Sampras on Federer
- Thread starter noeledmonds
- Start date
But Federer's offensive game >>> Sampras's defensive game, which is almost non-existent (his defense was basically running forehands).
Fed's offense + defense > Sampras's offense + defense
While Sampras's offense was more powerful and aggressive, he was inconsistent in his strokes. Look up the stats drakulie posted and it would be a bit shocking to see the number of forehand errors Sampras made even in matches he won decidedly. So the net Sampras's offensive game is just a bit better than Fed's. But the difference in their defensive game is substantial.
You only need to look at their records to see this difference. During his prime years, Sampras lost to a red-hot Flipper at AO, Krajicek at W, Kucera at AO (just winning 1 set in 3 matches). Federer would have done a much better job of dousing these on-fire opponents with his defense and then eventually turning the tables on them.
austintennis2005
Professional
Lets look at Pete's first usopen win in '90. starting in the 3rd round he beat: J.Hlasek(a top ten player), T. Muster (#6 seed,multi slam winner and former #1 in world), Ivan Lendl (#1, 8 slams), J. Mcenroe (#1, 7 slams), A.Agassis (eventual #1 and 8 slams). So at 19 years old he defeated 4 multi slam and former or eventual #1 players in the world. I think this is quite an effort. people forget how he completely dominated macenroe and agassi in the semis and finals. (i know mac was not at his peak but he was playing well)
austintennis2005
Professional
Lets look at Pete's first usopen win in '90. starting in the 3rd round he beat: J.Hlasek(a top ten player), T. Muster (#6 seed,multi slam winner and former #1 in world), Ivan Lendl (#1, 8 slams), J. Mcenroe (#1, 7 slams), A.Agassis (eventual #1 and 8 slams). So at 19 years old he defeated 4 multi slam and former or eventual #1 players in the world. I think this is quite an effort. people forget how he completely dominated macenroe and agassi in the semis and finals. (i know mac was not at his peak but he was playing well)
prosealster
Professional
It was a pretty impressive list of causalties....And if I remembered correctly, he played out of his skin...was awesome to watch!! BTW the last time I looked, Muster wasn't a multi slam winner ...
Last edited:
prosealster
Professional
He still does, as I have seen with his match with Henmen, Max M, Hewitt, Bjorkman etc ( I consider them pretty good volleyers
). just not as frequently, coz He doesn't need to... he can just beat them from the back of the court easily and make them uncomfortable at the same time ...
Last edited:
lambielspins
Banned
lambielspins
Banned
An awful slow rise at that point, one that would lead him to losing in either the 1st round or 4th round of his next 7 slams in a row. As for Sampras's slide, it still slid him into the next 2 U.S Open titles, one with a runner up finish, one as the Champion. I would prefer the Sampras slide to the Federer rise at that point by the sounds of it.
I have to agree that I think Federer's dominance is going to force the rest of the players to adapt more all court games. And as sad as this is to say, that's one thing that Carillo got right, we should etch it in gold for how much she doesn't get right.
And in being a Federer fan, to answer your question on who in the past could beat Federer, I'm assuming you mean of the retired players. I would have to say my first pick would be Edberg. It's not that Federer's game is a complete opposite of Edberg, but I'd have to say that they are the two players who I think are the most opposite from each other. As far as who would win more often, am not sure because you have to remember when Edberg retired one thing that he remarked about was the change in technology. The new racquets had sped up the serve and changed the pace of the game making it very tough to be a strict serve and volley player. Edberg said he was getting passed to much. Now if we put Federer back in the time of Edberg before the change to the lighter racquets, I think they would have had some good matches, and possibly at the beginning of when the new racquets came out.
I do think Sampras would have at least had good matches. I still would give the edge to Federer as he has the all court game. Sampras certainly had his selection of shots, but I still believe that he relied on his serve more then the other shots. The best way to describe it is, I think in the beginning they'd be pretty equal, and like Federer did to Roddick, Federer would learn Sampras serve and learn how to play it. In all fairness to Sampras, I think this learning time would have been longer then it took Federer to figure out Roddick simply because Roddick relied on that huge serve way to much.
And I would put McEnroe in there, again though it would have to be Federer during McEnroes time, and unlike Edberg, once the racquets changed from wood to metal, that would be the end of it being close.
All in all, I don't think Federer is unbeatable, but I certainly think he's the closest to it that any player has gotten.
Jukka
lethalfang
Professional
Arguments that today's competition is lesser than Sampras' era is speculation at best.
Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin have all won grand slam titles, and have one time or another been labeled as the next great thing only a few years before, until Federer arrived and brushed them aside.
Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin have all won grand slam titles, and have one time or another been labeled as the next great thing only a few years before, until Federer arrived and brushed them aside.
lethalfang
Professional
Apologies to drakulie.
War Safin!
Professional
Nno, I didn't post that at all. Nowhere in my post does it say 'Federer just has a defensive game'.
I stated that of the two guys matchups, Sampras' offence is superior to Federer's defense.
stormholloway
Legend
You keep saying this and I've already disproved it. Pete Sampras had NO titles in 2001. Roger Federer had one title that year. So who had a better year? Sure Pete was in several finals that year but he didn't win a single tournament. What you're calling the latter part of a peak is actually a slump.
If you're calling 2001 part of Pete's peak, then when exactly was he not in his peak besides his rookie seasons? Pete was not in his peak by any stretch in 2001.
It's easy to say that Roger would destroy Pete because we are currently constantly being reminded of how good Roger is while Pete is a fading memory. Sit down and watch one of Pete's great matches. His serve was often untouchable. His net play was genius and he was no slouch from the baseline.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
A player could be in his "peak", and also be slumping. Whether Fed won one title and Pete had zero doesn't prove anything. Pete won Wimbledon the year before (2000). Are you implying that on Deember 31, 2000 (5 months later) Pete "officially" was no longer in his "peak", and this is why he didn't win titles in 2001? Give it a rest.
Here are stats of every one of Pete's Wimbledon Final matches. As you call it, during his "peak years".
Courier 1993
65%
22 aces
Ivanisevic 1994
53%
17 aces
Becker 1995
58%
23 aces
Poline 1997
64%
17 aces
Ivanisavec 1998
55%
11 aces
Agassi 1999
66%
16 aces
Rafter 2000
67%
12 aces
Here are his stats when he lost to Fed in 2001. As you call it, for a lack of a better word, when he "sucked", and was "over the hill":
Federer 2001
69%
26 aces
These numbers are BETER than any of his Wimbledon Final wins. Pete played an awesome match, and served better than any Wimbledon final.
At the end of the first set, Pete missed an easy open court backhand to give the first set to Fed. And lost the third set "showboating". Serving at 4 all in the third, and down a breakpoint, Fed hit an easy floater on a return that Sampras missed attempting a slam dunk overhead. Next game--Fed served out the set for a 2-1 lead.
he didn't lose because he was in a "slump", or not in his "peak". He lost because he 'choked", and Fed outplayed him. Plain and simple.
After his last US Open victory.
As far as you saying I need to go back and watch some of Pete's matches, I have followed him plenty! I have plenty of his matches on dvd, which I watch over and over. And if you want proof, just go to the following link and look at post 282 & 288. These are stats I actually compiled by sitting there and compiling them (point-by-point), to show Sampras' ground game was not as good as his colleagues. It was riddled with errors on both his backhand and forehand. That is why he never won the French, and lost the first set of his match up against Fed.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...100334&page=15
HE LOST!!! SERVING BETTER THAN HE EVER DID IN ANYONE OF HIS CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHES. THE END.
VGP
Legend
Sampras lost because he got tired in the last game.
One break and it was over.
Sampras did lose some key points and probably could have prevented the match going five. He did underestimate the Federer return.
Federer was zoning that day. Only until 2003 did he learn to consistently play that way.
noeledmonds
Professional
Pete was defenitly beyond his peak when he lost to Federer. Pete was taken to 5 sets by Britain's Barry Cowanin (ranked 256 in the world) in an earlier round. Pete was also past his peak in 2000 when he won Wimbledon. Pete had a very easy draw that year, not playing a seed before he played Rafter in the final. Pete had already had his 6 year ends at number 1 broken by 2000. Pete was not ranked number 1 in the world at the 2001 Wimbledon. Pete retired from tennis the next year. Pete did not win a tournament all year in 2001. How can this be a peak form Sampras. You can't just quote a few isolated serving stats and claim Sampras was at his peak.
