Pete Sampras record at the French Open
- Thread starter Terry Tibbs
- Start date
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nadal was lucky to peak in the weakest era.. ever.
2008-2012. The only era where the top 4 guys won everything.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nadal won only 1 GS off clay after 2012.
Does this mean Nadal dominated a weak era?
Does this mean Nadal dominated a weak era?
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Sorry who did Nadal had to beat to win 8 of his 9 RG? Only Federer and Djokovic!! So he has never proved himself against true clay courters, unlike Sampras. Maybe you are not aware that Sampras singlehandedly won the Davis Cup against Russia on clay, beat absolute peak Courier at the FO in 1996, took a set to Bruguera in 1993, and lost to a guy who was austrian, exactly like Muster!, in 1995? And yet, despite all his clay prowess (unlike Nadal, proved by losing matches against french open winners), he couldn't pass the QF more than once at the FO.
Do you want to me to list all the great clay courters that Sampras lost to at the FO, many times in the first three rounds? Sure, he did win a few matches here and there against good clay courters. I am sure those clay courters also lost a lot of other matches on clay against players much lesser than Sampras. Took a set off Bruguera? Wow that's some achievement.The height of hyperbole, LOL. Proves nothing!
The fact that Sampras beat a few good players on clay is hardly surprising. He is one of the ATGs and had the game to beat anyone anywhere on his day. I actually think Sampras could have done a lot better at the FO than reaching a few QFs and one SF if he was not such a stubborn guy. He himself regrets not changing things at that time.
Anyways, your comment that "Nadal would be a journeyman in the 1990s" does not warrant any serious discussion. Some of us had a good laugh. If you really believe that, good for you.
Last edited:
I really don´t get why some people in this forum fail to realize that a current tennis player would have probably become a total different player in the 90s and vice versa. Back then it was either you became a Serve and Volley player, prefering to play on fast hard court, grass and carpet or a hard hitting baseliner (slower and faster hard court) or a clay specialist only. Besides the training philosophy, nutrition, science...etc. were much different and less professional than in current modern times. There is a good chance that Nadal wouldn´t have been half the player he is (or was) from a physical standpoint, let alone a guy who could even win Wimbledon and the US Open. Federer would most likely have become a S&V player, given that his idols were guys like Edberg and Becker and he would have probably struggled even more to win the French Open than in his heyday. The 90s were desigend for players who focussed on their most prefered surfaces and strengths in the first place.
It doesn´t work like that. Lendl skipped the FO 2 times in a row to prepare for Wimbledon and he never won. McEnroe skipped the AO many times and at times the FO but he never won the FO and "only" 3 times at Wimbledon. Connors skipped the AO 17 times in a row, if you will, and he never won the French and like only 2 times Wimbledon!
It doesn´t work like that. Lendl skipped the FO 2 times in a row to prepare for Wimbledon and he never won. McEnroe skipped the AO many times and at times the FO but he never won the FO and "only" 3 times at Wimbledon. Connors skipped the AO 17 times in a row, if you will, and he never won the French and like only 2 times Wimbledon!
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
The FO is miles away from the AO, come on now. It's like they skipped half a season to prepare for a Slam, that's pure nonsense.
Yeah but like I said Mac and Connors also skipped the FO many times and they never ended up winning Wimbledon 10 times.
Exactly! I have already mentioned that in post #46.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Connors didn't necessarily "skip" the FO in 1974-1978, he was banned from it.
McEnroe skipped the FO only occasionally and only once in the 1980-1985 period (his best 6 years).
Think about it this way - from 1993-2000 Sampras lost only once at Wimbledon - in 1996 - the year where he put a lot of energy into reaching the FO SF (played a couple of 5-setters).
Prabhanjan
Professional
I think the Couriers, Agassis, Musters, Brugeras, Kafelnikovs, Moyas, essentially all of the 90's strong clay field, were very very generous to Federer. If they simply showed up in the 2000's, Fed won't be having any of the Wimbledon's or USO's. Federer would also be bagelled and bread-sticked in each and every set he would have played against them at FO or AO.
Sampras singular problem on clay was his footwork especially his footwork he used to run around his backhand to hit an inside out forehand.
That particular shot was a huge component of Sampras' baseline game. He always had to stand futhur back behind the baseline to execute this particular footwork . When he could not execute it with the ease that he used to on other surfaces he would lose confidence and then either start ruhing the net on low percentage shots or have the balls from his backhandside fall short.
Maybe the reason why his coaches encouraged him to experiment with a bigger raquet was to allow him to hit his backhand deeper when he was pushed behind/
That particular shot was a huge component of Sampras' baseline game. He always had to stand futhur back behind the baseline to execute this particular footwork . When he could not execute it with the ease that he used to on other surfaces he would lose confidence and then either start ruhing the net on low percentage shots or have the balls from his backhandside fall short.
Maybe the reason why his coaches encouraged him to experiment with a bigger raquet was to allow him to hit his backhand deeper when he was pushed behind/
Incognito
Legend
Nadal would be lucky to win a Point against those clay specialist.
