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

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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?

That's no excuse. Sampras just wasn't good enough to sustain good play on Clay for more than a few years. He basically gave up on Clay because he knew it was a lost cause. And it's not like he faced any Clay GOATs either, like Federer did.

And I'm not claiming Federer won't lose to "nobodies". I'm only saying Federer will lose about half as many matches to "nobodies" as Sampras has in his career. So far, it has more than held true. And if Federer plays till he's 35, it again won't matter as much because Sampras only played till 31.

[TheFifthSet]

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".

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

Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob.

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob.

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

Hold it here.. Prime Fed lost to NOOB Nadal on hard courts in 2004. Oh no but Nadal wasn't a noob back then. ROFL

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Hold it here.. Prime Fed lost to NOOB Nadal on hard courts in 2004. Oh no but Nadal wasn't a noob back then. ROFL

So no straight answer. That's cool too.

"1 match is hardly a good sample size" - 90sclay

Peak Federer (2004-2007) was 4-0 vs Nadal at the biggest fast court events they played (2 Wimbledons and 2 masters cup semi's). That's not whipping the floor.

Try answering the question I posed in my first post of the thread.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

So no straight answer. That's cool too.

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


I don't know how the Nadal/Sampras matchup on clay would go really. Clay in the 90s used to be as slow as monte Carlo. Since then, its actually faster now. Thus why Isner troubled Nadal in the first round at the French a few years ago and Soderling beat him. 90's clay, I don't give Pete much of a chance vs. Nadal. (Maybe a freak win). Faster clay like we have today, I think Pete could possibly take Nadal once or twice.

Its not like Fed did either at the french mind you so its a moot point.


But if Isner can take Nadal to 5 with big serving and hard hitting.. Soderling can take Nadal out with hard hitting.. I dont believe its out of the realm of possibility that Pete couldn't score a freak win over Nadal at the French.. Especially on faster clay.

Pete beat Courier, Muster, and Bruguera at the French on SLOW clay.. He won Rome, he won Davis Cup on SLOW clay. Hes beaten Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. Lets not make it seem like Pete has done NOTHING on clay and has beaten no one.. A peak Sampras with his old coach before he died and where Pete was playing his best clay game , on a faster clay vs. Nadal. who knows..

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob.

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

Allow me to hazard a guess... Zero?

[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.


I don't know how the Nadal/Sampras matchup on clay would go really. Clay in the 90s used to be as slow as monte Carlo. Since then, its actually faster now. Thus why Isner troubled Nadal in the first round at the French a few years ago and Soderling beat him. 90's clay, I don't give Pete much of a chance vs. Nadal. (Maybe a freak win). Faster clay like we have today, I think Pete could possibly take Nadal once or twice.

Its not like Fed did either mind you so its a moot point.


But if Isner can take Nadal to 5.. Soderling can take Nadal.. I dont believe its out of the realm of possibility that Pete couldn't score a freak win over Nadal at the French.. Especially on faster clay.

Pete beat Courier, Muster, and Bruguera at the French.. He won Rome, he won Davis Cup on clay. Hes beaten Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. Lets not make it seem like Pete has done NOTHING on clay and has beaten no one..

That's really all I wanted to know. So, lets say you think Nadal goes 13-1 (the one win is generous) versus Sampras on clay and 5-0 and RG. That's half the matches Federer and Nadal played, and half the matches they played at majors. Then the other matches they play on hardcourt and grass. There's just no way Sampras would have a positive head-to-head versus Nadal given the circumstances that Federer had. Unless you think Nadal would go 1-13 versus Sampras on the other surfaces

A peak Sampras with his old coach before he died and where Pete was playing his best clay game , on a faster clay vs. Nadal. who knows..

Again lets be real. He wouldn't have better results versus Nadal than Federer or Djokovic, both of whom are better claycourters. Sampras won 3 clay titles in his career, one on green clay. To bring his coach into this is ridiculous. So the absence of his coach is the reason the guy went 5-6 Roland Garros after '96? All the evidence points to Pete just not having what it took on clay.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Allow me to hazard a guess... Zero?

Presumably. 1 win in a best of 3 would be pretty darn generous for Sampras.

[90's Clay]

Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.


And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)


Pete sure as hell wouldn't be getting taken out by Nadal time and time again on ALL surfaces like Fed did.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.


And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)


Pete sure as hell wouldn't be getting taken out by Nadal time and time again on ALL surfaces like Fed did.

I've seen some cray-cray "what-if" stuff posted here but this one takes the cake. So because Sampras's coach passed away, Sampras is somehow made out to be a better claycourter than he actually is?

But you're right about one thing. Sampras would have a positive head-to-head against Nadal. Because he'd be getting knocked out in the 1st and 2nd rounds of Claycourt tournaments (only because his Coach passed away, mind you ) and he'd never last long enough to meet Nadal in the Semifinals and Finals. And he'd have a rather healthy lead over Nadal on Grass and Hardcourts because Nadal's coach, Uncle Tony, unlike Sampras's coach, won't have passed away so soon allowing Nadal to progress past the 1st and 2nd rounds on Grass and Hards. So Sampras would end up with a nice, positive head-to-head over Nadal. And voila! He's better than Federer!

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I've seen some cray-cray "what-if" stuff posted here but this one takes the cake. So because Sampras's coach passed away, Sampras is somehow made out to be a better claycourter than he actually is?

No thats not what I said. I said he was better on clay under his old coach Gullickson before he died. Thats kind of obvious.. Look at his clay credentials from 92 or 93-96.. Then after his coach died.

[TheFifthSet]

Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.

Learn how to think critically. You're saying somebody other than Sampras was the main reason Sampras couldn't play on clay anymore. That's absurd, especially since Pete wasn't codependent like some champions. Annacone said Sampras had more self-belief, that he was the only one who truly believed in himself all the time. Sampras was 25-going on-26 at the start of the 1997 season and guys like Bruguera, Courier, Muster were fading. He could have put some good runs up on the dirt. It's bizarre to say a 25 year old number 1 tennis player can't compete on a surface because of his coach.

And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)

You're not getting it. Let's say they play 14 matches on clay and 14 on other surfaces (because those are the circumstances in the Federer-Nadal rivalry). 50-50 clay/other surface split. It's pretty implausible to think Sampras wouldn't have a negative head-to-head under those circumstances.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Learn how to think critically. You're saying somebody other than Sampras was the main reason Sampras couldn't play on clay anymore. That's absurd, especially since Pete wasn't codependent like some champions. Annacone said Sampras had more self-belief, that he was the only one who truly believed in himself all the time.




You're not getting it. Let's say they play 14 matches on clay and 14 on other surfaces (because those are the circumstances in the Federer-Nadal rivalry). It's pretty implausible to think Sampras wouldn't have a negative head-to-head under those circumstances.

Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004?


Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004?


Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors.

Jesus Christ man. I'm not negating anything. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying, lets say Sampras and Nadal play 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent on other surfaces, just like Federer and Nadal did. It's reasonable to suggest Nadal would have the lead in the head-to-head.

What don't you get? Of course those are the circumstances. They did play 14 times on clay and 14 times on other surfaces. That actually happened. What are you arguing about? lol..

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

See, again you're side-stepping the question. It's getting pretty amusing hehe.

Also, Nadal had the edge on slow HC and clay. That's not every surface.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004?


Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

Federer's got the edge on Grass, as well.

[PCXL-Fan]

OP you are doing a good job in your campaign to undermine Federer. Well done.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Jesus Christ man. I'm not negating anything. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying, lets say Sampras and Nadal play 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent on other surfaces, just like Federer and Nadal did. It's reasonable to suggest Nadal would have the lead in the head-to-head.

What don't you get? Of course those are the circumstances. They did play 14 times on clay and 14 times on other surfaces. That actually happened. What are you arguing about? lol..

Oh ok... Let play that game.. Frig it.. Lets just make the h2h on hard court and grass... You think Fed would still manage the h2h lead over Nadal?

Hes 0-2 vs. nadal at the AO. 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass (2 of those before Nadal primed mind you) and I think overall with a losing record to Nadal on hard courts in general..


I dont give a flying hippo crap if you want to include clay or get rid of clay all together.. Outside of indoors, Nadal WILL have the h2h advantage over Roger. I dont' care you give them 1000 matches and 90 percent on hard courts and grass.

Nadal gives Fed issues EVERYWHERES but indoors. Hes a nightmare matchup for Roger. Roger hates playing him.. He can get in Roger's head quicker then a hiccup. And Roger is afraid to deal with him.. has been his whole career.. And sorry.. Not on just clay.


Its nice you can play your little "clay game" but nadal has been owning Fed his whole career.. You would have a point if Nadal major wins over Roger only came on clay.. But sadly for you they did not

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Oh ok... Let play that game.. Frig it.. Lets just make the h2h on hard court and grass... You think Fed would still manage the h2h lead over Nadal?

Hes 0-2 vs. nadal at the AO. 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass (2 of those before Nadal primed mind you) and I think overall with a losing record to Nadal on hard courts in general..


I dont give a flying hippo crap if you want to include clay or get rid of clay all together.. Outside of indoors, Nadal WILL have the h2h advantage over Roger. I dont' care you give them 1000 matches and 90 percent on hard courts and grass.

Nadal gives Fed issues EVERYWHERES but indoors. Hes a nightmare matchup for Roger. Roger hates playing him.. He can get in Roger's head quicker then a hiccup. And Roger is afraid to deal with him.. has been his whole career.. And sorry.. Not on just clay.


Its nice you can play your little "clay game" but nadal has been owning Fed his whole career.. You would have a point if Nadal major wins only came on clay.. But sadly for you they did not

I'm not playing any game. You're making things really complicated here. YOU keep arguing that Nadal owned Federer, and Sampras wouldn't let the same thing happen. I merely said, under the same circumstances, the same thing would happen to Sampras. It would be utterly shocking if Sampras beat Nadal more than once (or even once) in 14 meetings on clay, yet you would expect Nadal to have a few scalps versus Sampras on hardcourts or grass. The only way for Sampras to "not let that happen" is to beat him every single time they played on a non-clay surface. Stop side-stepping. I'm being very, VERY straightforward. If Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay, it's pretty much certain Nadal would end up with a positive head-to-head overall. We're arguing Nadal and Sampras, not Nadal and Federer. Try keeping up.

"sadly for me"? - man, I'm not a fanatic lol, I've been watching tennis since the late 80s as a 5 year old kid, I've had lots of favourites over the years and I appreciated Sampras's complete game although he wasn't my favourite. I'm just arguing against your (IMO) inane conclusions -- no agenda.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

I'm not playing any game. You're making things really complicated here. YOU keep arguing that Nadal owned Federer, and Sampras wouldn't let the same thing happen. I merely said, under the same circumstances, the same thing would happen to Sampras. It would be utterly shocking if Sampras beat Nadal more than once (or even once) in 14 meetings on clay, yet you would expect Nadal to have a few scalps versus Sampras on hardcourts or grass. Stop side-stepping. I'm being very, VERY straightforward. If Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay, it's pretty much certain Nadal would end up with a positive head-to-head overall. We're arguing Nadal and Sampras, not Nadal and Federer. Try keeping up.

"sadly for me"? - man, I'm not a fanatic lol, I've been watching tennis since the late 80s as a 5 year old kid, I've had lots of favourites over the years and I appreciated Sampras's complete game although he wasn't my favourite. I'm just arguing against your (IMO) inane conclusions -- no agenda.

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.

Fed got 1-2 big wins over Nadal on a faster clay.. Hell I do believe Pete could manage 1-2 big wins on a faster clay vs. nadal. That point is completely moot in that regard. I mean why not? its just 1 or 2 matches. On a faster clay, and Pete serving big and hitting big.. Why not. HEs beaten some big names himself on clay as I have already listed