Laver vs Sampras on clay?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by corners, Oct 19, 2012.

  1. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    TMF,
    I saw a statistic stating that Fed had won 871 matches.
    Here: http://bleacherreport.com/tb/d8KmR?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=tennis

    Do you know the total he has played, and what is the percentage won?
     
    #51
  2. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I still haven't seen much tactical or strategic analysis. Aren't you all tired of this bickering about who is better? We all know the best player is our favorite player. Isn't it boring you all to death to go over this crap over and over again.

    I'm too young to have seen that much of Laver. All I've got are a couple handfuls of Youtube highlights and a very few full-length matches to give me a feel for his style and level. So I'd really like to hear how you guys that know him well visualize this epic confrontation.

    Please let's focus on the How and Why of this matchup. Why do you think Sampras or Laver would have the edge? And How would they beat the other guy?

    Either that or please remove yourself to one of the many fanboy slapfight threads on these boards.
     
    #52
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Good one.IMO, Laver would keep Sampras far from the net, with those rolling semitopspin fh and greatly angled and deep sliced BH and would take the net first.The slow clay surface would take speed off Pete´s great first serve and Laver would come to the net on Sampras second serve.

    Laver knew how to slide on the clay much better than Sampras, so he would play % backcourt tennis until the opening would come.The big forehand from Pete, which was so hard to deal with, would not be so fast on clay and Laver´s ability to reach any ball would make a difference at the passing shot.

    I think Laver would win in 4 sets.
     
    #53
  4. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Thanks Kiki. Now we're getting somewhere.
     
    #54
  5. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,368
    Those dream matchups are always speculative to rate. If i put in some conemporary players, who had similar styles, i would name Gonzalez for Laver and Korda (or Leconte) for Sampras. On clay, Laver hadn't the biggest of problems with Gonzalez, his topspin was working very well on clay (he learnt his game on antbed, which is similar to clay), his lobs and drop shots could change or break the rhythm of the opponent. Sampras had often difficulties with Korda, whose backhand was similar in execution und deception of direction to Laver's, but who was inferior in offensive play.
     
    #55
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,210
    I don't follow bleacher report, but here's what I got...

    WINNING PERCENTAGE


    ALL SURFACES:
    1. Björn Borg 83.07 638–130
    2. Rafael Nadal 82.70 583–122
    3. Jimmy Connors 82.29 1217–262
    4. / Ivan Lendl 81.76 1071–239
    5. Roger Federer 81.71 871–195
    6. John McEnroe 81.55 875–198
    7. Novak Djokovic 79.18 464–122
    8. Pete Sampras 77.44 762–222
    9. Boris Becker 76.91 713–214
    10. Guillermo Vilas 76.81 921–278

    HARDCOURT:
    1. Roger Federer 83.23 526–106
    2. Jimmy Connors 83.13 488–99
    3. Ivan Lendl 82.60 394–83
    4. John McEnroe 81.11 292–68
    5. Novak Djokovic 80.89 292–69
    6. Pete Sampras 80.41 427–104
    7. Andre Agassi 79.00 598–159
    8. Stefan Edberg 78.82 387–104
    9. Andy Murray 78.31 260–72
    10. Boris Becker 77.39 219–64

    CLAY:
    1. Rafael Nadal 93.04 254–19
    2. Björn Borg 86.58 271–42
    3. Ivan Lendl 81.44 329–75
    4. Guillermo Vilas 79.97 631–158
    5. Jimmy Connors 78.63 195–53
    6. Jose Luis Clerc 77.38 301–88
    7. Ilie Năstase 77.08 259–77
    8. Manuel Orantes 77.08 454–135
    9. Roger Federer 77.06 178–53
    10. Thomas Muster 76.87 422–127

    GRASS:
    1. Roger Federer 87.31 117–17
    2. John McEnroe 85.61 119–20
    3. Björn Borg 84.72 61–11
    4. Jimmy Connors 84.00 168-32
    5. Pete Sampras 83.47 101–20
    6. Boris Becker 82.27 116–25
    7. Andy Murray 81.33 61–14
    8. Rafael Nadal 80.65 50–12
    9. Andy Roddick 79.63 86–22
    10. Stefan Edberg 78.60 99–27
     
    #56
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Now that here is a biassed poster that thinks tennis pool has never been so large and international, let´s show him through facts he is completely wrong.Comparing 80´s to 2000´s...

    Stronger countries in 2000´s ( male ):

    Brasil
    Russia ( although not by much )
    Serbia
    Croatia
    Spain
    Britain ( but just one great player and that´s it)
    Netherlands ( until Verkerk quit)

    Even:

    France (Noah,Leconte,Forget,Tulasne vs Simon,Monfils,Benetteau and Tsonga)and Argentina are even ( Clerc,Vilas,Mancini vs Nalbandian,Coria,Gaudio or Del Potro)
    Australia, even at the top ( Cash vs Hewitt but a lot more of top 100 players in the 80´s)
    Switzerland is also the same case (Gunthardt,Hlasek and Rosset vs Federer and Wavrinka)

    Stronger countries in the 80´s:

    USA (needless to say)
    Czeckoslovakia ( needless to say)
    Italy
    Germany ( obvious)
    Ecuador ( obvious)
    Sweden ( soooo obvious)
    New Zealand
    Poland
    Hungary
    South Africa
    Mexico
    India
    Israel
    Peru

    So, 80´s are more broaden and international...
     
    #57
  8. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    lol, nice try.

    the "big names" Pete beat on clay weren't anywhere close to their primes.
     
    #58
  9. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Thank you.

    The world is a complex, complicated, and subtle place full of rapidly changing or hitherto unknown layers of information. Plus I often learn something new every day, so one cannot hold too rigidly to opinions based on possibly incomplete, fallible, and finite knowledge.

    I strive to be intellectually nimble.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
    #59
  10. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Thanks. This is what I was looking for.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2012
    #60
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Thanks for these useful statistics.
     
    #61
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    It is not a numerical argument but I think it is fair
    I think it makes sense to make sense on that
     
    #62

Share This Page