Thoughts on Sampras(prime) vs Nadal (now)?

[kraggy]

I think it would be one hell of a match up! It's extremely hard to break Pistol Pete's serve , even Agassi ( arguably the best returner tennis has seen) would admit to that. I really think Nadal would struggle to break Pete's serve much more than he does to break Fed's. That being said, Pete would also have a lot of trouble breaking Nadal because Pete is not nearly as fast as Fed (let alone Nadal) and didn't quite possess Fed or Nadal's sublime shot making ability ( he did have exquisite down the line shots though). When Pete played Andre, he would just hold solid on his serve and wait for Andre to have 1 bad game and use that to get the break. Nadal really makes very few unforced errors so I think a lot of the sets would go down to Tiebreaks.

I would say

On grass : Sampras ( 2-1 favourite)
On clay : Nadal ( 20-1 favourite)
Hard courts : Sampras ( 5- 4 favorite)

If they competed in the same era , Sampras would probably have the edge on H2H because he would rarely make it far enough on clay to meet Nadal there. Grand slam meetings would be epic - Rafa, the super focused and hungry contender vs Pistol Pete, the cool as a cucumber pro.

 

[helloworld]

I think it would be one hell of a match up! It's extremely hard to break Pistol Pete's serve , even Agassi ( arguably the best returner tennis has seen) would admit to that. I really think Nadal would struggle to break Pete's serve much more than he does to break Fed's. That being said, Pete would also have a lot of trouble breaking Nadal because Pete is not nearly as fast as Fed (let alone Nadal) and didn't quite possess Fed or Nadal's sublime shot making ability ( he did have exquisite down the line shots though). When Pete played Andre, he would just hold solid on his serve and wait for Andre to have 1 bad game and use that to get the break. Nadal really makes very few unforced errors so I think a lot of the sets would go down to Tiebreaks.

I would say

On grass : Sampras ( 2-1 favourite)
On clay : Nadal ( 20-1 favourite)
Hard courts : Sampras ( 5- 4 favorite)

If they competed in the same era , Sampras would probably have the edge on H2H because he would rarely make it far enough on clay to meet Nadal there. Grand slam meetings would be epic - Rafa, the super focused and hungry contender vs Pistol Pete, the cool as a cucumber pro.

It's clear to me that you've never seen Sampras in his prime played. Sampras in his prime was very quick. Although Fed's footwork maybe better, but their footspeed is very close. About shotmaking abilities, Sampras was practically known for that. He won't just go to baseline rhythm with his opponents. He just blasted people away with his shotmaking, especially the running forehand. I have no idea why you think he has no shotmaking ability when his whole game is practically built for that. Get your facts straight before you talk, because you might just end up embarassing yourself.

 

[icedevil0289]

I think it would be one hell of a match up! It's extremely hard to break Pistol Pete's serve , even Agassi ( arguably the best returner tennis has seen) would admit to that. I really think Nadal would struggle to break Pete's serve much more than he does to break Fed's. That being said, Pete would also have a lot of trouble breaking Nadal because Pete is not nearly as fast as Fed (let alone Nadal) and didn't quite possess Fed or Nadal's sublime shot making ability ( he did have exquisite down the line shots though). When Pete played Andre, he would just hold solid on his serve and wait for Andre to have 1 bad game and use that to get the break. Nadal really makes very few unforced errors so I think a lot of the sets would go down to Tiebreaks.

I would say

On grass : Sampras ( 2-1 favourite)
On clay : Nadal ( 20-1 favourite)Hard courts : Sampras ( 5- 4 favorite)

If they competed in the same era , Sampras would probably have the edge on H2H because he would rarely make it far enough on clay to meet Nadal there. Grand slam meetings would be epic - Rafa, the super focused and hungry contender vs Pistol Pete, the cool as a cucumber pro.

hahaha! You have a 20-1 head to head on clay, yet you say that pete would most likely lead the head to head because he would most likely not meet nadal on clay, so that head to head is ridiculous. Now for grass, are you talking about prior 2001, or now with the slow grass, because I think if they were to play now, nadal might have an advantage, but if they were going to play on grass when it was the fastest surface, I think sampras would win hands down. btw, you're overall head to head is 25-8, which is a bit too much in rafa's favor.

 

[VivalaVida]

This is such a ridiculous debate.

 

[Lotto]

hahaha! You have a 20-1 head to head on clay, yet you say that pete would most likely lead the head to head because he would most likely not meet nadal on clay, so that head to head is ridiculous. Now for grass, are you talking about prior 2001, or now with the slow grass, because I think if they were to play now, nadal might have an advantage, but if they were going to play on grass when it was the fastest surface, I think sampras would win hands down. btw, you're overall head to head is 25-8, which is a bit too much in rafa's favor.

I think they are odds he's talking about. Like bookmakers odds. 2/1 etc. Maybe not but I think so.

 

[icedevil0289]

I think they are odds he's talking about. Like bookmakers odds. 2/1 etc. Maybe not but I think so.

oh my bad. I take back my hahaha.

 

[kraggy]

I think they are odds he's talking about. Like bookmakers odds. 2/1 etc. Maybe not but I think so.

Yeah I'm talking about odds. Sorry , I thought that was obvious.

 

[kraggy]

It's clear to me that you've never seen Sampras in his prime played. Sampras in his prime was very quick. Although Fed's footwork maybe better, but their footspeed is very close. About shotmaking abilities, Sampras was practically known for that. He won't just go to baseline rhythm with his opponents. He just blasted people away with his shotmaking, especially the running forehand. I have no idea why you think he has no shotmaking ability when his whole game is practically built for that. Get your facts straight before you talk, because you might just end up embarassing yourself.

When did I ever say he has NO shotmaking ability! I was/am a huge Pete fan and he had some unbelievable shot making ability , but for that generation . I am of the opinion that with each generation players only get better and better. Serves get bigger, ground strokes get harder, avg player speeds go up etc etc. It's what happens in almost every sport. What looks like a great shot or play today will seem average when someone from the next generation comes and does that 2 x better.

I am fairly sure most of the top commentators of the sport have said that Fed has better ground strokes than Pete did.

 

[helloworld]

When did I ever say he has NO shotmaking ability! I was/am a huge Pete fan and he had some unbelievable shot making ability , but for that generation . I am of the opinion that with each generation players only get better and better. Serves get bigger, ground strokes get harder, avg player speeds go up etc etc. It's what happens in almost every sport. What looks like a great shot or play today will seem average when someone from the next generation comes and does that 2 x better.

I am fairly sure most of the top commentators of the sport have said that Fed has better ground strokes than Pete did.

Do you realize that Federer and Sampras is only 10 years apart? We're not talking about technological evolution here. We're talking about physical evolution which takes centuries to notice the slightest change. People don't get stronger, faster, tougher in 10 years. The only REAL difference between the 90s and today is the technology involved in the game which turn the gamestyle into baseline bashing like we see today. Apart from that, the difference has been very minor and possibly backward in terms of competition at the top.

 

[GameSampras]

sampras would lead the h2h by a considerable margin. Chances are Pete would never play nadal on clay very much. So Grass and Hardcourts would belong to Pete. I dont see how Nadal's game would trouble an attacking pete on grass and HC. But Pete's serve especially that 2nd serve would give nadal fits. Pete would be an ace machine against Nads

 

[danb]

I think it would be one hell of a match up! It's extremely hard to break Pistol Pete's serve , even Agassi ( arguably the best returner tennis has seen) would admit to that. I really think Nadal would struggle to break Pete's serve much more than he does to break Fed's. That being said, Pete would also have a lot of trouble breaking Nadal because Pete is not nearly as fast as Fed (let alone Nadal) and didn't quite possess Fed or Nadal's sublime shot making ability ( he did have exquisite down the line shots though). When Pete played Andre, he would just hold solid on his serve and wait for Andre to have 1 bad game and use that to get the break. Nadal really makes very few unforced errors so I think a lot of the sets would go down to Tiebreaks.

I would say

On grass : Sampras ( 2-1 favourite)
On clay : Nadal ( 20-1 favourite)
Hard courts : Sampras ( 5- 4 favorite)

If they competed in the same era , Sampras would probably have the edge on H2H because he would rarely make it far enough on clay to meet Nadal there. Grand slam meetings would be epic - Rafa, the super focused and hungry contender vs Pistol Pete, the cool as a cucumber pro.

LOL - you even come up with odds.
With the Sampras serve and Nadal 10 feet behind the baseline it would tough for Rafa on fast courts so HC/GRASS I'd give to Pete.
On clay there is no debate, Pete would never win against Rafa.
But the in the end we're just grasping at straws ...

 

[grafrules]

clay- Nadal wins everytime but it doesnt matter as they would hardly every play.

grass- which grass. Todays grass it is very even. Old grass Sampras wins easily.

hard courts- Sampras wins most of the time but Nadal gets some wins.

 

[icedevil0289]

Yeah I'm talking about odds. Sorry , I thought that was obvious.

my bad.

10 char

 

[iamke55]

Nadal beat Federer on grass and hardcourts, and Federer is ten times the player Sampras was on those surfaces. Just ask Sergi Bruguera.

 

[<3tennis!!!]

tbh, who really cares. were never going to have this matchup ever because obvioulsy sampras is way past his prime. its not gonna happen

 

[lambielspins]

Nadal beat Federer on grass and hardcourts, and Federer is ten times the player Sampras was on those surfaces. Just ask Sergi Bruguera.

I am a major Federer fan but you are obviously a huge clueless troll to make a statement like that. Also who cares what Bruguera thinks as he hardly ever recognizes what tennis is outside of clay.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Nadal has the edge on clay and slow hardcourts. Sampras has the edge on fast hardcourts and grass.

 

[rubberduckies]

they need to play a battle of the surfaces exhibition where each quarter of the court is a different surface (hard, clay, grass, rebound ace).

 

[The-Champ]

sampras would lead the h2h by a considerable margin. Chances are Pete would never play nadal on clay very much. So Grass and Hardcourts would belong to Pete. I dont see how Nadal's game would trouble an attacking pete on grass and HC. But Pete's serve especially that 2nd serve would give nadal fits. Pete would be an ace machine against Nads

I don't see Pete breaking Nadal either! Then comes the tie break...war of the minds!

 

[egn]

Okay your grass odds are not fair at all. Only 2-1 odds. Pete Sampras 7 time Wimbledon champ only has 2-1 odds against one time Wimbledon Champ Rafael Nadal...Prime Sampras should have 5-1 at least against Prime Nadal on grass, soley because well executed serve and volley crushes baseline on grass. Talk to Ivan Lendl and Jim Courier about that one.

Hardcourts against that close....5-4...gosh this bandwagon hopping has to stop..he won the Australian Open thats 1 HC Slam =] compared to Pete's 8 HC slams which is the amount of hardcourt titles Nadal has...It would not be that close. 3-1 easily.

Clay is accurate though.

 

[richied]

Pete destroys on old grass pretty much any tennis player that ever lived...I think still wins on new grass but maybe drops a set or 2
US open: wins, too fast for Nadal, though, I think closer than old grass
Aus open: wins a few drops a few..ala vs Agassi
Clay: Nadal destoys...I would imagine very few matches being played

 

[Noveson]

Okay your grass odds are not fair at all. Only 2-1 odds. Pete Sampras 7 time Wimbledon champ only has 2-1 odds against one time Wimbledon Champ Rafael Nadal...Prime Sampras should have 5-1 at least against Prime Nadal on grass, soley because well executed serve and volley crushes baseline on grass. Talk to Ivan Lendl and Jim Courier about that one.

Hardcourts against that close....5-4...gosh this bandwagon hopping has to stop..he won the Australian Open thats 1 HC Slam =] compared to Pete's 8 HC slams which is the amount of hardcourt titles Nadal has...It would not be that close. 3-1 easily.

Clay is accurate though.

Although I don't necessarily disagree with(I'm no expert on Pete having never seen him play), your stats are quite irrelevant. Nadal is just entering his prime. His career is no where close to being over.

 

[mac1728]

pete would beat nadal more times than not on every surface but clay which he stands no chance. His serve and his running forehand (probably the best ever on the move) would dictate points and he would mix up the return game with chips and put constant pressure on Nadal which is what federer should be doing on his break chances. Pete is in my opinion the most focused player in history with Nadal coming in 2nd.

 

[Noveson]

pete would beat nadal more times than not on every surface but clay which he stands no chance. His serve and his running forehand (probably the best ever on the move) would dictate points and he would mix up the return game with chips and put constant pressure on Nadal which is what federer should be doing on his break chances. Pete is in my opinion the most focused player in history with Nadal coming in 2nd.

Nadal eats chips for lunch. As do I. But really he does. I think that Sampras would have a very tough time breaking Nadal. Federer does, and I don't think it is ever argued that Sampras had a better return game than Federer. Not to mention Sampras would probably never get a forehand to hit, and his backhand would get pounded. I'm thinking no matter the surface(except clay) the matches would be very close. I just can't see either breaking the other very often. Edge has to go to Sampras though.

 

[World Beater]

last i heard nadal was the goat.

who is sampras exactly?

 

[Tennis_Monk]

there is no right or wrong answer here i guess. It largely depends on who one likes.

Probably the older generation(and people who think that S&V is the greatest game strategy) give edge to Sampras.

Newer generation (and probably Fed haters) may give edge to Nadal.

 

[GameSampras]

Nadal eats chips for lunch. As do I. But really he does. I think that Sampras would have a very tough time breaking Nadal. Federer does, and I don't think it is ever argued that Sampras had a better return game than Federer. Not to mention Sampras would probably never get a forehand to hit, and his backhand would get pounded. I'm thinking no matter the surface(except clay) the matches would be very close. I just can't see either breaking the other very often. Edge has to go to Sampras though.

How can u say this when by your own admission you never seen Pete play?

And nadal isnt exactly Karlovic when it comes to serving. Sampras would get the break each set and serve it out on grass or HC. Thats all Pete needed was the service break and Nadal isnt among the greatest servers ever. Far from it. Nadal is no Sampras, Goran, Karlovic or Pancho when it comes to serving.

 

[380pistol]

It's clear to me that you've never seen Sampras in his prime played. Sampras in his prime was very quick. Although Fed's footwork maybe better, but their footspeed is very close. About shotmaking abilities, Sampras was practically known for that. He won't just go to baseline rhythm with his opponents. He just blasted people away with his shotmaking, especially the running forehand. I have no idea why you think he has no shotmaking ability when his whole game is practically built for that. Get your facts straight before you talk, because you might just end up embarassing yourself.

Agreed except for the bold part. Fed's footwork is likely better but it's close. Federer is very quick but in terms of pure speed, Sampras is a bit quicker. Sprinting speed?? Pete there.

I don't see Pete breaking Nadal either! Then comes the tie break...war of the minds!

Then get your eyes checked!!!

Although I don't necessarily disagree with(I'm no expert on Pete having never seen him play), your stats are quite irrelevant. Nadal is just entering his prime. His career is no where close to being over.

You're calling someone's stats irrelevant, but you're talking about Sampras though... you've never seen him play?!? Get it together.

 

[kraggy]

I think most people seem to agree that Pete would have the upper hand in the H2H. I actually think this discussion will be much more relevant 2 yrs from now and we will probably be able to make a better call at that point. Of course everything will still be conjecture!

I dare say though that the H2h wud be closer than the Sampras-Agassi h2h or the Fed-Nadal h2h.

 

[NamRanger]

Agreed except for the bold part. Fed's footwork is likely better but it's close. Federer is very quick but in terms of pure speed, Sampras is a bit quicker. Sprinting speed?? Pete there.

Sampras has incredible sprinting speed. He runs like a 4.4 40 yard dash or something to that extent. Aka he's fast.

 

[helloworld]

I think most people seem to agree that Pete would have the upper hand in the H2H. I actually think this discussion will be much more relevant 2 yrs from now and we will probably be able to make a better call at that point. Of course everything will still be conjecture!

I dare say though that the H2h wud be closer than the Sampras-Agassi h2h or the Fed-Nadal h2h.

I agree that it will be close and will be a great rivalry unlike Pete vs Andre or Nad vs Fed where both rivalries are overwhelmed by one side. I never bought the Fed vs sampras thing. IMO, Fed doesn't fit to be Sampras rivalry. I've always seen Nadal as a true potential rivalry to Sampras. Unfortunately, we'll never see that rivalry since these two greats are from different generations.

