The highest Wimbledon peak in the OE

[TMF]

agree, that was maybe petes best ever serving performance, crazy numbers on first serve %, and first and second serve speed.

Federer also had a matchup advantage against Pete. Against any other player instead of Federer, Pete wins. Had Pete managed to beat Federer, he wins Wilmbledon 2001. Ivanisevic ain't beating him in the final, lol.

If Pete win 2001 Wimbledon, you would never hear about a washed-up Pete on grass. There would be plenty of discussion about his tying Borg for winning 5 consecutive Wimbledon.

 

[buscemi]

i think stich deserves a mention here, he was absolutely on fire during his run to the title. took out edberg and becker, both of who were playing very, very good tennis.

Yeah, Becker came into 1991 Wimbledon after back-to-back-to-back Wimbledon finals with Edberg in 1988/1989/1990 and on the heels of some of his best clay results ever, a final in Monte Carlo and a SF at the French Open (after having won the Australian Open earlier in the year).

Stich took him down in straight sets. Super-high level from Stich.

 

[mental midget]

Yeah, Becker came into 1991 Wimbledon after back-to-back-to-back Wimbledon finals with Edberg in 1988/1989/1990 and on the heels of some of his best clay results ever, a final in Monte Carlo and a SF at the French Open (after having won the Australian Open earlier in the year).

Stich took him down in straight sets. Super-high level from Stich.

I was an edberg fan and it killed me that in their match, stefan never even lost his serve...46 76 76 76 to stich i believe was the score.

i remember watching the final at a harry hopman camp i was at...we were all amazed at stich's play. they did some good court-level camera action, to this day i remember his slice serves out wide in the deuce court being just ridiculous, the angles he was hitting. with today's training stich would be a calendar slam threat imo, he was awfully good when he was on.

 

[JasonZ]

I was an edberg fan and it killed me that in their match, stefan never even lost his serve...46 76 76 76 to stich i believe was the score.

i remember watching the final at a harry hopman camp i was at...we were all amazed at stich's play. they did some good court-level camera action, to this day i remember his slice serves out wide in the deuce court being just ridiculous, the angles he was hitting. with today's training stich would be a calendar slam threat imo, he was awfully good when he was on.

stichs record against agassi and kafelnikov prove he would never ever be a calendar slam threat.

 

[The Guru]

So? He clearly played better vs Fed. And was always ahead vs Cowan

And let’s not compare Cecchinato even to young Fed

Far closer to FO 18 Djo than W 18 Djo. W 18 Djo is prime 01 Sampras is clearly not.

 

[NedStark]

Far closer to FO 18 Djo than W 18 Djo. W 18 Djo is prime 01 Sampras is clearly not.

W18 Djo and US02 Pete are better equivalents

 

[mike danny]

Far closer to FO 18 Djo than W 18 Djo. W 18 Djo is prime 01 Sampras is clearly not.

Again, let's not compare Cecchinato to young Fed. Pete was still closer to his best at that time than young Fed.

 

[mike danny]

Cowan is not even a Journey man. Sampras was well past it. He served better against Fed but his game was not there. The following year he lost to Basti, a guy who never got past 1rnd. 2001 & 2002 Wim where like 1988-1989 level. Fed was closer to his best than Sampras was in 2001/2002, for whatever reason, age, desire, injury, etc.

Massively disagree. Pete reached back to back USO finals in 2001-2002, winning one. In no way was Fed closer to his best.

2001 Wimb and 2002 Wimb should never be grouped together.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I was an edberg fan and it killed me that in their match, stefan never even lost his serve...46 76 76 76 to stich i believe was the score.

i remember watching the final at a harry hopman camp i was at...we were all amazed at stich's play. they did some good court-level camera action, to this day i remember his slice serves out wide in the deuce court being just ridiculous, the angles he was hitting. with today's training stich would be a calendar slam threat imo, he was awfully good when he was on.

I liked Stich’s game as he was incredibly talented (outside of the court I couldn’t stand the guy, arrogance personified) but no way he ever comes close to winning a CYGS no matter in which era. For starters he was way too much of a head case to ever put up the mental toughness needed to accomplish such a feat, this on top of lacking drive and motivation (he had countless other interests and mentioned more than once that tennis wasn’t his life). Purely tennis wise he was very talented as I said but one shouldn’t get carried away either. Agassi dominated him, and so did other players. While he played great matches once in a while he didn’t show much consistency or ever went in something even remotely close to a dominating stretch.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Massively disagree. Pete reached back to back USO finals in 2001-2002, winning one. In no way was Fed closer to his best.

2001 Wimb and 2002 Wimb should never be grouped together.

This is of course true but one has to distinguish here between “being closer to his best years” timing wise and being closer to his best level in that particular match. Players even in their pre-and postprime years can play prime level matches here and there and players can also have matches where they suck in their so-called prime years.

Fed played and incredible match that day both on the serving and the returning and also showed uncharacteristic clutchness. We can quibble of course that he lost the very next match to Henman and didn’t win big for two more years but it doesn’t change the fact that in this specific day he played on close to prime level.

 

[Vincent-C]

So many problems with this post.
1996 krajicek he obviously meant the match against Sampras which was in QF.

1987 cash is included but not 1986 Becker.

1984 McEnroe is all right. Probably the highest level seen.

What's so special about 1994 Sampras. He won two tiebreak and the matches over. He definitely played much better in 1999 against Agassi and also in 1995.

2003 Federer gets honorable mention but not 2005 Federer?

1999 Sampras and 2005 Fred come to my mind, as well. I'm not a Cash fan, but '87 was nice work.

 

[Vincent-C]

Looking at Waspsting's match report on the McEnroe/Connors 1984 final:

6-1, 6-1, 6-2​

Points won: McEnroe: 83-42​

McEnroe 1st serve percentage: 73%​

McEnroe with 10 aces, 2 service winners, 0 double faults​

McEnroe: 7/12 on break points; Connors: 0/0​

McEnroe with just 3 unforced errors (5, including 2 on return of serve)​

Tough to see anything topping that.

And the just clinical way he went about it.. way too good.

 

[Vincent-C]

Federer also had a matchup advantage against Pete. Against any other player instead of Federer, Pete wins. Had Pete managed to beat Federer, he wins Wilmbledon 2001. Ivanisevic ain't beating him in the final, lol.

If Pete win 2001 Wimbledon, you would never hear about a washed-up Pete on grass. There would be plenty of discussion about his tying Borg for winning 5 consecutive Wimbledon.

What still gets me about the Sampras-Fred match was how calm the latter was out there. His MP return winner was a fitting end for that match.

 

[mental midget]

What still gets me about the Sampras-Fred match was how calm the latter was out there. His MP return winner was a fitting end for that match.

true. i think at their best levels fed's ability to control big serves would always give him a slight edge, though pete would get his wins.

 

[Holmes]

true. i think at their best levels fed's ability to control big serves would always give him a slight edge, though pete would get his wins.

At their best, PETE is probably serving "only" mid to high 120s and finishing points with great stab and scrape volleys into the open or semi-open court, and hanging back on 100+mph 2nd serves, clubbing forehands off the return. In other words, less pace and dependance on the serve for Fed to take advantage of and more all court game for him to worry about.

 

[The Guru]

Again, let's not compare Cecchinato to young Fed. Pete was still closer to his best at that time than young Fed.

I mean seems like this is dumb thing to split hairs about the match is only relevant because of who was playing in it not any other reason.

 

[kishnabe]

2003 Wimbledon SF: Federer.

Some bs tennis from Federer.

 

[Third Serve]

true. i think at their best levels fed's ability to control big serves would always give him a slight edge, though pete would get his wins.

Yeah Fed’s return prowess is really the only big takeaway from that match. Neither player was really prime-level except for just two departments: Pete’s serve and Fed’s return. Maybe Fed’s serve too. Both of those shots were pretty close to their best, and the dynamic of Pete’s serve against Fed’s return marked the high points of the match. I’d venture a guess that this was some of the finest returning of Pete’s serve at Wimbledon.

I like Waspsting’s take:

Both serve well, Sampras particularly so. He's remarkably served at 70% first serves in... a stat that would suggest he held back on the shot. In fact, if anything, he goes extra hard with it. There are small lulls (read: 'just' regular strong serving - especially in third set) but otherwise, he's bombing down first serves about as hard as he can. Second serves would make decent first serves too... the harder hit ones (which are sent down regularly) are roughly on par with even Federer's typical first serves

So why does Federer lead unreturned rates 49% to 45% and aces/service winners are dead even 25/1 despite Sampras serving 19 extra first serves? Because Federer returns superbly. This is possibly the best returning I've seen of Pete Sampras on grass, especially at Wimbledon. Other areas of Sampras' game (especially the return) may have declined from his heyday - but the serve is as strong as ever

Within the context of that scenario, Fed does just about everything that's possible with the return
- he gets healthy racquet on balls that look like certain aces
- he pokes back in play wide serves somehow
- he returns wide for winners and placement-based forcing returns... and he does it in all ways (swinging at the shot or blocking it or guiding it) of both sides (6 winners from each side) and in all directions (only winner he's missing is BH cc... and that forces the most most errors. Note Sampras' 7 BH1/2V FEs)
- stock is return is hard down the center. Regulation height returns are hard hit and he often gets the ball low. Its the kind of showing that could easily stump even good volleyers
- Stylistically, he's a hit... beautifully balanced and silkily moving into position of movement and clean hitting with effortless timing of the short swings (or even blocks) that's all he has time for

 

[abmk]

This is of course true but one has to distinguish here between “being closer to his best years” timing wise and being closer to his best level in that particular match. Players even in their pre-and postprime years can play prime level matches here and there and players can also have matches where they suck in their so-called prime years.