90's Clay
Banned
It wasn't because he couldn't beat any of the top clay dogs or didn't have the game to beat them. He holds wins over:
-Bruguera
-Muster
-Kafelnikov
-Agassi
-Courier
Bar Guga, they were the best the 90s had to offer on clay. It was more of his blood condition that prevented him from winning the French. He couldn't put enough good rounds of tennis together as he didn't have the stamina due to Thalassemia
-Bruguera
-Muster
-Kafelnikov
-Agassi
-Courier
Bar Guga, they were the best the 90s had to offer on clay. It was more of his blood condition that prevented him from winning the French. He couldn't put enough good rounds of tennis together as he didn't have the stamina due to Thalassemia
mattosgrant
Banned
So now someone is even indirectly arguing Sampras > Nadal on clay. Now I have truly seen it all. What is next Nadal >>>>>> Sampras on fast carpet if they played in the 90s together.
mattosgrant
Banned
OK Flash has to be joking with all his comments right. Somehow the sarcasm isnt coming through, but that must be what it is, no?
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
When I can write the following and people are not sure if it is sarcasm or not, it shows how ****ed up this place can be. I wasn't creative at all, I just went a tiny bit further than the Sampras brigade.
NonP
Legend
Sounds about right, and I like the way you put it when you said in a later post that Pete gave a "half-assed" effort after his coach Gullikson died (think I'll use the same term from now on). But I think the common wisdom about his movement on clay (and also his not growing up on it) is an inadequate explanation of his subpar results at RG. I go more in depth here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-sampras-give-up-on-clay.524389/#post-9073948
Agreed again. Another one of my dissertations on this topic here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ter-career-on-clay.527926/page-9#post-9190564
I knew these would come in handy someday.
I know you were being facetious, but it's actually not a stretch to say that Sampras did carry his team to victory in the '95 DC finals almost single-handedly. In fact I remember reading once that only about a dozen players have ever won both of their singles rubbers and also the doubles in the history of DC finals, so Pete's feat put him in pretty exalted company. And remember, he did this on foreign soil, his worst surface, in front of a hostile crowd and after overcoming cramps near the end of his first match that went the distance against a very scrappy Chesnokov who somehow turned back the clock and made Pete work mighty hard for his points (as others have pointed out Pete hit a whopping 30 FH winners that day, an exceptionally high number on clay, but it was barely enough for him to eke out the win).
All of which is why I consider Pete's '95 DC heroics the single greatest performance of his career. His DC campaign might well have cost him a good showing at the '96 AO and beyond--he had to withdraw from the '95 Grand Slam Cup due to an injury he sustained the week before in the DC finals, and in his book he talks about how the whole thing left him plain exhausted at the start of '96--but I don't care and am glad that he got this one big win on clay, because it shows he could play inspired clay-court tennis even on the biggest occasion (barring a FO final, of course).
Last edited:
Prabhanjan
Professional
And here is your problem! Take Fabrice Santoro, he has beaten No. 1's from the 70's in Connors to Djokovic at present. Did that help him win a single slam? And there is not a single clay year, or even a stretch of 3 years where the so-called 90's clay legends were consistent and making a strong clay-field. They all played musical chairs during the clay season. When Agassi competed 2 straight FO finals, his next and last deep run was 99. Then Courier was on 2 years handing over to Bruguera who passed the mantel to Muster, and Muster to Kafelnikov to Guga to Agassi to Guga. Not a strong clay field by any measure except for personal choice/preference.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Sorry but you don't understand. Lots of different and often inconsistent winners are strong competition, like in the early 00's which are so often praised around here.
Prabhanjan
Professional
Oops! I agree and understand now. Then the competition must have been strongest at FO where Pete won 0, stronger at AO where Pete did poorly by winning 2. The competition must have been weak at USO as he managed 5 and weakest at Wimbledon when he won 7. Thanks for the clarification
NatF
Bionic Poster
Oops! I agree and understand now. Then the competition must have been strongest at FO where Pete won 0, stronger at AO where Pete did poorly by winning 2. The competition must have been weak at USO as he managed 5 and weakest at Wimbledon when he won 7. Thanks for the clarification
Grass competition in fact peaked in 2002 when 2 7x champions were out before the 3rd round.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Sure it was a great effort from Sampras to win the DC final against Russia on clay, I'm not contesting that. What I'm contesting is the use of "he won matches on clay in DC, beat Bruguera there and Courier there, so it's safe to say that Sampras would have been a hell of a match-up for Nadal" kind of arguments. We are discussing Sampras here, one of the greatest player of all time. I think having impressive victories here and there is the kind of fact you bring when you compare the career of Davydenko and Nalbandian, not the like of Federer, Nadal, Borg or Sampras, which is more measured in tournaments wins or at least runner-up appearance.
Also the what make his DC victories so special is more the context of overcoming opposite wind more than the quality of the players he faced. It tells a lot about Sampras champion mentality, more than about what he could do on clay, I think.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
In an era of wooden racquets, gut strings, and 66 sq. in. heads, I don't think Nadal would have been a professional tennis player.Tennis with wooden rackets was the real tennis, what we are seeing now is a different sport.
I love how people just assume that the modern players would play exactly the same way as they play now if they were born 10-20 years before. The players build their game to be successful in their era. For example Federer was a SnV player in the beginning but he changed his game according to the needs of that time. He would not have done that if he was born 10 years ago and Sampras probably would have played a lot differently if he was born 10 years later. You can't just transpose people from one decade to another and start making inane conclusions. A champion in one decade has the qualities to be a champion in any decade.
Nadal's game is predicated on poly strings and something approaching 100 sq. in. head-size. As a kid he would have had little success with wood-gut racquets, so he would have given it up in favor of football.
At age nine, he would have said to Uncle Toni: "I want to play something I'm good at and can find success, no? That's not tennis."
