Sampras/Fed Forehands Compared

[pmerk34]

uhh, yea I don't know what you mean. I am not talking about Pete vs. Nadal. You missed the point. Fed has a weak BH and Nadal exposes it..by the way, Wimbledon and Australia are not clay courts. Guess you missed that.

If it were that weak everyone would expose it, not just Nadal who is basically the only guy who beats him him slams. I really don't think winning Wimbledon 9-7 in the 5th over Roger means he exposed his backhand there. he exposed it a month earlier in Paris.

 

[Cenc]

sorry, but age matters. You never watched Pete from 1989 and witness his rise to the top. You have NO CLUE how and what effect it had on the tennis world. I have NO CLUE how Borg affected the tennis world because I did not see much of him. By the time I started to get interested in tennis, McEnroe was the big gun in tennis. I know the affect he, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander and whole bunch of others had on the sport.

Watching a few matches (select matches) is not at all like following someone's career week in and week out. You obviously are too close-minded to understand this. I am not saying you are a stupid person, but you are completely clueless about Pete. You only have OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND A FEW MATCHES ON VIDEO to give your valueless opinion. Your opinion is meaningless and not your own...and if it were it would be flawed.

man ur nervous
would be nice if u could find something else to do in ur life except just attacking me every few weeks here, you know
yes my opinion is MINE because i live in "fed-obsessed" part of the world and nobody appreciates sampras' game here
and its enough to watch few matches to judge someones game
i dont need to know how mac affected sampras or how sampras' career developed in order to say that he had great forehand
also it possible that in 90% of your posts you insult somebody
call him clueless
close-minded
retarder
or i dont know what else
whats ur problem? lack of attention or u need a place where you can heal all your frustrations
so ok from now on only ur opinion matters
but i still dont understand one thing
all the televisions in the world talk to nadal or djokovic or murray about tennis in past and they all state their opinions and they were also too young to fully follow sampras' career
and you know what? i didnt see anybody asked YOU for the opinion and you are obviously sure u know about it more then they do
btw again u dont need to watch every match someone played to judge his forehand

 

[Azzurri]

If it were that weak everyone would expose it, not just Nadal who is basically the only guy who beats him him slams. I really don't think winning Wimbledon 9-7 in the 5th over Roger means he exposed his backhand there. he exposed it a month earlier in Paris.

it's not just Nadal. Look, not going to argue here. Fed's BH is far weaker than any other area of his game. Nadal, Murray and other's use this weakness to beat him. Fed has won FO and W only because he did not face Nadal. Give me a break about Soderling..a bum and Roddick just can't beat Fed.

 

[pmerk34]

it's not just Nadal. Look, not going to argue here. Fed's BH is far weaker than any other area of his game. Nadal, Murray and other's use this weakness to beat him. Fed has won FO and W only because he did not face Nadal. Give me a break about Soderling..a bum and Roddick just can't beat Fed.

We won't argue because I agree with you that Fed would not have won either if Nadal were there.

 

[Azzurri]

We won't argue because I agree with you that Fed would not have won either if Nadal were there.

terrific..as usual I agree with you. maybe a little mis-communication on our parts.

love the ignore list...no more Cenc, Fedace, Conquistador, abmk, and a few others.

 

[Jchurch]

sorry, but age matters. You never watched Pete from 1989 and witness his rise to the top. You have NO CLUE how and what effect it had on the tennis world. I have NO CLUE how Borg affected the tennis world because I did not see much of him. By the time I started to get interested in tennis, McEnroe was the big gun in tennis. I know the affect he, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander and whole bunch of others had on the sport.

Watching a few matches (select matches) is not at all like following someone's career week in and week out. You obviously are too close-minded to understand this. I am not saying you are a stupid person, but you are completely clueless about Pete. You only have OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND A FEW MATCHES ON VIDEO to give your valueless opinion. Your opinion is meaningless and not your own...and if it were it would be flawed.

So you believe that if someone doesn't live through an era or an event that they are not qualified to form opinions?

 

[coloskier]

really? so explain to me why Nadal basically destroys his "considerably" better BH when they play? Why? I think you give Fed wayyyyy too much credit. His BH is average and not "considerably" better than Pete's. I never, ever saw anyone attack Pete weakness (BH) like Nadal does to Fed's BH.

That is because no lefty in Pete's era hit a heavy topspin forehand like Nadal does. His main lefty opponent was Ivanisevic, who's forehand was strong but very flat. The ONLY player who gives Fed problems on his backhand is Nadal. No one else. Verdasco doesn't, Lopez doesn't. Those are the other two leftys that I can think of in the top 50. Murray doesn't really give Fed problems on his backhand, he gives him problems with his junk balls.

