Sampras + Agassi = Federer

[JohnS]

Just think about it.

Forehand: Like Agassi except he can setup for his forehand because of his footwork like Sampras.

Running Forehand: Not as powerful as Sampras' but he can sure flick it or hit any spot of the court. I think his running forehand is closer to Agassi's, except with more sampras like accuracy.

Backhand: Combination of both, consistant as Agassi, but is offensive as Sampras' when ever Sampras can setup for it. Fed's slice is controlled like Sampras' but has more bite on it. That slice of his is his own and not like anyone elses.

Running Backhand: Just like Agassi and Sampras. He can get their on time and just knock the **** out of the ball. Or he can just flick it like Sampras.

Volley's: Sampras had one of the greatest volley's. Agassi has an OK volley (comparing with other players of today's game). This combinations is an equivalent to Federer having very good volleys. He just doesnt have that net presence like Sampras. Hands like Sampras but comfort zone like Agassi.

Serve: Just like Agassi's except he has the accuracy of Sampras. Sampras had more of a low-slice serve which can really throw other players off; as it curves away from them or right into the opponent's body. But Federer does have a kick serve that is comparable to Agassi, but with a little bit more speed like Sampras.

Return of Serve: Believe it or not, Federer's return of serves are about as good as Agassi's when he was at his prime. Both can read the serve so good and take the ball so early and punish the server. The only thing that Fed is like Sampras in this respect is the backhand. Because of his one handed bh, he is forced to chip it more because he can't control the returns like 2 handed bh players.

Speed and quickness: Speed of Sampras but quickness of Agassi. If you've watched Sampras at his prime, he can chase down any ball (especially down that forehand side where he makes the opponent regret it). But Federer can change direction as good as Agassi at his prime. He can scramble like Agassi and still setup for the shot and hit it to at least a neutral position.

Style of play: Sampras was nearly 100% offensive in his game. I would say that Agassi at prime was more of a Agressive to Steady baseliner (definitely not a counterpuncher - but that doesnt me he couldnt play that style either). Therefore, I have concluded that Federer is a Very Agressive Baseliner, always attacking from the baseline. Sure he can come to the net and be very offensive, but tends to stay in the back and slug it out like Agassi. Agassi will play more percentage points. Sampras will go for broke given the opportunity (and is usually successful). Federer will play the percentages, but he will be punishing if a player keeps the same rhythem. Federer's not scared to go down the line and go for the sharp corners on either wing.

Other surfaces: Surely, Fed is dominent on Fast Surfaces, just like Agassi, and especailly like Sampras. He is equally like Agassi in the fact that Fed can adapt to any surface and weather condition. That is why Agassi won the FO and why Fed has been so successful on Clay. On Grass and Fast courts, we dont really have to talk about that. We all already know.

Well, that's my analysis on Sampras, Agassi, and Federer. I'm sure most of you will have something say about that. But I hope other's will see where I'm going. :mrgreen:

 

[dozu]

Federer > Sampras + Agassi

Borrowing Johnny Mac's words, Fed has more talent in his pinky than Sampras and Agassi combined.

 

[JohnS]

Federer > Sampras + Agassi

Borrowing Johnny Mac's words, Fed has more talent in his pinky than Sampras and Agassi combined.

Exactly, that is why He is > than both in terms of ability. He has both player's qualities.

Federer = Sampras + Agassi
Sampras + Agassi > Agassi
Sampras + Agassi > Sampras

Get the idea! Good!

 

[drakulie]

Forehand: Like Agassi except he can setup for his forehand because of his footwork like Sampras.

Agree.

Running Forehand: Not as powerful as Sampras' but he can sure flick it or hit any spot of the court. I think his running forehand is closer to Agassi's, except with more sampras like accuracy.

Disagree. Agassi did not really have a running forehand, even in his youth. The rest I agree with.

Backhand: Combination of both, consistant as Agassi, but is offensive as Sampras' when ever Sampras can setup for it. Fed's slice is controlled like Sampras' but has more bite on it. That slice of his is his own and not like anyone elses.

Disagree. Not as consistent as Agassi's, and for that matter Sampras did not have an offensive backhand. It was more of a rally shot. Fed's is way superior in every way to Sampras'.

Running Backhand: Just like Agassi and Sampras. He can get their on time and just knock the **** out of the ball. Or he can just flick it like Sampras.

Don't disagree with your observation of Fed, but your observation of Sampras. (see above)

Volley's: Sampras had one of the greatest volley's. Agassi has an OK volley (comparing with other players of today's game). This combinations is an equivalent to Federer having very good volleys. He just doesnt have that net presence like Sampras.

Completely agree.

Serve: Just like Agassi's except he has the accuracy of Sampras. Sampras had more of a low-slice serve which can really throw other players off; as it curves away from them or right into the opponent's body. But Federer does have a kick serve that is comparable to Agassi, but with a little bit more speed like Sampras.

Somewhat agree.

Return of Serve: Believe it or not, Federer's return of serves are about as good as Agassi's when he was at his prime.

Completely disagree. Although he is very smart in his return games.

Style of play: Sampras was nearly 100% offensive in his game. I would say that Agassi at prime was more of a Agressive to Steady baseliner (definitely not a counterpuncher - but that doesnt me he couldnt play that style either). Therefore, I have concluded that Federer is a Very Agressive Baseliner, always attacking from the baseline. Sure he can come to the net and be very offensive, but tends to stay in the back and slug it out like Agassi. Agassi will play more percentage points. Sampras will go for broke given the opportunity (and is usually successful). Federer will play the percentages, but he will be punishing if a player keeps the same rhythem. Federer's not scared to go down the line and go for the sharp corners on either wing.

Agree.

Other surfaces: Surely, Fed is dominent on Fast Surfaces, just like Agassi, and especailly like Sampras. He is equally like Agassi in the fact that Fed can adapt to any surface and weather condition. That is why Agassi won the FO and why Fed has been so successful on Clay. On Grass and Fast courts, we dont really have to talk about that. We all already know.

Agree.

 

[JohnS]

Agree.

Disagree. Agassi did not really have a running forehand, even in his youth. The rest I agree with.

Disagree. Not as consistent as Agassi's, and for that matter Sampras did not have an offensive backhand. It was more of a rally shot. Fed's is way superior in every way to Sampras'.

Don't disagree with your observation of Fed, but your observation of Sampras. (see above)

Completely agree.
Somewhat agree.

Completely disagree. Although he is very smart in his return games.

Agree.
Agree.

I Agree and Disagree with your opinions :mrgreen:
Yes, Agassi doesnt have a running forehand, but Federer really doesnt have one either. He can place it where he wants to like Sampras, but he doesnt have the sheer power that Sampras does, that's why it still takes Federer awhile to groove back into the point. Standing still, Federer's forehand is more like Agassi's; it's very punishing when he can setup for the shot.

Backhand: I can agree that Federer MIGHT not be as consistant as Agassi on the backhand side, but if not, he's pretty darn close. BUT, in terms of Sampras, have you noticed how offensive he can get when Sampras sets up and steps into that backhand. Yes his backhand sucks in the norm, but if its just hagging anywhere in the court, even in the corner, Sampras will make you pay for it. It's heavier than a lot of people know.

Running backhand: Sure Sampras cannot flick it as often as Federer, but from what I've seen of Sampras, he can do it, and more often than you think. It's just that he likes to camp on that backhand side and bait the opponent into hitting it to the forehand side so that he can just club it.

Return of Serve: This is very disputable, I can't argue with you there because many people see different things. And Agassi is titled with the "best return of serve game ever". But just look at Federer and what he can do to big servers. He can actually out serve them. But i dont disagree with you disagreeing with me.

 

[drakulie]

Yes, Agassi doesnt have a running forehand, but Federer really doesnt have one either.

You need to watch more Federer matches. Feds running forehand is awesome. Although he doesn't hit it as fast as Sampras, it has more variety and is just as effective. Also he doesn's make as many errors as Sampras on that side.

BUT, in terms of Sampras, have you noticed how offensive he can get when Sampras sets up and steps into that backhand. Yes his backhand sucks in the norm, but if its just hagging anywhere in the court, even in the corner, Sampras will make you pay for it. It's heavier than a lot of people know.

Either way, Sampras did not have an offensive backhand. You saying when he gets a short ball and punishes it does not mean he has an offensive backhand. All pros could do that. Sampras' backhand for the most part was a defenisve rally shot until he could get a forehand. Fed could turn the backhand into an offensive shot with his sick angles or down the line shot, which Sampras did not have.

