Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by pj80, Feb 28, 2007.
who else think the "old man" would win 7/10 matches?
1 out of 10 if he were lucky, and would have to be on grass.
Or just play a cold, windy night out in the desert... Blake seems to have problems with that.
please stop these posts comparing sampras to federer, blake, whoever.
there is no point to this. you decide on your own who you think is better. there is no point in asking everyone. does it make you feel better if they all agree with you? does it make you a better player? NO. stop these nonsense threads. it only causes people on this board to be in constant arguments.
if they were to play today, and if sampras' serve is oiled up and not rusty, I'd say 5 of 10 times on hard.
1 of 10 on clay.
9-10 on grass.
10/10 Sampras on grass
9-10 on clay hell even Sampras made the semis at RG,pretty boy Blake can't make it past 2nd round even on a day were the clay was fast
10/10 on grass with even a sleepyhead sampras .
8/10 on hardcourts only if it was on US soil - otherwise 5/10 on hardcourts to sampras .
0/10 on clay ( sampras is not gonna waste a minute with blake on clay - he'll give him a BYE & practice his golf swing - Blake is not more important to him then his golf swing , duhh ).
I guess there are two options here.
1. The forum is shut down so no one could debate ANY issue.
2. You could leave.
On the topic: I think sampras could possibly win 2-3 of 10 matches.
DUDE, i just find it riduculous that we have like 12351251263234 threads about the same thing over and over again, SAMPRAS, FEDERER, SAMPRAS, FEDERER...have people ever tried using the "search" function?
i'm not disagreeing with your #1 response, but it just seems ridiculous that the SAME new threads keep popping up.
and to your #2 response, NO, i won't leave. i've read your posts from other threads before and i've always respected your opinions, but DON'T be an @SS in response to my general statement.
If you find it ridiculous then go to a Golf Forum. Same way people could hit the "search" function, YOU could avoid coming into these type of threads.
I don't go into all the threads--just the ones I'm interested in. You could do the same.
these types of threads are pretty ridiculous....former players vs todays' players?
btw sampras would just take blake to a 5th set where the deal would be sealed
blake is like 0-9 or 0-10 in 5 set matches whereas sampras had an excellent 5 set record
i guess what i said was true, these threads do cause people to be in "constant arguments".
gsquicksilver, here's another option. Just have fun with it. There is no way to effectively compare eras, nutrition, competition, physicality, technology, or anything else many of these "fans" bring up. But, they're not going to stop, so I say have a great laugh on them, and let them wear themselves out looking for stats that support their opinions and polls that mean absolutely nothing!
quit making James Blake sound like he sucks, id like to see him thrash one of u guys. And James would beat Sampras on grass due to Sampras' lack of true competition.
TheTruth speaks the truth!
True, but I don't think we got a Sampras/Blake one....
I cannot belive I am posting in this thread!
Has anyone noticed that Blake is not a closer? Maybe it is just me, but he strikes me as the kind of guy that doesnt mind losing as long as it is to a great player.
I think Blake would give Sampras all he could handle if they played today, but I could also see Blake losing sets 6-4 becuase of mental weakness. I could also see Blake being perfectly happy after the loss. He would probably be honored to lose to such a great player. He would probably also ask his friends, "Did you see that one return I hit? It was awsome"
I think Blake is a great guy and I would like to see him win GS's, but so far I havent seen the killer instinct.
There are some people I wouldnt pick in a match up just because they are poor in the mental department. A person who is a champ always knows how to rise up to the occasion, in comparison Blake is a flake
WTF are you people smoking? Sampras was an embarrassment on modern grass. He couldn't handle the likes of Bastl and Kiefer on grass when he was still active, and in his athletic prime. And those guys were terrible on grass. Why would you expect Sampras to even win a set against a modern top-5 caliber player five years later, now that the grass courts have slowed down even further?
Sampras, if he were in his prime today, would win zero Wimbledons. The surface he played on no longer exists, and has been replaced by one that allowed Rafael Fricking Nadal to reach a final.
I think Sampras could beat Blake possibily 6/10 times.
Sampras playing in the wimbledon court from 1995 might have a decent chance against Blake right now.
Otherwise, 10-0 to Blake on ANY surface. Maybe 9-1 Blake if he goes into tank mode, decides to play nice guy, and gives one to the old man.
Your analysis is on point!
One match? You base your analysis on one match and ignore seven Wimbledons? And when did Kiefer beat Sampras at Wimbledon?
That's true. Blake is such a good, big match player. I'm sure the pressure wouldn't get to him at all. Ha ha ha. And how fitting if it was 5 sets!
Yeah, I don't think he even believes what he writes sometimes (i.e. Agassi is a roid-head.) He's basically saying perhaps the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time would be owned on "modern grass." I mean, wow, wonder how Fastdunn would say to that kind of claim.
