Pete Sampras could not rally which is why he became nothing but a net rushing lunatic with a huge serve and great running forearm!Something he perfected and led him to 14 Grand Slams.A great achievement with such a small arsenal.He was a baseline pusher!

After watching the 2000 semi-final between him and Agassi and also having watched the 2001 4th round encounter with Federer at Wimbledon I was somewhat forced to believe this.All he did in both matches was boom serve after serve after serve!A robotic process designed and perfected by him which took a great deal of skill but also was so boring.He only generated interest when he played Andre!

Sampras was very very good at moving the ball around with his slice backhand to stay in the rallies and eventually get himself to the net with it but VERY SELDOM went toe to toe against anyone from the baseline!Agassi was essentially great at exposing this flaw in Petes artillery.However Pete was very dangerous on the run to his forearm,something many knew and feared including Agassi,but this is in itself not a rallying shot but more of a defensive shot.Sort of like a wounded animal cornered!Having said that,his forearm within a rally was great to watch just like Federers.

Another thing of interest is his backhand!Many trolls who worship Pete seem to think his backhand is better than Federers.This is a load of rubbish!Both backhands are totally different but Federers is by miles better and more technically sound both crosscourt and up the line.Pete did something sort of like a push cut thing up the line that resembled topspin and his crosscourt more often than not was a topspin loop than an attacking shot.Having said this,Nadal with actually mince Pete with much more ease than he does Federer!

Pete was well aware of his incapablities on the baseline which is why he is arguably the best serve and volleyer the world has seen and will ever see.It was his pure will to succeed that made him the champion he is today.One could argue that his game lacked variation,flare and grace,something Federer posesses in abundance and this is why Federer will go down as the most talented champion the world will ever see.

Forget weak era bits and choking and opposition and actually look at baseline game from a technical point of view and you will see that this post isnt an attack on Pete or a Federer praising post.Pete Sampras just couldnt and will never be able to rally long enough without barging the net.He simply doesnt possess the weapons to do so.......

Sorry Dark, I can't agree. I don't know how many other matches you have seen of Sampras other than those two, but he was one of the greatest ralliers of his time. He stood toe to toe with Agassi and out rallied him at the US Open all the time. You should check out their matches and results there. Also his match with Agassi at Wimbledon in 1999 produced some wonderous rallies for a grass court match.

By they year 200 he was on the wain and certainly relied on his server and volley a lot more. But to say he can't rally I think is very wrong, as he could rally with the best, apart from at the French. He just never got to grips with the clay surface.

Also, Pete's one handed backhand when on song was fantastic, but I'll agree it wasn't consistent.

I am not really a Sampras worshipper as I think Federer has proven recently he would have had a slight edge over Pete. But I disagree whole heartedly with most of what you say. How many Sampras matches have you seen? I am 30 and got to see the great man play throughout most of his career, and he was one of the greatest sloggers from the back of the court (especially at the US Open). He had a great game and it's odd to see someone pick it apart like you have. Ont he evidence of the two matches you have quoted I can see how you have come to those conclusions, but I suggest you look at some other matches he played (US Open 1995 Final and Wimbleon 1999 Final for starters...).

Bar clary, Sampras was a legend and had a superb game from the front and back of the court. But Federer edges him.

This is all my opinion.

Gav

Not sure Gav. Actually Laurie who is a big Sampras fan and knows his game inside out says that Sampras managed to win in his later years thanks to his baseline game. And I agree with this. S&V requires a lot of energy and explosiveness and once Hewitt got Sampras serve back in the legs, the last place Sampras wanted to be in was at the net.

His baseline game however was pretty good actually for his time. Now it remains to be seen how good it would have been had he been exposed to today's pace and spin.

He could outdo Agassi with his baseline game at the US. And Agassi's baseline game stood up to today's quality pretty well in his later years, so I reckon Pete could have held his own from the back of the court.

I always though he relied more on his big serve and his volleying towards the end of his career. His other GS's dried up later in his career (after 97 or so) although he was still winning Wimbledon until 2000. Sure he got the US Open in 2002, but I think that was an exception.