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think Nadal has the talent to play tennis even with smaller racquets. I don't think he's talented than Vilas for example.
The problem would be tennis from that era not being 'real tennis'
He would have been a midfielder for Real Madrid. Also if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
OK. Nadal might play, but I believe his present success is very much related to his particular skill-set (which IMO is built on his particular equipment).I think Nadal has the talent to play tennis even with smaller racquets. I don't think he's talented than Vilas for example.
The problem would be tennis from that era not being 'real tennis'
In other words as one example, I don't believe he would have his big forehand with wood and gut.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Would you accept that Laver's skillset is more suited to the era he was born into?
90's Clay
Banned
ROFLMAO. Only a fool would say Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Guga isn't a strong clay field. I seem to remember plastic hip way past prime Guga EMBARRASSING Prime Roger at the French in a quick route yet for years after that the only one that could stop Roger at the French was Nadal. Old plastic hip past prime Guga did what Roger's own contemporaries couldn't even do to him at the French Bar Rafa. They shared french Open titles because the clay field was so deep Personal choice/preference huh?
I suggest you go back and watch Courier, Guga, Bruguera, Muster etc. when they were on their games at the French and tell me that wasn't a strong clay field
90's Clay
Banned
Who praises the early 00's around here? Everyone knows that was a vacuum crap era with guys like Johannson/Gaudio winning slams. They were two of the worst slam winners in history.
Prabhanjan
Professional
Did any player ever won 3 FO's in the 90's? Were they not always playing music chairs at FO? Do you really understand musical chairs? Show a single FO where your so-called strong clay field all made to the semis.
For all that one embarrassing loss of Fed in 2004 to Guga, what all excuses you offer for Pete's post 96 FO performance? For 5 wins in 1997-02, Pete has 6 freaking losses to journeymen. Thats as pathetic, and more, as Nadal losing 4 straight years to 100+ ranked guys at Wimbledon. The way you love to say all the time and every time about Fed losing to baby diaper Nadal at Dubai in 04, please explain what business this great Guga had to lose to Safin in 1998? You are so illogical to understand that upsets do happen in sport and its no big deal whatsoever in Fed losing to Guga. Why do you have to take a huge dig at Fed while excusing your beloved 90's players Call a spade a spade. If what Guga did was embarrassment, admit that without exception all the 90's players had way more pathetic losses and hence they all garbage. Whats garbage, can't be strong.
For all that one embarrassing loss of Fed in 2004 to Guga, what all excuses you offer for Pete's post 96 FO performance? For 5 wins in 1997-02, Pete has 6 freaking losses to journeymen. Thats as pathetic, and more, as Nadal losing 4 straight years to 100+ ranked guys at Wimbledon. The way you love to say all the time and every time about Fed losing to baby diaper Nadal at Dubai in 04, please explain what business this great Guga had to lose to Safin in 1998? You are so illogical to understand that upsets do happen in sport and its no big deal whatsoever in Fed losing to Guga. Why do you have to take a huge dig at Fed while excusing your beloved 90's players
Call a spade a spade. If what Guga did was embarrassment, admit that without exception all the 90's players had way more pathetic losses and hence they all garbage. Whats garbage, can't be strong.When each of your players of the 90's had way more unexplained losses on clay than Federer, you are simply being adamant in saying that it was a strong clay field. You know very well it was not a strong field. Almost all had exclusive and non-overlapping peak moments. Thats like the gap between Pete and Fed which you love to call the weakest field. Now imagine such a performance on clay stretched to a decade. Somehow, only you can call such stretched performances to a decade as strong field.
Prabhanjan
Professional
To the topic on hand. Pete was really really good at FO. The 97-onwards really blinds the perspective about Pete and FO. Take the 92-94 + 96, 3 QFs and 1 SF. To understand how good the result really is, take Safin. He once seriously said this 'I think I have more options to play on grass than Sampras has on clay,' said the 21-year-old Russian. Yet, his top performance on clay is a QF+SF, thats it! A QF is no bad performance and to do it 4 times or better is a testimony of Sampras on clay. So what if Edberg, Stich, McEnroe, et al. had a FO final? They certainly did not repeat it like a Federer or a Djokovic. Pete should have reached at least one FO final. Its fine, he is still a great and the results 97 should not really count against him as with Nadal post 2012 at Wimbledon. I know, there is a sea of difference, still.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I know. It's crazy, when Roger reached his absolute peak on clay, in 2003, the clay field was still very though and he lost in the first round to Horna. The next year, although Roger's level on clay is already declined, he win a few round before being stopped by Kuerten. Then Roger is weaker again, and he start making finals and whatnot!
And tell me, which year(s) is it?
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Good proof on Sampras failure on clay. When you have to compare his achievements on the surface with Safin! He also nearly matched Murray's performance at the FO, quite impressive.
No seriously, when you discuss Lendl on his worst surface, you don't need to look at Davis Cup matches against Netherlands on grass, you go look Wimbledon, you see 2 finals and 5 semi-finals, with defeat to Connors, McEnroe, Edberg and Becker.
You cannot compare FO performance of today to yesteryear. The speed and bounce of the surfaces before were more varied, more adaptation was required. These days they are all pretty much homogenized, playing in the FO is not so different to playing in Melbourne for instance. Plus, players were more selective with their targets then. The dynamics are different...
Prabhanjan
Professional
Murray has exceeded Sampras on clay with 2 semis and stretching Nole to the limits this year.
