Why Federer will be regarded as better than even Pete

C

Coria

Banned
First of all, he clearly has a better backhand. He is able to pass better with it, particularly the crosscourt angle topspin pass. He has better control and a more penetrating slice.

Federer is a better volleyer. I know Pete was awesome, but Federer can hit better angle and control volleys from various positions within the service boxes. He has even better touch on his volleys that Pete.

Federer covers the court better than Sampras. When Pete would be in a long groundstroke rally, he could occasionally pull off phenomenol forehands on the run. But, in general, when stretched really wide, his groundstroke responses were pretty inconsistent. Federer can hit amazing shots off both sides while on the run AND he can hit tremendous lobs--something Pete was only adequate at.

Federer also has a better drop shot.

Federer, I believe, also changes the trajectory and pace of the ball better than Sampras. He can completely change a groundstroke point by hitting a wonderful down the line shot after a crosscourt ball at him. He can also take a hard hit ball and "soften" it better than Pete.

Whether he gets to 14 majors remains to be seen. I think he'll be darn close, if not surpass it. I think Sampras was one of the top three of all time--but I honestly think Federer has greater shot-making ability and even greater athleticism. Time will tell.
 
i agree with the statement that Federer is better than Pete, but will he still have the fire to compete if he does basically dominate the game. i hope he does beat all of Pete's records though.

btw, u might want to check out that one topic that calls you a "head case". lol. :)
 
Coria said:
First of all, he clearly has a better backhand. He is able to pass better with it, particularly the crosscourt angle topspin pass. He has better control and a more penetrating slice.

Federer is a better volleyer. I know Pete was awesome, but Federer can hit better angle and control volleys from various positions within the service boxes. He has even better touch on his volleys that Pete.

Federer covers the court better than Sampras. When Pete would be in a long groundstroke rally, he could occasionally pull off phenomenol forehands on the run. But, in general, when stretched really wide, his groundstroke responses were pretty inconsistent. Federer can hit amazing shots off both sides while on the run AND he can hit tremendous lobs--something Pete was only adequate at.

Federer also has a better drop shot.

Federer, I believe, also changes the trajectory and pace of the ball better than Sampras. He can completely change a groundstroke point by hitting a wonderful down the line shot after a crosscourt ball at him. He can also take a hard hit ball and "soften" it better than Pete.

Whether he gets to 14 majors remains to be seen. I think he'll be darn close, if not surpass it. I think Sampras was one of the top three of all time--but I honestly think Federer has greater shot-making ability and even greater athleticism. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I notice you never mentioned Sampras' serve...
 
i dont think the odds are that slim big ted. i think fed is the best player to step foot on a grass court. he loves wimbledon and will probably continue to dominate it. he is committed to winning that title.
 
finchy said:
i dont think the odds are that slim big ted. i think fed is the best player to step foot on a grass court. he loves wimbledon and will probably continue to dominate it. he is committed to winning that title.
Click to expand...


i think if feds lucky he will win

5 wimbedons
1 or 2 french opens
3 us opens
3 australian opens

after all that, it still 1 or 2 less then pete sampras
 
Coria said:
Federer is a better volleyer. I know Pete was awesome, but Federer can hit better angle and control volleys from various positions within the service boxes. He has even better touch on his volleys that Pete.
Click to expand...

Very incorrect.

As previously mentioned, you forgot about the most important shot in men's tennis: the serve. Pete has a huge advantage in that department.
 
When Fed gets close to winning 10 slams, we should renew this discussion.

I think he can do it, but he has to stay healthy and deal with guys who want to deal with him.

I suppose these discussions do pass the time . . . .
 
serveboy said:
Very incorrect.

As previously mentioned, you forgot about the most important shot in men's tennis: the serve. Pete has a huge advantage in that department.
Click to expand...


Can someone tell me why Pete serve was better than Roger's serve?
Speedwise they are about the same I would say. I don't ever remember Sampras serve above 133mph. Same goes for Roger (His record serve is about 134mph at Wimbledon last year).
I would say Roger has one of the best accuracy on his serve right now. He is not the fastest server by far in todays game but he still manages to out ace Roddick and Safin in EVERY MATCH.
I know the last one is also due to his return of serve which I consider the best ever but still he out aces them in every match they played which is a remarkable.

So, It is either the game is much faster right now than in mid 90s when Sampras was at his peak or the radar guns are so juiced up and Federer actual serves are about 120s?

The only difference I see is that Sampras had better second serve. Both speed wise and location of the serve.
 
pete served harder on a consistent basis more then federer (mostly in the 120's) also his serve was a much heavier ball then federers with the spin probly due to the heavier racquet
 
Vlad said:
Can someone tell me why Pete serve was better than Roger's serve?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE HE WON MORE POINTS WITH IT!

