PDA

View Full Version : How well would Sampras do against Nadal?


_maxi
12-07-2011, 09:48 AM
I think Sampras was great, but I think that if you put him in his prime against prime Nadal, Sampras would have it very difficult on HC, and obviously he would't even win a set on clay. On HC I don't think he could win a match, maybe 10-15% of the total matches played there. On grass it would be 50%+ for Pete, but it's difficult to say because they played on different kind of grass.

But besides the results, I don't think Nadal is more talented than Pete, I just think that Pete would have a terrible match-up problem against Nadal, even worse than Federer has. Nadal would destroy Pete's backhand everytime. On the other hand, if I compare Agassi instead of Pete, I don't think he would lose so much to Nadal, they would be even I think. Just to point out that it's all about matchups in these cases.

what do you think?

Max G.
12-07-2011, 09:51 AM
It would depend entirely on surface speed. On clay, Nadal would win pretty much always. On fast grass like Sampras played on at W for most of his career, Sampras would win pretty much always. In between, well, it would be in between those two extremes.

Devilito
12-07-2011, 09:52 AM
I think Sampras was great, but I think that if you put him in his prime against prime Nadal, Sampras would have it very difficult on HC, and obviously he would't even win a set on clay. On HC I don't think he could win a match, maybe 10-15% of the total matches played there. On grass it would be 50%+ for Pete, but it's difficult to say because they played on different kind of grass.

But besides the results, I don't think Nadal is more talented than Pete, but I just think that Pete would have a terrible match-up problem against Nadal, even worse than Federer has. Nadal would destroy Pete's backhand everytime. On the other hand, if I compare Agassi instead of Pete, I don't think he would lose so much to Nadal, they would be even I think. Just to point out that it's all about matchups in these cases.

what do you think?

if Petros played today he wouldn't even be as good as Hanescu so he'd probably get quadruple bageled every match. Nadal hits topspin and Petros has never seen topspin before so he’d be thrown off. Plus Nadal is the best returner in tennis and would be hitting passing shot return winners of anything Petros could serve at him. Not much hope if you ask me.

Your last point is totally true too. Agassi always did well against grinders like Courier and Muster while Petros always struggled with grinders. He rarely won a match against someone like Muster who kept getting the ball back.

marc45
12-07-2011, 09:53 AM
"on hc i don't think he could win a match"...we're talking about a 7 time hc major winner

marc45
12-07-2011, 09:54 AM
if Petros played today he wouldn't even be as good as Hanescu so he'd probably get quadruple bageled every match. Nadal hits topspin and Petros has never seen topspin before so he’d be thrown off. Plus Nadal is the best returner in tennis and would be hitting passing shot return winners of anything Petros could serve at him. Not much hope if you ask me.

if you think nadal is the best returner in tennis you need to get off your meds

_maxi
12-07-2011, 09:55 AM
"on hc i don't think he could win a match"...we're talking about a 7 time hc major winner
So? Nadal would destroy Petros backhand, he would have so much fun doing it, on medium and slow HC. On fast HC and indoors, it would be even maybe.

aphex
12-07-2011, 09:58 AM
AO: Pete wins 6/10
FO: Pete wins 0/10
W: Pete wins 8/10
USO: Pete wins 8/10

i.e. Pete wins 22/40.

Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.

Devilito
12-07-2011, 10:00 AM
if you think nadal is the best returner in tennis you need to get off your meds

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpa4qd7fXU1qzfoxyo1_500.jpg

Seth
12-07-2011, 10:00 AM
AO: Pete wins 6/10
FO: Pete wins 0/10
W: Pete wins 8/10
USO: Pete wins 8/10

i.e. Pete wins 22/40.

Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.

These cheap shots, regardless of who they are against, are nauseating.

Mustard
12-07-2011, 10:01 AM
AO: Pete wins 6/10
FO: Pete wins 0/10
W: Pete wins 8/10
USO: Pete wins 8/10

i.e. Pete wins 22/40.

I agree with the French Open and Wimbledon. With the Australian Open, I'd say 5/10 for both players, and with the US Open 7/10 for Sampras. That's 20/20 by my count.

Legend of Borg
12-07-2011, 10:02 AM
I don't buy into this "Nadal's return is too strong" BS.

Server controls the tempo of the rally, returner has to react.

It's a passive role. Server is active.

Petros would fare better than the Rafanatics (tm) think.

Cup8489
12-07-2011, 10:03 AM
People are underestimating pete's game here. Sure, his backhand was his weakest shot, but he could hit it with pace, and more importantly, his net game was superior to virtually every player on tour today. I mean, Fed has some success with coming forward against Nadal, why wouldn't Pete?

Pete's serve would give Rafa trouble, especially as Rafa tends to just try and put the return back into play, not necessarily hit an offensive shot off the return. That would play into pete's hands..

the guy had so many options, and weapons, it's ludicrous to think he couldn't go toe to toe with Nadal and be successful.

Devilito
12-07-2011, 10:04 AM
Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.

LMAO so true

Mustard
12-07-2011, 10:04 AM
I don't buy into this "Nadal's return is too strong" BS.

Server controls the tempo of the rally, returner has to react.

It's a passive role. Server is active.

Petros would fare better than the Rafanatics (tm) think.

It must be said that the poly strings have improved the potentcy of service returns a great deal.

Mustard
12-07-2011, 10:05 AM
LMAO so true

I thought the "wisdom" on TT was that Sampras "sucked" on clay ;)

Devilito
12-07-2011, 10:06 AM
I don't buy into this "Nadal's return is too strong" BS.

Server controls the tempo of the rally, returner has to react.

It's a passive role. Server is active.

Petros would fare better than the Rafanatics (tm) think.

Nadal's return is horrible. He stands 20' back and either floats back slices or spins balls back deep to reset the point at 50/50. Works amazing against baseliners and would get eaten up by a serve and volleyer. Who ever said Nadal had a good return?

rdis10093
12-07-2011, 10:06 AM
on grass it is more like 9/10 if they are boht in prime.

Devilito
12-07-2011, 10:08 AM
I thought the "wisdom" on TT was that Sampras "sucked" on clay ;)

compared to Nadal, yes Sampras "sucked on clay". But Petros being Petros would probably do better on clay now then back then because clay is actually a lot easier to play on now than it was in the early 90s. It was almost as extreme as grass in the other direction. Like playing in a swamp. Clay plays a lot cleaner now and actually a tad faster than it i did then. Specifically the French Open.

Devilito
12-07-2011, 10:09 AM
on grass it is more like 9/10 if they are boht in prime.

90s grass 10/10. Current grass 8/10

Mustard
12-07-2011, 10:09 AM
Nadal's return is horrible. He stands 20' back and either floats back slices or spins balls back deep to reset the point at 50/50.

Not on grass. He stands much closer to the baseline and clearly puts more emphasis on the return than he usually does. He also steps into the court a lot more to be aggressive.

TMF
12-07-2011, 10:09 AM
"on hc i don't think he could win a match"...we're talking about a 7 time hc major winner

It isn't about how many Pete have won, but it's about the matchup issue against a particular player. The same with Davydenko gave Nadal trouble on hc. Obviously, Nadal's style would be a nightmare for Pete, especially on slow and high bounce surfaces.

rdis10093
12-07-2011, 10:09 AM
haha so you average and get 9/10

aphex
12-07-2011, 10:10 AM
These cheap shots, regardless of who they are against, are nauseating.

You are very easily nauseated. Have it checked out.

aphex
12-07-2011, 10:11 AM
I agree with the French Open and Wimbledon. With the Australian Open, I'd say 5/10 for both players, and with the US Open 7/10 for Sampras. That's 20/20 by my count.

I could go with that...

rdis10093
12-07-2011, 10:11 AM
nadal's return would have to be perfect, because pete is going to net everytime for sure.

NadalAgassi
12-07-2011, 10:12 AM
Nadal would win something close to 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 on clay, but on other surfaces Sampras would have the edge IMO. Rebound ace would be close though.

rdis10093
12-07-2011, 10:14 AM
would aus be blue or green courts?

Mustard
12-07-2011, 10:14 AM
compared to Nadal, yes Sampras "sucked on clay". But Petros being Petros would probably do better on clay now then back then because clay is actually a lot easier to play on now than it was in the early 90s. It was almost as extreme as grass in the other direction. Like playing in a swamp. Clay plays a lot cleaner now and actually a tad faster than it i did then. Specifically the French Open.

Ironic that you say that, seeing as Sampras' best years at the French Open were 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996, when he got to the quarter finals or semi finals. From 1998-2002, he couldn't get past the Round of 64 at the French Open, losing to guys like Ramon Delgado and Galo Blanco, and being match points down against Cedric Kauffmann, a guy who hardly anybody had heard of before and hasn't been heard from since.

Devilito
12-07-2011, 10:20 AM
Ironic that you say that, seeing as Sampras' best years at the French Open were 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996, when he got to the quarter finals or semi finals. From 1998-2002, he couldn't get past the Round of 64 at the French Open, losing to guys like Ramon Delgado and Galo Blanco, and being match points down against Cedric Kauffmann, a guy who hardly anybody had heard of before and hasn't been heard from since.

by that time in his career i got the feeling get totally gave up on clay. The surfaces were still the same at that point so it's irrelevant to how he would do today in his prime against current competition. I say hed do better, but what the means is up in the air.

Netzroller
12-07-2011, 10:21 AM
I think there have been at least 10 threads on Sampras vs. Nadal now...

Nadal's return is horrible. He stands 20' back and either floats back slices or spins balls back deep to reset the point at 50/50. Works amazing against baseliners and would get eaten up by a serve and volleyer. Who ever said Nadal had a good return?
There are lots of statistics clearly showing that Nadal is one of the best return players ever. He might not hit winners off the return but he is incredibly good at neutralizing the serve and gain control over the point from there on. And based on what kind of opponent he is playing, he can adjust. Needless to say that his passing shots are amazing.
If S&V was so effective against Nadal, why doesn nobody do it against him? Federer once beat Sampras playing it, why wouldn't he use it to beat Nadal? Why does the guy have great stats against big servers?

It must be said that the poly strings have improved the potentcy of service returns a great deal.
true

aphex
12-07-2011, 10:23 AM
Ironic that you say that, seeing as Sampras' best years at the French Open were 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996, when he got to the quarter finals or semi finals. From 1998-2002, he couldn't get past the Round of 64 at the French Open, losing to guys like Ramon Delgado and Galo Blanco, and being match points down against Cedric Kauffmann, a guy who hardly anybody had heard of before and hasn't been heard from since.

Cedric was a beast:)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ka/C/Cedric-Kauffmann.aspx

DjokovicForTheWin
12-07-2011, 10:29 AM
Nadal would win something close to 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 on clay, but on other surfaces Sampras would have the edge IMO. Rebound ace would be close though.

Nadal couldn't even beat qualifiers 6-0 6-0 6-0 in FO2008 and you expect him to beat Sampras by that score? You're getting stupider every day.

aphex
12-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Nadal couldn't even beat qualifiers 6-0 6-0 6-0 in FO2008 and you expect him to beat Sampras by that score? You're getting stupider every day.


I don't even think that's possible...he's reached the summit of asininity years ago (as davey25)...

helloworld
12-07-2011, 10:37 AM
Silly thread. Pete Sampras was the greatest tennis player in the 90s era. Sampras dominated fast courts like Nadal dominated clay... His 7 Wimbledon(fast grass), 5 year-end championchip(indoors), 5 US Open(fast hard) speaks for itself. Nadal has ZERO year-end championship, 1 US Open, and 2 SLOW grass Wimbledon. It's not even close on fast courts. Sampras will stomp all over Nadal, who has a weak return but could get away with his raw speed. Against Sampras, it wouldn't happen. It's a landslide win for Sampras on fast courts. On slow courts, well Nadal is probably the best ever on clay, so Nadal wins there. That's it. Anywhere else, Nadal loses.

rdis10093
12-07-2011, 10:39 AM
still fun to think about though.

TMF
12-07-2011, 10:47 AM
I don't even think that's possible...he's reached the summit of asininity years ago (as davey25)...
Nadal couldn't even beat qualifiers 6-0 6-0 6-0 in FO2008 and you expect him to beat Sampras by that score? You're getting stupider every day.
Nadal would win something close to 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 on clay, but on other surfaces Sampras would have the edge IMO. Rebound ace would be close though.

Yeah, I don't agree Sampras would received a triple bagels by Nadal. Sure, Nadal is head and shoulders better than Sampras on clay, but triple bagels are extremely rare at the slam, and I'm curious to know how many times has it ever occurred in men's tennis.

Ridiculous claims !

Ripster
12-07-2011, 10:50 AM
As much as Federer is the opposite gamestyle wise as Nadal, Sampras is even more opposite. Their rivalry would be COMPLETELY dependent on the surface.

French Open, Nadal would obviously own Sampras - every time. At Wimbledon Sampras would win most of the time as I've witnessed players with half the serve and volley skills of Sampras, challenge Nadal on grass. I think Sampras would win most of the time at the US Open as well. Nadal would edge Sampras at the Australian though. Rebound Ace just isn't a great surface for serving and volleying. Agassi had most of his success against Sampras at the AO and I think the slower higher bouncing court would be in Nadal's favour.

Djokolate
12-07-2011, 11:11 AM
Clay: Nadal > Sampras
Grass: Sampras > Nadal
HC: Most of the time it would be Sampras > Nadal

DeShaun
12-07-2011, 11:31 AM
I don't buy into this "Nadal's return is too strong" BS.

Server controls the tempo of the rally, returner has to react.

It's a passive role. Server is active.

Petros would fare better than the Rafanatics (tm) think.

This, also, was my first thought.
The combination of Pete's weight of ball and accuracy on serve would probably let Pete enjoy considerable success simply by deuce serving Rafa out wide and ad serving up the middle all day long. Think of returning a ball that consistently has the weight of Murray's very best first serves (pretty heavy) and has the accuracy of Federer's serves; and think of returning this aimed at your backhand 70% of the time.

tennis_pro
12-07-2011, 11:34 AM
AO: Pete wins 6/10
FO: Pete wins 0/10
W: Pete wins 8/10
USO: Pete wins 8/10

i.e. Pete wins 22/40.

Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.

Spot on :)

On a serious note, in the 90's Sampras would win all or almost all meetings at Wimbledon, the majority of the AO/US encounters and 0 at the French (not sure he'd won a set). Had they played nowadays, Nadal would have the advantage everywhere except the US Open.

ManFed
12-07-2011, 11:48 AM
People understimate Sampras game and skills.
Nadal has had a lot of troubles with Karlovic this year, and also with Fish who don't have 10% of Sampras skills at S&V. Except on clay and slower HC, Sampras would crush Nadal.

helloworld
12-07-2011, 11:57 AM
People understimate Sampras game and skills.
Nadal has had a lot of troubles with Karlovic this year, and also with Fish who don't have 10% of Sampras skills at S&V. Except on clay and slower HC, Sampras would crush Nadal.

Exactly. Fish couldn't even beat 40 year-old Sampras in their exhibition this year. Yet, Fish gave tons of trouble to Nadal every time they played. Sampras is 10x the player of Fish. Nadal can't handle that. Ever.

TennisCJC
12-07-2011, 11:58 AM
I think Sampras was great, but I think that if you put him in his prime against prime Nadal, Sampras would have it very difficult on HC, and obviously he would't even win a set on clay. On HC I don't think he could win a match, maybe 10-15% of the total matches played there. On grass it would be 50%+ for Pete, but it's difficult to say because they played on different kind of grass.

But besides the results, I don't think Nadal is more talented than Pete, I just think that Pete would have a terrible match-up problem against Nadal, even worse than Federer has. Nadal would destroy Pete's backhand everytime. On the other hand, if I compare Agassi instead of Pete, I don't think he would lose so much to Nadal, they would be even I think. Just to point out that it's all about matchups in these cases.

what do you think?

I sort of agree with you. Pete's backhand is not as good as Federer's and Nadal would murder it. But, Pete might be able to minimize impact by attacking, but Nadal's spin is hard to volley. I think on today's hard courts excluding grass, Nadal might end up about even or slightly ahead. I think on the faster hard courts from a few years ago, Pete would kill Nadal like 80% of the time. I also think Pete would kill Nadal on the old faster grass and Pete would still have a small advantage on today's slower grass.

I also agree that a prime Agassi would be tough on Nadal. Davydenko gives Nadal fits and Agassi is like Davydenko on steriods as Agassi has better server, more power and consistency off the ground, and takes the ball as early or earlier than Davydenko. Djoko is comparable to Agassi and we have seen what Djoko does to Nadal this last year.

ZeroSkid
12-07-2011, 12:00 PM
I think they would have great matches on grass and indoor but other than that Nadal would dominate Sampras

_maxi
12-07-2011, 12:08 PM
Exactly. Fish couldn't even beat 40 year-old Sampras in their exhibition this year. Yet, Fish gave tons of trouble to Nadal every time they played. Sampras is 10x the player of Fish. Nadal can't handle that. Ever.
That's because Nadal can't abuse Fish's backhand. It's not the case of Sampras. It's not required to be so smart to understand that once Nadal hits a loopsy cc Forehand to Pete's backhand, he's got the edge of the point by far.

TennisCJC
12-07-2011, 12:17 PM
I think they would have great matches on grass and indoor but other than that Nadal would dominate Sampras

A prime Sampras on outdoor hardcourt would not be dominated by Nadal. Maybe Nadal does well on todays slower and higher bouncing courts, but Pete would still hold his own on today's courts. Pete's serve in his prime was an incredible weapon - Nadal would not even be able to take advantage of Pete's 2nd serves. Even the US Open courts from 2 or 3 years ago were fast enough that Nadal would struggle against Pete. Sampras' game was designed to protect his weaknesses. He attacked to keep opponents off his backhand and to exploit his serve and forehand weapons. This strategy executed at Pete's prime level would work even in the polyester string era.

NadalAgassi
12-07-2011, 12:21 PM
Spot on :)

On a serious note, in the 90's Sampras would win all or almost all meetings at Wimbledon, the majority of the AO/US encounters and 0 at the French (not sure he'd won a set). Had they played nowadays, Nadal would have the advantage everywhere except the US Open.

The Australian Open courts are actually faster than rebound ace. If Pete would have the edge in the 90s at the Australian he sure would now.

I think he would have the edge at Wimbledon even on todays grass. People exagerrate the difference, as someone like Roddick would never do so well if it were that slow.

NadalAgassi
12-07-2011, 12:22 PM
Exactly. Fish couldn't even beat 40 year-old Sampras in their exhibition this year. Yet, Fish gave tons of trouble to Nadal every time they played. Sampras is 10x the player of Fish. Nadal can't handle that. Ever.

Nadal before this year destroyed Fish everytime they played. Nadal has fallen apart somewhat in the 2nd half of this year, which is how Fish is able to be competitive when normally he wouldnt be.

ManFed
12-07-2011, 12:22 PM
I also believe people understimate Sampras backhand. Pete used it primarily for defense and for prepare his attacks. He used a lot of slice with incredible angles to the baseline and occasionaly he might finish points with it. Also, he hit very high balls that looked like moonballs to the opponents backhand. Overall, perhaps Sampras backhand was more effective than Federers.

He didn't use it the same way Federer does. Federer is more aggresive with his backhand, that is the reason he make a lot of errors, also he uses a different grip.

Regards.

Mustard
12-07-2011, 01:04 PM
Cedric was a beast:)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ka/C/Cedric-Kauffmann.aspx

No matches won on the main tour, a career high ranking of 195 in the world, but 3 match points against Sampras at the 2001 French Open. What a beast :);)

Yeah, I don't agree Sampras would received a triple bagels by Nadal. Sure, Nadal is head and shoulders better than Sampras on clay, but triple bagels are extremely rare at the slam, and I'm curious to know how many times has it ever occurred in men's tennis.

Ridiculous claims !

In majors:

1968 French Open R128: Nikola Spear def. Daniel Contet (6-0, 6-0, 6-0)
1987 French Open R64: Karel Novacek def. Eduardo Bengoechea (6-0, 6-0, 6-0)
1987 Wimbledon R128: Stefan Edberg def. Stefan Eriksson (6-0, 6-0, 6-0)
1987 US Open R128: Ivan Lendl def. Barry Moir (6-0, 6-0, 6-0)
1993 French Open R64: Sergi Bruguera def. Thierry Champion (6-0, 6-0, 6-0)


There was also that July 2011 Davis Cup match between Britain and Luxembourg, where Andy Murray beat Laurent Bram 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. NadalAgassi's claims that Nadal would triple bagel Sampras at the French Open are absolutely laughable.

tennis_pro
12-07-2011, 01:14 PM
I think they would have great matches on grass and indoor

No, they wouldn't. Sampras would win them all comfortably. That's if we're talking about 90's conditions, of course. If it's 00's, who knows.


but other than that Nadal would dominate Sampras

Clay is the only surface Nadal would dominate Sampras. Even slow hard courts are debatable. Overal in the 90's Sampras>>>>Nadal, nowadays would be the opposite

coloskier
12-07-2011, 01:14 PM
That's because Nadal can't abuse Fish's backhand. It's not the case of Sampras. It's not required to be so smart to understand that once Nadal hits a loopsy cc Forehand to Pete's backhand, he's got the edge of the point by far.