Running backhand: Sure Sampras cannot flick it as often as Federer, but from what I've seen of Sampras, he can do it, and more often than you think. It's just that he likes to camp on that backhand side and bait the opponent into hitting it to the forehand side so that he can just club it.

Agree with him waiting to hit a forehand, but he hardly had a running backhand. Once in a blue moon he'd hit it in and then have to prey he had enough time to get back in the court.

Return of Serve: This is very disputable, I can't argue with you there because many people see different things. And Agassi is titled with the "best return of serve game ever". But just look at Federer and what he can do to big servers. He can actually out serve them. But i dont disagree with you disagreeing with me.

Bottom line, Agassi faced much better servers than Fed has had to face. What makes Fed's return game awesome is his ability to hit a neutral ball and give himself a chance to get in the point.

 

[ctbmar]

Another way of looking at it is, if Switzerland vs America, if peak Federer were to play USA on 4 major surfaces, 4 matches on Rebound Ace, 4 matches on clay, 4 matches on Grass, 4 matches on Hard. USA has a peak Agassi and a peak Sampras. The 1st option allow me to choose to split Agassi & Sampras to play evenly on all surfaces for 2 matches each. The 2nd option allow me to assign Agassi to play all the Rebound Ace and Clay court matches and Sampras to play all the Grass and Hard court matches. USA can also have a 3rd option which is to field Sampras in 1 or 2 matches for Rebound Ace and Agassi to play in 1 or 2 Hard court matches, any other mix-&-match sequence. The 1st option, Federer will win by a bigger margin. The 2nd & 3rd options, it will be 50%-50% because Federer will win more of the slower matches and get tired by the combined onslaught of Agassi & Sampras taking turns to battle Federer on the hard courts. In the open era, if I could only choose 1 player to help me settle a score/bet/wager/war/life&death, with the need to play on all 4 surfaces for 4 matches each, I would choose 1st choice: Federer, 2nd choice: Lendl, 3rd choice: Agassi.
So even with the combined effort of Sampras & Agassi, in this kind of round-robin format, 1 Swiss player vs 2 Americans, Federer will win marginally or pull out a draw, but the fact that he is the only player against the best 2 Americans in the 90s, indicates that Federer > Sampras+Agassi.

 

[quest01]

Federer is definitely a better player then Sampras. If they played more matches between the two, Federer would win 9 out of 10 times. The reason being is that Sampras serve and volley style would not suite well against Federer. Federer is one of the best or the best at hitting passing shots and I think Sampras would have a extremely tough time at the net.

 

[JohnS]

Federer is definitely a better player then Sampras. If they played more matches between the two, Federer would win 9 out of 10 times. The reason being is that Sampras serve and volley style would not suite well against Federer. Federer is one of the best or the best at hitting passing shots and I think Sampras would have a extremely tough time at the net.

This is not a 'who's better: Sampras or Federer' thread, this is a comparasion of playing style and abilities of Federer to Sampras and Agassi. Any other inputs on my analysis or your own?

also, I think:
Jimmy Connors + Agassi = Hewitt
Sampras - Rafter = Henman

Also, considering what ctbmar has said, it does make sense and I know where he is going at. With Federer's ability of versatility, he can pull more matches against a combination of Sampras and Agassi, but I dont know, it would be a very close one.

 

[Grimjack]

Stylistically, I think Federer exists at somewhere like the midpoint between Sampras and Agassi. Talent-wise, I think he's considerably better than the player that was the average of their two games would be.

Federer > (Sampras + Agassi)/2

 

[buder]

sampras' groundstrokes are not in the same universe as Federer's. Yes, Sampras could groove on his forehand, but his backhand broke down quite often, especially on clay WHERE HIS MEDICORE GROUND-GAME WAS EXPOSED.

Sampras is the best server of all time. period. his serving prowess is the best this game will ever see. but let's face it, Wimbledon was never intended for the power of graphite (i.e., grass disproportionately rewards a powerful serve, that is, grass is the only surface where a powerful serve can almost hide a weak ground-game>surely this was not intended, especially since grass-as-tennis-surface was designed for racquets that were sub-65sq inches and had very little power> i.e., grass was never meant for the modern power game)... so Pete's Slam total is inflated way beyond what is warranted by his ground-strokes. The fact that anyone could compare his ground game to Andre's or Roger's is INSANE.

PETE WAS A GREAT SERVER, and he was a great clean-up man at net (garbage buckets/slam dunks)....but his inability to win in Paris is proof-positive that he didn't have a complete ground-game (for this reason alone, my spine shrieks when people even consider his claim to GOAT>>>>[--he didn't even make it to the finals of the French. GOAT???!!!! what???!!!!!comparing his groundstokes to Federer????? What???!!!!]).

which is to say: once Roger eclipses his Slam record, Pete will take his rightful place as the best server of all time. nothing more, nothing less. discussions about his groundstrokes should take the same advice as a New England skater on a freshly frozen pond: when on thin ice, skate fast.

[pssst..."hey Pete: wimbledon hid your backhand, but, history will not. you are well advised to hold a news conference and proclaim your obediance to king Roger"]

 

[tennisfreak]

Sampras's ground game, in my opinion, is highly underrated. He could hang with the best of them, maybe not on clay, where his baseline game could be grinded down by those claycourt specialists. However, on a faster court, ie, hardcourt or rebound ace, i've seen him outhit the likes of agassi, courier, chang, numerous times.

On the faster surfaces, his groundstrokes serves his PURPOSE, which is to set up for the attacking game. As soon as he sees a short ball, he is pounding it with his forehand and on his way up to net, where his great volley and overhead will eat up any garbage that is produced from Sampras's powerful ball. It does what he needs it to do. Saying Sampras's is just a server because he didn't have a sublime ground game is akin to saying michael jordan was just a jumpshooter because he was mediocre at three pointers. Sampras was much more than just a server.

If need be, however, Sampras could stay back and hang with the best of them.

If Agassi could hang with Federer from the back, and often out hit him, I don't see why Sampras couldn't do it.

 

[tennisfreak]

Oh yeah, in terms of styles, I think its more like:

Agassi + Sampras - Krajicek = Federer.

The reason: I don't think you can put Federer's serve with the likes of the best servers ever.

 

[tennisfreak]

[pssst..."hey Pete: wimbledon hid your backhand, but, history will not be so kind. you are well advised to hold a news conference and proclaim your obediance to king Roger"]

Minus wimbledon, Pete Sampras has 7 grand slam titles. Not too shabby.

Still the best ever.

Because if you subtract wimbledon for Pete, it's only fair you subtract the best surface for other players.

 

[oberyn]

Sampras is the best server of all time. period. his serving prowess is the best this game will ever see. but let's face it, Wimbledon was never intended for the power of graphite (i.e., grass disproportionately rewards a powerful serve, that is, grass is the only surface where a powerful serve can compensate for a weak ground-game>surely this was not intended, especially since grass-as-tennis-surface was designed for racquets that were sub-65sq inches and had very little power> i.e., grass was never meant for the modern power game)... so Pete's Slam total is inflated way beyond what is warranted by his ground-strokes. The fact that anyone could compare his ground game to Andre's or Roger's is INSANE.

I agree that Federer and Agassi have better groundstrokes. That being said, I can't agree that his ground-game was "weak" by any standards.

Witness his matches against Agassi (particularly 1995 U.S. Open and 1999 Wimbledon) in which he won more than his share of exchanges. Witness his performance at the 1996 French Open or in the 1995 Davis Cup Final against Russia.

1. I still don't understand why Sampras loses points for developing an effective weapon and then using it. Was he supposed to serve underhand to make things "fair"?

2. Everyone in his era played with the same technology. One can make the same technology argument in terms of the baseline game. In fact a lot of old school folks have. E.g., it was never intended for one to be able to transition from defense to offense that quickly or hit winners from that far behind the baseline.

3. What about his 5 U.S. Opens and 2 Australian Opens (out of 11 finals appearances there total)? Toss out Wimbledon, and, I hate to break it to you, but the all-time list looks a whole lot different for a whole lot of folks, and Pete is still right up there.

 

[drakulie]

Sampras's ground game, in my opinion, is highly underrated. He could hang with the best of them, maybe not on clay, where his baseline game could be grinded down by those claycourt specialists. However, on a faster court, ie, hardcourt or rebound ace, i've seen him outhit the likes of agassi, courier, chang, numerous times.

