Fact: Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters more times than Federer

B

Blocker

Professional
I stated this on another thread, but I think this topic deserves its own thread. And that is this:

Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters on European clay than Federer. These are:

Bruguera, 2 time FO winner
Courier, 2 time FO winner
Muster, FO champion
Kafelnikov, FO champion

Brugs, Courier and Muster all happened at RG while Kafelnikov happened at the DC final in front of a hostile crowd in Russia.

Now I know he never won the FO himself and I know his record at the FO does not compare to Federer's FO record in terms of finals played and trophies won, but come on, how can there be any debate that Sampras beat better clay courters than Federer? We're talking 6 FO champions. Federer beat Moya once and I'll even throw in Soderling. At this stage I don't rate Djok on clay. But other than that, Federer's FO record pretty much consists of wins against clay court nobodies and several thrashings at the hands of Nadal.

So I want to dispel the myth once and for all that Sampras was a complete and total dud on clay. Complete duds on clay do not beat the likes of Courier, Brugs, Muster and Kafelnikov, they simply do not. Complete clay court duds also do not win the Italian Open.

As I said, I know Fed has a FO trophy and Sampras does not, but can you please stick to the topic. Who has Federer beaten on clay that is more impressive than who Sampras has beaten on clay?
 
Roged only had the chance to play against a few rg champions that aren't called nadal. (ferrero, who's 0-4 against roger on clay, costa who's 1-0 against roger on clay and gaudio, who's 0-2 against roger on clay.) He also handled coria easily, who was a big force on clay back then.
 
Well Fed HAS beaten Nadal (but hell I would like Pete's chances vs. Nadal too if hes on, on any given day.) Nadal HAS struggled with big servers and Pete was THEE big server of his time.) If Isner can play Nadal tough, I have NO DOUBT Pete couldn't as well.

But you are correct, In terms of quantity, Pete has conquered more great clay courters then Federer.

But its no surprise. the 90s had some of the best clay depth we have seen.. FAR greater then any we have seen since. On any given day, Pete could beat anyone on clay courts. But hes dismissed as some "mug" but thats not surprising here on FedererismyGODwarehouse.com
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
Well Fed HAS beaten Nadal (but hell I would like Pete's chances vs. Nadal too if hes on, on any given day.) Nadal HAS struggled with big servers and Pete was THEE big server of his time.) If Isner can play Nadal tough, I have NO DOUBT Pete couldn't as well.
Click to expand...

You know Nadal hasn't been in his clay prime since 2008 right? So yeah, Pete at his very best might have beaten any clay nadal post 2008.


If Galo Blanco could handle Pete's serve on clay, I'm sure Rafa wont have any problems with it lol :D


I'm a fan of both I hate having to compare RaPete.
 
Razoredge said:
Pete wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell against Nadal on clay, hell is wrong with some of you people?
Click to expand...

Soderling beat Nadal, Isner took Nadal to 5 at the french with big hitting and big serving, despite being SLOW as all hell, yet Sampras wouldn't have a chance on his day? Please.. :?
 
90's Clay said:
Soderling beat Nadal, Isner took Nadal to 5 at the french with big hitting and big serving, despite being SLOW as all hell, yet Sampras wouldn't have a chance on his day? Please.. :?
Click to expand...

Nope, Sampras would never stand a chance against a healthy on form Nadal on clay. Ever.

You're just a dirty 90's **** that can't seem to understand this.
 
Blocker said:
I stated this on another thread, but I think this topic deserves its own thread. And that is this:

Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters on European clay than Federer. These are:

Bruguera, 2 time FO winner
Courier, 2 time FO winner
Muster, FO champion
Kafelnikov, FO champion

Brugs, Courier and Muster all happened at RG while Kafelnikov happened at the DC final in front of a hostile crowd in Russia.

Now I know he never won the FO himself and I know his record at the FO does not compare to Federer's FO record in terms of finals played and trophies won, but come on, how can there be any debate that Sampras beat better clay courters than Federer? We're talking 6 FO champions. Federer beat Moya once and I'll even throw in Soderling. At this stage I don't rate Djok on clay. But other than that, Federer's FO record pretty much consists of wins against clay court nobodies and several thrashings at the hands of Nadal.

So I want to dispel the myth once and for all that Sampras was a complete and total dud on clay. Complete duds on clay do not beat the likes of Courier, Brugs, Muster and Kafelnikov, they simply do not. Complete clay court duds also do not win the Italian Open.

As I said, I know Fed has a FO trophy and Sampras does not, but can you please stick to the topic. Who has Federer beaten on clay that is more impressive than who Sampras has beaten on clay?
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Federer only had Nadal who always embarrassed him at the French, while Sampras had to deal with the toughest claycourt field, and he did very well. Sampras is much better than Federer even on clay lol...
 
Well the 90's had the best Clay Field in the history of tennis.....Nadal only has trouble with Federer, Ferrer and Djokovic.

Is Sampras a better claycourter than Federer.....Never will be.
 
Razoredge said:
Nope, Sampras would never stand a chance against a healthy on form Nadal on clay. Ever.

You're just a dirty 90's **** that can't seem to understand this.
Click to expand...

And yet.. Isner (a big slow lug but a big hitter and server) and PLENTY of chances vs. Nadal on clay. ROFLMAO.

Pete's a big hitter and big server.. To think he wouldn't have chances is crazy like I said. Nadal has issues with big servers.

Sampras of course wouldn't have some good h2h vs. Rafa on clay.. But he would have his chances on his day.
 
kishnabe said:
Well the 90's had the best Clay Field in the history of tennis.....Nadal only has trouble with Federer, Ferrer and Djokovic.

Is Sampras a better claycourter than Federer.....Never will be.
Click to expand...
Hasn't Murray given Nadal trouble, too?
 
fail thread ......

on clay federer has beaten these FO champions :

nadal
kuerten
moya
gaudio
ferrero
chang

and then these excellent claycourt players :

coria
djoker
delpo
nalbandian
davydenko
soderling
ferrer
safin

.......

now let's get real shall we, @ RG alone

sampras in 91 beat a seriously wrecked muster ( after his accident in 91 )
he beat a just returning from serious injury, rusty, bruguera in 96 RG
beat a almost past it courier in 96 RG, still a good win
win over kafelnikov was a good one

fed's wins over in-form delpo in 2009 and in-form djoker in 2011 were far better than any of sampras' at RG
 
Fact: Federer has won the French Open, Sampras has not.

/thread.

For the record, I think Delpo is a future FO champion. Just sayin.
 
Let's face it. Sampras was never considered a great clay court player, and never will be. His movement on clay has always been his only weakness. But what he is and always will be is one of the greatest fast court player in history.
 
The fact that so many players won solely the French open as their majors in the 90s shows what a weak clay era it was.

I mean... Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya... none achieved anything off clay basically. Most would barely be considered top ten players off clay in the years they won the French Open.
 
Bobby Jr said:
The fact that so many players won solely the French open as their majors in the 90s shows what a weak clay era it was.

I mean... Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya... none achieved anything off clay basically. Most would barely be considered top ten players off clay in the years they won the French Open.
Click to expand...

Actually thats a STRONG era considering the polarized conditions.. Back then you had clay specialists.. Players who understood how to excel on clay, win by attrition etc.

Today we got nothing by clumsy hard court ball bashers playing on clay. Who's the 2nd best clay courter we got now? Djokovic? Hell he can't even slide on clay correctly
 
90's Clay said:
Today we got nothing by clumsy hard court ball bashers playing on clay. Who's the 2nd best clay courter we got now? Djokovic? Hell he can't even slide on clay correctly
Click to expand...

you are kidding, right ??????? djoker slides and moves very well on clay ...

Have you even seen your boy sampras on clay ???? now that is an example of not able to slide on clay correctly .......

or did you run away whenever he played on clay knowing he'd lose about half the time ? :)
 
abmk said:
you are kidding, right ??????? djoker slides and moves very well on clay ...

Have you even seen your boy sampras on clay ???? now that is an example of not able to slide on clay correctly .......

or did you run away whenever he played on clay knowing he'd lose about half the time ? :)
Click to expand...

He doesn't slide on clay that well..ROFL.. Gimme a break.. He can't slide NEARLY as well as Guga, Courier, Bruguera could.

If he could he would have won a French Open a long time ago
 
90's Clay said:
Actually thats a STRONG era considering the polarized conditions.. Back then you had clay specialists.. Players who understood how to excel on clay, win by attrition etc.

Today we got nothing by clumsy hard court ball bashers playing on clay. Who's the 2nd best clay courter we got now? Djokovic? Hell he can't even slide on clay correctly
Click to expand...

this made me laugh, show me a match on any surface where djokovic doesn't slide.
 
Bobby Jr said:
The fact that so many players won solely the French open as their majors in the 90s shows what a weak clay era it was.

I mean... Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya... none achieved anything off clay basically. Most would barely be considered top ten players off clay in the years they won the French Open.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's a similar case with the women's game today, look how many one slam wonders won a FO title (Myskina, Ivanovic, Schiavone, Li Na, etc) and also look how only a single person has managed to win more than one FO in 12 years.