Nadal would never get to hit to Sampras's backhand unless it was to Sampras's BH volley because Sampras wouldn't let him. He would impose his game on Nadal on any of the faster surfaces and there would be nothing Nadal could do about it. And Nadal would be lucky to return ANY of Sampras's serves as far back as he stands, except on clay. NO ONE serves like Sampras in today's game. NO ONE!!! Heck, even Ivanisevic and Rafter would destroy Nadal if they played on the old grass. And for those that say that Nadal has one of the best service returns just because of return points he won must realize that it has nothing to do with his return and everything to do with what he does after the ball is in play. Against any good serve and volleyer (of which there are NONE in today's game), you CANNOT loop the return back like Nadal does without getting destroyed. Murray is the one player that would do just as well on the old surfaces as he does now because of his return of serve.

tennis_pro
12-07-2011, 01:18 PM
I also believe people understimate Sampras backhand. Pete used it primarily for defense and for prepare his attacks. He used a lot of slice with incredible angles to the baseline and occasionaly he might finish points with it. Also, he hit very high balls that looked like moonballs to the opponents backhand. Overall, perhaps Sampras backhand was more effective than Federers.

He didn't use it the same way Federer does. Federer is more aggresive with his backhand, that is the reason he make a lot of errors, also he uses a different grip.

Regards.

Disagree completely. Sampras' backhand has nothing on Fed's one hander, better pace, more consistent, better slice, better control (going crosscourt or dtl), better drop shots, better smashes, lobs, passing shots etc. the only aspect of Sampras game which would be better than Fed's left wing are the volleys but that has nothing to do with groundstrokes.

Mustard
12-07-2011, 01:19 PM
When it comes down to it, we can have opinions but there's no definitive answer.

sunof tennis
12-07-2011, 01:24 PM
i.e. Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.[/QUOTE]

Very funny-good job

AC10S
12-07-2011, 01:36 PM
John Isner took Nadal to 5 sets this year at the French open (6-4, 6-7(2), 6-7(2), 6-2, 6-4). This shows you how far a big serve will get you. Sampras (IMO) is the best server of all time, so I think Sampras would hold his own.

Also, Sampras beat Federer in exo matches a few years back on fast indoor courts. Yes it's an exo, but his serve is still lethal.

NadalAgassi
12-07-2011, 01:38 PM
When did I say Seles and Courier were "great grass courters"? They certainly had their chances to win Wimbledon in the years they got to the final, and to deny otherwise is ridiculous.

Yeah Courier was ever going to beat Sampras in a Wimbledon final (and yes it was a pretty close match but anyone who knows tennis knows Sampras was always going to win it, and Courier performed above himself at that Wimbledon to even come that close). The Graf-Seles Wimbledon final was a joke, and merely proof Seles did not belong on the same court as Graf on a grass court. To suggest she ever had a prayer in hell of winning that match is the only thing that is ridiculous.

Mustard
12-07-2011, 01:48 PM
Yeah Courier was ever going to beat Sampras in a Wimbledon final (and yes it was a pretty close match but anyone who knows tennis knows Sampras was always going to win it, and Courier performed above himself at that Wimbledon to even come that close).

Of course Sampras was favoured, because he was the serve and volleyer, but Courier was certainly not written off. Courier had a set point to make it 1 set all and Sampras put a volley right on the baseline, and Courier did win the third set. It was a very close match throughout. Put it this way, Courier had as much of a chance of beating Sampras in the 1993 Wimbledon final as Agassi had of beating Ivanisevic in the 1992 Wimbledon final. Agassi managed to do it, Courier didn't.

Back to the original point, your claims about Sampras at the French Open go well over the top. Sampras was certainly one of the favourites, if not the favourite, at the 1994 French Open, when he was going for 4 majors in a row. You make it sound like the Sampras of 1997-2002 at the French Open, was the Sampras that was always at the French Open, when that isn't the case.

The Graf-Seles Wimbledon final was a joke, and merely proof Seles did not belong on the same court as Graf on a grass court. To suggest she ever had a prayer in hell of winning that match is the only thing that is ridiculous.

The match was awful, anyway. After their French Open classic, it was one of the biggest anti-climaxes in tennis, full of below average tennis and constant rain delays in the second set. Graf was way below her best, yet won comfortably. Seles was thinking about not grunting more than the match and dealt with the rain delays very badly indeed. The Seles who beat Navratilova was nowhere to be seen that day.

NadalAgassi
12-07-2011, 01:51 PM
Graf vs Seles on clay should be a classic as their clay court abilities are virtually equal. Their grass court abilities arent in the same stratosphere so another classic should not be expected. One is the 2nd best female grass courter ever, and the other isnt even in the top 50, while they are probably the 2nd (Graf) and 3rd (Seles) best female clay courters ever.

Beating a 35 year old Navratilova who had los to 15 year old Capriati and Linda Harvey Wild in her last 2 grass tournaments isnt a big win btw. Graf and Seles were both retired at 30, and Serena at 30 is getting killed in a slam final by Stosur.

Mustard
12-07-2011, 01:53 PM
Graf vs Seles on clay should be a classic as their clay court abilities are virtually equal. Their grass court abilities arent in the same stratosphere so another classic should not be expected. One is the 2nd best female grass courter ever, and the other isnt even in the top 50, while they are probably the 2nd (Graf) and 3rd (Seles) best female clay courters ever.

That has nothing to do with it. It was a poor match, full stop. Seles vs. Navratilova in the 1992 Wimbledon semis was a great match, yet I doubt many would claim that Seles is at the same level as Navratilova in a grass-court sense.

NadalAgassi
12-07-2011, 01:55 PM
That has nothing to do with it. It was a poor match, full stop. Seles vs. Navratilova in the 1992 Wimbledon semis was a great match, yet I doubt many would claim that Seles is at the same level as Navratilova in a grass-court sense.

Navratilova was 35 years old. Yes a mildly good grass courter (albeit a disaesterous one for #1 player standards) who happened to be ranked #1 and at her peak should be about equal and probably able to win vs the best grass courter ever roughly 8 years past her peak and already atleast 3 years past the age 97% of players are retired from the game. Seles at her career peak even on her worst surface should have been able to manage what 15 year old Capriati, Linda Harvey Wild, a pre prime Novotna, and Conchita Martinez, all managed with ease, and did so, albeit had the toughest time of any of those it turned out.

I wonder what Graf or Seles would look like at age 35 if they were still playing, both were obviously too scared to even found out so never came close to playing that long. The fact Navratilova was even still decent at that age is why she is the GOAT.

drakulie
12-07-2011, 02:00 PM
On clay, Sampras wouldn't go deep enough in the draw to meet nadal.

On the faster grass, nadal wouldn't go deep enough in the draw to meet Sampras.

On old deco, nadal wouldn't go deep enough in the draw to meet Sampras.

At the old rebound ace, it would be close.

Vamos!!

Magnetite
12-07-2011, 02:16 PM
On grass I think he would dominate the match up. On a fast hard court he'd also do well. Anything slow and he'd get rolled, especially clay.

fed_rulz
12-07-2011, 03:35 PM
Silly thread. Pete Sampras was the greatest tennis player in the 90s era. Sampras dominated fast courts like Nadal dominated clay... His 7 Wimbledon(fast grass), 5 year-end championchip(indoors), 5 US Open(fast hard) speaks for itself. Nadal has ZERO year-end championship, 1 US Open, and 2 SLOW grass Wimbledon. It's not even close on fast courts. Sampras will stomp all over Nadal, who has a weak return but could get away with his raw speed. Against Sampras, it wouldn't happen. It's a landslide win for Sampras on fast courts. On slow courts, well Nadal is probably the best ever on clay, so Nadal wins there. That's it. Anywhere else, Nadal loses.

so you agree that Sampras has no chance against Nadal anywhere in today's conditions?

flyinghippos101
12-07-2011, 03:42 PM
Only Nadalagassi would find a way to veer a sampras-nadal thread off course and make it about graf and seles out of all people.

Aphex's assessment is about right, Nadal would still have the French and have some wins off the clay courts, which still makes it fairly close at 22-18 but to suggest that it would be even is ridiculous. Nadal's return, whether or not he's standing 20' from the baseline on fast wimbledon and 90's hard courts would've be eaten up by Sampras. Nadal's already having a hard time winning more majors on slow hard courts against a field of baseliners. What makes people think he'd fare better at a faster USO and AO with rebound ace where the conditions are faster against arguably one of the best serve and volleyers in the game :confused:

mattennis
12-07-2011, 04:04 PM
On clay (now or in the 90s ) : 10-0 for Nadal.

On 90s Wimbledon: 9-1 for Sampras.

On 00s Wimbledon: 8-2 for Sampras. (Given how Petchner, Haase or Muller made life difficult for Rafa, you can guess.....).

On 90s USOPEN: 7-3 for Sampras.

On Australian Open Rebound Ace: 5-5.


The reality is that we don't know.

ZeroSkid
12-07-2011, 04:59 PM
No, they wouldn't. Sampras would win them all comfortably. That's if we're talking about 90's conditions, of course. If it's 00's, who knows.




Clay is the only surface Nadal would dominate Sampras. Even slow hard courts are debatable. Overal in the 90's Sampras>>>>Nadal, nowadays would be the opposite

What are you smoking the courts may be slower but the players are all bigger and stronger and the equipment has made the play much much faster than in the 90s, and guess who I heard say this, why its none other than sampras himself!

_maxi
12-07-2011, 05:31 PM
Sampras was probably bigger than the today player average

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i122/benpeirson/pete-sampras8.jpg

_maxi
12-07-2011, 05:58 PM
Silly thread. Pete Sampras was the greatest tennis player in the 90s era. Sampras dominated fast courts like Nadal dominated clay... His 7 Wimbledon(fast grass), 5 year-end championchip(indoors), 5 US Open(fast hard) speaks for itself. Nadal has ZERO year-end championship, 1 US Open, and 2 SLOW grass Wimbledon. It's not even close on fast courts. Sampras will stomp all over Nadal, who has a weak return but could get away with his raw speed. Against Sampras, it wouldn't happen. It's a landslide win for Sampras on fast courts. On slow courts, well Nadal is probably the best ever on clay, so Nadal wins there. That's it. Anywhere else, Nadal loses.
Federer won more than Sampras on fast courts (only one less Wimbledon but more WTF's) but more HC and all in LESS TIME than Pete. Is that therefore a proof that Federer would win everytime he met Nadal except clay? no, he didn't. In fact on medium-slow HC Nadal won many times too. And even on grass....

helloworld
12-07-2011, 06:12 PM
Federer won more than Sampras on fast courts (only one less Wimbledon but more WTF's) but more HC and all in LESS TIME than Pete. Is that therefore a proof that Federer would win everytime he met Nadal except clay? no, he didn't. In fact on medium-slow HC Nadal won many times too. And even on grass....

You seem to forget that today's condition is "slower" than 90s conditions. And Federer is NOT Sampras. Federer is a baseliner. Sampras is an all-court agressive player with best serve ever. Nadal would struggle trying to return Sampras's serve alone on fast courts. With the way Nadal returns serve, Pete would SLAM DUNK him all the time, lol!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ

Polaris
12-07-2011, 06:17 PM
Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.

ROFL. Genuinely funny :)

NadalAgassi
12-07-2011, 06:23 PM
You seem to forget that today's condition is "slower" than 90s conditions. And Federer is NOT Sampras. Federer is a baseliner. Sampras is an all-court agressive player with best serve ever. Nadal would struggle trying to return Sampras's serve alone on fast courts. With the way Nadal returns serve, Pete would SLAM DUNK him all the time, lol!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ

Definitely true on all counts, and I am a Nadal fan.

