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

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I would wager Nadal over Fed 90 percent of the time OUTSIDE of clay at the vs. Fed . However, theres no way I would wager for Nadal over Pete 90 percent of the time outside on clay. Thats what I'm saying. LOL. Under the same circumstances, no.. Because I dont believe Pete would be losing to Nadal that many times outside of clay as Fed did

You're still not getting it. Stop with the strawmans. All I said in this thread, for the 120912031230921th time, is that if Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay and half their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would lead in the head-to-head. Why are you arguing about something else?

PS -- 90% of the time is a pretty huge exaggeration. Their head to head outside of clay is even. However, no need respond to this part of my post. You're just gonna strawman the hell out of it.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

You're still not getting it. Stop with the strawmans. All I said in this thread, for the 120912031230921th time, is that if Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay and half their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would lead in the head-to-head. Why are you arguing about something else?

You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.


ANd besides as I said, anything outside of indoors, I'll give Nadal the advantage over Fed more times then not. Its the matchup issue, its the fact Fed fumbles at his head like a freshmen pulling at a panty kirtle and gets in mental funks when he sees Nadal on the other end of the court.

Clay has NOTHING to do with it

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

No.. Im refuting you're statement for implying prime/peak Fed only lost to Nadal on clay or something.

Yep, I missed this one. No, I didn't imply that. I just said he didn't own Federer off clay.

Can you please just respond to the points I did try to make, for the sake of keeping this debate somewhat reasonable? Stop putting words in my mouth.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.


ANd besides as I said, anything outside of indoors, I'll give Nadal the advantage over Fed more times then not. Its the matchup issue, its the fact Fed fumbles at his head like a freshmen pulling at a panty kirtle when he sees Nadal on the other end of the court.

Clay has NOTHING to do with it

For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't once addressed that head-on. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. It doesn't matter if Sampras would have the edge on other surfaces -- I think any reasonable person would see that if they played 50 percent clay-50 percent other surfaces, Nadal would hold the lead.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't onced addressed that head-on.

No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

So you think Nadal would be roughly 13-1 versus Pete on clay and 1-13 off clay? Good. That's all I needed to know. Heck I might not agree with it in the least (guys like Ferreira had more than their share of wins against Pete off clay yet they weren't half the player Nadal was), but at least you actually answered the question. Only took 3 pages. Good for you, buddy.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

So you think Nadal would be roughly 13-1 versus Pete on clay and 1-13 off clay? Good. That's all I needed to know. Heck I might not agree with it in the least, but at least you actually answered the question. Only took 3 pages. Good for you, buddy.

Like I said (if you read).. it depends on what clay we are talking about of course.. The faster stuff we got today or the slow Monte Carlo type clay of the 90s

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.

Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.

[NadalAgassi]

Nadal at RG is clearly above either at Wimbledon in pure dominance. Sampras at Wimbledon is a bit above Federer at Wimbledon in pure dominance, and had way tougher competition than Federer at Wimbledon and even Nadal at RG, so would say Sampras at Wimbledon comes closer. For once an accurate poll result (so far) involving Federer.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Like I said (if you read).. it depends on what clay we are talking about of course.. The faster stuff we got today or the slow Monte Carlo type clay of the 90s

Well what do you think the best-case scenario would be for Sampras versus Nadal on clay? Either way he'll lose pretty much every time. It's a moot point. It would range from 0-14 to 2-12 (I don't know why I'm being so generous as to give Sampras two wins versus Nadal on clay, but there you go). So what? Nadal will still win.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

It is hard to say. Nadal would probably be always a top 2, or at absolute worst always top 3 or top 4 player in any era, especialy with all the clay points he would rack up in any era, which means he couldnt play Sampras until semis or usually finals even of non clay events, so less likely to come up with non clay wins over Sampras, especialy in slams, as Sampras is usually dialed in by then. Had he played Sampras in quarters or earlier would definitely have a shot but that would be almost impossible.

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Pretty much lol. Sampras is a vastly inferior claycourt player than Federer AND the guys he beat were great but not as great as Nadal on the dirt, so no it doesn't necessarily mean Sampras would score the occasional scalp against Nadal on clay. He'd probably get shutout.

[NadalAgassi]

Even if Sampras played Nadal all the same number of times on all surfaces as Federer does, his overall head to head would still be better. Imagine Nadal leading Sampras 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, lol, would never happen. The only place Federer is really able to get the better of Nadal is indoors, on grass he would be trailing in H2H now if their last grass meeting hadnt been way back in 2008, and if a Nadal really weak on grass at that point had not somehow stumbled into the 06 Wimbledon final already by virtual default due to the all time most abysmal grass field of the Federer era. Sampras would own Nadal everywhere but clay though.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Even if Sampras played Nadal all the same number of times on all surfaces as Federer does, his overall head to head would still be better. Imagine Nadal leading Sampras 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, lol, would never happen. The only place Federer is really able to get the better of Nadal is indoors, on grass he would be trailing in H2H now if their last grass meeting hadnt been way back in 2008. Sampras would own Nadal everywhere but clay though.