Fed played and incredible match that day both on the serving and the returning and also showed uncharacteristic clutchness. We can quibble of course that he lost the very next match to Henman and didn’t win big for two more years but it doesn’t change the fact that in this specific day he played on close to prime level.

then same would apply to Sampras as well.
Both were as similarly close to their prime levels.
federer's ground game including movement/passing shots were not at prime level.

federer didn't serve incredibly in that match btw. He served well, that's it. (Sampras was the one who served incredibly)
only fed's returning was at like prime level.

 

[mike danny]

I mean seems like this is dumb thing to split hairs about the match is only relevant because of who was playing in it not any other reason.

It's one thing to lose to a rising young talent in 5 tough sets and it's another to lose to a journeyman in 4 who didn't do anything for the rest of his career.

 

[mike danny]

This is of course true but one has to distinguish here between “being closer to his best years” timing wise and being closer to his best level in that particular match. Players even in their pre-and postprime years can play prime level matches here and there and players can also have matches where they suck in their so-called prime years.

Fed played and incredible match that day both on the serving and the returning and also showed uncharacteristic clutchness. We can quibble of course that he lost the very next match to Henman and didn’t win big for two more years but it doesn’t change the fact that in this specific day he played on close to prime level.

I agree that in this match he was great, but the poster I quoted spoke about 2001-2002 in general, not just this match. And also grouped 2001 and 2002 Wimb together.

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

then same would apply to Sampras as well.
Both were as similarly close to their prime levels.
federer's ground game including movement/passing shots were not at prime level.

federer didn't serve incredibly in that match btw. He served well, that's it. (Sampras was the one who served incredibly)
only fed's returning was at like prime level.

Holds true for both, therefore I said that Mike Danny is generally right. What I wanted to say is that we shouldn’t go simply by Pete’s USO success to determine he played closer to his prime level in this particular match when apart from the USO he didn’t manage to do much of worth for the last two years of his career. As for Fed’s serving: 26 aces (same number as Pete) is great serving, especially if we consider the stage of his career, where his serve wasn’t yet what it would become. His 1st serve percentage wasn’t great so one can say that “incredible” maybe stretches it, but Fed’s serve-return combo was really good and his overall level far above his normal level at that time.

I agree that in this match he was great, but the poster I quoted spoke about 2001-2002 in general, not just this match. And also grouped 2001 and 2002 Wimb together.

Well grouping different tournaments together never makes sense. By the same token one could lump Fed’s 2001 and 2002 Wimblies together and conclude that his 2002 level was enough to beat Pete.

 

[mental midget]

noting post above, i forgot pete served at 70% in that match. damn. would love to know how many matches he lost in his career when serving that well, doubt it's a big number.

also on serve speeds...has there been a discussion about whether the atp has changed where they sample the ball speed? in the pete/goran days i don't remember many serves topping 130 whereas now it's pretty routine, but i can't imagine players now are serving much harder than those guys did?

 

[jl809]

Highest peak AT Wimbledon technically wasn’t during “the championships”, it was 1 month after the 2012 Championships, when the greatest grasscourter of all time (who was admittedly a bit tired RIP only tired slam finalist ever) got ****ing straight setted and breadsticked and won 7 only games in a Bo5 match on centre court

 

[Vincent-C]

then same would apply to Sampras as well.
Both were as similarly close to their prime levels.
federer's ground game including movement/passing shots were not at prime level.

federer didn't serve incredibly in that match btw. He served well, that's it. (Sampras was the one who served incredibly)
only fed's returning was at like prime level.

The fourth set was classic Sampras. He looked like he was on a mission..

 

[buscemi]

I don't know whether Federer or Sampras was closer to their prime in their 2001 Wimbledon match, but I do know that Sampras wasn't anywhere close to his grass court prime. I know it's been mentioned already in this thread, but Sampras was taken to five sets by Barry Cowan, who had a career record of 5-21 at the ATP level. And Sampras actually served really well in that match.

The only players to take Sampras to five sets from 1993-2000 were Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Korda. And, of course, Krajicek beat him in 1996. Those were all guys who won Majors, with Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek all winning Wimbledon.

The only counterargument I've seen is that Sampras played better against Federer. Of course he did. Someone playing at a level that leads to a five set match against Barry Cowan isn't going five sets with Federer at Wimbledon, even the 2001 version of Federer. But Sampras's level was still well below his prime level.

This was a fun "battle of the eras" match, but I don't think it tells us anything, one way or the other.

 

[JasonZ]

I don't know whether Federer or Sampras was closer to their prime in their 2001 Wimbledon match, but I do know that Sampras wasn't anywhere close to his grass court prime. I know it's been mentioned already in this thread, but Sampras was taken to five sets by Barry Cowan, who had a career record of 5-21 at the ATP level. And Sampras actually served really well in that match.

The only players to take Sampras to five sets from 1993-2000 were Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Korda. And, of course, Krajicek beat him in 1996. Those were all guys who won Majors, with Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek all winning Wimbledon.

The only counterargument I've seen is that Sampras played better against Federer. Of course he did. Someone playing at a level that leads to a five set match against Barry Cowan isn't going five sets with Federer at Wimbledon, even the 2001 version of Federer. But Sampras's level was still well below his prime level.

This was a fun "battle of the eras" match, but I don't think it tells us anything, one way or the other.

but sampras served better than ever in that match, and the serve is so important in grass, that it can equalize all other shortcomings. so even if all other aspects of his game were worse than in 1994 (but better than against cowan), with that serving performance he had a good chance to beat any other player, including their 90s versions.

 

[buscemi]

but sampras served better than ever in that match, and the serve is so important in grass, that it can equalize all other shortcomings. so even if all other aspects of his game were worse than in 1994 (but better than against cowan), with that serving performance he had a good chance to beat any other player, including their 90s versions.

ATP site has Sampras at

-70% first serve percentage with 26 aces and 9 double faults in the Federer match​

-70% first serve percentage with 26 aces and 7 double faults in the Cowan match​

 

[abmk]

ATP site has Sampras at

-70% first serve percentage with 26 aces and 9 double faults in the Federer match​

-70% first serve percentage with 26 aces and 7 double faults in the Cowan match​

In the 4R match, the commentator (Mac I think) said that was not the 2nd serve that Cowan saw. aka Sampras' 2nd serve was clearly better in the Federer match. I don't have the speed in the Cowan match, but it was 110 mph in the fed match which is high.

 

[JasonZ]

ATP site has Sampras at

-70% first serve percentage with 26 aces and 9 double faults in the Federer match​

-70% first serve percentage with 26 aces and 7 double faults in the Cowan match​

so what? federer returned 100 times better than cowan. against agassi he would have served over 40 aces, if there were 5 sets.

also i explicitly said that the other parts of sampras game were better against federer than against cowan.

 

[buscemi]

In the 4R match, the commentator (Mac I think) said that was not the 2nd serve that Cowan saw. aka Sampras' 2nd serve was clearly better in the Federer match. I don't have the speed in the Cowan match, but it was 110 mph in the fed match which is high.

Yeah, again, I'm sure that Sampras played better in the 4R match against Federer than he did against Cowan in that 2R match. Clearly, a version of Sampras that needs 5 sets to beat Cowan is not taking (even 2001) Federer to five sets. My point was just to say that Sampras served quite well against Cowan, which tells us quite a bit about the level of the rest of his game.

 

[buscemi]

so what? federer returned 100 times better than cowan. against agassi he would have served over 40 aces, if there were 5 sets.

also i explicitly said that the other parts of sampras game were better against federer than against cowan.

Sure, aces against Cowan vs. aces against Federer is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The point of showing Sampras's serve stats against Cowan are just to show that (1) Sampras served quite well in that match; and (2) didn't do much else well in that match, which is why it went five sets. And I 100% agree with you that Sampras played better against Federer. Indeed, he would have needed to in order to extend that match to five sets. But this was not prime Sampras by any means.

 

[abmk]

Yeah, again, I'm sure that Sampras played better in the 4R match against Federer than he did against Cowan in that 2R match. Clearly, a version of Sampras that needs 5 sets to beat Cowan is not taking (even 2001) Federer to five sets. My point was just to say that Sampras served quite well against Cowan, which tells us quite a bit about the level of the rest of his game.

yeah, I saw that. But my point was that not only was rest of Sampras' game better in the 4R match vs Fed, so was his serving.

 

[RS]

Number 1 indeed

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Even if Pete beat Fed in 01 would have gotten blistered against goran and probably even rafter with the level was playing. He went 35-16 for the year with zero titles in 01. Let’s not make it seem it was the Pete of the 90’s. Back in 2001, 30 years old was OLD. It’s amazing Agassi played even as well as he did to 35

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Even if Pete beat Fed in 01 would have gotten blistered against goran and probably even rafter with the level was playing. He went 35-16 for the year with zero titles in 01. Let’s not make it seem it was the Pete of the 90’s. Back in 2001, 30 years old was OLD. It’s amazing Agassi played even as well as he did to 35

Really interesting question. Pete was nowhere near at prime level, so while I think if he beats Fed he also goes through Henman, I can well see Goran taking him out in a potential semi. Goran was on a mission that year and had beaten a preprime Pete at Wimbledon already. If however Pete somehow reaches the final he definitely wins the whole thing. I simply cannot see Pete losing a Wimbledon final against Rafter.

 

[mike danny]

I don't know whether Federer or Sampras was closer to their prime in their 2001 Wimbledon match, but I do know that Sampras wasn't anywhere close to his grass court prime. I know it's been mentioned already in this thread, but Sampras was taken to five sets by Barry Cowan, who had a career record of 5-21 at the ATP level. And Sampras actually served really well in that match.

The only players to take Sampras to five sets from 1993-2000 were Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Korda. And, of course, Krajicek beat him in 1996. Those were all guys who won Majors, with Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek all winning Wimbledon.

The only counterargument I've seen is that Sampras played better against Federer. Of course he did. Someone playing at a level that leads to a five set match against Barry Cowan isn't going five sets with Federer at Wimbledon, even the 2001 version of Federer. But Sampras's level was still well below his prime level.

This was a fun "battle of the eras" match, but I don't think it tells us anything, one way or the other.

True, but then again, Fed also played 5 sets against Malisse that same tournament.

That match doesn't tell us much other than both players not being in their primes and the duel was very close. But Sampras based on experience was closer to his best than a rookie Fed, IMO.

 

[mike danny]

Really interesting question. Pete was nowhere near at prime level, so while I think if he beats Fed he also goes through Henman, I can well see Goran taking him out in a potential semi. Goran was on a mission that year and had beaten a preprime Pete at Wimbledon already. If however Pete somehow reaches the final he definitely wins the whole thing. I simply cannot see Pete losing a Wimbledon final against Rafter.

I cannot see Goran having the mental strength to beat Sampras. He was saved by the rain delay against Henman himself.

 

[BayAreaBooster]

Michael Stich, 1992 SW19 final, against Boris Becker. Stich was basically unplayable. He demolished Becker. In semis, he beat Edberg over 3 breakers. Edberg never got broken. Beating these 2 legends back to back in straights shows his form.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I cannot see Goran having the mental strength to beat Sampras. He was saved by the rain delay against Henman himself.

Well you may be right, but Goran is the only one I would give a realistic chance. First, other than Henman and Rafter he had already beaten Sampras at Wimbledon and second other than the other two he had a real weapon in his serve (neither Tim nor Pat had anything to really hurt Pete). In a final I agree with you, Pete would lift his game as always and would even take out Goran at his fairytale run, but in a semi I give Goran realistic chances.

 

[jl809]

Jfc Freddies give it a rest. This is what it’s like when the Djoker fans argue that 2015 Fed was a formidable near peak version at Wim

 

[Third Serve]

Jfc Freddies give it a rest. This is what it’s like when the Djoker fans argue that 2015 Fed was a formidable near peak version at Wim

One (1) person in this thread is saying Pete was prime level in that match. Everyone else is merely arguing against the notion that Pete was the equivalent of 2018 RG Pepe-fied Djokovic who got ROFLMAO’d by Cecchinato. There’s a very broad middle ground between prime Pete and a dumpster fire.

Other than the serve itself, Pete wasn’t anywhere near his best in that 2001 match (still pretty good by a general standard though). And Fed wasn’t really anywhere near his best either, aside from the pure serve+return complex.

Given this, the only thing you can actually take from this match is how well Fed’s return would potentially stack up up against the Sampras serve, since both shots were in fine form here.

 

[Darrell]

Sampras played insanely well in the 1999 Wimbledon final. I remember that was I pulling for Andre, but Pete played probably the best tennis of his life that day. He could do no wrong in that match.

 

[JasonZ]

Sampras played insanely well in the 1999 Wimbledon final. I remember that was I pulling for Andre, but Pete played probably the best tennis of his life that day. He could do no wrong in that match.

overrated performance against an overrated player.

 

[NonP]

I see our resident fabulist has returned to form (if that's the way to put it):

but sampras served better than ever in that match, and the serve is so important in grass, that it can equalize all other shortcomings. so even if all other aspects of his game were worse than in 1994 (but better than against cowan), with that serving performance he had a good chance to beat any other player, including their 90s versions.

If that gave you a sense of deja vu, this is why:

agree, that was maybe petes best ever serving performance, crazy numbers on first serve %, and first and second serve speed.

