Pete Sampras vs David Ferrer at RG

Winner?


  • Total voters
    42

Yugram

Legend
How was the watch party? Unfortunately I couldn't join it.
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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Sampras can beat Courier, Bruguera and Muster but not Ferrer

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?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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?

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.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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?

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.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
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?

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.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

Do you think he could take on Nadal and Djokovic?
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

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:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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:

They used to call Pete "Mr Perfect" in the media in 1994 around the time he won Rome. ;)
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Ferrer would beat him easily in three sets 10/10
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.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
They used to call Pete "Mr Perfect" in the media in 1994 around the time he won Rome. ;)

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.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.

Sampras would probably have Karlovic like hold numbers with today's strings.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.

Pete's level on slow HC's is really underrated, very close to Agassi on slow HC peak for peak.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

Considering he was in such good form that season it's kind of a shame he couldn't carry it over to RG.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
Pete's level on slow HC's is really underrated, very close to Agassi on slow HC peak for peak.

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.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
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.

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
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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

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.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 
Top