All of this is my opinion of course and it's fair enough if others see it differently. But to win so many GS's (even outside of Wimbledon) you have to be able to have great groudstrokes from the back of the court. You can't just be a server and vollyer, or Edberg would have won more GS Tournaments and Tim might have done better.

Well so what if he couldn't rally? The aim is to win the points, so doing thsi as fast as you can is surely smarter than running around for hours and forcing errors or fatigue in your opponent? Which si may I say much more boring ......

That aside though I dont; agree that Sampras could not rally. He coudl play from the baseline too, he was not always serve and volleyer, he started off as a baseliner and changed his game to try and give him an edge.

I am not sure we can draw conclusions like that based on pure comparison with one single player.

Especially when we look in details at Agassi's run at the USO final 05. It is like saying Connors run to the semi USO at 39 showed how crap the level was then. Those things happen. They are most likely a one off and that's all we can say about those rare events. Why wasn't Agassi in the semi or quarter or even forth round of a slam the following year if he really was that good a few month ealier?

Im a tad bit younger than you but make no 2 neverminds about how many Sampras matches I have watched and thats throughout the 90's and the most evidence in my eyes points to him being very complete at the net and uncomfortable on the baseline.Did you watch 1998 Corretja Vs Pete Hanover Semis(year end Champs) did you also watch 1999 round robin against Agassi,yes he did win that title but he was very very ordinary at the baseline.

Also our own Wayne Ferreira here from South Africa also made Pete look very very ordinary from the baseline and Wayne was never a net rusher even though he was an accomplished doubles player.Their head to head is very close.And bare in mind Agassi has an 11-0 h2h against Wayne.

Funny you should mention clay because if he had such a great baseline game then he would have mastered clay and would have at least made a final at the French because as we all know its won from the baseline,but Pete has a dismall record at The French and on the red stuff in general with some embarrasing losses.Clay is the purification surface for any baseliner and its a surface that you will hone all your baseline skills to the max as you have much more time and Pete honed nothing on it!

The matches you want me to watch I have seen and its like Tenez says,he was more prone to staying back in the later years of his career due to him slowing down,thats why Hewitt and Safin made mince out of him.He won that last US OPEN because he played Andre and he imposed his 90's game on him like he always did because he knew he was playing a mate from the old school and old school tennis was what made him win.No doubt though,in some rallies Pete was awesome,but for the better half of it,he simply isnt a great baseliner as you think him to be!

Fair enought Tenez. But the difference was Connors run to the Semi back in 91 was a one off and he was at a time when Connors was around 170 in the world, whereas Agassi was still a solid top 10 competitor in 2005. Therefore in my opinion you cannot compare the two. Agassi held his own throughout the tour right up until 2005. Connors was not holding his own at all at that time. There is no question that Agassi's game stood up to the modern rallying well. Sure, he wasn't the best, but he competed regularly.

Fair enough. We will agree to disagree then chap. I think if we carry on we will go around in circles!

Yes SB,to win points and thats the crux of it I agree.I also agree with you about saving energy totally.But to say that rallying and producing various angles and winners is ludicrous.I mean how can anyone find someone thats booming down service aces or unreturnables or ending the point at the net immediatley after that cracking serve exciting?

Pete was made to look great from the baseline against weaklings.Look at what he did to Kafelnikov and that Russian was a great baseliner.

Pete isnt a baseliner,he merely manouvered tha ball around effectively to work himself into the net.He looked great against the hacks!

Dark you're spot on as usual.
The way you describe it is the way i remember it too. As you say Pete was phenomenal at S&V, which meant for short often predictable points. To add to you analysis, i don't think Pete was a great returner either-he wasn't really bad, like say Rusedski, just not too great, and i also remember many sets going to tie breaks, as he was obviously very hard to break, but wasn't great at breaking his opponents, but could hold his nerve well in a tie break situation often enough to win through.

