Fifth set Wimbledon 2008, replace Federer with Sampras in those very same conditions, what happens?

Who wins the fifth set?


  • Total voters
    46

D.Nalby12

Legend
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.
How could he break Nadal' serve through? Federer found it very tough it very tough to break on that day (1/13 on BPs.)
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Sampras is below the Big 3 on the New Grass.

He can max take 1 set off Federer and maybe 2 sets off Novak.
Vs Nadal he has the most chances of a win but even there can he take 3 sets for sure? Doubtful....it is a 50-50 case
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
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 ?
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.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
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.
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.

Of course that's assuming that juxtaposing these different scenarios even makes sense, but you could say that about every other hypothetical like this.

How could he break Nadal' serve through? Federer found it very tough it very tough to break on that day (1/13 on BPs.)
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.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
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.
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, lol
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
Fed's competition was significantly better in the W finals. The comparision isn't an apples to apples one.
There is no evidence SnV does really bring down the %s, especially if you SnV quite a bit on 2nd serve which can come to bite you back big time.
Nadal's prime on grass was really 06-11. Throw in 18 as a prime level year if you want. Maybe add in 12 as it was first year of upset. 13-15 most certainly not part of his grass court prime.

Federer vs Sampras at Wimbledon in QF-F:

Having a look at their best 5 year periods :

Sampras (93-97) :

Service games : 93.2%
Return games : 22.2%
Total games : 58%

Federer (03-07)

Service games : 92.5%
Return games : 26.1%
Total games : 59.5%

that's not a small difference.

If we want to include 08 for fed as well to include the Nadal loss :

Sampras (93-98) :

Service games : 93.2%
Return games : 21.2%
Total games : 57.4%

Federer (03-08)

Service games : 92.7%
Return games : 23.4%
Total games : 58.3%

Sampras (93-99)
Service games : 93.2%
Return games : 20.7%
Total games : 57.2%

Federer (03-09)
Service games : 93.5%
Return games : 20.7%
Total games : 57.2%

(Facing a slew of monster service performances in 09 brought down Federer's return game, while pushing up his service games compared to 2003-07 - see below)
They are dead even over here in a 7 year period.

Basically, in their best 5 year stretch federer is ahead, but over a longer prime period of 7 years (93-99 and 2003-09) , they are dead even at Wimbledon in their last 3 rounds.

Sampras QF-F in TBs at Wimbledon :

from 1993-1999 :

8/13 won

Federer - QF-F in TBs:
from 2003-2009 :

at Wimbledon:
17/18 won
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
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.
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 ?

The premise of the argument is assuming Pete would be at his peak in 06 having faced Nadal (possibly beating him) and then facing Nadal again in 07 and 08, he has the same backhand which would be a problem vs Nadal's forehand and his serve, do you expect Nadal to not trouble him ?

Or do you expect Nadal to have no mental edge over Pete like he had over Federer by facing him so many times, wouldn't Nadal's extra speed on court make a difference ??? Or you expect Pete to ace Nadal all day in those conditions?

Pete to win in straights vs Nadal or in 4 or in 5 ? I am curious to know..... Please elaborate on how the match would turn out in thise scenario assuming they are facing at Centre court for the 3rd straight time and also with a 5 years age difference as well. :-D
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
I 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 (like he would actually beat Nadal on clay), 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.
 

blablavla

Legend
I 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.
I would challenge that "Sampras fans" part
Quite some of these "Sampras fans" are in fact Fed haters that try to disguise

and obviously in their hate, they will use any strawman
like Krajicek is a solid competitor, while Roddick and Hewitt are weak era
like Rios, Korda and Pioline are a solid competitors, while Ljubicic, Davydenko and Nalbandian are weak era
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
blah blah blah blah

come back when that Krajicek tops at least Roddick or Hewitt results.
He won Wimbledon and defeated peak Sampras there.

So 1 more title and top win than Roddick
1 more top win than Hewitt

He is better than both at his peak.
 

blablavla

Legend
You actually had a good point (Krajicek at 1996 Wimby was an insane level) but then you ruined it with this comment:
which insane level?
let's look at Pete results around that defeat in 1996

World Cup Dusseldorf
Sampras lost to Ulirach, ranked #38
then Sampras lost to Kafelnikov

RG
Sampras lost to Kafelnikov

Wimbledon
Sampras lost to Krajicek, after struggling with Reneberg in R1 and Kucera in R3, and keep in mind that Kucera was ranked #107 at the time

Cincinnati
Sampras lost to Enqvist


and he also didn't participate at the Olympic Games in Atlanta.

So it's quite safe to conclude that Sampras had a very poor period at the Wimbledon 1996, so let's not over glorify that Krajicek win.
Otherwise, Taro Daniel, Querrey, Istomin and Chung are titans of HC/grass tennis.
 

blablavla

Legend
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 ?
are you expecting a reasonable discussion with a Fed hater who tries to disguise as a Nole fan?
lol
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
What would Pete Sampras be doing here against these forehands of Nadal ?

Would his backhand become a Djokovic all of a sudden or would be get stomped ? ??

I think Nadal would make Pete cry.





 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Once?

Fed got like those 11-12 of those freebies before big 2 matured :whistle:
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 !!!
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
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 !!!
You need a hug!
A NoleFam hug!
:love::love:
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
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 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 o_O
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
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 matured o_O
Federer's peak ended at AO 2010
Peak Murray has never even beaten Old fed convincingly That 2013 AO win in 5 long sets in Federer's bad year is the only win he has.
Peak Stan has been ineffective vs Old fed so again just because Novak struggled vs Peak Stan doesn't mean Stan is an ATG
Peak Nadal was before 2010, his knee injury, plus Nadal is claydal, so the argument stands, no rivals of the same calibre in the same age group, the guy of the same caliber (Old Fed) is 6 years older and in his 30s during Novak's peak.

Only rival who is formidable for Djokovic is the one on clay (Nadal) and that rival pwns him, even 30 yr old Fed beat Novak on clay in Novak's best year, haha....
 

TennisFan3

G.O.A.T.
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.
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.
 

blablavla

Legend
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.
right, he would have lost in straight 3 sets, like a boss.
 
Top