Sampras has NEVER "outhit" Agassi on rebound ace. The reason Agassi is undefeated against Sampras at the Australian and French is because those surfaces neutralized Sampras' serve, and as a result put the match on the "ground", where Agassi outhit Sampras.

In fact, Sampras several times has said he cannot compete with Andre from the ground.

In addition, on faster surfaces when Sampras' serve was off Agassi got the best of him. Sampras could not compete with AA from the ground. Both his backhand, and forhehand were prone to break downs and unforced errors.

If Agassi could hang with Federer from the back, and often out hit him, I don't see why Sampras couldn't do it.

See above. Sampras does not have the ground game to compete with Federer-Agassi does. In addition, he often says he would attack Federer if he were still playing, and can't undersatnd why people don''t use this strategy against him.

 

[JohnS]

Sampras's ground game, in my opinion, is highly underrated. He could hang with the best of them, maybe not on clay, where his baseline game could be grinded down by those claycourt specialists. However, on a faster court, ie, hardcourt or rebound ace, i've seen him outhit the likes of agassi, courier, chang, numerous times.

On the faster surfaces, his groundstrokes serves his PURPOSE, which is to set up for the attacking game. As soon as he sees a short ball, he is pounding it with his forehand and on his way up to net, where his great volley and overhead will eat up any garbage that is produced from Sampras's powerful ball. It does what he needs it to do. Saying Sampras's is just a server because he didn't have a sublime ground game is akin to saying michael jordan was just a jumpshooter because he was mediocre at three pointers. Sampras was much more than just a server.

If need be, however, Sampras could stay back and hang with the best of them.

If Agassi could hang with Federer from the back, and often out hit him, I don't see why Sampras couldn't do it.

I strongly agree. Pete's ground game was VERY underated. For those who think he cannot hang with Agassi or even out hit Agassi is wrong. Most people forget, or don't even know, that Pete is an all courter. That means he can do it all from the baseline to the net. His forehand was lethal. His backhand wasn't as lethal and did break down under pressure, but so does Federer. If you would watch the AO '95 of Sampras and Andre, they where slugging it out. Pete didn't serve and volley much on second serves. Even though he did lose on occassion, he did quite well from the back and won a good bit on second serves.

But Sampras does tend to go for broke more which caused unforced errors and made it seem like he couldn't compete with AA for the following reasons:
- if he goes for broke in most of the rallies, then he can save energy on his service game.
- going for broke in most rallies can earn him a break or two if he is streaky (which tends to happen at the 4-4 games)
- He knows he can hold serve about every time, so why waste time trying to play at the hands of the opponent (again, saves energy and gets the opponent out of rhythem with short rallies).

But this is where Federer is more like AA, he steadily plays aggressive from the back court and when he feel's like the opportunity has come, he will go for broke or play a very agressive shot.

People who think Sampras was all about Serving and Volleying obviously is fooled. True he does that more often in the later of his career, but at his prime, he too was beating players from the back.

 

[drakulie]

I agree his ground game was underrated. But he is nowhere near in the same field as AA, or Federer. As for the 95 AO open, he got lost for two reasons. His serve was not as effective, he lost the "ground war", and was tired from the continual punishment of running back and forth that Andre let him have.

 

[ShooterMcMarco]

Agassi + Sampras - Krajicek = Federer.

((Agassi * (Sampras+Brigette^2) + Mirka) / Rios) + McEnroe - (Nadal*.03) = Federer +/- Bandana

ergo

Agassi + Sampras != Federer

 

[tennisfreak]

((Agassi * (Sampras+Brigette^2) + Mirka) / Rios) + McEnroe - (Nadal*.03) = Federer +/- Bandana

ergo

Agassi + Sampras != Federer

Are you sure about that? The term Brigette doesn't seem to cancel out.

 

[superman1]

Give me an f'ing break. Federer is not THAT good. He's a tiny bit better than Sampras and Agassi, but that's it. If a 35 year old Agassi with a bad back was able to to beat him up from the baseline, a younger Agassi could have won the match.

 

[Moose Malloy]

His serve was not as effective, he lost the "ground war", and was tired from the continual punishment of running back and forth that Andre let him have.

No to mention he had one of the toughest draws en route to a GS final in his career, while Agassi had one of the easiest.

Sampras was running on fumes that final, he was completely exhausted, physically & emotionally(his coach collapsed with a brain tumor mid tournament & had to fly back to the states). Even Agassi mentioned that Sampras wasn't 100% afterwards.
Still Sampras had set points to go up 2 sets to 1. You make a great generalization on how surface makes a difference in that rivalry. They only played twice on Rebound Ace, not enough to make it sound so clearcut. Agassi lost to Chang, Spadea, & Berasategui in Australia, I'm sure Pete could have beaten them had they played more often there. Watch Sampras play Chang, Courier, Muster, & Moya on Rebound ace. He stayed at the baseline quite a bit.

Sampras' route to the final(& Australia didn't have as many night matches those days, so these matches pay a toll)

R128 Pozzi, Gianluca (ITA) 6-3 6-2 6-0
R64 Kroslak, Jan (SVK) 6-2 6-0 6-1
R32 Jonsson, Lars (SWE) 6-1 6-2 6-4
R16 Larsson, Magnus (SWE) 4-6 6-7(4) 7-5 6-4 6-4
Q Courier, Jim (USA) 6-7(4) 6-7(3) 6-3 6-4 6-3
S Chang, Michael (USA) 6-7(6) 6-3 6-4 6-4

Agassi's:

R128 Stafford, Grant (RSA) 6-2 6-4 6-2
R64 Golmard, Jerome (FRA) 6-2 6-3 6-1
R32 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 6-2 6-4 6-2
R16 Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 6-3 6-4 6-0
Q Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 6-2 7-5 6-0
S Krickstein, Aaron (USA) 6-4 6-4 3-0 RET

There haven't been that many slam finals where one player played so much more tennis than his opponent in the final. Most of the pre-final analyis was "how much does Sampras have left?"
I'm surprised it was that close. Shows just how tough Sampras' will was.

 

[tennisfreak]

Sampras has NEVER "outhit" Agassi on rebound ace. The reason Agassi is undefeated against Sampras at the Australian and French is because those surfaces neutralized Sampras' serve, and as a result put the match on the "ground", where Agassi outhit Sampras.

In fact, Sampras several times has said he cannot compete with Andre from the ground.

In addition, on faster surfaces when Sampras' serve was off Agassi got the best of him. Sampras could not compete with AA from the ground. Both his backhand, and forhehand were prone to break downs and unforced errors.



See above. Sampras does not have the ground game to compete with Federer-Agassi does. In addition, he often says he would attack Federer if he were still playing, and can't undersatnd why people don''t use this strategy against him.

Sampras has outhit Agassi plenty of times on rebound ace. Not on every point. Just enough to get a break here and there. That would usually be enough to win the set for him. He certainly didn't chip and charge his way to those service breaks, lol.

On hardcourts however, Sampras certainly had more than enough to bang with Agassi from the baseline.

 

[superman1]

Agassi's draw looks pretty tough there. Not his fault that he straight setted guys like Rusedski, Rafter and Kafelnikov, and Sampras had to go to 5 to beat Magnus Larsson.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Agassi's draw looks pretty tough there. Not his fault that he straight setted guys like Rusedski, Rafter and Kafelnikov, and Sampras had to go to 5 to beat Magnus Larsson.

I didn't mean that it was an easy draw on paper for Agassi, just the way the matches ended up being. Sampras was at a physical disadvantage in the final, nobody's fault, it just happens sometimes, like when Safin played all those 5 setters before losing to Fed in the '04 Australian Open final.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

If Agassi could hang with Federer from the back, and often out hit him, I don't see why Sampras couldn't do it.

I assume you are using the matches Federer played vs the aging Agassi as evidence that even an aging Agassi did better off the ground vs Federer, then he did vs Sampras. That is bullsh$t! Federer won his last 8 matches vs Agassi, and half of those were straight sets, Sampras had the winning head to head with Agassi on hard courts but Agassi still won his share of matches. Sampras wins many more free points of his serve then Federer does, and more points at the net too.

If you want to speculate on a prime Agassi that is fine, but based on the matches the Federer played vs Agassi in their final 2 years of matches relative to any Sampras has played vs Agassi that is a crazy accessment.

Hilarious how when Sampras beats Agassi in 4 sets or 3 sets with 6-4 type sets on average Sampras "dominated" Agassi from the baseline; but when it is a match with Federer if Agassi loses in 4 sets or straight sets with an average 6-4 type set Agassi dominated from the baseline and lost because of Federer's serve according to some people. Given that Sampras's serve was far more dominating then Federer's, that accessment just reaks of bias and twisted logic.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

Give me an f'ing break. Federer is not THAT good. He's a tiny bit better than Sampras and Agassi, but that's it. If a 35 year old Agassi with a bad back was able to to beat him up from the baseline, a younger Agassi could have won the match.

Agassi was beating Federer up from the baseline even as the 35 year old with a bad back? ROTFL! In their first 3 matches in 2005 Federer crushed Agassi in every aspect of the game and posted easy straight set wins. Then in their final match Agassi relied on a cascade of backhand errors to win some of the backcourt rallies in the first 2.5 sets, then Federer started hitting his backhand well and the match was over.

 

[Rhino]

Sampras + Agassi = Federer

So Federer has to win 22 slams now to prove this.

Actually he just might.

 

[drakulie]

No to mention he had one of the toughest draws en route to a GS final in his career, while Agassi had one of the easiest.

There draws were comparative. The fact that AA beat up people on that surface and was off the court faster than Sampras, show he had a better game suited to that surface than Sampras. Hence, Sampras had a harder time winning from the baseline when his serve was neutralized from that surface.

You make a great generalization on how surface makes a difference in that rivalry.

Surface did make a difference in that rivalry. AA never lost to Sampras at the French or Australian (slower surfaces). Sampras never lost to AA at Wimbledon or US Open (faster surfaces).

They only played twice on Rebound Ace, not enough to make it sound so clearcut. Agassi lost to Chang, Spadea, & Berasategui in Australia,

All those guys had good ground games, which there enite games were based on.

I'm sure Pete could have beaten them had they played more often there. Watch Sampras play Chang, Courier, Muster, & Moya on Rebound ace. He stayed at the baseline quite a bit.

True, but he ultimately beat them with his serve. Something he could not do there against AA who was a superior returner compared to all those guys you mentioned.

Again, if Sampras" ground game was so superior how do you explain his non-existence at the French throughout his entire career. 1 Semi final appearance.

I'm not dogging him, he had an awesome forehand, and strong backhand, but he is nowhere near the basline level of Agassi.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Surface did make a difference in that rivalry. AA never lost to Sampras at the French or Australian (slower surfaces). Sampras never lost to AA at Wimbledon or US Open (faster surfaces).

Again you are drawing a big conclusion on the basis of just 2 matches(both very close affairs) Sampras beat Agassi twice on clay as well, so using head-to-head results to make a definitive conclusion is absurd, & underestimates how great both players are. Especially since Sampras was a 2 time AO champion! And Sampras beat Agassi at Indian Wells, generally regarded as a slow hardcourt.

The difference in their head to head on those surfaces has more to due with the fact that Agassi & Sampras' best years did not coincide with each others. Agassi won 3 of his 4 AO titles after Sampras was done as #1. Had they played in '94, '97 at AO Sampras would have been a huge favorite(check out Agassi's ranking those years)

Again, if Sampras" ground game was so superior how do you explain his non-existence at the French throughout his entire career. 1 Semi final appearance.

I'm not dogging him, he had an awesome forehand, and strong backhand, but he is nowhere near the basline level of Agassi.

Its just a matchup issue. You really sound like you haven't seen them play each other much(at least not lately) Sampras beat him from the baseline(& other areas as well, he was a true allcourter) many times.

True, but he ultimately beat them with his serve. Something he could not do there against AA who was a superior returner compared to all those guys you mentioned.

I recommend you watch Sampras vs Courier in Australia '94/'95 & vs Chang '95. He hardly S&Ved at all in those matches. & he certainly didn't chip & charge, so his serve doesn't account for the way he broke serve.

The fact that AA beat up people on that surface and was off the court faster than Sampras, show he had a better game suited to that surface than Sampras.

Now you're going a little to far. Check out how often Sampras struggled in the early rounds of many of his slams, even on grass & yet was unbeatable in later rounds. Winning easier doesn't mean jack. However, I believe Agassi played the best tennis of his career at the 1995 Australian Open, & it wasn't just due to surface. Check out how well he was playing since the '94 US Open, even on carpet. The guy was just in the zone.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

It would be interesting to keep broken down stats of all the matches. How many points won directly with the serve by ace/service winner/forced return error, directly with the return by return winner/forced error, by double faults, by return unforced errors, from baseline rallies of atleast 1 groundstroke by each player or atleast 2 from each player(depending which you prefer to use), of unforced errors on 1st groundstroke by server, of winners or forced errors on 1st groundstroke by serve(or 1st groundstroke after return by returner, or 2nd groundstroke by server, if you determine 2 groundstroke shots by each player to distinguish a baseline rally), at the net with volley winners/forced errors by being at net, or lost through unforced error at net, or passing shot winners/forced errors or passing shot unforced errors(I think if the volleyer is not covering a certain part it goes down as an error but I could be wrong).

I just find it amazing to hear people say in Sampras's 3 set Wimbledon final win over Agassi in 1999, or his 4 set U.S Open final win vs Agassi in 1995 that Sampras "dominated Agassi from the baseline"; yet in Federer's 3 set win over the aging Agassi in the 2005 Australian Open, or 4 set win the 2005 U.S Open final say that "even an aging and injured Agassi was outplaying Federer from the baseline and Federer won only because of his serve." Sampras wins many many more free points on his serve then Federer does, even though Federer also has an excellent serve and wins alot of free points as well. Sampras also comes to net more and thus wins many more points there then Federer does as well. Yet somehow matches that are the same level of competitiveness it is possable according to some people for Sampras to have "dominated from the baseline" and Federer to have "been outplayed from the baseline".

Heck even in Sampras's 5 set loss to Agassi at the 2001 Australian Open you will hear people say that Sampras was atleast equal to Agassi from the baseline, despite the loss(albeit a match that could have gone either way)on a day he had over 40 aces(imagine how many total free points he won by serve then). Yet Federer will win matches by scores like 6-4, 6-3(Nasdaq last year) or 6-3, 6-4, 6-4(Australian Open last year)and hear that Federer was outplayed from the baseline and won only because of his serve according to some of these same people.

 

[federerforever]

Let's not forget that Federer has not won Frech Open. Agassi has one French Open win on his resumee and two French Open finals and therefore Agassi is a better clay courter. And remember that Nadal was not around in 2003 and 2004 when Federer was basically at his prime and Federer did not even make it to fourth round. So the formula Sampras + Agassi = Federer is clearly wrong. It's more like Sampras*1.2 = Federer. And Federer still has a long way to go to satisfy that formula.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

I have no doubt Federer will reach 3 French Open finals or more in his career, and I would be surprised if he did not win the French Open atleast once. Before 2004 Fed was not Fed, his 2004 French Open performance was dissapointing but he won Hamburg that year over Coria, so he was still already a top clay court player and showed it at the French the last 2 years as well.

Agassi at Federer's current age had 2 French Open finals but no Masters titles on clay. Federer already has 6 Masters finals on clay, and 3 Masters titles.

 

[drakulie]

Again you are drawing a big conclusion on the basis of just 2 matches(both very close affairs)

I'm not drawing any "conclusions". It is a FACT Sampras never beat Agassi at the AO, and French.

Especially since Sampras was a 2 time AO champion!

The two years Sampras won the AO (94 & 97), Agassi did not play the AO.

The difference in their head to head on those surfaces has more to due with the fact that Agassi & Sampras' best years did not coincide with each others.

I disagree. Agassi went further on the surfaces that favored Sampras, than Sampras did on the surfaces that favored Agassi. here is a look:

Agassi made it to the finals of the French and AO 7 times vs Petes 3 times. Furthermore he made it to the semis or better of those slams 11 times, vs. Sampras' 6 times.

At Wimbldeon & US Open Agassi made it to the finals 8 times vs Pete's 15. Agassi made it to the semis or better 15 times vs. Pete's 17.

This gave Pete the opportunity to play against Agassi more often on surfaces that favored his game, hence a winning record in their head-to-head. Had Sampras made it deeper into slams that favored Agassi's game the head-to-head would be a lot closer.

Agassi was 3-0 against sampras at French and AO Open.

