Prime Sampras versus Prime Nadal?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Vcore89, Sep 1, 2012.

  1. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    If Sampras had never played Hewitt, Petards would say Sampras would beat him 19 out of 20 times. Of course that's far from reality, and Hewitt is 5-4 against him.

    Nadal simply is a better player than Hewitt, worse matchup for Pete, and he's a lefty. That should be clear enough to know Pete would have a negative h2h against Nadal.
     
  2. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    The chance of Nadal beating Pete at Wimbledon/USO than Pete beat Nadal at the FO is like 5 to 1. Even if Nadal has tendinitis, it's still a taller order to beat him.
     
  3. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    nadal is NOT a poor returner ..... he's a pretty decent returner , better than sampras .... Is nadal vulnerable to big serving ? yes .... but sampras isn't the biggest server around ...

    federer's serve is wickedly disguised and accurate, yet nadal seems to read it very well ...

    nadal would have simply have more trouble with the serves of karlovic/isner/roddick/ivanisevic/krajicek than the sampras' serve because they serve bigger ....
     
  4. Vcore89

    Vcore89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,015
    Location:
    The synapse
    Agree to that: ''Sampras isn't the biggest server around.''

    Agree to that as well: ''Federer's serve is wickedly disguised and accurate, yet Nadal seems to read it very well.''
     
  5. mental midget

    mental midget Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,434
    pete would fare worse off the ground versus nadal than does federer, by a wide margin in my opinion, and it comes down to mechanics:

    pete's stroke production was such that to run around a forehand required that he got much further to the outside of the ball before he could effectively connect with the inside edge, in comparison to roger, who, with a more laid-back wrist and contact point further in front, doesn't have to give up nearly so much real estate to get into an inside-out position.
    over time, the implication here is, obviously, bad news for pete.
     
  6. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    I think you're underestimating the mental toll someone has over you when they have a shot that just trumps you almost singlehandedly. Federer always has to go for so much because he has to cover up for his relative weakness of his backhand. On paper, this will look like he chokes in some key moments, but in reality, when you go for more, you'll play lower percentage tennis.

    Secondly, as a leftie, Nadal has the advantage in the ad court, which is where most of the 'big points' are played. This is also why Nadal is considered so mentally strong. At the time of the match where he would need the most, he is in the most advantageous position.

    But you're ignoring the facts.

    1.) Sampras's backhand can be broken down. Agassi did it with his backhand. Nadal's forehand is a better shot against one-handed backhands than Agassi's backhand.

    2.) Nadal has much better court coverage than Agassi. Whereas Sampras can, when he's on, hit clean winners against Agassi, he will have a much tougher time against Nadal, who can run down a lot of wide balls and hit passing shots on the run better.

    That considered, Agassi is 3-0 against Sampras at the FO and AO, the two slowest grand slams. So to suggest that Nadal can't win against Sampras at a surface like the AO, especially now that's it's been slowed down further, doesn't ring true to me.

    The whole point of attacking a stroke is that it will eventually break down. Maybe not at first, but if you keep going after it, it will break down. A one-handed backhand will eventually break down against Nadal's forehand. The kinesthetics of the shot make it almost impossible to sustain it at a high level.

    It's just like if you keep chipping away at something, you'll eventually get to the threshold where it breaks. It doesn't necessarily happen on the first shot.

    No argument there. But if player B is more susceptible to a certain weakness than player A, and player C exploits the weakness against player A, there's no reason to expect he won't similarly exploit the weakness against player B, perhaps to even better effect.

    Agassi's return of serve is not "much" better than Nadal's. This is born out in the % of return games won. He's won an AO and has pushed Novak to the absolute limit on his favorite surface, a surface where he's often dominant.

    Secondly, the matchup was different. Sampras could beat Andre on faster courts by getting a single break against him because his serve was so good on faster courts. Unfortunately, Andre did not have an elite service game, especially against the one-handed backhand. Nadal does. He spins that serve to the backhand with nearly 80% accuracy. Then he continually pounds the backhand and pins him back. Sampras cannot come forward without getting a strong approach because he would otherwise get passed.

    Yes, because Nadal would just moonball if he sees Sampras charging the net. :rolleyes:

    Why don't you just say that Nadal would be distracted by Sampras's girlfriend and Sampras would win easily?
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
  7. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    And just why are people constantly saying that Nadal struggles against big servers?

    Nadal 4-0 Karlovic
    Nadal 7-3 Roddick
    Nadal 3-0 Isner
    Nadal 7-2 Soderling
    Nadal 12-3 Berdych
    Nadal 7-3 Tsonga

    Generally speaking, Nadal seems just fine against big serves.
     
  8. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    4-3 vs roddick outside of clay, I think ... he was struggling to return roddick's serve in quite a few of them

    he and karlovic played on grass in queens 2008 at rafa's absolute peak, all 3 sets went to TBs

    isner took him to 5 @ RG, mainly based on his serve ....

    couldn't handle old ljubicic's serve in 2010 and lost ....

    haase/petzschener troubled rafa with their serves in wim 2010
    rosol did too in wim 2012 ...

    he does have some trouble with big servers, atleast more so than the other 3 .....
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
  9. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Nadal struggles more than Djokovic, Federer, and Murray against big servers, but that's hardly saying anything considering those three are historically good against big servers. It's hard to find a set of players that have better return stats and match records against big servers. People are welcome to try.

    That doesn't mean Nadal is bad against big servers. Pretty much everyone has struggled against a big server at some point in their career. If they catch fire, there's simply not much you can do.
     
  10. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    It's pretty much impossible to say how this match-up would turn out. The guys played in different eras with different equipment. Nadal's game is very much suited to poly strings and slower grass. Sampras's game is suited to lightning quick courts, smaller racquets, and natural gut strings, all of which make it harder for his opponent to neutralize Sampras' attacking game. Nadal, on current courts, is very good at neutralizing attacking games, and with current racquet technology Sampras would probably not fare too well against Nadal (relative to his stature in the game - he'd certainly have his share of wins). But that's not fair to Sampras because Nadal's game would not be as effective in the 90s, or rather he simply couldn't play his game with the equipment they used then. His passing shots would lose that extra bit of precision that makes him so incredible. His forehand would lose that little bit of kick.

    So yeah. I don't know. Nadal wins like 7-3 with today's strings, Sampras probably 6-4 with 90s strings.
     
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    not saying that nadal is bad against big servers ...Just that outside of clay, he'd have some trouble with sampras' serve ...
     
  12. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    That's perfectly fair, and I agree completely. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as saying Sampras would just blow Nadal away with his serve.

    Sampras does not want any part of a rally against Nadal, on any surface, really.
     
  13. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Wimbledon Grass : 6-4 for Sampras
    US Open Hard : 7-3 for Sampras
    French Open Clay: 10-0 for Nadal
    Australian Open Hard : 6-4 for Nadal

    Going by the current surfaces
     
  14. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    I think this is probably very fair. Obviously Wimbledon and USO would skew more towards Pete if they were the 90s surfaces.
     
  15. kalyan4fedever

    kalyan4fedever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,957
    Nadal could have owned him thats for sure. Pete's serve and volley does not work as rafa could make some amazing passing shots. The only bad about rafa's resume is his serve, if he could have served anywhere like fed, he could have owned everyone. The guy has 80% winning percentage against the world #1 nuff said
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2012
  16. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,130
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    This thread is an insult to all the Samprastards and *******s in the real Prime vs. Prime thread and their efforts there.

    Connors in 5.
     
  17. ChrisRF

    ChrisRF New User

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Messages:
    67
    Despite beeing a Sampras fan in the past and now Federer fan, I try to be objective here.

    Australian Open/Rebound Ace: 5-5
    It should be very close because nobody of the two is consistent on this surface. Pete had two wins at Australia, but also some bad losses against players like Kucera or Martin. Even in 1997 he struggled badly in 5 sets against Hrbaty and Costa, but totally destroyed Muster and Moya on a hardcourt that favours them more.
    Nadal didn't have real success on Rebound Ace, but the surface changed before his prime outside clay.
    I would surely give the edge to Pete if he brings his best form, but in close matches he would lose due to exhaustion.

    Australian Open/Plexicushion: 6-4 Nadal
    Nearly the same as above, but the surface is a bit more high bouncing, so Nadal has a slight edge.

    French Open: 9-1 Nadal
    There's no discussion that Rafa is way better than Pete on clay. Most of the matches would be one-sided 3-setters. But one in ten times Pete serves so good that he reaches a few tiebreakers which he wins. And one another time he takes Nadal to 5 sets but then vomits on the court.

    Wimbledon/Old Grass: 9-1 Sampras
    There is no way that Nadal can hurt the serve-and-volley-game of Sampras on the old grass. No baseline-only-player ever caused Pete any problems there. And one of Rafa's weaknesses is the return, which is often too short. That's no real problem today, but the greatest serve-and-volley player of all time would put them away usually. Though, one match he would give away by too much errors.

    Wimbledon/New Grass: 7-3 Sampras
    Rafa has a bit more time at the return, so he can give it more spin and doesn't simply have to react all the time. The question is how Pete will handle the spin at the net, but in general he should be good enough even on this type of grass. But due to the fact they would usually meet in late rounds in clay-similar conditions, Nadal would win a few matches.

    US Open: 8-2 Sampras
    On this surface the topspin doesn't work well, so Nadal has little chances. And Pete usually only lost in New York when he was totally exhausted. Though if people like Yzaga and Corretja managed to take Pete into such a condition, Nadal may be able to do it as well once or twice. But simply tennis-wise, there is hardly a chance.

    (US Open/Slightly slower courts today: 7-3 Sampras)
    Such as in Melbourne, I tend to give Nadal one more win due to slower court conditions today.

    Masters Cup/Indoor Hard or Carpet: 8-2 Sampras
    Normally I would say the same as on the old grass of Wimbledon. But concerning that Pete had a few uncharacteristic losses to players like Chang, Corretja and Kuerten at the Masters Cup, I'll give Nadal two wins here.

    That results in the following overall results:
    In the 1990s (on old surfaces): 32-18 Sampras
    Today: 28-22 Sampras

    But note: It's a matchup issue mainly concerning the big serve of Pete compared to Rafa's relatively weak return. For example it doesn't mean that Sampras has to have a positive matchup with Federer just because he is better against Nadal. And by the way, I think Federer would have a positive matchup against Nadal as well, if we make it 10 matches per surface.
     
  18. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    Why does everyone think Plexicushion is slower than Rebound Ace? Rebound Ace had a higher bounce. Plexicusion is very gritty and (relatively) low bouncing, but the ball also moves horizontally through the court less.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2012
  19. RF-17-GOAT

    RF-17-GOAT Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    90's clay at his game again. lol
     
  20. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525


    Sampras wasn't just a "Big serve".. he was the absolute BEST in history of disguising his serve and his placement and possessed the best 2nd serve in history. Also NONE of those guys possess other facets of their game to the degree that Pete had.

    None of them have the ability and mental toughness that someone like Pete had... None of them have the nerves of steel.

    All Karlovic is, is just a servebot. He has nothing else in his game. Isner is too slow. Tsonga is talented but a wreck loose.. Complete head case. (But you saw what he did to Nadal when he was peaking at the AO that one year). Berdych is another guy with a ton of talent but lack of belief and mental toughness.

    Soderling has the game to bother Nadal but at the end of the day he's too slow too.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2012
  21. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    I love how when people compare how someone from a previous generation would fare against a current player they automatically assume modern equipment and surfaces. This is what I actually hate about tennis. Long ago it should have gone the way of baseball and standardized equipment and tournaments so a player from 1960 could be compared to a current player. As it stands, it’s impossible. Petros didn’t play the way he did because he wasn’t capable of playing a “modern game”. His game was optimized for the equipment and surfaces of his time. If you’re giving 10-0 at the French to Nadal it would be just as easy to give 10-0 to Petros on 90s grass with 90s equipment (no poly etc.). Lets not forget indoor carpet and faster hardcourts. Nadal isn’t a God. He’s just a player who’s game suits the modern setting. Petros owned guys like Nadal on a daily basis in the 90s because that style just didn’t work well on faster surfaces. Nadal would still dominate clay but to win a Wimbledon or US Open for him would be as impossible as Petros winning the French Open in 2012. Oh and BTW Bill Tilden with 1920s equipment, rules and surfaces would absolutely rickroll Nadal at Wimbledon as well
     
  22. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,557
    What's the record outside of clay? Is it like his record vs Nole outside of clay?
     