LOL, he actually served 69.8% and was in the middle of his worst drought of his career. But then you never cared about the facts anyway.

69 8 % first serve is the probably the highest sampras ever served, much higher than in all his grand slam finals. he also served faster than ever in that match. so even if he worse in everything compared to years before, the service performance evens it out. cause the serve on grass is as important as all other things combined.

Uh, he actually had served 69.6% just a few days ago in the Cowan match which also went 5 sets. Some "even[ing] it out" that was. You're talking nonsense as usual.

And dude, Pistol was serving 70% and routinely over 130 mph in his 2nd exo vs. your boy 5 years into his retirement. Obviously much of that can be chalked up to radar, but you're dreaming if you think Pistol never hit those marks in his actual prime and saved his absolute best for his only official meeting with Fed.

Told y'all so. Apparently we're supposed to believe that Pistol in the middle of the worst drought of his career served better than he ever did in his actual prime. The BS should be evident to anyone with a lick of common sense, but not to this guy and several other Feddies.

I mean if I were a Korda (Sr.) fanboy I could well point to his own 5-setter vs. Pistol at '97 Wimbledon as the single best returning performance against the GSOAT, which is indeed a whole lot more convincing given that 1) Pete served 68.2% and 28 aces (and 4 DFs which is well within acceptable bounds even by today's standards) in that match, 2) Petr was one of the best returners of the Sampras serve to begin with (h/t @slice serve ace) and, most importantly, 3) Pistol was about to embark on the best serving streak of his career (ditto), including the OE Slam-record two lost breaks of serve in that '97 run. But I wouldn't go that far, cuz I'd be talking out of my ass as a certified Pistolite who nonetheless has never studied his best serving performances side by side. Now imagine the mixture of rank ignorance and unearned arrogance that one would need to make a cocksure declaration like that about a past-prime Sampras.

But while we're at it let's take a closer look at that '97 run, shall we? (Not sure why that archived page keeps redirecting you to a WAV file but for completeness' sake.) Since an awful lot has been made out of Pistol getting almost 70% of his 1st serves in vs. Fraud I'm gonna start here - hyperlinks to official scoreboards included! - with Pete's 1st-serve %s followed by aces, DFs, %s of serves unreturned (add up the aces and the "service winners" if you wanna try some of the other matches yourself) and then his average 1st-/2nd-serve speeds:

1R - 60.3% (41/68), 9 aces, 1 DF, 63.2% (43/68), 120/104 mph
2R - 72.8% (67/92), 22, 3, 62.0% (57/92), 122/105 mph
3R - 70.5% (43/61), 14, 2, 52.5% (32/61), 122/103 mph
4R - 68.2% (107/157), 28, 4, 52.2% (82/157), 125/103 mph
QF - 68.5% (74/108), 19, 3, 48.1% (52/108), 121/100 mph
SF - 61.8% (55/89), 10, 0, 37.1% (33/89), 122/106 mph
F - 59.2% (45/76), 17, 2, 59.2% (45/76), 120/103 mph
Average (totals in parentheses) - 66.4% (432/651), 17 (119), 2.1 (15), 52.8% (344/651), 121.7/103.4 mph*

*Average serve speeds are based on the seven match averages, not individual radar readings (duh).

That average 66.4% of 1st serves in is slightly less than what I'd expected, but now you see why I said Pistol's serve was even heavier than usual that summer (check out any of the YT clips from that time if you want firsthand confirmation). And we know for a fact that its unusually high topspin is what made the Sampras serve so deadly. Now TBF Fraud did face bigger 2nd serves on average in his match, assuming no significant change in radar readings (see below), but which Sampras serve would you rather face, the '97 version with heavy-AF topspin and consistently high 1st-serve %s or the '01 version with no guarantees of either? And given how Boris was able to limit that Pistoling Pete down to "only" 48.1% of URS (vs. Fed's 45.0%) despite facing almost 70% of 1st serves himself, it's quite arguable that he actually returned better in what should've been his very last hurrah on his home turf (at least per his impulsive private post-match announcement to Pete at the net) than '01 Fraud in his coming-out party!

Also notice how Pistol averaged a stupdendous 52.8% of all serves as freebies in his unequaled run. When you crack 50% in this stat your serve is practically unbreakable, which explains why one of his only two lost breaks came in that blowout SF where Pete was clearly taking it easy vs. a thoroughly outmatched Woodbridge (the other break came while he was still warming up in 1R vs. Tillstrom). Now you see why I say Pistol with today's jumbo stick (read: higher 1st-serve %s) would win at least one Wimbledon without losing serve once.

And make no mistake, that's just one of his best Slam runs. To say the greatest server in tennis history served better than he ever did in any single match requires one damn thick pile of extraordinary evidence, and so far Fed cheerleaders have yet to produce any. Good luck with that when you've got a historic counterexample like that '97 Wimbledon run.

 

[NonP]

A few more things:

also on serve speeds...has there been a discussion about whether the atp has changed where they sample the ball speed? in the pete/goran days i don't remember many serves topping 130 whereas now it's pretty routine, but i can't imagine players now are serving much harder than those guys did?

Sometime in '99-04:

mental strength: Sampras or Federer?

Please unscramble ... black kettle pot the calling LOL! Reading comprehension, analytical skills, logic fail?

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

For most of the '80s and '90s the radar guns measured serve speeds as the ball passed the net, but during the turn of the century they switched their focus (possibly back) to the ball's point of contact with the racquet. Hence the humongous rise in average serve speeds between the '90s and now.

As to whether the "new" radar readings were already in place for that '01 Pete-Fed meeting:

In the 4R match, the commentator (Mac I think) said that was not the 2nd serve that Cowan saw. aka Sampras' 2nd serve was clearly better in the Federer match. I don't have the speed in the Cowan match, but it was 110 mph in the fed match which is high.

Definitely higher than in the Cowan match, but the same as vs. Clavet in 1R:

Better Server on Grass: Federer or Sampras ?

btw, Federers career % of service games won is actually 88.4% and Sampras' is 88.7%. So it's not even a 1% difference. Remember, too, that Federers % is brought down by his early days on tour. If you compare their best 10 year run, Federer has won a higher % of service games. Not to say his...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Now whether these readings were "inflated" at least somewhat compared to their '90s counterparts, hard to say. For sure the guns weren't tracking the ball precisely at the net, but maybe there was a more subtle change in radar positioning or technology cuz, as you can see, Pistol hit faster 1st serves on average in '97 even with more obvious kick while seemingly holding back on 2nds. So maybe about a 2-4 mph difference as opposed to the big 10+ mph gap we'd expect from today's radar.

Really interesting question. Pete was nowhere near at prime level, so while I think if he beats Fed he also goes through Henman, I can well see Goran taking him out in a potential semi. Goran was on a mission that year and had beaten a preprime Pete at Wimbledon already. If however Pete somehow reaches the final he definitely wins the whole thing. I simply cannot see Pete losing a Wimbledon final against Rafter.

Agreed on Pistol vs. Rafter, but I really don't see Goran losing that one. Of course Goran being Goran his last two rounds were veritable roller coasters, and he probably even didn't serve as well as he did in '92/94/95... but there's that unbeatable motivation of knowing this was his very last chance.

And like I've said before, and only half-jokingly at that, the tennis gods would've sent down another rainstorm or two if necessary.

Jfc Freddies give it a rest. This is what it’s like when the Djoker fans argue that 2015 Fed was a formidable near peak version at Wim

It was a good match, enough to qualify as a classic.

But yeah much of the strained logic has been ridiculous. I mean we're now being told that this was the best Pete friggin' Sampras could've served when nobody in his right mind would ignore that '97 run just for starters. Enough with the nonsense already.

 

[NedStark]

Pete 2001 Wimbledon edition with his garbage ROS & return game would have gone down against Goran. IMO Goran would have even defeated him with 0 breaks.

Federer’s 49% unreturnable rate was also partially because of Pete’s weak returns - even Phillippoussis in 2003 final (who looked like a complete bot) managed to do a little better (in terms of % return in play).

 

[abmk]

Definitely higher than in the Cowan match, but the same as vs. Clavet in 1R:

don't have the numbers with me now. But the Clavet match is not that relevant tbh.

 

[abmk]

I see our resident fabulist has returned to form (if that's the way to put it):


If that gave you a sense of deja vu, this is why:





Told y'all so. Apparently we're supposed to believe that Pistol in the middle of the worst drought of his career served better than he ever did in his actual prime. The BS should be evident to anyone with a lick of common sense, but not to this guy and several other Feddies.

I mean if I were a Korda (Sr.) fanboy I could well point to his own 5-setter vs. Pistol at '97 Wimbledon as the single best returning performance against the GSOAT, which is indeed a whole lot more convincing given that 1) Pete served 68.2% and 28 aces (and 4 DFs which is well within acceptable bounds even by today's standards) in that match, 2) Petr was one of the best returners of the Sampras serve to begin with (h/t @slice serve ace) and, most importantly, 3) Pistol was about to embark on the best serving streak of his career (ditto), including the OE Slam-record two lost breaks of serve in that '97 run. But I wouldn't go that far, cuz I'd be talking out of my ass as a certified Pistolite who nonetheless has never studied his best serving performances side by side. Now imagine the mixture of rank ignorance and unearned arrogance that one would need to make a cocksure declaration like that about a past-prime Sampras.