Sampras would not loose a set to Blake. Sampras would own everybody on the tour right now just like Federer is owning everybody.
The "slowness" of todays grasscourts gets greatly exagerrated on these boards. It is still an unpredictable surface when a big server gets hot-see Kendrick vs Nadal last year. Or Mirnyi-Blake. Mirnyi is pretty awkward(guy doesn't even split step when coming to net) & beat Blake 61,60 the last 2 sets S&V on every 1st serve. Surely Sampras is better than Mirnyi or Kendrick?
Also many seem to forget Mark Philippoussis S&Ved on every serve(1st & 2nd) at 2003 Wimbledon(slow grass) & made the final. And I think we can agree this guy is pretty slow compared to Sampras & isn't a better volleyer. He even served 40 aces in the 1st round last year(as a wild card) & the guy has hardly played any tour level matches last 2 years.
S&V didn't die at Wimbledon because of slow grass, it is just not being taught(& really hasn't been common on tour since the 70s. Just because sampras & becker used it to great success doesn't mean it was a popular style during their time. borg & agassi clones have made up the majority of pros the last 20 years, not edberg types)
I think we seem to forget that the reason that Henman has been affected by the slow grass is that his serve is quite slow compared to Goran, Sampras, Becker, Philipppousis. those guys got a lot of aces on any surface.
Speaking of Goran he played 2004 Wimbledon(slow grass) after hardly playing any tour matches in 2 years. Guy straight setted Youzhny 1st round, serving aces like it was 1999. Wonder if he thought the grass was slow.
no one simply has the game/attitude anymore to attack on grass. sampras, rafter & goran retired at exactly the same time which coincided with baseline play becoming common at wimbledon. i don't think that's a coincidence.
Kendrick taking Nadal to 5 sets happened in one match, it does not mean it would happen if they played 10 times, if they played 10 times it would probably happen 1 or 2 times out of 10 and that was 1 of them. Also the fact Nadal made the Wimbledon final doesnt yet confirm him one of the top guys on grass unless he makes it deep in other events on grass in the future, I think it will prove to be a big time fluke like Courier's final run in 93 but we will see, too early to say of now. Lets just say I dont think there is any chance Kendrick would take a set off Federer at Wimbledon ever.
As for Blake's match with Mirnyi, Blake is a major bust performer in the slams outside the U.S Open, always has been. Blake also was not considered a dangerous grass court player at all until his Queens performance last year.
Goran was still slaughtered by Hewitt in the 3rd round at that 2004 Wimbledon. Hewitt returned his serve like it was nothing. Of course that Goran was nothing like the Goran of 2001 even, but I wouldnt overstate his performance at his final Wimbledon either. Youzhny was just a run of the mill top 50 player still at the time of Wimbledon 2004.
Youzhny was seeded at 2004 Wimbedon. My post was not about Federer but about other top players(and more about blake vs sampras like the op said) I just don't think there are many good grasscourters today, many would lose to the best grasscourters of the 90s, even on slower grass.
Where was Youzhny seeded at that Wimbledon? I thought he was ranked outside the top 32 at the time. Was he seeded based on ranking or his results at previous grass court events? Hewitt (an example of one of the real top few grass court players and return of servers at the time) still had an incredably easy time with Goran in the 3rd round, I remember watching the match and Goran's serve was being returned easily by Hewitt, and Hewitt dominated the match in everyway(obviously if you return Ivanisevic's serve a good player will have an easy time with the rest of his game).
I do agree though the current group of top players is not the strongest on grass. It is even weaker now that Hewitt will probably not ever be the player he was 2001-2005 ever again, and Roddick's best may also be in the past now no matter how hard he tries to rejuvenate himself with Connors. Nadal making the final is evidence of a weaker grass court field, Grosjean making the semis 2 straight years probably is too. I am hoping Murray, Djokovic, and Gasquet will change that in the coming years. That group all have the potential to be very good grass court players in the future I believe. Ancic has a pretty good game for grass but he isnt serious slam contending material all the same IMHO, particuarly as his ground game isnt strong enough for todays baseline-oriented mens game, even on grass.
I think the current mens field is only reasonably decent on hard courts, on both grass and clay they are much weaker then past years. There are not enough specialists on those surfaces, and most everybody today prefers hard courts.
Then again Washington and Pioline in Wimbledon finals back to back years of 96 and 97, and Woodbridge and Voltchkov in Wimbledon semis back to back years of 97 and 98 does not speak too highly of the mens field on grass as far back as 1996 either. I think ever since 1995 the mens field has been weaker in general on grass. 1995 was the year Ivanisevic, Agassi, Sampras, and Becker were all in the semis together. Since then the mens field on grass hasnt been as strong.
Current Sampras vs Blake, 10 out of 10 would go to Blake regardless of surface. Sampras in his prime vs Blake, 9 out of 10 would go to Sampras.
