This is why Nadal would lose to Sampras every time

[Mustard]

Old man Becker? I think he's pretty much the same age as Sampras and Agassi? There matches are some of the most amazing exhibitions of power tennis ever, (Stuttart, Hannover and Wimbledon). And Agassi took meth once in his life, that hardly had an effect on his career. And Edberg actually beat Sampras in a grand slam final.

Sampras had unbelievable competition on grass, players like Ivanisevic, Becker, Agassi etc. He won 7 Wimbledons in 8 years under those conditions. He was unbeatable at Wimbledon during that time.

Sampras was stretched to the limit at Wimbledon more than Nadal at the French Open. Sampras usually had a tough match every year at Wimbledon, and not always against the big grass-court players. For example, Korda pushed him to the limit in 1997, one of Sampras' best years on the tour. Ivanisevic and Krajicek did manage to score wins over Sampras at Wimbledon. Ivanisevic didn't even face a break point against him in their 1992 semi final.

Nadal, great as he truly is, doesn't have to play any clay court specialists at all who are even as good on clay as Sampras was. Ferrer, Robredo, Almagro are the clay court specialists of today and they have pretty similiar records to Sampras on the dirt, lots RG quarterfinals and the odd semi (not to mention Sampras won Rome). So Nadal's dominance is very slightly inflated. Between Coria and Gaudio's mental breakdowns and Djokovic this year he had a few years of absolutely no competition at all.

So who should Nadal be facing according to you? Coria is gone because of the service yips, a nightmare condition that could hit any player at any time, and Gaudio had a loss of form, which was followed by injuries and clinical depression.

 

[BeHappy]

Sampras was stretched to the limit at Wimbledon more than Nadal at the French Open. Sampras usually had a tough match every year at Wimbledon, and not always against the big grass-court players. For example, Korda pushed him to the limit in 1997, one of Sampras' best years on the tour. Ivanisevic and Krajicek did manage to score wins over Sampras at Wimbledon. Ivanisevic didn't even face a break point against him in their 1992 semi final.

That's the nature of grass court tennis. It's easier to hit winners and if you gamble big and they all land on the line you can get lucky against a better player. Korda was certainly that kind of player.

So who should Nadal be facing according to you? Coria is gone because of the service yips, a nightmare condition that could hit any player at any time, and Gaudio had a loss of form, which was followed by injuries and clinical depression.

That's exactly what I said happened to them, they both lost their minds. I said in my post, that it isn't Nadal's fault that they went insane, or that Ferrero inexplicably lost his forehand after a bout of chicken pox, or that Moya was getting old, or that Keurten was struck down by injury etc. But essentially every single clay court specialist who could have troubled Nadal was struck down in 2005.

I think he would have won most of his French Opens anyway. But, you can't say after their INCREDIBLE Rome final in 2005 that Coria wouldn't have had his wins against Nadal on the clay if he hadn't gone crazy, or after Gaudio bagelled him that he wouldn't have had wins either, and Keurten actually played extremely similarly to Soderling on the clay and I think he probably would have had his wins also.

 

[helloworld]

Sampras was stretched to the limit at Wimbledon more than Nadal at the French Open. Sampras usually had a tough match every year at Wimbledon, and not always against the big grass-court players. For example, Korda pushed him to the limit in 1997, one of Sampras' best years on the tour. Ivanisevic and Krajicek did manage to score wins over Sampras at Wimbledon. Ivanisevic didn't even face a break point against him in their 1992 semi final.

Two words. John Isner. All these guys in bold that Sampras faced in Wimbledon were FAR greater than John Isner was on clay, yet the same John Nobody Isner took Nadal to 5 sets at the French Open. :lol:
Not to mention a loss to Robin "Flat only" Soderling. :lol: Yeah, flat strokes actually worked on clay, against Nadal. :shock:

 

[KHSOLO]

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

Dont wanna be rude but that exactly the reason i stopped watching tennis in that era

Points lasted 2 shots and either was an unforced error or a winner

I like this era a lot better and being a Fed fan i would love to see more players like him

 

[BeHappy]

Dont wanna be rude but that exactly the reason i stopped watching tennis in that era

Points lasted 2 shots and either was an unforced error or a winner

I like this era a lot better and being a Fed fan i would love to see more players like him

To each their own. I can definitely understand that. Equally when I watch Murray/Gilles Simon/monfils/Nadal play each other that sends me to sleep.

 

[KHSOLO]

To each their own. I can definitely understand that. Equally when I watch Murray/Gilles Simon/monfils/Nadal play each other that sends me to sleep.

Thats why when Roger retires ill have to retire watching tennis as well unless someone who plays agressively takes his place, long rallies are as boring as 2 shot points

 

[Sliding Winner]

Two words. John Isner. All these guys in bold that Sampras faced in Wimbledon were FAR greater than John Isner was on clay, yet the same John Nobody Isner took Nadal to 5 sets at the French Open. :lol:
Not to mention a loss to Robin "Flat only" Soderling. :lol: Yeah, flat strokes actually worked on clay, against Nadal. :shock:

Nadal won against Isner even though he played ****ty. On days like that Sampras has lost hitting over 100 unforced errors.

And Söderling doesn't really hit flat like Blake or Gulbis, just look at the match, his forehand has a lot of action on it, it's just that it's also 100mph fast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RSUy5V5QM

What many seem to forget is that Sampras was a bit lucky with Philippousis knee injury in 1999. Without that injury there probably wouldn't be any Agassi-Sampras highlights of the final.
Scud was playing very well, winning 60% of Sampras second serve, leading a set and a break before his knee gave in and he had to retire.

 

[dudeski]

Nadal would take away 90% of Vs out of S&V when facing Sampras. Instead of playing S&V against Nadal, Sampras would be playing S&GP or serve and get passed. Hewitt owned and intimidated Sampras and Hewitt is worse than Nadal in every respect.

 

[Devilito]

Nadal would take away 90% of Vs out of S&V when facing Sampras. Instead of playing S&V against Nadal, Sampras would be playing S&GP or serve and get passed. Hewitt owned and intimidated Sampras and Hewitt is worse than Nadal in every respect.

 

[Laurie]

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.

This is a clip I uploaded to Youtube over a year ago. To be honest, I wouldn't have expected this clip to be used for a thread like this, I actually uploaded this clip for a laugh because Sampras was just going for winners for fun and wasn't too bothered about the score, as the commentator said, treating it like an exhibition. Nadal plays a very different game to Hewitt or anyone else for that matter.

The big question would be a simple one, how would Sampras avoid Nadal getting to his backhand over and over again, even on a fast hardcourt the ball takes quite a kick. Perhaps Sampras would be willing to use the American slice? From high to low, making Nadal have to hit up more often? That might probably be a better option than just trading topspin backhands. I know you guys hate womens tennis brought into any discussion but that's how Mauresmo beat Clijsters often, by hitting loopy topspin backhands high to Clijsters' backhand, then slicing it keeping it low, making Clisjters hit up, getting her off her rythm which Clijsters didn't actually like. And as well, a lot of people don't focus on this because of the obsession with players with one hand on the backhand, but Clisjters didn't like to deal with high backhands, and Mauresmo's loopy topspin drives got up high on her. A lot of two handers don't actually like high balls to their backhand either, Sampras hit his backhand high over the net with a lot of topspin and that caused Agassi problems in many of their matches even though Agassi prefers to take the ball early.

That's been the tradtional way a one hander deals with a two hander, by mixing slice with topspin, keeping the two hander off their rhythm, something Federer has been very reluctant to do (he has his reasons). And having watched closely the matches between Nadal and Djokovic, it's something that has become apparent, Nadal doesn't like high balls to his backhand either.

So in this hypothetical match up which forums love to discuss, Sampras would have to do things to get Nadal off his rhythm, the argument so far seems to focus how Nadal would get Sampras off his rhythm. By the way, on clay Nadal is obviously too good but other surfaces it's more even between the two.

By the way BeHappy, it might have been pointed out, my clip is from the 2000 US Open semifinal, Sampras won it in straight sets. And as I pointed out to someone on Youtube in the thread there, Sampras wouldn't be playing loose like this if he was losing the match, when you're losing you get tense, you don't play free, I'm a bit surprised you thought he lost this match based on this 5 minute game.

 

[BeHappy]

By the way BeHappy, it might have been pointed out, my clip is from the 2000 US Open semifinal, Sampras won it in straight sets. And as I pointed out to someone on Youtube in the thread there, Sampras wouldn't be playing loose like this if he was losing the match, when you're losing you get tense, you don't play free, I'm a bit surprised you thought he lost this match based on this 5 minute game.

I thought it was from the Hewitt final in 2001, where Sampras played very freely and made a phenomenal amount of unforced errors.

 

[dudeski]

Truth hurts.

True story. ™ ©

 

[OddJack]

Interesting points

 

[helloworld]

Nadal would take away 90% of Vs out of S&V when facing Sampras. Instead of playing S&V against Nadal, Sampras would be playing S&GP or serve and get passed. Hewitt owned and intimidated Sampras and Hewitt is worse than Nadal in every respect.

Sampras was leading Hewitt in H2H 4-1 before he got too old to play with prime Hewitt. Hewitt reached his prime in 2001-2002 when Sampras was playing his last year on tour. Of course, a young prime Hewitt would have an easy time against old man Sampras. And Hewitt is not worse than Nadal in every respect. In fact, Hewitt's return of serve is light years ahead of Nadal. That's why he was able to hang with old Sampras in 2001-2002. Nadal does not have Hewitt's return of serve. There's no way Nadal can deal with Sampras's serve. No absolute way!

 

[Legend of Borg]

Truth hurts.

True story. ™ ©

Your opinion wrapped as truth?

It smells like doo doo.

Prime Hewitt against a washed up Sampras.

****ing genius.

 

[helloworld]

Nadal would take away 90% of Vs out of S&V when facing Sampras. Instead of playing S&V against Nadal, Sampras would be playing S&GP or serve and get passed. Hewitt owned and intimidated Sampras and Hewitt is worse than Nadal in every respect.

In fact, let's have 30 years old Hewitt today play against Djokovic 2011 version. I'd love to see the triple bagels, 6-0 6-0 6-0. :lol:

 

[BeHappy]

I think we can add Djokovic to this.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Is the OP implying Nadal would lose to Sampras on clay every time. That is a huge ROTFL!

 

[BeHappy]

Is the OP implying Nadal would lose to Sampras on clay every time. That is a huge ROTFL!

No, Sampras would never ever beat Nadal on clay.

 

[NadalAgassi]

No, Sampras would never ever beat Nadal on clay.

OK then I otherwise agree. Sampras would be a nightmare matchup for Nadal on all non clay surfaces. Yes even slowish hard courts, and the much slowed grass of today, Nadal would find it extremely difficult. Those would be Nadal's only fighting hopes though (speaking outside clay). On any truly fast court Sampras would rip Nadal a new one.

 

[Xizel]

Nadal would lose because he has **** returns.

 

[Semi-Pro]

Nadal would THRASH Sampras on ANY surface.

 

[fed_rulz]

Nadal would THRASH Sampras on ANY surface.

+1

it appears that Peteclowns have never seen sampras play. According to them, Sampras possesses some mythical serve that was NEVER broken, and the opponent could never win a point on his serve. Never mind the fact that in his prime, he has lost to journey men in his grand slams, or has been stretched to the limit many times.

Yes, Nadal can NEVER beat Sampras in Planet Pete.

 

[henryshli]

Nadal would THRASH Sampras on ANY surface.

Even indoors?.....don't think so.

 

[Magnus]

Federer is aggressive too and doesn't really do all that well against Nadal.

 

[rofl_copter3]

Pete played on completely different surfaces than nadal, and on 90's grass nadal would have been totally killed but the u.s. open would have been very interesting when it was faster, and obviously nadal would have owned the clay...

 

[helloworld]

Nadal has the worst return among the top 4. If he faces the greatest server of all time who can play all court tennis to back up, he'd be in big trouble.

 

[tennis_pro]

Nadal has the worst return among the top 4. If he faces the greatest server of all time who can play all court tennis to back up, he'd be in big trouble.

Only because Djokovic, Murray and Federer (till recent times) have all excellent returns of serve but Nadal's isn't as bad as you make it sound. Still better than Sampras

 

[helloworld]

Only because Djokovic, Murray and Federer (till recent times) have all excellent returns of serve but Nadal's isn't as bad as you make it sound. Still better than Sampras

Nadal simply cannot return a rising ball like Agassi did. He has to stand 100 feet behind the baseline to be able to return the serve. The only way to beat Sampras is to dominate his serve, and Nadal simply doesn't have that ability. This is just a bad match-up for Nadal. Djokovic may be able to hang with Sampras, but certainly not Nadal.

 

[tennis_pro]

Nadal simply cannot return a rising ball like Agassi did. He has to stand 100 feet behind the baseline to be able to return the serve. The only way to beat Sampras is to dominate his serve, and Nadal simply doesn't have that ability. This is just a bad match-up for Nadal. Djokovic may be able to hang with Sampras, but certainly not Nadal.

You're telling me that Nadal wouldn't beat Sampras if they played on these joke of a hard/grass court in recent times? LOL Pete would have to hit 4-5 perfect shots to finally get a winner, that's of course assuming the ball doesn't get to his backhand, once it gets there the point is over.

 

[TTMR]

So Nadal, the greatest passer in the history of the game (able to use his pinpoint accurate sidespin to hook balls around players at net) would have trouble with a serve and volleyer, who, when he did play the baseline, had a notoriously deficient backhand?

Sampras' h2h would be more lopsided than Federer's. Sampras' only chance would be on old grass.

 

[BrooklynNY]

Not sure how Nadal is the greatest passer of this history of the game, considering he doesn't play against anybody who resembles anything close to good at playing the net.

Doesn't make sense someone is the best at something that rarely happens to them.

 

[5th Element]

Some of these posts are plain ridiculous. Have you guys seen Sampras play?

A typical Sampras game goes a bit like this:

0:0
Serve down the T: Ace
15:0
Slow slice serve out wide. Return middle of the court. Boom: winner in the open court (you pick the side)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6cqVAKpOx0 (works on any surface)
30:0
Missed first serve. Second serve kicker into the body. Forces loopy return. Boom: Inside out fh
40:0

And so on...

Best case.. he gets a lucky break and wins the set 6-3 or 6-4. Worst case: It goes to a tie break and you know 8 out 10 times the other player won't come out alive.

Sampras was the ultimate ball destroyer. Yes, occasionally he would lose to some people he shouldn't but at Grand Slam level he was the real deal. He faced all types of player and came out on top over a 10+ year period.

 

[elpolaco84]

Federer alos hits good winner against Nadal but as we've seen due to slow court Nadal seems to get there to retrieve it hitting it even with the frame to put ball in play

 

[fed_rulz]

Some of these posts are plain ridiculous. Have you guys seen Sampras play?

A typical Sampras game goes a bit like this:

0:0
Serve down the T: Ace
15:0
Slow slice serve out wide. Return middle of the court. Boom: winner in the open court (you pick the side)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6cqVAKpOx0 (works on any surface)
30:0
Missed first serve. Second serve kicker into the body. Forces loopy return. Boom: Inside out fh
40:0

And so on...

Best case.. he gets a lucky break and wins the set 6-3 or 6-4. Worst case: It goes to a tie break and you know 8 out 10 times the other player won't come out alive.

Sampras was the ultimate ball destroyer. Yes, occasionally he would lose to some people he shouldn't but at Grand Slam level he was the real deal. He faced all types of player and came out on top over a 10+ year period.

really? is that why he has posted vastly superior results in grand slams when compared to Federer? oh, btw, Federer is the all-time leader in TBs (and he has ~ 50% success rate in TBs, so there's no way it's 8/10 for Sampras).

Sampras' service games might have proceeded the way you describe in the 90s, but against today's returners, it won't go that way -- he should expect a lot more returns put in play, and you can be sure that some one like Nadal will get to his "put-away" volley more often than not.

 

[Semi-Pro]

really? is that why he has posted vastly superior results in grand slams when compared to Federer? oh, btw, Federer is the all-time leader in TBs (and he has ~ 50% success rate in TBs, so there's no way it's 8/10 for Sampras).

Sampras' service games might have proceeded the way you describe in the 90s, but against today's returners, it won't go that way -- he should expect a lot more returns put in play, and you can be sure that some one like Nadal will get to his "put-away" volley more often than not.

Federer actually leads the all time list in percentage of tie breaks won. at 67 or so percent. Nadal is 4th or 5th I think, dunno about sampras

 

[NamRanger]

The players that had the most success were players who could pressure Sampras off his return consistently. Nadal is not a player who can do that, so I really don't see how he's going to break Sampras on any consistent basis (unless Sampras plays a really bad game).


Contrast that to Nadal's serve, a relatively weaker server, and Sampras, the man who just outright tries to club almost every service return (since he knows he only needs one break). Let's think about this for a second. Who do you believe is going to be broken first? The guy with literally the best serve and service game (he backs up his serve better than ANYONE, including Federer), or the guy with a relatively weak serve and one of the top 3 ground games of all time?


Nadal basically has zero chance of beating Sampras even on a slower court. The fact that someone like Roddick can score wins on Nadal on the slower surfaces of today should tell you that Nadal is nowhere near as good at returning/passing as people believe. Let us consider a few things for a moment too. Roddick is nowhere near the league of Sampras, has a tremendously worse backhand, can hit his forehand maybe a little harder (that's if he chooses to do so, which usually does against Nadal), and has a faster serve (but less placement). Not to mention Sampras is overall far more talented shot maker, is far more athletic in almost every respect.


And people seriously believe Nadal would beat Sampras every time? After Nadal's win at the AO in 2009, Nadal was beaten in the SF at IW and Miami by old man Ljubicic and Roddick, both guys who are basically very, very, very, very poor incarnations of Sampras. And they beat Nadal on EXTREMELY slow surfaces. Somehow people believe that Nadal destroys Sampras every time? What kind of a joke is this?

 

[helloworld]

Nadal sucks at returning big serves. He stands 200 feet behind the baseline to hide this weakness. Sampras LOVES playing against this type of player. He doesn't have to worry about his service game, and just go for broke on a return game. Nadal is toast in this match-up.

 

[veritech]

Nadal sucks at returning big serves. He stands 200 feet behind the baseline to hide this weakness. Sampras LOVES playing against this type of player. He doesn't have to worry about his service game, and just go for broke on a return game. Nadal is toast in this match-up.

i agree, pete would absolutely feast on rafa's returns. unfortunately nowadays we don't have any players with a strong serve and volley game to actually put this scenario into fruition.

 

[fed_rulz]

The players that had the most success were players who could pressure Sampras off his return consistently. Nadal is not a player who can do that, so I really don't see how he's going to break Sampras on any consistent basis (unless Sampras plays a really bad game).


Contrast that to Nadal's serve, a relatively weaker server, and Sampras, the man who just outright tries to club almost every service return (since he knows he only needs one break). Let's think about this for a second. Who do you believe is going to be broken first? The guy with literally the best serve and service game (he backs up his serve better than ANYONE, including Federer), or the guy with a relatively weak serve and one of the top 3 ground games of all time?


Nadal basically has zero chance of beating Sampras even on a slower court. The fact that someone like Roddick can score wins on Nadal on the slower surfaces of today should tell you that Nadal is nowhere near as good at returning/passing as people believe. Let us consider a few things for a moment too. Roddick is nowhere near the league of Sampras, has a tremendously worse backhand, can hit his forehand maybe a little harder (that's if he chooses to do so, which usually does against Nadal), and has a faster serve (but less placement). Not to mention Sampras is overall far more talented shot maker, is far more athletic in almost every respect.


And people seriously believe Nadal would beat Sampras every time? After Nadal's win at the AO in 2009, Nadal was beaten in the SF at IW and Miami by old man Ljubicic and Roddick, both guys who are basically very, very, very, very poor incarnations of Sampras. And they beat Nadal on EXTREMELY slow surfaces. Somehow people believe that Nadal destroys Sampras every time? What kind of a joke is this?

The fact that someone like Wayne Ferreira pwns Sampras on carpet (both times in his prime, in 1995), should tell you something : Nadal is 10x the player that Ferreira is, so imagine what he could do to Sampras on fast courts. And Nadal is 5x the player on slow courts than what he is on fast courts. So you do the math...

You see how it works, when you use ONE match as an example? I can quote more Sampras matches for you if you want...

btw, before proclaiming Nadal to have a "weak" serve, you should look at the service hold % of Nadal over the past 5 yrs.

 

[ManFed]

People understimate Sampras and tend tu assume that if Federer can beat him, Nadal would do it too.

But, Federer grew up playing on those fast surfaces where Sampras was king. Federer played a lot against S&V, that is why Roger can contol players with huge serve and power flat strokes. Baby Federer played against Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Sampras, Henmann. Very capable S&V with huge serves. Federer was made to beat those kind of guys and it's a very possible answer, why he has troubles against spin. Because Roger's game was made to beat power flat shots and huge serves.

I don't remember Nadal playing against any capable S&V.

For what I've seen. Federer is much better returner and has more acurate and better passing shots than Nadal. I see Federer having winning record or at least 55% - 45% against Sampras both in their respective primes. But I guess Nadal would be trashed by Sampras in every surface except Clay and Slow AO hardcourt.

 

[fed_rulz]

People understimate Sampras and tend tu assume that if Federer can beat him, Nadal would do it too.

But, Federer grew up playing on those fast surfaces where Sampras was king. Federer played a lot against S&V, that is why Roger can contol players with huge serve and power flat strokes. Baby Federer played against Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Sampras, Henmann. Very capable S&V with huge serves. Federer was made to beat those kind of guys and it's a very possible answer, why he has troubles against spin. Because Roger's game was made to beat power flat shots and huge serves.

I don't remember Nadal playing against any capable S&V.

For what I've seen. Federer is much better returner and has more acurate and better passing shots than Nadal. I see Federer having winning record or at least 55% - 45% against Sampras both in their respective primes. But I guess Nadal would be trashed by Sampras in every surface except Clay and Slow AO hardcourt.

And Sampras has never played against a player like Nadal (and no, Muster plays nothing like Nadal), so it is pointless to claim that Sampras would beat Nadal everywhere except clay and slow hardcourts.

 

[ManFed]

And Sampras has never played against a player like Nadal (and no, Muster plays nothing like Nadal), so it is pointless to claim that Sampras would beat Nadal everywhere except clay and slow hardcourts.

But is more obvious that if Nadal had a terrible time against Karlovic. Imagine what could Sampras do to him in fast courts?. Nadal has no returns against anybody except Federer. For some reason Nadal can read Federer's serve like Federer reads Roddick's. But against Sampras it would be different, nobody can read Sampras serve.

 

[fed_rulz]

But is more obvious that if Nadal had a terrible time against Karlovic. Imagine what could Sampras do to him in fast courts?. Nadal has no returns against anybody except Federer. For some reason Nadal can read Federer's serve like Federer reads Roddick's. But against Sampras it would be different, nobody can read Sampras serve.

EVERYONE has a terrible time against Karlovic, not just Nadal, so the "if A vs B produces X, imagine what A vs C would produce" BS doesn't work.

If nobody could read Sampras' serve, explain Sampras' losses in slams against nobodies (you can exclude clay, because I don't want to embarrass you) in his prime. Statements such as these make you sound stupid.

 

[NamRanger]

The fact that someone like Wayne Ferreira pwns Sampras on carpet (both times in his prime, in 1995), should tell you something : Nadal is 10x the player that Ferreira is, so imagine what he could do to Sampras on fast courts. And Nadal is 5x the player on slow courts than what he is on fast courts. So you do the math...

You see how it works, when you use ONE match as an example? I can quote more Sampras matches for you if you want...

btw, before proclaiming Nadal to have a "weak" serve, you should look at the service hold % of Nadal over the past 5 yrs.

Wayne Ferreria has a better serve and can return better than Nadal. Moot point. You're not even comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and cabbage at this point.


Tennis is a game of match-ups. Ljubicic and Roddick both closely mirror what Sampras would do against Nadal. Ferreria plays nothing like Nadal.

 

[TMF]

Obviously Sampras would have struggled in todays conditions and Nadal would have his own problem in the 90s conditions. To say Nadal would struggle but Sampras wouldn't be effected is biased. The better question is who would struggle more, Sampras or Nadal.

Both players wouldn't have achieved the same had they swapped era. But I believe Nadal would be closer, or better chance in getting his 10 slams(so far) than Pete's 14 slams.

 

[EKnee08]

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.

Remember-Both against Hewitt and Safin was in the twilight of his career. If you want to look at a matchup of Sampras against those guys via analogy or against Rafa, you should look at it at as apple vs. apples, prime Sampras vs. prime opponents.

 

[EKnee08]

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.

Agreed it is all about matchups. Agan, though when Sampras played Hewitt, it wasn't in Sampras' prime!

 

[fed_rulz]

Wayne Ferreria has a better serve and can return better than Nadal. Moot point. You're not even comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and cabbage at this point.


Tennis is a game of match-ups. Ljubicic and Roddick both closely mirror what Sampras would do against Nadal. Ferreria plays nothing like Nadal.

lol. OK. Federer would be the closest to what Sampras would do to Nadal, and that didn't turn out well for Federer, now did it? If Ferreira had a better serve & ROS than Nadal, how is it that Nadal figures in the top 5 of serves broken and held, while AFAIK, Ferreira never did (I may be wrong, but don't think so)?

Roddick can't volley to save his life, and Ljubicic has a much better BH than Sampras, and he's a few inches taller as well. So they're not really "mirroring" anything that Sampras would do or won't do to Nadal.

In short, your analogy is not really appropriate.

 

[NamRanger]

lol. OK. Federer would be the closest to what Sampras would do to Nadal, and that didn't turn out well for Federer, now did it? If Ferreira had a better serve & ROS than Nadal, how is it that Nadal figures in the top 5 of serves broken and held, while AFAIK, Ferreira never did (I may be wrong, but don't think so)?

Roddick can't volley to save his life, and Ljubicic has a much better BH than Sampras, and he's a few inches taller as well. So they're not really "mirroring" anything that Sampras would do or won't do to Nadal.

In short, your analogy is not really appropriate.

Federer again plays nothing like Sampras. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.


The way Roddick and Ljubicic play against Nadal would closely mirror how Sampras would play. Keep the points short, serve big, take big cuts on returns, and get to the net as quickly as possible. And despite the fact that they were playing on extremely slow surfaces, they still managed to score wins over Nadal.


You should probably try taking a logic class. And actually go out and play some tennis.


Two, Nadal's ground game severely inflates his stats. Are you going to say Nadal's 2nd serve is better than Roddick or Isner just because he has a higher 2nd serve percentage? Give me a break. When Nadal faces a quality server, his return percentage goes way down. Look at his stats against guys like Isner, Roddick, Karlovic, etc. etc. Look at his stats when he faces quality returners like Murray, Djokovic, etc. etc.