By Dan Martin, 411mania
October 30, 2006
The Tale of the Tape plus This Week in Tennis!
This Week in Tennis
Roger Federer won his hometown event in Basel Switzerland taking his 11th title of the year. Maria Sharapova on another title too. Mario Ancic won in St. Petersburg Russia and Richard Gasquet won in Lyons France. Fernando Gonzalez reached his third tournament final in three weeks and deserves mention even if he is 0-3 in those finals (2 of them were vs. Federer so give him a break).
Sampras vs. Federer II
There are a lot of young guys coming up but Roger is a bit extra-special - he has a great all-round game, like me doesn't get too emotional and is a great athlete.
- Pete Sampras
Sampras said this after losing his only encounter with Roger Federer at Wimbledon 2001. Federer won 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5. I would not put a lot of weight into that match because both were a long way from their respective primes, but I would put some stock into the quote due to who issued it.
Last week's column looked at the historical accomplishments of these two great players. However, we all know that statistics can be deceiving so this week looks at their attributes and how they would match up at the four Grand Slams as well as on indoor courts. I do want to preface this by saying both players are great and excel/excelled in just about every facet of the game. So when I give one or the other an advantage on a specific technique it is not intended to tear down the other player. However, as Highlander taught me there can be only one �.
The Tale of the Tape
Height: Federer 6'1" Sampras 6'1"
Playing Weight: Federer 177 lbs. Sampras 170 lbs.
Current Age: Federer 25 Sampras 35
Physical Tools/Athleticism
Balance: Federer
Sampras had great balance, but Federer has the best balance I have seen. Sampras ranks 3rd behind Federer and Stefan Edberg.
Hand Eye Coordination: Federer
Leaping Ability: Sampras � Recall his Slam Dunk overhead
Sprinting Speed: Sampras � Sampras' athleticism should never be underestimated
Stamina: Federer � Sampras suffers from a form of anemia common to Greeks.
Strength: Federer � Federer's more powerful backhand is a testament to better upper body strength
Stroke Production
1st Serve: Sampras � The best right handed serve ever
2nd Serve: Sampras � Remarkably tough under pressure
Return of serve: Federer � Among the best ever
Forehand: Federer � Pete's running forehand was awesome, but Roger can do that and a lot more with his forehand.
Topspin Backhand: Federer � Major edge to Roger here. His backhand is harder to pick on than Pete's was and also serves as a legitimate weapon against all, but the elite baseliners.
Slice Backhand: Federer � Pete did chip and charge effectively, but Roger seems to be able to do that and draw a lot of errors when slicing during rallies.
Volleys/Overhead: Sampras � Both volley with grace, but occasionally dump(ed) easy volleys. However, Pete came in more often so I have to figure his net game was more battle tested.
Passing Shots: Federer � Both could hit great passes from the forehand wing, but Pete's backhand passing shots could be victimized by a forward thinking player.
Mental Attributes
Pete Sampras played tennis like a great pitcher in baseball. He knew it was difficult if
not impossible to break his serve. He would vary his placements and follow up his serve
with aggressive play. Sampras would often bide his time waiting for a game in which his
opponent would give him an opening to break serve. Pete was confident enough in his
serve to coast through some return games. He was very opportunistic when returning
serve. If his opponent played a loose point or two he would raise his game a notch and
try to take the break of serve. All the while his serve was often the equivalent of pitching
a shutout.
Roger Federer plays tennis with more of an artistic imagination than Sampras did.
However, one should not be fooled by his awesome creativity and friendly demeanor.
Federer is often ruthless on the court. Once he gets on top of you by a little he pours it on. Consider that at the
Australian Open this year he split the first two sets 5-7, 7-5 and then won the next two
sets 6-0, 6-2. Federer took a 6-0 set off of Rafael Nadal in the Wimbledon final. Federer
jumped out to a 5-0 lead on Roddick at the U.S. Open final and won the fourth set 6-1.
Federer wins a lot of sets 6-0, 6-1, or 6-2. Once he gets an inch he takes a mile.
Each mental approach is very effective at putting pressure on the opponent. Sampras
plants the seed that one bad service game can cost you the set. Federer plants the seed
that if you don't play well all of the time you are going to lose quickly. Federer's logic
seems to be "If I win quickly I save energy for the next round." Sampras's mentality is
more that "I can save energy by only trying to break serve when the other guy is off."
Sampras was 14-4 and Federer is currently 9-1 in Grand Slam Finals. Obviously, both
mental approaches work very well (if you have the game to back it up).
Likely Tactics � I asked a former pro who has coached the U.S. Davis Cup Team and
various elite players over the years about how Sampras and Federer would play one
another. This answer is not his answer, but he certainly raised some interesting tactical
options that I would not have considered otherwise. His two pieces of advice that I
would not have considered were for Sampras to volley behind Federer at times so he
could not anticipate the cross court volley and for Federer to save a lob for a big point
because Sampras got too close to the net at times. Both excellent pieces of advice.
Sampras: Get to the net as often as possible and make Federer hit a lot of backhand
passing shots. Chip and charge or go for out right winners off of Federer's second serve.
