can you remind me in which year he lost to Krajicek?Any of 1993-2000 Sampras.
was it pre-1993? or after 2000?
can you remind me in which year he lost to Krajicek?Any of 1993-2000 Sampras.
Based on level (without straying into hypothetical match play which depends on the surface and conditions), I'd rate 2008 Nadal a little bit higher than 1996 and 1998 PETE and a little below 1993 and 2000. The other versions (1994, 1995, 1997, 1999) are well beyond his ability, I'd think.Any of 1993-2000 Sampras.
How could he break Nadal' serve through? Federer found it very tough it very tough to break on that day (1/13 on BPs.)Peak Pete beats any version ever created of Nadal on grass. And peak Pete beats 2008 Federer at Wimbledon as well. And I say this as someone who detested Sampras and was a fanatical Agassi fan.
Sampras and Nadal walk out to play a fifth set at 2008 Wimbledon? Pete takes the set 6-4 and the match as well.
No diff Biff.maybe PilotPete but not PistolPete
Spoken by someone who never saw Pete play. Because if you had, none of these questions would even need to be asked. And I say this as someone who positively detested Pete Sampras and am a huge Fed fan. Notice I said PEAK Sampras. We're not talking about the 2001 version of Pete who played Roger at Wimbledon.How can Pete beat Federer on Grass ? His serve troubling Federer ? Federer is faster, has more stamina, doesn't mind big servers and also is a much better baseliner, so how does Sampras go past Federer when Federer doesn't have any weakness vs Pete's strengths ?
This is fair, and while I did acknowledge that '93 or '00 Pete vs. '08 Rafa would be close I still think Pistol's extra motivation (going for his 1st title and for history with his parents in attendance for the first time, respectively) would ultimately carry the day.Based on level (without straying into hypothetical match play which depends on the surface and conditions), I'd rate 2008 Nadal a little bit higher than 1996 and 1998 PETE and a little below 1993 and 2000. The other versions (1994, 1995, 1997, 1999) are well beyond his ability, I'd think.
FYI Pistol converted 24 or 31.6% of his 76 BPs in his 7 Wimby finals while Fed connected on 30 or 42.3% of his 71 BPs in his 8 Ws, or 25 or 41.0% out of 61 excluding the '17 final vs. an injured Cilic. So not only did Pete manage to generate more BPs in fewer finals - you know, kinda the opposite of what you Fed/Big 3 groupies assume when you bemoan your idol as the biggest waster ever of lost chances - he even managed to win a higher % of return games overall despite converting a lower % of BPs and facing nonstop S&V except from Agassi which almost certainly brought down his %s further.How could he break Nadal' serve through? Federer found it very tough it very tough to break on that day (1/13 on BPs.)
Put the salt shaker down and get some sweet cream insteadcan you remind me in which year he lost to Krajicek?
was it pre-1993? or after 2000?
What was so special about Peak Sampras ? Post videos to explain if you think I have not seen his matches of the 90s. Was Peak Sampras serving at 200 MPH ? The 2001 version was serving like Peak Sampras and yet Baby Federer had no trouble vs him. Even Goran stretched Sampras to 5 sets in 98, clay courters like Courier took a set off Sampras in the final, his game is totally outdated and the big 3 would pass him all day, plus he is slow with less stamina too ...... Don't expect him to serve and come to the next whole day, he will see the ball zoom past him if he does that, lolSpoken by someone who never saw Pete play. Because if you had, none of these questions would even need to be asked. And I say this as someone who positively detested Pete Sampras and am a huge Fed fan. Notice I said PEAK Sampras. We're not talking about the 2001 version of Pete who played Roger at Wimbledon.
1/13 on BPs in that Wim 08 final from fed, including missing on 2nd serve returns. Yeah, I think that's significant. A peak Sampras would probably convert a couple more. That's how he would win.FYI Pistol converted 24 or 31.6% of his 76 BPs in his 7 Wimby finals while Fed connected on 30 or 42.3% of his 71 BPs in his 8 Ws, or 25 or 41.0% out of 61 excluding the '17 final vs. an injured Cilic. So not only did Pete manage to generate more BPs in fewer finals - you know, kinda the opposite of what you Fed/Big 3 groupies assume when you bemoan your idol as the biggest waster ever of lost chances - he even managed to win a higher % of return games overall despite converting a lower % of BPs and facing nonstop S&V except from Agassi which almost certainly brought down his %s further.
You kiddies have no clue just how dangerous Sampras was on serve and return in the biggest matches. I mean backing Fed or even Novak vs. Pistol on the Centre Court is one thing, but a two-timer who in his prime couldn't even get past the likes of Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios and Muller (I'll be generous and leave out Brown as '15 was a bad year for Rafa) against quite possibly the clutchest champ/greatest server in Wimbledon history? Just be thankful I'm still here to educate you know-nothing lemmings.
That same Krajicrek would beat many versions of big 3 so he’s no mug.can you remind me in which year he lost to Krajicek?
was it pre-1993? or after 2000?
