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

Prime Nadal vs Prime Sampras at French Open (Only Sampras Serves)

  • Nadal

    Votes: 59 41.3%
  • Sampras

    Votes: 84 58.7%

  • Total voters
    143
Rafa's best year at RG was clearly 2008, but for overall clay performance 2012 probably wins over 2008 by a bit. The only place he was better in 2008 was RG, he was a beast all season on clay in 2012.

On clay?

Sampras' best showing at RG was a semifinal, where he lost 7-6/6-0/6-2 to Kafelnikov.

Rafa would absolutely win.
In fairness he was totally gassed for that semi. He actualy probably had a decent shot to win that semi and the title that year had he been a bit fresher. He beat Kafelnikov in straight sets on clay in Davis Cup in Russia, even if Kafelnikov choked a bit and didnt play well at all in that match. He totally owns Kafelnikov overall too, even if not really on clay where they barely played, but often barely gave him games when they met on hard courts even though Kafelnikov is an excellent hard court player.
 
Not a chance if Pete is serving EVERY SINGLE GAME.

You think Nadal is breaking Pete 18 times minimum? I don't care if Nadal is the greatest on clay, Pete is known as the greatest server of all time.
Sampras might be known as the best server ever, but he definitely is not the best server ever. A lot of that is hype and that one of the greats has to have the best serve. He might well have the best serve ever amongst the GOATs, although even then Gonzales could be argued as having a better serve considering his era, or Ellsworth Vines.

Someone like Karlovic has a higher % in serving stats in almost every category- service games won, service points won, break points saved, almost everything except tiebreaks where mental strength plays a big role. And that is with a much poorer game in every other respect. So I think it is safe to say Karlovic unquestionably has a better serve than Sampras. Someone like Ivanisevic arguably has a better serve than Sampras too.
 
Not a chance if Pete is serving EVERY SINGLE GAME.

You think Nadal is breaking Pete 18 times minimum? I don't care if Nadal is the greatest on clay, Pete is known as the greatest server of all time.
But his serve was useless on clay. Just look at how Agassi destroyed him at RG 1992. If Agassi did it, go figure Nadal who is much better on clay.
 
Sampras might be known as the best server ever, but he definitely is not the best server ever. A lot of that is hype and that one of the greats has to have the best serve. He might well have the best serve ever amongst the GOATs, although even then Gonzales could be argued as having a better serve considering his era, or Ellsworth Vines.

Someone like Karlovic has a higher % in serving stats in almost every category- service games won, service points won, break points saved, almost everything except tiebreaks where mental strength plays a big role. And that is with a much poorer game in every other respect. So I think it is safe to say Karlovic unquestionably has a better serve than Sampras. Someone like Ivanisevic arguably has a better serve than Sampras too.
Yeah, Sampras was more of a serve and volleyer than a mere server like Karlovic. That is why his game was ineffective on clay. His relatively poor baseline game was exposed.
 
Not a chance if Pete is serving EVERY SINGLE GAME.

You think Nadal is breaking Pete 18 times minimum? I don't care if Nadal is the greatest on clay, Pete is known as the greatest server of all time.
Peak Rafa? Yes.

The sting comes off Sampras' serve on clay and the surface dulls his speed for S&V. Take that away and he is Fed, but worse. Rafa would get a workout chasing his serve out wide on the ad side, but his backhand is essentially a 2HFH which would rob Sampras of another angle of attack.

Sampras' fitness was also never close to what would be required to stay with Rafa over 5 sets.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Sampras might be known as the best server ever, but he definitely is not the best server ever. A lot of that is hype and that one of the greats has to have the best serve. He might well have the best serve ever amongst the GOATs, although even then Gonzales could be argued as having a better serve considering his era, or Ellsworth Vines.

Someone like Karlovic has a higher % in serving stats in almost every category- service games won, service points won, break points saved, almost everything except tiebreaks where mental strength plays a big role. And that is with a much poorer game in every other respect. So I think it is safe to say Karlovic unquestionably has a better serve than Sampras. Someone like Ivanisevic arguably has a better serve than Sampras too.
But his serve was useless on clay. Just look at how Agassi destroyed him at RG 1992. If Agassi did it, go figure Nadal who is much better on clay.
Sorry folks, there is no way I ever accept that Nadal is winning that match if Sampras is serving every single game. Nadal is not breaking Pete 18 times...no player can on any surface can as far as I am concerned.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Peak Rafa? Yes.

The sting comes off Sampras' serve on clay and the surface dulls his speed for S&V. Take that away and he is Fed, but worse. Rafa would get a workout chasing his serve out wide on the ad side, but his backhand is essentially a 2HFH which would rob Sampras of another angle of attack.

Sampras' fitness was also never close to what would be required to stay with Rafa over 5 sets.
Sorry, not in my book. Not 18 times. I saw Pete at his absolute peak, and not a chance anyone is taking 18 games off of peak Pete.
 
On clay?

Sampras' best showing at RG was a semifinal, where he lost 7-6/6-0/6-2 to Kafelnikov.

Rafa would absolutely win.

Sampras held 81.5% of the time on clay, in an era where the holding % on clay was about 72%.

Today it’s about 76%, and Nadal, even in his best years, rarely reached 50% of return games won on clay.

Give Sampras’ today’s strings and he likely holds 85% on clay. Ergo, he would have a better service game than Nadal’s average opponent (already does, but indulge me here), who already wins over 50% of his service games against Nadal.

Sampras would clearly be the overwhelming favourite.
 
Last edited:
This might give you an idea of how useless was Sampras' serve on clay. (Please note Agassi was nowhere near as good as Nadal on clay).

I mean this confirms everything I've been saying.

Agassi was returning almost everything, even hit a return passing shot winner against Sampras first serve. So it does confirm the serve is somewhat nullified on this surface (I thought this was common sense but apparently not).

So if Agassi was hitting winners and getting almost all the serves into play, Nadal standing far back with time and his speed would get serves back much harder with more spin, heavier ball etc.

Then I said once the ball is in play, Sampras is second favorite every single shot. There is nothing in this video to suggest otherwise. He is going backwards when hitting his one handed backhand and landing it short, making many unforced errors. Especially longer rallies in which Sampras has to run to get to the ball, he is hitting the net or out, or if it's in, it's easy pickings for Nadal's groundstrokes.

I can't see any other outcome than a Nadal win here.

I'm still waiting for an explanation how Nadal doesn't win this, because that video showed everything.
 
Ladies and gentlemen: welcome to TTW. The only place where Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario and Federer wins all of the possible hypothetical scenarios.

Maestronians did it again.:rolleyes:
 
Okay, I respectfully disagree with this reasoning. I think if Sampras were to serve every game, the decreased pressure would free him up to play better, and the shorter points would mitigate whatever stress the constant serving would put on his body. I think Nadal having to break his serve 18 times (or more, if it goes to 4-5) in order to win would be far more draining proposition.
Draining? Have you ever seen Nadal play? He fights for every point as if it's his last.

By your reasoning, it would suggest players like Djokovic and Federer easily held their serves against Nadal, but we know from historical evidence this is not true.

Once the ball is in play, and on clay with Sampras serve this is the case, again as we know from historical evidence, how does Sampras win points against Nadal?

Shorter points? This is Roland Garros, seriously some people think French Open is like Wimbledon - it's not.
 
Draining? Have you ever seen Nadal play? He fights for every point as if it's his last.

By your reasoning, it would suggest players like Djokovic and Federer easily held their serves against Nadal, but we know from historical evidence this is not true.

Once the ball is in play, and on clay with Sampras serve this is the case, again as we know from historical evidence, how does Sampras win points against Nadal?