Sampras served 69% first serves against Cowan, thereby proving his match against Cowan was played at peak Sampras form as well. Therefore, Barry Cowan, who took Sampras to 5 when Sampras was peaking should easily be a top contender for Wimbledon, and has been.
Oh yeah, 26 aces to boot.
stormholloway
Legend
You simply don't make sense. The man won 14 grand slams and you're calling a year when he had no singles titles part of his peak. A Man can be in a slump and peak? THEY ARE COMPLETE OPPOSITES.
Serving stats do not make a man, and showing me aces and percentages does not prove anything. As someone mentioned above, some journeyman took out Sampras in this so-called peak. Does this mean this guy is better than Pete?
Your argument doesn't hold any water. It makes as much sense as your Volkl trash talking.
After his last US Open victory was his slump? That was the end of his career and he knew it. That's not a slump it's called a farewell.
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
yet at the same time you couldn't call Federer smoking hot in 2001, because he lost badly to Agassi in US Open, lost to Henmen in Basel, lost to keifer in Moscow, Lost to Stephan in Vienna, Lost to Novak in Paris, Lost to Ljubicic in switzerland, Lost to Rafter in Germany, Lost to Corretja in Rolland Garros...
I wouldn't call that a fantastic player's record.
I wouldn't call that a fantastic player's record.
Fedubai
Semi-Pro
Federer is not unbeatable, in this era or any other. As far as I see it, you can only compare from when the technology changed. The difference between the wooden racket and the style of play it was confined to, and the age of pwer rackets is too large to be compared. It is just talk that is fun, and pointless. To say that McEnroe would have beaten Federer or that Federer would have beaten McEnroe is not a statement that can be backed up by anything more than conjecture, in my opinion. Look at the tapes of Borg: it was just a different game, and how can anyone get around that. Maybe the only thing we can do is compare achievements.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
I completely disagree. AS I ALREADY SAID, whether he was in a "slump", at his "peak', or whatever else you want to state about his abilities that year,,,,,,,
HE PLAYED AS WELL AGAINST FED, AND SERVED BETTER, THAN ANY MATCH WHEN HE WON THE TITLE THERE.
He was serving in the 120+. Throughout the match he had several 120+ second serves--which is what makes his second serve the most feared shot (besides his first serve) in the history of tennis.
HE GOT BEAT when he was playing his best. PERIOD.
You guys point out his 5 setters against "nobodies" as an excuse or "proof" that he was in a slump or not in his peak. Go back and look at his record throughout his 6 year of reigning the tennis world. He had several of those matches. In fact, he lost several of them. **** happens. I suppose whenever he won matches in those years he wasn't slumping and at his peak, but when he lost he wasn't.
Last edited:
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Although you don't like to hear stats when it doesn't suit your argument, there is a huge difference between Mark Keil and Roger Federer--- 10 GRAND SLAMS
No, Winning the US Open is not a slump--It is called playing at the very highest level which one is capable of---which he did agasinst Federer and lost.
stormholloway
Legend
There's just no logic in what you say. You absolutely contradict yourself. You use one match to support your argument, but the Keil match you deem irrelevant even though it is also one match. You call one of Pete's worst years his peak just to support your argument. Who are you to decide Pete was playing his best tennis against Federer? Pete was in a slump, obviously from boredom and lack of passion, he played the US Open with the intention of focusing his energy on it and he won. Those are his own words.
You already lost credibility when you said 2001 was a peak year for Sampras.
drakulie is out trolling again. He offers misleading stats to attempt to show that Sampras was in his peak in 2001 and that he played at his top level in the loss to Federer. Sampras' peak was 93-98. After that, he lost his number 1 ranking and was starting to get older and slower.
noeledmonds
Professional
Serving alone is not proof of playing at your best. Goran was serving as well as he has ever been serving on the seniors tour, and recularly serving faster than 120 miles per hour, however his game looked pretty rusty really, and he did not even win the seniors tour. At his best Goran was far better than that.
