Sampras would beat Nadal at the French Open

Z

Zara

Guest
#51
I think most know that RG wasn't a priority for Sampras, but see it as an unsatisfactory excuse.

Emerson set the record for Sampras, who in turn gave Federer something to chase. If Sampras could've peered into the future, perhaps he wouldn't have retired so early. All these great champions pave the way.

PS, Zara, you're freaking me out.
Eh? you mean Emerson knew of Sampras' was going to come and break his record?
 
Z

Zara

Guest
#54
I think most know that RG wasn't a priority for Sampras, but see it as an unsatisfactory excuse.

Emerson set the record for Sampras, who in turn gave Federer something to chase. If Sampras could've peered into the future, perhaps he wouldn't have retired so early. All these great champions pave the way.

PS, Zara, you're freaking me out.
I forgot to address this - Fedfan, would you please explain this to him? I am not in the mood.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
#60
OH my gaawwwd why do you get me into these back and forths. I was joshing. Your deep and genuine concern for me is touching. I am touched.
I just think you need to change your signature. It's no longer funny.
 
#62
The problem with this thread's claim is that it focuses too much on Sampras, while disregarding Nadal's ability and achievements on clay. The man's no average one-or-two-time champion as the FO champs of the 90s were. Beating Nadal on clay during his prime would likely be the single most difficult challenge a player could face in the open era. Beating Borg would probably be a close second.
 
#63
The problem with this thread's claim is that it focuses too much on Sampras, while disregarding Nadal's ability and achievements on clay. The man's no average one-or-two-time champion as the FO champs of the 90s were. Beating Nadal on clay during his prime would likely be the single most difficult challenge a player could face in the open era. Beating Borg would probably be a close second.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
#64
You know what I mean.
But it raises a good question or at least I'd like to know. If Sampras was looking back at Emerson's record then what was Emerson looking at? Was it on his mind that he's going to win a record number of slams? Or was it just spontaneous?
 
Z

Zara

Guest
#65
The problem with this thread's claim is that it focuses too much on Sampras, while disregarding Nadal's ability and achievements on clay. The man's no average one-or-two-time champion as the FO champs of the 90s were. Beating Nadal on clay during his prime would likely be the single most difficult challenge a player could face in the open era. Beating Borg would probably be a close second.
No, he has taken complete consideration of Nadal's background hence the existence of this thread. Any tennis fan would know about Nadal's credential on clay. I am surprised you even question it.
 
#67
But it raises a good question or at least I'd like to know. If Sampras was looking back at Emerson's record then what was Emerson looking at? Was it on his mind that he's going to win a record number of slams? Or was it just spontaneous?
I can't speak for him of course, but it's my general impression that the idea of chasing a Majors record wasn't really much of a thing back then. It's a more modern obsession from the players and fans alike, generally speaking.
 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
#69
Ok, I'll give something to Pete. He did beat all the FO champions in his time; he would; he could. Agreed.

He ain't winning anything against Rafa. Period. Not a single set.

May be few games and if lucky, a tie breaker which he'd lose.
 
#71
I wouldn't do any of that so you're wrong there you POS pathetic troll.

Fed had his openings in 06,07 and 11 but either messed up his BP opportunities at key moments (3rd set 06, all match 07) or was unlucky like 1st set 2011.

Doesn't matter anyway he won his 1 RG and that's all he needed. GOAT.

EDIT: blocked troll. No need to reply to me again pathetic loser
Is it just me or have you become a bit more aggressive just lately KR? :oops:
 

EdMcMush

Professional
#74
I am a proud American, I wear the George Washington edition adidas sneakers, i use the babolat Pure Aero VS stars and Stripes. I even have the flag hanging above my head. But there is no way that samprass would beat Rafa on Clay.
 
#76
I am a proud American, I wear the George Washington edition adidas sneakers, i use the babolat Pure Aero VS stars and Stripes. I even have the flag hanging above my head. But there is no way that samprass would beat Rafa on Clay.
You have a flag permanently attached to your head??? That is awesome.
 
#77
Very thoughtful. He definitely would have had a shot, we will never know, maybe a computer can do a simulated match?

Another side topic question: How many slams would Sampras have won had he played to 35ish like Fed? (Sure this was covered here before but I'm not a regular)
 
#79
Ok, I'll give something to Pete. He did beat all the FO champions in his time; he would; he could. Agreed.

He ain't winning anything against Rafa. Period. Not a single set.

May be few games and if lucky, a tie breaker which he'd lose.
And what makes you say that? Because Nadal has won 9 FOs? Has it ever occurred to you that if Sampras was in this era, Nadal might not have won 9 FOs? He stopped 3 FO winners from winning more FOs in his own era, who is to say he would not have done the same with Rafa? Your problem is, you're just not thinking 4th dimensionally.
 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
#80
And what makes you say that? Because Nadal has won 9 FOs? Has it ever occurred to you that if Sampras was in this era, Nadal might not have won 9 FOs? He stopped 3 FO winners from winning more FOs in his own era, who is to say he would not have done the same with Rafa? Your problem is, you're just not thinking 4th dimensionally.
My reasoning comes as much from the fact that Pete, inspite of all his success against FO champions still couldn't get it done, as that Rafa not only did it in FO but also across every other clay tournament.
 
#81
My reasoning comes as much from the fact that Pete, inspite of all his success against FO champions still couldn't get it done, as that Rafa not only did it in FO but also across every other clay tournament.
The problem Sampras had, he had 2 x 2 FO champions in the one draw before the semis. No one, not even Nadal, has had to contend with that since. And some people are complaining about one half of the IW draw.
 
#85
Yes it's definitely possible in a one off match. He did beat quite a few FO champs afterall. I think Pete would definitely stand a better chance against Djokovic and Federer though. One had to wait until he was out of the way to win it and the other had to wait until Nadal declined to such low levels that even he had the dignity and class not to celebrate when it was all said and done.
Yea theres a chance Pete can catch fire for one match during his clay prime to beat Nadal at the French. He hosts wins over Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Kafelnikov. So he's capable of a big win over Nadal.

Obviously he isn't beating Nadal consistently. But he can beat him one match where everything is clicking for him
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
#86
Yea theres a chance Pete can catch fire for one match during his clay prime to beat Nadal at the French. He hosts wins over Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Kafelnikov. So he's capable of a big win over Nadal.

Obviously he isn't beating Nadal consistently. But he can beat him one match where everything is clicking for him
 
Z

Zara

Guest
#87
I can't speak for him of course, but it's my general impression that the idea of chasing a Majors record wasn't really much of a thing back then. It's a more modern obsession from the players and fans alike, generally speaking.
Then it does suggest that it was Sampras who set the trend and the rest simply followed suit. In other words, he took the game to another level.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
#88
Then it does suggest that it was Sampras who set the trend and the rest simply followed suit. In other words, he took the game to another level.
If by that you mean that Sampras was the first to obsess over legacy rather than love of the game (unlike his supposed hero Rod Laver) then you are correct.
 
#91
You read that right. I said Sampras beats Nadal at the French Open.

Now before any moderator goes and deletes this, please do not. I have put a bit of time into researching stats etc, which I discuss below. This is not a troll thread, I stand by the title of this thread and I have reasons to back it up.

To set the scene: Roland Garros, the final, both players at their peak.

Disclaimer

Now there is an argument to suggest that Nadal has the better record over Sampras at the French Open so some here will be quick to dismiss my post, but this on its own does not mean that Sampras could not and would not beat Nadal at the FO. Whatismore, not only does Sampras beat Nadal at the FO, he beats Nadal using his regular 90s racquet.

There are 10 combined reasons why Sampras would beat Nadal at the French Open.

Reason 1

If I didn’t know any better, and I came to this site to get all the tennis information I needed, I’d instantly assume that Sampras never won a match at the French Open, or on clay for that matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sampras’ match winning percentage at the FO is 65%. So let’s be clear from the outset, Sampras can and did win matches at the French Open. He’s not going to stand at the other end and be paper mache against Nadal.

Reason 2

Putting aside his 65% winning record at the FO for just one moment, focus now on exactly who he beat at the FO, that is, the quality of his wins.

Sampras defeated Muster in the first round of the 1991 FO. Muster won 44 titles in his career, 39 on clay, including the 1995 FO. In their only meeting on clay, at the FO, Sampras beat him. Sampras beat a guy at the French Open who was arguably the greatest clay courter in the 90s. Yet some of you think he can’t play on clay.

Sampras defeated Bruguera in the second round of the 1996 FO. Bruguera won 14 titles in his career, including the 1993 and 1994 FOs. Yet Sampras beats him at the FO. Fact.

Sampras defeated Courier in the QFs of the 1996 FO. Courier won 23 titles in his career, 5 on clay, including the 1991 and 1992 FOs. Yet Sampras beats him at the FO. Fact.

Muster, Bruguera and Courier form the whose who of the FO in Sampras’ era, and yet Sampras beat them all…AT THE FRENCH OPEN. Fact.

So it can be seen, Sampras beat 5 FO champions at the FO, 4 of them in the 1 year.

But it does not end there.

Sampras also beat Kafelnikov and Agassi on clay. Sampras beat Kafelnikov on clay in a critical DC Final rubber in front of a hostile Russian crowd (think Rocky in Rocky 4) and he beat Agassi in Houston on clay in 1992 and in Monte Carlo on clay in 1998. Both Kafelnikov and Agassi are both FO champions.

In effect, Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay in his time. The same could not be said of Nadal. I have Nadal only beating 2 FO winners on clay, but I stand corrected on that stat. Nadal never had to face a whose who at the FO like Sampras did. But it doesn’t matter what Nadal did or did not do, the above stats prove that Sampras is not the clay court mug you all make him out to be and can actually play on clay. Yes clay was not his best surface but he could actually play on that crap. He beat clay’s best of the best on clay during his era and I’m telling you he’d beat clay’s best of the best on clay in the eras since his retirement.

And do not lose sight of, nor underestimate, what Sampras accomplished against Kafelnikov in Russia. Federer fans know all too well what a fanatical Davis Cup crowd can do in getting behind its player in a DC tie. I refer you to the Hewitt versus Federer DC rubber in my home town in 2003. I was not at the match, but I watched it on tv. As much as Melbourne loves Federer, the crowd that day got right behind Hewitt because it was Davis Cup, and Hewitt rallied, and eventually won the match after being 2 sets down. 6-1 in the final set. Sampras had to contend with a similar fanatical crowd cheering against him, on clay, and low and behold, won. Fact. So even if the RG crowd got behind Nadal and cheered him on, we know Sampras is not going to let the crowd get to him. He’s just a willing mental beast who powers through most tough circumstances.

Reason 3

Sampras won the 1994 Italian Open, which, as you all know, is a 1000 Masters event these days. Again, if you are a clay mug, you won’t be winning Rome.

Reason 4

To win in Rome in 1994, Sampras beat Becker in the final. What’s the significance of this, you may ask? Well as you all know, Becker was the mastermind behind Djokovic firstly beating Nadal at the FO, and secondly, finally winning the FO. Sampras beat on clay the coach responsible for Nadal’s downfall at the FO, in a big clay event. Fact. That alone tells you something.

Reason 5

Sampras’ serve. A lot of people on here think that Nadal could easily retrieve Sampras’ serve. But there is evidence to show that Nadal cannot handle Sampras’ serve. The evidence is shown at 1.00 in the video clip below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSK9t6OrgU

As Sampras once said, when Nadal’s game fell away he had nothing, but Sampras always had his serve to fall back on if his game fell away.

Reason 6

Nadal would not have the benefit of the easy pickings Federer always provided him at the FO. Sampras was a mental beast and was never mentally scarred by anyone during his time. When he got beat, he would get his revenge later down the track. When Safin beat Sampras to win the USO, Sampras beat him in the USO SF the following year. When Krajicek beat Sampras at Wimbledon, Sampras got his revenge and beat him at the USO. When Hewitt beat old man Sampras in the USO final, guess what Sampras did? He came back the following year to win the whole damn Open. When Agassi beat a messed up Sampras in the 1995 AO final, messed up because of his coach falling to illness, Sampras got the last laugh later in the year at the USO final. Sampras simply never got mentally beat by anyone, unlike Nadal who lost 3 straight slam finals to Djokovic. Bottom line is, Sampras would not take any mental scars into the RG match so Nadal won’t be beating him before a ball has even been bounced the way he did with Federer time after time again at the FO.

Reason 7

Sampras had no trouble beating lefties (Muster) and double handed backhands (Courier, Agassi, Kafelnikov) on clay. No mismatch issues with Sampras.

Reason 8

Sampras’game. He had the serve, the second serve, the forehand, the volley, the overhead smash, the speed, the aggression. Sampras would not allow Nadal to grind, even at the FO.

Reason 9

When you outright win your era, there’s an aura about you. Sampras has that aura. Nadal has sort of been in two eras now, one up to 2012 and one post 2012 and he’s dominated neither. He’s had two goes at it and still can’t win an era. So there is no aura about him. We see him lose to Djokovic in 3 slam finals in a row and he owns Wawrinka in 8 or 9 matches and then gets done by him in their only slam final to date. Sampras' aura on the other hand, 7 times the Wimbledon champion, 5 times the USO champion, 6 times the world number 1/world champion and rarely lost to his main rivals. And when he did, as noted above, he always got his revenge. Throw in 2 AO titles and 5 WTF titles, when the final was BO5 sets, to boot, and you have aura. Borg has aura, Laver has aura, Federer has aura but with an asterix (*) next to his name because of his H2H deficiency to Nadal. Nadal simply does not have aura. So Sampras’ aura, even at the FO, may prove too much for Nadal.

Reason 10

Nadal would probably be the favourite simply because it is the FO, but my 10th and final reason for why Sampras would beat Nadal at the FO is that upsets can and do happen to favourites. Rocky Balboa upset the favourite Apollo Creed to win the world heavyweight boxing championship, France upset Brazil in the 1998 World Cup final, Leicester City upset the entire English Premier League to win the league last season and Nadal himself has suffered many shock upset losses in his career when he was the favourite. Upsets happen and Nadal more than anyone is prone to upset losses so I see no reason why Sampras would not upset him at RG.

Conclusion

I’m not suggesting for a minute that it would be easy for Sampras. It would be tough. Because of his thalassemia, Sampras would want the match won as soon as possible. I would give it to Sampras in 4 sets. Nadal would win the first set because Sampras would spend the first set finding his feet and movement, but after that, his sheer class would come to the fore. If it went to a fifth set, it would be all the much tougher, but with both players tiring, the one shot that does not tire is the serve, so Sampras takes it in 5 as well. Remember, when Sampras beat Courier at the FO, he was 2 sets down.

If anyone feels all the more enlightened after reading this, and would like to know what Sampras would do to Nadal in the Wimbledon and/or USO finals, you just say the word.

Thank you.

That is all.
HOTTAKE
 
#92
Then it does suggest that it was Sampras who set the trend and the rest simply followed suit. In other words, he took the game to another level.
He --along with the collective fandom, pundits and media -- took the perception of the game in another direction. As to him taking the game to another level, I think that's a different thing altogether. I think he probably did do that though regarding fast court play, where he may well still be unparalleled.
 
#93
There's no way I was reading all that garbage, but I gave it a like anyway. What does that say about me? :confused:
It says that the magnetism of perfectly executed trolling is too irresistible to deny. It's so iconic that even at a glance one has realised the extent of effort and brilliance that has gone into the work.
 
#94
I don't see what the fuss is about, and think the OP is a little bit too obvious to be a truly interesting troll. What happened to subtlety and delicacy of troll composition? One suspects, with a certain somberness, that trolling as an art form is in decline. Luckily the undisputed champ has graced us with a return, though.
 
#95
I was thinking it over and come to the conclusion that peak Sampras would not be able to beat peak Nadal on clay. The reason for this is that Sampras is very comparable to Federer in play and success. This was shown in their only H2H at Wimbledon which Fed squeaked out a narrow 5 set victory. So one was younger with more energy and other older with more experience, at a favorable grass surface for both giving no advantage. Fed gets a slight edge over Pete.

Peak Federer never was able to beat Nadal on clay at FO in all those matches. Because he has an edge over Pete, we cannot say Pete would beat Nadal, despite all the 10 reasons you give (which were very good btw).

Had Pete played another 5 years like Federer, going by Fed's success, he'd likely win at least another 2 Slams to add to his resume. He's still the 2nd best player ATM with King of Clay ready to overtake him.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
#98
I don't see what the fuss is about, and think the OP is a little bit too obvious to be a truly interesting troll. What happened to subtlety and delicacy of troll composition? One suspects, with a certain somberness, that trolling as an art form is in decline. Luckily the undisputed champ has graced us with a return, though.
Sureshs sighting? Where?
 
Z

Zara

Guest
#99
If by that you mean that Sampras was the first to obsess over legacy rather than love of the game (unlike his supposed hero Rod Laver) then you are correct.
No, that goes to Federer. Sampras retired when he realized he no longer had the passion for the game.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
He --along with the collective fandom, pundits and media -- took the perception of the game in another direction. As to him taking the game to another level, I think that's a different thing altogether. I think he probably did do that though regarding fast court play, where he may well still be unparalleled.
Fandom, pundits, media etc. wouldn't have existed if Samrpas had no goals. If he were to win 7 slams in total no one would have talked about it. Therefore, the idea to break records existed with Sampras and Sampras only.
 
Top