Rafa is ahead of Pete on the ATG list

Waspsting · Jun 5, 2017

tennisaddict said:
We can say Rafa is comfortably ahead of Djokovic should he win this FO. He is not going to be above Pete or Borg. Those guys were ATG on multiple surfaces. Rafa is Andy Murray level outside of clay.

You have to balance versatility (i.e. "ATG on multiple surfaces") vs dominance on each surface (even for an "ATG")

Not all "ATGs" on a surface" are equal... And I think Nadal on clay is top of the tree on that

Not all surfaces are created equal either. As far as slams go, today hard is worth double clay and grass... there was a three year period in Borg's time when 2/4 (and more importantly 2/3 of the ones he entered) were played on clay. Laver had 3/4 on grass

You'd also have to look for lack of weaknesses as a factor. Sampras, obviously has the glaring one on clay for example. By contrast, Borg's pretty solid even on his personal weakest area (hard courts). Nadal has a debatable oddity indoors

Layers upon layers - nothings simple in ATG talk - probably more so than usual where Nadal and his clay heavy resume is concerned

Phoenix1983 · Jun 6, 2017

La Decima would put Nadal ahead of Pete.

La Decima would not put him ahead of Federer or Laver.

So be it.

Waspsting · Jun 6, 2017

@California - still waiting your reply regarding Nadal’s prospects on 90s grass from page 3 -

Waspsting said:
That's a great question.

I don't know is the short answer!

longer answer - I think his game would have developed differently had he been of that era. Nadal's flexibility is amazing.

Frankly, I didn't think he could win Wimbledon in this era - neither did Federer, who commented on how surprised he was to see Rafa in the final in 06 - but he adapted and in 2008, was playing as well on grass as even Federer ever has.

In 2010 US Open, Nadal - the Ken Rosewall server - was suddenly bombing down aces and service winners like Pete Sampras himself.

I am confident that Nadal would have done very well coming to net regularly if circumstances had pushed him to it. McEnroe might go a tad overboard with his volleying skills - but they are very good and if he needed to, I think he could have adapted to be a fine serve-volleyer

Gist - Nadal was adaptable enough to adjust to 90s grass and do well at Wimbledon, with the equipment that would have been available to him - of that I have no doubt

Whether he could win against Pete Sampras, whose grass court prowess was I dare say as high as anyone's ever, is another matter.

He may have snuck a title in but I don't think he could have done much about Sampras' routine domination at the venue.

Long answer - He'd do well, certainly wouldn't fall flat on his face like the clay courters of that epoch did - but he'd need some luck to actually snag a title

What do you think? Your posts suggest you don't think he'd have any chance at all?

Rusty Shackleford · Jun 6, 2017

tennisaddict said:
We can say Rafa is comfortably ahead of Djokovic should he win this FO. He is not going to be above Pete or Borg. Those guys were ATG on multiple surfaces. Rafa is Andy Murray level outside of clay.

Sampras absolutely sucked on clay. He wasn't an all-court player, and that's why he doesn't have the CGS. Nadal surpassed Sampras the moment he won his 14th slam.

tennisaddict · Jun 6, 2017

Rusty Shackleford said:
Sampras absolutely sucked on clay. He wasn't an all-court player, and that's why he doesn't have the CGS. Nadal surpassed Sampras the moment he won his 14th slam.

It is better to be a legend on 2 out of 3 surfaces and suck in the third rather than being mediocre (relatively) on 2 out of 3 surfaces.

Sampras Davis Cup win against Russians is worth 2x a FO

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Rusty Shackleford said:
Sampras absolutely sucked on clay. He wasn't an all-court player, and that's why he doesn't have the CGS. Nadal surpassed Sampras the moment he won his 14th slam.

With all due respect, if Nadal played in Pete's era he probably wouldn't have all four either. This is what makes Agassi's CGS so impressive.

Rusty Shackleford · Jun 6, 2017

tennisaddict said:
It is better to be a legend on 2 out of 3 surfaces and suck in the third rather than being mediocre (relatively) on 2 out of 3 surfaces.

Sampras Davis Cup win against Russians is worth 2x a FO

No, it really isn't. Nadal is not mediocre on grass or hardcourt either. How many mediocre players have played 5 Wimbledon Finals, won 2 Championships, and beaten Fed there in his prime?

Something similar can be said of Nadal's HC achievements, which comparatively speaking are way, way better than Fed's clay resume.

Too many people are way too biased against Nadal. Objectively speaking, he surpassed Sampras in 2014.

Rusty Shackleford · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
With all due respect, if Nadal played in Pete's era he probably wouldn't have all four either. This is what makes Agassi's CGS so impressive.

Are you saying Sampras > Fed in Wimbledon and Sampras >> Djokovic on Hardcourt? Nadal had to beat Fed and Djokovic to win his slams outside clay, you know.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Rusty Shackleford said:
Are you saying Sampras > Fed in Wimbledon and Sampras >> Djokovic on Hardcourt? Nadal had to beat Fed and Djokovic to win his slams outside clay, you know.

No you're interpreting it wrong. The surfaces were much more polarizing then and do you know the reason Nadal doesn't have a WTF title? Because he hates low bouncing surfaces which is why he is vulnerable on damp clay because it kills all his spin and the ball is lower. Imagine him on fast, low bouncing grass in Sampras era....

Rusty Shackleford · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
No you're interpreting it wrong. The surfaces were much more polarizing then and do you know the reason Nadal doesn't have a WTF title? Because he hates low bouncing surfaces which is why he is vulnerable on damp clay because it kills all his spin and the ball is lower. Imagine him on fast, low bouncing grass in Sampras era....

That's a good point. It's hard to say what would have happened for any of these guys in the 90s, honestly. I don't see Djokovic having a chance with his volleying/passing shots either against Sampras/Rafter/Ivanisevic to be honest. But who knows?

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Rusty Shackleford said:
That's a good point. It's hard to say what would have happened for any of these guys in the 90s, honestly. I don't see Djokovic having a chance with his volleying/passing shots either against Sampras/Rafter/Ivanisevic to be honest. But who knows?

Well they would all have a chance but would they win is the question. It's a totally different game with fast grass and serve and volleyers. They would have had to adapt to compete and wouldn't be able to rely on the way they play now. The advantage Djokovic has over Nadal is he likes the low bouncing surfaces, doesn't have huge swings on his groundstrokes and even had a good record on fast carpet early in his career. Would have been interesting...

California · Jun 6, 2017

Waspsting said:
@California - still waiting your reply regarding Nadal’s prospects on 90s grass from page 3 -

Ok, I agree with you that Nadal's game might have have developed differently if he grew up in the 80's and 90's, but I think you can say that about all players, they are affected by their environment. But for this debate let's just take his game as is...

Playing the way he does, with long swings, limited volleying skills, and an average serve I don't think he would have done well in the 90's on grass. Plus, the competition would have been very rough. In the early 90's you had Becker, Edberg, Stich, etc... mid to late 90's you had Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, Krijeck, Goran, etc... tough decade of grass players. The grass was fast, low bouncing, and slick.

Things now are different, the grass is slower, balls are softer, the ground is rolled harder. Much easier to play baseline tennis. Additionally the true grass style players are gone, how many players can really volley? How many can press you, take away your time, chip and charge, really suffocate you? Really none. The guys are allowed to play really a hard court game on the grass without risk. I could go on, but you see where my thoughts are.

Times change in all sports, conditions change, nothing stays stagnant. All this era of players have been helped by homogenized conditions, that is why all of a sudden all these guys have 12, 14, 18, slams and counting... you can play your game, year round, without surface specialist to contend with.

Waspsting · Jun 6, 2017

Rusty Shackleford said:
Too many people are way too biased against Nadal.

Agreed. It's absurd. This crazy drive to downplay or dismiss his achievements outside clay... you can't argue with irrational, wild bias like that

Well, you can clearly...

Rusty Shackleford said:
...Nadal's HC achievements, which comparatively speaking are way, way better than Fed's clay resume.

Disagree with this - I think Fed on clay is comparable to Nadal on hard - maybe a bit behind, certainly not "way, way behind"

Keeping in mind there are twice as many Slams and Masters on hard courts as clay -

Slam titles - Nadal 3, Fed 1
2 for Nadal would be roughly equivalent to Federer's lone French, so he's just 1 ahead of the curve here

Slam finals - Nadal 7, Federer 5
Same logic as above, Nadal's behind here

Masters & WTF titles - Nadal 8, Fed 6
Again, Nadal comfortably behind here

Masters & WTF finals - Nadal 18, Federer 16
Nadal way behind here

Overall titles - Nadal 16, Federer 11

That's actually poorer than I'd thought for Nadal - its little more than 1 a year for his career

----

It comes back to Nadal on clay >> Anyone on Anything (as opposed to Nadal on hard > Federer on clay)... he's just shut poor Fed out on the dirt more than the field (including Fed) has been able to shut him out on hard

NoleFam said:
(Nadal) hates low bouncing surfaces which is why he is vulnerable on damp clay because it kills all his spin and the ball is lower...

I don't know about this, man

He might be more vulnerable on damp clay than dry, but without looking up anything, I'll bet my biceps he's still far and away the best damp clay courter in the world

And whatever anyone says about green clay and what not, the bounce at those Wimbledon's he won or lost the finals off were low - lower than any hard court

I remember his forehand being brutal there, though the backhand was less effective on grass

But yeah, he'd struggle on 90s grass - so broader point taken

metsman said:
(regarding Nadal at WTF)... you would like a player of his caliber to win that tournament which consists of the top players. Every other tier 1 ATG has at least 2-3 so Nadal falls short a little there

You know who the only other tier 1 ATG to never win there is?

Mats Wilander.

IOW, the only two guys to win multiple Slams on each of the 3 surfaces are the only ones to miss the YEC

Good thing it's just a glorified exho

Dedans Penthouse · Jun 6, 2017

KINGROGER said:
Are you deliberately being stupid and obtuse?
Probably, seeing as you're a pathetic basement dwelling troll like rusty.

Nadal only has 16 HC titles vs Fed's 65
you stupid ****ing idiot
and he gets more chances to win on HCs.

Stop posting, pathetic troll.

Uh-oh, . looks like somebody's set their Angry Queen psycho dial to "10" . ......bwwaaaahahaha~!

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Waspsting said:
Agreed. It's absurd. This crazy drive to downplay or dismiss his achievements outside clay... you can't argue with irrational, wild bias like that

Well, you can clearly...

Disagree with this - I think Fed on clay is comparable to Nadal on hard - maybe a bit behind, certainly not "way, way behind"

Keeping in mind there are twice as many Slams and Masters on hard courts as clay -

Slam titles - Nadal 3, Fed 1
2 for Nadal would be roughly equivalent to Federer's lone French, so he's just 1 ahead of the curve here

Slam finals - Nadal 7, Federer 5
Same logic as above, Nadal's behind here

Masters & WTF titles - Nadal 8, Fed 6
Again, Nadal comfortably behind here

Masters & WTF finals - Nadal 18, Federer 16
Nadal way behind here

Overall titles - Nadal 16, Federer 11

That's actually poorer than I'd thought for Nadal - its little more than 1 a year for his career

----

It comes back to Nadal on clay >> Anyone on Anything (as opposed to Nadal on hard > Federer on clay)... he's just shut poor Fed out on the dirt more than the field (including Fed) has been able to shut him out on hard

I don't know about this, man

He might be more vulnerable on damp clay than dry, but without looking up anything, I'll bet my biceps he's still far and away the best damp clay courter in the world

And whatever anyone says about green clay and what not, the bounce at those Wimbledon's he won or lost the finals off were low - lower than any hard court

I remember his forehand being brutal there, though the backhand was less effective on grass

But yeah, he'd struggle on 90s grass - so broader point taken

You know who the only other tier 1 ATG to never win there is?

Mats Wilander.

IOW, the only two guys to win multiple Slams on each of the 3 surfaces are the only ones to miss the YEC

Good thing it's just a glorified exho

Well he's the best clay clourter in the world, damp or dry, but if you want to beat him on that surface you have a much better chance on a damp court. Soderling beat him on a damp, cool day, Djokovic took 8 or 9 games in a row from him in the 2012 final in drizzly conditions before the match was suspended, Murray crushed him in the Madrid final, his first win versus Nadal on clay, in damp, cool conditions. Etc and etc. He doesn't like it. He likes it hot, sunny so he can use that spin and his shots are bouncing really high off the court, speeding through the court and pushing his opponents back.

Wimbledon's bounce is high compared to 90's grass. I've heard guys like McEnroe say ten years ago that it plays more like a hardcourt than a usual grasscourt. It's slower and the bounce is much higher. There's also a graphic on YouTube that highlights the difference even between 2003 and 2008 Centre Court, and the height difference is not small. If I find it later, I will post it.

KINGROGER · Jun 6, 2017

Dedans Penthouse said:
Uh-oh, . looks like somebody's set their Angry Queen psycho dial to "10" . ......bwwaaaahahaha~!

Now blocked both you and the other troll

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
Well they would all have a chance but would they win is the question. It's a totally different game with fast grass and serve and volleyers. They would have had to adapt to compete and wouldn't be able to rely on the way they play now. The advantage Djokovic has over Nadal is he likes the low bouncing surfaces, doesn't have huge swings on his groundstrokes and even had a good record on fast carpet early in his career. Would have been interesting...

This is a very valid point. Nowadays when I hear about adjustments that get made by player to get success from one surface to the next, it pretty much is just moving up to the baseline from standing a couple of feet behind it. That is the adjustment. Back in the 90s, an adjustment from clay to grass would almost be having a completely different game, fast grass is very slick and the ball bounces very low. You go up against guys like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker on surfaces like that and you are in world of trouble, if you think just stepping up to the baseline will work. Agassi is extremely rare exception, but his natural game is to play on the baseline, not a couple feet behind it, and I will say that he was kind of lucky he got his title before Pete began to hit his stride there.

Dedans Penthouse · Jun 6, 2017

Dedans Penthouse said:
Uh-oh, . looks like somebody's set their Angry Queen psycho dial to "10" . ......bwwaaaahahaha~!

KINGROGER said:
Lol no. That piece of **** started with the insults and pathetic trolling.

KINGROGER said:
I've ignored it now so all good.

EDIT: You're a **** posting troll too so blocked you as well.

The 'ignore' function is for the weak lil' Queenie

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
This is a very valid point. Nowadays when I hear about adjustments that get made by player to get success from one surface to the next, it pretty much is just moving up to the baseline from standing a couple of feet behind it. That is the adjustment. Back in the 90s, an adjustment from clay to grass would almost be having a completely different game, fast grass is very slick and the ball bounces very low. You go up against guys like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker on surfaces like that and you are in world of trouble, if you think just stepping up to the baseline will work. Agassi is extremely rare exception, but his natural game is to play on the baseline, not a couple feet behind it, and I will say that he was kind of lucky he got his title before Pete began to hit his stride there.

So true. Nowadays, everything is homogenized which is what tennis officials wanted and I think the process began in 2001. The courts are slower, they use faster balls on slower surfaces and slower balls on faster surfaces, etc. Player can just change their court positioning from surface to surface. Back then, it was a huge difference between clay and grass, and a totally different game. You are right about that. Playing Sampras, Ivanisevic or Becker on Centre Court was like trying to do the impossible. The balls were just flying and there were virtually no rallies. Just bang, bang, game Sampras. Agassi did have some luck getting his title because he has never beat Sampras on grass, but what helped him was that return of serve in the end. I think it was 93 before Pete went on his Wimbledon run and Agassi won it in 92.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
So true. Nowadays, everything is homogenized which is what tennis officials wanted and I think the process began in 2001. The courts are slower, they use faster balls on slower surfaces and slower balls on faster surfaces, etc. Player can just change their court positioning from surface to surface. Back then, it was a huge difference between clay and grass, and a totally different game. You are right about that. Playing Sampras, Ivanisevic or Becker on Centre Court was like trying to do the impossible. The balls were just flying and there were virtually no rallies. Just bang, bang, game Sampras. Agassi did have some luck getting his title because he has never beat Sampras on grass, but what helped him was that return of serve in the end. I think it was 93 before Pete went on his Wimbledon run and Agassi won it in 92.

Yes, Agassi won in 92, and then went onto lose to Sampras in 93 in the quarter finals, and Pete's dominance had begun. And Agassi was a much more natural player who stood up on the baseline, compared to many we see today. I will just say it, Nadal will not get a career slam in Pete's time on fast grass, not a chance. That grass was crazy fast, extremely slick and Pete was a mental beast on that surface. I think a lot of people don't really know just how devastating Pete was there, and remember, the surfaces we see today were slowed down because of Sampras and Ivanisevic, they were simply unplayable with their serves, now imagine trying to navigate your way through true grass court legends at their absolute peak that prowled the courts of SW19, if you are natural clay courter. Nadal is incredible, no doubt, but he is not winning Wimbledon during Pete's reign.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
Yes, Agassi won in 92, and then went onto lose to Sampras in 93 in the quarter finals, and Pete's dominance had begun. And Agassi was a much more natural player who stood up on the baseline, compared to many we see today. I will just say it, Nadal will not get a career slam in Pete's time on fast grass, not a chance. That grass was crazy fast, extremely slick and Pete was a mental beast on that surface. I think a lot of people don't really know just how devastating Pete was there, and remember, the surfaces we see today were slowed down because of Sampras and Ivanisevic, they were simply unplayable with their serves, now imagine trying to navigate your way through true grass court legends at their absolute peak that prowled the courts of SW19, if you are natural clay courter. Nadal is incredible, no doubt, but he is not winning Wimbledon during Pete's reign.

I'm leaning toward that conclusion but didn't want to say it and upset his fans. But yea...hard to imagine that happening. A lot of them weren't watching tennis then so they don't know just how devastating he was. Not only Sampras, but you have to worry about Ivanisevic, Stich and Krajicek even before you get to Sampras. It's hard to see Nadal getting through those guys and winning Wimbledon in the 90's. The greatest clay/grass hybrid was Borg because it literally was like playing night and day from Roland Garros to Wimbledon back then. A lot of clay curt specialists didn't even bother going to Wimbledon. LOL

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
I'm leaning toward that conclusion but didn't want to say it and upset his fans. But yea...hard to imagine that happening. A lot of them weren't watching tennis then so they don't know just how devastating he was. Not only Sampras, but you have to worry about Ivanisevic, Stich and Krajicek even before you get to Sampras. It's hard to see Nadal getting through those guys and winning Wimbledon in the 90's. The greatest clay/grass hybrid was Borg because it literally was like playing night and day from Roland Garros to Wimbledon back then.

It's not about upsetting fans. It is about trying to be as honest with yourself, otherwise what is the point. The question would be quite simple, if Nadal was playing in Sampras' era, does he beat him? I am going to say he won't. That is that fast grass GOAT at the absolute peak of his powers, and if you want a Wimbledon title, you go through him. If Nadal had to fight players like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Becker and whole bunch of others that were also around at the time, he would be having nightmares. It was a landmine, these players were designed to play on fast grass...that was their bread and butter. I take nothing away from Nadal's competitive spirit, he is a legend and world class fighter, but we know how vulnerable he is to low bouncing surfaces, even on hard and clay we have seen...Wimbledon in the 90s was even more extreme. He would not get any rhythm whatsoever to work with, he would not get time to set up his forehand, his forehand would not bounce up high to the backhand on that surface, and would be getting aced multiple times a set. How many passes will he be able to do from dying balls against players who thrive at the net?

Nadal is perfect for the modern game, and his career slam is completely legit for the time in which he played, just like Djokovic and just like Federer. Taking nothing away from that, but they are products of their own era of slowed down courts...because guys like Sampras were simply invincible on the fast courts since they were products of their time. This isn't a dig at them, this is just saying it as it is. And just to be balanced about it, those fast court grass players would struggle much more in the modern era at Wimbledon. Would they still be effective? Sure, it is still grass, but on this grass, players like Nadal and Djokovic have a competitive chance.

KINGROGER · Jun 6, 2017

Federer is a different case as he actually won a slam on fast courts (04 USO) and has all the tools needed to dominate on fast grass too.

metsman · Jun 6, 2017

Waspsting said:
Agreed. It's absurd. This crazy drive to downplay or dismiss his achievements outside clay... you can't argue with irrational, wild bias like that

Well, you can clearly...

Disagree with this - I think Fed on clay is comparable to Nadal on hard - maybe a bit behind, certainly not "way, way behind"

Keeping in mind there are twice as many Slams and Masters on hard courts as clay -

Slam titles - Nadal 3, Fed 1
2 for Nadal would be roughly equivalent to Federer's lone French, so he's just 1 ahead of the curve here

Slam finals - Nadal 7, Federer 5
Same logic as above, Nadal's behind here

Masters & WTF titles - Nadal 8, Fed 6
Again, Nadal comfortably behind here

Masters & WTF finals - Nadal 18, Federer 16
Nadal way behind here

Overall titles - Nadal 16, Federer 11

That's actually poorer than I'd thought for Nadal - its little more than 1 a year for his career

----

It comes back to Nadal on clay >> Anyone on Anything (as opposed to Nadal on hard > Federer on clay)... he's just shut poor Fed out on the dirt more than the field (including Fed) has been able to shut him out on hard

I don't know about this, man

He might be more vulnerable on damp clay than dry, but without looking up anything, I'll bet my biceps he's still far and away the best damp clay courter in the world

And whatever anyone says about green clay and what not, the bounce at those Wimbledon's he won or lost the finals off were low - lower than any hard court

I remember his forehand being brutal there, though the backhand was less effective on grass

But yeah, he'd struggle on 90s grass - so broader point taken

You know who the only other tier 1 ATG to never win there is?

Mats Wilander.

IOW, the only two guys to win multiple Slams on each of the 3 surfaces are the only ones to miss the YEC

Good thing it's just a glorified exho

Wilander is at the bottom of tier 3 to me (consisting of him, edberg, becker)

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

KINGROGER said:
Federer is a different case as he actually won a slam on fast courts (04 USO) and has all the tools needed to dominate on fast grass too.

That is because he is not from the same generation as Nadal and company. Federer was winning junior Wimbledon titles on the 90s fast grass surfaces, so he grew up with a game that was designed for much faster conditions. It is no wonder that Federer actually lost his first 11 competitive clay court matches when he started the tour, it was because his game was built for fast conditions. When Nadal exploded onto the scene in 2002-2003, the changes were already been seen. Fast grass was extinct at Wimbledon already, we had gone from outright serve and volley players in the W 2001 final to two baseliners the following year. Nadal was coming in at the right time, and his game was being built to suit the courts that came with the times.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
It's not about upsetting fans. It is about trying to be as honest with yourself, otherwise what is the point. The question would be quite simple, if Nadal was playing in Sampras' era, does he beat him? I am going to say he won't. That is that fast grass GOAT at the absolute peak of his powers, and if you want a Wimbledon title, you go through him. If Nadal had to fight players like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Becker and whole bunch of others that were also around at the time, he would be having nightmares. It was a landmine, these players were designed to play on fast grass...that was their bread and butter. I take nothing away from Nadal's competitive spirit, he is a legend and world class fighter, but we know how vulnerable he is to low bouncing surfaces, even on hard and clay we have seen...Wimbledon in the 90s was even more extreme. He would not get any rhythm whatsoever to work with, he would not get time to set up his forehand, his forehand would not bounce up high to the backhand on that surface, and would be getting aced multiple times a set. How many passes will he be able to do from dying balls against players who thrive at the net?

Nadal is perfect for the modern game, and his career slam is completely legit for the time in which he played, just like Djokovic and just like Federer. Taking nothing away from that, but they are products of their own era of slowed down courts...because guys like Sampras were simply invincible on the fast courts since they were products of their time. This isn't a dig at them, this is just saying it as it is. And just to be balanced about it, those fast court grass players would struggle much more in the modern era at Wimbledon. Would they still be effective? Sure, it is still grass, but on this grass, players like Nadal and Djokovic have a competitive chance.

I think I have said something to the extent that "Nadal would not beat Sampras on grass in the 90's", or "it would be an enormous task for Nadal to win Wimbledon in the 90's" and they jumped all over me. LOL. I didn't feel like hearing it today. But yea...Sampras was a nightmare. I remember that 1999 final and Agassi was playing amazing and Sampras just took the match away from him. He just completely shut him down. I actually wanted Agassi to win that match but Sampras was not having it. I'm talking about one of the greatest returners ever and greatest baseliners just completely stopped in his tracks. The low bouncing speedy court with huge servers and volleyers, and his huge back swing would give Nadal all kinds of trouble.

They are definitely a product of their time, all 3 of them. But would they have 12 Wimbledons between them in the Sampras era? No. Sampras wouldn't dominate like he did in their era either and would hate these slowed down courts, especially Wimbledon and the fall season. It's a different game between then and now.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
I think I have said something to the extent that "Nadal would not beat Sampras on grass in the 90's", or "it would be an enormous task for Nadal to win Wimbledon in the 90's" and they jumped all over me. LOL. I didn't feel like hearing it today. But yea...Sampras was a nightmare. I remember that 1999 final and Agassi was playing amazing and Sampras just took the match away from him. He just completely shut him down. I actually wanted Agassi to win that match but Sampras was not having it. I'm talking about one of the greatest returners ever and greatest baseliners just completely stopped in his tracks. The low bouncing speedy court with huge servers and volleyers, and his huge back swing would give Nadal all kinds of trouble.

They are definitely a product of their time, all 3 of them. But would they have 12 Wimbledons between them in the Sampras era? No. Sampras wouldn't dominate like he did in their era either and would hate these slowed down courts, especially Wimbledon and the fall season. It's a different game between then and now.

Haha. Don't worry about posters jumping on you. You can state your opinion.

I am saying it.

Yeah, we remember that 1999 final, GOAT fast grass performance and peak Agassi. And yes, Sampras would struggle a lot in today's conditions, Nadal would certainly win his fair share against him.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
That is because he is not from the same generation as Nadal and company. Federer was winning junior Wimbledon titles on the 90s fast grass surfaces, so he grew up with a game that was designed for much faster conditions. It is no wonder that Federer actually lost his first 11 competitive clay court matches when he started the tour, it was because his game was built for fast conditions. When Nadal exploded onto the scene in 2002-2003, the changes were already been seen. Fast grass was extinct at Wimbledon already, we had gone from outright serve and volley players in the W 2001 final to two baseliners the following year. Nadal was coming in at the right time, and his game was being built to suit the courts that came with the times.

Wow I did not know Federer struggled so much on clay when he first started the tour and you make a great point here. He had designed his game to compete on faster surfaces and the adjustment from fast to slow was a struggle even to him early in his career. The homogenization that followed changed that problem though.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
Haha. Don't worry about posters jumping on you. You can state you opinion. I am saying it.

Yeah, we remember that 1999 final, GOAT fast grass performance and peak Agassi. And yes, Sampras would struggle a lot in today's conditions, Nadal would certainly win his fair share against him.

Interesting tidbit: Sampras only lost his serve 4 times in 7 Wimbledon finals. 131 service games. That is a staggering statistic.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
Wow I did not know Federer struggled so much on clay when he first started the tour and you make a great point here. He had designed his game to compete on faster surfaces and the adjustment from fast to slow was a struggle even to him early in his career. The homogenization that followed changed that problem though.

There are many that actually don't know or didn't follow Federer closely during his early years. He struggled significantly on clay, it is no wonder that clay is his worst surface, he managed to bring his level up on it, but he was never going to be a natural on it, as he was on grass. One of the reasons why Federer's footwork gets so much praise is that he crafted his art on fast grass courts, where taking short steps is of more fundamental importance than other surfaces, because of the traction and the tendency to lose your footing. By mastering his footwork there, he was able to bring it to the slower courts of the modern era, and just excel in a superior way. It was like running with ankle weights on the beach, then taking them off and running on a flat road...big difference. However, I digress here a little.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
Interesting tidbit: Sampras only lost his serve 4 times in 7 Wimbledon finals. 131 service games. That is a staggering statistic.

I have often said that if there is one player that can easily rival Nadal's big match mentality and play, it is Sampras. He had Alpha written all over him.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
There are many that actually don't know or didn't follow Federer closely during his early years. He struggled significantly on clay, it is no wonder that clay is his worst surface, he managed to bring his level up on it, but he was never going to be a natural on it, as he was on grass. One of the reasons why Federer's footwork gets so much praise is that he crafted his art on fast grass courts, where taking short steps is of more fundamental importance than other surfaces, because of the traction and the tendency to lose your footing. By mastering his footwork there, he was able to bring it to the slower courts of the modern era, and just excel in a superior way. It was like running with ankle weights on the beach, then taking them off and running on a flat road...big difference. However, I digress here a little.

Yea exactly. Well I definitely did not know this. I knew he wasn't a clay natural but I didn't realize how much the polarization of fast surfaces and clay was a problem for him. He did improve though in time but I wonder how much he would have been able to adjust and how much he would have been able to win if the speeds never changed. Something we will never know.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
I have often said that if there is one player that can easily rival Nadal's big match mentality and play, it is Sampras. He had Alpha written all over him.

Oh yes definitely. Sampras was a big match player to the extreme. His record in GS finals was 14-4 and 2 of those losses came to Safin and Hewitt when he was close to retirement. I think he was even a bigger match player than Nadal.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
Yea exactly. Well I definitely did not know this. I knew he wasn't a clay natural but I didn't realize how much the polarization of fast surfaces and clay was a problem for him. He did improve though in time but I wonder how much he would have been able to adjust and how much he would have been able to win if the speeds never changed. Something we will never know.

Pretty much my point. And it is something we will never truly know.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
Oh yes definitely. Sampras was a big match player to the extreme. His record in GS finals was 14-4 and 2 of those losses came to Safin anf Hewitt when he was close to retirement. I think he was even a bigger match player than Nadal.

If you take a look at Pete's losses in the slams. The first was to Edberg in USO 92 when I felt he just entered his prime, but his poor approach to the match cost him. I remember him promising that, that will never happen again. From there, he only really lost one slam final in his true prime, and that was a thriller of a match against Agassi in AO 95. Not taking credit away from Agassi, he was in GOAT mode from US 94 to US 95, but Sampras was in tears a few rounds earlier to Courier when he knew his coach was dying of cancer, not sure how his mind was during that event. US 00 and 01 after his prime was done, 2001, he was on his last legs entering the final, having beaten three USO champions in a row just to get to the final.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
If you take a look at Pete's losses in the slams. The first was to Edberg in USO 92 when I felt he just entered his prime, but his poor approach to the match cost him. I remember him promising that, that will never happen again. From there, he only really lost one slam final in his true prime, and that was a thriller of a match against Agassi in AO 95. Not taking credit away from Agassi, he was in GOAT mode from US 94 to US 95, but Sampras was in tears a few rounds earlier to Courier when he knew his coach was dying of cancer, not sure how his mind was during that event. US 00 and 01 after his prime was done, 2001, he was on his last legs entering the final, having beaten three USO champions in a row just to get to the final.

True. 2001 was just a brutal draw for him and he really didn't have a lot in the tank for the final. But yea he only really lost one of those in his real prime. Even the 95 US Open match who everybody had him losing to on fire Agassi, he still found a way to win.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

NoleFam said:
True. 2001 was just a brutal draw for him and he really didn't have a lot in the tank for the final. But yea he only really lost one of those in his real prime. Even the 95 US Open match who everybody had him losing to on fire Agassi, he still found a way to win.

Think of it like this - To get to the USO 2001 final, he had to beat the last three winners of the title, 98 winner Rafter, 99 winner Agassi, 00 winner Safin. Three big matches, and that 95 USO match was just an indication of his big match mentality. Agassi was truly on fire, he had won every match since his Wimbledon semi loss to Becker, heading into that final.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
Think of it like this - To get to the USO 2001 final, he had to beat the last three winners of the title, 98 winner Rafter, 99 winner Agassi, 00 winner Safin. Three big matches, and that 95 USO match was just an indication of his big match mentality. Agassi was truly on fire, he had won every match since his Wimbledon semi loss to Becker, heading into that final.

Just to add to this, it was quite interesting how 95 ended up. Agassi was almost assured of getting the number one ranking, all he had to do was play a little during the fall season, and his coach Gilbert was telling him to, so he could end the year number one. Sampras could not catch him, if he decided to play properly. Agassi told him that he did not feel like number one, Sampras deserved it after that USO win, and in a way he relinquished the number one ranking by simply not playing...I think that was all part of the mentality that Agassi developed after losing that match, which started the downward spiral to 144 in the world.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
Think of it like this - To get to the USO 2001 final, he had to beat the last three winners of the title, 98 winner Rafter, 99 winner Agassi, 00 winner Safin. Three big matches, and that 95 USO match was just an indication of his big match mentality. Agassi was truly on fire, he had won every match since his Wimbledon semi loss to Becker, heading into that final.

Yea that draw was crazy. Also, he beat Hewitt in 2000 in SF before losing to Safin in the final. Fast forward a year later and he beat Safin in the SF and then lost to Hewitt in the final. That's literally a "I can't win for losing" moment. LOL. Yea Agassi was the man to beat in that match and he found a way to do it. But it's worth noting that Sampras never lost to Agassi at US Open or Wimbledon and Agassi never lost to him at Australian Open or the French. Sampras was made for big matches on fast courts.

NoleFam · Jun 6, 2017

Hitman said:
Just to add to this, it was quite interesting how 95 ended up. Agassi was almost assured of getting the number one ranking, all he had to do was play a little during the fall season, and his coach Gilbert was telling him to, so he could end the year number one. Sampras could not catch him, if he decided to play properly. Agassi told him that he did not feel like number one, Sampras deserved it after that USO win, and in a way he relinquished the number one ranking by simply not playing...I think that was all part of the mentality that Agassi developed after losing that match, which started the downward spiral to 144 in the world.

Interesting. I knew that that was the match that just destroyed his confidence and his desire for the game. It took years for him to overcome that.

Deleted member 743561 · Jun 6, 2017

Waspsting · Jun 6, 2017

I agree with you overall - Nadal would have had a hard time of it on 90s grass

I think my tone of just how 'hard' is probably a bit softer than what I'm getting from you. If you're up for some fine distinctions?

California said:
But for this debate let's just take his game as is...

Playing the way he does, with long swings, limited volleying skills, and an average serve I don't think he would have done well in the 90's on grass. Plus, the competition would have been very rough. In the early 90's you had Becker, Edberg, Stich, etc... mid to late 90's you had Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, Krijeck, Goran, etc... tough decade of grass players. The grass was fast, low bouncing, and slick..

Its about adjustments.

Yes, his serve is average - but he's also cranked it up. At US 2010, he was a big server. I'm looking at stats for 2008 Wimbledon final - according to Wikipedia, his average first serve speed was 5 mile per hour slower than Federer. I think if he needed to, he could serve big enough for the serve to be a weapon. Certainly more so than Tim Henman!

The "limited volleying skills" comes of not attempting to come into net often. As I said before, he's actually an excellent volleyer... and again, if it was necessary, I think he'd do well coming net more often

The "long swings" I concede - it'd be a problem for him... I imagine he'd adjust as he has on hard courts. Step in a bit and flatten out the shots - I think you made this point earlier that that's all "adjusting" is nowadays and I agree

On the upside for Nadal are his return and passing shots and abilities on the run

- He has some of the best passing shots I've seen (much of this has to do with racket tech advances, which I'll talk a bit more about in a sec)

- On return, I like his basic methodology and think it'd serve him well on fast grass. Agassi - the best returner in the world - loved to take the return early and hit winners/force errors or at least take charge of the point with the shot... but I don't think the sheer number of times he missed the return was worth it against the big servers.

Nadal's method of standing back lets him get more balls back... he's very much like Bjorn Borg (another guy who if he hadn't done so, people would have doubted on grass/Wimbledon based on his style) on this. And, he can adjust and step up on return too - case in point vs Raonic at the Australian Open this year

- After the return, he'll have to deal with the first volley. I can't think of anyone better able to run down more balls or hit good shots off of them than Nadal - passing shots, on the run, whatever. Again, much like Borg

California said:
Things now are different, the grass is slower, balls are softer, the ground is rolled harder. Much easier to play baseline tennis. Additionally the true grass style players are gone, how many players can really volley? How many can press you, take away your time, chip and charge, really suffocate you? Really none. The guys are allowed to play really a hard court game on the grass without risk. .

The true grass style players are gone because of the changes, not in addition to them. The main change I think is racket tech... look at the way these guys hit groundstrokes... does that look like an invitation to come into net?

I saw Agassi outright scare net-rushers with the power he generated off the ground... watching it now, his shots look downright slow compared to todays lot (all because of the rackets)

Becker thought twice before approaching Agassi. Courier, another big hitter, took to just hitting through Edberg at net more than passing him... I was stunned because I didn't think that could be done watching their Wimbledon 93 semi

All that power from the baseline has grown and grown since... coming to net regularly just isn't a very good or smart Plan A now

There are exceptions of course - Edberg has wiped out Courier, notably at US 91, Becker beat Agassi at Wimbledon 95 and Zverev really did a number on Murray this year at Aus... but speaking generally, the trend has been towards power from the back and the subsequent diminishment of the net rusher

California said:
Times change in all sports, conditions change, nothing stays stagnant. All this era of players have been helped by homogenized conditions, that is why all of a sudden all these guys have 12, 14, 18, slams and counting... you can play your game, year round, without surface specialist to contend with.

Agree. I miss the Rafter's and Henman's but they were an endangered species even in their time... I confess, I do not miss the serve-is-all-you-need & volley types... much as I admire their efficiency and appreciate how challenging taking them on was... that was a whole other level of uninteresting

---

How do you think Sampras would have done on modern clay? Or Federer, Djokovic and Nadal on 90s clay?

Thomas195 · Jun 23, 2017

Waspsting said:
There are exceptions of course - Edberg has wiped out Courier, notably at US 91, Becker beat Agassi at Wimbledon 95 and Zverev really did a number on Murray this year at Aus... but speaking generally, the trend has been towards power from the back and the subsequent diminishment of the net rusher

Yeah, look at those who was born during mid-1970s, only Henman and Phillipoussis were S&Vers.

Waspsting said:
- He has some of the best passing shots I've seen (much of this has to do with racket tech advances, which I'll talk a bit more about in a sec)

Nadal (and other modern players)'s extreme grip of SW-W is a liability on old grass, even if he can chase the ball. His grip is far extreme than that of Borg. All Wimbledon champions and most finalists between 1990 and 2001 had Continental-Eastern-Extreme Eastern grips.
The old racquet, especially with natural gut strings, would make Nadal's forehand much weaker in term of pace if he still hits with heavy topspin. Such a shot would be a sitting duck for volleyers, like the case of Edberg vs Muster.
His slices float too much to threaten Sampras and Co.

Waspsting said:
Nadal's method of standing back lets him get more balls back... he's very much like Bjorn Borg (another guy who if he hadn't done so, people would have doubted on grass/Wimbledon based on his style) on this. And, he can adjust and step up on return too - case in point vs Raonic at the Australian Open this year

The big servers during the late 1980s and 1990s hit corners more regularly than any other periods, and certainly much more than Raonic (Raonic are often too risk-averse when serving, as he hits body serves too much). Also, they often hit second serves nearly as hard as their first serves on grass, which is rare these days. Nadal still stays further than Sampras himself when returning, which means he would struggle against serves on corners.

Not to mention that since 1976, Borg actually never met a tier-A serve-and-volleyers until 1980. His strongest opponent was Connor, who was far from a S&Ver. The strongest S&Vers he met between 1976 and 1979 were Vitas, who lacked great serves and power, and Tanner, who lacked a first-class volley.

VexlanderPrime · Jun 23, 2017

It's Rafa. Pete didn't have to face anyone as dominant as Djokovic much less Federer. And although Rafa is plainly a flawed player (Serve, ROS) what he does great (defense to offense, movement, stamina, FH) is sooo great that we'd be talking about Rafa as clear GOAT if not for Fed.

MichaelNadal · Jun 24, 2017

Hitman said:
Think of it like this - To get to the USO 2001 final, he had to beat the last three winners of the title, 98 winner Rafter, 99 winner Agassi, 00 winner Safin. Three big matches, and that 95 USO match was just an indication of his big match mentality. Agassi was truly on fire, he had won every match since his Wimbledon semi loss to Becker, heading into that final.

Some of those Pete/Andre matches are ridiculous af!

KINGROGER · Jun 24, 2017

Fed's clay results are quite similar to Rafa's AO + spring HC masters + 1 other (say Canada) results except he has more consistency and finals, just losing to one guy mostly.

Absolutely insane to try and compare Fed's clay record to Nadal's record at 2 HC majors and 6 HC masters + 1 WTF.

Rago · Jun 24, 2017

Horses for courses. Picked Nadal but one can make a strong case for Sampras too.

*Nadal is probably the most clutch player I've seen but vulnerable to zoning opponents.

Djokovic2011 · Jun 24, 2017

KINGROGER said:
Fed's clay results are quite similar to Rafa's AO + spring HC masters + 1 other (say Canada) results except he has more consistency and finals, just losing to one guy mostly.

Absolutely insane to try and compare Fed's clay record to Nadal's record at 2 HC majors and 6 HC masters + 1 WTF.

Maybe the best way to do it would be to simply compare Federer's record at RG + the 3 clay Masters to Nadal's best HC slam + 3 best Masters(Indian Wells, Canada, Cinci). Seems a lot fairer to me that way.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 24, 2017

MichaelNadal said:
Some of those Pete/Andre matches are ridiculous af!

Indeed. USO 2001 QF is one of the highest levels I have ever seen. No breaks of serve, and just the most insane shot-making you will ever see.

MichaelNadal · Jun 24, 2017

Hitman said:
Indeed. USO 2001 QF is one of the highest levels I have ever seen. No breaks of serve, and just the most insane shot-making you will ever see.

Baseline porn

Rafa is ahead of Pete on the ATG list

Who's ahead in the ATG List?

Nadal

Sampras

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Legend

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 743561

Guest

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

VexlanderPrime

Guest

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Similar threads