If prime Nadal and prime Sampras had played . . . .

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by TheFifthSet, Oct 1, 2009.

  1. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,301
    11 matches on clay, 3 on grass, and 6 on hardcourts (as Federer and Nadal have so far), what would their H2H be? Serious question, no trolling intended, and no this isn't a parody of GSF thread . . . . although he/she gave me the idea for the thread.
     
    #1
  2. pundekman

    pundekman Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Nadal would take all 11 on clay. Including many 6-0 sets.
    Sampras would take all on grass. But Nadal would win sets.
    They would split the hardcourts depending onwhat type of hardcourt.
    So the final tally would be 14-6 Nadal.
     
    #2
  3. DarkSephiroth

    DarkSephiroth Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    258
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    10-1 Clay to Nadal, depending upon 3 or 5 set. (Sampras would have a better chance @ 3-Set)

    3-0 Grass to Sampras. (Sampras's offense was just too fast. )

    4-2 Hardcourts to Sampras, depending upon slow or fast HC. (Nadal's worst surface is hard, and Sampras was historically quite good on Hard. Hardcourts don't give Nadal as much time to set up, and Nadal doesn't seem to have as good a feel for hard, nor does he return very well on the surface. Sampras would be able to attack off both his serves. I think that Offense > Defense on most surfaces, and Nadal is primarily a defensive player.)

    So it seems overall, according to my analysis.. assuming these surfaces, Nadal would lead that H2H at 12-8.
     
    #3
  4. IvanAndreevich

    IvanAndreevich Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    What kind of grass? Nadal might sneak one out on today's.
     
    #4
  5. 1970CRBase

    1970CRBase Guest

    Don't take for granted Nadal would necessarily beat Pete everytime on clay. Pete's real problem on clay was stamina due to his blood condition, not lack of ability to play on clay; he could beat any given clay courter if he had to as he showed in Davis Cup vs Russia when they laid out a super slow clay court just for him, it's just that he couldn't play 5 setters on clay every match for 7 matches as somebody like Muster could.

    Actually, if Nadal were playing back then, he and Pete wouldn't have met very often on either clay or grass at all. On clay, Pete would have been knocked out too soon; grass, Nadal would have been bombed off court in an early round by any one of the big servers.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2009
    #5
  6. GasquetGOAT

    GasquetGOAT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    11-0 Clay to Nadal. Sampras would have no chance against Nadal on this surface, he would had done very well getting thus far to even face Nadal on clay but no he would not win any clay matches against Rafa. He would be aiming to not get bagelled repeatedly if anything.

    2-1 Grass to Sampras. (On todays grass it could be Nadal 2-1, being the best returner and capable of an aggressive all court game. But I give it to Sampras for his serve)

    3-3 Hardcourts even. depending upon slow or fast HC. Nadal takes all slow hardcourt meetings, and Sampras was historically quite good on fast Hard. Fast hardcourts don't give Nadal as much time to set up but he does return very well on both fast and slow HC.

    Overall Nadal takes it 16-4.
     
    #6
  7. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,301
    Hardcourt split is awfully harsh to Sampras IMO. Sampras is a top 3-4 fast court player of all time, plus he would be a big matchup issue for Nadal. Sampras was also no slouch on slow HC, won the AO twice and Miami 3 times. Sampras is IMO better on any hardcourt, fast, slow, medium, you name it.

    Overall I think it would be

    Clay - 11-0 Nadal
    HC - (3 fast HC meetings and 3 slow) 5-1 Sampras
    Todays Grass - 2-1 Sampras

    So 13-7 . . . . . :lol:
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2009
    #7
  8. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,301
    ??

    It's a simple exercise, no intentions of baiting. Just asking for opinions because I'm genuinely curious as to what people think. And seeing as Sampras fans often bring up Federer's h2h against Nadal as one of his detractors, I'm curious to see what they think as well.
     
    #8
  9. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    And what is the point of speculating imaginery match-ups?
     
    #9
  10. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,301
    It's intended to be a fun exercise. Does every thread have to serve some paramount purpose?

    I don't see you commenting on the 'You vs. Federer', 'Best composite all time player', or 'Weird H2H' threads. Those threads are fairly light-hearted and pretty pointless by nature as well.

    It seems that this particular topic strikes a nerve with you.
     
    #10
  11. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    This is because the thread is designed to demean a player .Not to mention it is ANOTHER recipe for era-discussion and seriously we've had enough of these threads. .
    I'm pretty sure should this thread last long especially with Samprastards posting, it will be another my era vs your era bullcrap.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2009
    #11
  12. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,301
    Disagree. Discussing a players merits isn't neccesarily demeaning him/her IMO. Comparing players in their respective primes (even from different era's) isn't a science but it is just another topic for those who don't take it that seriously, such as me . . . . people like GSF and Cesc may take it more seriously than others, and has therefore made this topic basically taboo LOL, but this thread isn't meant to incite hate or vitriol.

    I think we should agree to disagree anyway.
     
    #12
  13. With theese surfaces and the number of times on each surface, it would be 11-0 clay Nadal, 3-0 Sampras on grass,and 4-2 Sampras on HC, which would make the H2H 13-7 Nadal...oh...:shock:
     
    #13
  14. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,540
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    13-7 Nadal.
     
    #14
  15. dropshot winner

    dropshot winner Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Based on Sampras' struggle against Bruguera:

    11 - 0 on clay
    0 - 3 on 90s grass
    4 - 2 on harcourt
    ----------------
    15 - 5 Nadal
     
    #15
  16. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,621
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Prime (thus far) Nadal vs. Prime Sampras (assuming today's surfaces)

    **Note that Nadal may very well improve, or he may decline. I tend to think he'll improve in the years ahead.


    Grass-Sampras in 6-7 out of 10
    Hard-Sampras 7 out of 10
    Faster Indoor-Sampras 7 out of 10
    Rebound Ace-Nadal 6-7 out of 10
    Clay-Nadal 10 of 10

    Sampras Advantages-Serve, forehand, net play.
    Sampras Weaknesses-Stamina, slower surfaces, high backhands potentially, and long rallies in general.
    Nadal Advantages-Consistency, groundstrokes (esp. passing shots), footspeed, and stamina.
    Nadal Weaknesses-Return of serve, esp. on fast surfaces if he cannot return close enough to the baseline, hard courts.
     
    #16
  17. sh@de

    sh@de Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,979
    Nadal would own Sampras every time they played on clay. And Sampras would own Nadal on carpet courts every time they played. On old grass, Sampras would have a great edge, e.g. 7-3 in 10 matches. On new grass, they'd probably be about even. On slow hardcourts, Nadal would have a pretty good advantage and on fast hardcourts, it would be Sampras with the edge.
     
    #17
  18. darthpwner

    darthpwner Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    11-0 Nadal on clay
    3-0 Sampras on grass
    4-2 for Sampras on hard courts
    13-7 for Nadal. Just like his h2h against Federer
     
    #18
  19. wyutani

    wyutani Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,760
    Location:
    hong kong
    only on clay mate'...ust clay.
     
    #19
  20. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,714
    Location:
    VA Beach
    I agree with mandy. This is just gonna incite more pointless era debates, something GSF and others love....imaginary matches are pointless, IMO.
     
    #20
  21. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    Insult again.
     
    #21
  22. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    LOL ..Are you a stalker? Or you never read any other posts except mine? :lol:
    And if the OP didnt take it personally why do you bother?Mind your own business o' self-appointed moderator.
     
    #22
  23. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    Don't worry I have officially complained.
     
    #23
  24. cork_screw

    cork_screw Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,569
    Nadal would still win. It's not a matter of the player's status it's all about match ups!!! Sampras has the old school play style that federer has. They both play very similar. Nadal's spin would eat up sampras' flat hitting style and nadal would easily overthrow sampras' backhand which is actually less dynamic than federer's. So I don't know why people keep asking questions they can answer if they just put a little more thought into it.
     
    #24
  25. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    By all means do so.I guess you dont know what a personal insult means or you have decided to solely target me.Go ahead.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2009
    #25
  26. shabby

    shabby Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    168
    ROFL @ DOUBLE STANDARDS!!

    As you told me a few weeks back, "This is a forum, i say whenever and whatever i want"

    EDIT: Ledigs, do not allow this troll to wind you up. She is nothing but trouble.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2009
    #26
  27. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    I dont know for certain what the overall head to head would be, but I am pretty sure Sampras would do better than winning 25% of his matches vs Nadal on an outdoor hard court (and being down 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd in the only win).
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
    #27
  28. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    Some people seriously underrate Sampras as a claycourt player and Nadal as a grasscourt player.

    Nadal would take atleast 1 match off Sampras on grass (not as likely if they only play 3 matches, but if it was 5ish, then for sure - consider Sampras's 3 set grass record @ Queen's, for example) and Sampras would take atleast 1 match off Nadal on clay (Sampras didn't suck on clay, and Nadal can have bad days - Soderling, in case).

    Mind you, I think Nadal would be more dominant on clay in their h2h than Sampras would be on any surface, but that's only my $0.02
     
    #28
  29. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    I do agree if Pete and Rafa played alot of matches on grass that Rafa could win at some point, especialy if they played at a tune up (much harder to beat Pete on Wimbledon, especialy on the old true grass). However if they only played 3 matches on grass, if all 3 at Wimbledon, and if 1 of the 3 was baby Rafa who was a grass court novice back, and 1 of the remaining 2 Rafa was seriously injured in the hypothetical 5th set, then then I think Pete would win all 3 in that case.

    I agree if they played 11 times on clay that Pete would find a way to win 1 or 2. Pete is a very underrated clay court player. His biggest problem on clay is he lacks consistency, but he has the ability to beat a top clay courter, and he tends to get up for the top guys on clay and always make it competitive.
     
    #29
  30. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    If Pete ever made a French Open final, I would have backed him to win it, simply because he along with Borg are the best match players of the open era.
     
    #30
  31. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Interesting. Even over Nadal on clay? I sort of see that as being hard. I already consider Nadal probably the 2nd greatest clay courter in history after Borg. Then again like you said Sampras is one of the greatest match players in history like you said so I guess it is possible. I suspect he would have played better than Federer did in his French finals with Nadal, despite that Federer is a slightly better overall clay courter than Pete.
     
    #31
  32. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    No, not against Nadal. I meant in his own era in the 90's.
     
    #32
  33. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Awww ok that makes more sense. In that case I agree. I do think Pete would have come up with the goods to win a French Open final in the 90s had he ever made one, even over a great clay courter like Courier, Bruguera, or Muster. It would basically take someone like Nadal to stop him if he ever did make a French Open final. I also really think if Sampras and Federer ever played a French Open final that Sampras would win, although Federer would win most of their matches on clay otherwise.
     
    #33
  34. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    coulda,woulda,shoulda,ifs and buts......
    Sampras= 0 French Opens.

    To the OP-There you go....
     
    #34
  35. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    Unfortunatley Pete ran into Courier, Bruguera or Agassi in the quarters, instead of Hanescu, Robredo or Gonzo. :(
     
    #35
  36. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Unfortunately Pete lost to quite a few Tom,Dick and Harrys( the ones Federer wouldnt lose to) as well:cry:
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
    #36
  37. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    So has Federer. Hicham Arazi and Luis Horna ring a bell.
     
    #37
  38. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Federer in his prime years? :shock:
    Last time I checked,Federer in his prime atleast made the semi-finals :shock:
    2004 is the only year you could make a case for :wink:
    LOL..And if Pete was so great a match player then should've overcomed those he lost to the QFs.:wink:
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
    #38
  39. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Anyway,OP..You see what happens when gsf and cesc start posting in these threads.They again managed to bring in how Sampras is superior to Federer,how his era is superior to the current and all the usual nonsense.
     
    #39
  40. luckyboy1300

    luckyboy1300 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,796
    #40
  41. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    #41
  42. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Federer would win Wimbledon only a little over a month after the embarassing Horna loss, and had been in the Rome final earlier that year, and won Hamburg the year before. Unless we are setting some very stringent boundaries that certainly should count. If we include all years both players were ranked #1 or #2 in the World at some point in the year and won atleast 1 slam than that would be 2003-currently for Federer and 1993-2000 for Sampras. Federer has had 2 embarassing and truly bad losses at the French in that time, 2003 to Horna, and 2004 to a several years hip crippled Kuerten. Sampras has had 3, Schaller in 1995, Delgado in 1998, and Philippoussis in 2000. So really almost the same, and who knows Federer might tie Pete next year. If we want to talk about subjective "prime" years well Pete's prime was really 1993-1997 so his only loss to any semblance of tom, harry, or joe was 1995. Actually though Gilbert Schaller in 1995 was ranked higher than the hip busted Kuerten was in 2004, and Schaller himself is a clay court specialist who just missed being seeded for that French Open based on his overall ranking.

    So essentially the biggest difference between them at the French as Cesc pointed out is Federer faces only Nadal while Sampras faced Agassi, Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, and Medvedev.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
    #42
  43. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Troll :lol:You just changed your tune after setting YOUR own bar for what should be compared :lol:
    What have the rankings got to do with anything?ROFL :lol:
    Such useless points :lol:
    Counting the years Sampras won a slam -He's had 7 early round losses making only 1 semi-finals.
    And your excuse for his losing in the QF s is just pathetic to say the least.Looks like Sampras is not as great a match player as you make him out to be or he would've won atleast one of those QFs.
    Just more Bullcrap from you.
    According to you just because Sampras lost to those guys Federer would've lost to them too.
    Gosh,you're an unbelievable troll.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
    #43
  44. CatLasagna

    CatLasagna Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Dont know why my post didnt come up before. Anyway, my opinion is that Nadal would edge out Sampras in a tight 5 setter on grass, and flatten him on clay. Hardcourt, I'd go with nadal as well. The reason is that on Hardcourt and Grass I think if Nadal got his racquet on the ball, Sampras would have a very very hard time defending against those loopy top spin shots that land at his feet or whizz past him.

    ON second thought I would put Nadal with more wins on grass against Samprass' few. Please try and deconstruct my argument with proper techinque analysis not just "oh Pete was unbeatable on 90s grass" or any appeal to emotion.
     
    #44
  45. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    I did not set my own bar for anything. I gave them the same standards in each of my examples. If we are talking 100% prime than that is only 1993-1997 for Pete, and that would still include 2004 for Federer, so one really bad loss for both. If we are talking years they were near the very top and each won a slam that year (seems completely fair) than Federer has two really bad losses and Sampras three. Pointing out that facing Agassi, Bruguera, and Courier in quarterfinals of the French is alot different than Gonzalez, Hanescu, and Monfils is hardly mindless excuse making, but something that a rational minded and fair person would be able to acknowledge.

    I see being unable to counter my points with any relevant or intelligent debate you resort to your usual flaming and name calling. Sadly what we have all come to expect from you and a few of your fellow Federer worshippers.
     
    #45
  46. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    ^^ROFL..More crap as usual.
    I'll start by replying in a descending order.

    Unable? ROFL :lol: And you think your points are relevant and intelligent?
    Flaming and name-calling? You are responsible for turning any thread into your useless era-talks and you expect not to be called a troll? You post some of the most vitriolic stuff here,reviving ages old threads and starting utterly useless ones and you think you shouldnt be called a troll?

    Sadly,you cant stick to former pro player section and come here with all your bitterness.


    You call yourself rational minded?All you did is giving useless excuses.And yes,they're excuses.There was no reason why Sampras couldnt have won any one of those QFs since according to you guys he's such a great match-player and one of the strongest mentally. .And AGAIN dont even think of starting that era BS with me.That does not excuse Sampras's failure to win the French Open.

    And no,Sampras had 7 early round losses.Period.Embarrassing or not,he had won slams in those years.Roger's had 2 so far.

    You waste so much time arguing about how crap this era is,makes me wonder why you even bother to watch tennis.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
    #46
  47. All-rounder

    All-rounder Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    6,223
    Location:
    Transitional era
    Federer and nadal have FO titles Sampras doesn't period no need to get into any details
     
    #47
  48. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    BTW-Seeing Kafelnikov's record and the French I'd hardly call him a god there.Definitely not unbeatable.
    And seeing his final match against Stich:)lol:) I would hardly call him something very special.Of course played a great tourney( bageled Pete.What a shame),but really wouldnt call him as special as made out to be.
    Again gsf,Cesc and their excuses for Sampras's failure to win the French :lol:
    Sampras's own excuse was the sun :wink:
    What these people dont get is that Sampras wasnt going to win the French Open playing the way he used to.He was NOT a great mover on the surface.Roger's court coverage especially on the red clay beats that of Sampras any day.The surface neutralizes big serves and that was always going to be a problem for Sampras .He wasnt a weak baseliner but never as strong as the other baseliners and def. not as strong a baseliner as Roger is .
    His game was designed for fast playing surfaces.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
    #48
  49. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,621
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Sampras would NOT completely dominate Nadal, overall, and Nadal would NOT completely dominate Sampras (except on Clay). Anyone that thinks that there would be complete blowouts on either side when they played prime vs. prime on faster surfaces I think is mistaken.

    I didn't use the 11/3/6 scenario presented by the OP in my earlier post, so, going back to the 11 on Clay, 3 on Grass, and 6 on Hard Courts, head to head, I would take:

    1. Nadal all 11 times on Clay (unless there was a clear injury or major fatigue problem);
    2. Sampras 2 of 3 on Grass; and
    3. Sampras 5 of 6 on Hard Courts.

    This would give Nadal a 13-7 edge in this hypo match up (prime vs. prime), which is heavily weighted towards Nadal given 11 matches on Clay.

    Overall, Nadal's shots would give Sampras a lot of difficulty on the backhand wing, but Nadal would be troubled by Sampras' Serve and Volleying on the faster surfaces. He would have to be "on" in terms of his returns and passing shots, or Sampras could run away with some matches pretty quickly. This is a great match up, in that it would have been a more modern version of Borg/McEnroe, though of course, you are primarily comparing two different decades.
     
    #49
  50. T1000

    T1000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,342
    Location:
    Connecticut
    clay - Nadal 10-1 sampras would sneak one out
    grass - sampras 2-1 if on todays grass, sampras 3-0 on real grass
    hard - Sampras 5-1 or 4-2, depending on the speed

    Nadal would have a 13-7 or 12-8 on sampras
     
    #50

Share This Page