I bet 90's clay would call the current WTA clay court situation a strong era...LOL.

Guy is such a clown.
 
Bobby Jr said:
The fact that so many players won solely the French open as their majors in the 90s shows what a weak clay era it was.

I mean... Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya... none achieved anything off clay basically. Most would barely be considered top ten players off clay in the years they won the French Open.
Click to expand...
Barely top ten? I think you mean barely top five.
 
paulorenzo said:
this made me laugh, show me a match on any surface where djokovic doesn't slide.
Click to expand...

You seem to imply that sliding is the same across the three surfaces even though clay is meant to be slid on to enhance footwork while the other two aren't supposed to? Sliding on clay is a technical art.
 
90's Clay said:
He doesn't slide on clay that well..ROFL.. Gimme a break.. He can't slide NEARLY as well as Guga, Courier, Bruguera could.
Click to expand...

not as well as guga/bruguera, very slightly behind, but he's better than courier at moving on clay ..

he slides/moves darn well on clay ....you might have got confused b/w sampras and djoker .......:)

90's Clay said:
If he could he would have won a French Open a long time ago
Click to expand...

lol, with nadal (& federer ) there ? yeah, very easy .......
 
"Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters more times than Federer."

Lets start off by saying that you're an idiot.

When you use the word "better", normally you follow it up with the word "than". Better than who? Better than Sampras? EVERYONE is a better clay courter than Sampras, so what is your point? In that case, Nadal has never beaten "better credentialled" clay courters because there aren't any.

Furthermore, the only one who keeps getting in Federer's way is Nadal. Federer beats all the clay courters: Ferrer, Monaco, Almagro, you name them. He even beat Nadal 2 times on clay.

Do you see how messed up your argument is? I can't even properly refute it because it doesn't make any sense to begin with. I don't even get what you're trying to say. That Sampras is better on clay than Federer because Sampras beat Bruguera, Muster, etc. and Federer did not???? Think before you start a thread.
 
merwy said:
"Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters more times than Federer."

Lets start off by saying that you're an idiot.

When you use the word "better", normally you follow it up with the word "than". Better than who? Better than Sampras? EVERYONE is a better clay courter than Sampras, so what is your point? In that case, Nadal has never beaten "better credentialled" clay courters because there aren't any.

Furthermore, the only one who keeps getting in Federer's way is Nadal. Federer beats all the clay courters: Ferrer, Monaco, Almagro, you name them. He even beat Nadal 2 times on clay.

Do you see how messed up your argument is? I can't even properly refute it because it doesn't make any sense to begin with. I don't even get what you're trying to say. That Sampras is better on clay than Federer because Sampras beat Bruguera, Muster, etc. and Federer did not???? Think before you start a thread.
Click to expand...
And if Federer had a chance to play them in their prime, I'm sure he would come out on top.
 
I can see the OP's point if we are talking about the French Open only. Sampras has beaten many FO champs at the FO, while Federer has been very poor against FO champs. His poor result against old man Guga at French Open 2004 was also not very impressive either.
 
Sabratha said:
And if Federer had a chance to play them in their prime, I'm sure he would come out on top.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. These guys are true clay court specialists, meaning they practically live and die on clay. These guys in their primes would have very tough matches against Nadal. Remember, Federer never really tested Nadal at the French Open in all his 5 attempts, he could never push Nadal to 5 sets.
 
Sampras never beat a 14 slam champion and a 7 time Wimbledon winner at Wimbledon, I guess that means Fed>>>>Pete on grass, yes?

Of course, we have to mention that Kafelnikov, Henman, Ancic, Tsonga and Berdych all beat a 17 time slam champion and 7 time Wimbledon winner at Wimbledon, Pete doesn't compare.

However, the GOATEST of them has to be mighty Byron Black, the guy bageled a 17 time slam champion and 7 time Wimbledon winner on grass, man what a grass beast.
 
helloworld said:
I doubt it. These guys are true clay court specialists, meaning they practically live and die on clay. These guys in their primes would have very tough matches against Nadal. Remember, Federer never really tested Nadal at the French Open in all his 5 attempts, he could never push Nadal to 5 sets.
Click to expand...
There was that Kuerten incident, too. Hmm, you could be right.
 
helloworld said:
I doubt it. These guys are true clay court specialists, meaning they practically live and die on clay. These guys in their primes would have very tough matches against Nadal. Remember, Federer never really tested Nadal at the French Open in all his 5 attempts, he could never push Nadal to 5 sets.
Click to expand...

In the forms they were when Sampras all beat them? Prime Fed would smoke them.

