How many years would Sampras have been #1 if he had played in Fedal era?

[Nadalgaenger]

All of the Sampras fanboys trash Nadal for not coming close to Pete's number of weeks at number one. But how well would Sampras have done had he had to play in Federer's era?

Let's face it, there is NO way Sampras would have beaten out Federer in his prime for the top spot.

Sampras may have snatched a few Wimbledon crowns but he wouldn't have won anywhere else and Federer's record at the Masters events is far greater than Sampras'.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

This is a bit disrespectful for Sampras but the conditions are different. Sampras needs to adapt significantly and alter his game to do well in FEDAL era. Easier said than done.

Personally i dont see it. Dont have any factual evidence to back up beyond some obscure data points such as Sampras Matches against Safin,Hewitt, etc.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras was a good baseliner, even a great one at times (with the forehand doing most of the damage) but he wouldn't be nearly as consistent as required to match the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, especially in these slow conditions. His fitness/stamina would be a big question mark as well. Federer has a GOAT forehand, 5x the backhand Sampras had, also better stamina and he did just OK vs them after 2007.

I could see Sampras sharing some Wimbledons with Federer, snatching some US Opens but to put it mildly, he wouldn't get close to an AO or FO.

 

[90's Clay]

If Sampras played in today's era it would have a totally different style game. He would probably have more focus on the masters as well (since they seem to be more important today)

Thats like asking how long Nadal would be number 1 in the 90s. NEVER??

Or how dominant Federer would have been in the 90s. IF Fed played in the 90s he would not be NEARLY as consistent because he wouldn't get to live at the baseline like he did from 2004-present.

He would have to play a more high risk game which only lends itself to less consistency because you have to gamble more and can't play the "safe style" year round

Bottom line, if you wanted to be great in the 90s, then you couldn't play the safe style. You had to go for more, have a more proactive game and force the issue (unlike the modern homogenized era)

If Nadal played in the 90s he would be eaten alive.. if Fed played in the 90s he wouldn't be nearly as consistent.

But why is it always how the past greats would always do in modern times and not vice versa?

 

[tennis_pro]

If Sampras played in today's era it would have a totally different style game. He would probably have more focus on the masters as well (since they seem to be more important today)

Thats like asking how long Nadal would be number 1 in the 90s. NEVER??

Thomas Muster.

But not long, though.

 

[objectivity]

ok thought experiment here: suppose Federer and Nadal are REALLY THE 2 greatest players ever in the history of the game. And lets say Federer is THE greatest. so given that, perhaps that is the reason why Nadal does not have more weeks at #1? and that's why he hasn't won multiple AO and USO?

the point is that as many of you have already pointed out, the # GS titles, the absolute number of titles, weeks at #1 etc etc are important, but they must really be understood in context. sampras has no FO, and that is almost purely a function of his game and how it was tailored entirely to fast courts which were the most common on tour then. federer has only 1 FO because nadal was there to block him. federer has 7 wimbledons partly because an offensive baseline game is now truly viable on the grass court, it having been slowed down so much. and nadal has only 2 wimbledon because federer was just that bit better on grass. what do these facts all illustrate? statistics must be viewed in context. period.

as i have said previously, i still think the best measure of "greatest" is that of impact on the sport, and transcendence of sport into popular culture. using that mark, my personal greatest is definitely borg. i don't think there is a player who has ever melded sports and popular culture as much as him. he quite literally changed the game too, ushering in the modern game that is based on consistency, power and athleticism. agassi must be way up there too, for he had similar impact in the 90s. As do Federer, for he is the true inventor and originator of the modern day power baseline game, a fact Nadal and Djokovic (amongst others) have consistently paid tribute to.

similarly, Nadal when all is said and done, is definitely one of the greatest. take a look at all the high school and collegiate tennis players. you can see nadal's influence everywhere, from the APD to the lasso forehands. THAT is impact, that is true greatness.

as a huge sampras fan, it is extremely painful for me to say this, but sampras has not had that kind of impact on the game. nobody really wanted to "be like pete". this is partly due to his own personality, but at the same time, he was playing with a somewhat antiquated style of game that did not quite influence the field. he was in a sense, the last of the great defenders of a style that died just as he ascended into greatness. in many ways, i admired pete most because of how obstinate and unique he was in his era (something i think that is common to Nadal that close observers of tennis will agree with me). but i digress.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Sampras was a good baseliner, even a great one at times (with the forehand doing most of the damage) but he wouldn't be nearly as consistent as required to match the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, especially in these slow conditions. His fitness/stamina would be a big question mark as well.

I could see him share some Wimbledons with Federer, snatch some US Opens but to put it mildely, he wouldn't get close to an AO or FO.

