Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sampras v Federer

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Sampras v Federer

    Men's tennis is changing as it is just starting to attract better athletes that will have the strokes and mental makeup to take the game to a higher level than what you see with a Sampras or a Federer. Imagine a Safin with brains! That is still a generation away but it's coming.

    Federer looks good right now but his weaknesses will become appearant to every player on the tour once they stop treating him like god. After that it's a matter of execution. Agassi was serving at set-all 4-2 in the third and lost his serve to let Federer off the hook. I'm sure that was noticed in the locker room.

    Even though Nadal may never be considered a future GOAT, he may be the one player that will prove Federer to be human on hardcourts. Nadal seems to have the ability to stay one step ahead of Federer on that surface. I can hardly wait until next season.

    Sampras v Federer? Doesn't make the winner the greatest but it would have made a heck of a Wimbledon final. It will be overall record that determines that. Pete's is in the books. We saw two great matches between Rosewall and Laver in the 1970 WCT finals and a great match at Wembley between Nastase and Laver with Laver losing all three. Laver is still considered one of the all-time greatest while Nastase and Rosewall don't get a mention.

    Oh yeah, I pick Pete...but that's because he was a member at a dinky little club in Toronto I used to be head pro at. It was near the hotel he was staying and it was just before he won his last US Open. Musta been our club.)

    cman

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Sampras v Federer

      >Federer looks good right now but
      >his weaknesses will become appearant to every player on the tour once they stop
      >treating him like god.

      Please tell us. What are they?


      After that it's a matter of execution. Agassi was
      >serving at set-all 4-2 in the third and lost his serve to let Federer off the
      >hook. I'm sure that was noticed in the locker room.

      It was notice that Roger wasn't playing up to par and Agassi was playing his A game. When Federer woke up (like he often finds a way of doing) it was lights out Andre.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Sampras v Federer

        >>>How good is Donald Young?

        I have heard he is too small for the modern power game - only about 5-10 (178). Perhaps he'll grow a bit.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Sampras v Federer

          >>Federer looks good right now but
          >>his weaknesses will become appearant to every player on the tour once they stop
          >>treating him like god.

          >Please tell us. What are they?

          Agassi served extremely well up until that point but reverted to the Andre of old and failed to hold his serve at the worst possible moment. If he takes the third set and keeps Federer from finding his touch for a couple more games...who knows.

          A guy that can keep Federer off balance with his serve and has a good returns and a power ground stroke game can keep Roger from finding his rhythm. Nadal on a good serving day and Safin when the mood strikes him are two players that come to mind. You could ugly it up a bit like Nic Kiefer and disrupt the flow to Roger's game too but you have to have a better serve than Kiefer if you want to win.

          It's like boxing, if you can't keep the opponent from getting rhythm and establishing his game...you lose.

          cman

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Sampras v Federer

            I guess the trick is to find someone who can keep Federer "off balance". Since RF is so balanced, obviously, that is much easier said than done. You mentioned on a "good day" Nadal and Safin can do that. But it takes a very good day for them. And, as we have seen, they don't have too many days that good. Contrasting, Federer appears to have many good days. He may get knocked off balance on occasion, but he usually finds that balance again - very quickly.

            Knocking a player off balance is key to tennis. The more complete a players game the harder this task is. Of course, Feder's game is very complete.

            There may be a very good reason the others "treat him like God".

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Sampras v Federer

              i've seen both of them play and i must say federer has the edge. he would beat sampras on any surface, but on grass it would be a tie. anyhoos, i think agassi is still the best unless federer wins himself the french open coz he's already better than sampras. i admit federer plays a near perfect game, but agassi had won all the grand slams so he has this winning point over federer.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Sampras v Federer

                >You dont need anyone to tell you Sampras had a weak backhand...just look for
                >yourself.

                Everyone in my circle knew it. It was not reliable and was easy
                >prey at Roland Garros with the long rallies. <


                i've no idea wha your circle may be - all i know is that it goes around & eventually gets nowhere

                pistol had no problem with the backhand, just that his mentality wasn't suited to the long rallies on clay

                on grass, points last usually about 3 - 5 strokes on average ( providing return is good ), whereas on a hardcourt, they may stretch to 5 - 10

                pistol had the speed/power/athleticism/etc. to "handle" this kinda scenario, but on clay, serves & powerful groundshots are nullified & it turns into a patience contest, with points maybe lasting 10 - 20 shots - pistol wasn't brought up on clay & didn't have the patience to rally away all day for just 1 point - his was a quick-point power game

                however, 1y he did go for it & in '95 french he beat courier ( a great clay courter ) in 5 epic sets, after losing 1st 2 sets in their quarter-final

                in the semi, he was spent & lost tamely to kafelnikov ( eventual tourney winner ) - a guy i wouda favoured him to beat ( even on clay ) if fresh


                >He tended to lift it too much
                >and go long when pressures. It was not a well controlled stroke. Compare him to
                >Fed or Lendl with their singlehanded backhands. THOSE are waepons, not just
                >means to keep the point going. How many winners did Pete get of the backhand
                >against top players?<

                pistol got tons of backhand winners against top players - go watch the '99 wimbledon final - he was fizzing backhand winners down/cross-court in the final

                how the hell do you expect to win 7 time wimbledon/ 5 time US champions with a weak backhand ???

                lendl was brought up on clay & had patience to rally on it all day ( regardless of his backhand ) & allied to his power did give him an edge over the opposition ( if both players have the patience, power can tip the balance )

                federer hasn't impressed on clay - he won a masters tourney on it this year, but got soundly whupped on it by nadal in the semi of french & similarly, kuerten taught him a lesson on it the previous year

                his "great" backhand has only got him to a french semi ( same as pistol ), so i don't see this as some "key" for him

                fed to me, also doesn't have the patience for clay - to me, if all the guz are fit & ready, i'd back a nadal,ferrero,coria & nalbandian to beat him on it

                >Rafters bserve came from a closed racket face and yes
                >while he could get lift, it was not particularly angled or powerful. No one
                >feared his serve...how many aces did he average???<

                you know bugger all about tennis, if your going on aces

                how many aces does rudeski serve ?

                how may slams has he got ?

                count how may aces fed serves - not in the rudeski/roddick/karlovic/ancic league - but count the no. of slams they have & he has

                fed's acknowledged to be the best server around ( on the FAR more important criteria of how often he is broken in a match/tourney ), but he doesn't dominate aces count

                >He was a decent volleyer
                >but tended to 'pop up', a fatal flaw in my books. Lendl would have eaten him
                >for breafast, lunch, tea and dinner.<

                ridiculous !

                agassi, the best returner in the game coud do little with it in 2 succesive wimbledon semis ('00 & '01 ) & got beaten in 5 sets both times

                if you had either a weak serve or weak volley, agassi wouda eaten you for breakfast !

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Sampras v Federer

                  may i point out an overlooked performance this year

                  my tip for french this year was coria, who i believe has the best clay court game out there ( since ferrero has gone downhill following injury ) - maybe even better than nadal !

                  coria choked in last year's final, when it looked like he coudn't lose ( & taught agassi a lesson on clay in an earlier round ) & this year in run-up to french he'd lost only to nadal & fed ( but claimed those claycourts weren't ideal for him - too quick for him & more akin to a slow hardcourt, than the "true" slow courts of roland garros ( albeit, he couda beaten ginepri to get to US Open semi ! ))

                  well, to cut a long story short, i thought only nadal or fed wouda stood a chance to beat him in paris & then probably only in 5 hard sets

                  however, he lost this year to davydenko after winning the 1st set:

                  see story here ( it's towards the middle of the article ):

                  http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2005-05-31/h.php

                  i'll be blunt - i didn't believe there was a man alive who coud do that to coria on his preferred paris clay

                  i'd consider that the performance of the year & i woud seriously keep an eye on this ruskie ( he lost unfortunately in semi to puerta, where he really shouda won ) - especially on clay

                  if he stays fit, he can be a modern great:

                  http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/pla ... umber=D402

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Sampras v Federer

                    Sampras was not great on clay by any means, but he did win an Italian Open on it, so he had some abilty on it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Sampras v Federer

                      I don't watch all that much tennis, but am I the only one who thinks that the clay-court game is ridiculous? Not in and of itself (cue Paul Simon---slip-slip slidin' away), but because it's sooo different than the rest of the sport.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Sampras v Federer

                        Seems to be a few historical tennis buffs here: if you get the cable channel Spike, they had a special bio on Pancho Gonzalez last night that was supposed to be pretty good. That's the kind of channel that replays things, so you might look for it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Sampras v Federer

                          >I don't watch all that much tennis, but am I the only one who thinks that the
                          >clay-court game is ridiculous? Not in and of itself (cue Paul Simon---slip-slip
                          >slidin' away), but because it's sooo different than the rest of the sport.

                          Clay court tennis is an unforgiving test of stamina, technique and balls. If the basics aren't there, one is doomed to failure. Sure ain't pretty to watch, bu it takes a special player to master it. Clay GOAT - Bjørn Borg.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Sampras v Federer

                            >>Clay court tennis is an unforgiving test of stamina,
                            >technique and balls. If the basics aren't there, one is doomed to failure. Sure
                            >ain't pretty to watch, bu it takes a special player to master it. Clay GOAT -
                            >Bjørn Borg.<

                            i'd agree

                            the 2 best clay-courters since the open era began in '68 were borg & lendl & they had a classic final in '81 when borg outlasted him in 5 pulsating sets( lendl ran out of gas after levelling at 2 sets-all )

                            it was a rivalry which lasted just that 1 match on clay ( grand slams ), when borg retired & lendl was on the way up

                            if borg had carried on for the next 3 - 4y, we couda seen the greatest clay court matches of all-time between these 2 ( strange though that lendl did go thru a clay "slump" in '82 & '83 only reaching 4th round & qf before reaching 4 succesive finals ( winning 3 ) - i can't remember who beat him in '82 & '83 - maybe someone can look it up ? )

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Sampras v Federer

                              Wasn't it Noah in '83? Don't think Lendl made the semis, can't remember more of '82 other than Wilander winning.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Sampras v Federer

                                coudn't find the details but saw wilander's name come up a lot

                                i alwayz though he was a runt & shocked how he won slams, but atp site listed him as a very sizeable 6'0 / 175 !

                                damn !

                                i must have had some poor tv's back in '80's !


                                amazing to think that he won so often & that he won '83 oz open on grass - beating mac in the semis & lendl in the final

                                to beat a peak/near peak mac on grass shows how good he was - bit mystifying he didn't ever win a wimbleton !?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X