Rafael Nadal's insult utterance to Sampras era

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tennissportsrog, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. octogon

    octogon Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    749
    It's obvious neither Rafa nor Uncle Toni care much for Sampras, and the feeling appears to be mutual. Sampras hs always acted as a cheerleader for Federer and treated Rafa as some sort of stone in Federer's shoe, as opposed to a legitimate potential GOAT canidate in his own right. Sampras has always had a sort of patronising attitude towards Nadal. Maybe Sampras was miffed that the Nadals never talked much about him when considering GOAT canidates (it was always Laver or Federer or even Borg).

    Nadal is going down as a greater player than Sampras anyway. Despite having 3 less slams (which he'll get to soon enough), one could make the argument that he's already greater, and a more complete player than Petros ever was.
     
    #51
  2. Tshooter

    Tshooter Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,146
    "That quote during Wimbledon 2011 caused a lot of debate and column inches,"

    Why. Can you find two people that saw the Pete-Goran match that thought it was entertaining. Average shot length was probably 1-1/2 shots. Ace. Serve, return. Serve, return, volley. Ace. Ace. Serve winner. Serve, volley. ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2012
    #52
  3. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    How dare Nadal express a personal opinion! The ATP should impose sanctions! :lol:
     
    #53
  4. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,229
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    looping serve... loop, loop loop loop looop loop x 40, stall for 40 minutes tu tuck hair, arranje butt hemorroids, Rinse & Repeat...

    soooooo much better
     
    #54
  5. 15_ounce

    15_ounce Guest

    ............................
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2012
    #55
  6. Laurie

    Laurie Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,413
    Location:
    London
    Well, if Nadal is a "more complete" player than Sampras, then there is no greater indication how conditions have been slowed down to help the baseliner. I wonder how many people reading these posts think Nadal is a more talented player than Sampras.
     
    #56
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Whether he's a more complete player than Sampras is debatable. Both have different strengths and weaknesses. Does anyone today volley as well as Sampras? Does anyone today combine serving and net play as well as Sampras? I don't think Nadal, while I love his game comes close in these areas to Sampras. I think Nadal's backhand and overall backcourt game is superior to Sampras but that's not Sampras' style of play. Sampras used to be a two handed backhand baseline player from what I understand. I would bet that he could have been great if that was to be his style.
     
    #57
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Good points. I'm not sure if Nadal is more talented than Sampras. Initial gut feeling is that Sampras is more talented.
     
    #58
  9. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    The 1994 Wimbledon final was a really dull match. I thought the other Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches, from 1992, 1995 and 1998, were entertaining, though.
     
    #59
  10. suwanee4712

    suwanee4712 Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    923

    I don't think this is an insult. I do think its a widely held observation. Nevertheless its all subjective. But I know I find mens tennis far more enjoyable today than I have possibly since the early 80's.

    I can't say the same for the ladies.
     
    #60
  11. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,436
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    should we be surprised to see that the classless nadal has bad taste ?

    the most boring and inesthetical player ever created in the whole tennis history... who dares to say "sampras wasn't fun"...... that's absolutely hilarous ! :rolleyes:
    will his lack of class ever stop ?
     
    #61
  12. DrpShot!

    DrpShot! Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    537
    I love watching Nadal towel off and pick his bum for a full 40 seconds between points, great drama. It actually would be great drama if they timed today's players. Nadal would have to be ready to serve or receive within the ITF's 25 seconds or he loses the next point. No doubt the number of 30 ball rallies would go down. He'd still win on the clay, it would just be a lot more fun to watch.
     
    #62
  13. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    It's all opinion my friend. No matter what I think we all have to marvel at Nadal's unique style of play and his ability to win.
     
    #63
  14. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Sampras was considered boring by a lot of people.
     
    #64
  15. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    True enough. People used to look at Sampras and wish for the old days with Connors, Nastase and McEnroe. I would guess that if Sampras played before Connors, Nastase and McEnroe many of those same people would wish for the days of Sampras.

    It all depends on the opponent who is playing the great. If Nadal plays Federer in some matches it may be considered exciting. Yet nowadays to me the Nadal-Federer matchup to me is the worst nightmare I can see in a majors. Not that Federer can't win but it's the same old type of play. A rerun which we've seen a few trillion times. Add that Nadal is usually the heavy favorite and usually wins especially on red clay and I don't want to see that matchup.

    Sampras-Agassi could be very boring if Pete was on his game. His serve could overpower even the Agassi return. Yet a Rafter-Agassi or even a Rafter-Sampras to me (especially when Rafter was at his peak in the late 1990's) was better because of the difference styles of play.

    To me John Isner is extremely boring to watch. He is rarely broken on serve and he rarely breaks himself. His groundies to me are not exactly the greatest. Yet some may love to watch Isner play.
     
    #65
  16. Lefty78

    Lefty78 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    940
    Location:
    Florida
    More so for his personality than his game, imo
     
    #66
  17. BrooklynNY

    BrooklynNY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,627
    Greatness is boring.

    Federer is boring, he just talks to you more.


    Anytime one person completely dominates, it can be considered boring. I often read here people say 'clay season is boring, Rafa wins everything'

    Tim Duncan is boring too, the guy wins multiple championships and doesn't make an announcement of how great he is, and how he should now be called by his self imposed nickname.. 'the king'

    Perhaps Pete should have embroidered "believe" or "286" on his shoes.

    =\
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
    #67
  18. TennisDawg

    TennisDawg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    613
    Seems during the Sampras, Agassi era, tennis had a lot of boring personalities. Agassi basically hated tennis, by his own admission if you read his book, now Agassi is playing exhibitions, thought he hated tennis-boring. Courier was a bore, reading novels during changeovers, surprised he's still involved with coaching tennis, not an inspiring attitude, to me. Chang had a brief moment during the French Open, but really had a boring personality. Sampras is great, but some call him the Tim Duncan of tennis--boring. Sampras serves volleys a winner, picks up the balls "tongue droops over his lower lip" Sampras hits an over head winner "tongue droops over his lower lip" changeover. Sampras nets a return " tongue droops over his lower lip" and so on.

    Give me Nadal, Djokovic, Federer anyday. These guys have a passion for the game and have the style and class.
     
    #68
  19. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,533
    Location:
    OREGON
    Interesting tennis is unpredictable tennis. The fewer shots, spins and tactics employed, the more predictable each point becomes. Really interesting tennis has texture to it, and competing tempos, rather than two dimensional or flat tennis. Its not about a player, or a style its about a chemistry that goes on between two players the ball and the surface.
     
    #69
  20. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    I agree with B Turner.
     
    #70
  21. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    I prefer Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to Sampras, Agassi and Ivanisevic too.
     
    #71
  22. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373

    Oh, really?
     
    #72
  23. ViscaB

    ViscaB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,203
    Location:
    Singapore
    The chemistry is key indeed. A great match is often between players with a different style. That's why people loved all those big Federer-Nadal matches.

    Two strong serve players is a bore as is having two counterpunchers play each other.
     
    #73
  24. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373


    Djokovic vs Nadal = boring or fun. Djokovic vs Murray = boring. Nadal vs Murray = boring. Pete vs Goran = boring. etc. Sampras vs Federer = that was fan. Federer vs Djokovic = fun. etc.


    Fedal = overrtead.
     
    #74
  25. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Even though I completely disagree with Nadal on this topic it still remains one of my favourite things he ever said, the way he smacked down Sampras fanboys hanging on his Wilanders was beautiful to see.

    Of course, Fed on the other hand has nothing but praise for Pete's game, too funny.
     
    #75
  26. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    I agree with Nadal I found the 1990s era of men's tennis extremely boring the whole serve and volley game is dry. The players weren't able to return Sampras serve but now with improved technology, talent and fitness the players would have a field day with Sampras. You just can't serve and volley these days the players returns are too good.
     
    #76
  27. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    The personalities of Sampras, Agassi, Courier were extremely boring but the USA media pumped these guys up. The other part nobody really mentions is how unattractive Sampras, Agassi and Chang, Courier were as well. Agassi had a weight problem one minute he was thin next minute he's fat. These guys didn't have the sex appeal that Nadal and Djokovic have.
     
    #77
  28. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Boring? Sampras perhaps, but not the others.

    Agassi unattractive? Are you kidding? He had girls swooning over him, and he was totally obsessed with his own image right up until January 1995, even to the point of wearing a wig. Agassi was vanity personified in his "Image is Everything" days. Bollettieri had a young Agassi down as a future superstar in every way, on and off the court. Big things were expected of Agassi, so there was pressure on him to live up to those expectations. When Agassi said that he "hated tennis", he is talking about the misery that this pressure gave him during the toughest moments of his career.

    Courier had the attitude of an old fashioned boxer. Totally dedicated to what he needed to do both on and off the court, and with a strong, uncompromising mentality towards it. You could tell that he had been living in somebody elses shadow when he was younger (i.e. in Agassi's shadow). He faced a different kind of pressure from Agassi, that of not being noticed much until he started winning big things. And Courier was the first of those American players to have what it took to dominate tennis, even though Sampras and Chang had both won a major before him, and Agassi reached major finals before him.

    Sampras was all about the majors, especially Wimbledon. That was always what he was totally dedicated towards. He had to gain experience and find his way, and he went on to become the dominant player of his era. I did find Sampras a bit boring, but he achieved phenomenal results on the court, and that's all he cared about. That was always his aim.

    Chang was always at a disadvantage because of his short size and build, but made up for that with a very strong mentality, and he was the first of that American generation to win a major.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
    #78
  29. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    My mother used to hate men's S&V tennis back in the 60s and 70s because, for her, the points were over too fast: one serve, one return, one volley, point over. Boringly repetitive.

    Others hate the present game of relentless backcourt rallies: over and over and over and over and over again. Boringly repetitive.

    I most enjoy matches in which there is either something in between (great strategy between all-court players waiting for the opening to hit a winner--either from the baseline or at the net), or a contrast of styles: great volleyer versus a great passer.
     
    #79
  30. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373
    My slow surface era is best of the best.

    lol.

    selfish arrogant excuse cheat.
     
    #80
  31. Top Jimmy

    Top Jimmy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    456
    That's why I always say true champions HAVE to win the US Open. It's the most fair court for all involved. Why Borg couldn't win there is beyond me.
     
    #81
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,658
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    He had Connors and McEnroe to contend with, two of the all time great USO champions. It was a task almost on the level of asking someone to win a USO within the prime period of both Sampras AND Federer. A momumental task indeed.
     
    #82
  33. Top Jimmy

    Top Jimmy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    456
    I mean I know WHY he didn't but while he was winning 5 Wimbledon's and 6 FO's, you'd think since he was one of the best ever he would have broke through once. It's not like his baseline game didn't work on a hard court like a SV on clay.

    Ah well, no soup for you Bjorn.
     
    #83
  34. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,658
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Hey I think he probably should have gotten one, but I can't blame him considering he faced some of the greatest USO competition of all time. He's still a great champion, but no GOAT due to his failure at the USO IMO.
     
    #84
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Nadal is a better player than expert...
     
    #85
  36. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,332
    Yea.. Nole-Murray is so much more fun to watch
     
    #86
  37. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,658
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    20 shot rallies for every point on grass is so wrong...
     
    #87
  38. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,332
    Ughh.. That wimbledon final was truly the most BORING match I've ever seen in my life (up until it almost looked Murray was going to choke the big set away on his serve at the end):-?
     
    #88
  39. badmice2

    badmice2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    272
    It might be boring to watch Sampras play, but that's the beauty one has to appreciate about his game, that is sampras was that efficient on grass; where he can put you away with a single serve or a volley. i think is unfortunate that style of play is lost in today's game.

    Maybe he's jealous that he doesnt have a big serve and cant serve and volley to shorten his point? that's why sampras can still play at 40 and nadal will likely be have 3 knee surgery before he retires.
     
    #89
  40. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373
    Murray vs Djokovic.. boring.
     
    #90
  41. tembolo1284

    tembolo1284 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    64
    Location:
    NYC
    Funny because I think the matches between two great servers is the best. Nothing more fun than sampras, becker, ivanisevic, krajicek going at each other on grass or a fast hard court. Love it! Throw in an agassi or chang for some variety and it's more fun. Way better than all this baseline bashing going on today.
     
    #91
  42. ricki

    ricki Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,198
    Location:
    Czech Rep.
    He could do that only because ppl could not return his serve well, it has nothing to do with his extraordinary skills!

    Player that volleys today is much more skilled than those prehistoric ball smashers...
     
    #92
  43. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,723
    So basically Nadal is saying Sampras was a boring player?
     
    #93
  44. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373
    Nadal and Nadal team are always so.
     
    #94
  45. fuzzybabybunny

    fuzzybabybunny New User

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    I totally agree with him and I think the naysayers are losing a distinction. Nadal is saying that *watching* today's tennis is more enjoyable than *watching* the serve and volley tennis of the past. He is also *not* saying that he *plays* better tennis than the past greats, just that he plays more *enjoyable* tennis.

    I couldn't stand watching Pete play. It was simply serve, ace, serve, ace, serve, net, second serve, charge net, get passed immediately, serve, charge net, put it away instantly.

    Right now tennis is simply more enjoyable to watch. Players actually have rallies, prolonged hustles, and net play is used as a tool for particular situations instead of something you use *all* the time.
     
    #95
  46. robow7

    robow7 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    967
    #96
  47. fuzzybabybunny

    fuzzybabybunny New User

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    No, he wasn't 100% serve and volley. I've seen a lot of spectacular rallies with him and he is undoubtedly amazing at rallies and being at the baseline. However, I would say that too many (IMO of course) of his points were serve and volley, and that's what made it boring for me.
     
    #97
  48. fuzzybabybunny

    fuzzybabybunny New User

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    This isn't to say that I don't respect Pete as a player. I completely understand why he preferred that style - if the conditions allow and you are great at ending points quickly and decisively by rushing the net and saving energy in the process, why the hell would you want to prolong a point by running around at the baseline exchanging shot after shot with your opponent? It makes no sense and it's simply sound strategy.

    But sound strategy for the player does not always equal enjoyable tennis for the crowd. And that's exactly what Nadal is referring to. He chose his words very wisely IMO.
     
    #98
  49. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,332
    Well its obvious the spaniard PUSHERS will not like Pete's generation of play.

    But the bottom line is, its WAYY more difficult to play an all court style than it is to live at the baseline all year
     
    #99
  50. wangs78

    wangs78 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,896
    Location:
    New York
    I watched tennis back in the early and mid 90s and I will absolutely say that the big servers were a huge bore to watch. All you saw was a big serve that was an ace, or a big serve followed by a weak return that the server volleyed away to win the point. I don't like that kind of tennis because it was too predictable, especially when both players were big servers. Today's long baseline rallies are equally predictable. I think the best balance is when you have all court players who can mix things up. Play from the baseline but going for winners when appropriate and playing some S&V sometimes as well. This is why Roger is so fun to watch. He is NEVER boring to watch - yes sometimes when he is losing he is excruciating to watch - but never boring. That is why he is probably the most popular tennis player ever.
     

Share This Page