If Sampras playes today like in his prime, what will be his ATP ranking?

sureshs · 07-30-2006, 01:36 PM

A comment in an article in Inside Tennis got me thinking. It said today's level of competition is much higher than the Sampras vs Agassi matches. Seeing that Sampras cannot win anything in WTT against unknown players, and Agassi is making a quick exit in every tournament, what really would be Pete's ranking today if he played like he did in his prime (not how he might have adapted and played today)?

8PAQ · 07-30-2006, 01:41 PM

He would be one the players fighting for #3 spot.

maverick66 · 07-30-2006, 01:44 PM

its tough to compare past players to players now. players back then didnt have all the advantages that the next gen has.

sureshs · 07-30-2006, 01:47 PM

He is not that far back. When did he retire, 3 years ago? Racquets are pretty much the same, and he didn't use modern ones even when he could. Strings are probably a little better. He had access to coaching and prize money just like today's players.

Anyway, what would be his ranking?

ACE of Hearts · 07-30-2006, 01:48 PM

I would say top 3 ranking, him and Fed would battle for that number 1 spot, like someone said, its hard cause he hasnt played some of these players that are playing, guys like Nadal, etc.

Tennis_Goodness · 07-30-2006, 01:48 PM

I would put him close to the number 3 position and I know people might think why number 3, he's one of the best in history, but I think Federer would be edging him in some of the slams and Nadal would be taking the French Open.

Pete being number 3 behind Nadal would be misleading because I think Pete would be playing better and is a better player then Nadal, the rankings wouldn't show that because of Federer!

There have been occassions where the number 3 player was better then the number 2, even some cases of the Number 2 being better then the number 1, and I think this would be one of those cases! Pete never played as many tournaments as Federer and Nadal does a year!

Rickson · 07-30-2006, 01:51 PM

Pete would be #2.

Marat Safinator · 07-30-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureshs

A comment in an article in Inside Tennis got me thinking. It said today's level of competition is much higher than the Sampras vs Agassi matches. Seeing that Sampras cannot win anything in WTT against unknown players, and Agassi is making a quick exit in every tournament, what really would be Pete's ranking today if he played like he did in his prime (not how he might have adapted and played today)?

no.1 probably, tennis isnt as competetive as it was 6-7 years ago.

Max G. · 07-30-2006, 02:30 PM

Either 1 or 2, depending on how he did against Federer.

fastdunn · 07-30-2006, 02:33 PM

Pete would have more problem with Federer than with Nadal, IMHO.
(on faster courts. On clay, Nadal will dominate, of course)

Other than that, we simply do not know whether current #1,2 would
dominate him or he would dominate Federer or Nadal, IMHO.

One thing for sure though is that neither Federer nor Nadal would dominate
over Sampras like they do to other players on the tour now.

Pete's game is simply too dangerous and has too much venom for anybody to handle.

Watcher · 07-30-2006, 02:37 PM

I'm sorry, saying that Pete's age had less competition is simply untrue. It was far more competitve than what we have today. Back then you had Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Jim Courier, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Carlos Moya, Gustavo Kuerten, and so on. At the beginning of that age you still had the remnants of the past age in Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Mats Wilander and the like still doing a damn good job. And at the end of that age the up and comers who are today's best, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, etc., were pushing them.

What do we have today? Nothing nearly that good. But for Agassi and Moya, pretty much all of the remnants of the last age are gone, and the up and comers are still getting flattened by the already established. You can't even begin to compare today with back then in terms of competitiveness. It was MUCH more copetitive back then. It's not even a contest.

sureshs · 07-30-2006, 02:39 PM

I think the depth of the game today is much more than in the past. I don't see a Chang winning FO with Nadal around, or Agassi winning a Wimby with Federer around. The balls are just hit much harder and the players are much faster. I don't see Pete doing well against the top players today.

Mick · 07-30-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureshs

I think the depth of the game today is much more than in the past. I don't see a Chang winning FO with Nadal around, or Agassi winning a Wimby with Federer around. The balls are just hit much harder and the players are much faster. I don't see Pete doing well against the top players today.

Yeah but Chang did beat both Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win the 1989 french open and those two guys would hit the ball pretty hard.

TrueAce · 07-30-2006, 04:02 PM

Agassi was beating most of the top players today up until a couple of years ago and he was over 30...I don't see that much of a difference in todays players cause if that was the case Andre wouldn't have been able to keep competing after 30 when the rest of his peers retired....hes now 36......If he was in his prime he'd defeat Roger and Nadal probably more than any other guy besides the greatest champion of all time Sampras.

It's hard to say who'd be number one but it would a lot tougher for Fed cause Nadal would still dominate on clay but you can almost guarantee Pete wouldn't lose all 7 of those Wimbledon and 5 US open titles that he captured. I think in the end Pistol Pete would still come out on top finishing number 1.

superman1 · 07-30-2006, 04:26 PM

I think he'd be battling for the #1 spot with Federer. Their head-to-head would be pretty close, but Federer would probably be #1 most of the time and Sampras #2 just because Fed is more consistent throughout the year and gets good results during the claycourt season. Don't think Nadal would give Sampras too much trouble (he seems to hate big serve/volleyers), so it would just be Fed and Sampras at the top. And you've got to figure that Sampras would be unhappy with anything lower than #1 so he'd probably lift his level for even small tournaments to get his points up.

If you're asking how Sampras would do against the rest of today's field, he'd crush them.

tarheels2323 · 07-30-2006, 04:38 PM

He'd be #2. He would have a problem with Federer but be able to beat Nadal and the rest of the field. Federer would continue his dominance of all players except Nadal (who would be knocked out in the semi's of a tournament by Sampras) and keep his #1 ranking. Nadal would drop to #3.

rod99 · 07-30-2006, 04:40 PM

#1 or #2. pete was one of the best big match player in history. does anyone ever remember him losing a match where he had match points or had a big lead late?

superman1 · 07-30-2006, 04:45 PM

He'd definitely find a way to beat Federer. I don't know how you can say he'd be dominated by Fed as this is the guy people call the greatest ever. He beat up on Agassi in his prime, and Agassi at 35 years old showed that he was possibly slightly better than Federer off the ground. Too bad he was 35 with a hobbled back, otherwise he could have won that match. Sampras would have found a way to win and be #1. Federer would have picked up points during the clay season and gone back to #1. IMO, it would go back and forth.

!Tym · 07-30-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureshs

I think the depth of the game today is much more than in the past. I don't see a Chang winning FO with Nadal around, or Agassi winning a Wimby with Federer around. The balls are just hit much harder and the players are much faster. I don't see Pete doing well against the top players today.

Um, Borg was basically an Olympic caliber sprinter...yeah, everyone's just so much faster these days...

Especially that Mac.

bleno567 · 07-30-2006, 05:12 PM

Sampras was #1 for 6 years when he was in his prime. As good as he is, Federer does not have numbers like that. Superman1 said that fed is more consistent, but i disagree. 6 years at #1 should extenguish any doubt of just how consistent sampras could be. The claim that the game wasnt as competitive back then as it is today is just plain ignorant. The game never got easier, peoples memories of the game just got distorted. To answer the question, Sampras would without a doubt in my mind be back at #1 if he was back in his prime.

07-30-2006, 01:51 PM	#7
Rickson G.O.A.T. Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: USA Posts: 12,900	Pete would be #2. __________________ If I get you in a rear choke, you'll either tap out or pass out.

07-30-2006, 02:33 PM	#10
fastdunn Legend Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 6,294	Pete would have more problem with Federer than with Nadal, IMHO. (on faster courts. On clay, Nadal will dominate, of course) Other than that, we simply do not know whether current #1,2 would dominate him or he would dominate Federer or Nadal, IMHO. One thing for sure though is that neither Federer nor Nadal would dominate over Sampras like they do to other players on the tour now. Pete's game is simply too dangerous and has too much venom for anybody to handle. __________________ "I mean, you have to get emotionally involved. Otherwise, you're doing the wrong thing, you have the wrong job." - Wilander, after French Open 2008

07-30-2006, 04:38 PM	#16
tarheels2323 Semi-Pro Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 513	He'd be #2. He would have a problem with Federer but be able to beat Nadal and the rest of the field. Federer would continue his dominance of all players except Nadal (who would be knocked out in the semi's of a tournament by Sampras) and keep his #1 ranking. Nadal would drop to #3. __________________ kBlade Tours - Mains: BB ALU Rough @ 60 lbs./ Crosses: X-One Biphase @ 62 lbs. I only care about winning one point - the last one.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode