Samba lack of mental strength ??? R u insane? He's the best player ever lived and he does everything perfect when he feels. I love when people whom don't know anything about tennis say stuff like that.
sampras had a better serve, better volley, and knew how to win important matches against tough players. Federer has a better all round game, is a better player but lacks in mental strengh.
federer's is more abbreviated/simpler motion, obviously focusing more on the placement in this environment of baseline oriented modern tennis. sampas' ? oh well it's the holy grail. even more accuracy with more power and spin!
uliz monster is shite,my monster FEDSY-SNABSY with EDSY volley mashes all!! like silly idea safin fitness??? maybe holdihg beerglasses or blondes!? fedsy won more slams than most guys in selection yogether??? funny that!!!
@DestroyerAlexandros Don't copy or "learn" someone else's serving technique. You will never achieve the best possible serve for yourself if you do that. Sure, you can learn certain aspects by watching players such as how to achieve pronation, learning how to transfer your weight, and seeing the different ways to achieve power (coiling, using your back, dropping the racquet head, etc).
Roger's service motion does look like Pete's but there are very key differences which make his serve unique.
Becker had a similar opinion about the importance of serve. He said the most important in tennis is not fitness (he himself was often in a lousy condition and had lame legs)
But mental strength (which he had) and a great serve. Because it is the serve that is the only shot that is not merely a reaction.
@ulizinho Very poor choices and analysis. If you think Chang/Rafter had the best footwork, you're an absolute clown. And if you also think Kuerten/Federer had the best backhands, you're also a tremendous clown. And again, you chose Nadal in the category of top 2 handed backhand. He isn't even in the top 5 for 2 handed backhands. All in all, you're just a clown if you really stand by those choices.
Something about our quarrel about ability vs necessity: Nadal showed many times that his flat serve down the T can reach over 200 km/h which is a very fast serve.
Yet he plays only 1 of 4 or 5 1st serves this way.
Bad decision? I guess not. As a lefty his slower, yet safer serve onto the backhand from the ad sice is for him the perfect opener for his play.
Fed had many more breakpoints in Melbourne 09, but Rafa answered with those difficult slice serves onto Feds backhand.
Thomas Muster had in his prime a huge percentage of won service games, though he had a relative week serve.
He could not hit as Pete did, to support your point again. Yet in this time, his overall service game was extremely succesful. HIS serve was a good enough preparation for HIS game.
I guess you misunderstood me, I should have written that it was Roger who hit a second serve ace with just 156 km/h and that Pete often served with more then 175 km/h on second.
Again, this was to reinforce your point and not to oppose to it. Speed is not everything.
In some matches Roger hits more aces then Roddick, coz he had a better placement.
I wrote that Roger hit that particular serve vs Kiefer. It was slower then Sampras best second serves. Dear, I do not want to annoy you, I just mentioned the higher speed of Pete´s second serves to "give in" that I see your point. I also mentioned that 2nd serve ace of Roger vs Kiefer (it was not Pete) to support your point, that speed is not everything. It was a relative slow serve but very much spin and superb placement.
I checked the video of this second serve ace against Kiefer. The serve had a speed of 156 km/h or so. Pete often hit with over 175 km/h. On first Fed reaches up to 209-212 km/h, I guess that must be like Sampras more or less.
I would suggest to Roger to use Pete´s grip and to try some more serves with a side-slice, your already mentioned 6.
Prolly he cant. Well, even champs should never stop learning new things.
How did those two execeptional champs learn their style?
Fed grew up in Basel, mainly played on clay in his youth, therefore he does not have such an aversion toward this surface. Same can be said about Becker, who, with his clumsy legs, never was a real super star on clay, yet knew how to play on clay.
Sampras had the athleticism and everything necessary to win on clay but as he grew up on hard courts he prolly never really liked clay.
we may speculate why Fed does not do it more often.
I see your points and they make sense.
Yet we could also say: Fed does not have to put so much risk in his second serves (though you argue, it was not really a risk for pete)
But Fed is better in defense, baseline rallies and has a huge forehand. Together with the better returns and topspin passing shots he may have decided to remain on the baseline.
3) hit it like a mixture of point 1 & 2: a little less speed and risk on placement in order to prevent double faults, but more speed and closer to the lines then Fed, Roddick etc do.
In this Pete really was the best.
I remember a few second serves of Fed, one against my compatriot Kiefer, a very heavy topspin near the T-line.
But usually he choses the safer less risky option.
Maybe you are right. So, if Fed and Sampras can execute more or less the same deadly first serve. Pete has at least two or three options on second: 1) Hit it as if it was a first one (something that Goran sometimes did), 2) hit it with a huge amount of spin, so slower, safer yet still effective as a preparation to win a point (something in which Fed excels, too) OR
I watched that match, too. Agassi was at his best, yet had no chance to win a set and not mention the whole match.
Agassi writes in his book that Pete told him after the match that he put more risk in his serves in order to keep Andre down. I am not sure whether that is true, but it was also my impression.
Yesterday I checked some of Pete early matches against Lendl, Courier and Edberg. He remains on baseline after second serve, no SV like in the late years.
He looked like a real young adolescent, not really that strong like today.
He already had a big serve, but it appeared to me and I would pressume so that he served with less risk on 2nd.
The speed of the baseline rallies was really lower.
You wrote: People cant copy Pete´s serve, because the average man does not have his agility. True.
But I would say, that with some little alteration, meaning coming a bit closer to Roger or Djokovic maybe, Pete style is just textbook classic and very well a model to be copied.
However, Ivanisevic serve can surely NOT be copied by the majority of players even athletic ones. Have you ever tried to do so?
ball toss, superfast arm swing and his special extra step of his right foot.
Pete usually hit most aces per year, sometimes Goran and later Safin overtook him. Pete simply had more matches in which he hit aces.
PLUS: Pete had developed this technique which is, as you said, more effective: meaning: less risk for injuries, it is possibly the better technique for a longlasting career compared to Goran who was either a doublefaulter or an acehitter, and who had to quit because of his shoulder, possibly also a result of his serve.
As I have already written: Goran (in good shape!!) had the better serve, more aces, more weak returns, more free points.
His balltoss, hitting the ball almost on the rise, his fast swing, all that made it the most disguised serve for me. I guess he himself did not know where his serves would go, haha.
BUT: This unorthodox style was, as you have said, very unstable. Some little problem like wind, sun, shoulderpain, bad shape or Goran´s furious temper, and all the magic was gone.
Ivanisevic (213 aces in Wimby in 2001, over 30 aces vs Safin in just 4 sets), the biggest number of aces per year.(and many easy points, more then Pete, because of weak returns.
The Federer of this particular single match in Wimby final 2009.
Now: Karlovic, who can hit on spots with fast 6 FLAT serves where Roger & Pete have to use spin.
And it does become more offensive then Pete´s serve: Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Karlovic, Roddick, Phillipoussis....or Fed in last years wimby final. All served more aces then Pete per match.
The miracle of Pete (and likewise Roddick & Roger) is that he is not supertall and yet he has such a superb serve, almost as deadly as Ivanisevic etc. But those specialist profit from their sheer heigth, which is on the other hand a disadvantage, coz you cant move as well as small player can do.
Pete usually won baseline battles on fast court against the old guard of baseline players. On clay he never was the super player which he was on grass or hard court. The new generation of Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten and also the revitalized and focused Agassi set a new standard with which Pete could not cope as easily as he did with the old guard.
When Andre & Pete were playing this super rally (on youtube!) in NY 95, the audience gaped and wiped their eyes. Today, such rallies are standard.
That was a joke about Rafa. I wonder why he does not hit more flat serves down the middle. Hm, ok, as a lefty, a slice serve on backhand might be more effective.