 

[Mr Topspin]

I think it depends on how Sampras deals with the topspin and how Nadal deals with the sampras serve. If Pete could hurt Nadal on the bh side as well as the fh then it would be intriguing. If Nadal could get Sampras to hit a ton of volleys and was able to get on that serve (remember Nadal is a lefty would determine the outcome).

I recollect Hewitt who gave Sampras imo a far more tougher time on return than say Agassi simply by forcing Pete to volley more plus the quick wheels of Hewitt meant Sampras always had his work cut out. If Nadal could pose similar problems then it would be tough for Pete because Nadal will hurl himself after every single shot and has a knack for making 3 or 4 ridiculous gets which causes a lot of players to over hit and second guess themselves time and again.

 

[Noveson]

Agreed except for the bold part. Fed's footwork is likely better but it's close. Federer is very quick but in terms of pure speed, Sampras is a bit quicker. Sprinting speed?? Pete there.



Then get your eyes checked!!!



You're calling someone's stats irrelevant, but you're talking about Sampras though... you've never seen him play?!? Get it together.

First of all meant to say in his prime. Get it together? Sampras's career is over. Nadal's is not. How can you compare slams? Figure it out

 

[380pistol]

First of all meant to say in his prime. Get it together? Sampras's career is over. Nadal's is not. How can you compare slams? Figure it out

So exactly how can you give an assesment on Sampras (in his prime) vs Nadal (today), when you said you never saw Sampras in his prime??? Feel free to explain.

 

[tennis-hero]

On real grass

Sampras 10000000000000000000000000000/1 odds on fave

on slow grass

Sampras 10000000000000/1 odds n fave (sorry Rafa would never handle Pete on anything resembling grass, and remember, Rafa's BH cross court (which rapes Roger) IS PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE LEGENDARY SAMPRAS RUNNING FOREHAND

on fast hardcourts

Sampras would win 0,0,0

and thats being generous

on clay Nadal wins 8 times out of 10

because i think Pete could sneak out a win even on clay :roll: :roll: LOL

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

On real grass

Sampras 10000000000000000000000000000/1 odds on fave

on slow grass

Sampras 10000000000000/1 odds n fave (sorry Rafa would never handle Pete on anything resembling grass, and remember, Rafa's BH cross court (which rapes Roger) IS PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE LEGENDARY SAMPRAS RUNNING FOREHAND

on fast hardcourts

Sampras would win 0,0,0

and thats being generous

on clay Nadal wins 8 times out of 10

because i think Pete could sneak out a win even on clay :roll: :roll: LOL

You do realise that Sampras lost to far worst players than Nadal on fast surfaces don't you?

 

[julianoz]

Nadal has the edge on clay and slow hardcourts. Sampras has the edge on fast hardcourts and grass.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[yemenmocha]

A lot of you are forgetting that Nadal's quickness and persistence in running down balls is useless against a good serve & volleyer. Pete wasn't just a big server. He followed it up well with the volleys.

You can run down groundies in a long rally, but the angles created by S&V can't be run down. There is a rock/paper/scissors here, and when dealing with the greatest players S&V such as Sampras, this is going to beat Nadal the majority of the time, on all surfaces except for that short time of year that people play on clay.

 

[King of Aces]

A lot of you are forgetting that Nadal's quickness and persistence in running down balls is useless against a good serve & volleyer. Pete wasn't just a big server. He followed it up well with the volleys.

You can run down groundies in a long rally, but the angles created by S&V can't be run down. There is a rock/paper/scissors here, and when dealing with the greatest players S&V such as Sampras, this is going to beat Nadal the majority of the time, on all surfaces except for that short time of year that people play on clay.

Tell that to Hewitt!

Lleyton not only BAGELED sampras....but hewitt beat Samporas at the USO and twice on the "fast" grass.

 

[King of Aces]

Tell that to Hewitt!

Lleyton not only BAGELED sampras....but hewitt beat Samporas at the USO and twice on the "fast" grass.

furthermore...look at these head to head records of some other players:

Hewitt is 5-4 against Pete

Safin is 4-3 against Pete

Wilander is 1 and 2 against Pete

Santoro is 3-4 against Pete

 

[King of Aces]

MOYA DEFEATS SAMPRAS:

1997 ATP Tour World Championship
Germany Hard RR 6-3 6-7(4) 6-2

KUERTEN DEFEATS SAMPRAS

2000 Tennis Masters Cup
Lisbon, Portugal Hard 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4

 

[GameSampras]

furthermore...look at these head to head records of some other players:

Hewitt is 5-4 against Pete

Safin is 4-3 against Pete

Wilander is 1 and 2 against Pete

Santoro is 3-4 against Pete

Fed has some losing records to some players of Pete's era. Rafter for one. It happens. Alot of those matches were before or AFTER pete's prime 93-98 or 99 whichever u prefer. Especially Hewitt and Safin

 

[elquien]

As much as I like Pete and hoped his records would stand for a long time, I just don't see his bh holding up to Nadal's barrage of topspin fh on any surface. Add to that Nadal's backboard mentality and passing shots I only see them even on fast grass or really fast hard courts. Fed has a superior bh to Pete he is unable to do anything with it.

 

[julianoz]

Pete's serve and volleying are also superior to fed and sampras is a smarter and mentally tougher player than fed

 

[Nadal_Freak]

MOYA DEFEATS SAMPRAS:

1997 ATP Tour World Championship
Germany Hard RR 6-3 6-7(4) 6-2

KUERTEN DEFEATS SAMPRAS

2000 Tennis Masters Cup
Lisbon, Portugal Hard 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Agreed. I'm giving Sampras too much credit.

 

[federerGOAT]

Old grass, new grass, clay, hardcourt, surface doesn't matter. Sampras will have a losing record against Nadal. He was lucky not to have faced Nadal and Fed during the 90s.

 

[King of Aces]

Pete's serve and volleying are also superior to fed and sampras is a smarter and mentally tougher player than fed

]SAMPRAS HAS NEVER DONE WELL AGAINST GRINDERS.....IN FACT GRINDERS BAGEL SAMPRAS

WILANDER BAGELS SAMPRAS

1990 Sydney Outdoor
Australia Hard Q Wilander 6-7 7-5 6-0

CHANG BAGELS SAMPRAS AND BEATS HIM A BUNCH OF TIMES

CA, U.S.A. Hard R32 Chang 7-6 6-0
1989 Stratton Mountain

1995 ATP Tour World Championship
Germany Carpet S Chang 6-4 6-4
Stats

1994 Grand Slam Cup
Germany Carpet Q Sampras 6-4 6-3
Stats
1992 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Chang 6-4 7-6(4)
Stats
1990 Grand Slam Cup
Germany Carpet S Sampras 6-3 6-4 6-4
1990 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard R16 Chang 7-5 6-4
1990 ATP Masters Series Canada
Toronto, Canada Hard S Chang 3-6 7-6 7-5
1989 Los Angeles

Hewitt bagels sampras and leads series 5-4

2000 Tennis Masters Cup
Lisbon, Portugal Hard RR Hewitt 7-5 6-0
Stats
2002 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard S Hewitt 6-2 6-4
Stats
2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Hewitt 7-6(4) 6-1 6-1
Stats
2001 London / Queen's Club
England Grass S Hewitt 3-6 6-3 6-2
Stats

2000 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Sampras 7-6(7) 6-4 7-6(5)
Stats
2000 London / Queen's Club
England Grass F Hewitt 6-4 6-4
Stats
2000 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Sampras 6-3 3-6 6-1
Stats
1999 London / Queen's Club
England Grass S Sampras 4-6 6-4 7-6(4)
Stats
1998 New Haven
CT, U.S.A


MOYA DEFEATS SAMPRAS

1997 ATP Tour World Championship
Germany Hard RR Moya 6-3 6-7(4) 6-2

KUERTEN DFEATS SAMPRAS

2000 Tennis Masters Cup
Lisbon, Portugal Hard S Kuerten 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4[/QUOTE]

 

[King of Aces]

]SAMPRAS HAS NEVER DONE WELL AGAINST GRINDERS.....IN FACT GRINDERS BAGEL SAMPRAS

WILANDER BAGELS SAMPRAS

1990 Sydney Outdoor
Australia Hard Q Wilander 6-7 7-5 6-0

CHANG BAGELS SAMPRAS AND BEATS HIM A BUNCH OF TIMES

CA, U.S.A. Hard R32 Chang 7-6 6-0
1989 Stratton Mountain

1995 ATP Tour World Championship
Germany Carpet S Chang 6-4 6-4
Stats

1994 Grand Slam Cup
Germany Carpet Q Sampras 6-4 6-3
Stats
1992 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Chang 6-4 7-6(4)
Stats
1990 Grand Slam Cup
Germany Carpet S Sampras 6-3 6-4 6-4
1990 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard R16 Chang 7-5 6-4
1990 ATP Masters Series Canada
Toronto, Canada Hard S Chang 3-6 7-6 7-5
1989 Los Angeles

Hewitt bagels sampras and leads series 5-4

2000 Tennis Masters Cup
Lisbon, Portugal Hard RR Hewitt 7-5 6-0
Stats
2002 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard S Hewitt 6-2 6-4
Stats
2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Hewitt 7-6(4) 6-1 6-1
Stats
2001 London / Queen's Club
England Grass S Hewitt 3-6 6-3 6-2
Stats

2000 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Sampras 7-6(7) 6-4 7-6(5)
Stats
2000 London / Queen's Club
England Grass F Hewitt 6-4 6-4
Stats
2000 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Sampras 6-3 3-6 6-1
Stats
1999 London / Queen's Club
England Grass S Sampras 4-6 6-4 7-6(4)
Stats
1998 New Haven
CT, U.S.A


MOYA DEFEATS SAMPRAS

1997 ATP Tour World Championship
Germany Hard RR Moya 6-3 6-7(4) 6-2

KUERTEN DFEATS SAMPRAS

2000 Tennis Masters Cup
Lisbon, Portugal Hard S Kuerten 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4

[/QUOTE]

The bagel list and Grinder defeats just grows...in addition to Chang,Wilander, Hewitt, Moya , Kuerten......now here is Santoro:


Santoro Bagels Sampras and wins 6-1 and 6-2at USO on fast hardcourt!:

2001 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard R32 Sampras 6-3 3-6 6-0
Stats

1993 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R128 Sampras 6-3 6-1 6-2
Stats

and look at what Hewitt did to Sampras even on the fast USO hard:

2000 Tennis Masters Cup
Lisbon, Portugal Hard RR Hewitt 7-5 6-0
Stats

2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Hewitt 7-6(4) 6-1 6-1
Stats

 

[King of Aces]

Im wrong about Santoro guys!!! Sorry

 

[380pistol]

Fed has some losing records to some players of Pete's era. Rafter for one. It happens. Alot of those matches were before or AFTER pete's prime 93-98 or 99 whichever u prefer. Especially Hewitt and Safin

Why are you even bothering with this guy??? I mean up until US Open Sampras was 4-1 lifetime vs Hewitt. Lleyton beat him in Queens, (and don't make me list all the people who beat Sampras a Queens), but they'll say Hewitt was young.

Sampras got married and didn't play for 3 months (Sept. 2000 - Dec. 2000), and that's when Hewitt got his 2nd victory, then passed Sampras in 2001-02 when Pete was having the worst years of their life. Pete was gassed in the 2001 US Open after the first set of the final, if anyone believes Hewitt would have won if he gotthe Sampras Rafter/Agassi/Safin got is fooling themselves.

I mean vs Rafter(#6)/Agassi(#2)/Safin(#3), Sampras in 11 sets was never broken. In fact in 11 sets (60 serve games) Pete only alloed 8 break points. That's an avg. of 1 break pt allowed every 7.5 service game!!!!! Less than one a set!!!!

Yet Hewitt broke Sampras 5 time over the final 2 sets(and 6 times in the match), and that's all Hewitt's greatness, and not Pete faltering. So Hewitt(#10) 2001 > Rafter(#6)/Agassi(#2)/Safin(#3).... please.

Roddick got Sampras in Miami, and in a smaller tournament, but when it matered(2002 US Open QF), what happened??? It took Pete all of 98 minutes.

Safin played out of his mind one day, and people are all over than. What about 2000 Masters Cup, where Pete dispatched Marat in less than an hour?? 2001 US Open SF?? Like it never happened.

Since this guy likes to talk as him about Roger's head to head with Enqvist, Bruguera, Corretja, Guga, Kafelnikov, Hrbaty and Rafter???