If Sampras plays today, where would be ranked ?

[tennisaddict]

Everyone will agree Sampras is inferior to the top 4 in terms of all court game. He won most/ all of his majors mainly with his huge serve and S&V game.

If Sampras were to play today, would he be ranked 5th ? Will he be able to beat Ferrer ?

His serve will win him several matches, but given the strong returners we see today, I place him around 8-10 rank.

What do you all think ? what would be his realistic major count ?


I cannot see Prime Sampras beating both Novak and/pr Federer at USO consistently .

No way he gets Australian open with Fed, Nadal and Novak.

Clay, lesser said the better.

His only chances are at Wimbledon, where you would expect Fed to be favoured still when it comes to a final between the two.

I would have to say close to 5 majors just between Wimbledon and USO.

 

[BeHappy]

:???:






:neutral:

 

[90's Clay]

If he played today he probably would have an entirely different game and would have kept his two handed-BH so who knows.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras would have to change his game completely. That funny backhand would get him nowhere in the current era.

The serve would still be great, volleys as well (but he would use them less frequently for obvious reasons), he would have to cut down on the unforced errors on the forehand (back in the day he would have to hit 1 or 2 great forehands to either win the point outright or get to the net, nowadays he would have to hit 4 or 5 great shots to win the point), the backhand would need massive modyfing, probably change back to the double hander. Movementwise he would do fine but he would have to work out in the gym a lot more often.

 

[Goosehead]

Everyone will agree Sampras is inferior to the top 4 in terms of all court game. He won most/ all of his majors mainly with his huge serve and S&V game.

If Sampras were to play today, would he be ranked 5th ? Will he be able to beat Ferrer ?

His serve will win him several matches, but given the strong returners we see today, I place him around 8-10 rank.

What do you all think ?

SAMPRAS RETIRED 11YRS AGO.

this thread should be in the former players section

 

[marc45]

"inferior to the top four in terms of all court game"

yeah, that pretty much ends any rational discussion there...i think everyone agrees with that

 

[DropShotArtist]

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

 

[NatF]

Damn Sampras is underrated here...lol at Gasquet and Tipsarevic being ranked above freaking Pete Sampras.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I know people love to pay out Sampras' backhand but he would be a nightmare on return with that backhand. He was so good at blocking back big first serves and rushing the net. Whoever he faced in this day and age would need to be on their toes much more than usual - something many wouldn't be able to do imo - Having Sampras inside the service line before you're hitting your next stroke after the serve would put a lot of players off their game - finding a rhythm against him as most top players today thrive on could be a hard ask. Many would find themselves down 4-0 before they found a groove and, against Sampras, that means the set would be all-but gone.

His overall consistency wouldn't compare to today's playing styles but he wouldn't be the pushover some claim he would.

 

[BevelDevil]

I think he has an edge on Tsonga and Del Potro. And has a shot at Wimbledon. Not bad.

Also, keep in mind he would probably use a bigger racket and poly strings.

SAMPRAS RETIRED 11YRS AGO.

this thread should be in the former players section

OP could just rephrase to: "How would today's pros field fair against Sampras?"

 

[papertank]

If Sampras played in today's era I would picture him as Tsonga with the serve of Isner/Raonic. This being the case, I see him as a clear #5, but still loses to the top 4 most of the time because of their amazing defensive skills.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Nadal has solely changed the way the game is played in in the last 5 years. so much so that it's incomparable to what sampras faced in the '90s. sampras would be lucky to be in the top 15. maybe, top 10 if his mentality is still as strong as before after receiving the inevitable losses in this era riddled with supreme defensive baseliners.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras wouldn't adopt the same style as he did in the 90s.. Bottom line.. Its a moot point.. If they didn't slow everything down, Federer might still be a more error prone, attacking type player like he was pre 2004 and wouldn't be as consistent.

Its a moot point

 

[TTMR]

Pure hilarity.

If Sampras had been born in the mid to late 80s he would have never discarded the two-hander. He was an awesome, strong athlete and phenomenal mover. He'd have no trouble competing with players today. His development would have been different, yes, but he would easily be in the mix with Djokovic, Nadal and post-prime Federer.

Picture prime Roddick but with better speed, volleys and tactics. If that is not a fearsome player, I don't know what is.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Sampras wouldn't adopt the same style as he did in the 90s.. Bottom line.. Its a moot point.. If they didn't slow everything down, Federer might still be a more error prone, attacking type player like he was pre 2004 and wouldn't be as consistent.

Its a moot point

your selling federer's game short. his rise wasn't solely due to the slowing of the courts. much like his fall want solely due to the further slowing of the courts. you give a good assessment of pete's headstrong mentality though. i dont see him changing his style. but changing his style would be his only shot in this era. he either needs to become more proficient defensively to round himself out, or become more aggressive from the baseline and learn to hit through the court.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Pure hilarity.

If Sampras had been born in the mid to late 80s he would have never discarded the two-hander. He was an awesome, strong athlete and phenomenal mover. He'd have no trouble competing with players today. His development would have been different, yes, but he would easily be in the mix with Djokovic, Nadal and post-prime Federer.

Picture prime Roddick but with better speed, volleys and tactics. If that is not a fearsome player, I don't know what is.

he would still need to develop something from the baseline though. it's such a baseline dependent game now. i feel like his running forehand would get eaten up by djokovic.

 

[90's Clay]

your selling federer's game short. his rise wasn't solely due to the slowing of the courts. much like his fall want solely due to the further slowing of the courts. you give a good assessment of pete's headstrong mentality though. i dont see him changing his style. but changing his style would be his only shot in this era. he either needs to become more proficient defensively to round himself out, or become more aggressive from the baseline and learn to hit through the court.

Fed became more consistent because he developed a safer, lower risk baseline game. When you are an attacker, big hitter, net rusher you a player more error prone high risk game which results in more errors, and more upsets etc.

Under faster conditions, there really was NO WAY to be a consistent baseliner and see year round success such as the 90s for instance

 

[NatF]

Sampras wouldn't adopt the same style as he did in the 90s.. Bottom line.. Its a moot point.. If they didn't slow everything down, Federer might still be a more error prone, attacking type player like he was pre 2004 and wouldn't be as consistent.

Its a moot point

What a joke of a post. Yes Federer's dominance was slowly the result of all the courts on tour slowing down at the end of 2003 and the beginning of 2004...Federer was pretty aggressive all throughout his prime years. If you hadn't noticed out of the current top 4 guys Federer is the one who enjoys faster conditions the most. Was the US Open slower in 04 compared to the early 00's where Sampras made 3 straight finals? Did they slow the AO down that year too?

You're so full of crap.

 

[fed_rulz]

the clowns who are quick to announce that "Pete would play a different game if he played today" don't give the same courtesy to Nadal or Djoker or anyone else from this era and make stupid claims like "Pete would crush Nadal on 90s grass.."

Sards are the worst hypocrites in this forum.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It's impossible to know. With his 90's game he wouldn't be so succesfull in this courts. So I say he would be ranked 5.

But he would play completely different than he did.

 

[fed_rulz]

Fed became more consistent because he developed a safer, lower risk baseline game. When you are an attacker, big hitter, net rusher you a player more error prone high risk game which results in more errors, and more upsets etc.

Under faster conditions, there really was NO WAY to be a consistent baseliner and see year round success such as the 90s for instance

that may or may not be true.. but what it shows is that Federer adapts to win; Sampras did not develop the "safer' game needed to win on clay..

btw, under faster conditions Federer wouldn't be a baseliner -- he'd be a better S & V'er Pete Sampras

 

[Sid_Vicious]

the clowns who are quick to announce that "Pete would play a different game if he played today" don't give the same courtesy to Nadal or Djoker or anyone else from this era and make stupid claims like "Pete would crush Nadal on 90s grass.."

Sards are the worst hypocrites in this forum.

This is a very good point.

Don't forget that shameless poster who claimed that Nadal would be 0-10 against Pete on fast grass, while Pete would be able to go 1-9 or 2-8 against Nadal on Roland Garros. Oh god...I did laugh.

 

[90's Clay]

What a joke of a post. Yes Federer's dominance was slowly the result of all the courts on tour slowing down at the end of 2003 and the beginning of 2004...Federer was pretty aggressive all throughout his prime years. If you hadn't noticed out of the current top 4 guys Federer is the one who enjoys faster conditions the most. Was the US Open slower in 04 compared to the early 00's where Sampras made 3 straight finals? Did they slow the AO down that year too?

You're so full of crap.

Oh shut up..

Fed's dominance was highly dependent upon the game evolving into a slower surface baseline style game.. Thus why Nadal has been so consistent year round, Nole is more consistent, Murray more consistent.

Try adopting that style in the 80s or 90s.. wouldn't WORK. AT ALL. You had to go for broke more under faster conditions, you HAD to really attack and put pressure on the opponent, go for more , and come into the net a lot more.

Games like Nadal or Noles or Murray's would be eaten ALIVE at places like Flushing and Wimbledon before. Fed wouldn't be able to live at the baseline either.

The style of game he had pre 2004, would be a game that would be more mandatory.. And as a result of that, that means more prone to upsets, higher risk style of game

Borg for instance almost had to change his whole game plan and strategy around just from grass to clay season.

You can win a freaking calendar slam PUSHING from the baseline today.. Think about it. IMPOSSIBLE to do so before.

There are exceptions like Agassi.. But Agassi was also the cleanest ball striker to have ever lived. Fed doesn't have the clean ball striking ability of Andre,

 

[NatF]

I remember watching a US Open match involving Sampras, possibly playing Corrjeta (SP?)? Anyway it was mid to late 90's and Mcenroe was saying how he wished Sampras would be more agressive and attack the net more due to his serve. Point being Sampras would be fine on the baseline..

 

[fed_rulz]

Oh shut up..

Fed's dominance was highly dependent upon the game evolving into a slower surface baseline style game.. Thus why Nadal has been so consistent year round, Nole is more consistent, Murray more consistent.

Try adopting that style in the 80s or 90s.. wouldn't WORK. AT ALL. You had to go for broke more under faster conditions, you HAD to really attack and put pressure on the upon, and come into the net a lot more.

Games like Nadal or Noles or Murray's would be eaten ALIVE at places like Flushing and Wimbledon before. Fed wouldn't be able to live at the baseline either.

The style of game he had pre 2004, would be a game that would be more mandatory.. And as a result of that, that means more prone to upsets, higher risk style of game

Borg for instance almost had to change his whole game plan and strategy around just from grass to clay season.

You can win a freaking calendar slam PUSHING from the baseline today.. Think about it. IMPOSSIBLE to do so before.

There are exceptions like Agassi.. But Agassi was also the cleanest ball striker to have ever lived. Fed doesn't have the clean ball striking ability of Andre,

you're still full of crap. If it was very difficult to be consistent on faster surfaces, then how come Pete won 7 wimbledons in 8 yrs?

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Fed became more consistent because he developed a safer, lower risk baseline game. When you are an attacker, big hitter, net rusher you a player more error prone high risk game which results in more errors, and more upsets etc.

Under faster conditions, there really was NO WAY to be a consistent baseliner and see year round success such as the 90s for instance

it's not as if there weren't baseline players before federer. he was not the sole beneficiary of the courts slowing down. Federer just happened to be the man who transcended the baseline game. it was around before him, and others had the same chances to tweak/ raise their games accordingly, but his level of play surpassed all other baseliners playing under the same changing conditions.

 

[fed_rulz]

I remember watching a US Open match involving Sampras, possibly playing Corrjeta (SP?)? Anyway it was mid to late 90's and Mcenroe was saying how he wished Sampras would be more agressive and attack the net more due to his serve. Point being Sampras would be fine on the baseline..

Pete's serve would not be a special serve today. There are more feared servers on tour, and the top guys can return serve better than the guys that Pete played against.

 

[NatF]

Oh shut up..

Fed's dominance was highly dependent upon the game evolving into a slower surface baseline style game.. Thus why Nadal has been so consistent year round, Nole is more consistent, Murray more consistent.

Try adopting that style in the 80s or 90s.. wouldn't WORK. AT ALL. You had to go for broke more under faster conditions, you HAD to really attack and put pressure on the opponent, go for more , and come into the net a lot more.

Games like Nadal or Noles or Murray's would be eaten ALIVE at places like Flushing and Wimbledon before. Fed wouldn't be able to live at the baseline either.

The style of game he had pre 2004, would be a game that would be more mandatory.. And as a result of that, that means more prone to upsets, higher risk style of game

Borg for instance almost had to change his whole game plan and strategy around just from grass to clay season.

You can win a freaking calendar slam PUSHING from the baseline today.. Think about it. IMPOSSIBLE to do so before.

There are exceptions like Agassi.. But Agassi was also the cleanest ball striker to have ever lived. Fed doesn't have the clean ball striking ability of Andre,

So the US Open was slower in 2004 than it was in 00, 01 and 02? And the AO surface slowed down too?

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

If Sampras were playing in today's generation I think it's safe to say neither Pete or Fed would have been able to amass such a huge amount of slams. They would have definitely affected each others totals. I'd speculate they would have roughly split 20 slams between them and Nadal and Djokovic would each have a slam or 2 less.

 

[fed_rulz]

it's not as if there weren't baseline players before federer. he was not the sole beneficiary of the courts slowing down. Federer just happened to be the man who transcended the baseline game. it was around before him, but his level of play surpassed all other baseliners playing under the same changing conditions.

I'm just trolling GameSampras/SetSampras/90's clay. Look how arbitrary his cut-off of 2004 looks.. the first year of the Federer that we know of..

all his posts have the ulterior motive of denigrating Federer and hyping Sampras. He would not hesitate to trash any player that has a losing record against Federer. He even went to the extent of wishing ill on Federer's kids when posting as GameSampras, then retracted because of the outcry.

 

[fed_rulz]

If Sampras were playing in today's generation I think it's safe to say neither Pete or Fed would have been able to amass such a huge amount of slams. They would have definitely affected each others totals. I'd speculate they would have roughly split 20 slams between them and Nadal and Djokovic would each have a slam or 2 less.

Sorry, Pete is not of the same caliber as Federer. Federer would pwn Pete under today's conditions. I will repeat what I've repeated earlier -- Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner (inconsistent or injured or AWOL opponents, faster surfaces etc.).

 

[THE FIGHTER]

If Sampras were playing in today's generation I think it's safe to say neither Pete or Fed would have been able to amass such a huge amount of slams. They would have definitely affected each others totals. I'd speculate they would have roughly split 20 slams between them and Nadal and Djokovic would each have a slam or 2 less.

so wait, is this era stronger than the 90's? would pete face greater competition these last few years compared to his own time?

 

[THE FIGHTER]

I'm just trolling GameSampras/SetSampras/90's clay. Look how arbitrary his cut-off of 2004 looks.. the first year of the Federer that we know of..

all his posts have the ulterior motive of denigrating Federer and hyping Sampras. He would not hesitate to trash any player that has a losing record against Federer. He even went to the extent of wishing ill on Federer's kids when posting as GameSampras, then retracted because of the outcry.

don't worry, i know. my mistake though, i quoted you instead of 90s clay. i approve of your trolling

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

so wait, is this era stronger than the 90's? would pete face greater competition these last few years compared to his own time?

Well, In my opinion either Fed or Pete is about as tough a competition as there ever was so it's tough to say one era is stronger than the other. While I do think Nadal and Djokovic are amazing players, and make this era tough as hell, there was more depth to the filed in the 90s so one era being stronger than the other is a toss up.

 

[fed_rulz]

Well, In my opinion either Fed or Pete is about as tough a competition as there ever was so it's tough to say one era is stronger than the other. While I do think Nadal and Djokovic are amazing players, and make this era tough as hell, there was more depth to the filed in the 90s so one era being stronger than the other is a toss up.

what is your definition of "depth"?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

This is a very good point.

Don't forget that shameless poster who claimed that Nadal would be 0-10 against Pete on fast grass, while Pete would be able to go 1-9 or 2-8 against Nadal on Roland Garros. Oh god...I did laugh.

Nadal would have more chances against Sampras on grass than Sampras against Nadal on clay (if he would have any chance).

 

[90's Clay]

Nadal would have more chances against Sampras on grass than Sampras against Nadal on clay (if he would have any chance).

90s Fast grass? No way.. Pete has beaten some big names in his day on slow clay. Bruguera was almost like Nadal before Nadal. Sampras was also 83-8 vs. Lefties from 1994 or so on.

Nadal playing Sampras under fast grass is like the Rasol thrashing X10

Whereas Pete has clay wins over Muster, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Courier etc. So pete HAS PROVED he an beat some very very good clay court players. Yea Nadal is clay GOAT but still.


Im sorry but whats Nadal's conquests over anyone on faster conditions much less fast, weird bouncing slick grass?

At least Pete has some big wins over clay specialists on his resume and some big titles like Rome and Davis Cup

Wheras you put Nadal under a faster surface environment (Indoor grass like last year, WTF).. The attacker eats him alive. ANd indoor grass and hards is way slower now then it was in Pete's day.


The French was also slower in Pete's day.. Monte Carlo type slow. Its faster at RG now, thus giving Pete's shots more power and pace off the ground especially that serve of his along with the FH

 

[Fedfan34]

This is PETE SAMPRAS we're talking about here, not your run of the mill player. Sampras was the greatest of the 90s, one of the all time greatest as well.

I don't know what his exact ranking would be. He was so dominant precisely because he knew how to win- therefore he would probably not serve and volley on every point.

If I were to place any player in history ever against Roger Federer in his prime in the hopes that this player would beat Roger, I would resurrect prime Sampras and have them square off on grass and hard court. If we're honestly assuming Samps is at his best, and we're taking the top 4 now, including old Roger who is #2 right now, I would think that Samps would be #3. I think Samps would only be a threat to Djokovic on grass, but could hurt Murray and Nadal at the US Open and Wimbledon. Of course, he won't stand a chance on clay, and this is why I think he will consistently be ranked below Roger. Roger will make RG semis and finals, and make deep runs at all clay court tournaments, Pete will make the quarters AT BEST.

Having said that, Pete and Roger will be co favorites to win Wimbledon in 2013 if we are resurrecting prime Pete.

 

[fed_rulz]

This is PETE SAMPRAS we're talking about here, not your run of the mill player. Sampras was the greatest of the 90s, one of the all time greatest as well.

I don't know what his exact ranking would be. He was so dominant precisely because he knew how to win- therefore he would probably not serve and volley on every point.

If I were to place any player in history ever against Roger Federer in his prime in the hopes that this player would beat Roger, I would resurrect prime Sampras and have them square off on grass and hard court. If we're honestly assuming Samps is at his best, and we're taking the top 4 now, including old Roger who is #2 right now, I would think that Samps would be #3. I think Samps would only be a threat to Djokovic on grass, but could hurt Murray and Nadal at the US Open and Wimbledon. Of course, he won't stand a chance on clay, and this is why I think he will consistently be ranked below Roger. Roger will make RG semis and finals, and make deep runs at all clay court tournaments, Pete will make the quarters AT BEST.

Having said that, Pete and Roger will be co favorites to win Wimbledon in 2013 if we are resurrecting prime Pete.

Jeez, easy on the hyperbole...

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

what is your definition of "depth"?

More players who actually pose a threat of winning and come through with big wins at slams instead of just being whipping boys all the time for top players. Regardless of what creates the disparity, top players being that great, or bottom players sucking that much, the fact remains the disparity is there and thus a lack of competition.

 

[zagor]

Put prime Sampras in the field right now and I'd say he'd be #1 or #2, #3 at worst.

 

[zagor]

Having said that, Pete and Roger will be co favorites to win Wimbledon in 2013 if we are resurrecting prime Pete.

No way in hell is current (30+ year old) Fed beating prime Pete at Wimbledon, slow grass or not.

Now let them face at off at their respective peaks/primes and it would have been a dogfight.

 

[90's Clay]

No way in hell is current (30+ year old) Fed beating prime Pete at Wimbledon, slow grass or not.

Now let them face at off at their respective peaks/primes and it would have been a dogfight.

Maybe... Tough to say.. Pete at his peak was playing multi-time wimbledon champ Becker, Goran, Agassi, etc.

Fed at his peak was playing Roddick, Hewitt and Baby Nadal.

So Fed's array of competition during his wimbledon peak is a bit weaker then Pete's array of competition at his peak from 93-95, and 1999 IMO

 

[fed_rulz]

More players who actually pose a threat of winning and come through with big wins at slams instead of just being whipping boys all the time for top players. Regardless of what creates the disparity, top players being that great, or bottom players sucking that much, the fact remains the disparity is there and thus a lack of competition.

Sure, a bunch of 5.0s playing among themselves can create the illusion of being more competitive than a bunch of 6.0s playing with a 7.0.

Does not make the 5.0s better than the 6.0s or even the same. clearly the era with 6.0s and the one 7.0 plays better tennis than the era with just 5.0s

 

[helloworld]

No way Prime Pete would be ranked below old man Fed, and I can't imagine Djokovic being above Prime Pete either. #1 easily in this current weak era.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Sure, a bunch of 5.0s playing among themselves can create the illusion of being more competitive than a bunch of 6.0s playing with a 7.0.

Does not make the 5.0s better than the 6.0s or even the same. clearly the era with 6.0s and the one 7.0 plays better tennis than the era with just 5.0s

Are you suggesting guys like Agassi or Rafter were 5.0s? The point was that there is a disparity in competition. Not what created the situation. Hilarious, now the 90s was just full of 5.0s. Time to log off this board.

 

[fed_rulz]

No way Prime Pete would be ranked below old man Fed, and I can't imagine Djokovic being above Prime Pete either. #1 easily in this current weak era.

any version of Pete would be ranked below old man Fed. you want proof: go look at their 2001 Wimbledon match

 

[fed_rulz]

Are you suggesting guys like Agassi or Rafter were 5.0s? The point was that there is a disparity in competition. Not what created the situation. Hilarious, now the 90s was just full of 5.0s. Time to log off this board.

you have no business getting into an argument if you cannot see the difference between an analogy and assertion. How is that you don't protest the fact that I "suggested" that Federer's peers were 6.0s?

again, disparity in competition does not make the era with more disparity "better" (may be for view pleasure, perhaps, but not on tennis playing terms).

 

[ultradr]

Assuming he changes his game to baseline game (back to his junior days),
he would reach #1. He was pure athlete and can adapt. he was a baseliner
up until early pro years anyway.

With same kind of all court game he played, I would say top 10.
He can win 1 or 2 Masters and that's top 10 these days. possibly #5,
all tournaments are so dominated by top 4.

It's all power baseliners world since Federer-Nadal era arrived.

He can't win any slam with his all court game. He might reach final but
not likely to win slam on a consistent bases with same kind of game.

Courts are too slow, balls are heavier and returns/passing shots are precise.

 

[fed_rulz]

Assuming he changes his game to baseline game (back to his junior days),
he would reach #1.

With same kind of all court game he played, I would say top 10.
He can win 1 or 2 Masters and that's top 10 these days. possibly #5,
all tournaments are so dominated by top 4.

It's all power baseliners world since Federer-Nadal era arrived.

He can't win any slam with his all court game. He might reach final but
not likely to win slam on a consistent bases. Courts are too slow and
returns/passing shots are precise.

and why would that be, and why didn't he attempt to revive his baseline game for the clay in the 90s?