Is there consensus that Nadal ahead of Pete when he lifts the cup on Sunday?
- Thread starter NGM
- Start date
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
What I meant is if he hadn't been up there at the net, maybe some of those screaming returns of Krajicek wouldn't have been winners.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Like, if you look at this game, on the first three points, Sampras came in behind second serves. He made good-but-not-good enough volleys on two occasions and on the first only managed a pickup that sat up nicely for Krajicek. The last return, of course, was sheer brilliance, Krajicek stepping across and whacking a first serve down the T. But my guess is Sampras went a bit slower on that serve as a result of missing the previous three first serves. If he had stayed back on second serves, MAYBE he could have avoided getting broken. This is not really an outlandish idea because in the 90s, players had already begun staying back on the second serve even at Wimbledon.
obsessedtennisfandisorder
Professional
Hey that's a great vid...showing how crucial key "all or nothing " returns were in the 90's..
krajicek had a great run in 96 and throughly deserved the title ...pity some injuries shortchanged him later on.
krajicek had a great run in 96 and throughly deserved the title ...pity some injuries shortchanged him later on.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Very true. The flipside of players staying back is that returners don't HAVE to go all out on every return. Just getting it back into play is often enough which would have been easy prey for serve volleyers in the 90s.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Yes, it is still a rare achievement. That's why out of a field of hundreds, these guys have won 95% of the slams in the past 12 years. If what you say is true, then why does Fed have 10 HC slams and only 1 lucky RG title?
See, that's why I sometimes question the IQ of the Fed fanbase.
mightyrick
Legend
I think there are a lot of factors -- even outside of the surface itself. The US Open was the first slam to get rid of the "win by two game" rule and implement tiebreakers for winning all sets and matches at 6-6. What kind of players does that reward? Big servers. Well, that hurts Borg. The serve was arguably one of the weakest parts of his game. Also, the US Open was the first slam to have night play under lights -- playing at night. Cooler conditions. Less wind. Less action on the ball. Again, that does not favor Borg's game.
As a surface, having success on hardcourt has always been reliant on solid, more-lengthy, baseline exchanges. Even with wood and aluminum racquets, it could take a few extra shots to get to the net. Hardcourt has never overly rewarded variation shots such as BH/FH slices, droppers, high spin shots as much as on clay or grass. Natural surfaces always seem to accentuate the ball's reaction to the bounce to either kick up really high or deaden completely and stay low. On HC, the ball is much more likely to "sit up".
The things that I see which have always been consistently rewarded on hardcourt are: hard/heavy serves, baseline shot precision, awesome backhand, and high-quality return of serve. Those things were never really Borg's strengths.
And then you look at players in the time of the Open Era who were really awesome on hardcourt, it makes sense. Guys like Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl. They all had those characteristics.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
"Lucky" RG title? Again, usual BSing from the VamosBrigade. Anyhow, my point stands given that Fed has about five finals there. So even using that crappy 'argument' you still don't have a point. Sampras licks Nasal on two out of three surfaces, not counting Carpet.Yes, it is still a rare achievement. That's why out of a field of hundreds, these guys have won 95% of the slams in the past 12 years. If what you say is true, then why does Fed have 10 HC slams and only 1 lucky RG title?
See, that's why I sometimes question the IQ of the Fed fanbase.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Yes, it is still a rare achievement. That's why out of a field of hundreds, these guys have won 95% of the slams in the past 12 years. If what you say is true, then why does Fed have 10 HC slams and only 1 lucky RG title?
See, that's why I sometimes question the IQ of the Fed fanbase.
Notice that in a NADAL-SAMPRAS thread the fedfanboys are more concerned with turning it into a "Fed > Sampras" circle jerk. . Forget Nadal for a second: . the spectre of Pete Sampras still gives these insecure non-fans of tennis the creeps to the point that they still feel compelled to selfishly turn yet another ("non-Fed") thread into . "my favorite idol' THIS !...my favorite male idol THAT !.....my favorite male idol's better than HIM!!!!" . grandstanding.
See, that's why I question the 'true tennis' legitimacy of 75% of the Fan fanbase here, most of whom probably never wore a white tennis shirt in a match let alone saw Sampras in his prime move about on a tennis court, but that's besides the point.
The point is (imho): . the great, one-of-a-kind, magnificent, smooooth-as-silk Roger Federer deserves better. ....as do the ORIGINAL SUBJECTS of this thread: . Nadal and Sampras
See, that's why I question the 'true tennis' legitimacy of 75% of the Fan fanbase here, most of whom probably never wore a white tennis shirt in a match let alone saw Sampras in his prime move about on a tennis court, but that's besides the point.
The point is (imho): . the great, one-of-a-kind, magnificent, smooooth-as-silk Roger Federer deserves better. ....as do the ORIGINAL SUBJECTS of this thread: . Nadal and Sampras
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Sampras would probably lick anyone (including you-know-who in fast grass).
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Nope.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
It's a delicate balance you have to tread as a Fed worshiper when you use Sampras as a proxy weapon against Nadal. On one hand, it's tempting to use him to debase Nadal. On the other hand, if you prop him up too high, then you have to explain how Sampras would destroy Nadal and not Federer (a guy that is virtually tied against Nadal on Nadal's worst (and his best) surfaces) back in 90s conditions.
Alien
Hall of Fame
Exactly. The most difficult Slam to win.
ForLoveOfTheGame
Semi-Pro
No
"Life is a storm, my young friend. You will bask in the sunlight one moment, and be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes."
"Life is a storm, my young friend. You will bask in the sunlight one moment, and be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes."
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
It's a delicate balance you have to tread as a Fed worshiper when you use Sampras as a proxy weapon against Nadal. On one hand, it's tempting to use him to debase Nadal. On the other hand, if you prop him up too high, then you have to explain how Sampras would destroy Nadal and not Federer (a guy that is virtually tied against Nadal on Nadal's worst (and his best) surfaces) back in 90s conditions.
Well, one thing you can probably take to the bank: Rafael Nadal's not going to duck Wimbledon.
I tend to ignore those pathetic trolls, but knock yourself out taking their bait.
MasturB
Legend
I've pondered this. And 5 years ago I would have agreed. But Rafa's longevity at Paris with all the mileage on his knees and body is tremendous. 13 years.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
"And what makes you a woman is skipping town (Paris) altogether when you see the storm approaching." . .
... i'mjust being a dick . : )
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
why did i think you were a fed fan, must have had you confused with someone else. well, no rafa has never in his life skipped slams at all!! lmao probably not, but fed skipped 1 slam, since last year he was injured, for the first time in god knows how long. js
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
It's amazing that you gave him 10 before he won the 10th.
The amazing thing about 10 RGs is that no one has even come close to that, ever. People still talk about Budge, so in a way even Laver's slams were not unique. But doing that twice, as an amateur and as a pro is.
When you do something that no other athlete has ever done, and something that MAY not ever be done again, that's pretty special.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Which you yourself did you "I must respond!" hypocrite (also being the fanboy troll that YOU are yourself)
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, you are being a dick, but Fedfan deserves it.
On the other hand, if you are Federer, you have to be saying:
"My GOD, I'm glad I stayed home for this one!"
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
We need an ignore button for "king". I don't care if it is king-this or king-that. But an extra-strength ignore button when king is all caps...
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Congratulations, you succeeded in a great way. Some trolls have an extra salty taste in their mouth now (if you know what I mean).
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Yes, the moral victors of this RG are strategic tankers Djokovic and Murray, and Master Skipper (Gilligan Island's got nothing on this guy) Federer.Yes, you are being a dick, but Fedfan deserves it.
On the other hand, if you are Federer, you have to be saying:
"My GOD, I'm glad I stayed home for this one!"
They avoided being on the wrong end of Nadal's beating stick.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Yes, you are being a dick,
but Fedfan deserves it.
On the other hand, if you are Federer, you have to be saying:
"My GOD, I'm glad I stayed home for this one!"
Wait a minute....if he deserves it, . then I'm not a dick!......yeah, that's the ticket! . : )
We need an ignore button for "king". I don't care if it is king-this or king-that. But an extra-strength ignore button when king is all caps...
Actually the "king" just gloated the other day about using the 'ignore' button on a number of others here. . Having said that, with all due respect GaryD, I wouldn't put anyone here on ignore, even a queen such as "king." : )
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Nadal has moved ahead of Sampras for me now.
Rafa24
Hall of Fame
HAHAHA so true. Roger is thinking he was smart staying home.Yes, you are being a dick, but Fedfan deserves it.
On the other hand, if you are Federer, you have to be saying:
"My GOD, I'm glad I stayed home for this one!"
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
You'll never catch me knocking Federer for sitting this one out at age almost 36. It may have been the smartest decision of his life.Yes, the moral victors of this RG are strategic tankers Djokovic and Murray, and Master Skipper (Gilligan Island's got nothing on this guy) Federer.
They avoided being on the wrong end of Nadal's beating stick.
But now all the momentum shifts to Nadal, and Nadal with confidence is about twice as dangerous. That's why RG has always been the key to his best years. Once he has RG in the bag, he stops fearing he will be a failure. And I think that's now Nadal looks at things. If he doesn't win RG, it's a terrible year. But once he does, he can build on it.
At Wimbledon some garlic and maybe a crucifix might do.
At RG, bring a wooden stake...
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
It sounds pretty mad but I think it's possible that The Trifecta are ALL greater (or going to be) than Sampras. It can already be argued.
#StrongerEra
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
I'm very wary of Nadal's physical state. Just going by his history of injuries. I sure hope he doesn't overwork and blow the engine.
But I agree with you that a free flowing, confident Nadal is dangerous everywhere. Not only that, now he has a serve and a BH (the backhand has been improving for the past couple of years steadily, but now it really is a weapon in itself). I think these two will be key in Wimbledon. Really interesting going forward. Is he playing Queens?
crazyups
Professional
Good point. It should be an interesting Wimbledon. I hope.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Exactly. 10 slams on clay is no joke. Two more and he has twice as many as Borg!
Sans Borg, he has more than All the guys with 6+ Slams in the Open Era -
Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer and Djokovic - that lot has 94 Slams between them!
Throw in Murray for good measure - 97 Slams, 11 players, all put together have fewer Frenches
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
I am a huge admirer of Fed; what 'fan' of this great sport shouldn't be? . I'm just busting chops at all the fedfanboys especially the ones who use any opportunity to go into their "denigrate/marginalize anyone not named RF" act....and this while Fed's not even around......pisses 'em off, hahah.. : )
World Beater
Hall of Fame
i dont think its quite fair to equate nadal reign at RG with Sampras at wimbledon.
3 More RGs is just too significant too call them both dominant.
Nadal is at a different unprecendent level of dominance. #2 on clay Borg has 6.
While sampras shares 7 at wimbledon with fed.
i see your point though, and i agree with your general thesis.
For me, given the competition - i consider federer and novak to be superior rivals than anything than sampras had.
Nadal for me is #2 behind federer.
3 More RGs is just too significant too call them both dominant.
Nadal is at a different unprecendent level of dominance. #2 on clay Borg has 6.
While sampras shares 7 at wimbledon with fed.
i see your point though, and i agree with your general thesis.
For me, given the competition - i consider federer and novak to be superior rivals than anything than sampras had.
Nadal for me is #2 behind federer.
This is a great question and not easy to answer (I know you didn't mean it to be one though).
As usual it comes down to what one thinks to be relevant measuring stick.
I will put it as simply as I can.
Sampras was the dominant player of his generation, owned two surfaces during his reign.
Nadal dominates one surface, but at least on paper has shown more adaptability (albeit in an era, when adaptability had become a somewhat depleted notion).
Pick one.
Technology Ruined Tennis
Hall of Fame
Still behind Borg. Had Nadal played in that era he would be one of the great "what if's" as medical science could not have saved his knees.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Of course, given that it falls into the "been there done that" territory for him, gets bonus points for doing it as the defending champ.
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
lmao i was just curious, idk why i remember you, or someone with that username very vividly during fo 2009. anyways carry it on, from a fed fan, many fan boys could use a huge helping of humble pie
Rafa24
Hall of Fame
I think all 3 of them are ahead of Pete. Look at Djokers body of work outside of slams plus he has the career slam. Held all 4 slams at once. Masters 1000s. And Djoker had to play against Roger and Rafa who are the two greatest ever. Pete played nobody even close to the caliber of those two.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes but he faced a variety of different playing styles, competed under more polarized conditions, played under 16th seed system in slams, didn't play with poly and modern sticks, didn't have access to modern advanced medicine, improved nutrition and training regimes that allow players today to recover far better from injuries/surgery, compete better in their 30s etc.
Cross-era comparison is quite difficult and is far from being an exact science. We're talking about very thin margins here, Sampras was the last true genuine all-court player among ATGs before topspin power baseliner era took off and we got few players winning everything in sight week after week. All 3 may have had greater careers (even Novak thanks to winning 4 slams in a row) but whether they're actually better than him is still a different matter and more down to subjective opinion than anything else.
Image of Sampras got blurred over time and he's now remembered mainly for his serve and his playing style characterized as serve and volley when he was so much more than that in his prime. Rarely people nowadays talk about his quickness around court (was probably second only to Chang on the entire tour), his FH, his passing shots, his shotmaking ability etc. which is what separated him from the rest of the pack almost as much as his serve did. He's not a dinosaur who wouldn't cut it today, he's one of the best even with his shortcomings on clay (where he still had a few big victories).
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
At some point this thread is gonna turn into, "was Sampras the best in the pre poly era?"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Yup.
abmk
Bionic Poster
that isn't in debate nor did I argue against that. Point was that Krajicek took prime Sampras out in straights in a special effort. Anyone whose seen that and isn't blinded would not say that nadal would handle that Krajicek , with that much assurance .
again, that's plain rubbish. In that case, you'd know/remember sampras was 7-0 and unbeaten in wimby finals as well. Saying nadal was 9-0 in RG finals isn't going to cut into that.
I didn't go through your next posts that time. They weren't addressed to me.
Like I said, double standards. If rafa should have held,federer too should have held.
in that case, stick to the facts, it was a bagel for federer in the 1st, 2 close sets - split and then an easy 4th set for federer.
Sampras was hardly flat in that QF. He wasn't at his sharpest sure, but was still playing well. Krajicek played incredible tennis to beat him.
Federer was worse off in the first 2 sets of wim 08 final (raised his level from the 3rd set onwards) , but you'll only keep crowing nadal, nadal there.
lol, djoko didn't face prime federer at the AO either ( 08 was mono fed, 11 was past it, 16 was way past it and mediocre for 1st 2 sets)
only faced prime nadal once (12)
the surface at AO 00 was actually pretty fast, more so than the "hype" given for this year's AO being sped up and agassi still found a way to beat sampras. he took the 4th set tie-break from him with some stunning play. Saying he should've lost to pete in 2000 is downright stupid from your end/just a way to try to twist around the reality.
that was one of the highest quality breakers ever and agassi took it from sampras with stellar play.
from 4-5 down in the breaker
big serve to fh forces return error from sampras
big serve to bh forces return error from sampras
a low,fast BH return at sampras' feet forcing him to volley up and then agassi passes him with his FH.
here, watch it cause you have no idea :
(earlier in the TB, sampras had hit not one , but 2 second serve aces and a stunning FH CC pass; agassi had hit an absurdly angled I/O FH winner)
agassi faced prime sampras who is the same ballpark as nadal/stan as far as peak level at the AO goes and beat him both times.
IIRC, agassi was down 2 sets to rafter in 2001, doesn't mean he was going to lose it.
Just as Djokovic being 2 sets to one down vs Murray in 12 doesn't mean he was going to necessary lose it.
(they are 2 of the top 3 at the AO in the open era -- because they are that good )
Nope, he'd have a decent shot.
As far as the wim 06 final goes, I made the assumption based on what actually happened in the 4th set once federer had lost the 3rd . Not a bad place to take an assumption, ya know ?
oh, snap. Was that supposed to be a dig on Indian TV programming ? I'm so offended
Humble forehand
New User
It pisses me off when people start muttering "uh, surface homogenization, uh" as if that mattered at all in a GOAT discussion.
- Players can only play in the surface that´s given to them. Did Nadal (or any other player) request for the surfaces to be homogenized? Do you expect them to stop playing because "courts are homogeneized". I think achievement is all that counts, anything else is subjective.
- The same could be say about technology, I just love it when people say "I´d love to see Nadal (or anybody) handle Borg with a wooden racket...". That is delusional, so please cut the crap... it is almost as childish as 9 year old kids discussing "can a ninja warrior defeat a navy seal?"
Xemi666
Professional
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
The salt at distribution is the best thing about Rafa winning RG.Lol. It's plus 6 now
