Sampras with Wawrinka groundstrokes???

Sampras with Wawrinka groundstrokes is GOAT

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 52.8%
  • No

    Votes: 17 47.2%

  • Total voters
    36
#51
At an age where Federers still winning majors Pete was losing 76 61 61 to a puddling Hewitt in the USO final. So yeah he couldve done with Stans bh at least, just to give him a B game when the serve was off. Mightve nabbed him another major or two at the most.
Puddling Hewitt, a player that people of that period were saying was the fastest player ever? A player, in his older years, after many injuries and operations was still taking sets off peak Djokovic?
 
#52
Lets put things into perspective a bit with regards to the Hewitt loss. Yea Hewitt beat him bad but losing to Hewitt peaking isn't "horrible" or anything. Sampras also got done going through Peaking Agassi (Who just destroyed Fed), Safin (defending champ), Rafter (2 time USO champ). Thats one of the more difficult draws in history for a player. Thats four legit players all in a row. No shame in not getting through that draw especially at 30 years old.

Hewitt was a dynamo from 2001-2003. Its still better than losing to Robredo or Berdych etc.

Hell to just play Agassi alone at the level was playing that year, is a a complete nightmare. Nevermind having to play Hewitt, Rafter, Safin as well. Agassi in 2001 at the USO would have at everyone's lunch at the USO. He would have even beat prime/peak Federer at the USO, Hell Fed was lucky to get through Agassi in 2004/2005 at the USO when Agassi's level was far inferior to his 2001 Level. 2001 Agassi would have beat any level of Fed you want to put out on the court at the USO IMO

So when people talk about the Beatdown Hewitt gave Pete. Look at it further as to why.
 
Last edited:
#53
Sampras' serve
Fed's peak forehand
Wawrinka's one-handed drive/topspin backhand
Fed or Edberg's slice backhand
Edberg's volleys
Fed's overhead (Pete's were more powerful but Fed's more versatile and consistent)
Murray's lob
Fed's touch/improvised shots
and... Djokovic's mentality

GOAT
 
#56
No way. Wawrinka's forehand is seriously under rated. Sampras had that awesome ape-like running CC winner he could hit, but for the most part it always looked awkward and "hugging the bear" like. Wawrinka's forehand is consistent and heavy, and looks smooth and unforced.

You can keep Wawrinka's forehand but I would take Sampras' over his any day of the week and with his running forehand he could go down the line or crosscourt. I don't care how smooth Wawrinka's looks, Pete Sampras had a lethal forehand and it was his best shot besides the serve.
 
#58
Puddling Hewitt, a player that people of that period were saying was the fastest player ever? A player, in his older years, after many injuries and operations was still taking sets off peak Djokovic?
Being extremely fast is a prerequisite for puddling. Sure he flattened his fh out well and was very efficient coming forward to the net, but was essentially a counterpunching puddler.
 
#60
At an age where Federers still winning majors Pete was losing 76 61 61 to a puddling Hewitt in the USO final. So yeah he couldve done with Stans bh at least, just to give him a B game when the serve was off. Mightve nabbed him another major or two at the most.
As I recall Pete's record with Hewitt was fairly close (4-5, right?). Pre 2004, Roger was Hewitt's property.
 
#62
Same guy that had Fed's number prior to 2004, right?
Yeah it was the same guy that got the better of the Fed to that point, playing a similar brand of tennis to Gilles Simon. Then he lost the next 15. It was a bit similar to Fabrice Santoro getting the better of the top players initially. Granted Hewitt won 2 majors and two WTFs or TMCs as they were back then.
 
#63
Yeah it was the same guy that got the better of the Fed to that point, playing a similar brand of tennis to Gilles Simon. Then he lost the next 15. It was a bit similar to Fabrice Santoro getting the better of the top players initially. Granted Hewitt won 2 majors and two WTFs or TMCs as they were back then.
Yeah, and Pete was thrashed by Hewitt in the worst year of his career. What's your point again?
 

axlrose

Professional
#64
To be honest Pete doesn't need anything from Wawrinka. Give Stan a 85sqi racquet, put him in fast courts of the 90's and see what he can do.
 
#65
What if you gave Sampras Lebrons vertical leap and put him in the octagon vs Mayweather?
I just paired pete with:
The handling and acceleration of andretti.
The chess moves of kasparov.
The acting ability of daniel day lewis.
The political savvy of bill Clinton.
The looks of rock hudson.
The feet of fred flintstone.
The humor of richard pryor.
The common sense of george carlin.

He is still not a very complete player.
 
#66
All we need is a Sampras with a pair of Wawrinka's pants and he would've won a French Open.

Ha, I want to give Pete an assist on those legendary yy shorts, he was an early adopter of that length in the nineties. Early on the loose plaid look.
Yonex/Stanley, well done on tilting the tartan and adding some more color. I have these in navy and in black. couldn't find a pink one!
 
#71



-5 on the forehand and +20 on the backhand, so +15 overall. He'd be 575 after summing up all of his attributes. That means he'd surpass Nadal's record of 566. Unless you count reflexes (the ROS), then he's back to original 560.
 
#72
Lol Waws OH BH is maybe on par with Sampras but even that is doubtful as his BH is world class couple of times a year, but other than that Sampras game is better in every facet of the game. Doesn't need any of Waws groundstrokes rofl.

The Waw overrating is unreal.
 
#73
Echoing what a number of posters have been saying: Pete's forehand was clearly a class above Stan's in my view.

Also, Stan's backhand slice is nothing to write home about, and I think Pete's was superior. The only shot he clearly would have benefited from is Stan's topspin backhand, which is probably one of the best I've ever seen.

It think it is likely he would have won 2-3 more majors with this shot, but still I'm not sure he would have won a French Open. Pete was uncomfortable moving / sliding on clay unlike, say, a Stefan Edberg who was raised on the surface.
 
#76
Then you have never seen one single Sampras match or any film of him. It's getting tedious defending Sampras when I was an Andre fan, but the amount of sheer ignorance posted here about his serve, his groundstrokes and everything else about him is mind boggling.
I disagree. Pete had some amazing FHs in isolation but Stan much steadier from back of court and can hit with awesome power. Pete would NOT have been able to handle Novak from back of the court the way Stan did.

 
#80
I disagree. Pete had some amazing FHs in isolation but Stan much steadier from back of court and can hit with awesome power. Pete would NOT have been able to handle Novak from back of the court the way Stan did.

I loved this video. Big appreciation for darren Cahill's commentary. I especially enjoy when he and most Aussies pronounce the name of the US's northern neighbor. "Canader."

In all seriousness, he does lead off with a positive comment about Stanley's forehand.

KillerCahill is the perfect commentator. Intelligent, experienced, good natured, credible....and able to pair with anyone, even chris fowler.
 
Last edited:

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
#81
Jeez, you're so hard on Fed.
Not to mention she's wrong. Sampras is a better volleyer (but not by "one trillion percent, an obvious exaggeration), but if Federer came to the net more since 2002 he would've lost more matches on modern courts. S&V even 50% of the time hasn't been a true winning strategy since the 90's. I can't think of any matches in Federer's prime where I thought he would've won if he came to net more. And he had that period in 2014-2015 where he approached the net a lot anyway. All in all, over Federer's entire career it's no use being too hard on him as far as strategy goes. We like to nitpick here and there about him blowing BPs or sometimes abandoning coming to the net when it seems to be working, but being dominantly a baseliner is the winning strategy today and has been for almost Federer's entire career, so that's what Federer has been doing for obvious reasons.
 
#82
Sampras is unlikeable. That is probably a reason his actual tennis is underrated today. There are very few hardcore Sampras fans, he is the kind of person you just want to underrate as he is kind of a d0uche.
I hated him and still don’t like him. But will always defend him when people here post errant nonsense about him. It’s beyond ridiculous at this point.
 
#85
If we’re saying Sampras gets peak Wawrinka groundstrokes as his average level of play then sure, he’s GOAT. If he got the realistic version which is that Wawrinka was only able to pull out that peak form a few times per year, then I don’t really think his results would be all that different.
 
#86
Lol Waws OH BH is maybe on par with Sampras but even that is doubtful as his BH is world class couple of times a year, but other than that Sampras game is better in every facet of the game. Doesn't need any of Waws groundstrokes rofl.

The Waw overrating is unreal.
Don't be silly, Stan's backhand is a sacrosanct, godlike attribute in the same category as Thor's lightning-thunderous hammer, Hellboy's monolithic right hand of doom or Samus Aran's beam ray arm cannon.
 
Last edited:
Top