I didn’t have the chance to watch him play as it was before my time...i started watching tennis in 2004.
Is Federer a servebot? The answer is NO, but the fact is that he is a great all court player, who also has a great serve. I saw most of his matches this week against Kyrigos and Raonic, both known for their great serves, yet from what I recall were out served by Roger. When it came to the rest of their games, they were mostly helpless against Roger's ground and net game. Pete was not as great an all court player as Roger, but Pete was much more than just a servebot.Sadly according to most people here, he was. You have to remember, on these forums, anybody who can serve more than 120 mph is a servbot. Even more ironic, is any woman who serves under 110 miles an hour is considered pathetic.
The reason? Most guys on here have 70mph first serves, and thus big servers are servebots. They would much rather watch 84 shot rallies ending in a forehand out wide than a service game with 2 aces. Why? Because they can relate to the errors, but not the power.
We've now come to the logical conclusion of this thread: Djokovic is a servebot.Sampras was Federer's idol growing up.
But come to think of it, if he wasn't at least a little bit of a servebot, how come he declined so heavily in the space of 18 months after Wimby 2000?
Literally ban this OP. Do it now for the sake of humanity.
Sampras is the third greatest player to ever lift a racket with explosive movement, insane volleys and one of the greatest FH's in tennis history. Why not familiarize yourself with the definition of "servebot?" It's someone who has a serve and nothing else. No servebot wins 14 majors. Karlovic is a servebot, Sampras was an ATG at the highest levels of the sport.
We've now come to the logical conclusion of this thread: Djokovic is a servebot.
Check here:Literally ban this OP. Do it now for the sake of humanity.
Sampras is the third greatest player to ever lift a racket with explosive movement, insane volleys and one of the greatest FH's in tennis history. Why not familiarize yourself with the definition of "servebot?" It's someone who has a serve and nothing else. No servebot wins 14 majors. Karlovic is a servebot, Sampras was an ATG at the highest levels of the sport.
Comparing of all time can obscure things a bit. Makes being in the 40s look bad. If you take for example just 2017, Federer is 8th for returning.Check here:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won/all/all/all/
Servebots aren't on this list. You won't find:
Raonic
Karlovic
Isner
Ivanisevic
Muller
Tsonga is right at the bottom.
Sampras had at least two gears. In low gear he barely NEEDED to return. Fed is now playing a lot like Sampras. Short points, short games, minimum effort. But when he is pushed, he still has one of the best returns ever.
Sampras was the same.
I always knew Berasategui was a GOAT contender.Comparing of all time can obscure things a bit.
I didn’t have the chance to watch him play as it was before my time...i started watching tennis in 2004.
Anyway, I was looking at his resume and noticed a stunning lack of success on clay.
Is this due to his serve no longer being as big of a factor when playing on clay and essentialy getting exposed as a servebot?
Yup, Sampras was very explosive and an amazing all-round natural athlete.And the boy could scoot. His speed around the court is greatly underrated. He's also one of the greatest all court players in history.
He could out rally Agassi from the back court and his running forehand is one of the best the game has ever seen.
And he had what many consider the greatest 2nd server ever.
Eventually we'll need to ask ourselves why servebot, as it's being defined, would even be a bad thing. Stephen Curry is a shootbot and he's laughing all they way to championship titles.
What I meant was that servebot is now being defined to include players like Sampras. And if it is then all it really means is that if you have a great serve, that's it. I made the Curry analogy because a lot of his shots are completely unguardable. He hits shots from so deep sometimes the defender hasn't even put their hand up yet. They're essentially aces. Ok, yeah, the defender could guard him all 94 feet, but that would be like a returner leaning towards the T and leaving a huge space out wide. Sometimes there's nothing you can do. The advantage is always with the person who holds the ball and some people can't seem to understand that. A pitcher keeps batters off base about 68% of the time.Well that would be because he's part of a great team besides himself. No servebot is ever going to have the level of success that Curry's had in the NBA if we're comparing them.
I agree that being a servebot isn't really a bad thing though. It's used as a somewhat derogatory term, but it's gotten Karlovic to a career high ranking of 14 and Isner inside the top 10 (though I'm aware even those two aren't horrendous off the ground compared to a rec player or someone like that). Point is, even when we call them servebots we're all just jealous that their serves are that good that they can be top 10-20 in the world with just one (huge) weapon.
If anything Sampras was a forehand
What I meant was that servebot is now being defined to include players like Sampras. And if it is then all it really means is that if you have a great serve, that's it. I made the Curry analogy because a lot of his shots are completely unguardable. He hits shots from so deep sometimes the defender hasn't even put their hand up yet. They're essentially aces. Ok, yeah, the defender could guard him all 94 feet, but that would be like a returner leaning towards the T and leaving a huge space out wide. Sometimes there's nothing you can do. The advantage is always with the person who holds the ball and some people can't seem to understand that. A pitcher keeps batters off base about 68% of the time.
I know that. I just thought I would use their momentum to rehabilitate the term, so to speak.Agree with your other sports analogies, but I don't think servebot is being defined to include guys like Sampras. By certain e-wariorrs on TTW perhaps (sometimes for trolling purposes), but not by anyone who has a shred of knowledge about tennis and is being serious.
Raonic: 16%.Pure stats:
Sampras won 24% of return games. Isner won 11%. There's the difference right there.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/pete-sampras/s402/player-stats
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/john-isner/i186/player-stats
And this is even with Sampras's known penchant for tanking games when he's already broken.Pure stats:
Sampras won 24% of return games. Isner won 11%. There's the difference right there.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/pete-sampras/s402/player-stats
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/john-isner/i186/player-stats
It's the difference between getting a single break per set and mostly TBs.And this is even with Sampras's known penchant for tanking games when he's already broken.
djokovic is a servebot then, good to know.Sampras was Federer's idol growing up.
But come to think of it, if he wasn't at least a little bit of a servebot, how come he declined so heavily in the space of 18 months after Wimby 2000?
djokovic is a servebot then, good to know.
I take it he didn't dish out many bagels?It's the difference between getting a single break per set and mostly TBs.
Sampras won the 2002 US Open...Yes, but Djokovic career isn't over yet.
Sampras won the 2002 US Open...
And the boy could scoot. His speed around the court is greatly underrated. He's also one of the greatest all court players in history.
He could out rally Agassi from the back court and his running forehand is one of the best the game has ever seen.
And he had what many consider the greatest 2nd server ever.
djokovic is a servebot then, good to know.
Not if you are comparing all time against all time for players who played a long time. That obscures nothing.Comparing of all time can obscure things a bit.
What does "being in the 40s" mean? There is NOTHING bad about being 40 something, if that is what you mean.Makes being in the 40s look bad. If you take for example just 2017, Federer is 8th for returning.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won/2017/all/all/
We're in agreement on the underlying question. I just wanted to illustrate more clearly to less stats-savvy people that he's not a weak returner.Not if you are comparing all time against all time for players who played a long time. That obscures nothing.
For players who had shorter careers, or who played for a long time but were injured for much of that time, you don't get an idea of peak levels from all time records.
You also need to look at surfaces.
But you can't tell me that this list is unfair:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/service-games-won
There are exactly four players above Fed and Sampras. ALL of them above Fed and Sampras can fairly be called "bots". Roddick was less so than the others.
Again, note that he is not in this list:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won/all/all/all/
What does "being in the 40s" mean? There is NOTHING bad about being 40 something, if that is what you mean.
By the way:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won/2004/hard/all/
Fed was #2 on HCs in 2004. Doesn't mean he was a better returner. It means that he kept the gas on all the time, as younger players do. He had more impressive numbers against ALL players that year because he had not yet learned to coast, which Sampras was an expert at, and which Fed learned later in his career.
You will find that Sampras was high in some years too. Which is why I say that neither Sampras nor Fed should ever be put into the "bot" category.
McEnroe and Edberg did at least make FO finals. Connors didn't play the FO very often (wasn't he banned for a number of years due to some dispute with the ITF?) whilst Becker was worse than Sampras in that he never won a clay title of any kind (ironically was the finalist Sampras beat to win his Rome title).
I've seen threeI have a video where Simon hits two aces in a row in 2008. Gilles servebot.
Lol! There is no doubt now, he's a servebot of the highest order.I've seen three
One of the dumbest threads I've ever seen on TTW and that's saying something considering the fierce competition.
Absolutely, Sampras was one of the fastest guys in the 90s, maybe even the fastest. One of the greatest athletes tennis has ever seen.