Sampras on post-2002 Grass of Wimbledon

Blocker said:

It all comes down to Sampras' attacking game. The way he played in the 90s is his point of difference. That's why if he was instantly tranported to today's era, he would have more success than if he was groomed for today's era. Sampras got to play some grinders in his era, but Nadal has never quite faced an attacking player like Pete before so it would be alot newer to Nadal than to Sampras. I don't think the slowing of the grass would worry Pete all that much. He said winning at W is about returning better.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

slice_serve_ace,

those were the only matches on grass ......I know sampras didn't give it his all at queens ... just that he was already in the finals vs hewitt in 2000 and while he didn't play at his best, he did play decent and hewitt beat him in straights ...

even other matches reflect that sampras wouldn't have it easy vs hewitt ( just that I didn't mention it in there )

Like I said in that post :

"I see sampras vs hewitt being a somewhat similar case to federer vs nadal on grass .. even though the former in those cases are better grass court players by far, in their matchup, it just gets closer ...."

Click to expand...

TMF said:

That was the conditions during the 90s. You don't translate his results to an era when the dominant players are from the baseline. And Hewitt did bother Sampras on fast grass, that would suggest the baseliners would fare even better on a slower, high bounce grass. If you think Sampras is going to serve/volley his way to the final you're sadly mistaken.

I see most people see Pete would win from 3-5 W which is about right.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Hewitt bothered an older gassed Sampras. I thought were talking Prime Sampras here? I highly doubt Hewitt would ever beat Pete on the big stage here especially at wimbledon if we are talking PRIME Sampras. 2000 Sampras for instance.. Blew Hewitt right off the court at the USO without even breaking a sweat.

Click to expand...

Prisoner of Birth said:

You're conveniently disregarding the new racquet technology and the slower nature of the Wimbledon grass to suggest Sampras would have an easier time and win more Wimbledons because of the field being "weak" (which is typical Sampras-**** drivel). But the fact is, Sampras lost at Wimbledon one time from 1993-2000 and that was to freaking Krajicek, who is half the player Nadal is on Grass. Even Roddick and Hewitt are much better than Krajicek. My question is, if Krajicek could beat Sampras smack in the middle of his prime, why can't Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt? Or Murray or Djokovic for that matter? If you're gonna argue Sampras would win more than 7 Slams if he were playing in this era, make reasonable arguments for it. Not fanboy drivel.

Click to expand...

tudwell said:

Hewitt beat Sampras on grass in 2000.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Hewitt bothered an older gassed Sampras. I thought were talking Prime Sampras here? I highly doubt Hewitt would ever beat Pete on the big stage here especially at wimbledon if we are talking PRIME Sampras. 2000 Sampras for instance.. Blew Hewitt right off the court at the USO without even breaking a sweat.

Thats like saying, Big servers and hard hitters "hurt Federer". No.. They bother OLDER Federer because his reaction time has declined. .. Not prime Federer. Federer ate big serving hitters like Roddick for lunch in his prime. Sampras ate baseliners for lunch in his prime.

Federer has always been bothered more by solid baseliners (Nalbandian, Nadal, DJoker, Murray etc) then he has big server/hitters. Wheras Pete was bothered more by attacking big servers and or great net players (Goran, Krajciek, Edberg Rafter etc.) and less by baseliners (Courier, Agassi etc). If we are talking prime of course

Click to expand...

abmk said:

lol, wut ? the USO 2000 semi b/w sampras and hewitt was a competitive one for all 3 sets and hewitt wasn't even top 5 then ..

hewitt bagelled sampras @ the YEC in lisbon in 2000 ....

sampras at his prime ate baseliners for lunch ? LOL ! he lost more often than won vs agassi on the slower courts .... had trouble with the topspin of bruguera and corrretja ( corretja nearly beat him @ the USO in 96 and beat in the YEC semis in 98 - hardly small matches )

also just about managed to lead ferreira 7-6 and he was nothing more than a very good mover and a good FH ....( in contrast agassi was 11-0 vs ferreira )

sampras was bothered by both big hitters ( esp on faster surfaces ) and baseliners who could get it up high on his BH or get back lot of his serves along with being fast enough & pass well.....hewitt fits the second criteria of baseliners as well as anyone ...

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Evidently, you didn't catch Kraijcek at wimbledon in 96.. That like was watching Muster of 1995 at the French.. Insane quality of play.

And Nadal has "hardly" been unbeatable on grass. He didn't look all that great at wimbledon in 2006 (definitely that year) and 2007 either. Richard's level in 96 was WAYYY higher then Nadal's were those years

And Sampras would DESTROY Nadal at wimbledon.. Fast or slow.. Gimme a break. Nadal has NOTHING to hurt Pete with on that surface. Nothing at all

Click to expand...

Prisoner of Birth said:

If Krajicek can beat Prime Sampras (decimate in 3 straight sets, more like), so can Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Djokovic and Murray.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

What baseliner has "owned" a prime Sampras overall exactly? I will wait for your response since you will be looking for answers for quite a long time. ROFLMAO

Sampras DESTROYED Courier (16-4 in the h2h), Chang in the h2h, Agassi in the h2h. Bruguera was 3-2 vs. Pete but most of those came on clay, and even Pete beat Bruguera at the French.. Bruguera's best surface. Pete certainly wasn't "owned" by any strict baseliner overall in his prime

Sampras' main problems came vs. Kraijceck.. An attacker. More guys started giving him issues from the baseline OUT OF PETE'S PRIME. Just like big servers and attackers are giving Fed problems now.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

2000? That was a year or two out of Pete's prime.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic?...... at wimbledon??? Please stop..

Click to expand...

tennis_pro said:

Krajicek:shock:?At Wimbledon:shock:?

In straight sets:shock:?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

lol, I already edited my previous post with those names - bruguera, corretja, ferreira ... only let's get more into detail :

bruguera's h2h vs pete is interesting :

bruguera of course beat him twice on clay, 93-94 .... then lost to him @ RG 96 when he was coming back from serious injury and had a losing record on clay that year before coming into RG ...

they had 2 matches off clay :

one was the YEC in 1993 when bruguera breadsticked him on carpet, yes, carpet ..... pete only narrowly escaped in the third ..

then in miami 97, bruguera beat him in 3 sets ....



yeah, only thing is hewitt wasn't just beating him , he was bagelling and breasticking him, he was ripping his serve apart and made him struggle @ the net like no one else , even in that time-frame .... ( that includes agassi btw )

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

:shock::shock::shock::shock:

Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic? Please stop..

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Evidently, you didn't catch Kraijcek at wimbledon in 96.. That like was watching Muster of 1995 at the French.. Insane quality of play.

And Nadal has "hardly" been unbeatable on grass. He didn't look all that great at wimbledon in 2006 (definitely that year) and 2007 either. Richard's level in 96 was WAYYY higher then Nadal's were those years

And Sampras would DESTROY Nadal at wimbledon.. Fast or slow.. Gimme a break. Nadal has NOTHING to hurt Pete with on that surface. Nothing at all

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Evidently, you didn't catch Kraijcek at wimbledon in 96.. That like was watching Muster of 1995 at the French.. Insane quality of play.

And Nadal has "hardly" been unbeatable on grass. He didn't look all that great at wimbledon in 2006 (definitely that year) and 2007 either. Richard's level in 96 was WAYYY higher then Nadal's were those years

And Sampras would DESTROY Nadal at wimbledon.. Fast or slow.. Gimme a break. Nadal has NOTHING to hurt Pete with on that surface. Nothing at all

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

:shock::shock::shock::shock:

Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic?...... at wimbledon??? Please stop..

Click to expand...

tennis_pro said:

Nadal has built his legacy on his "forehand to backhand" strategy repeated in every point against Federer. One would think that Nadal has nothing on Federer yet that one single element allowed him to be a nightmare for Federer from day 1. You think Nadal wouldn't get to Sampras' backhand considering Federer's backhand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sampras' backhand?

Yeah, keep dreaming.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

And you think sampras would be like Roger and just sit there at the baseline all day and let him exploit it? ROFLMAO.


Sampras would be chipping and charging, serving bombs, acing Nadal off the court and attacking the net with relentlessness.

Think Rosol but 100 times WORSE

Click to expand...

President said:

You think 3 time Wimbledon finalist Roddick and champions Hewitt, Nadal, and Djokovic beating Sampras at Wimbledon is laughable...fair enough. But then don't be a total hypocrite and say that ONE TIME RG Semifinalist Petros Sampras would have a chance at beating Nadal at the French. Nadal is way better and more dominant at RG than Sampras was at Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

You know losing 1-2 matches to a guy isn't exactly getting "owned"

Again I ask.. Name me ONE baseliner that "owned" Sampras in his prime. You haven't been able to give me one..

Still waiting..

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

I guess Fed has been completely demolished by Simon and Canas then

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Roddick is a brokeback version of Goran on grass. If Goran couldn't beat Pete at wimbledon, Roddick would do what exactly? He has no net game, his movement is slow.

See how Pete exploited that at the USO at 31 years of age. Thats what Sampras would do to Roddick at wimbledon

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Roddick is a brokeback version of Goran on grass. If Goran couldn't beat Pete at wimbledon, Roddick would do what exactly? He has no net game, his movement is slow.

See how Pete exploited that at the USO at 31 years of age. Thats what Sampras would do to Roddick at wimbledon

Click to expand...

abmk said:

lol, what a joke ....firstly roddick was injured at that time ...google it, its documented ...... secondly roddick in 2002 wasn't the player he'd become later ....

on grass, roddick is goran with a lesser game, but far more stronger mentally ...goran *did* beat pete and wimbledon in 92 and took him twice to 5 sets ... only choked both times ...

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

See how Pete exploited that at the USO at 31 years of age. Thats what Sampras would do to Roddick at wimbledon

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Goran won wimbledon in 2001 with STRONG mental toughness and nerves. Besides, sometimes mental toughness can't make up for supreme talent and weapons..

And Roddick has NOTHING on grass in terms of the weapons Goran had. Sampras was also mentally tough as well. Dont sell out Pete's mental game here. Goran would have won ALOT of wimbledons if not for Sampras

Roddick would struggle to even take a set off Pete at wimbledon.. He has much more limited mobility, and his net game is AWFUL as his his transition to the net game. Poor footwork as well. A losing proposition vs. a prime Sampras at wimbledon

Click to expand...

President said:

Goran was a freaking headcase, he may have had more game than Roddick but Roddick has the heart of a champion. Roddick serves even better than Petros...of course Sampras would win the majority of the time but Roddick wouldn't get blown out.

And I'm still waiting for you to retract your claim that Petros would have any chance against Nadal at RG.

Click to expand...

tennis_pro said:

The moment someone types "Goran" and "mental toughness" in one sentence, loses all credibility.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Goran won wimbledon in 2001 with STRONG mental toughness and nerves. Besides, sometimes mental toughness can't make up for supreme talent and weapons..

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

And Roddick has NOTHING on grass in terms of the weapons Goran had. Sampras was also mentally tough as well. Dont sell out Pete's mental game here. Goran would have won ALOT of wimbledons if not for Sampras

Click to expand...

abmk said:

no, he wasn't that strong mentally even in 2001 ...messed up on a few key points ... just more determined then .....



nothing in terms of weapons ? LOL, what a joke .... roddick serve in itself is a huge weapon ........ he had a darn good FH, clearly better than goran's as well ......

without sampras, goran wins : wimbledon 94,95 and 98 ...
without federer, roddick wins : wimbledon 03,04 and 09

so yeah, don't see that much of difference ....

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Go back and watch 2001 wimbledon.

Click to expand...

tennis_pro said:

Which round did he face Sampras again?

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

He beat Rafter and Roddick.. Why does it matter if he faced Sampras

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Roddick would struggle to even take a set off Pete at wimbledon.. He has much more limited mobility, and his net game is AWFUL as his his transition to the net game. Poor footwork as well. A losing proposition vs. a prime Sampras at wimbledon

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Yep Roddick has a big serve.. But nothing big enough to back it up. He would have to come into the net vs. Pete... And we know how Roddick's net game is.. Along with footwork and movement and mobility.. HORRIBLE

In fact, thats what killed Roddick vs. Roger.. Nothing to back his serve up to win

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

He beat Rafter and Roddick and I believe Safin. .. Why does it matter if he faced Sampras

Click to expand...

abmk said:

safin didn't do much of note on grass outside of his good run in 2008 ( where it was fed who beat him )

roddick was 18-19 years old then and nowhere close to his peak ...

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

He beat Rafter and Roddick and I believe Safin. .. Why does it matter if he faced Sampras

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

Wait so.. Beating Safin, Roddick, Rafter and Henman in one slam isn't impressive or something?

Hell thats a tougher draw then 60-70 percent of the slams Fed has played his ENTIRE career.

Click to expand...

Goosehead said:

it was after wimbledon 2000 the courts were changed not after 2001..i had a discussion in youtube comments under a tennis vid somewhere..and i thought it was after 2001, but after chatting and then found out after some investigating myself it was after 2000.

Click to expand...

And so it began. The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC) changed the grass at Wimbledon in 2002 to alter the pace of the game.

Click to expand...

Since Hewitt won the title in 2002 (the first year with the new grass)

Click to expand...

Mustard said:

It was September 2001 when the courts were relayed as 100% Rye. 2002 was the strangest Wimbledon of all. There was nothing odd about the playing conditions at 2001 Wimbledon, even if there was a huge surprise champion in Goran Ivanisevic.





http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/rwKA0N0h2E5EtCtX5JzcuI/Net-loss-End-of-the-Volleyer.html

And as the article also mentions, the heavier and softer balls introduced in 1995, also made it harder for serve and volleyers. That was obviously done in response to the 1994 Wimbledon final, where the sets were dominated by big serves, very short to no rallies, and a tank job in the third set.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

There was a post on here quite a few months that showed on the official Wimbledon website, that the wimbledon surface was indeed CHANGED in 2001

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

There was a post on here quite a few months that showed on the official Wimbledon website, that the wimbledon surface was indeed CHANGED in 2001

Click to expand...

In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands.

Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft. But the ground eventually dried, and baseliners have excelled since; in men's tennis, Roger Federer, who serves and volleys only around 10% of the time, has reigned supreme. And while women have always been more inclined to play from the back of the court, big-hitting groundstrokers such as Maria Sharapova and Serena and Venus Williams have all but shut the door on the serve-and-volley style ushered in by the now-retired Martina Navratilova and Jana Novotna.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html#ixzz2HlJRGeMu

Click to expand...

Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html#ixzz2HovuutTw

Click to expand...