1998 semi ivanisevic vs krajicek, sampras vs henman
1999 semi sampras vs henman , agassi vs rafter
2000 semi sampras vs voltchkov, rafter vs agassi
2001 semi ivanisevic vs henman, rafter vs agassi
very strong field if you ask me, apart from voltchkov
2002 is where things started getting slower with nalbandian, hewitt, malisse
but thats mainly because main grass court players were absent e.g ivanisevic, rafter, sampras and thomas muster....
why don't you wake the f_+$ up. what are you smoking? can you get me some of that? I think it's working pretty good for you. Modern grass= still mother f=^&*ing grass idiot. I bet you are smoking grass right now. Zero wimbys in his prime? are you f*&^ing kidding me? you are a little piece of turd, I have t-shirts older than you kid. You don't even know how good pete was in his prime. I also believe, if pete got in shape for wimby now, he can get through couple rounds.
now wake the f&^@ up you little b&%@(
You have a point but Hewitt is much superior to Henman. Hewitt owns Henman head to head, even when Henman was in his prime, and is simply the superior player, on any surface, when both are in their primes. Nalbandian was regarded maybe as weaker around 2002, but in hindsight that may have been incorrect, as he has made the semis or better in all 4 slams and has an almost equal head to head with the great Federer.
Also calling Muster a main grass court player is a complete joke, I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that was a typo.
finally someone understands
and how old are you(im guessing a little immature for your age)
Sampras would destroy Blake if his serves were on
Blake couldn't beat Andre in the Fall of 2005
Pete would kill him.
That's too funny. Really.
Agassi in the Fall of '05 was a player with almost 20 years of experience. Just because his movement got worse, doesn't mean he was a worse player than before.
Whats really funny about this thread is all the people claiming blake would beat pete on clay. If anything, Pete would fare better on clay than hard. Just because Pete didn't win an RG everyone thinks he was a god awful clay courter. In his career he won several clay tourneys, made a few qf and a semi at RG. He wasn't the top contender on clay, but he was pretty consistently in teh top 10 best clay courters in an age with the likes of rios, muster, bruguera, tons more clay courters im not mentioning. blake is barely in the top 10 on any surface right now. Pete is much more experienced on clay and far superior clay courter or grass courter to blake even now I'd say id give pete the edge on clay or grass. Hard court, depends on how Pete's playing right now, haven't seen him a while. Blake is an awful clay courter, don't forget it.
I am not sure I agree that Blake is an "awful" claycourter. He did beat Almagro at Roland Garros last year when people were saying Almagro was one of the favorites since he pushed Federer to 7-5 in the third at Rome. That said, Sampras was no doubt a better claycourt player than Blake. However, didn't GINEPRI beat Sampras on clay? If Ginepri can, Blake can do it easier.
Also, don't forget, Sampras had a decent claycourt record until 1996. After that, he did not cross the 3rd round of the French ever again.
Ya because no one on tour can serve 125-130mph.
Blake would only lose if he played really really bad. But for the most part it would be a 2-2.
even if Pete never won RG for some bloody reason
he still made the semis there after I don't know how many tries
Blake has not got beyond 2nd round year after year;after year:lol: and the bloke is already 28 and looking at his 5 setter records; we can forget about it :roll:
so give Sampras...some credit
on clay: Sampras>>> Blake
They only play on grass one month in 11 months every year. I have always said that Sampras' best surface is hardcourts. Sampras repeatedly said over the years that hardcourts is his favourite surface. Wimbledon was his favourite tournament. In his declining years from 2000 to 2002 he got to 3 US Open finals winning one, he lost in the finals of Indian Wells, Los Angeles and Long Island in 2001 and the imported red clay of Houston in 2002. In the 2002 US Open Sampras stayed back more on second serve in 7 matches than he did in the whole of 2001 - so he readjusted his game and was using elements of point construction from his younger days and not serving and volleying everytime.
I have no idea who would win between Sampras and Blake now - I would have thought you have to favour Blake because he's a professional and trains every day and is match sharp. But I assume a 2002 US Open Sampras would beat Blake as comfortably as he beat Portas, Pless, Haas, Roddick and Schalken - all yonger men.
I would like to see Blake get his act together more and introduce the backhand slice into his game.
i have to agrre with him nadal final grass , full westen makes you wonder
Yeah. But..he can do wonders with that western grip. Go to ATP.com and check out his play of the week against Verdasco at Queens. He hits a running forehand pass of a ball barely 2 inches from the ground. Stunning.
Totally agree with you quicksilver....no reason for anyone on this board to be a%$% hole , in reply to a general comment someone has made on the boards.... If you got problems in your personal life and need to vent your anger..do it somwhere else.... this is a fun, amusing, relaxing, informative board....no reason to put anyone down for a general comment
Separate names with a comma.