Nadal In Sampras Era: More or Less Slams Than In Rogers Era

[Conquistador]

If Nadal had to start off in Sampras's day the same time he came in as a rookie in Federer's era--would he have more or less majors than in Fed's era? This is a hard question for me because Sampras and Federer both had similar games. They had the go to serve--the powerful forehand--and the defensive net game of the ages.

 

[ninman]

Nadal would have performed considerably worse at Wimbledon in Sampras's era, also there were more better clay courters, such as Courier, Chang, et al. I don't believe he would have won Wimbledon, or the AO in the the Sampras era, in fact I doubt he would have gotten past the quarters at either slam. He'd probably have 1 or 2 fewer French's as well. I doubt that he would have won it at his first attempt in 1995.

 

[Conquistador]

Nadal would have performed considerably worse at Wimbledon in Sampras's era, also there were more better clay courters, such as Courier, Chang, et al. I don't believe he would have won Wimbledon, or the AO in the the Sampras era, in fact I doubt he would have gotten past the quarters at either slam. He'd probably have 1 or 2 fewer French's as well. I doubt that he would have won it at his first attempt in 1995.

We're talking about Nadal. Nadal is a once in a lifetime player..You dont see scrappers like Nadal with that much skill. David Ferrer is a scrapper--but does he have the skill that Nadal has, no!

 

[ninman]

We're talking about Nadal. Nadal is a once in a lifetime player..You dont see scrappers like Nadal with that much skill. David Ferrer is a scrapper--but does he have the skill that Nadal has, no!

Ok, but for a start you had many players who could serve and volley brilliantly with huge serves like Sampras, Ivanisavic, Rafter, etc. Secondly the surfaces, particularly grass were considerably faster, allowing players who serve and volley to thrive. Nadal plays his clay game at wimbledon and has made 2 finals and won it once. That definitely WOULD NOT have happened 10 years ago.

See the Wimbledon final of 1999, Sampras against Agassi. Sampras won in straight sets. Or the US open final of 2002. A great serve and volleyer with a big serve would have taken Nadal down easily at Wimbledon 10 years ago.

 

[Aabye]

Let's see, on the one hand, Nadal wouldn't have to deal with the same player at RG every year. That would probably take a lot of pressure off.

At the same time however, he would be dealing with Sampras' serve which would probably be the key as to whether or not he would ever win on the hard or grasscourts.

 

[NamRanger]

He would probably have won the AO at some point. RG is almost a lock for at least one, more than likely 2+.



I do agree though; he would have trouble going deep at Wimbledon. Running into a guy like Stich in the quarters would suck, really badly.

 

[boredone3456]

This is a tough call. He certainly would have a Roland Garros title eventually, I really don't doubt that. But outside of that....I would venture to say he'd have fewer slams at this point in his career if he played back then.

In that time there would be a greater amount of threats on Grass, and I seriously doubt he would have made 3 straight Wimbledon finals back then, or win 1 for that matter. As for Hard courts...again I find it very doubtful he would have won an Austrailian by now, though nothing is impossible but like on grass, he would have a ton of threats on hard courts that could probably trouble him at the majors. While I think Rafa would have moderate success, I doubt that by this point in his career he would have as many majors as he does and hold the number 1 ranking if he player during a parallel time in Sampras's Era.

It would likely be a lot harder for Nadal to grind out victories against the likes of Agassi, Sampras, Ivanisevic on Grass, and to a lesser degree Rafter, Chang maybe even Martin, Moya on Clay. I think he would just have a variety of Rivals that would push him more than some of the current guys seem to be able to do.

 

[The-Champ]

He would have performed just as well on clay. None of the clay players of the 90's would stand a chance...in my opinion.

HCs would be difficult for Nadal, doesn't matter what era. It's not the speed that troubles him,...cement is not good for his knees.

 

[bobbynorwich]

Heart to heart, Nadal and Sampras are equals. Technique to technique, Nadal and Sampras are equals. A debate for eternity.

 

[egn]

Nadal probably wins the same ammount of RGs from 93-00 probably not dominating at the start as I imagine a good Sergi and Muster threaten him the most, but from 96-00 he cake walks it until a prime guga steps in. He takes out young guga in 97 and Moya in 98 and Agassi in 99 along with Kalfenikov in 96 I feel. He could maybe swing 95 out but Muster would pose a threat..00 would be where it gets interesting.

He would not win any wimbys, fast grass, S+V he is lucky to make it to the quarters..argue this all you want facts are facts. Nadal's similar player was probably Sergi and he could not do anything on grass..same goes for Muster etc. Nadal might do a quarter final or two but thats it. Only HC Slam he stands a chance at is Australia, his best AO chances come probably 96, 98 or 99. Becker in 96 was on a run but not in his prime..98 or 99 Korda and Kalfenikov once again beatable I think he could maybe pull it out but that is still slim. The AO though was really slow.

I put him between 4-8 slams in the 1993-2002. 2-3 HC and 4-6 Clay. Thats what I imagine he would have done if Wimby's grass had not changed, but no use crying over spilt milk he still is the best on the new grass so he deserves the title =]

 

[380pistol]

Nadal would have performed considerably worse at Wimbledon in Sampras's era, also there were more better clay courters, such as Courier, Chang, et al. I don't believe he would have won Wimbledon, or the AO in the the Sampras era, in fact I doubt he would have gotten past the quarters at either slam. He'd probably have 1 or 2 fewer French's as well. I doubt that he would have won it at his first attempt in 1995.

Agree. Less automatically as he likely would not have won Wimbledon and the Aus Open would likely have come later. The French dominance is still there, but it's plausible that a peak Muster may beat a young Nadal on clay.

 

[GameSampras]

Well throw Wimbeldon and the USO out of the equation.. No way he wins either. So that leaves The Australian and RG. He has 6 slams now? And he has won 3 out of the 4 slams. So I would assume at this point he would have 4 in Pete's era by now at 22... Possibly. I would say he would have a more difficult time at RG early-mid 90s with the likes of Sergi, Muster, Andre Courier and some others than he would today and then the rest of the decade dealing with Guga. I would assume Nadal would still manage quite a few RG titles for sure. Would he be as automatic at RG? Im not so sure.. Draws were considerably tougher at RG in the 90s. You werent getting out of RG without some battles thats for sure. But Nadal could reasonably handle this.

I would give Nadal 5-7 slams in Pete's era all French Open titles. MAYBE an Australian. I think he would have a couple chances there. But thats about it IMO. At the rate Nadal is going now in todays era, he would have a considerable LESS AMOUNT of slams in Pete's era as he does this era. There would be no debates going on about how Nadal may be the GOAT and have the GS record.

He would be a more successful version of a Bruguera or Guga in the 90s IMO. But not a GOAT candidate I think