Overall however, yes they'd probably have the edge during their relatively short lived peaks/primes.
 
90's Clay said:
Actually thats a STRONG era considering the polarized conditions.. Back then you had clay specialists.. Players who understood how to excel on clay, win by attrition etc.
Click to expand...
The bolded passage above is a big part of why it was a weak era. The clay court specialists didn't have to compete with the best in the game for the most part because none of the top players of the era were clay court specialists. In fact, of high achieving players in the 90s Courier alone excelled on clay on more than one occasion.

Ergo > they had it easier because the best players in the game were generally not particularly suited to the surface.
 
Last edited:
Sabratha said:
There was that Kuerten incident, too. Hmm, you could be right.
Click to expand...

All of Muster, Bruguera and Courier had worse losses at FO than Fed's against Kuerten, especially Muster (who got past QF stage at FO exactly 2 times in his whole career).

However, given Nadal's "Rosol" incident I guess we can conclude that grasscourt specialists from the 90s would dominate him as well, yes?
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
Federer has beaten Nadal twice.

//end thread.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

Nadal is like the combination of the best clay courters Sampras has ever faced.

I said it before and I'll repeat it again - if Federer had to face Courier, Bruguera, Muster (or whoever there was in the 90's) at the FO instead of playing Nadal in the final in every single year, Federer would be sitting on a few French Open titles now.

THIS is a fact, my friend, Blocker.
 
Last edited:
tennis_pro said:
My thoughts exactly.

Nadal is like the combination of the best clay courters Sampras has ever faced.

I said it before and I'll repeat it again - if Federer had to face Courier, Bruguera, Muster (or whoever there was in the 90's) at the FO instead of playing Nadal in the final in every single year, Federer would be sitting on a few French Open titles now.

THIS is a fact, my friend, Blocker.
Click to expand...

Fact is something that actually happened. In your case, Federer beating 90s top clay courter is more of a dream rather than a fact. What a shame. :oops:
 
You know maybe Sampras is better than Federer on clay. This then means that we might be compelled to argue that perhaps Nadal had absolutely no competition and might have only grabbed 3-5 RG if he played in the 90s making his clame of claycourt goathood invalid.
 
PCXL-Fan said:
You know maybe Sampras is better than Federer on clay. This then means that we might be compelled to argue that perhaps Nadal had absolutely no competition and might have only grabbed 3-5 RG if he played in the 90s making his clame of claycourt goathood invalid.
Click to expand...

Except the OP wouldn't give a **** if we did, he's a Sampras homer, not a Nadal fan.
 
Sampras was very inconsistent on clay ( especially post 1996 ).

In a good day he could defeat (on clay) anyone, but at the same time, on a bad day he could lose (on clay) to anyone as well.

Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Stich....could defeat anyone on clay in a given day (and all them have good victories against many great claycourters through their careers), but non of them had the consistency to win seven straight best of five sets matches in a fortnight to be able to win RG.

Sampras, Edberg, Stich...they all won tournaments on clay, even M-1000 tournaments on clay (and Becker was runner-up many times in M-1000 tournaments on clay).

But to win RG you can not have a "bad day" during 14 days, and those players style was not consistently good on clay.

Sampras had 3 QF and a SF at RG, Edberg had 3 QF and a final at RG, Becker had 3 SF and another QF at RG, Stich a SF and a final at RG.

They all had chances, but neither could win it all.


Federer (in his own era) has been a totally different thing. He has been CONSISTENTLY good on clay year after year after year. Federer and Nadal have had a consistency on clay (in their era) that never happened before (in other eras), not even the great "clay courters" of other eras like Lendl, Wilander, Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten....had such consistency on M-1000 clay tournaments and RG year after year after year.

That is why it is so difficult (and senseless) to compare different eras.
 
merwy said:
"Sampras has beaten better credentialled clay courters more times than Federer."

Lets start off by saying that you're an idiot.

When you use the word "better", normally you follow it up with the word "than". Better than who? Better than Sampras? EVERYONE is a better clay courter than Sampras, so what is your point? In that case, Nadal has never beaten "better credentialled" clay courters because there aren't any.

Furthermore, the only one who keeps getting in Federer's way is Nadal. Federer beats all the clay courters: Ferrer, Monaco, Almagro, you name them. He even beat Nadal 2 times on clay.

Do you see how messed up your argument is? I can't even properly refute it because it doesn't make any sense to begin with. I don't even get what you're trying to say. That Sampras is better on clay than Federer because Sampras beat Bruguera, Muster, etc. and Federer did not???? Think before you start a thread.
Click to expand...

Are you an idiot?

Better credentialled, what is difficult to understand about that?

Do you think Ferrer, Monaco, Almagro stack up agaisnt Courier, Brugs, Muster and Kafelnikov? If you do, then not only are you an idiot, you also know nothing about tennis.

Just so you don't remain confused, let me reword the point being stated in this thread. Sampras beat, at the FO and in DC, two very important events, clay courters who are better than the clay courters Federer has beaten at the FO and in other important events held on clay.

And to those who mentioned Nadal, freaking der, everyone knows Federer has beaten Nadal on clay twice, but I didn't think it had to be qualified that the matches have to be important matches on clay. I'm talking important matches only, ie pretty much the FO. If you want to include other clay events, then like I said, Sampras has won the most important clay event outside of the FO. Yet most of you still think he is totally useless on clay. The whole point of this thread is that Sampras is not the clay court dud most of you think he was. He had some big wins, and my op stands, esxcept for winning the FO trophy, bigger wins than Federer has had.
 
Blocker said:
Are you an idiot?

Better credentialled, what is difficult to understand about that?

Do you think Ferrer, Monaco, Almagro stack up agaisnt Courier, Brugs, Muster and Kafelnikov? If you do, then not only are you an idiot, you also know nothing about tennis.

Just so you don't remain confused, let me reword the point being stated in this thread. Sampras beat, at the FO and in DC, two very important events, clay courters who are better than the clay courters Federer has beaten at the FO and in other important events held on clay.

And to those who mentioned Nadal, freaking der, everyone knows Federer has beaten Nadal on clay twice, but I didn't think it had to be qualified that the matches have to be important matches on clay. I'm talking important matches only, ie pretty much the FO. If you want to include other clay events, then like I said, Sampras has won the most important clay event outside of the FO. Yet most of you still think he is totally useless on clay. The whole point of this thread is that Sampras is not the clay court dud most of you think he was. He had some big wins, and my op stands, esxcept for winning the FO trophy, bigger wins than Federer has had.
Click to expand...
Do you think Courier, Brugs, Muster and Kafelnikov stand up to Nadal?
 
Bobby Jr said:
I mean... Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya... none achieved anything off clay basically. Most would barely be considered top ten players off clay in the years they won the French Open.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Muster has been champion of Essen Indoors and Miami, being utterly dominant in the latter in 1997.
Kuerten won the 2000 Masters Cup, and won 2001 Cincinnati by beating Roddick, Haas, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Henman and Rafter in succession.
Moya won 2002 Cincinnati, beating Hewitt in the final (Hewitt was then world number 1)
 
Mustard said:
Are you serious?

Muster has been champion of Essen Indoors and Miami, being utterly dominant in the latter in 1997.
Kuerten won the 2000 Masters Cup, and won 2001 Cincinnati by beating Roddick, Haas, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Henman and Rafter in succession.
Moya won 2002 Cincinnati, beating Hewitt in the final (Hewitt was then world number 1)
Click to expand...
In the scheme of this conversation and what my posts were about the benchmark for being a top clay court player is basically having won the French Open - in the same way Djokovic wont ever be considered a top claycourt player unless he wins a French Open. The same applies for grass and hard courts imo.

So far as Muster being a higher achiever off of clay. Seriously? 82% of his career finals were on clay and 2 of his only 3 hard court wins came over Jimmy Arias and one of the biggest hard court chumps of the 90s, Sergi Bruguera. Muster's sole other hard court title came after beating Thomas Nydahl (qualifier), Martin Sinner (another qualifier), Christian Rudd (ranked 60-ish), a well past it Courier and then Ivanisevic. Not exactly tournament pedigree that will go down in hard court record books.

Re: Kuerten...70% of his tournament wins were on clay. His win in Portugal was on notably slow hard court. He was not an accomplished hard courter in comparison to dozens of his peers who he could beat on clay. That is the point I tried to make earlier - beating Kuerten off clay didn't mean a whole lot because he was pretty patchy.

By these standards David Ferrer could be considered an all-time great on hard courts because he won Auckland two years in a row and Bercy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Is Sampras' 1998 French Open campaign the most epic journey we have ever seen in a slam?
Replies
13
Views
1K
big ted
big ted
Flash O'Groove
Ranking the 90's clay courters
2
Replies
88
Views
8K
JRAJ1988
J
noeledmonds
  • Poll Poll
Greatest Open Era Clay Courters
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
DonBudge
D
B
Is this record unique to Sampras?
2
Replies
65
Views
6K
Cashman
Cashman
T
Has any player ever palyed more great oppontes than Aggasi?
Replies
17
Views
1K
90's Clay
90's Clay
Back
Top