Somehow his serve movement looks a bit akward, possibly because he hits with his "weaker" arm.
Do you what for me was the best serve of Pete, that he ever made?
For me it was a super fast one. It was a very slow top spin, an ace, against Corretja. Pete had run out of fuel, had vomited onto the court, the spaniard needed only 2 points. And Pete, absolutly done, served a beautiful unreachable, but slow ace...to me, this was his best serve. More then just power, simply accurate technique and placement when power was gone. Roddick should learn that !!
Andre said something like, that he knew that Pete was somehow beatable when he himself was in top shape. Do you remember those 2 epic tie breaks in Melbourne? Pete won the first with 7 to 0 and lost the second though he fired one super forehand & two aces with 2nd serve.
Andre only won vs Federer before the swiss made the step to become a real big player and not just a talent. We may speculate whether Andre was already too old, same with Pete´s defeat in Wimby.
Andre wrote in his book, that Pete had changed his second serve for the wimby final in 1999 in order to keep Andre in check. I am not sure whether this is right, coz there is a lot of crap written in Andre´s book.
But I myself have the impression that Pete served with more risk at the end of his career and overall became more muscular, too.
Yes, Pete mainly won vs Agassi because of his excelltent serve & coz he risked always to rush to the net. It was like an escape from the baseline where Andre dominated. Pete won of course spectacular rallies like the one I mentioned at US Open. But overall Andre mad the majority of points, same case with other MODERN baseline grinders.
Becker, too, had to play more n more risky at the end of his career, mainly coz he was to lame for long baseline rallies.
Fed serve the same number of aces when he beat Sampras in Wimby. He served a huge number of aces when he beat Agassi in a windy 5 setter in NY 2004And you probably have read that Fed served 50 aces in Wimby 09. He hit 3.9 aces per 10 first serves. Lucky day, prolly. That was in the Ivanisevic-Karlovic dimension. Fed just does not put as much risk into his 2nd serve, either because he cant or coz he does not need to as he usually can win the speed rallies vs big hitters.
Yes, Pete was indeed more then "only" a big server like, say Karlovic, who has the best serve so far. Or a pure SV specialist like Cash. I remember this super rally of the US Open 1995 final. Pete won the first real power rally which set the standard for modern tennis.
However, as you said, Pete won only a "fair share" but not the majority of those rallies, therefor he chose to play SV instead of baseline. He both could do so but he had to do so, too.
I guess Nadal does not serve as Pete did, because he wants to grind his opponents with topspin play and let them run up & down the lines. He is a sadist !
irony.
The perfect player hits ace after ace and return winner after return winner.
Therefore Sampras was not only called Pistol Pete but also Pete Perfect.
I thought that Safin was the new prototype of modern tennis, when he rushed into the top: Super serve AND power returns.
If he only had Feds health and nerves + Pete volleys...
But Agassi also said, that he knew that he could beat Sampras, if not in Wimby then on hard courts, but he knew that for him it was almost impossible to beat Federer, because ROger had Pete´s serve (almost) AND dominated in Andre´s domain, the baseline power duels.
That is what I said: He could rival Safin and Hewitt from baseline, same with Agassi. He was getting too old for running up and down and lost prescision so he had to play SV consistantly and therefore also needed a strong 2nd serve, which he was able to hit. Edberg could not do so.
As far as I know, he did NOT risk that much in his early years, when looked so slim and weak neither in his prime time.
Right. We also have to consider that Pete (and Fed) are not really super tall.
Safin, Stich, Krajicek, Ivanisevic and now Karlovic have super speedy serves coz they can serve from a crane as Pete once put it after a defeat by Krajicek.
Pete & Roger are "short" compared to them but often reach into their service dimensions.
Whether you hit a serve winner with serve of 120 mp/h or an ace with 135 mp/h, the result is the same: an easy point.
Roddick must improve here. My favourite server from the ad side is however is (or was) Safin ! He usually served onto the backhand, always near or onto the line and VERY speedy. From this side he served with the same or more speed then Roddick AND with Pete accuracy.
Pete however must "escape" from the baseline and rush to the net. Therefore a more risky 2nd serve is needed. Fed second serve would not do.
Both tactics are very succesful in Wimby.
Today, the ball jumps a bit higher, so returning is easier, so Fed´s play is presumbly favored. On their only encounter in 2001, they played on the gold old speedy grass. Fed still played SV after 1st serve, not after second. He is a clay baseliner.
In that match in 2001, Fed´s ball toss was higher then today.
Fed is very strong in hitting winners with back and forehand. He plays great volleys, too, but has not the instinct of Cash or Sampras.
Sampras had a great forehand but often just shoveld his backhand and did not have the stamina of Fed or Nadal.
So: For Fed it is safer to remain on baseline, he will not get passed but can easily finish with his forehand. No SV needed, therefore no superrisky 2nd serve, a good topspin will do, too.
Lets get back to the FedSamp comparison: Both are simlilar both in their dominance and class AND concerning their heigth, weight and their catlike movements.
Both have similar (not identical) serve movements and similar ace numbers and max speeds.
Yet, Fed plays now mainly baseline whereas Samp was almost a pure serve n volley player, at least in Wimby.
Fed possibly could try the same way like Pete and Pete could have tried Fed´s way.
Why do they differ here, though they are so similar?
Still the question: Why does he risk so much? He did commit more double faults then others (but less if they had tried his tactics you will say)
And he did get a lot of passing shots a lot of times by Agassi. Mostly it payed, sometimes not. It did not pay vs Safin & Hewitt in NY, when he was totally demolished by those counter players.
A "safe" baseline duel statistically did not pay as much for him as risking speedy 2nd serves & SV.
Everyone could hit the 2nd serve as if it was another 1st serve. You just have to ignore the danger of a double fault and hit it again with the same power. Even Murray could do so. What Pete did is something different. He reduced the speed a little in order to avoid double faults , put some extra spin into it AND remained with still superb placement. His 2nd is the perfect compromise of a save serve and a aggressive serve that enables him to play SV.
Hum. You are right of course. What I want to put stress on is this: It was a decision that Pete made. It was not only his unique ability but also a necessity. He has a great forehand and also sometimes hit winners with his weaker backhand. At the end of his career, like Becker, he had to play more risky. SV even after 2nd serve, constantly. Very risky 2nd serves. Sometimes the risk did not pay. But he had to play this way, coz Agassi, Safin, Kuerten etc were becoming too dominant from baseline.
I read in Bosch´s Book about Becker, that he could bend his wrist/hand to a very extreme angle, which enabled him to give his serve some extra kick and speed. Pete used his extreme shoulder pronation to create energy.
In contrast, Fed´s arm & shoulder seem to be very rigid here. That is why I wonder how he creates the power. Roger serves with the same maximum speed, almost as Sampras and Becker. So, how does he achieve it?
Only the speed of the racket head during contact is decisive.
Many players served with high risk at second serve. Sometimes Fed does it, too. But Pete did that much more often, possibly, because his play relied more on a strong serve then Fed´s. Pete played Serve´n Volley even after second serve as he was rather dominated in baseline duels with Agassi.
Stich and Krajicek had also very energy-efficient serves, but they were also taller then Pete. So, I agree, that Pete is in this aspect the master, whereas Roger and Goran are even more difficult to read.
I am not really sure formyself, which serve is better. Pete looks a bit more natural and more powerful, but Roger, as always, looks so effortless and easy.
The result, as already said, is more or less the same, though Pete was very impressive with his risky second serves which he cultivated so greatly at the end of his career.
