PDA

View Full Version : Which period was most similar to Nadal's RG dominance: Sampras or Federer@Wimbledon?


6-1 6-3 6-0
10-09-2012, 10:30 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rAsiSS06Zgg/TQxx8cnp4kI/AAAAAAAABqU/Kqd874Z3q7w/s1600/Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal2.jpg

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

RF20Lennon
10-09-2012, 10:32 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rAsiSS06Zgg/TQxx8cnp4kI/AAAAAAAABqU/Kqd874Z3q7w/s1600/Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal2.jpg

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

Fed won 5 straight plus never lost before QF's but Sampras like nadal won 4 in a row and then 3 so maybe Sampras??

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-09-2012, 10:33 AM
Fed won 5 straight plus never lost before QF's but Sampras like nadal won 4 in a row and then 3 so maybe Sampras??

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

90's Clay
10-09-2012, 10:41 AM
Neither really. Nadal's French Open dominance overall is just NUTS. Hes only ever lost once there in his entire career.

However, Sampras' grass competition during the 90s was better then Nadal's clay competition in the 00s-10's, so that could be taken into account.

ledwix
10-09-2012, 10:46 AM
Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

You can't negate history...*facepalm*

I suppose you think Nadal 2014-2018 will show how good he *really* is at RG? If he doesn't win them all, that almost "negates" his first five.

OHBH
10-09-2012, 10:49 AM
Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.


Exactly why I voted for Sampras. Though this comparison will likely not last long as Nadal's dominance on clay has yet to fade and we can expect another two RG titles in the next four years.

tennis_pro
10-09-2012, 10:51 AM
Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

Sampras in 1998-2002 had 3 wins and 2 losses before the quarters (one to a lucky loser), I guess that negates whatever he's done before.

RAFA2005RG
10-09-2012, 03:56 PM
I agree Sampras' is far more convincing than Federer's, because Sampras faced grasscourt players.

kishnabe
10-09-2012, 04:15 PM
Even as a *******.....I would have to say Sampras. 8 titles in 9 years for Sampras. Similiar to Nadal 7 titles in 8 years at RG.

Federer is 7 titles in 10 years. Still very very impressive.

Out of the three however Sampras is the most impresive....since there were more Grass Court threats.

Nadal is playing in a weak cc era and Federer in a weak Grass era. They would have still won the same ammount with stronger competition.....cause they are so damm good. Still it did not happen.....Sampras has a better dominance than Nadal.

fed_rulz
10-09-2012, 04:41 PM
Even as a *******.....I would have to say Sampras. 8 titles in 9 years for Sampras. Similiar to Nadal 7 titles in 8 years at RG.

Federer is 7 titles in 10 years. Still very very impressive.

Out of the three however Sampras is the most impresive....since there were more Grass Court threats.

Nadal is playing in a weak cc era and Federer in a weak Grass era. They would have still won the same ammount with stronger competition.....cause they are so damm good. Still it did not happen.....Sampras has a better dominance than Nadal.

what?? Sampras and Federer have both won 7 titles in 10 yrs since they won their first Wimbledon. Federer has been to one more final than Pete, and overall has been more dominant in his victories (less sets, games lost).

MichaelNadal
10-09-2012, 04:48 PM
Gotta give this one to Pete.

Hood_Man
10-09-2012, 04:49 PM
I suppose it's Sampras since both he and Nadal have managed win streaks of 4 wins and 3 wins (Sampras 3 and 4, Nadal 4 and 3), and each man's 7th win was a record (Nadal for having 7 French Opens, and Sampras for 13 majors).

Neither of them achieved 7 consecutive finals or 40 consecutive wins http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/ash_lee392/whistling.gif

kishnabe
10-09-2012, 04:52 PM
what?? Sampras and Federer have both won 7 titles in 10 yrs since they won their first Wimbledon. Federer has been to one more final than Pete, and overall has been more dominant in his victories (less sets, games lost).

I mean when he started winning Wimbledon.
Sampras

93-95, 96...thank you Kracijek. 97-01.

Nadal

05-08, 09 thank you Soderling, 10-12.

Federer

03-07, 08 Damm you Nadal, 09(why Roddick :(), 10 Stupid Bird, 11 Great Tsonga win. 12..Redemption Fed.

90's Clay
10-09-2012, 04:54 PM
Well Pete had to go against Becker, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Rafter among others to get his wimbledon titles..

Thats a star studded cast of talent right there.. While Fed goes up against baby Nadal, Roddick, Murray etc. Not quite the opposition that Pete had on grass.

Then you got Nadal on clay.. Who outside of Djoker and Fed (who are pretty good dirtballers but neither great. Both their weakest surface) didn't have much to contend with in terms of great clay competition.

fed_rulz
10-09-2012, 04:55 PM
Well Pete had to go against Becker, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Rafter among others to get his wimbledon titles..

Thats a star studded cast of talent right there.. While Fed goes up against baby Nadal, Roddick, Murray etc. Not quite the opposition that Pete had on grass.

Then you got Nadal on clay.. Who outside of Djoker and Fed (who are pretty good dirtballers but neither great. Both their weakest surface) didn't have much to contend with in terms of great clay competition.

yet Pete came a cropper against baby Fed... now why would that be?

the way I look at it, Nadal defeated Federer (the GOAT) in 6 of his wins; Federer defeated Nadal in 2 of his wins (another GOAT candidate). whom did Sampras defeat in 7 of his wins? Borg? himself? Laver? Federer? no other GOAT candidate to speak of.

so in terms of "dominance", Federer's easily surpasses Pete, and is more similar to Nadal's (though Nadal's is at a higher level).

MTF07
10-09-2012, 04:58 PM
LOL, Since when is Courier a great grass courter? He was pretty lousy on grass. Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are clearly superior grass players to Courier. Hewitt is more accomplished than Rafter on grass and Nadal is more accomplished on grass than anyone on that list minus Becker, who was past his prime when he played Pete.

90's Clay
10-09-2012, 05:00 PM
LOL, Since when is Courier a great grass courter? He was pretty lousy on grass. Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are clearly superior grass players to Courier. Hewitt is more accomplished than Rafter on grass and Nadal is more accomplished on grass than anyone on that list minus Becker, who was past his prime when he played Pete.

Hes not a great grass courter.. But talent wise hes superior then 80-85 percent of the guys Fed beat to get his wimbledon titles regardless.

