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

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by sarpmas

If Sampras would really have been born 10 years later, he would ADAPT to the current condition and play whatever style necessary to win. He may use a babolat and stick with his 2hb.

No, Sampras had talent on playing serve & volley style. If Sampras changed his style and play like agassi(baseliner), he would have become nothing more than an average joe pro.

[sarpmas]

Originally Posted by 35ft6

Good question. I think they may have less skills but are probably "better" in that I think they would beat their counterparts from 15 years ago. I think the very top guys are pretty much the same, I think where the tour has improved is from rank 30 and below.

I'm still skeptical. I would say depth wise, players nowadays are more evenly matched, from the baseline, I must emphasized. But it is still an uncertainty when these players are to match up with passed players that are not baseline bashers.

Originally Posted by 35ft6

Well, Malivai Washington reached the finals 10 years ago.

At least Washington is just 27, still in his prime some would argued.

[sarpmas]

Originally Posted by helloworld

No, Sampras had talent on playing serve & volley style. If Sampras changed his style and play like agassi(baseliner), he would have become nothing more than an average joe pro.

You're under-estimating Sampras's talent, he's more than SV. There is still the devasting serve, the killing fh and possibly the much consistent 2hb. But we'll never know, won't we?

[35ft6]

Originally Posted by sarpmas

You're under-estimating Sampras's talent, he's more than SV. There is still the devasting serve, the killing fh and possibly the much consistent 2hb. But we'll never know, won't we?

2hb? Dude, are we talking about the same Sampras?

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by sarpmas

You're under-estimating Sampras's talent, he's more than SV. There is still the devasting serve, the killing fh and possibly the much consistent 2hb. But we'll never know, won't we?

Big serve and big forehand isn't enough to be a top baseliner pros and if he's good with 2 hb, he wouldn't have changed. This is not even a debate. Your post is stupid. It's like saying that Agassi could be as great being serve & volleyer as he is as a baseliner if he wanted to.

[sarpmas]

Originally Posted by 35ft6

2hb? Dude, are we talking about the same Sampras?

Nope, this is a hypothetical Sampras that is supposed to be born 10 years later into the Federer era. A follow-up post originated from joy a few posts earlier.

Originally Posted by helloworld

Big serve and big forehand isn't enough to be a top baseliner pros and if he's good with 2 hb, he wouldn't have changed. This is not even a debate. Your post is stupid. It's like saying that Agassi could be as great being serve & volleyer as he is as a baseliner if he wanted to.

Sampras is inspired by all the great classic players like Laver and Ken Rosewall. Wimbledon is also his most tressured Slam. He did not change to a 2hb because it is not good. He changed because 1hb gives him the best opportunity to win Wimbledon playing the traditional SV game.

Everything I posted is my opinion, just like yours. I disagree but respect your opinion. I hoped you do likewise.

I supposed you have been following the last few posts, they are all related to joy's post. We are all just speculating.

Edit: added reply to helloworld

[ksbh]

I can only speculate but if I had to pick, it'd be Sampras at No. 1 in the world. I think he would get the better of Federer more times than not.

But well, seeing how Nadal has lifted his game in the past few months and if he continues that improvement, we'd have a new factor to figure in!

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)?

[emcee]

Roger and Pete would battle for #1 and unlike the current "rivalry", it'd actually involve some nice-looking tennis! Ultimately, I'd have to pick Pete for #1 though...while both Sampras and Fed make the game look too easy, it seems pretty obvious that Sampras had a lot more fire in his belly than Fed did.

[FiveO]

Interesting premise. IMO given today's conditions and the field staying exactly the same, he would be fighting it out for #1 with Fed and Nadal. His RG results would stay about the same, but I think he would beat Fed 6 or 7 of 8 at Wimbledon. Sampras was the "most successful" s&v practitioner of the open era. On grass he wouldn't let the other guy play and picked apart baseliners of varying ilks while on offense and merely waited for one opening for a break confident in his ability to hold. Even with the conditions at Wimbledon as they are today I think he would still force the issue. Nadal though he would want to would not be able to prolong points, point to point, win or lose. Fed would not be able to merely get into the point off the return as he can now so frequently because no one comes forward relentlessly. Yes Fed has a great sense when someone is s&v'ing point to point, i.e. Ancic, but the 100 times or more behind the Sampras serve would tip the balance of points, which is all Sampras wanted/needed, in Pete's favor. Also Fed would most likely be forced to come forward a higher percentage of the time merely to prevent Sampras from doing so, while equally or even more talented as compared to Sampras, doesn't seem to be in his "A game comfort zone" under THESE conditions.

I think the US Open would be more a push between the two. But again, Fed would now be forced to hit quality passes by an excellent volleyer a ton of times. Has he got 50 passes in him? Yeah. Sampras would probably then force him to answer the 60 or 70 pass question. But I could see those meetings going 3/3 give or take another.

The AO would probably fought out between Fed and Nadal as I think it will be in the future if both players stay healthy and hold their form. Those conditions even in Sampras's time shifted the edge to a prime time AA taking enough of the edge off his entire game. So I think Sampras would be more vulnerable to more players earlier but might sneak through for 1.

I think it would be a jumble each year between Sampras, Fed or Nadal. 1 major a good year and whoever took two majors ending up #1 as 3 out of 4 would become less likely.

It's all speculation of course. But wouldn't it have been great to see how it played out? A supreme near full time s&v, all-courter and baseliner battling for the top. That would have been something.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by joy

If the same Pete Sampras had born 10 years later and played in the current era, I don't see him being successful. I doubt whether he would be winning any slam at all. Please don't be surprised but I will explain. I say this not because today's players are any better than him but because of the surface, type of balls and the racquet technology used these days. Sampras's key strength was his serve and volley but the modern racquets, slow surface and the heavy balls used these days would nullify his key strengths. So, he would not be allowed to take advantage of his key weapons in today's conditions and would be forced to play out of his comfort zone i.e. from the baseline. This is very much evident from the fact that players who served and volleyed a few years ago like Federer, Henman etc are no longer doing it and have tranformed into baseliners because they found serve and volley no longer effective in today's conditions. The same would happen to Pete if he plays today. Thus even though today's players Federer and Nadal cannot be termed to be better than Sampras or Agassi, but still the surfaces, balls, racquets and playing conditions have totally changed which would play aginst Sampras's strengths and therefore he may not be very successful against Federer and especially against Nadal. Got my point? Remember how slow the Wimbledon played this year almost like a slow hard court? I don't think Sampras in his prime would have dominated this kind of Wimbledon surface even though he is unbeatable even today without a doubt on the traditional Wimbledon grass used in 90s. So it's not that the players are better today but the conditions have totally changed. In fact, I feel that is one of the key reasons why Sampras retired early (when he was still good enough to carry on for a few more years) because he sensed correctly that his serve and volley game would not work out well in today's slow and heavy conditions. I hope you all agree.

Sampras could easily still Serve and Volley on the U.S. Open courts, Henman did it not too far back (2004 I believe) and got to the semis. Sampras has a much bigger, consistent, accurate serve, and his volleys are pretty darn good, right up there with Henman's.


Wimbledon, it depends on how the conditions are. I'm pretty sure most fans were pretty ticked off at how much slower the grass was, considering when we saw the supposed "Serve and Volley" matches they ended up baselining over 70% of the time.


Sampras was an allcourt player, just because he serve and volleyed more because the surfaces tended to favor that doesn't mean he couldn't play a good game of baselining. Sampras was one of the few players who could keep up with Agassi on the baseline, sometimes even beat him with an amazing running forehand or two.


I mean, he didn't win the French but he did get pretty far into it (I think semis or something like that).

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Competition was more fierce, and although they didn't hit as hard as today, they sure as heck were more consistent and more strategic then just trying to blast winners on the other guy (like most up and coming new guys are doing, except Baghdatis).

The "although" in your first sentence is the wild card. From what I see, hitting very hard is a prerequisite to enter the top these days. If that is indeed the case, older players would have been blown away.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by RiosTheGenius

where did you get the idea that the competition is much higher nowadays?.. I think you're very wrong. let's see:

It is not my idea. This is from Inside Tennis and the rest of the article seemed as if it was written by a very knowledgeable guy, not a blind Sampras fan. In fact, the sentence almost made fun of the Sampras-Agassi rivalry compared to the level today.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by superman1

sureshs, that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Agassi is retiring in a few months and you're judging him as a player now? Dude, he's been around for 20 f'ing years, where were you then? The guy bagelled Malisse just this week and lost 7-5 in the third to Gonzo, he's 36 years old, and you say that he's no good because the depth of tennis is higher. You read an article and it said the level of competition was higher. How about buying a tape of an old match and watching it for yourself?

But the old tapes show levels relative to each other. I mean, I watch Lendl's serve, and I think how slow it is compared to today's serve.

Fact is, Agassi has been beaten by Federer and Nadal multiple times. Today's players were not around 20 years ago, so we cannot conclude anything. But even matches from 5 years ago look tame by today's standards.

[nadalgirl26]

He and Nadal would bea fighting for #1. Losers like fruity Federer, homophobic Hewitt, sutipd rat face Roddick, and too cookcoo Safin would be fighting for #3.

[!Tym]

Originally Posted by sureshs

But the old tapes show levels relative to each other. I mean, I watch Lendl's serve, and I think how slow it is compared to today's serve.

Fact is, Agassi has been beaten by Federer and Nadal multiple times. Today's players were not around 20 years ago, so we cannot conclude anything. But even matches from 5 years ago look tame by today's standards.

Hmm, ok so almost mid-30s Davide Sanguinetti was just "blasting" the ball by Paradorn Srichihpan at the US Open last year? And Paradorn Srichiphan's form against Agassi at Wimbledon several years ago wasn't better?

And Sanguinetti who easily defeated Kevin Kim at Wimbledon this year, that same Kevin Kim came very close to defeating a "modern" player like Mario Ancic at the Nasdaq this year?

And how did John McEnroe at his age come back and actually WIN his first tournament back in doubles in how many years? Was Wayne Arthurs "modern" serve not modern enough for him too handle? The guy was OVER 40! Does that not say something? Lendl's racket? I'd like to see any of today's pros try that one with any success. I mean Lendl even as his back was giving out, managed to beat basically all the "modern" pro players. And now players are saying their more modern. And yet, how to explain Sanguinetti of no power and straw arms at almost mid 30 defeating a "modern" Srichiphan?

[The tennis guy]

Does anyone really know, or know how to determine where he would be?

The condition has changed since Sampras retired.

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by helloworld

No, Sampras had talent on playing serve & volley style. If Sampras changed his style and play like agassi(baseliner), he would have become nothing more than an average joe pro.

No No Nope. He was a baseliner when he started out. He happens to have
the unreal serve. I wouldn't stay at the baseline all the time with that
kind of serve. But he had "gabbage volleys" up until mid-90's.
(The late Arthur Ashe comments on Sampras volleys in 92 Master's final).

Well, everybody got their 1st impression in 1990 US Open when Sampras
was zoning, executing all shots perfectly. McEnroe's comment after he got
beaten in 1990 US Open : "The serve was obvious. But what really impressed
me was how strong he was from baseline." No mention on his volleys.
Even in his peak years, Sampras volley were just blocking that
finishes a point that is aleady 99% over.

Other comments by Drysdale around late 90's: "Is he just
pretending to be a S&Ver at Wimbledon only, fooling everybody ?".

I followed his career from the beginning. To me, he is slightly
more of baseliner because it was the 1st impression on him in 1989-1990.
Mary Carrillo said couple of times in 90's: "He is a baseliner pretending to
be S&V at times. When he get pressured, he often resorts to the baseline."

I agree with her. He would S&V un-important poins away but in a few
crucial points of a match, he won them from baseline lots of time
in his peak years. He had the "perfect" serve. That gives casual
viewers an impression of S&Ver. But he never was a true S&Ver in his blood.

If you also look closely into matches with Agassi,
you'll see his S "AND" V doesn't really work against Agassi on hard courts.
He won them with his big serves and baseline points by moving
Agassi left and right.


Toward the end of his career, his physical abilities deteriated
and increasingly depended on S&V game. Not because he really
wanted to... He successfully fooled everybody including you...
He was true "all courter". You can not classify him as baseliner or S&Ver.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by !Tym

Hmm, ok so almost mid-30s Davide Sanguinetti was just "blasting" the ball by Paradorn Srichihpan at the US Open last year? And Paradorn Srichiphan's form against Agassi at Wimbledon several years ago wasn't better?

And Sanguinetti who easily defeated Kevin Kim at Wimbledon this year, that same Kevin Kim came very close to defeating a "modern" player like Mario Ancic at the Nasdaq this year?

And how did John McEnroe at his age come back and actually WIN his first tournament back in doubles in how many years? Was Wayne Arthurs "modern" serve not modern enough for him too handle? The guy was OVER 40! Does that not say something? Lendl's racket? I'd like to see any of today's pros try that one with any success. I mean Lendl even as his back was giving out, managed to beat basically all the "modern" pro players. And now players are saying their more modern. And yet, how to explain Sanguinetti of no power and straw arms at almost mid 30 defeating a "modern" Srichiphan?

1. We are talking about singles, not doubles. Martina does well in doubles, but lost miserably in a singles tournament last year. In doubles, people serve at 80% speed for 1st serve %tage and a whole lot of other factors are at work. JMac also did not play against the Bryans.
2. Racquet is part of the issue. Today's players may not be able to play as well as Laver with a wood racquet. Comparison is with the equipment today.
3. Sanguinetti and the other guy (what's his name - the 2 handed forehand unorthodox guy) give trouble, but they are not top 10 or maybe not even top 20 players.

Players (ATP and WTA) are just pounding the ball. That is the threshold. Finesse and strategy come later.

[35ft6]

There's some serious sample bias going on in this thread. But it's fun!

[RiosTheGenius]

I think there's a few things we can't ignore:
there were certain things about Pete Sampras on serve which would make him a top10 player in any era, against Laver, Vilas, Federer and in 2045.
Sampras was never bothered by pace, in fact many times used his opponent 's pace to produce shots.
I also want to say, just because many of you have said much about the racquets, surfaces, and balls, that those factors have not really changed since his hey-day, let lone his retirement year (c'mon 2002??).
now, the S&V thing... wrong, Pat Rafter would still be kicking butt today if he didn't get bored of tennis and changed it for surfing and family time.
as for the competition...I'm not sure if the top ten guys of today would have much to say against guys like Kafelnikov, Rafter, Chang, Ivanisevic, Becker, Agassi, Krajicek, or Muster at their prime
check this link out and tell me that today the #1 and #2 players have a tough competition compared to let's say 7 yrs ago
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/rankings/entrysystem/