Eneathedevil

Hey there, Pistol, finally. Well, let’s say you’ve been really focused on the issue of rivalries, and regarding that, I don’t quite agree, and I’ve already explained why in writing, and Pibroch has confirmed it: all those players were good enough to challenge Sampras, but there’s never been anyone who could consistently keep up with him like Nadal has. Pete was ranked number one overall for more than 5 years, demonstrating his superiority over his rivals. If you also consider that his performance on clay was significantly lower than Federer’s, the result is even more surprising: he was the undisputed leader for so long despite achieving so little on the red dirt. I’ll give you this: before Nadal, Federer dealt with mere pretenders. However, given that Nadal took the second spot in 2006, I’d say that for quite some time there has indeed been a notable rivalry developing between the two.

Berasategui! But how did he make it to the final of that Roland Garros? Incredible. Uhm, I don't know. Personally, I'm thrilled by the battles. This includes Nadal-Djokovic, but also the legendary, out-of-this-world quarterfinal at the US Open 2001, Sampras-Agassi 67 76 76 76. Gentlemen, what a fight. So, I'm not particularly excited by the style itself, but rather by the fierce struggle, and in this, both serve-and-volley players and baseline players can equally fit in.

Here, the crux is in your parentheses. We'll see. But no, Lewis, damn! We are fortunate to live in the era of a champion like Federer, second only to Sampras on the all-time list for Grand Slam titles, and you brush it off? I won't accept this little pebble of yours!

No, pistolpete has never talked about enthusiasm. Let's wait for him, perhaps, to understand if my interpretation is correct and to see what his specific evaluations are. A kiss on the hairy cheeks.

You corrected a nonsense and then wrote "as if it is," oops, we're failing big time. In my opinion, the service is allowing too many incapable players to get familiar with tennis. There’s a lack of technique, you understand? Roddick won a US Open with his serve, but he can do nothing but hit at 240 km/h and throw in an occasional forehand. He has a pathetic backhand and is embarrassing at the net. He lacks technical preparation; he has only capitalized on what he did well. Today, when faced with strong opponents (a Federer who has beaten him up too many times, people well-prepared in the fundamentals like Nadal, Murray, Davydenko), he can only win American tournaments on hard courts. Those who use the serve well can compensate for the lack of technical skills, while those who master the groundstrokes can truly play tennis, benefiting from their training rather than from natural talent (see Philippoussis’s explosive muscles, Karlovic’s unnatural height). Clearly, I’m exaggerating (Sampras fits only partially into this discussion, as he was exceptional), but it’s to help you understand that, in my opinion, baseline play, though often more tedious, has a technical superiority over serve and volley. The fact remains that today, with the new rackets, servers are thriving and winning. In the '70s at Wimbledon, Bjorn Borg won, and with a wooden racket, he saw the net 4-5 times a match.

I may have downplayed it a bit, but I did it to give credit to the Swiss player. Net play, if I may say, is a skill that Sampras had every reason to develop precisely because of his formidable serve. Anyone with a serve like that wisely opts for serve and volley, and it’s no coincidence that today almost all players with powerful serves play well at the net. Not to mention an unknown like Taylor Dent, who certainly doesn’t excel in groundstrokes. He has a crushing serve and always follows it to the net: as a result, he has necessarily become an excellent net player with exquisite touch. Like him, Mirnyi (now in clear decline) and Feliciano Lopez, to name a few. It’s a skill that is easy to cultivate with that serve, in my opinion. Federer cannot develop a net game of the same level because he lacks the weapon of his serve, so in the end, that’s always the point.

The usual fool. Pistolpete says: "tennis of bashers" and he says it referring not only to Nadal and Djokovic since he’s talking about the sport in general. Then he also mentions Federer, Murray, Roddick, Del Potro, and so on. Then he claims that the one and only is Sampras, hence he assumes the superiority of the latter over today's bumpers. But Federer is not a bumper. In fact, he was even better than Sampras. And less of a "basher" than him, since the good Pete used to crush his opponents right from the start with his serve and forehand.

And then Sampras faced players of high caliber, but who could only last for a few seasons. The rankings were shaky, many tennis players were one-season wonders and mere figures. There were Chang, Ivanisevic, Lendl, Rafter, Agassi, Courier, Moya... some of these were of undeniable quality and won. But few were able to ensure continuity in terms of performance. Nadal and Federer have been chasing each other for 4 years. A historic rivalry. Sampras never had someone like Nadal nipping at his heels.

No, no, I completely disagree with Pistolpete (and even more so with those who agree without providing any arguments). Let’s put an end to this nonsense about Sampras. Federer may not match Sampras's record (without Nadal in the mix, he would have done it at least a couple of years ago), but even though I don't particularly like him, he not only has a class that doesn't make him inferior to Sampras, but he also has a far greater overall value. You talk to me about today's power players, but what should we say about someone who hit at least 20-30 aces per match? Sampras was someone who took advantage of the lucky break of the new synthetic rackets and did what he wanted, especially with his serve. Federer has a backhand that Sampras could only dream of. He is more solid from the baseline, handles the net very well, and just has a little less serve. Much more complete. Sampras compensated for his backhand shortcomings with his serve: without such a powerful serve, it would have been a different story.

Here lies the key to Federer's new success: the total exhaustion of Nadal in a match the day before. 4 hours are times that the Mallorcan doesn’t even spend in a match on the clay of Roland Garros, where he would have the right to rest at least for a day, so it’s reasonable to expect a worse physical performance. Roger understood this and set up the match as he should, by attacking and wearing down his opponent. The match was epic and of stratospheric quality (Djoko would have beaten Federer in my opinion). However, it seems the final tie-break ended 11-9.