I am wondering if I could find a post more biased and generalised - I would probably have to go to Chetanpv :devil: Im no expert on Sampras, but I wouldn't make such sweeping conclusions on the basis of a few matches :doh:

I agree SW19. It seems that some of Fed's fans think they need to be extremely negative about Sampras's game just like the some Sampras fans feel they need to do the same with Fed. I just admit that they both have/had phenominal skills and talent.

You certainly don't get to win 14 Grand Slam titles by not being able to rally as the subject in this thread seems to suggest just as much as Federer hasn't got to 9 GS Titles by being a transitional and weak number 1. They are both great players, with very few "weak" parts to their game.

I will admit Sampras struggled to work out how to move properly on clay but still managed two quarter finals and a semi on clay at the French. You don't get that far without being a decent tennis player who can rally.

Looking at this quote from Wikipedia....

....it tends to back up my idea that Sampras relied less on his rallying as his career started to wain and more on his S and V. In fact from the Australian Open in 1997 onwards he only won 5 GS events, 4 of those at Wimbledon, showing how reliant he had become on his serve and volley by this point, and not by his rallying, which became much more difficult as he lost speed, although against Agassi in the Wimbledon final of 1999 he seemed to revel in his rallying with Agassi. But to start generalising that he couldn't rally just doesn't make sense to me. Take a look at his whole career from start to finish to see what damage he could do to the very best ralliers in the game.

I have been playing and watching tennis since I was 6,so I do know what Im talking about.It may seem biased coz Im a Federer fan but its not anything like that.From a technical perspective he simply cant rally.Im no expert and never claimed to be but I do play the sport and quite well.

Oh and by the way,I HAVE watched Sampras all my life,his wins and his losses so its not an opinion on a few matches...I can footnote many more bud!

Well perhaps you should make some more footnotes then...

Also, just because you are good at playing a sport doesn't mean you are more fit to commentate on it than those of us who perhaps don't play as much, or who haven't played for as long :tsk: Just ask Virginia ..."that was a good shot wasn't it?"..Wade roflmao

I know Im not the only one who finds these rants unnncessary. Does denigrating Sampras' game make you feel any better about Federer? Really? Personally I feel that Federer is good enough that we don't need to nit pick his competition to raise up Federer. What next a thread..."Laver is old and slow" :rolleyes:

Look Dark......I don't really know what else I can say about this. But I just can't see no matter how good Sampras's serve and volley was, no matter how good his running forhand was (which is part of a rally by the way).....how can you say that a man who finished the year end 6 times as world number 1 can't even rally at the sport he excels in??!?!?!!?

Perhaps you mean he couldn't rally as well as Fed. Now that I will accept, but not even being "able" to rally, let alone hold his own with the players who could rally during his time....is an odd statement for a man who many ex and current players still hail as the greatest ever.

Maybe we should define what you mean by rallying, darky? I dion't find your post biased, even if I don't quite agree with its content. Sampras could definetely play from the back of the court. Not sure he could sustain long rallies but if he thought he could shorten them why not? I am not sure what youy mean by "couldn't rally".

This I will take offence to because my view on him has nothing to do with me being a Federer fan!Just for clarity,I was never a Sampras fan and never will be.Its should be then obvious that in the 90's I would have to be an Agassi fan if I wasnt his,which I am and will remain to the death!Sampras was robitical and boring but he did what he did brilliantly and no one can take that away from him even if they tried.Sampras is a deserving champion because he mastered his talent into a winning format.

All my post was meant to do was constructively criticise his style.People make Pete out to be the best thing to ever exist in tennis and yet he is human with basic technical flaws like Federer,Nadal and Agassi.So its not a bash Pete thread its an observation.Why cant you guys understand the difference instead of taking it personal.Hell,Pete doesnt even know that you exist nor does Federer know that I exist.So please guys be objective.

Just to appease the lot of you Im also going to post a thread on Federers skills that he lacks!

How ridiculous, they werent the only players worth supporting in the 90s you know

Dark, if I offended you I am sorry that was not my intention.

I am simply trying to understand the criticism. Saying that Sampras "could not rally" is a very strong critical view point and I only wanted to discuss it in a civilised manner.

After all, it is all about opinions.

Be careful because there are some out there who would be hell bent into trying to turn this board into a BBC message board free for all, where ridicolous and outrageous comments become the norm, and none of us will be able to get any sense of reality.

Hi Tenez, thanks for mentioning my thoughts.

This was my reasoning about Sampras' baseline game. In 2000 and 2001 Sampras made a very conscious decision to serve and volley on first and second serve the whole time. In the semifinal of the Australian Open against Agassi, it almost came off, he won the 3rd set tiebreak 7:0! and was 5:3 up in the fourth set tiebreak, a bit of Agassi inspiration helped to turn the match in his favour, and the rivalry is his favour, at that stage it was 17:11 to Sampras. Agassi won the next 3 making it 17:14 when Sampras was playing not as well as before, Sampras turned it around with the 2001 US Open match to make it 20:14 in all. What made that match in Australia so risky, and very fascinating was that Sampras served and volleyed on first and second serve through the whole match, never stayed back once, he said he would play like it was Wimbledon in the pre match conference. The reason I find it fascinating is that the court in Melbourne is unbelievably high bouncing, it has to favour the baseliner who doesn't have to get real low by bending those knees to hit the passing shots. Sampras' volleys were very good with a lot of slice, Agassi was bludgeoning the ball, so the fact that he almost pulled it off shows his talent.

Fast forward to US Open 2000 and 2001, again Sampras never stays back once in the whole tournament and gets to the final, losing both. But in each final he looks spent physically. In 2000, Krajicek and Hewitt gave Sampras a lot of trouble, as Tenez says, the pace off Hewitt's passing shots in the semifinal were fast, Sampras expended a lot of energy, Krajicek was Sampras' nemesis, Sampras played his best just to get through the quarterfinal in 4 sets. In 2001 it was even worse, he beat the 1997 & 1998 champion Rafter, then Agassi in that 3.5 hour battle, then Safin who thrashed him the previous year in straight sets, he had beat the last 3 champions in a row.

So, in 2002 Sampras I'm sure discussed this with Annacone, he modified his game. Against Rusedski and Haas in rds 3 and 4, Sampras went back to the tactic he did when he was young, of hitting the kick serve to the backhand, getting the reply and then hitting the forehand down the line for a winner. That's how he won the first set against Haas. Sampras hadn't done that sort of tactic for about 3 years on hardcourts. Sampras was also been more patient in the rallies on his opponents return games and not rushing the net willy nilly like he did against Safin in 2000.

After disposing of Haas, everyone thought Roddick would come through due to age difference, Sampras beat him in 90 minutes breaking Roddick 5 times, Sampras faced two break points all match. In the semifinal against Schalken, Sampras didn't rush Schalken much at all which surprised Pete Flemming, Sampras rallied and rallied until the opportunities came, he won in 3 sets.

The difference this time was by the final, Sampras had conserved his energy much better so he could give everything, basically that was his plan. And he was able to do that because he rediscovered his baseline game and patience and used it to good effect. He played the same way against Agassi in the final. He rushed to a two set lead, got tight, then had a battle for sets 3 and 4 which he came through. Sampras also hit more backhand winners than Agassi in that final. A bit of a shame because the media always ask Sampras about his serve and volley, but as Frew McMillans alwasy pointed out, it was Sampras' serve and backhand that determined his game.

Sampras' game changed quite a lot when Annacone became full time coach in 1996. Under Gullickson, Sampras played a much more percentage game and almost counterpuncher quite often, he never chipped and charged for instance and always stayed back on second serve, ocassionally first (I'm talking all surfaces except grass).

One last thing, there is no problem with using the baseline rally to set the point up to get to net, Sampras was the master of hitting down the lines, forehand and backhand side to strecth the opponent, then he could win the point outright or finish at net, one of the reasons Roddick is not a great player, he doesn't have the ability to hit down the lines with precision, power and inspiration.

David Nalbandian regularly hits down the lines to set up a net play. It's not a play to be ashamed off, in fact, its exciting Tennis because you are the agressor and decision maker out there.

