Fantasy Match: Sampras vs Rafa on this year's Wimby grass--who wins
- Thread starter mcenroefan
- Start date
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yet I continuously prove others to be wrong, including you.
The-Champ
Legend
Yet I continuously prove others to be wrong, including you.
In your fantasy, you've proven everyone wrong!
genius24
Semi-Pro
totally depends on what surface here. on grass i like pete, and clay obv nadal.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Sure, that's why when Sampras served and volleyed against Federer at Wimbledon, Federer still won.
I said in the 90's, they played in 2001 where Sampras was well pasted his prime. Sampras has the clear edge over Federer if they both played in the 90's on the faster surfaces like grass, US Open series and Carpet, Becker would also beat Federer on a regular basis on grass and carpet. Federer cannot handle consistant pressure as shown by Soderling and Berdych smoking him and those can't volley to save their lives unlike Sampras and Becker.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Nah....if Federer played in the 90's he would just serve and volley a lot more on the faster surfaces and still win. He proved that he's a better serve and volleyer than Sampras in 2001.I said in the 90's, they played in 2001 where Sampras was well pasted his prime. Sampras has the clear edge over Federer if they both played in the 90's on the faster surfaces like grass, US Open series and Carpet, Becker would also beat Federer on a regular basis on grass and carpet. Federer cannot handle consistant pressure as shown by Soderling and Berdych smoking him and those can't volley to save their lives unlike Sampras and Becker.
Oh, and Sampras was not "well past" his prime in 2001. He just won the last 4 Wimbledons in a row (1997-2000) and won the US Open over a year later and was in the final for 3 consecutive years (2000-2002)
Last edited:
federerGOAT
Rookie
Nah....if Federer played in the 90's he would just serve and volley at lot more on the faster surfaces and still win. He proved that he's a better serve and volleyer than Sampras in 2001.
Oh, and Sampras was not "well past" his prime in 2001. He just won the last 4 Wimbledons in a row (1997-2000) and won the US Open over a year later and was in the final for 3 consecutive years (2000-2002)
Sampras does nothing better than Federer. Sampras had an overrated serve and Fed paints the lines better than Sampras with his serve.
Prime Sampras would never be in the top 10 in this era.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
Sampras would still spank Nadal with his S&V game on any surface except perhaps clay.
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
I do think Sampras would give Nadal fits. On old grass (grass from Sampras' era) or US Open hard courts, I would bet on Sampras.
Great match because I think they are equals mentally. I just think Sampras could produce three sets where Nadal could not break him and Sampras would pick up a break or win the tiebreaker. I also think Sampras would do a better job than Roger at converting breakpoints against Rafa.
It would be very interesting.
The other unmentioned factor you could throw in is forcing Rafa to play with slightly less advanced equipment from the Sampras era....would that make a difference?
Great match because I think they are equals mentally. I just think Sampras could produce three sets where Nadal could not break him and Sampras would pick up a break or win the tiebreaker. I also think Sampras would do a better job than Roger at converting breakpoints against Rafa.
It would be very interesting.
The other unmentioned factor you could throw in is forcing Rafa to play with slightly less advanced equipment from the Sampras era....would that make a difference?
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
It would make a MASSIVE difference, IMO. Can you imagine Nadal trying to hit his lasso reverse forehand with Sampras' PS 6.0 85 and gut strings? They would have to keep opening new cans of balls because Nadal would shank half of them out of the stadium. :lol: LOL
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Nah....if Federer played in the 90's he would just serve and volley a lot more on the faster surfaces and still win. He proved that he's a better serve and volleyer than Sampras in 2001.
Oh, and Sampras was not "well past" his prime in 2001. He just won the last 4 Wimbledons in a row (1997-2000) and won the US Open over a year later and was in the final for 3 consecutive years (2000-2002)
Federer is not a better S&V than Sampras, if so why doesn't Federer S&V all the time then? Because he hasn't mastered it and has suspect volleys. Sampras served and volleyed his way to 7 Wimbledons, he is clearly and better serve and volleyer than Federer.
Sampras was was clearly past his prime. He didn't win a title that year and went 36-16 and ended the year #13 in the world.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Federer doesn't S&V all the time because he doesn't need to since his baseline game is just as good. He can do it all. Sampras had no choice but to serve and volley to win Wimbledon. He couldn't win Wimbledon from the baseline like Federer has 6 times. That doesn't mean he's a better serve and volleyer.
Nobody makes it to 3 consecutive US Open finals when they are past their prime.
BevelDevil
Hall of Fame
If Fed could win just as often by S&V, shouldn't he just do it all the time to save him time and energy?
BTW, you're implying Fed is a better serve and volleyer in the sense that he can do it just as well as Sampras even though he has nowhere near the same amount of experience doing it.
He was just so good that sub-prime is still good enough to reach the finals.
federerGOAT
Rookie
Fed's S&V are a class above Sampras. However, Fed's baseline game is better than his S&V. It makes sense that he would use whatever he was better at.
This means that Fed is a class above Sampras in every department.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Because Federer is stubborn and he wants to prove he's better than his opponents by beating them at their own game. I suspect as he gets older he may serve and volley more, just like Sampras did when he got older, to save more energy.
I'm saying Federer was just as good of a serve and volleyer WHEN he used to do it. He doesn't do it much any more.
Well, then Sampras had no excuse for losing to Federer in the 4th round, did he?
BevelDevil
Hall of Fame
Well, then Sampras had no excuse for losing to Federer in the 4th round, did he?
Why does he need an excuse? If Fed lost, would he need an excuse?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Because Cesc made the excuse that the only reason Sampras lost was because he was past his prime. Read above.
byealmeens
Semi-Pro
I'd like to ask a silly question, because I think I'm missing something. Even if somehow serve-and-volley was effective, how would Sampras break Nadal? I don't understand how this ONE tactic makes such a difference on return games? Or is the theory that Sampras would win in tiebreaks? I think modern players like Murray and Federer are far better returners than Sampras ever was so I don't think Pete would somehow be more effective. And certainly not because he was serving and volleying on his own serve as I don't see how this provides any added intimidation or confusion. And since you admit he can't win from the backcourt I don't see how this is so straight forward.
Let me also approach this a different way. Why is big serve/big forehand that much different in effectiveness against Nadal? If you can serve big enough, you should be able to hold serve easily, just as easily as a serve and volleyer. But this doesn't occur ... Why? Certainly not because you didn't follow the serve to the net. I doesn't work because Nadal continues to hold and gradually wears you down. Even in the games you win, you work very hard, and eventually he hits a few good returns and a few ridiculous passing shots, and there is the break. I agree that serve and volley would be effective against Nadal in terms of percentage of points won, but Rafa doesn't need to win EVERY serve and volley point to beat you. He merely needs to hold serve, and take advantage of a few opportunities on yours ... and noone does that better than him.
Also, I believe the OP is referring to a match that would take place on modern (slower) grass courts, not those from Sampras' era. I would also assume the match would take place with Nadal using his current equipment ...
BevelDevil
Hall of Fame
He was past it, while Federer was before it.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
You don't get to three consecutive US Opens when you're past your prime, and win one a year after you're "past your prime".
Yes, Federer was indeed before his prime. That's why he didn't get to his first final of a Slam until two years later.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Because Sampras would come into the net behind his returns as well as his serves, something that Murray and Federer rarely do.
Oh, and there's a huge difference between coming in behind the serve and coming in behind a groundstroke. Sampras can hit serves at over 130mph and with angle. He can't get anywhere near that with his forehand. He'll get much easier shots to volley off of his serve than off of his forehand. If he doesn't take advantage of his serve by coming in behind it, he'll allow Nadal to get into a groove and likely often get behind in the point quite quickly. The longer the point lasts, the more it favors Nadal.
BevelDevil
Hall of Fame
Disagree. What were Pete's best 4 years? 2001 and 2002 are probably among them. In fact, where would you rank 2001 and 2002 for Pete in terms of his overall playing ability?
Notice, I'm not saying best events. I'm saying best years. It's always possible for a past-prime athlete to put up good performances in a few selected events or matches (as well as to get lucky).
"Peaking" at the right time, for a long enough duration, just becomes more difficult as one ages.
Finally, aging athletes find ways to adjust and play "good enough". But "good enough" is not "prime."
And don't forget, when Pete got into a final, in his prime he was usually winning.
Fed has been past his prime for at least 2 years, yet he's still winning majors. Same thing.
If you want to argue that Fed is better than Sampras on grass, a better argument is to say sub-prime Sampras lost to an even more sub-prime Fed.
byealmeens
Semi-Pro
This is where I have to disagree. Chipping and charging is a significantly more difficult tactic to pull-off against Rafa then serving and volleying. Slice returns are not something Nadal struggles with, and would pass with ease on modern grass. It is also very difficult to follow any chip return to net against Rafa simply due to court positioning. Most serves are hit with lefty slice and draw you outside the court or into an awkward position where hitting an effective "attacking" slice is difficult. As a result, I think you would be hard pressed to find stats to back up the theory that chipping and charging is even remotely effective against him on any surface. This is a tactic I've seen players try, and they are rarely effective at all, and certainly not enough to break. Nadal struggles on serve against guys that can attack with big swings and hard-hit returns - like Blake & Del Potro - not against guys who chip. And I don't think Sampras would be able to attack, especially considering almost every serve would be to his weaker side.
And though I agree that Pete had a great serve (the best ever in my opinion), I still think the Nadal match-up is more about return than it is serve. Rafa is not a great returner, but he is a good returner, and possibly the most versatile and mentally tough player on tour. Many guys can hold serve against him - whether they come in or not - but very few can break him. And regardless of the player, in this day and age of slower courts you have no choice but to play Rafa from the baseline ... especially on return games. He uses his serve to get you on defense and forces you into long tough points. Eventually, even a server like Pete cannot help but have a poor game, or a few poor points on his own serve ... especially if he's a little tired from the previous game. And that, of course, is all it takes for Rafa to gain the advantage.
Al Czervik
Hall of Fame
I hate both monkeys, but Pete at around the time of '99 Wimby beats anyone (maybe anywhere) ever. What I'm saying is, if Pete is playing at that level, even on this year's grass, he wins. Rafa wouldn't see a serve, Pete would be cutting off his benders for volley winners.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
pistol pete in straights.
ksbh
Banned
markwillplay
Hall of Fame
please!!!!!!!! the German guy almost beat Nadal this year by serving and volleying some and approaching the net behind decent approaches and he is not half the player that Sampras was in his prime. Sampras would suffocate Nadal. For that mater, my guess is that a prime Edberge would do the same. Their games just smother you.....completely take your time away.
This discussion about backhands is a joke....how many backhands do you really think that Sampras or Edberg would hit off the ground against Nadal at Wimbledon???? Sorry, only backhands you would see would be returns and volleys.
The german (pelzner???) showed that Nadal can be rushed and has difficulty with good low slices when used as approach shots.
By the way, I really like that guy's game. He was fun to watch.
This discussion about backhands is a joke....how many backhands do you really think that Sampras or Edberg would hit off the ground against Nadal at Wimbledon???? Sorry, only backhands you would see would be returns and volleys.
The german (pelzner???) showed that Nadal can be rushed and has difficulty with good low slices when used as approach shots.
By the way, I really like that guy's game. He was fun to watch.
Yes, the main question is not whether Sampras would hold serve well (he certainly would most of the time), but how would he go about breaking Nadal. In the current game, Nadal´s holding percentage (90) is only surpassed by Roddick (92) and Karlovic (91). These numbers are similar to the one´s Sampras had in his day. So Nadal is also very, very hard to break. On the other hand, he breaks his opponents more often than anybody else, which is not something Sampras did.
I would still give the edge to Sampras on any kind of grass, but not a big edge, something like 6 matches out of 10. Lots of tiebreaks.
byealmeens
Semi-Pro
Exactly my point. No one seems to give credit to Nadal's ability to hold serve. Serve and volley may help you on your own serve games but breaking Nadal is an entirely different problem. That being said, I would probably give the edge to Nadal (over Sampras on modern grass) only because I feel the standard in return of serve is so much higher these days. Nadal is a significantly better returner than most of the players of Sampras's era in my opinion, and he is clearly not the best returner in this era. I think the game has improved in this area tremendously, which is why serve and volley has all but disappeared. I also feel Nadal plays defense like no one I've ever seen, and certainly like no one Sampras ever faced. Putting balls away is not as straight forward when anyone plays him.
ksbh
Banned
We are talking about Pete Sampras here. The player with the best forehand, greatest serve and the best volley of all time. He can be aggressive on his backhand as well.
Federer is nothing compared to Sampras on grass and people overrate Nadal because he is good enough to beat the current players. All you have to do is play to the Federer backhand and that clown will shank it. Federer is pretty bad at the net as well.
Sampras is the greatest grass court player ever and Nadal will have to play the match of his life to beat him. Of course even Sampras will have to play great tennis to beat Nadal, but he is MUCH better than today's players so Nadal won't have it that easy.
Federer is nothing compared to Sampras on grass and people overrate Nadal because he is good enough to beat the current players. All you have to do is play to the Federer backhand and that clown will shank it. Federer is pretty bad at the net as well.
Sampras is the greatest grass court player ever and Nadal will have to play the match of his life to beat him. Of course even Sampras will have to play great tennis to beat Nadal, but he is MUCH better than today's players so Nadal won't have it that easy.
And one more thing that we should remember - Sampras was mentally the strongest player of his era. So Nadal will have competition in that aspect as well.
Sampras is just in a different league to today's grass court players so lets take that into consideration before discussing this match up.
Sampras is just in a different league to today's grass court players so lets take that into consideration before discussing this match up.
And Federer won't even win one Wimbledon during Sampras's prime. That guy was that good, he was virtually unplayable.
All you have to do his go to the Federer backhand and he doesn't have any clue what to do with it.
davey25
Banned
Yes that is why with his speed and baseline decline in decline the last couple years he still is scared to attack even though he has to in order to beat the increasing # of guy who have been outplaying him from the baseline. Why be afraid with that amazing serve-volley game of his. You are a joke.
abmk
Bionic Poster
mental midget
Hall of Fame
this sounds likely. i'd add that nadal's ridiculously high-bouncing fh would cause problems for pete's fh as well, given his relatively flat swing path.
pete's groundstrokes were much better-suited to a lower ball bounce (old wimby, indoor, hard courts.) this was his biggest problem at the FO, and it just got worse as the topspin era really kicked into high gear. his groundstrokes were fantastic, but his mechanics favored a ball below the shoulders.
Slow grass comes to mind?
larlarbd
Banned
Sampras wins. Nadal is vulnerable to serve and volley. Almost every time Murray served and volleyed today, he won the point. I don't understand why he didn't do it on every serve, especially considering Nadal was killing him from the backcourt. You should keep doing something that's working until it stops working.
I found it particularly funny when Ted Robinson asked McEnroe on a particular point if Murray should try serving and volleying. Um....you're asking John....freaking...McEnroe....if someone should serve and volley on a particular point? Ha ha ha ha LOL. He would tell Murray to serve and volley on EVERY point! And so would I.
True ... same thing with Federer , Sampras was so good at the net because he could setup the point so effectively with his deceptive serve - Fed has almost same qualities with his serve - he can serve big , find angles on crucial points - since Rafa is killing him on his serve ( every Fed service game against Rafa is like 15-30 , 30-30 - he needs free points to put Nadal under pressure - c'mon what you gotta lose Rog ? ) . Murray atleast showed some game-plan ...
The-Champ
Legend
Krajicek straight setted him at wimbledon. Nadal and Federer are both better returner than krajicek.
RoddickAce
Hall of Fame
Well, we'd have to use Sampras fan logic here.
Sampras didn't have to beat an eventual 6-time Wimbledon champ, therefore, Nadal's 2 Wimbledons > Sampras's 7 Wimbledons.
Ok, seriously, I would give Sampras the edge here, but Nadal's passing ability and speed would be tough for Pete, especially on today's grass where the bounce is slightly higher (slice backhand approaches are less effective, and volleys may sit up slightly more).
Sampras didn't have to beat an eventual 6-time Wimbledon champ, therefore, Nadal's 2 Wimbledons > Sampras's 7 Wimbledons.
Ok, seriously, I would give Sampras the edge here, but Nadal's passing ability and speed would be tough for Pete, especially on today's grass where the bounce is slightly higher (slice backhand approaches are less effective, and volleys may sit up slightly more).
