I like Sampras, but the only reason he won Fourteen slams = no Nadal

[Steve0904]

I like Nadal, but the only reason he has won so many French Open titles is that Bjorg had retired. I hope the OP reads this and thinks what I am saying is ridiculous and stupid then applies the same logic to his rubbish thread.

It's Borg, not Bjorg btw, and it's amazing how many people don't realize what fednad is doing. Props to him btw.

 

[tembolo1284]

I think guga would have made jamon out of nadal.

 

[BHud]

Great...another pointless "woulda, coulda, shoulda" thread...just what we need more of on these boards.

 

[hoodjem]

Nadal will one day be seen as greater than Sampras, it will happen.

Probably.

With no FO titles under his belt, Sampras's greatness has nothing to do with Nadal existing or not.

On hard-court, Sampras would have done to Nadal what Tsonga did in the 08 AO semis.

 

[kiki]

How many sets could Nadal take off him on 90 indoor or grass?
Less than Agassi sure

 

[The Isomotion31]

 

[ttwarrior1]

dumbest post i ever seen, nadal is a clay courter, sampras was not. Sampras would beat nadal 6-0 on grass

 

[90's Clay]

dumbest post i ever seen, nadal is a clay courter, sampras was not. Sampras would beat nadal 6-0 on grass

I think Nadal needs to get out of the first round of wimbledon first:shock:

 

[pjonesy]

If Nadal played in the 90s he would be at the most disadvantage of any of the current top players in terms of having to adjust how he plays because his strengths lie furtherest away from the surface/conditions spectrum from the conditions in the 90s (compared to say Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga etc) plus his game would lose the most in the backwards shift in technology - primarily the strings.

If Sampras moved into this era he would benefit from the strings on his serve massively in movement/direction terms but would likely serve far fewer aces against the top guys imo since the conditions are outright slower and more returner-friendly. He'd also be comparatively disadvantaged in the way he loved to play which was clubbing forehands moving into the net. The shortcomings in his backhand would be shown up much more often than it ever was in the 90s because of the spin, height and consistency of the players today. The top guys would hit to his backhand all day which guys in his era simply couldn't do like they can today because of the extra time they have and consistency that the strings give them.

Sorry, I'm so late responding. I think you make a good case for Sampras having a hard time adjusting to the current era. But after watching Agassi v Sampras US Open Final from 1990 on tv last night, I was stunned to see how inconsistent, uncomfortable and erratic the Sampras backhand looked, early in his career. The Sampras BH got much better during his career. But you are correct. I don't see how he could handle the barrage of shots that would target his BH in this era.

That being said, I'm convinced prime Sampras could still play his game on a fast surface and beat just about anyone in the current era. If his precision was there, he would be as dangerous as ever. The 1st volley would be key for Sampras. We would know very early on in the match if he could be effective or not. He would TRY to put the ball in places that these guys haven't seen. I'm basing some of my thoughts on how Sampras played on HC against Kuerten. Sampras is just a different animal, with a different mindset on the court.

 

[shakes1975]

Sorry, I'm so late responding. I think you make a good case for Sampras having a hard time adjusting to the current era. But after watching Agassi v Sampras US Open Final from 1990 on tv last night, I was stunned to see how inconsistent, uncomfortable and erratic the Sampras backhand looked, early in his career. The Sampras BH got much better during his career. But you are correct. I don't see how he could handle the barrage of shots that would target his BH in this era.

I see a kind of misconception here as far comparing Sampras' BH goes. Sampras' BH was underrated, and in some instances better than Fed's. For instance, Fed rarely goes DTL with his BH. Sampras, OTOH, used the DTL a lot more. He lost points in consistency, but made it up some in terms of breaking open a point with a single big shot.

IMO, making the surfaces slower actually helps the BH in the sense that it gives the player time to run around the BH. Look at Roddick. His BH is far worse than Sampras' was, and yet he had quite a good career. And this is a player who is far worse overall than Sampras ever was.

If we make Fed play on the 90's surfaces, I am sure Fed's BH might come down quite a bit compared to his BH in this era. This is because the faster surfaces combined with players who come in and force him to pass from that wing, will not give him the time to run around the BH and will actually force him to make more errors.

 

[pjonesy]

I see a kind of misconception here as far comparing Sampras' BH goes. Sampras' BH was underrated, and in some instances better than Fed's. For instance, Fed rarely goes DTL with his BH. Sampras, OTOH, used the DTL a lot more. He lost points in consistency, but made it up some in terms of breaking open a point with a single big shot.