It's not fair to hypothesize about 90s Sampras in modern conditions. Sampras was a product of his time, and played a game configured to his era. To make a fair comparison we would have to assume Sampras could relativize his playing style to the Federer era.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Year ending #1s - probably none even if he did get the ranking a few times within the season. The parts of the season where he made most of his points would be split amongst more players - namely Federer and Djokovic. He's also be comparatively disadvantaged by the slowing of surfaces which would reduce his chances at some of the places he dominated in the 90s.

Whoever rocked the claycourt season would be the net winner of the situation - i.e. Nadal.

 

[fed_da_man]

Sampras put all his focus on the slams and still won less than Roger. I think it's safe to say he would never have reached number 1 after the Fedal era started.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

When we are in need of an objective comparison of the relative skill sets of Roger Federer and Pete Sampras it's nice to know that we can rely on the opinion of a guy who named himself "fed da man."

 

[coloskier]

I'm a Sampras fan, but Pete would never have been #1 in this era, and the only reason is because they slowed down the courts so much it ended his style of game. However, if Fed, Nadal, Djoker, and Murray were playing in the 90's with 90's court speed, 90's balls, 90's rackets, and 90's string technology, none of these 4 would ever be #1, except for a slight chance with Fed, because he is the only one that could at least try to play S&V.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Year ending #1s - probably none even if he did get the ranking a few times within the season. The parts of the season where he made most of his points would be split amongst more players - namely Federer and Djokovic. He's also be comparatively disadvantaged by the slowing of surfaces which would reduce his chances at some of the places he dominated in the 90s.

Whoever rocked the claycourt season would be the net winner of the situation - i.e. Nadal.

Interesting viewpoint...So Nadal would be the guy coming out on top if you threw Sampras in the mix in the current era. I think that makes sense, because Djokovic, Federer, and Sampras would share the HC titles, Federer and Sampras the W, and Nadal would remain unchallenged on clay.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

If Sampras played in today's era it would have a totally different style game. He would probably have more focus on the masters as well (since they seem to be more important today)

Thats like asking how long Nadal would be number 1 in the 90s. NEVER??

Or how dominant Federer would have been in the 90s. IF Fed played in the 90s he would not be NEARLY as consistent because he wouldn't get to live at the baseline like he did from 2004-present.

He would have to play a more high risk game which only lends itself to less consistency because you have to gamble more and can't play the "safe style" year round

Bottom line, if you wanted to be great in the 90s, then you couldn't play the safe style. You had to go for more, have a more proactive game and force the issue (unlike the modern homogenized era)

If Nadal played in the 90s he would be eaten alive.. if Fed played in the 90s he wouldn't be nearly as consistent.

But why is it always how the past greats would always do in modern times and not vice versa?

How can you assume that Fed wouldn't have been more dominant in the 90s?

Personally I feel that Fed would have won the CYGS at least once had he not had to deal with Nadal on clay. Fed started his career as a SV player and adapted to what you call the "safe style" of baseline play. Yet Ivan Lendl had plenty of success in the 80s and 90s as a power baseliner, and so did Agassi, so why not Fed with some amalgam of baseline and SV. Prime Fed took the best of Sampras and Agassi and added superior movement to that!

 

[BeHappy]

Well he would easily have been no. 1 in 2007 to 2009 where Fed was mediocre and actually worse than he was in 2010 and 2011 but still raked in lots of trophies because the competition was so pathetic.

He was exactly as good in results as Fed off clay, I'll remind you all he has 7 Wimbledon's and 5 USO's just like Fed. Fed has more Wimbledon finals and Sampras has more USO finals. I think Fed has one more YEC (Although Sampras had a Grand Slam Cup) and 2 more AO's although Sampras's coach was dying of brain cancer in one of his finals.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

How can you assume that Fed wouldn't have been more dominant in the 90s?

Personally I feel that Fed would have won the CYGS at least once had he not had to deal with Nadal on clay. Fed started his career as a SV player and adapted to what you call the "safe style" of baseline play. Yet Ivan Lendl had plenty of success in the 80s and 90s as a power baseliner, and so did Agassi, so why not Fed with some amalgam of baseline and SV. Prime Fed took the best of Sampras and Agassi and added superior movement to that!

The best of Sampras is his serve/net game which Federer never had.
The best of Agassi is his RoS which Fed never had.

 

[fed_da_man]

Nadal is only 2 slams behind Pete even though he was constantly injured during his prime, only has a single slam to rack up wins on and holds the record number of Masters titles. A top 5 ranking would've been a good result for Pete in the Fedal era.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Well he would easily have been no. 1 in 2007 to 2009 where Fed was mediocre and actually worse than he was in 2010 and 2011 but still raked in lots of trophies because the competition was so pathetic.

