PDA

View Full Version : At their peaks, Nadal or Sampras?


Pages : [1] 2 3

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:03 PM
So who would dominate & have a better H2H if both Nadal & Sampras played each others in their primes?

I thought it would be Sampras because of his consistent powerful serve & volleying skills...but then when I look at Nadal's amazing defense and forehand, it makes me think twice...

deltox
04-20-2009, 05:03 PM
So who would dominate & have a better H2H if both Nadal & Sampras played each others in their primes?

I thought it would be Sampras because of his consistent powerful serve & volleying skills...but then when I look at Nadal's amazing defense and forehand, it makes me think twice...

this one is quite simple

nadal on clay, sampras on grass nadal at AO sampras at USO

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:05 PM
this one is quite simple

nadal on clay, sampras on grass nadal at AO sampras at USO

Not surface specific...According to you its Sampras in their overall H2H...lets see what the poll says

VivalaVida
04-20-2009, 05:08 PM
There is no way to answer this question and you have provided a third choice like the other thread, which was pen*s LOL

NamRanger
04-20-2009, 05:10 PM
Sampras would lead in the H2H since he's not good enough to meet Nadal on clay, and Nadal is good enough to meet him on HCs, Grass, Indoors, etc. However Sampras is too dominant on these surfaces.

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:10 PM
There is no way to answer this question and you have provided a third choice like the other thread, which was pen*s LOL

I know tough choice...don't just take the easy way out...just follow your heart and vote for one ;)

deltox
04-20-2009, 05:12 PM
Not surface specific...According to you its Sampras in their overall H2H...lets see what the poll says

i attacked the 4 majors. with a 2 - 2 split. slower surfaces favor nadal, while faster ones favor sampras. it would depend each year on which tourneys each of them played. they both dominate in their own ways on their own surfaces

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:13 PM
Sampras would lead in the H2H since he's not good enough to meet Nadal on clay, and Nadal is good enough to meet him on HCs, Grass, Indoors, etc. However Sampras is too dominant on these surfaces.

So Sampras would own Nadal on everything except hardcourts according to you...I kinda wanted to go in the same direction but Nadal is not just a clay player anymore...It might be closer than you think

EtePras
04-20-2009, 05:14 PM
50-50 in Dubai or fast Wimbledon, Nadal easy everywhere else.

helloworld
04-20-2009, 05:14 PM
No vote for Nadal so far.... Some people should start voting for Nadal. He deserves more than this.

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:15 PM
No vote for Nadal so far.... Some people should start voting for Nadal. He deserves more than this.

Yeah finally Nadal gets a few votes...I honestly thought it would be closer than that!

T1000
04-20-2009, 05:16 PM
sampras wins everything except clay

grafselesfan
04-20-2009, 05:16 PM
This would be a way better rivalry than Federer vs Nadal. Federer is simply not a worthy enough rival for either Sampras or Nadal. Sampras vs Nadal would truly be a battle of the heavyweights. A prime Edberg or Becker might be a closer rival with prime Federer.

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:17 PM
This would be a way better rivalry than Federer vs Nadal. Federer is simply not a worthy enough rival for either Sampras or Nadal. Sampras vs Nadal would truly be a battle of the heavyweights. A prime Edberg or Becker might be a closer rival with prime Federer.

Yes all that's fine but the choice is between Nadal & Sampras...who would you chose and why?

helloworld
04-20-2009, 05:18 PM
This would be a way better rivalry than Federer vs Nadal. Federer is simply not a worthy enough rival for either Sampras or Nadal. Sampras vs Nadal would truly be a battle of the heavyweights. A prime Edberg or Becker might be a closer rival with prime Federer.
Lol, it sounds absurd, but prime Becker and Edberg were actually THAT GOOD. They would definitely put up a good rivalry with Federer.

grafselesfan
04-20-2009, 05:21 PM
Lol, it sounds absurd, but prime Becker and Edberg were actually THAT GOOD. They would definitely put up a good rivalry with Federer.

I agree. In fact seeing how much Federer at a still relatively young age struggles with Murray and Djokovic, it makes me question his chances vs even a prime Becker and Edberg. Federer would be more competitive than he could ever be vs Sampras or Nadal I still think, but it would be far from easy.

GameSampras
04-20-2009, 05:21 PM
I give the overrall edge to Pete. Nadal would get his share of wins on the slower courts maybe the AO and French definitely where he would dominate. But Pete would dominate at Wimbeldon, USO, and Indoor surfaces. We never got to see them play each other but Nadal has never had to deal with someone with the attack, agressiveness, serve, net play, and mental toughness that Pete possessed. Nadal has never had to deal with a player like Pete. Its all about matchups and I think Roger presents a tougher matchup to Pete than Nadal ever would.

VivalaVida
04-20-2009, 05:22 PM
I agree. In fact seeing how much Federer at a still relatively young age struggles with Murray and Djokovic, it makes me question his chances vs even a prime Becker and Edberg. Federer would be more competitive than he could ever be vs Sampras or Nadal I still think, but it would be far from easy.
yep. sampras was in his prime when a undeveloped federer kicked his *** at wimbledon. Federer would own sampras at the H2H. :D

egn
04-20-2009, 05:23 PM
I give the overrall edge to Pete. Nadal would get his share of wins on the slower courts maybe the AO and French definitely where he would dominate. But Pete would dominate at Wimbeldon, USO, and Indoor surfaces. We never got to see them play each other but Nadal has never had to deal with someone with the attack, agressiveness, serve, net play, and mental toughness that Pete possessed.

agree

I think it goes lopsided towards pete actually. I don't see them meeting that much on clay and I favor pete on grass and all the hardcourts in my eyes. I don't think Nadal could really do much damage against pete on most hardcourts he is 50/50 on slow at best.

NamRanger
04-20-2009, 05:23 PM
So Sampras would own Nadal on everything except hardcourts according to you...I kinda wanted to go in the same direction but Nadal is not just a clay player anymore...It might be closer than you think


This is simply a match-up issue. Sampras simply will not play Nadal's game, whether he's losing or not. Sampras is going to impose his will from point 1, and usually he succeeds. Especially against players like Nadal with a relatively average return / serve.

helloworld
04-20-2009, 05:24 PM
yep. sampras was in his prime when a undeveloped federer kicked his *** at wimbledon. Federer would own sampras at the H2H. :D
You mean a prime Sampras who won 0 tournament in 2001? :confused:

grafselesfan
04-20-2009, 05:24 PM
Yes all that's fine but the choice is between Nadal & Sampras...who would you chose and why?

I voted for Sampras but I think Nadal would give him a battle on any surface except maybe very fast hard courts or indoors, but I still think Nadal has improvement left on those surfaces. On grass Sampras would be favored but Nadal would give him a battle and could beat him on a given day. On slow to medium hard courts Nadal would have a pretty good chance, but Sampras is alot tougher than some credit him for being on those surfaces. On clay of course Nadal would be far too much.

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:25 PM
I give the overrall edge to Pete. Nadal would get his share of wins on the slower courts maybe the AO and French definitely where he would dominate. But Pete would dominate at Wimbeldon, USO, and Indoor surfaces. We never got to see them play each other but Nadal has never had to deal with someone with the attack, agressiveness, serve, net play, and mental toughness that Pete possessed. Nadal has never had to deal with a player like Pete. Its all about matchups and I think Roger presents a tougher matchup to Pete than Nadal ever would.

So according to you Nadal would dominate until the grass court season begins and then its Petes turn...Interesting...I thought you would say that Sampras would dominate Nadal in AO...I know its relatively slower than USO but still hardcourts nonetheless...You think AO surface is slow enough to make Pete's serve and volley ineffective?

NamRanger
04-20-2009, 05:27 PM
So according to you Nadal would dominate until the grass court season begins and then its Petes turn...Interesting...I thought you would say that Sampras would dominate Nadal in AO...I know its relatively slower than USO but still hardcourts nonetheless...You think AO surface is slow enough to make Pete's serve and volley ineffective?



It's not; speed really doesn't matter when Nadal's return game is too poor to beat Sampras. Do realize that a bum 2001 Sampras took Agassi to 5 sets at the AO and was winning until something happened to his hip. 2001 is what is considered a pretty damn good year for Agassi also.

VivalaVida
04-20-2009, 05:27 PM
You mean a prime Sampras who won 0 tournament in 2001? :confused:
do you think i was being serious? also, sampras fans are just adamant that federer is still in his prime but guess what? federer is also slamless and has 0 tournaments but somehow, he is in his prime while sampras wasnt in 2001. do you see the double standard?

grafselesfan
04-20-2009, 05:28 PM
It's not; speed really doesn't matter when Nadal's return game is too poor to beat Sampras. Do realize that a bum 2001 Sampras took Agassi to 5 sets at the AO and was winning until something happened to his hip. 2001 is what is considered a pretty damn good year for Agassi also.

That match you refer to was at the 2000 AO, not 2001, and Sampras was alot stronger in 2000 than 2001. The Australian Open was Agassi's only title in 2000 so it actually wasnt nearly as good a year for him as 1999, 2001, 2002, or even 2003. Still I agree with your overall point. Nadal's return game actually is extremely good vs other baseliners, for someone like Sampras he would have to adjust it if he could.

GameSampras
04-20-2009, 05:29 PM
So according to you Nadal would dominate until the grass court season begins and then its Petes turn...Interesting...I thought you would say that Sampras would dominate Nadal in AO...I know its relatively slower than USO but still hardcourts nonetheless...You think AO surface is slow enough to make Pete's serve and volley ineffective?

No Sampras wouldnt dominate at the AO. He was good there but I dont think he was great there . Picked up 2 slams at the AO but from Wimbeldon to the end of the season I think pete would own that. Like he usually did. Nadal would reign supreme probably the first half of the year. But I dont think Nadal would dominate Sampras by any means at the AO. It may be 50/50 there. Who knows. Its pure speculation.

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:29 PM
It's not; speed really doesn't matter when Nadal's return game is too poor to beat Sampras. Do realize that a bum 2001 Sampras took Agassi to 5 sets at the AO and was winning until something happened to his hip. 2001 is what is considered a pretty damn good year for Agassi also.

That's one way of looking at it...so that just leaves the FO for Nadal...I don't know...I don't think we are giving too much credit to Nadal's return game and his will to win against Sampras...but maybe I am wrong and underestimating Sampras' serve and volley skills

SAFINATORZ
04-20-2009, 05:30 PM
I would give the edge to Sampras cause of his serve and his attacking style of play.
Sampras has no shot on clay however he will come thru against nadal on grass, hard and fast indoors. You can't compare nadal to the current crop of players. Sure he does win on the hard courts but Sampras has a pure serve and volley game that can trouble Nadal, not to mention coming up with bombs at the most relevant time.
Pistol Pete all the way baby!

NamRanger
04-20-2009, 05:31 PM
That's one way of looking at it...so that just leaves the FO for Nadal...I don't know...I don't think we are giving too much credit to Nadal's return game and his will to win against Sampras...but maybe I am wrong and underestimating Sampras' serve and volley skills


Look at how Nadal deals with Roddick's serve, and multiply that by 3. He already has problems dealing with Roddick's serve, giving up plenty of free points. Imagine Sampras who is far more accurate, better disguise, and can still bring the hammer.

vtmike
04-20-2009, 05:37 PM
Look at how Nadal deals with Roddick's serve, and multiply that by 3. He already has problems dealing with Roddick's serve, giving up plenty of free points. Imagine Sampras who is far more accurate, better disguise, and can still bring the hammer.

You maybe right...look at the poll...Nadal not even close!

helloworld
04-20-2009, 05:38 PM
Look at how Nadal deals with Roddick's serve, and multiply that by 3. He already has problems dealing with Roddick's serve, giving up plenty of free points. Imagine Sampras who is far more accurate, better disguise, and can still bring the hammer.
The problem for Nadal is he is not very good at returning really big serves eg. Karlovic. If he goes up against Sampras, I have no doubt that he'll struggle to return Sampras' serve back in play.

GameSampras
04-20-2009, 05:40 PM
The things is Nadal can pepper a baseliner's BH such as Roger's all day and exploit it to the utmost. How can you attack that BH when the opposing has the game to not let that happen? Thats a big advantage when looking at an attacker. Pete will let Nadal attack that BH so long until Pete would find another way to win. Pete had the luxury as well as guys like Goran, Becker, Edberg etc, where if their baseline game wasnt clicking they could resort to their great volleying skills.

Melissa
04-20-2009, 05:41 PM
yep. sampras was in his prime when a undeveloped federer kicked his *** at wimbledon. Federer would own sampras at the H2H. :D

Sampras was in his prime from 1993 to 1998. Federer of 2003 to 2008 gets crushed by Pete just as Fed has been crushed by Nadal.
Fed's little block backs of Roddick's serves would be simple volley put aways for Pete. It is a huge mistake to believe that because Fed gets away with that with Roddick's serve that he would get away with it playing Pete.

egn
04-20-2009, 05:41 PM
The problem for Nadal is he is not very good at returning really big serves eg. Karlovic. If he goes up against Sampras, I have no doubt that he'll struggle to return Sampras' serve back in play.

And a struggled return allows Sampras to get right up to that net and capitalize on it. With either a drop volley or a well executed shot.

grafselesfan
04-20-2009, 05:43 PM
Sampras was in his prime from 1993 to 1998. Federer of 2003 to 2008 gets crushed by Pete just as Fed has been crushed by Nadal.
Fed's little block backs of Roddick's serves would be simple volley put aways for Pete. It is a huge mistake to believe that because Fed gets away with that with Roddick's serve that he would get away with it playing Pete.

His little blocked returns are even proving to be worthless vs Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray who take that weak floaty return and punish the first groundstroke off of it and put Federer on his heels immediately. So imagine how ineffective it would be with Sampras waiting at the net for the first volley.

VivalaVida
04-20-2009, 05:48 PM
Sampras was in his prime from 1993 to 1998. Federer of 2003 to 2008 gets crushed by Pete just as Fed has been crushed by Nadal.
Fed's little block backs of Roddick's serves would be simple volley put aways for Pete. It is a huge mistake to believe that because Fed gets away with that with Roddick's serve that he would get away with it playing Pete.
Yeah you know this because you are pete sampras :rolleyes: I dont believe a word of it. There is obvious bias towards federer. Oh and what makes you think federer cant hit passing shots huh? If you watched any of the 2001 match, which was played on the fast grass, federer took care of his own service game very well. On todays grass, where baselines like fed and nadal rule,federer would murder pete. This all pure speculation that will never happen except fantasy land.

Melissa
04-20-2009, 05:56 PM
Yeah you know this because you are pete sampras :rolleyes: I dont believe a word of it. There is obvious bias towards federer. Oh and what makes you think federer cant hit passing shots huh? If you watched any of the 2001 match, which was played on the fast grass, federer took care of his own service game very well. On todays grass, where baselines like fed and nadal rule,federer would murder pete. This all pure speculation that will never happen except fantasy land.

2001 Sampras was not comparable to 1998 Sampras. It is like comparing 2009 Roger to 2007 Roger.

helloworld
04-20-2009, 05:59 PM
2001 Sampras was not comparable to 1998 Sampras. It is like comparing 2009 Roger to 2007 Roger.

Roger so far has lost to his own admirer(Wawinkra) already. I'd say that's more embarrassing than losing to a young rising superstar. :)

ksbh
04-20-2009, 05:59 PM
Yawn!

Let Federer close his kickass losing H2H against Nadal, before we get to how he'd fare against Pete!

yep. sampras was in his prime when a undeveloped federer kicked his *** at wimbledon. Federer would own sampras at the H2H. :D

VivalaVida
04-20-2009, 06:00 PM
2001 Sampras was not comparable to 1998 Sampras. It is like comparing 2009 Roger to 2007 Roger.
thank you. That is what i wanted to hear. You see sampras fans are saying that current federer is in his prime and his competition of djokovic, murray, and nadal are just too good for him even though he still plays at the same level as his prime :rolleyes: I was just using their logic against them.

VivalaVida
04-20-2009, 06:01 PM
Yawn!

Let Federer close his kickass losing H2H against Nadal, before we get to how he'd fare against Pete!
you have misunderstood the point of my post. I really dont care if federer is the best ever or better than nadal or sampras. I was trying to prove a point that federer is not in his prime to some sampras fan. sorry about that.

ksbh
04-20-2009, 06:02 PM
Both incredibly great players, Sampras & Nadal. Therefore I don't know if it'll ever be possible to accurately determine who'll come out on top.

In my opinion though, as great a player as Nadal is, I find it diffcult to see him having a winning H2H against a prime Sampras.

ksbh
04-20-2009, 06:03 PM
No apology necessary Viva . It's all in the game! :)

you have misunderstood the point of my post. I really dont care if federer is the best ever or better than nadal or sampras. I was trying to prove a point that federer is not in his prime to some sampras fan. sorry about that.

mental midget
04-20-2009, 06:04 PM
pete is not going to win a heck of a lot of baseline rallies against nadal, on any surface. pete was a fantastic baseliner in his prime, but the action on nadal's shots takes the ball well out of his strike zone, even on a fast surface. he wouldn't be seeing the agassi-style, right in his wheelhouse balls he could pound back with interest. nor is he going to just run around taking every ball off the short hop, his strokes weren't grooved for that, and nobody could make a living doing that besides maybe andre or rios, anyway.

no doubt pete would hold serve pretty comfortably, with clay being a little more problematic.

it would come down to pete rolling the dice on the nadal serve, taking the biggest cuts he could, and hoping to string together a few in a row. chipping and charging against rafa is a recipe for disaster, pass city, all day long. you need to crush the return against him.

bottom line, a close match on most surfaces, blowout on clay for nadal. lots of tiebreakers on slow hardcourts, pete probably gets a break a set on indoor/super slick HC.

ksbh
04-20-2009, 06:07 PM
I see where you're coming from but Sampras made 1 final in 2001 & won nothing of significance.

Federer has made the final of all 4 most recent grand slams. He isn't too far off his prime. Sampras on the other hand, IMO, was done by 2001. The 2002 U.S. Open victory was an exception, not the rule and it's an indication of his greatness that he could still win it.

do you think i was being serious? also, sampras fans are just adamant that federer is still in his prime but guess what? federer is also slamless and has 0 tournaments but somehow, he is in his prime while sampras wasnt in 2001. do you see the double standard?

deltox
04-20-2009, 06:07 PM
pete is not going to win a heck of a lot of baseline rallies against nadal, on any surface. pete was a fantastic baseliner in his prime, but the action on nadal's shots takes the ball well out of his strike zone, even on a fast surface. he wouldn't be seeing the agassi-style, right in his wheelhouse balls he could pound back with interest. nor is he going to just run around taking every ball off the short hop, his strokes weren't grooved for that, and nobody could make a living doing that besides maybe andre or rios, anyway.

no doubt pete would hold serve pretty comfortably, with clay being a little more problematic.

it would come down to pete rolling the dice on the nadal serve, taking the biggest cuts he could, and hoping to string together a few in a row. chipping and charging against rafa is a recipe for disaster, pass city, all day long. you need to crush the return against him.

bottom line, a close match on most surfaces, blowout on clay for nadal. lots of tiebreakers on slow hardcourts, pete probably gets a break a set on indoor/super slick HC.

Pete would obviously S&V vs nadal most the time.

and davy does pretty well on the short hop also.

vtmike
04-20-2009, 06:08 PM
I see where you're coming from but Sampras made 1 final in 2001 & won nothing of significance.

Federer has made the final of all 4 most recent grand slams. He isn't too far off his prime. Sampras on the other hand, IMO, was done by 2001. The 2002 U.S. Open victory was an exception, not the rule.

Alright but lets just stick to Nadal and Sampras here please...

VivalaVida
04-20-2009, 06:10 PM
I see where you're coming from but Sampras made 1 final in 2001 & won nothing of significance.

Federer has made the final of all 4 most recent grand slams. He isn't too far off his prime. Sampras on the other hand, IMO, was done by 2001. The 2002 U.S. Open victory was an exception, not the rule and it's an indication of his greatness that he could still win it.
you make a good point. I think federer is not far of his prime in slams but at the masters and tournaments alike I dont know what he is doing. He can gain some confidence if he wins those. All in all you are right and as I said I was joking in that post :D

coloskier
04-20-2009, 06:20 PM
Look at the people Nadal has lost to. Big serving, heavy flat hitters. That is exactly Sampras's game. On clay the ball slows down enough for Nadal to handle it. Everywhere else not a chance. If DelPotro can beat Nadal on a medium paced hard court, Sampras would destroy him. People seem to forget that not only did Sampras have the best serve and one of the best volleys ever in the game, but in his prime he also had the best and most feared forehand in the game. A FLAT driving forehand which always gives Nadal trouble, no matter what court he is on. Plus, Sampras would hardly ever have to hit a backhand, and his backhand was probably in the top 10 in the world in his prime. Just ask Agassi. How many times in the USO finals did Sampras whale on a BH down the line to blow away Agassi because Agassi was so afraid of the forehand?

helloworld
04-20-2009, 06:26 PM
Nadal struggles against big servers... Nadal struggles against flat hitters... Oh wait, that's Pete Sampras for ya!! :)

ksbh
04-20-2009, 06:35 PM
Mike ... yes, off topic but isn't that a TTW trait?! LOL!

Alright but lets just stick to Nadal and Sampras here please...

ksbh
04-20-2009, 06:37 PM
Got it, Viva! I'm never one to talk about myself, except on the odd occasion or ten, but I must admit to being a slow learner! :)

you make a good point. I think federer is not far of his prime in slams but at the masters and tournaments alike I dont know what he is doing. He can gain some confidence if he wins those. All in all you are right and as I said I was joking in that post :D

GameSampras
04-20-2009, 06:51 PM
thank you. That is what i wanted to hear. You see sampras fans are saying that current federer is in his prime and his competition of djokovic, murray, and nadal are just too good for him even though he still plays at the same level as his prime :rolleyes: I was just using their logic against them.

What do u call reaching slam final after slam final only really losing to one player through all of it? Wouldnt u still call that a player's prime? I mean COME ON!!.. And people are comparing Sampras at 30 years old to Roger at 27? Both began their domination at the same age as well. 22 years old. Theres a big difference being 27 years old in tennis and 30 years of age.

What do u think Fed will be doing at 30 years old? You dont think Fed will be losing to some young up and comers at the slams by that time?

Joseph L. Barrow
04-20-2009, 07:02 PM
As with Federer, it depends on the surface. Sampras would stand virtually zero chance on clay, but would be the favorite on grass or hard courts.

King of Aces
04-20-2009, 07:03 PM
N adal is only 22.....has he reached his peak yet? I think he is actually getting better.

Joseph L. Barrow
04-20-2009, 07:08 PM
Look at the people Nadal has lost to. Big serving, heavy flat hitters. That is exactly Sampras's game. On clay the ball slows down enough for Nadal to handle it. Everywhere else not a chance. If DelPotro can beat Nadal on a medium paced hard court, Sampras would destroy him. People seem to forget that not only did Sampras have the best serve and one of the best volleys ever in the game, but in his prime he also had the best and most feared forehand in the game. A FLAT driving forehand which always gives Nadal trouble, no matter what court he is on. Plus, Sampras would hardly ever have to hit a backhand, and his backhand was probably in the top 10 in the world in his prime. Just ask Agassi. How many times in the USO finals did Sampras whale on a BH down the line to blow away Agassi because Agassi was so afraid of the forehand?
While you make some good points, why do you think Sampras would "hardly ever have to hit a backhand? One of the surest things you can expect about Nadal's gameplan in virtually any given match is that he's going to hit primarily to the other guy's backhand. He serves to the backhand side about 95% of the time against Federer. Since Sampras' backhand, though nothing to scoff at, was not as strong as his forehand, would one not expect Nadal to do the same thing against him?

deltox
04-20-2009, 07:12 PM
While you make some good points, why do you think Sampras would "hardly ever have to hit a backhand? One of the surest things you can expect about Nadal's gameplan in virtually any given match is that he's going to hit primarily to the other guy's backhand. He serves to the backhand side about 95% of the time against Federer. Since Sampras' backhand, though nothing to scoff at, was not as strong as his forehand, would one not expect Nadal to do the same thing against him?

nadal vs sampras, hmm lets see,, nadal would use alot of spin and hit to his backhand. sampras would hit a good angle and charge the net to S&V

who knows what would happen since nadal has never faced a S&V pro before and sampras never had to deal with nadals amount of spin


this debate could go on for 1000 years without a clear cut decision.

The-Champ
04-20-2009, 07:33 PM
I'll quote agassi on this one!

"This is tennis, you can't just phone in the results"

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-20-2009, 07:33 PM
Nadal would push Sampras on the slowed down Wimbledon courts, probably win AO, would bagel Sampras on clay but lose easy to Sampras at the USO. The H2H would look similar to what Feds and Nadals does minus clay.

380pistol
04-20-2009, 11:22 PM
Sampras was in his prime from 1993 to 1998. Federer of 2003 to 2008 gets crushed by Pete just as Fed has been crushed by Nadal.
Fed's little block backs of Roddick's serves would be simple volley put aways for Pete. It is a huge mistake to believe that because Fed gets away with that with Roddick's serve that he would get away with it playing Pete.


Agreed. Fed would certainly have to return more aggressively vs. Pete than he does vs Roddick. Just blocking (and even floating) returns, and taking over the rally like he does vs Andy, would not be enough. The price one pays for doing that vs Sampras would be too high.

Anyway Sampras over Nadal. MAtchups and stylistically, Sampras would pose problems. Nadal on clay, and Pete a lot of the times eveywhere else. Indoors/carpet would also be problematic for Nadal.

380pistol
04-20-2009, 11:29 PM
do you think i was being serious? also, sampras fans are just adamant that federer is still in his prime but guess what? federer is also slamless and has 0 tournaments but somehow, he is in his prime while sampras wasnt in 2001. do you see the double standard?

No you're completely missing the point. First in 2001 Sampras was kicking 30, while many proclaimed Fed's decline around 26/27. Both started their dominance at similar stages (age 22), so no I don't believe Fed fell off in a heartbeat, like defenders want to claim.

I also don't believe he's playing as well as he did in 2004-07, well maybe as well, but certantly not as consistent. More and more less than stellar performances have started to creep in the last year and a half.

But forget the little tournaments and focus on slams.

Take Fed Aus Open 2008/09, and put him in Melbourne 2004-07 and except for Safin 2005, who did Roger beat those years that would beat the 2008-09 Aus Open Roger???

Do the same for 2008 Wimbledon (where his run to the final was better than the 5 years when he won the title), who 03-07 did Roger beat (save for Rafa 2007 who played 5 straight days and choked 4 break pts in the 5th set), that beats '08 Roger at SW19???

Until you can tell me, then yes ,competition, and never rivals (like Djokovic), and improved ones (like Nadal) are part of the reason!!!!

thalivest
04-20-2009, 11:31 PM
I am a huge Nadal fan but Sampras is a far tougher matchup for Nadal than Federer is, and I doubt he would form the mental block vs Nadal that Federer has formed. Also Sampras isnt even as good as Federer on clay so he wouldnt get far enough to play (and lose)to Nadal often on clay, likely making it even more unlikely Nadal could lead the head to head.

That being said the slowed down grass and general surfaces today would help Nadal in the matchup no doubt. Still how much effect the slower grass really has is hard to guage since there really is nobody who even plays properly on it these days.

vtmike
04-21-2009, 04:07 AM
So Sampras wins this one by a whopping 77% !!...I guess the consensus is that Sampras is better than Nadal on everything except clay then...

Gorecki
04-21-2009, 04:15 AM
i said it here and i will say it again... no one Peaks like Rafa!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-21-2009, 04:21 AM
50-50 in Dubai or fast Wimbledon, Nadal easy everywhere else.
You cannot be serious!!

Xaiks
04-21-2009, 04:21 AM
If Nadal has beaten Roger why he couldn't have done the same with Pete Sampras. Are we still considering Sampras better than Federer???:shock:

vtmike
04-21-2009, 06:10 AM
FROM THE OFFICIAL TTW DICTIONARY:

-Peak-

adjective

1- Any Federer loss post "Mono" .

i.e.: Federer lost in the FO final 6-3,6-0,6-1 because he was not at his "peak"

Weak Era

-adjective-

1- Any time when Nadal wins on clay.

i.e. Nadal won Monte Carlo because its a "weak era".

That's fine but lets forget about Federer in this thread and concentrate on Nadal & Sampras...Who do you think will have a better H2H between the two? The polls say Sampras, but who would you pick and why?

helloworld
04-21-2009, 06:14 AM
If Nadal has beaten Roger why he couldn't have done the same with Pete Sampras. Are we still considering Sampras better than Federer???:shock:
Is Federer and Sampras the same person? :shock:

cknobman
04-21-2009, 06:32 AM
Sampras.

He wouldnt hang around on the baseline and get suckered into these wars, against someone that has so much spin a UE hardly ever happens, like these chumps today.

Sure Nadal can hit a passing shot that is amazing but its much easier to do when you opponent makes very few attempts to come in....attempts that are often backed up with mediocre volleying skills.

I think over the course of a match Sampras would break down Nadals passing game before Nadal would break down Sampras' volleying game.

julesb
04-21-2009, 11:07 AM
Sampras. He would play Nadal the way Federer should be playing him.

ksbh
04-21-2009, 12:16 PM
Correct. But Federer cannot play like Sampras.

Sampras. He would play Nadal the way Federer should be playing him.

ace58
04-21-2009, 01:20 PM
I can see how nadal will obviously struggle dealing with the sampras serve and volley game but how will sampras handle nadal constantly serving into sampras backhand and nadal constantly aiming at it with his left handed forehand? I think alot worse than federer does. I think nadal would have the edge in the head to head. But that doesn't mean that nadal is the better player because he still has alot to prove and win compared to sampras.