Thats questionable to say Roddick is better as well. How many wimbledon titles did Roddick win exactly? Roddick was better on hard courts than he was on grass.. As was Courier superior on other surfaces besides grass. But courier was clearly more talented then Roddick ever was. Not even close. Hewitt was FINISHED after 2005.. :neutral:

Hewitt got his wimbledon title during a completely CRAP 2002 wimbledon where a baby Nalbandian makes the finals. He is NOT superior to Rafter on grass who should have won 1-2 titles himself if not for Sampras or Goran completely zoning in in 2001

Even an old Becker is better then a freaking prime Roddick or Hewitt on grass. Please

And Nadal was a young buck when Fed beat him at wimbledon.. Not what he would later become there. Baby Nadal on grass better then Courier, Agassi, Goran, Rafter etc..? I dont think so. Maybe better then Courier.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 05:02 PM
yet Pete came a cropper against baby Fed... now why would that be?

the way I look at it, Nadal defeated Federer (the GOAT) in 6 of his wins; Federer defeated Nadal in 2 of his wins (another GOAT candidate). whom did Sampras defeat in 7 of his wins? Borg? himself? Laver? Federer?

so in terms of "dominance", Federer's easily surpasses Pete, and is more similar to Nadal's (though Nadal's is at a higher level).

The only thing that match proves is that Federer and Sampras are in the same class on Grass. On another day, Sampras could've won. It was that close. But yeah, it does negate the weak-era argument Sampras fans bring up.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 05:04 PM
Hes not a great grass courter.. But talent wise hes superior then 80-85 percent of the guys Fed beat to get his wimbledon titles regardless.

Thats questionable to say Roddick is better as well. How many wimbledon titles did Roddick win exactly? Roddick was better on hard courts than he was on grass.. As was Courier superior on other surfaces besides grass. But courier was clearly more talented then Roddick ever was. Not even close. Hewitt was FINISHED after 2005.. :neutral:

Hewitt got his wimbledon title during a completely CRAP 2002 wimbledon where a baby Nalbandian makes the finals. He is NOT superior to Rafter on grass who should have won 1-2 titles himself if not for Sampras or Goran completely zoning in in 2001

Even an old Becker is better then a freaking prime Roddick or Hewitt on grass. Please

"Baby" Nalbandian was supremely talented.

90's Clay
10-09-2012, 05:06 PM
The only thing that match proves is that Federer and Sampras are in the same class on Grass. On another day, Sampras could've won. It was that close. But yeah, it does negate the weak-era argument Sampras fans bring up.

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 05:11 PM
How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

Sampras was the defending champion and was ranked higher, meaning he had a better 12-month season than Federer did leading into Wimbledon 2001. Federer would lose in the 1st round the next year at Wimbledon. Sampras was 29, not 30. Federer was 19. Sampras was the favorite, Federer's win was considered an upset. You're just being dense. Probably on purpose.

90's Clay
10-09-2012, 05:16 PM
It was considered an upset and people did expect Pete to win (but they also expected Pete to probably not win wimbledon that year either because of how bad he was playing). Even McEnroe commented I believe that Pete better pick up his play or he isn't winning wimbledon after he needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan. Pete played horrible at wimbledon after 2000. Bottom line.. His days were over.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 05:25 PM
It was considered an upset and people did expect Pete to win (but they also expected Pete to probably not win wimbledon that year either because of how bad he was playing). Even McEnroe commented I believe that Pete better pick up his play or he isn't winning wimbledon after he needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan. Pete played horrible at wimbledon after 2000. Bottom line.. His days were over.

Sampras won Slams the year before and the year after. Federer was coming off of two 1st round defeats at the previous years' Wimbledons. And he would make it three 1st round defeats the next year, not winning his first Slam until the year after that. Yes, Sampras was far from his prime but Federer was farther still. No one can deny that. But like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras.

RAFA2005RG
10-09-2012, 09:06 PM
But like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras.

Don't worry, no informed tennis fan thinks Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Winning Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s required a far higher standard than the 2000s.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 09:49 PM
Don't worry, no informed tennis fan thinks Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Winning Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s required a far higher standard than the 2000s.

You do realize one could make the same argument against Nadal on Clay, right? And it's not like he beat Borg. Or even Kuerten.

RAFA2005RG
10-09-2012, 11:55 PM
You do realize one could make the same argument against Nadal on Clay, right? And it's not like he beat Borg. Or even Kuerten.

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 11:59 PM
You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

Speculative post. Means nothing. You're just babbling now.

MTF07
10-10-2012, 01:51 AM
You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.
lol Ferrer wouldn't have dominated clay at any point in tennis history.


What an incredibly stupid post.

Gorecki
10-10-2012, 01:55 AM
The neolithic age was most familiar. also the Jianwen Emperor age...

Feather
10-10-2012, 01:57 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rAsiSS06Zgg/TQxx8cnp4kI/AAAAAAAABqU/Kqd874Z3q7w/s1600/Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal2.jpg

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

Neither Roger nor Pete has dominated Wimbledon the way Rafa did on clay. It's imposible. Rafa is born to rule clay. And he did that at RG. I don't think I will see anyone doing that well in a major in my life time. Rafa is a phenomenon on clay and that cannot be equalled by anyone anywhere

ark_28
10-10-2012, 01:57 AM
How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

Very well said!

RF20Lennon
10-10-2012, 06:48 AM
You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

The clay wasn't faster the new babolat balls were lighter and faster please do your research!!!! They have not made clay courts faster by any means but then again ***** can never see things objectively so why bother. Btw if your beloved rafa played in the 70's like Borg and would have used a wooden racket and his topspin would not even kick up half as high and would probably injure his shoulder trying.

tennisaddict
10-10-2012, 10:21 AM
6-1 6-3 6-0 (OP) achieved what he wanted by instigating a Sampras vs Fed war and trying to compare with Nadal's achievement.

For starters, Can the OP start making threads about Nadal's non-clay records ?

Nadal is clearly a one-surface GOAT. He does not belong to the elite when it comes to other surfaces or all surfaces.

He is same level as Wilander, Edberg , Djokovic as an all-surface player and does not deserve to be compared to the elite (Federer, Sampras).

forzamilan90
10-10-2012, 12:09 PM
OP post is bait though, you basically state both Sampras and Nadal have won 7 out of 7, in 7 out of 8 years, but still ask the question whose is most similar? Under those criteria, clearly Sampras.

tennis_pro
10-10-2012, 12:14 PM
How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

I guess that's just another reason why Fed>>>>Sampras, Fed would never be owned on a consistent basis by noobs like Sampras was in his later years.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 03:22 PM
I guess that's just another reason why Fed>>>>Sampras, Fed would never be owned on a consistent basis by noobs like Sampras was in his later years.

Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 03:37 PM
Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

Nadal's a noob? One could argue he's better than Sampras and that would make Sampras a super-noob, which would excuse his losses to noobs so you got there in the end :lol:

And when was the last time Federer lost before the QFs of a Slam? And how many times did Sampras lose to nobodies on Clay? He never even made 4 SFs in a row. Federer's made 23.

And how desperate can you get? Being in danger of losing is NOT the same as losing. So Federer can't even win matches in 5 sets now without having to face ridicule? :lol:

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 03:49 PM
Nadal's a noob? One could argue he's better than Sampras and that would make Sampras a super-noob, which would excuse his losses to noobs so you got there in the end :lol:

And when was the last time Federer lost before the QFs of a Slam? And how many times did Sampras lose to nobodies on Clay? He never even made 4 SFs in a row. Federer's made 23.

And how desperate can you get? Being in danger of losing is NOT the same as losing. So Federer can't even win matches in 5 sets now without having to face ridicule? :lol:

Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Somehow fed fans have got into this line of thinking that have has NEVER lost to a nobody now. ROFLMAO

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 03:51 PM
Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Sure they can. But it has happened very few times to Federer. And way more times to Sampras. Especially on "90's Clay" :) Admit it.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 03:53 PM
Sure they can. But it has happened very few times to Federer. And way more times to Sampras. Especially on "90's Clay" :) Admit it.

In his clay prime (outside of 95) Sampras would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament from 92-96 just about all those years.. Thats not bad really,

When he gave up after '96 after his coach died thats when he began to lose to nobodies at the French.


But uhhhh.. Are implying Fed is not going to lose to a "nobody" at a slam before he retires?

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 03:58 PM
In his clay prime (outside of 95) Sampras would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament from 92-96 just about all those years.. Thats not bad really,

When he gave up after '96 after his coach died thats when he began to lose to nobodies at the French.


But uhhhh.. Are implying Fed is not going to lose to a "nobody" at a slam before he retires?

That's no excuse. Sampras just wasn't good enough to sustain good play on Clay for more than a few years. He basically gave up on Clay because he knew it was a lost cause. And it's not like he faced any Clay GOATs either, like Federer did.

And I'm not claiming Federer won't lose to "nobodies". I'm only saying Federer will lose about half as many matches to "nobodies" as Sampras has in his career. So far, it has more than held true. And if Federer plays till he's 35, it again won't matter as much because Sampras only played till 31.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 04:06 PM
Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Somehow fed fans have got into this line of thinking that have has NEVER lost to a nobody now. ROFLMAO

Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob. :confused:

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 04:10 PM
Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob. :confused:

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?



Hold it here.. Prime Fed lost to NOOB Nadal on hard courts in 2004. Oh no but Nadal wasn't a noob back then. ROFL

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 04:12 PM
Hold it here.. Prime Fed lost to NOOB Nadal on hard courts in 2004. Oh no but Nadal wasn't a noob back then. ROFL

So no straight answer. That's cool too.

"1 match is hardly a good sample size" - 90sclay

Peak Federer (2004-2007) was 4-0 vs Nadal at the biggest fast court events they played (2 Wimbledons and 2 masters cup semi's). That's not whipping the floor.

Try answering the question I posed in my first post of the thread.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 04:17 PM
So no straight answer. That's cool too.

No.. Im refuting you're statement for implying prime/peak Fed only lost to Nadal on clay or something.


I don't know how the Nadal/Sampras matchup on clay would go really. Clay in the 90s used to be as slow as monte Carlo. Since then, its actually faster now. Thus why Isner troubled Nadal in the first round at the French a few years ago and Soderling beat him. 90's clay, I don't give Pete much of a chance vs. Nadal. (Maybe a freak win). Faster clay like we have today, I think Pete could possibly take Nadal once or twice.

Its not like Fed did either at the french mind you so its a moot point.


But if Isner can take Nadal to 5 with big serving and hard hitting.. Soderling can take Nadal out with hard hitting.. I dont believe its out of the realm of possibility that Pete couldn't score a freak win over Nadal at the French.. Especially on faster clay.

Pete beat Courier, Muster, and Bruguera at the French on SLOW clay.. He won Rome, he won Davis Cup on SLOW clay. Hes beaten Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. Lets not make it seem like Pete has done NOTHING on clay and has beaten no one.. A peak Sampras with his old coach before he died and where Pete was playing his best clay game , on a faster clay vs. Nadal. who knows..

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 04:18 PM
Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob. :confused:

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

Allow me to hazard a guess... Zero?

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 04:24 PM
No.. Im refuting you're statement for implying prime/peak Fed only lost to Nadal on clay or something.


I don't know how the Nadal/Sampras matchup on clay would go really. Clay in the 90s used to be as slow as monte Carlo. Since then, its actually faster now. Thus why Isner troubled Nadal in the first round at the French a few years ago and Soderling beat him. 90's clay, I don't give Pete much of a chance vs. Nadal. (Maybe a freak win). Faster clay like we have today, I think Pete could possibly take Nadal once or twice.

Its not like Fed did either mind you so its a moot point.


But if Isner can take Nadal to 5.. Soderling can take Nadal.. I dont believe its out of the realm of possibility that Pete couldn't score a freak win over Nadal at the French.. Especially on faster clay.

Pete beat Courier, Muster, and Bruguera at the French.. He won Rome, he won Davis Cup on clay. Hes beaten Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. Lets not make it seem like Pete has done NOTHING on clay and has beaten no one..



That's really all I wanted to know. So, lets say you think Nadal goes 13-1 (the one win is generous) versus Sampras on clay and 5-0 and RG. That's half the matches Federer and Nadal played, and half the matches they played at majors. Then the other matches they play on hardcourt and grass. There's just no way Sampras would have a positive head-to-head versus Nadal given the circumstances that Federer had. Unless you think Nadal would go 1-13 versus Sampras on the other surfaces :lol:

A peak Sampras with his old coach before he died and where Pete was playing his best clay game , on a faster clay vs. Nadal. who knows..

Again lets be real. He wouldn't have better results versus Nadal than Federer or Djokovic, both of whom are better claycourters. Sampras won 3 clay titles in his career, one on green clay. To bring his coach into this is ridiculous. So the absence of his coach is the reason the guy went 5-6 Roland Garros after '96? All the evidence points to Pete just not having what it took on clay.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 04:25 PM
Allow me to hazard a guess... Zero?

Presumably. 1 win in a best of 3 would be pretty darn generous for Sampras.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 04:26 PM
Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.


And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)


Pete sure as hell wouldn't be getting taken out by Nadal time and time again on ALL surfaces like Fed did.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 04:32 PM
Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.


And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)


Pete sure as hell wouldn't be getting taken out by Nadal time and time again on ALL surfaces like Fed did.

I've seen some cray-cray "what-if" stuff posted here but this one takes the cake. So because Sampras's coach passed away, Sampras is somehow made out to be a better claycourter than he actually is?

But you're right about one thing. Sampras would have a positive head-to-head against Nadal. Because he'd be getting knocked out in the 1st and 2nd rounds of Claycourt tournaments (only because his Coach passed away, mind you :lol:) and he'd never last long enough to meet Nadal in the Semifinals and Finals. And he'd have a rather healthy lead over Nadal on Grass and Hardcourts because Nadal's coach, Uncle Tony, unlike Sampras's coach, won't have passed away so soon allowing Nadal to progress past the 1st and 2nd rounds on Grass and Hards. So Sampras would end up with a nice, positive head-to-head over Nadal. And voila! He's better than Federer! :)

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 04:33 PM
I've seen some cray-cray "what-if" stuff posted here but this one takes the cake. So because Sampras's coach passed away, Sampras is somehow made out to be a better claycourter than he actually is?

No thats not what I said. I said he was better on clay under his old coach Gullickson before he died. :neutral: Thats kind of obvious.. Look at his clay credentials from 92 or 93-96.. Then after his coach died.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 04:34 PM
Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.



Learn how to think critically. You're saying somebody other than Sampras was the main reason Sampras couldn't play on clay anymore. That's absurd, especially since Pete wasn't codependent like some champions. Annacone said Sampras had more self-belief, that he was the only one who truly believed in himself all the time. Sampras was 25-going on-26 at the start of the 1997 season and guys like Bruguera, Courier, Muster were fading. He could have put some good runs up on the dirt. It's bizarre to say a 25 year old number 1 tennis player can't compete on a surface because of his coach.


And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)


You're not getting it. Let's say they play 14 matches on clay and 14 on other surfaces (because those are the circumstances in the Federer-Nadal rivalry). 50-50 clay/other surface split. It's pretty implausible to think Sampras wouldn't have a negative head-to-head under those circumstances.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 04:36 PM
Learn how to think critically. You're saying somebody other than Sampras was the main reason Sampras couldn't play on clay anymore. That's absurd, especially since Pete wasn't codependent like some champions. Annacone said Sampras had more self-belief, that he was the only one who truly believed in himself all the time.




You're not getting it. Let's say they play 14 matches on clay and 14 on other surfaces (because those are the circumstances in the Federer-Nadal rivalry). It's pretty implausible to think Sampras wouldn't have a negative head-to-head under those circumstances.


Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004? :shock:


Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 04:42 PM
Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004? :shock:


Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors.

Jesus Christ man. I'm not negating anything. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying, lets say Sampras and Nadal play 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent on other surfaces, just like Federer and Nadal did. It's reasonable to suggest Nadal would have the lead in the head-to-head.

What don't you get? Of course those are the circumstances. They did play 14 times on clay and 14 times on other surfaces. That actually happened. What are you arguing about? lol..

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 04:43 PM
Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

See, again you're side-stepping the question. It's getting pretty amusing hehe.

Also, Nadal had the edge on slow HC and clay. That's not every surface.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 04:44 PM
Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004? :shock:


Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

Federer's got the edge on Grass, as well.

PCXL-Fan
10-10-2012, 05:14 PM
OP you are doing a good job in your campaign to undermine Federer. Well done.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 05:21 PM
Jesus Christ man. I'm not negating anything. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying, lets say Sampras and Nadal play 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent on other surfaces, just like Federer and Nadal did. It's reasonable to suggest Nadal would have the lead in the head-to-head.

What don't you get? Of course those are the circumstances. They did play 14 times on clay and 14 times on other surfaces. That actually happened. What are you arguing about? lol..

Oh ok... Let play that game.. Frig it.. Lets just make the h2h on hard court and grass... You think Fed would still manage the h2h lead over Nadal?

Hes 0-2 vs. nadal at the AO. 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass (2 of those before Nadal primed mind you) and I think overall with a losing record to Nadal on hard courts in general..


I dont give a flying hippo crap if you want to include clay or get rid of clay all together.. Outside of indoors, Nadal WILL have the h2h advantage over Roger. I dont' care you give them 1000 matches and 90 percent on hard courts and grass.

Nadal gives Fed issues EVERYWHERES but indoors. Hes a nightmare matchup for Roger. Roger hates playing him.. He can get in Roger's head quicker then a hiccup. And Roger is afraid to deal with him.. has been his whole career.. And sorry.. Not on just clay.


Its nice you can play your little "clay game" but nadal has been owning Fed his whole career.. You would have a point if Nadal major wins over Roger only came on clay.. But sadly for you they did not

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 05:28 PM
Oh ok... Let play that game.. Frig it.. Lets just make the h2h on hard court and grass... You think Fed would still manage the h2h lead over Nadal?

Hes 0-2 vs. nadal at the AO. 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass (2 of those before Nadal primed mind you) and I think overall with a losing record to Nadal on hard courts in general..


I dont give a flying hippo crap if you want to include clay or get rid of clay all together.. Outside of indoors, Nadal WILL have the h2h advantage over Roger. I dont' care you give them 1000 matches and 90 percent on hard courts and grass.

Nadal gives Fed issues EVERYWHERES but indoors. Hes a nightmare matchup for Roger. Roger hates playing him.. He can get in Roger's head quicker then a hiccup. And Roger is afraid to deal with him.. has been his whole career.. And sorry.. Not on just clay.


Its nice you can play your little "clay game" but nadal has been owning Fed his whole career.. You would have a point if Nadal major wins only came on clay.. But sadly for you they did not


I'm not playing any game. You're making things really complicated here. YOU keep arguing that Nadal owned Federer, and Sampras wouldn't let the same thing happen. I merely said, under the same circumstances, the same thing would happen to Sampras. It would be utterly shocking if Sampras beat Nadal more than once (or even once) in 14 meetings on clay, yet you would expect Nadal to have a few scalps versus Sampras on hardcourts or grass. The only way for Sampras to "not let that happen" is to beat him every single time they played on a non-clay surface. Stop side-stepping. I'm being very, VERY straightforward. If Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay, it's pretty much certain Nadal would end up with a positive head-to-head overall. We're arguing Nadal and Sampras, not Nadal and Federer. Try keeping up.

"sadly for me"? - man, I'm not a fanatic lol, I've been watching tennis since the late 80s as a 5 year old kid, I've had lots of favourites over the years and I appreciated Sampras's complete game although he wasn't my favourite. I'm just arguing against your (IMO) inane conclusions -- no agenda.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 05:35 PM
I'm not playing any game. You're making things really complicated here. YOU keep arguing that Nadal owned Federer, and Sampras wouldn't let the same thing happen. I merely said, under the same circumstances, the same thing would happen to Sampras. It would be utterly shocking if Sampras beat Nadal more than once (or even once) in 14 meetings on clay, yet you would expect Nadal to have a few scalps versus Sampras on hardcourts or grass. Stop side-stepping. I'm being very, VERY straightforward. If Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay, it's pretty much certain Nadal would end up with a positive head-to-head overall. We're arguing Nadal and Sampras, not Nadal and Federer. Try keeping up.

"sadly for me"? - man, I'm not a fanatic lol, I've been watching tennis since the late 80s as a 5 year old kid, I've had lots of favourites over the years and I appreciated Sampras's complete game although he wasn't my favourite. I'm just arguing against your (IMO) inane conclusions -- no agenda.



I would wager Nadal over Fed 90 percent of the time OUTSIDE of clay at the vs. Fed . However, theres no way I would wager for Nadal over Pete 90 percent of the time outside on clay. Thats what I'm saying. LOL. Under the same circumstances, no.. Because I dont believe Pete would be losing to Nadal that many times outside of clay as Fed did.

Fed got 1-2 big wins over Nadal on a faster clay.. Hell I do believe Pete could manage 1-2 big wins on a faster clay vs. nadal. That point is completely moot in that regard. I mean why not? its just 1 or 2 matches. On a faster clay, and Pete serving big and hitting big.. Why not. HEs beaten some big names himself on clay as I have already listed

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 05:38 PM
I would wager Nadal over Fed 90 percent of the time OUTSIDE of clay at the vs. Fed . However, theres no way I would wager for Nadal over Pete 90 percent of the time outside on clay. Thats what I'm saying. LOL. Under the same circumstances, no.. Because I dont believe Pete would be losing to Nadal that many times outside of clay as Fed did

You're still not getting it. Stop with the strawmans. All I said in this thread, for the 120912031230921th time, is that if Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay and half their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would lead in the head-to-head. Why are you arguing about something else?

PS -- 90% of the time is a pretty huge exaggeration. Their head to head outside of clay is even. However, no need respond to this part of my post. You're just gonna strawman the hell out of it.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 05:41 PM
You're still not getting it. Stop with the strawmans. All I said in this thread, for the 120912031230921th time, is that if Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay and half their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would lead in the head-to-head. Why are you arguing about something else?


You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.


ANd besides as I said, anything outside of indoors, I'll give Nadal the advantage over Fed more times then not. Its the matchup issue, its the fact Fed fumbles at his head like a freshmen pulling at a panty kirtle and gets in mental funks when he sees Nadal on the other end of the court.

Clay has NOTHING to do with it

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 05:41 PM
No.. Im refuting you're statement for implying prime/peak Fed only lost to Nadal on clay or something.


Yep, I missed this one. No, I didn't imply that. I just said he didn't own Federer off clay.

Can you please just respond to the points I did try to make, for the sake of keeping this debate somewhat reasonable? Stop putting words in my mouth.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 05:44 PM
You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.


ANd besides as I said, anything outside of indoors, I'll give Nadal the advantage over Fed more times then not. Its the matchup issue, its the fact Fed fumbles at his head like a freshmen pulling at a panty kirtle when he sees Nadal on the other end of the court.

Clay has NOTHING to do with it

For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't once addressed that head-on. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. It doesn't matter if Sampras would have the edge on other surfaces -- I think any reasonable person would see that if they played 50 percent clay-50 percent other surfaces, Nadal would hold the lead.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 05:45 PM
For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't onced addressed that head-on.

No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 05:48 PM
No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

So you think Nadal would be roughly 13-1 versus Pete on clay and 1-13 off clay? Good. That's all I needed to know. Heck I might not agree with it in the least (guys like Ferreira had more than their share of wins against Pete off clay yet they weren't half the player Nadal was), but at least you actually answered the question. Only took 3 pages. Good for you, buddy. :)

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 05:49 PM
So you think Nadal would be roughly 13-1 versus Pete on clay and 1-13 off clay? Good. That's all I needed to know. Heck I might not agree with it in the least, but at least you actually answered the question. Only took 3 pages. Good for you, buddy. :)

Like I said (if you read).. it depends on what clay we are talking about of course.. The faster stuff we got today or the slow Monte Carlo type clay of the 90s

TMF
10-10-2012, 05:53 PM
You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.


Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 05:53 PM
Nadal at RG is clearly above either at Wimbledon in pure dominance. Sampras at Wimbledon is a bit above Federer at Wimbledon in pure dominance, and had way tougher competition than Federer at Wimbledon and even Nadal at RG, so would say Sampras at Wimbledon comes closer. For once an accurate poll result (so far) involving Federer.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 05:54 PM
Like I said (if you read).. it depends on what clay we are talking about of course.. The faster stuff we got today or the slow Monte Carlo type clay of the 90s

Well what do you think the best-case scenario would be for Sampras versus Nadal on clay? Either way he'll lose pretty much every time. It's a moot point. It would range from 0-14 to 2-12 (I don't know why I'm being so generous as to give Sampras two wins versus Nadal on clay, but there you go). So what? Nadal will still win.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 05:55 PM
No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

It is hard to say. Nadal would probably be always a top 2, or at absolute worst always top 3 or top 4 player in any era, especialy with all the clay points he would rack up in any era, which means he couldnt play Sampras until semis or usually finals even of non clay events, so less likely to come up with non clay wins over Sampras, especialy in slams, as Sampras is usually dialed in by then. Had he played Sampras in quarters or earlier would definitely have a shot but that would be almost impossible.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 05:59 PM
Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.

Pretty much lol. Sampras is a vastly inferior claycourt player than Federer AND the guys he beat were great but not as great as Nadal on the dirt, so no it doesn't necessarily mean Sampras would score the occasional scalp against Nadal on clay. He'd probably get shutout.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 06:05 PM
Even if Sampras played Nadal all the same number of times on all surfaces as Federer does, his overall head to head would still be better. Imagine Nadal leading Sampras 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, lol, would never happen. The only place Federer is really able to get the better of Nadal is indoors, on grass he would be trailing in H2H now if their last grass meeting hadnt been way back in 2008, and if a Nadal really weak on grass at that point had not somehow stumbled into the 06 Wimbledon final already by virtual default due to the all time most abysmal grass field of the Federer era. Sampras would own Nadal everywhere but clay though.

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 06:11 PM
Even if Sampras played Nadal all the same number of times on all surfaces as Federer does, his overall head to head would still be better. Imagine Nadal leading Sampras 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, lol, would never happen. The only place Federer is really able to get the better of Nadal is indoors, on grass he would be trailing in H2H now if their last grass meeting hadnt been way back in 2008. Sampras would own Nadal everywhere but clay though.

Debatable. Nadal is 18-10 versus Federer overall. Sampras might do better, but not a whole lot better.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Sim
10-10-2012, 06:14 PM
Debatable. Nadal is 18-10 versus Federer overall.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Agreed. I think Nadal would still lead the H2H by a great amount if it was half half on clay/other surfaces. 17-11 sounds like a good number. Nadal would have to score his HC wins in '10-'11 HC level though.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 06:15 PM
Debatable. Nadal is 18-10 versus Federer overall.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Outdoor hard court. Sampras leads 5-2 (best case for Nadal)

Grass. Sampras leads 3-0 (no brainer, Nadal has nothing to hurt Sampras with on grass, unlike baseliner without as dominant a serve Federer)

Indoors. Sampras leads 4-0 (again a no brainer. The matches would be bigger beatdowns than the Federer-Nadal ones here).

So absolute worst case for Sampras would be trailing 16-12. Still better and just outside the ownage range, while 18-10 is now into it. Plus Sampras playing Nadal 5 times in clay slams and 5 times in non clay slams would probably be 5-5 or 6-4 at worst. Nadal doesnt have the game to beat Sampras anytime before his 30s in a non clay slam, other than maybe an upset at the Australian Open, but even then I doubt if Sampras is playing well enough to make semis or finals to play Nadal. Federer of course is 2-8, even with a losing non clay slam record vs Nadal, and the only match Federer was older than 27 was the last one.

Furthermore even if your projected numbers were right the non clay H2H would also be so extremely lopsided in Sampras's favor, and his dominance on non clay surfaces would truly be matching or almost matching Nadal's on clay, that the clay excuse would be more apt here. Since Nadal leads Federer in non clay slam H2H, leads him 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, and wins roughly half their matches off of clay in addition to his extremely lopsided clay dominance, that spin does not work for Federer as much as his supporters like to try, and continue to attempt to in vein.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 06:18 PM
Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.


Federer is supposedly "vastly superior" to Nadal on hardcourts, and doesn't Nadal have the h2h advantage on those outdoor hard courts?

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 06:19 PM
Outdoor hard court. Sampras leads 5-2 (best case for Nadal)

Grass. Sampras leads 3-0 (no brainer, Nadal has nothing to hurt Sampras with on grass, unlike baseliner without as dominant a serve Federer)

Indoors. Sampras leads 4-0 (again a no brainer. The matches would be bigger beatdowns than the Federer-Nadal ones here).

So absolute worst case for Sampras would be trailing 16-12. Still better and just outside the ownage range, while 18-10 is now into it. Plus Sampras playing Nadal 5 times in clay slams and 5 times in non clay slams would probably be 5-5 or 6-4 at worst. Nadal doesnt have the game to beat Sampras anytime before his 30s in a non clay slam, other than maybe an upset at the Australian Open, but even then I doubt if Sampras is playing well enough to make semis or finals to play Nadal. Federer of course is 2-8, even with a losing non clay slam record vs Nadal, and the only match Federer was older than 27 was the last one.

I guess it's opinion but I don't think Sampras would go 12-2 versus Nadal if lesser players could challenge him to such an extent. I mean sure match ups are important, but Ferreira had a .500 record against Pete on non-clay yet possessed few of the weapons Nadal does.

I don't see how that's "absolute worst case scenario". Because it's not unfathomable that Nadal could have 3-4 wins versus Sampras instead of 2, so "absolute worst case" is a bit of an exaggeration. Absolute worst case scenario is more like Pete being Rafa more than once on clay, which would be pretty astonishing.

Also, on plexicushion I could see a 30 year old Sampras getting severely out-grinded by Rafa (remember Federer played Rafa this year at the AO when he was 30).

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 06:20 PM
Federer is supposedly "vastly superior" to Nadal on hardcourts, and doesn't Nadal have the h2h advantage on those outdoor hard courts?

Alright then how about Djokovic? He's superior to Nadal on hardcourts and has a positive H2H on the surface, yet on clay (where he's superior to Sampras) he's 2-12 against Rafa.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 06:24 PM
I guess it's opinion but I don't think Sampras would go 12-2 versus Nadal if lesser players could challenge him to such an extent. I mean sure match ups are important, but Ferreira had a .500 record against Pete on non-clay yet possessed few of the weapons Nadal does.

I don't see how that's "absolute worst case scenario". Because it's not unfathomable that Nadal could have 3-4 wins versus Sampras instead of 2, so "absolute worst case" is a bit of an exaggeration. Absolute worst case scenario is more like Pete being Rafa more than once on clay, which would be pretty astonishing.

Nadal would never beat Sampras indoors or in a major grass final (or even semi) which due to their consistently high rankings in the only times they would play until they were 30 or older. Nadal could beat Sampras on outdoor hard courts at some point, but would never have a winning record like he does with Federer, so 2-5 is about the best he would do if they played 7 times.

You seem to forget alot of these others played Sampras well before finals due to their lower ranking. Anyone who followed Sampras through the years knows that is when he was much more likely to lose, while only losing to the very best of opponents at the end.
I have no idea why Ferrari was a matchup problem for Sampras but others who were like Krajicek and Stich were since they could match his serving at their best, and were attacking players who could take the net away from him. Obviously this is nothing like the game Nadal would present.

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 06:25 PM
Alright then how about Djokovic? He's superior to Nadal on hardcourts and has a positive H2H, yet on clay (where he's also superior to Sampras) he's 2-12 against Rafa.

The point is matchups I think. Which is the name of the game here and maybe mental fortitude and toughness.. Djoker can rally with Nadal outdoors and he doesn't have the same mental funk vs. Nadal that Fed has.

Djoker isn't that great of a clay courter anyways. So 2-12 vs. Rafa on clay, isn't a huge surprise. I never said, Pete would have a ton of wins on Nadal on clay did I? :). Clay is clearly Nole's weakest surface. He can't slide and defend the same as he can on hards. And his serve (especially the 2nd serve isn't up to par). Pete still has that serve in his arsenal and can hit the cover the ball. So even if hes outmatched by a better clay court, you still couldn't sleep on him because his shots,and especially serve was wayyy more potent then Nole's is.

Big hitters tend to trouble Nadal more at times. Even on clay (see Soderling and Isner)

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 06:29 PM
The point is matchups I think. Which is the name of the game here and maybe mental fortitude and toughness.. Djoker can rally with Nadal outdoors and he doesn't have the same mental funk vs. Nadal that Fed has.

Djoker isn't that great of a clay courter anyways. So 2-12 vs. Rafa on clay, isn't a huge surprise. I never said, Pete would have a ton of wins on Nadal on clay did I? :). Clay is clearly Nole's weakest surface. He can't slide and defend the same as he can on hards. And his serve (especially the 2nd serve isn't up to par). Pete still has that serve in his arsenal and can hit the cover the ball. So even if hes outmatched by a better clay court, you still couldn't sleep on him because his shots,and especially serve was wayyy more potent then Nole's is.


If missing points were a sport, you would be phenomenal at it. Just stop with the strawmans lol. Half (or more) of the time when you think I'm implying something, I'm really not. No need to over-complicate things.

Also, Djoker is much better on clay than Sampras. 2 Rome titles, 6-7 claycourt titles at 25, 3 Semi's at RG and a final, MC final and Madrid title. And many many more years to further increase the lead. Yet he is still only 2-12, and 0-4 at RG.

Big hitters tend to trouble Nadal more at times. Even on clay (see Soderling and Isner).

2 matches in 8 years. It's funny how say "see Soderling and Isner", as if there are many more examples, when there clearly aren't. It's still taking time for this statement to kick in. Do you realize how wrong you are?

TheFifthSet
10-10-2012, 06:34 PM
Nadal would never beat Sampras indoors or in a major grass final (or even semi) which due to their consistently high rankings in the only times they would play until they were 30 or older. Nadal could beat Sampras on outdoor hard courts at some point, but would never have a winning record like he does with Federer, so 2-5 is about the best he would do if they played 7 times.

