This is why Nadal would lose to Sampras every time

[BeHappy]

At Wimbledon or the USO. People think Tsonga and Blake are aggressive and athletic. You have no idea.

Sampras just went for crazy winners all the time, if they went in he won the point, if they went out he lost. It was all on his racket. When the pressure was on he'd hit winners.

Likewise on his serve, he hit two first serves. He hit a LOT of double faults. Typically about 15 in a 5 set match, but whenever the pressure was on he'd hit his second serve in and win the point.

To give you an idea of just how aggressive and powerful Sampras was from the back of the court, here's a game he lost in a match he lost (so no one accuses me of cherry picking highlights):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjY7o5GPJzA&feature=related

He wasn't 'on' that day. He lost. But when he was 'on', like in the 1999 Wimbledon final he was unbeatable. He didn't have 20 shot rallies like Federer or Nadal, he aimed for a line and hit the ball as hard as he could and one way or another the point was over.



*Look at players with good records against Nadal: Berdych, Blake, Soderling.
Big serves, Big forehand, very aggressive, go for lots of winners. Sampras was better version of them.

 

[Manus Domini]

Except, against Nadal, the point wouldn't be over...

 

[BeHappy]

Except, against Nadal, the point wouldn't be over...

Good thing no one told Tsonga or Blake or Soderling, 3 guys who play that game nowhere near as well as Sampras did...

 

[Nextman916]

Your highlight video doesn't reflect how the aforementioned tactic's DIDN'T work for sampras against hewitt, and it sure as hell wouldn't work against the much superior Nadal.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Sampras won that match, he lost in 2000 in the final to Safin. I really don't think Sampras would beat Nadal too often to be honest. And he was one of my favorite players in the 90s.

 

[BeHappy]

Sampras won that match, he lost in 2000 in the final to Safin. I really don't think Sampras would beat Nadal too often to be honest. And he was one of my favorite players in the 90s.

I thought that was the 2001 final he lost to Safin?

It doesn't matter I guess.

 

[BeHappy]

Your highlight video doesn't reflect how the aforementioned tactic's DIDN'T work for sampras against hewitt, and it sure as hell wouldn't work against the much superior Nadal.

It worked in 14 grandslam finals.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Good thing no one told Tsonga or Blake or Soderling, 3 guys who play that game nowhere near as well as Sampras did...

Uhh...I'm pretty sure they do...

 

[TennisandMusic]

I thought that was the 2001 final he lost to Safin?

It doesn't matter I guess.

He lost 2001 to Hewitt.

 

[BeHappy]

Uhh...I'm pretty sure they do...

Really? How many slams have they won between them?

 

[Clay lover]

Really? How many slams have they won between them?

Just being able to hit hard doesn't win you slams.

 

[BeHappy]

Just being able to hit hard doesn't win you slams.

It won Pete Sampras 14 grand slams. 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Open's and two Australian Opens.

By the way, Pete Sampras had a 4-1 Grand Slam final head to head with Agassi. The same Agassi who took a set off Federer at 35 years of age in the US Open final.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Really? How many slams have they won between them?

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think hitting hard wins you anything. I can hit the snot out of the ball and I would lose easily to people who can hit less hard but are better at keeping it in play.

If you can't clearly see that guys are hitting the ball bigger and harder than they were in the 90's then there isn't much to talk about. As the guy above me says, winning hard doesn't win you slams and that's NOT why Sampras won his majors.

 

[BeHappy]

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think hitting hard wins you anything. I can hit the snot out of the ball and I would lose easily to people who can hit less hard but are better at keeping it in play.

If you can't clearly see that guys are hitting the ball bigger and harder than they were in the 90's then there isn't much to talk about. As the guy above me says, winning hard doesn't win you slams and that's NOT why Sampras won his majors.

Are you that dumb? You think a man who won 14 Grand Slams couldn't do it consistently? That obviously goes without saying.

Sampras didn't JUST 'hit the ball hard'. He went for his shots and he made them. Just as Blake, Tsonga and Soderling have done against Nadal. Like them, he was a power player. But Sampras was a far far better at it than those guys.

 

[CyBorg]

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think hitting hard wins you anything. I can hit the snot out of the ball and I would lose easily to people who can hit less hard but are better at keeping it in play.

If you can't clearly see that guys are hitting the ball bigger and harder than they were in the 90's then there isn't much to talk about. As the guy above me says, winning hard doesn't win you slams and that's NOT why Sampras won his majors.

Agreed 100%.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Personally I think Sampras is a nightmare matchup for Nadal.

 

[martini1]

Sampras wanted the points to be short, while Rafa wants to grind it out. Of course they will think each other's game is "boring".

If Rafa plays Sampras we already know what kind of game plan he got.

 

[MrFlip]

Rajeev Ram in a few years time will do the same thing to Nadal. You watch. His game reminds me of Sampras'. It will all fall into place

 

[Nextman916]

Your highlight video doesn't reflect how the aforementioned tactic's DIDN'T work for sampras against hewitt, and it sure as hell wouldn't work against the much superior Nadal.

It worked in 14 grandslam finals.

Your'e not proving your point. Tennis is about matchups, if the tactics you mention Sampras employed didn't work against Hewitt's game style (at least to a favorable h2h) it wouldn't work against Nadal plain and simple.

I'm not even a Nadal fan and say this. The title of your thread is so farfetched...regardless of Pete's 14 grand slams, it doesn't mean he would beat Nadal EVERY time.

Now until you post a valid argument, I don't think this thread should be taken actively.

 

[ledwix]

Sampras serving-and-volleying would be an interesting match up, and it might get him into a whole lot of trouble against Nadal.

 

[BeHappy]

Your'e not proving your point. Tennis is about matchups, if the tactics you mention Sampras employed didn't work against Hewitt's game style (at least to a favorable h2h) it wouldn't work against Nadal plain and simple.

They didn't work against Hewitt after Sampras turned 30, and like Federer got married, had kids and lost his focus. They worked just fine against the likes of Chang (4-1 head to head in slams) and Muster (9-2) when he was at his peak though.

As it turns out, Sampras DID win that match against Hewitt.

I'm not even a Nadal fan and say this. The title of your thread is so farfetched...regardless of Pete's 14 grand slams, it doesn't mean he would beat Nadal EVERY time.

It does actually. Just like Nadal would beat Sampras on clay EVERY TIME, Sampras is to grass what Nadal is to clay. The idea that Nadal would beat Sampras on grass or at the fast US Open court is simply ludicrous.

 

[amx13]

Depends on wich grass, Sampras would crush Nadal on the fast 90's grass, but this thing they are playing now, would be a lot more interesting. Anyway, Sampras handled arguably the best returner of all time very well, so I just can't picture Nadal breaking Pete's serve.

 

[Larrysümmers]

thats all fine and dandy but no one has hit a forehand that has the spin of nadals. maybe on indoor carpet or something else that is really fast. but really i can see a head to head record favoring nadal.
and this is from a sampras fan...

 

[BeHappy]

thats all fine and dandy but no one has hit a forehand that has the spin of nadals. maybe on indoor carpet or something else that is really fast. but really i can see a head to head record favoring nadal.
and this is from a sampras fan...

Moya's forehand was very very similar to Nadal's, and Sampras handled it fine, Muster and Keurten too.

 

[namelessone]

Moya's forehand was very very similar to Nadal's, and Sampras handled it fine, Muster and Keurten too.

Moya didn't hit with nearly as much spin as Nadal.

 

[The Hermit]

I don't think every time , maybe Nadal will crack Sampras one hand bh, or maybe Sampras has a bad day in serving.

 

[Defcon]

The 2 USO finals Sampras lost to Hewitt and Safin are a little skewed, because IIRC Sampras played the 2nd SF on Super Saturday the day before.

Nadal has shown time and again that he will be beaten by a power player who is on that day and hits flat - there is no doubt. Sampras simply would not get involved in rallies so Nadal's stamina/wearing down opponents is irrelevant. Sampras might lose but he would do it on his terms, and its just as likely he would win.

Its amazing how some here think of Nadal as a superhuman who just cannot be beat.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Personally I think Sampras is a nightmare matchup for Nadal.

Agreed. Nadal would be helpless to Sampras's big shots.

 

[OTMPut]

if his serve works, he will win most likely.
and thats the case with fed as well.

 

[Murrayfan31]

if his serve works, he will win most likely.
and thats the case with fed as well.

With respect to Federer, Sampras's game is way bigger than Federer's. Sampras took much bigger risks on his shots.

 

[roysid]

The game changes every decade. How do you compare who fares well against other.
In the 90s
- tennis rackets were not that powerful without polyester strings. so hitting passing shots was harder and volleying was easier.
- courts were much faster except clay.
- and yes athletism also improves every decade.

So in 90s nadal with weaker rackets would come cropper against sampras except clay.
In present days, sampras would be demolished because of 1 handed BH against Nadal.

 

[martini1]

The game changes every decade. How do you compare who fares well against other.
In the 90s
- tennis rackets were not that powerful without polyester strings. so hitting passing shots was harder and volleying was easier.
- courts were much faster except clay.
- and yes athletism also improves every decade.

So in 90s nadal with weaker rackets would come cropper against sampras except clay.
In present days, sampras would be demolished because of 1 handed BH against Nadal.

No racket setup in the 90's is suitable for nadal heavy top spin game. He might end up being something closer to federer's style of play. His net play is strong. Running down balls on both wings is also strong.

So at the end the cross era debate only favors fed because he was the one who played with a 20 yr racket and beat Sampras on fast grass. Fed could probably beat a few more guys from the 80's too.

 

[BeHappy]

With respect to Federer, Sampras's game is way bigger than Federer's. Sampras took much bigger risks on his shots.

Exactly, like Tsonga, Berdych, Blake, Soderling, only much much better.

 

[Inner Game]

Sad to say Nadal would own Sampras worse then he does Federer...Fed is a lot quicker then Sampras ever was...and even thou Fed's backhand is his Achilles heel...it is at least twice as good as Sampras...Give Pete the serves and volleys over Fed....but Nadal would abuse him like a red haired stepchild...

But can you really count Nadals wins anyways?....Everyone knows he's the Barry Bonds of tennis.

 

[rafabull]

At Wimbledon or the USO. People think Tsonga and Blake are aggressive and athletic. You have no idea.

Sampras just went for crazy winners all the time, if they went in he won the point, if they went out he lost. It was all on his racket. When the pressure was on he'd hit winners.

Likewise on his serve, he hit two first serves. He hit a LOT of double faults. Typically about 15 in a 5 set match, but whenever the pressure was on he'd hit his second serve in and win the point.

To give you an idea of just how aggressive and powerful Sampras was from the back of the court, here's a game he lost in a match he lost (so no one accuses me of cherry picking highlights):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjY7o5GPJzA&feature=related

He wasn't 'on' that day. He lost. But when he was 'on', like in the 1999 Wimbledon final he was unbeatable. He didn't have 20 shot rallies like Federer or Nadal, he aimed for a line and hit the ball as hard as he could and one way or another the point was over.



*Look at players with good records against Nadal: Berdych, Blake, Soderling.
Big serves, Big forehand, very aggressive, go for lots of winners. Sampras was better version of them.

Almost every one of those winner Nadal would have gotten to

 

[aldeayeah]

Just for the record, you're talking about this Nadal, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP1mtXPXJno

 

[Satch]

i think that Agassi was 90s Nadal, with that kind of technology and other Nadal style would be very similar to Agassis..

so we already know the outcome

 

[BeHappy]

Almost every one of those winner Nadal would have gotten to

Hewitt was just as quick as Nadal is. I know this, I saw Hewitt take Nadal to four sets in the French Open and to 3 in Hamburg.

So no, Nadal would not have gotten to those.

 

[tennisfarmer]

As much as I respect sampras, Nadal would own him on every surface, even grass, maybe Sampras has the edge on fast indoor courts but otherwise Nadal will always win.

 

[willshot]

sampras was one of my favorite players ever. But I have to say i'll be a bit worried for him against Nadal. Nadal would eat his lunch on any surface. Sampras has a weaker backhand than fed and his forehand isnt as good either. Serve/volley can only go so far.

 

[Nextman916]

As it turns out, Sampras DID win that match against Hewitt.

That still proves nothing, Hewitt at his absolute prime was nothing like Nadal.

It does actually. Just like Nadal would beat Sampras on clay EVERY TIME, Sampras is to grass what Nadal is to clay. The idea that Nadal would beat Sampras on grass or at the fast US Open court is simply ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, your'e hanging onto something that simply wouldn't be viable. Nadal would have Pete's number guaranteed. Sampras's play was highly reflected on his massive confidence, like any champion, but the special times he was robbed of it became humiliating out there (Deer in the headlights look), Nadal would have taken that to him.

 

[Xemi666]

It worked in 14 grandslam finals.

And Federer's worked in 16 slam finals. Too bad they don't work too well against Nadal, huh?

 

[Datacipher]

sampras was one of my favorite players ever. But I have to say i'll be a bit worried for him against Nadal. Nadal would eat his lunch on any surface. Sampras has a weaker backhand than fed and his forehand isnt as good either. Serve/volley can only go so far.

ROFL!!! I knew I recognized this username! You're the idiot who started the thread wondering if PAT CASH IN HIS PRIME could beat a D1 player....then you never came back....when almost universally (it's hard to get the board to unite) the board said your question was idiotic!

We all enjoy your learned opinion!

 

[President]

Exactly, like Tsonga, Berdych, Blake, Soderling, only much much better.

Completely different players, no doubt Sampras is much better than them but its intellectually dishnest to compare them to Sampras. In recent years, the players Nadal has had trouble with are either excellent at hitting the ball on the rise and have superb movement and consistency(Djokovic and Davydenko) or are huge ball bashers (Del Potro, Soderling, Berdych). Sampras does not fit into either of these categories; he doesn't have the consistency of Djokovic or the power of the tall ball bashers. In particular, his backhand is far less stable and powerful than any of those players (a key to beating Nadal from the back of the court).

I'm not saying that Sampras couldn't beat Nadal, but I really doubt he could beat him in the manner the OP suggested, from the baseline.

 

[droliver]

That's not a good match up for Pete. Nadal takes the head to head easily. It's a toss up on a good grass surface (even and with true bounces) like we have today rather then then older grass which had become an ugly, unwatchable surface for the men. Pete would also be the alpha dog on carpet if that was still a used surface

 

[jackson vile]

This is why you are stupid every time

 

[tacou]

I dont get what this video is supposed to prove. Pete could hit winners? off second serves? cool yes i knew that.
what's it have to do with Rafa? please explain better OP

 

[BeHappy]

Relevant to the thread on the front page.

 

[ThoughtCrime]

Tired of stupid hypothetical situations that are argued endlessly because they cannot be proven. What's the point? You can't prove anything and you won't sway anyone's opinions since it's the internet. Unless the players actually played against each other, these debates are pointless.

 

[AM95]

lol nadal would break down sampras's joke for a backhand day in and day out. assuming that we are playing on today's surfaces, sampras would only stand a chance at wimbledon.