Sorry I got them wrong Laurie! ;)

I thought I had read you saying he started to rally more after his losses against Chang in his early career.

SerenaW19...I sometimes wonder about your mentality and ability to engage in a debate because all you see is what you want to see and thats your opinion and you want to talk about my post being biast!!!

That in response to your first part of your above post...Its an example of how you see what you want to see.I never claimed to be better than anyone on here who doesnt play as often as me!Im also no expert!OPEN YOUR EYES!

By rallying I mean effective point construction from the BASELINE matching your opponents footwork inevitably out positioning them with a barrage of calculated forearms and backhands to the corners eventually outpositioning them and then either hitting the winner of then getting to the net to close the point NOT chipping and charging just about everything.I am in agreement about him shortening the points,but I want to know why?What the underlying reason?And to me its the fact that he cant rally long enough from the baseline without making an error on that backhand or footwork!Can anyone tell me that they have seen Pete hit 10+ shots in one rally and remain on the baseline?His skill was the big serve and the killer volley,he was excellent at it!

Thanks Tenez,at least you know that Im not biast in my thoughts.Pete could definetly handle his own from the back I dont dispute that.I dispute what he was able to create from the back in terms of proper baseline point construction.

Another matter of interest is that Tim Henman cant rally.Look at his forehand,its one of the ugliest shots I have ever seen and when its off Oh MAN is it off and thats why he always rushed that net!Its the same concept with Pete!(another small footnote for you SerenaW19)

Yup I was a staunch Becker fan, even though he got slapped about now and again by Agassi and Sampras, right up to the point where he semi-retired, but came back for Wimbledon in 1999! ;)

I was a big Brugera fan, i also liked Guga and of course Henman when he came on the scene. Saying you had to support Agassi if you didn't like Sampras is a school kid comment

Not my intention at all as I was never a troll on BBC and never will be.That can be backed up by many that are on here!

This seems to support my view of thinking in defining rallying and I agree with this Laurie to the max.My argument however is that he rushed the net at every small chance and sometime ridiculously.Sometime it paid off and other times it didnt.The crux of it is this,construct from the baseline effectively and then finish off at the net easily.Sampras was a force at the net regardless of how he got there but was not that great a force from the baseline.Laurie he did stretch people with those shots up the lines and brilliantly too!

That's ok Tenez, yes I was thinking late in his career when he was been written off as finished until he won the Open in 02.

But yes, my point was that he had taken elements of his game he had stopped using in 2002 to win the Open. Basically in 2000 and 2001 he was not rallying enough, or hardly at all, in my opinion that was a mistake. He must have known it was a mistake, otherwise he wouldn't have changed his game in slightly in 2002. Don't forget at one point in 2002 he hired Jose Higueras, a guy who worked with Chang and Courier. So he wanted to look at that aspect of his game.

In the early 1990s, Sampras was more than willing to hit 20 shots rallies, I would even agree with John McEnroe's comment in 1995 about counterpuncher, that was more to do with his upbringing and state of mind as a Tennis player. His 1993 US Open match against Chang is a good example. At one point by the end of the second set, Chang had taken to net more than Sampras did in that match. That is the sort of thing people now would find hard to believe but it was true.

In sets 3 and 4, Sampras destroyed Chang with winners all over the place from the back, he got fed up of playing passive, 6:1, 6:1 in 40 minutes, after the first 2 sets was 2 hours.

Ok, this is better. I understand your point to much better extent now.

What you are effectively saying is that Sampras couldn't go for more than 10 shots from the back of the court and get winners. Well I will disagree still ;-) and say he could and he did on a few occasions BUT more often than that he would simply get aggreesive from the back and put his opponent in a defensive position and then finish it off at the net. Maybe he thought if he stayed at the back he would commit an unforced error? Who knows? I think he just thought he could be aggressive and finish off more points in his favour by being agressive and coming to the net to win more points.

But at the same time saying he "couldn't rally" and saying he couldn't carry on for more than 10 shots at the back of the court before being aggressive and coming into the net is a very different thing.

He could rally, but for one reason or another he didn't want long rallys as his agressive game allowed him to finish off points quicker. But that is my opinion.

Can I make a suggestion? Laurie always has Sampras clips for download on his excellent site (http://www.tennisdvdclips.net/Sampras.html): perhaps some of the points being made here could be referenced using these clips as examples so we can then see if we agree or disagree.

Please in the 90's from about 93,it was all Agassi and Sampras Becker is more of a late 80's very early 90's star.So your theory on my schoolbot comment is nonsense really.

Bruguera was classy. I remember his final against Berasategui, the man with the weird forehand grip, in 1994.... happy memories!

So your saying from '93 until 1999 there was no other player worth supporting than Sampras or Agassi????? Thats a joke even by your standards

Becker won the Aussie Open in 96! How is that early 90's? Rafter also captured US Opens in 97 and 98. I think we all know if we look close enough that even though to an extent Sampras and Agassi won many Grand Slam titles over that time there were other players making names for themselves in the 90's who people could support.

Ok - I understand. Difficult to say as that was the way tennis had to be played then and S&V was good enough for him to get many slams.

Your point is interesting however as it could have been made to Federer as well prior to 2003. Federer mentioned that at the begining of his career, there were guys like Hewitt and Nalby that would drag him into long rallies and would get the better of him, especially on long 5 sets matches. He made the effort to train his stamina and baseline game to make sure he could sustain long rallies and be on a par with those guys. Since then, he never (almost) lost to them while before he had a poor record against them.

The game moved from SV to baseline twards the end of Sampras's time and that was too late for Sampras to adapt his game. He already had 13 or 14 slams by then but as Fed managed to do it, I like to think Sampras could have done it too. How good would he have been at it is the question.

Chaps, I just want to make one comment about me and my personal thought.

I preferred watching Sampras much more when he played all court Tennis in the early to late 1990s than when he turned into a total serve and volleyer in 2000 and 2001. Like I said before, in my opinion that was a mistake. He didn't continue to practice his groundstrokes, he became complacent.

We will never know the real reasons for this because Sampras will never tell us, and there is no good probing Tennis journalist out there would would like to ask why. But he certainly redeemed himself in September 2002. But I maintain, he won that event because he started doing things in his game that he had neglected, important things and at least it shows he was thinking about where it was going wrong.

Where was your beloved Pete in 97?He was dealt a blow by Richard at Wimbledon which dented him a bit!Agassi was doing a Williams sister jig on the Hollywood scene with Brooke Shields in 96 and 97 before he got his act together in 98!

There were names to support but we now that the 90's was about those 2 americans.You all know that especially you liam and by your standards its sad that you would question that fact!

Listen up, i like clay court tennis. I prefer watching it and i prefer playing it, hence my fave players from the 90s were Brugera, Muster and Guga. So why on earth would i HAVE (that was your word) to support either Sampras or Agassi? And you accuse SW19 of only seeing things from his point of view? Pot Kettle Black

Neither Liam nor I were trying to suggest that the 90's were not filled with Grand Slam titles for Sampras and Agassi. We were simply suggesting that there were other players winning slams and also other players to support. I was not a big fan of either of them.

And yes my "beloved" Sampras didn't win Wimbledon in 1997 (Edit...HE DID, it was 96 when he lost, but who cares), and he didn't deserve to as he was outfought by Krajicek.

I am no more a Sampras fan than I am a Federer fan. I am only putting forward my viewpoint in a civilised manner here. And that viewpoint is that saying Sampras "could not rally" is wrong.

I think to say Sampras could not rally is a bit of a joke really because to win 14 grand slams you have to be able to do everything pretty well at a superb standard.If Pete could not rally then he would not even win 1 slam let alone 14.Also i would like to point out that Pete made the semis of the French which requires no doubt a very high standard of baseline play which Pete no doubt had.There is no doubt that Pete was not as good as Federer from the baseline but to say he was not any good from the baseline is very wide of the mark.

Someone who isnt biast on this board.Thank the heavens for you and Tenez!

Thanks for getting my point and realising it isnt about bashing Pete and Hyping Roger!