He didn't win them due to the FH. He became a S&V bot.
Where does the Sampras forehand rank?
- Thread starter SaintPetros
- Start date
He didn't win them due to the FH. He became a S&V bot.
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Legend
Becker didi it before Sampras.
mightyrick
Legend
arvind13
Professional
BS. please watch his slam performances at US Open 1996, AO 1997, Wimbledon 1999, Wimbledon 2000. In US open 1996, his ground game was the major factor that helped him overcome both corretja and Michael chang. Same in AO 1997 where he had to rely on his ground game and his forehand especially against Costa and Muster, both of whom did not allow him to come to net lot of the points and he was forced to stay back. In both wimbledon 1999 and 2000 finals sampras showed us the total package especially wimbledon 1999 where every part of his game was firing, forehand, backhand, serve and volley. even in US open 2001 which was a losing effort, in the QF against agassi, he largely relied on his groundstrokes to win lot of important points.
By seond half I mean something like 98-99 onwards, last half is maybe more accurate way of putting it. Please, he was a serve and volleyer at wimbledon every year.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Unlike those who say Fed would perfectly adapt to all times blah blah blah I think Pete's forehand would play virtually the same in all decades. He would struggle a bit today without the modern ATP spin generating forehand on slower surfaces but prolly be fine on grass and indoors.
RS
Bionic Poster
Saint Petros was banned
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
This post doesn't explain why Sampas has the alleged best forehand of all time. The mechanics and benefits of the shot weren't described not one time.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Pete has a GOAT tier forehand on the forehand side. Inside out wasn't especially GOAT tier imo
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Yes- the running forehand wouldn't have needed to be a strategy if he could've made more of an inside-out motion. Not that the running forehand hurt him all that much.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
So he could be with us still?
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
In response to the thread, just from what I’ve seen, it’s an absolutely fantastic shot, but a bit below the very best the sport has (I speak mostly in terms of consistency here). I’d put it next to the Agassi FH, maybe a bit better. Strictly running FHs tho? GOAT BOAT and FLOAT
Absolutely one of the very very greatest forehands. You just did not want to mess with him on that side. Awesome deadly shot and he had a very offensive mentality with it and went for it a lot with lots of confidence. I would say co-greatest running forehand along with Lendl who had some incredible runners as well. There is this silly myth that Pete was a servebot who was lousy from the baseline, that's baloney - he was absolutely top notch all around (until his backhand/movement deteriorated later). Others like Becker & Stich were also excellent all-around, but Pete was a notch above them with his super athletic ability, killer mentality and laser focus on being the best. To dominate Agassi/Courier/Chang from the baseline as he did many times, you have to be freaking incredible! In his peak in the mid-90s, he was the god on hard/grass with no weaknesses. To give an idea of his aura back then, it was considered a huge upset that he lost to Krajicek at Wimbledon 96. This was not like Becker losing to Peter Doohan or Hewitt losing to Karlovic (unknown back then). This was Krajicek who was already a top player for many years and it was still considered inconceivable that he could actually beat Pete at Wimbledon! It's also a myth that he sucked on clay - though he rarely did much at RG, in his prime, in any given match, he could beat the best even on clay - he beat Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, etc and one of his greatest accomplishments was on clay - leading the US almost single-handedly to win the Davis Cup in Russia.
Pete was just an incredible player - unfortunately due to his low profile and the big 3 now being around so long, he's become somewhat overlooked now, but he was absolutely the man back then. Unfortunatey, i think he would actually be better remembered for his overall great play if his serve wasn't that crazy amazing, which causes folks now to think he must have just been a serve-bot. Give Federer Pete's serve and after 10 years, folks would be calling him a servebot...
Pete was just an incredible player - unfortunately due to his low profile and the big 3 now being around so long, he's become somewhat overlooked now, but he was absolutely the man back then. Unfortunatey, i think he would actually be better remembered for his overall great play if his serve wasn't that crazy amazing, which causes folks now to think he must have just been a serve-bot. Give Federer Pete's serve and after 10 years, folks would be calling him a servebot...
P
PETEhammer
Guest
P
PETEhammer
Guest
I've always thought Pete's forehand was more like Del Po's than Fed's in nature. It was a brutal weapon that crushed the ball through grass, brick, and cement. A hammer...some might say a PETEhammer
His shot looked a very heavy rocket, probably a combination of his unique technique + his heavy racket.
RS
Bionic Poster
Sad huh?I know
NonP
Legend
This is what you jokers don't get about the Sampras FH:
One more thing:
Ivan can rip it better than Rafa, probably due to the latter's grip, but then he's not quite the runner Bull (or Pete) is. On the plus/minus side Rafa almost always goes DTL, again due to that relative difficulty generating pace, which would make it somewhat less effective against elite net rushers even given his greater net clearance near the posts.
So it's pretty much a tie between the two, I'd say a hair behind Pistol's.
One more thing:
Ivan can rip it better than Rafa, probably due to the latter's grip, but then he's not quite the runner Bull (or Pete) is. On the plus/minus side Rafa almost always goes DTL, again due to that relative difficulty generating pace, which would make it somewhat less effective against elite net rushers even given his greater net clearance near the posts.
So it's pretty much a tie between the two, I'd say a hair behind Pistol's.
I don't think anyone has really answered your question, which is, I think, how did the mechanics of Sampras' forehand work (what was the sequencing of the take back, the angle of the racket head and the shape of its movement through takeback and attack, the spin imparted, the clearance over the net, the depth and height of bounce, the bend of the knees, the body rotation), and how effective would all that be in different eras?
Also everyone has focussed on the forehand as a standalone point winner, but what about things like consistency, ability to redirect the ball, to hit short angles, to dink, to drop shot, to be a defensive shot when needed?
I can't really answer any of those questions, but as someone who played with the old wooden rackets and now with a modern racket I can say that with the olden wooden racket the big swings possible with modern rackets would not work because the sweet spot was so small you would be miss-hitting all the time. The ball had to be steered more, and flick of the wrist shots were not possible. Some rolling of the wrist could be done. Preparation had to be early and deliberate. The running forehand winner would be an extremely low percentage shot.
Also everyone has focussed on the forehand as a standalone point winner, but what about things like consistency, ability to redirect the ball, to hit short angles, to dink, to drop shot, to be a defensive shot when needed?
I can't really answer any of those questions, but as someone who played with the old wooden rackets and now with a modern racket I can say that with the olden wooden racket the big swings possible with modern rackets would not work because the sweet spot was so small you would be miss-hitting all the time. The ball had to be steered more, and flick of the wrist shots were not possible. Some rolling of the wrist could be done. Preparation had to be early and deliberate. The running forehand winner would be an extremely low percentage shot.
PURETENNISsense
Professional
Especially for his time
joshuadearing
Rookie
Most beautiful running forehand for sure; he generated so much power because the ball was so low.
Also mentions of him being a servebot; no servebot has more than one grand slam Goran.
Also mentions of him being a servebot; no servebot has more than one grand slam Goran.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
true, and i would give federer the overall edge, could just do more with it generally. pete didn't break his wrist as much so he had to get 'out of the way' more to hit the i/o forehand, whereas fed can catch it closer to his body and put more spin on it.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Last edited:
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Nice moniker - Petros άγιος.
Nice question.
Ask @Waspsting about Pistol Petros' forehand and how it might stack up from late 1970s to present. Our most studious student of stroke details has watched, rewatched, analyzed, rewatched probably two-dozen Sampras matches, and high numbers of other players with well-regarded forehands over that 40+-year span.
slipgrip93
Professional
I recall reading and coming across speculation that Sampras supposedly used a semi-western grip , almost eastern, on his fh, and then maybe more of a continental style follow through. But there also seemed to be decent pace and heaviness to his fh balls where I recall many opponents often didn't try to take his fh shot early, and plenty of the shots bounced at or before the service line. But then again he would change often in the situation to the "banana"/buggy whip type fh follow through like for his running fh, or even returning a serve from the fh wide side.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Going back farther - Both Tilden and Johnston had powerhouse, controlled forehands - each diametrically different from the other, and Johnston's we seldom seen again until, in-a-way, Nadal and his followers . Elllsworth Vines' forehand was lengendarrrrryyyyy. Don Budge's FH was as good as anyone could want, except his backhand was probably the greatest ever, and Kenny Rosewall's FH is probably overlooked for the same reason, and I think the same goes for his rival, Lew Hoad, who had all the shots. Hans Nusslein extremely strong, almost indomitable FH. Fred Perry's attacking forehand, relentlessly moving in to take-it-on-the-rise, was wickedly feared. I would think Jack Crawford's FH had to have been formidable. Cramm's FH was impeccable. And Richard Norris "Dick" Williams, over-the-hill after the Great War, still possessed a FH which when "on" was a presursor to the famous Vines laser shot.