Shorter points? This is Roland Garros, seriously some people think French Open is like Wimbledon - it's not.
I am responding to your post to let you know that I am not responding to your post. :D
 
For everyone that is not @REKX : Djokovic and Federer have held serve 67.7 and 68.3% of the time against Nadal on clay, respectively. Yes, they’d also win pretty easily almost every time if they got to serve every game against Nadal on clay.
 
Of course Sampras would have won if he served all the time. How would it even be possible to beat him in that scenario? However, in a regular RG match any Nadal but 2015 would have destroyed Sampras without any problems. Sampras would have won in a regular match against 2015 Nadal though.
 
When’s the peak Sampras vs Fed at Wimbledon where Sampras serves every game thread?

The serve is without a doubt the most important part of the game and at the professional level it would be nearly impossible to win considering the importance and not too often breaks of serve. Sampras might win but I think it’s entirely possible Nadal wins a set when you consider Sampras’ serve is weakened severely on clay and Nadal’s ability to return almost anything on clay and at his athletic peak.

It should speak volumes when you have to tilt the odds so sharply just to even have a hypothetical for an all time great vs Nadal on clay.
It does speak volumes, because a normal Sampras vs Nadal match at Roland Garros would be horrible for Sampras. Sampras was losing against nobodies at the French, and Prime Nadal, greatest of all time would win something like 6-2 6-0 6-0, and I still don't see how Sampras holds twice against Nadal, apart from his serve there are no tools to hurt Nadal in his box, and the serve as we've seen is nullified on clay - otherwise he wouldn't have such a poor record there.

You say not to often about breaks of serve, have you seen Nadal play the French Open during the 11 years he's won? How many times did he achieve a 6-0 6=1 6-2 type set? Many many times.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Draining? Have you ever seen Nadal play? He fights for every point as if it's his last.

By your reasoning, it would suggest players like Djokovic and Federer easily held their serves against Nadal, but we know from historical evidence this is not true.

Once the ball is in play, and on clay with Sampras serve this is the case, again as we know from historical evidence, how does Sampras win points against Nadal?

Shorter points? This is Roland Garros, seriously some people think French Open is like Wimbledon - it's not.
with his forehand, backhand and volleys ?
guy was not immobile or an idiot (like you), you know ?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It does speak volumes, because a normal Sampras vs Nadal match at Roland Garros would be horrible for Sampras. Sampras was losing against nobodies at the French, and Prime Nadal, greatest of all time would win something like 6-2 6-0 6-0, and I still don't see how Sampras holds twice against Nadal, apart from his serve there are no tools to hurt Nadal in his box, and the serve as we've seen is nullified on clay - otherwise he wouldn't have such a poor record there.

You say not to often about breaks of serve, have you seen Nadal play the French Open during the 11 years he's won? How many times did he achieve a 6-0 6=1 6-2 type set? Many many times.
92-97, Sampras only lost once to a nobody at RG - Schaller in 95.
92 - Agassi (RG champ)
93 - Bruguera (2x RG champ)
94 - Courier (2x RG champ)
96 - Courier (2x RG champ)
97- Norman (RG finalist)


But then you are clueless about anything apart from Wimbledon 2008 final, so maybe you know, you ought to get a clue !

someone like Ljubicic was broken "only" 4 times in 15 service games by Nadal in RG 2006 semi, 6 times in 15 service games by Nadal in RG 2011 4R.

you think Nadal would be breaking Sampras more times than he would break Ljubicic ? LOL !
 
Ladies and gentlemen: welcome to TTW. The only place where Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario and Federer wins all of the possible hypothetical scenarios.

Maestronians did it again.:rolleyes:

Federer would lose by greater margins on any court in the world against a peak Sampras than Nadal would on Chatrier if in both scenarios Sampras got to serve every game, so no.

Please, make the same thread with Federer, make it public and give it a day or two. If the % of respondents claiming Federer would win is higher than the % saying Nadal would win here, I will legitimately never post here again. If it isn’t, you simply don’t post for a month. Deal?

Let’s see if the double standards are really as bad as you think.
 