IMO aggasi is the player that in his prime could dominate nadal on hard courts.

julesb
04-21-2009, 05:26 PM
Agassi isnt consistent enough to dominate a player of Nadal's caliber on hard courts, despite that being Nadal's worst surface. Maybe in 1995 he could but that is the only year.

JoshDragon
04-21-2009, 05:44 PM
It would depend on how many times they played on clay and how many times on grass. It also depends on the speed of the grass.

helloworld
04-21-2009, 07:04 PM
Agassi isnt consistent enough to dominate a player of Nadal's caliber on hard courts, despite that being Nadal's worst surface. Maybe in 1995 he could but that is the only year.
I guess you have no idea what Agassi is capable of then.

flying24
04-21-2009, 07:10 PM
Agassi isnt consistent enough to dominate a player of Nadal's caliber on hard courts, despite that being Nadal's worst surface. Maybe in 1995 he could but that is the only year.

Exactly. Except for the year 1995, Agassi did not play gain consistency in his play until he was already 29 years old in the Spring of 1999. Except for possibly 1995, Agassi would never be close to dominating a player of Nadal's caliber, even on hard courts. Conversely Agassi would be dominated completely by Nadal on clay any year they played.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 07:15 PM
Agassi may not dominate Nadal. But I think the rivalry would be pretty interesting. I would give the advantage to Agassi on all Hardcourts and indoors , and Nadal on grass and clay. Thats a pretty even rivalry. I dont think there would any dominating by either player overall.

julesb
04-21-2009, 07:20 PM
I guess you have no idea what Agassi is capable of then.

Wishful thinking on your part. I have seen Agassi play throughout the 90s and 2000s and am more familiar with his bizarre career path. Agassi won 4 of his 6 hard court slams from late 1999-early 2003. So basically almost all of his greatest success on hard courts was from ages 29 to 33. In their one meeting on hard courts which Nadal won easily despite it going 3 sets in 2005, Nadal was a teenaged clay court specialist kid who sucked on hard courts mostly, losing 3rd and 4th rounds of all the slams he played on hard courts for awhile. Nadal will have all his slam titles on hard courts from 2009 to 2012 it looks like, so Nadal was even more far removed from his best hard court tennis when they played in 2005 as Agassi was from most of his, which except for late 1994-1995 was from 1999-2003.

So yes except for his great stretch of play from summer 1994-summer 1995 he wouldnt be anywhere near dominating Nadal on hard courts. In fact the reverse would be true in many years Agassi was taking sabaticals and underperforming so badly that he was playing even worse tennis than he would be as an old man in his mid 30s.

What other years would Agassi be dominating a prime Nadal on hard courts:

1991-1993- getting owned completely by Courier, are you saying Courier is that much better than Nadal on hard courts now.

1994- didnt do anything until the summer.

1996-1998- not even ranked in the top 5 (not even the top 100 in 1997) and losing in straight sets in hard court slam semis to Michael Chang, losing to Karol Kucera and Alberto Berasetegui in other hard court slams, and losing to Luke Jensen, Mark Woodroffe, Scott Draper, and a horde of other obscure players on hard courts.

1999- didnt do anything until the Spring. Even that summer got crushed by Kafelnikov on hard courts and took 5 sets to beat an aging Todd Martin in the U.S Open final.

2000-2003- was already 30+ years old in April 2000 onwards.

julesb
04-21-2009, 07:23 PM
Agassi may not dominate Nadal. But I think the rivalry would be pretty interesting. I would give the advantage to Agassi on all Hardcourts and indoors , and Nadal on grass and clay. Thats a pretty even rivalry. I dont think there would any dominating by either player overall.

I agree during periods both were playing well and in prime age Nadal would be the heavy favorite on clay, slight favorite on grass, and Agassi the favorite on hard courts and indoors. However since Agassi was either usually in yet another "slump" or was old, that wouldnt be very often at all. An older Agassi or a slumping Agassi would have a hard time beating Nadal on any surface, and Agassi had only about 2 years worth of tennis he wasnt one or the other of those things.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 07:24 PM
Wishful thinking on your part. I have seen Agassi play throughout the 90s and 2000s and am more familiar with his bizarre career path. Agassi won 4 of his 6 hard court slams from late 1999-early 2003. So basically almost all of his greatest success on hard courts was from ages 29 to 33. In their one meeting on hard courts which Nadal won easily despite it going 3 sets in 2005, Nadal was a teenaged clay court specialist kid who sucked on hard courts mostly, losing 3rd and 4th rounds of all the slams he played on hard courts for awhile. Nadal will have all his slam titles on hard courts from 2009 to 2012 it looks like, so Nadal was even more far removed from his best hard court tennis when they played in 2005 as Agassi was from most of his, which except for late 1994-1995 was from 1999-2003.

So yes except for his great stretch of play from summer 1994-summer 1995 he wouldnt be anywhere near dominating Nadal on hard courts. In fact the reverse would be true in many years Agassi was taking sabaticals and underperforming so badly that he was playing even worse tennis than he would be as an old man in his mid 30s.

What other years would Agassi be dominating a prime Nadal on hard courts:

1991-1993- getting owned completely by Courier, are you saying Courier is that much better than Nadal on hard courts now.

1994- didnt do anything until the summer.

1996-1998- not even ranked in the top 5 (not even the top 100 in 1997) and losing in straight sets in hard court slam semis to Michael Chang, losing to Karol Kucera and Alberto Berasetegui in other hard court slams, and losing to Luke Jensen, Mark Woodroffe, Scott Draper, and a horde of other obscure players on hard courts.

1999- didnt do anything until the Spring. Even that summer got crushed by Kafelnikov on hard courts and took 5 sets to beat an aging Todd Martin in the U.S Open final.

2000-2003- was already 30+ years old in April 2000 onwards.



Courier was no slouch on Hardcourts. And I certainly wouldnt at this point categorize Nadal as some Hardcourt legend either. He hasnt reached a USO final, and he only has one AO to his name. Yes it was amazing what he did at the AO. But again.. slight trickery of the mind games over Fed does wonders. I dont think Fed has the confidence in his abilites to beat Nadal ANYWHERES today.


Hardcourts are still among Nadal's weakest surface compared to the slow grass and clay courts today. Nadal is very much beatable on Hardcourts.

julesb
04-21-2009, 07:26 PM
Courier was no slouch on Hardcourts. And I certainly wouldnt at this point categorize Nadal as some Hardcourt legend either. He hasnt reached a USO final, and he only has one AO open to his name. Yes it was amazing what he did at the AO. But again.. slight trickery of the mind games over Fed does wonders. I dont think Fed has the confidence in his abilites to beat Nadal ANYWHERES today.


Hardcourts are still among Nadal's weakest surface compared to the slow grass and clay courts today

I agree Courier was an excellent hard court player. In fact at this point more accomplished on hard courts than Nadal (which could change of course). However Courier was completely dominating Agassi in the early 90s. So for Nadal to completely dominated by Agassi during a time Agassi was getting completely dominated by Courier, he would have to be behind Courier by a huge chasm.

I agree Nadal is beatable on hard courts, but still very hard to beat now and in the future, especialy in the slams. However very few players have ever been to the point of being virtually unbeatable on hard courts. Agassi never was except possibly in 1995. Federer was for awhile vs a weaker field. Sampras was for awhile but only on medium-faster hard courts. Like you yourself said many times Nadal was not in his prime from 2005-2007 at all. His prime really started in mid 2008. I think alot of people still have pictures of him losing regularly to Blake and Berdych types on hard courts in his pre prime years. Those guys would be lucky to even get the occasional small event hard court win over Nadal now, and if they played him in a grand slam on hard courts now or anytime in the future they will be spanked. This is not the same Nadal as 2005-early 2008.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 07:27 PM
I agree during periods both were playing well and in prime age Nadal would be the heavy favorite on clay, slight favorite on grass, and Agassi the favorite on hard courts and indoors. However since Agassi was either usually in yet another "slump" or was old, that wouldnt be very often at all. An older Agassi or a slumping Agassi would have a hard time beating Nadal on any surface, and Agassi had only about 2 years worth of tennis he wasnt one or the other of those things.

Oh Definitely during Agassi "MIA years" Nadal would for sure have the advantage. I figured we were going best against best here.

julesb
04-21-2009, 07:29 PM
Oh Definitely during Agassi "MIA years" Nadal would for sure have the advantage. I figured we were going best against best here.

Fair enough. I agree with your breakdowns at their respective bests.

coloskier
04-21-2009, 07:40 PM
If Nadal has beaten Roger why he couldn't have done the same with Pete Sampras. Are we still considering Sampras better than Federer???:shock:

Absolutely, the only time Fed beat Sampras was when Sampras was on the backside of his career. In his prime he was untouchable on grass. And Nadal wouldn't be able to sit back 10 feet behind the baseline returning serves because Sampras would eat him alive. And Sampras's serve is MUCH better than Fed's. When Sampras was in his prime AO was a much faster court than it is now. So, the only wins Nadal would get against Sampras is on clay, and to be honest, Nadal would probably never face Sampras on clay, because Sampras would never make the finals. So, Sampras would definitely have a HUGE advantage head to head against Nadal because clay wouldn't even be in the picture because they would never meet on clay, except in a possible Davis Cup tie where Spain was the home team.

SAFINATORZ
04-21-2009, 08:00 PM
SAMPRAS would Slam DUNK all over NADAL at WImbledon!

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 08:04 PM
Well, knowing that nobody serves and volley on tour anymore, of course Samrpas would have the advantage over Nadal in a one match situation, maybe even clay. However, had sampras and other serve and volleyers played in this era, I'm sure every player would adapt and figure out ways to counter that style of play. Sampras ***** make it sound like his serve was unreturnable. How the hell do you explain all those losses he had?

We are in an era where all you need to do is put the ball in play when returning a serve, because you don't have a target at the net. Is that so freakin' hard to understand?


So basically, because of the fact that sampras sucks balls on clay, he would have the H2H advantage over Nadal. Isn't that amazing? His weakness elevates his status. Too bad for Roger, his exellence on EVERY surface makes him pathetic?

helloworld
04-21-2009, 08:06 PM
SAMPRAS would Slam DUNK all over NADAL at WImbledon!

Nadal's floaty return would be an easy GRAND SMASH for Sampras. 8)

JoshDragon
04-21-2009, 09:11 PM
Agassi may not dominate Nadal. But I think the rivalry would be pretty interesting. I would give the advantage to Agassi on all Hardcourts and indoors , and Nadal on grass and clay. Thats a pretty even rivalry. I dont think there would any dominating by either player overall.

Not sure about that. Andre lost to Nadal in the summer of 2005. That was just before Andre's run to the finals at the US Open. Although neither player was in their prime. I think Nadal would over all be able to win most of their hard court matches, because Andre was erratic through-out his career. Andre would win some but I'm not sure how many.

Blinkism
04-21-2009, 09:43 PM
Sampras would lead in the H2H since he's not good enough to meet Nadal on clay, and Nadal is good enough to meet him on HCs, Grass, Indoors, etc. However Sampras is too dominant on these surfaces.


This.

But Sampras wouldn't dominate Nadal. It'd be something like 60% Sampras - 40% Nadal.

If they had met as many times as Fed and Nadal have, then ofcourse it'd be something similar to the H2H they have.

NamRanger
04-21-2009, 10:16 PM
While you make some good points, why do you think Sampras would "hardly ever have to hit a backhand? One of the surest things you can expect about Nadal's gameplan in virtually any given match is that he's going to hit primarily to the other guy's backhand. He serves to the backhand side about 95% of the time against Federer. Since Sampras' backhand, though nothing to scoff at, was not as strong as his forehand, would one not expect Nadal to do the same thing against him?



Because Sampras would never allow himself to engage in a prolonged backhand ralley. He would simply take huge cuts at the ball or charge the net at the first opportunity. Even if he errors, he is still not giving Nadal any sort of rhythm to work with, and those types of players are the ones that Nadal hates playing against (i.e. Karlovic, even though he beat him, it was a pain).

thalivest
04-21-2009, 10:17 PM
Because Sampras would never allow himself to engage in a prolonged backhand ralley. He would simply take huge cuts at the ball or charge the net at the first opportunity. Even if he errors, he is still not giving Nadal any sort of rhythm to work with, and those types of players are the ones that Nadal hates playing against (i.e. Karlovic, even though he beat him, it was a pain).

I agree. That is what different than playing Federer who almost plays into Nadal's hands in alot of ways. His stubborn nature means he almost goes out of his way to try and do everything the wrong way vs Nadal when they play as well just to prove he can do it his way.

NamRanger
04-21-2009, 10:30 PM
I agree. That is what different than playing Federer who almost plays into Nadal's hands in alot of ways. His stubborn nature means he almost goes out of his way to try and do everything the wrong way vs Nadal when they play as well just to prove he can do it his way.


I never quite understood why Federer attempts to even try to ralley with Nadal. On clay, maybe it is slightly understandable because of the surface. However, even on HCs and grass, he absolutely refuses to play aggressive as he normally does against most players.

thalivest
04-21-2009, 10:38 PM
I never quite understood why Federer attempts to even try to ralley with Nadal. On clay, maybe it is slightly understandable because of the surface. However, even on HCs and grass, he absolutely refuses to play aggressive as he normally does against most players.

I think alot of it is stubborness and almost foolish pride. Remember when Becker used to play Agassi? I see it as sort of same thing with Federer playing Nadal.

Antonio Puente
04-21-2009, 11:08 PM
So Sampras wins this one by a whopping 77% !!...I guess the consensus is that Sampras is better than Nadal on everything except clay then...

That's how it should look now, yes, but your poll question is flawed. Nadal hasn't reached his peak. Give it a year or so and I suspect these poll results might look completely different.

380pistol
04-21-2009, 11:09 PM
If Nadal has beaten Roger why he couldn't have done the same with Pete Sampras. Are we still considering Sampras better than Federer???:shock:

It's also a match up issue how Pete would play Nadal. And yes I'd take Pete over Roger in a fair one. Anyway it's the way Sampras would play him is why many have him favoured outside of clay.

carlos djackal
04-22-2009, 12:26 AM
Sampras on any other surfaces except clay........

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 07:51 AM
Lets try and look at this factually and logically without any bias. I will attempt to make logical statement that I do not think anyone can disagree with,:

1- I think we all agree that Nadal would win on clay right?

2- The grass surface and the Hardcourt sirface have been slowed down. Therefore Following that line of logic therefore Petes biggest weapon his serve would also be slowed down . Logical...no?

3- The balls today have also been slowed down quite a bit. This would slow down Petes biggest weapon even further. I think we can all agree with that as well.

4- The Luxilon Polyester revolution has changed tennis from the Sampras era. Nadal is able to hit incredibly dipping topspin and passing shots like never before. I think we can all agree that Luxilon gives grinders a much larger advantage. Chang and Hewitt (who both beat Pete) were only using Gut.

5- Nadal is one of the fittest players ever in the history of tennis. He can last longer than anyone. By the same token Pete has a blood disorder that causes him to fatigue and lose his strength. On these slower conditions and increased polyester Technology Pete would have to last five sets.....he would have to work harder than he has ever worked before. The issue is whether Petes disease would allow him to go five sets against Nadal??

You guys draw your own conclusions. I tried to be as objective as possible.

helloworld
04-22-2009, 08:37 AM
Lets try and look at this factually and logically without any bias. I will attempt to make logical statement that I do not think anyone can disagree with,:

1- I think we all agree that Nadal would win on clay right?

2- The grass surface and the Hardcourt sirface have been slowed down. Therefore Following that line of logic therefore Petes biggest weapon his serve would also be slowed down . Logical...no?

3- The balls today have also been slowed down quite a bit. This would slow down Petes biggest weapon even further. I think we can all agree with that as well.

4- The Luxilon Polyester revolution has changed tennis from the Sampras era. Nadal is able to hit incredibly dipping topspin and passing shots like never before. I think we can all agree that Luxilon gives grinders a much larger advantage. Chang and Hewitt (who both beat Pete) were only using Gut.

5- Nadal is one of the fittest players ever in the history of tennis. He can last longer than anyone. By the same token Pete has a blood disorder that causes him to fatigue and lose his strength. On these slower conditions and increased polyester Technology Pete would have to last five sets.....he would have to work harder than he has ever worked before. The issue is whether Petes disease would allow him to go five sets against Nadal??

You guys draw your own conclusions. I tried to be as objective as possible.

Your post is far from being as objective as possible. Basically you're stating all of Nadal's potential advantage and none of Pete's advantage... Put more fairness in your post and maybe, just maybe people will take your post more seriously ;)

DunlopDood
04-22-2009, 08:53 AM
silly question really, Sampras would dominate a player like Nadal on any surface except clay

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 08:54 AM
Lets try and look at this factually and logically without any bias. I will attempt to make logical statement that I do not think anyone can disagree with,:

1- I think we all agree that Nadal would win on clay right?

2- The grass surface and the Hardcourt sirface have been slowed down. Therefore Following that line of logic therefore Petes biggest weapon his serve would also be slowed down . Logical...no?

3- The balls today have also been slowed down quite a bit. This would slow down Petes biggest weapon even further. I think we can all agree with that as well.

4- The Luxilon Polyester revolution has changed tennis from the Sampras era. Nadal is able to hit incredibly dipping topspin and passing shots like never before. I think we can all agree that Luxilon gives grinders a much larger advantage. Chang and Hewitt (who both beat Pete) were only using Gut.

5- Nadal is one of the fittest players ever in the history of tennis. He can last longer than anyone. By the same token Pete has a blood disorder that causes him to fatigue and lose his strength. On these slower conditions and increased polyester Technology Pete would have to last five sets.....he would have to work harder than he has ever worked before. The issue is whether Petes disease would allow him to go five sets against Nadal??

You guys draw your own conclusions. I tried to be as objective as possible.



Your post is far from being as objective as possible. Basically you're stating all of Nadal's potential advantage and none of Pete's advantage... Put more fairness in your post and maybe, just maybe people will take your post more seriously ;)

Which point or points do you specifically disagree with?

deltox
04-22-2009, 09:00 AM
Which point or points do you specifically disagree with?

pete vs nadal would be a great tv show, but its impossible to compare the 2. way to much has changed, you can theorize all day long but the facts will always elude.

deltox
04-22-2009, 09:01 AM
in all seriousness though, there is tons more nadal fans on this board than sampras fan from my observations.. but yet sampras is winning the poll by an insane margin, so judge for yourself, if your actually thinking logically

vtmike
04-22-2009, 09:03 AM
silly question really, Sampras would dominate a player like Nadal on any surface except clay

Yet 30% of posters seem to think Nadal would dominate...

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 09:10 AM
in all seriousness though, there is tons more nadal fans on this board than sampras fan from my observations.. but yet sampras is winning the poll by an insane margin, so judge for yourself, if your actually thinking logically

LOL.....Nadal is still a minority on this board BIG time!

First of all Many Sampras Fans are also Fed Fans because they both have the classic style.

Secondly, The admins are all Fed Fans and Sampras fans.

But I must admit that the Nadal revolution grows with everyday. It is only a matter of time. In fact there used to be a period when it was quite dangerous to be a Nadal fan.....in fact its still not safe.

vtmike
04-22-2009, 09:41 AM
LOL.....Nadal is still a minority on this board BIG time!

First of all Many Sampras Fans are also Fed Fans because they both have the classic style.

Secondly, The admins are all Fed Fans and Sampras fans.

But I must admit that the Nadal revolution grows with everyday. It is only a matter of time. In fact there used to be a period when it was quite dangerous to be a Nadal fan.....in fact its still not safe.

Are you kidding? All the Sampras fans are Fed haters because they know he will surpass their idol! Infact all the Sampras fans are now Nadal fans, and Djokovic fans and Murray fans...basically anyone who manages to defeat Federer ;)

deltox
04-22-2009, 09:48 AM
LOL.....Nadal is still a minority on this board BIG time!

First of all Many Sampras Fans are also Fed Fans because they both have the classic style.

Secondly, The admins are all Fed Fans and Sampras fans.

But I must admit that the Nadal revolution grows with everyday. It is only a matter of time. In fact there used to be a period when it was quite dangerous to be a Nadal fan.....in fact its still not safe.

first... LOL


second ROFL.. your accusing admins of bias, whata joke, even if they were biased they wouldnt alter a poll for their personal satisfaction .

tonyg11
04-22-2009, 09:50 AM
Sampras would win in his prime. Nadal has nobody in this generation that is an attacker like Sampras was. Nadal wins because everyone plays into his game. Stay back and rally. Sampras would server and volley and potentially chip and charge on returns or definitely be more aggressive on return games than Federer currently is. Federer’s biggest issue is that he has very aggressive groundstrokes and serves and does nothing to capitalize on them. Against anyone but Nadal those shots are enough for him to steamroll his opponents. Against Nadal he breaks down because he just doesn’t force the points like he should.

Players like Sampras, Edberg, Rafter have games unseen on the pro tour now adays. In their prime, with current racquet and string tech, they probably all have a better chance against Nadal than Federer will ever have.

JoshDragon
04-22-2009, 09:54 AM
Are you kidding? All the Sampras fans are Fed haters because they know he will surpass their idol! Infact all the Sampras fans are now Nadal fans, and Djokovic fans and Murray fans...basically anyone who manages to defeat Federer ;)

I think Federer has already surpassed Pete Sampras, because of his better results on clay. I think Nadal will also break Sampras's record of 14 slams but it's going to be after Federer has done it.

tonyg11
04-22-2009, 10:14 AM
I think Federer has already surpassed Pete Sampras, because of his better results on clay. I think Nadal will also break Sampras's record of 14 slams but it's going to be after Federer has done it.

I disagree. Federer has better results on clay because he has an all court game like Agassi did. There is no way Sampras could ever win on clay with his game. The advantage Federer has had is that all the attacking aggressive players of the 90s faded out before he started his Wimbledon reign. One could argue that Agassi in his prime would have tons of more slams had he not had to deal with Pete’s attacking game style.

The Federer / Nadal rivalry is more along the lines of an Agassi / Lleyton Hewitt rivalry. Federer and Nadal don’t have the clashing styles that Agassi / Sampras had.

rafan
04-22-2009, 10:17 AM
I would vote for Nadal - but who is Sampras?

SamprasGoat
04-22-2009, 10:42 AM
Lets try and look at this factually and logically without any bias. I will attempt to make logical statement that I do not think anyone can disagree with,:

1- I think we all agree that Nadal would win on clay right?

2- The grass surface and the Hardcourt sirface have been slowed down. Therefore Following that line of logic therefore Petes biggest weapon his serve would also be slowed down . Logical...no?

3- The balls today have also been slowed down quite a bit. This would slow down Petes biggest weapon even further. I think we can all agree with that as well.

4- The Luxilon Polyester revolution has changed tennis from the Sampras era. Nadal is able to hit incredibly dipping topspin and passing shots like never before. I think we can all agree that Luxilon gives grinders a much larger advantage. Chang and Hewitt (who both beat Pete) were only using Gut.

5- Nadal is one of the fittest players ever in the history of tennis. He can last longer than anyone. By the same token Pete has a blood disorder that causes him to fatigue and lose his strength. On these slower conditions and increased polyester Technology Pete would have to last five sets.....he would have to work harder than he has ever worked before. The issue is whether Petes disease would allow him to go five sets against Nadal??

You guys draw your own conclusions. I tried to be as objective as possible.

As for #2 and #3, Pete did state that his favorite surface was a medium-speed hardcourt as it would help him with his return game. He was confident of holding his own serve.

For #4, Pete's 1st serve averaged 2700 RPMs and 2nd serve averaged 5000+ RPMs. Going by your same logic, his already heavy serves would feel even heavier than before and would be even harder to return.

JoshDragon
04-22-2009, 11:42 AM
Your post is far from being as objective as possible. Basically you're stating all of Nadal's potential advantage and none of Pete's advantage... Put more fairness in your post and maybe, just maybe people will take your post more seriously ;)

I think his post is objective. King of Aces was commenting on what has changed since Sampras was dominating the sport and it's fair to say that today's conditions strongly favor Nadal where as the 90s conditions strongly favored Sampras.

If they had met in their primes during the 90s I would favor Sampras to win more of their matches but if they met today I would favor Nadal. If they were playing today, Pete wouldn't have done any better against Nadal, than Roger has done. In fact he may have done worse.

deltox
04-22-2009, 11:50 AM
I think his post is objective. King of Aces was commenting on what has changed since Sampras was dominating the sport and it's fair to say that today's conditions strongly favor Nadal where as the 90s conditions strongly favored Sampras.

If they had met in their primes during the 90s I would favor Sampras to win more of their matches but if they met today I would favor Nadal. If they were playing today, Pete wouldn't have done any better against Nadal, than Roger has done. In fact he may have done worse.

j mac was supposedly a one dimensional player and used old technology, you assume players cant adjust from that era but in fact

mac still plays world team tennis with new equipment and even with his age is a force on the tour, although they arent superstar players, you must take into consideration his current age.

woulda coulda and shoulda.......

JoshDragon
04-22-2009, 11:55 AM
j mac was supposedly a one dimensional player and used old technology, you assume players cant adjust from that era but in fact

mac still plays world team tennis with new equipment and even with his age is a force on the tour, although they arent superstar players, you must take into consideration his current age.

woulda coulda and shoulda.......

I'm not calling Pete a one dimensional player. However it is fair to say that today's equipment and court conditions don't favor his game as much as they favor Nadal's.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 12:02 PM
first... LOL


second ROFL.. your accusing admins of bias, whata joke, even if they were biased they wouldnt alter a poll for their personal satisfaction .

I have never accused Admins of bias or anything for that matter. You are just trying to get me in trouble.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 12:08 PM
I think his post is objective. King of Aces was commenting on what has changed since Sampras was dominating the sport and it's fair to say that today's conditions strongly favor Nadal where as the 90s conditions strongly favored Sampras.

If they had met in their primes during the 90s I would favor Sampras to win more of their matches but if they met today I would favor Nadal. If they were playing today, Pete wouldn't have done any better against Nadal, than Roger has done. In fact he may have done worse.

I completely agree with you....

except that even in the 90's I dont think Pete would have had a chance on Clay or the rebound Ace surface of the AO.

In any event its hard to compare because conditions have changed so much.

TW Staff
04-22-2009, 12:21 PM
LOL.....Nadal is still a minority on this board BIG time!

First of all Many Sampras Fans are also Fed Fans because they both have the classic style.

Secondly, The admins are all Fed Fans and Sampras fans.

But I must admit that the Nadal revolution grows with everyday. It is only a matter of time. In fact there used to be a period when it was quite dangerous to be a Nadal fan.....in fact its still not safe.

Miscellaneous > Odds & Ends >
-noun-

1- section where TW puts threads that they disagree with but have no answers for.
2- section relegated for Nadal fans.
3- Where posts go prior to being deleted .


I have never accused Admins of bias or anything for that matter. You are just trying to get me in trouble.

deltox
04-22-2009, 12:21 PM
I have never accused Admins of bias or anything for that matter. You are just trying to get me in trouble.

how so? you stated the admins like federer, which maybe true, but how would that effect the outcome of a poll?

besides you need no help getting in trouble apparently after i saw the post above mine =p

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 12:28 PM
How is saying that the admins are Fed and Sampras fans derogatory?

We all have to be fans of someone whats wrong with being a fan Of Roger or Pete?

The "odds and ends" comment was where I first was advised of the rule that Admins may not be criticized. I was already punished for that. You can't keep punishing a person for the same thing over and over again.....In the law thats called "Double Jeopardy".

If anything I have said is construed as an insult to the admins then I completely apologize and its completely unintentional.

deltox
04-22-2009, 12:29 PM
How is saying that the admins are Fe and Sampras fans derogatory?

We all have to be fans of someone whats wrong with being a fan Of Roger or Pete?

The odds and ends comment was where I first learned the rule that Admins may not be citicized. I was already punished for that. You can't keep punishing a person for the same thing over and over again.....In the law thats called "Double Jeopardy".

If anything I have said is construed as an insult to the admins then I completely apologize and completely unintentional.

im fairly certain by his post he was giving you a hard time.. not making threats.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 12:31 PM
how so? you stated the admins like federer, which maybe true, but how would that effect the outcome of a poll?

besides you need no help getting in trouble apparently after i saw the post above mine =p


1- I never said it would affect the outcome of a poll. I simply stated that they were fans.....it meant no more or no less.

2- Thats true.,.....and I was already punished for that.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 12:32 PM
im fairly certain by his post he was giving you a hard time.. not making threats.

I am sure you are right.

helloworld
04-22-2009, 01:33 PM
Miscellaneous > Odds & Ends >
-noun-

1- section where TW puts threads that they disagree with but have no answers for.
2- section relegated for Nadal fans.
3- Where posts go prior to being deleted .

Looks like somebody is getting into big trouble. :)

JoshDragon
04-22-2009, 07:50 PM
I completely agree with you....

except that even in the 90's I dont think Pete would have had a chance on Clay or the rebound Ace surface of the AO.

In any event its hard to compare because conditions have changed so much.

Yeah but this thread is about the Nadal/Sampras h2h if they had met in their primes.

Sampras would not have made the finals at RG, back in the 90s. Rafa, probably would have still won against him at the AO but I'd strongly favor Sampras at the other two majors and since Nadal is good enough to make the finals at Wimbledon and the US I would think that he would probably be at a disadvantage against Sampras h2h wise.

It's hard for me to say about the other smaller tournaments (Masters series, ATP tournaments, etc). I wasn't watching tennis when Pete played so I don't know how fast the court speed was for them.

tonyg11
04-23-2009, 07:47 PM
Sampras schools Nadal on everything but clay. The only baseline game that has a chance is an aggressive one like Agassi or Federer’s. In contrast, Nadal schools both Agassi and Federer. It's just a matter of game styles. All theoretical of course. On any given day one could beat the other given certain circumstances

King of Aces
04-23-2009, 08:05 PM
Sampras schools Nadal on everything but clay. The only baseline game that has a chance is an aggressive one like Agassi or Federer’s. In contrast, Nadal schools both Agassi and Federer. It's just a matter of game styles. All theoretical of course. On any given day one could beat the other given certain circumstances

Id say Hewitt and Safin had a baseline game that could beat Sampras....so why not Nadal?

