Sampras Serve Vs Soderling's

[fed_rulz]

The serve was a major weapon for Soderling in the match against Federer. Even last year, Delpo's serve was too good in the SF. Fed served great against Soderling last year.

This begs the question: why couldn't the "GSOAT" (S = Server) , Pete Sampras, have the same impact with his serve on clay? Was his serve effective only on faster surfaces ?

In an era where strings supposedly help the returner more, we have the best serving performances on clay in this era: Karlovic firing 77 and 55 aces respectively.

I'd say we have better servers now overall than in the 90s. The faster surfaces magnified the actual effectiveness of the big servers in the 90s, creating the illusion that their serves were superior the ones that exist now.

Sampras is the greatest clutch server of all time; but I don't think he is the greatest server of all time. I think his serve was great in his era, but would be considered nothing spectacular in this era. Servers today would've had even bigger success in the 90s than their predecessors of the 90s.

 

[mtr1]

Sampras is the greatest server of all time. There are a few people that can challange this, Soderling is not one of them though.

 

[aphex]

The serve was a major weapon for Soderling in the match against Federer. Even last year, Delpo's serve was too good in the SF. Fed served great against Soderling last year.

This begs the question: why couldn't the "GSOAT" (S = Server) , Pete Sampras, have the same impact with his serve on clay? Was his serve effective only on faster surfaces ?

In an era where strings supposedly help the returner more, we have the best serving performances on clay in this era: Karlovic firing 77 and 55 aces respectively.

I'd say we have better servers now overall than in the 90s. The faster surfaces magnified the actual effectiveness of the big servers in the 90s, creating the illusion that their serves were superior the ones that exist now.

Sampras is the greatest clutch server of all time; but I don't think he is the greatest server of all time. I think his serve was great in his era, but would be considered nothing spectacular in this era. Servers today would've had even bigger success in the 90s than their predecessors of the 90s.

very good point.

Karlovic would NEVER get broken in 90s Wimbledon. Never. seriously. never!

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Soderling doesn't always serve like he did yesterday. He only does that when he is 100% full of confidence and self-belief.

Sampras had his great serves with him at all times.

 

[aphex]

Soderling doesn't always serve like he did yesterday. He only does that when he is 100% full of confidence and self-belief.

Sampras had his great serves with him at all times.

 

[namui]

Sampras's serve was with Prostaff Midsize!

 

[Anaconda]

Sampras' serve was less effective because he was playing against better opponents on clay.

 

[abmk]

Sampras' serve was less effective because he was playing against better opponents on clay.

you mean delgado, schallar were terrifying on clay and MUCH better than nadal and federer, right ? :roll:

 

[Cassius Clay]

In order to be a good server you have to be consistent through a period of time. A couple of good matches doesn't say anything.

 

[fed_rulz]

In order to be a good server you have to be consistent through a period of time. A couple of good matches doesn't say anything.

I agree, but that was not the point though. Why was the GSOAT not able to have the same impact on his serve on clay?

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras's serve was with Prostaff Midsize!

so what? no one put a gun to his head to use the prostaff midsize. 100 sq in rackets existed even then.

 

[fed_rulz]

Soderling doesn't always serve like he did yesterday. He only does that when he is 100% full of confidence and self-belief.

Sampras had his great serves with him at all times.

not on clay, and that is my central point. why did his great serve desert him on clay? conditions were very very slow and heavy yesterday in the Sod match against Fed, yet Sod was spectacular on serve. So was JMDP last year at the FO. so why not the GSOAT, Sampras?

 

[Messarger]

The serve was a major weapon for Soderling in the match against Federer. Even last year, Delpo's serve was too good in the SF. Fed served great against Soderling last year.

This begs the question: why couldn't the "GSOAT" (S = Server) , Pete Sampras, have the same impact with his serve on clay? Was his serve effective only on faster surfaces ?QUOTE]

I didnt really watch Sampras in his playing days, but how do you know that his serve doesnt have the same impact on clay? I mean, his serve could be awesome even on clay but it was his S&V game that ultimately let him down on the red clay when the clay court specialist are ready for S&V.

