"If you could take one shot from him..." Nole and Pete, a convo of two GOATs.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 777746
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
Nole and Pete connect over their shared 6 year dominance of the field and express admiration for each other's games. In particular, Nole was inspired by Pete's mental strength and fortitude, while Pete looks on his protege with pride.


Convo made me wonder: what will be the legacy of today's top 3 in terms of inspiration? Pete was best of his era, we know that, but currently there are 3 players all vying for that title in their era (two of which are convincingly ahead of the third). What will Rafa, Nole, and Fed inspire in the next crop of players growing up watching them today?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Swingmaster

Hall of Fame
Kids just like the absolute best players. Simple little front runners. It would have been interesting if Djokovic had looked up to someone like Vince Spadea.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
While Pete looks on his protege with pride.
Yeah, a protege who couldn't serve and volley his way out of a paper bag. There is *NOTHING* similar in either of their games. Compare your boy to Lendl or Andre, never, ever to Pete Sampras, unless you're talking mental strength, then Djokovic 2011-2017 can be compared to Pete. Never in their playing style.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
Yeah, a protege who couldn't serve and volley his way out of a paper bag. There is *NOTHING* similar in either of their games. Compare your boy to Lendl or Andre, never, ever to Pete Sampras, unless you're talking mental strength, then Djokovic post-2010 until 2017 can be compared to Pete. Never in their playing style.
A person is their essence more than their appearance. Deep down, Pete and Nole are both champs who excel in pressure situations when all the cards are against them, when no one thinks they can succeed. That's when their magic comes out. That's not a quality many players have. Including your boy.

So yes, at their essence, Sampras and Nole are brethren.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
pete is looking like a 60 year old........how about some maintenance?
I'm really scared. I really hope I do not look like that in ten years.

A person is their essence more than their appearance. Deep down, Pete and Nole are both champs who excel in pressure situations when all the cards are against them, when no one thinks they can succeed. That's when their magic comes out. That's not a quality many players have. Including your boy.

So yes, at their essence, Sampras and Nole are brethren.
lol no

Sampras never dominated the way Djok is, never won 3 Slams in a season, no CGS, and by the time he was Nole's current age, he was out of the game for 2 years.

Plus there is zero similarity in their games, or their on-court behavior, or their off-court behavior...
 

jondice

New User
As others have said, I would have totally assumed Agassi was Nole's childhood hero. But that was a cool vid! And I am not a fan of either Pete or Nole.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Yeah, a protege who couldn't serve and volley his way out of a paper bag. There is *NOTHING* similar in either of their games. Compare your boy to Lendl or Andre, never, ever to Pete Sampras, unless you're talking mental strength, then Djokovic 2011-2017 can be compared to Pete. Never in their playing style.
But...he DIDN’T compare their playing styles, while actually focusing on mental strength parallels. Lol.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Novak with Pete’s serve, volleys, slice and smash

vs

Fed with Ivo’s serve

Who wins? Both 26 years old :)
Fed with Ivos serve would be unbeatable same as Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic with Pete’s volleys etc would of course be strong but his volleys and smashes while being a weakness is nothing which can be really exploited and he does not use it much anyways so the difference would not be so big.
 

skaj

Legend
At least he has a backhand
Did you watch Sampras play in the 90s? He had a decent backhand, was hitting winners of that side regularly, could come up with great angles, also effective passing shots, lobs, drop shots, winners on the run etc. Not to mention his great slice, significantly better than Djoko's. The one-hander might seem weak compared to the rest of his weapons, which were huge(serve, forehand, net game, athleticism, clutch...), but it was a solid shot.

You can't say any of that for Novak's overhead, so I suggest you keep the "at least" part for him ;)
 
Last edited:

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
Yeah, a protege who couldn't serve and volley his way out of a paper bag. There is *NOTHING* similar in either of their games. Compare your boy to Lendl or Andre, never, ever to Pete Sampras, unless you're talking mental strength, then Djokovic 2011-2017 can be compared to Pete. Never in their playing style.
Thanks Captain Obvious, ma'am.
 

California

Semi-Pro
Well you have Henman doing the interview who's looking pretty good. Only a few years difference between them.
Well to be fair Pete isn't even trying.... he needs a haircut and a shave for starters, then maybe a decent shirt, not a tee shirt.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
So back to the thread topic - what will the Big 3: Rafa, Novak, and Fed, inspire in the kids growing up?
 

Eren

Professional
So back to the thread topic - what will the Big 3: Rafa, Novak, and Fed, inspire in the kids growing up?
I take it you mean playing style like how young kiddos can try to emulate some of their shots?

