If Sampras had Nole rather than Agassi in the 90s

[TMF]

With his consistent and a great hard court players year-by-year, I think Nole could have prevent Sampras from winning 14 slams and 6 YE #1. In addition to his clay prowess, he would add many more ATP points to keep Sampras at bay, as we have seen him done it for the past 4 years.

Agassi was great, but he was never consistent, and never stood much in Sampras way to glory unlike Nole consistently doing to Nadal and Federer. By the number, Nole has played Federer 36 times, played Nadal 42 times. That's 78 meeting combined !

So it's highly likely that Pete has to get pass Nole quite more often than against Agassi, one can argue that Sampras would have less achieved. Given that Sampras total ATP points wasn't all the spectacular in his 6 YE#1(especially 1998), that would give Nole greater chance to end the YE #1. Let's not forget that it was very difficult for him to get 3 YE#1 by fighting tooth and nail against Federer/Nadal.

With Nole minus Agassi in the 90s, my take is that Sampras would have won about 10-12 slams, 3 YE #1, and 150 weeks at #1.

 

[helloworld]

With his consistent and a great hard court players year-by-year, I think Nole could have prevent Sampras from winning 14 slams and 6 YE #1. In addition to his clay prowess, he would add many more ATP points to keep Sampras at bay, as we have seen him done it for the past 4 years.

Agassi was great, but he was never consistent, and never stood much in Sampras way to glory unlike Nole consistently doing to Nadal and Federer. By the number, Nole has played Federer 36 times, played Nadal 42 times. That's 78 meeting combined !

So it's highly likely that Pete has to get pass Nole quite more often than against Agassi, one can argue that Sampras would have less achieved. Given that Sampras total ATP points wasn't all the spectacular in his 6 YE#1(especially 1998), that would give Nole greater chance to end the YE #1. Let's not forget that it was very difficult for him to get 3 YE#1 by fighting tooth and nail against Federer/Nadal.

With Nole minus Agassi in the 90s, my take is that Sampras would have won about 10-12 slams, 3 YE #1, and 150 weeks at #1.

Fed didn't have to contend with Prime Nole during his prime years either. My take is that Fed would have about 1 YE#1 and 3-5 slams and 50 weeks at #1 if he had to contend with Prime Nole.

 

[NatF]

Yes perfect, another chance to rile up those Sampras fans who are hanging onto Nadal's banana hammock these days.

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed didn't have to contend with Prime Nole during his prime years either. My take is that Fed would have about 1 YE#1 and 3-5 slams and 50 weeks at #1 if he had to contend with Prime Nole.

The funny part is how Sampras peak or prime never coincided with anyone else's except Kafelnikov.

 

[cknobman]

Fed didn't have to contend with Prime Nole during his prime years either. My take is that Fed would have about 1 YE#1 and 3-5 slams and 50 weeks at #1 if he had to contend with Prime Nole.

Rather Nole has never had to contend with prime Federer otherwise I'd give him 0 ye#1, 1 GS, and maybe 15 weeks @#1

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yes perfect, another chance to rile up those Sampras fans who are hanging onto Nadal's banana hammock these days.

LOL!

But seriously, was this thread really needed?

 

[helloworld]

Rather Nole has never had to contend with prime Federer otherwise I'd give him 0 ye#1, 1 GS, and maybe 15 weeks @#1

Yeah, you may be right, but I could be right, too!

 

[TMF]

Stop trolling

Fed didn't have to contend with Prime Nole during his prime years either. My take is that Fed would have about 1 YE#1 and 3-5 slams and 50 weeks at #1 if he had to contend with Prime Nole.

Fed played Nole 36 times, and had plenty of obstacles especially Nadal.

Back to the topic, Agassi was never consistent...he won only 3 slams during Sampras's prime(1993-1998) who ended the year #1 6 times. Only when Agassi got back in form and motivated in 1999 when he finally ended the Year #1 for the first time. Unlike Nole, Sampras is not going get free passes, because Nole is incredibly consistent and he takes the ranking status very seriously, not to mention the WTF. Nole highly motivated and desire over meth Agassi would sure achieved a lot at the expense of Sampras.

 

[helloworld]

Fed played Nole 36 times, and had plenty of obstacles especially Nadal.

Back to the topic, Agassi was never consistent...he won only 3 slams during Sampras's prime(1993-1998) who ended the year #1 6 times. Only when Agassi got back in form and motivated in 1999 when he finally ended the Year #1 for the first time. Unlike Nole, Sampras is not going get free passes, because Nole is incredibly consistent and he takes the ranking status very seriously, not to mention the WTF. Nole highly motivated and desire over meth Agassi would sure achieved a lot at the expense of Sampras.

The reason he only won 3 slam during Sampras' prime is because Sampras didn't let him win more. Sampras didn't get free passes. He earned them, by totally destroying Agassi's mental state into oblivion for several years.

 

[Federator]

OP, you really think Sampras would get at least 8 slams if Novak were around? I highly doubt it. I would think it might be 6 maybe 7 if he was lucky. The only one's he's really keeping are the Wimbledon's.

 

[Federator]

The reason he only won 3 slam during Sampras' prime is because Sampras didn't let him win more. Sampras didn't get free passes. He earned them, by totally destroying Agassi's mental state into oblivion for several years.

Why do you suppose Sampras LET Agassi win those 3 at all? Why wouldn't he just take them for himself? Please don't say Pete was giving, we all know for a fact he was the cheapest cat around .

 

[Mustard]

How would Djokovic respond mentally to Sampras serving great and finishing points quickly?

 

[Federator]

How would Djokovic respond mentally to Sampras serving great and finishing points quickly?

Probably in a manner similar to how Pete would respond to Djokovic returning all of his serves with interest no matter what he threw at him.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Rather Nole has never had to contend with prime Federer otherwise I'd give him 0 ye#1, 1 GS, and maybe 15 weeks @#1

Here I agree, Nole depended of old declined fed and washed ou Nadal to win most of his majors.

The trolls claim how Nole "destroyed" y times in a row, but they dont even notice with even that "ownage" as they claim, nole is still 3-9 in slam matches and 19-23 in h2h against the spaniard. And even if you are picky and only choose nole as 2011+ because it was his peak, he still is 3-4 in slam matches vs rafa.

So no, Nole benefited from the decline of Fedal. Even when Rafa shows up with a decent form, like in 2013 or USO 2010 he completly dominates the serb.

 

[Mustard]

Probably in a manner similar to how Pete would respond to Djokovic returning all of his serves with interest no matter what he threw at him.

Are we talking poly strings or gut strings here? The difference is big, as seen in tennis today compared to tennis in the 1990s. No way does Djokovic do what you suggest with gut strings any better than what Agassi managed.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Are we talking poly strings or gut strings here? The difference is big, as seen in tennis today compared to tennis in the 1990s. No way does Djokovic do what you suggest with gut strings any better than what Agassi managed.

agreed here, serve alone made sampras unplayable in most fast surfaces like wimby or the USO.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Sampras is a terrible matchup for Djokovic. We already saw how much Roddick troubled Nole with that big serving and flat hitting. And Sampras is a million times better player than Roddick. So put two and two together.

 

[Mustard]

The biggest factor for me, is that Djokovic can be "got at" mentally, if he can't into the rhythm that he likes. He gets frustrated. Agassi often had a deer in the headlights look against Sampras at times, even in a match like the 2000 Australian Open semi final, which Agassi eventually won.

In the 1995 US Open final, Sampras won a huge set point to take the first set by breaking Agassi's serve, and was quickly 3-0 up in the second set. Agassi was facing a big uphill struggle from there, and Agassi dealt with the loss very badly indeed.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

How would Djokovic respond mentally to Sampras serving great and finishing points quickly?

