6 against Hewitt a baseliner

During that period Federer struggled against some good baseliners aswell as good serve&volleyers. Why do you think serve volleyers in paricular gave him more trouble? More trouble than baseliners? or was it just a case of Federer being a raw talent who was still realising his potential?

 

[Fedace]

Everyone seems to agree that Federer has a better return game than Sampras. This is because Roger broke serve more often and easily than Pete.

However...

Federer mostly blocks back big serves and then uses his dominant forehand to win the point. That is how he breaks opponents. Sampras also mostly blocked back the big serves of his opponents.

But Pete's opponents followed their big serves into the net to put away easy volleys. Federer's floaters would have been crushed by many Serve/volleyer opponents in the past.

Thus if Roger played in Pete's era, he would not have broken people as easily as he does today.

Roger breaks opponents more with his mighty forehand, than with his actual service return ability.

That is a no no. If federer's opponents follow their serve to the net, fed would just pass them clean or just hit a block return low on the feet and then it is goodnight. Federer return is so much better than pete that you cannot even compare them. However, pete had better serve than roger so it would be really interesting if they played when they are at their peak, but we will never know now.

 

[fastdunn]

up until 2002 Federer was 1-4 against Henman a serve volleyer
up until 2002 Federer was 0-3 against Rafter a serve volleyer
up until 2003 Federer was 0-5 against Nalbandian a baseliner
up until 2002 Federer was 2-6 against Hewitt a baseliner

During that period Federer struggled against some good baseliners aswell as good serve&volleyers. Why do you think serve volleyers in paricular gave him more trouble? More trouble than baseliners? or was it just a case of Federer being a raw talent who was still realising his potential?

Wasn't this thread about Federer's return of serves from S&Vers ?

The problem he had with Nabandian and Hewitt was about impatience
certainly not the return of serves.

Plus around 2001-2002, there were already not many S&Ver's who were
active. something like a few S&vers in top 20. Federer struggled with
all of them (pretty much only Henman and Rafter) while he over-powered most of baseliners.

As I said in other thread, you're good at disputing others opinion.
So what is your own opinion on the subject of this thread ?

 

[AAAA]

Wasn't this thread about Federer's return of serves from S&Vers ?

The problem he had with Nabandian and Hewitt was about impatience
certainly not the return of serves.

Plus around 2001-2002, there were already not many S&Ver's who were
active. something like a few S&vers in top 20. Federer struggled with
all of them (pretty much only Henman and Rafter) while he over-powered most of baseliners.

As I said in other thread, you're good at disputing others opinion.
So what is your own opinion on the subject of this thread ?

Federer struggled against many different types of players upto 2002/2003. There wasn't anything particular about s&vers that made things abnormally difficult for him compared to other styles of play.

My opinion? It's impossible to have a situation where Federer is facing exactly the same serves as Sampras faced. WITHOUT IDENTICAL TEST ENVIRONMENTS A DIRECT COMPARISON IS IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS someone knows something I don't. Federer will never play Krajicek, Stich, Becker or Edberg when they were in their prime years . Since Federer cannot face the players Sampras faced, people start to make projections/guesses/extrapolations about Federer's return game based on how Federer fares against other serve volleyers. This type of reasoning is not very reliable.

Becker a s&ver is 4-10 against Agassi. Becker won the first 3 and then went 1-10 in the next 11.

Krajicek a s&ver is 3-4 against Agassi.

Edberg a s&ver is 3-6 against Agassi.

Rafter a s&ver is 5-10 against Agassi.

Philippoussis is 2-6 against Agassi

Henman is 2-2 against Agassi (you may want to ignore this result because they didn't play until 1998 and the later matches happened during the tail end of their careers but I've included it anyway).

Stich however is 0-6 against Agassi. Using the 'guess work' theory you'd think Stich would have won at least some of his matches against Agassi because he is after all a s&ver and as shown above other s&vers have managed to win matches against him so using the 'guess work' theory Stich would win some aswell. In reality he never.

The above example is used to show the unreliability of making projections. You could easily find an example where a projection is accurate but the very fact I can show it to be unaccurate makes the whole projection theory unreliable at best.