Sampras is greater on grass than nadal is on clay. Opposition proves it.

[Indio]

Federer and Djokovic alone provided far more strong opposition on clay for Nadal than any combination of grass courters did against Sampras. Here's some data to show just how formidable these two were:
1. Djokovic has won no fewer than NINE clay Masters. He beat Nadal in five of those, as well as in Rome 2016, which he eventually lost to Murray. He also beat Nadal in French 2015. He has won on clay at a .796 rate. Muster, the clay winning-percentage leader of the 90s, in comparison, ended with a .769 record, and much of his success was achieved at tournaments which would be regarded as 250 level today. Nadal defeated Djokovic six times at the French and ten times in clay Masters.
2. Federer has won the Hamburg/Madrid clay Masters six times. He's also been a ten-time finalist at clay Masters, with seven of the losses to Nadal, as well as another in a SF. At the French, Nadal has defeated him six times. Federer currently has a .761 winning rate on clay.
3. Sampras's most frequent opponent at Wimbledon was Ivanisevic, and to claim that his effectiveness on grass matches that of either Djokovic or Federer on clay is BS. For one thing, he was eliminated four times between 1991 and 1997 by players ranked number 30 or worse. Yes, he did beat Sampras in 1992, but that's before Sampras hit his stride. It's perhaps comparable to Nalbandian's win over Federer at US 03. He managed to serve his way to a .720 mark on grass, and if you don't believe it's mostly the serve that did it for him, check his results at the hard court majors. In terms of frequency of encounters, Sampras's next biggest challenger was Becker. but only in 1995 was he having an excellent season.
All this having been said, if my life were on the line depending on the outcome of a grass court match, I'd still probably take Sampras over anyone else, but if it were a choice between Sampras on grass and Nadal on clay, it's Nadal without a moment's hesitation.

 

[Bender]

As we all know, Sampras crashed the net because his serve wasn't good enough to get the job done

 

[EdSWright]

Prince Magnesium Pro 90. Same racquet that Pat Cash won Wimbledon with. Not the strongest racquet ever made, but beautiful to hit with.

Nice - thanks for that. It did look like a toy in Pioline's hands, for some reason, but not in Cash's.

 

[zagor]

In the 90s grass court tennis was so strong. Winning 7 Wimbledon’s in 8 years in the 1990s against that grass field is one of the all time greatest achievements in sports history. Never mind tennis history. Nadal has racked up 12 French opens by playing no clay court specialists or clay court monsters. Sampras has round after round pressure of an upset on super fast grass against some of the biggest servers ever. Nadal didn’t have any musters, Brugueras, couriers, corretjas, Kuertens,
Sampras 7 Wimbledon’s in a better record that nadals 12 French opens.


sampras opposition
ATG players
Agassi
courier
Becker
Edberg
Stich
Rafter

Grass court big serving monsters
Ivanišević
Krajicek
Philippoussis
Rusedski

Good grass court players
Pioline
Henman
Martin

who were nadals strongest opposition at the French?
djokovic and Federer and it’s both there worst surface by a distance!
Next gen mental midget Thiem?
David Ferrer? Bang average
Puerta? Terrible

By the way I admit that 90s grass court tennis on the whole wasn’t the best to watch. There were still serval classic matches but in general it was hard to watch. But that’s just the way it was and petes domination shouldn’t be counted against him.

I'm one of those people who thinks Fedovic are really overrated on clay, acknowledges the dearth of CC specialists and that Nadal has the advantage of longevity compared to Pete as a side effect of being born in the era where athletes last longer almost by default. I also hold Sampras in very high regard as a grasscourter and overall.

And even I have to give it to the Nadal lol, sorry bro. Rafa is the CC GOAT, he's like a video game boss on the surface. He made FO his playground, we all get excited when he loses a set, that's how ridiculously dominant he is on the red stuff.

 

[quirotkicks]

I'm one of those people who thinks Fedovic are really overrated on clay, acknowledges the dearth of CC specialists and that Nadal has the advantage of longevity compared to Pete as a side effect of being born in the era where athletes last longer almost by default. I also hold Sampras in very high regard as a grasscourter and overall.

And even I have to give it to the Nadal lol, sorry bro. Rafa is the CC GOAT, he's like a video game boss on the surface. He made FO his playground, we all get excited when he loses a set, that's how ridiculously dominant he is on the red stuff.

Federer and Djokovic are massively overrated on clay by people who say they should be up with Borg or ahead of Kuerten because of the number of times they lost to Nadal at RG. However both probably make the Top 10 in the Open Era on clay, and at absolute worst both make Top 15 easily. In fact outside of Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander who else is ahead of either. Bruguera or Courier maybe. Muster or Vilas have a case, a weak one for both IMO. That is it. I think Ferrero at his peak was probably a "better" clay courter but he doesn't have the achievements to ever be considered for greater.

There isn't anyone Sampras faced who ever makes the Top 10 grass courters of the Open Era besides Becker who was clearly past his prime when playing Sampras. Edberg he didn't even face, literally speaking as they didn't even play once at Wimbledon. In fact does anyone outside of Becker even make Top 15. Sampras, Borg, Djokovic, Federer, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Nadal, Newcombe, Murray are clearly over Ivanisevic who is the next best. I would personally put Laver (Open Era only), Smith, Ashe, over any of Ivanisevic, Agassi, or Rafter too. I would put Hewitt and Roddick above Agassi or Rafter on grass, not sure about Ivansevic, but there is a case.

So Federer and Djokovic, while overrated, are still better than Sampras's best rivals on grass apart from a past his prime Becker who at that point of his career was inferior to Ivanisevic, thus really isn't better at all.

Plus 12 (and counting, probably more to come) >>>>>>>>>>>> 7 and couldn't ever be overcome even by tougher/weaker competition.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Sampras is greater on grass than nadal is on clay. Opposition proves it.

I love how Courier, Stich and Rafter are considered ATG's when it's pretty much agreed here that you need 6+ slems to be in the club. Jimmy was a baseliner playing when Wimby played like old school grass. After making it to the finals in 1993, he never made it past the 4R, with 3 straight years going out in the 1R at one point.

As several others have said, PETE and Edberg never played at Wimby.

Aside from the one year he won it, Krajicek made the SF once.

Goran was good, but he's one of the biggest headcases in tennis history.

And lolz at calling Timmy a mental midget and still calling Tiger Timmy good competition! The dude was such a bad choker the Brits literally named a hill after him to sit upon as they watched him choke

PETE won 10 grass titles, 7 of which were Wimbys which is damn impressive. But that means he didn't win a lot of tourneys outside of Wimby. PETE was scary good, but even his achievements on grass pale in comparison to RAFA's on clay. The dude beat the defending RG champ at 16 years old

 

[Mainad]

Sampras lost the only Wimbledon match he played against Federer.

Djokovic, Thiem, Federer, Wawrinka and Soderling on clay are far stronger than Agassi, Ivanisevic and whoever Sampras faced on grass.

Thiem and Söderling stronger than Agassi on clay? When the former matches the latter in winning RG and a clay Masters, then we might compare.

Thiem isn't even stronger than Murray (conspicuously absent from your list) who made an RG final and won TWO clay Masters beating Nadal in one of them.

 

[tennis_pro]

Omg another off-season in TTW?

 

[ForehandCross]

In what world was Becker in prime in 1993?

 

[tonylg]

In what world was Becker in prime in 1993?

The alternate one where he claimed residency in Monte Carlo or Bermuda and didn't get Barbara pregnant.

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic and Federer are arguably top10 all time on clay.
Wawrinka, Thiem, Murray and Ferrer arguably top20.

 

[Indio]

Thiem and Söderling stronger than Agassi on clay? When the former matches the latter in winning RG and a clay Masters, then we might compare.

Thiem isn't even stronger than Murray (conspicuously absent from your list) who made an RG final and won TWO clay Masters beating Nadal in one of them.

I think the poster meant that Thiem and Soderling were stronger on clay than Agassi was on grass.

Here are some predictions of majors outcomes had neither Sampras nor Nadal won their Wimbledons (Sampras) nor Frenchs (Nadal) and the remainder of each tournament played out more or less as they actually did:
Wim 93: Becker
Wim 94: Ivanisevic
Wim 95: Either Becker or Ivanisevic, but more likely Becker
Wim 97: I don't know
Wim 98: Ivanisevic
Wim 99: Agassi
Wim 00: Rafter
That means three or four Wimbledons for Ivanisevic, seven or eight majors for Becker, nine for Agassi and three for Rafter.

F 05: Federer
F 06: Federer
F 07: Federer
F 08: Djokovic (Federer-mono)
F 10: Soderling
F 11: Federer
F 12: Djokovic
F 13: Djokovic
F 14: Djokovic
F 17: Wawrinka or Thiem, but probably Wawrinka
F 18: Thiem
F 19: Thiem
Federer and Djokovic each with five Frenchs without Nadal around.

 

[Chronos]

Nadal on clay is the only thing related "GOAT" label in Tennis.All the other - who is GOAT in overall or W/AO/USO GOAT - arguments are debatable because there are players that have so similar results and you can pick one of them according to your point of view.

 

[JasonZ]

That was one match, it was 5 sets, and Edberg was already starting his decline by that point. He beat Sampras at that same Wimbledon easier than he did Edberg, but never managed it again.

Ivanisevic is great when he is on but super inconsistent and a headcase. It is not true those didn't face an Ivanisevic, Roscoe Tanner is basically the same as Ivanisevic just in another era. Zivanovic was another monster server who played both McEnroe and Edberg. McEnroe had to face ATGs and grass ATGs Borg and Connors. Borg had to face McEnroe and Connors. For that alone their competition was tougher than Sampras who didn't face another ATG or grass ATG who was even close to their prime.

Edberg was in his prime in 1992. I can also clame that Ivanisevic didnt reach his grass court tennis peak in 1992, but i will not.

Edberg never faced a great two handed backhand player at wimbledon till 1992. Then he played against Ivanisevic and Courier and we know the result.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Will the Nadal's army finally realize that clay is not a real surface? Would Pete even care? And is Becker actually Piccolo?

Next time on Only on TTW Z

 

[JasonZ]

Becker had a second wind in 1995-1996, he defeated Agassi in wimblefon after he lost to him 8 times in a row. In the final he had no chance, was helpless when Sampras serve.

He was also helpless against Sampras serve in 1993 and 1997, in 3 meetings not one break. Sampras was clearly better than Becker at wimbledon.

Becker was nearly equal to Sampras on indoor carpet, but on grass Sampras was another level.

 

[Mainad]

I think the poster meant that Thiem and Soderling were stronger on clay than Agassi was on grass.

With a Wimbledon title and 1 other final, Agassi still produced better results on grass than Thiem (so far) and Söderling produced on clay.

 

[Druss]

Just compare the matches of Sampras-Agassi at Wimbledon 1999 with Sampras-Federer at Wimbledon 2001. While you may argue that Sampras was slighly better in 1999 than 2001 (only 2 years of difference), the main difference was in the rival's level not in Pete's level. Of course, Sampras was toying with Agassi, but as soon as he faced a much better opponent like Federer the party was over and he suffered a lot.

No way man! Some (myself included) were tipping Agassi to win that Wimbledon, especially since Sampras didn't seem that great (for his standards) during the early rounds and even got out of jail in R4/QF thanks to Scud's injury. Agassi was on fire and playing very well, possibly the best he's ever played on grass. Sampras in the final, as he usually does against Andre brought his best tennis. He was simply a beast that day....'he was walking on water'.

 

[Sport]

Thiem and Söderling stronger than Agassi on clay? When the former matches the latter in winning RG and a clay Masters, then we might compare.

Thiem isn't even stronger than Murray (conspicuously absent from your list) who made an RG final and won TWO clay Masters beating Nadal in one of them.

I have in very high steem Thiem, so I consider his level stronger than Murray at RG (he reached more RG finals and has more victories against Nadal on clay). I also consider Thiem stronger on clay in terms of peak level than Federer and the reason is in the backhand. Federer's backhand was too "weak" (in the sense that he relied too much on the slice, which is a defensive shot) so Nadal easily toyed with Federer's backhand at RG, something he can't do with Thiem, because Thiem can hit excellent offensive flat backhands, even against Nadal's moonballs.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I am a huge PETE fan, but also an objective tennis observer.

Pete was superb at Wimbledon, and his 7 titles in 8 years is dominance unmatched during that particular time span by any male or female in the Open Era. He made the likes of Becker and Agassi look second rate on the surface. He tailored his game perfectly to the manicured lawns of SW19. He is an all-time legend on grass, and possibly the most unbeatable on that surface at peak.

Nadal, however, is God on clay.

 

[quirotkicks]

Thiem and Söderling stronger than Agassi on clay? When the former matches the latter in winning RG and a clay Masters, then we might compare.

Thiem isn't even stronger than Murray (conspicuously absent from your list) who made an RG final and won TWO clay Masters beating Nadal in one of them.

Depending on the value you give to RG finals vs Masters titles, some might consider making 2 RG finals and several Masters finals (Thiem) better. There are some who still debate Federer against Djokovic on clay after all with 3 less Masters and only 1 more RG final.

You might be right for now, but Thiem on clay is almost certain to pass both Agassi on grass and Murray on clay.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Hilarious thread, especially since it's so UNBIASED, the user's name being so NEUTRAL and exuding OBJECTIVITY.

Aside from the fact that the comparison is idiotic, aside from the fact that Sampras won 7 to Rafa's 12 (and maybe even more), let's consider the fact that Sampras didn't even have to play much tennis but won most his points with the serve. Let's also consider that he had only 2 or 3 serious contenders for each Wimby title that he won, at the most. So it's not as if he had to play 5 grass experts on the way to each trophy.

Next up: "Why Sampras is better than Big 3 combined - because I say so".

 

[Krish0608]

Nobody on any surface is greater than Nadal on clay.

 

[RS]

I have in very high steem Thiem, so I consider his level stronger than Murray at RG (he reached more RG finals and has more victories against Nadal on clay). I also consider Thiem stronger on clay in terms of peak level than Federer and the reason is in the backhand. Federer's backhand was too "weak" (in the sense that he relied too much on the slice, which is a defensive shot) so Nadal easily toyed with Federer's backhand at RG, something he can't do with Thiem, because Thiem can hit excellent offensive flat backhands, even against Nadal's moonballs.

Thiem has a stronger power BH which is harder to break down on clay a but Federer was up against a better Nadal at RG for the most part. Federer still has the better serve and forehand.
Not putting Thiem over 2005-2011 Federer on clay just yet.

 

[NatF]

Thiem has a stronger power BH which is harder to break down on clay a but Federer was up against a better Nadal at RG for the most part. Federer still has the better serve and forehand.
Not putting Thiem over 2005-2011 Federer on clay just yet.

It's quite obvious why Sport has been talking up Thiem. Seen him call him equal to Lendl on clay IIRC.

 

[RS]

It's quite obvious why Sport has been talking up Thiem. Seen him call him equal to Lendl on clay IIRC.

Thiem is not at that level yet but Sport made a good point about Thiem have a better clay BH than Federer.
He is still a very good CCer with 4 SF or better performances in the last 4 FOs.

 

[NatF]

Thiem is not at that level yet but Sport made a good point about Thiem have a better clay BH than Federer.
He is still a very good CCer with 4 SF or better performances in the last 4 FOs.

Thiem has yet to win a masters on clay. He's yet to show how his backhand is more effective in his FO meetings.

He's obviously good on the dirt but considering he's what 26 (?) he's done comparatively little on the surface...

 

[quirotkicks]

Thiem has yet to win a masters on clay. He's yet to show how his backhand is more effective in his FO meetings.

He's obviously good on the dirt but considering he's what 26 (?) he's done comparatively little on the surface...

Thiem should absolutely wind up surpassing what Federer and even Djokovic have done on clay. If he does not, then well he is super dissapointing. Since he is coming into his prime at a great time, Nadal winding down, and the fellow up and comers all being at their absolute worst on clay other than maybe Zverev to some extent. If he can't do that then he really is lacking as a semi elite clay courter.

 

[RS]

Thiem has yet to win a masters on clay. He's yet to show how his backhand is more effective in his FO meetings.

He's obviously good on the dirt but considering he's what 26 (?) he's done comparatively little on the surface...

It looks to me that overall Thiem has a better BH drive on average while Federer slicing is much better. I agree with the part about RG mostly it is other parts of Thiem game and Nadal bring him down as well.
Yes Thiem is not yet at Lendl level it is surprising he does not have a master yet on clay.

 

[quirotkicks]

If Nadal wins the next 2 RG titles, which is certainly a strong possability, one has to wonder if Thiem will ever get a RG title.

 

[TennisFan3]

I'm one of the biggest Sampras' fan, and would love to agree with the OP. You can't disregards logic and facts, however.

Nadal at the French Open is the Greatest Achievement in the Greatest Era of Men's tennis. 12 titles at a grand slam is mind boggling and confounding.
It is an improbable feat but somehow still sustained through one and a half decade. Basically IMPOSSIBLE to repeat.

The future generations will endeavor and new records will be set up as the game evolves. But, of this there can be no doubt, no one will EVER match what Nadal has accomplished in Paris.

 

[NatF]

Thiem should absolutely wind up surpassing what Federer and even Djokovic have done on clay. If he does not, then well he is super dissapointing. Since he is coming into his prime at a great time, Nadal winding down, and the fellow up and comers all being at their absolute worst on clay other than maybe Zverev to some extent. If he can't do that then he really is lacking as a semi elite clay courter.

The slow speed at which the #NextGen is taking over threatens to tar them all with the "not good enough" brush if they have to wait until the Big 3 are even more heavily declined.

It looks to me that overall Thiem has a better BH drive on average while Federer slicing is much better. I agree with the part about RG mostly it is other parts of Thiem game and Nadal bring him down as well.
Yes Thiem is not yet at Lendl level it is surprising he does not have a master yet on clay.

Sure Thiem seems more comfortable wailing on high balls on the backhand side, maybe his much deeper court position helps in that regard too - however as I said that's not translate to more success against Nadal at the FO. So either way I don't see how it can be argued he's a superior clay courter to Fed just because he seems to struggle less with high balls to his backhand.

 

[quirotkicks]

The slow speed at which the #NextGen is taking over threatens to tar them all with the "not good enough" brush if they have to wait until the Big 3 are even more heavily declined.

Yeah I was optimistic after the WTF but the Australian Open was not promising even though Thiem and Zverev performed fairly well I guess. If Nadal wins RG I think this is shaping up to be another Big 3 year.

 

[Sport]

Thiem has a stronger power BH which is harder to break down on clay a but Federer was up against a better Nadal at RG for the most part. Federer still has the better serve and forehand.
Not putting Thiem over 2005-2011 Federer on clay just yet.

Yeah, as you correctly point out the scary thing is that we still haven't seen Thiem's full potential, seems like each year he improves a bit.

With regard to your point about facing a better Nadal, I am not sure. The only thing I see better in 2006-2007 Nadal over 2017-2019 Nadal on clay is the velocity. 2006-2007 Nadal was faster. But we must differenciate athletic prime from competitive prime. For instance, 24 years old Federer was in his athletic prime in 2009, bit his competitive prime came from 2016 onwards. In 2016, aged 31, LeBron became the first and only basketball player in history to average the most points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals of both teams in an NBA final. And this season aged 35 LeBron is putting the best numbers of his life, averagong 25 points, 8 rebounds and for the first time in his career 11 assists per game. LeBron is also gong so score over 150 three points in the regular season for the first time in his career. LeBron is right now aged 35 a more complete player than he ever was.


As I salid, 2006-2007 Nadal on clay was a faster player, but 2017-2019 Nadal on clay has a better forehand, backhand, serve, drop-shots and volleys. Especially the volley, he has improved it a lot and now he approaches the net much more frequently. Under the direction of Carlos Moyá, Nadal has become more aggresive and a more complete player. Remember the dichotomy netween athletic prime and competitive prime as LeBron James shows. Nadal was in his athletic prime on clay in 2006-2007, yes, but in 2017-2019 he was in his competitive prime as he was more complete and much better in the shot-making.

 

[quirotkicks]

Yeah, as you correctly point out the scary thing is that we still haven't seen Thiem's full potential, seems like each year he improves a bit.

With regard yo your point abiut facing a better Nadal, I am not sure. The only thing I see better in 2006-2007 Nadal over 2017-2019 Nadal on clay is the velocity. 2006-2007 Nadal was faster. But we must differenciate athletic prime from competitive prime. For instance, 24 years old Federer was in his athletic prime in 2009, bit his competitive prime came from 2016 onwards. In 2016, aged 31, LeBron became the first and only basketball player in history to average the most points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals of both teams in an NBA final. And this season aged 35 LeBron is putting the best numbers of his life, averagong 25 points, 8 rebounds and for the first time in his career 11 assists per game. LeBron is also gong so score over 150 three points in the regular season for the first time in his career. LeBron is right now aged 35 a more complete player than he ever was.


As I salid, 2006-2007 Nadal was faster on clay,but 2017-2019 Nadal on clay has a better forehand, backhand, serve, drop-shots and volleys. Especially the vóley, he has improved it a lot and now he approaches the net much more frequently. Under the direction of Carlos Moyá, Nadal has become more aggresive and a more complete player. Remember the dichotomy netween athletic prime and competitive prime as LeBron James shows. Nadal was in his athletic prime on clay in 2006-2007, yes, but in 2017-2019 he was in his competitive prime as he was more complete and much better in the shot-making.

2017-2019 Nadal does not have a better forehand or backhand, that is ridiculous. That he is now owned badly by an extremely old Federer off of clay, when he used to hold his own against peak of peak Federers even in non clay head to head, shows how much his baseline play has regressed. Along with the fact he is now nothing more than Djokovic's rag doll off of clay. The only area you could argue Nadal being better is volleys and serve, and I would disagree on the serve atleast.

 

[NatF]

Yeah I was optimistic after the WTF but the Australian Open was not promising even though Thiem and Zverev performed fairly well I guess. If Nadal wins RG I think this is shaping up to be another Big 3 year.

I think Djokovic was almost there for the taking at the AO, if Thiem had the two days rest he might have hoisted the trophy considering Djokovic donated two sets - still it would have required one of Novak's worst slam final performances for him to win which says something in itself. I hope Thiem can win the FO finally this year but Nadal is the clear clear favourite until he starts losing regularly there.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Sampras retired aged 31 with 7 Wimbledon titles. Nadal at age 31 already had 10 Roland-Garros titles.

Nadal has always been far more dominant on clay than Sampras on grass.

Exactly. And Sampras has 7 total grass titles, Rafa has 59 clay titles!

 

[Sport]

2017-2019 Nadal does not have a better forehand or backhand, that is ridiculous. That he is now owned badly by an extremely old Federer off of clay, when he used to hold his own against peak of peak Federers even in non clay head to head, shows how much his baseline play has regressed. Along with the fact he is now nothing more than Djokovic's rag doll off of clay. The only area you could argue Nadal being better is volleys and serve, and I would disagree on the serve atleast.

2006-2007 Nadal did not have an equally good forehand or backhand, that is ridiculous. I never denied his decline in velocity, but because clay is the slowest surface, his improvement in forehand, backhand, serve, drop-shots and volleys make him a more complete player on clay. He doesn't need his absolute peak velocity to reach defensive balls in a slower surface like RG. In faster surfaces like the AO or WB he does need that extra velocity. And at the USO, Nadal is also much better in 2017-2019 than 2006-2007 but we are discussing clay so let us stay on the topic.

 

[killerboss]

Pete is on the same level if not better on grass than Nadal on clay for sure, but I must point out that it's only Federer and Djokovic's worst slam because Nadal kept beating them there. They would both be considered clay-court legends if not for an actual legend stopping them.

 

[NatF]

2006-2007 Nadal did not have an equally good forehand or backhand, that is ridiculous. I never denied his decline in velocity, but because clay is the slowest surface, his improvement in forehand, backhand, serve, drop-shots and volleys make him a more complete player. He doesn't need his absolute peak velocity to reach defensive bald in a slower surfave like RG. In faster surfaces like the AO or WB he does need it. And at the USO, Nadal is also much better in 2017-2019 than 2006-2007 but we are discussing clay so let us stay on the topic.

Indeed Nadal's improved forehand is especially prevalent in his recent matches with Federer.

 

[Sport]

Indeed Nadal's improved forehand is especially prevalent in his recent matches with Federer.

Yes, I saw it at RG 2019. I am discussing clay especifically, which is the slowest surface and Nadal doesn't need peak velocity to reach most defensive balls. On clay his all-around shot-making improvements compensate his velocity decline, something that doesn't occur on faster surfaces.

 

[NatF]

Yes, I saw it at RG 2019.

Back in good old days Rafa didn't need clay and a windy day to dictate to the Federer backhand

 

[Sport]

Back in good old days Rafa didn't need clay and a windy day to dictate to the Federer backhand

Because he was faster, but his forehand was worse. So on faster surfaces like the AO or WB he was a better player, as he could defend better. RG is played on clay, the slowest surface, and Nadal doesn't need his peak velocity to reach most defensive balls. So on clay Nadal's overall shot-making improvements compensate his velocity decline and make him a more complete player. And the wind excuse was unnecessary.

 

[Mainad]

Depending on the value you give to RG finals vs Masters titles, some might consider making 2 RG finals and several Masters finals (Thiem) better. There are some who still debate Federer against Djokovic on clay after all with 3 less Masters and only 1 more RG final.

Well, I'm biased in favour of results. Making finals is fine but winning them is even better.

You might be right for now, but Thiem on clay is almost certain to pass both Agassi on grass and Murray on clay.

I'll look forward to seeing that.

 

[NatF]

Because he was faster, but his forehand was worse. So on faster surfaces like the AO or WB he was a better player, as he could defend better. RG is played on clay, the slowest surface, and Nadal doesn't need his peak velocity to reach most defensive balls. So on clay Nadal's overall shot-making improvements compensate his velocity decline and make him a more complete player. And the wind excuse was unnecessary.

I'm not talking about reaching balls but what he does with them when he gets there. Movement is important on every surface, you're saying that Nadal has better first strikes than ever but is worse on the surfaces that have traditionally rewarded that kind of aggression? Newsflash for you, Nadal's forehand has always been incredible lol. I watched his 2005 SF Miami SF against Ferrer not too long ago and he was averaging 80 mph off both wings in that match - which is damn fast. He's always had big shots. He's changed up his patterns of play to cover his declining movement and so as to not be predictable but it's certainly not clear that he has a better forehand now than before.

And that wasn't an excuse it was sarcasm

 

[BHud]

Sampras retired aged 31 with 7 Wimbledon titles. Nadal at age 31 already had 10 Roland-Garros titles.

Nadal has always been far more dominant on clay than Sampras on grass.

Why...because you say so?

 

[vex]

In the 90s grass court tennis was so strong. Winning 7 Wimbledon’s in 8 years in the 1990s against that grass field is one of the all time greatest achievements in sports history. Never mind tennis history. Nadal has racked up 12 French opens by playing no clay court specialists or clay court monsters. Sampras has round after round pressure of an upset on super fast grass against some of the biggest servers ever. Nadal didn’t have any musters, Brugueras, couriers, corretjas, Kuertens,
Sampras 7 Wimbledon’s in a better record that nadals 12 French opens.


sampras opposition
ATG players
Agassi
courier
Becker
Edberg
Stich
Rafter

Grass court big serving monsters
Ivanišević
Krajicek
Philippoussis
Rusedski

Good grass court players
Pioline
Henman
Martin

who were nadals strongest opposition at the French?
djokovic and Federer and it’s both there worst surface by a distance!
Next gen mental midget Thiem?
David Ferrer? Bang average
Puerta? Terrible

By the way I admit that 90s grass court tennis on the whole wasn’t the best to watch. There were still serval classic matches but in general it was hard to watch. But that’s just the way it was and petes domination shouldn’t be counted against him.

Opposition level has no correlation to the subject player’s level. They are totally independent factors so this thread is super dumb

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Opposition level has no correlation to the subject player’s level. They are totally independent factors so this thread is super dumb

If opposition level has no correlation to a certain players level what does have?

 

[vex]

If opposition level has no correlation to a certain players level what does have?

The level of the player himself? What else is there?

Rodger Federer with his FH locked in hits a FH of a certain level. Whether the guy on the other side of the net is Novak Djokovic or some 3.0 from the local rec league has no bearing on the quality of Rodger Federer.
A great player is a great player regardless of who is on the other side of the net. They don’t suddenly forget how to play tennis if their opponent isn’t as good as last week. Conversely a good opponent does not make a player’s level any better. Thier level is what it is.

 

[RS]

Yeah, as you correctly point out the scary thing is that we still haven't seen Thiem's full potential, seems like each year he improves a bit.

With regard to your point about facing a better Nadal, I am not sure. The only thing I see better in 2006-2007 Nadal over 2017-2019 Nadal on clay is the velocity. 2006-2007 Nadal was faster. But we must differenciate athletic prime from competitive prime. For instance, 24 years old Federer was in his athletic prime in 2009, bit his competitive prime came from 2016 onwards. In 2016, aged 31, LeBron became the first and only basketball player in history to average the most points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals of both teams in an NBA final. And this season aged 35 LeBron is putting the best numbers of his life, averagong 25 points, 8 rebounds and for the first time in his career 11 assists per game. LeBron is also gong so score over 150 three points in the regular season for the first time in his career. LeBron is right now aged 35 a more complete player than he ever was.


As I salid, 2006-2007 Nadal on clay was a faster player, but 2017-2019 Nadal on clay has a better forehand, backhand, serve, drop-shots and volleys. Especially the volley, he has improved it a lot and now he approaches the net much more frequently. Under the direction of Carlos Moyá, Nadal has become more aggresive and a more complete player. Remember the dichotomy netween athletic prime and competitive prime as LeBron James shows. Nadal was in his athletic prime on clay in 2006-2007, yes, but in 2017-2019 he was in his competitive prime as he was more complete and much better in the shot-making.

2019 Nadal played very well at Rome/RG probably prime level. 2017 RG was certainly peak level. 2018 was good but with some early struggles and luck on his side. I agree about the angles with the backhand and volleys but i think the forehand and returning is weaker and picking up the slice. I do not follow basketball really so i cannot speak about that.
I agree Nadal has made some great changes to his game but he was something like 107-3 on clay in 2005-07.