 

[Anaconda]

very good point.

Karlovic would NEVER get broken in 90s Wimbledon. Never. seriously. never!

Yes he would, he wouldn't even make a QF at Wimbledon. He struggled to make the QF's last year with the weaker grass court field.

 

[fed_rulz]

I didnt really watch Sampras in his playing days, but how do you know that his serve doesnt have the same impact on clay? I mean, his serve could be awesome even on clay but it was his S&V game that ultimately let him down on the red clay when the clay court specialist are ready for S&V.

I've watched him on clay, and it wasn't effective at all. If his serve was awesome on clay, he would be winning easy points like Sod did; so his "S & V" wouldn't matter as much. Also, he wouldn't have suffered humiliating defeats to no-namers on clay.

 

[fed_rulz]

Yes he would, he wouldn't even make a QF at Wimbledon. He struggled to make the QF's last year with the weaker grass court field.

the "weak era" retort... why isn't that surprising? last year wasn't a year in the 90s now, was it?

 

[abmk]

The serve was a major weapon for Soderling in the match against Federer. Even last year, Delpo's serve was too good in the SF. Fed served great against Soderling last year.

This begs the question: why couldn't the "GSOAT" (S = Server) , Pete Sampras, have the same impact with his serve on clay? Was his serve effective only on faster surfaces ?

In an era where strings supposedly help the returner more, we have the best serving performances on clay in this era: Karlovic firing 77 and 55 aces respectively.

soderling/del potro have the edge in power , no doubt in that ... but it wasn't their serves alone, the rest of their game helped quite a bit too ...

I'd say we have better servers now overall than in the 90s. The faster surfaces magnified the actual effectiveness of the big servers in the 90s, creating the illusion that their serves were superior the ones that exist now.

agree, I think the quality of serving as a whole is better

Sampras is the greatest clutch server of all time; but I don't think he is the greatest server of all time. I think his serve was great in his era, but would be considered nothing spectacular in this era.

no, no and no. He IS the greatest server of all time and his serve would be spectacular in ANY era, including this one.

Servers today would've had even bigger success in the 90s than their predecessors of the 90s.

agree

 

[fed_rulz]

no, no and no. He IS the greatest server of all time and his serve would be spectacular in ANY era, including this one.

There have been greater serving performances than Sampras on clay (and tbh, his serve was neutralized on clay, and had mediocre impact). And I don't remember one match (may be i'm mistaken, and feel free to correct me on this) on clay where a decent opponent struggled to return his serve.

IMO, he's probably in the top 5 for the greatest servers on fast surfaces, but overall, he's not. The GSOAT distinction has to go to Karlovic.

 

[mtr1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HbSn-tLmH8
One of the few people who could challenge Sampras' claim as GSOAT

 

[darthpwner]

The serve was a major weapon for Soderling in the match against Federer. Even last year, Delpo's serve was too good in the SF. Fed served great against Soderling last year.

This begs the question: why couldn't the "GSOAT" (S = Server) , Pete Sampras, have the same impact with his serve on clay? Was his serve effective only on faster surfaces ?

In an era where strings supposedly help the returner more, we have the best serving performances on clay in this era: Karlovic firing 77 and 55 aces respectively.

I'd say we have better servers now overall than in the 90s. The faster surfaces magnified the actual effectiveness of the big servers in the 90s, creating the illusion that their serves were superior the ones that exist now.

Sampras is the greatest clutch server of all time; but I don't think he is the greatest server of all time. I think his serve was great in his era, but would be considered nothing spectacular in this era. Servers today would've had even bigger success in the 90s than their predecessors of the 90s.