By pre-1980-90s consensus, the greatest forehand ever was the two-handed forehand of Francisco "Pancho" Segura.
Tony Trabert was justly regarded for his forehand and groundies generally. Roy Emerson had a fair forehand. Ditto Newcombe.
Now we start to get into eras where I might defer to @Waspsting. Certainly Borg and Lendl have to be near the top.
Personally, I can think 8 - 12 players since late 1970s w FHs different in style but similarly strong/effective as Saint Pete. And IMHO there are more than a half-dozen whose FHs were/are superior to Sampras.
What was important about the Sampras FH, and his groundies in general, was what an all-round, all-court force he was.
A few "underrated" FHs I mentioned already - Budge, Rosewall, Hoad. Other underrated FHs - not in Sampras' class - would include Lacoste, Gonzalez, Laver and, probably, Kramer - which only stands to reason. In the cases of Lacoste and Laver this was also because their backhands were so lethal - as w Budge, Rosewall and Hoad. As re. Big Pancho and Big Jake, it is just inductive reasoning, and contemporaneous accounts.
@Waspsting may have other ideas. IMHO, each of the Big Three FHs > Sampras.
AND, if Segura's forehand was > that of Juan Martin del Potro, then it really was the greatest single stroke of all-time, as his contemporaries claimed.
Little Pancho age 45:
Delpo:
By pre-1980-90s consensus, the greatest forehand ever was the two-handed forehand of Francisco "Pancho" Segura.
Tony Trabert was justly regarded for his forehand and groundies generally. Roy Emerson had a fair forehand. Ditto Newcombe.
Now we start to get into eras where I might defer to @Waspsting. Certainly Borg and Lendl have to be near the top.
Personally, I can think 8 - 12 players since late 1970s w FHs different in style but similarly strong/effective as Saint Pete. And IMHO there are more than a half-dozen whose FHs were/are superior to Sampras.
What was important about the Sampras FH, and his groundies in general, was what an all-round, all-court force he was.
A few "underrated" FHs I mentioned already - Budge, Rosewall, Hoad. Other underrated FHs - not in Sampras' class - would include Lacoste, Gonzalez, Laver and, probably, Kramer - which only stands to reason. In the cases of Lacoste and Laver this was also because their backhands were so lethal - as w Budge, Rosewall and Hoad. As re. Big Pancho and Big Jake, it is just inductive reasoning, and contemporaneous accounts.
@Waspsting may have other ideas. IMHO, each of the Big Three FHs > Sampras.
AND, if Segura's forehand was > that of Juan Martin del Potro, then it really was the greatest single stroke of all-time, as his contemporaries claimed.
Little Pancho age 45:
Delpo:
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
To Drob's list one could add. Cochet, who was the first who hit the forehand on the run, and Ken Fletcher, Santana (very versatile and tricky) and Gimeno. Newcombe's forehand was feared, he often ran around his backhand to hit it as a return. Some Swedes like Larsson had big forehands too. I liked the strange forehand by Berasategui.
Short answer, I think Sampras' FH belongs in second tier - and in the deadly, dangerous but erratic variety
Long answer...
Before getting to the shot, its important to contextualize it within his game. Sampras' game was -
- particularly service game focused and looking for as few breaks as needed (or none at all even)
- serve-volleyed off first serves constantly (we'll leave clay out for the moment)
So first and foremost, he's looking to take care of his service games. And off first serves, he's doing that serve-volleying (i.e. his FH doesn't come into)
If he serves at 55% and wins 70% of those points (and those are conservative estimates), he's starting whatever baseline points where his FH becomes a factor with a large head start. It gives him license to be very aggressive with the FH - and he did
he went for point ending shots from regulation positions with it. Missed more than he made
wasn't too interested in outlasting opponent, but wasn't particularly good at it. The neutral error would come from Sampras sooner or later, usually sooner
That doesn't sound like a great FH, but in context of his game, it works. He's got his fill of points serve-volleying... he can afford to miss a few FHs. Making a smaller amount will still see him hold comfortably
Given he can hold comfortably, the low percentage thing works for him even in return games. He can go nuts with the FH because he just needs them to land in 1 game to get the break he needs. Rest of the time, he can miss them all and it doesn't matter
Basically, FH was the third string in Sampras' attacking game. It'd make a decent first string, and I can't think of anyone who's had that good a third string
A baseliner with just a decent or even a good serve that doesn't serve-volley couldn't play FHs the way Pete did and be too successful. Its too inconsistent and inevitably, he'd get broken more than he can afford
James Blake and Fernando Gonzalez are closest guys to above description. Good players, dangerous players, players who can take down anybody on given day, players who put together a great highlights reel every match... but not great players
In general, I think far too much weight is given to shot-making in assessing quality of a players groundies (especially the BH). Virtually all baseline matches have more groundstroke errors than winners... and obviously, non-point ending shots that make up even more of shots played.