IMO, making the surfaces slower actually helps the BH in the sense that it gives the player time to run around the BH. Look at Roddick. His BH is far worse than Sampras' was, and yet he had quite a good career. And this is a player who is far worse overall than Sampras ever was.

If we make Fed play on the 90's surfaces, I am sure Fed's BH might come down quite a bit compared to his BH in this era. This is because the faster surfaces combined with players who come in and force him to pass from that wing, will not give him the time to run around the BH and will actually force him to make more errors.

The difference is not only in the era they play, but also in game style. Federer is a shotmaking baseliner. He is NOT a serve and volley player. Sampras didn't hit as many offensive backhands, because most of the time he was setting up to approach the net to finish the point. Sampras would set up to hit his crosscourt forehand to finish baseline points, carving his backhand to open up the court for his forehand. The Sampras backhand could not handle the modern clay court game. Federer defends much better on the backhand side, than Sampras could ever dream of, and Nadal still wears him down forehand to backhand.

If you forced Federer to play serve and volley(or even power baseline tennis) on a fast early '90s surface, he would have trouble. But he would adjust much quicker than Sampras would to the slower courts of the current era.

We can factor in strings and racquet technology, which could make a slight difference in how each would play in different eras. But it is kind of a moot point. Basically, I get your point. It's the same game, but played in a very different ways.

 

[90's Clay]

The difference is not only in the era they play, but also in game style. Federer is a shotmaking baseliner. He is NOT a serve and volley player. Sampras didn't hit as many offensive backhands, because most of the time he was setting up to approach the net to finish the point. Sampras would set up to hit his crosscourt forehand to finish baseline points, carving his backhand to open up the court for his forehand. The Sampras backhand could not handle the modern clay court game. Federer defends much better on the backhand side, than Sampras could ever dream of, and Nadal still wears him down forehand to backhand.

If you forced Federer to play serve and volley(or even power baseline tennis) on a fast early '90s surface, he would have trouble. But he would adjust much quicker than Sampras would to the slower courts of the current era.

We can factor in strings and racquet technology, which could make a slight difference in how each would play in different eras. But it is kind of a moot point. Basically, I get your point. It's the same game, but played in a very different ways.

If you have seen any of Sampras' exos with today's racket technology, Pete would be FINE. It wasn't Pete's BH weakness per say, it was the 2 inch Pro Staff he played with.

Back then he didn't need a consistent BH.. Today is different of course..

How many other guys would win with that thing? Today's rackets combined with the lux strings prevent you from shanking lots of shots and give you more topspin etc. It also makes your play on the wings more reliable from the baseline.

Sampras doesn't frame too many shots ever since hes been playing with the newer rackets. And surely if he played today thats what he would be playing with.

And you don't need a weapon for a BH either. Federer has managed just fine from the 2000's present with a BH that was the WORST of his offensive weapons. Your BH can also be used for set up shots.

 

[abmk]

I see a kind of misconception here as far comparing Sampras' BH goes. Sampras' BH was underrated, and in some instances better than Fed's. For instance, Fed rarely goes DTL with his BH. Sampras, OTOH, used the DTL a lot more. He lost points in consistency, but made it up some in terms of breaking open a point with a single big shot.

IMO, making the surfaces slower actually helps the BH in the sense that it gives the player time to run around the BH. Look at Roddick. His BH is far worse than Sampras' was, and yet he had quite a good career. And this is a player who is far worse overall than Sampras ever was.

If we make Fed play on the 90's surfaces, I am sure Fed's BH might come down quite a bit compared to his BH in this era. This is because the faster surfaces combined with players who come in and force him to pass from that wing, will not give him the time to run around the BH and will actually force him to make more errors.

actually reality is the reverse. fed's BH is at its best on faster surfaces, he didn't get rushed on his BH side at all at his peak . bar agassi, no one comes close in terms of half-volleying from the baseline in the past 20-25 years or so ..

He's gone DTL with it more than sampras used to.

and yes, federer's BH is considerably better than sampras' was and would be even more better in the 90s, considering his slice would be even more effective back then and he wouldn't be in that many long rallies as he is now.

 

[abmk]

If you have seen any of Sampras' exos with today's racket technology, Pete would be FINE. It wasn't Pete's BH weakness per say, it was the 2 inch Pro Staff he played with.

Back then he didn't need a consistent BH.. Today is different of course..

How many other guys would win with that thing? Today's rackets combined with the lux strings prevent you from shanking lots of shots and give you more topspin etc. It also makes your play on the wings more reliable from the baseline.

Sampras doesn't frame too many shots ever since hes been playing with the newer rackets. And surely if he played today thats what he would be playing with.

And you don't need a weapon for a BH either. Federer has managed just fine from the 2000's present with a BH that was the WORST of his offensive weapons. Your BH can also be used for set up shots.

it had almost nothing to do with the stick he used. This era, sampras' BH be clearly worse considering he'd have to stay back more and he'd have to face a lot more of topspin than he did on his era - its funny how you think the new strings would help sampras, but neglect that the opponent could use them even more effectively versus him.

 

[granddog29]

How many sets could Nadal take off him on 90 indoor or grass?
Less than Agassi sure

Nadal and Sampras are both lucky they played in the perfect eras for their game styles and strengths. Nadal in the 90s would probably be a nothing on all surfaces but clay. Sampras today would probably only achieve any good results on Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and even there he would struggle much more with the slowed conditions of today vs his playing days. Both definitely were lucky to be born into the right era for how they play. Which is good as both were great to watch when they were on, and it was great for the game they played in a time period that allowed each of their skill sets to flourish.

 

[90's Clay]

Nadal and Sampras are both lucky they played in the perfect eras for their game styles and strengths. Nadal in the 90s would probably be a nothing on all surfaces but clay. Sampras today would probably only achieve any good results on Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and even there he would struggle much more with the slowed conditions of today vs his playing days. Both definitely were lucky to be born into the right era for how they play. Which is good as both were great to watch when they were on, and it was great for the game they played in a time period that allowed each of their skill sets to flourish.

Can't we say the same about Federer in some ways though? Even in recent years, damn near ALL of the courts have slowed down significantly (even compared to 2003-2007) its obvious if you go back and watch some of those matches during that time period between Roddick-Federer, Federer-Agassi, Federer-Hewitt etc.

HEck even the YEC has slowed down huge over the past year or so

 

[abmk]

Nadal and Sampras are both lucky they played in the perfect eras for their game styles and strengths. Nadal in the 90s would probably be a nothing on all surfaces but clay. Sampras today would probably only achieve any good results on Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and even there he would struggle much more with the slowed conditions of today vs his playing days. Both definitely were lucky to be born into the right era for how they play. Which is good as both were great to watch when they were on, and it was great for the game they played in a time period that allowed each of their skill sets to flourish.

decided to post somewhat sensibly and try to stay off the radar, have you, NadalAgassi ?

 

[abmk]

Can't we say the same about Federer in some ways though? Even in recent years, damn near ALL of the courts have slowed down significantly (even compared to 2003-2007) its obvious if you go back and watch some of those matches during that time period between Roddick-Federer, Federer-Agassi, Federer-Hewitt etc.

lol, yeah, of course federer's declining results after 07 have almost nothing to do with his age, right ? when in form, he crushed nadal on slow HC in IW 2012, he dominated murray at the AO in 10, beat 11 djokovic at RG

HEck even the YEC has slowed down huge over the past year or so

The YEC at london has been almost the same speed over all the years - 09,10,11 and 12.

federer won in 10,11 without losing a match, he lost a very close one vs davydenko in 09 and had two very close sets vs djokovic last year.

 

[pjonesy]

If you have seen any of Sampras' exos with today's racket technology, Pete would be FINE. It wasn't Pete's BH weakness per say, it was the 2 inch Pro Staff he played with.

Back then he didn't need a consistent BH.. Today is different of course..

How many other guys would win with that thing? Today's rackets combined with the lux strings prevent you from shanking lots of shots and give you more topspin etc. It also makes your play on the wings more reliable from the baseline.

Sampras doesn't frame too many shots ever since hes been playing with the newer rackets. And surely if he played today thats what he would be playing with.

And you don't need a weapon for a BH either. Federer has managed just fine from the 2000's present with a BH that was the WORST of his offensive weapons. Your BH can also be used for set up shots.

I couldn't disagree more. Sampras is the kind of player that could stay in points on defense, not because of his adaptive groundstrokes, but because he had enough firepower and athleticism that he could find a way to finish a point quickly from a defensive position(or at least set it up). Of course Pete set up shots with his BH. Did you actually read my post?

First of all, Roger's BH is much better than Pete's. You are really going to try to argue that the Sampras BH was not a weakness? Compared to every stroke he had, his BH was weak. Compared to other parts of his game, his return of serve was weak. I see no evidence that Pete could handle a player like Nadal on clay, who would relentlessly target his weakness in EVERY neutral rally. I doesn't matter what kind of racquet he is playing with, Sampras would never be comfortable with that.

 

[droliver]

Absent a high % serving day, Pete matches up poorly with the top players of today.

He was what he was. A guy whose extraordinary serve and guts allowed him to take chances with the rest of his game. He was not built to get into the kind of exchanges he's be forced into with Nadal, Fed, Djokovic, or Murray. While he's got a puncher's chance in any set, I see all these guys grinding him down with their court coverage and strength from the backcourt.

 

[mattennis]

Nadal and Sampras are both lucky they played in the perfect eras for their game styles and strengths. Nadal in the 90s would probably be a nothing on all surfaces but clay. Sampras today would probably only achieve any good results on Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and even there he would struggle much more with the slowed conditions of today vs his playing days. Both definitely were lucky to be born into the right era for how they play. Which is good as both were great to watch when they were on, and it was great for the game they played in a time period that allowed each of their skill sets to flourish.

It is just the other way around.

When Sampras was 14 years old, he was a baseliner. As Chang said, he already had a great and killer forehand at that age and he also had a great TWO-HANDED backhand. He was a great baseline player, Chang said.

But his coach made him change his backhand to a one-handed backhand and made him play a more aggresive style, made him come to the net and made him develope a great serve. His coach wanted him to win Wimbledon and the US OPEN one day, and he thought that those changes were needed because even though Pete was a great baseliner at 14, his coach thought those qualities would not be enough to win Wimbledon and the US OPEN one day.

So it was just the other way around. Had that coach not changed completely his game when Pete was around 14-15 and Sampras would have been a great baseline two-handed backhand player.

Of course nobody knows if he would have had the same success had that coach not changed his game. Maybe he wouldn't have won so many Wimbledons, US OPENs and WTFs, maybe he would have won more Australian Opens and maybe Roland Garros. It is impossible to know.

But he was not "lucky" that the conditions of his era were "perfect" for his game. It was his coach when Pete was around 14-15 who decided to change his baseline game and his great two-handed backhand because he thought it would be better for Pete in the long term. Was he right? We will never know.


The Nadal case is a bit different, because the slowing down of surfaces and balls have gone on gradually during his senior career, so he in fact is lucky because he didn't master slow court tennis thinking it would benefit him in the long term. He was just that good on slower courts since he was young (like most spaniards) and then the changes in speed of courts and balls benefited him a lot when he was already in his 20s (and still goes on).

 

[Blocker]

Nadal in the 90s would have boycotted Wimbledon altogether.

First off, he would have had a tougher time winning the FO, still would be FO GOAT, but a tougher time winning the FO simply because the clay court field in Pete's era ran way deeper, making him less energetic for W.

Secondly, he would see Sampras' serve and the rest of his game to back it up on the W grass and would think to himself "fark this why bother I'm going to get bent over, will just boycott it".

Let's be frank hey, Nadal against Pete in 90s conditions would be like a rabbit caught in the spotlight. In Sampras' career, he faced many great baseliners, but Nadal has never faced a serve volleyer quite like Pete. On the W grass especially, I suspect Nadal would barely get his racquet on Pete's serve. Pete's serve at W would have to be the single most damaging weapon in the history of tennis.

He was phenomenal.

 

[hoodjem]

Is this a response?

Nope.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Don't get this one...none of pete's 14 slams came on clay, which is the only place he would face off with nadal, and nadal would have to put in a superhuman performance to beat pete in london or NY

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Sampras was good but he could win 14 majors only because Nadal was not there.

Gee, do ya think?

If Agassi was replaced by Nadal in the 90s, I think Sampras would have achieved less, no doubt. Agassi only won 3 slams during Sampras's prime(1993-98), while Nadal won 12 slams in a span of 8 years.

Because Sampras (who you never saw in his prime I have no doubt) was that good.

However, if Agassi was in Roger's era instead of Nadal, Roger would have won over 20 slams easily.

However, had your mom not dropped you on your pinhead so many times, you wouldn't be posting these emotionally-based fanboy assumptions.

 

[britbox]

Former Pro Player Talk - the last bastion of adult conversation on TT getting overrun by MTF-like teenage fanboys. It's like a scene out of 28 Days Later.

 

[Xavier G]

Former Pro Player Talk- used to be a place where one could have a reasoned, good-natured debate, but overrun recently with people seemingly with their own agendas making unbalanced arguments. It's a shame.

 

[hoodjem]

Does Nadal play on 90s grass with gut strings at Wimbledon? Then Pete smokes him.

Slow grass has helped Nadal win Wimbledon. Speed it up and you just hurt Nadal's game. Nadal's spin is predicated on poly strings. Take away poly strings, and you hurt his chances even more.

 

[hoodjem]

"But against the fifth-seeded Nadal, the flashy Darcis — nicknamed Shark because of the shark tattoo on his shoulder — was a highly effective predator: producing cocksure forehand winners, timely first serves and an alluring blend of full-stretch defense and storm-the-net offense that often left Nadal looking surprised and off balance.

In the end, Nadal, the great Spanish champion who just won his eighth French Open, could not win so much as a set as he crashed out in the first round of a Grand Slam event for the first time in singles, losing by 7-6 (7-4), 7-6 (10-8 ), 6-4."

But against the fifth-seeded Nadal, the net-rushing Sampras — nicknamed Pistol Pete because of his laser-like volleys — was a highly effective predator: producing riveting forehand winners, repeated first and second serve aces, an alluring blend of full-stretch defensive running forehands, and storm-the-net offense that often left Nadal looking on surprised and off balance.

In the end, Nadal, the great Spanish champion who just won his eighth French Open, could not win so much as a set as he crashed out yet again against the grass-court veteran Sampras, losing by 7-6 (7-4), 7-6 (10-8 ), 6-4.



On 90s grass, Sampras is just a bad match-up for Nadal.

 

[hoodjem]

"The Plot: Sampras put in possibly his greatest performance ever at Wimbledon in this 1999 final. Agassi was playing amazing tennis prior to this final after having miraculously won the French Open the month before. But Sampras put his foot down and showed who was the master at Wimbledon with a performance reminiscent of Edberg's defeat of Courier in the 1991 US Open final.
The Match: Early in the 1st set things are tight, and Agassi has 4 break chances early on Sampras' serve. Sampras saves them all with great serves, and then seems to kick into a higher gear, as Agassi lets down his guard in the next game. From then on Sampras is completely dominant for the remainder of the match. He takes the first set 6-3. Agassi gets a bad start on the 2nd set and loses serve, and is in danger of going down a double break. He doesn't, but all attempts at getting back on level terms are thwarted by Sampras. In the 3rd set Agassi manages just barely to stay on serve until 5-5 when he drops serve, and Sampras serves out the match in the next game.
The bottom line: Sampras is overwhelmingly dominant, and Agassi is not at his best. Sampras is a joy to watch as he not only serves great, but also plays some great volleys, including two spectacular diving volleys. But unless you're a great Sampras fan (like me), you probably don't need to see this match."

"The Plot: Sampras put in possibly his greatest performance ever at Wimbledon in this 1999 final. Nadal was playing amazing tennis prior to this final after having miraculously won the French Open the month before. But Sampras put his foot down and showed who was the master at Wimbledon on low-bouncing grass.
The Match: Early in the first set things are tight, and Nadal has four break chances early on Sampras' serve. Sampras saves them all with great serves, and then seems to kick into a higher gear, as Nadal lets down his guard in the next game. From then on Sampras is completely dominant for the remainder of the match. He takes the first set 6-3. Nadal gets a bad start on the second set and loses serve, and is in danger of going down a double break. He doesn't, but all attempts at getting back on level terms are thwarted by Sampras at the net. In the third set Nadal manages just barely to stay on serve until 5-5 when he drops serve, and Sampras serves out the match in the next game with three aces."
The bottom line: Sampras is overwhelmingly dominant on fast grass, and Nadal is not at his best on that surface. Sampras is a joy to watch as he not only serves great, but also plays some great volleys, including two spectacular diving volleys. But unless you're a great Sampras fan or a Nadal-hater, you probably don't need to see this match in which Nadal gets spanked."

 

[Top Jimmy]

Sampras has every shot in the book minus a great backhand. Huge forehand, huge serve, incredible volleys, hugh overhead yet Nadal is somehow superior. Pete with todays tech would be even more deadly, bigger serve with more spin and he hit what many called the heaviest ball in the game.

Look at the US Open this year for example. Novak had a million chances to win points against Rafa if he was an efficient volleyer but he missed way too many and became gun shy. It wasn't that rafa was passing him, he just plain and simply missed or hit ineffective volleys. That is not happening with Pete.

Pete stayed back a lot more at the US Open and did just fine against great baseliners like Courier, Agassi, etc and had the ability to attack and close like no one in todays game.

Believe what you want but Pete only had trouble against big servers, one dimensional baseliners played right into his game.

 

[NatF]

You only need to look at Nadal's performance on first week Wimbledon grass to know that Sampras would crush him in the 90's.

 

[The Isomotion31]

Is this a response?

Nope.

Oh its a response.

 

[WildVolley]

I like Nadal, but the only reason he's won slams = no Borg.