That's an interesting question. Djokovic is known for mental lapses sometimes when he faces a big server who has a good day. Isner is an obvious example, even Federer frustrates Djokovic sometimes with this particular weapon, so it wouldn't be easy for him against Pete, even with poly strings.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Djokovic wouldn't have impacted Pete's slams much, as most of them were on surfaces where Djokovic couldn't hope to reach the final, let alone beat Sampras (fast grass, faster USO HC).

Djokovic would clean up at RG and maybe AO though. I would say that Djokovic would take Pete's RG titles, but wait...

Sampras would have many less #1 weeks and YE #1, as Novak would mop up all the clay and slow/medium HC titles, and maybe a few fast HC titles if he didn't have to face Pete to get them (but not USO).

Djokovic in Sampras Prime = 2-3 AO, 3-4 RG, 0 WIM, 0-1 USO.

Sampras might lose a slam or two, most likely at AO.
Chance of Novak beating Sampras at AO = 45%, RG = 95%, WIM = 1%, USO = 20%.

 

[mike danny]

The reason he only won 3 slam during Sampras' prime is because Sampras didn't let him win more. Sampras didn't get free passes. He earned them, by totally destroying Agassi's mental state into oblivion for several years.

Then Agassi wasn't that great afterall. If just one match sent him into a 3 year slump then he was not a worthy rival.

Nadal did 10 times more damage to Federer yet Fed didn't run away for 3 years. He kept coming back and winning majors and breaking other records. This is what champions do, they always come back no matter what.

W 2008 was 10 times more heartbreaking than USO 1995. Yet Federer didn't hide for 3 years. He came back and won the very next slam, USO 2008.

If Agassi let that 1 match get to him then he was never a worthy champion or a worthy rival

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic would be easy prey for Sampras on those fast surfaces. Federer would beat Djokovic a lot of times as well. In the 90's a lot of the surfaces played like Cincinatti,where Novak is really unconfortable.

Now, put Sampras on the slow courts of today vs Djokovic and with that weak BH of his, he would lose much more than in the 90's, except probably for grass

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Then Agassi wasn't that great afterall. If just one match sent him into a 3 year slump then he was not a worthy rival.

Nadal did 10 times more damage to Federer yet Fed didn't run away for 3 years. He kept coming back and winning majors and breaking other records. This is what champions do, they always come back no matter what.

W 2008 was 10 times more heartbreaking than USO 1995. Yet Federer didn't hide for 3 years. He came back and won the very next slam, USO 2008.

If Agassi let that 1 match get to him then he was never a worthy champion or a worthy rival

Fully agreed .. real champions fall and stand up again, that's what make the champions become into great players. You can be good, very good... but as long as you dont overcome difficulties you arent great.

 

[tennis_commentator]

I think Djokovic would make no difference other than being superior on clay and rebound ace (just as Agassi was). Sampras would absolutely maul Djokovic at Wimbledon and US Open.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I think Djokovic would make no difference other than being superior on clay and rebound ace (just as Agassi was). Sampras would absolutely maul Djokovic at Wimbledon and US Open.

At Wimbledon he would but not the US Open, although I'd still favour him there.

 

[Mustard]

Agassi did get up again, eventually, but after the 1995 US Open final, Agassi had a year of indifference followed by a year of slump, before he started being 100% focused on getting back to the top again.

Sampras hit Agassi hard at the perfect moment in the 1995 US Open final. Going into the match, Agassi had all the advantage on paper, with the 26 match winning streak, 7 tournament victories that year, winning 3 out of 4 matches against Sampras that year etc. With that one match, Sampras changed everything. Suddenly, Sampras had won 2 majors to Agassi's 1 in 1995, combined with winning their biggest match of the year. Sampras had also won been the best on grass that year, so Sampras' year suddenly looked a lot better than Agassi's.

Agassi coped with this very badly. It was a classic case of failing to turn quantity into quality, and getting hit hard.

 

[BringBackSV]

OP, you really think Sampras would get at least 8 slams if Novak were around? I highly doubt it. I would think it might be 6 maybe 7 if he was lucky. The only one's he's really keeping are the Wimbledon's.

Really, how many USO's is Nole going to stop Pete in ?

 

[dudeski]

OP is giving way to much credit to Sampras. Where is the option for 6-8 slams?

 

[coloskier]

With his consistent and a great hard court players year-by-year, I think Nole could have prevent Sampras from winning 14 slams and 6 YE #1. In addition to his clay prowess, he would add many more ATP points to keep Sampras at bay, as we have seen him done it for the past 4 years.

Agassi was great, but he was never consistent, and never stood much in Sampras way to glory unlike Nole consistently doing to Nadal and Federer. By the number, Nole has played Federer 36 times, played Nadal 42 times. That's 78 meeting combined !

So it's highly likely that Pete has to get pass Nole quite more often than against Agassi, one can argue that Sampras would have less achieved. Given that Sampras total ATP points wasn't all the spectacular in his 6 YE#1(especially 1998), that would give Nole greater chance to end the YE #1. Let's not forget that it was very difficult for him to get 3 YE#1 by fighting tooth and nail against Federer/Nadal.

With Nole minus Agassi in the 90s, my take is that Sampras would have won about 10-12 slams, 3 YE #1, and 150 weeks at #1.

It depends on whether you are talking about 90's strings, rackets, balls, and court speed/bounce or not. Nole definitely is at a disadvantage on faster, low bouncing courts. Agassi was a much better passer and returner on those courts than Djoker ever will be. And Sampras is a much better volleyer than Fed, and Fed showed Djoker what happens on a fast, low bouncing court if you S&V.

 

[cc0509]

How would Djokovic respond mentally to Sampras serving great and finishing points quickly?

Horribly. Some people don't know what they are talking about on here. If Sampras had to face Djokovic rather than Agassi I don't see any difference in Sampras' results. Sampras > Djokovic on grass and faster hc and at the AO I think it would be very similar results as the results vs Agassi. Heck Sampras may have won more slams at the AO vs Djokovic as compared to Agassi.

 

[Zoid]

Djokvic in the 90's? Please refer to recent fed-djokovic match in shanghai and then add 20 miles on the serve. Pete would be all over novak in quick 90's conditions with gut strings. On slow courts novak would be all over pete.

 

[TMF]

Sampras doesn't match up well against a great movers with great defensive ability. Hewitt who is also a great movers, return well(but not as good as Nole) had success against Sampras. With Nole having more power and better serve than Hewitt, I think Sampras is in serious thread playing against Nole.

Again Agassi was great, but he rarely play top level tennis, who lost to many lesser players during Sampras's run at the slam. With Nole, he's already made 14 slam finals, one shy of Sampras entire career. He also made 14 consecutive slam finals, 2nd behind Roger at 23. You can't deny that Sampras would have to run into Nole at the slam quite often, and even at the WTF.

 

[TMF]

Fed played Nole 36 times, and had plenty of obstacles especially Nadal.

Back to the topic, Agassi was never consistent...he won only 3 slams during Sampras's prime(1993-1998) who ended the year #1 6 times. Only when Agassi got back in form and motivated in 1999 when he finally ended the Year #1 for the first time. Unlike Nole, Sampras is not going get free passes, because Nole is incredibly consistent and he takes the ranking status very seriously, not to mention the WTF. Nole highly motivated and desire over meth Agassi would sure achieved a lot at the expense of Sampras.

The reason he only won 3 slam during Sampras' prime is because Sampras didn't let him win more. Sampras didn't get free passes. He earned them, by totally destroying Agassi's mental state into oblivion for several years.

They only met 3 times at the slam from 1993-1998 !

Sampras was lucky that his main rival wasn't around who either losing in early round or doesn't play tennis due to his addiction to meth and marital problem with Brooke Shields. With Nole, Sampras will find it hard to avoid since the guy is too consistent.

 

[TMF]

I was a Sampras fans in the 90s

OP, you really think Sampras would get at least 8 slams if Novak were around? I highly doubt it. I would think it might be 6 maybe 7 if he was lucky. The only one's he's really keeping are the Wimbledon's.