The second point is laughable. THE LAST TIME THAT SAMPRAS WAS TAKEN TO 5 SETS AT WIBLEDON (BEFORE COWAN) WAS 1998 AGAINST GORAN IVANISEVIC. This means Sampras had not been taken to 5 sets at SW19 for over 2 years, and Goran is not a nobody. You have to look back to 1997 that Sampras was last taken to 5 sets before that at SW19. This man was Kodra, who was a Grand Slam winner, so not a 256 ranked nobody either. In 1996 he lost to Krijeck, but noone took him to 5 sets at SW19. In 1995 it was Goran again, noone else. In 1994 noone took Sampras to 5 sets at SW19. In 1994 Agassi took Sampras to 5 sets, noone else. Noone took Pete to 5 sets from 1992 to 1989. 1989 was the first year Pete played.
PETE HAD NEVER BEEN TAKEN TO 5 SETS AT WIMBLEDON BY A NON-GRAND SLAM WINNER (BEFORE COWAN), AND 2 OF THOSE GRAND SLAM WINNERS WON WIMBLEDON ITSELF The only thing that Sampras has over Fed is his second serve. However Fed can easily up his second serve to another gear. Sampras has to serve over 117 mph consistently on second serves to make a match. By the way, Fed has not reach his full potential. I would like to see Fed take second serves on the rise and hit it down the line but I know he is a kind of high percentage kind of guy. He already has the technique! He needs a great serve and volleyer to push him.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
There is way more logic in what I say than you. On one hand you say stats don't mean anything, but are quick to use stats to prove he didn't win any tournaments that year.
The only "stats" that are relevant in the Federer vs. Sampras match are the ones from the actual match.
I'm using stats from the actual match between Fed and Sampras because those are the two players being discussed in this thread. Furthermore, I pointed out stats from his previous Wimbledon titles because people like you want to say he didn't play good, was in a slump, not in his peak, blah, blah, blah when he played Fed as compared to his previous Wimbledon Years, and years of "dominance".
As I already have pointed out, the stats of his Wimbledon Title matches are not as good as his loss against Fed.
Im using FACTS. Stats are stats. They are tangible and measurable.
On the other hand, you are saying he was not winning because of a lack of "boredom, and lack of passion"??? How the hell did you measure this??
Well, you show me one Wimbledon title Pete won where he served better than he did against Fed in 2001.
Boredom? Lack of Passion? LMAO
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
here are some tangible and measurable stats: Sampras only had a 35-16 record the year fed beat him so he was on a decline. The following year when he retired his match record was only 27-17 (including his 7 matches to win the US open) . SO he seemed FAR off his best in his last 2 years. His body obviously wasnt in the same condition as when he was at his best. Although fed played supreme tennis to beat a declining Sampras, there was still only a few points in it.
Using that one off match between Sampras and Federer is like assesing the talents of Federer when he is 30 or 31 year, with 18 grand slams, after losing to a new young player like Murray or Berdych in their first match then saying that that match and those match statistics are all that matters.
Using that one off match between Sampras and Federer is like assesing the talents of Federer when he is 30 or 31 year, with 18 grand slams, after losing to a new young player like Murray or Berdych in their first match then saying that that match and those match statistics are all that matters.
Well said TheNatural.
Does stats tell the whole story? If we use the 2004 stats of Federer and Kuerten, do you agree that a prime Kuerten will definitely be better than Federer because a peak Federer still lost to a slumping and injury-plagued Kuerten in 2004?
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
Well, think of it this way:
- Roddick has a bigger serve than sampras, but Roger handles Roddick's serve just fine.
- Sampras did rather well during his match vs. a budding Federer, even mentioning that he (sampras) did well
- Sampras has a 20-14 lead over Agassi, but Fed has a 8-3 lead over agassi, beating Agassi pretty hard in the last 8 meetings, while Pete was still toe-to-toe with Agassi.
- Lots of serve-volley players are pretty quick (suzuki) or do it often in the match (roddic) but Federer seems to handle the S&V players quite well
- Federer had a horrible record in 2001, but managed to get past Sampras with potential - though Pete put up good numbers - which means if Federer plays the way he does today he would destroy Pete.
