Wimbledon Dream Match: Pete Sampras vs Novak Djokovic

[Dropshot777]

But that wasn’t a prime Fed.

Pretty close at least.

 

[Weekendhacker]

Pretty close at least.

Then one can make the argument that Sampras was closer to his prime since he just won Wimbledon the year before, while it took Fed a couple of more years to win his 1st one.

 

[Dropshot777]

Then one can make the argument that Sampras was closer to his prime since he just won Wimbledon the year before, while it took Fed a couple of more years to win his 1st one.

That is a good point, but just look at the skill difference between 2023 Novak and 2024 Novak. A lot can happen in one year.

 

[Weekendhacker]

That is a good point, but just look at the skill difference between 2023 Novak and 2024 Novak. A lot can happen in one year.

Yeah but Sampras wasn’t done yet at that point. He was super motivated to defend his Wimbledon title and was geared up for that. He was still actually really good considering he won another slam after that. 2024 just started and djokovic may still achieve a lot this year.

 

[Dropshot777]

You think Djokovic would win then?

 

[Weekendhacker]

You think Djokovic would win then?

Too tough to call because they’re from different eras. Like if prime Sampras using his pro staff 85 time traveled to say 2017 or whenever it was prime djokovic, I think sampras would lose for sure. However, if they were both in the same era using the same equipment and training etc, it would be too hard to predict cause too many variables (Sampras might’ve had a completely different playing style if he was in djokovic’s era).

 

[Dropshot777]

Too tough to call because they’re from different eras. Like if prime Sampras using his pro staff 85 time traveled to say 2017 or whenever it was prime djokovic, I think sampras would lose for sure. However, if they were both in the same era using the same equipment and training etc, it would be too hard to predict cause too many variables (Sampras might’ve had a completely different playing style if he was in djokovic’s era).

I agree, which is why I don't really think too hard about things like the GOAT debate or this. They are just fun topics to visualize, but there are too many variables which makes it impossible to guess.

 

[SonnyT]

Sampras will break Djokovic's serve much easier Djokovic can break Sampras's serve.

4 sets win for Sampras.

Nole doesn't stand a chance.

You live by the 1st serve, and die by the 1st serve! 1st serve means a lot more for Sampras.

In this case, he will die by the 1st serve.

 

[Razer]

You live by the 1st serve, and die by the 1st serve! 1st serve means a lot more for Sampras.

In this case, he will die by the 1st serve.

Sampras had 2 first serves.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Djo is no Sampras. Not even close. He isn't even a Federer.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Then one can make the argument that Sampras was closer to his prime since he just won Wimbledon the year before, while it took Fed a couple of more years to win his 1st one.

When you are in declining age, one year can make a heck of a difference. Who was closer to prime in months or years does not say much here. Fed won 2012 and reached final in 2014. You would think Stak beat a pretty close to prime Fed in 2013.

 

[DSH]

Federer is the only man to defeat Sampras, Nadal, and Djokovic at Wimbledon.

But he couldn't against Rafter.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sampras on fast grass > everyone else in history. GOAT serve, ATG volleys and as clutch as it can get (which is important since on fast grass between GOATs it comes down to few points).

 

[DSH]

Then one can make the argument that Sampras was closer to his prime since he just won Wimbledon the year before, while it took Fed a couple of more years to win his 1st one.

Who wins, Sampras from Wimbledon 2000 vs Federer from Wimbledon 2003?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

But he couldn't against Rafter.

He never played Rafter at Wimbledon. Better use Henman.

 

[DSH]

He never played Rafter at Wimbledon. Better use Henman.

You're right, they didn't meet at Wimbledon but in Halle.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

You're right, they didn't meet at Wimbledon but in Halle.

Where Rafter defended matchball. I love Rafter as my third most favorite player. But his H2H against Fed is nothing more than coincidence as in meeting him at the right time.

 

[Vincent-C]

Rafter took Fred out at the French, as well. 3-0.

signed, another Fedfan.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Rafter took Fred out at the French, as well. 3-0.

signed, another Fedfan.

Sure, in Fed's first ever slam. Everyone and his mother would have taken out Fed that day. The fact it was Rafter was pure coincidence. Besides, he still managed to lose the first.

 

[Indigo]

Pete Sampras would win. But it is strange that Novak beat Federer three times in WB finals. Sometimes, we can't say things with certainty until we see how it happens in real life.

 

[mike danny]

Pete Sampras would win. But it is strange that Novak beat Federer three times in WB finals. Sometimes, we can't say things with certainty until we see how it happens in real life.

It’s not strange when you look at the context

 

[mike danny]

When you are in declining age, one year can make a heck of a difference. Who was closer to prime in months or years does not say much here. Fed won 2012 and reached final in 2014. You would think Stak beat a pretty close to prime Fed in 2013.

Yes, but he was still closer to his prime than Fed

 

[RS]

With era adjustments I would expect Sampras is the favorite based on how dominant he was in his wins.

 

[Razer]

Yes, but he was still closer to his prime than Fed

No he wasn't, go and watch 1994-95 Sampras and compare it with 2001, you blabber lot of nonsense without even watching any tennis in 2000s, let alone 90s.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes, but he was still closer to his prime than Fed

Disagree. Only because he won it the previous year means nothing. Against Rafter in 2000 was already not prime anymore. Besides, peak/prime is not a defined time in which a player all the time plays his best and outside all decline or come into their prime at the same speed. Even if overall not prime yet, Fed played a really great match way above his usual level at that time.

 

[mike danny]

Disagree. Only because he won it the previous year means nothing. Against Rafter in 2000 was already not prime anymore. Besides, peak/prime is not a defined time in which a player all the time plays his best and outside all decline or come into their prime at the same speed. Even if overall not prime yet, Fed played a really great match way above his usual level at that time.

I didn’t use that rationale, I just said that compared to Fed who was a newbie on the big stage, Pete was closer to his prime

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I didn’t use that rationale, I just said that compared to Fed who was a newbie on the big stage, Pete was closer to his prime

He was closer to prime in years not necessarily in level.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Fast grass Sampras, slower grass Djokovic. Sampras better overall.

 

[Third Serve]

He was closer to prime in years not necessarily in level.

Eh they were both about as far away from their primes as each other, level-wise. The only things in their games that were prime-level were Pete’s serve and Fed’s return. Everything else was whatever,

 

[Third Serve]

Care to explain who out of the 2024 field would take more than 1 set off 1994 Sampras at Wimbledon

He’s going to talk about tennis evolution like it’s actually relevant to comparing the greatness of players across eras.

 

[RS]

Care to explain who out of the 2024 field would take more than 1 set off 1994 Sampras at Wimbledon

He has on many posts.

Everyone in the top 50 or even further down.

 

[Holmes]

Sampras in 4 entertaining sets. The forehand return on the deuce side would be a brutal reality for Novak to handle, as great as he is as a returner and of course Pete's T serve to the forehand on the ad side was no party either. And not to mention the rest of the PETE game.

I think Roger would do better against Petros. Pete in perhaps 4 highly entertaining sets.

 

[Holmes]

Fast grass Sampras, slower grass Djokovic. Sampras better overall.

Sampras with the edge on slower grass too at his best because of superior movement on the surface and clutch on the serve.
I appreciate your recognition that he's greater on grass overall. It takes a person of culture to appreciate a past great in relation to one of the big 3. We don't have many of those anymore sadly.

 

[Oval_Solid]

Someone has to ask it, so I'll be the one. How did you make that picture

Edit: picture is outdated so probably copied...

photoshop gimp krita etc
ill make a parody one if i have time later

 

[Red Rick]

He’s going to talk about tennis evolution like it’s actually relevant to comparing the greatness of players across eras.

Instead it's much better to use the metric "whateveriwannittobe" which invariably leads to.... interesting discussion.

Truth is most posters claiming Sampras would win aren't even admitting they're talking about relative level either.

There is not a brain cell more investment than 'fest grass serve and volley'

 

[Holmes]

Eh they were both about as far away from their primes as each other, level-wise. The only things in their games that were prime-level were Pete’s serve and Fed’s return. Everything else was whatever,

Fed volleyed and served exceptionally well in that match. Pete was incredible on serve and clutch on that serve, but not much else. One of the most important matches in the game's history.

 

[Holmes]

Instead it's much better to use the metric "whateveriwannittobe" which invariably leads to.... interesting discussion.

Truth is most posters claiming Sampras would win aren't even admitting they're talking about relative level either.

Metric: Sampras was serving 130 with an 85 sq inch stick that weighed 12.5 ounces and was strung with pure gut. He did 122s on second serves with that racket. His "relative level" would be equal to the big 3's.

 

[Red Rick]

Metric: Sampras was serving 130 with an 85 sq inch stick that weighed 12.5 ounces and was strung with pure gut. He did 122s on second serves with that racket. His "relative level" would be equal to the big 3's.

His 2nd serve stats are worse than Murray on grass.... Pure myth.

He also played other grass specialists, most of which were dire returners.

Arguments get completely cyclical, and the dubmest is the pretense that court specialism implies the level is higher when it actually means players are more limited.

 

[Razer]

Truth is most posters claiming Sampras would win aren't even admitting they're talking about relative level either.

Peak to Peak is never Time Travel Tennis.

If someone asks you to put 24 year old Sampras vs 24 year old Federer then it does not mean 1995 Sampras vs 2005 Federer, this is a wrong way of seeing things because there is no time machine to teleport anyone anywhere.

Both players will either be born in 1971 or 1981, and then when they are 24, they clash, that is how Peak vs Peak is actual done by scientific minds. I donno how TTW does, maybe you guys have time machines or wormholes but in real life thats not how hypotheticals work.

Similar if you want 31 yr old Fed vs 31 yr old Sampras then you wont bring Pete from 2002 to 2012 or Federer from 2012 to 2002, you have to make these guys born in those eras and evolve, that is how you do a proper analysis.

 

[Holmes]

His 2nd serve stats are worse than Murray on grass.... Pure myth.

He also played other grass specialists, most of which were dire returners.

Arguments get completely cyclical, and the dubmest is the pretense that court specialism implies the level is higher when it actually means players are more limited.

There is no myth in my post. Sampras served 130 on 1sts and 122 on 2nds with a racket of the specs stated.

Going 7-0 in finals against a field of grass specialists isn't exactly supporting your argument that Sampras's level on grass wasn't on par with the big 3s'.

Edit: Being a specialist doesn't "mean players are more limited." You can be very good on hard and clay, and great on grass, which would make you a grass specialist since it's your best surface. Stich is a great example of this.

 

[Third Serve]

Fed volleyed and served exceptionally well in that match. Pete was incredible on serve and clutch on that serve, but not much else. One of the most important matches in the game's history.

That’s true, but Fed started to move away from the net after like 2003/2004 because it just wasn’t a viable strategy at that point due to poly completely setting in by that point, so I don’t think it’s fair to compare his net game across years when that just wasn’t something he put much emphasis on anymore, and it wouldn’t have been in his best interest to do so.

Though yes he did volley very well in that match.

 

[Holmes]

That’s true, but Fed started to move away from the net after like 2003/2004 because it just wasn’t a viable strategy at that point due to poly completely setting in by that point, so I don’t think it’s fair to compare his net game across years when that just wasn’t something he put much emphasis on anymore, and it wouldn’t have been in his best interest to do so.

Though yes he did volley very well in that match.

Very fair. He was better suited to coming in once the point was set up as opposed to outright serve and volley anyways.

 

[mike danny]

He has on many posts.

Everyone in the top 50 or even further down.

I find that hard to believe considering players have gotten worse on grass than in the past.

 

[jl809]

TIL Tsitsipas who let 36 year old Metal Hip Murray win 68% of 2nd serve points would beat prime Sampras on grass

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

peak for peak then Sampras 7-5, 6-3,6-4. No one sniffs peak Sampras (94-95) on grass. No one is even in the same area code. That would be like 1992 Michael Jordan losing. Would never happen. Djoker wouldn’t know what hit him

 

[SonnyT]

Sampras had 2 first serves.

Djokovic is the best returner in history,

 

[Razer]

Djokovic is the best returner in history,

Returns are all relevant on HCs only, not so much on Grass vs Sampras.

Here the ATG with the GOATy Serve, Volley, Movement, Forehand as a combo is automatically the GOAT on this surface. Sampras is better than Djokovic at 4 of these things. The returns wont help him win.... nope.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Djokovic would be left Roddicked in the middle of nowhere.

 

[DSH]

peak for peak then Sampras 7-5, 6-3,6-4. No one sniffs peak Sampras (94-95) on grass. No one is even in the same area code. That would be like 1992 Michael Jordan losing. Would never happen. Djoker wouldn’t know what hit him

Put from 1 to 7 in descending order the best versions of Sampras, champion at Wimbledon.

 

[slipgrip93]

Allowing Sampras to be equipped with his 2009 k-factor ps88 signature frame to upgrade from the ps85, and his choice of available 'modern' polys and/or gut strings. (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/sampras-spin-production.555134/)
Then for me, it's fairly winning odds for Sampras.