December 13, 2009
Mechanics-Mechanics : The Proactive Sampras and The Reactive Federer
By antiMatter
Marianne and I are collaborating on analyzing Sampras' and Federer's games to spot the similarities and the differences. I have analyzed the differences, but please check her article to read about the similarities. Please note that establishing who is "better" is not the aim of this venture.
There are two "ways" to throw a stone at a target that is suspended from the branch of a tree, like say, a mango (duh).
One is to aim straight at it, in a full-blooded powerful throw, when the stone travels in almost a straight line and hits it. The other is to throw it in a slower but higher trajectory where it reaches its highest point before the mango, and then falls onto it.
The former throw speaks of power and precision. The latter speaks of calculation and imagination.
This could be the difference between the Eastern forehand grip and the semi-Western grip. The former allows a player to hit right through the diameter of the ball, sending it slipping over the court surface due to a small ratio of vertical velocity to horizontal velocity and spin. The latter allows more manipulation with the wrist. It gives more control over the elevation of the ball and spin, thus adding variants to the stroke.
To make it clearer, the player using the former grip aims "at" the lines while the latter only aims "for" them.
Pete Sampras used the Eastern forehand grip while Federer uses the semi-Western. Their dominant strokes clearly indicated the difference in mechanics that this warranted. The Sampras forehand dominated with its power, pace, and precision, the last of the three a bit due to the fact that the grip allowed no margin for error over the net. Meanwhile, the Federer forehand baffles opponents with its stunning variety and possibilities.
While opponents use similar tactics in trying to moon-ball their backhands, their weaker wings too have similar differences, with Sampras admiring Federer's flick of the wrist off the backhand.
A minute stroke-for-stroke comparison is not aimed here, and would probably get the author into trouble. The above instances are meant more as examples pointing at what are the basic physical weapons both players hold, so that it might be easier to appreciate how these were of optimum help in their chosen styles of play.
Sampras thrived in an era of faster courts and smaller RPMs. The conditions paid richer dividends to the proactive player. A well placed volley or a flat line tracing forehand would find no reply. The game truly differentiated certain strokes in the rallies, letting these decide the points.
Sampras groomed his game into one offensive weapon in which these qualities stood out. He had the power and precision to let him attack from the baseline with flatter strokes which took away the time from his opponents and the athleticism to allow him more time in case he was treated similarly. He had great hands, though not the best of his era to dominate from the net, and behind arguably the best service ever, gave him the most robust "hold-game."
The courts are now slower and respond better to spin. These blunt some of the offensive strategies allowing more setup time and bounce for easier retrieval. The risk-payback ratio of an attacking game is worse now than before and doesn't make economic sense.
Today's game integrates the effect of all the strokes in a rally to decide to whom the point goes. Hence Federer's game revolves around constructing points rather than destroying them. The effect of being able to deal better and do more with a larger variety of received strokes accumulates over the course of the rally and helps to ultimately win the point.
The Sampras game tries to dictate. The moment he knows where the ball is going to come next, Sampras knows exactly what he is going to do. There are no second choices or questions. This is visible even in the way he moves --- a full blooded sprint in many cases, never in a direction even marginally wrong.
The depth up to which Sampras read the game was shallower precisely because the depth to which he wanted it to last was also shallower --- you don't plan moves to go after the check-mate you planned to happen the next move. His game was hence based more on execution than on strategizing. When the Pistol was on, there was nothing you could do about it.
Federer on the other hand, works on feedback. He not only constructs points, but adapts his style during the course of the match. Though he has great anticipation, it is almost as if he relishes the chance to pick and choose the arrow from his quiver that carries just the right amount of poison.
Federer also moves in a manner that consummately matches with the overall tactic --- in short calibrating steps that let him flow more smoothly and make seamless adjustments on the way in case he wanted to change what he had in mind. Federer uses his varieties to a fuller extent in constructing a point. He doesn't blow the opponent away each point, but does so in the match as a score.
Speaking of movement, one cannot help stating that the former is like an NBA player, while the latter like a soccer player.
Both players will be known as the best all-courters of their respective eras. Both players have similar strengths in their forehands, running, and serves, and weaknesses in their backhands.
But the nature of their mechanics differs on a closer examination. Finally, every subtle difference also leads one to appreciate the enormous difference in their all-around strategies and game styles. In that manner, their games are strongly built edifices, each part of the structure helping each other part stay in its place, perhaps a characteristic of the game of every great player --- a building that would need to be shaken by an earthquake that over shoots the Richter scale to be taken apart.
(Pete had Safin at US, and Federer had Nadal at the FO).