An example why Sampras would have been fine today, watch this!

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by cork_screw

Sorry, he probably wouldn't. Federer has more strengths and less weaknesses than Sampras and he is behind the block to Djokovic and Rafa. Sampras' backhand is much weaker than federer's. People would just target it and hit heaps of spin until it breaks down just like they do to fed. Watch that video you posted, everything to his backhand he runs around to avoid hitting it. He did this when guys weren't using crazy poly spin strings. Imagine what guys would do now to his backhand. There's only so much running around your weakness you can do until people start to yo-yo you side to side and you can't run around it anymore. You love sampras, doesn't mean you can make stuff up like RAFA2005RG just to give a nod to your guy. I would never give something an unfair bias unless it earned proper recognition.

If Sampras was developing in the current era, would he have perhaps kept his 2hbh and if so, what kind of difference would that make? I still say Sampras would be a massive beast in this era. Talent is talent.

[fuzzyball]

Originally Posted by cork_screw

Sorry, he probably wouldn't. Federer has more strengths and less weaknesses than Sampras and he is behind the block to Djokovic and Rafa.

Mmmmhhh, true that Federer always had troubles against Nadal but I think that it is mainly due to a particular matchup that Fed struggle against, on the other hand it is a little unfair to say that Fed is behind Djoko or Murray, because then you only talk about a past prime Fed (who is an inferior version of himself) against a peak Djoko or Murray, you have to consider that when Federer was at his true peak, Djoko or Murray were not already real top contenders on the ATP tour, and when Djoko and murray started to reach there full potentials, Federer was already slightly declining.

[fuzzyball]

Originally Posted by SLD76

that said, tell me how pete was on slow surfaces again...

Who knows? Outside of clay, there wasn't much slow courts during Pete's era, and anyone who saw pete play on clay knows that the biggest problem he had was not that claycourts were too slow, his biggest problem was that he was just a very bad mover on that kind on surface.

[Romismak]

Sampras probably would be fine, winning slams, but not so many for sure and his game would look different, not totally but not the same for sure

[droliver]

I just don't see Pete being able to make a dent against the top 4 players today. While his serve is better then anyone ever, they do everything else better (movement, defense, FH, BH, return game).

The idea that he'd just check out of rallies to "end points quicker" too play these guys is just silly. If it were that easy, the pros would be doing it overnight. The tour (as a whole) defends too well to just to make that a high % play anymore. In 2013, an in form Sampras is in the "dangerous floater" category category rather then one of the favorites I'm afraid.

[sonicare]

LOL...Petetards are hilarious.

We have an actual verifiable fact here. Pete COULD NOT adjust to win the FO. If he was so great, he would have figured out clay but alas, he went AWOL 1/3rd of the season.

so fat chance, he adjusts to todays conditions. he did not have enough in him to go through 2 of the top 4 consecutively.

IMO, he would have a career like feliciano lopez in today's conditions. Maybe a little worse cos lopez has the advantage of being a lefty.

[iradical18]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

I think that part of what Rafa may have been able to exploit in Roger all those years was Roger's deep seated urge to produce highlight reel shots. Pete I believe had some of this same urge to appear flashy, but not nearly as much of it as Roger, I would argue. Roger overtly craves being adored for his shot making, particularly from the back court, whereas Pete seemed fully satisfied knocking of a volley, and Pete didn't rush a developing point from his baseline they way Roger sometimes does...Pete was content to play defense by hitting deep floaters longer than Roger seems wired to be able to do comfortably. This difference between them would only help Pete when facing Rafa, because Rafa has feasted on Roger's mindset in my opinion simply by getting one more ball back while seldom trying to do anything offensive with it, which I think at times has causeed Roger to short- circuit as though he may have been thinking, "WTF is wrong with this kid? He can hit the ball a ton but all he wants to do with me is push it back. **Does not compute!! Does not compute!!**" Pete can play that game too, though, and I think would actually force Rafa--better than Roger has been able to--into playing more offensively.

I can imagine easily Pete not troubling himself over which way to hit a backhand against Rafa. Either Pete would slow roll it back hitting a kind of moon ball of his own (which Roger would *ghast, the horror** never even think of trying) or Pete would simply slice it back, which Rafa of course would then run around to hit a forehand. Pete then could afford to camp out in his backhand corner because his runnign forehand was so lethal. And I do not believe for one moment that Pete would not burn Rafa (who does not move to his left very well) with Pete's running forehand especially up the line to Rafa's forehand.

Wow. You seriously think that the reason Rafael Nadal has the edge on Roger Federer is because Roger wants to hit shots that look good on TV? Are you best friends, has he told you this? That has got to be one of the most overreaching, ******** and intrusive statements into another persons psyche that I have ever read.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by iradical18

Wow. You seriously think that the reason Rafael Nadal has the edge on Roger Federer is because Roger wants to hit shots that look good on TV? Are you best friends, has he told you this? That has got to be one of the most overreaching, ******** and intrusive statements into another persons psyche that I have ever read.

