Why do Sampras fans use the "tough clay court era" excuse?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by MTF07, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Coria was dominant on clay for a good stretch before Nadal came along and if he had held it together, he would have been a good rival for Nadal. He'd steamroll Pete on clay, all day every day.
     
  2. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    Looks like 90's clay is too scared to answer this. :lol:
     
  3. rodrigo_palacio88

    rodrigo_palacio88 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    my god.....sampras was beated on clay for a guy called delgado LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

    federer won sets on clay to nadal with 6-0 , sampras would never win a set 6-0 to nadal on clay.

    sampras would never win in clay , not in 60s , not in 80s and not in this time too.
     
  4. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,093
    Pete's single semi final is impressive, but Fed's 5 finals are not because he did not find a way to beat Nadal, inspite of getting so many chances. Repeatedly losing at the final stage makes him inferior, since it shows his lack of mental strength.

    If Sampras's coach did not die, Sampras would have won a few FO for sure.
     
  5. rodrigo_palacio88

    rodrigo_palacio88 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    if sampras coach not die???? what a excuse.

    sampras not won in clay because he was a normal player in clay , fact.

    federer always made competitive matches against clay goat with the exceptio onf RG 2008 , sampras would be humilliated by nadal on clay
     
  6. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    Yes. Sampras would get a maximum of 3 games per set...and that's being generous.

    But why are we talking about this? He's so bad that he wouldn't even be able to go deep enough to get to Nadal.......Unless he met him in R1 or R2 based on his ranking on clay?
     
  7. Tennis_Monk

    Tennis_Monk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    3,476
    While we are at "what If " scenarios, IF tennis_monk became a Pro, then he would have won a few FO for sure. Perhaps he might be GOAT.
     
  8. granddog29

    granddog29 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages:
    834
    All time? Nadal, Borg, Rosewall, Wilding, Cochet, LaCoste, Borotra, Laver, Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, Muster, Courier, Vilas, Bruguera, Pietrangeli, Gimeno, Santana, Kozeluh, Von Cramm, Drobny. Pretty sure that is more than 20. All those players are either multi French Open winners, won many many more tournaments than Federer on clay, or won a more diverse group of Masters/Top Tier equivalent events (most cases more than one of those things).
     
  9. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    So those guys are better than Federer because they won more than him? :-?

    Also, Vilas and Muster have only won one FO...Why are they better than Fed?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2013
  10. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,093
    While this thread is about Sampras, look how conveniently the fan group is deflecting the focus to Fed and undermining his 5 FO finals.
     
  11. rodrigo_palacio88

    rodrigo_palacio88 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    sampras`s blind fan boys triying to made me belive than sampras was better on clay than federer jajaja
     
  12. mellowyellow

    mellowyellow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,568
    My understanding is its why he didnt win it, not to prove he was better than Fed. Also, as was said before listing 4 greats, from his era not helping the case to disprove ...
     
  13. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Sampras didn't even make a RG final and lost to nobodies as has been discussed ad-nausem. There's no excuse for an all-time great to be such a mug on the surface when S&V players like Edberg,Mcenroe made finals and lost close finals, even Henman almost made the RG final,took Coria to 5 I think.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
  14. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,716
    ...trying to make anyone believe being a runner up several times has as much value as winning the title several times.
     
  15. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    Yeah like Sampras won the FO several times. :roll:
     
  16. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,093
    Did Sampras win several times ? You mean the first round ?
     
  17. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,093
    True, being runner up of a major 4 times and few more semis does not match up to 8 first round losses.
     
  18. fatichar

    fatichar Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    Guys, I was unlucky to not have watched tennis before Nadal came on the scene. But you people have been following for 20 years on average. Why do we, I mean you, have to go by stats only? When Nadal and Djoker play since 2011, in most of the matches, we can SEE that even the looser is playing great tennis - good enough to win the title against a LOT of champions.

    When 1 or two are dominating, stats can suggest that either they are damn good, or the field is weak. But watching the game you get an idea of what's reality (unless you are biased of course).

    So how do you compare the *level of play* on clay before and after 2000? If we go by results, Ferrer is an above average clay player. But I find his level very good in his recent years. In most tournies he goes down to none other than Nadal, making several finals when drawn in opposite half. How would he fare in Sampras era?
    Please only those who actually watched give the answers, not pure statisticians.
     
  19. Top Jimmy

    Top Jimmy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    456
    Who cares, all I know is I'd kill to see a Kuerten v Nadal final.

    Drool.
     
  20. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    So.... you guys debating here if fed is or not a great clay courter managed to find defensable ways to claim that this generation of ferrers and soderlings is better on the dirt than the munsters and courriers.... funny stuff
     
  21. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,716
    They are not--they are in the same place--IF we use the worn Fed fan criteria that results (majors titles) are what matters....that is, when they do not mount conflicting positions by trying to use runner up placing as "evidence" of his being one of the greay clay court players.

    Tough, self-made situation for some of that ilk.
     
  22. Start da Game

    Start da Game Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,006
    suppose federer, nadal, murray and djokovic are ordered by the authorities to serve and volley every single point in the upcoming australian open, do you think any of them will win the trophy? that is the answer to your question......

    '90s was an era which presented a different(and tougher) challenge for top players......just like today with the big four, sampras and agassi were hyped at every slam.......but the challenging part was they had to forcibly adjust their game to the three different surfaces, something which the current day superstars don't have to.......outright serve and volley at wimbledon, outright defensive baseline tennis at roland garros and a bit of both at the hardcourt slams.......

    in such playing conditions, how the heck in the world do you expect sampras or any other player from that era to maintain the kind of consistency the players of today maintain? do you think professional tennis is so easy that you can just switch the game on/off according to surfaces and according to our wish?

    sampras was incredibly consistent for those times and in those vastly varying playing conditions.......i don't think anyone would have coped with the challenges better than him in the '90s.......baseliners federer and borg who won 5 or more wimbledon each in their eras would just be blown off the lawns in the '90s.......i have seen them all play in the 90s and i have no doubt about it.......

    even today, i have more respect for sampras than nadal and federer.......
     
  23. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,017
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    I dunno really, they tend to cling on to many things which go in one ear and out the other. A lot of the stuff said only registers after about a fifth take.
     
  24. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    You're contradicting yourself.

    1. You say numbers don't matter and it's the quality of the era. Then why are you ranking those 20 players above Fed on clay? Based on numbers?

    2. You say that Sampras is better than Fed even though Fed has more majors but you agree with 90s Clay that all those on the list are better than Fed just because they have better numbers.

    Basically, you will twist and contradict yourself in any argument just because of your hate for Fed. LOL.
     
  25. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,716
    You're misquoting--again. That post was about the conflicting positions of Fed fans, which this thread proved beyond the shadow of doubt.

    Nice try, but no sale.


    You are so consumed with hate that you are now claiming arguments never made here.

    Come back when you have a coherent position and stop using statements made by others.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2013
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,362
    Contradiction is one of the most common use by a biased poster. It's so easy to spot.
     
  27. struggle

    struggle Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    this is a good post and is at least partly true, if not totally.

    still subjective of course.....
     
  28. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,039
    The only guy from that list of players who would be able to beat Nadal at the FO would be Guga (who I think would be a huge problematic matchup for Nadal on clay), I do believe everyone else would be roadkill for Nadal.







    By the way, it's funny how you always flame guys like Safin and Roddick for not winning much and being crap (although they won plenty for those who didn't gloryhunt), yet you name Medvedev (0 slams), Chang (1 slam), Kafelnikov (2 lucky slams and 0 MS titles) and use these guys like it's evidence that the clay court field was absolute legendary. It really wouldn't surprise me if you actually thought those guys mentioned would have shared the last 6 FO's and would somehow be able to beat Nadal.








    As for the title (I care little for most people's comments already reading the second page), do they? I don't know any respectable Sampras admirer that blames the clay court field for him not being able to win. I don't think for one second Sampras blames the clay court field for being too strong; he simply was not that good of clay courter and wouldn't have won it. He has absolutely no chance at beating Nadal - he would have found it easier against the 90's opponents than playing that guy (he's won 8 FO's - what does that tell you?).
     
