Which period was most similar to Nadal's RG dominance: Sampras or Federer@Wimbledon?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

Sampras was the defending champion and was ranked higher, meaning he had a better 12-month season than Federer did leading into Wimbledon 2001. Federer would lose in the 1st round the next year at Wimbledon. Sampras was 29, not 30. Federer was 19. Sampras was the favorite, Federer's win was considered an upset. You're just being dense. Probably on purpose.

[90's Clay]

It was considered an upset and people did expect Pete to win (but they also expected Pete to probably not win wimbledon that year either because of how bad he was playing). Even McEnroe commented I believe that Pete better pick up his play or he isn't winning wimbledon after he needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan. Pete played horrible at wimbledon after 2000. Bottom line.. His days were over.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

It was considered an upset and people did expect Pete to win (but they also expected Pete to probably not win wimbledon that year either because of how bad he was playing). Even McEnroe commented I believe that Pete better pick up his play or he isn't winning wimbledon after he needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan. Pete played horrible at wimbledon after 2000. Bottom line.. His days were over.

Sampras won Slams the year before and the year after. Federer was coming off of two 1st round defeats at the previous years' Wimbledons. And he would make it three 1st round defeats the next year, not winning his first Slam until the year after that. Yes, Sampras was far from his prime but Federer was farther still. No one can deny that. But like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

But like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras.

Don't worry, no informed tennis fan thinks Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Winning Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s required a far higher standard than the 2000s.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Don't worry, no informed tennis fan thinks Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Winning Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s required a far higher standard than the 2000s.

You do realize one could make the same argument against Nadal on Clay, right? And it's not like he beat Borg. Or even Kuerten.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

You do realize one could make the same argument against Nadal on Clay, right? And it's not like he beat Borg. Or even Kuerten.

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

Speculative post. Means nothing. You're just babbling now.

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

lol Ferrer wouldn't have dominated clay at any point in tennis history.


What an incredibly stupid post.

[Gorecki]

The neolithic age was most familiar. also the Jianwen Emperor age...

[Feather]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

Neither Roger nor Pete has dominated Wimbledon the way Rafa did on clay. It's imposible. Rafa is born to rule clay. And he did that at RG. I don't think I will see anyone doing that well in a major in my life time. Rafa is a phenomenon on clay and that cannot be equalled by anyone anywhere

[ark_28]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

Very well said!

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

The clay wasn't faster the new babolat balls were lighter and faster please do your research!!!! They have not made clay courts faster by any means but then again ***** can never see things objectively so why bother. Btw if your beloved rafa played in the 70's like Borg and would have used a wooden racket and his topspin would not even kick up half as high and would probably injure his shoulder trying.

[tennisaddict]

6-1 6-3 6-0 (OP) achieved what he wanted by instigating a Sampras vs Fed war and trying to compare with Nadal's achievement.

For starters, Can the OP start making threads about Nadal's non-clay records ?

Nadal is clearly a one-surface GOAT. He does not belong to the elite when it comes to other surfaces or all surfaces.

He is same level as Wilander, Edberg , Djokovic as an all-surface player and does not deserve to be compared to the elite (Federer, Sampras).

[forzamilan90]

OP post is bait though, you basically state both Sampras and Nadal have won 7 out of 7, in 7 out of 8 years, but still ask the question whose is most similar? Under those criteria, clearly Sampras.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

I guess that's just another reason why Fed>>>>Sampras, Fed would never be owned on a consistent basis by noobs like Sampras was in his later years.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

I guess that's just another reason why Fed>>>>Sampras, Fed would never be owned on a consistent basis by noobs like Sampras was in his later years.

Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

Nadal's a noob? One could argue he's better than Sampras and that would make Sampras a super-noob, which would excuse his losses to noobs so you got there in the end

And when was the last time Federer lost before the QFs of a Slam? And how many times did Sampras lose to nobodies on Clay? He never even made 4 SFs in a row. Federer's made 23.

And how desperate can you get? Being in danger of losing is NOT the same as losing. So Federer can't even win matches in 5 sets now without having to face ridicule?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Nadal's a noob? One could argue he's better than Sampras and that would make Sampras a super-noob, which would excuse his losses to noobs so you got there in the end

And when was the last time Federer lost before the QFs of a Slam? And how many times did Sampras lose to nobodies on Clay? He never even made 4 SFs in a row. Federer's made 23.

And how desperate can you get? Being in danger of losing is NOT the same as losing. So Federer can't even win matches in 5 sets now without having to face ridicule?

Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Somehow fed fans have got into this line of thinking that have has NEVER lost to a nobody now. ROFLMAO

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Sure they can. But it has happened very few times to Federer. And way more times to Sampras. Especially on "90's Clay" Admit it.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Sure they can. But it has happened very few times to Federer. And way more times to Sampras. Especially on "90's Clay" Admit it.

In his clay prime (outside of 95) Sampras would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament from 92-96 just about all those years.. Thats not bad really,

When he gave up after '96 after his coach died thats when he began to lose to nobodies at the French.


But uhhhh.. Are implying Fed is not going to lose to a "nobody" at a slam before he retires?