If prime Nadal and prime Sampras had played . . . . - Page 2

Ledigs · 10-02-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

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

Insult again.

mandy01 · 10-02-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledigs

Insult again.

LOL ..Are you a stalker? Or you never read any other posts except mine?

And if the OP didnt take it personally why do you bother?Mind your own business o' self-appointed moderator.

Ledigs · 10-02-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

LOL ..Are you a stalker? Or you never read any other posts except mine?

And if the OP didnt take it personally why do you bother?Mind your own business o' self-appointed moderator.

Don't worry I have officially complained.

cork_screw · 10-02-2009, 10:22 AM

Nadal would still win. It's not a matter of the player's status it's all about match ups!!! Sampras has the old school play style that federer has. They both play very similar. Nadal's spin would eat up sampras' flat hitting style and nadal would easily overthrow sampras' backhand which is actually less dynamic than federer's. So I don't know why people keep asking questions they can answer if they just put a little more thought into it.

mandy01 · 10-02-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledigs

Don't worry I have officially complained.

By all means do so.I guess you dont know what a personal insult means or you have decided to solely target me.Go ahead.

shabby · 10-02-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

LOL ..Are you a stalker? Or you never read any other posts except mine?

And if the OP didnt take it personally why do you bother?Mind your own business o' self-appointed moderator.

ROFL @ DOUBLE STANDARDS!!

As you told me a few weeks back, "This is a forum, i say whenever and whatever i want"

EDIT: Ledigs, do not allow this troll to wind you up. She is nothing but trouble.

grafselesfan · 10-03-2009, 01:30 AM

I dont know for certain what the overall head to head would be, but I am pretty sure Sampras would do better than winning 25% of his matches vs Nadal on an outdoor hard court (and being down 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd in the only win).

Blinkism · 10-03-2009, 01:41 AM

Some people seriously underrate Sampras as a claycourt player and Nadal as a grasscourt player.

Nadal would take atleast 1 match off Sampras on grass (not as likely if they only play 3 matches, but if it was 5ish, then for sure - consider Sampras's 3 set grass record @ Queen's, for example) and Sampras would take atleast 1 match off Nadal on clay (Sampras didn't suck on clay, and Nadal can have bad days - Soderling, in case).

Mind you, I think Nadal would be more dominant on clay in their h2h than Sampras would be on any surface, but that's only my $0.02

grafselesfan · 10-03-2009, 02:06 AM

I do agree if Pete and Rafa played alot of matches on grass that Rafa could win at some point, especialy if they played at a tune up (much harder to beat Pete on Wimbledon, especialy on the old true grass). However if they only played 3 matches on grass, if all 3 at Wimbledon, and if 1 of the 3 was baby Rafa who was a grass court novice back, and 1 of the remaining 2 Rafa was seriously injured in the hypothetical 5th set, then then I think Pete would win all 3 in that case.

I agree if they played 11 times on clay that Pete would find a way to win 1 or 2. Pete is a very underrated clay court player. His biggest problem on clay is he lacks consistency, but he has the ability to beat a top clay courter, and he tends to get up for the top guys on clay and always make it competitive.

Cesc Fabregas · 10-03-2009, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

I do agree if Pete and Rafa played alot of matches on grass that Rafa could win at some point, especialy if they played at a tune up (much harder to beat Pete on Wimbledon, especialy on the old true grass). However if they only played 3 matches on grass, if all 3 at Wimbledon, and if 1 of the 3 was baby Rafa who was a grass court novice back, and 1 of the remaining 2 Rafa was seriously injured in the hypothetical 5th set, then then I think Pete would win all 3 in that case.

I agree if they played 11 times on clay that Pete would find a way to win 1 or 2. Pete is a very underrated clay court player. His biggest problem on clay is he lacks consistency, but he has the ability to beat a top clay courter, and he tends to get up for the top guys on clay and always make it competitive.

If Pete ever made a French Open final, I would have backed him to win it, simply because he along with Borg are the best match players of the open era.

grafselesfan · 10-03-2009, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

If Pete ever made a French Open final, I would have backed him to win it, simply because he along with Borg are the best match players of the open era.

Interesting. Even over Nadal on clay? I sort of see that as being hard. I already consider Nadal probably the 2nd greatest clay courter in history after Borg. Then again like you said Sampras is one of the greatest match players in history like you said so I guess it is possible. I suspect he would have played better than Federer did in his French finals with Nadal, despite that Federer is a slightly better overall clay courter than Pete.

Cesc Fabregas · 10-03-2009, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Interesting. Even over Nadal on clay? I sort of see that as being hard. I already consider Nadal probably the 2nd greatest clay courter in history after Borg. Then again like you said Sampras is one of the greatest match players in history like you said so I guess it is possible. I suspect he would have played better than Federer did in his French finals with Nadal, despite that Federer is a slightly better overall clay courter than Pete.

No, not against Nadal. I meant in his own era in the 90's.

grafselesfan · 10-03-2009, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

No, not against Nadal. I meant in his own era in the 90's.

Awww ok that makes more sense. In that case I agree. I do think Pete would have come up with the goods to win a French Open final in the 90s had he ever made one, even over a great clay courter like Courier, Bruguera, or Muster. It would basically take someone like Nadal to stop him if he ever did make a French Open final. I also really think if Sampras and Federer ever played a French Open final that Sampras would win, although Federer would win most of their matches on clay otherwise.

mandy01 · 10-03-2009, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

No, not against Nadal. I meant in his own era in the 90's.

coulda,woulda,shoulda,ifs and buts......
Sampras= 0 French Opens.

To the OP-There you go....

Cesc Fabregas · 10-03-2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

coulda,woulda,shoulda,ifs and buts......
Sampras= 0 French Opens.

To the OP-There you go....

Unfortunatley Pete ran into Courier, Bruguera or Agassi in the quarters, instead of Hanescu, Robredo or Gonzo.

mandy01 · 10-03-2009, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Unfortunatley Pete ran into Courier, Bruguera or Agassi in the quarters, instead of Hanescu, Robredo or Gonzo.

Unfortunately Pete lost to quite a few Tom,Dick and Harrys( the ones Federer wouldnt lose to) as well

grafselesfan · 10-03-2009, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

Unfortunately Pete lost to quite a few Tom,Dick and Harrys( the ones Federer wouldnt lose to) as well

So has Federer. Hicham Arazi and Luis Horna ring a bell.

mandy01 · 10-03-2009, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

So has Federer. Hicham Arazi and Luis Horna ring a bell.

Federer in his prime years?

Last time I checked,Federer in his prime atleast made the semi-finals

2004 is the only year you could make a case for

LOL..And if Pete was so great a match player then should've overcomed those he lost to the QFs.

mandy01 · 10-03-2009, 03:19 AM

Anyway,OP..You see what happens when gsf and cesc start posting in these threads.They again managed to bring in how Sampras is superior to Federer,how his era is superior to the current and all the usual nonsense.

luckyboy1300 · 10-03-2009, 03:26 AM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...ttw+dictionary

search for "prime vs. prime"

10-03-2009, 01:30 AM	#27
grafselesfan Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,594	I dont know for certain what the overall head to head would be, but I am pretty sure Sampras would do better than winning 25% of his matches vs Nadal on an outdoor hard court (and being down 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd in the only win). Last edited by grafselesfan : 10-03-2009 at 01:33 AM.

10-03-2009, 03:19 AM	#39
mandy01 G.O.A.T. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 10,590	Anyway,OP..You see what happens when gsf and cesc start posting in these threads.They again managed to bring in how Sampras is superior to Federer,how his era is superior to the current and all the usual nonsense. __________________ Our character is defined ,not by others but by ourselves.Peek into your conscience.It tells you everything.

10-03-2009, 03:26 AM	#40
luckyboy1300 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,794	http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...ttw+dictionary search for "prime vs. prime" __________________ How hard is it to spell L-O-O-S-E as L-O-S-E?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode