If Sampras plays today, where would be ranked ?

[thor's hammer]

I find it funny how little respect Sampras gets on these boards. He's easily the most dominant players of the 90's, greatest serve of all time in my book.

Couldn't agree more. It's already happening to Federer, too. How soon people forget.

Also worth mentioning that Sampras' backhand was an exceedingly powerful weapon in his early-mid career. Later on he slowed down a tad and started slicing defensively a lot, and people picked up on and picked on that. But I remember when he was eviscerating McEnroe in their 1990 US Open semi Mary Carillo remarking how his backhand was his better wing. That may have been an overstatement, but if so not by much - it was deadly!

A big part of tennis of course is movement and getting into position. Great one handers in particular I think are built on that, and it's natural for it to degrade as years go by and players slow down.

 

[jg153040]

I find it funny how little respect Sampras gets on these boards. He's easily the most dominant players of the 90's, greatest serve of all time in my book.

Yes, but today there are different conditions. He had some health issues and today fitness is way more important.

Also his game didn't translate well to slower courts.

I don't doubt his greatness, but he would have a tough time today. Today tennis is more of a grind. And you go against other grinders.

I doubt his fitness level and his skills on slower courts.

But in contrast, if you transfer guys from today into his era, he would own them. Except for maybe Fed. Fed is such a genius and he has fitness and is consistent. And he can play on any surface any style. He doesn't have any big holes in his game.

I don't know if Fed would have a winning h2h with Pete. Cuz peak Sampras is so dangerous, he doesn't give you any time and is so mentally tough.

But I think Feds consistency would shine. He wouldn't had to deal with Pete in all of his majors. And he would have his share of wins vs Pete also.

So in the end I believe only Fed from this era would have more weeks as nr.1 than Sampras and end up with more majors, while not maybe having a winning h2h.

Because the irony is Pete would avoid Fed on clay and AO. But Fed would be in finals where surfaces favor Pete.

It would go like this: Fed 250 weeks nr.1, Pete 100. Fed 12 majors, Pete 8.
H2H, Pete leads 16-12.

 

[Start da Game]

it is laughable how ignorant some people are about this sport and players of the past......

 

[thor's hammer]

Yes, but today there are different conditions. He had some health issues and today fitness is way more important.

Also his game didn't translate well to slower courts.

I don't doubt his greatness, but he would have a tough time today. Today tennis is more of a grind. And you go against other grinders.

Ah, but Sampras played his game, which was very offensive/attacking tennis, which kept points short(er). Clay aside, I think prime Sampras could still kick some serious butt out there today, even on these slower hard courts.

I still see Federer go through stretches where he wipes people off slower hard courts, he's just older now and mentally/physically can't seem to sustain it for entire matches/tournaments.

I got to give it up for Nadal - he is an amazing player and competitor who has evolved and adapted and in his own baseliner way is a very offensive player. Murray, Choker, and all the rest? I think prime Sampras would feast on those guys.

 

[jg153040]

Ah, but Sampras played his game, which was very offensive/attacking tennis, which kept points short(er). Clay aside, I think prime Sampras could still kick some serious butt out there today, even on these slower hard courts.

I still see Federer go through stretches where he wipes people off slower hard courts, he's just older now and mentally/physically can't seem to sustain it for entire matches/tournaments.

I got to give it up for Nadal - he is an amazing player and competitor who has evolved and adapted and in his own baseliner way is a very offensive player. Murray, Choker, and all the rest? I think prime Sampras would feast on those guys.

Maybe you do have a point. I heard Nadal saying he hates playing Isner. Because he knows he doesn't have any control and it's up to Isner most of the time.

I guess Pete's game was designed to not let baseliners to use their weapons. He is like an advanced version of Isner. That serve can put so much pressure on you even mentally.

I guess greats would be great in any era. Sampras defeated Fed at an expo.
It is an expo, but it showed how much weapons Pete has.

Fed said Pete would be nr.5 today and he was 35-36 at the time they played? He wasn't even talking about prime Pete . And I trust Fed, he doesn't just says stuff he doesn't mean.

We have to remember Pete would take advantage of evolution and he would be a better player from the start. His fitness would be even greater using todays knowledge and nutrition.

So, I guess advanced version of Pete could do a lot of damage. Cuz guys hate playing big servers. And Pete is a big server with great footwork and all-court skills.

 

[ScottleeSV]

If he Pete was in his prime and playing today he would be up there contending with Nadal and Djokovic (except at the French). He'd be either number 3 in the world or better. #

# - Fed is still 32 in this scenario.

 

[redpurusha]

Sampras from the 90s wouldn't even be top 10 today.

Even his quotes are dropshots

 

[Matthew Bance]

would probably be in top 4 or 5 after the current big four above players like ferrer

 

[Roddick85]

Yes, but today there are different conditions. He had some health issues and today fitness is way more important.

Also his game didn't translate well to slower courts.

I don't doubt his greatness, but he would have a tough time today. Today tennis is more of a grind. And you go against other grinders.

I doubt his fitness level and his skills on slower courts.

I do agree that his game was more suited to faster court, but he did win 2 Australian open, so the potential was still there. Had all courts been slower like they are today, I'm sure he would of adapted. I suppose that with today's modern medicine, he could and probably would of found out about his health problems and address them, which would of helped on slower courts and long matches.

 

[jg153040]

I do agree that his game was more suited to faster court, but he did win 2 Australian open, so the potential was still there. Had all courts been slower like they are today, I'm sure he would of adapted. I suppose that with today's modern medicine, he could and probably would of found out about his health problems and address them, which would of helped on slower courts and long matches.

I thought we are talking about 90s version of Pete. Otherwise I agree with you. Champions adapt. He also would have taken advantage from the evolution and his starting level from childhood would have been much higher than in the 90s.

We have to assume champions would win a lot in any era. The only problem is if you put more champions in an era, they all win less. Less majors available.

Too bad, we can't check it out though.

People dismiss past champions too quickly. They always think current best is the best thing.

 

[Roddick85]

People dismiss past champions too quickly. They always think current best is the best thing.

Very much agree with you. No respect for Pete and even Andre. Look at how the people are treating Roger Federer these days. Even JMac as a past champion, you'd think he'd have more respect than that, but for the whole US Open, him and the ESPN staff have been taking shots at Federer like he was a journeymen overstaying his welcome. People should have more respects for these legends that brought the sport to where it is today instead of demolishing them every time they have an opportunity to do so.

 

[jg153040]

Very much agree with you. No respect for Pete and even Andre. Look at how the people are treating Roger Federer these days. Even JMac as a past champion, you'd think he'd have more respect than that, but for the whole US Open, him and the ESPN staff have been taking shots at Federer like he was a journeymen overstaying his welcome. People should have more respects for these legends that brought the sport to where it is today instead of demolishing them every time they have an opportunity to do so.

Yeah, it's happening to Fed too. And from JMac of all people who is a legend. You can expect this from others, not from the likes of such greats.

And it will happen to Rafa too.

 

[hawk eye]

He could hang with anyone on the baseline, except on claycourts. He didn't have the stamina for that.
His serve was superior to anyone, like his overhead, his volleys were only behind Edberg/McEnroe, his halfvolley pick ups the best the game has ever seen. His forehand, especially on the run was a deadly point ending weapon.
Think about Sampras hitting it with new string technology..
His one hander is very underrated, he could rally and return very well with it. Great slice. On fast courts, many downright winners came off that wing. His movement and speed were all top notch and his athleticism would only be second to Monfils.
Talk about a great all courter.. he would be close untouchable on grass/ fast hardcourts. Dirt, that's another thing. But given the limited amount of real clay court specialists in the last decade, he would make a few good runs at the FO.
With Nadal around I can't see him winning that one though.

 

[jg153040]

He could hang with anyone on the baseline, except on claycourts. He didn't have the stamina for that.
His serve was superior to anyone, like his overhead, his volleys were only behind Edberg/McEnroe, his halfvolley pick ups the best the game has ever seen. His forehand, especially on the run was a deadly point ending weapon.
Think about Sampras hitting it with new string technology..
His one hander is very underrated, he could rally and return very well with it. Great slice. On fast courts, many downright winners came off that wing. His movement and speed were all top notch and his athleticism would only be second to Monfils.
Talk about a great all courter.. he would be close untouchable on grass/ fast hardcourts. Dirt, that's another thing. But given the limited amount of real clay court specialists in the last decade, he would make a few good runs at the FO.
With Nadal around I can't see him winning that one though.

Too bad we can't see it. Pete doesn't win 14 today, but with Pete around Fed and Rafa don't win 17+12 either .