Avoid Federer's forehand during rallies. Try to shorten points and make Federer play
defense at all times.
Federer: Hit to Sampras' backhand as often as possible. Try to take the net (and
Sampras' main strategy) away from Sampras and make him hit backhand passing shots.
Get every return possible back into play in order to limit cheap points. Make stamina a
factor.
Australian Open � Slow Hard Court
The slow surface would likely tip things solidly in Federer's favor. Federer is very hard
to ace on any surface let alone one that takes the bite out of Sampras' serve. Pete was 0-2
vs. Agassi, and his returns, down under. Also, the Australian heat along with the
pounding a hard court gives ones joints might make stamina a factor. Federer would
likely win 8 out of 10 encounters in Melbourne.
French Open � Slow Clay Court
This is the most lopsided of the potential match ups. Sampras' main tactic of
dominating with his serve would be impossible to use against Federer on clay. Federer
would dominate the longer rallies with his superior ground strokes and stamina. Federer
would likely win 10 out of 10 encounters on clay.
Wimbledon � Fast Grass Court
Sampras would gladly choose this surface over the first two. His serve and volley game
would put a different sort of pressure on Roger than he could muster on the slower
surfaces. Having said that Roger could turn the tables on Pete and take the net away from
Sampras and force Sampras to his great returns and passing shots. Federer's serve would
be harder to break on grass than it is normally and this would put added pressure on Pete.
Also, Federer is very hard to ace even on grass. At the 2005 Wimbledon final, Federer
out aced the biggest server in this era � Andy Roddick. One could surmise that Federer's
serve is underrated, but he also got a lot of returns in play vs. Roddick. One could expect
the same thing vs. Sampras. If Pete did not win the point on his first volley, Federer
would likely have a great chance of hitting a passing shot. At Wimbledon 2006, Federer
played huge serving Thomas Berdych and serve and volley players Mario Ancic and Tim
Henman. Federer won all three matches in straight sets. Federer would likely win 7 out
of 10 encounters on grass.
U.S. Open � Fast Hard Court
This would likely play out in a similar fashion to Wimbledon. Sampras would in some
ways benefit from the more sure footing a hard court affords. Also, Sampras was
undefeated in night matches at the U.S. Open. Cool night air is a lot less taxing than
playing during the heat of the day. Still Federer's return would likely put constant
pressure on Pete who is accustomed to coasting through a lot of his service games. The
pressure of winning three sets off of Federer when every game is being contested would
also weigh on Sampras. Having said that this surface would allow Pete to attack Roger's
serve more than he did on grass. I see Federer winning 6 out of 10 encounters on a fast
hard court.
Fast Indoor Court
The controlled climate and fast surface give Sampras his best chance of winning vs.
Federer. Sampras could keep points short which would take away a lot of Roger's
Imaginative shots. Also, Sampras' serve on an indoor court would likely be unbreakable
during most service games. The indoor court would also reward Sampras' sprinting
speed and leaping ability while minimizing Federer's stamina advantage. Sampras also
played indoor events more frequently than Federer has. Under these circumstances I
could see Sampras winning 6 encounters out of 10 on indoor courts.
Final Talley
Federer 35 Wins
Sampras 15 Wins
Sampras would likely be frustrated by his inability to ace Federer as often as he does
other players. If any point went beyond three shots, Federer would hold the advantage.
Thus, Federer's ability to limit Sampras' cheap/short points would ultimately do Sampras
in more often than not. Still if one eliminated the clay court encounters, Sampras would
win 15 compared to Federer's 25 wins which is a lot better than most have done.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Georgia Fatwood
By Peter Bodo, www.peterbodostennisworld.com
November 1st, 2006
Some of you may have seen Gustavo Kuerten's recent remarks on Pete Sampras and Roger Federer. In case you haven't, Kuerten apparently said Sampras was "much better' than The Mighty Fed. Drawing an interesting comparison to F-1 car racing, a sport I know absolutely nothing about (except that its most gifted practitioners party-hearty in places like Monte Carlo), Kuerten told Brazil's TV Globo that TMF moved into the vacuum left by Sampras much like Michael Shumacher took advantage of Ayrton Senna's tragic death to establish his pre-eminence.
My reaction to this is: Everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, but not his own facts, and that "better than" is too loose a construction to mean a great deal, although it's a Georgia Fatwood-grade form of kindling with which to start a whale of a firestorm at this particular cave.
I cite the Kuerten quote because just the other day I had an email from tennis journalist Dan C. Weil, a frequent contributor to Tennis, containing some interesting thoughts on the Sampras-Federer subject. Here's what Dan wrote:
People generally seem to agree that Fed has more all around game than Sampras. I'm not so sure that's true, though obviously he plays better on clay than Sampras. Henman pointed out recently that Sampras could afford to be more aggressive than Fed cuz the balls and courts were faster then. Perhaps if Sampras was of Fed's generation, he would play a more baseline-oriented game himself.
People seem to forget how good Sampras' ground strokes were. At the end of his career he often just chipped the backhand deep and came in off of it. But early in his career, I think his backhand was better than Fed's. He basically won the US Open final in '95 w/a backhand that gave him the first set over Agassi and broke Agassi's will. Federer may move better at the baseline, but it's not as if Sampras was slow back there.
And there is no question that Sampras' volley and movement at the net were better than Federer -- I think by a significant margin. Of course if Fed was part of Sampras' generation, w/faster courts and balls, perhaps his net game would be more developed.
If they actually played each other w/both at their peak, assuming this is Fed's peak now, on a medium-speed hard court, I think Sampras wins. I don't think Fed could consistently pass him.
And one tangential point -- if you put Sampras at his best against Nadal at his current level of play, I think Sampras destroys him on a hard court -- any speed. Sampras' net game would totally nullify Nadal's forehand, and he wlouldn't have the time to set up that way he does against Fed. . .
Now there's some fighting words for fans of both TMF and Jet Boy!
The other day, after I mentioned that I was contemplating writing a Federer-Sampras post, we got one of those *rolls eyes* comments from Heidi, who's apparently sick of the comparisons, as well as the GOAT discussion. I had to laugh when I read that, but this really is a pretty good time to probe the comparison, given the kind of year TMF is having - hat tip to Jon Wertheim (lead item).
My background in this: When I first really watched Pete Sampras, at the 1989 U.S. Open, the impact was profound, and I vividly remember exactly what I thought: This is what Pancho Gonzalez (who was often described as "feline" for the languid, slinky, deceptive way he generated his power) must have looked like as a kid. Next thought: Having spent so many years watching Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors in action, I felt like I was getting a hand-delivered tutorial by Plato: This is what playing tennis is supposed to look like.
Leap Now don't nobody get your shorts in a bunch here: This doesn't mean Sampras was better than his immediate predecessors - or successors. It's just that he played an elegant, classic, explosive game on a foundation of velvet.
Borg, by contrast, was a hockey player gone astray - great legs and an unbelievable slapshot off either wing; McEnroe, the tennis version of a cubist painting (Nude Descending a Staircase, anyone?). Connors was feral, with more conspicuously flawed elements in his serve than many journeymen had in their entire games.
Gosh, I thought, it's good to see a tennis player again. I'd almost forgotten what one looked like!
When I first watched TMF, at the Orange Bowl in 1998 (he waxed Guillermo Coria, who would go on to be tennis's lost soul, in the final), I was not similarly moved - but not for the reasons you might think.
It was just that he was not nearly as mature as Sampras, nor as downright imposing. If you look at the trouble TMF had getting sufficient traction at Grand Slams early in his career, you'll see it was for two reasons: lack of emotional and mental seasoning (guess you can say that's a thing of the past, eh?), and lack of ripeness in his game, manifesting itself in the confusion Roger often felt (and admitted to) when it came to shot selection, and playing to win points rather than to hit lovely shots during them.
Beyond that, though, Federer's game lacked the quality I'd call "heft", and if that sounds like a criticism, bear in mind that the same could be said of Rod Laver's game; if TMF or Laver were fighters, they would have been middleweights or light heavies, at best (Marat Safin, by contrast, is heavyweight all the way). I also was not sure Federer was destined to be more than just a pretty game because junior tennis has always featured wonderful ball strikers who could never quite make the transition to a pro tour populated by players who had heft - see "D" for Davis (Scott) or "P" for Parker (Al) or Perreira (Nicholas).
Now, just committing these thoughts to paper (sic) has given me a new appreciation for TMF; I doubt that any player has made a journey of comparable length of breadth from his junior identity to his professional one. Check that, I can think of one: Rod Laver.
When Laver was a youngster, he could hardly keep the ball in the court, which led the iconic Aussie coach, Harry Hopman, to remark to a skeptical onlooker: "Don't worry, all those shots are going to fall into the court one day and this kid is going to be a champion." Digression: Laver's nickname "Rocket" was initially applied as a droll appellation, for the way the scrawny little redhead hit out, spraying "rockets" all over the place. . .
The most useful method of comparison may be to focus on who the players in question most resemble in a general, para-technical sense. I would group TMF with players who knew how to make a ball talk and still won big; smooth players who knew how to offset the power of their most formidable rivals. In no particular hieirarchical order, then, TMF's next-of-kin are: Laver, Ken Rosewall, Mats Wilander, Ilie Nastase, and McEnroe - perhaps even his coach, Snoozin' Tony Roche.
By the same measure, Sampras's next-of-kin are Gonzalez, Lew Hoad, John Newcombe, Ivan Lendl and Boris Becker. I will leave the forehands and backhands to the Tribal Elders who are easily as, if not more, expert than I about such things (man, is this in Dunlop and Todd's strike zone, or what?). My own feeling is this: On most courts, the only thing that can withstand the judicious application of power by a player who has more than power in his overall arsenal, especially when it's tempered by the minimalism of a great killer instinct, is the cocktail composed of great versatility and absolute fearlessness - the kind TMF has been showing for these past few, glorious years.
It's hard to argue with - but very easy to forget - the easy power generated by the laconic Sampras. But it's also hard to argue with the facts of Federer's Grand Slam record, as well as the evidence offered up by his title-gobbling run of recent years. If these guys would be playing for your life, who would you put your money on?