Doesn't that make basic consistency, i.e. keeping ball in play more important than blasting point ending shots? Its the biggest part of everything groundstroke related
Even players don't seem to understand this
You get Connors, after getting obliterated by Borg in straight sets saying Borg didn't overpower him at all
Ashe getting obliterated by Borg saying all Borg does is put the ball in the air
Djokovic getting thumped by Nadal saying he was in control of the match and play was unfolding depending on him
Federer after losing a series of matches to Murray repeating I played badly, he didn't do anything special (why do you seem to play badly against him so often?)
Sampras wasn't particularly good at 'just' keeping the ball in court
As for the shot-making, he could strike point ending shots from regulation positions reasonably often with flat, brutal power. Often enough to get him what he needed. I won't fault him for the percentages there, but will note this can only work long term when you've got a big head start towards winning games (that his serve and serve-volleying gave him). And his attacking shots to balls that are there to be attacked - short balls - isn't overly good either
In my opinion, Sampras would have done better to use the FH to approach rather than go for winners from the back. If you can go for winner from regulation position and make it decent amount of time, then you can hit a more moderate attacking approach shot and make it more often... and take care of the finish at net. Speed to net and net coverage are two of the best parts of his net game.
He used to play this way early on, but dropped it some point in early/mid 90s and went in for playing normal baseline-to-baseline tennis
I agree
I agree
Borg better and more consistent than Lendl. Lendl harder hitting and more beat-down of style
Lendl used to advance in court gradually and finish points from no-man's land with winners or by forcing hard errors. Borg stayed back and kept belting away from there more, occasionally approaching behind it
I like how despite their huge FHs, both employed BH cc outlasting strategies just as often. Borg probably led more with that than with FH
Becker and Agassi had very good FHs. Becker's similar of usage to Sampras, Agassi more percentage conscious
Courier had a great FH... possibly the best of that generation
Last edited:
droliver
Professional
1000% correct. Sampras had a dangerous, but inconsistent forehand shot. It was a sledgehammer of a shot, but is nowhere near the top-tier as a stand alone stroke. It worked well in the context of his game which was a serve-dominant package with opportunistic breaks. The idea that someone whom has an (undisputed) GOAT level serve and a purported GOAT level forehand was then just a modestly successful clay court player needs to re-examine their premise.
While the label "servebot" kind of diminishes his genius, at the end of the day it was his serve that allowed the rest of his game to work offensively and defensively as he could play a lot more aggressively knowing he was going to hold 90-92% of the time. If you gave him an average ATP serve with the rest of his game he would have been a journeyman player.
NonP
Legend
I honestly can't think of anyone else who's not only so consistently wrong about everything but so mind-numbingly predictable about repeating his ill-conceived certitudes like a brain-dead parrot even after their flaws have been patiently explained to him a zillion times. Do you seriously have a learning disability or something?
Anyhoo this is why you don't rely on "analytics" for serious analysis, kids. As I just pointed out the other day no batch of numbers can explain the very real fear factor commanded by the Sampras (running) FH which allowed him to practically halve the court. @encylopedia made this insightful observation way back when I was just getting my feet wet on this board, not with the aid of worse-than-useless stats like "unforced error forcefulness index" (judging by its ungainly name alone I still marvel at how that ever became a thing around here) but from years of coaching and firsthand experience which is ultimately the only way to learn the game's finer points which escape the so-called analysts. In fact I've yet to come across any real expert in any sport (OK, tennis, basketball and baseball in my case) who's a stathead. They're far too wise and knowledgeable to buy into the simplistic nonsense about how keeping the ball in play > ending the point in one go, which can only occur to faux connoisseurs who think in terms of winners vs. errors. The real answer depends on the rest of the player's game, as cyclo well understood.
Also while Lendl didn't quite match Pistol in halving the court with his FH (yes, largely due to his inferior athleticism) that along with the rest of its adaptability most likely gives him the edge over Borg, as most observers who've seen both up close extensively seem to agree.
Simply watching, reading and taking/perusing stats ain't no substitute for hands-on, immersive study. Never was and never will be. The key lies in seeking out those veterans with a lifetime of experience who do know what they're talking about, and they're few and far between, no matter how many of us hackers (including occasionally moi, yes) like to think otherwise.
you are wrong. sampras fh was a huge weapon, but not consistent. so it is definetely clearly below nadals and prime federers, and it is not close.
NonP
Legend
So your reply boils down to "Fedal R da BOMB!" when my last post didn't contain a word about either and its whole gist was that harping on the Sampras FH's lack of top-notch consistency misses the point about what made it such a "huge weapon."
Maybe respond to what was actually said rather than with one of your knee-jerk talking points you clearly have ready to go?
droliver
Professional
While your diatribe was amusing, it was also empty calories. Sampras could hit highlight reel running forehands on occasion to be certain, but it was not a stroke that dictated play and court positioning point in-point out like the real best in class shots do on all surfaces. It was a very good stroke that worked well in the context of his real strengths (near GOAT level serve, elite movement, and the heart of a champion) I agree that analytics don't always capture the nuances of tennis (vs. baseball for example), but analytics clearly show why Sampras was so good that confirm what watching tape shows, => a 4-5% better then ATP tour average of service holds . That one stat is the difference between being a journeyman and a legend
NonP
Legend
You and your fellow lemmings apparently have nothing other than recycled-ad-nauseam talking points that don't address the gist of my post in the slightest. Consistency from the baseline is only one measuring stick when comparing FHs, especially for attacking, hyper-aggressive players like Sampras. And your insistence that his FH "was not a stroke that dictated play" is downright comical, because I guarantee you his contemporaries would say the exact opposite.
But feel free to join your "analyst" in thinking you actually know better than the pros re: how much emphasis to place on consistency. After all they won't be listening to you jokers, thank gawd.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Gee, wouldn't it be nice to win 14 slams with an inconsistent forehand just because you have a great serve? Wonder why that didn't work out for Rosset, Scud, Rusedksi, etc?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
If you had not watched Sampras back then, you wouldn't know that it was very, very difficult to pierce his forehand corner. This differentiated him from the fearhand on the women's side. You COULD at times punish Graf for leaving half the court open but if you dared try that with Sampras, he unfailingly ran around to the ball and smacked a winner.
At 10:38, Sampras hits a second serve that Kafelnikov punishes with a hard cross court forehand. Or so he thinks. Until Sampras somehow gets to where doubles alley would be and hits a blistering DTL winner. And all this on a super fast court. You can tell that the ball is hardly stopping at all after bounce. And yet, he got around to it. And he wasn't just using the pace of the ball to redirect; he smacked it flush. He telegraphed it, Kafelnikov guessed and move to cover DTL but it was so fast he still couldn't get even close to it.
At 10:38, Sampras hits a second serve that Kafelnikov punishes with a hard cross court forehand. Or so he thinks. Until Sampras somehow gets to where doubles alley would be and hits a blistering DTL winner. And all this on a super fast court. You can tell that the ball is hardly stopping at all after bounce. And yet, he got around to it. And he wasn't just using the pace of the ball to redirect; he smacked it flush. He telegraphed it, Kafelnikov guessed and move to cover DTL but it was so fast he still couldn't get even close to it.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Third after del potro and Graf.
brian anderson
Semi-Pro
as much as i hated pete his ruining forehand is one of the best shots ever. too bad agassi never figured that out
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Anyhow, this is a lack of fundamental understanding of tennis.
Sampras was long and lanky. A running or outstretched forehand is a strong shot for him to hit. The best forehands are the forehands players can consistently hit winners from when they're jammed up. When the opponent has hit the shot right to them, and they can't move out the way.
OR
The forehands where their footwork is so good that they're never out of position and needing to hit a running or outstretched forehand to begin with. Doesn't matter how strong those shots are- they take more time to hit, and hitting on the rise from the perfect grounding is always superior.
Sampras was long and lanky. A running or outstretched forehand is a strong shot for him to hit. The best forehands are the forehands players can consistently hit winners from when they're jammed up. When the opponent has hit the shot right to them, and they can't move out the way.
OR
The forehands where their footwork is so good that they're never out of position and needing to hit a running or outstretched forehand to begin with. Doesn't matter how strong those shots are- they take more time to hit, and hitting on the rise from the perfect grounding is always superior.
exactly. the big majority of forehands are not running forehands.
flanker2000fr
Hall of Fame
His performances at the FO have nothing to do with his FH, and everything to do with his inability to move properly on clay.
Similar threads
