Originally Posted by 90's Clay
Federer is supposedly "vastly superior" to Nadal on hardcourts, and doesn't Nadal have the h2h advantage on those outdoor hard courts?
Originally Posted by TMF
Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.
What about Michael Stich who beat Sampras on his favorite(fast) surfaces, and said he fear Stich? You don't hear that from Fed saying it to Nadal. And what about Wayne Ferreira who's suppose to be much better player on hardcourt and carpet? Two can play that game.
The point is Fed >> Sampras on clay, and since he managed to beat Nadal 2 times does suggest that Sampras would go winless(0-14) against Nadal. Keep in mind Fed was the one who snapped Nadal's 81 clay winning streak. It takes Federer, Nole(and that was when people said Nadal have declined on clay), and Soderling who had a monster game in 2009 to beat Nadal. Sampras ain't going to beat Nadal on clay, period.
Outside of clay, you have to consider the courts are slower and produce higher bounce. S/v style today is not a winning recipe, which the condition benefits for Nadal. Given that Pete play Nadal 14 times, I see Pete ahead 8-6, that's because they will meet on 4 times during indoor season, and the rest pretty much was on slow hardcourt/grass.
Another factor is Fed post prime is more consistent than Sampras post prime. Fed mopped the floor during indoor season(2010-11) while Sampras lost to Guga in 2000 WTF. One could argue 2010 Nadal would beat 2000 Sampras at WTF.
Of course in realilty Sampras wouldn't meet Nadal 18 times(at the exact same age) because he wasn't consistent to reach the deep round or isn't as good at Federer. BUT given under the same circumstances
for Sampras having to play Nadal 14 on clays and 14 on other surfaces, the likelihood of Sampras's h2h is worse than 10-18.