I feel too that Roger was often was very stubborn when he played Nadal. I feel that for Roger it was important to dominate his rival at their own game: in the case of Nadal, Roger wanted to show that he could dominate backhand to forehand. He couldn't. It might be overreaching though.

[Flash O'Groove]

Sampras had one of the best serve ever, a great forehand a great athleticism. He would at worse be a fat better version than Tsonga today. Which mean: he would't dominate and win dozen of slam, but he would be a contender everywhere except clay. He would probably be more consistent than Tsonga, and aslo far more dangerous.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

not too sure about that. even on the slowest hardcourts pete could probably hit through a lot of the loopy topspin. think Soderling/delpo/bergych on steroids, not to mention his serve and all court game.

you guys underrate pete. the guy was a mentally and physically strong and has great touch. he was an all-court player, not just a serve and a forehand. On contemporary hardcourts it would be interesting, even fun to watch, but on fast hardcourts or grass i don't see rafa troubling him at all.

Pete Vs. Rafa would have been fun to watch. we can only speculate about hypotheticals.

while I understand that it is an exho, this is why I think pete would struggle with today's heavy spin. Most of today's players are able to defend even the biggest hitter's biggest shots, and many of them hit bigger than pete ( see Berdych's record against the top 4, outright atrocious despite his ridiculously easy power off the forehand)

http://youtu.be/VKWI5RcvzIs?t=54m5s

Pete leaves almost every ball short, and out right shanks the backhand.

Nadal would trouble him significantly everywhere but grass, and even grass would be close. He'd beat pete easily on clay, and probably 5/10 or 6/10 on today's hardcourts, which is the context of what this thread was about anyway.

Just my two cents. Pete's game was for a different era.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by sonicare

We have an actual verifiable fact here. Pete COULD NOT adjust to win the FO. If he was so great, he would have figured out clay but alas, he went AWOL 1/3rd of the season.

so fat chance, he adjusts to todays conditions. he did not have enough in him to go through 2 of the top 4 consecutively.

But he developed his game on fast courts. So if he was growing up today and building his skills on slower courts, he would have adjusted. He had serious raw athletic talent. That stuff could have turned into anything.

[TheSouthPaw]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

while I understand that it is an exho, this is why I think pete would struggle with today's heavy spin. Most of today's players are able to defend even the biggest hitter's biggest shots, and many of them hit bigger than pete ( see Berdych's record against the top 4, outright atrocious despite his ridiculously easy power off the forehand)

http://youtu.be/VKWI5RcvzIs?t=54m5s

Pete leaves almost every ball short, and out right shanks the backhand.

Nadal would trouble him significantly everywhere but grass, and even grass would be close. He'd beat pete easily on clay, and probably 5/10 or 6/10 on today's hardcourts, which is the context of what this thread was about anyway.

Just my two cents. Pete's game was for a different era.

While I think using an exo for an example is probably not great, I see the point. Perhaps Sampras would have been more inclined to use a larger frame right away? He doesn't do too bad on the senior tour with his 98.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

not too sure about that. even on the slowest hardcourts pete could probably hit through a lot of the loopy topspin. think Soderling/delpo/bergych on steroids, not to mention his serve and all court game.

you guys underrate pete. the guy was a mentally and physically strong and has great touch. he was an all-court player, not just a serve and a forehand. On contemporary hardcourts it would be interesting, even fun to watch, but on fast hardcourts or grass i don't see rafa troubling him at all.

Pete Vs. Rafa would have been fun to watch. we can only speculate about hypotheticals.

This is what I was thinking. Pete's serve is going to be huge on any surface, as is his forehand. True, opponents may get a few more serves back, and maybe Pete can't get his forehand through people quite as much. But, the slowdown in surfaces isn't going to completely neutralize him by any means. In fact, it probably hurts most of his opponents more - those with average power, average weapons, who could previously get the upperhand in some points due to the speed of the court. Plus, now Pete has more time.

It's kind of like when Tiger Woods came along and there was talk of "tiger proofing" courses by making them longer, the rough more penal. Well, sure that hurts Tiger a little bit, but it hurts everyone else even more.

[shakes1975]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

Andre admitted once that his ground game was built solely on strangling opponents slowly and that he does not really have any particular kill shot. Pete OTOH has one-punch KO power in his forehand. It seems to me that, whenever Pete decided to hustle and defend against Andre's ground game, as opposed to simply waiting around for just one opportunity to break per set, Pete could trade blows with Andre off the ground any time he wanted to. Pete could force Andre to go for sharper angles than Andre would have to go for against other opponents with less lethal weapons than Pete's forehand which Pete used often to put Andre on the defensive very quickly in rallies. Andre just never could seriously trouble Pete, not on serve, and not off the ground either. The trouble with looking at highlights such as these would seem to be that, they show Pete in one of his rare moods in which he was defending off the ground for longer than five or six strokes, which was not his normal way of doing things. If he were playing today, guys like Simon of Ferrer to say nothing of Novak, Rafa, or Roger, would be forcing Pete to play an ultra-aggressive ground game unless Pete could somehow manage to defend, say, fifteen or so strokes per rally which I don't imagine would appeal to him very much. Because Pete liked to act like he was all quiet and taciturn and that his racket would do all the talking that was necessary and there was no need to beat his chest or act showy, but deep down, it's always occurred to me about him that Pete just loved stomping on his opponents in a kind of repressed bully way or like he were exorcising some demons from his past in which others had picked on him and now it was his turn to do the pushing others around. And so he really loved dealing out beat downs in my opinion, and how, i.e., by doing so in a kind of swashbuckling manner, with his trademark slam dunks and his Ooooh Ahhhh power serving and his sizzling running forehands. If Pete had to rally more often in the way that he was doing in this clip against Andre, I really wonder what his game would look like if his opponents were systematically preventing him from pulling the trigger like Zorro, and he had to hit twice as many shots per rally before getting a look at something that he could put away, which is exactly how the modern players would be playing Pete and, bear in mind that he would not be playing 5'10" 30y/o Andre's but six foot tall retrievers/counterpunchers.

Good points about Sampras' approach to long rallies, esp. against Agassi. However, Sampras had some great points against other baseliners also - against Courier in 1993/1994, for example, who did have a killer weapon.

Also, I am not convinced that Djok/Fed/Nadal would force Sampras to play any more number of longer/draining rallies than Agassi did during his peak, certainly not at Wim/USO. They would probably force Sampras to play more points by getting back more returns into play, but I don't think that would mean much in the big scheme of things - as far as long/draining rallies go. Simply because none of them can take the ball as early as Agassi did; none of them are as clean a ball-striker as Agassi was.

Actually, let me clarify that. None of them can hit the ball consistently early AND hard like Agassi did. Fed can, fairly often, take the ball early, but when he does that, it's usually a flick and not a hard shot like Agassi used to hit.

In fact, that was the ONLY reason why Agassi was so good till so late (making USO F at 35+ yrs of age in 2005, winning AO at almost 33 in 2003, consistently making the second week at the AO/USO between 2003-2005) even though his movement and flexibility were shot.

Regarding Sampras enjoying putting a beat-down. I don't think he really cared that much. That would probably explain why he dished out so few bagels/breadsticks to opponents. He was satisfied with a one-break-per-set gameplan. His OH was a show-off, I agree.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by shakes1975

Regarding Sampras enjoying putting a beat-down. I don't think he really cared that much. That would probably explain why he dished out so few bagels/breadsticks to opponents. He was satisfied with a one-break-per-set gameplan. His OH was a show-off, I agree.

Read somewhere that Sampras knew he would hold serve, so he could afford to take chances on return games. Sometimes it paid off, most of the time it didn't. Hence, a lot of sets won with one break alone.

And the slam dunk was awesome. Aren't tweeners showing off too?

[droliver]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Sampras had one of the best serve ever, a great forehand a great athleticism. He would at worse be a fat better version than Tsonga today. Which mean: he would't dominate and win dozen of slam, but he would be a contender everywhere except clay.

Great server...... check
athletic...... check
great forehand....... not so much

He would not be able to compete with these guys with that forehand. It's flashy and explosive, but it's just not the most consistent shot. It would get broken down and exploited with the kind of points he'd have to play. If he couldn't break through on clay in his era with it, he's not going to break through now most certainly. His serve makes him competative with anyone ever, but again he's dangerous floater territory rather then a favorite. A smaller and less athletic Tsonga is a good comparison.

[big ted]

i dont see how anyone would think a 14time gs champion and 6time #1 player who retired only 10 years ago wouldnt be fine today if he were in his prime against the current crop

[helloworld]

Pete's best shot was his two handed backhand. If he plays today, the backhand would have been his best shot along with his serve.

[droliver]

Originally Posted by big ted

i dont see how anyone would think a 14time gs champion and 6time #1 player who retired only 10 years ago wouldnt be fine today if he were in his prime against the current crop

The game has changed significantly in terms of athleticism, style, technique, and tactics from when he was on top in the mid to late 1990's. This has been echoed by most of the peers of his generation (Agassi, Rafter, Chang, Martin).

A lot of the aggressiveness and gameplan that made him #1 would not be rewarded by the evolution of the game, and he showed little ability during his career to adapt to the kind of play he'd have to excel in to compete at the top. Compared to what the elite players bring to the court now, it seems that he would fall a little short

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by droliver

Great server...... check
athletic...... check
great forehand....... not so much

He would not be able to compete with these guys with that forehand. It's flashy and explosive, but it's just not the most consistent shot. It would get broken down and exploited with the kind of points he'd have to play. If he couldn't break through on clay in his era with it, he's not going to break through now most certainly. His serve makes him competative with anyone ever, but again he's dangerous floater territory rather then a favorite. A smaller and less athletic Tsonga is a good comparison.

You are a joke my friend. Sampras does everything better than Tsonga. He is practically a much better version of Tsonga. If Tsonga can be top ten today, I have no doubt that Sampras can be much more.