Sampras vs Nadal

[Flash O'Groove]

On clay there is no discussion. Sampras would never beat Nadal.

On the other surfaces, it's tougher. I think on the old, faster, lower bouncing surfaces, Sampras would win most of the matches, relatively easily.
But on the current slower higher bouncing grass and HC, it would be far more close. I think Nadal is a match for any other all time great on these surfaces when he can play at his highest level. The thing is, he hasn't been able to play at this level very often. So I guess Sampras would win the majority of the matches, as he is better than Nadal at bringing his top level on these surfaces.

 

[Devilito]

On clay there is no discussion. XXXXXX would never beat Nadal

someone forgot to tell Robin Soderling that

 

[Devilito]

It is hilarious how people don't realize that S & V is gone from tennis for a reason. People are just too fast and too good at passing and returning now.

And yet, you are trying to say that Sampras would beat one of the greatest(if not the greatest) defenders of all time? ( Because of people like Rafa people like Sampras stopped S & V-ing)

He'll win some matches when Rafas knee is bothering him but overall Rafa should win 80% of the encounters.

And no, I am not dismissing the past greats. It's just that during Rogers era tennis became so much greater, he pushed everyone to become better tennis players. Even Novak said the same thing couple of years ago.

that's like saying i'm going to go back in time and defeat the Roman army because I can bring back 50 cal machine guns, Vulcan cannons and tanks. The reason Nadal is so good is because of all the factors in todays game. Surfaces, opposition, racquets, strings, nutritional science etc. If Nadal went back in time to 1920 and played Bill Tilden on 20s grass with 20s racquets, strings, shoes, etc. he wouldn't win a game.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

someone forgot to tell Robin Soderling that

All right, never is not a word to use in tennis, but you get the idea. We know what Nadal have been able to do to Djokovic and Federer on clay, who have a better clay game than Sampras. We also know what a lot of guys who don't have Nadal's clay abilities have done to Sampras.

 

[Smasher08]

It is hilarious how people don't realize that S & V is gone from tennis for a reason. People are just too fast and too good at passing and returning now.

It's actually less that and more to do with the fact that court surfaces (except for clay) have been slowed since the late 90s. Add in the point you allude to about the extra spin of poly strings, and yes, it's tough to find it in top tier singles anymore.

However, most recently Stakhovsky proved that on a fast surface S&V still works beautifully. S&V is also still de rigeur in doubles, but that has more to do with high percentage strategies on the larger doubles court.

Given all the early upsets at this year's Wimbledon, I wonder if we'll see a lot more of S&V in the first few rounds at next year's SW19.

It's definitely dwindled, but I'd argue that stories of its extinction are premature.

 

[Devilito]

All right, never is not a word to use in tennis, but you get the idea. We know what Nadal have been able to do to Djokovic and Federer on clay, who have a better clay game than Sampras. We also know what a lot of guys who don't have Nadal's clay abilities have done to Sampras.

From another thread... Between 1990-1998, Sampras had a "fairly" strong clay-court record. His clay-court record, (62-24), during that period was the 4th best.

Only Muster (277-69), Bruguera (205-65), and Courier (74-25) managed to do better. You will notice that Pete's record on clay is overall superior to Agassi!!

Not to mention he has wins over Muster at the French, Bruguera and Courier. He wasn't some chump flopping around on clay like a fish out of water

 

[Incognito]

It's actually less that and more to do with the fact that court surfaces (except for clay) have been slowed since the late 90s. Add in the point you allude to about the extra spin of poly strings, and yes, it's tough to find it in top tier singles anymore.

However, most recently Stakhovsky proved that on a fast surface S&V still works beautifully. S&V is also still de rigeur in doubles, but that has more to do with high percentage strategies on the larger doubles court.

Given all the early upsets at this year's Wimbledon, I wonder if we'll see a lot more of S&V in the first few rounds at next year's SW19.

It's definitely dwindled, but I'd argue that stories of its extinction are premature.

what he has proven is that Roger played like cr@p, nothing else lol.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

It's actually less that and more to do with the fact that court surfaces (except for clay) have been slowed since the late 90s. Add in the point you allude to about the extra spin of poly strings, and yes, it's tough to find it in top tier singles anymore.

However, most recently Stakhovsky proved that on a fast surface S&V still works beautifully. S&V is also still de rigeur in doubles, but that has more to do with high percentage strategies on the larger doubles court.

Given all the early upsets at this year's Wimbledon, I wonder if we'll see a lot more of S&V in the first few rounds at next year's SW19.

It's definitely dwindled, but I'd argue that stories of its extinction are premature.

I don't think that Stakhovsky really provided a good argument for S&V. Yes he was able to beat one of the greatest wimbledon player, but he lost in the next round, because he wasn't able to replicate the performance. And you have to be able to do that to win slams.

Howeither, maybe some lower ranked player who don't have any shot at big tournament could use it more.

 

[buscemi]

I don't think that Stakhovsky really provided a good argument for S&V. Yes he was able to beat one of the greatest wimbledon player, but he lost in the next round, because he wasn't able to replicate the performance. And you have to be able to do that to win slams.

Howeither, maybe some lower ranked player who don't have any shot at big tournament could use it more.

I just fail to see any evidence that a true serve & volley player couldn't succeed in today's game. Who's the main serve & volley player of this generation? Michael Llorda. Career high ranking of #21. 5 titles. Career best finishes at the Majors: AO: 3R; French: 4R; Wimbledon: 4R; U.S. Open: 4R.

How do you think that Llorda would have fared in he 1980s-1990s? I see him as possessing a similar talent level as Derrick Rostagno. Career high ranking of #13. 1 title. Best finishes at Majors: AO: 4R; French: 3R; Wimbledon: 4R; U.S. Open QF.

Again, up until fairly recently, Henman and Bjorkman were having good success with the serve & volley game. Is the game that different from when Bjorkman made the Wimbledon SF in 2006?

 

[bjsnider]

Current conditions are adjusted towards Nadal's game.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I just fail to see any evidence that a true serve & volley player couldn't succeed in today's game. Who's the main serve & volley player of this generation? Michael Llorda. Career high ranking of #21. 5 titles. Career best finishes at the Majors: AO: 3R; French: 4R; Wimbledon: 4R; U.S. Open: 4R.

How do you think that Llorda would have fared in he 1980s-1990s? I see him as possessing a similar talent level as Derrick Rostagno. Career high ranking of #13. 1 title. Best finishes at Majors: AO: 4R; French: 3R; Wimbledon: 4R; U.S. Open QF.

Again, up until fairly recently, Henman and Bjorkman were having good success with the serve & volley game. Is the game that different from when Bjorkman made the Wimbledon SF in 2006?

The evidence is staring and glaring right in front of you. Your choice to accept or not.

These are PRO's. They play tennis for a living and make money by winning matches and tournaments. If anything at all helps them win more, they would be more than eager to incorporate . S&V isnt suited for present day conditions. beyond an occassionall surprise or change up factor,isnt enough to win slams.

Regardless, even if we have the best S&V (Sampras is a good one) , he isnt going to win on clay against Nadal in current conditions.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

someone forgot to tell Robin Soderling that

Sure. but Sampras is no Soderling as far as Clay goes. Sampras never made it to FO finals while Soderling made it twice.

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras fans delusional as usual, proclaiming his success vs Nadal on any surface today....

 

[DeShaun]

At net Pete's head, I think, would be swiveling too often against Rafa. Watch these 2001 USO final highlights. Pete must have been off his game on that day. His serve looks to have been landing short. And how much better was Hewitt playing than Rafa is know for? Not much, I guess; although, Hewitt was returning from out of this world, it looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=396qtU_GcnA

 

[buscemi]

At net Pete's head, I think, would be swiveling too often against Rafa. Watch these 2001 USO final highlights. Pete must have been off his game on that day. His serve looks to have been landing short. And how much better was Hewitt playing than Rafa is know for? Not much, I guess; although, Hewitt was returning from out of this world, it looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=396qtU_GcnA

Sampras won ZERO titles in 2001. After the U.S. Open, he lost to Max Mirnyi, 6-4, 6-2, in Stuttgart and shut things down for the year. Earlier in the summer, her lost to Alberto Martin, 6-4, 6-4 in Cincinnati. In Scottsdale, he lost to Andrew Illie. In Memphis, he lost to Chris Woodruff. At the Australian Open, he lost to Todd Martin (who was then #54), 6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4. Pete was nowhere near his PEAK.

 

[DunlopDood]

We all saw what what aggressive fast court players can do against Nadal. Losing to Rosol and Darcis to years in a row :/ Sampras would have him for breakfast on a 90's grass court!

 

[6-3 6-0]

We all saw what what aggressive fast court players can do against Nadal. Losing to Rosol and Darcis to years in a row :/ Sampras would have him for breakfast on a 90's grass court!

You're speaking of RNadal who is not anymore the beast he used to be. C'mon, he made 5 finals in a row (except for Wimbledon 2009 where he opted not to participate). This guy HAS the grass game, and I seriously doubt if PSampras would've beaten EASILY (just like some of you think) on grass post 2001/2002 (whenever they changed the grass, not sure of the date lol). If he could beat the 5 time defending champion, he could certainly beat PSampras on THAT day.

 

[abmk]

Double post

 

[abmk]

At net Pete's head, I think, would be swiveling too often against Rafa. Watch these 2001 USO final highlights. Pete must have been off his game on that day. His serve looks to have been landing short. And how much better was Hewitt playing than Rafa is know for? Not much, I guess; although, Hewitt was returning from out of this world, it looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=396qtU_GcnA

Pete was spent after the prev 3 rounds. But hewitt in that form would still have beaten him imo. The returning in that final from Hewitt is up there amongst the best returning performances ever. Rafa doesn't come close

Hewitt at his peak was a nightmare for Snvers

 

[Smasher08]

You're speaking of RNadal who is not anymore the beast he used to be. C'mon, he made 5 finals in a row (except for Wimbledon 2009 where he opted not to participate). This guy HAS the grass game, and I seriously doubt if PSampras would've beaten EASILY (just like some of you think) on grass post 2001/2002 (whenever they changed the grass, not sure of the date lol). If he could beat the 5 time defending champion, he could certainly beat PSampras on THAT day.

Don't forget, PSampras has a much bigger serve than RFederer. At the upper end, high 130s on his first serve. And equally unreadable. That necessarily translates into a lot more free points even though Pistol's BH was weaker than Sexi's.

The other thing to remember is that Centre Court slows down progressively during the tournament as the grass gets increasing worn down into dirt. Had RNadal met Fred in the first week or the quarters of 2008, more than likely a different story and different outcome.

And had they met on pre-2002 grass, they may not have met at all since I highly doubt RNadal would ever have made it past the quarters.

 

[Eragon]

This is, admittedly, a difficult question to answer. I'll try to use facts to be as objective as I can. Here's how I will go about this:

I know the OP is more interested in peak-to-peak results but I'm going to be able to make a more reasonable analysis considering and comparing their best 6-year stretches, year-by-year. Sampras's was definitely from 1993-1998, the years he ended #1 (coincidentally or not). Nadal's is tougher to choose but I'm gonna say it's from Wimbledon, 2006, to the FO, 2012.



Australian Open

First things first, this surface and conditions would definitely favor Nadal. Extremely slow and high-bouncing, which more or less negates all of Sampras's weapons and augments Nadal's. But it has to be said that Sampras is the more natural mover on Hardcourts, which is Nadal's worst surface. And while Sampras is the more decorated AO Champion, his titles were on Rebound Ace, which was more to Sampras's liking than the current Plexicushion would be. Not to mention, Sampras won both his titles without Agassi, the premier AO-player of his time, in the draw. This is significant. Nadal, on the other hand, had to beat Federer to win his sole title there and came painfully close to beating Djokovic for another, both of whom are two of the top three AO players ever. That being said, here are my predictions.
1993 versus 2007 - Nadal
1994 versus 2008 - Sampras
1995 versus 2009 - Nadal
1996 versus 2010 - Nadal
1997 versus 2011 - Sampras
1998 versus 2012 - Nadal

So overall head-to-head at the AO: 4-2 to Nadal, IMO.

 

[Eragon]

French Open

No-brainer. 6-0 to Nadal.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Don't forget, PSampras has a much bigger serve than RFederer. At the upper end, high 130s on his first serve. And equally unreadable. That necessarily translates into a lot more free points even though Pistol's BH was weaker than Sexi's.

The other thing to remember is that Centre Court slows down progressively during the tournament as the grass gets increasing worn down into dirt. Had RNadal met Fred in the first week or the quarters of 2008, more than likely a different story and different outcome.

And had they met on pre-2002 grass, they may not have met at all since I highly doubt RNadal would ever have made it past the quarters.

I know that and I assumed if they met in the final only. I won't comment about the first week yet because you know why
Also RFederer's FH (rather his baseline game) in prime is much better than PSampras.

 

[Eragon]

Wimbledon

This is tough. Not least because the surface on the first day is nowhere near the same as on Final's day. Not to mention, Sampras and Nadal played on different kinds of Grass. But I'll try to keep it simple.

Fresh Grass, as on the first day of Wimbledon: 6-0 to Sampras.

Worn-out Grass, as on Final's day:
Sampras would still be a top-notch mover, but his S&V would be less effective than back in the 90s. Nadal, as evident, moves great and the worn-out grass favors his game significantly. Unlike at the AO and the FO, I'm not sure who the surface favors at Final's-day-Wimbledon. But it's safe to say Sampras would be less successful than in the 90s and Nadal would be more successful against Sampras than he was against Federer at Wimbledon.

1993 versus 2006- Sampras
1994 versus 2007- Nadal
1995 versus 2008- Nadal
1996 versus 2009- Sampras
1997 versus 2010- Nadal
1998 versus 2011- Nadal

So, on worn-out Grass, it's 4-2 to Nadal.

 

[Eragon]

US Open

Probably the most straight-forward after the FO. Surface favors Sampras, although it is slower than it used to be.

1993 versus 2006- Sampras
1994 versus 2007- Nadal
1995 versus 2008- Sampras
1996 versus 2009- Sampras
1997 versus 2010- Nadal
1998 versus 2011- Sampras

USO: 4-2 to Sampras

 

[Eragon]

So, the overall head-to-head is 16-8 to Nadal.

If they happen to play their 6 Wimbledon matches on Fresh Grass, the head-to-head would be an even 12-12.

 

[Omega_7000]

So basically Nadal would not hold water to Sampras if the AO surface was still rebound ace?

If Nadal was playing on faster surfaces, Sampras would destroy him according to the replies I see here.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

So basically Nadal would not hold water to Sampras if the AO surface was still rebound ace?

If Nadal was playing on faster surfaces, Sampras would destroy him according to the replies I see here.

Per some replies here....

Irrespective of surfaces

Sampras would Triple bagel Nadal at WO and USO.
Sampras would double bagel & Bread stick Nadal at AO.
Sampras would serve a Bagel and two bread sticks to Nadal at FO.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

We all saw what what aggressive fast court players can do against Nadal. Losing to Rosol and Darcis to years in a row :/ Sampras would have him for breakfast on a 90's grass court!

We all saw what George Bastl like players can do against Sampras. Nadal would have him for breakfast/lunch/dinner and then some in current conditions.

{no i dont mean above post seriously..}

 

[pjonesy]

It's not just who has won more...It's also about match-ups. Federer obviously struggles against Nadal's forehand to his backhand. Would Pete's S&V counter this or would he be passed everytime?

Although Sampras was stubborn, in regard to game plans and strategy, he wasn't as stubborn as Roger. Sampras would find a way to rush Nadal on returns. We have to consider that peak Sampras would serve harder and with more spin now, than he did 10 to 15 years ago. Plus, it's the SAMPRAS serve!! He would move the ball around the box enough to make Rafa's head spin. Rafa needs time to set up and Sampras would not give him that on a fast court.

Sampras would make the 1st volley his priority in a match with Nadal. Sampras is a power player 1st and he never worked the court geometry in the way McEnroe did, but he did have some of those elements in his game. Sampras would show Nadal some different looks and would try to force him to play out of his comfort zone.

Yes, it would be interesting to see if Pete could handle the barrage of topspin from Nadal. Nadal would work that forehand into Pete's backhand, for sure. But the Sampras crosscourt forehand vs the Nadal crosscourt backhand might be the battle to watch.

 

[DeShaun]

Sampras won ZERO titles in 2001. After the U.S. Open, he lost to Max Mirnyi, 6-4, 6-2, in Stuttgart and shut things down for the year. Earlier in the summer, her lost to Alberto Martin, 6-4, 6-4 in Cincinnati. In Scottsdale, he lost to Andrew Illie. In Memphis, he lost to Chris Woodruff. At the Australian Open, he lost to Todd Martin (who was then #54), 6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4. Pete was nowhere near his PEAK.

Yeah, but he had a pretty good record in finals, didn't he? Kind of like Rafa; if they reach a final, they tend to find a way to win. Or, maybe I misunderstand. Oh well.

 

[Manus Domini]

Current conditions/speeds/etc.? Probably Nadal all four, simply because Sampras' backhand is not as good as Fed's, and Nadal'd abuse that weakness like there's no tomorrow.

 

[buscemi]

Yeah, but he had a pretty good record in finals, didn't he? Kind of like Rafa; if they reach a final, they tend to find a way to win. Or, maybe I misunderstand. Oh well.

For his career, yes, Pete was excellent in finals. In 2001, not so much. He was 0-4 in finals

 

[Omega_7000]

HUGE advantage to Pete. Hes simply a nightmare matchup for Rafa. Supreme Net game mixed with GOAT serving, flat hitting and chip and charge and most important MENTAL TOUGHNESS and clutchness. Nadal would never find a consistent comfort zone

So looks like majority here think Nadal would whoop your boy at AO & FO.

It doesn't look like Supreme Net game mixed with GOAT serving, flat hitting, chip and charge, MENTAL TOUGHNESS and clutchness is enough to beat Nadal at AO and FO.

FO is so one-sided, it's not even funny. :-?

 

[Eragon]

HUGE advantage to Pete. Hes simply a nightmare matchup for Rafa. Supreme Net game mixed with GOAT serving, flat hitting and chip and charge and most important MENTAL TOUGHNESS and clutchness. Nadal would never find a consistent comfort zone

Nadal would also be the chief rival to Pete, and we know for certain prime Sampras almost NEVER bowed to a chief rival during his prime years. He raised his game to heights even further (unlike Roger could do vs.his main rival). Nadal just isn't as good on hard courts, his peak for grass was great but Pete's was MILES better.

Wow... this guy Sampras... seems like a God :shock: How many French Open titles did he win? How many times did he beat Agassi at the Australian Open? Did he ever win the Australian Open with Agassi in the draw?

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Wow... this guy Sampras... seems like a God :shock: How many French Open titles did he win? How many times did he beat Agassi at the Australian Open? Did he ever win the Australian Open with Agassi in the draw?

Yes..it is shocking..must be some sort of conspiracy. ATP website says that he lost 222 matches during his career. I have to believe it must be inaccurate.


I dont think him winning or not winning against Agassi is a major factor.

 

[helloworld]

We all saw what George Bastl like players can do against Sampras. Nadal would have him for breakfast/lunch/dinner and then some in current conditions.

{no i dont mean above post seriously..}

We also saw what Rosol and Darcis like players can do to peak Nadal on grass. :lol:

 

[Death Master]

who is Sampras?

 

[Omega_7000]

Yes..it is shocking..must be some sort of conspiracy. ATP website says that he lost 222 matches during his career. I have to believe it must be inaccurate.


I dont think him winning or not winning against Agassi is a major factor.

What? 222 times some players were able to overcome GOAT serving, flat hitting, chip and charge, MENTAL TOUGHNESS and clutchness? :shock:

 

[90's Clay]

So looks like majority here think Nadal would whoop your boy at AO & FO.

It doesn't look like Supreme Net game mixed with GOAT serving, flat hitting, chip and charge, MENTAL TOUGHNESS and clutchness is enough to beat Nadal at AO and FO.

FO is so one-sided, it's not even funny. :-?

Yea.... Nadal and his ONE Australian Open title. (which is less than Pete's) would totally whoop on Sampras in Australian hahah.

Newsflash.. Nadal aint Agassi on hardcourts. He can't control the point like Agassi, he can't return serves like Agassi, he can't dictate like Agassi can on hard courts and he stands too far back and relies on those LOOPY shots. Sampras would just chip and charge on him all day and serve up an acefest. Its SUICIDE to stand back as far as Nadal does vs. Sampras on any hards and grass

Agassi has more hardcourt slams just in Australia ALONE than Nadal does between the Australian and USO

I love all this CLUELESS hype that people are giving Nadal in Australia and Flushing. Since when did this guy become a slow hardcourt god with his TWO career hardcourt slams?? News to me..


I think people need to beam back down to reality here. Nadal is very good on hard courts, but hes never been great nor even came close to excelling on the surface. The two hardcourt slams for his entire career bare this out.

But now all of a sudden we are putting him in a category with hardcourt GOATS like Sampras/Federer/Agassi?? AYyeee

 

[Death Master]

Samproids keep coming out of the wood work to worship their god.

folks that dude was a single trick pony. single dimensional and single trick.

nadal, nole, roger, and murray would abuse him on all surfaces.

 

[Eragon]

Yea.... Nadal and his ONE Australian Open title. (which is less than Pete's) would totally whoop on Sampras in Australian hahah.

Newsflash.. Nadal aint Agassi on hardcourts. He can't control the point like Agassi, he can't return serves like Agassi, he can't dictate like Agassi can on hard courts and he stands too far back and relies on those LOOPY shots. Sampras would just chip and charge on him all day and serve up an acefest. Its SUICIDE to stand back as far as Nadal does vs. Sampras on any hards and grass

Agassi has more hardcourt slams just in Australia ALONE than Nadal does between the Australian and USO

I love all this CLUELESS hype that people are giving Nadal in Australia and Flushing. Since when did this guy become a slow hardcourt god with his TWO career hardcourt slams?? News to me..


I think people need to beam back down to reality here. Nadal is very good on hard courts, but hes never been great nor even came close to excelling on the surface. The two hardcourt slams for his entire career bare this out.

But now all of a sudden we are putting him in a category with hardcourt GOATS like Sampras/Federer/Agassi?? AYyeee

Nadal had to beat Federer for his Australian Open title and lost his other final to Djokovic, the probable AO GOAT. Sampras, on the other hand, never beat Agassi at the Australian Open. What's more, he won both his titles there when Agassi was not even in the draw :shock: LOL!

 

[topher]

I voted a split in the obvious slams. It's impossible to predict hypothetical matchups, of course, but I really would've liked to see their matches. Would they be one-sided affairs based soley on the surface they were playing? I don't know, somehow I think that this rivalry would've been much more competitive and exciting than people would think, with an awesome contrast of styles (the best offensive game vs. the best defensive).

And just like I believe Nadal would've adjusted his game to compete in a more fast court, big-hitting playing field like Sampras', I'm sure Pete would've adjusted his game to compete in today's athletic, grinding environment.

 

[Eragon]

What? 222 times some players were able to overcome GOAT serving, flat hitting, chip and charge, MENTAL TOUGHNESS and clutchness? :shock:

:lol: Well done.

 

[Eragon]

I dont think him winning or not winning against Agassi is a major factor.

I don't think it is, either. But I've seen this guy 90's Clay claim that Federer lucked out in 2009 because he didn't face Nadal at RG. I'm just turning his logic against him, as I do best

 

[Clarky21]

Yea.... Nadal and his ONE Australian Open title. (which is less than Pete's) would totally whoop on Sampras in Australian hahah.

Newsflash.. Nadal aint Agassi on hardcourts. He can't control the point like Agassi, he can't return serves like Agassi, he can't dictate like Agassi can on hard courts and he stands too far back and relies on those LOOPY shots. Sampras would just chip and charge on him all day and serve up an acefest. Its SUICIDE to stand back as far as Nadal does vs. Sampras on any hards and grass

Agassi has more hardcourt slams just in Australia ALONE than Nadal does between the Australian and USO

I love all this CLUELESS hype that people are giving Nadal in Australia and Flushing. Since when did this guy become a slow hardcourt god with his TWO career hardcourt slams?? News to me..


I think people need to beam back down to reality here. Nadal is very good on hard courts, but hes never been great nor even came close to excelling on the surface. The two hardcourt slams for his entire career bare this out.

But now all of a sudden we are putting him in a category with hardcourt GOATS like Sampras/Federer/Agassi?? AYyeee

But you think Pete, with his zero RG titles(or even a final there), would beat a guy who has won the title 8 times, and is the best clay court player to ever live. Which do you think has a better chance of happening; Nadal beating Pete at the AO, a tournament Nadal has proven he can win, or Pete beating Nadal at RG, a tournament where Pete was pathetic throughout his entire career?

 

[monfed]

Didn't Pete beat Muster on clay? I think we must take into account that Ralph won't have his 105 sq inch Babolauncher in the 90s which translates to lesser topspin so I think Pete's got a chance against Ralph with the existing technology in the 90s.

But in this era? No ****ing way! :lol:

 

[1477aces]

I think nadal would have had the same match up edge he had against Federer. But Sampras was the better player at all the slams except for the French obviously.

 

[Clarky21]

Didn't Pete beat Muster on clay? I think we must take into account that Ralph won't have his 105 sq inch Babolauncher in the 90s which translates to lesser topspin so I think Pete's got a chance against Ralph with the existing technology in the 90s.

But in this era? No ****ing way! :lol:

Nadal is better than Muster, so that analogy doesn't fly, Montroll. Pete ain't beating a healthy Nadal on clay. No way, no how.

 

[chatt_town]

Sampras AO

Nadal FO

Sampras WO

Sampras US Open

I just think Pete would serve his way through on the hard surfaces and Nadal wouldn't have as much of a chance to pound Pete's backhand with high balls.