Sampras was 6-0 or 7-0? against Agassi at Wimbledon and US Oen.

Its just a matchup issue. You really sound like you haven't seen them play each other much(at least not lately) Sampras beat him from the baseline(& other areas as well, he was a true allcourter) many times.

Ridiculous comment. I have almost everyone of their matches on tape and DVD. Almost everyone (not all) of their matches came down to Pete's serve. If he was on, turn off the lights. Pete said it himself, he could not hang with Agassi from the baseline.

I recommend you watch Sampras vs Courier in Australia '94/'95 & vs Chang '95. He hardly S&Ved at all in those matches. & he certainly didn't chip & charge, so his serve doesn't account for the way he broke serve.

Uhmm, The Courier/Sampras match is probably my all-time favorite match. He beat Courier with his serve. The two sets Courier won in that match were in tie breaks. Sampras was kicking him in the teeth with his serve. In fact, Courier made comments after the match that Sampras would be crying and then suddently hit a 120 mph against him. He did serve and volley in that match, and had like a thousand unreturnable serves, especially while he was crying.

 

[tricky]

Forehand: Like Agassi except he can setup for his forehand because of his footwork like Sampras.

See, that's the thing. Fed's basic forehand is actually more like Sampras. Similar grips (Fed's is a "modifed" Eastern grip.) Similar classic down-to-up follow through. Similar way they generate heavy topspin (Sampras in his time had among the high spin ratees for a true Eastern FH) with power. Key difference is the reverse-head backswing, which is more like Agassi and Safin. Such a backswing -- as it requires more rotation -- makes it more difficult to produce a true powerful, running forehand, but it enables you to generate speed from any stance. Fed can still drive a ball while moving backwards due the slingshot backswing and grip.

Backhand: Combination of both, consistant as Agassi, but is offensive as Sampras' when ever Sampras can setup for it. Fed's slice is controlled like Sampras' but has more bite on it. That slice of his is his own and not like anyone elses.

Mmm, I'd say more like Sampras. Fed's non-slice backhand, like current gen. players, is built on heavy topspin. Sampras in his era had one of the spinniest 1H backhands in the game, and I guess it can be argued that it's really the Sampras who was the harbinger of the modern topspin heavy 1-handed BH. I think the big difference is that Sampras was more inclined to go for winners on the BH by hitting deep shots, while Fed was more about hitting short angles. One big thing about Fed is that he can go inside-out on the BH like an Agassi. Fed has a better slice.

Volley's: Sampras had one of the greatest volley's. Agassi has an OK volley (comparing with other players of today's game). This combinations is an equivalent to Federer having very good volleys. He just doesnt have that net presence like Sampras. Hands like Sampras but comfort zone like Agassi.

Truth is, I kinda think Fed's approach game has kinda atrophied, since playing primarily baseline game a few years back. His tactics when he does attack the net can be baffling, and at times it looks he's not setting up with quite correct form up there. With that being said, most players would love to have Fed's net game.

I'm not sure how great Sampras's hands really were, but his movement to net and tactics were almost perfect.

Serve: Just like Agassi's except he has the accuracy of Sampras. Sampras had more of a low-slice serve which can really throw other players off; as it curves away from them or right into the opponent's body. But Federer does have a kick serve that is comparable to Agassi, but with a little bit more speed like Sampras.

I'm inclined to say more like Sampras, because he kinda does the body-turn twist that Sampras does. But, truth is, if you use a platform stance, you probably are trying to imitate some aspect of the Sampras serve. Sometimes, due to either mental or physical fatigue, Federer's accuracy leaves him. Sampras's serve was kind of a freak of nature in that his second serve was more like first serve 1B. It's almost like playing a guy for whom double fault rules were exempt.

Return of Serve: Believe it or not, Federer's return of serves are about as good as Agassi's when he was at his prime.

It's kind of the big debate in some tennis circles. Who had a better return service -- peak Connors (or even Hewitt) or Agassi? That is, is it better to constantly attack the serve, which would allow more aces and initial winners, but apply more pressure so that the likelihood of a break opportunity increases. Or is it better to block out the serve, allowing less aces and winners, but then depend on defensive skills to leverage the point back to you?

If you're physically capable of doing the former, it has a lot of advantages. It keeps games short. It lets you play percentages, since very few guys on pro tour can sustain sleight-of-hand AND pinpoint accuracy on their serves. If you end up smacking return after return, the other player's mental game will probably collapse. You would have already won the match.

But Federer is a master of the blocking service game. In fact, at times, it looks like he applies a volleyer's mentality in returning rocket serves. Only thing is, how could would this style be were the surface faster and S&Vers of the calibre in the 80s/90s?

Speed and quickness: Speed of Sampras but quickness of Agassi. If you've watched Sampras at his prime, he can chase down any ball

I actually liken Sampras to a Blake with better tactics. Terrific sprint speed, which also provided the linear transfer to generate such a powerful running FH. Whereas Fed probably rebounds faster than anybody in the game. But more than that, because he can whip a ball from virtually any stance, he's not jumbling his feet to line up a shot.

I think a key thing with Fed is that, because he constantly varies spin and pace, the other guy is sort of forced to hit conservative strokes back and play defensive. This makes the court much smaller for Fed.

Sampras was nearly 100% offensive in his game. I would say that Agassi at prime was more of a Agressive to Steady baseliner (definitely not a counterpuncher - but that doesnt me he couldnt play that style either

Federer's forehand is probably closest to the Sampras serve in basic end-effect than any other stroke in the game. Because he can generate incredible racquet speed from any position or stance and even off weight, pretty much his entire ouvre of shot selection is available. In other words, like that Sampras doesn't really have a 2nd serve, Federer doesn't really have a "defensive" forehand that he sits on.

So, it isn't about him hitting the circus shot or the ultimate heavy shot so much as you really don't know what's coming at you. Topspin, side spin, pace, depth, etc. any of the combination is possible. You never get in rhythm and you rarely strike the ball cleanly. You're always on the defensive. Moreover, because he can hit the ball lower and take the ball earlier than most of the topspinners today, he can cut the length of the court and open up available angles for himself.

On certain surfaces, he has at times played serve-and-volley with just his frigging forehand. It's an aggressive percentage game, but it's percentage nonetheless. That is, through the tactics, angles present themselves where he can take line winners with a high percentage.

I actually think Agassi and Safin may be the only guys on court who I can see hit Fed's forehand junk cleanly. Agassi's eye-hand. Safin's meat cleaver stroke. And that's why I can see, say, a more mobile Agassi as well as Safin play him to 5-set matches. That's not the same thing as saying that either guy could neutralize his FH, only that you may see Fed take more chances with his strokes with guys like them.

 

[JohnS]

See, that's the thing. Fed's basic forehand is actually more like Sampras. Similar grips (Fed's is a "modifed" Eastern grip.) Similar classic down-to-up follow through. Similar way they generate heavy topspin (Sampras in his time had among the high spin ratees for a true Eastern FH) with power. Key difference is the reverse-head backswing, which is more like Agassi and Safin. Such a backswing -- as it requires more rotation -- makes it more difficult to produce a true powerful, running forehand, but it enables you to generate speed from any stance. Fed can still drive a ball while moving backwards due the slingshot backswing and grip.



Mmm, I'd say more like Sampras. Fed's non-slice backhand, like current gen. players, is built on heavy topspin. Sampras in his era had one of the spinniest 1H backhands in the game, and I guess it can be argued that it's really the Sampras who was the harbinger of the modern topspin heavy 1-handed BH. I think the big difference is that Sampras was more inclined to go for winners on the BH by hitting deep shots, while Fed was more about hitting short angles. One big thing about Fed is that he can go inside-out on the BH like an Agassi. Fed has a better slice.



Truth is, I kinda think Fed's approach game has kinda atrophied, since playing primarily baseline game a few years back. His tactics when he does attack the net can be baffling, and at times it looks he's not setting up with quite correct form up there. With that being said, most players would love to have Fed's net game.

I'm not sure how great Sampras's hands really were, but his movement to net and tactics were almost perfect.



I'm inclined to say more like Sampras, because he kinda does the body-turn twist that Sampras does. But, truth is, if you use a platform stance, you probably are trying to imitate some aspect of the Sampras serve. Sometimes, due to either mental or physical fatigue, Federer's accuracy leaves him. Sampras's serve was kind of a freak of nature in that his second serve was more like first serve 1B. It's almost like playing a guy for whom double fault rules were exempt.



