a10best
Legend
I see 14 to zero. what are your numbers?look at the numbers lol
I see 14 to zero. what are your numbers?look at the numbers lol
It’s like saying 24>20 djokovic is the better server. Can’t try to educate a man who chooses to be deafI see 14 to zero. what are your numbers
I can't tell if you actually think so or if you are trolling the 80s 90s and early 00s loversPeople voting Sampras shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections
All you need to do is check ace% for the last 2 years.I can't tell if you actually think so or if you are trolling the 80s 90s and early 00s lovers
By looking at ace percentage how many guys in the last 10-15 years have outdone Pete?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
Many.By looking at ace percentage how many guys in the last 10-15 years have outdone Pete?
Don't think I have seen the list do you know the exact amount?Many.
He's not a top 10 all time server.
There's more to winning Slams than only serving.
28th on HC, 31st on clay, 32nd on grass.Don't think I have seen the list do you know the exact amount?
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
So in theory this makes Sampras even lower for you because you will say those above him faced better returners in the modern age.28th on HC, 31st on clay, 32nd on grass.
Somewhere 2022.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 maybeWhen 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.
Many.
He's not a top 10 all time server.
There's more to winning Slams than only serving.
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.
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.
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.
Didn't poly help quite a bit on return too, opening up previously impossible angles.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.
You are really a fan of a next-gen non-HOF, non-slam finalist.It’s like saying 24>20 djokovic is the better server. Can’t try to educate a man who chooses to be deaf
There’s a big difference between people who are deaf and those pretending to be.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?
Yet, still no stats on 26-yr Hubie's uber great serve stats in slams.There’s a big difference between people who are deaf and those pretending to be.
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.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.
Well, we do know now that there are at least 8 absolutely clueless posters on here.
Hurkuleeessss!!!!!Hurk is fantastic on serve tbh
Serve cant compensate for bad groundstrokesPete 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. '
Never heard this take before on shifting return position nerfing aces.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.
On the ATP career serve leaderboard, Sampras is #12 and Hurkacz is #16 - so, not an outrageous question.
Leaderboard | ATP Tour | Tennis
Statistical measures of the best-performing players in three key categories in men's professional tennis.www.atptour.com
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.
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.)
Huh?? This was already addressed. Pete's serve was great but his forehand and volleys were equally great.Serve cant compensate for bad groundstrokes
What, Pete is obviously not the one im saying has bad groundstrokesHuh?? 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.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.
bumpinb4 Rick but it's obviously Pete