Federer: Best FH in his peak on grass and hard and a very good serve and an all-surface player. Unique playing style which looks good according to some fans.

Nadal: Best FH on clay, most consistent FH ever and the FH barely declined. Clay legacy, inhuman consistency on clay and especially at RG. IMO, mentally the strongest from the Big 3 (evident from the fact that he has the least RU trophies compared to the other members of the Big3).

Djokovic: NCYGS, amazing BH and an all-surface specialist as well. Best Slow HC player ever.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
I take it you mean playing style like how young kiddos can try to emulate some of their shots?

Federer: Best FH in his peak on grass and hard and a very good serve and an all-surface player. Unique playing style which looks good according to some fans.

Nadal: Best FH on clay, most consistent FH ever and the FH barely declined. Clay legacy, inhuman consistency on clay and especially at RG. IMO, mentally the strongest from the Big 3 (evident from the fact that he has the least RU trophies compared to the other members of the Big3).

Djokovic: NCYGS, amazing BH and an all-surface specialist as well. Best Slow HC player ever.
Just in general: mentality, attitude, playing style, whatever
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Did Pete really, though?

He had one main rival, who never dominated.

Fed, Nadal, Djok have all had much stiffer competition than Pete ever did.
Nadal definitely did in his prime.

Djokovic did pre 2015 in his prime.

It’s not Sampras’ fault that Fed only started to face tough competition later in his career. He should have retired in 2012.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Nadal definitely did in his prime.

Djokovic did pre 2015 in his prime.

It’s not Sampras’ fault that Fed only started to face tough competition later in his career. He should have retired in 2012.
Nothing is Sampras' fault, but we have elevated him to the level of the Big 3 and IMO he never reached it.

Fed was dethroned in 2008 by Rafa, and then had the finest stretch of his career IMO (won a CGS in a six-Slam timeframe).

Rafa absolutely dominated 2008-13 until being dethroned by Djokovic.

All 3 guys have the CGS despite competing against each other for the majority of their careers; Sampras doesn't, despite having much weaker competition overall.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
Did Pete really, though?

He had one main rival, who never dominated.

Fed, Nadal, Djok have all had much stiffer competition than Pete ever did.
Pete had a deeper field. Fought through Lendl, Mac, and Agassi just to get his first Slam. Overall, had Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, Stitch, Chang, Goran, Rafter, Kafelnikov, etc. to contend with who were way better than Fed's. Nadal had Fed and Nole, Nole had Fed and Rafa. I'd say Samprodal had just about equal competition. Might give it to Pete because of the faster, more unpredictable, upset prone conditions of his time. And no modern nutrition. And no anything-is-possible poly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
Nothing is Sampras' fault, but we have elevated him to the level of the Big 3 and IMO he never reached it.

Fed was dethroned in 2008 by Rafa, and then had the finest stretch of his career IMO (won a CGS in a six-Slam timeframe).

Rafa absolutely dominated 2008-13 until being dethroned by Djokovic.

All 3 guys have the CGS despite competing against each other for the majority of their careers; Sampras doesn't, despite having much weaker competition overall.
Fed's career slam came when Rafa got bumped off the surface by someone else. He couldn't get over the line himself.
Career slam isn't what it used to be. All surfaces play much closer to same than ever. Homogenization makes these incredible feats of domination possible. As does Poly. As does modern nutrition and training.

Pete's every bit as great as big 3. In fact, the only one who can be compared to him is the one that ends up being best of the era, since that's what Pete was.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Pete had a deeper field. Fought through Lendl, Mac, and Agassi just to get his first Slam. Overall, had Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, Stitch, Chang, Goran, Rafter, Kafelnikov, etc. to contend with who were way better than Fed's.
A lot of those guys were on the back end of their careers, and none of them were younger.

Pete vs younger competition (Safin, Hewitt) was a different story, obviously. And he didn't really stick around all that long once he started losing to the younger guys.

Fed's career slam came when Rafa got bumped off the surface by someone else. He couldn't get over the line himself.
That's...silly. He did get over the line. Not his fault that Rafa wasn't there. A win is a win.

Facts are facts, and Fed won all 4 Slams in a very short time period from US08 to AO10, even after he'd been dethroned by Rafa as the dominant player. Not bad for a total fraud.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
A lot of those guys were on the back end of their careers, and none of them were younger.

Pete vs younger competition (Safin, Hewitt) was a different story, obviously. And he didn't really stick around all that long once he started losing to the younger guys.



That's...silly. He did get over the line. Not his fault that Rafa wasn't there. A win is a win.

Facts are facts, and Fed won all 4 Slams in a very short time period from US08 to AO10, even after he'd been dethroned by Rafa as the dominant player. Not bad for a total fraud.
Exactly. And fact is, everyone knew that without the miracle of Soderling, Fed would never have gotten the French. If not for Rafa's knees he'd never have gotten the record at Wimbers a few months later. And he'd never have gotten to 7 Wimbledons and the #1 record without Rosol-Man swooping in on his cape to save the day. Heck, he'd never even have made finals in '14 without Kyrgios to play spoiler.

Also, the stuff w/ Pete's competition has been done so many times its exhausting. If you can't see the difference between Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Mac, Courier, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Chang, Goran, and Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Baghdatis and Gravinboginagis I can't help you.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Exactly. And fact is, everyone knew that without the miracle of Soderling, Fed would never have gotten the French. If not for Rafa's knees he'd never have gotten the record at Wimbers a few months later. And he'd never have gotten to 7 Wimbledons and the #1 record without Rosol-Man swooping in on his cape to save the day. Heck, he'd never even have made finals in '14 without Kyrgios to play spoiler.
This crap works both ways. If we can say that...then we can say that Roger would have 5-6 RGs if not for Rafa.

We can say that Nadal would only have 1 Wimbledon title if Fed wasn't hit by Mono in 2008.

Surface homogenization discredits Fed but not Rafa? OK.

Pete Prime said:
Also, the stuff w/ Pete's competition has been done so many times its exhausting. If you can't see the difference between Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Mac, Courier, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Chang, Goran, and Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Baghdatis and Gravinboginagis I can't help you.
Lendl and Pete had one year of overlap when they both won a Slam. That's it. Pete went through him in the QFs and he never won another Slam...one F appearance at AO91 and then off to Finland. Agassi was more of a factor in Fed's career than Lendl was in Pete's.

And yes, Pete beat McEnroe in the 90 US SF...McEnroe was unseeded and was more than five years removed from his last Slam Final.

So, as I said, a lot of the guys you're touting as tough competition for Pete were on the back half of their careers. His same-age competition was Agassi, Courier, Martin, Rusedski...guys like that.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
This crap works both ways. If we can say that...then we can say that Roger would have 5-6 RGs if not for Rafa.

We can say that Nadal would only have 1 Wimbledon title if Fed wasn't hit by Mono in 2008.

Surface homogenization discredits Fed but not Rafa? OK.



Lendl and Pete had one year of overlap when they both won a Slam. That's it. Pete went through him in the QFs and he never won another Slam...one F appearance at AO91 and then off to Finland. Agassi was more of a factor in Fed's career than Lendl was in Pete's.

And yes, Pete beat McEnroe in the 90 US SF...McEnroe was unseeded and was more than five years removed from his last Slam Final.

So, as I said, a lot of the guys you're touting as tough competition for Pete were on the back half of their careers. His same-age competition was Agassi, Courier, Martin, Rusedski...guys like that.
Sorry bud, you try to squeak out Edberg and Becker but it doesn't work like that. Becker has repeatedly stated Pete is the reason he retired, because he knew at his best on grass Pete would still beat him. He said of all the guys he played - Wilander, Edberg, Mcenroe, Lendl and so on, Pete was easily the best. Repeatedly. Recently. You talk down Courier like he's some scrub. He's a way better player than anyone Fed beat to win majors outside the big 4. And yeah, bit better than Murray too.

And no, we can't say Rafa would only have 1 Wimbledon title if Fed hadn't been hit by mono. Fed had mono at start of the year. He lost to Rafa 6 months later. That game cannot be played either.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Sorry bud, you try to squeak out Edberg and Becker but it doesn't work like that. Becker has repeatedly stated Pete is the reason he retired, because he knew at his best on grass Pete would still beat him. He said of all the guys he played - Wilander, Edberg, Mcenroe, Lendl and so on, Pete was easily the best. Repeatedly. Recently. You talk down Courier like he's some scrub. He's a way better player than anyone Fed beat to win majors outside the big 4. And yeah, bit better than Murray too.
I didn't talk down Courier or Becker or Edberg.

The ones I poked holes in were Lendl and McEnroe. They were just too old.

Pete played against a lot of big & memorable names, but outside of Agassi, none of them really challenged him consistently. He also got two Slam victories over Pioline, two over Goran, one over Todd Martin, and an Aussie crown over Moya of all people.

And at age 31 he was ushered out of the game by Fed, Safin, and Hewitt.
 
Top