The two extremes (Becker-like or Ivanisevic-like) have their advantages, but they are very sensitive. Wind, a bad day, a bad ball toss, bad shape whatsoever, and the finely calibrated movement does not function anymore. Result: the powerserver becomes a doublefaulter.
Yes, the perfect player could hit aces all the time.
Pete did risk a lot with the 2nd, mostly it worked and gave him an opportunity to win the point. All other big servers could do the same, or at least try. If you can hit winners with first serve you simply would have to hit the second almost as your first, which Pete often did.
It is a decision. Murray has a deadly first serve, but his 2nd is too weak. Unlike Pete, he has not found a real good compromise between save vs fast.
No, we are watching a video about serves and I was referring to the grip for the serve. It seems as if Roger uses an eastern forehand grip, while Pete is using a backhand grip, which I think is better, coz you can use the wrist a little bit better.
I would not say so. Sampras motion shows more torsion, the body is more sidewards. Fed´s movement is concerning this aspect simpler, less bent upper body. Yet both have similar max speed, at around 210 km/h. So, Fed achieves the same speed with less effort (=leverage, torsion).
I wonder how much more speed Roger could achieve if he adapted a bit more to Pete´s beautiful motion.
Especially pete´s extra little movement with the wrist
I should have written pronation instead of torsion. Pete pronates more.
Look for the excellent video "pete + serve pronation"
I think Fed has changed his serve movement. The ball toss was higher when he beat Pete. Fed´s racket swings all through without a real interuption. There is no "break" in the movement, as in Becker´s famous "serveman" silhouette.
Just spectacular atheletes! I am guessing federer modeled his after pete's serve. The remarkable similarity--near synchrony--raises interesting questions about just how moldable one's style/form really is.
I disagree about your assessment about Roddick's serve being the best service motion. Roddick pulls up he hits it. Federer and Sampras continue their motion into the court, which puts a player in a more offensive position.
I expremented today serving with a topspin serve toss but ended with a flat serve motion (into the duece court,) that was even better than my regular serve!
Before Wimby 09 I have always said that Federer game is better then Sampras except te serve. Now, with 50 aces (out of 127 first serves, that is 4 of 10) I am not quite sure anymore. I guess they have similar serve speeds.
Both are able to turn around a match with their serves. Sampras even with a second serve ace, like against Corretja.
Great comparison, There is 1 MAJOR difference. That's the physical imposition of when Sampras' serve. There's just a vibe that you get, that he's always in control, the power. Something Federer should work on.
both are badass serves! they match fed keeps ball to racquet more on his toss but pete does crazy wrist pronation! pete was built like a b-ball player, great back strength- thus i think influenced his power but fed has mad skills! I would pick either.. but if i had to choose.. would be PETES!! he'd go for it on the 2nd serves more and had gr8 speed.lol & the SV RULLLEEEDDD!!!
no.. s&v players are definitely a dying breed, but it's not because everyone wants to be a baseline basher. simply because the game requires too much variety to dominate.
if you really think most pros on the atp tour stay on the baseline and not move up, then you need to actually watch tennis.
That's not true, Roger hits service winners and aces on big points, just not as frequently as Pete could. The big difference is, on a break point, Pete frequently hit second serve aces, whereas Roger rarely does that.
alittle diff. in finish and speed... look at sampras's elbow.... it stays @ 90 degrees for awhile because of the super fast arm motion... however, federer's accuracy still gets him aces.
i use to think that too, but fed is pumpin them serves up these days. and ud think sampras would have more accuracy with his 85 sq inch pro staff, and less power.
I love the fact that both players can use their serves very effectively to get cheaps points. Accuracy and disguise are definately a strong point for both players. Fed rarely hits over 130mph but his accuracy gets him quite a number of aces. Fed and Pete has easy and fluid service motions which also help with consistency.
Very similar rythm and shape. Fed keeps his ball touching racquet at beginning for longer which is advisable for a consistent ball toss. Fed lifts his arms more simulaneously which is the more orthodox way. Pete does a more overt wrist pronation. Pete got more free points from his, so I'd choose his over Feds. Tough choice though.
the only difference i can see is sampras' arm rotation as he slams the ball downward. it seems that he only slams the ball with his forearm while federer throws his whole arm downwards. notice in the serve follow-through that sampras' arm is bent more perpendicularly than federer. it allows for greater spins and more disguise.
"roddicks serve is just fast and easily predictable. that makes it less effective than rogers serve.. roger tosses the ball at the exact point every time . that makes his serve hard to read.."
Doesn't matter if a serve is predictable. If you can't return it, it's meaningless. And Andy's serve isn't as easy as you make it seem. He holds it at top 2 in the tour.
As for serve, I think Roddick's is reasonably better than Federer's because at least Roger has just many weapons to back himself up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
nadal just enjoys the game more. thts y he can beat federer. in reality, if u look at nadal closely, he has one of the worst habits ever. his forehand goes over his head and he always hits the ball in on him. its just tht his acceleration covers for him. his foot work isnt all tht good either. if it was then he wouldnt be forcing his shots all the time. federer is just way too hard on himself. he just needs to relax more.
federer is in a state of shock. nadal leads him 13 to 6 nadal has 3 out of the 4 grandslams nadal is number 1 player in the world no doubt gold medal winner davis cup champion nadal has proved to the entire world he deserves number 1. now federer can't handle the fact that he is number 2 that is why he broke down and cried because hew knows that he can't beat nadal and the entire world won't call him the greatest of all time because he can't beat nadal. sampras well unbelievable to good!
Sampras' serve is physics, is talent, is art. It is an immortal and perfect shot. The way he executes the shot is unique, is the triumph of elegance, is a dance.
sampras serve better sampras smash better sampras forehand better sampras volleys better sampras back hand 50 50 with federer sampras slice 50 50 with federer sampras said federer should come in more and volley when he plays nadal sorry sampras federer is not sampras to do that. federer is a baseliner sampras a serve volleyer his aim is to come into the net keep the point short he can also rally with you from the baseline wins a lot of free points on his serve he is explosive guns firing
Sampras had a better serve and volley. Federer a better backhand. They both have wonderful forehand. Sampras had a more offensive game and when he was in the zone the other player did not touch the ball, whoever he was. Sampras was not a serve-and-volley. He was all court player. He played serve and volley in the last years 1999-2001 and always at wimbledon, but even when he was playing from the back of the court he was always going to the net, having that fabulous talent.
it looks like sampras's back is facing the net more and that turns into more shoulder rotation, but other than that the take back and snap are almost identical, they are two of my favorite players ever and I never would have thought of how similar they look if they weren't right next to each other, very interesting
i really like federers stile, but i have the impression that he lacks power, correct me if im wrong but i beleave nadal has much more power, also considering he was trained with his left hand for more power and that federer uses a k factor (control racket)
yea, i guess its better to have control instead of power (i use a k factor, so personally iprefer control. but i still steress out a lot when i hit really neat shot and the oponent has time to go and return it :S
2) federer's groundstrokes are much faster in terms of mph than nadal's (but nadal has much more topspin on his groundstrokes, especially his forehand).
k factor simply means karophite construction, which is wilson's newest gimmick. there are a bunch of racquets in the "k factor" line. the k90 is indeed a "control" racquet, but only in the sense that it's response is predictable. you can hit a 120mph serve just as easily with a k90 as with an oversize beast.
The best server is the one player who can get the best results (points) out of his serve. The one who can hurt the most with it. Now the biggest damage u can provoke with that weapon are aces and winners.
It doesn´t really matter if you miss at crunch time and/or if you end up losing the match to someone else as long as u fired enough aces and winners during the match to be called the best server. In that order u can claim Ivanisevic, Karlovic and Roddick 3 of the best servers of all times.
