If prime Nadal and prime Sampras had played . . . .

TheFifthSet · 10-01-2009, 10:33 PM

11 matches on clay, 3 on grass, and 6 on hardcourts (as Federer and Nadal have so far), what would their H2H be? Serious question, no trolling intended, and no this isn't a parody of GSF thread . . . . although he/she gave me the idea for the thread.

pundekman · 10-01-2009, 10:36 PM

Nadal would take all 11 on clay. Including many 6-0 sets.
Sampras would take all on grass. But Nadal would win sets.
They would split the hardcourts depending onwhat type of hardcourt.
So the final tally would be 14-6 Nadal.

DarkSephiroth · 10-01-2009, 10:51 PM

10-1 Clay to Nadal, depending upon 3 or 5 set. (Sampras would have a better chance @ 3-Set)

3-0 Grass to Sampras. (Sampras's offense was just too fast. )

4-2 Hardcourts to Sampras, depending upon slow or fast HC. (Nadal's worst surface is hard, and Sampras was historically quite good on Hard. Hardcourts don't give Nadal as much time to set up, and Nadal doesn't seem to have as good a feel for hard, nor does he return very well on the surface. Sampras would be able to attack off both his serves. I think that Offense > Defense on most surfaces, and Nadal is primarily a defensive player.)

So it seems overall, according to my analysis.. assuming these surfaces, Nadal would lead that H2H at 12-8.

IvanAndreevich · 10-01-2009, 10:59 PM

What kind of grass? Nadal might sneak one out on today's.

10-01-2009, 11:05 PM

Don't take for granted Nadal would necessarily beat Pete everytime on clay. Pete's real problem on clay was stamina due to his blood condition, not lack of ability to play on clay; he could beat any given clay courter if he had to as he showed in Davis Cup vs Russia when they laid out a super slow clay court just for him, it's just that he couldn't play 5 setters on clay every match for 7 matches as somebody like Muster could.

Actually, if Nadal were playing back then, he and Pete wouldn't have met very often on either clay or grass at all. On clay, Pete would have been knocked out too soon; grass, Nadal would have been bombed off court in an early round by any one of the big servers.

GasquetGOAT · 10-02-2009, 01:39 AM

11-0 Clay to Nadal. Sampras would have no chance against Nadal on this surface, he would had done very well getting thus far to even face Nadal on clay but no he would not win any clay matches against Rafa. He would be aiming to not get bagelled repeatedly if anything.

2-1 Grass to Sampras. (On todays grass it could be Nadal 2-1, being the best returner and capable of an aggressive all court game. But I give it to Sampras for his serve)

3-3 Hardcourts even. depending upon slow or fast HC. Nadal takes all slow hardcourt meetings, and Sampras was historically quite good on fast Hard. Fast hardcourts don't give Nadal as much time to set up but he does return very well on both fast and slow HC.

Overall Nadal takes it 16-4.

TheFifthSet · 10-02-2009, 01:55 AM

Hardcourt split is awfully harsh to Sampras IMO. Sampras is a top 3-4 fast court player of all time, plus he would be a big matchup issue for Nadal. Sampras was also no slouch on slow HC, won the AO twice and Miami 3 times. Sampras is IMO better on any hardcourt, fast, slow, medium, you name it.

Overall I think it would be

Clay - 11-0 Nadal
HC - (3 fast HC meetings and 3 slow) 5-1 Sampras
Todays Grass - 2-1 Sampras

So 13-7 . . . . .

TheFifthSet · 10-02-2009, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

This thread is pretty much as dumb as the one GSF started.

??

It's a simple exercise, no intentions of baiting. Just asking for opinions because I'm genuinely curious as to what people think. And seeing as Sampras fans often bring up Federer's h2h against Nadal as one of his detractors, I'm curious to see what they think as well.

mandy01 · 10-02-2009, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

??

It's a simple exercise, no intentions of baiting. Just asking for opinions because I'm genuinely curious as to what people think. And seeing as Sampras fans often bring up Federer's h2h against Nadal as one of his detractors, I'm curious to see what they think as well.

And what is the point of speculating imaginery match-ups?

TheFifthSet · 10-02-2009, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

And what is the point of speculating imaginery match-ups?

It's intended to be a fun exercise. Does every thread have to serve some paramount purpose?

I don't see you commenting on the 'You vs. Federer', 'Best composite all time player', or 'Weird H2H' threads. Those threads are fairly light-hearted and pretty pointless by nature as well.

It seems that this particular topic strikes a nerve with you.

mandy01 · 10-02-2009, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

It's intended to be a fun exercise. Does every thread have to serve some paramount purpose?

I don't see you commenting on the 'You vs. Federer', 'Best composite all time player', or 'Weird H2H' threads. Those threads are fairly light-hearted and pretty pointless by nature as well.

It seems that this particular topic strikes a nerve with you.

This is because the thread is designed to demean a player .Not to mention it is ANOTHER recipe for era-discussion and seriously we've had enough of these threads. .
I'm pretty sure should this thread last long especially with Samprastards posting, it will be another my era vs your era bullcrap.

TheFifthSet · 10-02-2009, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

This is because the thread is designed to demean a player .Not to mention it is ANOTHER recipe for era-discussion and seriously we've had enough of these threads. .

