Prime Nadal vs Prime Sampras

M

ManFed

Rookie
Now that it exists a thread about Nadal achievements versus Sampras.
How do you think, Prime Sampras would play against Prime Nadal?

I guess that if they played in Wimbledon 90's surfaces, Prime Sampras would destroy Prime Nadal by unleashing his serve's fire. I don't see any other victory of Prime Sampras, perhaps in US Open and Indoor. He wouldn't have opportunity in Clay, Current AO surface, Current Wimbledon surface nor current US Open.

I guess that Nadal would focuse in playing hard topspin to Sampras backhand as same as he do it against Federer. But a difference between Sampras and Fed is the Serve. Nadal would have a bad time trying to read Prime Sampras serve.

Anyway, it's a match that I would have liked to watch.

Regards-
 
. If we are talking both prime and healthy Nadal circa 08-10 vs. prime healthy Pete circa 93-96 or 97?

AO and various slow hardcourts: Sampras. Not by a huge margin though Maybe 6-4 Sampras)
Grass (Slow or fast ): Sampras by a wide margin (9-1 or 8-2 Sampras)
Clay: Nadal by a wide margin ( 10-0 Nadal though I think Clay is faster now so who knows)
USO( faster hardcourt surfaces) Sampras (8-2 or 9-1 Sampras)
Indoors: No contest. ( Pete 10-0, maybe Nadal grabs a match)


Sampras is clearly superior everywhere but clay.

How would he play Nadal? Obviously attack, chip and charge, bring the heat on both 1st and 2nd serve, attack the net agressive since Nadal will probably be standing in the shadows 260 yards behind the baseline, get Nadal off keel right from the start, take Nadal's momentum away, bring the heat on the FH side etc and look for that one break of serve. Since Nadal ain't breaking him since he clearly isn't the best ROS. And I see Nadal tracking down alot of deep penetrating shots by Pete and hitting the ball short, and Pete flying into the net with his patenant overhead smash. Of course, I do see Nadal trying to expose the Pete BH with his loopy FH, but Pete would put a stop to that not after too long ( he had different strategies to attack you with and wasn't afraid to tweak his strategy and approach. something I think that hurt Fed in regards to Nadal over the years) and Pete knew how to play guys with some heavy topspin as well and he didn't have a problem with lefties. I think he was something like 83-8 against southpaws from 95-on or so. Pete would basically control the tempo and make Nadal play his game. Not the other way around.

Kind of like tsonga played Nadal at the AO a few years ago.. Only much deadlier.

Pete's just a poor matchup for Nadal overrall really. Matchup wise, Pete had more issues with the aggressor attacker. Not the backboard. Obviously that gameplan won't work well on clay since Nadal has so much more time to set up for his shots and not feel bludgeoned .. But Isner showed a little something this year at the French. Of course I think the French Open courts got faster as well. Those slow clay courts like we saw at the Davis Cup, Nadal is a complete maniac on that surface. Unbeatable.


In those ways.. Federer is MUCH tougher opponent for Pete then Nadal is since Fed has the better ability to be the aggresor, serve bigger, and was much more comfortable at the net and had ability to control the tempo in his favor as well. You have to "out pete , PETE" to have success over him. ( like Krajicek did at the time or the aggresiveness of Andre from the baseline or like Roger showed at Wimbeldon in 2001) I dunno if being the human backboard and standing way behind the baseline and looping shots back is a good strategy in that regard. You are already fighting an uphill battle, looping shots back and given pete all the time in the world to end the points fast. Sure it might work for an aging 30s Sampras, half a step slow, and more error proned, but not to an early-mid 90s Sampras IMO


Now if Nadal brought the aggressive game that he brought at the USO last year? Thats a different story IMO. But how often has he ever brought that aggressive game?
 
Last edited:
Pete would kill Nadal at the USO and the old Wimbledon and Aussie Open. On the present day lame ass surfaces, here is what my guess is:

AO: Pete 6-4
FO: Rafa 10-0
W: Pete 6-4
USO: Pete 8-2 (I am hoping the 2011 USO surface is an aberration)
 
If they played 10 times:

Australian Open: Sampras wins 6 out of 10
French Open: Nadal wins 10 out of 10
Old Wimbledon grass: Sampras wins 9 out of 10
Current Wimbledon grass: Sampras wins 7 out of 10
U.S Open: Sampras wins 9 out of 10
 
NadalAgassi said:
If they played 10 times:

Australian Open: Sampras wins 6 out of 10
French Open: Nadal wins 10 out of 10
Old Wimbledon grass: Sampras wins 9 out of 10
Current Wimbledon grass: Sampras wins 7 out of 10
U.S Open: Sampras wins 9 out of 10
Click to expand...

thats 50 times :-P

btw sampras would probably lose in most cases, since the courts are way too slow now
 
Don't agree with most comments here. Certainly Pete has an advantage on fast grass court. But I hardly see him dominating Rafa anywhere else.

Set Sampras said:
Since Nadal ain't breaking him since he clearly isn't the best ROS.
Click to expand...

Well, the facts tell otherwise. I mean, Rafa is not the best returner of serve in terms of doing a lot of damage with the shot. However, he is very good in getting the ball back in play. And usually that's all he needs. Due to his superb baseline game, he then has all the chances to make the point.
You might want to check http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/MatchFacts.aspx. Rafa is 2nd to Novak in return games won (Federer is 15th), 3rd in points won retruning 1st serve (Federer is 8th) and and 1st in points won returning 2nd serve (Federer is 22nd), 3rd in break points converted(Federer is 41st)!!! So Rafa is the second best return player behind Novak and he surely has what it takes to break Pete.
So basically Pete has his serve. But if he isn't able to win the point after 1 or 2 shots, Rafa gets the upper hand. He can't keep up with Rafa from the baseline and at the net he is likely to get passed many times.
Federer is a league above Sampras from the baseline. The way Rafa manages to break down his backhand, I guess it's save to assume Pete would be pretty much screwed whenever Rafa hits a decent forehand to his backhand. Moreover, Sampras doesn't have Federer's forehand and footwork. Therefore Rafa might have some trouble breaking Pete but the opposite would be true as well.


Pete's just a poor matchup for Nadal overrall really. Matchup wise, Pete had more issues with the aggressor attacker. Not the backboard.
Click to expand...
So why was he having so much trouble with someone like Hewitt? Nadal has a better serve, and way more firepower and spin from the baseline, better defense and passing shots than this guy. I think Pete would have a very hard time with a player like Nadal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Stop this stupid comparisions. We don´t know and never will. They are from different eras- maybe it would be even, maybe clearly someone could have the edge - somebody descrbise here like Pete would destroy Rafa on everywhere except clay, but i can also say that Rafa would destroy him everywhere why not? I am just guessing but, Wimby is slow, SV is not used nowadays, but Rafa is very adaptable guy, has great passing shots, great deffense, supreme in rallies against Pete, so bacisally every good return Rafa made is his point and how the hell Pete is gonna to break Rafa? Than we have AO-USO bot slow, Rafa is better HC player every year, now imagine USO 10 Rafa with good serve by him own with supreme baseline game, lefty-topspin FH- great FH one of best ever and so on... really this comparing is nonsense. Both sides could be right it could be really 50-50 or beatdown by one player, only sure thing is here for 99% players that Rafa would be 10-0,9-1 on every clay and Pete would be 10-0,9-1 at old Wimby grass with 90s racquets.
 
Romismak said:
Stop this stupid comparisions. We don´t know and never will. They are from different eras- maybe it would be even, maybe clearly someone could have the edge - somebody descrbise here like Pete would destroy Rafa on everywhere except clay, but i can also say that Rafa would destroy him everywhere why not? I am just guessing but, Wimby is slow, SV is not used nowadays, but Rafa is very adaptable guy, has great passing shots, great deffense, supreme in rallies against Pete, so bacisally every good return Rafa made is his point and how the hell Pete is gonna to break Rafa? Than we have AO-USO bot slow, Rafa is better HC player every year, now imagine USO 10 Rafa with good serve by him own with supreme baseline game, lefty-topspin FH- great FH one of best ever and so on... really this comparing is nonsense. Both sides could be right it could be really 50-50 or beatdown by one player, only sure thing is here for 99% players that Rafa would be 10-0,9-1 on every clay and Pete would be 10-0,9-1 at old Wimby grass with 90s racquets.
Click to expand...

99% people of course
 
90's surfaces - Sampras without a shadow of a doubt
00's surfaces - Nadal without a shadow of a doubt

Both are the main products of their respective eras.
 
tennis_pro said:
90's surfaces - Sampras without a shadow of a doubt
00's surfaces - Nadal without a shadow of a doubt

Both are the main products of their respective eras.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this post. Stick prime Nadal on a 90's court, he'd be slaughtered. Vice versa for Pete on today's courts.
 
Netzroller said:
Don't agree with most comments here. Certainly Pete has an advantage on fast grass court. But I hardly see him dominating Rafa anywhere else.



Well, the facts tell otherwise. I mean, Rafa is not the best returner of serve in terms of doing a lot of damage with the shot. However, he is very good in getting the ball back in play. And usually that's all he needs. Due to his superb baseline game, he then has all the chances to make the point.
You might want to check http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/MatchFacts.aspx. Rafa is 2nd to Novak in return games won (Federer is 15th), 3rd in points won retruning 1st serve (Federer is 8th) and and 1st in points won returning 2nd serve (Federer is 22nd), 3rd in break points converted(Federer is 41st)!!! So Rafa is the second best return player behind Novak and he surely has what it takes to break Pete.
So basically Pete has his serve. But if he isn't able to win the point after 1 or 2 shots, Rafa gets the upper hand. He can't keep up with Rafa from the baseline and at the net he is likely to get passed many times.
Federer is a league above Sampras from the baseline. The way Rafa manages to break down his backhand, I guess it's save to assume Pete would be pretty much screwed whenever Rafa hits a decent forehand to his backhand. Moreover, Sampras doesn't have Federer's forehand and footwork. Therefore Rafa might have some trouble breaking Pete but the opposite would be true as well.



So why was he having so much trouble with someone like Hewitt? Nadal has a better serve, and way more firepower and spin from the baseline, better defense and passing shots than this guy. I think Pete would have a very hard time with a player like Nadal.
Click to expand...


We are going prime for prime here aren't we? Hewitt troubled OLD Sampras. Pete didn;t have much trouble with Hewitt when he was younger. He whooped him pretty hard at the USO in 2000. That final where Hewitt beat Pete in 2001, Pete had just got done playing Rafter, Agassi, and Safin back to back to back and at 30 years old... Thats a pretty a big ask don't you think? The question was asked, Prime Nadal vs. prime Sampras. Not Prime early 20s Nadal vs. Early 30s Sampras. Sampras in his prime never had issues with the backboard return bring less heat guys


And do you really think Pete is going to camp out at the baseline the entire match for Nadal to his the FH to BH and play Nadal's game? Did you watch Sampras ever? Andre had difficulties breaking Pete. And Nadal is s FAR lesser return of serve then Andre ever was. Would Nadal pose more of an issue on the return of serve then Andre did?
 
Last edited:
Set Sampras said:
. If we are talking both prime and healthy Nadal circa 08-10 vs. prime healthy Pete circa 93-96 or 97?

AO and various slow hardcourts: Sampras. Not by a huge margin though Maybe 6-4 Sampras)
Grass (Slow or fast ): Sampras by a wide margin (9-1 or 8-2 Sampras)
Clay: Nadal by a wide margin ( 10-0 Nadal though I think Clay is faster now so who knows)
USO( faster hardcourt surfaces) Sampras (8-2 or 9-1 Sampras)
Indoors: No contest. ( Pete 10-0, maybe Nadal grabs a match)


Sampras is clearly superior everywhere
but clay.

How would he play Nadal? Obviously attack, chip and charge, bring the heat on both 1st and 2nd serve, attack the net agressive since Nadal will probably be standing in the shadows 260 yards behind the baseline, get Nadal off keel right from the start, take Nadal's momentum away, bring the heat on the FH side etc and look for that one break of serve. Since Nadal ain't breaking him since he clearly isn't the best ROS. And I see Nadal tracking down alot of deep penetrating shots by Pete and hitting the ball short, and Pete flying into the net with his patenant overhead smash. Of course, I do see Nadal trying to expose the Pete BH with his loopy FH, but Pete would put a stop to that not after too long ( he had different strategies to attack you with and wasn't afraid to tweak his strategy and approach. something I think that hurt Fed in regards to Nadal over the years) and Pete knew how to play guys with some heavy topspin as well and he didn't have a problem with lefties. I think he was something like 83-8 against southpaws from 95-on or so. Pete would basically control the tempo and make Nadal play his game. Not the other way around.

Kind of like tsonga played Nadal at the AO a few years ago.. Only much deadlier.

Pete's just a poor matchup for Nadal overrall really. Matchup wise, Pete had more issues with the aggressor attacker. Not the backboard. Obviously that gameplan won't work well on clay since Nadal has so much more time to set up for his shots and not feel bludgeoned .. But Isner showed a little something this year at the French. Of course I think the French Open courts got faster as well. Those slow clay courts like we saw at the Davis Cup, Nadal is a complete maniac on that surface. Unbeatable.