OP is giving way to much credit to Sampras. Where is the option for 6-8 slams?

You find me being generous and that's partially due to being one of his fan, like many Federer fans who use to be a Sampras fan themselves in the 90s.

I estimated Sampras would have around 10-12 slams, 3 YE #1, and 150 weeks at #1. With mostly 10 slams depends on Nole's level/consistency will be in 2015 and beyond. However if one believe he would have achieved less, I have no quarrel with him.

 

[TMF]

BTW, I would appreciated if only non-Sampras fans vote so we can have a sensible poll result.

 

[rossi46]

Djokovic wouldn't have impacted Pete's slams much, as most of them were on surfaces where Djokovic couldn't hope to reach the final, let alone beat Sampras (fast grass, faster USO HC).

Djokovic would clean up at RG and maybe AO though. I would say that Djokovic would take Pete's RG titles, but wait...

Sampras would have many less #1 weeks and YE #1, as Novak would mop up all the clay and slow/medium HC titles, and maybe a few fast HC titles if he didn't have to face Pete to get them (but not USO).

Djokovic in Sampras Prime = 2-3 AO, 3-4 RG, 0 WIM, 0-1 USO.

Sampras might lose a slam or two, most likely at AO.
Chance of Novak beating Sampras at AO = 45%, RG = 95%, WIM = 1%, USO = 20%.

They only met 3 times at the slam from 1993-1998 !

Sampras was lucky that his main rival wasn't around who either losing in early round or doesn't play tennis due to his addiction to meth and marital problem with Brooke Shields. With Nole, Sampras will find it hard to avoid since the guy is too consistent.

And when the new meth free and Brooke Shields free Agassi caught fire in 1999, Sampras still handed his arse to him at Wimbledon and let's not forget the US Open in 2002 where Agassi was easily the more physically fitter of the two.

Sampras was better than Agassi, both game and mental strength.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Nole would probably take about 3-4 Slams off him, but as others have alluded to certainly not Wimbledon and to a lesser extent the USO.
Novak would probably have had more impact on the weeks at Number 1 though, due to his clay superiority and the fact that Sampras always made the Majors his priority and not minor events.

 

[coloskier]

BTW, I would appreciated if only non-Sampras fans vote so we can have a sensible poll result.

As long as no Nole fans can vote either.....

 

[coloskier]

Sampras doesn't match up well against a great movers with great defensive ability. Hewitt who is also a great movers, return well(but not as good as Nole) had success against Sampras. With Nole having more power and better serve than Hewitt, I think Sampras is in serious thread playing against Nole.

Again Agassi was great, but he rarely play top level tennis, who lost to many lesser players during Sampras's run at the slam. With Nole, he's already made 17 slam finals, one shy of Sampras entire career. He also made 14 consecutive slam finals, 2nd behind Roger at 23. You can't deny that Sampras would have to run into Nole at the slam quite often, and even at the WTF.

Djoker's power on serve would be lessened dramatically with 90's equipment, don't you think???? Also, his ability to hit heavy topspin passing shots is gone, as well. Agassi and Hewitt hit flat passing shots.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The reason he only won 3 slam during Sampras' prime is because Sampras didn't let him win more. Sampras didn't get free passes. He earned them, by totally destroying Agassi's mental state into oblivion for several years.

No, Agassi didn't even like tennis to begin with so I'd hardly say he "destroyed" his mental state by beating him. He just no longer tried for 1996-1997 and dropped out of the top 100.

Hewitt & Safin also embarrassed Sampras on the biggest stages when he was younger than Federer is now (in his 20's still I believe).

It's also a joke to say that Djokovic would stop Federer from winning near the same amount he has. He isn't superhuman, and he would succumb to Federer's wrath any year bar 2011. You're a joke.

