I watched Pete Sampras as a young kid playing his butt off and beating Agassi a lot. He played with class. With Roger, I notice a cocky swagger in his step. I love Roger and hoped he had won the aussi open. Anyways, I wanted to know what you guys thought if Pete and Roger switched era's. What if Pete played now in his prime versus roger playing back then in his prime? also, who would win if they played against each other in their prime?
Roger Federer vs. Pete Sampras
- Thread starter antgun007
- Start date
TheRealTruth
Rookie
Rafael Nadal is better than both of them!
Rafa would own Pete had Pete played in Rafa's era./thread
Rafa would own Pete had Pete played in Rafa's era./thread
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
federer would have 2 or 3 calendar year grand slams and sampras might still reach his 14, dominating wimbledon and perhaps us open.
roysid
Hall of Fame
One thing is certain. Roger would have been a serve and volley player.
Roger in his initial years used to come a lot more but changed tactics after he realized that it won't work in new string generation. He himself said it.
Similarly I think Pete would have adjusted to slower courts and powerful rackets accordingly.
Both would have won slams but how many, don't know
Roger in his initial years used to come a lot more but changed tactics after he realized that it won't work in new string generation. He himself said it.
Similarly I think Pete would have adjusted to slower courts and powerful rackets accordingly.
Both would have won slams but how many, don't know
GameSampras
Banned
Rafa OWN Pete? LOL!!!!.
No one owned a prime Pete at the slams on a consistent basis like Nadal has owned Roger. Nadal would be no exception. Pete stepped up in the clutch and was far more mentally tough than Roger. Outside of clay there would be no "owning" by Rafa except getting "owned."
Im biased sure. But Pete's greater than Roger IMO. Roger cant even defeat his chief rival. Pete defeated his main opposition when it mattered most, most of the time. Whereas Nadal owns the h2h against Roger and has leveled him the last 3 slam finals.
Roger dominated in a weak era. Many will dispute that t but IMO it is pretty much undisputable. Nadal had not yet primed. That leaves Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, among others. Not the toughest era. Pete rise to dominance was over an opposition for superior to Roger's ever was. Thats undisputable. And again.. No one consistently got the best of Pete at the slams as Rafa has Roger.
Roger may break the slam record. But if he cant beat Rafa. I will NO WAY ever put him ahead of Pete. Even if he gets 20 slams. You need to defeat your rival IMO to secure your place in history.
Pure speculation of course but Nadals game plays right into Pete's hands. That style of game could not defeat a prime Sampras on any surface outside of clay. No way no how. You play that defensive style, stand back behind the baseline 10 feets and u will get crushed by Pete's attack.
Petes a player whos clutch performances and mental toughness match Rafa's. Even moreso IMO. Federer cant match Nadal's mental toughness.
Nadal's wins over Pete would most likely come at the smaller tournaments. Not in the slam finals. Pete played for the slams. Thats the type of player he was. You could beat Pete at Cincinatti, he was going to demolish you at Flushing or Wimbeldon.
I have a feeling Pete would relish playing Nadal in the slam finals moreso than Federer who probably at this point would like to avoid Nadal at all costs in the slam finals.
No one owned a prime Pete at the slams on a consistent basis like Nadal has owned Roger. Nadal would be no exception. Pete stepped up in the clutch and was far more mentally tough than Roger. Outside of clay there would be no "owning" by Rafa except getting "owned."
Im biased sure. But Pete's greater than Roger IMO. Roger cant even defeat his chief rival. Pete defeated his main opposition when it mattered most, most of the time. Whereas Nadal owns the h2h against Roger and has leveled him the last 3 slam finals.
Roger dominated in a weak era. Many will dispute that t but IMO it is pretty much undisputable. Nadal had not yet primed. That leaves Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, among others. Not the toughest era. Pete rise to dominance was over an opposition for superior to Roger's ever was. Thats undisputable. And again.. No one consistently got the best of Pete at the slams as Rafa has Roger.
Roger may break the slam record. But if he cant beat Rafa. I will NO WAY ever put him ahead of Pete. Even if he gets 20 slams. You need to defeat your rival IMO to secure your place in history.
Pure speculation of course but Nadals game plays right into Pete's hands. That style of game could not defeat a prime Sampras on any surface outside of clay. No way no how. You play that defensive style, stand back behind the baseline 10 feets and u will get crushed by Pete's attack.
Petes a player whos clutch performances and mental toughness match Rafa's. Even moreso IMO. Federer cant match Nadal's mental toughness.
Nadal's wins over Pete would most likely come at the smaller tournaments. Not in the slam finals. Pete played for the slams. Thats the type of player he was. You could beat Pete at Cincinatti, he was going to demolish you at Flushing or Wimbeldon.
I have a feeling Pete would relish playing Nadal in the slam finals moreso than Federer who probably at this point would like to avoid Nadal at all costs in the slam finals.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Sampras: more slams
more weeks at #1
more titles overall
better head to heads with main rivals.
Federer: 3 RG finals
3 years with 3 slams
more master shields
but don't forget Sampras's career is over, Federer is not!
more weeks at #1
more titles overall
better head to heads with main rivals.
Federer: 3 RG finals
3 years with 3 slams
more master shields
but don't forget Sampras's career is over, Federer is not!
GameSampras
Banned
At this point, Roger's resume looks more impressive looking at the stats and results, week in week out consistency . But it goes deeper than that. Which I mentioned, Fed has a blemish which is only getting larger and that is getting defeated by Rafa consistently. If he cant turn that around, then who knows
GameSampras
Banned
Im not so sure if Pete would not have had around the same number of slams as Roger 04-07. If you look outside of clay, there really wasnt anyone to stop Pete. (Hewitt? Ehh. He gave more trouble to Pete more at the end of his career. When his game became less all around and less effective from the baseline. Roddick? Nalbandian? No.) In fact, Pete may have even gotten himself a RG title in 2004 if you look at his 94 RG form
Last edited:
edberg505
Legend
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The-Champ
Legend
Rafa is 5 years younger than Roger, and most of his wins came from his favorite surface. Rafa is peaking now while Roger is declining.
Roger's H2H with Rafa doesn't diminish his greatness. It's not Roger's fault that Rafa couldn't make the finals on HCs 2004-2007, when he reigned supreme. Too bad these 2 guys couldn't play each other at their respective primes.
Federer would dominate Sampras' era, even more. I don't know if Sampras would win any slam today. Sampras sucks on clay, and everything today plays like clay (according to his fanboys). Thus Sampras is lucky to be playing his era and not today's.
Roger's H2H with Rafa doesn't diminish his greatness. It's not Roger's fault that Rafa couldn't make the finals on HCs 2004-2007, when he reigned supreme. Too bad these 2 guys couldn't play each other at their respective primes.
Federer would dominate Sampras' era, even more. I don't know if Sampras would win any slam today. Sampras sucks on clay, and everything today plays like clay (according to his fanboys). Thus Sampras is lucky to be playing his era and not today's.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
What kind of an argument is that? Sampras also lost (in his prime) to guys like Courier and Bruguera who were clay kings in their own right, and also Agassi who was a 3 time finalist and eventual winner at RG. Anyway Kuerten was not a king of anything in 2004. 2004 was almost Kuerten's last year on the tour (he played in 2005 with dismal results all around), he didn't even make it past the quarters at RG that year, his last RG win dated back to 2001.
VivalaVida
Banned
yeah sure, and sampras made 3 straight FO final appearances.
Sampras only made 1 SF at the French. Federer is a great clay court player and challenged nadal pretty well for 2 finals (06 and 07). 2008, I dont know what happened in the final but regardless the meeting federer and nadal had on clay before the french open were competitive.
ksbh
Banned
GameSampras
Banned
Sampras lucky to play in his era? Sampras would get no slams today? See now youre just being a hater. Thats ridiculous.
More like Rafa should be lucky he is playing on today's homogenized surfaces against baseliners, and slow grass and a crappy clay field, no serve-volleyers, no attackers and no carpet.
Lets see how many wimbeldons, USO's and AO's Nadal gets in the 90s. Lets face it. He would only be a French Open winner many times over . Look at Bruguera and picture a few more RG slams next to his name. Thats Nadal in the 90s
Last edited:
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Fed was considered mentally tough until Nadal came in the picture. He was even more mentally tough then Federer and his game gave Fed problems as well. I think Sampras was lucky never to deal with a clutch player like Nadal with a game that would give Pete fits.
GameSampras
Banned
How exactly would Nadal's game give Pete fits on the old surfaces outside of clay? Enlighten me? What does Nadal have in his game that would beat Sampras on the wimbeldon, USO, Carpet, even AO ?
I dont remember Fed ever being considered mentally tough. He destroyed the competition of 04-07 mostly based on pure talent from the baseline and overral . He wasnt in many clutch situations during his prime. There was a never player in that era that had enough talent and mental toughness to push Roger to the edge 04-07 consistently at the slams.(outside of Nadal on clay) Sometimes Nalbandian but never in the slams since he was non existent there.
The only match I remember where Fed needed to rely on mental toughness and clutchness in the finals where it went right down to the wire was his match with Safin at the AO 05 which he lost
Last edited:
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Pretty obvious. Nadal would stay away from Pete's forehand and make Pete beat him with his weakest shot. Don't tell me Sampras's backhand is better then Federer's. It might break down more then Fed's. The longer the rallys, the more fatigue Sampras would have to deal with and we know that Sampras doesn't like long matches. I think Nadal takes Sampras out at the Australian Open. It is close at the US Open and Wimbledon. Sampras wins on carpet as Fed would to.
GameSampras
Banned
ANd u think Pete would let Nadal attack his BH and would engage in long drawn out ralleys like Fed does with Nadal? No chance of that happening. Did u forget Pete was a serve-volleyer as well? How about Pete's serve? How would Nadal handle that? PEte had his serve and net game he can rely on. Fed doesnt have much of a net game these days. His serve goes to crap against Nadal usually. Pete's wouldnt and Nadal is not that great return of serve. Decent but not great
Yea i definitely agree with GameSampras on this one. Theres no way Pete would bother baselining it with Nadal. He would serve and volley and theres no way he would get broken. Also Nadal's huge topspin shots wouldn't make the best passing shots either.
And when I was watching the versasco Nadal AO semifinal, the commentators said how Verdasco was doing a great job, pounding Nadals second serves. They said how Pete used to do that, so thats another positive for Sampras against Nadal.
And when I was watching the versasco Nadal AO semifinal, the commentators said how Verdasco was doing a great job, pounding Nadals second serves. They said how Pete used to do that, so thats another positive for Sampras against Nadal.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
In my opinion, Federer is more rounded player than Sampras. Sampras has better serve and volleys but less of a baseline game.
I expect Nadal to struggle handling Peter Sampras's serve while Sampras would struggle to hit volleys off Nadal's passing shots.
Mentally i would say even as both are tough.
I would give slight edge to Nadal.
I expect Nadal to struggle handling Peter Sampras's serve while Sampras would struggle to hit volleys off Nadal's passing shots.
Mentally i would say even as both are tough.
I would give slight edge to Nadal.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
What can Pete do? Nadal's serve and forehand naturally go to Pete's backhand. How is he going to get to the net without ripping a backhand at shoulder height? I don't think that's his strength and he never had to be tested so vigorously on his backhand up high similar to Fed. Fed demolished everyone on clay until he met Nadal. You really need a two-handed backhand to give Nadal fits.
Chip and Charge
Parabolica
Semi-Pro
There's no doubt that a Prime 09 Samprass would play Nadal tought but i highly doubt that he would beat Nadal. A S&V game simply doesn't work anymore and there's no better passer than Nadal. Actually, i'm almost certain that Fed would beat Samprass in todays game. Samprass/Fed on grass would be incredibly close though.
I strongly believe that Fed would have a good 20 slams if he played in Petes era. Pete was nowhere near as consistant(slam after slam) as Fed and the only real competition was Agassi and he's no match for Nadal.
Nadal may well be the GOAT and he's only at 6 slams. He simply never makes mistakes.
I strongly believe that Fed would have a good 20 slams if he played in Petes era. Pete was nowhere near as consistant(slam after slam) as Fed and the only real competition was Agassi and he's no match for Nadal.
Nadal may well be the GOAT and he's only at 6 slams. He simply never makes mistakes.
saram
Legend
Not so fast--I'd like to see Guga and Rafa play in their prime and see how it plays out.
Parabolica
Semi-Pro
Backhand? Samprass never really had an impressive backhand or forehand. He was lucky to be in his era of S&V'ers.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Guga had a better grip to handle high shots. He was a pretty tall player as well. I would say that would be a very interesting match. I still think Nadal would give him some problems. Not as much for him as most one-handers though.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I never said he did, my answer was about who they beat at RG. There is no doubt Federer has a better record at RG than Sampras.yeah sure, and sampras made 3 straight FO final appearances.
zagor
Bionic Poster
This topic has been beaten to death before but the fact remains hat no one can tell for sure.IMO Fed would have been more of an all-courter if he played in 90s conditions(instead of being a great baseliner who occasionally goes to the net)while Sampras would improve his baseline game and rely more on it if he played under modern conditions.Tough to say who would have adapted better.
You can't tell that he's being sarcastic and using you own logic against you?
You can't tell that he's being sarcastic and using you own logic against you?
Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I don't know why people still have threads like this one. As far as Sampras v. Nadal, I'd have to go with Sampras and I'm a Nadal fan. I think what Sampras brings to the table would give Nadal a lot of problems, that's not to say that Nadal doesn't stand a chance. I just remember seeing what Tsonga did to Nadal at the 2008 AO and I can't help but think Pete would do the same. I think Nadal has improved a lot since the 2008 AO so I still give him a chance, but as far as matchups go Sampras has the advantage from a tactical stand point. Then again Nadal has come up with some great tennis. It would have been great to see, but we have something right now in Nadal v. Federer even though lately it's been lopsided.
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
Federer's game suits the current surfaces and whatnot while Sampras' game fit the surfaces and playing styles then.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
If Pete switched eras with Roger I think he would do ok, although he would have to develop a better baseline game to compete with Nadal. I think Federer would also do well if he went back to the 90s and early 2000s. If they played in their primes I would probably favor Federer, just because Federer was nearly immune to losing during his prime (except for Nadal.)
I also think Nadal would have a winning h2h over Sampras if they had played during this era.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
If we are to believe some people here, then Sampras probably hasnt lost a tennis match.
He is far from that. He didnt play any better tennis than Roger. He played the tennis that was right at the time he was playing and won slams. Roger played a style that is good for his time.
We can speculate all we want but the only tangible data we have is their solitary head to head match which Pete lost. That match ,though not fair to either players gave a good glimpse of what each player is capable of it came down to couple of points here and there.
Saying that one player would have dominated other, makes a good (and boring) discussion and really gets no where. Its all matter of opinion.
He is far from that. He didnt play any better tennis than Roger. He played the tennis that was right at the time he was playing and won slams. Roger played a style that is good for his time.
We can speculate all we want but the only tangible data we have is their solitary head to head match which Pete lost. That match ,though not fair to either players gave a good glimpse of what each player is capable of it came down to couple of points here and there.
Saying that one player would have dominated other, makes a good (and boring) discussion and really gets no where. Its all matter of opinion.
egn
Hall of Fame
Severe underestimation of the field in 2004. Coria and Gaudio would have both beat Sampras he could have got to the semi no doubt but Gaudio was playing great clay court tennis and Coria was just as good as any of those 90s guys he choked it away. Coria>Sampras on clay Coria vs. Sampras in the finals Coria wins that, Gaudio vs. Sampras Gaudio wins that too. Sorry But from 04-07 I think Pete wins all the Wimbys and US Opens, he loses out on the slow Australian Open but probably gets one. Not as many as Roger but he wins Wimby 03 and US 03 probably and even on "slow grass" I think he can stop Nadal though it might be tough.
Thank you. Best post in this whole thread. Nadal plays against power baseliners and defensive baseliners. With Roger Federer, Fabrice Santoro, Mario Ancic, Ivo Karlovic and Jo-Wilfred Tsogna occasionally mixing it up as they occasionally serve and volley. (Marin Cilic seems to be doing it more lately too) However as Federer learned in 2002 when he switched to his varied style of a mix of baseliner/puncher/volleyer you can not win S+V anymore. Roger up until 2002 was S+V. They slowed all the surfaces down and made the game all at the baseline. Sure you get the occasional volley, but that comes from the same few guys. Honestly after Nadal wins all these slams they will realize they need to go back to making surfaces difference or frankly nobody will watch tennis soon enough. When clay, hardcourt and grass matches all seem exactly the same what is the point. Thomas Muster could have won a hard court slam in this era and made deep runs at Wimbledon. And yes Nadal is lucky to be playing now cause in the 90s his only shots would have been AO and FO and he might make a deep run at the US but never get close to Wimby.
I took the liberty of bolding some ridiculous statements. I think Sampras could beat Nadal on a fast surface as his caliber of Serve and Volley is not existent in todays game.
Two how can you call Nadal the best passer ever if everyone he plays basically stands back at the baseline and can't do **** at the net. Anyone can hit a passing shot against Andy Roddick..not a huge accomplishment. Lets see Nadal hit passing shots consistently against Sampras, Edberg, Ivansevic, Becker, Rafter etc.
20 slams. Okay thats a huge number. Sampras had a decent field too, you know probably a bit tougher than Feds. Some old seasoned vets like Fed and some young guns. Sure Fed would have dominated more and might have picked up a RG in 96-98 period. But Grass would have not been as easy. Ivansevic and Krajicek were great on the surface. Fed definitely still owns the hard courts though. But I see him finishing around 14-16, but it would look a little better though as he wins them all but not nearly as extreme as you are saying. And no I do not see a calender slam.
Call Nadal GOAT when he deserves it not when he simply has 6 slams.
Roger has defeated his chief rival on 6 occasions, including 2 Wimbledon finals. (I guess that secures his place in history!) He has lost in 5 major finals - 3 French 1 Australian and 1 Wimbledon. Their careers are not over yet. Pete Sampras' career is over.
Naturally Federer dominated in a "weak era". But amazing how dominant he was! Winning more than 90% of his matches for 3 straight years, and racking up 50+ tournaments in a 5 year spread, winning 3 majors in 3 seasons, 2 majors in one season. Sampras at his best won 2 majors in one year, in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. Do a comparison of Sampras record from 1993-1998 and Federer's from 2003-2008, and tell me who had the better record?
If Pete played for the Slams, then what is Federer playing for?
Federer has reached 19 consecutive semis in the majors. In his entire career, Sampras reached 23. Federer has been to the semis a total of 21 times. Both have appeared in 18 finals. If Federer reaches 2 more major semis for the rest of his career and wins 1 more major for the rest of his career he will have equalled Sampras' record.
The most # of consecutive SF appearances Sampras ever had was 3. That's right 3. Federer has been in the semis or better 19 times (6 times the number for Pete!).
Federer successfully defended all the majors he won. Pete never successfully defended his Aussie titles. Federer won 5 straight titles at Wimbledon AND the US Open. Pete did not.
Federer and Sampras are almost exactly 10 years apart. So if you want to compare the two, think of Federer's record now vs Pete's as of March 1999. At that stage, Sampras had 11 majors: 2 Australian, 4 US Open, 5 Wimbledons. He won 2 more at Wimbledon and 1 at the US Open.
Of course we don't even want to get into a comparison of Sampras and Federer's record at the French. Last year Federer already surpassed Pete's total # of career victories at the French. Pete's best result at the French was 1 semifinal finish. Roger has been in the semis or better 4 straight years. Roger's losses at the French were against Nadal and Kuerten (7 career titles between them). Pete's losses were against the likes of Galo Blanco, Andrei Medvedev, Ramon Delgado, Mark Phillipoussis.
GameSampras
Banned
But the problem between Fed and Nadal is the 5 years differential. Yes Fed defeated Nadal prior to 08 on the majority outside of clay. But Nadal prior to 08 was not the same Nadal he was last year or now. You cant really dispute that . Now is Fed the same now as he was? I dunno.. He can defeat everyone but Nadal at the slams. He may have slipped a little but I have my doubts even if Fed 04-07 could defeat Nadal in his current form. Nadal has improved while Fed has not. Nadal has bested Fed on every surface outside of the USO since last year. The problem is Fed has not changed his gameplan against Nadal.
And I already mentioned how "statistically" Fed's resume is more impressive than Pete's didnt I? But it does go deeper than that when your comparing different eras, different competition, different surfaces (far different surfaces), diversity in play and players etc.
Fed's rise to dominance came over a much less weaker field than Petes. Fed's dominance came in a transition era where the field was very limited with talent. Hewitt slowly declining through injuries etc. Roddick... Well being Roddick. Nalbandian? Blake? Safin who bring his A game once every 4-5 years. While Pete had the likes (early 90s) of Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi (Clay field), Becker, Goran, Edberg, and down the line.
Do the math.. Now imagine if Pete had Fed's field and Fed had Pete's. Who Pete get more slams in a shorter time frame during their rise to dominance? If Pete only had to deal with Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Safin, Old Man Agassi, etc?
Last edited:
Who was Pete's competition? A 'transitional' Lendl? An in and out of the game Agassi? Becker on occasion? Cedric Pioline? Todd Martin? Goran Ivanisevic? Also, Pete wasn't playing the likes of Muster and Brugera on grass or the US Open. He did beat Muster in 1991 at the French. And lost to Brugera at the French QF in 1993.
Federer's game wins in any era, against any players. As it's already been acknowledged, the courts are slower at Wimbledon, and more players are baseliners today. Does Sampras win the same amount of majors if he was Fed's age (and of course w/Fed not around?) Me thinks not, but it's a matter of pure speculation.
The-Champ
Legend
yes, show us...we want to see that. Otherwise you're just being a hater. There is no way you can prove 'Nadal will not win Grass and HCs slams' in the 90s. Don't bore us with your silly speculations, it's not scientific. Let's put it to test.
What has been proven on the other hand, with empirical evidence to back it up is, that Sampras sucks on clay. Let me write that again in bold in case you forget: SAMPRAS sucks on clay. Unlike you, my assessment is not a speculation but a culmination of extensive and thorough observations over a 10-period. It has been proven without shadow of a doubt that Sampras sucked on clay. Yes, he will have no slams today. The courts may come in different colors but they are still clay. Still CLAY. Based on the evidence, how was Sampras on clay again?
You see, the problem here GameSampras is that your idol didn't win a clay major and 'epic failed' to make a final in even one. He sucked, and we have mountains of evidence (the height of mount everest) gathered over a 10- year period to prove that.
GameSampras
Banned
I dunno if you are extremely biased or just friggin CLUELESS. Sampras didnt "suck" on clay. A player that "sucks" on clay does not defeat Bruguera, Muster, and Courier on clay. Im sorry but these are FACTS. He also won the 95 Davis Cup on clay defeating the russians . He didnt perform well at RG most years. But to say he "sucked" only proves you are the Hater. And you know whats funny. Sampras defeated better clay courters at the French than Roger ever did. BOTTOM LINE.
So take your Sampras hater biased, Federphiliac crap some place else. Sampras defeated some big names on clay in an era with a much steeper clay court field than today.... Wait... Im sure there is no basis to that too. In fact you are probably the only one who thinks today's clay court field is better today than in the 90s
So the FACT that Sampras defeated Muster, Bruguera, Courier on clay.. Is that speculation? NOPE ITS A FACT!! Live with it. Sampras didnt do as well as he should have or could have at the French.. But a player who "sucks" does not defeat Bruguera, Courier, or Muster at the French. Pete proved he could play and beat these guys on certain days.
You make it sound like Sampras never won on clay nor defeated any clay courters of merit, when the FACTS prove otherwise
Last edited:
The-Champ
Legend
Lucky for Sampras, Krajicek only brought his A-game at wimbledon once every 8-10 years.
Doesn't matter if it was....Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco. Sampras sucked on clay. There are evidence to prove that.
What happened to that freakin' "Only slams matters" for sampras....or "his mental game alone can win him matches"
Please, don't write the word math and follow it up with the word "imagine". Math is about equations, calculations backed by numbers. Math is closer to the truth, while "imaginations" are well...in your case "la la la land".
Now regarding math and Gonzalez http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/...d/default.asp?playernum1=G415&playernum2=S402
Neither was at their prime, and yes Sampras 'only cares about slams'. You don't have to repeat that. But the sound heard, everytime Gonzalez hit a fh in that match, sounded like "welcome to the new era, volley that biatch"!
Gonzalez didn't return well in the first set (standing too close at the baseline)....guess what he did in the second set? Now...you can use your famous "imagination"
GameSampras
Banned
Lucky for Sampras, Krajicek only brought his A-game at wimbledon once every 8-10 years.
Doesn't matter if it was....Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco. Sampras sucked on clay. There are evidence to prove that.
What happened to that freakin' "Only slams matters" for sampras....or "his mental game alone can win him matches"
Please, don't write the word math and follow it up with the word "imagine". Math is about equations, calculations backed by numbers. Math is closer to the truth, while "imaginations" are well...in your case "la la la land".
Now regarding math and Gonzalez http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/...d/default.asp?playernum1=G415&playernum2=S402
Neither was at their prime, and yes Sampras 'only cares about slams'. You don't have to repeat that. But the sound heard, everytime Gonzalez hit a fh in that match, sounded like "welcome to the new era, volley that biatch"!
Gonzalez didn't return well in the first set (standing too close at the baseline)....guess what he did in the second set? Now...you can use your famous "imagination"
Says the poster who says Sampras "sucked" on clay. LOL... When the facts say otherwise. LOL.... Why listen to someone who says Sampras sucks on clay yet has defeated players with more merit on clay than most of the guys today on tour?
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
I want to see Nadal's 08 Queens match with Ivo Karlovic again. Nadal was really struggling against Karlovic's serve. He had no idea what was coming. You should look at Nadal's all intense pre return preparation and then boom ...he walks to the other side to receive the next.
That's what he will go through if he plays Pete most of the time. When Pete has an offday on serves, Nadal will destroy him. There will be a more respectable rivalry with decent head to head.
Pete's attitude - "I do not take prisoners" (think he mentions that in his book somewhere?) will help a lot. Federer lacks in this dept. He sometimes surrenders.
That's what he will go through if he plays Pete most of the time. When Pete has an offday on serves, Nadal will destroy him. There will be a more respectable rivalry with decent head to head.
Pete's attitude - "I do not take prisoners" (think he mentions that in his book somewhere?) will help a lot. Federer lacks in this dept. He sometimes surrenders.
thalivest
Banned
In other words a Goran Ivanisevic or Richard Krajicek (the type of players with games that are bad matchups for Pete ala Nadal for Federer) with Nadal's mental game (rather than their own powderpuff ones that cause them lose early rounds often or choke even when they do reach big matches often). I would totally agree with you in that case.
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
I know i am sounding pedantic. You can never prove with evidence. You can only disprove with evidence. Pete has disproved that he sucks at clay on many instances.
And if only he could have cheeseburgers at a certain time, he could have won FO
Similar threads