Sampras is the best server. Karlovic is not. But the reason Karlovic has so many aces is because of how long those matches were. Have you ever seen Pete driven to a 16-14 fifth set? Sampras was only taken to a 5th set once in his grand slam final career against Ivanisevic in Wimby 98. Also, Karlovic's overall game is not good enough to take him to the finals of grand slams, so we can't tell if his serve could hold up against the top in pressure situations. Pete has a much better second serve than Dr. Ivo and he is a lot more accurate on both serves. His disguise was first-rate on his serves. His serve is better than your boy Federer. The main reason you made this thread is to degrade 90s players I bet. The reason Sampras wasn't that good on clay was because he didn't move well on clay, had stamina problems, and his ground strokes were too flat. Del Potro's serve isn't that special for a tall guy. Soderling has a great serve, but to compare it to Sampras' is blasphemy.

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras is not the best server. Karlovic is. He is definitely Top 3 though. His serve is better than your boy Federer. The reason Sampras wasn't that good on clay was because he didn't move well on clay, had stamina problems, and his ground strokes were too flat. Del Potro's serve isn't that special for a tall guy. Soderling has a great serve, but to compare it to Sampras' is blasphemy.

comprehend my post before posting a response.

So Soderling hits loopy topspin groundies?

answer this simple question: why wasn't the sampras serve effective on clay (as effective as Delpo's, Soderling's or even Federer's)? By effective, I mean either an ace, a service winner, or an outright winner following a weak return.

 

[darthpwner]

comprehend my post before posting a response.

So Soderling hits loopy topspin groundies?

answer this simple question: why wasn't the sampras serve effective on clay (as effective as Delpo's, Soderling's or even Federer's)? By effective, I mean either an ace, a service winner, or an outright winner following a weak return.

Soderling hits more topspin on his groundstrokes than Pete but it is flat in today's era. Besides, I wasn't talking about Soderling. Federer's serve isn't the reason he won the French. It's because he moves very well, combines defense and offense better than any one on the planet, and can crush the short ball. Soderling only got 14 aces, which isn't really that special yesterday. Besides, the conditions were heavy, so it was to Soderling's advantage because he has more power than Federer. Del Potro's serve isn't that special for a tall guy. He does well on clay because he has monstrous flat groundies and moves well for a big guy. Pete's serve wasn't effective because obviously the court is slower so that the receivers could get more looks on his serve, and his ground game and movement weren't good enough on clay to allow his to control the point.

 

[fed_rulz]

Soderling hits more topspin on his groundstrokes than Pete but it is flat in today's era. Federer's serve isn't the reason he won the French. It's because he moves very well, combines defense and offense better than any one on the planet, and can crush the short ball. Soderling only got 14 aces, which isn't really that special yesterday. Besides, the conditions were heavy, so it was to Soderling's advantage because he has more power than Federer. Del Potro's serve isn't that special for a tall guy. He does well on clay because he has monstrous flat groundies and moves well for a big guy. Pete's serve wasn't effective because obviously the court is slower so that the receivers could get more looks on his serve, and his ground game and movement weren't good enough on clay to allow his to control the point.

your response is tangential to my post. I clearly mentioned what my criteria for "effectiveness" was. you haven't responded to it. Delpo, Soderling and Federer's serve seem more "effective" than sampras'. why is that?

Oh, if Delpo hits a better serve than Sampras, then he needs to be ranked ahead of Sampras, regardless of what his height his!! I don't see why Delpo's serve needs to be dismissed as "nothing special for a tall guy".

 

[darthpwner]

your response is tangential to my post. I clearly mentioned what my criteria for "effectiveness" was. you haven't responded to it. Delpo, Soderling and Federer's serve seem more "effective" than sampras'. why is that?

Oh, if Delpo hits a better serve than Sampras, then he needs to be ranked ahead of Sampras, regardless of what his height his!! I don't see why Delpo's serve needs to be dismissed as "nothing special for a tall guy".

Del Potro definitely does not hit a better serve than Sampras. Your vision must be clouded if you think Delpo, Soderling, and Federer serve better than Sampras. The only players today who could possibly serve better than Sampras are Karlovic and Roddick. Remember we are talking about serves. How many aces do you see Del Potro, Soderling,and Federer hit on clay? Not that many. They also did not hit as many service winners on clay because today's players are better movers than before. However, as far as the serve is concerned, the 90s had much better servers. Stich, Krajieck, Ivanisevic, Sampras, Wheaton, to name a few >>>>>>> Soderling, Karlovic, Roddick, Isner, Querrey, Del Potro, etc. Sampras' serve wasn't special on clay because after you get the serve back, Pete couldn't do much with the return because he couldn't move as well as other players on clay. It comes down to movement which is why DelPo, Soderling, and Fed are so effective, not their serves.

 

[fed_rulz]

Del Potro definitely does not hit a better serve than Sampras. Your vision must be clouded if you think Delpo, Soderling, and Federer serve better than Sampras. The only players today who could possibly serve better than Sampras are Karlovic and Roddick. Remember we are talking about serves. How many aces do you see Del Potro, Soderling,and Federer hit on clay? Not that many. They also did not hit as many service winners on clay because today's players are better movers than before. However, as far as the serve is concerned, the 90s had much better servers. Stich, Krajieck, Ivanisevic, Sampras, Wheaton, to name a few >>>>>>> Soderling, Karlovic, Roddick, Isner, Querrey, Del Potro, etc. Sampras' serve wasn't special on clay because after you get the serve back, Pete couldn't do much with the return because he couldn't move as well as other players on clay.

I never said Delpo hits a better serve than sampras (though his serve is more effective on clay). I was responding to your point where you seemed to dismiss Delpo's serve as nothing special for his height.

Again, to hit outright winners following a weak reply, you don't need to be a great mover. You make too many excuses for sampras. Wasn't there an argument about Pete having a top-5 forrehand of all time? So he could not put a weak reply away?

Why wasn't Pete able to win cheap points off clay, something that Delpo did last year, Soderling did (past 2 years), Fed does too, more often than Pete?

 

[powerslave]

Pistol Pete for me is the GSOAT period.

However his groundies were no where close to Soderling's and French Open has always been dominated by players with strong ground strokes.

 

[fed_rulz]

Pistol Pete for me is the GSOAT period.

However his groundies were no where close to Soderling's and French Open has always been dominated by players with strong ground strokes.

So why wasn't he able to win as many cheap points off his serve like Delpo, Soderling, Karlovic, etc. If you think he did, please point me to it, and I'll be glad to retract my statement.

 

[darthpwner]

I never said Delpo hits a better serve than sampras (though his serve is more effective on clay). I was responding to your point where you seemed to dismiss Delpo's serve as nothing special for his height.

Again, to hit outright winners following a weak reply, you don't need to be a great mover. You make too many excuses for sampras. Wasn't there an argument about Pete having a top-5 forrehand of all time? So he could not put a weak reply away?

Why wasn't Pete able to win cheap points off clay, something that Delpo did last year, Soderling did (past 2 years), Fed does too, more often than Pete?

I disagree. Delpo, Soderling, and Fed do not win that many cheap points of their serves. Remember we are talking about greatest serves of all time. Nothing else. Today's players move, return, and ground stroke better than the 90s players. But the quality of servers and volleyers has diminished. Pete could win cheap points of his serve in his prime from 92 to 96 other than 95. Afterwards, players took advantage of his stamina and played out long points
to tire him out.

 

[darthpwner]

Here's a video of Pete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXfmcbDSetU
You can see that Courier is just pushing him back and forcing him to play from the baseline. His serve is effective on clay, but if you keep Pete moving from the back, he would have trouble. He won this match however in 5.

 

[fed_rulz]

I disagree. Delpo, Soderling, and Fed do not win that many cheap points of their serves. Remember we are talking about greatest serves of all time. Nothing else. Today's players move, return, and ground stroke better than the 90s players. But the quality of servers and volleyers has diminished. Pete could win cheap points of his serve in his prime from 92 to 96 other than 95. Afterwards, players took advantage of his stamina and played out long points
to tire him out.

If today's players do all that you claim, then how can Sampras be the GSOAT? Don't you think his serve will be more neutralized?

Delpo, Sod and Fed DID win cheap points. Sod mentioned at his post match presser that he started serving better from the 2nd set onwards, and the reason he lost the first set was because he served poorly.

Fed put on a clinic against Haas in the 1st set at FO; he did not lose a single point on serve till the tiebreaker. Fed had a lot of trouble returning JMDP's serve. Sod got out of trouble with big serves yesterday. Fed did too, but unfortunately, it was not enough.

My point is, I don't remember sampras coming up with stellar serving performances on clay, even in his losses.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

OK fed rulz, I post a proper reply..

a) sampras great disguise on his serve started to become irrelevant on clay.

on fast surfaces..against big servers..at least partly reading aserve was important...if you can't read it..you were toast.>.> on clay the ball slowed down enuff after the bounce so players didn't have to guess.

b) less cheap points....much less aces means opponents get their racquets to it and back over the net for sampras to volley it...possible error from pete

c) serve and volley style...given that pete was committed to coming in..even if he puts a great serve in..an opponent has time to get a reply back and then sampras volleys..well the underspin on grass that "kills" the ball doesn't happen on clay..the ball sits up more for a possible pass. those split seconds can make a big difference.

d) if pete decides to stay back, he isn't consistent enuff, particularly off the backhand wing.

e) people forget that pete actually won lots of points with chip-charge, aggresive returns etc on fast surfaces when his opponent was serving.
but on clay..once again...the extra time involved makes you a sitting duck if you chip-chrge etc...an aggresive return from pete can be handled on clay

f) mental..players knew pete was beatable so never gave in..

 

[Clay lover]

One word: B A N D W A G O N E R

 

[fed_rulz]

OK fed rulz, I post a proper reply..

a) sampras great disguise on his serve started to become irrelevant on clay.

on fast surfaces..against big servers..at least partly reading aserve was important...if you can't read it..you were toast.>.> on clay the ball slowed down enuff after the bounce so players didn't have to guess.

b) less cheap points....much less aces means opponents get their racquets to it and back over the net for sampras to volley it...possible error from pete

c) serve and volley style...given that pete was committed to coming in..even if he puts a great serve in..an opponent has time to get a reply back and then sampras volleys..well the underspin on grass that "kills" the ball doesn't happen on clay..the ball sits up more for a possible pass. those split seconds can make a big difference.

d) if pete decides to stay back, he isn't consistent enuff, particularly off the backhand wing.

e) people forget that pete actually won lots of points with chip-charge, aggresive returns etc on fast surfaces when his opponent was serving.
but on clay..once again...the extra time involved makes you a sitting duck if you chip-chrge etc...an aggresive return from pete can be handled on clay

f) mental..players knew pete was beatable so never gave in..

OTFD, thanks for your response. I agree with most of what you said; but these points actually weaken Pete's claim for GSOAT. He was very effective on faster surfaces; not so on slower surfaces. Sodking et. al, are very effective with their serves even on slower surfaces -- they win a lot of cheap points. That is my whole point... if the surface is required to aid sampras in his serve, does it make sense to anoint him GSOAT?

 

[fed_rulz]

One word: B A N D W A G O N E R

dude, did you even read my post? I'm simply disputing Pete's claim as GSOAT, not putting Soderling ahead of him.. gosh.

 

[Clay lover]

dude, did you even read my post? I'm simply disputing Pete's claim as GSOAT, not putting Soderling ahead of him.. gosh.

Sorry,just trolling.

 

[Chadwixx]

If pete could serve as hard as robin he could of won a FO title. His serve was neutralized while solderlings remains a weapon.

Still not sure whats so magical about his 125mph bomb aside from the ultra fast surface he was hitting it on

 

[PSNELKE]

To be the greatest or one of the greatest he has to pass Sampras, Ivanisevic, Karlovic, Krajicek etc.
Ok he served really well yesterday but he doesn´t serve every time like that.
But Ivanisevic and Sampras had their weapons nearly every match to their disposal.

 

[Chadwixx]

Ok he served really well yesterday but he doesn´t serve every time like that.

Doesnt stop sampras fans from claiming he was a baseline giant based on a handful of matches. Why cant we do the same thing for solderling?

 

[BreakPoint]

Soderling was serving in the 140's mph while Sampras only served in the 120's mph. BIG difference.

 

[powerslave]

I cannot believe this we are comparing Pete's serve with Soderling ?

And based on what just top speed ?


Is speed the only criteria to judge someone's serve ?
What about the placement, consistency , average speed , the quality of the second serve etc etc.

Agassi's and Pete's head to head record is a testimony to Pete's big serving game , specially when the former can easliy be regarded as the best returner of serve and clean ground strokes of the era.
And to keep things in perspective check Agassi's head to head against likes of Roddick (by the kind of logic being peddled here Roddick should be the GSOAT).

 

[fed_rulz]

I cannot believe this we are comparing Pete's serve with Soderling ?

And based on what just top speed ?


Is speed the only criteria to judge someone's serve ?
What about the placement, consistency , average speed , the quality of the second serve etc etc.

Agassi's and Pete's head to head record is a testimony to Pete's big serving game , specially when the former can easliy be regarded as the best returner of serve and clean ground strokes of the era.
And to keep things in perspective check Agassi's head to head against likes of Roddick (by the kind of logic being peddled here Roddick should be the GSOAT).

I'm sick and tired of these circular arguments that hype up Pete:

1. Agassi is the greatest returner of all time. Based on what?
Based on the fact that he could return well against the greatest server of all time, Pete Sampras

2. Pete Sampras is the greatest server of all time. Based on what?
Based on the fact that he owned the greatest returner of all time Agassi.

See how stupid this sounds?

Plus, nowhere did I put Soderling ahead of Sampras. Please read the post before responding. I'm simply asking if Sampras was the GSOAT, then why wasn't he winning cheap points on serve on clay a la Soderling, JMDP, Karlovic, etc.

 

[BreakPoint]

I cannot believe this we are comparing Pete's serve with Soderling ?

And based on what just top speed ?


Is speed the only criteria to judge someone's serve ?
What about the placement, consistency , average speed , the quality of the second serve etc etc.

Agassi's and Pete's head to head record is a testimony to Pete's big serving game , specially when the former can easliy be regarded as the best returner of serve and clean ground strokes of the era.
And to keep things in perspective check Agassi's head to head against likes of Roddick (by the kind of logic being peddled here Roddick should be the GSOAT).

Yet, Roddick has the best serve hold percentage on the ATP Tour year in and year out.

The way Soderling was blowing serves past Federer, I think his raw speed was all that really mattered. Federer was overpowered by Soderling's big serves.

 

[fed_rulz]

If pete could serve as hard as robin he could of won a FO title. His serve was neutralized while solderlings remains a weapon.

Still not sure whats so magical about his 125mph bomb aside from the ultra fast surface he was hitting it on

exactly my point. Did his serve look more menacing than it actually was, primarily due to the surface? None from the "Pete-for-GSOAT" group seems to have an answer....

 

[jodd]

this is why it's so difficult to believe in the greatest anything of all time.

its greatness is measured as a result of its effectiveness against the competition, yet the competition, and its own success/value are not determined free of whatever is considered to be so great. we've already found ourselves in a relationship resembling circularity here.

add to that the fact that something being the greatest of all time, does not equate to its being the greatest of all time throughout all periods. finally, there is the issue of whether the greatest anything of all time must be perfect, have no significant weaknesses, or whether it must perform to a superlative level regardless of them.

