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
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.
How could he hold serve against Nadal regularly on clay, we are talking Prime Nadal, the best Nadal, some of the greatest players of all time struggled to hold serve against Nadal.

How does Sampras hold serve, what part of his game allows him to do that?

Sampras has never faced anything even close to Prime Nadal in his clay career, and he got 6-0 against him. How can he possibly do better against a 2008 Nadal for example? What part of Sampras game will allow him to dominate Nadal in the games?

Once the ball is in play, who is favorite to win the point in your opinion and why?
 
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.
You don't understand basic statistics, lawl. Even in bad losses to Agassi and Kafelnikov, playing poorly even by his own standards in the last two sets, Sampras still held more than half of the time (thanks to the first set). If Sampras plays well by his standards, even on clay he'd hold at least 60% of the time, because the service advantage is that massive, even on clay, even against Nadal, as borne out by general and specific match stats.
 
You don't understand basic statistics, lawl. Even in bad losses to Agassi and Kafelnikov, playing poorly even by his own standards in the last two sets, Sampras still held more than half of the time (thanks to the first set). If Sampras plays well by his standards, even on clay he'd hold at least 60% of the time, because the service advantage is that massive, even on clay, even against Nadal, as borne out by general and specific match stats.
No your stats account for players like Kafelnikov on the other side of the net, if you want to place Prime Nadal then you have to adjust your stats. There was nothing like Prime Nadal in those days, and maybe we will never see anything like it again. Even a 75% Prime Nadal would win the French Open cleanly in those times.

Adjust your stats to Nadal being on the otherside of the net. And ask Federer how good Nadal is, when Nadal took a 6-0 set against him.
 
How does Sampras hold serve, what part of his game allows him to do that?
The serve itself, you doofus. A good deal of unreturned serves and many weak returns that give Sampras such a positional advantage that he can convert it within a few strokes without getting into legnthy rallies. However goat Nadal is at passing, he'd be an underdog against quality approaches, just less of an underdog than anyone else, because that's how tennis works - reaction is always secondary to action - like how a mediocre serve still grants a decent advantage on average against even the best return, otherwise Agassi and Djokovic would've been constantly recording bagel sets in early rounds, which doesn't happen.
 
No your stats account for players like Kafelnikov on the other side of the net, if you want to place Prime Nadal then you have to adjust your stats.
Bend the stats like Rafa bends the rules for his liking? Not the way I roll.

There was nothing like Prime Nadal in those days, and maybe we will never see anything like it again. Even a 75% Prime Nadal would win the French Open cleanly in those times.
lol. Margins are slim, 75% Nadal is not a top 100 player.

Adjust your stats to Nadal being on the otherside of the net. And ask Federer how good Nadal is, when Nadal took a 6-0 set against him.
That Federer was so bad that even Sampras might've beaten him that day, so no surprise. Remember when Fed bagelled Nadal in Hamburg, I guess if he 6-0'd the clay GOAT himself, he must be the clay co-goat at least, amirite? Nah, Fed may be the goat of Hamburg specifically but Nads was shyet and I can say that freely because it's true. Players are human, not robots, they have good days and bad days. Nadal on his best clay day vs anyone on a bad day = massacre, as not only he is already superior, but in that scenario also regularly gets free errors, making his victory so much more easy and dominant.
 
The only thing on TTW that gets more votes than Federer winning any hypothetical matchup is Nadal losing any hypothetical matchup

Since your pal didn’t take me up on my offer, will you?

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.
A month won’t be so bad, I’m sure you have many alts to fall back on.
 
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.
I was speaking more in general on the professional level as it just takes one break to have a set become 3-6 or 4-6. Nadal would crush Sampras at RG just like he did with Fed under regular match rules but it’s still a tall order to ask for 18 (total to win) breaks of serve against any professional tennis player, in particular a guy like Sampras even if his serve is mitigated by clay.

It would be interesting and I think Nadal would be able to pull out wins 2-4 times out of 10 in this scenario.
 
Obviously some of you need video evidence of what Sampras could do to someone on clay. Mind you in this video he starts off cold unable to get his first serve in at the beginning of the match. By his 3rd service game(5 games in) watch what he does after being down in a game after Courier hits a GOAT return and looks as if he is going break Pete. Watch VB.

 
Obviously some of you need video evidence of what Sampras could do to someone on clay. Mind you in this video he starts off cold unable to get his first serve in at the beginning of the match. By his 3rd service game(5 games in) watch what he does after being down in a game after Courier hits a GOAT return and looks as if he is going break Pete. Watch VB.

That was the match that took too much out of him for his semi with Kafelnikov. :( Sampras could play on clay, he just couldnt sustain the level needed for 3 or 4 tough opponents to win a whole event very often, and never at RG.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
How could he hold serve against Nadal regularly on clay, we are talking Prime Nadal, the best Nadal, some of the greatest players of all time struggled to hold serve against Nadal.

How does Sampras hold serve, what part of his game allows him to do that?

Sampras has never faced anything even close to Prime Nadal in his clay career, and he got 6-0 against him. How can he possibly do better against a 2008 Nadal for example? What part of Sampras game will allow him to dominate Nadal in the games?

Once the ball is in play, who is favorite to win the point in your opinion and why?
he needs to hold only 6/10 times. not 8 or 9 out of 10 times.

as far as your question goes, already answered :


serve and once the rally started :
"with his forehand, backhand and volleys ?
guy was not immobile or an idiot (like you), you know ?"
 
Obviously some of you need video evidence of what Sampras could do to someone on clay. Mind you in this video he starts off cold unable to get his first serve in at the beginning of the match. By his 3rd service game(5 games in) watch what he does after being down in a game after Courier hits a GOAT return and looks as if he is going break Pete. Watch VB.

Thank you for the video, this confirms to me exactly what I've been saying.

He's playing Courier by the way, did you know that before you sent the video? Writing Courier and Nadal in the same sentence is an insult to Nadal, with all due respect to Courier.

So Courier did return, and the rallies did go on and Sampras lost many points against Courier. I mean as great as Sampras is on other surfaces, he looks very very average on this. It is no surprise he did not win a French Open, or get to a final.

So Sampras isn't going to ace every service point in this matchup, not even close, so Nadal will get the ball into play.

And going by what we've seen in this video, there is nothing you can see that can hurt a Prime Nadal. Please do say how Sampras is going to get the upper hand on Nadal during the rallies? I would like to know.
 
Thank you for the video, this confirms to me exactly what I've been saying.

He's playing Courier by the way, did you know that before you sent the video? Writing Courier and Nadal in the same sentence is an insult to Nadal, with all due respect to Courier.

So Courier did return, and the rallies did go on and Sampras lost many points against Courier. I mean as great as Sampras is on other surfaces, he looks very very average on this. It is no surprise he did not win a French Open, or get to a final.

So Sampras isn't going to ace every service point in this matchup, not even close, so Nadal will get the ball into play.

And going by what we've seen in this video, there is nothing you can see that can hurt a Prime Nadal. Please do say how Sampras is going to get the upper hand on Nadal during the rallies? I would like to know.
Your scenario consists of Sampras getting to serve throughout the whole match, so courier or Nadal or whatever, doesn't change that this whole match up becomes completely different due to this scenario.

Nadal has no chance. Deal with it.

And if you described this whole scenario to him he'd be laughing at you.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Thank you for the video, this confirms to me exactly what I've been saying.

He's playing Courier by the way, did you know that before you sent the video? Writing Courier and Nadal in the same sentence is an insult to Nadal, with all due respect to Courier.

So Courier did return, and the rallies did go on and Sampras lost many points against Courier. I mean as great as Sampras is on other surfaces, he looks very very average on this. It is no surprise he did not win a French Open, or get to a final.

So Sampras isn't going to ace every service point in this matchup, not even close, so Nadal will get the ball into play.

And going by what we've seen in this video, there is nothing you can see that can hurt a Prime Nadal. Please do say how Sampras is going to get the upper hand on Nadal during the rallies? I would like to know.
here, lets see if even one light of clue can penetrate the thick cluelessness of your head.

sampras doesn't need to ace every service point.
He'd get unreturned serves on about 20-30% of the points.
He'd get fh putaway or volley putaway on another 15-20% of the points.

So about 40% of the points, he'd win on serve or serve+putaway.

in your scenario of only Sampras serving, he only needs to win some of the rallies. he doesn't need to edge Nadal out in them overall. (&obviously wouldn't)
 
Thank you for the video, this confirms to me exactly what I've been saying.

He's playing Courier by the way, did you know that before you sent the video? Writing Courier and Nadal in the same sentence is an insult to Nadal, with all due respect to Courier.

So Courier did return, and the rallies did go on and Sampras lost many points against Courier. I mean as great as Sampras is on other surfaces, he looks very very average on this. It is no surprise he did not win a French Open, or get to a final.

So Sampras isn't going to ace every service point in this matchup, not even close, so Nadal will get the ball into play.

And going by what we've seen in this video, there is nothing you can see that can hurt a Prime Nadal. Please do say how Sampras is going to get the upper hand on Nadal during the rallies? I would like to know.
You are insane. Sampras doesn't have to ace Nadal to beat him. Did you notice how Pete body served Courier on 2nd serves to get the slight edge in the rally? Did you not notice the weak replies from First serves that weren't aces that Pete simply put away with a volley? And as you can see, he can find an ace when he needs one. There is no way in HELL that Nadal wins the match if Pete serves the whole time. GTFO outta here.
 
Obviously some of you need video evidence of what Sampras could do to someone on clay. Mind you in this video he starts off cold unable to get his first serve in at the beginning of the match. By his 3rd service game(5 games in) watch what he does after being down in a game after Courier hits a GOAT return and looks as if he is going break Pete. Watch VB.

Maestronians will use Sampras' victory over Courier (who the hell is this?) to supposedly support that Sampras would defeat 2008 Nadal on clay.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Courier is not on Agassi's level on clay, let alone Nadal's one.
and again, another gem of cluelessness from Sport.

prime Courier on clay > prime Agassi on clay.

here's a clue :

Courier won 2 RGs, was in the final of a 3rd one, made another semi.

Guess whom Courier beat in the final of 91 RG and in the semi of 92 RG --- yes, Agassi himself - in 5 sets and in 3 sets respectively.

Agassi won "only" 1 RG in comparision, was in the final of 2 more and was in 2 semis. (this is with greater longevity)
 
A two time FO champ I think is close enough to measure against something as ridiculous as the idea of this thread.
So Maestronians are comparing a 2 time RG champion with an 11 time RG champion. RIP logic. That's like comparing the strength of a hyena with the strength of a lion.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Maestronians will use Sampras' victory over Courier (who the hell is this?) to supposedly support that Sampras would defeat 2008 Nadal on clay.
no one is saying that. 2008 Nadal would destroy Sampras on clay.

its all your butthurt delusions. Get over being so butthurt.

and obviously you don't even have a frickin' clue about who Courier is/was.

Go get a clue before bullsh*tting.
 
and again, another gem of cluelessness from Sport.

prime Courier on clay > prime Agassi on clay.

here's a clue :

Courier won 2 RGs, was in the final of a 3rd one, made another semi.

Guess whom Courier beat in the final of 91 RG and in the semi of 92 RG --- yes, Agassi himself - in 5 sets and in 3 sets respectively.

Agassi won "only" 1 RG in comparision, was in the final of 2 more and was in 2 semis. (this is with greater longevity)
OK, Courier is better than Agassi on clay. So? Agassi also lost 1 RG final because he was thinking his fake hair would be exposed.

In any case, comparing a guy who has won 2 RG titles with a man who has won 11 RG titles is like comparing the strength of a hyena with a lion.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
OK, Courier is better than Agassi on clay. So? Agassi also lost 1 RG final because he was thinking his fake hair would be exposed.
that's just stories built by Agassi. He lost it because Gomez was the better player that day in the final.

In any case, comparing a guy who has won 2 RG titles with a man who has won 11 RG titles is like comparing the strength of a hyena with a lion.
Nadal is obviously better than Courier on clay. but doesn't mean Courier wasn't a pretty good CCer himself.
 
Don't let this thread distract you form the fact that peak Sampras lost in the 3R of Roland Garros 1997 against the "legendary" Magnus Norman.
 
Losing a love set doesn't mean you would lose the set serving every game. Momentum would be different, confidence, and so on.

The only way I see Sampras losing is if he gets tired from serving so much.
 
Don't let this thread distract you form the fact that peak Sampras lost in the 3R of Roland Garros 1997 against the "legendary" Magnus Norman.
Every match Pete ever lost he had to RETURN half the time. Stop with the BS. You don't see Nadal fans that have SENSE in here arguing about this.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Don't let this thread distract you form the fact that peak Sampras lost in the 3R of Roland Garros 1997 against the "legendary" Magnus Norman.
again, maybe you should get some more clue.
Norman was developing into a pretty good CCer before injuries struck him.
In 2000, he won Rome beating Kuerten and was in the final of RG.
Won 7 CC titles overall.

Sampras' losses to "unknown" players at RG from 92-99 were to Schallar in 95 and Delgado in 98.

and again, this thread has Sampras serving every game. And anyone who thinks Nadal would win in this scenario is utterly clueless !
 
There is something all of you are missing, including you @abmk. The OP asked an untestable question. No one can create a time machine to make this scenario happen.

So, esentially, no one can be refuted. It is both funny and pointless to discuss the topic since no one can be proved wrong. Untestable claims are not part of science. The same rule should apply to serious tennis debates. No untestable claims should be admitted.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
There is something all of you are missing, including you @abmk. The OP asked an untestable question. No one can create a time machine to make this scenario happen.

So, esentially, no one can be refuted. It is both funny and pointless to discuss the topic since no one can be proved wrong. Untestable claims are not part of science. The same rule should apply to serious tennis debates. No untestable claims should be admitted.
Have you ever played tennis? Your missing some very basic things
 
Have you ever played tennis? Your missing some very basic things
Have you ever read a scientific article? Untestable claims are not part of science. Analogously, untestable assertions should also be considered irrelevant for a serious tennis debate.

Who would win, Sampras serving all the time or peak Nadal at RG?
Who would win, Laver or Nadal on grass?
Who would win, Federer or Borg on clay?
Who would win, Kyrgios or Bill Tilden on hard courts?

All of these questions are untestable. It is funny to discuss them, but speculative and not serious.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
There is something all of you are missing, including you @abmk. The OP asked an untestable question. No one can create a time machine to make this scenario happen.

So, esentially, no one can be refuted. It is both funny and pointless to discuss the topic since no one can be proved wrong. Untestable claims are not part of science. The same rule should apply to serious tennis debates. No untestable claims should be admitted.
this is not science.
 
You are insane. Sampras doesn't have to ace Nadal to beat him. Did you notice how Pete body served Courier on 2nd serves to get the slight edge in the rally? Did you not notice the weak replies from First serves that weren't aces that Pete simply put away with a volley? And as you can see, he can find an ace when he needs one. There is no way in HELL that Nadal wins the match if Pete serves the whole time. GTFO outta here.
here, lets see if even one light of clue can penetrate the thick cluelessness of your head.

sampras doesn't need to ace every service point.
He'd get unreturned serves on about 20-30% of the points.
He'd get fh putaway or volley putaway on another 15-20% of the points.

So about 40% of the points, he'd win on serve or serve+putaway.

in your scenario of only Sampras serving, he only needs to win some of the rallies. he doesn't need to edge Nadal out in them overall. (&obviously wouldn't)
This is getting funny.

So you believe Sampras will win because he done a body serve to Courier, lol. He barely beat Courier, there is nothing here to suggest he can damage Nadal. Your analysis doesn't add up because it indicates he would hold serve easily on clay, the reality is this wasn't the case, in fact he never won the French Open or got to the final. Furthermore, he didn't go up against anything close to a Prime Nadal in his career on clay.

Look at this video, 2008 Federer vs Nadal. Sampras has never played as good as Federer has played in this match on Clay, ever, in terms of ball hitting, positioning, timing. Federer in his own words after the French Open 2008 said he dominated everyone else just not Nadal. We are not talking Courier here, we are talking Nadal, this is something very different.

How could Sampras have possibly held onto his service games with Nadal on this kind of form? Remember Sampras has a far far weaker baseline game, especially the backhand. Might I remind you, in 2008 French he scored 6-0 in three different sets, and 6-1 in nine different sets. I hope that settles the questions on Nadal's ability to consistently break serve, he's done it, it's proof this is history. I mean this is a level of performance which may never ever be seen again.

 
Just one note, Sampras CLEARLY had a superior serve to Federer, something I think even nearly all Federer fans would concede. He was also great at 1-2 play combinations on his own serve, either following up a huge serve with either a putaway volley, an overhead off a high return, or a forehand winner, even on clay.
 
again, maybe you should get some more clue.
Norman was developing into a pretty good CCer before injuries struck him.
In 2000, he won Rome beating Kuerten and was in the final of RG.
Won 7 CC titles overall.

Sampras' losses to "unknown" players at RG from 92-99 were to Schallar in 95 and Delgado in 98.

and again, this thread has Sampras serving every game. And anyone who thinks Nadal would win in this scenario is utterly clueless !
That is really entirely with the benefit of hindsight though. At the exact time of his loss to Norman, Norman was considered a complete unknown and journeyman on tour. And he wouldnt even start to be regarded as more than that for another couple years atleast. Not that it makes much difference in the big picture, but it is right to regard that as a loss to an unknown since at that point in time that is exactly what he was.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
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.
So on average Djokovic and Federer would beat Nadal in this scenario something like 6-3 6-2 6-3. Not bad really. And let's not forget the main reason they win that many games is because they both have incredible ground games able to hang with Nadal for short periods if they're at their absolute best. I don't see Sampras holding that often against Nadal at his absolute peak so assuming Sampras holds 60% of the time the average scoreline would be something like 6-4 6-4 6-4. But that's just the average, if there's a small deviations from the average over multiple sets which is very possible the scoreline could be something like 6-2 6-4 5-7 6-3. Definitely not impossible that Nadal could snatch a set.
 
Just one note, Sampras CLEARLY had a superior serve to Federer, something I think even nearly all Federer fans would concede. He was also great at 1-2 play combinations on his own serve, either following up a huge serve with either a putaway volley, an overhead off a high return, or a forehand winner, even on clay.
Yes and Sampras clay court game is probably 40% of Federer's.
 
Sampras with today's racket > peak Nadal on clay. I think he probably wins in 4 or 5 ina a peak to peak encounter with both serving and returning like a normal tennis match.
 
Yes and Sampras clay court game is probably 40% of Federer's.
Probably but I wonder how Sampras's hold stats on clay compare to Federer. And even that wouldnt tell us everything since we know Sampras bagged many matches on clay, particularly after he stopped believing he could contend there.

My point is it wouldnt neccessarily be harder to break Federer on clay than to break Sampras, and Nadal broke Federer often in many of their matches on clay, even the competitive 4 setters, but I dont think he broke over half the time usually.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
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.
I agree with you in general @Sport but in this scenario Sampras will most probably win. I'm actually surprised that 40% of people voted Nadal, that actually must mean some non-fans of Nadal voted for him as well though. Whereas there's definitely other polls which include Nadal that are more of a toss-up or some which I believe should be in Nadal's favour which are around 20-30% for him :eek:
 
So on average Djokovic and Federer would beat Nadal in this scenario something like 6-3 6-2 6-3. Not bad really. And let's not forget the main reason they win that many games is because they both have incredible ground games able to hang with Nadal for short periods if they're at their absolute best. I don't see Sampras holding that often against Nadal at his absolute peak so assuming Sampras holds 60% of the time the average scoreline would be something like 6-4 6-4 6-4. But that's just the average, if there's a small deviations from the average over multiple sets which is very possible the scoreline could be something like 6-2 6-4 5-7 6-3. Definitely not impossible that Nadal could snatch a set.
Sampras will not hold 60% of his service games against 2008 Prime Nadal. This is the problem with your stats, this isn't the weak field that Sampras had to face, someone up there using Courier as the greatest opponent Sampras faced on clay, we are talking Nadal. You must adjust your figures with factual data, let me give you some.

Alamagro and Verdasco are similar clay court players to Sampras going by their records, in 2008 Nadal beat Verdasco 6-1 6-0 6-2, and then Nadal beat Alamagro 6-1 6-1 6-1.

The two Spanish players above are far far far more accomplished in the baseline game, Sampras the only thing he has in his favour is serve, but as we have discussed the surface nullifies that, and the proof is he was beaten by journey men in his French Open career.

Explain why Nadal beat these two players 6-1 average throughout, and he would do better against Sampras because of his weaker baseline play.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Sampras will not hold 60% of his service games against 2008 Prime Nadal. This is the problem with your stats, this isn't the weak field that Sampras had to face, someone up there using Courier as the greatest opponent Sampras faced on clay, we are talking Nadal. You must adjust your figures with factual data, let me give you some.

Alamagro and Verdasco are similar clay court players to Sampras going by their records, in 2008 Nadal beat Verdasco 6-1 6-0 6-2, and then Nadal beat Alamagro 6-1 6-1 6-1.

The two Spanish players above are far far far more accomplished in the baseline game, Sampras the only thing he has in his favour is serve, but as we have discussed the surface nullifies that, and the proof is he was beaten by journey men in his French Open career.

Explain why Nadal beat these two players 6-1 average throughout, and he would do better against Sampras because of his weaker baseline play.
Well it's clear that Nadal would have won those specific matches without his serve, but against Peak Sampras on clay that is not so obvious. If we assume serving the entire match doesn't affect Sampras then on average he should win something like 6-4 6-4 6-4, which is still a bloody good effort from Nadal.
 
Top