It's kind of the big debate in some tennis circles. Who had a better return service -- peak Connors (or even Hewitt) or Agassi? That is, is it better to constantly attack the serve, which would allow more aces and initial winners, but apply more pressure so that the likelihood of a break opportunity increases. Or is it better to block out the serve, allowing less aces and winners, but then depend on defensive skills to leverage the point back to you?

If you're physically capable of doing the former, it has a lot of advantages. It keeps games short. It lets you play percentages, since very few guys on pro tour can sustain sleight-of-hand AND pinpoint accuracy on their serves. If you end up smacking return after return, the other player's mental game will probably collapse. You would have already won the match.

But Federer is a master of the blocking service game. In fact, at times, it looks like he applies a volleyer's mentality in returning rocket serves. Only thing is, how could would this style be were the surface faster and S&Vers of the calibre in the 80s/90s?



I actually liken Sampras to a Blake with better tactics. Terrific sprint speed, which also provided the linear transfer to generate such a powerful running FH. Whereas Fed probably rebounds faster than anybody in the game. But more than that, because he can whip a ball from virtually any stance, he's not jumbling his feet to line up a shot.

I think a key thing with Fed is that, because he constantly varies spin and pace, the other guy is sort of forced to hit conservative strokes back and play defensive. This makes the court much smaller for Fed.



Federer's forehand is probably closest to the Sampras serve in basic end-effect than any other stroke in the game. Because he can generate incredible racquet speed from any position or stance and even off weight, pretty much his entire ouvre of shot selection is available. In other words, like that Sampras doesn't really have a 2nd serve, Federer doesn't really have a "defensive" forehand that he sits on.

So, it isn't about him hitting the circus shot or the ultimate heavy shot so much as you really don't know what's coming at you. Topspin, side spin, pace, depth, etc. any of the combination is possible. You never get in rhythm and you rarely strike the ball cleanly. You're always on the defensive. Moreover, because he can hit the ball lower and take the ball earlier than most of the topspinners today, he can cut the length of the court and open up available angles for himself.

On certain surfaces, he has at times played serve-and-volley with just his frigging forehand. It's an aggressive percentage game, but it's percentage nonetheless. That is, through the tactics, angles present themselves where he can take line winners with a high percentage.

I actually think Agassi and Safin may be the only guys on court who I can see hit Fed's forehand junk cleanly. Agassi's eye-hand. Safin's meat cleaver stroke. And that's why I can see, say, a more mobile Agassi as well as Safin play him to 5-set matches. That's not the same thing as saying that either guy could neutralize his FH, only that you may see Fed take more chances with his strokes with guys like them.

GREAT ANALYSIS!!! We do have our similar and different perspectives but nonetheless, well done. This is what I was hoping for. So, would you agree that Federer is like a combination of both Sampras and Agassi? That the combination of Sampras and Agassi can result into a player like Federer?

 

[fastdunn]

Pioline + Agassi + Santoro + Nadal + Rios = Federer
Federer has extra smart game with varieties of playing styles and gifted hand.

Federer and Sampras are very different.
Each explored into different dimensions of tennis universe, IMHO.

 

[The Grand Slam]

I shall fix your equation:

Sampras + Agassi =/= Federer

 

[tricky]

That the combination of Sampras and Agassi can result into a player like Federer?

Mmm, ambivalent about that. One of Federer's unique traits is that he can tweak various aspects of his FH swing to create different kinds of angle, pace and spin. To a degree, most top pros do that through hand rotation, but he can do it along the shoulder-elbow pivot as well, without damaging the stroke. For example, Fed's inside-out is, grip aside, similar to Nadal's FH. Thus the mix of heaviness, ridiculous side spin and short angles.

It takes an enormous, enormous amount of concentration, which is probably why Fed's game took longer to mature than the other super-dominants. To be honest, I'm not sure if this can or should be encouraged/taught. Fed can do it, but it would screw up most pros, let alone normal guys.

Fed's backhand doesn't work like that, though. He can generate more racquet speed than a Sampras because his backswing is built around a similar sling-shot mechanism as his FH, but he also uses a lighter racket and thus has trouble controlling high topspin shots.

Basically, if Sampras had his forehand mechanics rebuilt with the modern school-- but still keeping his trad. Eastern grip -- Federer would be in big trouble. No, he wouldn't have the shot selection that Fed is uniquely capable of, but he may have one of the heaviest shots in the game.

In any case, what some people argue -- and I didn't see it this way at all until lately -- is that Federer's FH is not so much an evolution of the current gen, but a redux of the previous gen using aspects of current mechanics. Or to go with your analogy, you start with Sampras's (or any all-court Easterner) strokes, and then apply rotational dynamics to said strokes while mantaining something of the linear drive of old school. Movement first, anticipation second, pace third, spin fourth. This gives you more racquet speed. Now, with this extra speed, you now have the option of driving the ball even harder (which might be more of an American view of tennis), or you use that speed to create more spin and therefore more angles and shots (which I guess is more European friendly.) Moreover, the more classical style gives you more freedom to hit all sorts of balls, since timing and swing height is less important. Given this freedom, your tactics rapidly open up. Your better tactics also feeds into better footwork. Better footwork means more power behind your strokes. Feedback loop.

It's a vast simplification, sure. But the basic idea is that Federer isn't so much a combination of Sampras and Agassi, but Sampras (or Eastern-centric all-court attack game) with nu-groundstrokes. Remember that Sampras had unusually spinny groundstrokes for a power game in his time. Take that to the next level -- new racket, swing mechanics, conditioning -- and well you now have a very strong idealogical refutation of this generation's game and a hint into why Fed dominates an entire style of tennis play in the way Borg did in his era.

Because basically, what Fed is showing, is that you can have all the freedom (wider height and timing variances) and shot selection (flat, top, side, slice) of the classical/Eastern style, but that you can still manufacture the heaviness of the modern game. You can have it both ways. Sampras suggested this (heavy 1H BH, spinny FH) during his career -- but everybody pointed to his serve and athleticism. Federer is doing this in his career -- but everybody assumes that he's using the same foundation as everyone else. As good as Safin and Roddick are, there's inherent limitations to what they can do with their strokes due to their grip choices. Safin can smash the ball heavier and harder; but his timing must be perfect; the height of the ball must be ideal. And that's what gets lost in this debates and the in-between lines of their conversation; I think most of the top pros know this.

 

[superman1]

In their first 3 matches in 2005 Federer crushed Agassi in every aspect of the game and posted easy straight set wins. Then in their final match Agassi relied on a cascade of backhand errors to win some of the backcourt rallies in the first 2.5 sets, then Federer started hitting his backhand well and the match was over.

I watched all of these matches except for Dubai. Agassi screwed up in the Aussie Open by going for too much too early, not playing within himself. His return game was also off. They he and Fed played an extremely tight match at the Nasdaq, which Fed won in straights, but which was essentially even for most of the match. Andre had so many break points that he got unlucky with. Veering a backhand 1 inch outside of the line on break point against Fed, that's gotta hurt.

US Open, Agassi played within himself and anyone with a brain can tell you that Agassi showed his capability in beating Federer from the backcourt for 3 sets. Then he gave up in the 4th and Fed upped his level, sensing vulnerability. Federer makes backhand errors in all of his matches, this was nothing new. After the match he said he once again saved his best tennis for the final.

 

[Eviscerator]

There are too many flaws in your opinions to list, no offense intended.

 

[oberyn]

The two years Sampras won the AO (94 & 97), Agassi did not play the AO.

Let's apply this logic to all 4 slams. And look at the draws. Then let's see the instances in which an early loss by one prevented a "win" for the other one in their h2h rivalry.

I'm giving Agassi victories in theoretical matchups at FO and AO
I'm giving Sampras victories in theoretical matchups at Wimbledon and USO.

Let's have a look.

Key:

*= a loss or dnp by Pete kept them from meeting.
^= a loss or dnp by Andre kept them from meeting.

French Open

^1990- Sampras didn't play Roland Garros.
*1991- Sampras lost in Round 2. He and Andre were on opposite sides of the draw.
1992- They met in the QF. Agassi won.
^1993- Agassi didn't play.
1994- Agassi lost in round 2. They would not have met until the final.
1995- Opposite sides of the draw. Neither man reached the final.
1996- Opposite sides of the draw. Neither man reached the final.
^1997- Agassi didn't play.
1998- Agassi lost in round 1.
*1999- Opposite sides of the draw. Agassi beat Medvedev in the final. Medvedev was the guy who beat Pete in round 2.
2000- Opposite sides of the draw. Neither man reached the final.
*2001- Would have met in the Quarters. Andre got there, Pete didn't.
2002- Opposite sides of the draw. Neither man reached the final.