_maxi
12-07-2011, 07:19 PM
Definitely true on all counts, and I am a Nadal fan.
While it might be true, it also might conduct to the conclution that Nadal would not be so successful playing in the 90's. Do you agree with that too?

Sentinel
12-07-2011, 07:48 PM
AO: Pete wins 6/10
FO: Pete wins 0/10
W: Pete wins 8/10
USO: Pete wins 8/10

i.e. Pete wins 22/40.

Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.
You mean the nadal wouldn't reach the finals on other surfaces, so the h2h would be skewed ?

tusharlovesrafa
12-07-2011, 08:06 PM
AO: Pete wins 6/10
FO: Pete wins 0/10
W: Pete wins 8/10
USO: Pete wins 8/10

i.e. Pete wins 22/40.

Of course, we know the nadal would make sure they met 40 times on clay and nowhere else.

It takes tactical genuis such as rafael nadal..to pull such thing off.:)

sportsfan1
12-07-2011, 08:31 PM
14 slams is no fluke. And the serve. Adding anything else just seems superfluous.:)

borg number one
12-07-2011, 08:46 PM
I think neither would dominate the other. I think the indoor matchup may be the most difficult for Nadal, but even then I have seen Nadal play some great indoor matches. Sampras on a fast indoor court would be extremely tough for Nadal though in my opinion. On the clay topic, I do think Nadal would tend to dominate Sampras on the surface overall. I actually think Sampras could get a clay win against Nadal on a great day (best of 3 sets, best of 5 would be tough) and Nadal could pull off an upset versus Sampras at Wimbledon (even on the old courts). It's difficult to be certain of the outcome when an all-time great player is facing another all-time great player on any given day.

namelessone
12-07-2011, 09:27 PM
What's this obsession with Nadal and the 90's?

Why don't we have threads about Nadal in the 60's or 70's? :)

And I love how almost everyone assumes that player x will CERTAINLY play in the past the same way he plays in the modern game and viceversa(best example is edberg, an amazing S&V'er saying that he would rarely come to the net if he played today).

Face it, Nadal is a product of his era, with racket tech and slower courts. As was Sampras in the 90's and so on. Put Sampras on today's slow courts and I seriously doubt he makes double digits in slams. And for those slams that he does win, I doubt he wins them with S&V tennis.

MichaelNadal
12-07-2011, 09:31 PM
What's this obsession with Nadal and the 90's?

Why don't we have threads about Nadal in the 60's or 70's? :)

And I love how almost everyone assumes that player x will CERTAINLY play in the past the same way he plays in the modern game and viceversa(best example is edberg, an amazing S&V'er saying that he would rarely come to the net if he played today).

Face it, Nadal is a product of his era, with racket tech and slower courts. As was Sampras in the 90's and so on. Put Sampras on today's slow courts and I seriously doubt he makes double digits in slams. And for those slams that he does win, I doubt he wins them with S&V tennis.

EXACTLY. Couldn't have said it better myself.

1970CRBase
12-07-2011, 10:02 PM
What's this obsession with Nadal and the 90's?

Why don't we have threads about Nadal in the 60's or 70's? :)

And I love how almost everyone assumes that player x will CERTAINLY play in the past the same way he plays in the modern game and viceversa(best example is edberg, an amazing S&V'er saying that he would rarely come to the net if he played today).

Face it, Nadal is a product of his era, with racket tech and slower courts. As was Sampras in the 90's and so on. Put Sampras on today's slow courts and I seriously doubt he makes double digits in slams. And for those slams that he does win, I doubt he wins them with S&V tennis.


This is the position I have stated many times, CONTEXT is all important when we talk about what kind of a player somebody was; what they did in their time only made sense in context of WHAT they were doing it with (equipment, surfaces) and to WHOM they were doing it to (opponents). Transport them out of that context, it becomes futile to say who-could-beat-who. Further I say that strength of an era is not about how many people are winning slams, it is about QUALITY of tennis. This is something I have come to realise since the Woz years and acknowledged weak era of WTA. Woz is number 1, but clearly Serena, PK are two levels above her in playing level. Murray is 4 but he is only approximately like 1% behind the top two guys in playing level. It is as if you had a race in which the top 3 guys ended up 9.6secs and the fourth 9.61. In my view, it isn't a weak era, it is a top heavy one, the reason why the slams all went to three guys and not nine or ten is because there is in effect one playing surface (with four colours), and not 4 surfaces. That's the result of all their manipulation, a surface that is not really any one of the traditional ones. Therefore you have players who maximised their versatility on this surface but not extreme specialisation on opposite playing surfaces. Maybe the guys have been sometimes boring in various eras but NOT and NEVER low quality whether it is this decade, the 2000s, the 90's or the 80's or the 70's or the 60's. It is like art, it is only a DIFFERENT kind of high quality. Like, who is better, Picasso or Van Gogh? There can be no answer. But you know instantly the quality of MASTERS as opposed to children doodling with crayons.

Pete vs Nadal. So as with the hypothetical question, how would Peak Pete do against Peak Roger. Again, the players those guys were, what they had to do, what they had to do it with, to become the player that they did, were only the products of their opponents and conditions. However, to me the question should be how EARLY Roger and EARLY Pete would match up. I mused on this once and it was Bobby Jr, (I think) who correctly pointed out they would match up completely opposite in early years as compared to later years. Both were all courters of course, Pete started out a baseliner AC type, ended up serve volleyer. Roger started as a serve volleyer, turned into mostly a baseliner. That is what they had to do to be most successful. A Pete who started out at the same time and is the same age as Nad would turn out to be a very different Pete than the 90's Pete, regardless of how many slams he could win.

aphex
12-07-2011, 11:54 PM
What's this obsession with Nadal and the 90's?

Why don't we have threads about Nadal in the 60's or 70's? :)

And I love how almost everyone assumes that player x will CERTAINLY play in the past the same way he plays in the modern game and viceversa(best example is edberg, an amazing S&V'er saying that he would rarely come to the net if he played today).

Face it, Nadal is a product of his era, with racket tech and slower courts. As was Sampras in the 90's and so on. Put Sampras on today's slow courts and I seriously doubt he makes double digits in slams. And for those slams that he does win, I doubt he wins them with S&V tennis.

More shameless claims...

The "era" in which Sampras would have done equally well starts from the beginning of tennis and ends in the 2000s.
The only era in which Nadal would have equally well is the one he actually did.

Sampras a product of the 90s...lol...

Sentinel
12-07-2011, 11:58 PM
Nadal would win something close to 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 on clay, but on other surfaces Sampras would have the edge IMO. Rebound ace would be close though.
John. Isner.

namelessone
12-08-2011, 12:05 AM
More shameless claims...

The "era" in which Sampras would have done equally well starts from the beginning of tennis and ends in the 2000s.
The only era in which Nadal would have equally well is the one he actually did.

Sampras a product of the 90s...lol...

It doesn't have to a decade necessarily but an era. Graphite started in the 80's and was widely used by the 90's. What did Sampras use I wonder?

Polystrings were already used by some pro's in the 90's(such as guga) but only became immensely popular after 2000. I wonder what Nadal used and uses?

You honestly think Sampras could have played the same booming game with wooden rackets and in attire that looked like this:

http://www.sweatybettypr.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rene_lacoste2.jpg

Your considerations about Nadal are just blind hate though I'm sure you know very well how Nadal's game would have turned out in ANY era. :)

aphex
12-08-2011, 12:23 AM
It doesn't have to a decade necessarily but an era. Graphite started in the 80's and was widely used by the 90's. What did Sampras use I wonder?

Polystrings were already used by some pro's in the 90's(such as guga) but only became immensely popular after 2000. I wonder what Nadal used and uses?

You honestly think Sampras could have played the same booming game with wooden rackets and in attire that looked like this:

http://www.sweatybettypr.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rene_lacoste2.jpg

Your considerations about Nadal are just blind hate though I'm sure you know very well how Nadal's game would have turned out in ANY era. :)

Yes, shamelessone. Pete would have done well in any era starting from the beginning of tennis to the 2000s.
Ralph...not so much.

tusharlovesrafa
12-08-2011, 12:43 AM
Yes, shamelessone. Pete would have done well in any era starting from the beginning of tennis to the 2000s.
Ralph...not so much.

Bottomline is that ralph has 10 slams(still counting) and pete has 14 slams..Your "ifs" and "butts" doesn't work in real world..:D

gregor.b
12-08-2011, 12:49 AM
Pete would bomb his first serve in on everything but clay and have a cup of coffee while waiting at the net for Rafa to chop a b/h return. Clay is a no brainer.

mattennis
12-08-2011, 06:06 AM
This is the position I have stated many times, CONTEXT is all important when we talk about what kind of a player somebody was; what they did in their time only made sense in context of WHAT they were doing it with (equipment, surfaces) and to WHOM they were doing it to (opponents). Transport them out of that context, it becomes futile to say who-could-beat-who. Further I say that strength of an era is not about how many people are winning slams, it is about QUALITY of tennis. This is something I have come to realise since the Woz years and acknowledged weak era of WTA. Woz is number 1, but clearly Serena, PK are two levels above her in playing level. Murray is 4 but he is only approximately like 1% behind the top two guys in playing level. It is as if you had a race in which the top 3 guys ended up 9.6secs and the fourth 9.61. In my view, it isn't a weak era, it is a top heavy one, the reason why the slams all went to three guys and not nine or ten is because there is in effect one playing surface (with four colours), and not 4 surfaces. That's the result of all their manipulation, a surface that is not really any one of the traditional ones. Therefore you have players who maximised their versatility on this surface but not extreme specialisation on opposite playing surfaces. Maybe the guys have been sometimes boring in various eras but NOT and NEVER low quality whether it is this decade, the 2000s, the 90's or the 80's or the 70's or the 60's. It is like art, it is only a DIFFERENT kind of high quality. Like, who is better, Picasso or Van Gogh? There can be no answer. But you know instantly the quality of MASTERS as opposed to children doodling with crayons.

Pete vs Nadal. So as with the hypothetical question, how would Peak Pete do against Peak Roger. Again, the players those guys were, what they had to do, what they had to do it with, to become the player that they did, were only the products of their opponents and conditions. However, to me the question should be how EARLY Roger and EARLY Pete would match up. I mused on this once and it was Bobby Jr, (I think) who correctly pointed out they would match up completely opposite in early years as compared to later years. Both were all courters of course, Pete started out a baseliner AC type, ended up serve volleyer. Roger started as a serve volleyer, turned into mostly a baseliner. That is what they had to do to be most successful. A Pete who started out at the same time and is the same age as Nad would turn out to be a very different Pete than the 90's Pete, regardless of how many slams he could win.

Excellent post!!!

mattennis
12-08-2011, 06:08 AM
That's why is absurd to talk about a GOAT.

There is only "Best player of his time".