Across The Net: Responding to Reader Feedback
Posted by ikabod Crane on 11.27.2006
Across the Net has generated a lot of reader responses. I am happy to share the isnights of the readers with you.
Readers Respond
Across the Net has attracted a lot of international interest. I have received emails from Finland, London, and Paris among other places. Here is a quick look at the feedback I have received. I will then give my responses.
1. John from England says: Thank you for an interesting article, however, Maria Sharapova is the player with the magic ingredient, and the most exciting player to watch. Without her, tennis would have stayed in a rather boring rut, she has brought it to life.
My analysis of Sampras and Federer's respective games elicited three varying responses.
2. Mike in Paris originally from Ohio wrote: Anyway, I agree with what you said, and am firmly in the corner of Federer being the greatest of all time already. One thing that I might do is give Sampras a slightly better than 3/10 winning ratio on grass, simply because he was such a dominant force at Wimbledon when his serve was on. But I'd only maybe bump that up to 4/10. And maybe, MAYBE, I'd give him 1/10 on clay, not because he has anything in his game that warrants him beating Roger on clay, but because, if they were to actually play ten matches, I can't see Pete not coming up with the goods once. Or maybe 1/20 or something?! **
3. Hannu from Finland wrote: I mostly agree. Very good description of their differences.
I would put Fed's second serve at par with Pete's. One and only thing what I believe you' ve got wrong is the claim of PS being better/quicker sprinter than RF. Fed's dance on toes is deceptive but he is quick.
4. A writer who did not identify his name or home: M. Wilander says: Federer has no balls." My advise: set a website called e.g. outofmindarticleswhichdonottakeintoaccounttennishistory.com (or simply federerasslicker.com)and post similar garbage there.
I am very happy to be getting feedback from around the world. Tennis is such an international sport that this is to be expected at one level, but still I was not sure how many were even reading my column. So I thank all of those who have responded (even the negative feedback from John Doe). I also encourage others to write with their thoughts.
John's point about Maria Sharapova helping bring women's tennis to life is spot on in my opinion. Sharapova has brought a lot of attention to tennis and helps attract a new fan base or two. Of 2006's top three players, Sharapova does much more for the tennis' profile than Justine Henin-Hardenne or Amelie Mauresmo. I also think Sharapova can move toward becoming the best female player on surfaces other than clay in 2007. If women's tennis' top draw is also its top player, it can only be good for the sport.
Mike's point about Sampras winning more frequently on grass than 3 out of 10 matches is something we discussed via email. I agree with his assessment. The clay court assessment is also reasonable. Pete Sampras would likely admit that Federer would be tough for him to beat on clay, but a champion such as Sampras is unlikely to lose 100% of the time on any surface even if the opponent is a legend in his own right.
Hannu makes an excellent point not to underestimate Federer's athleticism. Federer can transition from being on the defensive to hitting winners in large part because he is rarely out of position even when the opposition hits a monster shot. Some of this is due to superior reflexes, instincts and anticipation on Federer's part, but foot speed is also a key for not being out of position. Federer's first and second serve seem to be getting more lethal. Sampras did hit a lot of clutch second serves in big matches, but perhaps Federer's service game is improving which is scary.
John Doe's comments are harder to respond to. I do think a reasonable and intelligent fan of tennis could conclude that Sampras was better than Federer. However, Mats Wilander's comment about Federer having "no balls" strikes me as crazy. A player with no guts or balls would likely not win 24 consecutive tournaments finals, go undefeated vs. the top ten for an entire year, or be 9-1 in Grand Slam finals. Federer tends to raise his level of play on the bigger stages rather than shrink from the moment. Federer has won 41 tournaments since January 2003 and been runner-up at a total of 8 events. Somehow winning as prolifically as Federer has been winning seems to preclude the notion of cowardice or choking on his part.
John Doe's point about not knowing history also strikes me as someone who did not read the first half of my two part series on Sampras and Federer that dealt exclusively with history. I will make my two part case again in brief. From one perspective when I evaluate the players' stroke production, physical attributes and mental approach to tennis, I find that Federer has a more complete game and would likely win the majority of matches vs. Sampras. From the perspective of history, I note that Sampras' only leads over Federer are in categories that take the totality of a career into account. Federer can hardly be held responsible for not being 32 yet. If the history books clearly demonstrate that Sampras was better than Federer, why did Sampras never reach all four Grand Slam finals in one calendar year or in his career when Federer did so in 2006? Why did Sampras not claim the all time hard court and grass court surface winning streaks instead of Federer? Why did Sampras never win three grand slams in one calendar year when Federer did so twice? Why did Sampras never win 90% of his matches in a single year when Federer has done so for three consecutive years? I could go on, but the point is that Federer has claimed many records. The history books can be used to argue in favor of Federer on this point.
I do want to say that my assessment of Federer being better than Sampras is not intended to denigrate Sampras. Pete Sampras was a great champion and a marvelous player. The bad thing about such comparisons is that it can lead to both sides digging their heels in and trying to tear down the other guy. Sampras and Federer are two of the most complete players and accomplished champions the sport is likely to ever see. Both conduct themselves off of the court in manners that are also befitting of great champions.
** - Mike was a decorated junior player in the U.S. I have known Mike since 1994. I have picked his brain on more than one occasion because I think he has a better understainding of playing high level tennis than I do. If he was the Richard Krajicek of junior tennis, I was more like the the Justin Gimelstob. If he ever writes something on journeymen players, he can pick my brain.