 

[chjtennis]

Yes, I agree. Djokovic wouldn't have been able to stop Sampras in Wimby. I voted for option 3. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon, 5 USO, and 2 AO. He probably would've won 7 Wimbledon with Djokovic, but Djokovic mught take 1 USO and 1 AO from Sampras. So, I think Sampras would've won 12-14 slams and at least 4 YE #1 with 200+ weeks at no. 1. If Djokovic played during Sampras' era, other players wouldn't have won much at all. Their dominance would've been similar to the dominance by big 4 in the past decade. Sampras, Djokovic and Agassi would've formed Big 3 and I think Djokovic would've won about 5 AO, 3-5 FO, 0-1 Wimbledon and 1-2 USO.

 

[Chico]

8-10 slams, with Djokovic getting 12-14.

 

[BringBackSV]

BTW, I would appreciated if only non-Sampras fans vote so we can have a sensible poll result.

Then you should appreciate if only non Federer fans vote too, so that there is a sensible poll result.

 

[BringBackSV]

No, Agassi didn't even like tennis to begin with so I'd hardly say he "destroyed" his mental state by beating him. He just no longer tried for 1996-1997 and dropped out of the top 100.

Hewitt & Safin also embarrassed Sampras on the biggest stages when he was younger than Federer is now (in his 20's still I believe).

It's also a joke to say that Djokovic would stop Federer from winning near the same amount he has. He isn't superhuman, and he would succumb to Federer's wrath any year bar 2011. You're a joke.

Fed would have an advantage at Wimbledon, near wash at UO, edge Novak at Ao and wash at FO.

 

[BringBackSV]

Sampras doesn't match up well against a great movers with great defensive ability. Hewitt who is also a great movers, return well(but not as good as Nole) had success against Sampras. With Nole having more power and better serve than Hewitt, I think Sampras is in serious thread playing against Nole.

Again Agassi was great, but he rarely play top level tennis, who lost to many lesser players during Sampras's run at the slam. With Nole, he's already made 17 slam finals, one shy of Sampras entire career. He also made 14 consecutive slam finals, 2nd behind Roger at 23. You can't deny that Sampras would have to run into Nole at the slam quite often, and even at the WTF.

Novak is 7 out of 14 finals (he hasn't made 17) and he'd be worse off against Sampras than he is against Fed (near even). Sampras destroys him at Wimbledon and beats him down at the USO. At AO it would be slight edge Novak and FO clear edge Novak. In effect, more or less the same way that Fed handled him, if he had been required to play Novak in his prime.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Fed would have an advantage at Wimbledon, near wash at UO, edge Novak at Ao and wash at FO.

Prime Federer would most likely beat prime Djokovic at Wimbledon every time, he'd have more of a chance at beating Federer at the USO but that would still be pretty unlikely (See: 2008 and 2009 at the USO).

 

[BringBackSV]

Prime Federer would most likely beat prime Djokovic at Wimbledon every time, he'd have more of a chance at beating Federer at the USO but that would still be pretty unlikely (See: 2008 and 2009 at the USO).

Fed would have the biggest advantage at any GS, that being at Wimbledon. So I think we are in agreement. I wouldn't go so far as to say every time but I do think it's clear enough advantage Fed.

 

[90's Clay]

Yea because Nole would have been so dominant on fast surfaces of the 90s:shock::shock:.

He can't win more than one USO (the last of the semi fast courts left) today.


Nole poses no problem to sampras. None whatsoever. Nole has trouble with big hitters and servers. Hell look at what Roddick did to Nole. ROFLMAO

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Fed would have the biggest advantage at any GS, that being at Wimbledon. So I think we are in agreement. I wouldn't go so far as to say every time but I do think it's clear enough advantage Fed.

I would, 2012 proved that for me. Djokovic was in better form than this year and he still lost to Federer in 4.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yea because Nole would have been so dominant on fast surfaces of the 90s:shock::shock:.

He can't win more than one USO (the last of the semi fast courts left) today.


Nole poses no problem to sampras. None whatsoever

If Rafter can take out Sampras at the USO, surely Djokovic could. Come on now.