 

[slice serve ace]

1996. rg sampras had 92 aces in 24 sets, 3.83 per set

last year soderking 54 aces in 25 sets, 2.16 per set
this year 57 in 17 sets, 3.35 per set...not done yet, go soderking

del potro last year 59 aces in 21 set, 2.81 per set

federer last year 80 aces in 27 sets, 2.96 per set
this year 38 aces in 19 sets, 2 per set


great serving performance by sampras on clay - vs courier '96 (have the match) 29 aces, broken only twice in a match, both times in second set...courier was pretty pissed about sampras...his exact words " it's ****ing wimbledon all over again...the guy is in his grave and ****ing still serving bullets"...sampras was pretty green in the face in the last set


by the way sampras served 100+ aces in gs tournaments 16 times...next is goran with 8...roddick has 6 or so...federer served for the first time 100+ in last year wimbledon

also sampras still holds the record in most aces for us open, 144, also has the second best, 141...and the record for australian open, 132

goran holds the record for wimbledon, 213
martin verkerk for the rg, 124

 

[powerslave]

1. Agassi is the greatest returner of all time. Based on what?
Based on the fact that he could return well against the greatest server of all time, Pete Sampras

McEnroe and several other players have expressed similar opinion about Agassi's returning ability. You may start a poll on greatest returner of serve on this board and see for yourseleves .

2. Pete Sampras is the greatest server of all time. Based on what?
Based on the fact that he owned the greatest returner of all time Agassi.

That is just one data point what parameter or statistic would convince you about him being GSOAT ?

According to you who is GSOAT ?

See how stupid this sounds?

Not more than oh he served only 125 mph as against Soderling's 140mph.

Plus, nowhere did I put Soderling ahead of Sampras. Please read the post before responding. I'm simply asking if Sampras was the GSOAT, then why wasn't he winning cheap points on serve on clay a la Soderling, JMDP, Karlovic, etc.

Go easy on font sizes unless you think higher font size translates into more credibility ...LoL.


Btw did I even quote you ?

 

[President]

Sampras's serve is undoubtedly better overall than Soderling's, but only the most die-hard Pete fan would say that his serve is more POWERFUL. Soderling consistently has 10-15 mph on his serve that Sampras was unable to generate. On other surfaces, placement and spin seem to be more important factors, but on clay Soderling's superior raw power is able to cut through the court in a way that Sampras's serve (despite being the better shot) could not.

 

[powerslave]

What do we make of the numbers posted by "Slice Serve Ace' ?

President you make a valid point about loss of speed on clay, however how often does Soderling serve in 140s as against Pete in 125s ? Also how often does Pete get his 125mph serve in as against Soderling 's faster first serve and lastly who paints the lines more often both for first and second serves Pete or Soderling ?

Finally if Pete and Soderling were to face off in all the 4 GSs who would you back to win more titles ?

 

[President]

What do we make of the numbers posted by "Slice Serve Ace' ?

President you make a valid point about loss of speed on clay, however how often does Soderling serve in 140s as against Pete in 125s ? Also how often does Pete get his 125mph serve in as against Soderling 's faster first serve and lastly who paints the lines more often both for first and second serves Pete or Soderling ?

Finally if Pete and Soderling were to face off in all the 4 GSs who would you back to win more titles ?

Sampras definitely gets more aces, as his serve was based on pinpoint accuracy (like I said before) rather than pure pace. However I don't think that his serve put such consistent pressure on his opponents like Soderling's does (on clay of course). Soderling serves 140 about as often as Sampras served 125; you will very rarely see the Swede serve below 130 mph.

If not for his serve, then why did Sampras do so poorly at RG compared to Soderling. Surely his movement is not inferior, and his FH is lauded as one of the best of all time. It may be relatively flat, but so is Soderling's. I think the serve is a major reason Sampras performed worse at RG than Soderling.

If they played at all 4 GS, I would favor Sampras everywhere except RG. Of course, there is always a chance that Soderling can ascend to godlevel as he is wont to do, and then he may some wins against Sampras on other surfaces.

 

[NLBwell]

Why didn't Pete do better at the French? The court and the balls were slower, blunting the serve. Pete had fatigue problems due to his blood condition, by the second or third tough match he was spent. Also, his groundstrokes were not as big as Soderling's. His forehand was big, but comparatively his backhand was significantly weaker.