Topic: Sampras: I see no decline with Federer

[Start da Game]

pete sampras spoke about fed recently and he thinks he doesn't really see any decline in fed's game and it's just that nadal and djokovic have taken it to him.......

http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/sampras-exclusive-i-see-no-decline-with-federer/

[Start da Game]

i agree with pete.......he just stated the truth........just look who fed lost to in the last 5 out of 6 slams......it's only to nadal or djokovic.......

he is tactically far better now than he was in 2006.......even his serve has only improved after 2007........the field was so pathetic back in 2005, 2006 that he barely even needed anything other than a decent 3 quarters serve and a good forehand which he always had.......

he had movement issues against nadal even in 2006.......nadal was always quicker than him.......just because he loses to another quick mover to djokovic, that doesn't mean he is moving like a grandpa........he still moves so well, which is what sampras is stressing.......age is irrelevant if you move that well.......

 

[monstertruck]

That was a good read Shankar, thanks for sharing.

Nice to see that Fed & Annacone are a good fit, I've always thought of Paul as a great coach for aggressive minded players.

[ashwin#1]

nice find, shanks...
annacone definately had a postive effect on fed, even though he never won any slams after they joined up..

[Start da Game]

That was a good read Shankar, thanks for sharing.

Nice to see that Fed & Annacone are a good fit, I've always thought of Paul as a great coach for aggressive minded players.

concurred with that bold part but i never thought federer was an aggressive minded player, monsterman.......he is actually defense minded.......i think that is the reason why he is not really able to implement on court annacone's aggressive strategies against nadal and djokovic......

he is a defensive baseliner who has a really good serve.......he just defends better than everyone on the tour except nadal and djokovic at the moment.......

when you have a good serve, it just helps the first shot that much more and accounts for easy and quick service holds.......i think people take that for aggression but to me nothing apart from his serve is aggressive.......

sampras used to really force himself on the opponent and used to attack a lot even on the return games.......the 'chip and charge' stuff, aggressive returns, going for the lines etc......fed rarely ever does that and he just defends and defends and defends until the other one runs out of patience.......nadal is simply better than him in defence and hence those results.......

actually fed's defense is better than even djokovic's but recently djokovic took his movement to another level but he is tactically not as great a defender as rafa.......

[monstertruck]

That was a good read Shankar, thanks for sharing.

Nice to see that Fed & Annacone are a good fit, I've always thought of Paul as a great coach for aggressive minded players.

concurred with that bold part but i never thought federer was an aggressive minded player, monsterman.......he is actually defense minded.......i think that is the reason why he is not really able to implement on court annacone's aggressive strategies against nadal and djokovic......
he is a defensive baseliner who has a really good serve.......he just defends better than everyone on the tour except nadal and djokovic at the moment.......

when you have a good serve, it just helps the first shot that much more and accounts for easy and quick service holds.......i think people take that for aggression but to me nothing apart from his serve is aggressive.......

sampras used to really force himself on the opponent and used to attack a lot even on the return games.......the 'chip and charge' stuff, aggressive returns, going for the lines etc......fed rarely ever does that and he just defends and defends and defends until the other one runs out of patience.......nadal is simply better than him in defence and hence those results.......

actually fed's defense is better than even djokovic's but recently djokovic took his movement to another level but he is tactically not as great a defender as rafa.......

I think you're right.  Fed wasn't really an aggressive player and allowed his movement and natural abilities win matches for him early on.
Both Raf & Nole have raised the bar and I think Fed recognized he needed to be more aggressive in order to beat them.  Enter Annacone.  I don't think it's been a smooth transition for him and he still has a long ways to go.  Perhaps his ego stands in the way of him fully implementing Paul's strategies.  Fed has been quoted before as saying something to the effect of 'why should I change my game if it works most of the time'.  I think he's beginning to realize that opportunities to win slams are few and far between now that a few opponents have caught up and passed him by.  Only a new or modified strategy well increase his chance of taking home another slam.  I think it's possible and he has the skills, it's just a matter of being willing to adapt the strategy.

[rogan]

I would say it was pathetic but Roddick not winning a few big points in 2 Wimbledons helped his cause too.
Overall, I agree with Pete's statements.

[alk11]

there is huge decline in Fed's game.....

maybe not so much in technical aspect but in Fed's drive and winning edge  plus moving at 25 is not same as moving at 30s

[monstertruck]

there is huge decline in Fed's game.....

maybe not so much in technical aspect but in Fed's drive and winning edge  plus moving at 25 is not same as moving at 30s

Surely you are more knowledgeable about such things than Sampras.......

[FedFanForever]

I don't buy the notion that Roger was ever a defensive baseliner. That's just pure nonsense. You don't win 5 consecutive US Opens with that mentality. Just go watch the highlights.

[hercules]

affirmative.

[alk11]

there is huge decline in Fed's game.....

maybe not so much in technical aspect but in Fed's drive and winning edge  plus moving at 25 is not same as moving at 30s

Surely you are more knowledgeable about such things than Sampras.......

no 
for me Sampras is the god 

but when he left tennis was his game in decline ?
he was still super good only his "head" wasnt in it and he lost some of his speed [problem with that is that as much as somebody is good in something he needs hunger/drive & speed to achieve win after win.....]

[Start da Game]

I don't buy the notion that Roger was ever a defensive baseliner. That's just pure nonsense. You don't win 5 consecutive US Opens with that mentality. Just go watch the highlights.

to know what aggression actually is, watching 90s highlights of us open would help a lot.......be it nadal, be it federer or be it djokovic, they are all just great baseliners.......they won way more than others because they have by far the best defense to go with other elements of their game.......

none of them is really aggressive in my book.......aggressive ones always have the intent to end points sooner than later AND on their own terms.......all of nadal, djokovic and federer are prepared to rally for 20 shots every single point.......that's just not aggression.......that's just controlled, secure and safe rallying....... 

[Alex]

well, Pete didn't say anything wrong ... Fed is still going strong. well, sure he is not getting any younger, but he is still hanging in there 

[monstertruck]

there is huge decline in Fed's game.....

maybe not so much in technical aspect but in Fed's drive and winning edge  plus moving at 25 is not same as moving at 30s

Surely you are more knowledgeable about such things than Sampras.......

no 
for me Sampras is the god 

but when he left tennis was his game in decline ?
he was still super good only his "head" wasnt in it and he lost some of his speed [problem with that is that as much as somebody is good in something he needs hunger/drive & speed to achieve win after win.....]

I think Pete sustained a high level of tennis for a very long time.
At the end of his career, I think he was burned out from the lifestyle and the commitment necessary to remain at the top.  I'm not seeing that from Fed......yet.

[monstertruck]

I don't buy the notion that Roger was ever a defensive baseliner. That's just pure nonsense. You don't win 5 consecutive US Opens with that mentality. Just go watch the highlights.

to know what aggression actually is, watching 90s highlights of us open would help a lot.......be it nadal, be it federer or be it djokovic, they are all just great baseliners.......they won way more than others because they have by far the best defense to go with other elements of their game.......

none of them is really aggressive in my book.......aggressive ones always have the intent to end points sooner than later AND on their own terms.......all of nadal, djokovic and federer are prepared to rally for 20 shots every single point.......that's just not aggression.......that's just controlled, secure and safe rallying.......

The top 3 certainly do a great job of playing within themselves most of the time and not being overly aggressive.  They are perhaps the best movers the game has ever seen and this skill alone puts them in better position than their opponent point after to point.  The excellent movement/position combined with their hitting skills leads to consistent, winning tennis.  Personally, I prefer watching S&V or shot-makers play.  Grinding just doesn't do it for me.

[alk11]

there is huge decline in Fed's game.....

maybe not so much in technical aspect but in Fed's drive and winning edge  plus moving at 25 is not same as moving at 30s

Surely you are more knowledgeable about such things than Sampras.......

no 
for me Sampras is the god 

but when he left tennis was his game in decline ?
he was still super good only his "head" wasnt in it and he lost some of his speed [problem with that is that as much as somebody is good in something he needs hunger/drive & speed to achieve win after win.....]

I think Pete sustained a high level of tennis for a very long time.
At the end of his career, I think he was burned out from the lifestyle and the commitment necessary to remain at the top.  I'm not seeing that from Fed......yet.

100% true.....  and if he had Federer's mind set he would be in top 4 easy couple years after "quit date"

[monstertruck]

I don't think he enjoyed the off-court aspect of being on the ATP tour.
He made many sacrifices to achieve his goals on-court.
That eventually caught up with him and may have shortened an otherwise lengthy and productive career.

Fed seems to be cut from a different cloth and seems to enjoy lifestyle on the road and being in the public eye.  I'd go so far as to say he may even thrive on the attention.

[Start da Game]

yes i thought he played at a really high level even in 2000.......i remember he specifically talked about quitting the game after that wimbledon win but somehow managed to win another slam before he did.......it was quite a story.......
 

[alk11]

I don't think he enjoyed the off-court aspect of being on the ATP tour.
He made many sacrifices to achieve his goals on-court.
That eventually caught up with him and may have shortened an otherwise lengthy and productive career.

Fed seems to be cut from a different cloth and seems to enjoy lifestyle on the road and being in the public eye.  I'd go so far as to say he may even thrive on the attention.

I'd go so far as to say that i agree 

at this time in his life attention is more important to him then titles but problem with that is only way to get level of attention he wants is to win titles