Sampras could basically coast through matches on only his serve if he needed to. Federer can't do that.

Speedwise they are about the same I would say. I don't ever remember Sampras serve above 133mph. Same goes for Roger (His record serve is about 134mph at Wimbledon last year).

Radar guns have gone up in speed. On old 90s, replays, you can hear commentators gasping about "WOW! Sampras hit a 120 mph serve, fastest of the tournament!"

I would say Roger has one of the best accuracy on his serve right now. He is not the fastest server by far in todays game but he still manages to out ace Roddick and Safin in EVERY MATCH.
I know the last one is also due to his return of serve which I consider the best ever but still he out aces them in every match they played which is a remarkable.

So, It is either the game is much faster right now than in mid 90s when Sampras was at his peak or the radar guns are so juiced up and Federer actual serves are about 120s?

The only difference I see is that Sampras had better second serve. Both speed wise and location of the serve.
Click to expand...

Federer can hit fast flat serves and slower spinny serves - Sampras hit with more spin for an equal amount of pace. It's the combination of spin and pace which made Sampras's serve so awesome.

And yes, radar guns ARE juiced up. They're more accurate - and this means they pick up the ball earlier, and hence get a higher reading. Sampras's serve in his last years on tour was a bunch "faster" than it was in his prime, according to the readar guns - but qualitatively, it looked about the same. To me at least. Who knows, maybe he did increase his serve speeds in the latter portion of his career... or maybe the radar guns just went up.

...but really, it comes down to how effective the serve was. This is what his peers had to say about him:

"Be lucky, guess the corner, close your eyes and hope there is a God. You have to be a little religious to break his serve." -Magnus Larsson

Or, about Sampras's second serve in particular:

Sometimes I think he forgets the difference between his first serve and his second serve. -- Boris Becker, Wimbledon SF 93

People don't say that about Federer. His serve is good, but he doesn't dominate with it. He dominates with the rest of his game.
 
Pete had the better serve (1st and 2nd) and volleys hence... being a serve and volleyer... lol
Federer is more of an all courter that's keen to move in and finish points whereas Pete SnVed a lot more and let his volleys do more work. By no means are his volleys better than Petes. I think something Roger really wished he has is more oomph on his serve, otherwise Safin wouldn't have broken him as much. It also gives him something to rely on when that forehand was off.
 
big ted said:
federer will never win 14 or 15 gs titles hes not as goal oriented as pete was. pete played to beat that record thats what he ate, slept and trained for to a point of unhealthy obsession. the death of his coach didnt stop him in 95, nor did vomiting in the 96 us open stop him or playing wimbledon 2000 with only one good foot. you may think federer can beat petes record cuz he has a better chance at the french open than did pete , but the odds are extremely slim that fed will win 7 wimbledons like pete did
Click to expand...

(y)
 
Bud said:
Way to dig up a 17 yo thread :laughing:
Click to expand...

I rarely bump them, but they are fun to read. Here are two interesting threads I stumbled upon. Unfortunately, in the second one, the photo of Djoker hitting snowballs on top of the California mountain is no longer up.


Fan Apologizes for Federer Death Threat

The tennis fan whose to Roger Federer made international news last week has for the "stupid" message board comment. The Baidu.com user Blue Cat Polytheism Founder 07 wrote: "I'm terribly sorry. I was arguing with Federer fans and then I wrote something stupid. I hope that the organizers can...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

My funny run in with Novak today

Took a break from the matches today to do some touristy stuff, when to Indian Canyons and then to the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway. At the top of the tram I noticed a young blonde woman walk by with two Head Speed frames, which I thought was strange. I was about to say "Wow, you must be a huge...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com
 
DIMI_D said:
One slam difference isn’t enough Sampras dominated all Fed has to many losses
Click to expand...
Fed also dominated. Won 5 in a row, 40 straight matches and 6 out of 7 titles.

Pete didn't play past 31 and that's where 3 of Fed's losses come from.

Pete also lost to a one slam wonder in straights in the quarters, while Fed lost 9-7 in the 5th to one of the GOATS.

In my eyes, it's really not close.
 
mike danny said:
Fed also dominated. Won 5 in a row, 40 straight matches and 6 out of 7 titles.

Pete didn't play past 31 and that's where 3 of Fed's losses come from.

Pete also lost to a one slam wonder in straights in the quarters, while Fed lost 9-7 in the 5th to one of the GOATS.

In my eyes, it's really not close.
Click to expand...
5 in a row against no comp beating baby Nadal in a couple..
 
DIMI_D said:
5 in a row against no comp beating baby Nadal in a couple..
Click to expand...
Now you're just invoking the VB hymn.

Who exactly was Pete's competition on grass? Ivanisevic? Rafter? Pioline?

Nadal was anything but a baby on grass in 2006 and 2007.

So unless you have a better argument than "muh Fed beat mugs", this conversation is over.
 
mike danny said:
Now you're just invoking the VB hymn.

Who exactly was Pete's competition on grass? Ivanisevic? Rafter? Pioline?

Nadal was anything but a baby on grass in 2006 and 2007.

So unless you have a better argument than "muh Fed beat mugs", this conversation is over.
Click to expand...
Watching the actual tennis is a thing of the past. It's all just a set of simulations where the inputs are completely ignored.
 
I have them as co-Grass GOAT. Roger has more titles on grass. I believe Pete had a higher peak level on grass. Also he had to deal with serve and volley players and baseliners in the mix. Ability and level-wise on grass, they are too close to pick.
 
DIMI_D said:
5 in a row against no comp beating baby Nadal in a couple..
Click to expand...

Nadal was at absolute grass peak in Wim 07 final. Sampras didn't beat anyone as good at Wimbledon.
prime level in Wim 06 as well (06-07,10-11 and 18)

also beat peak Roddick in Wim 04

Roddick/Scud in Wim 03, Hewitt in Wim 04, Hewitt/Roddick in Wim 05, Ancic in Wim 06.

that's no competition?

Goran was not better than Roddick on grass. (atleast not by a significant margin, no matter how you want to argue)
who else? Pioline? Courier? Agassi? clearly past it Becker in those matches vs Pete? Henman? really?

So nonsense from you.
 
Last edited:
DIMI_D said:
One slam difference isn’t enough Sampras dominated all Fed has to many losses
Click to expand...

Actually its Sampras who has the bad loss in 02 at similar ages - Bastl.
For similar ages,
Fed had 7 slam wins, 1 final
Sampras had 7 slams

Sampras only made QFs at Wim from 92-00.

Fed from 2001 to frickin 2021.

fed was more dominant in a 5 year period than Sampras was. even 7 year period. only loss was 7-9 in the 5th unlike Sampras going down in straights to Krajicek.
 
N
abmk said:
Nadal was at absolute grass peak in Wim 07 final. Sampras didn't beat anyone as good at Wimbledon.
prime level in Wim 06 as well (06-07,10-11 and 18)

also beat peak Roddick in Wim 04

Roddick/Scud in Wim 03, Hewitt in Wim 04, Hewitt/Roddick in Wim 05, Ancic in Wim 06.

that's no competition?

Goran was not better than Roddick on grass. (atleast not by a significant margin, no matter how you want to argue)
who else? Pioline? Courier? Agassi? clearly past it Becker in those matches vs Pete? really?

So nonsense from you.
Click to expand...
Baby Nadal was excellent in 07 but still there is a gap he was the best of the bunch but Fed has lost to many finals vs Djoker and Nadal in his prime..
Goran was better than roddick and Becker and Agassi same with rafter were all better than feds other opponents.
 
abmk said:
Actually its Sampras who has the bad loss in 02 at similar ages - Bastl.
For similar ages,
Fed had 7 slam wins, 1 final
Sampras had 7 slams

Sampras only made QFs at Wim from 92-00.

Fed from 2001 to frickin 2021.

fed was more dominant in a 5 year period than Sampras was. even 7 year period. only loss was 7-9 in the 5th unlike Sampras going down in straights to Krajicek.
Click to expand...
It’s the last thing you can try and hold onto.. barely
 
DIMI_D said:
N

Baby Nadal was excellent in 07 but still there is a gap he was the best of the bunch but Fed has lost to many finals vs Djoker and Nadal in his prime..
Goran was better than roddick and Becker and Agassi same with rafter were all better than feds other opponents.
Click to expand...

it wasn't baby nadal at all. Nadal was at his very grass court beat in Wim 07 final.
Wim 06 was also a prime level

Roddick of Wim 09 final > Goran of Wim 98 final (Goran was done in the final set. Roddick fought till the bitter end)
The best you could argue is Goran of Wim 95 semi > Roddick of Wim 04 final (its close)

Fed lost 1 final at his prime - to Nadal. losing 7-9 in the 5th to him MUCH better than getting beaten soundly in straights by Krajicek.

Becker was past it. DFing machine in Wim 95 after 2 tough matches (Pioline and Agassi).
not sharp after tough 5-setter vs Stich in Wim 93
well past it in Wim 97.