NamRanger
04-23-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm not calling Pete a one dimensional player. However it is fair to say that today's equipment and court conditions don't favor his game as much as they favor Nadal's.


Equipment and court conditions do not matter. Tsonga who has an attacking game obliterated Nadal at the AO 08 SF. Sampras, who is significantly more consistent and much better than Tsonga would have a field day with Nadal anywhere but clay.

King of Aces
04-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Equipment and court conditions do not matter. Tsonga who has an attacking game obliterated Nadal at the AO 08 SF. Sampras, who is significantly more consistent and much better than Tsonga would have a field day with Nadal anywhere but clay.

You guys cant have it both ways.

If thats true then Nadal also beat Federer regardless of the slowness of the grass, or his racquet.

Make up your mind.

tonyg11
04-23-2009, 09:34 PM
Id say Hewitt and Safin had a baseline game that could beat Sampras....so why not Nadal?

no way Hewitt or Safin touches Pete in his prime anyways. However in principal an aggressive baseliner with a killer return would be the only hope. Hence Agassi.

In a theoretical “perfect” matchup, Nadal has zero chance of breaking Pete. Pete has a chance to be aggressive on Nadals serve, go for some huge flat winner, charge the net, and hopefully get lucky and score a break. No matter how lucky Nadal is, his return is no match for Pete’s server. It’s just not a good matchup for Nadal. Nadal should be thankful that nobody with a game like Pete’s has transpired in his generation.

tonyg11
04-23-2009, 09:37 PM
You guys cant have it both ways.

If thats true then Nadal also beat Federer regardless of the slowness of the grass, or his racquet.

Make up your mind.

Federer's game is totally different from Pete's. Bad comparison. Federer is an aggressive baseliner with a good serve. Pete is a serve and volleyer with a godly serve.

If all 3 were in their prime at the same time i'd say Pete over Nadal, Nadal over Fed, Fed 50/50 with Pete.

NamRanger
04-23-2009, 09:43 PM
You guys cant have it both ways.

If thats true then Nadal also beat Federer regardless of the slowness of the grass, or his racquet.

Make up your mind.


A. Federer plays nothing like Sampras.
B. Sampras would win despite the conditions being against him; he holds a massive advantage in how the match-up is played out.
C. Even if Sampras was playing poorly, his serve is enough to keep him in the match and hope that Nadal lapses in concentration. Lately, he has been too.

grafselesfan
04-23-2009, 10:14 PM
Tsonga who has an attacking game obliterated Nadal at the AO 08 SF. Sampras, who is significantly more consistent and much better than Tsonga would have a field day with Nadal anywhere but clay.

That is only a single match example which is poor reasoning. By the same logic one could say prime Sampras was down match points at the U.S Open to Alex Corretja who plays a much worse version of the Nadal game so Nadal automaticaly wins if they play at the U.S Open. You fail to mention Tsonga still trails his overall head to head with Nadal, and was obliterated by a badly injured Nadal at the U.S Open only months before the match you refer to also.

NamRanger
04-23-2009, 10:30 PM
That is only a single match example which is poor reasoning. By the same logic one could say prime Sampras was down match points at the U.S Open to Alex Corretja who plays a much worse version of the Nadal game so Nadal automaticaly wins if they play at the U.S Open. You fail to mention Tsonga still trails his overall head to head with Nadal, and was obliterated by a badly injured Nadal at the U.S Open only months before the match you refer to also.


Since the AO, they have played two matches where Nadal has barely escaped each time. The h2h is only 1-3, with two very close matches, and 1 blowout for each player.


Again, Tsonga has a style of play closest to Sampras, however Sampras is still the far better player, and would execute that same gameplan with ruthless efficiency. Sampras has a far better serve, and has just as much power off the ground. His netgame is better than Tsonga's also.


Corrjeta does not play like Nadal. That is a misconception propagated by TW ignorants. Corrjeta was competitive on all surfaces in his day, when surface polarity was very prominent. He won the YEC on indoor hardcourt in 1998, and helped Spain to a DC victory in 2000, with a pivotal victory over Sampras on grass during the RR (actually this was in 2002, still proves that he's pretty good on all surfaces)


Corrjeta can play aggressive tennis, and was very underrated at the net. Pretty good doubles player too. Very poor comparison. Anyone who actually watched Corrjeta (BreakPoint, Cyborg, a few others) will tell you that Corrjeta was not a pure baseliner; the guy could play from anywhere on the court.

flyer
04-23-2009, 11:25 PM
any argument for sampras is absolutely retorted and nonsensical, look at video of sampras' backhand, please i beg you please do...

now who has a better backhand, sampras or federer....

and look what nadal does to federer's backhand, the rest is simply common sense...

tudwell
04-23-2009, 11:26 PM
any argument for sampras is absolutely retorted and nonsensical, look at video of sampras' backhand, please i beg you please do...

now who has a better backhand, sampras or federer....

and look what nadal does to federer's backhand, the rest is simply common sense...

Doesn't matter about Pete's backhand because he'd be at net anyway.

luckyguy
04-24-2009, 01:59 AM
a peak sampras would overwhelm a peak nadal. with their contrasting styles, nadal staying too far back and pete going to net almost everytime, nadal would really find it hard to hit passing shots everytime..

King of Aces
04-24-2009, 06:06 AM
You guys are like mice caught in a mousetrap. At every impasse you make anotther turn:

The Mouse (a.k.a sampras /fed supporters):"The slowness of the courts and balls and luxilon string technology would not affect Pete"

The wall (Nadal) : "Ok then you cant say Federer is losing because of the slowness of conditions"

The Mouse: "Ummmm......Sampras is a serve and volleyer so the slowness does not affect him. But Federer you see is a baseliner so then the slowness does affect him."

The Wall: Well Hewitt and Safin were both Baseliners and they both beat Sampras.

The Mouse: Thats only because Sampras was not in his prime you see.


Tune in for the next episode of " As the mouse turns"...LOL


.

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 07:30 AM
Reading all the Sampras' fans post. They make it look like Pete has never lost a match.

BorisBeckerFan
04-24-2009, 07:37 AM
I don't think either would dominate each other but obviously Nadal would have the edge on clay and Pete on grass. Hardcourts would be close but I give the edge to Sampras.

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 07:45 AM
Fact is Nadal has never played anyone like Sampras. Sampras has never played anyone like Nadal.

flyer
04-24-2009, 10:25 AM
Doesn't matter about Pete's backhand because he'd be at net anyway.

which would play right into nadal strength because he has the best passing shots in the history of tennis

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 12:44 PM
which would play right into nadal strength because he has the best passing shots in the history of tennis

I would rate Agassi as a better returner and ball striker, and better passer than Nadal. And look what Pete did to Andre. Andre had trouble dealing with Pete's serve. What could Nadal really do to Pete when Pete has a big serving day for instance? Nadal cant return like Andre could nor could he hit the passing shots andre could

Cesc Fabregas
04-24-2009, 12:48 PM
I would rate Agassi as a better returner and ball striker, and better passer than Nadal. And look what Pete did to Andre. Andre had trouble dealing with Pete's serve. What could Nadal really do to Pete when Pete has a big serving day for instance? Nadal cant return like Andre could nor could he hit the passing shots andre could

Agassi is no way a better passer than Nadal, the passing shots on the stretch and on the dead run that Nadal can do are out of this world.

helloworld
04-24-2009, 12:50 PM
which would play right into nadal strength because he has the best passing shots in the history of tennis
No way! Nadal always struggles against serve and volleyers. He is not very consistent at making passing shots. He can be good at passing shot only when an opponent gives him a rhythm to work with. Sampras gives you ZERO rhythm. Nadal's passing shot ability will break down in front of Sampras. It's just a bad matchup for Nadal overall.

helloworld
04-24-2009, 12:52 PM
Agassi is no way a better passer than Nadal, the passing shots on the stretch and on the dead run that Nadal can do are out of this world.

He can do that because of his speed, but only when he gets into good rhythm. Sampras gives you ZERO rhythm to work with. Nadal isn't going to be making rediculous passing shots against Sampras, since he will give Nadal no rhythm at all.

Cesc Fabregas
04-24-2009, 12:54 PM
No way! Nadal always struggles against serve and volleyers. He is not very consistent at making passing shots. He can be good at passing shot only when an opponent gives him a rhythm to work with. Sampras gives you ZERO rhythm. Nadal's passing shot ability will break down in front of Sampras. It's just a bad matchup for Nadal overall.

I disagree, Nadal is very consistant with his passing shots look at the the forehand on the run in the 4th set tiebreak at the Wimbledon final Federer hits the perfect approach and Nadal comes up with the goods.

helloworld
04-24-2009, 12:58 PM
I disagree, Nadal is very consistant with his passing shots look at the the forehand on the run in the 4th set tiebreak at the Wimbledon final Federer hits the perfect approach and Nadal comes up with the goods.

Federer is a consistent baseliner. He gives Nadal perfect rhythm to work with the whole match. Sampras's game is entirely different. Most of the rallies will end in 2-3 shots. There's no way Nadal will get any sort of rhythm against that type of game. I've seen Nadal making stupid passing shots when he couldn't get into his groove, and I've also seen him making the most awesome passing shot ever in history of the planet when he gets into his groove. There is a big difference.

julesb
04-24-2009, 12:58 PM
I would rate Agassi as a better returner and ball striker, and better passer than Nadal. And look what Pete did to Andre. Andre had trouble dealing with Pete's serve. What could Nadal really do to Pete when Pete has a big serving day for instance? Nadal cant return like Andre could nor could he hit the passing shots andre could

Agassi is a great passer but he is definitely not a better passer than Nadal. Nadal is light years quicker, miles better a defensive player and counterpuncher both, and by a huge margin mentally tougher than Agassi. Agassi also hits a very clean ball all the time which is Pete loves anyway and allow him all the rythym he enjoys. Nadal can hit with alot of spin or he can flatten them out, he has alot more different trajectory on his shots than Agassi.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 01:00 PM
No way! Nadal always struggles against serve and volleyers. He is not very consistent at making passing shots. He can be good at passing shot only when an opponent gives him a rhythm to work with. Sampras gives you ZERO rhythm. Nadal's passing shot ability will break down in front of Sampras. It's just a bad matchup for Nadal overall.
Nadal doesn't struggle against volleyers at all. He struggles against guys like Blake and Nalbandian who are aggressive from the baseline. He is very comfortable against someone like Stepanek.

helloworld
04-24-2009, 01:00 PM
Agassi is a great passer but he is definitely not a better passer than Nadal. Nadal is light years quicker, miles better a defensive player and counterpuncher both, and by a huge margin mentally tougher than Agassi. Agassi also hits a very clean ball all the time which is Pete loves anyway and allow him all the rythym he enjoys. Nadal can hit with alot of spin or he can flatten them out, he has alot more different trajectory on his shots than Agassi.

Let me put it this way. Standing still passing shot, Agassi wins easily. On the run passing shot, Nadal wins easily. I'd still take Agassi's. He has shown rediculous passing shot ability against most serve & volleyers during his era, and I'm pretty sure the S&V in Andre's era are a little better than S&V today. ;)

Cesc Fabregas
04-24-2009, 01:01 PM
Federer is a consistent baseliner. He gives Nadal perfect rhythm to work with the whole match. Sampras's game is entirely different. Most of the rallies will end in 2-3 shots. There's no way Nadal will get any sort of rhythm against that type of game. I've seen Nadal making stupid passing shots when he couldn't get into his groove, and I've also seen him making the most awesome passing shot ever in history of the planet when he gets into his groove. There is a big difference.

Agreed that Pete wouldn't give Nadal rhythm when Nadal plays Federer nowadays he's controlling the rallies even on Federer's service games.

helloworld
04-24-2009, 01:03 PM
Nadal doesn't struggle against volleyers at all. He struggles against guys like Blake and Nalbandian who are aggressive from the baseline. He is very comfortable against someone like Stepanek.

Does Robert Kendrick ring any bell? That guy is a third rate S&V and he almost beat Nadal in straights. Kendrick would lose to guys like Murray easily, but not Nadal. Karlovic almost beat Nadal last year. Name one great serve and volleyer that Nadal has beaten. That's right. None!

julesb
04-24-2009, 01:04 PM
Does Robert Kendrick ring any bell? That guy is a third rate S&V and he almost beat Nadal in straights. Kendrick would lose to guys like Murray easily, but not Nadal. Karlovic almost beat Nadal last year. Name one great serve and volleyer that Nadal has beaten. That's right. None!

That Kendrick match was in 2006 when Nadal wasnt in his prime yet. Nadal today is so much better than 2006 it isnt even funny. Kendrick would be destroyed by Nadal today.

Cesc Fabregas
04-24-2009, 01:08 PM
Does Robert Kendrick ring any bell? That guy is a third rate S&V and he almost beat Nadal in straights. Kendrick would lose to guys like Murray easily, but not Nadal. Karlovic almost beat Nadal last year. Name one great serve and volleyer that Nadal has beaten. That's right. None!

Lol Nadal was hardly the player he is now and he was only playing in his 4th grasscourt tournment of his life and Murray at 20 was losing to all kind of bums. Nadal would destroy Kendrick now.

flyer
04-24-2009, 01:10 PM
I would rate Agassi as a better returner and ball striker, and better passer than Nadal. And look what Pete did to Andre. Andre had trouble dealing with Pete's serve. What could Nadal really do to Pete when Pete has a big serving day for instance? Nadal cant return like Andre could nor could he hit the passing shots andre could

i doubt agassi himself would say his passes were better than nadals...they simply are not, nadal can hit a forehand or backhand pass from anywhere in the court, that bites so hard even if the volleyer gets to it its a near impossible volley...do you really believe yourself saying agassi had better passes than nadal!? go watch some video...

