Prabhanjan
Professional
In the frequent and beaten to death Fed Vs Sampras, it has been pointed out many times that Sampras did not allow his rival to win 2-digit slams. Now there are a few things to ponder upon. First, there is nobody like Nadal in the entire open era, leave alone Sampras era. He has overcome most obstacles thrown at him. Among them, it began with the belief that he won't win a slam beyond clay which he busted at Wimbledon 08. Then, the claim that he won't be winning hard court slams which he demystified at AO09 which is even more remarkable given his dismantling by Tsonga the previous year. The naysayers then happily said no fast USO for him which he did on an even bigger way of the FO-Wimby-USO trio, making him the first ever to win 3 consecutive surface grand slam. Of course, he has since then added one more USO too. Even as all this is read, his FO is not even discussed.
We have two potential ways at looking at Sampras stopping Nadal from winning 2 digit slams: Nadal in 90's and Sampras in 2000's. We first look at the former scenario.
Nadal in 90's
Now, it may be quite true to say that Nadal would not have thrived in the 90's. However, Sampras did leak more than 9 FO's, 2 Wimbledons, 1 AO, and 2 USO's too in the period 1993-2002. To keep things simple, we will again allow Nadal to start at 95 only. If Nadal would have started his FO run at 95, it is not a far stretch to say that he would have got at least 7 FOs. The next thing to look would be the AO considering its slowness more comparable with a FO winner than any other slam. Nadal though does not stop Sampras from both of his AO runs at 94 and 97. However, I don't see Kafelnikov stopping Nadal at 99 AO. This takes his count to 8 slams. Now, regarding the USO, its slightly complex. I firmly believe that Safin won't be stopped by Nadal, though I expect Nadal to triumph at USO 2001 and 2003 as I don't see Hewitt and Roddick stopping Nadal. So what a triumph was for Nadal in 2000's is a loss in the 90's and vice versa, and this will put him at the 2-digit slam count.
Wimbledon needs to be discussed in more details, and I may be criticized a lot here, though I will try to be rational. So does he get the two in the 90's? First of all, I don't see a fierce competitor as Nadal at Wimbledon in the 90's with all due respect to Goran, Rafter, Agassi, et. al. Sampras never had a competitor who was that consistent and none showed up at 5 consecutive finals of there appearance. This is a matter for another day though. Can Nadal stop Krajicek? Now, the next best chance of 2000 though. It might just happen after his string of facing low-ranked opponents, Nadal may be too tough to handle, or may be not. If not for this year, Nadal's 2001 run may be good too. Overall, I think of 96,00,01, Nadal would be winning at least one Wimbledon. To sum up the entire thing, I firmly believe that Nadal would be winning at least 11 slams during 1995-2003. That is, Pete can't stop Nadal from entering the two-digit slam club.
A small deviation though. I often wondered what may have happened if Agassi would have won the 90 and 91 FO finals? Add to the imagination, please remember this is fiction series, that he had started playing AO in 1990 itself. It is not too difficult to then see that Agassi would have crossed 2-digit slam mark himself. In short, I don't think one has to necessarily take slams away from Pete to create another 2-digit slam winner. Similarly, if either of the trio Connors-Mac-Lendl would not be there, may be we would be having another 2-digit slam winner without taking away anything from Borg
Sampras in 2000's
For me at least it is not at all difficult to see how Nadal would be more or less having his 14 slams. FO is no contest at all and he keeps all of his 9. No matter what the naysayers say, Fed+Nole is way bigger competition than all of the 90's put together. Nothing, and I mean nothing, counts bigger than this. Again, as in the 90's, Nadal keeps his 09 AO without too much of an argument.
The USO argument actually becomes simpler in this era. Nadal firmly keeps the 2010 even if he faces Pete instead of Nole. Actually, Nole again has a better chance of taking Sampras in the semis (remember its semi final and not finals). Sampras may actually win 2011 USO ala Nole if he were to face Nadal in the final. And even if Sampras would be around 2013, he is not stopping the champion.
The most difficult case still remains Wimbledon and whether Nadal can get two or not? Here, my problem is certainly not Krajicek. It is the continuous assault of Nadal in the finals on the slow courts of 2nd Sunday. Sampras never faced anybody this consistently on the 2nd Sunday, and though he faced Goran 4 times (losing first and winning last 3), it would be similar to facing Roddick. On the one hand, it appears to me that Sampras is not losing 2008 finals, and one of the reasons would be that he won't be mauled badly at the FO 3 weeks ago. I would believe that Sampras would loose either in 07, 09, or 10 and thereby Nadal gets his Wimbledon.
To sum up the story, I feel it is not correct to say that Sampras stops Nadal from winning 2-digit slams. In fact, there was nobody that good in the 90's to be a second two-digit slam winner though Agassi is really close call. A 14-slam (and counting) winner will be a 14 slam winner how-so-ever one slices it. Also, please note, before pulling me up, that Sampras too more-or-less keeps his 14 slams too.
Another way to look at each of Sampras-Fed-Nadal is to look at 10-year period. In their respective 10 years dominant period, Sampras wins 13 slams 93-02, Fed has 17 slams during 03-12, and Nadal 14 (05-14). Nadals remains interesting in that he can still improve by winning 2 slams next year and get to 15 in 06-15, and so on. By this 10-year metric, Fed is most dominant which is contrary to the perception that Sampras and Nadal were more dominant.
We have two potential ways at looking at Sampras stopping Nadal from winning 2 digit slams: Nadal in 90's and Sampras in 2000's. We first look at the former scenario.
Nadal in 90's
Now, it may be quite true to say that Nadal would not have thrived in the 90's. However, Sampras did leak more than 9 FO's, 2 Wimbledons, 1 AO, and 2 USO's too in the period 1993-2002. To keep things simple, we will again allow Nadal to start at 95 only. If Nadal would have started his FO run at 95, it is not a far stretch to say that he would have got at least 7 FOs. The next thing to look would be the AO considering its slowness more comparable with a FO winner than any other slam. Nadal though does not stop Sampras from both of his AO runs at 94 and 97. However, I don't see Kafelnikov stopping Nadal at 99 AO. This takes his count to 8 slams. Now, regarding the USO, its slightly complex. I firmly believe that Safin won't be stopped by Nadal, though I expect Nadal to triumph at USO 2001 and 2003 as I don't see Hewitt and Roddick stopping Nadal. So what a triumph was for Nadal in 2000's is a loss in the 90's and vice versa, and this will put him at the 2-digit slam count.
Wimbledon needs to be discussed in more details, and I may be criticized a lot here, though I will try to be rational. So does he get the two in the 90's? First of all, I don't see a fierce competitor as Nadal at Wimbledon in the 90's with all due respect to Goran, Rafter, Agassi, et. al. Sampras never had a competitor who was that consistent and none showed up at 5 consecutive finals of there appearance. This is a matter for another day though. Can Nadal stop Krajicek? Now, the next best chance of 2000 though. It might just happen after his string of facing low-ranked opponents, Nadal may be too tough to handle, or may be not. If not for this year, Nadal's 2001 run may be good too. Overall, I think of 96,00,01, Nadal would be winning at least one Wimbledon. To sum up the entire thing, I firmly believe that Nadal would be winning at least 11 slams during 1995-2003. That is, Pete can't stop Nadal from entering the two-digit slam club.
A small deviation though. I often wondered what may have happened if Agassi would have won the 90 and 91 FO finals? Add to the imagination, please remember this is fiction series, that he had started playing AO in 1990 itself. It is not too difficult to then see that Agassi would have crossed 2-digit slam mark himself. In short, I don't think one has to necessarily take slams away from Pete to create another 2-digit slam winner. Similarly, if either of the trio Connors-Mac-Lendl would not be there, may be we would be having another 2-digit slam winner without taking away anything from Borg
Sampras in 2000's
For me at least it is not at all difficult to see how Nadal would be more or less having his 14 slams. FO is no contest at all and he keeps all of his 9. No matter what the naysayers say, Fed+Nole is way bigger competition than all of the 90's put together. Nothing, and I mean nothing, counts bigger than this. Again, as in the 90's, Nadal keeps his 09 AO without too much of an argument.
The USO argument actually becomes simpler in this era. Nadal firmly keeps the 2010 even if he faces Pete instead of Nole. Actually, Nole again has a better chance of taking Sampras in the semis (remember its semi final and not finals). Sampras may actually win 2011 USO ala Nole if he were to face Nadal in the final. And even if Sampras would be around 2013, he is not stopping the champion.
The most difficult case still remains Wimbledon and whether Nadal can get two or not? Here, my problem is certainly not Krajicek. It is the continuous assault of Nadal in the finals on the slow courts of 2nd Sunday. Sampras never faced anybody this consistently on the 2nd Sunday, and though he faced Goran 4 times (losing first and winning last 3), it would be similar to facing Roddick. On the one hand, it appears to me that Sampras is not losing 2008 finals, and one of the reasons would be that he won't be mauled badly at the FO 3 weeks ago. I would believe that Sampras would loose either in 07, 09, or 10 and thereby Nadal gets his Wimbledon.
To sum up the story, I feel it is not correct to say that Sampras stops Nadal from winning 2-digit slams. In fact, there was nobody that good in the 90's to be a second two-digit slam winner though Agassi is really close call. A 14-slam (and counting) winner will be a 14 slam winner how-so-ever one slices it. Also, please note, before pulling me up, that Sampras too more-or-less keeps his 14 slams too.
Another way to look at each of Sampras-Fed-Nadal is to look at 10-year period. In their respective 10 years dominant period, Sampras wins 13 slams 93-02, Fed has 17 slams during 03-12, and Nadal 14 (05-14). Nadals remains interesting in that he can still improve by winning 2 slams next year and get to 15 in 06-15, and so on. By this 10-year metric, Fed is most dominant which is contrary to the perception that Sampras and Nadal were more dominant.