He was exactly as good in results as Fed off clay, I'll remind you all he has 7 Wimbledon's and 5 USO's just like Fed. Fed has more Wimbledon finals and Sampras has more USO finals. I think Fed has one more YEC (Although Sampras had a Grand Slam Cup) and 2 more AO's although Sampras's coach was dying of brain cancer in one of his finals.

Not true. Federer has the highest Grass court and HC winning percentage in the history of tennis.

Sampras isn't even top 5 in either category (shocking given his dominant record at Wimbledon). Federer was more dominant at the slams, more consistent in getting to late stages of slams, and much better at the Masters Events.

Just face it, Federer is Sampras 2.0!

 

[Nadalgaenger]

The best of Sampras is his serve/net game which Federer never had.
The best of Agassi is his RoS which Fed never had.

Interesting. And yet both Sampras and Agassi would admit that Federer represents a level that they had never achieved.

 

[fed_da_man]

I think Pete could have made the semis at Wimbledon 2009 with Nadal out of the picture. Assuming he dodged a Roddick/Federer quarterfinal

 

[BeHappy]

Not true. Federer has the highest Grass court and HC winning percentage in the history of tennis.

Sampras isn't even top 5 in either category (shocking given his dominant record at Wimbledon). Federer was more dominant at the slams, more consistent in getting to late stages of slams, and much better at the Masters Events.

Just face it, Federer is Sampras 2.0!

Sampras didn't care about smaller tournaments that much. They were just a means to the end of being number 1 in the rankings. He has some famous quote along the lines "it's nice to win Philadephia, but in 20 years time no one is going to care that I won here".

With Hamburg, Fed's most successful masters and claycourt event already downgraded it looks like he was right doesn't it? A lot of US hardcourt events don't even exist anymore. So comparing how they did in the Wimbledon warm up isn't really relevant.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

I think Pete could have made the semis at Wimbledon 2009 with Nadal out of the picture. Assuming he dodged a Roddick/Federer quarterfinal

Yeah, Sampras would have to avoid Roddick if he were to achieve any success in the Fedal era.

If Roddick played in the 90s he would have 22 slams (including 3 french opens). That's how strong the fedal era.

 

[90's Clay]

Interesting. And yet both Sampras and Agassi would admit that Federer represents a level that they had never achieved.

When did Sampras say that exactly? Link??

 

[90's Clay]

How can you assume that Fed wouldn't have been more dominant in the 90s?

Personally I feel that Fed would have won the CYGS at least once had he not had to deal with Nadal on clay. Fed started his career as a SV player and adapted to what you call the "safe style" of baseline play. Yet Ivan Lendl had plenty of success in the 80s and 90s as a power baseliner, and so did Agassi, so why not Fed with some amalgam of baseline and SV. Prime Fed took the best of Sampras and Agassi and added superior movement to that!

In the 90s there would have been more competition than what he saw from 2003-2007. Thats why.

Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Muster,Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Goran, Becker, Edberg is wayyyy better field than what Federer deal with from 2003-2007




You really think Fed is gonna dominate (be handed 3 slams a year without much effort at all) vs. THAT field? ROFLMAOOO... Yea right


Sorry but that field of players is wayyy better than freakin Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian etc.
Not to mention he would have had to play a more high risk game as I already mentioned to dominate the 90s. But when you play high risk, the upsets happen more.

Fed is gonna get his piece of the pie in the 90s.. But there was too much talent around at the time to where hes gonna be sweeping 3 slams a year with ease without going through hell to get it

The grass field was 5 times tougher in the 90s than what it was in the 2000's. Hes not going to be breezing through to get wimbledon titles without going through guys like Becker, Sampras, and Goran (which were better grass court players) than anyone Roger faced in his prime.

He will win some AO titles but he will still have to go through Agassi and Sampras to get them. No gimmes there either.

Agassi, Rafter, Sampras at the USO. AGain.. Better players at Flushing than anything Fed faced in the 2000's.

Clay he won't have to go through Nadal.. But he WILL have to through more depth in the 90s like Courier, Kafelnikov, Guga, Muster, Bruguera etc. Thats more clay depth than the 20000s on clay

Lendl didn't do a whole lot in the 90s either.. Actually Agassi probably did better from 99-early 2003 than he did for MOST of the 90s.

If Agassi didn't have that late career comeback he would have been a 3-4 time slam winner


Hell didn't he win just about the same number of slams from 1999-2003 as he did from 1989-1998? ROFLMAO

A lot of reason for Agassi's success was because Sampras (who had carried the tour for 6 years or so at that point finally declined). Not saying it was the ONLY reason but it was a big reason. Agassi probably had greater success against the young guys than he did most of his contemporaries

Sure Fed will win slams in the 90s.. But you can forget all about the "dominance 3 slams a year with ease" nonsense. The field was too good at the time.

 

[fed_da_man]

So prime Agassi could only win 2 slams in 3 of the weakest years in the history of tennis (2001-2003). Man those 90s warriors sure are tough

 

[90's Clay]

So prime Agassi could only win 2 slams in 3 of the weakest years in the history of tennis (2001-2003). Man those 90s warriors sure are tough

Agassi wasn't "prime" from 2001-2003 however. Says a lot of the WEAKNESS of the 2000's. That Agassi won around 4 slams during that time period however when he was already past 30 years of age

 

[droliver]

I don't see Sampras being able to compete for #1 in this era. Too many points on clay he wouldn't be able to contend for and he would not be able to separate himself from the field on hard courts to collect enough points to cobble a #1 ranking. He certainly would not be as dominant at Wimbledon as well.

I think he'd make the big 4 a "big 5" as he would win some majors (wimbledon) in this era at his best, but I don't see him as well rounded enough to get to #1. Ironically, Agassi would be MUCH more likely to pass him based on the surfaces and tournaments he's be in play for to win

 

[90's Clay]

Pete is well rounded enough to win 3 of the 4 slams. (Even with his old style) And he would have taken the masters a lot more seriously today.

He could easily be #1 in the world. Hell he would have LESS grass and hardcourt competition now than he did in his heyday.

There isn't a better hardcourt player overall on tour today, there isn't a better indoors player on tour today and there SURE AS HELL isn't a better grass court player on tour today

Then factor in all Pete has to deal with is Nole (past his physical best) and Murray. ROFLMAO. Fed is too old, Nadal is borderline comatose. (outside of clay now hes a complete MESS) Thats easy peasy for Sampras

 

[Towser83]

In the 90s there would have been more competition than what he saw from 2003-2007. Thats why.

Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Muster,Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Goran, Becker, Edberg is wayyyy better field than what Federer deal with from 2003-2007

...... Actually Agassi probably did better from 99-early 2003 than he did for MOST of the 90s.

If Agassi didn't have that late career comeback he would have been a 3-4 time slam winner


Hell didn't he win just about the same number of slams from 1999-2003 as he did from 1989-1998? ROFLMAO

A lot of reason for Agassi's success was because Sampras (who had carried the tour for 6 years or so at that point finally declined). Not saying it was the ONLY reason but it was a big reason. Agassi probably had greater success against the young guys than he did most of his contemporaries

so that proves Agassi was not that great, his success was in a big part down to Sampras declining... yet you hold him up as this great competition for Sampras. Contradicting yourself.

As for the rest - Courier and Edberg who never made a slam final after 1993, Rafter who didn't get past the 4th round of a slam until 1997, and made it past the quarters 4 times in the 90s, one slam wonder Goran who was only ever a factor at one slam anyway, Becker who won his first slam way back in 1985... Kafelnikov? Who made a whopping 3 slam finals, winning 2 (basically inferior to Hewitt, Safin and Murray) One slam wonder Muster? He never even made another slam final. His record is worse than Roddick.He only made 4 semis or better in his whole career. The fact he became number one says the 90s werent that strong.. He wasn't even playing Wimbledon and still managed to be number one (btw he never won a single match at Wimbledon, which is a big mark on his record, even Roddick could win matches at RG)

Of course though if Fed was in the same era with Sampras he would lose titles.But they both would

 

[90's Clay]

so that proves Agassi was not that great, his success was in a big part down to Sampras declining... yet you hold him up as this great competition for Sampras. Contradicting yourself.

As for the rest - Courier and Edberg who never made a slam final after 1993, Rafter who didn't get past the 4th round of a slam until 1997, and made it past the quarters 4 times in the 90s, one slam wonder Goran who was only ever a factor at one slam anyway, Becker who won his first slam way back in 1985... Kafelnikov? Who made a whopping 3 slam finals, winning 2 (basically inferior to Hewitt, Safin and Murray) One slam wonder Muster? He never even made another slam final. His record is worse than Roddick.He only made 4 semis or better in his whole career. The fact he became number one says the 90s werent that strong.. He wasn't even playing Wimbledon and still managed to be number one (btw he never won a single match at Wimbledon, which is a big mark on his record, even Roddick could win matches at RG)

Of course though if Fed was in the same era with Sampras he would lose titles.But they both would

If not for Sampras, Agassi would have won a BUTTLOAD of slams back in the 90s. Agassi was great, but Sampras was better.

Agassi even in the 90s was far better than any Federer contemporary of 2003-2007. And that is unarguable.

Federer would have had to still deal with Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc. in the early-mid 90s and even later on with a resurgent Agassi, Sampras, Rafter later on in the decade. . So for some MORONS to say he would "dominate" vs. that field. Is just that.. Moronic.