- The game has changed and evolved. Having watched over 100 Sampras matches vs 50+ Federer matches over the past few months (I am a fan of both) I would definately say that Federer is a better player.
Placement, disguise and spin are different.
I always maintained both played great in that match. My 'excuse'? Pete was surprised and caught off guard by how great Fed was playing, just like how Hewitt and Safin did to him at the US Open.
It's the matchup. Fed's game matches up better against baseline players than Sampras. An Agassi in one of his younger prime years would be tough for Federer as well.
They don't have the same serve and volley combo of Sampras calibre.
I politely disagree. Both will have a hard time if playing in their prime.
In terms of skillsets, I agree Federer is a more complete player than Sampras.
noeledmonds
Professional
Serving alone is not proof of playing at your best. Goran was serving as well as he has ever been serving on the seniors tour, and recularly serving faster than 120 miles per hour, however his game looked pretty rusty really, and he did not even win the seniors tour. At his best Goran was far better than that.
The second point is laughable. THE LAST TIME THAT SAMPRAS WAS TAKEN TO 5 SETS AT WIBLEDON (BEFORE COWAN) WAS 1998 AGAINST GORAN IVANISEVIC. This means Sampras had not been taken to 5 sets at SW19 for over 2 years, and Goran is not a nobody. You have to look back to 1997 that Sampras was last taken to 5 sets before that at SW19. This man was Kodra, who was a Grand Slam winner, so not a 256 ranked nobody either. In 1996 he lost to Krijeck, but noone took him to 5 sets at SW19. In 1995 it was Goran again, noone else. In 1994 noone took Sampras to 5 sets at SW19. In 1994 Agassi took Sampras to 5 sets, noone else. Noone took Pete to 5 sets from 1992 to 1989. 1989 was the first year Pete played.
Do you accept these points drakulie, and if so do you also accept your argument pretty much collapses.
harleywilson
Rookie
Sampras and Federer are both the best of their respective generations. Federer is clearly more dominant over his generation. Personally I think the competition was better when Sampras played, but who knows? I do wonder what people have been smoking when they compare Roddick's serve (or game) to Sampras's. Come on people!
Pisolino227
Rookie
Seriously, Drakulie is such a Federer fanboy it should be illegal..........let's all chip in and buy this person some knee pads to make the Federer a s s kissing just a little more comfortable. You have to know nothing about tennis to think Sampras was at his peak during that match with Federer in 01. Serving 69%, 26 aces.......oh yeah, he's at his peak..........Don't soak your BVD's too hard over Federer Drak.
Last edited:
2001-2002 was a low period for Pete but he was more than capable of summoning his peak level when needed. He often says that the 2002 final was the best he ever played.
The level at which Sampras played in the Federer match would have comfortably beaten Henman, Goran and Rafter for his 8th Wimbledon title. He achieved that level again a couple of months later and beat Rafter, Agassi, Safin handily.
The level at which Sampras played in the Federer match would have comfortably beaten Henman, Goran and Rafter for his 8th Wimbledon title. He achieved that level again a couple of months later and beat Rafter, Agassi, Safin handily.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
No, sorry I don't accept them. Pete Sampras, regardless of his 6 years at #1, 14 slams, etc, etc, etc, is a human being. Just because he is # 1 does not mean he can't have an off day. No number # 1 player in the history of tennis has ever gone undefeated during their reign. So whether he is # 1 or # 10 and losing to scrubs doesn't mean anything. Just becasue he played lousy against someone doesn't mean anything for the purposes of what we are discussing here.
As I have said repeatedly,,,,,, whether he was sick, in a slump, not in his peak, didn't get laid, the stars didn't align, or whatever other excuse anyone wants to give for his performance during the 6 months before or after this particular match;;;;;;;;
His serve was awesome in this match, and he served better in this match than any of his wins in any of his Wimbledon Finals. And contrary to what people on these boards would like to believe, his serve followed to the net by his volleys was his biggest weapon and what got him 14 slams. Not his "running forehand", or his crappy backhand. It was his serve. THE END.
