Was Sampras or Federer's serve better for clay?

[Holmes]

Obviously Pete's was better serve overall, but for clay specifically, he seemed to go for the big one far too often which was unhelpful because it was less effective type of serve than on hard/grass and brought his percentage down. Fed on the other hand seemed to hit a first with great slice/power combo that maximized placement and percentage and got him many free points. Again, just for clay, which serve was more effective?

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Yawn, if Pete’s serve was better overall than Federer’s he would have used it more effectively on clay. Why it so upsetting for certain individuals that Federer passed Pete but not other players? Oh, I know because the beef is with Roger only and he doesn’t create any controversy on his own, so manufactured controversy has to be created on his behalf.

 

[Holmes]

Yawn, if Pete’s serve was better overall than Federer’s he would have used it more effectively on clay. Why it so upsetting for certain individuals that Federer passed Pete but not other players? Oh, I know because the beef is with Roger only and he doesn’t create any controversy on his own, so manufactured controversy has to be created on his behalf.

Yawn. Every serious observer of the game knows Pete's serve was better than Federer's, the only manufactured controversy seems to be in your post. Now, if we could get back on topic please.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Yawn. Every serious observer of the game knows Pete's serve was better than Federer's, the only manufactured controversy seems to be in your post. Now, if we could get back on topic please.

Nah, you are fishing for controversy on Federer along with that interview topic because Federer doesn’t do controversy.

 

[Holmes]

Nah, you are fishing for controversy on Federer along with that interview topic because Federer doesn’t do controversy.

The interview topic was a favor to Fed, I posted a clip of him being truly vulnerable and authentic. Now, I think we'd all be better served if you could get back to the topic and off your bizarre desire to seek the controversy you so passionately condemn.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Yawn, if Pete’s serve was better overall than Federer’s he would have used it more effectively on clay.

A shot better for the game overall can absolutely run into problems on one particular surface, especially back in a time where the surfaces were more clearly distinguished. You do understand the terminology, yes?

Consensus certainly is that Pete's serve was superior. And that's no knock on Fed's, which still stands as one of the best ever.

 

[mental midget]

i'm a big roger fan but a good serve is a good serve on any surface. roger was a better mover, groundies better suited for clay...and imo roger had the best serve +1 in the history of the game so could back it up better. but the serve goes to pete, by a small margin if not a huge one simply because roger was an exceptionally good spot server.

 

[Holmes]

i'm a big roger fan but a good serve is a good serve on any surface. roger was a better mover, groundies better suited for clay...and imo roger had the best serve +1 in the history of the game so could back it up better. but the serve goes to pete, by a small margin if not a huge one simply because roger was an exceptionally good spot server.

Overall I think the serve goes to Pete quite comfortably. Clutch, second serve, and just an overall better shot. On clay though it seems he didn't utilize it as well as the Fed used his.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Clutch

Here's the one defining factor, as it always should be when talking about greatness. How many times did we see Pete wipe away trouble with huge serves, first OR second? How many big matches did he come out throwing fire, never letting a dangerous opponent even get a foothold?

Meanwhile, on Fed's side we've got 40-15 x2.. the two shots could be completely equal mechanically (they're not) and in the end what was won with them would determine which was "better".

 

[Holmes]

Here's the one defining factor, as it always should be when talking about greatness. How many times did we see Pete wipe away trouble with huge serves, first OR second? How many big matches did he come out throwing fire, never letting a dangerous opponent even get a foothold?

Meanwhile, on Fed's side we've got 40-15 x2.. the two shots could be completely equal mechanically (they're not) and in the end what was won with them would determine which was "better".

Watched the Corretja match at the 96 Open where Pete could barely stand at the end. He was serving firsts around 76 mph, then hit a second serve ace out of nowhere to give himself match point, which he the won on Corretja's double fault. Healthy Corretja wilted, collapsing Pete didn't. That clutch factor is an intangible that simply can't be underrated.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Nadal was breaking peak Federer's serve like candy at times on clay, the only reason many of the matches were competitive is Federer was very capable of breaking and especialy creating break chances (many unconverted) on Nadal's service games too (which Pete would almost certainly never have done), so I would say Pete's for sure still.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Does it matter? Pete's game was garbage on the red dirt. As Agassi said, he lacked the necessary patience.

 

[bigbadboaz]

No one's game who made an RG SF and won an Italian Open was garbage. Don't overvalue his changing priorities as his career progressed.

 

[Kralingen]

Pete’s serve was still overall more effective on every surface or condition imaginable, including clay, but I do believe that Federer’s was better suited for clay.

PETE.

 

[Holmes]

Pete’s serve was still overall more effective on every surface or condition imaginable, including clay, but I do believe that Federer’s was better suited for clay.

PETE.

You put it very directly, but not necessarily untruly.

 

[toth]

Two different service game types...
Serve & volley does not work well on clay

 

[Anni.Angel]

Federer was better than Smapras in everything. There was not a single thing in life that Federer didn't do better than Sampras. Even in walking, Federer is better than Sampras. Why would you even bother to compare?

 

[NatF]

PETE's serve is flat out better irrespective of conditions and courts. Going further Sampras' problems on clay had nothing to do with his serve.

 

[Holmes]

Federer was better than Smapras in everything. There was not a single thing in life that Federer didn't do better than Sampras. Even in walking, Federer is better than Sampras. Why would you even bother to compare?

Blinking? Sleeping? Breathing?

 

[Holmes]

PETE's serve is flat out better irrespective of conditions and courts. Going further Sampras' problems on clay had nothing to do with his serve.

I know Sampras's clay woes didn't have very much to do with his serve, but for reasons I outlined in OP it seems he didn't use it near as well as Feddy did.

 

[Anni.Angel]

Blinking? Sleeping? Breathing?

Exactly, everything.

 

[Pmasterfunk]

I feel like this is a bit of an apples-oranges comparison because of racquet and string technology changes. Just with a hybrid string setup Pete probably could have kicked his serve harder and made better use of it on clay, even without a bigger racquet head or faster swinging racquet.

I'd give it to Pete.

 

[Waves]

I know Sampras's clay woes didn't have very much to do with his serve, but for reasons I outlined in OP it seems he didn't use it near as well as Feddy did.

I think this is the answer.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Yawn. Every serious observer of the game knows Pete's serve was better than Federer's, the only manufactured controversy seems to be in your post. Now, if we could get back on topic please.

Thank you, and yes, Sampras' serve was superior to Federer's. One was legendary--a game-changer, while the other was Federer's.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Even on clay, Pete had the much better serve, with hold rates rivalling the best of his era on the surface.

 

[ChrisRF]

I don't want to argue about which serve was better, because they are quite close, but I observed that from time to time Sampras did something that Federer never did: He served almost from the doubles line on the AD-side. And he only did it on clay (but Federer did it nowhere).

 

[martinezownsclay]

PETE's serve is flat out better irrespective of conditions and courts. Going further Sampras' problems on clay had nothing to do with his serve.

On the latter point, I have often wondered why Sampras wasn't a somewhat better clay courter. I guess his results on clay from 92-96 weren't that far below what I would expect. He was never going to be a dominant clay courter, he was never going to be as consistently good a clay courter as Federer who himself was not a dominant clay courter (maybe only due to Nadal, but still). But his clay performances after 96, including up to and including 2000 when he was still close to his prime, yikes.

I am not sure it was groundstrokes as his groundstrokes overall were very good, even if he wasn't dominant over the field in this area like he was in serving. Some say fitness, but while I never checked for certain I believe his 5 set record was quite good for a long while, although that might have been his mental toughness more than great fitness. Lack of patience, lack of topspin for clay? Discomfort sliding and for overall clay movement?

 

[bigbadboaz]

As I alluded to above, I think he simply dropped clay as a priority as he entered his prime and clarified his goals. His game was designed to dominate on fast courts, winning Wimbledon was his grail from youth, as his historical potential became clear he targeted the Slam record, and then much more than now Wimbledon was still seen as the preeminent achievement. It only made sense for a player in his time to pile up Wimbledons (not to mention US Opens) and not "waste effort" relatively speaking on the slow clay season.

He couldn't have predicted the suddenly increased emphasis on surface distribution, or that his crowning achievement in total Slams would be eclipsed so soon. Leaving an RG on the table wouldn't have bothered him, at least not back then.

 

[Holmes]

As I alluded to above, I think he simply dropped clay as a priority as he entered his prime and clarified his goals. His game was designed to dominate on fast courts, winning Wimbledon was his grail from youth, as his historical potential became clear he targeted the Slam record, and then much more than now Wimbledon was still seen as the preeminent achievement. It only made sense for a player in his time to pile up Wimbledons (not to mention US Opens) and not "waste effort" relatively speaking on the slow clay season.

He couldn't have predicted the suddenly increased emphasis on surface distribution, or that his crowning achievement in total Slams would be eclipsed so soon. Leaving an RG on the table wouldn't have bothered him, at least not back then.

Steve Flink, who wrote the classic, Pete Sampras: Greatness Revisited, to re-evaluate Pete's legacy seems to largely agree with this. He states that he doesn't think PETE ever made RG a clear priority and had he done so, he might have snagged it in '94 when he was on a tear, or '96 if not for the recent passing of his coach which obviously tore the big guy up inside.

I still think he could have used his serve far more effectively on clay, but then as @NatF suggests, the issue was the rest of his game. Maybe a more "clay court" favoring use of the serve would have undermined the rest of his game which had not been so adapted.

 

[Hnefi]

I would take Pete's serve on any surface, and that's it. This is coming from someone who began watching tennis post-Pete, and post Fed's prime (2012 W final was the first match I ever watched in full, live).

The question of whether he used it to its greatest possible effect or not is another thing, but he certainly had the tools.