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

[zagor]

Originally Posted by droliver

It is a complete revisionist history to try and call the Sampras forehand one of the greats.

No, his FH was a great shot, especially the running FH, it's a revisionist history to claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by droliver

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.

You do realize Sampras was engaging in long rallies in his heyday with some of the best baseliners of his era (Agassi, Courier, Chang etc.) and actually held his own pretty well?

Originally Posted by droliver

A career of (relative) futility on the dirt kneecap the idea that he was GOAT-worthy off the ground.

So Soderling is better baseliner than Murray and Hewitt, got it.

Or perhaps you'll eventually realize that every surface is different and rewards/requires different strokes, movement etc. and a player who might be very effective from the baseline on HC for example might not be so on clay.

Take James Blake for example, his baseline play (he was a decent server but nothing special) got him to #4 in the world but he was woefully ineffective on clay.

Originally Posted by droliver

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.

Better players according to you, with 31 year old Fed being #1 last year and winning Wimbledon, players like Almagro and Tipsarevic (and I like them both but let's be real here) in top 10, 35 year old Haas being in top 20 with his "outdated" (the guy turned pro in mid 90s) game, a lesser version of Chang like Ferrer beating up on everyone except top 4 etc. I kinda doubt players today are that much better than those in the 90s.

Originally Posted by droliver

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

And I don't think there's a player on tour (who watched Sampras play in his best days) who would take Soderling, Berdych's and Murray's FH over Pete's.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

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.

I don't think Sampras would have the winning percentages that Federer and Djokovic have had over the course of a year. Sampras' style is more risky than all of these guys so he is prone to some more losses over the course of a year. However in a big match on a non clay surface, would you really bet your life savings that a 25 year old Sampras wouldn't win?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

I don't think Sampras would have the winning percentages that Federer and Djokovic have had over the course of a year. Sampras' style is more risky than all of these guys so he is prone to some more losses over the course of a year. However in a big match on a non clay surface, would you really bet your life savings that a 25 year old Sampras wouldn't win?

If someone forced me to bet my life savings on one match, then yes, I would not pick Sampras to win against Federer or Nadal (and even Djokovic), depending on the conditions.

What is up with you and betting your life/life savings on matches in order to determine who was better?

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

I don't think Sampras would have the winning percentages that Federer and Djokovic have had over the course of a year. Sampras' style is more risky than all of these guys so he is prone to some more losses over the course of a year. However in a big match on a non clay surface, would you really bet your life savings that a 25 year old Sampras wouldn't win?

I think we agree. Sampras wouldn't be at the level of Fed 2004-2006 or Nole 2011, but he wouldn't be far from their 2009 level I think.

In a big match on a non clay surface (but current surfaces) I wouldn't bet, especially my life, on a tennis match which would surely be very close! I think Fed would be the favorite on every surfaces and Nole the favorite on slow surfaces. Sa

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

I don't think Sampras would have the winning percentages that Federer and Djokovic have had over the course of a year. Sampras' style is more risky than all of these guys so he is prone to some more losses over the course of a year. However in a big match on a non clay surface, would you really bet your life savings that a 25 year old Sampras wouldn't win?

With the current conditions, I wouldn't pick Sampras on any surface.

No way I would bet all my saving just for one tennis match even if I'm very confident that I will win. That's crazy, and I'm sure your family and love ones would strongly urge you not to..

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

With the current conditions, I wouldn't pick Sampras on any surface.

No way I would bet all my saving just for one tennis match even if I'm very confident that I will win. That's crazy, and I'm sure your family and love ones would strongly urge you not to..

If it was John Newcombe and I knew he was going to play a fifth set, I´d do it ( unless his opponent is, of coruse, Jan Kodes)

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by kiki

If it was John Newcombe and I knew he was going to play a fifth set, I´d do it ( unless his opponent is, of coruse, Jan Kodes)

No one cares.. .back to the retired forum with you.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

obviously ...

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

would have to massively disagree with this ... His BH in a vacuum would be better with new technology , but not on a tennis court . He'd be forced to stay on the baseline more and face tougher forehands and backhands than he did @ his prime and would be forced to hit them far more often too considering the no of elite defenders these days are far more than at his prime - nadal, djokovic, murray, federer, hewitt, davydenko, ferrer, nalby etc ......

his BH & FH , if he played a similar style as he did in the 90s, would suffer relatively these days ...

I notice you posted a similar thing about newk's BH in the thread about newk & my reply would be very similar .....

[Roddick85]

I'm always surprised to see how little respect Pete Sampras gets on these forums. People, before Wimby 2009, Pete was still the record holder in terms of total slams count. So what if he didn't win the french open? In his era, they're was an actual difference in how clay/grass/hard courts played unlike today's homogenized surfaces. The speed of the surfaces was much greater back then as well. Would he have as much success today compared to the 90's? For sure the court speed would cause a few hiccups in his game, but your nuts if you think he wouldn't win anything. He'd easily be in the top 3 imo. The guy had talent and was all about offense. I find myself going back quite often to classic Pete matches thanks to ESPN classics and i'm always impressed with his game. I wish they were more players like Pete today instead of defensive players like Djoko, Nadal, Murray.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by Roddick85

I'm always surprised to see how little respect Pete Sampras gets on these forums.

Maybe it's just the youngsters. Different times, different heroes etc. But I dunno the demographics of the TW posters.

Sometimes I think Pete's no-nonsense, workmanlike persona on court hurt his legacy. Perhaps he felt that records and numbers will say it all for him. But stuff like that is cold (for lack of a better word). Maybe if he showed the world more of his human side, instead of just being a monstrous tennis machine, we'd find him more fascinating.

[spinovic]

Sampras would have been at or near the top of the rankings with multiple slam titles in any era. A great serve is a great serve, and his was arguably the best ever. To go with that, he was athletic, moved well, and by all accounts worked very hard on his game. Taking all that together, I have little doubt that he would have developed his game as necessary to compete in whatever era he was playing in.

I don't understand why, when asking how Sampras would do today, people just transpose the serve-and-volleying Sampras to the modern game. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have developed his game accordingly based on the conditions and style of tennis being played...since that is exactly what he did in his own era. The guy could hold his own from the baseline with the best players of his generation. With his athleticism and work ethic (and serve), I have little doubt that he would have been a force in today's game with a modern, baseline-oriented playing style.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Roddick85

I'm always surprised to see how little respect Pete Sampras gets on these forums. People, before Wimby 2009, Pete was still the record holder in terms of total slams count. So what if he didn't win the french open? In his era, they're was an actual difference in how clay/grass/hard courts played unlike today's homogenized surfaces. The speed of the surfaces was much greater back then as well. Would he have as much success today compared to the 90's? For sure the court speed would cause a few hiccups in his game, but your nuts if you think he wouldn't win anything. He'd easily be in the top 3 imo. The guy had talent and was all about offense. I find myself going back quite often to classic Pete matches thanks to ESPN classics and i'm always impressed with his game. I wish they were more players like Pete today instead of defensive players like Djoko, Nadal, Murray.

If all surfaces play the same then how is it that Nadal is so dominant on clay yet not anywhere else? Homogenization is overstated IMO.

[borg number one]

I think Sampras would compete just fine and make some needed adjustments. The guy switched from a two hander to a one hander and made that switch while he was becoming a top flight junior player, so he has proven himself to be adaptable in terms of needed tweaks in stroke mechanics. Plus, he was a fabulous competitor and athlete. I think he'd be a big threat to win any of the majors except the French Open perhaps. Yet, with the right draw, who knows even there in my opinion. I think he'd hold his own against any of the top 4.

[Roddick85]

Originally Posted by NatF

If all surfaces play the same then how is it that Nadal is so dominant on clay yet not anywhere else? Homogenization is overstated IMO.

Nadal did win a lot of tournaments outside of Clay. If you look at 2011, Nadal made the final of many non-clay tournaments and well lost them to Djokovic, but regardless, he did reach the finals. He's won the US Open and Australian as well as Wimbledon twice. The fact that he won Wimbledon twice still puzzles me, to me grass court tennis is suited to an offensive game like Sampras/Federer, not defensive. Had the courts been as fast they were in 92, I doubt Nadal would of reached the final.The slower hard court definitely help Nadal make a smoother transition from clay to non-clay surface with the least impact on his game.

I remember in the 90's, when someone was winning the french open, I was quick to dismiss them because, while they were great on clay, they couldn't even make the finals of non-clay tournaments. When Nadal started to win RG, that didn't change my mentality either, even thought everyone was seeing him as the next superstar. After seeing him play live in Montreal in 2007, I always thought he'd have a short career because of the grinding and because he was a clay courter. Fast forward a few years later, he earned my respect because he won all 4 slams at least once. But when I look at classic matches and notice right away the speed difference...I know I will take heat for this...but I question the legitimacy of the "achievement"

[shakes1975]

Originally Posted by NatF

If all surfaces play the same then how is it that Nadal is so dominant on clay yet not anywhere else? Homogenization is overstated IMO.

Combination of homogenization and uniform playing styles means it's relatively easier to transition across surfaces than it used to be.

[14line]

Pete has way better 2nd serve than Tsonga, and hits way fewer stupid shots which Tsonga often does. If Tsonga can beat the top 4 occasionally in GS, why can't Pete? Don't forget the matches against Muster and Kafelnikov in '97 AO and YEC. Pete even demolished them from baseline. Then why can't he adjust and develop baseline game to suit this era? I think he would share titles with Roger in Wimby and USO, and might have a chance in AO.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by shakes1975

Combination of homogenization and uniform playing styles means it's relatively easier to transition across surfaces than it used to be.

The surfaces play relatively similar speeds and are generally higher bouncing, that helps players transition you're right. A good baseliner can do well everywhere these days. But there's enough difference that to be truly great on each surface you need that something else.

[ManFed]

I would bet My life Savings on Petros defeating anyone at Wimby 90s surface.

[spinovic]

Originally Posted by 14line

Pete has way better 2nd serve than Tsonga, and hits way fewer stupid shots which Tsonga often does. If Tsonga can beat the top 4 occasionally in GS, why can't Pete? Don't forget the matches against Muster and Kafelnikov in '97 AO and YEC. Pete even demolished them from baseline. Then why can't he adjust and develop baseline game to suit this era? I think he would share titles with Roger in Wimby and USO, and might have a chance in AO.

Don't forget that Pete also had a huge win in the mid-'90's in Davis Cup over Kafelnikov on clay. He had some game on the baseline.

[shakes1975]

Originally Posted by NatF

The surfaces play relatively similar speeds and are generally higher bouncing, that helps players transition you're right. A good baseliner can do well everywhere these days. But there's enough difference that to be truly great on each surface you need that something else.

Of course, that's why I said "relatively". Which means it's easier than it used to be.