Nadal is weak on indoor hard court and Sampras is weak on clay

big ted

Hall of Fame
just my opinion but if youre the greatest of all time you should be able to win indoors, or grass, clay, whatever it is..
rafa had all the cards for him to win shanghai or WTF... he wasnt burnt out/injured, it was a short year,
he didnt have to run into federer or djokovic, etc.. and he still didnt do it..
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't call Nadal "weak" on indoor HC. He's just not ATG level.

He's not ATG on grass either, even though he's historically better on grass than indoor HC.
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
Nadal beat future champ of Atp finals many times there! Djokovic-07 ,Murray-10&15 Tsitsipas and Medvedev-19. He beat past champion thrice Djoker-10,Fed-13& Tistsipas-20. Still people compare the mediocrity of Sampras on clay to the fine quality of Nadal on indoor hard. Things cant get any foolish than this.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Upon ranking the players all-time-great, Sampras always gets dock for his weakness on clay, and it hurts his placement in all-time-great. In fairness, Nadal gets dock for his weakness during the indoor season. Nadal fans don't hesitate to diminish Sampras for his poor results on clay, but don't do the same for Nadal on indoor. Both players legacy are not well-polished. You can't have it both way.

I'm just asking for consistency here.
For Sampras fanatics, clay will always be a faux surface. For the VBers, indoor events are only meaningless exhos. ;)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Nadal beat future champ of Atp finals many times there! Djokovic-07 ,Murray-10&15 Tsitsipas and Medvedev-19. He beat past champion thrice Djoker-08,Fed-13& Tistsipas-20. Still people compare the mediocrity of Sampras on clay to the fine quality of Nadal on indoor hard. Things cant get any foolish than this.
Sampras did win the highly prestigious Rome event so he was certainly not a complete noob on clay.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Who's talking about averages or overall leader? Pete leads Nadal at the majority of the slams, that's a fact you must accept.
And I’m saying that it’s very close on HCs and at Neds peak he was going toe to toe with Fed on grass.

If Nadal is 9 tiers ahead of Sampras on clay with Sampras a tier ahead on HC and three tiers ahead on grass, then it’s not really a discussion with regards to who’s greater.

it’s easily Nadal...by a country mile.

If Nadal had like 7 French opens and Pete had 1 then it’s a different story. Pete wins. But that’s far from the case.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
For Sampras fanatics, clay will always be a faux surface. For the VBers, indoor events are only meaningless exhos. ;)
WTF isin't more prestigious than your average Masters to me.

As I have said before, excessive amounts of prize money and ranking points for a tournament with a gimmicky round robin format is meant to manufacture interest after the 4 slams have already been completed. 1500 points? Give me a break.

In competitive eras with all ATGs in their post primes/primes, this is really meant to capitalize on player fatigue and contort the gap between the top ranked players to generate viewership.
 

DSH

Legend
Nadal is clearly superior to the American in this poor comparison.
In addition, how many times must it be repeated that a tournament that has just turned 50 years from its creation, will never be comparable in history and prestige to the 4 great tournaments, the holy grail in tennis.
Are they so dull-minded or are they decidedly idiots by nature?
:censored::whistle:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
WTF isin't more prestigious than your average Masters to me.

As I have said before, excessive amounts of prize money and ranking points for a tournament with a gimmicky round robin format is meant to manufacture interest after the 4 slams have already been completed. 1500 points? Give me a break.

In competitive eras with all ATGs in their post primes/primes, this is really meant to capitalize on player fatigue and artificially narrow the gap between the top ranked players to generate viewership.
T'was always the case but when else could you stage an event that invites only the 8 best players on tour to participate except at season's end (any earlier and the 8 best players would not have had time to prove themselves)?
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
Sampras did win the highly prestigious Rome event so he was certainly not a complete noob on clay.
Relatively dear!!!! Nadal is farly superior on ih than sampras on clay. Multiple finals, one title, one davis cup , and as mentioned above beating future champs and past champs in Atp finals ranks Nadal miles ahead of Sampras
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Relatively dear!!!! Nadal is farly superior on ih than sampras on clay. Multiple finals, one title, one davis cup , and as mentioned above beating future champs and past champs in Atp finals ranks Nadal miles ahead of Sampras
I agree with you but, at the end of the day, both have come away with just 1 Masters title on their least favoured surface.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
T'was always the case but when else could you stage an event that invites only the 8 best players on tour to participate except at season's end (any earlier and the 8 best players would not have had time to prove themselves)?
In between W and USO maybe? Before the USO-warmup HC swing?


And if they are indeed advertising the tournament as the 8 best players of the world facing off they aren’t doing a very good job. Not because of timing but also surface. IE Is Schwartzman a top 8 player on this surface? Prior to recent times Thiem wasn’t either.

Either they get rid of the gimmicky format that theoretically enables players to tank matches and still win the tournament, use a more neutral surface and reconsider the prize money/ranking points or else they should readvertise as an all-star exhibition finale.
Does my argument not hold any credence?
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
I agree with you but, at the end of the day, both have come away with just 1 Masters title on their least favoured surface.
Sampras never had the toughest competition on clay ! Due respect to the then clay courters but the fact remains Nadals ih competition >> Sampras clay competition.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
I agree with you but, at the end of the day, both have come away with just 1 Masters title on their least favoured surface.
How come Fed hasn’t won on the slow clay extra bounce tournaments? MC, Rome?

He has Hamburg/Madrid fast clay, but can’t win at those two. Nadal has an issue on a subset of HC conditions. Fed on a subset of clay conditions.

For Sampras, his problem was an entire surface, not specific conditions on a surface.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
It's not about YEC specifically, it's about how ineffective Nadal game becomes under certain conditions. His weakness is not as consequential in today's era because every slam is high bouncing (relatively speaking), it's individual how much that affects opinion on him as a player but it's there.

Borg for example was a monster on indoor carpet (ditto for Lendl), it's only in this era that the most accomplished guy will be the one who didn't develop his game for faster conditions because they simply aren't there.
So much respect for Borg and Lendl for their achievements on carpet. Same goes for Agassi for winning Wimbledon on fast grass.

just my opinion but if youre the greatest of all time you should be able to win indoors, or grass, clay, whatever it is..
rafa had all the cards for him to win shanghai or WTF... he wasnt burnt out/injured, it was a short year,
he didnt have to run into federer or djokovic, etc.. and he still didnt do it..
Not only does Nadal not have a single End Of Year Championship, I don't think he has a single carpet title either. You can't be the greatest ever if you only won in a subset of conditions *.

* He is undoubtedly the greatest dirt courter, no argument there.
 

Nole_King

Semi-Pro
Second, I was on this forum when Federer was on the verge of breaking Sampras' record. it was the Federer fanboys, not Nadal fans, that often belittled Sampras for his lack of a clay slam. Now that Federer's records are falling like pins, you claim that Nadal fans diminish Sampras? LOL, how times have changed! I've been on this forum a considerable time and Nadal fans have been more than gracious toward Sampras. Now that Federer's records are falling, his fans are being very complimentary toward Sampras. I wonder why!
Doesn't this clearly show that there's no difference between the two fan bases? I have been really pissed off by talks about Federer fan base vs Nadal fan base vs Djokovic fan base and who is better behaved blah blah. It is only a matter of where a player stands that decides the behavior of fanbases. In past when Federer was competing with Sampras to overtake him as GOAT his fans were pulling Sampras down but Nadal fans were siding with Pete because Nadal was still some distance away from Federer. Now that Nadal is almost level with Federer, Federer fans are becoming respectful of Sampras as comparing Nadal and Sampras in discussions help them firm up their effort for supporting Federer.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
Relatively weak. Nadal is still no worse than, say, the 4th- or 5th-best indoor hard court player in the world at 34-years-old. Likewise, Pete had several QFs runs at Roland Garros, won Rome, and beat some excellent clay courters in their prime. It's a relative weakness.
Great comments. This gets to the heart of the matter - Sampras and Nadal were/are actually quite good even on their worst surface, and it's more a quirk of circumstances (ie prioritization in Sampras' case, and calendar position in Nadal's case) as to why they don't have more showcase wins on their least preferred.

Pete still has a clay masters. Nadal still has an indoor masters. And the wins for both players came when the respective events were masters with Bo5 finals.
 

Nole_King

Semi-Pro
Nadal beat future champ of Atp finals many times there! Djokovic-07 ,Murray-10&15 Tsitsipas and Medvedev-19. He beat past champion thrice Djoker-08,Fed-13& Tistsipas-20. Still people compare the mediocrity of Sampras on clay to the fine quality of Nadal on indoor hard. Things cant get any foolish than this.
Well it is foolish to consider beating future champ as some great achievement. Mario Ancic defeated a future 8 time champion at Wimbledon.

Djoker in 2008 is still not a force he was 2011 onwards while the lesser we talk of Fed 2013 the better it is. And it is frankly quite desperate to include Tsitsipas example here.
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
Well it is foolish to consider beating future champ as some great achievement. Mario Ancic defeated a future 8 time champion at Wimbledon.

Djoker in 2008 is still not a force he was 2011 onwards while the lesser we talk of Fed 2013 the better it is. And it is frankly quite desperate to include Tsitsipas example here.
Agree to disagree here. If Sampras fans can find merit in argument that Sampras has beat Bruggeria in a slam then why does my argument regarding Nadal beating past and future champs on ihc look foolish to you??? Regarding beating Djokovic in 10, he was not into his prime as you said but he was already a champ ( winning it in 08).
 
Last edited:

Nole_King

Semi-Pro
Agree to disagree here. If Sampras fans can find merit in argument that Sampras has beat Bruggeria in a slam then why does my argument regarding Nadal beating past and future champs on ihc look foolish to you??? Regarding beating Djokovic in 10, he was not into his prime as you said but he was already a champ ( winning it in 08).
Ok so you mean to say if someone is being foolish, you doing the same thing doesn't make you foolish. Sampras fans are being childish here because he sucked at FO and his fans are tying to clutch at straws to somehow defend him. Consider this; Becker routed Chang in French 91 QF. Doesn't make Becker any better player at French/clay than what he is considered with 0 overall titles.
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
Ok so you mean to say if someone is being foolish, you doing the same thing doesn't make you foolish. Sampras fans are being childish here because he sucked at FO and his fans are tying to clutch at straws to somehow defend him. Consider this; Becker routed Chang in French 91 QF. Doesn't make Becker any better player at French/clay than what he is considered with 0 overall titles.
Your ans is in your post itself. Nadal dint suck at ihc!!!! Any neutral viewer, follower will say the same. He ain't great , hell yeah, but definitely not in the worse category. Comparing his ihc resume to Sampras's clay resume is pathetic to say the least
 

Tsongerer

Rookie
Indoors is not a grand slam court hence it doesn't hold the same value as clay, grass and hardcourt.
Grass holds more value than clay or hardcourt as you need a more complete/talented game (no baseline pushing but quick decision making at almost every stroke) to succeed.

Clay is about physically outlasting your opponent, it's the surface where your athletic attributes mean the most.

Hard is in between, but since the HCs have been slowed down significantly it's become a surface for mindless baseline pushing as well for the majority.

Honestly it's a shame how winning Wimby theoretically has the same value as winning the AO, RG or USO. In no way are those slams nearly as prestigious or important (according to the tour player themselves mind you) as Wimby.
 

aorgwimbus

New User
To be fair, Nadal probably would have won 1 or 2 without Federer and Djokovic (two of greatest of all time and two greatest indoor players). There is no scenario that Sampras could have won French. He simply was too mediocre on that surface. There were a few great matches he played here and there but it was nearly impossible for him to win 7 BO5 matches on clay. Nothing to be ashamed of though, surfaces were too different back then. His game was just not cut out for clay.

The problem with Nadal at WTF is not the surface that much, it is the fact that he has to beat 3-4 top 8 or 10 players back to back. There are no easy draws and shortcuts here which Nadal took advantage of many, many times in slams.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
So much respect for Borg and Lendl for their achievements on carpet. Same goes for Agassi for winning Wimbledon on fast grass.



Not only does Nadal not have a single End Of Year Championship, I don't think he has a single carpet title either. You can't be the greatest ever if you only won in a subset of conditions *.

* He is undoubtedly the greatest dirt courter, no argument there.
Yep, people don't get how unique and exceptional Agassi winning Wimbledon on dead bounce grass was. The guy was a freak in terms of ballstriking and hand-eye coordination.

His career slam carries more weight to me than anyone else's.
 

Xemi666

Professional
I must have missed when WTF became a tournament on par with the slams.

So much respect for Borg and Lendl for their achievements on carpet. Same goes for Agassi for winning Wimbledon on fast grass.
:-D :-D

Borg and Lendl don't even have all slams. I guess carpet suddenly became the most important surface ever when Nadal won #20, huh?
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
To be fair, Nadal probably would have won 1 or 2 without Federer and Djokovic (two of greatest of all time and two greatest indoor players). There is no scenario that Sampras could have won French. He simply was too mediocre on that surface. There were a few great matches he played here and there but it was nearly impossible for him to win 7 BO5 matches on clay. Nothing to be ashamed of though, surfaces were too different back then. His game was just not cut out for clay.

The problem with Nadal at WTF is not the surface that much, it is the fact that he has to beat 3-4 top 8 or 10 players back to back. There are no easy draws and shortcuts here which Nadal took advantage of many, many times in slams.
Pete actually won 60.8% and 60.1% of his games on red clay in '93 and '94 sans the WTC (the Laver Cup of the '90s), which are in fact quite comparable to Fed's own career highs of 60.8% in '05 and 59.8% in '03 and '04 (sans DC for '04 and '05). Actually forget the Fed comparison, those two seasons put Pistol in quite select company period - even select FO champs fail to make the 60% Club once, let alone twice. For extra perspective Thiem has yet to come close to reaching the 60% ceiling, while the number of other FO runners-up/SFists who barely make or fall short of clearing the mark (at least 59.0% or higher) is all of ten. And only half of 'em actually won 60% or more of their games on clay without rounding.

So if we're going to play the what-if game (and you can't) one can clearly envision a scenario where Pete wins RG in '93 or '94 without prime Bruguera (on a historic run to boot) or Courier.
 

Nole_King

Semi-Pro
Your ans is in your post itself. Nadal dint suck at ihc!!!! Any neutral viewer, follower will say the same. He ain't great , hell yeah, but definitely not in the worse category. Comparing his ihc resume to Sampras's clay resume is pathetic to say the least
When did I say that Nadal is in the worst category? I only raised question on your reasoning which was desperate.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
I suspect what really happened is that there were a rash of "who is better--Roger or Pete" threads once they tied in the slam count, and belittling happened on both sides.

Likewise, I suspect there were a rash of "who is better--Rafa or Pete" threads once they tied in the slam count, and belittling happened on both sides.
As always, Sir Duane, nailed it (y):)
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Doesn't this clearly show that there's no difference between the two fan bases? I have been really pissed off by talks about Federer fan base vs Nadal fan base vs Djokovic fan base and who is better behaved blah blah. It is only a matter of where a player stands that decides the behavior of fanbases. In past when Federer was competing with Sampras to overtake him as GOAT his fans were pulling Sampras down but Nadal fans were siding with Pete because Nadal was still some distance away from Federer. Now that Nadal is almost level with Federer, Federer fans are becoming respectful of Sampras as comparing Nadal and Sampras in discussions help them firm up their effort for supporting Federer.
King ... you must be a psychologist of some kind. Great analysis (y) :)
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
When did I say that Nadal is in the worst category? I only raised question on your reasoning which was desperate.
Btw not everyone here have the heart to accept the facts, may be thats the reason I put up a strong desperate but reasonably fair argument (y) :laughing:
 

PilotPete

Semi-Pro
And I’m saying that it’s very close on HCs and at Neds peak he was going toe to toe with Fed on grass.

If Nadal is 9 tiers ahead of Sampras on clay with Sampras a tier ahead on HC and three tiers ahead on grass, then it’s not really a discussion with regards to who’s greater.

it’s easily Nadal...by a country mile.

If Nadal had like 7 French opens and Pete had 1 then it’s a different story. Pete wins. But that’s far from the case.
Close is no cigar. Where did I mention anything about who is greater overall?

The fact is Pete is ahead of Nadal at the majority of slams.
 

pat200

Semi-Pro
Grass holds more value than clay or hardcourt as you need a more complete/talented game (no baseline pushing but quick decision making at almost every stroke) to succeed.

Clay is about physically outlasting your opponent, it's the surface where your athletic attributes mean the most.

Hard is in between, but since the HCs have been slowed down significantly it's become a surface for mindless baseline pushing as well for the majority.

Honestly it's a shame how winning Wimby theoretically has the same value as winning the AO, RG or USO. In no way are those slams nearly as prestigious or important (according to the tour player themselves mind you) as Wimby.
Yes grass does hold more value historically, but the question was about indoor and clay.
 

DSH

Legend
To be fair, Nadal probably would have won 1 or 2 without Federer and Djokovic (two of greatest of all time and two greatest indoor players). There is no scenario that Sampras could have won French. He simply was too mediocre on that surface. There were a few great matches he played here and there but it was nearly impossible for him to win 7 BO5 matches on clay. Nothing to be ashamed of though, surfaces were too different back then. His game was just not cut out for clay.

The problem with Nadal at WTF is not the surface that much, it is the fact that he has to beat 3-4 top 8 or 10 players back to back. There are no easy draws and shortcuts here which Nadal took advantage of many, many times in slams.
What are you talking about it?
Without them, Nadal would have won at least 3 or 4 titles.
Think about that!
:p
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Indoors is not a grand slam court hence it doesn't hold the same value as clay, grass and hardcourt.
I'm not comparing the FO vs. WTF even though the WTF is the 5th biggest tournament of the year.

I'm talking about clay season and indoor hard court season. Both Sampras and Nadal are weak in that department, respectively.
 
Top