Sampras would beat Nadal at the French Open

Zara

Hall of Fame
So your personal experience negates what you see messageboards?

They’re not true Nadal fans, but rather Federer haters. Out old pal 90’s clay was like this. MTF hand dozens of them.
Not sure what you mean there but they are all die-hard Nadal fans. Don't think they even caught the end of Sampras let alone anything else and from what I recall, they started following tennis after Sampras retired most probably from 2005.
 
Reason 1 - Sampras' 65% win rate
Reason 2 - Beat Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov and Agassi
Reason 3 - Sampras won Rome once
Reason 4 - Sampras beat Becker in said Rome final - Becker once coached Djokovic and Djokovic has beaten Rafa at RG
Reason 5 - Sampras' serve
Reason 6 - Fed is easy pickings at RG
Reason 7 - Sampras beat left handed players during his career
Reason 8 - Sampras' serve, forhand, volley, overhead, speed, aggression would not allow Rafa to grind
Reason 9 - Sampras' aura
Reason 10 - Sampras could upset Nadal because Rocky beat Apollo Creed, France beat Brazil and Leicester City won the premier league.
1. Rafa's win rate is 98%
2. Rafa has beaten Federer five times, Djokovic six times & Wawrinka. All are RG champions, two of them with careers greater than Pete's and they are not even retired yet.
3. Rafa has won Rome 8 times
4. lol at Becker losing to Sampras in Rome having anything to do with Djoker beating Rafa at RG
5. Clay is the surface that neutralises serves more than any other, if it was that easy then Federer would have been able to serve himself to some more RG titles
6. lol - Sampras is easy pickings for Fed at RG
7. Rafa has beaten right hand players during his career, including two that have careers greater than Pete's
8. This hasn't been consistently true for Djoker & Fed at RG
9. When they step out onto Phillipe Chatrier for this mythical final and Pete tries to win his first RG against a guy that has lost two matches there in 14 years
10. sure.....
 
1. Rafa's win rate is 98%
2. Rafa has beaten Federer five times, Djokovic six times & Wawrinka. All are RG champions, two of them with careers greater than Pete's and they are not even retired yet.
3. Rafa has won Rome 8 times
4. lol at Becker losing to Sampras in Rome having anything to do with Djoker beating Rafa at RG
5. Clay is the surface that neutralises serves more than any other, if it was that easy then Federer would have been able to serve himself to some more RG titles
6. lol - Sampras is easy pickings for Fed at RG
7. Rafa has beaten right hand players during his career, including two that have careers greater than Pete's
8. This hasn't been consistently true for Djoker & Fed at RG
9. When they step out onto Phillipe Chatrier for this mythical final and Pete tries to win his first RG against a guy that has lost two matches there in 14 years
10. sure.....
OP was only trolling: P. Don't need to over-rational here.
 
Last edited:
So your personal experience negates what you see messageboards?

They’re not true Nadal fans, but rather Federer haters. Out old pal 90’s clay was like this. MTF hand dozens of them.
Yeah, I remember one Sampras fan IRL going so far as to say that a Sampras fan could never be a Fed fan because the latter was so mentally weak. Hey ho, I am a Sampras fan too but what do I know.
 
From Pete's own book, the Pro-Pete argument about Pete seriously only trying once to win it is complete nonsense, Pete himself lays out in print what his problems were and how much he wanted it


===========================
My problems on clay were related to my versatility, and the confidence that was so helpful to me on hard courts. I could win from the back—I had beaten French Open champs like Jim Courier and Sergi Bruguera from the baseline. So I was reluctant to heed the advice of Paul and others who thought my only chance to win was through attacking. Sometimes I did feel obliged to attack, and felt comfortable embracing that game plan. At other times, I tried to feel my way into matches from the baseline, not entirely confident but hoping I’d hit upon something that would help me crack the clay-court code.
I never really evolved in Paris, never made progress toward a comfort zone. I was accustomed to feeling totally in control of my game—that’s how it was at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. On grass and hard courts, I just had this mentality: bring the gas—serve big, push the action, notch it up, and see if the other guy can take it. On clay, though, you have to back off the gas a little, even when you’re playing attacking tennis. You need to be more patient, awaiting your opportunity. I didn’t really feel comfortable playing within myself that way. When I played well on clay, it was because I was reasonably calm, and just felt my way around in matches—it wasn’t that different from how I played on hard courts.
But there was always pressure on me, some of it self-imposed, to win in Paris with an attacking game. A part of me wanted to come in all the time, the way Stefan Edberg did. His daredevil attacking style carried him all the way to the final one year, which was further than I ever got. But when I rushed the net behind every decent serve, I’d often feel uncomfortable, like everything was happening too fast. I don’t think I was a great mover on clay, and that was a subtle factor in my struggles. I found the surface was a little slippery and uncertain underfoot, so I played a little too upright, at least compared to a guy like Yannick Noah (the Frenchman who won Roland Garros by attacking the net in 1983). Noah played from this crouch, like a big cat always ready to pounce. I was often ill at ease, even up at the net.
Paul was always after me to attack the net in Paris, but I resisted his advice. In fact, the year I beat Jim from the backcourt, it was as much to prove my point to Paul as anything else. But the reality was that I couldn’t win from the back consistently enough to beat the very top players in the three or four successive rounds it takes to win a major. One year, I decided to embrace the chip-and-charge strategy that Paul thought might work, but I was picked apart by Andrei Medvedev. So much for that.

Clay gave my opponents additional advantages. They could expose my backhand—my weaker shot—by getting to it with high-bouncing balls. Having to hit those high backhands gives one-handed backhanders fits—just look at the problems Roger Federer has had on clay with Rafael Nadal. In Roger’s case, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that Nadal is a southpaw. Late in my career, technology was also starting to catch up with me. I played my entire career with that extremely small-headed racket. Not only did I ignore the potential benefits of evolving racket design, the advances in rackets helped level the playing field for opponents who were more inclined to adapt.
Because I never settled into a clay-court game plan, every match was like a Rubik’s Cube. I always had to start from square one. I confess that after my loss to Delgado, I never saw Roland Garros through the same eyes. It seemed like it just wasn’t meant to be. It wasn’t like I just mailed it in—that wasn’t my way, and there was too much to gain from winning in Paris—but after that Delgado match I had the gnawing feeling that I’d run out of options. [edit : he wanted it, the FO, more than once, the revisionists wil tell you something else]
In the end, maybe the truth just caught up to me. Maybe I just plain wasn’t good enough on clay to win Roland Garros, and I never caught the lucky break or hot streak that might have landed me on the champion’s podium even for that one critically important time.




Paul was in a tough if comfortable position. He would have been crazy to leave on his own, because there was nothing left on our “must do” list. As much as I wanted to win the French Open, [ edit : he tried far more than once contrary to the lies] we both knew that my window was closing. It would take a miracle. I was destined to call it a career within a year or two anyway. Why would he want to walk away now, when he could just coast to the finish line with me? And where could he go that would be a step up? Beyond that, we had a great relationship.
Notice how the Sampras fanboys/fangirls never responded to this. Sampras' own words. Honest and self-aware, so unlike some of his insufferable fans.
 
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.


:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

Do not delete, this is gold. :laughing:
Sampras clay goat.
 
Top