Prisoner of Birth
Banned
How many Wimbledons do you think he would have won if he were born in 1981 (and Federer didn't exist)?
Weak grass era/10.
Sooo.... 8 or 9.
I like how the moment Sampras retired the grass at Wimbledon all of a sudden turned into green clay. Everybody remember who Federer beat in the 2003 final? You think The Scud would make a slam final if the surface wasn't fast?
These boards are hilarious. Remember Hewitt and Nalbandian contested the 2002 final from the baseline. It wasn't the courts changing it was the racquets and strings.
I like how the moment Sampras retired the grass at Wimbledon all of a sudden turned into green clay. Everybody remember who Federer beat in the 2003 final? You think The Scud would make a slam final if the surface wasn't fast?
These boards are hilarious. Remember Hewitt and Nalbandian contested the 2002 final from the baseline. It wasn't the courts changing it was the racquets and strings.
Good comments from all. I was not aware the extent they had tampered with the surface. However, I still say it's obvious that racquets and strings had much more to do with the change in tennis the the courts did.
I think 5 makes sense. Sampras would lose 1 Wimby to Nadal and maybe 1 more because of Nole/Murray but I don't see anyone else who could challenge him. We vastly underestimate Sampras's ground game, outside of today's top 4, his ground game would still be more than enough to take on any of the non top 4. And clearly his great serve, clutch mentality etc all still hold true.
Good comments from all. I was not aware the extent they had tampered with the surface. However, I still say it's obvious that racquets and strings had much more to do with the change in tennis the the courts did.
Sure. Poly gives you 20% more spin. Agassi mentioned we should either ban polys or everyone should use them to be fair.
Butt equally important thing was the ball, IMHO. It's got touch bigger, hairier and quite heavier. Roddick one time complained it as "water melon ball".
Not just Wimbledon. US Open started slowing from 2004. All started from 2001, and mostly done by 2004,5 I think.
All these changes render favorable conditions for heavy top-spin power baseliners.
Coincidentally, Federer-Nadal era arrives.
Good comments from all. I was not aware the extent they had tampered with the surface. However, I still say it's obvious that racquets and strings had much more to do with the change in tennis the the courts did.
The courts DID change, though. The went from 70% rye-30% red fescue to 100% rye grass after the 2001 tournament. The new grass made the ball bounce higher and slower. Henman said it was the slowest court he'd played on all year (though this was obviously hyperbole).
it was after wimbledon 2000 the courts were changed not after 2001..i had a discussion in youtube comments under a tennis vid somewhere..and i thought it was after 2001, but after chatting and then found out after some investigating myself it was after 2000.
I think 5 makes sense. Sampras would lose 1 Wimby to Nadal and maybe 1 more because of Nole/Murray but I don't see anyone else who could challenge him. We vastly underestimate Sampras's ground game, outside of today's top 4, his ground game would still be more than enough to take on any of the non top 4. And clearly his great serve, clutch mentality etc all still hold true.
it was after wimbledon 2000 the courts were changed not after 2001..i had a discussion in youtube comments under a tennis vid somewhere..and i thought it was after 2001, but after chatting and then found out after some investigating myself it was after 2000.
I was sure it was 2002 that the new grass debuted...but I was wrong - it was 2001
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1310082/Centre-court-debut-for-a-new-Wimbledon-seed.html
Something is strange here though. Nobody seemed to notice in 2001 that it was slower....but people noticed in 2002 it was greatly slower. Did they change the composition after 2001 again?
I was sure it was 2002 that the new grass debuted...but I was wrong - it was 2001
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1310082/Centre-court-debut-for-a-new-Wimbledon-seed.html
Something is strange here though. Nobody seemed to notice in 2001 that it was slower....but people noticed in 2002 it was greatly slower. Did they change the composition after 2001 again?
Sampras can also lose to Roddick and Hewitt.
Not prime Sampras.
On the grass these days, I'd say he wins 3 or 4. He would lose in the semis against the likes of Hewitt and Roddick between 2004-2005, and after then he would struggle against Federer and Nalbandian from 2005-2008, and then Djokovic and Murray from then on.