Agassi of Wim 99 final with 44% first serves or funky service action due to injury in 93 is worse than Roddick Wim 04/09 on grass.
ditto with choking Rafter in Wim 00 final.

these guys are in and around Hewitt Wim 04/05 level at best.

Sampras getting beaten by frickin Bastl in 02 at nearly 31. you put him when he's nearly 33, 34, 38 vs djokovic, LOL.
Fed beat prime Djoko in 4 sets in Wim 12 - the same age Sampras was losing to Bastl

give me a break.
 
Last edited:
DIMI_D said:
It’s the last thing you can try and hold onto.. barely
Click to expand...

what last thing?
Fed's GOAT at Wim, even if you want to say Sampras was better peak to peak. the achievents difference is too much. 1 more slam 4 more finals,MUCH longer longevity.

your competition nonsense blown to water.

fed's also GOAT at USO, but Sampras, Connors have their arguments.
fed's 2nd greatest/best at AO

fed's GOAT at the YEC.
 
abmk said:
it wasn't baby nadal at all. Nadal was at his very grass court beat in Wim 07 final.
Wim 06 was also a prime level

Roddick of Wim 09 final > Goran of Wim 98 final
The best you coild argue is Goran of Wim 95 semi > Roddick of Wim 04 final (its close)'

Fed lost 1 final at his prime - to Nadal. losing 7-9 in the 5th to him MUCH better than getting beaten soundly in straights by Krajicek.

Becker was past it. DFing machine in Wim 95 after 2 tough matches (Pioline and Agassi).
not sharp after tough 5-setter vs Stich in Wim 93
well well past it in Wim 97.

Agassi of Wim 99 final with 44% first serves or funky service action due to injury in 93 is not better than Roddick Wim 04/09 on grass.
ditto with choking Rafter in Wim 00 final.

Sampras getting beaten by frickin Bastl in 02 at nearly 31. you put him when he's nearly 33, 34, 38 vs djokovic, LOL.
Fed beat prime Djoko in 4 sets in Wim 12 - the same age Sampras was losing to Bastl

give me a break.
Click to expand...
Nadal had no right to be pushing Fed in 07 he is not even at peak level yet but whatever makes u sleep at night trying hard to justify it..
 
abmk said:
what last thing?
Fed's GOAT at Wim, even if you want to say Sampras was better peak to peak. the achievents difference is too much. 1 more slam 4 more finals,MUCH longer longevity.

your competition nonsense blown to water.

fed's also GOAT at USO, but Sampras, Connors have their arguments.
fed's 2nd greatest/best at AO

fed's GOAT at the YEC.
Click to expand...
Sampras prob better than Fed at Wimby and US open prob WTF as well ;)
 
DIMI_D said:
Nadal had no right to be pushing Fed in 07 he is not even at peak level yet but whatever makes u sleep at night trying hard to justify it..
Click to expand...

Absolutely peak level, unquestionably.
Wim 07 final, Wim 08 QF, Wim 08 final are the 3 best matches of nadal at Wimbledon.

serving was better in Wim 08 final, but he was more aggressive&better off the ground in Wim 07 final. So similar levels.

unbelievable that this has to be explained to a Nadal fan.
 
abmk said:
Absolutely peak level, unquestionably.
Wim 07 final, Wim 08 QF, Wim 08 final are the 3 best matches of nadal at Wimbledon.

serving was better in Wim 08 final, but he was more aggressive&better off the ground in Wim 07 final. So similar levels.

unbelievable that this has to be explained to a Nadal fan.
Click to expand...
The way he played was awesome but I’m talking about Nadal tennis peak he was still developing but from what game he brought yes he was close to his best on grass.. He was a better player in 08-11 on grass and everywhere else
 
DIMI_D said:
The way he played was awesome but I’m talking about Nadal tennis peak he was still developing but from what game he brought yes he was close to his best on grass.. He was a better player in 08-11 on grass and everywhere else
Click to expand...
Tbh on grass I don’t see Fed beating Nadal from 09-11 if they vs I’m very sure of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Better Looking Game.Federer or Sampras?
Replies
29
Views
3K
helloworld
H
T
My analysis of Pete vs Roger
Replies
46
Views
4K
The tennis guy
T
S
Roger a better returner than Pete?
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
AAAA
AAAA
A
Federer CLEARLY the greatest ever now!
2
Replies
90
Views
7K
nadal for number1
nadal for number1
D
  • Poll Poll
Do you think Federer would volley more if he had a serve like Pistol Pete?
Replies
35
Views
3K
Eviscerator
Eviscerator
Back
Top