So based on Pete's numbers on the old grass (which are definitely impressive) you back him to take down Nadal of 08 despite knowing how the new grass was behaving in 08 with such a high bounce that looked tailormade for Nadal ?You kiddies have no clue just how dangerous Sampras was on serve and return in the biggest matches. I mean backing Fed or even Novak vs. Pistol on the Centre Court is one thing, but a two-timer who in his prime couldn't even get past the likes of Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios and Muller (I'll be generous and leave out Brown as '15 was a bad year for Rafa) against quite possibly the clutchest champ/greatest server in Wimbledon history? Just be thankful I'm still here to educate you know-nothing lemmings.
I would challenge that "Sampras fans" partI guess what the Sampras fans are saying is that If Pete was in the place of Federer born in 81 then after facing a young Nadal so many times he would have no mental scars over those Roland Garros defeats or maybe he would not face him on clay so many times or maybe Pete would do something different that Fed didn't do, his backhand would not be exploited by Nadal who was faster.
Well, this is a big assumption, I am curious to know how this would manifest.
He won Wimbledon and defeated peak Sampras there.blah blah blah blah
come back when that Krajicek tops at least Roddick or Hewitt results.
Like when Djoker faces Med or Zverev in a slam.Lol dude Roddick and Hewitt were meme competition for Fed. Everytime he faced them it was a guaranteed win.
which insane level?You actually had a good point (Krajicek at 1996 Wimby was an insane level) but then you ruined it with this comment:
are you expecting a reasonable discussion with a Fed hater who tries to disguise as a Nole fan?What is the guarantee that Krajicek/Goran wouldn't be the same vs Federer ??
Goran lost to Federer twice and has never won a set even at a period when Fed was a baby, nd he is Pete's greatest rival on Grass, do you expect him to not be another Roddick or Hewitt vs Roger ?
Once?Like when Djoker faces Med or Zverev in a slam.
Throughout Nole's life he has been a vulture.Once?
Fed got like those 11-12 of those freebies before big 2 matured![]()
You need a hug!Throughout Nole's life he has been a vulture.
08 AO - courtesy mono
2011 onwards 29-30+ Fed is his best rival on grass and HCs, Nadal post knee surgery slowing down, 2015 onwards no youngsters.
Novak's entire career can be attributed to freebies... he never had a formidable champ of his same gen face him on his fav courts and has mugs below his gen, how easy !!!
If Fed had 12 freebies then even Nole had 18 freebiesYou need a hug!
A NoleFam hug!
![]()
If prime/peak Federer, peak Nadal, peak Murray, peak Wawrinka is not formidable...how would you describe Roddick, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Kiefer, Bjorkman, Gonzo etc? Fed had 12 freebie slams against these guys before Nadal then Djokovic fully maturedThroughout Nole's life he has been a vulture.
08 AO - courtesy mono
2011 onwards 29-30+ Fed is his best rival on grass and HCs, Nadal post knee surgery slowing down, 2015 onwards no youngsters.
Novak's entire career can be attributed to freebies... he never had a formidable champ of his same gen face him on his fav courts and has mugs below his gen, how easy !!!
Federer's peak ended at AO 2010If prime/peak Federer, peak Nadal, peak Murray, peak Wawrinka is not formidable...how would you describe Roddick, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Kiefer, Bjorkman, Gonzo etc? Fed had 12 freebie slams against these guys before Nadal then Djokovic fully matured![]()
Nothing is forever.lmao did PETEhammer delete his account AGAIN?
Pistol Pete was an alpha male. He would NEVER lose the 5th set at a Wimbledon final vs anyone. At this level it's more mental than anything else.The start of the match aside, when they were playing in the fifth set, I felt both were playing more freely, Federer for the first time in a long time felt like he believed, Nadal who was fighting his own demons recomposed himself and started to believe also. Some fantastic play in the fifth set, both hitting the ball well, the darkness that evening and Nadal's more 'safer' game was tipping the balance, as his safety margin for clearing the net was much better in those conditions than Federer.
At the end of the day, Nadal rightfully won the match. Now IMO, choking from both aside, Federer in the first two sets, Nadal in the next two, the fifth was a fight of equals. Now, if Sampras was in that situation with Nadal, playing the fifth set in the diminishing light, could he have done what Federer couldn't do that day? Keep in mind, slower grass conditions, and Pete also having a lower net clearance like Federer, however a better net game, better second serve, how would that outcome have played out.
Was Rafa taking it that day, or would the Pistol bring out the heavy guns.
Trolls don't survive long.lmao did PETEhammer delete his account AGAIN?
right, he would have lost in straight 3 sets, like a boss.Pistol Pete was an alpha male. He would NEVER lose the 5th set at a Wimbledon final vs anyone. At this level it's more mental than anything else.
As much as I admire Nadal, the outcome would never be in doubt vs Pete.
Pistol Pete would prevail in the 5th, and it wouldn't go all the way till 9-7.