Prime Nadal vs Prime Sampras at the French Open - Only Sampras Serves - Who Wins?

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Real students of the history of the game. Sampras wasn't Roddick on clay. He won Rome/took down the Russians on Davis cup, Reached the French Semis and Multiple QF, and has taken down Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov and others.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Real students of the history of the game. Sampras wasn't Roddick on clay. He won Rome/took down the Russians on Davis cup, Reached the French Semis and Multiple QF, and has taken down Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov and others.

yes pistol woulda pistol whipped him

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

yes pistol woulda pistol whipped him

Yea it would have been blow out if only Pete could serve. I seem to remember Isner taking Nadal 5 sets at the french. LOL. And Pete would probably do better on this french open court. Since its faster than the one in the 1990's

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Real students of the history of the game. Sampras wasn't Roddick on clay. He won Rome/took down the Russians on Davis cup, Reached the French Semis and Multiple QF, and has taken down Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov and others.

He has in general quite good H2Hs against the top clay courter of his era. Sure he has some unnecessary losses against inferior competition but against top players, his overall stats are quite good, which is also why I think Pete on clay is often underrated here in the forum.

There used to be a lot of threads like “how would Pete fare over a series of ten matches against player XYZ at all slams” and almost always posters here gave him per default a 0-10 at RG not only against Nadal, but also Fed, and Djokovic which is of course ridiculous. Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster all lost against Pete on clay but sure Fed and Djokovic would go 10-0, which will next to never happen between two GOAT candidates on any surface (with the possible exception of Nadal on clay).

 

[sandy mayer]

to give a clue : Career games won vs top 20 on the return : Nadal : 39%

I saw a stat a couple of years ago (don't remember where) that shows Nadal breaks serve over 40% of the time at Roland Garros. But Sampras has arguably the best serve in history. I am sure Nadal would break him on clay but not the 50% plus needed to beat Sampras serving all the time. Sampras would certainly beat anyone on any surface every time if he was serving all the time.

 

[abmk]

I saw a stat a couple of years ago (don't remember where) that shows Nadal breaks serve over 40% of the time at Roland Garros. But Sampras has arguably the best serve in history. I am sure Nadal would break him on clay but not the 50% plus needed to beat Sampras serving all the time. Sampras would certainly beat anyone on any service every time if he was serving all the time.

nadal's break% at RG is 45.5%
vs top 20: 42.6%

 

[sandy mayer]

nadal's break% at RG is 45.5%
vs top 20: 42.6%

Thanks, break % 45.5 is absolutely staggering. No wonder Nadal has won RG 13 times. But to beat someone who gets to serve all the time it has to be above 50%.

 

[President]

nadal's break% at RG is 45.5%
vs top 20: 42.6%

That is an absolutely ridiculous stat, wow.

 

[abmk]

He has in general quite good H2Hs against the top clay courter of his era. Sure he has some unnecessary losses against inferior competition but against top players, his overall stats are quite good, which is also why I think Pete on clay is often underrated here in the forum.

There used to be a lot of threads like “how would Pete fare over a series of ten matches against player XYZ at all slams” and almost always posters here gave him per default a 0-10 at RG not only against Nadal, but also Fed, and Djokovic which is of course ridiculous. Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster all lost against Pete on clay but sure Fed and Djokovic would go 10-0, which will next to never happen between two GOAT candidates on any surface (with the possible exception of Nadal on clay).

Borg seeing his name ignored in that from a poster named BorgTheGOAT

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg seeing his name ignored in that from a poster named BorgTheGOAT

At the age of his retirement he was every bit Nadal’s equal in terms of clay dominance (would never reached his longevity though), so yes he could theoretically pull this off as well.

 

[REKX]

Thanks break % 45.5 is absolutely staggering. No wonder Nadal has won RG 13 times. But to beat someone who gets to serve all the time it has to be above 50%.

Nadal had a break % of 61.4% during Roland Garros 2008 - hence why I chose this version of Nadal.

 

[sandy mayer]

Nadal had a break % of 61.4% during Roland Garros 2008 - hence why I chose this version of Nadal.

That is amazing. This version of Nadal would have a chance of beating Sampras serving all the time, but Sampras is one of the greatest servers of all time. I don't see peak Sampras getting broken more than he holds ever, on any surface.

 

[FD3S]

That is amazing. This version of Nadal would have a chance of beating Sampras serving all the time, but Sampras is one of the greatest servers of all time. I don't see peak Sampras getting broken more than he holds ever, on any surface.

I'd agree with this. And while that break figure for 2008 is legitimately astonishing, it bears noting that none of the players that Nadal faced had a serve as well rounded and effective as Pete's. Guys like Almagro and Verdaco could bring high MPH numbers and Fed usually had accuracy on his side, but the Sampras serve was the total package. Peak VS peak he's gonna hold a lot more than he's gonna get broken if he serves every game, even on red clay with an admittedly fearsome Nadal across from him.

 

[NonP]

He has in general quite good H2Hs against the top clay courter of his era. Sure he has some unnecessary losses against inferior competition but against top players, his overall stats are quite good, which is also why I think Pete on clay is often underrated here in the forum.

There used to be a lot of threads like “how would Pete fare over a series of ten matches against player XYZ at all slams” and almost always posters here gave him per default a 0-10 at RG not only against Nadal, but also Fed, and Djokovic which is of course ridiculous. Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster all lost against Pete on clay but sure Fed and Djokovic would go 10-0, which will next to never happen between two GOAT candidates on any surface (with the possible exception of Nadal on clay).

As I'm wont to point out, in terms of statistical dominance Bruguera at '93 RG was clearly inferior only to 78/80 Borg and 08/17 Nadal in the entire OE, and yet Pistol was still able to steal a set from him (while getting fed a breadstick, yes). Well no sh|t, cuz '93 (and '94) Sampras was among the elite few who won more than 60% of his games on clay, a feat that even these FO notables never pulled off for a single season (minimum 100 games and DC/WTC excluded):

-Champions-
Kodeš
[Gimeno in OE only]
Panatta
Gomez
Kafelnikov
Moyá
A. Costa
[Gaudio w/unrounded 59.6% in '05]
Wawrinka

-Runner-Ups-
Franulović
Proisy
Pilić
Solomon
Gottfried
Pecci
Gerulaitis
Pernfors
[Leconte w/unrounded 59.7% in '86 (58.8% in CC season proper)]
Edberg
P. Korda
Berasategui
Stich
[Corretja, but w/60.5% in '97 CC season proper]
A. Medvedev
Norman
Verkerk
Puerta
Soderling
Thiem
[Tsitsipas, w/60.3% in '21 CC season proper]

Obviously the earlier names are iffy due to the political squabbling between competing tours, but you get the idea. To insist prime Pistol would lose to anyone even at RG when only he gets to serve is absolutely comical.

Speaking of which/whom:

To make this a fair discussion, we have to look at Nadal's stats. You can't quote Sampras' stats without considering Nadal 2008.

In 2008, Nadal won 51.03% of his return games on clay against the field. In Roland Garros 2008, this was even higher. I don't think people realise how brilliant the 2008 Nadal was.

61.4% return games won during Roland Garros 2008. I don't know how you are dismissing Nadal, the numbers don't agree with your assessment.

When will you get it through to your seemingly impenetrable cranium that you don't get to cherry-pick your examples in hypotheticals like this? For the umpteenth time Fed in '08 had by far his worst outing in a FO final (out of 5). Ditto '92 Pete in the QF (out of 4). You can't put forth the absolute best version of Nadal while doing the opposite for his opponent, because just about ANY top player would win such a staged matchup, on any surface. Pit '15 Rafa against '09 Fed or even 93/94/96 Pete in this harebrained scenario of yours and I guarantee you Bull would struggle to win a game, because he won just 58.3% in the '15 clay-court season proper which normally isn't enough to earn anyone a FO, let alone vs. an ATG server who would only get to serve against this subpar Nadal.

But let's limit our hypothetical to Raging Bull only, who as you say won a historic 61.4% of his return games at '08 RG. Here are his RGW%s from each of his individual rounds:

F vs. Federer - 73% (8/11)
SF vs. Djokovic - 33% (5/15)
QF vs. Almagro - 73% (8/11)
4R vs. Verdasco - 90% (9/10)
3R vs. Nieminen - 64% (7/11)
2R vs. Devilder - 64% (7/11)
1R vs. Bellucci - 50% (7/14)
Total - 61.4% (51/83)

Sensational stuff indeed, if somewhat less than meets the eye due to that equally historic clunker from Fed.

Now let's look at '93 Bruguera's own FO run:

F vs. Courier - 23% (5/22)
SF vs. A. Medvedev - 50% (6/12)
QF vs. Sampras - 33% (6/18)
4R vs. Meligeni - 50% (7/14)
3R vs. Larsson - 55% (6/11)
2R vs. Champion - 100% (9/9)
1R vs. Leconte - 54% (7/13)
Total - 46.7% (46/99)

Very impressive but clearly inferior to Bull's '08 rampage, right? Except for the fact that Rafa didn't face a single player who won 60% or more of his games on clay that season while Sergi had to dispatch not one but two of them (Pete and Jim), and '93 Courier was in all probability the toughest opponent any Open Era champ had to defeat en route to his FO title.

Of course I know you'll never agree on that last part, so let's meet halfway and remove each of our trump cards if you will. This is what the RGW% comparison looks like when you look at the 1st six rounds only:

2008 Nadal - 59.7% (43/72)
1993 Bruguera - 53.2% (41/77)

So still advantage Nadal, but you can see how much the GW% game depends on the opponents. That's why I say '93 Bruguera would beat anyone but 1978/80 Borg and 2008/17 Nadal at RG.

And Sampras - you know, the same Sampras who would end up with 60.3% of GW on clay that year - still held serve 2/3 of the time vs. that GOATing Bruguera at that very RG and even managed to steal a set. But you're telling me '08 Rafa would somehow break that prime-grade Pistol more than half the time - not to mention that Rafa would somehow keep up his crazy level even when we know for a fact that he won "only" a seasonal 51.0% of his return games that year and also that service stats have been rising across the board since the '90s and the Sampras serve would be that much more dangerous today. Sorry, but to quote your own words "the numbers don't agree with your assessment."

 

[abmk]

At the age of his retirement he was every bit Nadal’s equal in terms of clay dominance (would never reached his longevity though), so yes he could theoretically pull this off as well.

Well, yeah. That was my point.

 

[aman92]

Change my mind.... Epicdal would still win this

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

I thought I'd answered this Q here but it turns out that was a different joke thread from @King No1e. So after checking out the poll I thought at least half of the Nadal voters were trolling, but after skimming the 1st 2-3 pages it's clear they weren't. So about 40% of the TTW gang are certified morons. Makes sense.
But let's be generous and assume some of these literal jokers are interested in finding out why. Per UTS Fognini has won 54.7% of his service points and 60.6% of SGs vs. Rafa, vs. a career 60% and 70% respectively vs. the field. So even Fog of all people suffered only a 10% drop in SGW% and held serve vs. Bull about 60% of the time.
That's how comical it is to envision Bull beating any decent top player while receiving only. Yes even on clay. Unless you happen to be a glutton for self-mockery I suggest you educate yourself before mouthing off next time.

Fog's SG win % against Rafa isn't just at RG though. Nadal has shown that when the stakes are high at RG, he can impose some mind-blowing dominance.

Take the 08 final for example, Fed would've won only 4 games (don't remember if any of them were breaks so I'll assume he held 4 times). Meanwhile Nadal gets 7 breaks (the score implies 2 breaks in set 1, 2 in set 2, 3 in set 3, or 3,1,3). That's 64%.

Not to mention Nadal has won 50%+ return games at RG against players like Monaco and even Ferrer. (60 60 62 vs Monaco in 2012, 62 62 61 vs Ferrer in the same tourney).
Obviously I think Sampras would crush him, but against a lesser player I think it's not out of the question

 

[NonP]

Fog's SG win % against Rafa isn't just at RG though. Nadal has shown that when the stakes are high at RG, he can impose some mind-blowing dominance.

Take the 08 final for example, Fed would've won only 4 games (don't remember if any of them were breaks so I'll assume he held 4 times). Meanwhile Nadal gets 7 breaks (the score implies 2 breaks in set 1, 2 in set 2, 3 in set 3, or 3,1,3). That's 64%.

Not to mention Nadal has won 50%+ return games at RG against players like Monaco and even Ferrer. (60 60 62 vs Monaco in 2012, 62 62 61 vs Ferrer in the same tourney).
Obviously I think Sampras would crush him, but against a lesser player I think it's not out of the question

I've already explained why even in his '08 form Bull breaking the Sampras serve more than half the time is unlikely, but this assumption that he'd be able to maintain it for an entire series is even more so. If we're talking 10 matches minimum we're looking at half a regular CC season for all intents and purposes, and as I keep pointing out even Borg and Nadal can't keep up their full intensity for long. That's why I keep insisting that y'all should look at both the season and the FO when you compare these #s.

So yes, Bull could definitely beat most top dirtballers on his return game alone, but only if we're talking a winner-take-all or limited series. Over the course of 10 or more matches he's unlikely to bring his A+ game every time, especially if we throw in additional H2Hs vs. other top guys.

But I'm glad to see you giving Pistol his due. I mean most of these lemmings seriously think peak Sampras would go 1/10 or even winless vs. Fred or Djoker on terre battue when even '93 Bruguera in his historically dominant run gave up a set to the supposed clay mug. That's the level of fanboy idiocy we're dealing with.

 

[Technology Ruined Tennis]

Just checking in to remind people that PETE would never hit any slower 2nd serves.

/thread

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

I've already explained why even in his '08 form Bull breaking the Sampras serve more than half the time is unlikely, but this assumption that he'd be able to maintain it for an entire series is even more so. If we're talking 10 matches minimum we're looking at half a regular CC season for all intents and purposes, and as I keep pointing out even Borg and Nadal can't keep up their full intensity for long. That's why I keep insisting that y'all should look at both the season and the FO when you compare these #s.

So yes, Bull could definitely beat most top dirtballers on his return game alone, but only if we're talking a winner-take-all or limited series. Over the course of 10 or more matches he's unlikely to bring his A+ game every time, especially if we throw in additional H2Hs vs. other top guys.

But I'm glad to see you giving Pistol his due. I mean most of these lemmings seriously think peak Sampras would go 1/10 or even winless vs. Fred or Djoker on terre battue when even '93 Bruguera in his historically dominant run gave up a set to the supposed clay mug. That's the level of fanboy idiocy we're dealing with.

Agreed. Sampras was exceptional even by servebot standards, but I could see Nadal win one of these hypothetical matchups against other top-tier servers. He pretty much did that to Sam Groth in 2016. 6-1 6-1 6-1 against the fastest server of all time, if I remember correctly.

 

[sandy mayer]

Perhaps something worth considering in this debate is this: what's it like physically serving every game? Would it be more tiring or less? Would it be more or less likely to lead to injury?

 

[yokied]

Just checking in to remind people that PETE would never hit any slower 2nd serves.

/thread

Well if he’s playing a guy breaking 61% of the time, why would he bother with 2nd serves?

This thread concept is top 3 meme-grade TTW hypothetical trollery but the actual extremes of both players concerned rob it of all nuance and make the matchup a pretty simple coinflip.

 

[Heliath]

Very impressive but clearly inferior to Bull's '08 rampage, right? Except for the fact that Rafa didn't face a single player who won 60% or more of his games on clay that season

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...t-muster-or-thiem.679144/page-2#post-14622385

In 1993 there were 90 tournaments in the ATP tour. In 2008 there were 68. 1993 had 35 clay court tournaments, 2008 had 22. There were a lot more ATP250 to vulture in those days.

In 2008 you had less clay court tournaments and you had to deal with Nadal leaving no much room for players to get over 60% win rate on clay playing top tier tournaments. Top players these days tend to not go vulturing around ATP250s like they did in the 90s.

As I'm wont to point out, in terms of statistical dominance Bruguera at '93 RG was clearly inferior only to 78/80 Borg and 08/17 Nadal in the entire OE, and yet Pistol was still able to steal a set from him (while getting fed a breadstick, yes). Well no sh|t, cuz '93 (and '94) Sampras was among the elite few who won more than 60% of his games on clay, a feat that even these FO notables never pulled off for a single season (minimum 100 games and DC/WTC excluded):

You are overrating a bit 1993 Sampras clay season. He played the following tournaments, just look at the level of his opponents.

Atlanta 1993:

R32, Win vs Vincent Spadea (#461)
R16, Win vs Horst Skoff (#67)
QF, Win vs Richard Froomberg (#72)
SF, Loss vs Jacco Elthigh (#87)

Masters Rome:

R64, Win vs Renzo Furlan (#50)
R32, Win vs Alex Corretja (#70)
R16, Win vs Christian Bergstrom (#52)
QF, Win vs Guillermo Perez (#54)
SF, Loss vs Goran Ivanisevic (#6)

Dusseldorf:

RR, Win vs Marc Rosset (#25)
RR, Win vs Volkov (#20)
RR, Loss vs Sergi Bruguera (#11)
F, Win vs Michael Stich (#10)

Roland Garros:

R128, Win vs Andrei Cherkasov (#34)
R64, Win vs Marcos Ondruska (#27)
R32, Win vs Jonas Svensson (#38)
R16, Win vs Malivai Washington (#18)
QF, Loss vs Sergi Bruguera (#11)


He sure won 14 out of 18 matches on clay that season but dude he lost 100% of the times to the only good clay courter he faced. And most of the top 20 players he faced were pretty bad on clay like Alexander Volkov or Malivai Washington. Alex Corretja was 19 years old at the time.

There are a lot of players today that would look pretty good on clay if they had draws like that.

Dude, Sampras would not lose against Nadal on clay if he could serve all the time, but stop making it look like Sampras was a great clay courter lmao, and stop making Bruguera look like an unstoppable force on clay. He was a great clay courter but he was very beatable. That 1993 season he lost 9 games on clay. He lost against Courier that year, against Edberg, Muster or Medvedev twice and plenty of players took a set or two against him during that season. So, Sampras taking one set against him in 2 games doesnt make him elite on clay.

For the record, Bruguera's win percentage on clay in his career was 68% which is not particularly amazing tbh.

 

[NonP]

Perhaps something worth considering in this debate is this: what's it like physically serving every game? Would it be more tiring or less? Would it be more or less likely to lead to injury?

It really wouldn't matter for these pros who often hit more serves in practice. And remember, Nadal doesn't get to serve in this scenario. That means less work for Sampras as well since he doesn't play any return game.

This doesn't really apply to you but people have so bought into this cartoonish idea of Pete being useless on clay they simply can't think clearly about any of his hypothetical matchups on the surface. And since we're assuming Rafa would be operating at full capacity why don't we do the same for his opponent? I see that one of Pete's best serving performances on clay came in the 2nd round of '98 Monte Carlo where he had 42.9% or 27 of his 63 serves unreturned by Agassi. Cracking the 40% mark on clay is still rare today - for comparison Fed won "only" 41.8% of his own serves outright vs. Novak in the '11 FO SF - and since we know that service stats have been going up since the '90s it's fair to say that 42.9% would be closer to 45% with the extra spin from poly.

Of course chances are Nadal even with his relative weakness vs. big servers/hitters doesn't give up so many points right off the bat on his home turf, so how big a decrease are we to assume for this hypothetical matchup vs. Sampras? Well, since the OP keeps dwelling on '08 RG let's look at how Bull fared on return vs. his opponents compared to their own opponents in the previous rounds (except Bellucci who doesn't have another round to compare with). Here are their relevant service stats - aces, DFs and return games from each round and for the tournament:

Federer
F - 2, 0, 3/11
SF - 2, 1, 17/20
QF - 11, 0, 15/18
4R - 6, 3, 14/17
3R - 8, 1, 13/14
2R - 13, 1, 18/18
1R - 5, 1, 13/14
Total - 47, 7, 93/112

Djokovic
SF - 2, 1, 10/15
QF - 6, 1, 16/18
4R - 14, 1, 13/14
3R - 10, 0, 12/15
2R - 3, 2, 12/12
1R - 5, 3, 16/20
Total - 40, 8, 79/94

Almagro
QF - 3, 3, 3/11
4R - 19, 4, 17/18
3R - 21, 5, 20/22
2R - 18, 2, 12/13
1R - 20, 1, 14/14
Total - 81, 15, 66/78

Verdasco
4R - 1, 6, 1/10
3R - 3, 4, 16/22
2R - 5, 10, 14/22
1R - 1, 7, 20/25
Total - 10, 27, 51/79

Nieminen
3R - 0, 0, 4/11
2R - 0, 1, 17/20
1R - 8, 4, 14/18
Total - 8, 5, 35/49

Devilder
2R - 1, 3, 4/11
1R - 3, 4, 13/14
Total - 4, 7, 17/25

Opponents' total vs. Nadal - 9, 13, 25/69 (36.2%)
Total vs. other opponents - 181, 56, 299/368 (81.25%)
Total vs. all opponents - 190, 69, 324/437 (74.1%)

So Nadal's matches with his opponents comprise an exact 18.75% of their total matches at '08 RG, as opposed to only 4.7% of their total aces and a more comparable 18.8% of their DFs vs. Bull. Does that mean he would somehow limit Sampras to a quarter of his usually free points off serve? Of course not, because Pete was a more reliable ace dispenser than any of these guys and like Roddick he got an unusually high % of his serves as outright freebies for a player of his height.

But I'll be conservative and assume Pete wins only 2/3 of his 45% in unreturned serves vs. Rafa at '08 RG. That leaves us with about 70% of remaining service points to work with, and here I'll further assume Pete wins only 37.6% of these SPs which is exactly what you get when you remove Fed's 2 aces from his 31 SPs won out of 77 in the disastrous '08 final. So we've got 30% in free SPs and 26% earned the hard(er) way which amounts to 56% or 44% on Rafa's return, and as I've pointed out he'd likely need to win closer to 60% of his return points vs. a server of Sampras' caliber to break the magic 50% mark in RGW%.

And that's not even taking into account the ATP's court pace index which says MC is slower than RG. As you can see all this is idle talk. There's no way Pete friggin' Sampras in his peak form loses serve more than half the time against anyone, yes even Rafa at ('08) RG.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...t-muster-or-thiem.679144/page-2#post-14622385

In 1993 there were 90 tournaments in the ATP tour. In 2008 there were 68. 1993 had 35 clay court tournaments, 2008 had 22. There were a lot more ATP250 to vulture in those days.

In 2008 you had less clay court tournaments and you had to deal with Nadal leaving no much room for players to get over 60% win rate on clay playing top tier tournaments. Top players these days tend to not go vulturing around ATP250s like they did in the 90s.

You're clearly a kid with Wiki-level knowledge about previous decades at best, but you think you've got anything new to show me who knows more about this subject than all of your ilk combined? Just do me a favor next time you reply to any of my posts: try following the links I include for further study, because chances are I've answered your talking points already.

Anyhoo those 250s in the '90s usually have little effect on the seasonal GW%s, because surface specialization was real and competition at these clay events hardly let up with other top dirtballers often skipping HC/grass events in favor of them. You would expect Muster's % to drop outside the regular CC season because few dirtballers "vultured" as much in the modern era, but nope, his seasonal and non-seasonal %s were virtually identical. That's why I tell y'all not to put too much stock in '90s (or previous) rankings.

And replacing Nadal with a weaker dirtballer would boost most top dogs' seasonal GW% by 2-3% at most. 1-3 matches out of 15-20 ain't gonna make much of a difference, even less so for the old-timers who played upwards of 30-40 for the whole year.

You are overrating a bit 1993 Sampras clay season. He played the following tournaments, just look at the level of his opponents.

And you don't even know my #s exclude Dusseldorf aka the World Team Cup which was the Laver Cup of the '90s and Pete's seasonal GW% actually goes up from 60.3% to 60.8% if you exclude Atlanta on green clay with the lowest-ranked opponents. And even most teenyboppers here are aware that Pistol didn't give a hoot about the smaller events which he (rightly) treated as warm-ups. That's why he was averaging a season-high 67.0% at RG before running into that red-hot Bruguera in the QF, bowing out with 60.3% for the tourney (yes, same as his seasonal %).

Dude, Sampras would not lose against Nadal on clay if he could serve all the time, but stop making it look like Sampras was a great clay courter lmao, and stop making Bruguera look like an unstoppable force on clay. He was a great clay courter but he was very beatable. That 1993 season he lost 9 games on clay. He lost against Courier that year, against Edberg, Muster or Medvedev twice and plenty of players took a set or two against him during that season. So, Sampras taking one set against him in 2 games doesnt make him elite on clay.

For the record, Bruguera's win percentage on clay in his career was 68% which is not particularly amazing tbh.

I'll cut you some slack here as most fans aren't aware that Sergi was known for his laziness, but we're only talking about his '93 FO run where he barely dropped games to the likes of Leconte and A. Medvedev. If you have a problem with that limited approach I suggest you take it up with your fellow Fedal fanatic who keeps trumpeting Rafa's 61.4% of return games won at '08 RG as if that is a sustainable level for a whole season/series.

 

[REKX]

As I'm wont to point out, in terms of statistical dominance Bruguera at '93 RG was clearly inferior only to 78/80 Borg and 08/17 Nadal in the entire OE, and yet Pistol was still able to steal a set from him (while getting fed a breadstick, yes). Well no sh|t, cuz '93 (and '94) Sampras was among the elite few who won more than 60% of his games on clay, a feat that even these FO notables never pulled off for a single season (minimum 100 games and DC/WTC excluded):

-Champions-
Kodeš
[Gimeno in OE only]
Panatta
Gomez
Kafelnikov
Moyá
A. Costa
[Gaudio w/unrounded 59.6% in '05]
Wawrinka

-Runner-Ups-
Franulović
Proisy
Pilić
Solomon
Gottfried
Pecci
Gerulaitis
Pernfors
[Leconte w/unrounded 59.7% in '86 (58.8% in CC season proper)]
Edberg
P. Korda
Berasategui
Stich
[Corretja, but w/60.5% in '97 CC season proper]
A. Medvedev
Norman
Verkerk
Puerta
Soderling
Thiem
[Tsitsipas, w/60.3% in '21 CC season proper]

Obviously the earlier names are iffy due to the political squabbling between competing tours, but you get the idea. To insist prime Pistol would lose to anyone even at RG when only he gets to serve is absolutely comical.

Speaking of which/whom:



When will you get it through to your seemingly impenetrable cranium that you don't get to cherry-pick your examples in hypotheticals like this? For the umpteenth time Fed in '08 had by far his worst outing in a FO final (out of 5). Ditto '92 Pete in the QF (out of 4). You can't put forth the absolute best version of Nadal while doing the opposite for his opponent, because just about ANY top player would win such a staged matchup, on any surface. Pit '15 Rafa against '09 Fed or even 93/94/96 Pete in this harebrained scenario of yours and I guarantee you Bull would struggle to win a game, because he won just 58.3% in the '15 clay-court season proper which normally isn't enough to earn anyone a FO, let alone vs. an ATG server who would only get to serve against this subpar Nadal.

But let's limit our hypothetical to Raging Bull only, who as you say won a historic 61.4% of his return games at '08 RG. Here are his RGW%s from each of his individual rounds:

F vs. Federer - 73% (8/11)
SF vs. Djokovic - 33% (5/15)
QF vs. Almagro - 73% (8/11)
4R vs. Verdasco - 90% (9/10)
3R vs. Nieminen - 64% (7/11)
2R vs. Devilder - 64% (7/11)
1R vs. Bellucci - 50% (7/14)
Total - 61.4% (51/83)

Sensational stuff indeed, if somewhat less than meets the eye due to that equally historic clunker from Fed.

Now let's look at '93 Bruguera's own FO run:

F vs. Courier - 23% (5/22)
SF vs. A. Medvedev - 50% (6/12)
QF vs. Sampras - 33% (6/18)
4R vs. Meligeni - 50% (7/14)
3R vs. Larsson - 55% (6/11)
2R vs. Champion - 100% (9/9)
1R vs. Leconte - 54% (7/13)
Total - 46.7% (46/99)

Very impressive but clearly inferior to Bull's '08 rampage, right? Except for the fact that Rafa didn't face a single player who won 60% or more of his games on clay that season while Sergi had to dispatch not one but two of them (Pete and Jim), and '93 Courier was in all probability the toughest opponent any Open Era champ had to defeat en route to his FO title.

Of course I know you'll never agree on that last part, so let's meet halfway and remove each of our trump cards if you will. This is what the RGW% comparison looks like when you look at the 1st six rounds only:

2008 Nadal - 59.7% (43/72)
1993 Bruguera - 53.2% (41/77)

So still advantage Nadal, but you can see how much the GW% game depends on the opponents. That's why I say '93 Bruguera would beat anyone but 1978/80 Borg and 2008/17 Nadal at RG.

And Sampras - you know, the same Sampras who would end up with 60.3% of GW on clay that year - still held serve 2/3 of the time vs. that GOATing Bruguera at that very RG and even managed to steal a set. But you're telling me '08 Rafa would somehow break that prime-grade Pistol more than half the time - not to mention that Rafa would somehow keep up his crazy level even when we know for a fact that he won "only" a seasonal 51.0% of his return games that year and also that service stats have been rising across the board since the '90s and the Sampras serve would be that much more dangerous today. Sorry, but to quote your own words "the numbers don't agree with your assessment."

There is one massive problem with you argument, as others have said, you think Bruguera is somehow or similarly equal to Nadal in some way. Bruguera is a good clay court player, but compared to Nadal? It is an insult to compare him to Nadal on the same level. Sorry, it doesn't work.

As others have said, Bruguera isn't a legendary all time great - as your post would suggest. I watched the Sampras and Bruguera matches on Youtube just now after you've hyped it. In terms of the action from groundstrokes, court coverage, athleticism, point construction - I can't see how Bruguera even comes close to Nadal? I also noted both players (Sampras and Bruguera) struggle with high topspin balls, Sampras especially moves backwards and lands the ball short when this happens. Nadal dominates in this aspect.

If you want to quote Sampras hold stats, you need to look at it differently. As the rounds go on, say 4th round, qf, semi - his hold stats decrease significantly. This is expect, of course, in a best of 5, at RG, playing better and better opposition. Say his hold stats in the later stages are around 60-70% against the field in his day, against a normal RG Nadal, that will decrease even more significantly. And against the 2008 Nadal, that will be way way below. Nadal has done this, won 61% of his return games.

With regards to service stats have been rising since the 90s. Yes, and Nadal has beaten faster and harder severs than Sampras in return games.

All 2008 Nadal has to do is get the ball back in play, and he would do, he's proven it time and time again. Rest of it, as we have seen throughout history, but especially in 2008, is a foregone conclusion.

 

[NonP]

There is one massive problem with you argument, as others have said, you think Bruguera is somehow or similarly equal to Nadal in some way. Bruguera is a good clay court player, but compared to Nadal? It is an insult to compare him to Nadal on the same level. Sorry, it doesn't work.

As others have said, Bruguera isn't a legendary all time great - as your post would suggest. I watched the Sampras and Bruguera matches on Youtube just now after you've hyped it. In terms of the action from groundstrokes, court coverage, athleticism, point construction - I can't see how Bruguera even comes close to Nadal? I also noted both players (Sampras and Bruguera) struggle with high topspin balls, Sampras especially moves backwards and lands the ball short when this happens. Nadal dominates in this aspect.

If you want to quote Sampras hold stats, you need to look at it differently. As the rounds go on, say 4th round, qf, semi - his hold stats decrease significantly. This is expect, of course, in a best of 5, at RG, playing better and better opposition. Say his hold stats in the later stages are around 60-70% against the field in his day, against a normal RG Nadal, that will decrease even more significantly. And against the 2008 Nadal, that will be way way below. Nadal has done this, won 61% of his return games.

With regards to service stats have been rising since the 90s. Yes, and Nadal has beaten faster and harder severs than Sampras in return games.

All 2008 Nadal has to do is get the ball back in play, and he would do, he's proven it time and time again. Rest of it, as we have seen throughout history, but especially in 2008, is a foregone conclusion.

Kid, you're the genius who keeps regurgitating your boy toy's RGW% at a single tournament as if it proves anything. I was simply turning your (il)logic against you and your ilk. If you have a problem with that take it up with yourself, not me.

And you don't even realize you're contradicting yourself when you again hold up that 61% as your go-to card while calling for a closer look at the level of competition for Sampras. Do the same for Nadal and his #s also drop accordingly, which has been pointed out to you a zillion times already.

The rest of your post is just another circular argument which seems to be the only thing you're good at. I know you're not able or willing to improve your comically deficient understanding of the sport, so at least learn to argue in a coherent manner before you waste my time again. I've got better things to do.

 

[DSH]

Pete would win a match even with Nadal serving. He beat multiple FO champions at FO.

Ramon Delgado was enough to beat prime Sampras at Roland Garros in straight sets.

 

[aman92]

The fact that 45% of the people still think Nadal would win is astonishing...I probably assume Sampras would need to have his arm amputated having to serve every game?

 

[RS]

Gem

 

[Razer]

Serve is a very crucial part of Tennis, if you give Sampras all the serving then there is no way Nadal can win even on clay.

However it would be unpleasant for Sampras to serve the entire match, not that he cannot, he very well could.

 

[TheFifthSet]

The fact that 45% of the people still think Nadal would win is astonishing...I probably assume Sampras would need to have his arm amputated having to serve every game?

For me the operative word is "disappointing.”

 

[DSH]

For me the operative word is "disappointing".

Of the matches that Sampras played at Roland Garros, which of them was where he was broken the most times?

 

[TheFifthSet]

Of the matches that Sampras played at Roland Garros, which of them was where he was broken the most times?

Not sure, probably in one of the early losses to Champion or Chang.

 

[DSH]

Not sure, probably in one of the early losses to Champion of Chang.

6-1, 6-1, 6-1.

 

[TheFifthSet]

6-1, 6-1, 6-1.

Indeed.

Relevance?

 

[REKX]

The fact that 45% of the people still think Nadal would win is astonishing...I probably assume Sampras would need to have his arm amputated having to serve every game?

You wrote a percentage but do you understand percentages?

61.4% return games won - Nadal had at Roland Garros 2008. It was even higher in some matches.

The maths is simple, if Nadal is winning more than 60% of the points, as he did in 2008, then he wins this match.

No one has yet to mention which part of Sampras game would hurt Nadal here. The serve? It was dismantled on clay by many nobodies because of the slow playing surface. Where else does Sampras win points against a 2008 Nadal?

 

[DSH]

You wrote a percentage but do you understand percentages?

61.4% return games won - Nadal had at Roland Garros 2008. It was even higher in some matches.

The maths is simple, if Nadal is winning more than 60% of the points, as he did in 2008, then he wins this match.

No one has yet to mention which part of Sampras game would hurt Nadal here. The serve? It was dismantled on clay by many nobodies because of the slow playing surface. Where else does Sampras win points against a 2008 Nadal?

His fans will say that he would serve and volley against Nadal at RG.

 

[NonP]

The fact that 45% of the people still think Nadal would win is astonishing...I probably assume Sampras would need to have his arm amputated having to serve every game?

For me the operative word is "disappointing".

I'm sure some of 'em were trolling, but yeah the sheer level of ignorance on display is really something. And these mugs really have deluded themselves into thinking they know half as much about the game as they actually do. Just imagine what they're like IRL on matters of greater importance.

One more thing:

Not sure, probably in one of the early losses to Champion or Chang.

Champion also demolished Pistol 6-3, 6-1, 6-1 at '91 RG, just the year before the latter's QF+ streak (sans '95). From Wiki:

A clay court specialist, Champion gained notoriety on the men's ATP tour as a wild card player with the ability to inflict defeat on seeded players well above his ranking. His play style was characterised by fast court coverage and strong baseline play with measured heavily spun passing shots, particularly from an unorthodox backhand stroke.

And Bruguera triple-bageled this perennial dark horse in his '93 run... and Pistol was able to steal a set from THAT Sergi (see #564). But yeah the greatest server in history would somehow fall to any version of Bull only on the receiving end. Beyond comical, really.

 

[aman92]

You wrote a percentage but do you understand percentages?

61.4% return games won - Nadal had at Roland Garros 2008. It was even higher in some matches.

The maths is simple, if Nadal is winning more than 60% of the points, as he did in 2008, then he wins this match.

No one has yet to mention which part of Sampras game would hurt Nadal here. The serve? It was dismantled on clay by many nobodies because of the slow playing surface. Where else does Sampras win points against a 2008 Nadal?

Yes but Nadal wasn't facing anyone on the level of Sampras's serve, apart from Fed