Sampras vs Nadal

[federerGOAT]

Nadal would destroy Sampras completely. The field today is stronger than the one that Sampras was playing in. The top 5 today are much better players than any given top 5 of Sampras's time (except maybe Agassi).

[superman1]

Was there some leap in human evolution in the last few years that I missed? Are there suddenly twice as many people playing tennis now than 10 years ago? Your Federer the GOAT idolized Sampras at one time and tried to model his game after Sampras'. Sampras was the king. I seriously doubt that Nadal would "destroy Sampras completely," considering his troubles with big servers and net rushers, and considering he has never faced a volleyer as good as Sampras, or a serve as well placed as Sampras'. I still regard Nadal highly and I think he'd definitely be able to adapt and give Sampras a tough time, and certainly beat him on clay...but it wouldn't be a blow out.

[djsiva]

Originally Posted by quest01

I think Nadal would beat Sampras over 50% of the time. I just think Sampras would have a difficult time serve and volleying because of Nadals excellent passing shots. Its the same way when Sampras played Hewitt, Sampras had a difficult time playing at the net because of Hewitts speed and precise passes. It would be the same way with Nadal but 30% more effective because hes better then Hewitt. Also Sampras isnt the best player, Federer is. Also some people have mentioned Muster, well Nadal would smoke Muster off the court.

Wait a second buddy. Yeah Nadal of course would smoke Muster now. But Back in the day, Muster would have run circles around the guy. Especially if he wasn't hit by the drunk driver. Nadal was already having trouble with Puerta, so what are you talking about. Guga would also kick Nadal's butt and his fingers too if they happen to be in there, which is highly likely since, When is Nadal's fingers not in his butt?

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by maec allamerican

Wait a second buddy. Yeah Nadal of course would smoke Muster now. But Back in the day, Muster would have run circles around the guy. Especially if he wasn't hit by the drunk driver. Nadal was already having trouble with Puerta, so what are you talking about. Guga would also kick Nadal's butt and his fingers too if they happen to be in there, which is highly likely since, When is Nadal's fingers not in his butt?

LMAO! Too good.

Mods, you may now close this thread!

[Nadal_Freak]

Originally Posted by federerGOAT

Nadal would destroy Sampras completely. The field today is stronger than the one that Sampras was playing in. The top 5 today are much better players than any given top 5 of Sampras's time (except maybe Agassi).

No he wouldn't. The surface would totally dictate who wins. They are both specialized in their surface. Sampras on fast surfaces and Nadal for slow surfaces.

[ps2dcgba]

Are you comparing Pete now ie 2007 VS Nadal (current world No:2) , off course Pete would get smoked off the court, how bad, is anyone's guess lol. Even Federer has trouble.......
If you're talking Pete Wimbledon 1999 final VS Nadal now or his best ever, my money will be on Pete!

As for the exhibition matches Sampras Vs Federer, I wouldn't look to deep into the matches.I wouldn't be surprised if Pete won a couple of tie breakers , but would probably lose the match itself against Federer, it wouldn't be shameful to lose to the current world no:1, besides Pete's last competitive match on the ATP tour was 5 years ago, the game of tennis has evolved.Unless Federer trounces Pete 6-0,6-0, or the other way round, I am expecting a entertaining match between the current no:1 and former no:1.

[coloskier]

Originally Posted by PureCarlosMoyaDrive

The match would have no relevance, and everyone knows it.

Take Samp of 1995-6 and he'd take Nadal for sure (cept Clay obviously).

Ace him off the court and he had some amazing volleys that would take him out.

Remember, Sampras is as of now still basically the Greatest Ever.

Nadal is nothing compared to Sampras

Remember, even Sampras made it to the finals of the FO using serve and volley. His forehand was even better than Federer's. But he, too would have problems with Nadal's high topspin. But it wouldn't matter to him because Nadal would have to be passing him all the time.

[Rulo]

Originally Posted by Alexandros

Sampras' serve would give Nadal all sorts of problems.

I don't think so....
Nadal completely destroyed Roddick during the PLO 2007....

[lambielspins]

Originally Posted by coloskier

Remember, even Sampras made it to the finals of the FO using serve and volley.

No he didnt.

His forehand was even better than Federer's.

Hell no. Not even close.

But he, too would have problems with Nadal's high topspin.

The first true thing you said.

But it wouldn't matter to him because Nadal would have to be passing him all the time.

On Pete's own serve maybe, since Nadal gets a high first serve percentage and doesnt give you much to work with I doubt much on Nadal's serve.

[Nadal_Freak]

Originally Posted by Rulo

I don't think so....
Nadal completely destroyed Roddick during the PLO 2007....

And that was a slow, high bouncing hard court. The surface would totally dictate who wins.

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Originally Posted by Nadal_Freak

And that was a slow, high bouncing hard court. The surface would totally dictate who wins.

agreed....on the other hand Leyton Hewit gave Pete a tennis lesson. Nadal is even faster.

[lambielspins]

Originally Posted by Attila the tennis Bum

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.

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Originally Posted by lambielspins

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.

[lambielspins]

Originally Posted by Attila the tennis Bum

Thats the standard Pete Fan club excuse. I habe 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.

[Aabye]

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.

[Aabye]

Oops. Sorry lambielspins, I missed your post, but I agree with most of it now that I have read it.

[Tennis_Bum]

Originally Posted by coloskier

Remember, even Sampras made it to the finals of the FO using serve and volley. His forehand was even better than Federer's. But he, too would have problems with Nadal's high topspin. But it wouldn't matter to him because Nadal would have to be passing him all the time.

Get you fact straight, Sampras made it to Semi and lost straight sets to Kafenikov. That was his best performance at the FO.

[fastdunn]

Sampras had problems with attacking/shot making style and seldom had problems with defensive styles.

[junbumkim]

Nadal has two things that Pete doesn't like

1) Lefy
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.

[callitout]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

Sampras had problems with attacking/shot making style and seldom had problems with defensive styles.

Forgot Hewitt?