Agassi could have improved their h2h (theoretically) by 3 wins here.

Australian Open

(I start at 1995 because it's the first year Agassi played there.)

1995- Met in the final. Agassi wins.
1996- Opposite sides of the draw. Neither man made it to the final.
^1997- Agassi did not play.
1998- Opposite sides of the draw. Neither man made it to the final.
1999- Sampras didn't play, but, based on seeding Agassi lost before the two could possibly have met.
2000- Met in the SF. Agassi wins.
*2001- Sampras loses early.
^2002- Agassi did not play.

So, here Agassi picks up 1 more (theoretical) win at most.

That's 4 more wins on Clay and Rebound Ace that Sampras "cost" Agassi.

But wait, what about Sampras' favorite slams.

Wimbledon (I start in 1991, Agassi's first year competing at Wimbledon)

1991- Opposite sides of the draw. Neither man made it to the final.
*1992- Opposite sides of the draw. Sampras loses in SF.
1993- Meet in QF. Sampras wins.
^1994- Agassi loses to Todd Martin in 4R.
^1995- Agassi loses in SF to Boris Becker.
1996- Neither man reached the point where they might have played.
^1997- Agassi did not play.
^1998- Agassi loses in 2R.
1999- Meet in Final. Sampras wins.
^2000- Agassi loses in SF to Pat Rafter.
2001- Neither man reaches point where they might have met.
2002- Neither man reaches point where they might have met.

So, Agassi cost Sampras 5 more (theoretical) h2h wins.

U.S. Open

1990- Met in Final. Sampras wins.
1991- Opposite sides of draw. Neither man reaches point where they would have met.
^1992- Agassi loses in QF to Courier. Sampras beats Courier to reach Final.
^1993- Agassi loses in 1st Round.
*1994- Pete loses in 4th Round.
1995- Meet in Final. Sampras wins.
^1996- Agassi loses in SF to Chang.
1997- Both loses in 4R.
^1998- Scheduled to meet in QF. Agassi loses in 4R to Karol Kucera.
*1999- Sampras does not play.
^2000- Agassi loses in 2R.
2001- Meet in QF. Sampras wins.
2002- Meet in Final. Sampras wins.

Here, Agassi cost Sampras 5 more (theoretical) h2h wins.

That means that Sampras "cost" Agassi 4 wins at Roland Garros and the Australian Open.

That means that Agassi "cost" Sampras 10 wins at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

That brings us to Sampras leading their h2h 30-18.

This is partly tongue-in-cheek, but I think you'll see my point.

The idea that one guy's poor play costs the other guy a chance to beat him by losing early on the other's favorite surface is a bit foolish and is not all that one-sided in the case of Agassi-Sampras.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

I watched all of these matches except for Dubai. Agassi screwed up in the Aussie Open by going for too much too early, not playing within himself. His return game was also off. They he and Fed played an extremely tight match at the Nasdaq, which Fed won in straights, but which was essentially even for most of the match. Andre had so many break points that he got unlucky with. Veering a backhand 1 inch outside of the line on break point against Fed, that's gotta hurt.

US Open, Agassi played within himself and anyone with a brain can tell you that Agassi showed his capability in beating Federer from the backcourt for 3 sets. Then he gave up in the 4th and Fed upped his level, sensing vulnerability. Federer makes backhand errors in all of his matches, this was nothing new. After the match he said he once again saved his best tennis for the final.

All spoken like a true Agassi fanatic. Excuses galore to suit your unjustified theory even an aging Agassi was reguarly beating Federer from the backcourt, and their matchup was an even one. So one match you conveniently dont see, one Agassi is supposably off, one Agassi was just unlucky and the score is not fair, and the other was how it should be even though everyone not wearing rose colored glasses could see that is the one Federer was unusualy off in. Also given that it is the only 1 of 4 that was that competitive what was most likely, something against Agassi in the other 3 of 4 or the one that was close being the one Federer just had a bad day. Hmmm I will take the latter.

How ironic the one match you missed was the 6-3, 6-1 ass whooping in Dubai. Not to mention pointing out the fact John McEnroe, during the U.S Open final, a known Agassi supporter and friend was talking about how badly off form Federer was for the entire first 3 sets, and all the things he was doing wrong and not how he can or normaly does. Not to mention the fact Federer started totaly dominating Agassi in that match in the middle of the 3rd set when he got his backhand under control by connecting on a few down 4-2, 30-0, not the start of the 4th set.

 

[BaseLineBash]

I watched all of these matches except for Dubai. Agassi screwed up in the Aussie Open by going for too much too early, not playing within himself. His return game was also off. They he and Fed played an extremely tight match at the Nasdaq, which Fed won in straights, but which was essentially even for most of the match. Andre had so many break points that he got unlucky with. Veering a backhand 1 inch outside of the line on break point against Fed, that's gotta hurt.

US Open, Agassi played within himself and anyone with a brain can tell you that Agassi showed his capability in beating Federer from the backcourt for 3 sets. Then he gave up in the 4th and Fed upped his level, sensing vulnerability. Federer makes backhand errors in all of his matches, this was nothing new. After the match he said he once again saved his best tennis for the final.

Man I remember that quarter final like it was yesterday. Agassi went through a strange get-light regimen that made him thinner and almost completely muscle then he strings looser against Fed and hits WAY too big through the whole match and exhausted himself mentally and physically with spraying shots and being too aggressive. Glad he got back on track at the USO.

 

[jings]

Mmm, ambivalent about that. One of Federer's unique traits is that he can tweak various aspects of his FH swing to create different kinds of angle, pace and spin. To a degree, most top pros do that through hand rotation, but he can do it along the shoulder-elbow pivot as well, without damaging the stroke. For example, Fed's inside-out is, grip aside, similar to Nadal's FH. Thus the mix of heaviness, ridiculous side spin and short angles.

It takes an enormous, enormous amount of concentration, which is probably why Fed's game took longer to mature than the other super-dominants. To be honest, I'm not sure if this can or should be encouraged/taught. Fed can do it, but it would screw up most pros, let alone normal guys.

Fed's backhand doesn't work like that, though. He can generate more racquet speed than a Sampras because his backswing is built around a similar sling-shot mechanism as his FH, but he also uses a lighter racket and thus has trouble controlling high topspin shots.

Basically, if Sampras had his forehand mechanics rebuilt with the modern school-- but still keeping his trad. Eastern grip -- Federer would be in big trouble. No, he wouldn't have the shot selection that Fed is uniquely capable of, but he may have one of the heaviest shots in the game.

In any case, what some people argue -- and I didn't see it this way at all until lately -- is that Federer's FH is not so much an evolution of the current gen, but a redux of the previous gen using aspects of current mechanics. Or to go with your analogy, you start with Sampras's (or any all-court Easterner) strokes, and then apply rotational dynamics to said strokes while mantaining something of the linear drive of old school. Movement first, anticipation second, pace third, spin fourth. This gives you more racquet speed. Now, with this extra speed, you now have the option of driving the ball even harder (which might be more of an American view of tennis), or you use that speed to create more spin and therefore more angles and shots (which I guess is more European friendly.) Moreover, the more classical style gives you more freedom to hit all sorts of balls, since timing and swing height is less important. Given this freedom, your tactics rapidly open up. Your better tactics also feeds into better footwork. Better footwork means more power behind your strokes. Feedback loop.

It's a vast simplification, sure. But the basic idea is that Federer isn't so much a combination of Sampras and Agassi, but Sampras (or Eastern-centric all-court attack game) with nu-groundstrokes. Remember that Sampras had unusually spinny groundstrokes for a power game in his time. Take that to the next level -- new racket, swing mechanics, conditioning -- and well you now have a very strong idealogical refutation of this generation's game and a hint into why Fed dominates an entire style of tennis play in the way Borg did in his era.

