What "slowed" Sampras down?
- Thread starter psamp14
- Start date
L
laurie
Guest
Umm, I think he can beat Nadal on clay. I really don't think Nadal is the same player as last year. Time will tell. If Nadal gets knocked out on the other side of the draw, Federer is French Open champion. I think that's a big burden for Nadal to carry on his own. There really needs to be more challengers on the clay to make it a more even event. That's why I think Federer will win the French this year.
dozu
Banned
barring any freak accidents, I don't see Federer decellerate as Sampras did. reasons being:
1. Federer is fitter. his game does not require a lot of wear/tear. his anticipation is so good you don't see him making a lot of sudden moves on the court. In comparison, Sampras was never known for his fitness.
2. Sampras stopped improving after his mid 20s and was basically coasting into a downhill slide. his game is basically serve+fh+volley. Federer has every shot in the book, and is still improving! Than is why he was a little bit of a late bloomer, but once he has all of it figured out, he is unstoppable.
1. Federer is fitter. his game does not require a lot of wear/tear. his anticipation is so good you don't see him making a lot of sudden moves on the court. In comparison, Sampras was never known for his fitness.
2. Sampras stopped improving after his mid 20s and was basically coasting into a downhill slide. his game is basically serve+fh+volley. Federer has every shot in the book, and is still improving! Than is why he was a little bit of a late bloomer, but once he has all of it figured out, he is unstoppable.
Personally, I think Fed is going to hit the wall by next year. Sampras was this blazing athlete through most of the 90s, and then suddenly after the injury, he was a different player. There's something about 27-29 for champions where their body just suddenly breaks down and then the decline is sudden. Even with Agassi, he looked solid until about 2 years ago, and then BOOM his back went.
ferocious4hand
Semi-Pro
where do you get that the three S&Ver's would "destroy" Fed? Even if they were sucessful S&V'ing againt fed, their return games aren't strong enough to break him.
"Destroy" is what Fed did to Roddick last wk. You think SE, BB and PR have the ability to do what Fed did to Roddick?
Nothing against edberg or rafter but roddick hits a better kick serve than they did and fed tee's off on it. Pete may have a chance with his 130mph bomb, but its still not like the 140's guys are now putting up. If fed can break roddick three times in a set i dont think an equally one dimentional player would do any better.
Fed has a complete game, the only hope is to go back in time and bring back the glass courts where you could win tournaments with a serve.
ferocious4hand
Semi-Pro
Rafter and Edberg’s kick were different in that they came in every time pressuring the returner. As for Roddick’s might have more speed and action he stays on the baseline where the returner can just put the ball bk in play.
ckthegreek
Rookie
Some good posts. The other thing you need to consider is that back in the 90's surfaces were very different. You had clay court specialists that would never play on grass and vice versa. These days, with the exception of Nadal, there are no top clay court specialists to challenge Federer.
For me, Agassi's achievement of winning all 4 GSs will be far greater than Federer's when (if?) he wins the French Open.
For me, Agassi's achievement of winning all 4 GSs will be far greater than Federer's when (if?) he wins the French Open.
psamp14
Hall of Fame
we dont have to agree on things but imo you just dissed the sampras serve
the pete sampras serve is the undisputed greatest serve in the history of the sport...
Im just saying pete serve wasnt as fast as the guys who are hitting them today. Some here will lead you to believe the atp juices the guns now but others think they are just hitting faster. Combined with the new racket and string technology, all you gotta do is get a racket on it and you can make a decent return.
Also, the courts arent nearly as fast as they were back pete was whooping everyone. In todays game on the slower surfaces he would have many come back as he did at the french and other clay events.
Also, the courts arent nearly as fast as they were back pete was whooping everyone. In todays game on the slower surfaces he would have many come back as he did at the french and other clay events.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
You're right on on both points:
His serve wasn't the fastest even when he was playing - but his placement was excellent and he could get them in under the most pressure. For many years at Wimby it appeared that he was serving two first serves - knew he'd get one in.
And in his two AO wins he was the benefactor of the tournament director trying to give Rafter the best chance to win with ginned up conditions to help the S&V player. The clay courts were sped up some in the last 7 or 8 yrs - but not enough that someone could serve their way to the title.
I'm still laughing at the 'stolen' Slam comment one of the fanboys made. How about the 10 or 12 stolen from The Rocket when he wasn't allowed to play - still got 11.
I won't even comment on the blood thing - utterly ridiculous. Didn't come out until very late in his career - when he was back to almost mortal. I'd speculate someone in his camp leaked that as an excuse to his losing to lower ranked guys. And why would he hire a personal trainer if he had the blood thing? No amount of exercise - lifting, aerobics, crunches - would fix it. But far be it for me to talk common sense to the Sampras fanboys...
Hewitt was a better player in 04-05 that he was in 01-02. Hewitt himself has said so. The results may not show that, but his game was undoubtably better in 04-05 than it was in 01-02 when he was winning slams, and if you cant see that then you're a moron. From 04-05 Hewitt lost to Federer 5 times in the slams. He lost to a red hot Marat Safin in the 2005 Australian Open Final. Hewitt's lack of slam titles in 04-05 can be attributed to running into a dominate Federer late in the slams, not to a deteriating game.
As for Rafter, he was a good player who played his best tennis later in his career. You cant really say Roddick's had a better career than Rafter because Pat has one more slam, but should Roddick win another slam, he will have undoubtably had a better career. No need to debate Hewitt or Safin because they're definitely better players.
At the tail ends of their careers. The Golden Age of tennis was the late 70's and 80's, not the 90's.
Why do we even compare Rafter to Fed's competition? Right now for Fed corresponds to January 1997 for Sampras. What did Rafter accomplish by the end Jan 1997? I'll tell you what. A rank of #63. Whoa, whoa! That is some tough competition indeed!
Let's see what guys like Berdych, Djokovic, Gasquet, Baghdatis, and Murray accomplish by 2000 and then lets talk competition.
Last edited:
Yes, they would destroy Federer, and he is the biggest joke in tennis history.
ferocious4hand
Semi-Pro
"Destroy" Federer...when was the last time Federer got "Destroyed" like the way he "Destroyed" Roddick?
federerforever
Rookie
Sorry I used the wrong word. By destroy I meant they would be able to actually beat Federer in a slam in probably 5 sets. And I don't mean they would own Federer but they would occassionaly steal slams from Federer unlike this decade where no body on ATP right now can even win a set against Fed. I think Sampras and Fed have the same talent and strengths but Fed is in a much weaker decade and therefore will accomplish much more than Sampras.
Beside injury, I think desire and motivation play a major role in slowing down Sampras. A great sportsperson is always chasing and breaking records. After his 13th Slam, logically, Sampras has nothing left to prove on a tennis court. He may still go after the French, but everyone knows, including Sampras, the chance of that is negligible. Nonetheless, it is still difficult for Sampras to just stop. He still strives for more, despite the criticism he gotten during his slump, he still finds one last ounce of motivation to capture one more Slam to silence all his critics. If he had knew Federer would come knocking on his records so quickly, he would have persevere a little longer.
Eviscerator
Banned
I am not sure he would have as he really seemed to want to go out "on top". Otherwise he should have gone back to Wimbeldon one more time and not have ended his career there like he did.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
He never won the French because his ground game was inferior to other players of that era, and his main weapon (serve) was neutralized.
I think what some have tried to mention is the fact that although Sampras was quite dominating in his time, he still lost to players ranked around the top 10. It's not like Federer and some of his high ranked opponents, say Roddick only beaten him once. If we consider say, Sampras and Agassi, they are 20-14 Sampas. Federer has only lost once to Roddick, who is considered one of the top ranked players in the last couple of years. Whether or not they had tougher competition, it can be said that Sampras didn't utterly dominate over almost every single top ten player that he faced, while the same cannot be said for Roger Federer. What I'm trying to say is this, from Sampras's viewpoint, he probably agree in saying that his opponents were very tough as he lost to them more than once or twice.
The Gorilla
Banned
lambielspins
Banned
Yeah Nadal is definitely Federer's closest rival. While Nadal is 6-3 to be fair they are 2-2 on hard courts the neutral surface for them, Nadal has 4 wins on clay, Federer 1 on grass. I have a feeling Federer will be 10-7 by the time they have played another 8 times though, and by then be something like 7-2 on hard courts. Federer will never lose to Nadal on non clay surfaces again and will only occasionaly lose to him on clay.
The Gorilla
Banned
how do you all think fed's backhancd will hold up on clay?He hasn't had to deal with any high backhands as of yet so it's kinda hard to tell if he's going to slice against nadal.
What slowed down Sampras ? If I have to pick one: herniated disc injury in 1999.
Well, there was general aging, and he often had injuries like sprained ankle
and frequent shin sprint etc.. and there was blood conditions.
But he had super-efficient game to overcone these. In fact, IMHO, he
developed his priority weighted efficient game because he had these
physical limitations.
But I think it was the lower back injury at 1999 US Open. After that,
he lost his ground game and which eventually lead him to his retirement.
Agassi said "he started to play more in the middle" refering to Sampras'
slowing down on his ground game.
Before that injury, he was talking about playing until mid-30's or older
and shooting for 17 or 18 slams. Then suddenly, out of nowhere, it happened..
Well, there was general aging, and he often had injuries like sprained ankle
and frequent shin sprint etc.. and there was blood conditions.
But he had super-efficient game to overcone these. In fact, IMHO, he
developed his priority weighted efficient game because he had these
physical limitations.
But I think it was the lower back injury at 1999 US Open. After that,
he lost his ground game and which eventually lead him to his retirement.
Agassi said "he started to play more in the middle" refering to Sampras'
slowing down on his ground game.
Before that injury, he was talking about playing until mid-30's or older
and shooting for 17 or 18 slams. Then suddenly, out of nowhere, it happened..
Last edited:
