Pete Sampras vs David Ferrer at RG

Winner?

  • Total voters
    42
StrongRule said:
How was the watch party? Unfortunately I couldn't join it.
Click to expand...
Pretty good. Not many people came, but we still had an interesting and insightful discussion. The feedback is positive, so we’ll do second one on next weekends. Het should make a thread with a poll for the next match later.
 
Im(moral) Winner said:
Sampras can beat Courier, Bruguera and Muster but not Ferrer
Click to expand...

His 1996 run was quite impressive beating 2 multiple RG champions, Bruguera and Courier until he got to the semis and then got taken to the cleaners, including a bagel, by the eventual champion, Kafelnikov. What happened to him there? Did he run out of steam or was Kafelnikov just too good?
 
Mainad said:
His 1996 run was quite impressive beating 2 multiple RG champions, Bruguera and Courier until he got to the semis and then got taken to the cleaners, including a bagel, by another RG Champion, Kafelnikov. What happened to him there? Did he run out of steam or was Kafelnikov just too good?
Click to expand...

Nothing left in the tank. I think his fans overdo his blood condition's impact on his legacy a little but this is one case where I think it did have an effect.
 
Mainad said:
His 1996 run was quite impressive beating 2 multiple RG champions, Bruguera and Courier until he got to the semis and then got taken to the cleaners, including a bagel, by another RG Champion, Kafelnikov. What happened to him there? Did he run out of steam or was Kafelnikov just too good?
Click to expand...

Ran out of steam. I saw the whole run, he was clawing his way back into those matches on that run, especially against Courier where he was 0-2 down. Against Kafelnikov, he played him good for the first set, but after losing it in the tie break, you could see he didn't have the fight left in him to continue going.
 
Mainad said:
His 1996 run was quite impressive beating 2 multiple RG champions, Bruguera and Courier until he got to the semis and then got taken to the cleaners, including a bagel, by the eventual champion, Kafelnikov. What happened to him there? Did he run out of steam or was Kafelnikov just too good?
Click to expand...

Sampras played three five-setters en route, he definitely ran out of steam. Kafelnikov would still beat him surely, but looking at the first set it could've been a decent match.
 
Sabrina said:
Sampras at his peak on clay wasn't as bad as most people think. Especially considering how different clay was playing in his era. Only 1995 RG is a bad loss though.
Click to expand...

Correct. After 1996 he really stopped trying which makes it look like he totally was hopeless there, but as you said during his earlier years, outside of 1995, he was making second week runs with a couple of quarters.
 
Hitman said:
Correct. After 1996 he really stopped trying which makes it look like he totally was hopeless there, but as you said during his earlier years, outside of 1995, he was making second week runs with a couple of quarters.
Click to expand...

Yes. Outside of 1995 he lost to Agassi, Bruguera and Courier, all RG champions so no shame on that. He also won Rome Master and Davis cup for USA in that period.

I could see Sampras having a Murray-like career on clay in this era though. A couple of Master 1000 plus a RG Final.
 
Hitman said:
Correct. After 1996 he really stopped trying which makes it look like he totally was hopeless there, but as you said during his earlier years, outside of 1995, he was making second week runs with a couple of quarters.
Click to expand...

In addition to his 1996 semi, he made back to back quarter-finals 3 years running (1992-4) and each time lost to a former or eventual champion, the worst being to Agassi in 1992 (a real beatdown). Outside of those 4 years, he never got past the 3rd round.
 
Sabrina said:
Yes. Outside of 1995 he lost to Agassi, Bruguera and Courier, all RG champions so no shame on that. He also won Rome Master and Davis cup for USA in that period.

I could see Sampras having a Murray-like career on clay in this era though. A couple of Master 1000 plus a RG Final.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the depth of clay court talent was deep back when Sampras was playing due to there being more surface specialists and polarized conditions. Pete did well considering how it was back then and he went down most of the time to the top dogs at RG, all of who won RG.
 
Last edited:
Sabrina said:
Yes. Outside of 1995 he lost to Agassi, Bruguera and Courier, all RG champions so no shame on that. He also won Rome Master and Davis cup for USA in that period.

I could see Sampras having a Murray-like career on clay in this era though. A couple of Master 1000 plus a RG Final.
Click to expand...

Do you think he could take on Nadal and Djokovic?
 
Mainad said:
In addition to his 1996 semi, he made back to back quarter-finals 3 years running (1992-4) and each time lost to a former or eventual champion, the worst being to Agassi in 1992 (a real beatdown). Outside of those 4 years, he never got past the 3rd round.
Click to expand...

That was kind of when Pete had his peak period of tennis though from around 92 to about 96-97. Taking that all into consideration, he did OK on his worst surface. Not fantastic, but he wasn't a slouch either.
 
Hitman said:
I agree. I think the depth of clay court talent was deep back when Sampras was playing due to their being more surface specialists and polarized conditions. Pete did well considering how it was back then and he went down most of the time to the top dogs at RG, all of who won RG.
Click to expand...

I feel like playing tennis on clay and grass was like 2 different sports back then. It's amazing how Borg could adapt to it and won 3 channel slams in such a short period.
 
Sabrina said:
I feel like playing tennis on clay and grass was like 2 different sports back then. It's amazing how Borg could adapt to it and won 3 channel slams in such a short period.
Click to expand...

That is why Borg is still mentioned in such a positive light now and will be for generations to come. We'll never see anything like it again, unless they go back to those conditions.
 
Hitman said:
That was kind of when Pete had his peak period of tennis though from around 92 to about 96-97. Taking that all into consideration, he did OK on his worst surface. Not fantastic, but he wasn't a slouch either.
Click to expand...

He will always have Rome (eat your heart out Rogi). His 1994 run included wins over a future champion, Corretja, a former finalist, Chesnokov and the guy now running the ATP. He then absolutely trashed clay numpty Becker in the final. :cool:
 
Sabrina said:
Yes. Outside of 1995 he lost to Agassi, Bruguera and Courier, all RG champions so no shame on that. He also won Rome Master and Davis cup for USA in that period.

I could see Sampras having a Murray-like career on clay in this era though. A couple of Master 1000 plus a RG Final.
Click to expand...

Tbf he did just beat Becker in Rome :p The Davis Cup triumph was great though. Losing to Courier and Burguera in 4 is better than getting crushed by 2013 Rafa and being fed a bagel by 2014 Rafa IMO. Mostly I just think Pete had bigger weapons, so even if he wasn't as consistent as Ferrer I think he would beat him if they had a one off match in their respective peaks.
 
Mainad said:
He will always have Rome (eat your heart out Rogi). His 1994 run included wins over a future champion, Corretja, a former finalist, Chesnokov and the guy now running the ATP. He then absolutely trashed clay numpty Becker in the final. :cool:
Click to expand...

They used to call Pete "Mr Perfect" in the media in 1994 around the time he won Rome. ;)
 
bhpower said:
Ferrer would beat him easily in three sets 10/10
Click to expand...
People ridiculously underrate Sampras on clay and almost everyone posting here never even saw him play (on any surface). Sampras single-handedly won the 1995 DC in Russia and beat a FO champion, Kafelnikov, in their rubber.
He also won Rome and several other clay court titles. Just because he never won RG doesn't mean Pete couldn't play on the dirt.

However, Ferrer beats Pete in four tight sets in the hypothetical match up.
 
NatF said:
Tbf he did just beat Becker in Rome :p The Davis Cup triumph was great though. Losing to Courier and Burguera in 4 is better than getting crushed by 2013 Rafa and being fed a bagel by 2014 Rafa IMO. Mostly I just think Pete had bigger weapons, so even if he wasn't as consistent as Ferrer I think he would beat him if they had a one off match in their respective peaks.
Click to expand...

I think it's also depending on the condition: low bouncing with heavier ball like Rg 2011 Fed vs Novak that I could definitely see Pete winning. Not to mention that with current advanced racquet and technology Sampras could just serve his way to earn many free points, even on Clay though.
 
Hitman said:
They used to call Pete "Mr Perfect" in the media in 1994 around the time he won Rome. ;)
Click to expand...

Sampras won 4/5 GS from 1993 Wimbledon to 1994 Wimbledon. He even won AO, IW and Miami in the same year, basically comparable to peak Agassi/Federer/Djokovic in this regard.
 
Sabrina said:
I think it's also depending on the condition: low bouncing with heavier ball like Rg 2011 Fed vs Novak that I could definitely see Pete winning. Not to mention that with current advanced racquet and technology Sampras could just serve his way to earn many free points, even on Clay though.
Click to expand...

Sampras would probably have Karlovic like hold numbers with today's strings.
 
Sabrina said:
Sampras won 4/5 GS from 1993 Wimbledon to 1994 Wimbledon. He even won AO, IW and Miami in the same year, basically comparable to peak Agassi/Federer/Djokovic in this regard.
Click to expand...

Exactly, hence why he was being called Mr Perfect at the time after winning Rome. He was just dominating with an iron fist at that time.
 
Sabrina said:
Sampras won 4/5 GS from 1993 Wimbledon to 1994 Wimbledon. He even won AO, IW and Miami in the same year, basically comparable to peak Agassi/Federer/Djokovic in this regard.
Click to expand...

Pete's level on slow HC's is really underrated, very close to Agassi on slow HC peak for peak.
 
Hitman said:
Exactly, hence why he was being called Mr Perfect at the time after winning Rome. He was just dominating with an iron fist at that time.
Click to expand...

I think he could have won 3 GS in 1994 if he hadn't been injured in the summer hard court season that year. Too bad for Pete.
 
Hitman said:
Exactly, hence why he was being called Mr Perfect at the time after winning Rome. He was just dominating with an iron fist at that time.
Click to expand...

Considering he was in such good form that season it's kind of a shame he couldn't carry it over to RG.
 
Sabrina said:
I think he could have won 3 GS in 1994 if he hadn't been injured in the summer hard court season that year. Too bad for Pete.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was odds on for the 1994 USO. I missed that match, and I remember looking at the results and rubbing my eyes and looking at it again, almost certain I read the result wrong. LOL
 
NatF said:
Pete's level on slow HC's is really underrated, very close to Agassi on slow HC peak for peak.
Click to expand...

I think Pete was 2 points away from beating Agassi at AO 2000 (Andre's pet slam) and had Set points to go up 2-1 at AO 1995 final too. He actually was very closed to Agassi on slow HC peak for peak though.
 
Sabrina said:
I think Pete was 2 points away from beating Agassi at AO 2000 (Andre's pet slam) and had Set points to go up 2-1 at AO 1995 final too. He actually was very closed to Agassi on slow HC peak for peak though.
Click to expand...

Yes, Pete was close to Agassi there. Agassi looked more comfortable on RA for sure, but Pete was very decent also. Won it in 94 and made the final in 95 also, before winning it again in 97.
 
Hitman said:
Yes, Pete was close to Agassi there. Agassi looked more comfortable on RA for sure, but Pete was very decent also. Won it in 94 and made the final in 95 also, before winning it again in 97.
Click to expand...

I think you like Sampras before Djokovic, Hitman? Actually I prefer Agassi over Pete, even though US 2002 Final is the only match between them I was watching live at that time :p
 
Sabrina said:
I think you like Sampras before Djokovic, Hitman? Actually I prefer Agassi over Pete, even though US 2002 Final is the only match between them I was watching live at that time :p
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. Sampras is my all time fav top dog player. I didn't really hate Agassi though, because I always felt he was like a rock star when I first saw him and visually he was great to watch.
 
Hitman said:
Yes, that is correct. Sampras is my all time fav top dog player. I didn't really hate Agassi though, because I always felt he was like a rock star when I first saw him and visually he was great to watch.
Click to expand...

For some reasons Agassi was actually more popular than Pete when tennis started to become popular in my country though. Not sure about the US.
 
Sabrina said:
For some reasons Agassi was actually more popular than Pete when tennis started to become popular in my country though. Not sure about the US.
Click to expand...

In the US it initially started off with Sampras getting the rub after his incredible US 90 win, beating Lendl, McEnroe and of course Agassi him at the USO 1990. It felt like a changing of the guard, and the fact Agassi had lost two slam finals that year, RG he lost to the 30 year old Gomez, and this one to the young 19 year old Pete, it looked like it was Pete was going to lead the way.

Though all of that was put on hold, as neither managed to do much after that, Courier overtook both of them, he ended up being the one who had four slams to their one slam each at one point, and he was also the number one. Courier was being marketed more. Agassi though really built up his stock and went ahead of Sampras after winning Wimbledon 1992, the key point being that he beat McEnroe there, who had helped and trained Agassi somewhat at the time.

It wasn't until W 1993 and the July 4th all American final between Sampras and Courier that would put Pete into the stratosphere, because not only had he beaten the then number one Courier who was playing his third slam final of the year, but had also dethroned Agassi in the quarters. The thing was, many found Pete boring because of his personality being more introvert and that he seemed at times to win too easily because of his serve.

In 1995, Nike really took advantage of the Sampras and Agassi rivalry, Sampras had finally found a worthy rival that year, with Agassi matching him. Both had become crazy popular because of each other, but Agassi held the more popular card.
 
Hitman said:
In the US it initially started off with Sampras getting the rub after his incredible US 90 win, beating Lendl, McEnroe and of course Agassi him at the USO 1990. It felt like a changing of the guard, and the fact Agassi had lost two slam finals that year, RG he lost to the 30 year old Gomez, and this one to the young 19 year old Pete, it looked like it was Pete was going to lead the way.

Though all of that was put on hold, as neither managed to do much after that, Courier overtook both of them, he ended up being the one who had four slams to their one slam each at one point, and he was also the number one. Courier was being marketed more. Agassi though really built up his stock and went ahead of Sampras after winning Wimbledon 1992, the key point being that he beat McEnroe there, who had helped and trained Agassi somewhat at the time.

It wasn't until W 1993 and the July 4th all American final between Sampras and Courier that would put Pete into the stratosphere, because not only had he beaten the then number one Courier who was playing his third slam final of the year, but had also dethroned Agassi in the quarters. The thing was, many found Pete boring because of his personality being more introvert and that he seemed at times to win too easily because of his serve.

In 1995, Nike really took advantage of the Sampras and Agassi rivalry, Sampras had finally found a worthy rival that year, with Agassi matching him. Both had become crazy popular because of each other, but Agassi held the more popular card.
Click to expand...

1995 was definitely the key year in Sampras-Agassi rivalry. The situation was very similar to Nadal - Djokovic in 2013, I think. Just that Sampras won that US final instead of Agassi, Pete seemed to hit Agassi hard at the perfect time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pheasant
Radwanska was the David Ferrer of the WTA
Replies
5
Views
228
thrust
T
S
Andre Agassi' Grand Slam Finals Matches
Replies
0
Views
3K
serve/and/volley
S
S
Pete Sampras' Grand Slam Finals Matches
Replies
5
Views
7K
Mustard
Mustard
King No1e
  • Poll Poll
Ferrer vs Nalbandian: Greater Career
2
Replies
72
Views
4K
Deleted member 307496
D
skypadq
david ferrer really that weak agianst nadal at his whole match ?
Replies
3
Views
387
ibbi
ibbi
Back
Top