The better server in crunch time= the best player. not so much as the points they win. whoever holds serve in crunch time is the best player. Roddick has a huge serve and hes my fav player. but even i dont think hes one of the best servers ever. Pistol Pete is the best ever because his 2nd serve was as hard to return as his 1st serve.
I wasn't talking about best players, just best servers.
Pete is probably the best server ever, yes.
Now, if Roddick is not one of the best ever at it then who is it?...
Holding serve at crunch time (by an ace or a winner, right?, because otherwise just doesn't count) is a plus, but that would be added more likely to the best player argument than to the best server one.
i actually think roddick has one of the best serves for the reasons: its fast, effective, and *conistent ( 70% first serves or more during a game with serves exceeding 130 mph ), i mean i could see how most people would say federer has the best serve, i think theyre just sayign that because federer's service is soo clean and his motion is so fluid, and his results are fairly impressive, but my vote is for roddick despite what other people think
roddicks serve is just fast and easily predictable. that makes it less effective than rogers serve.. roger tosses the ball at the exact point every time even wich serve he uses.. that makes his serve hard to read..
Pete Sampras has the best serve of all time. It's a shame that someone actually put a one trick pony like Roddick in the same sentence with Sampras. Shame on you.
If you ask Rusedski himself, he will say Sampras has better serve. You're not making sense here. Sampras's serve is widely regarded as the greatest serve ever for a reason.
roger did a topspin serve an sampra did a flat
lknhiayi 1 month ago in playlist Federer Serve
Samba lack of mental strength ??? R u insane? He's the best player ever lived and he does everything perfect when he feels. I love when people whom don't know anything about tennis say stuff like that.
Sstyle2 7 months ago
sampras had a better serve, better volley, and knew how to win important matches against tough players. Federer has a better all round game, is a better player but lacks in mental strengh.
symba 8 months ago
lmfaooo....federer copied sampras for his serve :P
lol1244lol 8 months ago
they don't really look similar at all..
cain2335 8 months ago
In the history of tennis, you're not going to find a better serve than Sampras's.
Ou8y2k2 1 year ago 12
Uncanny! Both men are truly great servers, but I have to give it to Federer for better overall game.
Tethros 1 year ago
@Tethros exactly
TheYasminarf 10 months ago
federer's is more abbreviated/simpler motion, obviously focusing more on the placement in this environment of baseline oriented modern tennis. sampas' ? oh well it's the holy grail. even more accuracy with more power and spin!
fastdunn 1 year ago
i don't think they're as similar as everyone thinks. a lot of pro serves generally look like that, sampras's had way more turn and upward motion
aligboyakasha 1 year ago
Two genius!!!
simonecostasp 1 year ago
uliz monster is shite,my monster FEDSY-SNABSY with EDSY volley mashes all!! like silly idea safin fitness??? maybe holdihg beerglasses or blondes!? fedsy won more slams than most guys in selection yogether??? funny that!!!
thefrogmaster2 1 year ago
Federer's serve and forehand are pretty much an adaptation of Sampras'
If I want to learn the Federer/Sampras serve, do you recommend I learn the Pancho Gonzalez serve first?
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros Don't copy or "learn" someone else's serving technique. You will never achieve the best possible serve for yourself if you do that. Sure, you can learn certain aspects by watching players such as how to achieve pronation, learning how to transfer your weight, and seeing the different ways to achieve power (coiling, using your back, dropping the racquet head, etc).
Roger's service motion does look like Pete's but there are very key differences which make his serve unique.
AllGenreMusic 1 year ago
@AllGenreMusic You're completely right about the serve.
1223Melo 1 year ago
serve: Pancho Gonzales or Sampras
return: Agassi
volley: Sampras
Boudosaved 1 year ago
sampras serve better and my favourite player but federer forehand is nearly immaculate:D
nikz1996 1 year ago
Becker had a similar opinion about the importance of serve. He said the most important in tennis is not fitness (he himself was often in a lousy condition and had lame legs)
But mental strength (which he had) and a great serve. Because it is the serve that is the only shot that is not merely a reaction.
ulizinho 2 years ago
ulizinho 2 years ago
@ulizinho Very poor choices and analysis. If you think Chang/Rafter had the best footwork, you're an absolute clown. And if you also think Kuerten/Federer had the best backhands, you're also a tremendous clown. And again, you chose Nadal in the category of top 2 handed backhand. He isn't even in the top 5 for 2 handed backhands. All in all, you're just a clown if you really stand by those choices.
AllGenreMusic 1 year ago
@AllGenreMusic
you can discuss tennis with me without being rude.
ulizinho 1 year ago
If you were a Frankenstein biogenetic engineer...how would you create your perfect player?
To me; Federer is in no category the very best, but can speak a word or two. He aint got a weak shot or a weak point in his makeup.
Sampras is for me the best SV player among with Rafter and Edberg.
And as we finally agreed (hihi) the most effective server. This is the most important shot in tennis.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Something about our quarrel about ability vs necessity: Nadal showed many times that his flat serve down the T can reach over 200 km/h which is a very fast serve.
Yet he plays only 1 of 4 or 5 1st serves this way.
Bad decision? I guess not. As a lefty his slower, yet safer serve onto the backhand from the ad sice is for him the perfect opener for his play.
Fed had many more breakpoints in Melbourne 09, but Rafa answered with those difficult slice serves onto Feds backhand.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Thomas Muster had in his prime a huge percentage of won service games, though he had a relative week serve.
He could not hit as Pete did, to support your point again. Yet in this time, his overall service game was extremely succesful. HIS serve was a good enough preparation for HIS game.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I guess you misunderstood me, I should have written that it was Roger who hit a second serve ace with just 156 km/h and that Pete often served with more then 175 km/h on second.
Again, this was to reinforce your point and not to oppose to it. Speed is not everything.
In some matches Roger hits more aces then Roddick, coz he had a better placement.
And yes, aces are not everything.
ulizinho 2 years ago
indeed tennis is not, as many people think, all about ball-speed. It is more about speed of thought, reaction, quick decisions.
If it was all about muscles and big hitting we had bodybuilders on top.
Modern tennis player are indeed more muscular, but the main point is still this:
tennis is a reaction sport.
We do not have only the ace hitting shootouts of the nineties now. The player adopted somehow.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I wrote that Roger hit that particular serve vs Kiefer. It was slower then Sampras best second serves. Dear, I do not want to annoy you, I just mentioned the higher speed of Pete´s second serves to "give in" that I see your point. I also mentioned that 2nd serve ace of Roger vs Kiefer (it was not Pete) to support your point, that speed is not everything. It was a relative slow serve but very much spin and superb placement.
I write this all not to oppose but to agree.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I checked the video of this second serve ace against Kiefer. The serve had a speed of 156 km/h or so. Pete often hit with over 175 km/h. On first Fed reaches up to 209-212 km/h, I guess that must be like Sampras more or less.
I would suggest to Roger to use Pete´s grip and to try some more serves with a side-slice, your already mentioned 6.
Prolly he cant. Well, even champs should never stop learning new things.
ulizinho 2 years ago
What do you think about Goran Ivanisevic?
Do you think he made the right "decision" to serve his was, so strangely?
Was it too much risk for health, bad shape days or did it pay for him?
ulizinho 2 years ago
Another explanation could be:
How did those two execeptional champs learn their style?
Fed grew up in Basel, mainly played on clay in his youth, therefore he does not have such an aversion toward this surface. Same can be said about Becker, who, with his clumsy legs, never was a real super star on clay, yet knew how to play on clay.
Sampras had the athleticism and everything necessary to win on clay but as he grew up on hard courts he prolly never really liked clay.
ulizinho 2 years ago
we may speculate why Fed does not do it more often.
I see your points and they make sense.
Yet we could also say: Fed does not have to put so much risk in his second serves (though you argue, it was not really a risk for pete)
But Fed is better in defense, baseline rallies and has a huge forehand. Together with the better returns and topspin passing shots he may have decided to remain on the baseline.
He does so, coz he can. Pete could not do so.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Pete Perfect perfected option three
3) hit it like a mixture of point 1 & 2: a little less speed and risk on placement in order to prevent double faults, but more speed and closer to the lines then Fed, Roddick etc do.
In this Pete really was the best.
I remember a few second serves of Fed, one against my compatriot Kiefer, a very heavy topspin near the T-line.
But usually he choses the safer less risky option.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Maybe you are right. So, if Fed and Sampras can execute more or less the same deadly first serve. Pete has at least two or three options on second: 1) Hit it as if it was a first one (something that Goran sometimes did), 2) hit it with a huge amount of spin, so slower, safer yet still effective as a preparation to win a point (something in which Fed excels, too) OR
see next
ulizinho 2 years ago
I watched that match, too. Agassi was at his best, yet had no chance to win a set and not mention the whole match.
Agassi writes in his book that Pete told him after the match that he put more risk in his serves in order to keep Andre down. I am not sure whether that is true, but it was also my impression.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Yesterday I checked some of Pete early matches against Lendl, Courier and Edberg. He remains on baseline after second serve, no SV like in the late years.
He looked like a real young adolescent, not really that strong like today.
He already had a big serve, but it appeared to me and I would pressume so that he served with less risk on 2nd.
The speed of the baseline rallies was really lower.
ulizinho 2 years ago
see my 5 new comments:
ulizinho 2 years ago
You wrote: People cant copy Pete´s serve, because the average man does not have his agility. True.
But I would say, that with some little alteration, meaning coming a bit closer to Roger or Djokovic maybe, Pete style is just textbook classic and very well a model to be copied.
However, Ivanisevic serve can surely NOT be copied by the majority of players even athletic ones. Have you ever tried to do so?
ball toss, superfast arm swing and his special extra step of his right foot.
Impossible !
ulizinho 2 years ago
Pete usually hit most aces per year, sometimes Goran and later Safin overtook him. Pete simply had more matches in which he hit aces.
PLUS: Pete had developed this technique which is, as you said, more effective: meaning: less risk for injuries, it is possibly the better technique for a longlasting career compared to Goran who was either a doublefaulter or an acehitter, and who had to quit because of his shoulder, possibly also a result of his serve.
ulizinho 2 years ago
about Goran:
As I have already written: Goran (in good shape!!) had the better serve, more aces, more weak returns, more free points.
His balltoss, hitting the ball almost on the rise, his fast swing, all that made it the most disguised serve for me. I guess he himself did not know where his serves would go, haha.
BUT: This unorthodox style was, as you have said, very unstable. Some little problem like wind, sun, shoulderpain, bad shape or Goran´s furious temper, and all the magic was gone.
ulizinho 2 years ago
So far the most aggressive servers were:
Ivanisevic (213 aces in Wimby in 2001, over 30 aces vs Safin in just 4 sets), the biggest number of aces per year.(and many easy points, more then Pete, because of weak returns.
The Federer of this particular single match in Wimby final 2009.
Now: Karlovic, who can hit on spots with fast 6 FLAT serves where Roger & Pete have to use spin.
Karlovic makes just use of his height.
Goran had a very unique style of serve.
ulizinho 2 years ago
First: I do agree with you that Sampras had or has the best, meaning most effective serve of all times.
Effectiveness: winning points, thus matches & titles throughout many years which Pete did.
I do not agree about aggressiveness.
Pete was very aggressive in serving but not the most.
ulizinho 2 years ago
And it does become more offensive then Pete´s serve: Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Karlovic, Roddick, Phillipoussis....or Fed in last years wimby final. All served more aces then Pete per match.
The miracle of Pete (and likewise Roddick & Roger) is that he is not supertall and yet he has such a superb serve, almost as deadly as Ivanisevic etc. But those specialist profit from their sheer heigth, which is on the other hand a disadvantage, coz you cant move as well as small player can do.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Pete usually won baseline battles on fast court against the old guard of baseline players. On clay he never was the super player which he was on grass or hard court. The new generation of Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten and also the revitalized and focused Agassi set a new standard with which Pete could not cope as easily as he did with the old guard.
When Andre & Pete were playing this super rally (on youtube!) in NY 95, the audience gaped and wiped their eyes. Today, such rallies are standard.
ulizinho 2 years ago
That was a joke about Rafa. I wonder why he does not hit more flat serves down the middle. Hm, ok, as a lefty, a slice serve on backhand might be more effective.
Somehow his serve movement looks a bit akward, possibly because he hits with his "weaker" arm.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Do you what for me was the best serve of Pete, that he ever made?
For me it was a super fast one. It was a very slow top spin, an ace, against Corretja. Pete had run out of fuel, had vomited onto the court, the spaniard needed only 2 points. And Pete, absolutly done, served a beautiful unreachable, but slow ace...to me, this was his best serve. More then just power, simply accurate technique and placement when power was gone. Roddick should learn that !!
ulizinho 2 years ago
Damm, I somehow need a mental update as I forget to type complete words...
I meant: Do you KNOW"....and
"it was NOT a super fast one..."
Sorry. Oops.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Andre said something like, that he knew that Pete was somehow beatable when he himself was in top shape. Do you remember those 2 epic tie breaks in Melbourne? Pete won the first with 7 to 0 and lost the second though he fired one super forehand & two aces with 2nd serve.
Andre only won vs Federer before the swiss made the step to become a real big player and not just a talent. We may speculate whether Andre was already too old, same with Pete´s defeat in Wimby.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Andre wrote in his book, that Pete had changed his second serve for the wimby final in 1999 in order to keep Andre in check. I am not sure whether this is right, coz there is a lot of crap written in Andre´s book.
But I myself have the impression that Pete served with more risk at the end of his career and overall became more muscular, too.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Yes, Pete mainly won vs Agassi because of his excelltent serve & coz he risked always to rush to the net. It was like an escape from the baseline where Andre dominated. Pete won of course spectacular rallies like the one I mentioned at US Open. But overall Andre mad the majority of points, same case with other MODERN baseline grinders.
Becker, too, had to play more n more risky at the end of his career, mainly coz he was to lame for long baseline rallies.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Fed serve the same number of aces when he beat Sampras in Wimby. He served a huge number of aces when he beat Agassi in a windy 5 setter in NY 2004And you probably have read that Fed served 50 aces in Wimby 09. He hit 3.9 aces per 10 first serves. Lucky day, prolly. That was in the Ivanisevic-Karlovic dimension. Fed just does not put as much risk into his 2nd serve, either because he cant or coz he does not need to as he usually can win the speed rallies vs big hitters.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Yes, Pete was indeed more then "only" a big server like, say Karlovic, who has the best serve so far. Or a pure SV specialist like Cash. I remember this super rally of the US Open 1995 final. Pete won the first real power rally which set the standard for modern tennis.
However, as you said, Pete won only a "fair share" but not the majority of those rallies, therefor he chose to play SV instead of baseline. He both could do so but he had to do so, too.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I thought he did so only in his late years, but I can be wrong.
Dear, it is late here in Europe, I got to go to bed...
If you want anytime again, I enjoyed it.
Good night.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I guess Nadal does not serve as Pete did, because he wants to grind his opponents with topspin play and let them run up & down the lines. He is a sadist !
irony.
The perfect player hits ace after ace and return winner after return winner.
Therefore Sampras was not only called Pistol Pete but also Pete Perfect.
I thought that Safin was the new prototype of modern tennis, when he rushed into the top: Super serve AND power returns.
If he only had Feds health and nerves + Pete volleys...
nait
ulizinho 2 years ago
But Agassi also said, that he knew that he could beat Sampras, if not in Wimby then on hard courts, but he knew that for him it was almost impossible to beat Federer, because ROger had Pete´s serve (almost) AND dominated in Andre´s domain, the baseline power duels.
ulizinho 2 years ago
That is what I said: He could rival Safin and Hewitt from baseline, same with Agassi. He was getting too old for running up and down and lost prescision so he had to play SV consistantly and therefore also needed a strong 2nd serve, which he was able to hit. Edberg could not do so.
As far as I know, he did NOT risk that much in his early years, when looked so slim and weak neither in his prime time.
ulizinho 2 years ago
correction: he could NOT rival Agassi, Safin and Hewitt from the baseline....
However he DID win in his last pro match in NY and hit some superb backhand winners !
ulizinho 2 years ago
Right. We also have to consider that Pete (and Fed) are not really super tall.
Safin, Stich, Krajicek, Ivanisevic and now Karlovic have super speedy serves coz they can serve from a crane as Pete once put it after a defeat by Krajicek.
Pete & Roger are "short" compared to them but often reach into their service dimensions.
Whether you hit a serve winner with serve of 120 mp/h or an ace with 135 mp/h, the result is the same: an easy point.
So Rog & Pete are more effective.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I absolutely agree. Pete could hit a dime.
Roddick must improve here. My favourite server from the ad side is however is (or was) Safin ! He usually served onto the backhand, always near or onto the line and VERY speedy. From this side he served with the same or more speed then Roddick AND with Pete accuracy.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Pete however must "escape" from the baseline and rush to the net. Therefore a more risky 2nd serve is needed. Fed second serve would not do.
Both tactics are very succesful in Wimby.
Today, the ball jumps a bit higher, so returning is easier, so Fed´s play is presumbly favored. On their only encounter in 2001, they played on the gold old speedy grass. Fed still played SV after 1st serve, not after second. He is a clay baseliner.
In that match in 2001, Fed´s ball toss was higher then today.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Possible Answer, "hypothesis" (hihihi)
Fed is very strong in hitting winners with back and forehand. He plays great volleys, too, but has not the instinct of Cash or Sampras.
Sampras had a great forehand but often just shoveld his backhand and did not have the stamina of Fed or Nadal.
So: For Fed it is safer to remain on baseline, he will not get passed but can easily finish with his forehand. No SV needed, therefore no superrisky 2nd serve, a good topspin will do, too.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Lets get back to the FedSamp comparison: Both are simlilar both in their dominance and class AND concerning their heigth, weight and their catlike movements.
Both have similar (not identical) serve movements and similar ace numbers and max speeds.
Yet, Fed plays now mainly baseline whereas Samp was almost a pure serve n volley player, at least in Wimby.
Fed possibly could try the same way like Pete and Pete could have tried Fed´s way.
Why do they differ here, though they are so similar?
ulizinho 2 years ago
Still the question: Why does he risk so much? He did commit more double faults then others (but less if they had tried his tactics you will say)
And he did get a lot of passing shots a lot of times by Agassi. Mostly it payed, sometimes not. It did not pay vs Safin & Hewitt in NY, when he was totally demolished by those counter players.
A "safe" baseline duel statistically did not pay as much for him as risking speedy 2nd serves & SV.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Everyone could hit the 2nd serve as if it was another 1st serve. You just have to ignore the danger of a double fault and hit it again with the same power. Even Murray could do so. What Pete did is something different. He reduced the speed a little in order to avoid double faults , put some extra spin into it AND remained with still superb placement. His 2nd is the perfect compromise of a save serve and a aggressive serve that enables him to play SV.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Hum. You are right of course. What I want to put stress on is this: It was a decision that Pete made. It was not only his unique ability but also a necessity. He has a great forehand and also sometimes hit winners with his weaker backhand. At the end of his career, like Becker, he had to play more risky. SV even after 2nd serve, constantly. Very risky 2nd serves. Sometimes the risk did not pay. But he had to play this way, coz Agassi, Safin, Kuerten etc were becoming too dominant from baseline.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I read in Bosch´s Book about Becker, that he could bend his wrist/hand to a very extreme angle, which enabled him to give his serve some extra kick and speed. Pete used his extreme shoulder pronation to create energy.
In contrast, Fed´s arm & shoulder seem to be very rigid here. That is why I wonder how he creates the power. Roger serves with the same maximum speed, almost as Sampras and Becker. So, how does he achieve it?
Only the speed of the racket head during contact is decisive.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Ah ok, I somehow understood it that way, but I was confused by "cheetah". Is Pete a Cheetah ??
ulizinho 2 years ago
Sorry, I do not get your point here?
Irony?
ulizinho 2 years ago
Many players served with high risk at second serve. Sometimes Fed does it, too. But Pete did that much more often, possibly, because his play relied more on a strong serve then Fed´s. Pete played Serve´n Volley even after second serve as he was rather dominated in baseline duels with Agassi.
Stich and Krajicek had also very energy-efficient serves, but they were also taller then Pete. So, I agree, that Pete is in this aspect the master, whereas Roger and Goran are even more difficult to read.
ulizinho 2 years ago
if anyone is still interested:
Look up these videos:
1) "Boris Becker´s serve"
a comparison of his serve in 1985 and the one in 1985.
2) "Djokovic + Sampras, serve comparison"
3) Sampras ball toss
very good:
fuzzyyellowballs:
Federer serve in Wimbledon final 2009
and BBC video of Federer´s well disguised serve.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I am not really sure formyself, which serve is better. Pete looks a bit more natural and more powerful, but Roger, as always, looks so effortless and easy.
The result, as already said, is more or less the same, though Pete was very impressive with his risky second serves which he cultivated so greatly at the end of his career.
ulizinho 2 years ago
The two extremes (Becker-like or Ivanisevic-like) have their advantages, but they are very sensitive. Wind, a bad day, a bad ball toss, bad shape whatsoever, and the finely calibrated movement does not function anymore. Result: the powerserver becomes a doublefaulter.
Roger and Pete have a very stable serve.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Still, I think, that Pete and Roger´s serves are quite alike. Maybe, we can categorize the serve-motions in two extremes:
1) Extreme high ball toss, therefore a real break within the whole movement. Examples: Becker, Lendl, Edberg, maybe Del Potro
2) Extreme fast movement, almost no break, pause within the movement, the ball is hit almost at the highest point.
Examples: Tanner, Ivanisevic, Leconte, Lubicic
Fed & Pete are in between those 2 extremes. Pete is more similar to 1), Roger to 2)
ulizinho 2 years ago
Yes, the perfect player could hit aces all the time.
Pete did risk a lot with the 2nd, mostly it worked and gave him an opportunity to win the point. All other big servers could do the same, or at least try. If you can hit winners with first serve you simply would have to hit the second almost as your first, which Pete often did.
It is a decision. Murray has a deadly first serve, but his 2nd is too weak. Unlike Pete, he has not found a real good compromise between save vs fast.
ulizinho 2 years ago
No, we are watching a video about serves and I was referring to the grip for the serve. It seems as if Roger uses an eastern forehand grip, while Pete is using a backhand grip, which I think is better, coz you can use the wrist a little bit better.
I agree about your forehand analysis.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I would not say so. Sampras motion shows more torsion, the body is more sidewards. Fed´s movement is concerning this aspect simpler, less bent upper body. Yet both have similar max speed, at around 210 km/h. So, Fed achieves the same speed with less effort (=leverage, torsion).
I wonder how much more speed Roger could achieve if he adapted a bit more to Pete´s beautiful motion.
Especially pete´s extra little movement with the wrist
ulizinho 2 years ago
I should have written pronation instead of torsion. Pete pronates more.
Look for the excellent video "pete + serve pronation"
I think Fed has changed his serve movement. The ball toss was higher when he beat Pete. Fed´s racket swings all through without a real interuption. There is no "break" in the movement, as in Becker´s famous "serveman" silhouette.
ulizinho 2 years ago
I dont understand, why Fed does not use the same grip as Sampras. Anyway, both serve with similar efficency.
ulizinho 2 years ago
it looks like roger get's his serving arm up faster while pete brings his down more and back
billthestinker 2 years ago
Similar but sampras is more accurate, Pete sampras could hit a nickel with his serve according to that announcer dude at australian open 2010.
momay69 2 years ago
That was some comparison!!! :-D
nkrm015 2 years ago
Just spectacular atheletes! I am guessing federer modeled his after pete's serve. The remarkable similarity--near synchrony--raises interesting questions about just how moldable one's style/form really is.
cetinyan 2 years ago
they look equal, but there are some important differences.
yet, both have similar serve speeds and ace numbers.
ulizinho 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
roddick has the best service motion
Currymastuh 2 years ago
Agree with you. :-D
nkrm015 2 years ago
I disagree about your assessment about Roddick's serve being the best service motion. Roddick pulls up he hits it. Federer and Sampras continue their motion into the court, which puts a player in a more offensive position.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
yes but roddick's serve is more reliable and powerful
Currymastuh 2 years ago
I expremented today serving with a topspin serve toss but ended with a flat serve motion (into the duece court,) that was even better than my regular serve!
y11971alex 2 years ago
the sampras serve has both power and accuracy.
JDMFLiPBOi 2 years ago 5
Sampras' service motion is the most fluid motion ever. Not even Federer comes close.
oplilium 2 years ago 2
Federer has a sexy serve, Sampras not so much, he does a weird lifty thing with his racquet and the ball in his hand.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
yeah, Sampras is not commercial, but it is 100% aggressive in his game, federer not, is modern...and that is not characteristic of the players now
TmVRCTY 2 years ago
so thats where federer gets his great serve from haha
mgirardi1 2 years ago 2
If you think so then you've never seen him play, neither this video.
Federer is the most elegant player on the tour, maybe in history of tennis.
Every shot of him is perfect.
NiggeliNG 2 years ago 2
Lol.
paazoe 2 years ago
I hope the S & V type players make a come back .. though its hard to see how it can happen..
I loved watching Becker, Sampras. esp. when they were playing a good baseliner. miss those days.
pradeepanisonline 2 years ago 2
Before Wimby 09 I have always said that Federer game is better then Sampras except te serve. Now, with 50 aces (out of 127 first serves, that is 4 of 10) I am not quite sure anymore. I guess they have similar serve speeds.
Both are able to turn around a match with their serves. Sampras even with a second serve ace, like against Corretja.
ulizinho 2 years ago
Great comparison, There is 1 MAJOR difference. That's the physical imposition of when Sampras' serve. There's just a vibe that you get, that he's always in control, the power. Something Federer should work on.
flysniper77 2 years ago 5
both are badass serves! they match fed keeps ball to racquet more on his toss but pete does crazy wrist pronation! pete was built like a b-ball player, great back strength- thus i think influenced his power but fed has mad skills! I would pick either.. but if i had to choose.. would be PETES!! he'd go for it on the 2nd serves more and had gr8 speed.lol & the SV RULLLEEEDDD!!!
exitingforward 2 years ago
best serve in history!
dogshouse 2 years ago 2
no one in the history of pro tennis had sampras kinda serve.. while for federer there was sampras 's serve to be copied . period!
acha420 2 years ago
federer has a funny sense of humour
Siukaay 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com SSKLGM
magdalenrivetgjf 2 years ago
not even dude, tennis has gotten boring because they only stay on the baseline and not move up. that's BORING
4zureSky 2 years ago
no.. s&v players are definitely a dying breed, but it's not because everyone wants to be a baseline basher. simply because the game requires too much variety to dominate.
if you really think most pros on the atp tour stay on the baseline and not move up, then you need to actually watch tennis.
foohynigga 2 years ago
haha, I didn't mean not move up at ALL. I see them move up from time to time, but just serving and volleying is rare nowadays just as u have said.
4zureSky 2 years ago 2
oh, good. haha
foohynigga 2 years ago
Don't know why they don't like your comment, but it's true....
niclassj 2 years ago
cause it's just fags that only watch youtube highlights of baseline winners and smashes 5 feet from the net.
foohynigga 2 years ago
Sampras was such a boring player to watch when compared to the gracefullness of Federer.
MetalguitarlessonsUK 2 years ago
They both have great serves, but Sampras always managed to serve aces when it really mattered. Federer is to prove that yet.
sanwestwijk 2 years ago 2
That's not true, Roger hits service winners and aces on big points, just not as frequently as Pete could. The big difference is, on a break point, Pete frequently hit second serve aces, whereas Roger rarely does that.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago 4
alittle diff. in finish and speed... look at sampras's elbow.... it stays @ 90 degrees for awhile because of the super fast arm motion... however, federer's accuracy still gets him aces.
luzac159 2 years ago
both are extremely good serves... sampras was a little stronger though, but i think federer is a bit more accurate
chrism216 2 years ago
i use to think that too, but fed is pumpin them serves up these days. and ud think sampras would have more accuracy with his 85 sq inch pro staff, and less power.
millionairejh 2 years ago
Very similar technique, but Pete's sevre was better than Roger's.
Schrittwieser 2 years ago 3
I love the fact that both players can use their serves very effectively to get cheaps points. Accuracy and disguise are definately a strong point for both players. Fed rarely hits over 130mph but his accuracy gets him quite a number of aces. Fed and Pete has easy and fluid service motions which also help with consistency.
nishjaxx 2 years ago
sampras' serve pisses over federer's.
doovle 2 years ago
The finish is very similar I think
GsDeleon2 2 years ago
I think that no one has the server like Dr.Server =)
nes4l 2 years ago
Very similar rythm and shape. Fed keeps his ball touching racquet at beginning for longer which is advisable for a consistent ball toss. Fed lifts his arms more simulaneously which is the more orthodox way. Pete does a more overt wrist pronation. Pete got more free points from his, so I'd choose his over Feds. Tough choice though.
Snaurt 2 years ago
id take Pete's serve anyday over federer!!!
infoowetrust 2 years ago
both have the same type of serving .....dont they ?
mroshanali 2 years ago
the only difference i can see is sampras' arm rotation as he slams the ball downward. it seems that he only slams the ball with his forearm while federer throws his whole arm downwards. notice in the serve follow-through that sampras' arm is bent more perpendicularly than federer. it allows for greater spins and more disguise.
kakashi1300 2 years ago
"no matter what?"
If you don't care what other people have to say about that, why do you tell other people what you think and then run away from any further discussion?
miltyu97 2 years ago
same
Dany3R9 2 years ago
Whenever you put serves side by side like this, they sort of look similar. But their serves are not really that similar.
Sampras uses his legendary pronation to achieve much higher racket head speed and spin combination.
I'm not saying it's more than just Federer; I'm saying it was more than any other player.
miltyu97 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"roddicks serve is just fast and easily predictable. that makes it less effective than rogers serve.. roger tosses the ball at the exact point every time . that makes his serve hard to read.."
