supinesmokey13 wrote:VillaJ100 wrote:Murray's forehand and backhand stats need to be switched. Sampras' serve and volley stats too. And also, i would argue sampras is more of a true all-court player than roger federer.
federer is actually more of all-court player than sampras roger can volley trade strokes, construct points fro the back of the court and finish at net and defends as well as anyone in tennis sampras was almost an all out serve and volleyer it's only because he had a monster forehand that he stayed back as much his serve was his main asset setting up easy put aways at net pplus if sampras was more rounded than fed he would have at least made the finals of the french fed's ability to compete and thrive against the best players on all surfaces shows us he is more rounded sampras could only get done on quick courts the favoured serve volleyers and net rushers and all of aggression whereas federer can attacking tennis fast courts and the the drop shotting, construct a point patient tennis need on the slower courts thats why nadal or no nadal fed has won the french and has had more success on clay
all court player can adapt to different styles of play and surface something sampras refused to do he tried to fully adapt his game to clay roger DID
Whoa friend, Im not getting involved into an argument about who is better, Federer or Sampras, as the world will end in about 5 billion years and people will still be arguing about it then.
for the record, before about 2000, sampras was not a "traditional" serve-and-volleyer. He only ever served and volleyed on his 1st serve about 75% of the time. In modern tennis he would be seen as a serve and volleyer, but the reality is, he only ever serve and volleyed on his 1st and 2nd serves at wimbledon. About Sampras's forehand, he used an eastern grip, which im pretty sure Federer uses as well, and sampras did have unquestionably the greatest running forehand in the world, ever.
Its true that Sampras never even come close to winning the French Open. But that doesn't mean he was a complete deadbeat on clay, he had a 2/2 record against Agassi on clay and was a major part in the 1995 davis cup winning team for the USA, when they played Russia on clay. Granted he never reached the heights of Federer by winning the French title, but therein lies another argument about general surface homogenisation, which i dont have the time or energy for today.
My basic argument is, Federer is a baseliner, i.e. a player who predominantly plays on or just behind the baseline, looking for a attacking groundtroke upon which to attack the net. Sampras was a player who looked to take the ball early also, but move forward lierally as soon as possible. When the surface dictacted, this would be immediately after the serve, hence using "all of the court". and making him an "all court-player", i.e. he uses all of the court equally, not only encroaching on the forecourt when the percentages in that current rally are favourable for you to move forward.