Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by nikdom, Sep 16, 2007.
agreed....on the other hand Leyton Hewit gave Pete a tennis lesson. Nadal is even faster.
Pete was already a bit old and clearly past his best at that point (he started the U.S Open outside the top 10, and with losing the U.S Open final didnt even win a tournament that year IIRC). He was also fatigued from his late semifinal and tough matches to get to the final. I assuming you are talking about the 2001 U.S Open final.
Thats the standard Pete Fan club excuse. I have heard that excuse especially used when Fed beat Sampras as well.
The truth however is that Fed was actually very young and scared sheetless. Fed was no where near the player that he is today and still beat Pete.
Pete lost to both Leyton and Fed simply because he was outplayed. No excuses.
You obviously dont know me to refer to the Pete Fan club. I am NOT a Pete Sampras fan. However I am trying to be fair and reasonable. If Nadal was 30 years old and ranked outside the top 10, and was killed in a French Open final, would you want people saying that shows he cant ever handle a player like that, or even less someone who does the same main things better then that player? Of course you would defend him and point out something similar.
Sampras's serve speed in that final were something like 25 mph slower then he had throughout the tournament. So of course it is reasonable to suggest his age, where he was at that point in his career, he wasnt able to recover physically from the late 2nd semi and all the tough matches to get to the final.
Yeah Federer was clearly nowhere near his peak when he beat Sampras, probably even further from his then Sampras, but Sampras was not at his peak either. Since neither player was at their peak, it was only 1 match which is too small a sample size, it really isnt relevant in anyway as an indicator how they do against each other in their mutual primes. Just a nice match for fans to see, that is all.
I am one of those who believes age played a bit of a factor during the Fed-Sampras match at Wimbledon, because it did go five and that almost always favors the younger player. But it is a very hard match to analyze, because you have arguably the two greatest players of the Open era playing each other, when neither is at their peak. And it was tight, so it is hard to say what would have occurred had they played many times over.
Oops. Sorry lambielspins, I missed your post, but I agree with most of it now that I have read it.
Get you fact straight, Sampras made it to Semi and lost straight sets to Kafenikov. That was his best performance at the FO.
Sampras had problems with attacking/shot making style and seldom had problems with defensive styles.
Nadal has two things that Pete doesn't like
2) A lot of topspin.
Pete wasn't great at playing lefties early on his career. I think he got better as time went on (Tim Gully was lefty so go figure).
He also didn't like a lot of topspin...
With that being said, I think it's a great match up but Pete would probably have edge on hard court.
Nadal is a guy who likes to have time on his shots, I don't think he really likes to play close to the baseline. I could be wrong, but that's my assumpltion.
Pete could really take advantage on this by coming in and imposing his game on Nadal, and take a lot of time away from Nadal.
This is of course compare Pete at his peak and Nadal at his peak.
Separate names with a comma.