Laver vs Sampras on clay?

[DolgoSantoro]

Originally Posted by kiki

2 RG to 1.Laver is in the same stratosphere as Kodes, which is, on clay, on a higher plane than that of crush fed.

Deleted...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

2 RG to 1.Laver is in the same stratosphere as Kodes, which is, on clay, on a higher plane than that of crush fed.

Saying Kodes ahead of Fed on clay is like saying Ferrer is ahead of Laver on clay.

Fed, Nadal, Borg and Lendl all made at least 5 RG finals. Just to let you know.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by corners

Rod Laver vs Pete Sampras, in their primes, at Roland Garros. Who wins?

(Time machines are functioning here.)

Note: This thread is not meant to be a popularity contest, not a ******* match, not a place to defend your favorite player to your dying breath. I'm just curious, more than anything, how people see this match playing out, tactically and strategically. What weaknesses of Sampras' could Laver exploit on clay, and vice versa? That kind of thing. In short, Why do you think Laver or Sampras would win, and How?

sampras wins because he is a stronger and more modern player. however he was really not a good claycourter. he was still hard to beat because of his serve but from the baseline those spanish dudes could really pick his BH apart. laver certainly was a better clay courter if you adjust for era but h2h sampras was just stronger because that was another time.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, All what you can is to belittle Laver and his colleagues and to praise Federer in an exaggerated way.

The amount of times Fed gets belittled in this Laver Forum is astounding, so 1 post belittling Laver is nothing, and no one is in position to complain.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

sampras wins because he is a stronger and more modern player. however he was really not a good claycourter. he was still hard to beat because of his serve but from the baseline those spanish dudes could really pick his BH apart. laver certainly was a better clay courter if you adjust for era but h2h sampras was just stronger because that was another time.

also at their prime, Laver would use a wood racquet and Sampras would use a graphite racquet. That is too much of an advantage for Sampras.

>>Rod Laver vs Pete Sampras, in their primes, at Roland Garros. Who wins?

(Time machines are functioning here.)<<

[TMF]

The OP didn't specify Pete/Laver play in the '60 or '90, which would be a huge difference. We don't know how both players would adapt to such different conditions and racquet.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

So this is debatable? Sampras isn't good on clay so anything that suggest Sampras being a better player only makes Laver look bad.

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Good job TMF. You know that Laver was pretty damn good on the red stuff . . . and Sampras was not.

All hail TMF!

I bow down in respect for TMF.

Laver won tons of top clay court tournaments against everyone. He defeated Rosewall, Borg, Newcombe, Gonzalez, Kodes, Gimeno, Smith all on clay.

Sampras won three titles on clay (according to the ATP website) with a 62.5 winning percentage.

For pure accomplishments on clay it's not close.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

The OP didn't specify Pete/Laver play in the '60 or '90, which would be a huge difference. We don't know how both players would adapt to such different conditions and racquet.

Just go with accomplishments on clay.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by TMF

The OP didn't specify Pete/Laver play in the '60 or '90, which would be a huge difference. We don't know how both players would adapt to such different conditions and racquet.

i assumed they would play today.
the transportation device from Star Trek would beam a prime Rod Laver and a prime Pete Sampras to the center court of Roland Garros to play this match.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Mick

i assumed they would play today.
the transportation device from Star Trek would beam a prime Rod Laver and a prime Pete Sampras to the center court of Roland Garros to play this match.

Then Pete would win easily since Laver doesn't know how to use a graphite racquet.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Good job TMF. You know that Laver was pretty damn good on the red stuff . . . and Sampras was not.

All hail TMF!

Originally Posted by pc1

I bow down in respect for TMF.

Laver won tons of top clay court tournaments against everyone. He defeated Rosewall, Borg, Newcombe, Gonzalez, Kodes, Gimeno, Smith all on clay.

Sampras won three titles on clay (according to the ATP website) with a 62.5 winning percentage.

For pure accomplishments on clay it's not close.

Now that you know that i'm not always pro modern players, but I go by what I believe. I wish some of the old-timers(e.g. kiki) would be open minded, even though we know he doesn't believe what he actually saying.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Then Pete would win easily since Laver doesn't know how to use a graphite racquet.

And Pete would lose easily because he doesn't know how to use a wooden racquet. Two can plat that game.

[gavna]

Originally Posted by abmk

17 majors for federer to 11 majors for laver ...

yes, we all know federer is on a much higher stratosphere than laver

yes BUT Laver missed all of the slams in 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and the AO in 68 do you honestly think he would not have won???? What at least 5 or 6 more slams in all that time???? I bet if he had stayed on the tour he would have won the Grand Slam at least 2 more times - he was good enough in 63 and 64 to sweep all the events again.......Fed has never been that dominant.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by gavna

yes BUT Laver missed all of the slams in 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and the AO in 68 do you honestly think he would not have won???? What at least 5 or 6 more slams in all that time???? I bet if he had stayed on the tour he would have won the Grand Slam at least 2 more times - he was good enough in 63 and 64 to sweep all the events again.......

Consider Laver's 6 of his 11 slams were from the amateur so that cancel out. Even if he decided to play the slams in those years he would have to join the amateur club, which is a very weak field(old-timers already conceded that).

Any top players can win a GS given the crap amateur field, not to mention having to deal with only 2 surfaces.

Originally Posted by gavna

Fed has never been that dominant.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
= Rafael Nadal 16*
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 32*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
= Rafael Nadal 16*

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Novak Djokovic 9*
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
8. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4
= Andy Murray 4

GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 38*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
8. Boris Becker 23
= Rafael Nadal 23*
9. Novak Djokovic 22*
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 14*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7
9. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Stefan Edberg 54
3. Roger Federer 52*
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
2. Roger Federer 248*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 297+*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 75*
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Sampras 6
= Rafael Nadal 50*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Now that you know that i'm not always pro modern players, but I go by what I believe. I wish some of the old-timers(e.g. kiki) would be open minded, even though we know he doesn't believe what he actually saying.

I believe in what I saw and what records prove when correctly weigthened.

Kodes won 2 RG as opposed to Federer´s 1...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

17 majors for federer to 11 majors for laver ...

yes, we all know federer is on a much higher stratosphere than laver

with Federer´s opposition Laver would have won the GS 3 or 4 times, as we all know

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

The amount of times Fed gets belittled in this Laver Forum is astounding, so 1 post belittling Laver is nothing, and no one is in position to complain.

...because this forum is for adults, not teeny whoppers

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

Saying Kodes ahead of Fed on clay is like saying Ferrer is ahead of Laver on clay.

Fed, Nadal, Borg and Lendl all made at least 5 RG finals. Just to let you know.

Please ignore kiki; he is baiting you.

[90's Clay]

Obviously Laver..

But I think The Sampras hate gets ridiculous on here..

People talk as if Sampras had NO conquests on clay, and beat just a bunch of mugs and no talented clay courters.

NOT true at all. Under his old coach Gullickson, Sampras was a very competent clay court winning Davis Cup, Rome, getting far at the French, and posting big wins over guys like Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc.

Sampras obviously wasn't clay court "elite" but under his old coach, he was capable of beating ANYONE on any given day on clay.

Hell prime for prime, Sampras beat more big names on clay then a lot of other all time greats did.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Obviously Laver..

But I think The Sampras hate gets ridiculous on here..

People talk as if Sampras had NO conquests on clay, and beat just a bunch of mugs and no talented clay courters.

NOT true at all. Under his old coach Gullickson, Sampras was a very competent clay court winning Davis Cup, Rome, getting far at the French, and posting big wins over guys like Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc.

Sampras obviously wasn't clay court "elite" but under his old coach, he was capable of beating ANYONE on any given day on clay.

Hell prime for prime, Sampras beat more big names on clay then a lot of other all time greats did.

Sampras could play some great clay tennis, he just wasnt consistent enough.