But while we're at it let's take a closer look at that '97 run, shall we? (Not sure why that archived page keeps redirecting you to a WAV file but for completeness' sake.) Since an awful lot has been made out of Pistol getting almost 70% of his 1st serves in vs. Fraud I'm gonna start here - hyperlinks to official scoreboards included! - with Pete's 1st-serve %s followed by aces, DFs, %s of serves unreturned (add up the aces and the "service winners" if you wanna try some of the other matches yourself) and then his average 1st-/2nd-serve speeds:

1R - 60.3% (41/68), 9 aces, 1 DF, 63.2% (43/68), 120/104 mph
2R - 72.8% (67/92), 22, 3, 62.0% (57/92), 122/105 mph
3R - 70.5% (43/61), 14, 2, 52.5% (32/61), 122/103 mph
4R - 68.2% (107/157), 28, 4, 52.2% (82/157), 125/103 mph
QF - 68.5% (74/108), 19, 3, 48.1% (52/108), 121/100 mph
SF - 61.8% (55/89), 10, 0, 37.1% (33/89), 122/106 mph
F - 59.2% (45/76), 17, 2, 59.2% (45/76), 120/103 mph
Average (totals in parentheses) - 66.4% (432/651), 17 (119), 2.1 (15), 52.8% (344/651), 121.7/103.4 mph*

*Average serve speeds are based on the seven match averages, not individual radar readings (duh).

That average 66.4% of 1st serves in is slightly less than what I'd expected, but now you see why I said Pistol's serve was even heavier than usual that summer (check out any of the YT clips from that time if you want firsthand confirmation). And we know for a fact that its unusually high topspin is what made the Sampras serve so deadly. Now TBF Fraud did face bigger 2nd serves on average in his match, assuming no significant change in radar readings (see below), but which Sampras serve would you rather face, the '97 version with heavy-AF topspin and consistently high 1st-serve %s or the '01 version with no guarantees of either? And given how Boris was able to limit that Pistoling Pete down to "only" 48.1% of URS (vs. Fed's 45.0%) despite facing almost 70% of 1st serves himself, it's quite arguable that he actually returned better in what should've been his very last hurrah on his home turf (at least per his impulsive private post-match announcement to Pete at the net) than '01 Fraud in his coming-out party!

Also notice how Pistol averaged a stupdendous 52.8% of all serves as freebies in his unequaled run. When you crack 50% in this stat your serve is practically unbreakable, which explains why one of his only two lost breaks came in that blowout SF where Pete was clearly taking it easy vs. a thoroughly outmatched Woodbridge (the other break came while he was still warming up in 1R vs. Tillstrom). Now you see why I say Pistol with today's jumbo stick (read: higher 1st-serve %s) would win at least one Wimbledon without losing serve once.

And make no mistake, that's just one of his best Slam runs. To say the greatest server in tennis history served better than he ever did in any single match requires one damn thick pile of extraordinary evidence, and so far Fed cheerleaders have yet to produce any. Good luck with that when you've got a historic counterexample like that '97 Wimbledon run.

I think it would be one of Pete's best serving performances, but wouldn't put it as his best per se.
The past prime thing doesn't really work per se since the serve is the weapon which improves/stays the longest for majority of the players. I mean if someone said fed's serving performance vs Murray in Wim 15 or vs Djokovic in Wim 12 was his best, it wouldn't be considered a ridiculous opinion, would it?
Yeah, draught thing is another argument.
Obviously Wim 97 was Sampras' best serving for a slam tournament

Couple of other points:
1. I know you said Korda thing was a stretch to prove your point, but it just gets shot down given Korda didn't break Sampras even once. Fed did break Sampras thrice. And Korda had 3 BPs in 1 game in 3rd set that's it. No BP anywhere else. How does that even compare vs Fed generating BPs in 4 of the 5 sets (1,2,3,5) and breaking thrice (twice in 3rd set and once in the 5th set; given the returning, should've really broken in the 2nd set, but Sampras held clutch). Yeah, obviously rest of Sampras' game was better in 97.
And in any case, Sampras' unret was 52% in this match, well above his in the Fed match.

2. The Becker thing? come on. He didn't break Sampras even once in 3 Wim matches including this one.

Btw The ATP stats on this match seem to be horribly off.
Shows as no BPs for Becker, whereas he did have 3 (2 in 1st set and 1 in 4th set)

Pete Sampras vs. Boris Becker London 1997 Quarter-Finals | Match Stats | ATP Tour | Tennis

www.atptour.com

you can see 0/2 for becker on BPs here in the first minute and half:

Even the double counting thing doesn't add up.
Where did you get the unreturned serves for this match?