sampras was garbage on clay, losing to a bunch of no names. he would never win vs nadal at RG.
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.
At their prime years, which scenario is most likely to happen?
- Nadal beating Sampras on 90s grass
or
- Sampras beating Nadal at the FO
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.
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)
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.
I love this. ...during his prime of four years minus one year. Good one!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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)Would Nadal even get far enough on 90's grass to meet Sampras?
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.
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)