i think pete's failure to capture the FO has much to do with his equipment setup. his movement's actually really good. not federer or nadal level, but definitely up there. he had tremendous shots on the run, something clay really requires. his game might possibly be too attacking, and clay also blunts his game, but i do think he definitely should have done better than just 1 semi final appearance. i think pete's problem was his obstination in insisting on that full gut, high tension, small racket head set up. he just had to swing that much harder to get the kind of spin and velocity on his shots. eventually, fatigue catches up by the second week especially, hence making it hard for him to advance further.We all recall how the balls and conditions allowed Roland Garros to play very fast in 2011. People were even speculating that Federer may beat Nadal in the final that year. Given how slow the 1990s clay was by comparison, and given that even then Sampras made the 1996 semis....do you think Sampras would have won Roland Garros 2011? (and also extend that question to the last 5 years....would Sampras have won? I suspect he would have won 2009)
Yes, I absolutely agree with the controversial yet brilliant hypothesizations by the fertile mind of the esteemed OP.
Pete Sampras would have beaten Nadal at all the recent FO's if he had played in place of Roger. He would have 7 RG's by now, no 8, he would have won the one Roger won too.
Even post-prime Sampras would have humiliated Nadal. Great thread as always, dear NSK. I am so proud of you, buddykins.
We all recall how the balls and conditions allowed Roland Garros to play very fast in 2011. People were even speculating that Federer may beat Nadal in the final that year. Given how slow the 1990s clay was by comparison, and given that even then Sampras made the 1996 semis....do you think Sampras would have won Roland Garros 2011? (and also extend that question to the last 5 years....would Sampras have won? I suspect he would have won 2009)
We all recall how the balls and conditions allowed Roland Garros to play very fast in 2011. People were even speculating that Federer may beat Nadal in the final that year. Given how slow the 1990s clay was by comparison, and given that even then Sampras made the 1996 semis....do you think Sampras would have won Roland Garros 2011? (and also extend that question to the last 5 years....would Sampras have won? I suspect he would have won 2009)
