I'll try to avoid all of the stereotypes inevitably associated with this type of thread. You know what I'm talking about, fast court vs slow court, ending points as quick as possible vs grinding it out. Its not only journalists who can be lazy and unimaginative, that can apply to posters on internet forums as well.
Well what are the strengths of these two players? I'll start with Sampras first as he's the one who's retired: Just to reiterate, we are talkning about two guys who would approach the game against each other if they were around the age of 25.
Sampras strengths?
• The serve – obviously
• Movement across the baseline - one of the best movers across the 1990s until August 1999 when he did his back in just before the US OPen and was never quite the same player in the early 2000s
• Volley skills – improved considerably throughout the 1990s
• 2nd serve – one of the best, just thinking of Murray’s powderpuff 2nd serve today, no wonder Nadal has a field day.....
• When returning, putting pressure on the opponents 2nd serve, something that isn’t talked about much, but Sampras was one of the very best at attacking the 2nd serve or making something happen
Nadal’s strengths?
• Movement – one of the very best movers across the baseline today without question. Not smooth like a Sampras obviously but more than effective
• Stamina, always looking to keep opponents out there as long as possible
• Getting to an opponent’s one hand backhand, just ask Federer...
• Slowing the game down, which is always frustrating for quick players
• Great at hitting passing shots on the run. Ironically also one of Sampras’ strengths against the likes of Becker and Rafter back in the attacking days. The difference being that Nadal wont be venturing to net much anyway.
Sampras’ weaknesses?
• Claycourt tennis. Despite being one of the movers across the baseline, his movement on clay left a lot to be desired. He said he was comfortable on clay in the early years, good results suggest that but when things didn’t go to plan, it got into his head and he talked himself out of giving more on that surface.
• One hand backhand, became more of a liability once his movement declined, which is quite normal. His backhand was extremely good when he crouched, bent his knees and stepped into the shot. When his movement declined in 2000 onwards, he was more inclined to stand up on the shot, thus more errors.
Nadal’s weaknesses?
• I don’t think his return of serve is the best, he stands so far back inviting the server to exploit angles, something Federer has done very well over the years, especially out wide to Nada’s backhand on the deuce court
• Nadal does not like to play big servers. Just listen to his comments after playing the likes of Giles Muller, John Isner or the South African chap at Wimbledon. And yet, Nadal never played an attacking player with superior talent, as opposed to a journeymen.
How they would match up?
First of all, Sampras won 36 titles on hardcourt. So I want to get this out of the way immediately. He won two Aussie Opens in 1994 and 1997 on slow high bouncing rebound ace courts. Those courts were higher bouncing than the current plexicushion. He also got to the final in 1995 and the semifinal in 1993, so an excellent record in his early to mid 20s (remember this is prime time). Sampras also won Miami 3 times and that has ALWAYS been a high bouncing medium pace court and I understand the balls can get quite heavy because of humidity. Mr Sampras has always said (for those who can actually be bothered to listen) that he preferred medium pace courts where he could set up his shots and swing away, he had a very long swing on his strokes. Sampras was an extremely good medium paced court player on hardcourts. Therefore Nadal does not have any distinctive advantage on slow medium hardcourts despite what I’ve been reading here.
Sampras’ strength of the V play will work well against Nadal, Nadal stands so far back it sets up the wide serve and then the volley or forehand into the open court – one of Sampras’ specialities throughout his career. Sampras’ variety on serve would also be interesting to watch. Using Kuerten as a guide, Kuerten didn’t like the power so stood far back, which meant that Sampras used an incredible variety of slice and kick serves, serves into the body and all sorts of different pace, 120 mph 2nd serves, 95 mph 1st serves, 132 mph 1st serves, swinging serves into the body, slice serves on the ad court going away from Nadal at pace ( a lost art today in the mens game unfortunately. ) At this stage of Sampras’ career (early to mid 20s) he also liked to stay back and rally on serve, he had confidence in his baseline game. He has the forehand to trouble Nadal, the net play and the use of the backhand slice. Nadal would work on the Sampras’ backhand inevitably but at this stage its not a liability so we have to remember that.
I think two things where Sampras plays the backhand differently to Federer. The first is Sampras is prepared to consistently loop his backhand higher over the net with topspin, more like Amelie Mauresmo against Clijsters, he used it well against Agassi, that topspin backhand jumps up high on the two hander and whilst everyone focuses on the one hander, two handers tend not to like high backhands either, Agassi had problems against Sampras with that shot getting high on him. Clijsters never liked Mauresmo doing that to her either. The second thing is the use of the slice, is it the American slice? Where you bring the ball from up high with a downward tracjectory, which can be used as part of the rally or to keep the ball low and attack the net? I think that’s one advantage Sampras would have. Whilst we assume Nadal is the great baseliner, we have to remember Sampras held his own against Chang, Courier, Agassi and others on all types of courts so its obviously not a foregone conclusion in the baseline rallies, Sampras just has so much power from the back.
On clay Nadal is clear favourite probably to win every match. Sampras will and has argued he beat all the best claycourters of that era at the French, the likes of Courier, Muster and Brugera and Rios. His problem was that he couldn’t win 7 matches in a row on that surface, his stamina probably being a factor. So on a one off Sampras might be able to get a win somewhere on clay but it would be rare.
On grass, I think Sampras’ firepower and his brains has the edge. When I say brains, he was a great tactical thinker. I just keep thinking about Nadal’s comments after matches with the likes of Muller and then his supposed comments of Sampras and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon. Clearly Sampras on grass has 20 times the talent of Giles Muller, just think back to what he did to an in form Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final when he comprehensively outplayed Agassi in the baseline rallies. His use of the serve out wide on each court in all four corners of the box plus the serve into the body would be the decisive factor. Nadal does not have the returning skills of a Djokovic, who can take the ball early on the rise consistently. The one reason he’s now dominating Nadal. Sampras had problems against Hewitt who did the same thing. Nadal doesn’t play that type of game.
And that leads nicely to my conclusion, Sampras always talks about taking time away, Djokovic has shown what happens to Nadal when that philosophy is applied. With Sampras’ big serve and big groundstrokes and movement, I see him having a distinct edge on all types of hardcourt (pacewise), grass and indoor carpet (boy would Nadal hate indoor carpet!!!). Nadal is the master on clay. Nadal is a great player but not a natural talent, if you have the right tactics and power you can take him.
Thanks.