You seem to forget alot of these others played Sampras well before finals due to their lower ranking. Anyone who followed Sampras through the years knows that is when he was much more likely to lose, while only losing to the very best of opponents at the end.
I have no idea why Ferrari was a matchup problem for Sampras but others who were like Krajicek and Stich were since they could match his serving at their best, and were attacking players who could take the net away from him. Obviously this is nothing like the game Nadal would present.

Given the slowing of todays surfaces, I don't think that's necessarily the case. It would be a tough ask for Sampras to beat Nadal at the slow courts of the Australian Open -- not saying Sampras wouldn't win but it would be a tough ask. AND if they were to play 3 times at Miami, once at Indian Wells and 3 times on todays grass, I think out of those 9 matches Nadal would go 3-6. At Dubai and the four indoors matches, he would probably go 0-5, that I will concede.

MTF07
10-10-2012, 06:44 PM
Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

One thing I can assure you is that Federer will never lose to the likes of Yzaga, Schaller and Delgado at any point in his career, nevermind in his prime like Sampras did.

okdude1992
10-10-2012, 06:53 PM
Wow i can't believe how you all are giving Nadal so few wins vs Sampras outside of clay. Sure he would lost most, but no way in hell Nadal goes 1-13, or 2-12 off clay with Sampras. That's completel absurd, considering Sampras was unable to dominate much lesser players than Nadal (ones who couldn't pound his backand with heavy lefty spin) Pretty confident Nadal could win around 5 matches out of 14 versus Sampras off clay.. This would make their h2h something like 18-10 by my estimation, maybe even 19-9. So yea Sampras would have a bad h2h with Nadal just like Federer IMO

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-11-2012, 01:18 AM
I voted Sampras. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Prisoner of Birth
10-11-2012, 01:21 AM
Wow i can't believe how you all are giving Nadal so few wins vs Sampras outside of clay. Sure he would lost most, but no way in hell Nadal goes 1-13, or 2-12 off clay with Sampras. That's completel absurd, considering Sampras was unable to dominate much lesser players than Nadal (ones who couldn't pound his backand with heavy lefty spin) Pretty confident Nadal could win around 5 matches out of 14 versus Sampras off clay.. This would make their h2h something like 18-10 by my estimation, maybe even 19-9. So yea Sampras would have a bad h2h with Nadal just like Federer IMO

90's Clay is just being a fanboy.

Zarfot Z
10-11-2012, 01:23 AM
I voted Sampras. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Agreed.

Federer's dominance far exceeds that of Nadal's at RG.

Prisoner of Birth
10-11-2012, 01:26 AM
Agreed.

Federer's dominance far exceeds that of Nadal's at RG.

No, it doesn't. Nothing in the history of any sport quite matches Nadal's dominance at the French Open.

merlinpinpin
10-11-2012, 01:42 AM
In his clay prime (outside of 95) Sampras would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament from 92-96 just about all those years.. Thats not bad really,


Right, bring on the BS. I guess that's what hopeless ***** do when they have no argumentation--resort to outright lying (or not knowing anything about what you're saying and just spouting nonsense) in the hope that nobody really knows (or bothers to check).

So, can you claim one more time (as you did in the post I just quoted) that Sampras lost to the eventual champion at RG '92 and '94?

merlinpinpin
10-11-2012, 01:51 AM
For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't onced addressed that head-on. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. It doesn't matter if Sampras would have the edge on other surfaces -- I think any reasonable person would see that if they played 50 percent clay-50 percent other surfaces, Nadal would hold the lead.

No problem about that. I think everyone agrees that Nadal would destroy him on clay, he would also probably be the heavy favorite on plexicushion (Sampras never could beat Agassi on the much-faster Rebound Ace) and would be in serious danger of losing some on slow grass. Sampras would be a huge favourite indoor and on fast HC, though. But in the end, he would be seriously trailing, even if he "wouldn't allow" that...

NDFM
10-11-2012, 02:01 AM
For me I guess it would be Sampras due to the 7 out of 8 attempts (1993-2000) similarity to rafa, but nadal losing only losing 1 match at the FO is just insane his win percentage there of like 98% that will probably never be achieved by someone else at any major kinda like Federer matching borg with 5 consecutive wins at wimbledon i don't see anyone else doing that again

TMF
10-11-2012, 09:15 AM
Federer is supposedly "vastly superior" to Nadal on hardcourts, and doesn't Nadal have the h2h advantage on those outdoor hard courts?Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.

What about Michael Stich who beat Sampras on his favorite(fast) surfaces, and said he fear Stich? You don't hear that from Fed saying it to Nadal. And what about Wayne Ferreira who's suppose to be much better player on hardcourt and carpet? Two can play that game.

The point is Fed >> Sampras on clay, and since he managed to beat Nadal 2 times does suggest that Sampras would go winless(0-14) against Nadal. Keep in mind Fed was the one who snapped Nadal's 81 clay winning streak. It takes Federer, Nole(and that was when people said Nadal have declined on clay), and Soderling who had a monster game in 2009 to beat Nadal. Sampras ain't going to beat Nadal on clay, period.

Outside of clay, you have to consider the courts are slower and produce higher bounce. S/v style today is not a winning recipe, which the condition benefits for Nadal. Given that Pete play Nadal 14 times, I see Pete ahead 8-6, that's because they will meet on 4 times during indoor season, and the rest pretty much was on slow hardcourt/grass.

Another factor is Fed post prime is more consistent than Sampras post prime. Fed mopped the floor during indoor season(2010-11) while Sampras lost to Guga in 2000 WTF. One could argue 2010 Nadal would beat 2000 Sampras at WTF.

Of course in realilty Sampras wouldn't meet Nadal 18 times(at the exact same age) because he wasn't consistent to reach the deep round or isn't as good at Federer. BUT given under the same circumstances for Sampras having to play Nadal 14 on clays and 14 on other surfaces, the likelihood of Sampras's h2h is worse than 10-18.

fed_rulz
10-11-2012, 10:01 AM
lol, this has degraded into a discussion comparing the much superior Federer vs vastly inferior Sampras. I'll bite:

Under same circumstances (assuming exactly same surfaces), Nadal would lead Sampras 23 - 5 (and that's being very generous to Sampras).

Sampras is not getting any wins till July. He might be lucky to sneak a win in the slow Wimbledon conditions, that too if Nadal is off his game (most likely in 2006). Pete's best chance to get Nadal would've been the USO, but given that Federer & Nadal have never met there, tough luck Pete!!

Which brings us to YEC. Pete probably gets him in 2006 and 2007, but loses badly in 2010 and 2011 (in 2000, Sampras lost to Kuerten, who's quite inferior to Nadal, and in 2001, Pete was way past his prime --according to Pete clowns). So realistically, their h2h will look like 25-3.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner ever (men or women). His next generation (players who are roughly 5 yrs younger than him) comprised of Kafelnikov & Kuerten (LOL)!! And his "biggest" rival didn't show up for good portion of Pete's prime. Add of all it, what do you have? 14 slams. that's right. Under other eras (not including Federer, because if he played alongside Federer, he's not winning anything), he would've won 6-8 slams (tops). The rest were handed to him because of the lack of challengers in the generation that followed Pete.

90's Clay
10-11-2012, 10:03 AM
lol, this has degraded into a discussion comparing the much superior Federer vs vastly inferior Sampras. I'll bite:

Under same circumstances (assuming exactly same surfaces), Nadal would lead Sampras 23 - 5 (and that's being very generous to Sampras).

Sampras is not getting any wins till July. He might be lucky to sneak a win in the slow Wimbledon conditions, that too if Nadal is off his game (most likely in 2006). Pete's best chance to get Nadal would've been the USO, but given that Federer & Nadal have never met there, tough luck Pete!!

Which brings us to YEC. Pete probably gets him in 2006 and 2007, but loses badly in 2010 and 2011. So realistically, their h2h will look like 25-3.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner ever (men or women). His next generation (players who are roughly 5 yrs younger than him) comprised of Kafelnikov & Kuerten (LOL)!! And his "biggest" rival didn't show up for good portion of Pete's prime. Add of all it, what do you have? 14 slams. that's right.



Its posts like these that make me not able to take Fed fans seriously:shock:.. You got Pete not being able to beat Nadal until until July and not being able to beat Nadal at wimbledon, and getting taken out by Nadal INDOORS of all places.. Ayee. The same Nadal with his ZERO YEC titles?


My god the ****s bias know no bounds

Dedans Penthouse
10-11-2012, 10:06 AM
Sampras

That is all.

TMF
10-11-2012, 10:09 AM
lol, this has degraded into a discussion comparing the much superior Federer vs vastly inferior Sampras. I'll bite:

Under same circumstances (assuming exactly same surfaces), Nadal would lead Sampras 23 - 5 (and that's being very generous to Sampras).

Sampras is not getting any wins till July. He might be lucky to sneak a win in the slow Wimbledon conditions, that too if Nadal is off his game (most likely in 2006). Pete's best chance to get Nadal would've been the USO, but given that Federer & Nadal have never met there, tough luck Pete!!

Which brings us to YEC. Pete probably gets him in 2006 and 2007, but loses badly in 2010 and 2011 (in 2000, Sampras lost to Kuerten, who's quite inferior to Nadal, and in 2001, Pete was way past his prime --according to Pete clowns). So realistically, their h2h will look like 25-3.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner ever (men or women). His next generation (players who are roughly 5 yrs younger than him) comprised of Kafelnikov & Kuerten (LOL)!! And his "biggest" rival didn't show up for good portion of Pete's prime. Add of all it, what do you have? 14 slams. that's right. Under other eras (not including Federer, because if he played alongside Federer, he's not winning anything), he would've won 6-8 slams (tops). The rest were handed to him because of the lack of challengers in the generation that followed Pete.

I thought my post was generous already.

Maybe I'm just more generous than you. :)

Dedans Penthouse
10-11-2012, 10:09 AM
lol, this has degraded into a discussion comparing the much superior Federer vs vastly inferior Sampras.

I'll bite:

Sampras.

That is all.

fed_rulz
10-11-2012, 10:10 AM
Its posts like these that make me not able to take Fed fans seriously:shock:.. You got Pete not being able to beat Nadal until until July and not being able to beat Nadal at wimbledon, and getting taken out by Nadal INDOORS of all places.. Ayee. The same Nadal with his ZERO YEC titles?


My god the ****s bias know no bounds

If kuerten could take out Sampras, why not Nadal (I usually don't resort to this nonsense, but I'm playing your game here...)? what does kuerten have over Nadal? Clay titles? NO! slams? NO! HC slams? NO! YEC? yes, but that's the instance that's being used for the debating here, so no point using that.

Wasn't a 29 yr old Sampras (in 2001) wayyy past his prime? Didn't you claim it nor not? so why would Pete stand a chance against Nadal?

TMF
10-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Its posts like these that make me not able to take Fed fans seriously:shock:.. You got Pete not being able to beat Nadal until until July and not being able to beat Nadal at wimbledon, and getting taken out by Nadal INDOORS of all places.. Ayee. The same Nadal with his ZERO YEC titles?


My god the ****s bias know no bounds

During the 1st half of the year, hardcourt are mainly slow except for Dubai, then the clay season. He didn't say Sampras wouldn't have beaten nadal at wimbledon, but suggested that it would be tough because of the condition.

The indoor at O2 Arena isn't like it was in 2000-01, and Nadal performed well in 2010, so I say Nadal would have beaten 2000 Sampras.

fed_rulz
10-11-2012, 10:16 AM
Sampras.

That is all.
funny how your fanboi radar is never seems to detect Pete fanbois who make ridiculous claims (like Sampras beating Nadal on clay because Federer was able to do it, or Sampras facing "tougher" competition)...

btw, I'll save you some trouble: I AM a Federer fanboi, never denied it.

merlinpinpin
10-12-2012, 02:00 AM
If kuerten could take out Sampras, why not Nadal (I usually don't resort to this nonsense, but I'm playing your game here...)? what does kuerten have over Nadal? Clay titles? NO! slams? NO! HC slams? NO! YEC? yes, but that's the instance that's being used for the debating here, so no point using that.

Wasn't a 29 yr old Sampras (in 2001) wayyy past his prime? Didn't you claim it nor not? so why would Pete stand a chance against Nadal?

You don't even have to play the "past-his-prime Sampras beaten by Kuerten" card. *Prime* Sampras was straight-setted by Muster in Essen in 1995, so he was anything but invincible indoor, despite what his apologists would like us to believe. By way of comparison, can you imagine Nadal beating Federer 7/6, 6/2 at WTF in 2004-2006? Because that's what we're talking about here (actually, not exactly, because Essen was much quicker than the ATP finals have been these last few years, which should favour... Sampras; so it would have to be an even sounder thrashing of Fed by Nadal indoor to compare).

Dedans Penthouse
10-15-2012, 06:16 AM
funny how your fanboi radar is never seems to detect Pete fanbois who make ridiculous claims (like Sampras beating Nadal on clay because Federer was able to do it, or Sampras facing "tougher" competition)...

btw, I'll save you some trouble: I AM a Federer fanboi, never denied it.Read my 'history' and you will see that I am a fan of Federer and think he's the better player of the two. What you fail to see is the overwhelming number of threads and fedfanboys such as yourself who use these troll threads to needlessly drag Sampras' name out of the woodwork for the purpose of denegrating him, plain and simple. I'm talking about those threads that didn't even involve Sampras in the first place. Petetards? They exist, maybe 1-2 out of 10. The fedfanboys? 10 to 1.

btw, you'll not save me any trouble, your username pretty much says it all. "Rulz?" i mean, pleeze....:rolleyes: