Who is a better server, prime Pete Sampras or Hubert Hurkacz?

Who is a better server, prime Pete Sampras or Hubert Hurkacz in 2023?

  • Hurkacz is a signifcantly better server

    Votes: 9 9.8%
  • Hurkacz is a slightly better server

    Votes: 6 6.5%
  • Both equal

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • Pete Sampras is a slightly better server

    Votes: 13 14.1%
  • Pete Sampras is a significantly better server

    Votes: 62 67.4%

  • Total voters
    92

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I can't tell if you actually think so or if you are trolling the 80s 90s and early 00s lovers
All you need to do is check ace% for the last 2 years.

People are statistically and wilfully ******** and it's bugging me more and more
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

RS

Bionic Poster
All you need to do is check ace% for the last 2 years.

People are statistically and wilfully ******** and it's bugging me more and more
By looking at ace percentage how many guys in the last 10-15 years have outdone Pete?
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
All you need to do is check ace% for the last 2 years.

People are statistically and wilfully ******** and it's bugging me more and more

People voting Sampras shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections

Ace counts very clearly underrate Sampras’s serve. He hovered around 50% unreturnables in individual matches even when his ace % was in the 12-17 range. Their career ace rates are identical, but Sampras leads in unreturnables by 3 percentage points in a stingier era for unreturnables.

Since era2era comparisons are notoriously noisy, here’s one that may be more instructive:

Ivanisevic - 19.1% aces
Sampras - 13.1% aces

Ivanisevic - 42.1% unreturnables
Sampras - 38.3% unreturnables


If you do wish to venture further, someone like Gilles Muller clocks in at a career 16.1% for aces, but “only” 36.9% unreturnables; tells us?

And again, the eternal reminder that Sampras played without poly strings is relevant here. It is no coincidence that most of the late-ish converts to poly (Federer, Hewitt, Agassi, Djokovic) saw immediate jumps in their stand-alone service statistics.
 
Last edited:

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
When do we think Hubi's serve really took off and people started talking about it like this? I remember when his serve was still considered a good shot, but never praised like it is today, just can't pinpoint the exact moment.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
When do we think Hubi's serve really took off and people started talking about it like this? I remember when his serve was still considered a good shot, but never praised like it is today, just can't pinpoint the exact moment.
Last 2 years maybe
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Much higher unreturnables. But players were: (a) standing closer to the baseline; (b) playing on a faster court; (c) using smaller/faster balls. All of these would reduce a players ability to return the serve/put it in play, or rather, help the server find an ace/URS.

But I'm not getting into this again because it's clear people don't want to change their minds. Everything I said about this can be found in this thread with the "infallible" NonP.

Hold percentages have increased in the poly era though? Players must have an easier time serving now.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
The past 52-weeks hubi's serve has been in 15/aces per match territory and I don't think Pete ever had a year that touched that.

Why refer to ace counts and not percentages?

Sampras’s best ace % wasn’t even that far off Hurkacz’s; he was at 15.5 in his last 52, and they’re identical career-wise.

So surely you can acknowledge that “[never] touched” is an exaggeration.


Much higher unreturnables. But players were: (a) standing closer to the baseline; (b) playing on a faster court; (c) using smaller/faster balls. All of these would reduce a players ability to return the serve/put it in play, or rather, help the server find an ace/URS.

I both acknowledged and addressed this.


But I'm not getting into this again because it's clear people don't want to change their minds. Everything I said about this can be found in this thread with the "infallible" NonP.

Sure, we can agree to disagree, but bolded is what I’m talking about. This implies I’m somehow bullheaded when in fact I’ve been circumspect about these things and take great care in forming my opinions.

The funny thing is that our views on this topic would’ve overlapped almost completely from approximately 2007-2015 (granted I was a literal child for most of that time but still, LOL)…it was actually through several humbling discussions on here that I gradually came to change my mind, and I have the receipts to prove it.

So, on the matter of my open-mindedness here, you are verifiably wrong. I can understand the frustration associated with rehashing such topics (there’s a reason I also often link to old posts and then self-eject) but I do hope you can refrain from conflating people and imputing mental states. It is beneath a good poster like yourself.
 
Last edited:

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
Ace counts very clearly underrate Sampras’s serve. He hovered around 50% unreturnables in individual matches even when his ace % was in the 12-17 range. Their career ace rates are identical, but Sampras leads in unreturnables by 3 percentage points in a stingier era for unreturnables.

Since era2era comparisons are notoriously noisy, here’s one that may be more instructive:

Ivanisevic - 19.1% aces
Sampras - 13.1% aces

Ivanisevic - 42.1% unreturnables
Sampras - 38.3% unreturnables


If you do wish to venture further, someone like Gilles Muller clocks in at a career 16.1% for aces, but “only” 36.9% unreturnables; tells us?

And again, the eternal reminder that Sampras played without poly strings is relevant here. It is no coincidence that most of the late-ish converts to poly (Federer, Hewitt, Agassi, Djokovic) saw immediate jumps in their stand-alone service statistics.
Didn't poly help quite a bit on return too, opening up previously impossible angles.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Didn't poly help quite a bit on return too, opening up previously impossible angles.

It certainly did. It improved both strokes in absolute terms, as well as (among other things) the +1 forehand, defensive shot tolerance, etc.

However, with poly becoming mainstream the tour trended in the direction of being more serve-friendly, both wrt hold % and stand-alone service statistics. I mean tour-wide 1st serve % increased by three points in a mere four years, at the exact time it became ubiquitous. That is not an organic change. As intuitive as it is to believe the serve and return cancelled each other out (or something close to that), it seems rather unlikely.
 
Last edited:

a10best

Legend
It’s like saying 24>20 djokovic is the better server. Can’t try to educate a man who chooses to be deaf
You are really a fan of a next-gen non-HOF, non-slam finalist.
I'm not deaf and we shouldn't joke about people born with handicaps. That's immature.
Yes, he does have a great serve and a very good net game but it hasn't translated to being a true threat to win a slam. Not even close.

Hubie needed injury luck just to become a sub at the ATP world Finals.
At age 26 in a weak era, he should be a bigger threat than feeling fine ranked at the upper end of the top 10.

What is Hubie's serve % in slams, Tour Finals and Masters compared to inflated junk from 500s?
 
Last edited:
You are really a fan of a next-gen non-HOF, non-slam finalist.
I'm not deaf and we shouldn't joke about people born with handicaps. That's immature.
Yes, he does have a great serve and a very good net game but it hasn't translated to being a true threat to win a slam. Not even close.

Hubie needed injury luck just to become a sub at the ATP world Finals.
At age 26 in a weak era, he should be a bigger threat than feeling fine ranked at the upper end of the top 10.

What is Hubie's serve % in slams, Tour Finals and Masters compared to inflated junk from 500s?
There’s a big difference between people who are deaf and those pretending to be.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
It's like creating a topic and asking, who is faster runner my 80 years old grandma or Usain Bolt (no matter if post prime or not...)...
 

big ted

Legend
i may be in the minority but id rather have sampras' serve. theres a huge difference hitting an ace at 15-0 compared to 30-40... sampras did the latter routinely
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
i may be in the minority but id rather have sampras' serve. theres a huge difference hitting an ace at 15-0 compared to 30-40... sampras did the latter routinely
Ivanisevic had better serve, it was one of most unreadable ones out there. We know how many slams he ended up with. Serve can take you only so far.
 

big ted

Legend
Ivanisevic had better serve, it was one of most unreadable ones out there. We know how many slams he ended up with. Serve can take you only so far.

ivanisavic? the one that double-faulted his Wimbledon away against Agassi in '92? he couldn't serve under pressure like sampras did
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
On the ATP career serve leaderboard, Sampras is #12 and Hurkacz is #16 - so, not an outrageous question.


Amongst active players, Matteo Berrettini is one spot ahead of Sampras at #11.

I am just the messenger reporting on how the ATP rates serves - don’t shoot me. Incidentally they rate Federer at #8 on the server leaderboard and also #100 on the career return leaderboard.
 
Pete served his way to winning 14 GS in a strong era. This is quite possibly the most ridiculous comparison in a century.
If Hurkacz' serve was so great in one of weakest era's ever in terms of depth, he would at the very least have made a slam final. '
Serve cant compensate for bad groundstrokes
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
People don't realise how many more aces modern guys like Hurkacz would have on their first serves if they weren't playing guys who returned 3/4/5/6 meters behind the baseline and at 6'3'' to 6'6''.

The modern-day returner stands deeper and has better reach.

Hubi v Nole - Djoker starts 3/4 metres behind the baseline and has insane reach



Sampras v Agassi

Andre standing closer because an elite plus one player in this era forced you to. This serve would come back or at least not be an ace far more in today's game due to the reach and positioning of modern returners.
Never heard this take before on shifting return position nerfing aces.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
On the ATP career serve leaderboard, Sampras is #12 and Hurkacz is #16 - so, not an outrageous question.


Amongst active players, Matteo Berrettini is one spot ahead of Sampras at #11.

I am just the messenger reporting on how the ATP rates serves - don’t shoot me. Incidentally they rate Federer at #8 on the server leaderboard and also #100 on the career return leaderboard.


I won’t shoot the messenger. Let’s focus on the ranking instead. One highlight-worthy example:


#22: Rafael Nadal

#26: Greg Rusedski
#27: Ivan Ljubicic
#28: Sam Querrey
#29: Goran Ivanisevic

As for Fed’s returning: it’s rather clear he’s got an ATG return game. Any methodology that ranks him this low does not adjust for era and competition difficulty. Here you go:

Nadal, in general, isn't really a better returner than Federer on hard courts, particularly against top opponents.

Career break% against the top 10 on HC:

Federer: 24.3%
Nadal: 20.4%

And against the top 5:

Federer: 22.1%
Nadal: 18.9%

Over hundreds of matches, that's an absolutely enormous edge. Nadal was indeed better in 2011 though; 21.5% and 23.2% against the top 10 and 5 as opposed to 20.4% and 18.9% for Federer. Keep in mind that these rates would be heavily influenced by their respective matches against Djokovic at the USO, since the overall sample size is so small. There's also no evidence to suggest that Nadal returns Djokovic better than Federer does on HC, plenty to the contrary in fact (19.9%-15.4% -- Federer and Nadal's respective % of return games won against Djokovic on HC). As for who returned better in that years Open specifically, well, Nadal won 40.8% of his return games compared to 36.6% for Federer...but, excluding their matches w/Novak, it was 46.3%-42.9% for Federer. All in all, I think @abmk is right to say that the gap between the two in return game on HC is, at the very worst, negligible. I'd go even further and argue that Federer's return game on HC is CLEARLY better.

That said, I do agree that Djokovic was slightly more devastating in the final than the semi. He was a little loose on serve, but that may have been because he wasn't serving with the same urgency. He got into a mode where he was breaking Nadal seemingly at will.

This might ring truistic on my part but your post really emphasizes how surface-specific a lot of the ‘aggregate’ stroke/game advantages Nadal/Fed/Djokovic hold over one another are. For example, it’s frequently bandied about that Nadal has a stronger return game than Fed when the latters detractors call out his serve-bottery. While this is true it’s only so because Nadal’s return game on clay is several tiers ahead of Federer’s, to the point that it’s laughable to deny he has the better return game.

Yet, on HC and grass Federer’s return game is clearly superior. Not by the same margin, but it is, and the better the competition gets the more lopsided it is (against sub-50 players and consequently the field as a whole Nadal wins out in return game %’s, but against the top 50, 20, 10 and 5 Federer has the advantage and the advantage increases the higher the ranking is. Which, to me, is more important than rgw% against the entire field as neither Fed nor Nadal are in danger of losing to sub-50 guys very often.)

Nadal’s utter futility on the return against Djokovic on HC is but one reason his return game is a notch below Federer’s on non-clay. Eye-balling it on TA it looks like Djokovic has held 84 of 86 times against Nadal over that 9 match span. The idea of Federer breaking anyone only twice over a 9 match span is basically unfathomable.

Not to toot my own horn, but this debate was already stopped in its tracks long, long ago:



TL;DR: Nadl best return game (though not necessarily return of serve as a standalone shot) on clay (if the qualifier makes people upset, idk what to tell you), worst (of Big 4) on grass and HC by far (both return game and return of serve itself...yes even Federer’s return game is better on both surfaces, this shouldn’t be a difficult one to concede.)

One can argue that Nadal maybe has the best aggregate return GAME, but even there I’d favour Djokovic by a hair. Return of serve itself? No shot, and on the two surfaces where a premium is placed on ROS he’s not even in the running.

Nadal’s ace percentage against is the highest of the big 4 (despite a disproportionate amount of those matches being played on clay) and his % of return games won is the lowest on glass.

On HC, his return games won is third lowest out of the big four. Only Federer’s is lower. But look what happens when you compare the two against the top 5 and 10:

Top 5
Federer 21.1% over 169 matches
Nadal: 18.8% over 62 matches

Top 10
Federer 22.9% over 313 matches
Nadal 20.3% over 127 matches

The long and short of it is that Nadal frequently wins ‘gimme’ (sub-50 ranked opponents) matches on HC by more lopsided scorelines than Federer does, and thus has better overall return stats. But adjusting for competition, Federer’s return is clearly better on HC...and on grass such an adjustment is not even necessary, as his % of return games won is already higher, 25.2%-23.8%.

Murray and Djokovic both have higher rgw on grass and HC, against the field
AND top 5/10 by far.

Nadal does indeed win an extraordinary % of return games across all surfaces...but his return game is most efficient on the one surface that places little importance on the return as a stand-alone shot.


Addressed many times, but I’ll copy and paste once more:


In point form:

- It’s extremely surface-dependent
- On surfaces where the return as a stand-alone stroke is more valued, Nadal is at the bottom of the pack among the Big 4 (yes, even below Federer)
- Even on aggregate, he’s level with Djokovic statistically…but that calls into question just what exactly we mean when we say ‘return’


It’s a settled matter, and there’s nothing anybody has or can be able to say to refute any of this.


^(Not to sound like @NonP here, LOL.)


The notion that Fed had anything but a first-class, ATG return game must die a quick death.
 
Last edited:

a10best

Legend
Serve cant compensate for bad groundstrokes
Huh?? This was already addressed. Pete's serve was great but his forehand and volleys were equally great.
The comparisons of a current player who's highest rank is #9 to a former GOAT who last played just 20 years ago is ridiculous.
GOATs and ATGs break the big server because the rest of the big server's game has mechanical flaws and mental errors; Hubie.
It's better to compare Hubie's serve to Opelka, Kraijcek, Isner or Karlovic.
 
Last edited:
Huh?? This was already addressed. Pete's serve was great but his forehand and volleys were equally great.
The comparisons of a current player who's highest rank is #9 to a former GOAT who last played just 20 years ago is ridiculous.
GOATs and ATGs break the big server because the rest of the big server's game has mechanical flaws and mental errors; Hubie.
It's better to compare Hubie's serve to Opelka, Kraijcek, Isner or Karlovic.
What, Pete is obviously not the one im saying has bad groundstrokes
 

NedStark

Professional
Huh?? This was already addressed. Pete's serve was great but his forehand and volleys were equally great.
The comparisons of a current player who's highest rank is #9 to a former GOAT who last played just 20 years ago is ridiculous.
GOATs and ATGs break the big server because the rest of the big server's game has mechanical flaws and mental errors; Hubie.
It's better to compare Hubie's serve to Opelka, Kraijcek, Isner or Karlovic.
You probably should replace Krajicek with Raonic, though. Unlike the other names here, Krajicek was actually a Slam winner with an elite net game in an era when volleying mattered.
 
Top