Rafa vs Pete

The-Champ

Legend
At their prime years, which scenario is most likely to happen?

- Nadal beating Sampras on 90s grass

or

- Sampras beating Nadal at the FO
 

ibbi

Legend
I think it's more likely that all the *******s, and *******s on this forum would get together in a meadow and have a picnic and dance around in circles than it is for either of these things to happen...

Honestly... if you have to pick between the two, probably the second one.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
sampras was garbage on clay, losing to a bunch of no names. he would never win vs nadal at RG. nadal is a good grass courter. he WOULD be able to win occasionally against pete even on fast grass.
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
sampras was garbage on clay, losing to a bunch of no names. he would never win vs nadal at RG.
I guess technically, Rosol has a name for himself now?

Not sure what his first name is, but I guess "Rosol" is a bell ringer these days

:D


Neither would happen.
 

The-Champ

Legend
sampras was garbage on clay, losing to a bunch of no names. he would never win vs nadal at RG. nadal is a good grass courter. he WOULD be able to win occasionally against pete even on fast grass.
How will he break Pete's serve on a fast 90s grass? I know Krajicek did. Rafa has lost to Söderling at the FO. Pete has beaten Bruguera et al on clay.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
At their prime years, which scenario is most likely to happen?

- Nadal beating Sampras on 90s grass

or

- Sampras beating Nadal at the FO
wow.

hmm, both in primes?

I think nadal has more of a chance to adapt his game for fast grass.

neither is likely tho.
 

CRWV

Rookie
How will he break Pete's serve on a fast 90s grass? I know Krajicek did. Rafa has lost to Söderling at the FO. Pete has beaten Bruguera et al on clay.
Ding ding ding!

They would both steal a few matches off each other, probably 10-20% of the time...
 

rofl_copter3

Professional
Honestly Nadal could find a way to adapt to faster grass to maybe win 1 out of 10

Sampras was very bad on clay but 2011 would have been the one time sampras would have had a chance...
 

DeShaun

Banned
On clay the outcome would seem to hinge most heavily on Pete's transition volley--whether or not he could he punch it deep and well-angled enough consistently.
On grass, Rafa's return of serve depth and placement would seem most critical because I always would give the edge in baseline rallying to Rafa, even on grass.

I think the most likely of these alternatives would be Rafa catching Pete out on the grass, because Rafa is the greatest clay court player ever, and the margins are smaller against him on clay than those against Pete on grass.

A key challenge to making this comparison lies in the fact that Rafa's career is still happening and he is still winning Musketeers Cups in bunches without hardly any interruption, while Pete lost his last couple of Wimbledons.
 

Numenor

Rookie
Neither is likely, but Nadal has a better chance of beating Pete on grass. Nadal is the 2nd best grass courter of this era, after all, with 5 Wimbledon finals and 2 wins. I don't know how much he would be able to adapt to 90's grass, but I think he'd do better than Pete on clay.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Pete is grossly overrated here. He lost sets to no-namers in the earlier rounds. Rafa is mentally stronger than Pete, so I'd wager that he'd have his fair share of wins over pete on 90s grass.

Pete OTOH, won't have a prayer against nadal on clay (and I don't think anyone in history does)
 

90's Clay

Banned
Better chance for Pete beating Rafa. Pete prior to 1997 was still a good clay court player and beat some big names people forget on clay (Agassi, Muster, Courier, Kafelnikov, Bruguera etc.) and won Rome and the Davis Cup on clay. . Its possible Pete could catch fire and beat Rafa though isn't hugely likely. But its more likely then Rafa EVER beating Pete at wimbledon under that old lightning fast condition. Hell Nadal couldn't even beat Rasol when they closed the roof. Not multiply that speed by 2-3 times or so and then you have the old grass.


Lets also not forget Isner took Rafa to 5 at the French.


Pete beat more big names during his prime (92-96) on clay then Nadal EVER could on old wimbledon grass. Nadal lost to Rasol on grass indoors, he has yet to win a YEC, yet somehow he is going to beat arguably the greatest grass court player ever under HIS conditions?


Pete at least has a punchers chance vs. Rafa at the French. Rafa doesn't even have that on 90s grass vs. Pete. To be honest, Rafa would have a tough time even making it out of the first week at wimbledon in the 90s to even meet Sampras. Again, Pete had a few QF and SF appearances in his prime at the French and took out some big names. Rafa loses to journeymen under faster conditions. Pete lost to some at the french but if you see who he lost during his prime 92-96, outside of '95. He lost to Kafelnikov (eventual champ), Agassi (eventual champ), Bruguera (eventual champ), Courier (Eventual champ)
 
Last edited:

akv89

Hall of Fame
Neither are particularly likely. But Nadal's dominance on clay exceeds Sampras' dominance on grass. And Nadal's resume on grass courts is better than Sampras' on clay. So if I had to pick one...advantage Nadal.
 

dudeski

Hall of Fame
Pete is grossly overrated here. He lost sets to no-namers in the earlier rounds. Rafa is mentally stronger than Pete, so I'd wager that he'd have his fair share of wins over pete on 90s grass.

Pete OTOH, won't have a prayer against nadal on clay (and I don't think anyone in history does)
Yep. I think 2008 Nadal would beat Sampras on grass. Sampras would never get close to beating Nadal on clay. His BH was worse than Fed's.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
out of 10 matches, how does rosol split them with nadal?

do the sampras clowns think rosol wins the majority????

LMAO.

Let's give pete some credit. If roddick can take a set off of nadal and isner can push nadal to 5 sets. i think pete in the best form of his life might be able to push nadal, but doubt he would win.

Nadal gets pete maybe a few times even on fast grass. pete didnt always play his best at wimbledon every round. whereas rafa is far more formidable on clay.
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
Neither it's likely to happen, but Nadal would have a better chance by far.

Does anyone really think Sampras can beat Nadal on clay?? He sucked there and Nadal is the best ever. Some claycourt specialists have trouble even winning games against him when his playing his best.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Neither it's likely to happen, but Nadal would have a better chance by far.

Does anyone really think Sampras can beat Nadal on clay?? He sucked there and Nadal is the best ever. Some claycourt specialists have trouble even winning games against him when his playing his best.


Pete didn't suck on clay (at least prior to 1997). Roddick SUCKS on clay for instance.. You dont "suck" when you beat Bruguera and Courier back to back at the French.. Or beat Muster or even Agassi on clay. You don't "suck" on clay when you win Rome or the Davis Cup on SLOOWWW clay. Clay wasn't Pete's best surface but he was more then capable of beating anyone on any given day.. Even the best players on clay during that time period. His blood condition posed issues for him on clay.. And when his coach died and Annacone took over that caused issues in Pete's clay came.. But before his coach died, Pete was pretty good on clay.


The way I see it.. A big slow lug like Isner beat Fed on clay and took Nadal to 5 in the 1st round of the French.. ANYTHING is possible with a punchers chance and Pete just playing out of his mind with a big serve and attack


And Nadal would have as much chance of beating Pete on the old grass and Pete would have beating Nadal on today's clay.. Neither is likely.. But lets face it... Nadal couldn't even handle Rasol when they closed the roof.. What makes anyone think Rafa could beat Pete on the old grass surface anymore then Pete could beat Rafa at the French?
 
Last edited:

reversef

Hall of Fame
Pete at least has a punchers chance vs. Rafa at the French. Rafa doesn't even have that on 90s grass vs. Pete. To be honest, Rafa would have a tough time even making it out of the first week at wimbledon in the 90s to even meet Sampras. Again, Pete had a few QF and SF appearances in his prime at the French and took out some big names. Rafa loses to journeymen under faster conditions. Pete lost to some at the french but if you see who he lost during his prime 92-96, outside of '95. He lost to Kafelnikov (eventual champ), Agassi (eventual champ), Bruguera (eventual champ), Courier (Eventual champ)
I love this. :) ...during his prime of four years minus one year. Good one! :)
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
LMAO Pete beat Nadal at RG???

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. Let's remember people Fed was only EVER able to push Rafa to 4 sets at RG and this is during his absolute peak years while Nadal was still under 21.

Pete was hopeless at RG.

Now, otoh, Rafa has beaten Federer on grass and got VERY close to doing it twice.

Rafa would have more of a chance of knocking Pete off on fast grass, remember Fed only broke Nadal ONCE in WIM08 final so I'd be confident to say that Rafa would hold serve against Pete on fast grass too and all it takes is one bad Sampras game in each set on serve or a couple of bad TB's and Rafa could get him.

Still unlikely though, but if I had to bet on it, I'd put my money on Nadal beating Pete on fast grass rather than Pete beating Nadal at RG.
 
LMAO Pete beat Nadal at RG???

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. Let's remember people Fed was only EVER able to push Rafa to 4 sets at RG and this is during his absolute peak years while Nadal was still under 21.

Pete was hopeless at RG.

Now, otoh, Rafa has beaten Federer on grass and got VERY close to doing it twice.

Rafa would have more of a chance of knocking Pete off on fast grass, remember Fed only broke Nadal ONCE in WIM08 final so I'd be confident to say that Rafa would hold serve against Pete on fast grass too and all it takes is one bad Sampras game in each set on serve or a couple of bad TB's and Rafa could get him.

Still unlikely though, but if I had to bet on it, I'd put my money on Nadal beating Pete on fast grass rather than Pete beating Nadal at RG.
Fed took a set off Nadal during last year's final :confused:
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I actually think that Nadal would have a 5-10% of beating prime Sampras on grass but Pete's chances of taking out Nadal at the French aren't higher than 0%.
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
I actually think that Nadal would have a 5-10% of beating prime Sampras on grass but Pete's chances of taking out Nadal at the French aren't higher than 0%.
Soderling took out Nadal at the French and Isner almost did. Soderling and Isner in the history of tennis are complete nobodies. Yet Petros who has better FO and clay court results than both of them and is a champion and one of the best players to pick up a racquet has %0 chance? Go back to watching competitive hot dog eating because tennis just isn’t your cup of tea.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Soderling took out Nadal at the French and Isner almost did. Soderling and Isner in the history of tennis are complete nobodies. Yet Petros who has better FO and clay court results than both of them and is a champion and one of the best players to pick up a racquet has %0 chance? Go back to watching competitive hot dog eating because tennis just isn’t your cup of tea.
People seem to forget that glaring fact.. A 6 foot 9 SLOW lug like Isner catches fire one day and takes Rafa to 5 sets.. Yet someone with a BETTER clay court resume then Isner doesn't have a punchers chance to take out Rafa? If Isner could take Rafa to 5 why couldn't Sampras do the very least?


If a generic ball basher like Soderling who doesn't even have a game tailor made for clay catch fire one day and beat Rafa. Why couldn't a guy like Sampras who DID win Rome, Davis Cup and reached a QF-SF at the French during a time when the clay field had more depth?

People giving Pete no chance have no clue what they are saying
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Soderling took out Nadal at the French and Isner almost did. Soderling and Isner in the history of tennis are complete nobodies. Yet Petros who has better FO and clay court results than both of them and is a champion and one of the best players to pick up a racquet has %0 chance? Go back to watching competitive hot dog eating because tennis just isn’t your cup of tea.
soderling has 2 FO finals; how many does Pete have?
 

Gangsta

Rookie
Rafa and Sampras have won 7 out of 8 at RG and Wimby respectively. So, they are clearly GOAT on those surfaces in my books. 7 out of 8 attempts is just unbelievable consistency on a surface. But, only one of the those two has won slams at the other's venue, which would make scenario #1 more likely to happen.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Pete's chance to beat Nadal on clay = 5%
Nadal's chance to beat Pete on grass of 90s = 10%

Nadal has higher chance to win, but still very low chance for both.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
We should also consider the fact that grass in the 90s were much more competitive with the likes of Pete, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Stich, Rafter, Agassi, etc. Nadal who lost to Rosol would have a very tough time in the 90s golden grass court era. Pete on the other hand, would benefit from a weak clay court era today, and would likely have much better result on clay if he was playing today.
 
Pete is grossly overrated here. He lost sets to no-namers in the earlier rounds. Rafa is mentally stronger than Pete, so I'd wager that he'd have his fair share of wins over pete on 90s grass.

Pete OTOH, won't have a prayer against nadal on clay (and I don't think anyone in history does)
90's grass caused more upsets. Pete was as mentally tough as they come. I'd say in terms of mental toughness they were about equal. Stick Nadal on 90's grass and he doesn't beat Pete. Stick then both on todays green clay and Nadal would be the favourite.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
90's grass caused more upsets. Pete was as mentally tough as they come. I'd say in terms of mental toughness they were about equal. Stick Nadal on 90's grass and he doesn't beat Pete. Stick then both on todays green clay and Nadal would be the favourite.
no he isn't. Much of the sampras hype about mental strength comes from his ability to serve aces when down; not really that big of a big deal when that's your biggest and favorite weapon, AND one that lets you start with an advantage. how many times has Sampras shown his "clutchness" or "mental toughness" when returning serve or when down?

C'mon, if Sampras was *that* mentally strong, he would've found a way to win matches on clay, when he was losing to no-namers (and it was not a one-off thing; he lost quite often). Granted, that is not his favorite surface, and less advantageous for his game, but you cannot with a straight face tell me that Ramon Delgado or Gilbert Schaller had more game than Sampras on clay.. or that Yzaga was better than X% of Pete at the USO, whatever X might be...
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Soderling took out Nadal at the French and Isner almost did. Soderling and Isner in the history of tennis are complete nobodies. Yet Petros who has better FO and clay court results than both of them and is a champion and one of the best players to pick up a racquet has %0 chance? Go back to watching competitive hot dog eating because tennis just isn’t your cup of tea.
That's because NOT ONCE did Sampras play a match on a clay court that would show he could take on a Nadal type of player on the surface.

As for Soderling - he was blasting balls on every strike and served big. Sampras would never rip a backhand like that on clay and Nadal would demolish that wing of Sampras.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Soderling took out Nadal at the French and Isner almost did. Soderling and Isner in the history of tennis are complete nobodies. Yet Petros who has better FO and clay court results than both of them and is a champion and one of the best players to pick up a racquet has %0 chance? Go back to watching competitive hot dog eating because tennis just isn’t your cup of tea.
Hahahaha! You're too kind!
 
no he isn't. Much of the sampras hype about mental strength comes from his ability to serve aces when down; not really that big of a big deal when that's your biggest and favorite weapon, AND one that lets you start with an advantage. how many times has Sampras shown his "clutchness" or "mental toughness" when returning serve or when down?

C'mon, if Sampras was *that* mentally strong, he would've found a way to win matches on clay, when he was losing to no-namers (and it was not a one-off thing; he lost quite often). Granted, that is not his favorite surface, and less advantageous for his game, but you cannot with a straight face tell me that Ramon Delgado or Gilbert Schaller had more game than Sampras on clay.. or that Yzaga was better than X% of Pete at the USO, whatever X might be...
He was simply crap on clay. It has nothing to do with mental toughness. You don't win 7 Wimbledon's being mentally fragile. It didn't help that the FO is so close to Wimbledon. He had to prioritise, he's not an all court player like Federer is and the difference of the surfaces was far greater back when he was playing. It's a rarity for someone to be great on all three surfaces. Happens more often now, I wonder why that is.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
He was simply crap on clay. It has nothing to do with mental toughness. You don't win 7 Wimbledon's being mentally fragile. It didn't help that the FO is so close to Wimbledon. He had to prioritise, he's not an all court player like Federer is and the difference of the surfaces was far greater back when he was playing. It's a rarity for someone to be great on all three surfaces. Happens more often now, I wonder why that is.
your post is filled with excuses -- and show me where I said Pete was mentally fragile?? I simply disagreed with your view that he was as mentally tough as they come!!

So if Pete is crap on clay, you agree he has 0% chance of beating Nadal at RG? And given that Nadal has won 2 wimbledons, and 3 other finals (in addition to winning Queens), you should have no trouble accepting the fact that Nadal has a good chance to beat Pete on 90s grass?
 
your post is filled with excuses -- and show me where I said Pete was mentally fragile?? I simply disagreed with your view that he was as mentally tough as they come!!

So if Pete is crap on clay, you agree he has 0% chance of beating Nadal at RG? And given that Nadal has won 2 wimbledons, and 3 other finals (in addition to winning Queens), you should have no trouble accepting the fact that Nadal has a good chance to beat Pete on 90s grass?
Nadal has little chance on 90's grass against Pete. He would get aced off the court. On today's grass it would be 60-40 in Petes favour.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Nadal has little chance on 90's grass against Pete. He would get aced off the court. On today's grass it would be 60-40 in Petes favour.
Jared Palmer, Karol Kucera, Todd Martin, Karsten Braasch, Richie Reneberg, Tim Henman, Scud -- guess what these guys have in common? they all took sets of Sampras in the 90s by breaking his serve... To suggest that a 2-time wimbledon champion, and 3-time finalist has no chance on 90s grass is quite ridiculous (actually, it's just the normal hyperbole that surrounds Pete's game and serve that we're all accustomed to).
 

Leto

Semi-Pro
My vote goes to Rafa beating Pete on 90's grass as being far more likely than Pete beating Rafa at RG, no matter what decade...
 

PSNELKE

Legend
OMG there are actually some guys on here thinking that Pete could beat Nadal on clay. LMAO :lol:

Pete was by far the worst #1 to ever step on a clay court.

Nadal beating Pete on grass is by far the more likely than Pete beating Nadal on clay.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
OMG there are actually some guys on here thinking that Pete could beat Nadal on clay. LMAO :lol:

Pete was by far the worst #1 to ever step on a clay court.

Nadal beating Pete on grass is by far the more likely than Pete beating Nadal on clay.
I know, right? I mean seriously, them Samprastards are holding to the Isner 5-setter like it's their last breath. A match which Nadal won in the end as usual, lol.

I can count on one hand the number of big wins that Sampras had on clay.

I can also count the number of matches which showed that Sampras would have a chance against Nadal on clay - and that would be 0.
 
Jared Palmer, Karol Kucera, Todd Martin, Karsten Braasch, Richie Reneberg, Tim Henman, Scud -- guess what these guys have in common? they all took sets of Sampras in the 90s by breaking his serve... To suggest that a 2-time wimbledon champion, and 3-time finalist has no chance on 90s grass is quite ridiculous (actually, it's just the normal hyperbole that surrounds Pete's game and serve that we're all accustomed to).
Yeah he'd break his serve. How many times do you think Nadal's serve would be broken. Would Nadal even get far enough on 90's grass to meet Sampras?
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Yeah he'd break his serve. How many times do you think Nadal's serve would be broken.
changing the tune are we? your whole point was that Sampras' serve was unbreakable on the 90s grass. And Nadal takes care of his serve really well even on slow grass, so he'd be even tougher to break on fast grass. but that's besides the point.

Would Nadal even get far enough on 90's grass to meet Sampras?
LOL -- you're a desperate ****, and it is showing. you don't have a worthwhile point to make, so you go off on a tangent!! admit that you got pwned and signoff :) (bye bye pistol)
 
changing the tune are we? your whole point was that Sampras' serve was unbreakable on the 90s grass. And Nadal takes care of his serve really well even on slow grass, so he'd be even tougher to break on fast grass. but that's besides the point.
Nobody's serve is unbreakable. You're saying that that Nadal's serve on 90's grass is better then Petes?

LOL -- you're a desperate ****, and it is showing. you don't have a worthwhile point to make, so you go off on a tangent!! admit that you got pwned and signoff :) (bye bye pistol)
How old are you 12? An idiot like you won't remove me from here.
 
Top