  23. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    Not that I disagree with what you are saying but it also goes the other way. Nadal is also a product of this era. Who is to say he would employ the same style if he was born in the 90s? We have seen Nadal as a kid who was MUCH more aggressive and packed hell of a punch. However he changed his style to better suit the needs of this era. I for one believe Nadal is very much capable of being highly aggressive, it's just that today that aggression is not rewarded as much as in the past.

    Nadal isn't a god, but the dude is immensely talented. Far too often I keep reading how Nadal is not talented and just a set of wheels. Well I vehemently disagree with that (not that I'm saying you say that, just in general on these forums).
     
  24. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    In the Federer vs Sampras thread, we've seen plenty of dissing of stats and selective cherry picking (more like distorting) facts to make a case for Sampras overall.

    Nadal trails Pete by 3 slams, the same # that Pete trails Federer by. So let's apply the "lessons" learned from that thread to Nadal vs Sampras, as the symmetry b/n the two cases seems perfectl:

    1. Handling of nearest rival
    - Pete fans claimed Sampras would overall edge out Federer because he handled his nearest rival better. Nadal has handled his nearest rival much better than Sampras did his (Winner: Nadal by a country mile here)

    2. Match ups don't matter; only overall level of play does
    - Since match-ups don't really matter, you can remove the Sampras serve vs Nadal standing way back out of the equation. Now to assess level of play: Nadal has a winning h2h against the other members of the top 4. And given that he has a massive lead against the arguably the GOAT, you could safely say that his level of play tops Federer (ergo Sampras). (Big advantage Nadal).

    3. Better to lose early than losing in the finals
    - Nadal has shown remarkable consistency in losing early at his weakest slam (USO) to avoid meeting "da man" Federer on that surface. However, Sampras has beaten plenty of RG champions at his weakest slam, which should be virtual finals -- not really doing a good job. (Winner - Nadal)

    4. Better to lose to journeymen
    - one word: Rosol.
    Many Pete fans endorse the opinion that if someone like Soderling can do it, so can Pete. Pete was journeyman-level on clay, so it's pretty obvious that they consider Soderling to be a journeyman as well. Feel free to add the "mug" Soderling to the list.

    (Winner - Nadal by a country mile).

    5. Strong competition prevented Pete from achieving more
    - if you've beaten the GOAT on all surfaces, you can pretty safely claim that any other competition is easy to surmount. Sampras never faced another GOAT candidate in his wins; Nadal did in 7/11 slam wins. (Winner: Nadal, and it's not even close)

    6. Health condition
    - Pete fans always cite Pete's anemia as one of the reasons that kept him from winning more. But Nadal's condition is worse. He has missed a few slams on account of his knees; AFAIK, Pete never a missed a slam due to his blood condition.
    (Winner - Nadal)

    7. Shot-by shot comparison:
    Pete has the serve, volley, FH and speed. Nadal has his FH, defense, BH and incredible retrieving ability. And Nadal is the best volleyer of the current era (per McEnroe).
    (Winner - Tied)

    8. Other important titles:
    Sampras edge in YEC, Nadal edges in MS titles
    (Winner: Tied)

    Overall Winner: Nadal, and it'll be a blood bath.

    If I've left out anything, please feel free to add :)
     
  25. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525

    Stopped being biased
     
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    I LOL'ed ...... This is classic ownage and absolutely hilarious .......:)
     
  27. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Even you have to admit that that was pretty good. Stop being a poor sport.

    [​IMG]
     
  28. droliver

    droliver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL U.S.A.
    wide body racquets were out in the late 1980's and Luxilon Alu Power 125 was out in 1994 (and I think Poly-star had some out long before then as well). Those technologies were available even during Pete's era, he just chose not to use them. Nadal is just a more advanced player in the evolution of the sport technique wise that have learned to use spin in ways they weren't doing 15 years ago.
     
  29. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Djokovic has had his struggles with big servers. Loss to Karolovic, had a few loses to Roddick, a loss to Isner and has struggled with Federer's serve. I'd say Murray and Federer return big serves better than Djokovic.
     
  30. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Every player who has ever played tennis has struggled with big serves, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, et al included.
     
  31. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    695
    Hilarious and it's funny to see Sampras fans have to resort to such arguments.

    Anyway truth be told Federer has the highest level on grass, US Open and Rebound Ace. Also he is a bad match up for Pete and it makes things worse.

    On topic Nadal would thrash Pete most of the time on clay and just beat him when Pete had a great day.

    On rebound ace, Pete may be able to squeak out a win in 4 sets, but is doomed if it went 5. Pete probably loses on Pexichusion especially in hot weather.

    On grass it is a different story. Sampras matches up well with Nadal on grass and is also better. Sampras wins virtually every time here.

    Same as grass for the US Open.

    Roland Garros-Nadal 10/10

    Rebound Ace Nadal 6/4

    Plexichusion Nadal 6/4

    Wimbledon fast grass Sampras 9/10

    Modern grass Sampras 8/10

    US Open Sampras 7/10

    WTF Sampras 9/10
     
  32. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    lol slow traveling? Those topspin shots are hard and they dive right at the net player's feet... if he is even able to get a racket on the ball, and that is not a given with the angles Nadal gets on his forehand.
     
  33. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    This post made my day.
     
  34. prosealster

    prosealster Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    967
    That is an awesome post....best one I've read for a long time
     
  35. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    Pete "journeyman level" on clay. BWAHAHAHAH.. I haven't seen too many journeyman win Rome and Davis Cup and beat some of the names Pete did on clay.


    **** MORONS around here.


    And Nadal over Pete in an overrall bloodbath?? BWAHAHAHA.. WOW. Try baby steps first.. Beat Rasol on faster grass.. Then we will talk about beating Sampras.

    You've also mentioned how Nadal "handled" Fed better then Pete handled Andre.. Not good for Fed's GOAT status I say.. Getting "handled" so easy afterall.

    Of course, we all know they only try to build Nadal up (Beating Pete in a bloodbath overall?? Since when could Nadal hang with guys even LESS of Pete's stature indoors or under faster conditions much less hang with Pete) when it suits their agenda.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2012
  36. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    [​IMG]

    Do you see now what happens when someone makes use of your twisted logic?
     
  37. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    Not really... Since I'm on the one claiming "Nadal over Prime Sampras overall in a "bloodbath". Thats BEYOND twisted
     
  38. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    Hey, don't blame me. I just summarized the logic that Pete clowns used in the other thread (Fed vs Sampras), and applied it here for Pete vs Nadal (for the record, I agree with you that logic used to bolster Pete has been moronic). If you have a problem, take it with DRII, shakes, 90s clay (that would be you) et. al. :)
     
  39. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    fed_rulz is only claiming that to show how terrible the reasoning in the other thread was. Read it again.
     
  40. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    You realize that's a 'conclusion' based on the twisted logic, right? That's not actually the logic itself...

    Then again, I shouldn't be surprised if you mistake the two.
     
  41. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,130
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Arguing with 12 years old kids is pointless.

    Don't pay attention to the 90ies.
     
  42. Vcore89

    Vcore89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,015
    Location:
    The synapse
    With every upcoming slam the one to tie Sampras' record...is Nadal really better than Sampras?:wink:
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2014
  43. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,498
    Sampras wins 4 out of 5 on HC from Sampras' era. Maybe even more.
    Sampras wins 4 out of 5 on modern grass.
    Sampras wins 9 out of 10 on old fast grass.
    Sampras wins 3 out of 5 on the faster modern hard courts USO, Dubai, Cincy, Paris...
    Sampras wins 2.5 out of 5 on slower modern hard courts.
    Nadal wins 9.5 out 10 on clay of any era.

    By the way, Sampras always has a superior serving day when it counts. You are taking about the best serve in history, even better than Federer and Raonic, and Tsonga, and Berdych. Only player close today is Isner on serve. Also Sampras would not stay back and let Nadal pick on his BH.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2014

Share This Page