  29. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,604
    Location:
    OREGON
    But the holes are very different. Fed could not beat Nadal, but could beat most everyone else often enough to succeed. Thus some solid success at other venues and through to the finals at RG.

    Sampras occasionally could beat a fine dirtballer but had serious trouble w/ reaching the good dirtballer and had even more trouble beating two or three in a row. He has one Italian and one semifinal in France. The 'greater depth' of claycourters just does not explain how bad his record is

    I am disinterested in clipping out a 'claycourt peak' in Pete's career based on when he really 'cared'. If he showed up in a tournament, its his job to care, to train and to fight. We are to presume, he, as a professional, cared trained and fought. If he didn't, its even worse for his record on clay.


    His problem was the same as most s/vers have had since Borg. Johnny Mac, Edberg, and Becker come to mind but it was exacerbated by less early experience sliding on the stuff. Even McEnroe played and trained on Har-Tru in New York as a junior more than Pete. They all knew how to slide and could adjust their footing more instinctively earlier on in the clay season. The result is that even though I think the Sampras ground game was more solid and formidable than any of the above, his results were not. His groundies and tactics were good enough to hang with absolutely anyone from the backcourt in that era until he had to slide into those shots as well as hit them. What you refer to as the time outside of hs clay peak, was just the time he realized what everyone else in the locker room already knew.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2013
  30. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    To me Sampras's hole in his CV is much, much bigger and more significant than Federer's. Borg's career hole of failing to win the US Open is also bigger than Federer's.

    Sampras had a problem with an entire surface, Federer only had a problem against one player. After all you play tennis against the field and not just one person.

    Federer was not only able to break through and win that elusive RG title, but regularly compete for and reach the latter stages of big tournaments on clay throughout his career. Sampras failed pretty miserably on that score, and only reached one big clay court final in his career (Rome in 1994), and was barely ever in RG title contention and could only dream of playing in a final there.

    Put Sampras in Federer's position on the tour in the 00s, and he would have had more chance of traveling into space than progressing far enough to play Nadal on clay 15 times like Federer did. Put Federer in Sampras's position on the tour in the 90s, and I could actually imagine a scenario where Federer won an extra RG title but was much less consistent at the event, with a results in say a 4 year span like Champion, 2nd Round loss, Quarter-Finalist, Champion.


    It's also worth remembering that it's much easier for players to be mental giants on surfaces and in settings where they feel comfortable and which suit their games. Sampras was a mental giant in his Wimbledon finals or US Open matches against Agassi. It's hard to imagine him being anywhere near as mentally strong had he reached a lone RG final against Bruguera for instance, unfamiliar territory for him. In fact I would say that Sampras choked against Gaudenzi at RG in 2002, and he sounded miserable in his press conference afterwards.

    Sampras's career W/L record on clay was 90-54, so he had less than 2 victories for every one defeat he suffered on surface, which was far from stellar.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2013
  31. granddog29

    granddog29 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages:
    834
    To your first question yes. It is pretty simple isnt it. Federer fans always say oh 17 majors, he must be the best, well if that is the true than the same applies to clay. Only 1 Roland Garros, no Monte Carlo or Rome titles, only 10 clay titles, thus not even top 20 all time probably, let alone near top 10.

    To your second question. Vilas and Muster both won 40+ tournaments on clay, while Federer has won only about 10 IIRC. That is why with all 3 having only 1 French Open title, they are better than him. In terms of Masters titles the 3 are virtually equal I believe, but Vilas and Muster won a greater variety of them while Federer could only win the Hamburg/Madrid event and no others. Federer does have the best French Open record, and had he won a 2nd French I would give him the edge over those other two, but without a 2nd French, and those other two having a much better record anywhere else, they have to go over him.

    Vilas also won a 2nd major on clay at the U.S Open. Now while it is true he had the advantage of 2 majors on clay, this lasted only 3 years which was only 33% of his relative prime at the most. So lets say he won 2 clay majors out of 1.33 clay slams, which would be 1.5 clay slams per slam vs only 1 for Federer. Also ask yourself would Federer have won a 2nd clay major had there been a 2nd one that lasted only 3 years? While we will never know for sure not at all likely given Nadal's ownage of clay, and ownage of him on clay.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2013

Share This Page