Doesn't matter if a serve is predictable. If you can't return it, it's meaningless. And Andy's serve isn't as easy as you make it seem. He holds it at top 2 in the tour.
As for serve, I think Roddick's is reasonably better than Federer's because at least Roger has just many weapons to back himself up.
GreenSaida 2 years ago
Comment removed
GreenSaida 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nadal just enjoys the game more. thts y he can beat federer. in reality, if u look at nadal closely, he has one of the worst habits ever. his forehand goes over his head and he always hits the ball in on him. its just tht his acceleration covers for him. his foot work isnt all tht good either. if it was then he wouldnt be forcing his shots all the time. federer is just way too hard on himself. he just needs to relax more.
asianoutcast87 2 years ago
go sampras... look at the feet at 0:29
EdgarPlaysBass 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MotherFucker !
salaheddine10 2 years ago
Comment removed
EdgarPlaysBass 3 years ago
federer is in a state of shock. nadal leads him 13 to 6 nadal has 3 out of the 4 grandslams nadal is number 1 player in the world no doubt gold medal winner davis cup champion nadal has proved to the entire world he deserves number 1. now federer can't handle the fact that he is number 2 that is why he broke down and cried because hew knows that he can't beat nadal and the entire world won't call him the greatest of all time because he can't beat nadal. sampras well unbelievable to good!
themios72 3 years ago 2
Sampras' serve is physics, is talent, is art. It is an immortal and perfect shot. The way he executes the shot is unique, is the triumph of elegance, is a dance.
Federer serve is a good shot.
The comparison is for me inconsistent.
gioutube 3 years ago 2
the truth is federer wants to be sampras
dogshouse 3 years ago 4
i dont think so, roger has had much more success come his way much faster than sampras
Currymastuh 3 years ago
sampras said himself,'federer is the greatest player in history"
azntimtam 3 years ago 3
Talking about the best player in history does not make much sense. The players are not so easly comparable through the decades.
gioutube 3 years ago 2
sampras serve better sampras smash better sampras forehand better sampras volleys better sampras back hand 50 50 with federer sampras slice 50 50 with federer sampras said federer should come in more and volley when he plays nadal sorry sampras federer is not sampras to do that. federer is a baseliner sampras a serve volleyer his aim is to come into the net keep the point short he can also rally with you from the baseline wins a lot of free points on his serve he is explosive guns firing
themios72 3 years ago
Sampras had a better serve and volley. Federer a better backhand. They both have wonderful forehand. Sampras had a more offensive game and when he was in the zone the other player did not touch the ball, whoever he was. Sampras was not a serve-and-volley. He was all court player. He played serve and volley in the last years 1999-2001 and always at wimbledon, but even when he was playing from the back of the court he was always going to the net, having that fabulous talent.
gioutube 3 years ago 2
Pete's looks better and more powerful.
oplilium 3 years ago 3
it looks like sampras's back is facing the net more and that turns into more shoulder rotation, but other than that the take back and snap are almost identical, they are two of my favorite players ever and I never would have thought of how similar they look if they weren't right next to each other, very interesting
okwu07 3 years ago
Sampras's serve is better though because his elbow is more flexible than federers
daigunder35 3 years ago 2
Federer VS Roddick 2008 Australian Open: Aces: Federer 16 Roddick 9 Fed Serve >>> Roddick Serve
oplilium 3 years ago
i really like federers stile, but i have the impression that he lacks power, correct me if im wrong but i beleave nadal has much more power, also considering he was trained with his left hand for more power and that federer uses a k factor (control racket)
JfaZ3 3 years ago
federer has fluid power, he draws his strength from grace.
nadal has brute force, he draws his strength from massive guns.
and federer strings his racket in the low 50's or high 40's i believe, which wore than compensates for the contral racket.
lytwielder 3 years ago
yea, i guess its better to have control instead of power (i use a k factor, so personally iprefer control. but i still steress out a lot when i hit really neat shot and the oponent has time to go and return it :S
JfaZ3 3 years ago
1) federer serves faster than nadal
2) federer's groundstrokes are much faster in terms of mph than nadal's (but nadal has much more topspin on his groundstrokes, especially his forehand).
k factor simply means karophite construction, which is wilson's newest gimmick. there are a bunch of racquets in the "k factor" line. the k90 is indeed a "control" racquet, but only in the sense that it's response is predictable. you can hit a 120mph serve just as easily with a k90 as with an oversize beast.
sukivan27 3 years ago
The best server is the one player who can get the best results (points) out of his serve. The one who can hurt the most with it. Now the biggest damage u can provoke with that weapon are aces and winners.
It doesn´t really matter if you miss at crunch time and/or if you end up losing the match to someone else as long as u fired enough aces and winners during the match to be called the best server. In that order u can claim Ivanisevic, Karlovic and Roddick 3 of the best servers of all times.
alexdu86utube 3 years ago 2
The better server in crunch time= the best player. not so much as the points they win. whoever holds serve in crunch time is the best player. Roddick has a huge serve and hes my fav player. but even i dont think hes one of the best servers ever. Pistol Pete is the best ever because his 2nd serve was as hard to return as his 1st serve.
babolatr34 3 years ago 3
Ok.
I wasn't talking about best players, just best servers.
Pete is probably the best server ever, yes.
Now, if Roddick is not one of the best ever at it then who is it?...
Holding serve at crunch time (by an ace or a winner, right?, because otherwise just doesn't count) is a plus, but that would be added more likely to the best player argument than to the best server one.
Remember!
this is not about the best player.
alexdu86utube 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Piece of Shit, go fuck your mother now and then return talking here...
salaheddine10 2 years ago
i actually think roddick has one of the best serves for the reasons: its fast, effective, and *conistent ( 70% first serves or more during a game with serves exceeding 130 mph ), i mean i could see how most people would say federer has the best serve, i think theyre just sayign that because federer's service is soo clean and his motion is so fluid, and his results are fairly impressive, but my vote is for roddick despite what other people think
tenniswh0re 3 years ago
roddicks serve is just fast and easily predictable. that makes it less effective than rogers serve.. roger tosses the ball at the exact point every time even wich serve he uses.. that makes his serve hard to read..
odingr 3 years ago 6
Roddick has a sick serve. He deserves, at least serve-wise, to be up there with Sampras among others. But Federer is clearly coming into his own.
Brazellnr 3 years ago 3
They look almost identical but I think Pete's serve even looks more powerful...
However, Federer can bring out a nasty kick because I think he gets more downforce on his serve when he kicks it.
FinalFan0 3 years ago
Pete Sampras has the best serve of all time. It's a shame that someone actually put a one trick pony like Roddick in the same sentence with Sampras. Shame on you.
Aodaliyah 3 years ago
Goran Ivanisevic had the best serve of all time don't be ridiculous
Antonio32804 3 years ago
Goran is another one trick pony that Sampras eats for breakfast. He's the same level as Roddick. No more, no less.
Aodaliyah 3 years ago
Comment removed
Antonio32804 3 years ago
If you think more aces mean better server, then you know nothing about tennis.
Aodaliyah 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
Antonio32804 3 years ago
If you ask Rusedski himself, he will say Sampras has better serve. You're not making sense here. Sampras's serve is widely regarded as the greatest serve ever for a reason.
Aodaliyah 3 years ago
Ivanisevic is way better then Roddick..you are funny if you think that they are same level lol
HetfieldCRO 3 years ago
Roddick was a former world number 1 in the world, while Goran was never number 1 in his entire life. Who's better now?
Aodaliyah 3 years ago
If anyone's (not just Federer's) serve was mentioned in the same sentence as the Sampras serve, they ought to be flattered.
miltyu97 3 years ago