 

[AAAA]

That is because no lefty in Pete's era hit a heavy topspin forehand like Nadal does. His main lefty opponent was Ivanisevic, who's forehand was strong but very flat. The ONLY player who gives Fed problems on his backhand is Nadal. No one else. Verdasco doesn't, Lopez doesn't. Those are the other two leftys that I can think of in the top 50. Murray doesn't really give Fed problems on his backhand, he gives him problems with his junk balls.

Muster a left handed player hit heavy topspin but his shots don't have the same action on them as Nadal's plus the court conditions and strings are different now.

 

[pmerk34]

So you believe that if someone doesn't live through an era or an event that they are not qualified to form opinions?

Going back and looking up a player match records and forming an opinion is not the same as seeing the guy play live or on TV many times.

I saw Sampras play this way many times. I feel like my opinion on him is going to be much better informed than say Borg's whom I have only read articles about and seen on replays.

 

[pmerk34]

That is because no lefty in Pete's era hit a heavy topspin forehand like Nadal does. His main lefty opponent was Ivanisevic, who's forehand was strong but very flat. The ONLY player who gives Fed problems on his backhand is Nadal. No one else. Verdasco doesn't, Lopez doesn't. Those are the other two leftys that I can think of in the top 50. Murray doesn't really give Fed problems on his backhand, he gives him problems with his junk balls.

Hold on, NO ONE now or ever has hit with as much topspin as Nadal.

 

[Jchurch]

Going back and looking up a player match records and forming an opinion is not the same as seeing the guy play live or on TV many times.

I saw Sampras play this way many times. I feel like my opinion on him is going to be much better informed than say Borg's whom I have only read articles about and seen on replays.

Oh I agree that looking at statistics alone will not allow one to fairly evaluate a player, but I do believe watching old matches will allow you to evaluate the players. My problem was with Azzurr's stating that if you don't live through and experience something at the time that it happened, then you can't formulate an opinion as valid as someone that did live in that time frame.

 

[allcourter2008]

really? so explain to me why Nadal basically destroys his "considerably" better BH when they play? Why? I think you give Fed wayyyyy too much credit. His BH is average and not "considerably" better than Pete's. I never, ever saw anyone attack Pete weakness (BH) like Nadal does to Fed's BH.

Really? Ever heard of Bruguera?

In 1997 Bruguera, not long after he had come back from multiple serious injuries, met Sampras in the Semifinal of Miami (then known as the "5. slam").
Right before that match Sampras said that he expects to beat Bruguera on hardcourt 8 or 9 times out of 10 matches.

Now Bruguera, even at his peak, does about everything worse than Nadal (forehand, backhand, movement, speed, defense, volleys, return, probably even serve), and he's a righthander.

Bruguera won that match, on medium-fast hardcourt, during one of Sampras best year. He took the net away from Sampras and broke down his backhand with heavy topspin. Sampras struggled to hit clean volleys and shanked dozens of backhands.

Sampras said in the post-match interview: "He hit the ball pretty heavy and strong to my backhand". Sounds familiar, doesn't it .

 

[380pistol]

That is because no lefty in Pete's era hit a heavy topspin forehand like Nadal does. His main lefty opponent was Ivanisevic, who's forehand was strong but very flat. The ONLY player who gives Fed problems on his backhand is Nadal. No one else. Verdasco doesn't, Lopez doesn't. Those are the other two leftys that I can think of in the top 50. Murray doesn't really give Fed problems on his backhand, he gives him problems with his junk balls.

No it's cuz Pete played more intellingently in certain regards. You think Agassi would love nothing more than to trade backhands with Pete all day. Look at Muster, how he played and his style, and Sampras OWNED him. Did he break Sampras' backhand down they way Fed has.

Nadal has drawn 5 win, 25 unf (06 Monte Carlo), 4 win 28 unf (06 French Open), 3 win 14 unf (06 Wim - on grass!!!) from Roger to name a few. There's more but..... and Agassi 7 win, 25 unf (05 US Open), and Hewitt 4-5 win, 25 unf aprrox (05 US Open). CBS had him 2 win 14 unf in 3rd set tie breaker. Hell Ljubicic got got his backhand to spit 4 win, 21 unf in 06 Key Biscayne F.

Has Sampras' backhand ever broken down this badly and this frequently??? Peak Agassi didn;t have the success against Sampras that 35 yr old Dre had vs Federer. Sampras simpley would not get pinned to the bakhand side. Pete's was also sheilded more as came to net more, and was more adept at moving forward. One other thing is Federer is not great at hitting his forehand moving to his right, which makes him vulnerable.Sampras possessed the best running forehand ever so he could cheat more to his backhand side, without leaving himself vulnerable to the open court.

 

[Cenc]

No it's cuz Pete played more intellingently in certain regards. You think Agassi would love nothing more than to trade backhands with Pete all day. Look at Muster, how he played and his style, and Sampras OWNED him. Did he break Sampras' backhand down they way Fed has.

Nadal has drawn 5 win, 25 unf (06 Monte Carlo), 4 win 28 unf (06 French Open), 3 win 14 unf (06 Wim - on grass!!!) from Roger to name a few. There's more but..... and Agassi 7 win, 25 unf (05 US Open), and Hewitt 4-5 win, 25 unf aprrox (05 US Open). CBS had him 2 win 14 unf in 3rd set tie breaker.

Has Sampras' backhand ever broken down this badly and this frequently??? Peak Agassi didn;t have the success against Sampras that 35 yr old Dre had vs Federer. Sampras simpley would not get pinned to the bakhand side. Pete's was also sheilded more as came to net more, and was more adept at moving forward. One other thing is Federer is not great at hitting his forehand moving to his right, which makes him vulnerable.Sampras possessed the best running forehand ever so he could cheat more to his backhand side, without leaving himself vulnerable to the open court.

peak sampras was losing to agassi
peak fed was not losing to 35 y.o. aga
so this time i disagree
but yeah mainly aga was too dangerous for fed (considering age)

 

[VivalaVida]

really? so explain to me why Nadal basically destroys his "considerably" better BH when they play? Why? I think you give Fed wayyyyy too much credit. His BH is average and not "considerably" better than Pete's. I never, ever saw anyone attack Pete weakness (BH) like Nadal does to Fed's BH.

Well Fed's backhand holds up great against everyone except Nadal but honestly, the way Nadal hits the ball is unorthodox and he hits with more topspin than prob any other player. I think Nadal could pick Sampras's backhand as well.

 

[DunlopDood]

I don't think that their forehands are similar at all. Fed grips the rackquet little more towards western while sampras is easten more towards continental. Sampras has a flat follow through and keeps his wrist relatively stiff. Fed is liquid power, a completely smooth stroke loose shoulder, loose arm, wrist snap, long follow though. Not similar at all.

 

[LeftSHBH]

Cenc, Azurri, get a freaking room or something...lol

Every time Nadal played vs Federer, I always wondered why he was always trying to match his game. If it is harder for western-grip'ers to hit low balls, why didn't he do so? Why didn't he use the drop shot more often? I figured he was trying to beat Rafa at his own game...but anyway. I always thought that Pete's FH was one of the best, but his inability to conform to clay makes Fed's FH superior.
My .02

 

[380pistol]

peak sampras was losing to agassi
peak fed was not losing to 35 y.o. aga
so this time i disagree
but yeah mainly aga was too dangerous for fed (considering age)

I wasn't talking about winning or losing. I was just noting that Agassi had much more success breaking down Fed's backhand, than peak Agassi with Pete's.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

No it's cuz Pete played more intellingently in certain regards. You think Agassi would love nothing more than to trade backhands with Pete all day. Look at Muster, how he played and his style, and Sampras OWNED him. Did he break Sampras' backhand down they way Fed has.

Nadal has drawn 5 win, 25 unf (06 Monte Carlo), 4 win 28 unf (06 French Open), 3 win 14 unf (06 Wim - on grass!!!) from Roger to name a few. There's more but..... and Agassi 7 win, 25 unf (05 US Open), and Hewitt 4-5 win, 25 unf aprrox (05 US Open). CBS had him 2 win 14 unf in 3rd set tie breaker.

Has Sampras' backhand ever broken down this badly and this frequently??? Peak Agassi didn;t have the success against Sampras that 35 yr old Dre had vs Federer. Sampras simpley would not get pinned to the bakhand side. Pete's was also sheilded more as came to net more, and was more adept at moving forward. One other thing is Federer is not great at hitting his forehand moving to his right, which makes him vulnerable.Sampras possessed the best running forehand ever so he could cheat more to his backhand side, without leaving himself vulnerable to the open court.

Uhm... when did Sampras play Nadal?

You're seriously comparing Agassi's backhand to something like Nadal's forehand? You do realize that the difference there is only like 2000 RPM, right?

That kind of topspin makes it MUCH harder to handle the ball. Sampras had trouble with Sergi Bruguera's two-handed backhand, for Pete's sake (pun intended).

 

[380pistol]

Uhm... when did Sampras play Nadal?

You're seriously comparing Agassi's backhand to something like Nadal's forehand? You do realize that the difference there is only like 2000 RPM, right?

That kind of topspin makes it MUCH harder to handle the ball. Sampras had trouble with Sergi Bruguera's two-handed backhand, for Pete's sake (pun intended).

No. I'm compering wat broke back Agassi's backhand did to Fed's backhand and relating it to what peak Agassi's backhand did to Sampras'.

 

[edberg505]

really? so explain to me why Nadal basically destroys his "considerably" better BH when they play? Why? I think you give Fed wayyyyy too much credit. His BH is average and not "considerably" better than Pete's. I never, ever saw anyone attack Pete weakness (BH) like Nadal does to Fed's BH.

2 reasons, Nadal is left handed and he puts an insane amount of topspin on his shots making it hard to be aggressive with his backhand. I grew up watching Pete play and he's one of my favs, but the backhand comparison isn't even close. I seen Federer hit some backhands that made me say, "How on earth does he hit that?" And these aren't fluke backhands. They aren't back hands that he hits once every year. He consistently hits these ridiculous passing shots that I have never seen any mere mortal hit. Hell, he hit one in the Roddick match to save a set point in the 2nd set and made it look routine. Pete's backhand was more of a steady rally shot. As for the forehand. Well Pete had the best running for hand I've ever seen. There is no doubt about that. Federer's forehand is what you want if you have anything land remotely short in the court. If your ball has little pace and with not much spin on it, consider it a winner for Federer. Pete would take that same shot and come it to the net behind it. The result is the same. Either way. I'd take Federer's forehand though. Besides Pete's serve, it is the single most devastating shot in tennis.

 

[edberg505]

No it's cuz Pete played more intellingently in certain regards. You think Agassi would love nothing more than to trade backhands with Pete all day. Look at Muster, how he played and his style, and Sampras OWNED him. Did he break Sampras' backhand down they way Fed has.

Nadal has drawn 5 win, 25 unf (06 Monte Carlo), 4 win 28 unf (06 French Open), 3 win 14 unf (06 Wim - on grass!!!) from Roger to name a few. There's more but..... and Agassi 7 win, 25 unf (05 US Open), and Hewitt 4-5 win, 25 unf aprrox (05 US Open). CBS had him 2 win 14 unf in 3rd set tie breaker. Hell Ljubicic got got his backhand to spit 4 win, 21 unf in 06 Key Biscayne F.

Has Sampras' backhand ever broken down this badly and this frequently??? Peak Agassi didn;t have the success against Sampras that 35 yr old Dre had vs Federer. Sampras simpley would not get pinned to the bakhand side. Pete's was also sheilded more as came to net more, and was more adept at moving forward. One other thing is Federer is not great at hitting his forehand moving to his right, which makes him vulnerable.Sampras possessed the best running forehand ever so he could cheat more to his backhand side, without leaving himself vulnerable to the open court.

Hmm, I guess the next thing you'll tell me is that Pete had a better backhand than Edberg. Pete and Edberg destroyed Muster for the same reason. They serve and volleyed his *** off the court. Let's be serious here, Muster is no Nadal. The amount of RPMs that Nadal generates on his forehand is insane. I've seen the guy play in person. His ball just explodes off the court.

 

[drakulie]

No. I'm compering wat broke back Agassi's backhand did to Fed's backhand and relating it to what peak Agassi's backhand did to Sampras'.

what the heck are you talking about???? Seriously, as I've stated to you several times in the past>>> it's obvious you've never seen Sampras play. Agassi destroyed Pete's BH, even in the matches he lost to him:

These are stats from several matches where only rallies of 4 shots or more were counted in the making of these stats. For the stat to be counted, the serve had to be returned in play, and then two more shots hit from the baseline:

Here are the stats:

95 US Open vs. Agassi

50 of these rallies were played in this match. 14 on the Sampras serve, 36 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 18 (36i%) of these point and Agassi 32 (64%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 9 backhand errors
5 forehand winners vs. 13 forehand errors

Total 8 winners vs. 22 errors = -14

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 4 backhand errors
8 forehand winners vs. 6 forehand errors

Total 10 winners vs. 10 errors = even


Sampras vs Agassi famous "no breaks of serve" US open match.

55 of these rallies were played in this match. 0 on the Sampras serve, 55 on Agassi’s.

Sampras won 19 (35%) of these points and Agassi 36 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 14 backhand errors
4 forehand winners vs. 13 forehand errors

Total 7 winners vs. 27 errors = -20

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 1 backhand errors
6 forehand winners vs. 11 forehand errors

Total 9 winners vs. 12 errors = -3


Sampras vs Courier Australian Open match.

102 of these rallies were played in this match. 20 on the Sampras serve, 82 on Courier’s

Sampras won 36 (35%) of these points and Courier 66 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 27 backhand errors
4 forehand winners vs. 17 forehand errors

Total 6 winners vs. 44 errors = -38

Breakdown of Courier’s Points won vs. Lost:

7 backhand winners vs. 15 backhand errors
15 forehand winners vs. 15 forehand errors

Total 22 winners vs. 30 errors = -8


Sampras vs. Agassi 1994 Miami Final

44 of these rallies were played in this match. 15 on the Sampras serve, 29 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 19 (43%) of these points and Agassi 25 (57%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

1 backhand winners vs. 11 backhand errors
6 forehand winners vs. 11 forehand errors

Total 7 winners vs. 22 errors = -15

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:

1 backhand winners vs. 7 backhand errors
2 forehand winners vs. 5 forehand errors

Total 3 winners vs. 12 errors = -9


Sampras vs. Agassi 1999 Wimbledon Final

23 of these rallies were played in this match. 0 on the Sampras serve, 23 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 10 (43%) of these points and Agassi 13 (57%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 6 backhand errors
1 forehand winners vs. 4 forehand errors

Total 3 winners vs. 10 errors = -7

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:

1 backhand winners vs. 4 backhand errors
2 forehand winners vs. 3 forehand errors

Total 3 winners vs. 7 errors = -4


1999 ATP year End Championship (Finals):

15 of these rallies were played in this match. 1 on the Sampras serve, 14 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 6 (33%) of these points and Agassi 9 (67%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

4 backhand winners vs. 5 backhand errors
1 forehand winners vs. 3 forehand errors

Total 5 winners vs. 8 errors = -3

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:[i/]

0 backhand winners vs. 0 backhand errors
1 forehand winners vs. 1 forehand errors

Total 1 winners vs. 1 error = even


Sampras Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 15 vs. errors= 72

Forehand winners= 21 vs errors= 61

Total winners= 36, vs. errors= 133. (minus 97)


Opponent’s Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 14 vs. errors= 31

Forehand winners= 34 vs errors= 41

Total winners= 48, vs. errors= 72. (minus 24)


Edited: I incorrectly added sampras' errors in the "no breaks of serve match". I put "25 errors insted of 27".

 

[dirkgnuf]

OP, this topic has been covered before and doing a Search would greatly help you find better and more illuminating posts by some of Talk Tennis's experts.

From a technical standpoint, I recall that Sampras used a Figure 8 kind of swing push-stroke, whereas Federer used a infinitie loop pull stroke forehand. Sampras's Forehand was Textbook Eastern, the way Eastern Forehands should look, with his over shoulder finish etc, while Federer uses the more modern laid back-wrist, and various windshield wiper variation finishes. The result?
Sampras hit a very powerful, somewhat flatter stroke(more so than Agassi) while Federer definitely uses a more variable forehand.

 

[Azzurri]

So you believe that if someone doesn't live through an era or an event that they are not qualified to form opinions?

I clearly stated my opinion on the matter.

 

[Azzurri]

That is because no lefty in Pete's era hit a heavy topspin forehand like Nadal does. His main lefty opponent was Ivanisevic, who's forehand was strong but very flat. The ONLY player who gives Fed problems on his backhand is Nadal. No one else. Verdasco doesn't, Lopez doesn't. Those are the other two leftys that I can think of in the top 50. Murray doesn't really give Fed problems on his backhand, he gives him problems with his junk balls.

LOl...another clueless poster. whatever Jackie.

 

[Azzurri]

Going back and looking up a player match records and forming an opinion is not the same as seeing the guy play live or on TV many times.

I saw Sampras play this way many times. I feel like my opinion on him is going to be much better informed than say Borg's whom I have only read articles about and seen on replays.

ahhh, someone that can comprehend. too bad these 13 year olds are clueless as to being clueless.

 

[380pistol]

what the heck are you talking about???? Seriously, as I've stated to you several times in the past>>> it's obvious you've never seen Sampras play. Agassi destroyed Pete's BH, even in the matches he lost to him:

These are stats from several matches where only rallies of 4 shots or more were counted in the making of these stats. For the stat to be counted, the serve had to be returned in play, and then two more shots hit from the baseline:

Ah yes Quack-I-Lie cuz points are only played after 4 strokes. In the 2001 SF Pete had 12 (if my memory is correct) winners of the backhand win, despit appracing the net 137 damn times!!!!!!! He had 10 more in the 2002 final despit coming to net 105 times.

Fed did not reach double digits in the 2005 and how many times did he come to net?? Probably once at the and of the match to shake hands.

What did I say about Pete and Andre and Sampras and Federer. It's obviously you don't read. Has is backhand been broken down as badly and frequently as Roger's has been??And you keep saying "errors" are you talking about "errors" or "unforced errors"

But according to you it has, cuz if Pete hits a backhand return winner, like he did a few times the 2002 US Open final, it will be disregarded by you as the rally did not exceed 4 strokes. Brilliant. So Nadal directing 95% of his serves to Fed's backhand and drawing return errors are irrelevant cuz the rally did not exceed 4 strokes. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[380pistol]

Hmm, I guess the next thing you'll tell me is that Pete had a better backhand than Edberg. Pete and Edberg destroyed Muster for the same reason. They serve and volleyed his *** off the court. Let's be serious here, Muster is no Nadal. The amount of RPMs that Nadal generates on his forehand is insane. I've seen the guy play in person. His ball just explodes off the court.

Have a gander.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW2tyIHd6mc&feature=related 0:42 - 3:08

He's doing from everywhere. How about the 1990 US Open?? What about the 1997 Aus Open, 17 groundstroke winners in 3 sets. Obviously when Sampras was blitzing Muster you were watching it with Stevie Wonder vision.

 

[FedForGOAT]

It still amazes me that people forget that Sampras had the most feared forehand of his era. All they ever talk about is his serve and volley.

Because it wasn't.

Early on, Agassi's forehand was one of the most feared shots in the game b/c he'd go for winnners all the time. Sampras developed his fh, especially the running one, as his career went on, but I can't see anyone saying it was clearly the best fh of the era. Nowhere close to the consensus that Fed's fh, circa 04'-07', was the best in the game.

But I agree that later in his career, Sampras had one wicked, flat, hard, running forehand.

 

[iamke55]

Oh man, Drakulie is gonna have a field day with this thread...

People thinking Sampras had a "feared" forehand probably didn't watch him play much, and just conclude that he must have had more than just a serve to have won all those slams, despite none of them being a French Open. Sampras didn't even have the best forehand of his country, let alone his era. His rival Agassi had a much better forehand, and Courier was probably better than both of them at that particular shot.

Edit: didn't notice drak already posted.

 

[sh@de]

Sampras = double bend, Fed = straight arm.

 

[abmk]

2 reasons, Nadal is left handed and he puts an insane amount of topspin on his shots making it hard to be aggressive with his backhand. I grew up watching Pete play and he's one of my favs, but the backhand comparison isn't even close. I seen Federer hit some backhands that made me say, "How on earth does he hit that?" And these aren't fluke backhands. They aren't back hands that he hits once every year. He consistently hits these ridiculous passing shots that I have never seen any mere mortal hit. Hell, he hit one in the Roddick match to save a set point in the 2nd set and made it look routine. Pete's backhand was more of a steady rally shot. As for the forehand. Well Pete had the best running for hand I've ever seen. There is no doubt about that. Federer's forehand is what you want if you have anything land remotely short in the court. If your ball has little pace and with not much spin on it, consider it a winner for Federer. Pete would take that same shot and come it to the net behind it. The result is the same. Either way. I'd take Federer's forehand though. Besides Pete's serve, it is the single most devastating shot in tennis.

Hey, don't you know that point doesn't matter ? Nor the unreturned serve nor the ace . The only friggin' point that matters was the one that roddick choked away !

 

[abmk]

sampras-muster,

I didn't watch this match , but muster def. sampras on carpet in 95 and I recall one of the commentators saying during the krajicek-sampras match in 96 wimbledon while talking about his BH that pete committed 7 BH faults in a row to finish the match against muster . Anyone has more details ?

 

[pmerk34]

Oh man, Drakulie is gonna have a field day with this thread...

People thinking Sampras had a "feared" forehand probably didn't watch him play much, and just conclude that he must have had more than just a serve to have won all those slams, despite none of them being a French Open. Sampras didn't even have the best forehand of his country, let alone his era. His rival Agassi had a much better forehand, and Courier was probably better than both of them at that particular shot.

Edit: didn't notice drak already posted.

Is Drak the end all and be all of posting?

Most of the people saying Sampras had a feared forehand saw him play many times.

Tennis Magazine had Pete Sampras on their short list of greatest forehands of all time. Maybe they never saw him either.

 

[MarcRosset1992]

Many of the clay court specialist in the 90's did NOTHING on any other surface and could not beat a guy like Pete on hard courts to save their life even if Pete stayed in the back court.

Bruguera in Miami 97
Corretja (on GRASS) during the Davis Cup 2002 (Sampras had the luckiest escape of his career at the 97 USO)
Kuerten at the 2001 Masters (should also have won earlier that year in Miami).

These are the best clay-courters of the mid-late 90's and they had their fair share of success against Sampras on other surfaces

 

[pmerk34]

Bruguera in Miami 97
Corretja (on GRASS) during the Davis Cup 2002 (Sampras had the luckiest escape of his career at the 97 USO)
Kuerten at the 2001 Masters (should also have won earlier that year in Miami).

These are the best clay-courters of the mid-late 90's and they had their fair share of success against Sampras on other surfaces

There will always be exceptions. I never said he went undefeated vs clay courters on faster surfaces. But thanks for the answer to some trivia questions!

 

[drakulie]

Ah yes Quack-I-Lie cuz points are only played after 4 strokes. In the 2001 SF Pete had 12 (if my memory is correct) winners of the backhand

more stats, including all shots returned into play. The stats don't change much.

If you knew anything about tennis or Sampras, contrary to what you say, you would know Agassi destroyed Sampras backhand. In fact, the majority of players attack their opponents backhand, because it is their weaker wing, and they "fear" hitting it to their fh.

3 more matches I did “ground stats for”. This time I counted all rallies from the baseline---as long as the serve was returned in play.

Indian Wells 2001 Finals
74 rallies were played in this match. 7 on the Sampras serve, 67 on Agassi’s

Sampras won 26 (35%) of these point and Agassi 48 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

5 backhand winners vs. 20 backhand errors
3 forehand winners vs. 15 forehand errors

Total 8 winners vs. 35 errors = -27

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

5 backhand winners vs. 8 backhand errors
8 forehand winners vs. 10 forehand errors

Total 13 winners vs. 18 errors = -5


1999 Mercedez Benz Classic Finals
48 rallies were played in this match. 15 on the Sampras serve, 33 on Agassi’s.

Sampras won 17 (35%) of these points and Agassi 31 (65%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

2 backhand winners vs. 8 backhand errors
3 forehand winners vs. 13 forehand errors

Total 5 winners vs. 21 errors = -16

Breakdown of Agassi Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 9 backhand errors
7 forehand winners vs. 3 forehand errors

Total 10 winners vs. 12 errors = -2


1995 Newsweek Finals
95 rallies were played in this match. 27 on the Sampras serve, 68 on Courier’s

Sampras won 41 (43%) of these points and Agassi 54 (57%).

Breakdown of Sampras Points won vs. Lost:

3 backhand winners vs. 18 backhand errors
10 forehand winners vs. 16 forehand errors

Total 13 winners vs. 34 errors = -21

Breakdown of Agassi’s Points won vs. Lost:[i/]

6 backhand winners vs. 18 backhand errors
14 forehand winners vs. 10 forehand errors

Total 20 winners vs. 28 errors = -8


Sampras Total points won vs lost for 3 matches:

Backhand winners= 10 vs. errors= 46

Forehand winners= 16 vs errors= 44

Total winners= 26, vs. errors= 90 (minus 64)



Opponent’s Total points won vs lost for 6 matches:

Backhand winners= 14 vs. errors= 35

Forehand winners= 29 vs errors= 23

Total winners= 43, vs. errors= 58. (minus 15)



This is now 9 matches I have done related to the baseline game. Sampras won 8 of the 9. (Indian Wells the only loss). In none of them did Sampras win the majority of baseline rallies. This clearly shows his backhand was not a weapon. In addition, shows his forehand, as "great as it was"--was also very prone to error and breaking down, and not even close to a rally shot.

 

[edberg505]

Have a gander.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW2tyIHd6mc&feature=related 0:42 - 3:08

He's doing from everywhere. How about the 1990 US Open?? What about the 1997 Aus Open, 17 groundstroke winners in 3 sets. Obviously when Sampras was blitzing Muster you were watching it with Stevie Wonder vision.

Well, damn I guess I don't know what a volley is then. By the way, this isn't the whole match, it's a highlight reel with Sampras winning the majority of his points, guess where, at the net. Boy you really showed me. You also really showed me that Muster was on the same level as Nadal. I guess there is nothing else left to be said. You got me.

 

[fed_rulz]

to all claiming muster played a similar game to nadal:

muster played one handed BH, nadal plays 2 handed. how can they be similar

their similarity ends at both being left-handed.. that's it. nothing more.

translation: sampras faced no one of the caliber of nadal. not even close.

gosh!! some fanatics will go to any length to glorify the 90s

 

[AAAA]

Well, damn I guess I don't know what a volley is then. By the way, this isn't the whole match, it's a highlight reel with Sampras winning the majority of his points, guess where, at the net. Boy you really showed me. You also really showed me that Muster was on the same level as Nadal. I guess there is nothing else left to be said. You got me.

Typical youtube clip put together by a Sampras fanboy to present a doctored impression of their idol.

 

[Azzurri]

Oh man, Drakulie is gonna have a field day with this thread...

People thinking Sampras had a "feared" forehand probably didn't watch him play much, and just conclude that he must have had more than just a serve to have won all those slams, despite none of them being a French Open. Sampras didn't even have the best forehand of his country, let alone his era. His rival Agassi had a much better forehand, and Courier was probably better than both of them at that particular shot.