No way! Nadal always struggles against serve and volleyers. He is not very consistent at making passing shots. He can be good at passing shot only when an opponent gives him a rhythm to work with. Sampras gives you ZERO rhythm. Nadal's passing shot ability will break down in front of Sampras. It's just a bad matchup for Nadal overall.

what serve volleyers does he struggle against....

guy sampras was very great for a very long time but he never dominated the game the way federer did for 4 years or the way nadal has the last 12 months, nadal has won a slam on 3 surfaces, and an olympic gold, multiple tournament victories on all surfaces, sampras never did anything like that, even in his best years sampras had many losses against much, much lower ranked players...

i cant even believe im entertaining such an asinine debate, this is common sense.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 01:12 PM
Does Robert Kendrick ring any bell? That guy is a third rate S&V and he almost beat Nadal in straights. Kendrick would lose to guys like Murray easily, but not Nadal. Karlovic almost beat Nadal last year. Name one great serve and volleyer that Nadal has beaten. That's right. None!
Karlovic has never beaten Nadal and it's his huge serve (aces) that makes it impossible to break him, not volleys.
Kendrick almost beat Nadal only once (didn't beat him in the end, mind you) and you're giving way too much weight to that match, it was early rounds wimbledon 2006, Nadal hadn't done anything on grass yet and he didn't have too much confidence yet.
Why don't you actually look at people who DID beat Nadal several times, instead of absurdly elaborating about what you subjectively view as "near" losses: Blake, Youzhny, Davydenko, 100% baseliners. As I said before Stepanek is a serve and volleyer and Nadal beat him 4 times out of 4.

helloworld
04-24-2009, 01:15 PM
i doubt agassi himself would say his passes were better than nadals...they simply are not, nadal can hit a forehand or backhand pass from anywhere in the court, that bites so hard even if the volleyer gets to it its a near impossible volley...do you really believe yourself saying agassi had better passes than nadal!? go watch some video...



what serve volleyers does he struggle against....

guy sampras was very great for a very long time but he never dominated the game the way federer did for 4 years or the way nadal has the last 12 months, nadal has won a slam on 3 surfaces, and an olympic gold, multiple tournament victories on all surfaces, sampras never did anything like that...

i cant even believe im entertaining such an asinine debate, this is common sense.
Let's wait until Nadal has 14 grand slams, and 6 straight years number 1, and then we can start comparing results, ok? ;) Right now let's just talk about their games. ;)

julesb
04-24-2009, 01:18 PM
Let's wait until Nadal has 14 grand slams, and 6 straight years number 1, and then we can start comparing results, ok? ;) Right now let's just talk about their games. ;)

Well we can already say Nadal is good enough to win on all surfaces, something Sampras was never able to do. Also how many slams did Sampras, Federer, and many others have at 22? As for Agassi he had a grand total of 1 at 22, which he didnt win until actually turning 22.

flyer
04-24-2009, 01:22 PM
Let's wait until Nadal has 14 grand slams, and 6 straight years number 1, and then we can start comparing results, ok? ;) Right now let's just talk about their games. ;)

well nadals 22, and he has done so many things sampras never did, hes just so much more dominant on a match to match basis, more well rounded than sampras, so no he hasnt won 14 slams, but again hes 22 so thats not to say he never will, but there sure are a lot of things rafa has done that you can definitely say sampras never will...

i'll tell you what you pick a year, pick sampras on best year...

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 01:24 PM
Let's wait until Nadal has 14 grand slams, and 6 straight years number 1, and then we can start comparing results, ok? ;) Right now let's just talk about their games. ;)
Or let's talk about Sampras's achievements on 1 of the 3 surfaces: clay :lol:
The difference between Sampras and Nadal is that Nadal doesn't really have a weak surface. Sampras won 3 tournaments on clay over the course of a 13 year career and of course none of the 3 were a slam, 1 was a master, 2 were very minor tournaments (Kitzbuhel and Atlanta). There is no surface on which 22 year old Nadal has such poor results.

rafan
04-24-2009, 02:07 PM
Or let's talk about Sampras's achievements on 1 of the 3 surfaces: clay :lol:
The difference between Sampras and Nadal is that Nadal doesn't really have a weak surface. Sampras won 3 tournaments on clay over the course of a 13 year career and of course none of the 3 were a slam, 1 was a master, 2 were very minor tournaments (Kitzbuhel and Atlanta). There is no surface on which 22 year old Nadal has such poor results.

No theres nothing weak about Nadal

DTLshot
04-24-2009, 03:37 PM
People need to rethink about how difficult it is to volley topspin passing shots...

Here is my personal experience. I am 4.5 level and play doubles against a junior quite often. Previously the junior is just a big flat ball hitter that I have no problem to volley against. Lately, the junior seems to start idol Nadal and changed his FH from flat to extreme topspin, with those reverse follow through. And since that, his passing shot becomes very difficult for me to volley. I either volley long or just frame the ball. The ball drops dramatically once after passing the net, and with the spin it with, believe me, it make volley much much difficult.

Fed is not an idiot as you might think he is. He tried volley Nadal's passing shot and that didn't work so he is convinced that S&V against Nadal is a dead end. This goes the same to Pete. Even though his volley is better than Fed, he didn't has the experience to volley against topspin passing shots like Nadals. I think he won't do much better than Fed.

helloworld
04-24-2009, 03:49 PM
People need to rethink about how difficult it is to volley topspin passing shots...

Here is my personal experience. I am 4.5 level and play doubles against a junior quite often. Previously the junior is just a big flat ball hitter that I have no problem to volley against. Lately, the junior seems to start idol Nadal and changed his FH from flat to extreme topspin, with those reverse follow through. And since that, his passing shot becomes very difficult for me to volley. I either volley long or just frame the ball. The ball drops dramatically once after passing the net, and with the spin it with, believe me, it make volley much much difficult.

Fed is not an idiot as you might think he is. He tried volley Nadal's passing shot and that didn't work so he is convinced that S&V against Nadal is a dead end. This goes the same to Pete. Even though his volley is better than Fed, he didn't has the experience to volley against topspin passing shots like Nadals. I think he won't do much better than Fed.

Let me put it this way. Nadal is not going to have a clue on how to handle Pete's serve. Jim Courier once said "You can be as mentally tough as you want to be, but you just can't deal with that serve." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIcoD3tGiv0&feature=related

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 04:37 PM
Does Robert Kendrick ring any bell? That guy is a third rate S&V and he almost beat Nadal in straights. Kendrick would lose to guys like Murray easily, but not Nadal. Karlovic almost beat Nadal last year. Name one great serve and volleyer that Nadal has beaten. That's right. None!

There are no s&v today! Tsonga is not a pure s&v, he is more of a baseliner than a s&v

Henman did play a young Nadal, and every volley that Henman hit, Nadal passed him.

flyer
04-24-2009, 04:39 PM
Let me put it this way. Nadal is not going to have a clue on how to handle Pete's serve. Jim Courier once said "You can be as mentally tough as you want to be, but you just can't deal with that serve." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIcoD3tGiv0&feature=related

that was jim courier, all due respect he had a great career but hes no rafa nadal, all nadal would need to do is get the ball back, for there he could expose pete in so many different ways, nadal would do to pete what federer does to roddick

let me ask you again though what do you think was pete's best year....

vtmike
04-24-2009, 04:39 PM
Or let's talk about Sampras's achievements on 1 of the 3 surfaces: clay :lol:
The difference between Sampras and Nadal is that Nadal doesn't really have a weak surface. Sampras won 3 tournaments on clay over the course of a 13 year career and of course none of the 3 were a slam, 1 was a master, 2 were very minor tournaments (Kitzbuhel and Atlanta). There is no surface on which 22 year old Nadal has such poor results.

So you think Nadal would have a positive overall H2H against Sampras?

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 04:55 PM
Let me put it this way. Nadal is not going to have a clue on how to handle Pete's serve. Jim Courier once said "You can be as mentally tough as you want to be, but you just can't deal with that serve." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIcoD3tGiv0&feature=related


I've seen Sampras play probably more than 500 times, and I've seen countless of players return that serve. How the hell do you explain him losing over 200+ matches during his professional career if he had that unreturnable serve.

It is also ******** what some people here claim that his 2nd serve was as good as his first serve.

deltox
04-24-2009, 04:57 PM
that was jim courier, all due respect he had a great career but hes no rafa nadal, all nadal would need to do is get the ball back, for there he could expose pete in so many different ways, nadal would do to pete what federer does to roddick

let me ask you again though what do you think was pete's best year....

all he has to do is "get the ball back"


lets ponder this statement for a moment.






















figure anything out yet?

now assuming he gets the ball back, dealing with a S&V player for a counter puncher is well, very very difficult.

nadal is the best at what he does, but facing a S&V all star is not easy.

EDIT*** lemme make sure you guys understand, if you have a NADAL or SAMPRAS avatar or signature, your credibility is nothing in this thread.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:11 PM
So you think Nadal would have a positive overall H2H against Sampras?
On clay? I think he would turn Sampras into dust!

deltox
04-24-2009, 05:12 PM
On clay? I think he would turn Sampras into dust!

this i can agree with certainly, the rest would be tighter with grass favoring sampras and the HCs being a toss up most the time. only a time machine would tell tho.

adlis
04-24-2009, 05:15 PM
petes best? His best result at Roland Garros was a semi.

Overrated much?

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:17 PM
this i can agree with certainly, the rest would be tighter with grass favoring sampras and the HCs being a toss up most the time. only a time machine would tell tho.
Maybe we'll know after Nadal retires and they both play matches on the senior tour!

flyer
04-24-2009, 05:17 PM
this i can agree with certainly, the rest would be tighter with grass favoring sampras and the HCs being a toss up most the time. only a time machine would tell tho.

lets entertain your thoughts, what do you consider pete's best year...

deltox
04-24-2009, 05:19 PM
what do you consider pete's best year...

dont try to entangle me in the web of woulda coulda shoulda, i dont play those hypothetical games ;)

NamRanger
04-24-2009, 05:21 PM
that was jim courier, all due respect he had a great career but hes no rafa nadal, all nadal would need to do is get the ball back, for there he could expose pete in so many different ways, nadal would do to pete what federer does to roddick

let me ask you again though what do you think was pete's best year....



Sampras has 200x better volleys than Federer and Roddick.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:22 PM
I disagree, Nadal is very consistant with his passing shots look at the the forehand on the run in the 4th set tiebreak at the Wimbledon final Federer hits the perfect approach and Nadal comes up with the goods.

You really think Nadal is going to be able to come up with consistent great passing shots against Pete? Doubtful. Not as good as Andre's. Andre is a better returner, better ball striker, and a hell of a better return of Serve than Nadal is.



We saw what Tsonga did to Nadal at the AO. And Sampras is light years ahead of Tsonga in terms of net play and serving.

adlis
04-24-2009, 05:22 PM
this i can agree with certainly, the rest would be tighter with grass favoring sampras and the HCs being a toss up most the time. only a time machine would tell tho.

Sorry your theory is FAIL. Nadal won queens on FAST grass.


NADAL would pulverise pete, there is no question about that.

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:22 PM
I am a Nadal fan but I dont see him having a winning head to head vs Sampras, not yet anyway. Some of you keep mentioning Nadal would dominate Sampras on clay. Of course he would, but Sampras isnt even good enough on clay to get far enough to play Nadal often, they would have hardly ever played any matches on clay. Clay becomes almost irrelevant to their head to head when they would hardly play matches on the surface. So that makes it even more unlikely Nadal could lead their head to head.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:23 PM
lets entertain your thoughts, what do you consider pete's best year...
For me, it's 1994: 10 titles of which 2 slams and the master cup.

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:24 PM
For me, it's 1994: 10 titles of which 2 slams and the master cup.

I agree. That was a year he could have won all 4 IMO. Of course he didnt so it doesnt matter now, but that was the one year he was capable of having done that IMO.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:24 PM
You really think Nadal is going to be able to come up with consistent great passing shots against Pete? Doubtful. Not as good as Andre's. Andre is a better returner, better ball striker, and a hell of a better return of Serve than Nadal is.



We saw what Tsonga did to Nadal at the AO. And Sampras is light years ahead of Tsonga in terms of net play and serving.
Nadal played 1 bad match against Tsonga, can we not stay stuck on that forever? Look at what Nadal has done to Tsonga since then.

Aabye
04-24-2009, 05:25 PM
all he has to do is "get the ball back"
lets ponder this statement for a moment.

figure anything out yet?

now assuming he gets the ball back, dealing with a S&V player for a counter puncher is well, very very difficult.

nadal is the best at what he does, but facing a S&V all star is not easy


Agassi, a counterpuncher, had a 14-20 H2H against Sampras, and Nadal is arguably a much suped-up version of Andre. So, to say he might have had a positive H2H against Sampras is not out of the realm of possibility.

adlis
04-24-2009, 05:25 PM
Nadal Olympic gold medal men's singles 1
Pete 0

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:26 PM
Nadal played 1 bad match against Tsonga, can we not stay stuck on that forever? Look at what Nadal as done to Tsonga since then.

I know it is crazy. It is one match a player was playing out of their mind and the other was flat, and a result that would probably happen only 1 times out of 20 at most (meaning a very lopsided win for Tsonga). The way some people talk you would think Tsonga would be the heavy favorite the next time he plays Nadal on a hard court. Also who is to say Tsonga wouldnt have beaten Sampras at the Australian Open that particular day. Sampras has lost to or nearly lost to players at the Australian Open who didnt play as amazingly as Tsonga did that day- Kucera in 1998, an injured Edberg in 1993, Hrbaty and Costa in 1997. It wouldnt mean overall he was anywhere near as great a player of course.

It is becoming as monotnous seeing that 1 match brought up as the crux of everything as the Kuerten vs Federer at the 2004 French for those who want to mock Federer's clay court abilities.
It is just a biased and one sided way to argue things.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:28 PM
Nadal played 1 bad match against Tsonga, can we not stay stuck on that forever? Look at what Nadal has done to Tsonga since then.

But the point is, what that style of game and gameplan Tsonga did to hurt Nadal. Take Tsonga and multiply that by 10 and you get Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO during his peak years.

Its all about matchups. And Tsonga showed that that type of gameplan can hurt Nadal if excecuted properly.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:29 PM
And Sure Nadal can overrall get the best of Tsonga.. Since Tsonga cant stay healthy and he is streaky as hell. Very inconsistent Tsonga is

adlis
04-24-2009, 05:31 PM
ALL I CAN SAY IS...




















































































http://i39.tinypic.com/2znpb8y.jpg
http://i6.tinypic.com/2012gbs.jpg

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:32 PM
I agree. That was a year he could have won all 4 IMO. Of course he didnt so it doesnt matter now, but that was the one year he was capable of having done that IMO.
I don't think there is any year when Sampras could have won RG. He was also disappointing at the USO in 1994. What makes you think he should have won it?

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:32 PM
Oh sure.. Pick on 31 year old Sampras losing to Basil..

Lets see who Feddy boy loses to at 31 years of age.


Will swissy even be playing then since he cant handle the pressure at only 27?

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:32 PM
But the point is, what that style of game and gameplan Tsonga did to hurt Nadal. Take Tsonga and multiply that by 10 and you get Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO during his peak years.

Its all about matchups. And Tsonga showed that that type of gameplan can hurt Nadal if excecuted properly.

Remind us when Tsonga beats Nadal again in a grand slam, let alone crushes him again. Since that match Tsonga has lost twice in best 2-out-of-3 matches on hard courts. Yes competitive matches but losses. If he isnt beating Nadal in best 2-out-of-3 I am not liking his chances in a best 3-out-of-5. Their other meeting in a slam was at the 2007 U.S Open where Tsonga was killed by an injured Nadal who was limping across the court, an even worse beating considering the circumstances than the 2008 Australian Open. Funny how that match is never brought up though.

prosealster
04-24-2009, 05:34 PM
nad will have a feast on sampras' backhand...where as tsonga has a nice double hander which is not troubled much by nads topspin... that being said....sampras wont go deep enough on the slower courts consistently as nad will on fast courts, hence they'll meet more on fast surfaces which will favour pete

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:35 PM
Remind us when Tsonga beats Nadal again in a grand slam, let alone crushes him again. Since that match Tsonga has lost twice in best 2-out-of-3 matches on hard courts. Yes competitive matches but losses. If he isnt beating Nadal in best 2-out-of-3 I am not liking his chances in a best 3-out-of-5. Their other meeting in a slam was at the 2007 U.S Open where Tsonga was killed by an injured Nadal who was limping across the court, an even worse beating considering the circumstances than the 2008 Australian Open. Funny how that match is never brought up though.



