Sampras enjoying nadals dominance?

[Tennis_Monk]

It's NOT an excuse my friend , it's a FACT , anyone who watched the match would agree. Once again you draw a conclusion that I'm a Nadal-Fan , yes I am now , I'm a fan of tennis above all - I was rooting for Fed back in 2007 Wimby , Nadal won my respect over with his hard work & superb play in Wimby 2008. But since you like Fed so much , after 2007 it must really hurt to know that it was the last Slam-Final that Fed ever won & lost like what 3 ( against a fit Nadal ? NOT good numbers for you my friend , not good.

What is this FIT Nadal / Unfit Nadal stuff?. If a professional player show up to play a Professional match, He is considered FIT to play. That is it.
Even Nadal plays with that mind set.

Injured Nadal/Mono Federer/etc is all BS to me. One is either playing or NOT playing.

 

[Trillus]

I agree. If you show up you declare yourself fit to play. So Nadal's loss at say the 2009 French was fully legit since he declared himself fit to play by entering the withdraw, not withdrawing in the midst of the tournament, and not even withdrawing during the match (which he did against Murray at this years Australian Open with a not even so terrible injury).

 

[mucat]

It's NOT an excuse my friend , it's a FACT , anyone who watched the match would agree. Once again you draw a conclusion that I'm a Nadal-Fan , yes I am now , I'm a fan of tennis above all - I was rooting for Fed back in 2007 Wimby , Nadal won my respect over with his hard work & superb play in Wimby 2008. But since you like Fed so much , after 2007 it must really hurt to know that it was the last Slam-Final that Fed ever won & lost like what 3 ( against a fit Nadal ? NOT good numbers for you my friend , not good.

It is a fact that Federer was sick during most of the 08 season. You are making an excuse for Nadal's lost while forgetting Federer was sick, that is the definition of a ********* there. Personally, I think we are very fortunately to see three of the greatest players of all time one after another, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, what's the chance of that happens, in any sport...This is the best times for any tennis fan.

 

[Xemi666]

This H2H **** is nonsense, so Sampras gets lauded for actually SUCKING on clay? How many matches would have Sampras won against Nadal? Would Federer get more credit for sucking on clay so he loses to a different guy all the time instead of reaching the finals and losing to arguably the greatest (minimum second best) clay courter ever? That is some logic

 

[Trillus]

Federer only leads Nadal 5-4 on non clay surfaces and unless he is lucky enough to never play Nadal again he will not end their careers leading the head to head on non clay surfaces. Obviously the head to head is not just due to clay.

 

[TMF]

Federer only leads Nadal 5-4 on non clay surfaces and unless he is lucky enough to never play Nadal again he will not end their careers leading the head to head on non clay surfaces. Obviously the head to head is not just due to clay.

Don’t be silly... a 29 years old Fed is not the same peak Fed and right now Nadal is at his peak at 24.

 

[Trillus]

Don’t be silly... a 29 years old Fed is not the same peak Fed and right now Nadal is at his peak at 24.

In that case all of Federer's wins over Nadal before 2008 should be discounted too. Now you are being silly as usual. Nadal will score some wins over post prime Federer just like Federer scored many/most of even his non clay wins over pre prime Nadal which ultimately evens out, and ultimately Nadal will end up leading even their non clay head to head. That is if Federer has the guts to even want to play Nadal again.

 

[yshengyi]

Agassi is older than Sampras, Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer

 

[TMF]

In that case all of Federer's wins over Nadal before 2008 should be discounted too. Now you are being silly as usual. Nadal will score some wins over post prime Federer just like Federer scored many/most of even his non clay wins over pre prime Nadal which ultimately evens out, and ultimately Nadal will end up leading even their non clay head to head. That is if Federer has the guts to even want to play Nadal again.

You and I don’t know if past prime Fed will win or lose against prime Nadal. I’m just saying Nadal has the advantage right now b/c of the age difference. And speaking of guts, that’s like saying rafa doesn’t have the guts to meet Roger at the US Open Series during his 6 straight USO finals.

 

[TMF]

Agassi is older than Sampras, Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer

It’s been mentioned before…Fed vs. Nadal stats are skewed b/c of the age difference. The rivalry comparison would be more accurate if they are at the same age. To add, all of their h2h are not even distributed across all surfaces, and their best/worst surfaces are the opposite.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

So what is this PRIME FEDERER , PRIME NADAL BS ?. If they are not in their prime, why did they play?

Who and how is it determined that someone is Prime Federer (or Nadal) ?.

 

[nadal_slam_king]

I hope Federer plays at least 3 more years so Rafa can slaughter him on hardcourts and Wimbledon and bring the head to head up to 20-7. Rafa deserves it, because Rafa had to play Federer at Wimbledon in 2006 with only 5 matches of Wimbledon experience prior to that year, and 2007. And the hardcourt meetings they had before Rafa had become a hardcourt slam force. Federer had a big edge during those years, so Rafa should get a big edge in years to come.

 

[cork_screw]

Why so nadal can be the second player to go over 14 grandslams?

 

[MichaelNadal]

So what is this PRIME FEDERER , PRIME NADAL BS ?. If they are not in their prime, why did they play?

Who and how is it determined that someone is Prime Federer (or Nadal) ?.

I love this post lol.

 

[TheTruth]

You and I don’t know if past prime Fed will win or lose against prime Nadal. I’m just saying Nadal has the advantage right now b/c of the age difference. And speaking of guts, that’s like saying rafa doesn’t have the guts to meet Roger at the US Open Series during his 6 straight USO finals.

The thing about this argument is, if Federer is past prime now, and Nadal is in his prime, then the h2h is based on Fed being in his prime and Nadal being pre-prime, either way the h2h is relevant. Nadal was beating Fed before he even reached his prime. I don't understand why people don't see that.

Prime Fed should have beaten Nadal more, considering Nadal was a teenager during most of the early rivalry.

 

[aphex]

Prime Nadal should have beaten Davydenko more, considering Davydenko was an old man during most of the rivalry.

fixed......

 

[Dilettante]

fixed......

Fixation.

...

 

[ksbh]

Don't know about Sampras but GameSampras is certainly overjoyed!

 

[TheTruth]

fixed......

There's nothing to be gained by beating no slam Davydenko. History, on the other hand will remember the fact that Rafa beat Fed so many times, starting in his teens. Prime or no prime Davydenko is a good player that history will forget. He's done nothing in his career that his h2h against Rafa would matter.

 

[bolo]

The thing about this argument is, if Federer is past prime now, and Nadal is in his prime, then the h2h is based on Fed being in his prime and Nadal being pre-prime, either way the h2h is relevant. Nadal was beating Fed before he even reached his prime. I don't understand why people don't see that.

Prime Fed should have beaten Nadal more, considering Nadal was a teenager during most of the early rivalry.

well TMF types (bruce, oddjack, buckethead) need a lot of help in seeing the obvious stuff when it comes to nadal, you know like nadal being on the verge of zooming past lendl before the US Open.

 

[ZhingJ]

Frankly I don't understand the ********* H2H argument. They keep saying Federer should have beaten Nadal more in his prime, well Federer led the H2H off clay 5-2 at the end of 2007. How could he beat him more if Nadal was not good enough to get to more finals in those times? On clay, I think all *******s concede that Nadal has always been better than Federer even in his prime.

 

[ZhingJ]

The thing about this argument is, if Federer is past prime now, and Nadal is in his prime, then the h2h is based on Fed being in his prime and Nadal being pre-prime, either way the h2h is relevant. Nadal was beating Fed before he even reached his prime. I don't understand why people don't see that.

Prime Fed should have beaten Nadal more, considering Nadal was a teenager during most of the early rivalry.

The record was 5-2 off clay for Federer, what more do you want? After 2007 Fed was no longer in prime and that's when Nadal started doing most of his damage, again mostly on clay.

 

[TMF]

The thing about this argument is, if Federer is past prime now, and Nadal is in his prime, then the h2h is based on Fed being in his prime and Nadal being pre-prime, either way the h2h is relevant. Nadal was beating Fed before he even reached his prime. I don't understand why people don't see that.

Prime Fed should have beaten Nadal more, considering Nadal was a teenager during most of the early rivalry.

If you are trying to be naïve then you’re doing a splendid job. Fed can and did beat Nadal on every sufaces(hc, grass, clay, indoor). On clay, we already agree Nadal is better than Roger, so it makes no sense for you keep bringing up the h2h when most of their meetings were on clay. Right now, Nadal should be able to beat Roger more often. Not just b/c Roger’s aging, but the motivation isn’t the same as in 2005. Factoring in having family consume his time and limited his focus on tennis. And plus, playing in the same era doesn’t mean it’s a perfect rivalry...for tennis, a player can only be at his prime for a few years, and since they are almost 5 yrs apart, their meetings was never at peak vs peak. Had they were at the same age, then we would have a better picture. Even Andre vs. Pete isn’t completely accurate either despite they are almost the same age. Most of their meeting were on Pete’s favorable surface. Had they met most of the time on clay, we all know the h2h record would shift in favor of Agassi.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

The record was 5-2 off clay for Federer, what more do you want? After 2007 Fed was no longer in prime and that's when Nadal started doing most of his damage, again mostly on clay.

How do you define a player being in prime (or lack of)?

 

[TheTruth]

The record was 5-2 off clay for Federer, what more do you want? After 2007 Fed was no longer in prime and that's when Nadal started doing most of his damage, again mostly on clay.

But, you're talking about a prime Federer playing a teenaged Nadal. You don't think a 24 year old with about say, 10 slams, shouldn't be beating a youngster cutting his teeth on the tour?

Regardless of surface, Fed is the #2 player on the clay. How come he couldn't beat Nadal on that surface? I don't understand that.

That would be like Nadal, now 24, struggling to beat Ryan Harrison for the next five years. It just wouldn't seem right.

 

[TheTruth]

If you are trying to be naïve then you’re doing a splendid job. Fed can and did beat Nadal on every sufaces(hc, grass, clay, indoor). On clay, we already agree Nadal is better than Roger, so it makes no sense for you keep bringing up the h2h when most of their meetings were on clay. Right now, Nadal should be able to beat Roger more often. Not just b/c Roger’s aging, but the motivation isn’t the same as in 2005. Factoring in having family consume his time and limited his focus on tennis. And plus, playing in the same era doesn’t mean it’s a perfect rivalry...for tennis, a player can only be at his prime for a few years, and since they are almost 5 yrs apart, their meetings was never at peak vs peak. Had they were at the same age, then we would have a better picture. Even Andre vs. Pete isn’t completely accurate either despite they are almost the same age. Most of their meeting were on Pete’s favorable surface. Had they met most of the time on clay, we all know the h2h record would shift in favor of Agassi.

What's naive to me is the notion that the clay surface doesn't matter. Would it matter if Fed led the h2h on hard court? You bet your life it would. Nobody cares what surface they met on. Who knows the exact breakdown of Sampras-Agassi's h2h, as in how many of the wins were on hard, clay, and grass? Only the most diehard of fans would care to that extent. People care about the overall h2h and how they fared at majors, that's it. Conversely, most people can spout the 20-14 h2h in favor of Sampras off the top of their head. That's because nobody memorizes what surfaces they played on. It's a moot point. Prime Fed battled a teenaged Nadal and never led in the h2h and that's the reality. They've met 21 times and Fed only won seven. That's what history will record, not the surfaces they played on.

I didn't bring up the h2h as if to say that makes Nadal better, but the notion that the h2h isn't relevant although clay is a tour approved ATP surface is nothing short of ridiculous. As if somehow the entire h2h is diluted when they're playing on surfaces the ATP offers, is in my opinion, naive.

As to adding in the effect of Fed's family life and the level of his motivation, none of us know how having a family is affecting Fed, or what his motivation is at this moment. That's just taking license and making assumptions.

 

[TheTruth]

If you are trying to be naïve then you’re doing a splendid job. Fed can and did beat Nadal on every sufaces(hc, grass, clay, indoor). On clay, we already agree Nadal is better than Roger, so it makes no sense for you keep bringing up the h2h when most of their meetings were on clay. Right now, Nadal should be able to beat Roger more often. Not just b/c Roger’s aging, but the motivation isn’t the same as in 2005. Factoring in having family consume his time and limited his focus on tennis. And plus, playing in the same era doesn’t mean it’s a perfect rivalry...for tennis, a player can only be at his prime for a few years, and since they are almost 5 yrs apart, their meetings was never at peak vs peak. Had they were at the same age, then we would have a better picture. Even Andre vs. Pete isn’t completely accurate either despite they are almost the same age. Most of their meeting were on Pete’s favorable surface. Had they met most of the time on clay, we all know the h2h record would shift in favor of Agassi.

But they didn't, and to this day, no one says "Sampras led 20-14, but if they had played more on clay the h2h would be..." It's a moot point, because they played where they played, and that's that.

 

[TheTruth]

The record was 5-2 off clay for Federer, what more do you want? After 2007 Fed was no longer in prime and that's when Nadal started doing most of his damage, again mostly on clay.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter. Nadal was known primarily as a clay courter, yet he still managed to make inroads against Fed on his "worst" surfaces. It's not Nadal's fault that Fed didn't manage to do the same. In fact, Federer had even more chances to even up the h2h since he did meet Nadal on clay so often.

 

[MotherMarjorie]

Clay matters historically. If you can't win at least one French Open title, you cannot be considered a serious contender for GOAT. Only a GOAT wins at every grand slam event.

It really doesn't matter what Sampras thinks about Nadal's dominance, other than he's probably feeling pretty second Tier when in 8 years since his retirement, two players (Federer and Nadal) achieved a career grand slam. He never could.

Nadal will likely surpass Sampras in total grand slam events.

Mother Marjorie Ann

 

[TheTruth]

Clay matters historically. If you can't win at least one French Open title, you cannot be considered a serious contender for GOAT. Only a GOAT wins at every grand slam event.

It really doesn't matter what Sampras thinks about Nadal's dominance, other than he's probably feeling pretty second Tier when in 8 years since his retirement, two players (Federer and Nadal) achieved a career grand slam. He never could.

Nadal will likely surpass Sampras in total grand slam events.

Mother Marjorie Ann

Exactly. You can't just obliterate a surface to suit your purposes or argument. Clay is relevant, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Does it mean Nadal is the GOAT over Fed? Nope. Fed is still the more accomplished player and we can't deal in if's.

Great post.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Clay matters historically. If you can't win at least one French Open title, you cannot be considered a serious contender for GOAT. Only a GOAT wins at every grand slam event.

It really doesn't matter what Sampras thinks about Nadal's dominance, other than he's probably feeling pretty second Tier when in 8 years since his retirement, two players (Federer and Nadal) achieved a career grand slam. He never could.

Nadal will likely surpass Sampras in total grand slam events.

Mother Marjorie Ann

Precisely. One cant be in GOAT race omitting a whole surface.

Yes, Sampras must be gutted to know that his record barely lasted a decade.

That said , he had a good run and he will remain as one of the Top players of the game albeit a tad below the players who have slams close to Sampras's but have won on all surfaces.

 

[ZhingJ]

But, you're talking about a prime Federer playing a teenaged Nadal. You don't think a 24 year old with about say, 10 slams, shouldn't be beating a youngster cutting his teeth on the tour?

Regardless of surface, Fed is the #2 player on the clay. How come he couldn't beat Nadal on that surface? I don't understand that.

That would be like Nadal, now 24, struggling to beat Ryan Harrison for the next five years. It just wouldn't seem right.

Not sure how to make it simpler. He could not beat Nadal on clay because Nadal is BETTER on clay not matter what age or prime state. Done. But off of clay they met 7 times in Fed's prime and Fed beat him 5 out of 7? What is so bad about that? Nadal is a good player. Do you expect 7-0? Maybe it could been more in Fed's favour if Nadal was good enough off clay before 2008.

 

[ZhingJ]

It doesn't matter. Nadal was known primarily as a clay courter, yet he still managed to make inroads against Fed on his "worst" surfaces. It's not Nadal's fault that Fed didn't manage to do the same. In fact, Federer had even more chances to even up the h2h since he did meet Nadal on clay so often.QUOTE]

I'm really not sure what you are arguing here. Of course clay matters and all Fed fans concede Nadal is better on clay. In fact he's much better on clay than Roger is on HC. This is why he dominates clay more against Roger than Roger dominated non-clay against Rafa, which was 5-2. What is wrong with 5-2? It's pretty good. I believe it was 6-1 for Rafa on clay before 2008. Just one match better. what are you arguing, I don't get it.

 

[TheTruth]

It doesn't matter. Nadal was known primarily as a clay courter, yet he still managed to make inroads against Fed on his "worst" surfaces. It's not Nadal's fault that Fed didn't manage to do the same. In fact, Federer had even more chances to even up the h2h since he did meet Nadal on clay so often.QUOTE]

I'm really not sure what you are arguing here. Of course clay matters and all Fed fans concede Nadal is better on clay. In fact he's much better on clay than Roger is on HC. This is why he dominates clay more against Roger than Roger dominated non-clay against Rafa, which was 5-2. What is wrong with 5-2? It's pretty good. I believe it was 6-1 for Rafa on clay before 2008. Just one match better. what are you arguing, I don't get it.

I know clay matters I just get tired of hearing the argument that the h2h is skewed because of the clay. Surely you've seen that argument numerous times on this board. That's my point.

I'm not arguing your second point. You are. I never responded to that part. You must have mixed me up with someone else.

 

[TheTruth]

Not sure how to make it simpler. He could not beat Nadal on clay because Nadal is BETTER on clay not matter what age or prime state. Done. But off of clay they met 7 times in Fed's prime and Fed beat him 5 out of 7? What is so bad about that? Nadal is a good player. Do you expect 7-0? Maybe it could been more in Fed's favour if Nadal was good enough off clay before 2008.

Again, wrong argument. Wrong person. You'll have to take that up with someone else.