Edit: didn't notice drak already posted.

LOL...Pete had a terrific FH and yes it was feared. You have no clue what Drakulie was talking about. Agassi's FH was more consistent, but Pete's was right up there. They BOTHY had terrific FH, but they were different in the way the player used them.

 

[Azzurri]

Bruguera in Miami 97
Corretja (on GRASS) during the Davis Cup 2002 (Sampras had the luckiest escape of his career at the 97 USO)
Kuerten at the 2001 Masters (should also have won earlier that year in Miami).

These are the best clay-courters of the mid-late 90's and they had their fair share of success against Sampras on other surfaces

Marc,
other than clay, Pete DOMINATED these CC specialists. I have shown past match results (career) and Pete absolutely OWNED these players (FO winners of the 90's) on every surface other than clay. We all know clay was Pete's weakness and it did not matter who he played.

 

[Azzurri]

more stats, including all shots returned into play. The stats don't change much.

If you knew anything about tennis or Sampras, contrary to what you say, you would know Agassi destroyed Sampras backhand. In fact, the majority of players attack their opponents backhand, because it is their weaker wing, and they "fear" hitting it to their fh.

Drak,
no doubt Agassi attacked Pete's BH. As some have mentioned, Pete's FH was his dominant side. Thinking back, Pete played to protect his BH side against guys that gave him trouble (Agassi being his main rival). Is 380 argueing this? I am confused...

 

[Azzurri]

to all claiming muster played a similar game to nadal:

muster played one handed BH, nadal plays 2 handed. how can they be similar

their similarity ends at both being left-handed.. that's it. nothing more.

translation: sampras faced no one of the caliber of nadal. not even close.

gosh!! some fanatics will go to any length to glorify the 90s

I agree Muster is not at Nadal's level, but they had more in common than just being lefty's. Did you actually watch Muster? He was the best grinder in the game for a few years during Pete's prime and Pete killed him.

 

[Azzurri]

Typical youtube clip put together by a Sampras fanboy to present a doctored impression of their idol.

I don't know with 100% certainty that 380 grew up watching Pete, but I agree the YT clips are a joke. I argue this all the time. People think they know players based on clips.

 

[cknobman]

I watched Pete as a kid and watch Fed now.

Dont think we should really compare the 2. Its like comparing Feds serve to Sampras serve. Both are great but Sampras was known for his serve because it was so hard to deal with, Feds just isnt like that. Same with forehands though, Sampras had a great one but Fed has been known for his forehand and it (at one time) was the most feared shot in tennis.

 

[380pistol]

I watched Pete as a kid and watch Fed now.

Dont think we should really compare the 2. Its like comparing Feds serve to Sampras serve. Both are great but Sampras was known for his serve because it was so hard to deal with, Feds just isnt like that. Same with forehands though, Sampras had a great one but Fed has been known for his forehand and it (at one time) was the most feared shot in tennis.

Inaccurate. Sampras' forehand is better than Fed's serve in realtion to Sampras. I don't know but I'm inclined to go with Fed where the forehand is concerned, but Sampras' is closer than Fed's serve is to his.

Fear, Sampras beacme known for his running forehand, why?? Why was he able to leave that side of the court open?? Cuz players didn't fear his forehand?!?

Who had the most feared forehand in the 90's??? The guy who could leave the forehand side open like know ever did before him, and no one has since.

 

[380pistol]

Well, damn I guess I don't know what a volley is then. By the way, this isn't the whole match, it's a highlight reel with Sampras winning the majority of his points, guess where, at the net. Boy you really showed me. You also really showed me that Muster was on the same level as Nadal. I guess there is nothing else left to be said. You got me.

I really sowed you. Hence I also gave you match references (the 1990 US Open and 1997 Aus Open). But all I had was a little youtube clip. The entire match, like the 17 groundstroke winner in 3 sets in Australia, while still also coming in. How many times did Sampras trade backhands wihth Muster's forehand that day?? To the point he hit one around the net post (and between the ballboy)!!!!!!

But you're gonna tell me that's jus 2-3 matches. Well Pete owned him 9-2!!!! Anything else???

 

[edberg505]

I really sowed you. Hence I also gave you match references (the 1990 US Open and 1997 Aus Open). But all I had was a little youtube clip. The entire match, like the 17 groundstroke winner in 3 sets in Australia, while still also coming in. How many times did Sampras trade backhands wihth Muster's forehand that day?? To the point he hit one around the net post (and between the ballboy)!!!!!!

But you're gonna tell me that's jus 2-3 matches. Well Pete owned him 9-2!!!! Anything else???

So, let me get this straight. You are basically saying that Sampras had a better back hand than Federer and that Muster = Nadal? Hmm, nothing wrong with that picture.