Because basically, what Fed is showing, is that you can have all the freedom (wider height and timing variances) and shot selection (flat, top, side, slice) of the classical/Eastern style, but that you can still manufacture the heaviness of the modern game. You can have it both ways. Sampras suggested this (heavy 1H BH, spinny FH) during his career -- but everybody pointed to his serve and athleticism. Federer is doing this in his career -- but everybody assumes that he's using the same foundation as everyone else. As good as Safin and Roddick are, there's inherent limitations to what they can do with their strokes due to their grip choices. Safin can smash the ball heavier and harder; but his timing must be perfect; the height of the ball must be ideal. And that's what gets lost in this debates and the in-between lines of their conversation; I think most of the top pros know this.

Nice post. I think I agree, I'm still workng the mechanics out in my head! So refreshing to read something that adds to your understanding of the game rather than the endless prattle of "U shut up Nadal Hater" .. "No you shut up Fed Hater, I told you first" stuff.

I am always surprised, and I guess I shouldn't be any more, when I watch older Sampras matches. The one that really sticks in my mind for some reason is the 97 AO final against Moya. If you're in any doubt as to Sampras having an effective ground game, just have a look at that one. In fact oddly watching it again recently I could see huge parallels with Federer. Great movement, thumping forehand opening up the court, short slices to bring Moya up the court, Moya trying to get into the Sampras b/h, but Sampras having a good b/h day for a change. As much as the Wimbledon 99 final vs Agassi was a demolition job, that 97 AO final was pretty lop-sided. What we wouldn't give to watch Federer and Sampras slug it out time and again in their primes. The one example we have got is good enough.

 

[sarpmas]

I just cannot understand why people still insist that serve is the only thing that wins matches for Sampras, especially against great baseliners.

Correct me if I'm wrong, in every tournament, does Sampras serve for the entire match or each player serves half the time? How does Sampras win points when he is not serving?

People really do underrate Sampras's baseline game. How can Sampras dominate the ATP for nearly a decade in the 90's with his serve alone? Where are the Rusedski's and the Ivanisevic's?

As far as baseline game is concerned, Sampras's ground game only appears streaky and less consistent because he is not a percentage baseline player like Agassi and Federer. His ground game is very explosive. He goes for winners whereever possible and as a result, susceptible to more errors from the baseline.

I agree the Sampras's ground game is not as reliable as Agassi's or Federer's, in fact, it should be because this is not Sampras's main style of play, but to underrate his ground game until his serve is the only thing that bails him out in a match is really ridiculous.

To the OP's equation, I can only agree in terms of playing technique. But does this translate to Federer being better than Sampras or Agassi? It will not be so clear-cut in a real matchup. To those who play tennis, I'm sure you will agree that TIME and RHYTHM is extremely important for you to play your game and assert control in a tennis match. As far as Sampras is concern, his game will deprive you of these. The whole purpose of his aggressiveness is to shorten points and impose his game on his opponents. His serve shortens points, taking away time and rhythm from his opponent; his go for broke groundies shortens points, taking away time and rhythm from his opponent; his net rushing shorten points, also taking away time and rhythm from his opponent. Consider playing this type of player IN HIS PRIME, who always rushes you out of your comfort zone.

Similarly, Federer's game is also a nightmare for his opponents. It is different from Sampras. He is more charitable than Sampras, he can afford to let his opponents play their game, especially for baseline bashers, but he is always in control of the match because he is such a complete player, he can hold his grounds because he knows his groundstroke is as good, if not better than the best baseliners; his volley is as good, if not better than the best volleyers; and his serve is as good, if not better than the best servers. And if you put everything together, we have a monster. The only common point that is similar to Sampras is that Federer also takes away RHYTHM from his opponents by utilizing his complete game to unsettle his opponents. He mixes the pace of the game exceptionally. Against his peers nowadays, he typically starts off toe to toe from the baseline with his opponents, suddenly he'll slice or topspin a short angled shot to bring you forward scrambling, then passes you mercilessly; or he'll set up a shot by forcing you out of the court with his big forehand and finishes you off with an angled shot or a volley or a crossed court shot to the open court. Federer can totally messes up your rhythm because he is such a complete player.

So in the Sampras Federer matchup, is Sampras able to impose his game on Federer? Is Federer able to counter Sampras with his complete game? One thing for sure, both will have their hands full playing against each other.

 

[JohnS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, in every tournament, does Sampras serve for the entire match or each player serves half the time? How does Sampras win points when he is not serving?

People really do underrate Sampras's baseline game. How can Sampras dominate the ATP for nearly a decade in the 90's with his serve alone? Where are the Rusedski's and the Ivanisevic's?

Yes, this proves that he had more than just a serve and volley. I don't consider it possible to when numerous grandslam's on mutiple surfaces with only a serve and volley game (let alone a big serve). This also proves why the likes of Rusedski and Ivanisevic (and Roddick unless he improves) will only have one Grand Slam title at most. Ive watched Rafter and he is okay from the baseline. He was also smart and had great touch to his game with a lot of variety.

As far as baseline game is concerned, Sampras's ground game only appears streaky and less consistent because he is not a percentage baseline player like Agassi and Federer. His ground game is very explosive. He goes for winners whereever possible and as a result, susceptible to more errors from the baseline.

Completely agree. I don't think people still realize how hard the balls are coming off his rqt.

I agree the Sampras's ground game is not as reliable as Agassi's or Federer's, in fact, it should be because this is not Sampras's main style of play, but to underrate his ground game until his serve is the only thing that bails him out in a match is really ridiculous.

Completely agree, once again. Don't people realize how he bagels the other player? Not all of his matches are 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 or 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. He actually demolishes them on his serve and on theirs.

To the OP's equation, I can only agree in terms of playing technique. But does this translate to Federer being better than Sampras or Agassi? It will not be so clear-cut in a real matchup. To those who play tennis, I'm sure you will agree that TIME and RHYTHM is extremely important for you to play your game and assert control in a tennis match. As far as Sampras is concern, his game will deprive you of these. The whole purpose of his aggressiveness is to shorten points and impose his game on his opponents. His serve shortens points, taking away time and rhythm from his opponent; his go for broke groundies shortens points, taking away time and rhythm from his opponent; his net rushing shorten points, also taking away time and rhythm from his opponent. Consider playing this type of player IN HIS PRIME, who always rushes you out of your comfort zone.

I never said that Federer was a better player than Sampras or Agassi individually or at a combined strength. What I was going at is, in terms of ability, is the same as both a Sampras and an Agassi, both the Good and the BAD. ie. of good would be the Federer's capability to serve out a match like sampras or keep you on a string like Agassi. ie. of bad would be Federer's backhand breaking down under pressure like Sampras' or the ability to move quickly and punish players on the forehand side it for out on the backhand side. But a very good combination that Federer has of both players is the ability to rush the opponent. Asyou have said, Sampras can rush the other players with his serve and explosive returns. Well, so can Agassi by taking practically every ball on the rise and early as possible. Even half volley's at the baseline. Federer too has mastered these techniques.

In short (thats funny ), the flaw that Federer has with the abilities of both Sampras and Agassi is that he has too many options. Federer can only play at his best if he uses every tool that he has. Being an all courter, he likes to do everything and keep players offbalanced, make them change their game during the middle of a rally. This is one reason why players like Nadal, Nalbandian, and Hewitt of the past, has given him trouble. The force him to stay on the baseline and just slug it out. Federer doesnt have the patiences to just have baseline rallies over and over and over again. But he has learned a little bit of patiences, that is why he now dominates Hewitt and Nalbandian.

 

[tricky]

So in the Sampras Federer matchup, is Sampras able to impose his game on Federer? Is Federer able to counter Sampras with his complete game? One thing for sure, both will have their hands full playing against each other.

On fast surface, yes. Good as Fed is, it's extremely, extremely difficult to generate consistent passing shots if you don't take the serve early and/or can't read the serve. Shortening the court can take away a lot of the net effect of spin and pace, and so you then force him to beat you purely on angles and power. Which Fed can, of course, but again much harder if you can't read the other guy. Merely blocking serves -- which works fine against big serving baseliners who don't follow the serve -- is not good enough against good S&Vers.

Conventional wisdom goes that Fed would dominate Sampras on his offensive side. And that's probably true, esp. since Sampras doesn't like to grind it out. But Fed, like most players, serves better after breaking the other guy. What if his serving percentage drops? What if Sampras produces 2 or 3 winner in a row?

So it goes back to the same question -- can Fed break Sampras's serve enough times to take over a match?

 

[drakulie]

Yeah, that sucks cause this has been a cool thread.

 

[ksbh]

Sometimes the truth can only be presented in inappropriate language!

Post reported. This is inappropriate language.