Disagree. Discussing a players merits isn't neccesarily demeaning him/her IMO. Comparing players in their respective primes (even from different era's) isn't a science but it is just another topic for those who don't take it that seriously, such as me . . . . people like GSF and Cesc may take it more seriously than others, and has therefore made this topic basically taboo LOL, but this thread isn't meant to incite hate or vitriol.

I think we should agree to disagree anyway.

TheMagicianOfPrecision · 10-02-2009, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

11 matches on clay, 3 on grass, and 6 on hardcourts (as Federer and Nadal have so far), what would their H2H be? Serious question, no trolling intended, and no this isn't a parody of GSF thread . . . . although he/she gave me the idea for the thread.

With theese surfaces and the number of times on each surface, it would be 11-0 clay Nadal, 3-0 Sampras on grass,and 4-2 Sampras on HC, which would make the H2H 13-7 Nadal...oh...

Andres · 10-02-2009, 03:35 AM

13-7 Nadal.

dropshot winner · 10-02-2009, 04:05 AM

Based on Sampras' struggle against Bruguera:

11 - 0 on clay
0 - 3 on 90s grass
4 - 2 on harcourt
----------------
15 - 5 Nadal

borg number one · 10-02-2009, 04:33 AM

Prime (thus far) Nadal vs. Prime Sampras (assuming today's surfaces)

**Note that Nadal may very well improve, or he may decline. I tend to think he'll improve in the years ahead.

Grass-Sampras in 6-7 out of 10
Hard-Sampras 7 out of 10
Faster Indoor-Sampras 7 out of 10
Rebound Ace-Nadal 6-7 out of 10
Clay-Nadal 10 of 10

Sampras Advantages-Serve, forehand, net play.
Sampras Weaknesses-Stamina, slower surfaces, high backhands potentially, and long rallies in general.
Nadal Advantages-Consistency, groundstrokes (esp. passing shots), footspeed, and stamina.
Nadal Weaknesses-Return of serve, esp. on fast surfaces if he cannot return close enough to the baseline, hard courts.

sh@de · 10-02-2009, 05:49 AM

Nadal would own Sampras every time they played on clay. And Sampras would own Nadal on carpet courts every time they played. On old grass, Sampras would have a great edge, e.g. 7-3 in 10 matches. On new grass, they'd probably be about even. On slow hardcourts, Nadal would have a pretty good advantage and on fast hardcourts, it would be Sampras with the edge.

darthpwner · 10-02-2009, 05:52 AM

11-0 Nadal on clay
3-0 Sampras on grass
4-2 for Sampras on hard courts
13-7 for Nadal. Just like his h2h against Federer

wyutani · 10-02-2009, 05:52 AM

only on clay mate'...ust clay.

jamesblakefan#1 · 10-02-2009, 07:01 AM

I agree with mandy. This is just gonna incite more pointless era debates, something GSF and others love....imaginary matches are pointless, IMO.

10-01-2009, 10:51 PM	#3
DarkSephiroth Rookie Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 256	10-1 Clay to Nadal, depending upon 3 or 5 set. (Sampras would have a better chance @ 3-Set) 3-0 Grass to Sampras. (Sampras's offense was just too fast. ) 4-2 Hardcourts to Sampras, depending upon slow or fast HC. (Nadal's worst surface is hard, and Sampras was historically quite good on Hard. Hardcourts don't give Nadal as much time to set up, and Nadal doesn't seem to have as good a feel for hard, nor does he return very well on the surface. Sampras would be able to attack off both his serves. I think that Offense > Defense on most surfaces, and Nadal is primarily a defensive player.) So it seems overall, according to my analysis.. assuming these surfaces, Nadal would lead that H2H at 12-8. __________________ -chill

10-01-2009, 10:59 PM	#4
IvanAndreevich Legend Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 7,501	What kind of grass? Nadal might sneak one out on today's. __________________ 2 x Yonex RDS 002 Tour @ Topspin Cyber Blue 17 All I post is based on reason and facts. ~ gj011

10-01-2009, 11:05 PM	#5
1970CRBase Guest Posts: n/a	Don't take for granted Nadal would necessarily beat Pete everytime on clay. Pete's real problem on clay was stamina due to his blood condition, not lack of ability to play on clay; he could beat any given clay courter if he had to as he showed in Davis Cup vs Russia when they laid out a super slow clay court just for him, it's just that he couldn't play 5 setters on clay every match for 7 matches as somebody like Muster could. Actually, if Nadal were playing back then, he and Pete wouldn't have met very often on either clay or grass at all. On clay, Pete would have been knocked out too soon; grass, Nadal would have been bombed off court in an early round by any one of the big servers. Last edited by 1970CRBase : 10-01-2009 at 11:08 PM.

10-02-2009, 01:55 AM	#7
TheFifthSet Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home of the 2010 Winter Olympics Posts: 2,046	Hardcourt split is awfully harsh to Sampras IMO. Sampras is a top 3-4 fast court player of all time, plus he would be a big matchup issue for Nadal. Sampras was also no slouch on slow HC, won the AO twice and Miami 3 times. Sampras is IMO better on any hardcourt, fast, slow, medium, you name it. Overall I think it would be Clay - 11-0 Nadal HC - (3 fast HC meetings and 3 slow) 5-1 Sampras Todays Grass - 2-1 Sampras So 13-7 . . . . . Last edited by TheFifthSet : 10-02-2009 at 01:57 AM.

10-02-2009, 03:35 AM	#14
Andres G.O.A.T. Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina Posts: 12,192	13-7 Nadal. __________________ http://www.facebook.com/AndresGuazzelli