And I explained why Nadal has the decisive edge overall against Tsonga. Tsonga is a clown who can bring out his best tennis 10 percent of the time. The rest of the time he is either injured or not playing to his potential. Hes streaky and very inconsistent.

Im not talking about Tsonga.. Im talking about his gameplan of attack he used against Nadal.


I could care less about that injury case, inconsistent clown Tsonga. I was talking about that style of game

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:38 PM
I don't think there is any year when Sampras could have won RG. He was also disappointing at the USO in 1994. What makes you think he should have won it?

IMO if he had been able to duplicate the tennis he played at Rome in 1994 he could have won the French Open that year. I know many would disagree with me and that is fine. I it just my opinion. Sampras lost at that years French Open in a 4 set quarterfinal to Courier. Courier was a complete shadow of the player he was in 1991-1993 by that point and IMO Sampras was capable of beating him in that match. Sampras played a poor match compared to how he was playing on clay around that time IMO and still it was quite competitive. I also think Sampras was capable of beating Bruguera that particular year if he played as well as he did in Rome.

As far as the U.S Open I think if he had stayed healthier that summer and was fitter he had a great shot of winning it. If he had beaten Yzaga, he had Novacek in the quarters, another journeyman. Stich in the semis would have been his first test. Stich has a good record vs Pete, but Sampras raises his game for slam semis and finals. Stich usually folds, as his limp performance in the final with Agassi yet again proved. Then in the final it would be Agassi who is 0-4 lifetime vs Pete at the U.S Open. Some great matches of course but always the same outcome at this particular venue.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:39 PM
But the point is, what that style of game and gameplan Tsonga did to hurt Nadal. Take Tsonga and multiply that by 10 and you get Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO during his peak years.

Its all about matchups. And Tsonga showed that that type of gameplan can hurt Nadal if excecuted properly.
It can hurt a mediocre Nadal, it won't do anything to a good Nadal as their subsequent encounters have shown.

flyer
04-24-2009, 05:40 PM
For me, it's 1994: 10 titles of which 2 slams and the master cup.

i would agree with you, just so people remember, because they seem to forget these details often...

sampras' 94 year included a loss to Karim Alami ranked outside the top 100, Jacco Eltingh ranked 89, and 3 more losses to guys ranked outside the top 20....this was sampras in his prime....

now look at the last year nadal has had: 11 titles including 3 slams on three surfaces, an olympic gold metal, and not one loss to anybody ranked outside the top 25....

fthis is what these guys did in their prime, right there, and you idiots think nadal couldnt beat this guy....its not even a discussion, period. anyone saying other wise is simply stupid and ignorant to the facts

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:42 PM
And I explained why Nadal has the decisive edge overall against Tsonga. Tsonga is a clown who can bring out his best tennis 10 percent of the time. The rest of the time he is either injured or not playing to his potential. Hes streaky and very inconsistent.

Im not talking about Tsonga.. Im talking about his gameplan of attack he used against Nadal.


I could care less about that injury case, inconsistent clown Tsonga. I was talking about that style of game

It is hilarious how anytime Federer or Nadal beat someone that person is a clown who didnt do what they were supposed to do. It is never that Nadal and Federer are just too good, or are great players who can be expected to usually beat even good opponents. You also act like Nadal could never play better than he did vs Tsonga in that AO semifinal. It is always if so and so played to their potential, not even considering whether Nadal himself did or not. Nadal is improving on hard courts all the time, Tsonga would have a very hard time doing the same thing to Nadal even if he played him and had the exact same form he did that day. Early last year Nadal was not doing nearly as well on hard courts as he began doing in the middle of the year. He will still lose matches on hard courts, but the beatdowns by second tier quality opponents who just get in hot form that day wont happen often.

Anyway there is a good chance Tsonga could have beaten Sampras that day on a hard court. That is the best match of Tsonga's life easily. Sampras has played alot of matches better than that, but tons of matches worse than that as well.

rubberduckies
04-24-2009, 05:43 PM
At the USO 2000, Safin showed us what polys can do to serve and volley. It's just too easy to find those angles nowadays.

It's easy to remember all the points that Tsonga won at the net, often with amazing full-stretch drop volleys. Those were the highlight reel moments, but what we forget are all the points in between that set up those opportunities. Tsonga was extremely consistent from the baseline, used his groundies to force short forehands from Nadal, and used those short balls to hit great approaches. Even then, he was forced to come up with immortal volleys (on crucial points) to best Nadal's passing shots.

Sampras would not be able to succeed just by chipping and charging.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:43 PM
IMO if he had been able to duplicate the tennis he played at Rome in 1994 he could have won the French Open that year. I know many would disagree with me and that is fine. I it just my opinion. Sampras lost at that years French Open in a 4 set quarterfinal to Courier. Courier was a complete shadow of the player he was in 1991-1993 by that point and IMO Sampras was capable of beating him in that match. Sampras played a poor match compared to how he was playing on clay around that time IMO and still it was quite competitive. I also think Sampras was capable of beating Bruguera that particular year if he played as well as he did in Rome.

As far as the U.S Open I think if he had stayed healthier that summer and was fitter he had a great shot of winning it. If he had beaten Yzaga, he had Novacek in the quarters, another journeyman. Stich in the semis would have been his first test. Stich has a good record vs Pete, but Sampras raises his game for slam semis and finals. Stich usually folds, as his limp performance in the final with Agassi yet again proved. Then in the final it would be Agassi who is 0-4 lifetime vs Pete at the U.S Open. Some great matches of course but always the same outcome at this particular venue.

I believe sampras was injured while playing Yzaga

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:43 PM
IMO if he had been able to duplicate the tennis he played at Rome in 1994 he could have won the French Open that year. I know many would disagree with me and that is fine. I it just my opinion. Sampras lost at that years French Open in a 4 set quarterfinal to Courier. Courier was a complete shadow of the player he was in 1991-1993 by that point and IMO Sampras was capable of beating him in that match. Sampras played a poor match compared to how he was playing on clay around that time IMO and still it was quite competitive. I also think Sampras was capable of beating Bruguera that particular year if he played as well as he did in Rome.

As far as the U.S Open I think if he had stayed healthier that summer and was fitter he had a great shot of winning it. If he had beaten Yzaga, he had Novacek in the quarters, another journeyman. Stich in the semis would have been his first test. Stich has a good record vs Pete, but Sampras raises his game for slam semis and finals. Stich usually folds, as his limp performance in the final with Agassi yet again proved. Then in the final it would be Agassi who is 0-4 lifetime vs Pete at the U.S Open. Some great matches of course but always the same outcome at this particular venue.
Was he sick in the summer of 94? I don't remember. I find it surprising he lost to Yzaga. Do you remember the match?

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:45 PM
Was he sick in the summer of 94? I don't remember. I find it surprising he lost to Yzaga. Do you remember the match?


Sampras was injured at the USO when he played Yzaga

flyer
04-24-2009, 05:45 PM
2008 was not prime Nadal?? The year he got to number 1 he wasnt in his prime? Great logic brainchild

no hes a completely different player than he was at the AO '08, why dont you respond to the rest of my posts....please i beg you

flyer
04-24-2009, 05:47 PM
It was 8 titles for Nadal last year actually, still remarkable year of course! (Nadal won 11 titles in 2005 but the titles were not as big as last year).

not '08, the last 12 months...

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:47 PM
Was he sick in the summer of 94? I don't remember. I find it surprising he lost to Yzaga. Do you remember the match?

He was injured that summer and barely had any matches going into the U.S Open. I vaguely remember the match although not as well as I would like. He definitely had some foot problems and some serious blisters, but I am not sure if anything else other than an extreme lack of match fitness for the event. He was up 5-2 in the final set but still lost.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:48 PM
2008 was not prime Nadal?? The year he got to number 1 he wasnt in his prime? Great logic brainchild
Nadal's first 3 months of 2008 were not very good: he lost harshly to Tsonga at AO, to Djoko at IW and to Davydenko in Miami. He started hitting his stride in Monte-Carlo at the beginnig of the clay season, that's when his "prime time" really started.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:49 PM
no hes a completely different player than he was at the AO '08, why dont you respond to the rest of my posts....please i beg you

How about the fact he just ran into a red hot Tsonga at the time who totally neutralized Nadal and just never let him breathe at the AO. Very few players play like Tsonga. Today consists of mindeless baseline bashing drones who do not force the issue. They just return and wait for their opponent to make an error. Tsonga during that match was FORCING THE ISSUE.. Thats how you BEAT NADAL. You put pressure on him.

Listen to all these tennis analysts, and sportwriters etc. How do they say Fed should gameplan against Nadal? Attack him. Force the issue and attack that net. Theoretically, they are giving Fed advice to use "Pete's gameplan" or what it would be against Nadal.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:49 PM
Sampras was injured at the USO when he played Yzaga
OK, no wonder because he played and won a lot that year.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:51 PM
How about the fact he just ran into a red hot Tsonga at the time who totally neutralized Nadal and just never let him breathe at the AO. Very few players play like Tsonga. Today consists of mindeless baseline bashing drones who do not force the issue. They just return and wait for their opponent to make an error. Tsonga during that match was FORCING THE ISSUE.. Thats how you BEAT NADAL. You put pressure on him.

Listen to all these tennis analysts, and sportwriters etc. How do they say Fed should gameplan against Nadal? Attack him. Force the issue and attack that net. Theoretically, they are giving Fed advice to use "Pete's gameplan" or what it would be against Nadal.
I'm sorry but Nadal was also not playing well that day. I don't think Tsonga would have beaten Nadal at AO 2009 no matter what strategy he would choose to employ.
"Forcing the issue" is a high risk strategy. Verdasco tried at AO 2009 and he did well but still didn't win.

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:53 PM
Nadal's first 3 months of 2008 were not very good: he lost harshly to Tsonga at AO, to Djoko at IW and to Davydenko in Miami. He starting hitting his stride in Monte-Carlo at the beginnig of the clay season, that's when his "prime time" really started.

Exactly. It is not a players prime is set to start exactly at the very start of a given year. Think of Justine Henin. Her prime really started in around April of 2003, not before or after. In early 2003 she was still being spanked by Clijsters everytime they played (who she would own in her "prime"), spanked once by Rubin, having trouble beating a nearly retired Seles, then around April of 2003 she took off. It is the same with Nadal whose prime really started in the spring of 2008.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:54 PM
I'm sorry but Nadal was also not playing well that day. I don't think Tsonga would have beaten Nadal at AO 2009 no matter what strategy he would choose to employ.

Probably not.. But Im not convinced Tsonga was playing as well at the AO this year that he was last year. Hes not the most consistent player around and injuries have definitely set Tsonga back quite a bit. He couldnt even beat Verdasco.


But some credit should go to Tsonga as well for not making Nadal play as well. That match wasnt all "Nadal playing bad." Alot of it was the pressure Tsonga put on Nadal as well which made him not play as well

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:55 PM
I'm sorry but Nadal was also not playing well that day. I don't think Tsonga would have beaten Nadal at AO 2009 no matter what strategy he would choose to employ.
"Forcing the issue" is a high risk strategy. Verdasco tried at AO 2009 and he did well but still didn't win.

Verdasco in the 2009 AO played tennis of an even more incredible calibre than Tsonga in 2008 or Gonzalez in 2007 IMO. I actually felt badly for him at the end in a way, despite being a big Nadal fan. He had played tennis so extremely worthy of a slam title or atleast playing Federer in the final, but because Nadal has become such a tough customer even on hard courts he was denied this opportunity.

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 05:56 PM
And I explained why Nadal has the decisive edge overall against Tsonga. Tsonga is a clown who can bring out his best tennis 10 percent of the time. The rest of the time he is either injured or not playing to his potential. Hes streaky and very inconsistent.

Im not talking about Tsonga.. Im talking about his gameplan of attack he used against Nadal.


I could care less about that injury case, inconsistent clown Tsonga. I was talking about that style of game


But tsonga killed Nadal from the baseline with powerful fh and bh which are miles better than Sampras'. Why are you not mentioning that? Please tell us how many times he served and volleyed first and second serve.

anointedone
04-24-2009, 05:56 PM
Probably not.. But Im not convinced Tsonga was playing as well at the AO this year that he was last year. Hes not the most consistent player around and injuries have definitely set Tsonga back quite a bit. He couldnt even beat Verdasco.


But some credit should go to Tsonga as well for not making Nadal play as well. That match wasnt all "Nadal playing bad." Alot of it was the pressure Tsonga put on Nadal as well which made him not play as well

Verdasco at this years AO was playing even better than Tsonga last year IMO. There are many others who would argue this too, not just Nadal fans.

flyer
04-24-2009, 05:56 PM
How about the fact he just ran into a red hot Tsonga at the time who totally neutralized Nadal and just never let him breathe at the AO. Very few players play like Tsonga. Today consists of mindeless baseline bashing drones who do not force the issue. They just return and wait for their opponent to make an error. Tsonga during that match was FORCING THE ISSUE.. Thats how you BEAT NADAL. You put pressure on him.

Listen to all these tennis analysts, and sportwriters etc. How do they say Fed should gameplan against Nadal? Attack him. Force the issue and attack that net. Theoretically, they are giving Fed advice to use "Pete's gameplan" or what it would be against Nadal.

respond to the rest of my posts please, the facts and figures...explain to me how in sampras' best year he lost to someone ranked outside the top 100, and all the other facts, if you can do that i'll admit im wrong, you cant do that though ;)

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 05:57 PM
Oh sure.. Pick on 31 year old Sampras losing to Basil..

Lets see who Feddy boy loses to at 31 years of age.


Will swissy even be playing then since he cant handle the pressure at only 27?


But aren't those serves first and second unreturnable? I thought all he needed was a serve?

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:58 PM
respond to the rest of my posts please, the facts and figures...explain to me how in sampras' best year he lost to someone ranked outside the top 100


What about it. I never said Pete was the most week in week out consistent player of all time did I? Pete had his share of bad losses. That doesnt negate the fact he could raise his game to unparalleled level though

flyer
04-24-2009, 05:59 PM
What about it. I never said Pete was the most week in week out consistent player of all time did I? Pete had his share of bad losses. That doesnt negate the fact he could raise his game to unparalleled level though

thats objective, respond to the facts

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 06:02 PM
Verdasco in the 2009 AO played tennis of an even more incredible calibre than Tsonga in 2008 or Gonzalez in 2007 IMO. I actually felt badly for him at the end in a way, despite being a big Nadal fan. He had played tennis so extremely worthy of a slam title or atleast playing Federer in the final, but because Nadal has become such a tough customer even on hard courts he was denied this opportunity.
I felt even more sorry when I learned Verdasco bust his foot during that match. Both guys really went to their absolute limit. I still wonder how Rafa managed to recover from that match and win another 5 setter after that. Unbelievable.

anointedone
04-24-2009, 06:02 PM
thats objective, respond to the facts

What he is saying made sense in this case. Sampras is nearly unbeatable at Wimbledon or the U.S Open in his prime. He is a different animal in slams than non-slam events. He can raise his game to a nearly untouchable level at the events that matter most to him. That only goes to show further though it is ridiculous to act like Nadal never could have beaten Sampras on a non-clay surface though. At the very least he would beat him in some of their meetings in non slam events on those surfaces.

