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

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think many would consider either Djokovic or Murray as having a better Forehand than Sampras.

[mad dog1]

Originally Posted by droliver

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

i agree that the game has significantly changed. the tactics and techniques for using PEDs have changed everything. it's much more prevalent today then back in the 90s. the top players now follow a strict doping program. due to PED usage, the top players' ability to recover quicker from matches has raised the bar for endurance, speed and athleticism.

[morten]

this surface is way faster than the ones today...

[robbo1970]

Its just my opinion, but I think a peak Sampras in today's game would dominate. I cannot think of any of the weapons the current top 4 have that would be better than what he had.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by ark_28

I am aware that lately there have been a few threads on how Pete would have got on today, interestingly my coach said last week he is of no doubt that Pete being a special talent would have done fine today because he would have adapted his game.

He made a very good point which was that he could pretty much beat anyone from the baseline apart from Andre but he played a game suited to the fast courts of the 90's which he would not do today!

People say that with the courts today being slower Pete would have found it tough, purely basing this on his performances on Clay, but I do not think this is accurate because Pete's biggest issue on clay was not the slowness of the surface but how he struggled to move and slide properly on the surface!

I found this clip of a couple of points Pete played V Andre to me they show in a nutshell exactly why Pete would have no problem today and IMHO at his peak would be there ot there abouts!

Have a watch and would love to hear yours thoughts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwMtWGm3jyI

One needs to be careful--when watching highlights--not to leap to unrealistic conclusions. Watching these highlights, one could make oneself believe that Sampras should have won the French Open from the baseline.

And we all know that he never did. (Everyone looks awesome in highlights.) JMHO

[spinovic]

Originally Posted by slowfox

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.

It's impossible to compare players from different eras based on how much change occurs in so many areas...technology, training, court surfaces, styles of play, etc.

People love saying Pete couldn't win today by simply transposing his game from the '90's to the present. We can just as easily reverse that logic for a guy like Nadal. Nadal wouldn't have won outside of Roland Garros in the '90s.

Pete Sampras would be a nightmare on grass in any era, IMO. Pete had arguably the greatest service game in the history of the sport. That wouldn't change in a different era. It was big, he disguised it well and it was precise, and his second serve was without a doubt the best. That would make him a tough out in any era. Would he have won/win 14 slams in the modern era? No way to know, because Pete Sampras tailored his game for the era he played in and dominated more than anyone else. But, to echo your sentiments, talent is talent. Knowing what he had on serve, and knowing his talent and athleticism, I think he'd have been pretty darn good.

I once saw Agassi say in an interview that great players have the ability to "up" their game, but Pete also had the ability to "drag you down". He said he'd play 6, 7, 8 games of quick points and holds and then suddenly he'd find himself in a long rally at crucial point late in the set and feel like he hadn't hit a backhand in 30 minutes. I thought that was an interesting point and I absolutely believe that was part of Pete's strategy at times, because he was so confident in his serve. One break was all he needed.

[spinovic]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not sure "could not" is accurate. I think it is more like "would not". Pete Sampras was built to win Wimbledon. I'm sure he would have loved to win the French to complete the career slam, but it was clear that he wasn't going to alter his game for a better shot at one slam that he may or may not win, when he could dominate on grass and be the odds on favorite in the other two with the style he was using.

[spinovic]

Originally Posted by timnz

I don't think many would consider either Djokovic or Murray as having a better Forehand than Sampras.

Sampras had a great running forehand. Move him around, but beware.

[droliver]

Originally Posted by helloworld

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.

He is a better player the Tsonga, but he is in fact both smaller and less athletic.

[droliver]

Originally Posted by timnz

I don't think many would consider either Djokovic or Murray as having a better Forehand than Sampras.

It is a complete revisionist history to try and call the Sampras forehand one of the greats. He could really give it a rip, but it was not a super versatile stroke. It was a good kill-shot, but it was something that could be worked over and broken down. A career of (relative) futility on the dirt kneecap the idea that he was GOAT-worthy off the ground. He had a stroke that worked well within the context of his game, but one that would suffer a lot against the better players today.

I don't think there's a player on tour who would take the Sampras' shot over those Novak or Murray (or Nadal, Federer, Soderling, Berdych FWIW). Those guys can do anything with the shot in a way that Pete could not with his grips

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by droliver

He is a better player the Tsonga, but he is in fact both smaller and less athletic.

Sampras less athletic than Tsonga?? Sampras is probably the most athletic tennis player in history and he is less athletic than Tsonga??? You just set the silly bar high my friend!

[droliver]

Tsonga is bigger, stronger, and clearly a more impressive physical specimen then Pete. He's about 3-4 cm taller and 20-25 lbs larger, most of which is muscle. By athletic, I'm referring to the context of being less of a prototypical athlete rather then their merits as a complete tennis player. If you can't look at these 2 guys and see that then you need glasses. (BTW let us both realize that we're quibbling about 2 guys who are both among the uber elite athletes on the planet )

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by droliver

Tsonga is bigger, stronger, and clearly a more impressive physical specimen then Pete. He's about 3-4 cm taller and 20-25 lbs larger, most of which is muscle. By athletic, I'm referring to the context of being less of a prototypical athlete rather then their merits as a complete tennis player. If you can't look at these 2 guys and see that then you need glasses. (BTW let us both realize that we're quibbling about 2 guys who are both among the uber elite athletes on the planet )

Seriously, we're judging athleticism based on pictures?

I'm not doubting that Tsonga is athletic, but it's not simply because of his physique. Sure, a bigger, more muscular physique often correlates with superior athleticism (and we reflexively refer to various muscular types (long and lean like an NBA player, or broad shouldered and strong-legged) as an "athletic" frame), but a certain (athletic-looking) body type doesn't ensure superior athleticism.

What is it to be "athletic"? Track and field is referred to internationally as "Athletics" - What's being tested in track and field - strength, speed, endurance, movement. Those are "athletic" qualities - and people can possess those qualities regardless of how they look. In individual sports, we judge how those qualities are applied in the context of that sport when talking about how this player or that player is naturally athletic.

I know more than a few gym freaks who have supremely "athletic" builds but are actually fairly awful athletes. Sure, they're strong in the immediate context of whatever weightlifting exercise their doing - but their strength doesn't transfer well and doesn't result in a bigger serve or longer pass, for example. Plus, their movement is pretty bad. On the contrary, I've seen plenty of people who don't look so stereotypically athletic who are, indeed, great athletes.

None of this is to say that Tsonga isn't a great tennis athlete. But, to conclude that he's actually a better athlete than Sampras because he has a more stereotypically athletic build is pretty ridiculous. I'm not seeing much difference in power, endurance, movement between the two.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by droliver

It is a complete revisionist history to try and call the Sampras forehand one of the greats. He could really give it a rip, but it was not a super versatile stroke. It was a good kill-shot, but it was something that could be worked over and broken down. A career of (relative) futility on the dirt kneecap the idea that he was GOAT-worthy off the ground. He had a stroke that worked well within the context of his game, but one that would suffer a lot against the better players today.

I don't think there's a player on tour who would take the Sampras' shot over those Novak or Murray (or Nadal, Federer, Soderling, Berdych FWIW). Those guys can do anything with the shot in a way that Pete could not with his grips

You make a good point. Berdych and Soderling are tied for the greatest forehand in the history of the sport, and Novak and Murray are very close. These are really versatile strokes, but what amaze me more is how consistent and solid these shot are. They can attack and attack again with it and they will never miss, whoever in the other side of the net!

I think over posters in this thread compare the best forehand Sampras ever showed with the very average forehand of Berdych, Murray or Nole day in day out: it the only reason I can see for their blindness to the superiority of any current player's forehand to Sampras soso forehand.

I would also add that Sampras serve is overrated too. Nole's serve is really the best, as shown in the AO final.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I would also add that Sampras serve is overrated too. Nole's serve is really the best, as shown in the AO final.

I'm sure I won't be the only one to disagree.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by slowfox

I'm sure I won't be the only one to disagree.

You might be if you're the only one who can't detect sarcasm.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by NatF

You might be if you're the only one who can't detect sarcasm.

It was 6:30am... Lol

[AbsoluTennis]

Sampras would have been fine today if he would have trained and played like the top players today did and do. With his game-style, his technical repertoire and his athleticism of the 90s, when he was top, he would not be a danger to the top players today.

The game developed, and this is natural-in any sport...and saying some1 could beat the top players of today with the level of play/technique/fitness of 20 years ago is simply ridiculous!!!!!!!!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by lvuong

Sorry folks, Nadal would kill him, easily.

How? With the Sampras serve he's always in the match. On a fast grass court that they played at the time Sampras in my opinion would be the clear favorite to win.

Sampras himself said hat he could hit shots with his backhand nowadays that he couldn't hit in his heyday because of the new technology. I'm sure he would be better at the baseline. I have no doubt he would be fine today. My goodness it was just a little over ten years ago that he won the US Open. Some make it sound like it was the dawn of time since he last played.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by AbsoluTennis

Sampras would have been fine today if he would have trained and played like the top players today did and do. With his game-style, his technical repertoire and his athleticism of the 90s, when he was top, he would not be a danger to the top players today.

The game developed, and this is natural-in any sport...and saying some1 could beat the top players of today with the level of play/technique/fitness of 20 years ago is simply ridiculous!!!!!!!!

I think you overrate the changes that happened in the game. Tommy Haas won is first titles in 1999 and ended the year a top 20 player. 14 years later, at 35 after dozen of critical injuries, he is in the top 20 again! And Tommy is not Pete.

Sampras, with the skill set he showed, could be a great player if he honed his game, not for the faster conditions of the 90's, but for the current conditions (altough only marginally better on clay). Maybe not as good as peak Fed, peak Nadal or peak Djoko, but certainly nearly as good as this guy in their prime.

We have Tipsarevic and Gasquet in the top 10. What a depth.