Sampras would beat Nadal at the French Open

Z

Zara

Guest
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.
Your argument is based on 1 match. Not sure how you can say he had an edge over Pete. Sampras and Federer are two very different players with two very different mindsets. The only thing common between them was that they both wanted to break the previous records. Sampras' approach towards Nadal would have been different.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
No, that goes to Federer. Sampras retired when he realized he no longer had the passion for the game.
Sampras retired when he realized the new generation had his number. He made a shrewd exit after US Open 2002 to give the illusion of being on top and leaving on his terms. In reality, it was all he could do to keep himself from being catapulted off the tower as Federer was coming, and he knew that.

Federer, the Graceful Transcendent Romantic Idealist continues to play for love, even though his ranking has slipped and he's suffered more defeats at the hands of Djokovic and Nadal than he would have 4+ years ago. Sampras the Crow would have retired in 2012 after winning Wimbledon. But Rogi, the Golden Eagle, soars on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F

Fedfan34

Guest
Your argument is based on 1 match. Not sure how you can say he had an edge over Pete. Sampras and Federer are two very different players with two very different mindsets. The only thing common between them was that they both wanted to break the previous records. Sampras' approach towards Nadal would have been different.
Actually, the record is 4-1 for Roger when we account for the exhibitions they played, which is fair since OP included exhibition evidence and you accepted it. 4-1 is pretty convincing. That's that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

Zara

Guest
Sampras retired when he realized the new generation had his number. He made a shrewd exit after US Open 2002 to give the illusion of being on top and leaving on his terms. In reality, it was all he could do to keep himself from being catapulted off the tower as Federer was coming, and he knew that.

Federer, the Graceful Transcendent Romantic Idealist continues to play for love, even though his ranking has slipped and he's suffered more defeats at the hands of Djokovic and Nadal than he would have 4+ years ago. Sampras the Crow would have retired in 2012 after winning Wimbledon. But Rogi, the Golden Eagle, soars on.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
Federer: 'Oh God where did I go so wrong? I thought I was going to break Sampras' record and now this Nadal freak is gettin in the way' sniff, sniff..



Reporter: Pete, now that the record's been broken, how will anyone remember you?
Pete: ...
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
You clearly remember him VERY WELL along with rest of the Fed gang.

That is all.

Thank you.
This isn't meant to troll, but honestly, no one on my high school team knew who Pete Sampras was. I was still a Sampras fanboy at the time adamantly against Fed breaking the record (ala 90's Clay) and everyone was like "eh? Sampras? ROGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Doubt anyone at my club my age or younger remembers Sampras
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
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.
 
This isn't meant to troll, but honestly, no one on my high school team knew who Pete Sampras was. I was still a Sampras fanboy at the time adamantly against Fed breaking the record (ala 90's Clay) and everyone was like "eh? Sampras? ROGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Doubt anyone at my club my age or younger remembers Sampras
What a ******** post. In 100 years from now people will talk about Sampras and Federer like we all talk about Bill Tilden today. They'll get a brief mention in GOAT debates but most will not really take them seriously in any GOAT discussion, even if you high school pals think otherwise.
 
This isn't meant to troll, but honestly, no one on my high school team knew who Pete Sampras was. I was still a Sampras fanboy at the time adamantly against Fed breaking the record (ala 90's Clay) and everyone was like "eh? Sampras? ROGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Doubt anyone at my club my age or younger remembers Sampras
Real tennis fans would always know who Pete is. Those old enough to see him play will always remember him. Did you see the turnout for his retirement ceremony? I think that says a lot more than your high school team, lmao. Casual tennis fans, bandwagon jumpers and stat freaks will remember Federer and probably convieniently forget his losing head to head against his main rivals.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
What a ******** post. In 100 years from now people will talk about Sampras and Federer like we all talk about Bill Tilden today. They'll get a brief mention in GOAT debates but most will not really take them seriously in any GOAT discussion, even if you high school pals think otherwise.
Really puts into perspective the value of all the work you're doing here right? All this mediocre tier 3 trolling and no one will remember Sampras in 100 years.

Unfortunately I disagree with your assessment re:Federer. In 100 years people will still call him GOAT because in 100 years he'll still be in the top 10.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
Real tennis fans would always know who Pete is. Those old enough to see him play will always remember him. Did you see the turnout for his retirement ceremony? I think that says a lot more than your high school team, lmao. Casual tennis fans, bandwagon jumpers and stat freaks will remember Federer and probably convieniently forget his losing head to head against his main rivals.
Did you see the inscription on the plaque they unveiled for him? "14 slams, a mark likely to stand for all time..."
 
Really puts into perspective the value of all the work you're doing here right? All this mediocre tier 3 trolling and no one will remember Sampras in 100 years.

Unfortunately I disagree with your assessment re:Federer. In 100 years people will still call him GOAT because in 100 years he'll still be in the top 10.

Tilden was just as dominant if not moreso than Federer during his time, and he's hardly talked about today. Fed/Pete probably won't even be mentioned in 100 years (If Tennis is even still around then. With as much as its popularity is going to decline in 5-10 years it may not even last another 20 years much less 100) much like Tilden is hardly mentioned now on any GOAT List even when he definitely deserves to be there because of his utter domination.


Laver is getting less consideration for GOAT status and that was 50 years ago, despite having NO glaring weakness against his main rival/s (Ala Federer). 2 calendar slams, 11 slams despite not being able to play the majors during his prime/peak and 200 titles.

The only guys that will probably still be GOAT in 100 years and widely regarded are Jordan, Gretzky, and Phelps
 
Last edited:
F

Fedfan34

Guest
Tilden was just as dominant if not moreso than Federer during his time, and he's hardly talked about today. Fed/Pete probably won't even be mentioned in 100 years (If Tennis is even still around then. With as much as its popularity is going to decline in 5-10 years it may not even last another 20 years much less 100) much like Tilden is hardly mentioned now on any GOAT List even when he definitely deserves to be there because of his utter domination
Again, Fed will still be top 10 in 100 years so they definitely will.

I think as more time separates us from the graveyard of fluke and duke tennis of the historically weak 90s people will understand Sampras's place as Ringmaster of the Circus. Perhaps he'll even be regarded as Curator of a Zoo.
 
Again, Fed will still be top 10 in 100 years so they definitely will.

I think as more time separates us from the graveyard of fluke and duke tennis of the historically weak 90s people will understand Sampras's place as Ringmaster of the Circus. Perhaps he'll even be regarded as Curator of a Zoo.

Historically weak. Hilarious.

Overall, the Grass field was stronger in the 90s taking the entire decade into account. Clay was FARRRR Stronger in the 90s in terms of talent depth than it has been since.No comparison. . Hardcourt was about as equally as strong. Thanks for the laugh though. Keep the delusions going
 
Historically weak. Hilarious.

Overall, the Grass field was stronger in the 90s taking the entire decade into account. Clay was FARRRR Stronger in the 90s in terms of talent depth than it has been since.No comparison. . Hardcourt was about as equally as strong. Thanks for the laugh though. Keep the delusions going
1995-1999 apart from periods where Agassi played well were very weak. Sampras had literally zero competition and he still lost miserably in 70% of the Slams. If Fed had the same competition he would be winning CYGS after CYGS.
 
1995-1999 apart from periods where Agassi played well were very weak. Sampras had literally zero competition and he still lost miserably in 70% of the Slams. If Fed had the same competition he would be winning CYGS after CYGS.

I said taking the entire decade into account. There were some weaker years in the 90s. But the 2000's and 2010s haven't had any??
 
1995-1999 apart from periods where Agassi played well were very weak. Sampras had literally zero competition and he still lost miserably in 70% of the Slams. If Fed had the same competition he would be winning CYGS after CYGS.

1995 wasn't a weak year by any means. 1996 wasn't too shabby. 97/98 were weaker. 1999 was real competitive between a resurgent Agassi and Pete.


Only 2 years in the 90s were weaker.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Historically weak. Hilarious.

Overall, the Grass field was stronger in the 90s taking the entire decade into account. Clay was FARRRR Stronger in the 90s in terms of talent depth than it has been since.No comparison. . Hardcourt was about as equally as strong. Thanks for the laugh though. Keep the delusions going
 
I said taking the entire decade into account. There were some weaker years in the 90s. But the 2000's and 2010s haven't had any??
Not 5 years in a row. 2000-2002 weren't that strong too btw when Sampras was still winning Slams.

Just because prime Sampras just made it at the tail end of the golden era when it ended in 1993 doesn't mean he had strong competition. Already in 1994 it went down fast, just look at his 1994 AO draw apart from one decent opponent in Courier in the SF.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
Historically weak. Hilarious.

Overall, the Grass field was stronger in the 90s taking the entire decade into account. Clay was FARRRR Stronger in the 90s in terms of talent depth than it has been since.No comparison. . Hardcourt was about as equally as strong. Thanks for the laugh though. Keep the delusions going
You had clay court players like Courier making the finals, Kuerten even managed a QF in the 90s. No one even made two consecutive Wimbledon finals other than Pete. Imagine what Nadal and Djokovic would do to the 90s grass circus, lol

Sampras didn't face a top 20 player aside from washed up alcohol, sleep med abusing Becker in his 97 run to the title. Murray himself would devour that field. Lol
 
Lets run down the 2000s and 2010s taking levels/ Talent depth/top players playing well into account across all surfaces etc.

2000- Decent/. Borderline strong
2001- Decent
2002- Weak
2003- Weak
2004- Strong
2005- Strong
2006- Pathetically Weak
2007 Weak. Not as weak as 2007
2008- Decent. Borderline Strong
2009- Strong
2010- Weak
2011- Strong
2012- Weak
2013- Weak
2014- Weak
2015- Weak
2016- Weak
2017- Looking Weak already


A lot more "weak" years than strong ones in there over the past two decades. And you want to knock the 90s for only have TWO weaker years out of 10??
 
Historically weak. Hilarious.

Overall, the Grass field was stronger in the 90s taking the entire decade into account. Clay was FARRRR Stronger in the 90s in terms of talent depth than it has been since.No comparison. . Hardcourt was about as equally as strong. Thanks for the laugh though. Keep the delusions going
Because there were a lot of good players and no great ones. Nadal would clean their clocks just like he did in his era. The only clay courter who really impressed me and who I think could challenge someone like Federer, Djokovic and win sets against Nadal is Kurten but he was inconsistent due to injuries. He was pushed hard even in his best runs, though. Nadal losing a set to anyone was a big deal back in the day.
 
Because there were a lot of good players and no great ones. Nadal would clean their clocks just like he did in his era. The only clay courter who really impressed me and who I think could challenge someone like Federer, Djokovic and win sets against Nadal is Kurten but he was inconsistent due to injuries.

A lot of good players make for tougher draws and no free rides to the final.
 
You had clay court players like Courier making the finals, Kuerten even managed a QF in the 90s. No one even made two consecutive Wimbledon finals other than Pete. Imagine what Nadal and Djokovic would do to the 90s grass circus, lol

Sampras didn't face a top 20 player aside from washed up alcohol, sleep med abusing Becker in his 97 run to the title. Murray himself would devour that field. Lol

Get bombed off the court playing backboard return tennis by big serving, hard flat hitters like Pete, Goran, Becker? They wouldn't do ANYTHING on grass in the 90s. Both would be far worse than Agsssi was on the surface thats for sure
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
1995 wasn't a weak year by any means. 1996 wasn't too shabby. 97/98 were weaker. 1999 was real competitive between a resurgent Agassi and Pete.


Only 2 years in the 90s were weaker.
96 was likely the weakest year in the last 3 decades. We have discussed this at nauseam. Was Agassi anywhere to be seen?
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
Get bombed off the court playing backboard return tennis by big serving, hard flat hitters like Pete, Goran, Becker? They wouldn't do ANYTHING on grass in the 90s. Both would be far worse than Agsssi was on the surface thats for sure
Courier can beat Edberg yet Nadal can't beat Henman to make a final? ROFL
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Not 5 years in a row. 2000-2002 weren't that strong too btw when Sampras was still winning Slams.

Just because prime Sampras just made it at the tail end of the golden era when it ended in 1993 doesn't mean he had strong competition. Already in 1994 it went down fast, just look at his 1994 AO draw apart from one decent opponent in Courier in the SF.
It really wasn't that strong outside of mid-nineties. Ask yourself how 4 Americans start having huge success at a young age on tour; it was a bit weak. Courier and Chang at French Open screams weak. They were all fine players, but lets not kid ourselves it was an ATG free zone with what Chang did to Lendl in 1989.
 
It really wasn't that strong outside of mid-nineties. Ask yourself how 4 Americans start having huge success at a young age on tour; it was a bit weak. Courier and Chang at French Open screams weak. They were all fine players, but lets not kid ourselves it was an ATG free zone with what Chang did to Lendl in 1989.


Courier in the early 90s was one of the best clay court players tennis has seen the last 30 years
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Because there were a lot of good players and no great ones. Nadal would clean their clocks just like he did in his era. The only clay courter who really impressed me and who I think could challenge someone like Federer, Djokovic and win sets against Nadal is Kurten but he was inconsistent due to injuries. He was pushed hard even in his best runs, though. Nadal losing a set to anyone was a big deal back in the day.
Bruegera should get a mention, but it was a pretty weak field on clay.
 
Top