This route is better. Wasn't Lendl first/second on most peoples list as the most deserving Wimbledon champion? I don't think Pete will be even on Top 10 list at FO.
NonP
Legend
Sure, you can spin it that way if you want to hit back at the crazies, but exactly how many of them are there? I just went back to see if anyone had actually made this argument and all I could find was a single poster with a view so comical everyone took turns mocking him/her. Who else? And if this was a decidedly fringe viewpoint to begin with why even bother giving it more credence than it's due?
And having impressive victories is in fact a pretty big deal when we talk about GOAT candidates. The reason why we often bring those up with respect to lesser players like Davydenko or Nalbandian is that such victories are very rare for them--in fact I can't think of a single one that either guy had at any of the majors, and I still remember Nalby getting lots of flak for his reportedly harmful influence on the Argentinian squad during the '08 DC finals, though he did win his 1st rubber against Ferrer. Try adding up all the big wins by Fed, Rafa, Borg, Pete and other all-time greats at their weakest major (the YEC in Rafa's case) and you're likely to find that their total tally is less than you think.
Like I said Chesnokov was a scrappy opponent that could and did give the likes of Wilander, Muster and Mancini a hard time on clay (in fact Mats never once beat Andrei in their 2 FO meetings). And I know he often gets a bum rap but Kafelnikov actually won the '96 FO dropping only one set for the whole tournament--you know, merely months after the '95 DC finals and which Federer never managed to do once en route to his own RG finals (yes, that's before his showdowns against Rafa). The qualify of Pete's opposition doesn't seem so bad now, does it?
Try harder. Unless you want to count his win at this year's Madrid Masters over Nadal--who, in case we forget, was losing to just about anybody--Murray doesn't have a single notable victory on clay yet.
Also it's 3 SFs at RG for Murray, not 2. If you're going to base your half-baked expertise on Wikipedia you may at least want to get the number right.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
You are right, I shouldn't indulge in answering to these trolls. I can control myself most of the time, but not always.
It rise the problem of this idea of "big win" = "beating a household name" without much concern for the form of the moment. Opposite, reaching finals or at least semi-finals imply beating players who may have a less than stellar career resume but win enough in the particular tournament to wait you.
So Borg didn't had much big wins in USO, but there weren't so many different slams winners in his days, except for the AO. Hard to beat slam winners in this circumstances. Yet Borg did beat Orantes, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Nastase, etc. and lost to Connors and McEnroe in finals.
Same for Fed or Djokovic at RG. I know it's a popular view that there isn't a single decent clay courters since ten years with the exception of them and Nadal, and I think it hard to believe. Federer and Djokovic didn't beat many slam winners at RG or even M1000 winners, because all these titles have been shared between the 3! When you reach a slam final, and even more if you do it several time, it means you beat talented players.
As for Nadal at the Master cup, he has wins against Davydenko, Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Roddick, but I would say that every player who enter the event is a big wins, due to how the event work. More importantly, Nadal reached two finals and lost in finals against Djokovic and Federer (10 Master cup titles together).
Sure, but the final of the DC was played in 1995 and Chesnokov was competing with Wilander in the second part of the 90's. Last title he won was in 1991. But that's not the issue really: You have to look at marginal results to see something positive in Pete Sampras clay career. And he is the only all time great for whom you need to look for this kind of results on his worst surface. The only one. Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Becker, Edberg, Courier, they reach one or several finals on the major of their worst surface.
At the end if you want to be positive about Sampras career on clay, you can look at the upside, he has some. But if you want to rank Sampras on clay in comparison with other players, including , he will be very, very low. A few place ahead or below Chesnokov, maybe.
Prabhanjan
Professional
Errrrr! Thanks for the enlightment. I am thinking of picking up a racket and go straight to FO16.
Can you at once laydown all the pre-requisites to be on this forum. I hate to be told one at a time. Thanks.
NonP
Legend
Of course, and I've said numerous times that we shouldn't look at names only. More on this in a moment.
Yes and no. I do agree that yesterday's players aren't necessarily more talented than today's as a whole, but I do think clay-court competition was stronger in previous eras for the simple fact that there were more specialists back then with a game designed to succeed on the surface, or put more inclusively (obviously guys like Borg and Lendl can't be accused of being surface specialists) more players who knew how to play clay-court tennis. Now this is a big topic, in fact one with many different subtopics (which is why I hadn't made a serious effort to elaborate on it until recently), but since I'll need to get to it sooner or later let me try to tackle it now as succinctly as I can. (I was hoping to do this in 2 separate posts it looks like it'll take 3, ugh. Just be forewarned.)
You may have seen me insist that, contrary to common wisdom, the game has not shifted in favor of the returner and the stats in fact show the top players holding serve with more ease today than in the '90s and probably ever. Or put more precisely, the top 10 servers of this decade (2011-14) have won 87.9% of their service games so far, up from 87.1% in the '00s and from 86.0% in the 90s, a near 2% upswing in two decades. And though this is little more than an educated guess on my part I'm also pretty sure that the % of serves that are unreturned, a better gauge of free points on serve than the more oft-used metric of ace counts, has seen a steady increase among the top players since the '90s. Now if that's indeed the case then one would think the reverse would also hold true, namely that today's top returners are winning less and less %s of their return games, and while strictly speaking that's indeed true the comparison here comes with two important caveats.
But let's start with another set of numbers. The ATP stats do show that the top 10 returners of the '10s (again 2011-14) have won 30.7% of their return games so far in this decade, slightly below the 31.1% managed by their predecessors in the '00s. So not as big a drop as the uptick in service %, but still a drop as expected. Now that said, this number must be followed by the caveat that the drop can be attributed in no small part to the fact that the younger generation has not been catching up to the veterans. And lest you think I'm just regurgitating the familiar talking point here's an eye-popping discrepancy: the number of the top 10 returners in the '00s (counted separately each year) who won less than 30% of their return games is 25, as opposed to a ridiculous 19 in the first 4 years of this decade alone. In fact you hardly see the newest names on the top 10 list at all--the only one that pops out from a cursory glance is Nishikori. So another way to put this would be that established guys like Novak, Rafa, Murray and Ferrer are subsidizing the youngsters for the current top 10 to remain within a hair's length of their former rivals. Had the Tomics, Dimitrovs and Socks of today stepped up the gap in % of return games won between the two most recent decades would be even smaller.
So what about the '90s? How do the top 10 guys of that decade compare to their later counterparts? It turns out that they did win more return games on average, significantly more in fact: 32.3%, with only 9 instances (again counted separately each year) of winning less than 30% in the year in question. That's 1.6% higher than the average we have so far for the '10s, and almost as much as the increase in % of service games won. This clear gap certainly seems to undermine the common wisdom that today's players are returning better than ever, and as I've demonstrated they're certainly not doing enough to counter the edge however gained (I suspect the main culprit is the racquets) by today's top servers.
But here comes another caveat, and this time an even more important one: the '90s often had a significantly higher share of clay-court specialists in the yearly top 10 return rankings. Now that doesn't mean there are no major-league clay-courters today, as you can still see the likes of Volandri (who of course upset Fed at '07 Rome), Monaco and Fognini on the more recent top 10 lists. But they clearly featured more prominently in the '90s, so in addition to such stalwarts as Muster and Bruguera you also come across relative nobodies like Clavet, Dosedel, Schaller and Mantilla. In fact some years in the '90s had over half of their top 10 occupied by these clay-courters, and unsurprisingly if you look at return games won only on clay the '90s generally boast significantly higher %s overall than the more recent decades (which BTW would be even higher if not for a certain Spaniard named Rafael Nadal).
So the talking point about the clay-court field being more diluted in recent years is for once not far off the mark, and I suspect if the same top 10 returners of the '90s played in this era their average return %s would not change much from their actual stats. And if my suspicion is correct (and I think anyone with a clear head would acknowledge by now that it is at the very least not without merit), then we're led to a couple of conclusions that also challenge the common (mis)perceptions with respect to today's clay courts/field: 1) the surfaces are more homogeneous and in particular the clay courts are faster today than were in the past and 2) super-duper studs like Federer and Djokovic were held back only by arguably the greatest dirtballer of all time in Nadal and would enjoy much greater success on clay in many if not most of the previous eras.
I've already discussed 2) at length and if you're interested you can follow the 2nd link above in my very first post on this page, but long story short both Fed and Djoko play a slightly modified hard-court game on clay that is good enough to defeat most players including mid-tier clay specialists because they're two of the all-time greats regardless of surface and their normal level of play is already high to begin with, but the two would face a serious challenge against the very best clay-courters like Lendl, Bruguera and Kuerten, let alone Borg and Nadal. I believe I've told you this before but the more I study tennis and its history the more I'm convinced that top-tier competition doesn't change much across eras and that it's unlikely for a zero- to one-time Slammer at a major (RG in this case) to win significantly more than 0-2 titles at the same major in another era.
Let me demonstrate with some more numbers. Here are Fed's %s of service games won on clay by year (from 2001):
2001 - 77.5%
2002 - 76.4%
2003 - 82.6%
2004 - 88.5%
2005 - 85.2%
2006 - 85.4%
2007 - 83.8%
2008 - 83.9%
2009 - 89.6%
2010 - 87.4%
2011 - 87.8%
2012 - 88.0%
2013 - 84.3%
2014 - 88.9%
2015 - 88.8%
And the %s of return games won, again on clay:
2001 - 23.6%
2002 - 32.3%
2003 - 36.8%
2004 - 29.9%
2005 - 35.2%
2006 - 32.9%
2007 - 30.3%
2008 - 32.2%
2009 - 25.8%
2010 - 26.3%
2011 - 24.2%
2012 - 27.8%
2013 - 28.0%
2014 - 25.5%
2015 - 25.2%
Now if what they say about Fed's clay-court career is to be believed, his subpar results at RG prior to 2005 can be explained by the fact that he wasn't as comfortable on the surface then as he'd become in later years, but that's not entirely what these stats show. Sure, Fed's '01 and '02 stats are nothing to write home about, but his % of service games won in '04 is second only to his career-high 89.6% in '09 during his prime (unless you want to count '14 and '15), and his near 30% of return games won in '04 isn't much worse than the %s in his other prime years except '05 and in fact clearly superior to the mediocre 25.8% again in the year of his FO triumph, which in fact is lower than any % that the supposedly much worse Sampras managed from '91-'97 except '96. And even his '03 stats aren't half bad: though his 82.6% of service games won clearly doesn't compare to his prime-year %s he almost makes up for it with his career-high 36.8% of return games won, in fact the first and only time he finished within top 10 in this stat.
So what gives? Here's an earth-shattering conjecture of mine: Fed's competition was tougher in '04. He suffered two losses on clay that year, first to Costa at Rome and of course to Kuerten at RG. I think most will acknowledge that neither of these guys is exactly a nobody on clay, so let me ask, is it really so far-fetched to think even a quite good Federer, the same guy that won the other 3 majors in the same year, could be outclassed by these clay-court veterans who while past their prime were still capable of occasional top-notch tennis on their favorite surface?
NonP
Legend
And somewhat similarly, have we also not seen Djokovic succumb to the aggression of Fed and Stan even on the hallowed grounds of Roland Garros? Perhaps could it be the case that Novak (and Fed and Stan) plays a more or less same game on clay as on the other surfaces, and that this makes him more vulnerable to his opponents hitting through the courts that players more attuned to the temperament and geometry of clay-court tennis would be better equipped to neutralize?
Of course that's not to say I think Fed and Djoko are inferior clay-courters, and as I said to zagor I do think Fed would have a good chance to complete a career GS in the '90s or any other era. (I hope Novak can do it as well and in fact was pretty bummed about his loss this year, but until he grabs a FO it's hard for me to speculate on his potential.) But I do think they're both great players that can succeed on clay with their brand of tennis but who would still face an uphill battle against the best of those whose game is particularly designed/natural for the surface, again for the reasons I just laid out. I don't think it a coincidence that today's players are holding serve on clay almost as often as on HCs (again clearly more so than in the '90s) even though clay is still the least serve-friendly surface by some distance. That's why I said earlier that I don't think yesterday's players were more talented than today's per se, but rather the former tended to number among them more specialists that lived and breathed tennis on their surface of choice. It's a distinction often lost in these discussions about competition when we say one player or group of players is "better" than another.
But that doesn't fully explain why the clay-court field has gotten thinner, which in turn brings us to (mis)conception 1) about court speeds. As I've demonstrated it's clear that the top players are winning more service games on average than probably ever, but this isn't necessarily reflected inversely in % of return games won. How come? Well, for the record I do think players on the whole are breaking serve less frequently today. The reason why this isn't quiet as obvious from the stats is for the simple fact that all players, even the best returners among them, tend to win at least 2.5-3 times more service games than return games. So one shouldn't expect that since players are holding serve with 2% more frequency they're also breaking serve 2% less. This relationship isn't exactly proportional and in fact the effect of one's game is much more pronounced on his return game than on his service game. (If you're interested I recently devoted several dissertations to this topic on the thread about Fed's vs. Sampras' serve.)
But yes, the stats show quite clearly that players are holding serve more often these days on clay. Does that mean the clay courts have indeed gotten faster as is commonly claimed, and that this is why there's such a lack of variety in tennis today? Perhaps, but again I very much doubt that surface speed is the main reason. If that's true then how is it that players are holding serve more frequently not just on clay but across the board, and how do some years in the past two decades compare so poorly to a select few from the '90s in % of return games won? Again, if players are winning just 2% more of their service games then one would expect their average return % would drop by 2% at most, but that's not the case when you compare '96 to, say, '07. How come? (For the record the only post-2000 period I've noticed that can compete with the best of the '90s here is the mid-'00s.)
All of which is why I think the common wisdom about homogenization of surfaces is largely bunk, and I maintain that the main reason behind this disconnect is not homogenization of surfaces, but that of playing styles which of course take years to develop, which in turn is why I think coaching has the most to do with today's lack of variety (another big topic I won't get into here). So to wrap up, now that most guys play a slightly modified HC game from the baseline all-time greats like Fed and Djoko will get the better of their peers more often than not simply because their game is that much superior. But that doesn't mean surface specialists no longer enjoy any advantage, as dirtballers like Ferrer and of course Nadal have shown us otherwise time and again. And I definitely think S&V can still be more than a viable game given the right hands. But that's yet another big topic altogether and I'll leave that for another time.
Yes, the very nature of the event dictates that you'll be playing top players nearly all the time. And its very format allows you to advance to the final if you put a string of 4 wins together, sometimes even less (though, to be fair, Rafa did win all 4 both of the times he made the final), not to mention that guys like Roddick and Ferrer weren't exactly indoor maestros, so it's misleading to compare Rafa's 2 YEC finals to Pete's 1 SF at RG and leave it at that.
Last time I checked Becker (my all-time favorite, BTW, along with Pete) never won a title on clay. And correct me if I'm wrong but what significant indoor event has Nadal ever won besides '05 Madrid? That's certainly not much better than Pete's own title haul on clay, and if we're going to split hairs I'll contend that the field Pete faced at '94 Rome was stronger than Rafa's at Madrid. I suppose you could say Rafa reached more finals, but again that's not a fair comparison for the reasons I just outlined, but also because the conditions they competed in were quite different. Would Rafa be able to post similar stats in an earlier era like the '90s when there were more competent S&Vers/all-courters, the very type that's given him serious problems throughout his career, and also when there was less seeding protection for the top players? And would Pete really fare much worse in this era where, again, players are holding serve with more ease than most likely ever, yes even on clay?
What really counts against Sampras is not that he never reached a FO final per se, but that he was all but a nonentity on clay after '96 (I think he actually had a decent shot in '97, but let's not get into that here). I've already elaborated on why and if you're interested you can click on the first link in my first post above.
On to more general issues. You said yourself that beating a household name doesn't always equal a big win and how well the player was playing at the time is more important. I agree, so let me mention another factoid you seem to have missed: Chesnokov's arguably biggest win ever came shortly before the '95 DC finals, when in the SFs he overcame Stich in a titanic 5-setter that decided the tie after saving 9 match points. You know, the same Stich who would upset Muster and go on to make the final at next year's RG.
And if you really care about a player's form at the time perhaps you may want to check out/revisit the actual match between Pete and Chessy (still available on YT). I'm one of the few that have actually seen the whole thing, and nobody that has done the same can tell me with a straight face that Chessy played like a journeyman that day. His official ranking might have been low back then but he sure played very much like a top clay-courter in those DC ties.
Now you might think I'm saying this only because it concerns Sampras, and of course my fandom has something to do with it, but most longtime posters here will back me up when I say I try to be fair to everyone. So let me also say that when Guga played Fed at '04 RG he wasn't this near cripple that he's often portrayed as (I'll let you guess by which group) but instead was somehow able to turn back the clock and entertain us with perhaps his last masterclass on his beloved surface. And remember, this wasn't a green Federer we're talking about. Guga had to be if not quite at his best then pretty darn close to it, and this one time he was able to come through.
It's easy to just browse Wikipedia, form half-baked opinions based on a few cherry-picked stats and think you already know the stuff. It's a lot harder to dig deeper, pore over all the stats you can find, study endless clips and consult true experts (which BTW are certainly not most of the media pundits) in an effort to learn more about the game, and I daresay I do this better than most.
Of course that's not to say I think Fed and Djoko are inferior clay-courters, and as I said to zagor I do think Fed would have a good chance to complete a career GS in the '90s or any other era. (I hope Novak can do it as well and in fact was pretty bummed about his loss this year, but until he grabs a FO it's hard for me to speculate on his potential.) But I do think they're both great players that can succeed on clay with their brand of tennis but who would still face an uphill battle against the best of those whose game is particularly designed/natural for the surface, again for the reasons I just laid out. I don't think it a coincidence that today's players are holding serve on clay almost as often as on HCs (again clearly more so than in the '90s) even though clay is still the least serve-friendly surface by some distance. That's why I said earlier that I don't think yesterday's players were more talented than today's per se, but rather the former tended to number among them more specialists that lived and breathed tennis on their surface of choice. It's a distinction often lost in these discussions about competition when we say one player or group of players is "better" than another.
But that doesn't fully explain why the clay-court field has gotten thinner, which in turn brings us to (mis)conception 1) about court speeds. As I've demonstrated it's clear that the top players are winning more service games on average than probably ever, but this isn't necessarily reflected inversely in % of return games won. How come? Well, for the record I do think players on the whole are breaking serve less frequently today. The reason why this isn't quiet as obvious from the stats is for the simple fact that all players, even the best returners among them, tend to win at least 2.5-3 times more service games than return games. So one shouldn't expect that since players are holding serve with 2% more frequency they're also breaking serve 2% less. This relationship isn't exactly proportional and in fact the effect of one's game is much more pronounced on his return game than on his service game. (If you're interested I recently devoted several dissertations to this topic on the thread about Fed's vs. Sampras' serve.)
But yes, the stats show quite clearly that players are holding serve more often these days on clay. Does that mean the clay courts have indeed gotten faster as is commonly claimed, and that this is why there's such a lack of variety in tennis today? Perhaps, but again I very much doubt that surface speed is the main reason. If that's true then how is it that players are holding serve more frequently not just on clay but across the board, and how do some years in the past two decades compare so poorly to a select few from the '90s in % of return games won? Again, if players are winning just 2% more of their service games then one would expect their average return % would drop by 2% at most, but that's not the case when you compare '96 to, say, '07. How come? (For the record the only post-2000 period I've noticed that can compete with the best of the '90s here is the mid-'00s.)
All of which is why I think the common wisdom about homogenization of surfaces is largely bunk, and I maintain that the main reason behind this disconnect is not homogenization of surfaces, but that of playing styles which of course take years to develop, which in turn is why I think coaching has the most to do with today's lack of variety (another big topic I won't get into here). So to wrap up, now that most guys play a slightly modified HC game from the baseline all-time greats like Fed and Djoko will get the better of their peers more often than not simply because their game is that much superior. But that doesn't mean surface specialists no longer enjoy any advantage, as dirtballers like Ferrer and of course Nadal have shown us otherwise time and again. And I definitely think S&V can still be more than a viable game given the right hands. But that's yet another big topic altogether and I'll leave that for another time.
Yes, the very nature of the event dictates that you'll be playing top players nearly all the time. And its very format allows you to advance to the final if you put a string of 4 wins together, sometimes even less (though, to be fair, Rafa did win all 4 both of the times he made the final), not to mention that guys like Roddick and Ferrer weren't exactly indoor maestros, so it's misleading to compare Rafa's 2 YEC finals to Pete's 1 SF at RG and leave it at that.
Last time I checked Becker (my all-time favorite, BTW, along with Pete) never won a title on clay. And correct me if I'm wrong but what significant indoor event has Nadal ever won besides '05 Madrid? That's certainly not much better than Pete's own title haul on clay, and if we're going to split hairs I'll contend that the field Pete faced at '94 Rome was stronger than Rafa's at Madrid. I suppose you could say Rafa reached more finals, but again that's not a fair comparison for the reasons I just outlined, but also because the conditions they competed in were quite different. Would Rafa be able to post similar stats in an earlier era like the '90s when there were more competent S&Vers/all-courters, the very type that's given him serious problems throughout his career, and also when there was less seeding protection for the top players? And would Pete really fare much worse in this era where, again, players are holding serve with more ease than most likely ever, yes even on clay?
What really counts against Sampras is not that he never reached a FO final per se, but that he was all but a nonentity on clay after '96 (I think he actually had a decent shot in '97, but let's not get into that here). I've already elaborated on why and if you're interested you can click on the first link in my first post above.
On to more general issues. You said yourself that beating a household name doesn't always equal a big win and how well the player was playing at the time is more important. I agree, so let me mention another factoid you seem to have missed: Chesnokov's arguably biggest win ever came shortly before the '95 DC finals, when in the SFs he overcame Stich in a titanic 5-setter that decided the tie after saving 9 match points. You know, the same Stich who would upset Muster and go on to make the final at next year's RG.
And if you really care about a player's form at the time perhaps you may want to check out/revisit the actual match between Pete and Chessy (still available on YT). I'm one of the few that have actually seen the whole thing, and nobody that has done the same can tell me with a straight face that Chessy played like a journeyman that day. His official ranking might have been low back then but he sure played very much like a top clay-courter in those DC ties.
Now you might think I'm saying this only because it concerns Sampras, and of course my fandom has something to do with it, but most longtime posters here will back me up when I say I try to be fair to everyone. So let me also say that when Guga played Fed at '04 RG he wasn't this near cripple that he's often portrayed as (I'll let you guess by which group) but instead was somehow able to turn back the clock and entertain us with perhaps his last masterclass on his beloved surface. And remember, this wasn't a green Federer we're talking about. Guga had to be if not quite at his best then pretty darn close to it, and this one time he was able to come through.
It's easy to just browse Wikipedia, form half-baked opinions based on a few cherry-picked stats and think you already know the stuff. It's a lot harder to dig deeper, pore over all the stats you can find, study endless clips and consult true experts (which BTW are certainly not most of the media pundits) in an effort to learn more about the game, and I daresay I do this better than most.
NonP
Legend
And one more....
Trust me, even though he's my fave along with Becker I make no bones about Pete being the GOAT candidate (again with the possible exception of Nadal) with the biggest surface-specific weakness. But I do rate his biggest victories on clay highly and will defend him against attempts to deny him even these triumphs. That's what I took you to task for, not the contention that his clay-court resume has glaring holes which nobody would dispute.
Trust me, even though he's my fave along with Becker I make no bones about Pete being the GOAT candidate (again with the possible exception of Nadal) with the biggest surface-specific weakness. But I do rate his biggest victories on clay highly and will defend him against attempts to deny him even these triumphs. That's what I took you to task for, not the contention that his clay-court resume has glaring holes which nobody would dispute.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Thanks for your answer, I don't have to read it now and will be in vacation until next week but I will make sure to come back to you.
Cheers.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Of course we want to count this year's victory in Madrid! Nadal was playing well right up to the final and Murray beat 3 top 10 players in succession to win it. He also beat Ferrer at RG (a former French Open finalist). Why wouldn't we want to count it?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
It's far from clear. There are more 1 time winners at the French Open than at any other Slam. The reason players like Federer only won 1 or players like Djokovic haven't won any is mainly because of the overwhelming dominance of a single player: Nadal.
He just didn't like claycourts. They didn't suit his game. Many claycourters have had a similar attitude towards grass. He did win Rome though (1994) so he wasn't a complete dud on clay by any means.
NonP
Legend
De nada. Enjoy your vacay.
Of course we want to count this year's victory in Madrid! Nadal was playing well right up to the final and Murray beat 3 top 10 players in succession to win it. He also beat Ferrer at RG (a former French Open finalist). Why wouldn't we want to count it?
Namechecking sounds impressive on paper but means little without context, so here's some: not only was this year the very first in Nadal's career in which he failed to make the top 10 in % of service games won on clay, he barely made the top 20 this year, ranked 19th at 82.7%. A far cry from his prime when he'd be at or near the very top in this same category (curiously he finished a subpar no. 8 in 2008, but he more than made up for that with a mind-boggling 51% of return games won, a record unlikely to be matched anytime soon). Granted he did finish as no. 2 just behind Ferrer in the return %, but this sure doesn't sound like the Nadal we know and players used to fear, yes?
Also when I say a notable victory I mean one at RG (or one in the DC finals, but I won't count that here for obvious reasons). The win over Ferrer was indeed a good one but I don't see Ferru winning a FO in this or any other era. If you're going to include non-FO champions in your accounting or name big names without much context I might as well say Pete's other notable victims at RG include Muster in '91 and Costa in '94.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
That leads to another problem beyond the movement. 92-94 he made 3 straight QF, then made the SF in 1996. I honestly think that after that point, he just didn't care that much (I doubt he was ever fully engaged). Not in the narrow sense of not caring - I'm not saying he went to Paris and didn't try or that he tanked. I mean in a broader sense. He wasn't going to engage in a hardcore clay court prep season and target the FO, and work on clay weaknesses only to NOT win and then be than much more drained for Wimbledon. He had his shot in 1996, even if Kafelnikov did destroy him in the SFs.
And, Sampras is someone who really needed to prepare and focus to have a shot at winning the FO. Even if he did, it's not like he was guaranteed to win one with all the strong clay courters of the era.
Finally, what about "mental comfort/confidence". Even if he worked on his clay movement, maybe he simply wasn't as comfortable/confident on clay.
