Robert Lansdorp compares Sampras and Federer

[lukman41985]

From www.Lansdorp.com:

Samparas vs. Federer

I feel that Sampras at his best would have beaten Federer at his best, except maybe on clay. I don’t really like Federer’s backhand drive. He does not drive through the ball well and has a tendency to flick his wrist way too much. This makes him come off the ball too quickly. His backhand down the line drive only works about 50% of the time. Sampras had a huge serve and great volley. Sampras would have served to Federer’s backhand and put away every return. On Federer’s serve Sampras would have attacked and with Sampras’s speed and great volley’s he would have put great pressure on Federer. Sampras in 3 or 4 sets. We all agree that Federer is a great player, but he needs to improve his backhand drive, especially down the line. Let’s not so quickly forget how great Sampras was for so many years. You know, I love replies. It keeps me on my toes. After all, I am still able to learn, I hope. So if you agree with me or don’t agree with me, let me know.

Robert

[lukman41985]

Federer's backhand

Even Robert Lansdorp speaks of "flicking the wrist"!

This of course is not what Federer is doing. Federer uses a tremendous amount of forearm rotation on the one-hander, more than any one-hander I've ever seen. While I think people over-blow the notion that Federer's backhand is a "weakness", I do think that he does have a tendency to pull of the ball and mis-hit.

With respect to his down-the-line backhand, maybe I don't pay as close attention as Mr. Lansdorp, but I think Federer's DTL backhand is pretty good! I'm thinking of his last couple matches against Agassi where he burned AA often with this shot.

I agree with his analysis of the Sampras/Federer match-up. The fickle amongst us love to dismiss Sampras's incredible accomplishments.

[johnyandell]

Well, that's a match we'll never see. But I wouldn't expect Robert to say otherwise. And he could be right. And Pete does have quite a few more big wins. But I think one thing that is missed--out of a givne group of players, usually only one at a time knows he is the best. Who is on top is in part a matter of belief. Sampras had it for sure. Mac. Lendl. Borg. That's another reason why these imaginary comparisons are artificial. That whole dimension would be in the mix if they were from the same era. You wouldn't see both of them likely with the same dominant mentally at the same time...

[lukman41985]

Excellent point about dominant mentalities! These comparisons are artificial, if fun, but ultimately...useless!

And I agree with you, I wouldn't expect Mr. Lansdorp to say differently. After all he trained Pete and Mr. Lansdorp has a lot of confidence, and deservedly so, in his method. I also get the feeling that Mr. Lansdorp isn't as big a fan as someone with a varied game like Federer, Rios, or Hingis, as he is of solid ball strikers like Sampras, Agassi, and Davenport.

[ajchabria]

Sampras and Federer

Robert Lansdorp: "I feel that Sampras at his best would have beaten Federer at his best, except maybe on clay."

He knows his stuff, especially re: that first volley factor and also the matchup on clay.

As you guys said, these theoretical comparisons are fun, but that's about it. However, can we really call Pete/Roger an artificial comparison? The two actually did play eachother once (in an official match) -- Federer got the defending champ in the 4th round at Wimbledon in 2001 -- five close sets that could've gone either way. 7-5 in the fifth if memory serves. Roger then lost to Henman, who lost to Goran, who went on to win the Championships, edging Rafter in the final. What a tournament.

Granted, Sampras was not exactly feeling dominant that year/year and a half, but Federer was not quite at his best either, not for another two or three years.

Not really relevant, but...
Luckily, I was early enough to get a seat in the first row to see Federer on an outside court at Roland Garros about a month before the Pete/Federer meeting. As he dismantled Todd Martin (who has won titles on European clay), I remember thinking what a Sampras tribute band this kid is -- at least relative to the rest of the tour -- hoping he'd be a force at Slams soon. He was a little erratic, but showed some genius at the defensive nuances of the all-court game, even facing Martin.

Most sports fans see Roger as the second coming of Pete (and the similarities ARE there, i.e. physique, grips, stroke models, racquets, apparel brand), the differences abound according to the current players and tour coaches. As Lansdorp pointed out, Pete had the bigger offensive weapons, and Roger's obviously got the more versatile countering. One grew up in SoCal, and the other on indoor courts, altitude and red clay. Figures.

Matches and matchups are key, especially given their different styles. Pete occasionally lost to guys Roger beats regularly. Less so the other way around, but now we're getting deeper into the theoretical, inter-era thing. Head-to-head would be interesting: wish we could have seen those two duke out a few big finals. A Pete Sampras of the late nineties vintage against a 2004 Roger? Nice! Something tells me Federer's record in finals would not be as one-sided.

[johnyandell]

Now THAT is a an informative post. Had no idea they had played. Thanks AJ. You the man.

[lukman41985]

This match is for sale at eBay. I want to buy it! By the way, here's some info about that match:

2001, Wimbledon, Grass, R16
Federer- 7 6 5 7 6 4 6 7 7 5

Also check out this article at BBC: Article