On clay?

Sampras' best showing at RG was a semifinal, where he lost 7-6/6-0/6-2 to Kafelnikov.

Rafa would absolutely win.
That's when Sampras was drained after playing three five-setters and couldn't muster the effort after losing the first set.

One of those five-setters was that amazing match against Bruguera, which Pete should've lost in 4 given their respective clay levels at the time, but won in 5 instead by playing 9000% under pressure (saved 18/20 BPs, LOL!). If he defends serve like that, Nadal is not breaking him over 50% of the time, not even peak Rafa.
 
Federer would lose by greater margins on any court in the world against a peak Sampras than Nadal would on Chatrier if in both scenarios Sampras got to serve every game, so no.

Please, make the same thread with Federer, make it public and give it a day or two. If the % of respondents claiming Federer would win is higher than the % saying Nadal would win here, I will legitimately never post here again. If it isn’t, you simply don’t post for a month. Deal?

Let’s see if the double standards are really as bad as you think.
Now it's a distinct possibility that, were "sport" to accept the offer, he'd intentionlly rally other Nadal fans to vote for Federer just to get you out of here.
 
someone like Ljubicic was broken "only" 4 times in 15 service games by Nadal in RG 2006 semi, 6 times in 15 service games by Nadal in RG 2011 4R.

you think Nadal would be breaking Sampras more times than he would break Ljubicic ? LOL !
I mean, he thinks Isner has a better clay game than Sampras, trololol~
 
Now it's a distinct possibility that, were "sport" to accept the offer, he'd intentionlly rally other Nadal fans to vote for Federer just to get you out of here.

I’ll take that chance, if the votes are public and the baseline is 39.2% (where it currently stands.)

If more than 39.2% of respondents believe prime Federer would beat prime Sampras on any surface if Pete got to serve every game, I’ll leave.

Let’s see people put their money where their mouths are for a change.
 
That's when Sampras was drained after playing three five-setters and couldn't muster the effort after losing the first set.

One of those five-setters was that amazing match against Bruguera, which Pete should've lost in 4 given their respective clay levels at the time, but won in 5 instead by playing 9000% under pressure (saved 18/20 BPs, LOL!). If he defends serve like that, Nadal is not breaking him over 50% of the time, not even peak Rafa.
I don't think you understand how far above the bar Prime Nadal is compared to players like Sampras.

So some people are saying Sampras would win, I am still waiting for an explanation as how this would turn out?

Serve? No Agassi was handly returning, and even hitting winners of Sampras serve on clay. Nadal would do far more damage with the extra time he has.

Serve and volley? Against probably the greatest of all time, Nadal, at passing shots? No point even turning up.
 
That's when Sampras was drained after playing three five-setters and couldn't muster the effort after losing the first set.

One of those five-setters was that amazing match against Bruguera, which Pete should've lost in 4 given their respective clay levels at the time, but won in 5 instead by playing 9000% under pressure (saved 18/20 BPs, LOL!). If he defends serve like that, Nadal is not breaking him over 50% of the time, not even peak Rafa.
And even then, on his probably worst match ever on clay, he wins 53% of the serve points. There simply is no way to statistically make Nadal the favourite here. And OP says prime Sampras. We arent even talking peak Rafa vs a bad playing Sampras.
 
Nadal fans - Vote Nadl because healthy Nadal never loses.

The rest - Sampras because stats and objectivity.
Federer fans - Vote Sampras because Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario.

The rest - Nadal because he is much better than Sampras on clay, with and without serve advantage. Sampras' baseline game was bad, and on clay the serve is virtually irrelevant. Nadal would destroy him.
 
Federer fans - Vote Sampras because Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario.

The rest - Nadal because he is much better than Sampras on clay, with and without serve advantage. Sampras' baseline game was bad, and on clay the serve is virtually irrelevant. Nadal would destroy him.
Exactly, they are saying Sampras serve is unbreakable on clay. He didn't win a French Open, didn't get to a final, lost 6-0 6-1 type sets against far far less abled players than Nadal. Doesn't sound like a person with an unbreakable serve, sounds like a very breakable serve, you gave video evidence from a real matching supporting.

Now add Nadal to the mix, a type of player Sampras has never faced, the strokes, intensity, fitness, where and how can Sampras win this? It is beyond him.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Federer fans - Vote Sampras because Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario.

The rest - Nadal because he is much better than Sampras on clay, with and without serve advantage. Sampras' baseline game was bad, and on clay the serve is virtually irrelevant. Nadal would destroy him.
yes, Isner holds 91.3% of service games on clay because of his awesome groundgame on clay >>> since serve is virtually irrelevant.

Karlovic holds 88.9% of his service games because of the same reason.
Raonic holds 88% of his service games because of the same reason.

serve is less relevant on clay than other surfaces, but it is relevant there as well.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Exactly, they are saying Sampras serve is unbreakable on clay. He didn't win a French Open, didn't get to a final, lost 6-0 6-1 type sets against far far less abled players than Nadal. Doesn't sound like a person with an unbreakable serve, sounds like a very breakable serve, you gave video evidence from a real matching supporting.

Now add Nadal to the mix, a type of player Sampras has never faced, the strokes, intensity, fitness, where and how can Sampras win this? It is beyond him.
no, you idiot. no one is saying Sampras' serve is unbreakable on clay. just that he'd hold more than he'd get broken vs Nadal
even at a conservative 60% of service games held vs Nadal, Sampras wins a set 6-4 on average in your scenario.
 
In TTW, Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario:

-Nadal loses against Sampras a RG match.
-Nadal loses against Nick Kyrgios a chess game.
-Nadal loses a Quidditch match against Scharwtzman.
-Nadal loses in a beauty contest to Gasquet.
-Nadal loses his girlfriend because he is a loser.
-Nadal is catched by Djokovic before Nadal catches Federer.
-Nadal is exposed by Dustin Brown at RG.
 
Federer fans - Vote Sampras because Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario.

The rest - Nadal because he is much better than Sampras on clay, with and without serve advantage. Sampras' baseline game was bad, and on clay the serve is virtually irrelevant. Nadal would destroy him.
So irrelevant that the server wins 75-77% of games on clay. So irrelevant that even Nadal does not win 50% of his return games on clay.

Sampras’ baseline game was only subpar when compared with the legends of the sports/all-time great baseliners. He was an all-court player in his early days with very good groundstrokes. It was his movement that hampered him on clay, as he never learned how to slide consistently. His groundstrokes were fine, and movement would be less of an issue if he were serving every game and keeping the points short.
 
In TTW, Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario:

-Nadal loses against Sampras a RG match.
-Nadal loses against Nick Kyrgios a chess game.
-Nadal loses a Quidditch match against Scharwtzman.
-Nadal loses in a beauty contest to Gasquet.
-Nadal loses his girlfriend because he is a loser.
-Nadal is catched by Djokovic before Nadal catches Federer.
-Nadal is exposed by Dustin Brown at RG.
Did you read the thread? It talks about a match where Sampras serves all the time. It's not a regular match. If the question was about a regular Nadal-Sampras match in RG then of course only a real idiot would vote for Sampras.
 
In TTW, Nadal loses every hypothetical scenario:

-Nadal loses against Sampras a RG match.
-Nadal loses against Nick Kyrgios a chess game.
-Nadal loses a Quidditch match against Scharwtzman.
-Nadal loses in a beauty contest to Gasquet.
-Nadal loses his girlfriend because he is a loser.
-Nadal is catched by Djokovic before Nadal catches Federer.
-Nadal is exposed by Dustin Brown at RG.

Yes, very good. Obscure your initial posts with trolling in subsequent posts to make it seem like your OP was a pure troll and not tinged with sincere beliefs.

What do you say to my offer? Yes or no? Let’s put it to the test.
 
Top