I think 5 makes sense. Sampras would lose 1 Wimby to Nadal and maybe 1 more because of Nole/Murray but I don't see anyone else who could challenge him. We vastly underestimate Sampras's ground game, outside of today's top 4, his ground game would still be more than enough to take on any of the non top 4. And clearly his great serve, clutch mentality etc all still hold true.
On the grass these days, I'd say he wins 3 or 4. He would lose in the semis against the likes of Hewitt and Roddick between 2004-2005, and after then he would struggle against Federer and Nalbandian from 2005-2008, and then Djokovic and Murray from then on.
IMO Sampras would win the same number of Wimbledons on the slower grass that he won in the 90's. If Federer was not around, who would be a better grass player than Sampras? Nobody. And no, I don't think Nadal would beat Sampras even on the slower grass or if he did beat him, Sampras would beat Nadal more imo.
Nalbandian got to the final as a scrub, I am sure he could manage to pull one over on Pete, Bastl did.eh ? nalbandian on grass ? really now ?
krajicek wasn't a better grass player than sampras, yet ripped him apart in straights @ wimbledon 96 ....
korda, kucera, scud etc .... weren't better HC players than sampras, yet beat him in HC slams ....
sampras wouldn't have it easy vs roddick 2004/09 or vs hewitt who returned and passed him darn well ... and anything below his best, nadal of 07,08 and 10 would beat him ....
Nalbandian got to the final as a scrub, I am sure he could manage to pull one over on Pete, Bastl did.
I did not say Sampras would have it easy against Roddick or Hewitt but I think a prime Sampras would win 80% of the time or more against both on any grass.
Sure if prime Sampras played below his best, Nadal could beat him on grass but imo Sampras would have the lead in that h2h on grass over Nadal. For me Sampras is a much better grass player than Roddick, Hewitt or Nadal. The only player I can see giving Sampras trouble on grass would be Federer.
In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands.
Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft. But the ground eventually dried, and baseliners have excelled since; in men's tennis, Roger Federer, who serves and volleys only around 10% of the time, has reigned supreme. And while women have always been more inclined to play from the back of the court, big-hitting groundstrokers such as Maria Sharapova and Serena and Venus Williams have all but shut the door on the serve-and-volley style ushered in by the now-retired Martina Navratilova and Jana Novotna.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html#ixzz2HlJRGeMu
I think he could have won quite a few. I also think that he would have been competitive with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Also, in some ways his game would have been more potent with the new frames and technology. His serve included. Here's an article which discusses the surface change at Wimbledon. It mentions that the rain during 2001 made the courts actually play faster than they would have otherwise.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html
Sampras would have dominated wimbledon in the 2000's.. Id say he would probably win more he won in the 90s since the grass field overall was much weaker 2000s-present then it was then
You could sod the grass to the moon, Pete was still the best on grass. Baseline pushers never bothered Pete either.. It was more of the hard hitting attackers that bothered him.. And we haven't had many/any if all since the 90s.
now, really ? sampras in 99, when he won wimbledon had to go 6-4 in the 3rd to beat 18 year old hewitt at queens ; in Queens 2000, he lost to 19 year old hewitt in straights and he'd go on to win wimbledon that year as well ..
If Sampras was instantly transported to W today he would still win the same IMO. He wouldn't know any better but to play the game that won him 7 Ws. Yea sure he would get passed alot, but think of what his game would do to Nadal et al. His game would dictate to Nadal. Either stay back and play Nadal's game, allow to be played under Nadal's terms and get ground down or play his attacking game, unsettle him, allow him no rythm, end the points quickly. Naratilova always said I'm going to the net to kill off the point, if you pass me, too good. That's the approach Sampras would probably take.
If however Sampras grew up in an era to allow him to play today, then he's gonna be another version of Djok or Nadal, so where's his point of difference? There is none. If he's a smidgen better than Nadal, he may win an extra W or 2 over Nadal, if he's a smidgen less than Nadal, he may win a W less or 2 than Nadal.
It all comes down to Sampras' attacking game. The way he played in the 90s is his point of difference. That's why if he was instantly tranported to today's era, he would have more success than if he was groomed for today's era. Sampras got to play some grinders in his era, but Nadal has never quite faced an attacking player like Pete before so it would be alot newer to Nadal than to Sampras. I don't think the slowing of the grass would worry Pete all that much. He said winning at W is about returning better.