Debatable. Nadal is 18-10 versus Federer overall. Sampras might do better, but not a whole lot better.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

[Sim]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Debatable. Nadal is 18-10 versus Federer overall.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Agreed. I think Nadal would still lead the H2H by a great amount if it was half half on clay/other surfaces. 17-11 sounds like a good number. Nadal would have to score his HC wins in '10-'11 HC level though.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Debatable. Nadal is 18-10 versus Federer overall.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Outdoor hard court. Sampras leads 5-2 (best case for Nadal)

Grass. Sampras leads 3-0 (no brainer, Nadal has nothing to hurt Sampras with on grass, unlike baseliner without as dominant a serve Federer)

Indoors. Sampras leads 4-0 (again a no brainer. The matches would be bigger beatdowns than the Federer-Nadal ones here).

So absolute worst case for Sampras would be trailing 16-12. Still better and just outside the ownage range, while 18-10 is now into it. Plus Sampras playing Nadal 5 times in clay slams and 5 times in non clay slams would probably be 5-5 or 6-4 at worst. Nadal doesnt have the game to beat Sampras anytime before his 30s in a non clay slam, other than maybe an upset at the Australian Open, but even then I doubt if Sampras is playing well enough to make semis or finals to play Nadal. Federer of course is 2-8, even with a losing non clay slam record vs Nadal, and the only match Federer was older than 27 was the last one.

Furthermore even if your projected numbers were right the non clay H2H would also be so extremely lopsided in Sampras's favor, and his dominance on non clay surfaces would truly be matching or almost matching Nadal's on clay, that the clay excuse would be more apt here. Since Nadal leads Federer in non clay slam H2H, leads him 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, and wins roughly half their matches off of clay in addition to his extremely lopsided clay dominance, that spin does not work for Federer as much as his supporters like to try, and continue to attempt to in vein.

[90's Clay]

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.

Federer is supposedly "vastly superior" to Nadal on hardcourts, and doesn't Nadal have the h2h advantage on those outdoor hard courts?

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Outdoor hard court. Sampras leads 5-2 (best case for Nadal)

Grass. Sampras leads 3-0 (no brainer, Nadal has nothing to hurt Sampras with on grass, unlike baseliner without as dominant a serve Federer)

Indoors. Sampras leads 4-0 (again a no brainer. The matches would be bigger beatdowns than the Federer-Nadal ones here).

So absolute worst case for Sampras would be trailing 16-12. Still better and just outside the ownage range, while 18-10 is now into it. Plus Sampras playing Nadal 5 times in clay slams and 5 times in non clay slams would probably be 5-5 or 6-4 at worst. Nadal doesnt have the game to beat Sampras anytime before his 30s in a non clay slam, other than maybe an upset at the Australian Open, but even then I doubt if Sampras is playing well enough to make semis or finals to play Nadal. Federer of course is 2-8, even with a losing non clay slam record vs Nadal, and the only match Federer was older than 27 was the last one.

I guess it's opinion but I don't think Sampras would go 12-2 versus Nadal if lesser players could challenge him to such an extent. I mean sure match ups are important, but Ferreira had a .500 record against Pete on non-clay yet possessed few of the weapons Nadal does.

I don't see how that's "absolute worst case scenario". Because it's not unfathomable that Nadal could have 3-4 wins versus Sampras instead of 2, so "absolute worst case" is a bit of an exaggeration. Absolute worst case scenario is more like Pete being Rafa more than once on clay, which would be pretty astonishing.

Also, on plexicushion I could see a 30 year old Sampras getting severely out-grinded by Rafa (remember Federer played Rafa this year at the AO when he was 30).

[TheFifthSet]

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?

Alright then how about Djokovic? He's superior to Nadal on hardcourts and has a positive H2H on the surface, yet on clay (where he's superior to Sampras) he's 2-12 against Rafa.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

I guess it's opinion but I don't think Sampras would go 12-2 versus Nadal if lesser players could challenge him to such an extent. I mean sure match ups are important, but Ferreira had a .500 record against Pete on non-clay yet possessed few of the weapons Nadal does.

I don't see how that's "absolute worst case scenario". Because it's not unfathomable that Nadal could have 3-4 wins versus Sampras instead of 2, so "absolute worst case" is a bit of an exaggeration. Absolute worst case scenario is more like Pete being Rafa more than once on clay, which would be pretty astonishing.

Nadal would never beat Sampras indoors or in a major grass final (or even semi) which due to their consistently high rankings in the only times they would play until they were 30 or older. Nadal could beat Sampras on outdoor hard courts at some point, but would never have a winning record like he does with Federer, so 2-5 is about the best he would do if they played 7 times.

You seem to forget alot of these others played Sampras well before finals due to their lower ranking. Anyone who followed Sampras through the years knows that is when he was much more likely to lose, while only losing to the very best of opponents at the end.
I have no idea why Ferrari was a matchup problem for Sampras but others who were like Krajicek and Stich were since they could match his serving at their best, and were attacking players who could take the net away from him. Obviously this is nothing like the game Nadal would present.