In those ways.. Federer is MUCH tougher opponent for Pete then Nadal is since Fed has the better ability to be the aggresor, serve bigger, and was much more comfortable at the net and had ability to control the tempo in his favor as well. You have to "out pete , PETE" to have success over him. ( like Krajicek did at the time or the aggresiveness of Andre from the baseline or like Roger showed at Wimbeldon in 2001) I dunno if being the human backboard and standing way behind the baseline and looping shots back is a good strategy in that regard. You are already fighting an uphill battle, looping shots back and given pete all the time in the world to end the points fast. Sure it might work for an aging 30s Sampras, half a step slow, and more error proned, but not to an early-mid 90s Sampras IMO


Now if Nadal brought the aggressive game that he brought at the USO last year? Thats a different story IMO. But how often has he ever brought that aggressive game?
Click to expand...

Great post. Nadal would have no answer to the Sampras serve... Pete could kick him way out wide and put him away with a subsequent volley (like Djoker did in the first set of the USO this year albeit now as frequently) or Sampras brings the heat right down the T...
 
Set Sampras said:
We are going prime for prime here aren't we? Hewitt troubled OLD Sampras. Pete didn;t have much trouble with Hewitt when he was younger. He whooped him pretty hard at the USO in 2000. That final where Hewitt beat Pete in 2001, Pete had just got done playing Rafter, Agassi, and Safin back to back to back and at 30 years old... Thats a pretty a big ask don't you think? The question was asked, Prime Nadal vs. prime Sampras. Not Prime early 20s Nadal vs. Early 30s Sampras. Sampras in his prime never had issues with the backboard return bring less heat guys


And do you really think Pete is going to camp out at the baseline the entire match for Nadal to his the FH to BH and play Nadal's game? Did you watch Sampras ever? Andre had difficulties breaking Pete. And Nadal is s FAR lesser return of serve then Andre ever was. Would Nadal pose more of an issue on the return of serve then Andre did?
Click to expand...
Yea, I was pretty much expecting people to only read the part about Hewitt of my post. Wish I hadn't posted it. Obviously Pete was not the youngest when he faced Hewitt, but at the same time prime Rafa is a few leagues above Hewitt. The problem is, Pete never faced somone like Rafa, never played on todays sufaces etc. therefore it's hard to find a good example.

And I don't expect Pete trying to camp out a the baseline. But if Rafa hits a good shot, I guess there is not much else he could do. Federer also doesn't want to have these FH to BH rallies, but he is forced into it. And yes, I have watched Pete.

As for this Agassi being a far better returner, I already answered that to point. Rafa doesn't hit return winners and such but he has been the best or 2nd best return player for years now. People seem to ignore that. Check the data, it's incredible how many times Rafa breaks his opponents, wins points of their serves. How else do you think he became so succeful? Due to his massive serve? So yes, he would have a good chance of breaking Pete.
 
Last edited:
Set Sampras said:
. If we are talking both prime and healthy Nadal circa 08-10 vs. prime healthy Pete circa 93-96 or 97?

AO and various slow hardcourts: Sampras. Not by a huge margin though Maybe 6-4 Sampras)
Grass (Slow or fast ): Sampras by a wide margin (9-1 or 8-2 Sampras)
Clay: Nadal by a wide margin ( 10-0 Nadal though I think Clay is faster now so who knows)
USO( faster hardcourt surfaces) Sampras (8-2 or 9-1 Sampras)
Indoors: No contest. ( Pete 10-0, maybe Nadal grabs a match)


Sampras is clearly superior everywhere but clay.

How would he play Nadal? Obviously attack, chip and charge, bring the heat on both 1st and 2nd serve, attack the net agressive since Nadal will probably be standing in the shadows 260 yards behind the baseline, get Nadal off keel right from the start, take Nadal's momentum away, bring the heat on the FH side etc and look for that one break of serve. Since Nadal ain't breaking him since he clearly isn't the best ROS. And I see Nadal tracking down alot of deep penetrating shots by Pete and hitting the ball short, and Pete flying into the net with his patenant overhead smash. Of course, I do see Nadal trying to expose the Pete BH with his loopy FH, but Pete would put a stop to that not after too long ( he had different strategies to attack you with and wasn't afraid to tweak his strategy and approach. something I think that hurt Fed in regards to Nadal over the years) and Pete knew how to play guys with some heavy topspin as well and he didn't have a problem with lefties. I think he was something like 83-8 against southpaws from 95-on or so. Pete would basically control the tempo and make Nadal play his game. Not the other way around.

Kind of like tsonga played Nadal at the AO a few years ago.. Only much deadlier.

Pete's just a poor matchup for Nadal overrall really. Matchup wise, Pete had more issues with the aggressor attacker. Not the backboard. Obviously that gameplan won't work well on clay since Nadal has so much more time to set up for his shots and not feel bludgeoned .. But Isner showed a little something this year at the French. Of course I think the French Open courts got faster as well. Those slow clay courts like we saw at the Davis Cup, Nadal is a complete maniac on that surface. Unbeatable.


In those ways.. Federer is MUCH tougher opponent for Pete then Nadal is since Fed has the better ability to be the aggresor, serve bigger, and was much more comfortable at the net and had ability to control the tempo in his favor as well. You have to "out pete , PETE" to have success over him. ( like Krajicek did at the time or the aggresiveness of Andre from the baseline or like Roger showed at Wimbeldon in 2001) I dunno if being the human backboard and standing way behind the baseline and looping shots back is a good strategy in that regard. You are already fighting an uphill battle, looping shots back and given pete all the time in the world to end the points fast. Sure it might work for an aging 30s Sampras, half a step slow, and more error proned, but not to an early-mid 90s Sampras IMO


Now if Nadal brought the aggressive game that he brought at the USO last year? Thats a different story IMO. But how often has he ever brought that aggressive game?
Click to expand...

its not the clay that got faster its the babolat balls that are faster
 
Set Sampras said:
. If we are talking both prime and healthy Nadal circa 08-10 vs. prime healthy Pete circa 93-96 or 97?

AO and various slow hardcourts: Sampras. Not by a huge margin though Maybe 6-4 Sampras)
Grass (Slow or fast ): Sampras by a wide margin (9-1 or 8-2 Sampras)
Clay: Nadal by a wide margin ( 10-0 Nadal though I think Clay is faster now so who knows)
USO( faster hardcourt surfaces) Sampras (8-2 or 9-1 Sampras)
Indoors: No contest. ( Pete 10-0, maybe Nadal grabs a match)


Sampras is clearly superior everywhere but clay.

How would he play Nadal? Obviously attack, chip and charge, bring the heat on both 1st and 2nd serve, attack the net agressive since Nadal will probably be standing in the shadows 260 yards behind the baseline, get Nadal off keel right from the start, take Nadal's momentum away, bring the heat on the FH side etc and look for that one break of serve. Since Nadal ain't breaking him since he clearly isn't the best ROS. And I see Nadal tracking down alot of deep penetrating shots by Pete and hitting the ball short, and Pete flying into the net with his patenant overhead smash. Of course, I do see Nadal trying to expose the Pete BH with his loopy FH, but Pete would put a stop to that not after too long ( he had different strategies to attack you with and wasn't afraid to tweak his strategy and approach. something I think that hurt Fed in regards to Nadal over the years) and Pete knew how to play guys with some heavy topspin as well and he didn't have a problem with lefties. I think he was something like 83-8 against southpaws from 95-on or so. Pete would basically control the tempo and make Nadal play his game. Not the other way around.

Kind of like tsonga played Nadal at the AO a few years ago.. Only much deadlier.

Pete's just a poor matchup for Nadal overrall really. Matchup wise, Pete had more issues with the aggressor attacker. Not the backboard. Obviously that gameplan won't work well on clay since Nadal has so much more time to set up for his shots and not feel bludgeoned .. But Isner showed a little something this year at the French. Of course I think the French Open courts got faster as well. Those slow clay courts like we saw at the Davis Cup, Nadal is a complete maniac on that surface. Unbeatable.


In those ways.. Federer is MUCH tougher opponent for Pete then Nadal is since Fed has the better ability to be the aggresor, serve bigger, and was much more comfortable at the net and had ability to control the tempo in his favor as well. You have to "out pete , PETE" to have success over him. ( like Krajicek did at the time or the aggresiveness of Andre from the baseline or like Roger showed at Wimbeldon in 2001) I dunno if being the human backboard and standing way behind the baseline and looping shots back is a good strategy in that regard. You are already fighting an uphill battle, looping shots back and given pete all the time in the world to end the points fast. Sure it might work for an aging 30s Sampras, half a step slow, and more error proned, but not to an early-mid 90s Sampras IMO


Now if Nadal brought the aggressive game that he brought at the USO last year? Thats a different story IMO. But how often has he ever brought that aggressive game?
Click to expand...

Great post, but the bolded part is all there is to it. As simple as that.
Most of the *******s started watching tennis in 2008 though so they are clueless to what Sampras brought to the party.
 
Australian open (current surface plexicushion hard)-Rafa in 4 sets because its a low moving court wont be effective rafa would play the whole topspin forehand to backhand and beat pete.

French open(current babolat balls or not) Rafa in 3 sets Pete was everyones pigeon on clay and this is arguably the best clay court player ever so yeah the only reason Isner did well is becaue hes 6'9 and a two handed backhand and Pete has none of those so yeah.

Wimbledon(current surface) Pete in 4 sets because of that serve man! that would kill nadal.

USopen(its slower now) This is a really tough one because the Us open is slow and the ball bounces a bit higher which would favor nadal and also serve and volley is a bad idea against rafa anyway but I have a gut feeling that Pete would win it in 5

My insights.
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
Most of the *******s started watching tennis in 2008 though so they are clueless to what Sampras brought to the party.
Click to expand...

Actually that statement would make more sense if you were talking about *******s, who disrespect and seem clueless to how great Sampras was far more than Nadal fans do.
 
NadalAgassi said:
Actually that statement would make more sense if you were talking about *******s, who disrespect and seem clueless to how great Sampras was far more than Nadal fans do.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with you, i think it is very easy to see how long someone has followed the game of tennis. It goes both ways.
I started watching tennis in 1987/1988 so i have seen prime Edberg/Becker/Agassi/Sampras/Fed/Nadal and so on.
 
We don't really have to hypothesise about this. Pete regularly played a brilliant lefthanded grinder with a heavy topspin game, who was also dubbed the King of Clay. His name was Thomas Muster.

Bearing in mind court homogenisation since, Muster's 1995 was arguably as good as any of Nadal's seasons - 12 titles in 14 finals appearances and 40 consecutive victories on clay. He was also no mug on other surfaces. He still got regularly owned by Sampras off clay though (despite a late season indoor win that was very impressive).
 
Last edited:
Prime Sampras would win at Wimbledon the most. He "owned" Wimbledon for nearly a decade, remember.
Sampras also has the advantage on hardcourts(US Open & Australian Open) since hardcourts truly are Nadal's weakest surface.
On Clay, Nadal would demolish the Great Pete Sampras on that surface. No French Open for Pistol Pete.
 
NikeWilson said:
Prime Sampras would win at Wimbledon the most. He "owned" Wimbledon for nearly a decade, remember.
Sampras also has the advantage on hardcourts(US Open & Australian Open) since hardcourts truly are Nadal's weakest surface.
On Clay, Nadal would demolish the Great Pete Sampras on that surface. No French Open for Pistol Pete.
Click to expand...

This is very true, although with the balls used at the French open now Pete would have had a little better chance... Truthfully rafa would have played Pete much like does roger Federer but the advantage of petes serve would have made it so much harder for rafa to bully him around against petes serve.
There would be no domination here on hard courts and would have been a great rivalry
 
rofl_copter3 said:
This is very true, although with the balls used at the French open now Pete would have had a little better chance... Truthfully rafa would have played Pete much like does roger Federer but the advantage of petes serve would have made it so much harder for rafa to bully him around against petes serve.
There would be no domination here on hard courts and would have been a great rivalry
Click to expand...

Pete would have no chance vs. younger Nadal on clay.. But what Isner did at the French Open to a past clay prime Nadal, I would like Pete's chances maybe for one win then. Clay is faster now then it used to be.
 
If Hewitt can trouble(and beat) Sampras, there's nothing to suggest nadal wouldn't beat Sampras. Hewitt is a serious grinder, great movement, great passer and a fighter. Nadal has all of those traits. And to add Nadal's lefty and spin, that should be strong a case to believe he can beat Pete. Pete is not unbeatable...he's lost to some journeyman that can hold Nadal's jock.

I'm not taking any side but you guys should stop underestimating Nadal.
 
Hewitt's H2H with Sampras is stacked with a whole lot of late career wins. You can't really use that as indicative of how they'd match up in prime.
 
Thing is it's kind of hard to predict. I mean Sampras SHOULD beat nadal on every surface but clay. But If Federer had never played Nadal at all, how many people would hosetly look at what Federer has done on hardcourt and grass and then say that Federer would have a slim advantage on grass and an even H2H on hardcourt? True, he didn't play Nadal in a hardcourt slam until 2009, but still Federer SHOULD beat nadal more on these surfaces. But in reality Nadal exploits a weakness and gets in his head. No way to know what Nadal would do to Sampras. But Sampras would win a lot more at the AO, Wimbledon and USO - he might not always play nadal.
 
Set Sampras said:
We are going prime for prime here aren't we? Hewitt troubled OLD Sampras. Pete didn;t have much trouble with Hewitt when he was younger. He whooped him pretty hard at the USO in 2000. That final where Hewitt beat Pete in 2001, Pete had just got done playing Rafter, Agassi, and Safin back to back to back and at 30 years old... Thats a pretty a big ask don't you think? The question was asked, Prime Nadal vs. prime Sampras. Not Prime early 20s Nadal vs. Early 30s Sampras. Sampras in his prime never had issues with the backboard return bring less heat guys


And do you really think Pete is going to camp out at the baseline the entire match for Nadal to his the FH to BH and play Nadal's game? Did you watch Sampras ever? Andre had difficulties breaking Pete. And Nadal is s FAR lesser return of serve then Andre ever was. Would Nadal pose more of an issue on the return of serve then Andre did?
Click to expand...

Agassi is a better returner than Nadal, but there is more to the return game than just the return itself. On return games you often tend to have to play more defense or do more counterpunching once the ball is in play (whether the server is coming in or staying back), and Nadal is obviously alot better at that then Agassi. The question is if Nadal would even get enough decent returns back in play against Sampras to get into points.
 
Caesar said:
Hewitt's H2H with Sampras is stacked with a whole lot of late career wins. You can't really use that as indicative of how they'd match up in prime.
Click to expand...

Well its like saying Murray has the h2h over Federer. We all know Murray wouldn't last two seconds with a prime Federer. As players get older and close to their 30s, younger guys eventually get more of a window for some big wins.
 
NadalAgassi said:
Agassi is a better returner than Nadal, but there is more to the return game than just the return itself. On return games you often tend to have to play more defense or do more counterpunching once the ball is in play (whether the server is coming in or staying back), and Nadal is obviously alot better at that then Agassi. The question is if Nadal would even get enough decent returns back in play against Sampras to get into points.
Click to expand...



Its tough to say.. Thats why Ive been hoping for a series of exos with Nadal and Pete (before Pete got too old and washed up) just for matchup sake to see how it would maybe have gone. The closest thing we got to see was the doubles match in the "hit for Haiti". Hope we get to see a Nole-Sampras and Sampras-Nadal exo series in the not to distant future
 
Towser83 said:
Thing is it's kind of hard to predict. I mean Sampras SHOULD beat nadal on every surface but clay. But If Federer had never played Nadal at all, how many people would hosetly look at what Federer has done on hardcourt and grass and then say that Federer would have a slim advantage on grass and an even H2H on hardcourt? True, he didn't play Nadal in a hardcourt slam until 2009, but still Federer SHOULD beat nadal more on these surfaces. But in reality Nadal exploits a weakness and gets in his head. No way to know what Nadal would do to Sampras. But Sampras would win a lot more at the AO, Wimbledon and USO - he might not always play nadal.
Click to expand...

Sampras is a worse matchup for Nadal then Federer is. There wouldnt be long rallies all match of Nadal picking on the Sampras backhand since Sampras wouldnt allow it. He would either go for winners early in points or move forward on the first short ball, which is what you have to do vs Nadal. Part of the reason Federer is owned by Nadal is tactically he is too stubborn and continues to do alot of wrong things over and over. Even on clay he be more competitive than he was with better tactics.

Sampras also has a more dominant serve than Federer which Nadal would have a harder time returning (and he has a hard time with even Federer's serve often), definitely a better 2nd serve which is where Nadal gets into the Federer service games, and Sampras is a much better volleyer than Federer and would be able to finish alot of those points at the net that Federer sometimes fails to do vs Nadal.
 
Set Sampras said:
Its tough to say.. Thats why Ive been hoping for a series of exos with Nadal and Pete (before Pete got too old and washed up) just for matchup sake to see how it would maybe have gone. The closest thing we got to see was the doubles match in the "hit for Haiti". Hope we get to see a Nole-Sampras and Sampras-Nadal exo series in the not to distant future
Click to expand...

Very true. I would love to see Sampras play some exhibition matches against those two. We all know Sampras is old and well past his very best, but it would still give a bit of insight watching how the points were being played out, and imaging a younger Sampras instead.
We would just get a better idea into some of the dynamics of the matchups.
 
NadalAgassi said:
Very true. I would love to see Sampras play some exhibition matches against those two. We all know Sampras is old and well past his very best, but it would still give a bit of insight watching how the points were being played out, and imaging a younger Sampras instead.
We would just get a better idea into some of the dynamics of the matchups.
Click to expand...

Just as long as they don't put Nadal on the Macau China surface where Pete beat Roger in 2007, all should be good. That surface is just way to fast for Nadal:)
 
There's also a good chance Sampras would come in and get passed a lot when he wasn't expecting it, especially since Nadal took passing from awkward court position and retrieving to whole new levels. Again, it sort of depends on who's era the matchups take place. I think it would be unlikely that Sampras also has as hard a time against nadal as Federer has, but I can't say Sampras kills Nadal on hardcourt, I'd say he'd have the lead but that's a guess and you can't know til you see it happen.

On grass Sampras should have a fair edge if it's fast.
 
Pete would win most on everything but clay, where unfortunately I'd have to say I don't think he'd ever beat Rafa on clay or really get too close. Perhaps I can see Pete losing to Nadal a few times times on a slow hardcourt, but I think he would maintain the positive h2h, especially in big matches, although Rafa is one hell of a 'big match player' in my opinion.
The lack of rhythm would get to Nadal.
He would never ever lose a set to him on a true grass court, or a slick indoor surface.

It would be awesome to see a Nadal/Sampras exo. One of the biggest forehands I've ever seen to this day was a Sampras inside-in forehand against Marat Safin at the Atlantic City Exo, maybe it was because my seats were literally courtside, behind Pete when he hit it, but it was like a heat seeking missile.
 
Last edited:
Well its another thing comparing eras. If Pete was born in 81 instead of 71, he would probably be a totally different style of player. If Nadal was born in the early 70s, he would probably be a different player.
 
Towser83 said:
But If Federer had never played Nadal at all, how many people would hosetly look at what Federer has done on hardcourt and grass and then say that Federer would have a slim advantage on grass and an even H2H on hardcourt? True, he didn't play Nadal in a hardcourt slam until 2009, but still Federer SHOULD beat nadal more on these surfaces. But in reality Nadal exploits a weakness and gets in his head. No way to know what Nadal would do to Sampras. But Sampras would win a lot more at the AO, Wimbledon and USO - he might not always play nadal.
Click to expand...
But we're not talking overall H2H, we're talking prime vs prime. A lot of the Federer vs Nadal H2H is about their mismatched primes.

Prime vs Prime, Federer holds the advantage over Nadal on every surface but clay.
 
Nadal is a bad match up for Sampras on all but the fastest surface where he could cruise on cheep service games. I don't see him being able to attack Nadal effectively off the ground, and like Federer he's going to get picked on off his BH all day long.
 
ManFed said:
Now that it exists a thread about Nadal achievements versus Sampras.
How do you think, Prime Sampras would play against Prime Nadal?

I guess that if they played in Wimbledon 90's surfaces, Prime Sampras would destroy Prime Nadal by unleashing his serve's fire. I don't see any other victory of Prime Sampras, perhaps in US Open and Indoor. He wouldn't have opportunity in Clay, Current AO surface, Current Wimbledon surface nor current US Open.

I guess that Nadal would focuse in playing hard topspin to Sampras backhand as same as he do it against Federer. But a difference between Sampras and Fed is the Serve. Nadal would have a bad time trying to read Prime Sampras serve.

Anyway, it's a match that I would have liked to watch.

Regards-
Click to expand...

You have all the answers in here!! http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236785

You might just as well revive my thread...
 
droliver said:
Nadal is a bad match up for Sampras on all but the fastest surface where he could cruise on cheep service games. I don't see him being able to attack Nadal effectively off the ground, and like Federer he's going to get picked on off his BH all day long.
Click to expand...

How can you not see it? Sampras kicks him way out wide and then puts away an easy volley- that is if he didnt outright ace him... What some folks don't seem to account for, is (and assuming you put them in their primes in todays age) its true Nadal has the strings and raquets to make great passing shots, but you'd have to assume Sampras wouldn't be showing up with a Pro Staff from 1985... The Sampras serve becomes even more unstopable when you have him firing bombs with a fresh batch of RPM blast and a modern stick....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Conquistador
Prime Nadal Would Beat Prime Sampras
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
The-Champ
The-Champ
G
  • Poll Poll
Prime Becker vs Prime Sampras at Wimbledon
Replies
13
Views
3K
PSNELKE
PSNELKE
REKX
  • Poll Poll
Prime Nadal vs Prime Sampras at the French Open - Only Sampras Serves - Who Wins?
10 11 12
Replies
588
Views
43K
aman92
aman92
gold soundz
  • Poll Poll
Prime Sampras (Wimbledon 1999) VS Prime Federer (You choose) at Wimbledon, who wins?
4 5 6
Replies
261
Views
20K
JeMar
JeMar
REKX
  • Poll Poll
Prime Nadal on Clay vs Prime Sampras on "fast" Grass
Replies
47
Views
5K
zep
Z
Back
Top