He would certainly struggle. There would be none of this "3 slam a year"domination with no stoppage from the field. You had talent littered throughout the top 10 during the 90s. From 2003-2007, you had LESS talent (in Roddick and Hewitt), MIA sessions from Safin, Nalbandian, Pre Prime players like Nadal, and brokeback OLD players like Agassi (who still even in his mid 30s was giving prime/peak Fed issues)

Muster, Courier, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Guga on clay.. Thats a lot of depth.. Thats actually by far the most depth we have had on clay over the past 25 years. The clay depth hasn't been even CLOSE since then.

Sure this era has produced the clay GOAT. But it hasn't produced clay depth where there were clay specialists littered in the draws

 

[The_Order]

Sampras would struggle big time but I think there'd be stages where he did reach #1. He was a champion player and we must remember that.

Nadal's clay season would be a huge factor. Since Pete wouldn't make a difference there, Nadal would end up with higher chance of being #1 because I'd expect Pete, Fed, Novak and Murray to take points off each other on grass and HC especially.

He certainly wouldn't have 286 weeks at #1 and 6 YE#1. He wouldn't have as many majors either and neither would Federer.

 

[droliver]

Pete is well rounded enough to win 3 of the 4 slams. (Even with his old style) And he would have taken the masters a lot more seriously today.

He could easily be #1 in the world. Hell he would have LESS grass and hardcourt competition now than he did in his heyday.

While he could compete, he would not be a prohibitive HC favorite in this era. This is part of the reason (no guarantee of Wimbledon points and few indoor torunaments being the others) I think he would have more difficulty getting the points to get to number 1. The other players (Fed, Murray, Nadal, Delpo, Djokovic) are better able to compete on the 40% of the available points that are on clay. Disagree strongly that he would have "less" competition on hard court as Fed and Djokovic are at least his equal and there are others who would clearly challenge him even on his good days.

 

[Bobby Jr]

In the 11 years each player competed in the M1000 (or equivalent) tournaments Sampras averaged 1 per year (11 in total), Federer almost 2 per year (21 in total). With Nadal it's even more.

Just considering Sampras and Federer alone Federer's results would indicate roughly the equivalent amount of points as a grand slam final loss each year in addition to everything else. Similarly, Federer and Nadal would effectively have a longer season in which to earn points than Sampras because of their clay abilities. Sampras would be at an almost automatic disadvantage of 1500 - 2500 points throughout the year without even factoring in the majors at all because of his clay shortcomings.

In Sampras's era he was typically aided by most of the top clay court players being generally poor elsewhere (Bruguera, Muster etc).

His chances of attaining the #1 rank in this era, especially considering the slowing of the surfaces, would be extremely low - even if he was still competitive at the majors (which I don't believe he would be outside of Wimbledon).

 

[90's Clay]

Nadal hasn't done anything off of clay in going on 4 years. So I fail to see how Nadal would be "stopping"a prime/peak Sampras from anything.

Nole doesn't match up well with Sampras IMO. . and Fed's days are numbered. He would be too old to compete with Prime/Peak Sampras right now

As of now, Murray (and maybe Del Potro) are the only top guys that can trouble Sampras. But Del Potro hasn't been the same since 2009 and Murray's mental game in the slams hasn't been totally proven.

As I said, there isn't ONE PLAYER right now thats as good as Prime Sampras was on hard courts overall, there isn't ONE PLAYER right now thats better on grass (even a slower grass IMO. Grass is still grass and Pete's still arguable the greatest ever on it), and there isn't ONE player thats better indoors.

Thats a lot of free points for Sampras.

Sampras would struggle more with a prime coinciding with a prime Fed and Nadal.. But the tour doesn't have that now.. And currently Nole and Murray are nowheres near what Prime Fedal were.

 

[The_Order]

If not for Sampras, Agassi would have won a BUTTLOAD of slams back in the 90s. Agassi was great, but Sampras was better.

Agassi even in the 90s was far better than any Federer contemporary of 2003-2007. And that is unarguable.

Federer would have had to still deal with Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc. in the early-mid 90s and even later on with a resurgent Agassi, Sampras, Rafter later on in the decade. . So for some MORONS to say he would "dominate" vs. that field. Is just that.. Moronic.

He would certainly struggle. There would be none of this "3 slam a year"domination with no stoppage from the field. You had talent littered throughout the top 10 during the 90s. From 2003-2007, you had LESS talent (in Roddick and Hewitt), MIA sessions from Safin, Nalbandian, Pre Prime players like Nadal, and brokeback OLD players like Agassi (who still even in his mid 30s was giving prime/peak Fed issues)

Muster, Courier, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Guga on clay.. Thats a lot of depth.. Thats actually by far the most depth we have had on clay over the past 25 years. The clay depth hasn't been even CLOSE since then.

Sure this era has produced the clay GOAT. But it hasn't produced clay depth where there were clay specialists littered in the draws

Agree with most of this.

Fed's competition from 04-07:

Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi, Safin, Davydenko and Nalbandian

These are the only ones that met him consistently in majors (apart from Nadal)

Agassi at 34 and 35 was proving to be tough for peak Federer. As was a teenager.

Safin and Nalby did indeed go MIA for the most part.

 

[90's Clay]

While he could compete, he would not be a prohibitive HC favorite in this era. This is part of the reason (no guarantee of Wimbledon points and few indoor torunaments being the others) I think he would have more difficulty getting the points to get to number 1. The other players (Fed, Murray, Nadal, Delpo, Djokovic) are better able to compete on the 40% of the available points that are on clay. Disagree strongly that he would have "less" competition on hard court as Fed and Djokovic are at least his equal and there are others who would clearly challenge him even on his good days.

Nole isn't that great in Flushing (nor faster hard courts) in general. In fact, I believe Sampras was better on slower hard courts than Nole is on faster hard courts. Unless the ball sits in Nole's strike zone hes much more beatable. Sure Pete would certainly have issues with Nole in Australia and a few other slow hard courts but there are faster and slower hard courts. Then you got your indoors.

Fed is a little long in the tooth now to be competing with a peak/prime Sampras IMO.


Nadal? Come on.. This guy can't even get through the first round of wimbledon anymore. Gimme a break

 

[The_Order]

Nadal hasn't done anything off of clay in going on 4 years. So I fail to see how Nadal would be "stopping"a prime/peak Sampras from anything.

Nole doesn't match up well with Sampras IMO. . and Fed's days are numbered. He would be too old to compete with Prime/Peak Sampras right now

As of now, Murray (and maybe Del Potro) are the only top guys that can trouble Sampras. But Del Potro hasn't been the same since 2009 and Murray's mental game in the slams hasn't been totally proven.

As I said, there isn't ONE PLAYER right now thats as good as Prime Sampras was on hard courts overall, there isn't ONE PLAYER right now thats better on grass (even a slower grass IMO. Grass is still grass and Pete's still arguable the greatest ever on it), and there isn't ONE player thats better indoors.

Thats a lot of free points for Sampras.

Sampras would struggle more with a prime coinciding with a prime Fed and Nadal.. But the tour doesn't have that now.. And currently Nole and Murray are nowheres near what Prime Fedal were.

The thread title clearly asks if he played in the Fedal era...

 

[Bobby Jr]

Nadal hasn't done anything off of clay in going on 4 years. So I fail to see how Nadal would be "stopping"a prime/peak Sampras from anything.

He doesn't need to - he just needs to cannibalise some points off Sampras on his non-favourite surfaces and then rock the clay season and Sampras' chances of reaching #1 would be slim. When you factor in Federer and Djokovic splitting a few of Sampras' hard court events the comparative chances reduce even further.

Nole doesn't match up well with Sampras IMO. . and Fed's days are numbered. He would be too old to compete with Prime/Peak Sampras right now

If Hewitt matched up as well as he did with Sampras then Djokovic would do even better at any point in Sampras's career.

Federer - as of right not for sure, but why would you make such a comparison where you factor in Federer's current form with Sampras's prime? The thread was the Fedal era. This isn't the Fedal era anymore. It was 2004-2009-ish when Federer was dominating the key tournaments in Sampras's resume. Federer was a better player than Sampras was so even being generous to Sampras they would split Wimbledon/US Open titles... meaning Sampras would be unlikely to get to #1.

The downsides for him playing in the prime of Federer and Nadal are much greater than the downsides for Federer and, especially Nadal. How that could equate to Sampras somehow being more likely to achieve the top ranking defies logic. It has to be less.

And that isn't even considering Djokovic, Murray or Del Potro - all of whom were already good enough players to beat Sampras the odd time in that time period - especially since the courts were generally slower all-round than in Sampras' prime. (don't bring up his final US Open crap - I can see it a mile off.. the exception proves the rule: conditions got slower, that means it'd be harder for Sampras than in 90s conditions)

Sampras would struggle more with a prime coinciding with a prime Fed and Nadal.. But the tour doesn't have that now.. And currently Nole and Murray are nowheres near what Prime Fedal were.

You're moving the goal-posts to suit your argument. Either it's how all players currently play or it's the Fedal era - it can't be both.

 

[90's Clay]

He doesn't need to - he just needs to cannibalise some points off Sampras on his non-favourite surfaces and then rock the clay season and Sampras' chances of reaching #1 would be slim. When you factor in Federer and Djokovic splitting a few of Sampras' hard court events the comparative chances reduce even further.


If Hewitt matched up as well as he did with Sampras then Djokovic would do even better at any point in Sampras's career.

Federer - as of right not for sure, but why would you make such a comparison where you factor in Federer's current form with Sampras's prime? The thread was the Fedal era. This isn't the Fedal era anymore. It was 2004-2009-ish when Federer was dominating the key tournaments in Sampras's resume. Federer was a better player than Sampras was so even being generous to Sampras they would split Wimbledon/US Open titles... meaning Sampras would be unlikely to get to #1.

The downsides for him playing in the prime of Federer and Nadal are much greater than the downsides for Federer and, especially Nadal. How that could equate to Sampras somehow being more likely to achieve the top ranking defies logic. It has to be less.

And that isn't even considering Djokovic, Murray or Del Potro - all of whom were already good enough players to beat Sampras the odd time in that time period - especially since the courts were generally slower all-round than in Sampras' prime. (don't bring up his final US Open crap - I can see it a mile off.. the exception proves the rule: conditions got slower, that means it'd be harder for Sampras than in 90s conditions)


You're moving the goal-posts to suit your argument. Either it's how all players currently play or it's the Fedal era - it can't be both.

Ok.. So Nadal "rocks" the clay season. Whats he do OFF the clay season? Because he has done much off the clay season in a while. Nadal can't even maintain a top 3 ranking now because he can't defend JACK off of clay. In fact, what tournament has he defended off of clay since 2010? Its easier to bet on the guy who can dominate on THREE different conditions (grass, outdoor hards overall, indoors) than to bet on a guy who can't defend off his best surface (which is only one surface mind you).

Nadal can have a dominant clay season only to follow it up with a bunch of first round exits off of clay everywheres he plays. Thats why he can't even maintain a top ranking now. Because he doesn't do enough off his best surface anymore.

So again.. I fail to see how Sampras wouldn't be #1 today. Unless someone seriously thinks a slumping Nole, Old Federer, and Murray will stop him all season.. Thats VERY doubtful. People are doubting a GOAT candidate in his prime/peak here. Totally MORONIC by all standards

 

[90's Clay]

The thread title clearly asks if he played in the Fedal era...

Fedal are still playing aren't they and still among the top players?

What Fedal era do we have in mind here? The One where Nadal was still learning to play off of clay and couldn't get past hardcourt slam semis?

Nadal wouldn't even part of the equation IMO. It would be Sampras-Fed fighting it out for #1 all year every year for a few years

 

[Bobby Jr]

Ok.. So Nadal "rocks" the clay season. Whats he do OFF the clay season? Because he has done much off the clay season in a while. Nadal can't even maintain a top 3 ranking now because he can't defend JACK off of clay...

Well, you're portraying a situation where Nadal was out for half a year.

When he's fit - as he was for most of the Fedal era - he was still making semis and finals of the hard court events very often. Add that to the 3000+ point head start he gets automatically over Sampras because of the disparity in their clay results and it immediately becomes insanely hard for Sampras to get to #1 - especially because Federer would absolutely without any doubt at all cannibalise some of Sampras's hard court results. Over the course of the whole year it's barely even credible to say Sampras would be the better hard court player than Federer.

Add Fedal era level Djokovic and Murray into the mix and there's two more players who would deny Sampras points during the year a couple of times.

As for defending tournaments - that pony rides both ways. In Sampras' career he only defended a masters title twice (Federer 5 times, Nadal 11 times). Likewise, in 96 and in 98 he was the top player he didn't win a single M1000 event either year, and just the 1 major. Compared to the last decade that would barely earn you the #3 ranking.

 

[The_Order]

Fedal are still playing aren't they and still among the top players?

What Fedal era do we have in mind here? The One where Nadal was still learning to play off of clay and couldn't get past hardcourt slam semis?

Nadal wouldn't even part of the equation IMO. It would be Sampras-Fed fighting it out for #1 all year every year for a few years

I'd say it goes from 2008-2012. That's when those 2 were up and about in almost every major. It's when they were both contenders for every major. Before that Nadal's HC game wasn't developed yet.

This year however, Nadal wasn't a factor in AO and WIM and Fed wasn't since AO either.

BTW an era isn't defined by one year when they are both not as good as they used to be.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Three words : PSampras is LUCKY (upto you for interpretation)

I feel sorry for RNadal for getting penalized for having played alongside the G.O.A.T. where PSampras didn't have any competitor of his caliber/talent.

 

[helloworld]

Three words : PSampras is LUCKY (upto you for interpretation)

I feel sorry for RNadal for getting penalized for having played alongside the G.O.A.T. where PSampras didn't have any competitor of his caliber/talent.

But the so called GOAT was hardly any challenge for Nadal. In fact the H2H is 8-2 in slams in favor of Nadal.

 

[6-3 6-0]

But the so called GOAT was hardly any challenge for Nadal. In fact the H2H is 8-2 in slams in favor of Nadal.

This thread is about ranking. If RFederer was out of the picture, RNadal would've been the No. 1 and overtaken PSampras' record by now.

 

[helloworld]

This thread is about ranking. If RFederer was out of the picture, RNadal would've been the No. 1 and overtaken PSampras' record by now.

Novak Djokovic would like to disagree with you.

 

[Bobby Jr]

But the so called GOAT was hardly any challenge for Nadal. In fact the H2H is 8-2 in slams in favor of Nadal.

Of course he was a challenge for Nadal - you only have to look how much better he did in the majors. Of the years their primes crossed - and that time-period is being generous to Nadal - Federer was more than a challenge for Nadal when it comes to GOAT-making achievements. 4 out of 6 years in fact. And that's only considering their achievements at the majors. Factor in all tournaments and Federer looks even better compared to Nadal across that period.

2005 - 2 majors vs 1 Fed
2006 - 3 majors vs 1 Fed
2007 - 3 majors vs 1 Fed
2008 - 1 major vs 2 Nadal
2009 - 2 majors vs 1 Fed
2010 - 1 major vs 3 Nadal

When they start handing out trophies for individual head to heads or ranking points or they're regarded as remotely significant in the scheme of a player's career-long achievements then come back and crow. Until then Nadal cannot be remotely considered as great or accomplished a player as Federer.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Novak Djokovic would like to disagree with you.

Nope! 2005-2010 YE #1 + 6 months of 2011

 

[jg153040]

Ok.. So Nadal "rocks" the clay season. Whats he do OFF the clay season? Because he has done much off the clay season in a while. Nadal can't even maintain a top 3 ranking now because he can't defend JACK off of clay. In fact, what tournament has he defended off of clay since 2010? Its easier to bet on the guy who can dominate on THREE different conditions (grass, outdoor hards overall, indoors) than to bet on a guy who can't defend off his best surface (which is only one surface mind you).

Nadal can have a dominant clay season only to follow it up with a bunch of first round exits off of clay everywheres he plays. Thats why he can't even maintain a top ranking now. Because he doesn't do enough off his best surface anymore.

So again.. I fail to see how Sampras wouldn't be #1 today. Unless someone seriously thinks a slumping Nole, Old Federer, and Murray will stop him all season.. Thats VERY doubtful. People are doubting a GOAT candidate in his prime/peak here. Totally MORONIC by all standards

I agree. Chances are Pete would still be ranked higher than Rafa. Rafa would be more inconsistent in the 90s. We have to go with the guy who dominated HC and grass, which is most of the tennis.

But I don't agree with you on Fed. Fed is such talent he is consistent everywhere. He has the game to beat all styles. He can also play serve and volley.He would win the same in Petes era (without Pete), just a different mix. Yes, competition is a bit tougher with lower players, but there would be no Nadal on clay. No Djokovic. Agassi was absent anyway most of the time.

Fed would maybe be upset more in some majors, but he would make up this on clay and lack of Nadal and Nole. So, he still gets to 17 and has weeks nr.1 record.

Who was consistent enough in the 90s, to stop Fed from nr.1? Nadal is much better nr.2 than any nr.2 in Petes era and even he didn't stop Feds 302 weeks. Without Nadal on clay, nobody stops Federer.

Maybe Fed wins less on faster surfaces, but without Nadal and Nole, he wins more on slower surfaces in the 90s. Fed can play anywhere.

Fed has 10 AO straight semis and 5 RG finals. Who is going to stop him to win 3 RG and 6 AO titles in the 90s?

 

[Russeljones]

All of the Sampras fanboys trash Nadal for not coming close to Pete's number of weeks at number one. But how well would Sampras have done had he had to play in Federer's era?

Let's face it, there is NO way Sampras would have beaten out Federer in his prime for the top spot.

Sampras may have snatched a few Wimbledon crowns but he wouldn't have won anywhere else and Federer's record at the Masters events is far greater than Sampras'.

If Federer's, Sampras's and Nadal's prime coincided, Nadal would have zero Slam titles off clay. Close to zero Masters titles off clay and zero weeks at number 1. Are you sure you want to pursue this line of hypothetical inquiry? :lol:

 

[Steffi-forever]

Well he would easily have been no. 1 in 2007 to 2009 where Fed was mediocre and actually worse than he was in 2010 and 2011 but still raked in lots of trophies because the competition was so pathetic.

He was exactly as good in results as Fed off clay, I'll remind you all he has 7 Wimbledon's and 5 USO's just like Fed. Fed has more Wimbledon finals and Sampras has more USO finals. I think Fed has one more YEC (Although Sampras had a Grand Slam Cup) and 2 more AO's although Sampras's coach was dying of brain cancer in one of his finals.

No he wasn't.
1994 is the best season of Sampras: 77-12 W-L (87%)

Fed has 4 seasons higher:
2004: 74-6
2005: 81-4
2006: 92-5
2007: 68-9
And in 2012 he was at 86%.