He lost because fed beat him when his serve was at it's best. Plain and simple. And Pete played at the highest of levels. Just because he lost this match, does not mean he didn't play at a high level. As I pointed out earlier, he made two crucial mistakes --one in the first set, and one in the third that cost him two sets. Maybe if he doesn't lose those two points he wins. Maybe he still loses. Nobody will ever know.
I love Pete, but apart from his serve he has nothing on Federer.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Shows how much you know. Sampras is my all time favorite palyer.
Maybe it's you that needs those knee pads for when you service Sampras.
stormholloway
Legend
Regardless of his stats in that match, I don't see a reason for you to use that match as justification. Hewitt beat Pete on a big stage, and by your logic, Hewitt is better. I have no problem with your opinion that Federer is better, but using that one match to "prove" it is simply erroneous. Every great player loses. Sometimes they serve well and still lose. Sometimes they come unprepared for a match against a soon-to-be-great and lose, but drawing such vast conclusions from one match is far fetched.
The fact that Pete served so well could also illustrate how much he relied on serve later in his career. He was excellent from the ground during his peak, but 2001 was most definitely not any part of his peak. If you have 13 grand slams and you have a year where you win NO TITLES, then that year is NOT a part of your peak. Period.
I personally think Federer is the greatest player ever. I make no reservation about this, but you cannot use one match to prove this.
The fact that Pete served so well could also illustrate how much he relied on serve later in his career. He was excellent from the ground during his peak, but 2001 was most definitely not any part of his peak. If you have 13 grand slams and you have a year where you win NO TITLES, then that year is NOT a part of your peak. Period.
I personally think Federer is the greatest player ever. I make no reservation about this, but you cannot use one match to prove this.
Budgerigar
Rookie
one match can't judge, prime year or not. still, fed dominates serve oriented people.
stormholloway
Legend
Laughable. One doesn't need to draw a conclusion from stats showing the number of titles won. You're drawing a conclusion from your stats. My stats clearly state implied truth: that Sampras won 0 titles. There's no debating this.
You still haven't argued the point about the #256 guy who took Sampras to 5 sets. The fact that you say the difference is the fact Federer has several slams is twisted as well. This would mean that #256 guy should have several slams by now by your logic because he almost did what Federer did: beat Sampras in 5 sets.
I never said you could measure lack of passion, but are you saying it doesn't exist? You are using stats, but it is the conclusion you are drawing from them that becomes opinionated. Don't twist fact with conclusions drawn from facts. They are completely different.
Again, service stats do not tell a whole story. You can serve 100% of first serves at an average of 135 mph and still lose a match because you netted easy volleys and shanked forehands. You fail to connect service stats to your theory. You presume that anyone who serves 70% should win, and if not, they are inferior in skill.
Lack of passion... those were Pete's own words in describing his slump. He obviously proved it was mental by winning the USO in '02. Laugh all you want. You've shown a weak intellect in your posts, particularly in your inability to use reason to support an argument.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Justification for what? This thread is about Fed/Sampras. Unfortunately they only played once. What would you like me to compare it to?? A "dream" match that never took place?? I'll leave that to you.
I agree using 1 match is not the best of circumstances. However, we are all lucky enough to have at least witnessed one match between them than zero. Additionally, use this one match where they actually played, to come up with my conclusions--rather than attempting a "what if" argument.
I agree and already stated this earlier. However, saying that Sampras did not play well, or didn't serve well in this match is ridiculous. HE DID, and HE GOT BEAT. Period.
He always relied on his serve. The best in history. First and second.
I disagree. HIS GROUND GAME WAS CLEARLY HIS WEAKNESS.
Did he hit spectacular shots off the ground? YES
Was his forehand feared? YES
Was he consistent with either? NO.
Yes, actually, Pete was great enough to win a Major when he was not at his peak. He proved this in 1991, 2000 and 2002.
Yeah, one has beaten me and the other hasn't.
(Played Keil in highschool)Drakulie, your serving stat really doesn't prove much about Samprass. Pete could probably go out and serve 20 aces today. The difference is that he was a half-a-step slower getting to the net than he was in his prime. That half-a-step is a HUGE factor when you're playing at the highest level. If Federer plays long enough (which I hope he does) we'll see his speed diminish and he'll lose to some up and comer that everyone will be calling the GOAT.