Well, we'd have to use Sampras fan logic here.
Sampras didn't have to beat an eventual 6-time Wimbledon champ, therefore, Nadal's 2 Wimbledons > Sampras's 7 Wimbledons.
Ok, seriously, I would give Sampras the edge here, but Nadal's passing ability and speed would be tough for Pete, especially on today's grass where the bounce is slightly higher (slice backhand approaches are less effective, and volleys may sit up slightly more).
Haha. Good post!
petzschner was doing it a bit and was having good success. Granted Nadal wasn't playing well, but it was really surprising me that kind of tactics petzschner was deploying (and succeeding with) against Nadal, they were the exact opposite of what I thought would be successful. I guess it shows how useless hypothesising about matchups can be.
federerGOAT
Rookie
Nadal will serve a bagel to Sampras. Sampras's overrated serves and net play will be useless in this strong era.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I agree with the majority of the posts. Sampras would win, and it wouldn't be pretty for Nadal.
Sampras is the greatest server of all time, I don't think that can even be debated. On grass, he is like Nadal on clay. It's his surface, and he plays it on his terms. Despite the grass being slower and higher bouncing than ever before, the surface still rewards attacking play.
Sampras would not play Nadal, the way Federer does. Not at all. He would be coming in off first serves, second serves, short balls. Anything to prevent Nadal from getting into a rythmn from the back of the court. His cat like ability at taking over the net and expectional volleying skills, not mention his sick overhead smash would frustrate Nadal.
Yes, Rafa is difficult to break, but he is not Pete when it comes to clutch serving. Sampras would have more chances to get into Rafa's games, than the other way round.
Prime Sampras beats Prime Nadal, and even Prime Federer IMO. I've seen all three play live at Wimbledon and Sampras was just deadly. Greatest Grass Court player ever for me.
Sampras is the greatest server of all time, I don't think that can even be debated. On grass, he is like Nadal on clay. It's his surface, and he plays it on his terms. Despite the grass being slower and higher bouncing than ever before, the surface still rewards attacking play.
Sampras would not play Nadal, the way Federer does. Not at all. He would be coming in off first serves, second serves, short balls. Anything to prevent Nadal from getting into a rythmn from the back of the court. His cat like ability at taking over the net and expectional volleying skills, not mention his sick overhead smash would frustrate Nadal.
Yes, Rafa is difficult to break, but he is not Pete when it comes to clutch serving. Sampras would have more chances to get into Rafa's games, than the other way round.
Prime Sampras beats Prime Nadal, and even Prime Federer IMO. I've seen all three play live at Wimbledon and Sampras was just deadly. Greatest Grass Court player ever for me.
byealmeens
Semi-Pro
Petzschner broke Nadal once in 5 sets, and this on a day when Nadal was clearly not at his best. I personally think he was more effective when he attacked and came in later in the rallies when Nadal didn't expect it.
The-Champ
Legend
Nonesense. You have to be delusional to think anyone could bagel Pete when his serve was on.
This is a very interesting match-up. They are both greats, and surely they will both find ways to break the other's serve.
jack_kramer
Banned
90's Pete would get passed all day long by Nadal with modern strings.
timeisonmyside
Semi-Pro
Seems like everyone is focusing on Sampras' S&V game against Nadal. But that's missing 50% of the game. Why think that Sampras even has a chance on Nadal's serve? Even assuming Sampras could hold easily, we're at least talking about a tiebreak in every set.
timeisonmyside
Semi-Pro
Lot of pressure on the Sampras serve and first volley. If he doesn't win the point outright on those two shots, he's in trouble.
tennisdad65
Hall of Fame
Nadal had to go 5 sets twice this year against guys ranked past 10-20? How is this even a question
There were years when Pete was unbreakable at wimby. Nadal is by no means a great serve returner. Also Pete would attack Nadal's serve, unlike Fed who seems to just try to get it back.
Basically, the serve and service return would decide it quickly.
Prime Pete in 3 straight.
There were years when Pete was unbreakable at wimby. Nadal is by no means a great serve returner. Also Pete would attack Nadal's serve, unlike Fed who seems to just try to get it back.
Basically, the serve and service return would decide it quickly.
Prime Pete in 3 straight.
Similar threads
- Poll
