Do you remember that Pete won the Italian Open in 1994? I didn't think so.
He did pretty well on red clay playing Davis Cup, too.
Pete-bashing is so easy to do, isn't it? Too bad American kids learn tennis on hardcourts and not clay.
At least Roger beat Nadal in a claycourt final once. Remember?
was the Italian Open even a master series?
Why rip pete or roger how about Nadal for not winning on any other grand slam. They are all great players. just to win one grand slam in your life is great I am thrilled to win a USTA match
I think not.
I don't think hes pathetic but I think the fact that he only ever made one semi completely rules him out of being one of the greatest of all time....Federer at least has made 3 finals and lost to Nadal of all people....I know there are a lot of Sampras fan boys but realistically its the truth, you have to look beyond the numbers.....compare surfaces, opponents, games, etc
I agree but realistically neither Sampras or Federer is the best ever. A player who can win on all surfaces vs the best like Laver is. Borg's complete dominance on the polar opposites of grass and clay is even more impressive then what Sampras or Federer have done.
ya man..neither did John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, and Boris Becker...what a bunch of pathetic hacks
so we have Mac, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, and Fed not winning the French. If anything, that just illustrates the French is just an anomoly Major, especially considering the number of one time winners and winners who didnt win any of the other Majors nor do well on any other surface
Add Connors to that list too. Still the all-time singles titles leader, but zero FOs to his name.
Meanwhile, most of the FO champs have zero other GS titles - Chang, Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Ferrero, Gaudio, Costa, Nadal, although a few have come through on clay and other surfaces - Lendl, Wilander, Agassi.
Borg's complete dominance on the polar opposites of grass and clay is even more impressive then what Sampras or Federer have done.
not winning a grand slam title is not pathetic but losing a set 6-0 in a grand slam final without putting up a fight is pathetic *
*not my view -- this was the view of the poster who had created that thread
my view is nadal was just too good today.
The reason for that is NOT talent though in neither my opinion nor Robert Landsdorp's, famous archetype of "classic" FLAT champions' strokes like Davenport, Sharapova, Sampras, and Austin.
The reason is because while it's definitely possible to succeed on clay with non-extreme strokes (see guys like Lendl and Wilander who had exceptional athleticism, fitness, court coverage, mental attributes, strategic court sense, and consistency), history has proven that it's virtually impossible to consistently win on fast stuff (meaning anything that's not clay) with extreme strokes. The reason being that extreme grips simply take too much time to get off under pressure or on bad days. Many elite clay courters through the years have shown that on their good days, they can be just as formidable on fast stuff as on the slow stuff. The problem, however, is that they can't maintain that form with any consistency from match to match, simply because if they're even a little off with their timing/movement on any given day, their extreme grips become death traps for them under pressure.
The thing about clay is that, in tennis there are far worse things to complain about than having time to setup all your shots to the best of your ability. As Mac has said about playing on the oversized French center court, on your good days, it's great because you feel like you can just toy with your opponent. On your bad days, it's a sinking feeling. Point being, it's better to feel like you have a chance to hit your shots than to have no time at all. An extreme gripper on the grass of yore, for example, would be comparison be at a *significantly* greater disadvantage on grass than say a net rusher like Rafter or Henman (surprise-surpise, BOTH surprise French semifinalists before proving my point that if even the lowly Henman could do it when he got hot...) on clay.
Ultimately, the bottom-line as Landsdorp says is that the public thinks the elite claycourters have less talent than the great hard court players, but he says that's actually not true. He says that the REALITY of pro tennis is that at the pro level, if you have extreme grips you're only real chance at greatness is on clay, but if you're taught a less extreme, "simpler" technical style you get many more whiffs at glory. Remember, three of the four slams, and the year ending championships, ALL heavily favor more "normal" stroking styles. That's not conjecture, that's fact. I don't care if you're talking a slow or fast hard court, a hard court is still a hard court, and if a flat ball hitter with compact, efficient strokes gets on a roll on a hard court, he's going to have an advantage over the extreme gripper if their BASE level of "natural" talent and athleticism is the same. To me, that's just a fact, plain and simple.
It's why my old coach, who comes from a family of touring pros, used to always drill through my head over and over that there has NEVER been a "legend" type player who used a full western grip. Why? Because, it's too crippling outside of ANYTHING but clay. As I've said many times on here, if there's going to be one TRUE extreme gripper (and btw, Borg does NOT fall into that category) who will break this "insider's secret" rule of tennis, it's going to be Rafa Nadal. Why? Because, Rafa's no ordinary dude! Rafa's a freaking MONSTER. Sometimes when he's at his best, it almost feels like it's the Incredible Hulk out there playing with boys.
Rafa's athleticism, mental toughness, and fitness are all bordering on GOAT territory, which when you think about it is about equivalent to starting every match two breaks up on his opponents. And yet even he, this absolute once-in-a-generation type freak of nature, STILL hasn't won a slam outside clay nor a year-ending masters, AND this mind you with MUCH slower conditions than it used to be. Watch some highlights from the 94 year ending semis, Becker vs. Bruguera, and tell me that if the indoor masters surface was as slow then as it is today, Bruguera wouldn't have had an awful good chance of taking home that year-ending masters.
The point is, that even with the much fairer and more neutral surface conditions of today and with all of his gifts, Nadal has been prone to get in trouble against FLAT ball-strikers with simple, efficient strokes on an "on" day. That's Landsdorp's point. The elite clay courters have shown that when they get hot on faster stuff, they're every bit as talented as the guys we traditionally think of as being transcendent legends of our sport, BUT that their grips make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to *maintain* it. Meaning, that sooner or later, they're going to have an off day and a flat-ball striker an on day, and then they're going to get Yhouzny'd before they get a chance to lift the trophy.
Again, Nadal though is a special bird. If there's one guy who's got the talent, the athleticism, the fitness, the drive, and the mental toughness to overcome the limitations imposed by his grip outside clay; it's going to be Nadal. I really think if not for his grip, his pure talent level and athleticism level and mental toughness level put him in GOAT territory. He's truly THAT special, and there's NO ifs ands or buts about it. If it ends up that Nadal like all the other dominant clay courters through the years can't ever achieve legend status outside just clay, then that will mean UNEQUIVOCALLY that Robert Landsdorp was right all along. That, it's not talent that the elite claycourters have lacked, it's their coaches not having enough sense to tell them that they would be putting a strict CAP on their ultimate career potential by using extreme grips.
Hewitt has a western grip, so does Roddick. But your point probably still stands. I think Nadal is simply too worn out by the time the US Open comes around. Not sure what his deal with at the Aussie, though.The reason for that is NOT talent though in neither my opinion nor Robert Landsdorp's, famous archetype of "classic" FLAT champions' strokes like Davenport, Sharapova, Sampras, and Austin.
...
That, it's not talent that the elite claycourters have lacked, it's their coaches not having enough sense to tell them that they would be putting a strict CAP on their ultimate career potential by using extreme grips.
He's not pathetic but his record at the French should probably disqualify him from the running for GOAT. Clay surface is a huge part of tennis. IMO, performance on clay is more important than grass prowess since way more events are played on it.
How many of the ATP Masters and GS's are played on clay??? 4 out of 14. Less than 30%. That is not a huge part of tennis. Sorry.
The flak Federer gets on this board for losing in the final for 3 years in a row is from memory far worse than what Sampras got for losing in the first week several times. Sampras didn't even make one final.
I think not.
Why rip pete or roger how about Nadal for not winning on any other grand slam. They are all great players. just to win one grand slam in your life is great I am thrilled to win a USTA match
No he isn't but people here don't remember Pete's numerous losses at the FO and on clay in general(to MUCH,much worse players then Nadal) while Fed gets ripped everytime for losing to possibly the greatest claycourter ever because his losses are still fresh in people's minds.
No he isn't but people here don't remember Pete's numerous losses at the FO and on clay in general
The flak Federer gets on this board for losing in the final for 3 years in a row is from memory far worse than what Sampras got for losing in the first week several times. Sampras didn't even make one final.
In Pete's best year at Roland Garros, he lost 7-6, 6-0, 6-2 to Yevgeny Kafelnikov in the French Open semifinals.
I think not.
see above. and what was the state of the internet(& message boards) in the 90s? The slams had very primitive websites until 1998 or so. Sampras would have gotten far more flak in his time if there was actually a way for fans to voice their opinions in his time. I don't think I ever even read a message board until 2002 or so.
I first posted on one in 1999.
The hilarious (and truly, truly ironic) thing is that I spent most of my time defending Pete for:
1. Perceived lack of competition in the men's field from 1993 onwards.
2. His lack of results on clay.
A few people were convinced that Sampras deliberately tanked in the early rounds at the French Open because he wanted to save his energy for Wimbledon.
The argument was that because Pete lost to Kracijek at Wimbledon in 1996 after making it to the semifinals at Roland Garros, he'd obviously made up his mind not to try very hard in Paris.
I pointed out to these people that Sampras lost to Kracijek in a match played over the course of two days in which fatigue didn't seem to be an issue, but no one ever really paid much attention to me.![]()
In Pete's best year at Roland Garros, he lost 7-6, 6-0, 6-2 to Yevgeny Kafelnikov in the French Open semifinals.
He was the favorite in that match and went into it with a 4-1 career h2h edge against Kafelnikov and less than one year removed from beating Kafelnikov in straight sets on clay in the Davis Cup final.
Pete was my favorite player, but Federer is a much, much, much better clay court player with much, much better clay court results.
Sampras was pathetic on clay, that's for sure. He was great on hard and grass because of his serve. Even at AO he struggled and Agassi had the edge over him there.
This is exactly the sort of stuff i'm talking about. Moose is a guy who once told me 'Chang had plenty of power' to backup/win an argument against me. I read his posts with a more discerning approach.
Hewitt has a western grip, so does Roddick. But your point probably still stands. I think Nadal is simply too worn out by the time the US Open comes around. Not sure what his deal with at the Aussie, though.
Roddick for one has the biggest serve since Zeus. Would he have beat Nalbandian or Ferrero with that serve? No WAY. Roddick's serve is as good an equalizer as there is.
From 2006, the last year I could find figures for:How many of the ATP Masters and GS's are played on clay??? 4 out of 14. Less than 30%. That is not a huge part of tennis. Sorry.
That's 66 events total, 23 of them on clay, which is 34.8%, about a third, of all events. That's huge to me. Hard courts accounts for 46.9%.- Number of Tournaments played on hardcourts: 31 (2 Grand Slams)
- Number of Tournaments played on clay: 23 (1 Grand Slam)
- Number of Tournaments played on grass: 6 (1 Grand Slam)
- Number of Tournaments played on carpet: 6
I think Pete's "struggles" at the Australian Open are greatly exaggerated.
During Sampras' most dominant years, 1993-1997, his record at the Australian Open was:
1993: SF
1994: Won
1995: Finals
1996: 3rd Round
1997: Won
In his early round loss in 1996, it's not like Pete struggled because of the surface. He got blasted off the court by a guy (Philippoussis) with an even bigger serve who was firing on all cylinders.
Pete often struggled in the heat, and, as he got older, let's face it, his lack conditioning also did him in. By comparison, Agassi's dedication to fitness in the latter stage of his career meant he always showed up in Australia in top condition.
Anyway, after that victory at the 1997 U.S. Open, the only slam besides Wimbledon that Pete won was the 2002 U.S. Open.