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 06:03 PM
Sampras was injured at the USO when he played Yzaga



was he injured before the match or did he get injured in the 5th set.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 06:03 PM
Pete played a style of game that was so big, that naturally you werent not going to be the greatest week in week out player of all time with a 98 percent winning streak for the year. Not to mention Pete usually put the emphasis on the slams if all possible and the big tourneys at the end of the years like the masters and YEC.


Pete's style of game was naturally going to be more prone to errors just based on the way he played. He didnt LIVE AT THE BASELINE like these guys do today so therefore he was going to make more errors.


Give Fed or Nadal Sampras' game. You dont think they would make more errors and be less consistent week in week out?

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 06:05 PM
respond to the rest of my posts please, the facts and figures...explain to me how in sampras' best year he lost to someone ranked outside the top 100, and all the other facts, if you can do that i'll admit im wrong, you cant do that though ;)
The kind of year that Fed had in 2006 (losing to only 2 players) is quite unusual. Actually I can't think of anybody else with such a record but I haven't checked. Having a few bad losses in a year is quite standard even for a great player.

anointedone
04-24-2009, 06:05 PM
I felt even more sorry when I learned Verdasco bust his foot during that match. Both guys really went to their absolute limit. I still wonder how Rafa managed to recover from that match and win another 5 setter after that. Unbelievable.

Yeah I felt sorry for him too when I heard that. That must have been a frusterating feeling when it happened during the biggest match of his life. Both guys really put their hearts and souls on court that day to try and win, it was beautiful to watch and just amazing level of tennis from both guys.

I to have no idea how Rafa was able to recover from that and still outwill and outlast Federer in the final. Even I expected him to lose the final after that taxing semifinal win. Nadal continues to even surprise and at times amaze even his fans like us with what he pulls off at times doesnt he.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 06:08 PM
Yeah I felt sorry for him too when I heard that. That must have been a frusterating feeling when it happened during the biggest match of his life. Both guys really put their hearts and souls on court that day to try and win, it was beautiful to watch and just amazing level of tennis from both guys.

I to have no idea how Rafa was able to recover from that and still outwill and outlast Federer in the final. Even I expected him to lose the final after that taxing semifinal win. Nadal continues to even surprise and at times amaze even his fans like us with what he pulls off at times doesnt he.
Just say "impossible" and Nadal does it!

anointedone
04-24-2009, 06:10 PM
Just say "impossible" and Nadal does it!

That actually makes me almost get excited when I read the armchair critics still now say things like:

-Nadal will never win the U.S Open
-Nadal will never win the Grand Slam
-Nadal will never be winning slams past 25

The more people say or think he wont do something, the more likely he is to pull it off it seems. :)

flyer
04-24-2009, 06:14 PM
Pete played a style of game that was so big, that naturally you werent not going to be the greatest week in week out player of all time with a 98 percent winning streak for the year. Not to mention Pete usually put the emphasis on the slams if all possible and the big tourneys at the end of the years like the masters and YEC.


Pete's style of game was naturally going to be more prone to errors just based on the way he played. He didnt LIVE AT THE BASELINE like these guys do today so therefore he was going to make more errors.


Give Fed or Nadal Sampras' game. You dont think they would make more errors and be less consistent week in week out?

rafa raises his level too dude, im not trying to personally attack you but your basing your argument on your personal opinions, and one match while ignoring all the facts presented to you, i get that sampras is your idol but forget about that for a second, be objective, look at the facts....

i would agree with you, just so people remember, because they seem to forget these details often...

sampras' 94 year included a loss to Karim Alami ranked outside the top 100, Jacco Eltingh ranked 89, and 3 more losses to guys ranked outside the top 20....this was sampras in his prime....

now look at the last year nadal has had: 11 titles including 3 slams on three surfaces, an olympic gold metal, and not one loss to anybody ranked outside the top 25....

fthis is what these guys did in their prime, right there, and you idiots think nadal couldnt beat this guy....its not even a discussion, period. anyone saying other wise is simply stupid and ignorant to the facts

this is a comparison of pete and rafa in their primes, its simple a no contest....if you can convince me otherwise i will gladly admit im wrong...

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 06:16 PM
That actually makes me almost get excited when I read the armchair critics still now say things like:

-Nadal will never win the U.S Open
-Nadal will never win the Grand Slam
-Nadal will never be winning slams past 25

The more people say or think he wont do something, the more likely he is to pull it off it seems. :)
Exactly! Against all odds is his middle name :)

helloworld
04-24-2009, 06:36 PM
that was jim courier, all due respect he had a great career but hes no rafa nadal, all nadal would need to do is get the ball back, for there he could expose pete in so many different ways, nadal would do to pete what federer does to roddick

let me ask you again though what do you think was pete's best year....
Just get the ball back... And you'll see Sampras's signature Grand Slam Smash all day long. :lol:

helloworld
04-24-2009, 06:38 PM
I am a Nadal fan but I dont see him having a winning head to head vs Sampras, not yet anyway. Some of you keep mentioning Nadal would dominate Sampras on clay. Of course he would, but Sampras isnt even good enough on clay to get far enough to play Nadal often, they would have hardly ever played any matches on clay. Clay becomes almost irrelevant to their head to head when they would hardly play matches on the surface. So that makes it even more unlikely Nadal could lead their head to head.

Thank god there is a Nadal fan with sense of logic on this board. Respect! :)

flyer
04-24-2009, 06:40 PM
Just get the ball back... And you'll see Sampras's signature Grand Slam Smash all day long. :lol:

you might think your posts are funny and its good they entertain you but you dont provide any facts, or relevant arguments, so they're not taken seriously

tennis-hero
04-24-2009, 06:54 PM
anything that isn't clay and Pete dominates

Rafa wouldn't get a free win like he does against Roger

Pete's mental toughness was legendary and he would really bring it on those 15-40, 30-30 moments where Roger seems to throw everything away

Sampras would own Rafa in the h2h because

Pete would never go deep in clay court tourneys to lose to Rafa

rafa would get deep in grass and HCs and then get owned hard against PEte

i'd expect to see the H2h as being

30-1
maybe 25-5 if rafa was lucky to play 5 times on clay

quest01
04-24-2009, 06:56 PM
At their peak I would go with Nadal on clay and Sampras on everything else. Head to head Nadal would dominate him in this era where poly strings and a strong baseline game dominates while Sampras would dominate Nadal in the 90's where serve and volley was more prevalent.

I still remember in 1st grade they had a bathroom inside the class and one day I really had to go and take a dump. The only problem was which was a major issue is that there was no friggin toilet paper so I had to yell out to the teacher to slip a roll of toilet paper inside the bathroom. I was so embarrassed because all my classmates were laughing at me and even my teacher was laughing. Its a time in my life that I will never forgot.

mental midget
04-24-2009, 07:37 PM
But the point is, what that style of game and gameplan Tsonga did to hurt Nadal. Take Tsonga and multiply that by 10 and you get Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO during his peak years.

Its all about matchups. And Tsonga showed that that type of gameplan can hurt Nadal if excecuted properly.

wrong. take a prime sampras, give him a better backhand, and you have tsonga AO '08.

seriously, the guy was playing out of his gourd. not likely to be replicated anytime soon.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 07:40 PM
wrong. take a prime sampras, give him a better backhand, and you have tsonga AO '08.

seriously, the guy was playing out of his gourd. not likely to be replicated anytime soon.

LOL. Are u really saying Slamless Tsonga who has done virtually nothing his entire career is on par with the slam record holder? Please. Tsonga isnt worthy of even sniffing Pete's jockstrap

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 07:53 PM
LOL. Are u really saying Slamless Tsonga who has done virtually nothing his entire career is on par with the slam record holder? Please. Tsonga isnt worthy of even sniffing Pete's jockstrap



that tsonga in AO 2008 would beat the living crap out of Sampras best ever performance!

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 07:58 PM
that tsonga in AO 2008 would beat the living crap out of Sampras best ever performance!

OMG!!!.. LOL...

thats all I can say. You are clueless. If Tsonga was so great at the AO why didnt he win it? As a matter of fact.. Why hasnt he won any major? Why is he so insignificant?

The-Champ
04-24-2009, 08:04 PM
OMG!!!.. LOL...

thats all I can say. You are clueless. If Tsonga was so great at the AO why didnt he win it? As a matter of fact.. Why hasnt he won any major? Why is he so insignificant?


That tsonga in AO 2008 quarters and semi-final, was the greatest tennis I've seen in 20 years!

If Sampras was so great, why would he lose to a clay court legend like Santoro 61 61?

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 08:06 PM
That tsonga in AO 2008 quarters and semi-final, was the greatest tennis I've seen in 20 years!

If Sampras was so great, why would he lose to a clay court legend like Santoro 61 61?

14> 0

LOL

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-24-2009, 08:08 PM
That tsonga in AO 2008 quarters and semi-final, was the greatest tennis I've seen in 20 years!

If Sampras was so great, why would he lose to a clay court legend like Santoro 61 61? You obviously haven't watched much - if any - tennis then!

thalivest
04-24-2009, 08:41 PM
LOL. Are u really saying Slamless Tsonga who has done virtually nothing his entire career is on par with the slam record holder? Please. Tsonga isnt worthy of even sniffing Pete's jockstrap

Tsonga isnt worthy of sniffing Nadal's jockstrap either, yet he destroyed him that day. Paul Haarhuis isnt worthy of sniffing Sampras's jockstrap in singles (he is a legendary doubles player) but it didnt stop him from going 3-1 head to head vs him. These hard set rules dont always work in tennis. You should know that be now if you have followed tennis long enough to even be a Sampras fanboy. :)

JoshDragon
04-24-2009, 09:14 PM
Equipment and court conditions do not matter. Tsonga who has an attacking game obliterated Nadal at the AO 08 SF. Sampras, who is significantly more consistent and much better than Tsonga would have a field day with Nadal anywhere but clay.

Equipment and court conditions don't matter? So are you saying that a prime Bjorn Borg could come out and beat Nadal, even if Borg was using a wood racquet and Nadal kept his graphite? Or that Bill Tilden Could beat Roger Federer with his old wood racquet?

Also, Nadal, had obliterated Tsonga a few months earlier at the US Open, and owns their head to head 3-1.

vtmike
04-24-2009, 09:17 PM
Equipment and court conditions don't matter? So are you saying that a prime Bjorn Borg could come out and beat Nadal, even if Borg was using a wood racquet and Nadal kept his graphite? Or that Bill Tilden Could beat Roger Federer with his old wood racquet?

Also, Nadal, had obliterated Tsonga a few months earlier at the US Open, and owns their head to head 3-1.

I agree equipment does matter!! Also the surfaces have slowed down...Which is why I am not sure if Sampras would be as successful against Nadal as most posters here think!

JoshDragon
04-24-2009, 09:21 PM
I agree equipment does matter!! Also the surfaces have slowed down...Which is why I am not sure if Sampras would be as successful against Nadal as most posters here think!

I don't see how Sampras could beat him on a slower surface. I don't want to cheapen Pete, I mean he was a phenomenal player but so is Nadal and with the surface on Rafa's side I don't think Pete would stand a chance.

WHSTENNIS
04-24-2009, 09:31 PM
I can't believe you guys are saying Nadal is better then Pete...

380pistol
04-24-2009, 10:51 PM
Equipment and court conditions don't matter? So are you saying that a prime Bjorn Borg could come out and beat Nadal, even if Borg was using a wood racquet and Nadal kept his graphite? Or that Bill Tilden Could beat Roger Federer with his old wood racquet?

Also, Nadal, had obliterated Tsonga a few months earlier at the US Open, and owns their head to head 3-1.

Blah, blah, blah......

Give Nadal wood and what happend. Borg goes orange juice style and beats Nadal to a pulp. Again you're not comparing players you're comparing equipment. That's like giving one marksman ("A") a Dillinger from the 1930's (or even 1960's), and giving another marksman ("B") a modern day Sig Sauer and saying how can "A" win shooting with Dillinger. How would marksman "A" fair if he could use a sig sauer???

That's something you (and many others) fail to consider, how would Borg fair with modern technology?? If he had a heavier (and better) serve than Nadal in respect to his own era, and could generate top spin with wood, then why wouldn't modern graphite and strings enhance that. What if Borg was born in 1986 (not 1956) with the same physical abilites and natural skills, but his game was moulded from it's embrionic stage with graphite and not wood???

I don't see how Sampras could beat him on a slower surface. I don't want to cheapen Pete, I mean he was a phenomenal player but so is Nadal and with the surface on Rafa's side I don't think Pete would stand a chance.

Hohohohohohohohohoohoh.............. hihihihihihihihihihihihihiihi............... hahahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JoshDragon
04-24-2009, 10:55 PM
Hohohohohohohohohoohoh.............. hihihihihihihihihihihihihiihi............... hahahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's nothing funny about how badly Sampras would lose to Nadal on a slower surface.

rafan
04-24-2009, 10:56 PM
I felt even more sorry when I learned Verdasco bust his foot during that match. Both guys really went to their absolute limit. I still wonder how Rafa managed to recover from that match and win another 5 setter after that. Unbelievable.

That was THE match for me that decided that Rafael Nadal was one of the greatest of all time. He then went on -as you say - to win the AO. Who else could have done it in those conditions of living in extreme heat throughout the day and then having to perform at night?

flying24
04-24-2009, 10:56 PM
There's nothing funny about how badly Sampras would lose to Nadal on a slower surface.

If you are talking about clay sure. Anything else, including a very slow hard court (and for the record they have sped up most hard courts today, while slowing down grass), you are insane.

JoshDragon
04-24-2009, 11:03 PM
If you are talking about clay sure. Anything else, including a very slow hard court (and for the record they have sped up most hard courts today, while slowing down grass), you are insane.

No. Nadal would beat him on slower hard courts and possibly the slow grass. It would be hard but he could do it. If you don't want to believe me, fine.

380pistol
04-24-2009, 11:07 PM
Was he sick in the summer of 94? I don't remember. I find it surprising he lost to Yzaga. Do you remember the match?

It started in the SF of Wimbledon where Pete rolled his ankle and damaged his shin. He played the final vs Ivanisevic with a brace on that ankle. After winning Wimbledon he went to the Netherlands to play DC, and justwrecked his shin/fibula/ankle. He was out for the entire sumer, and wasn't completely healed for the US Open, but played anyway.