What if it was Sampras (born in 1981) serving for the match at USO 2011 and Wimbledon 2019 vs Djokovic ?

What if it was 30 yr old Sampras serving for the match at USO 2011 and Wimbledon 2019 vs Djokovic ?

  • Novak would still have won, his return is a genuine weapon and his clutch is second to none

  • Sampras would never have been so close on Match-points, he would have lost long before

  • Sampras would have won both the matches with his Lethal Weapon (Serve)


Results are only viewable after voting.

PerilousPear

Semi-Pro
Neither. Sampras retired at 31, so I don't a 38 y/o would've done anything significant, even at Wimby.

And at USO he would've been 30, the courts were slowed down, and he was up against the 2nd best player of all time at his physical peak.


Actually, scratch that. PETE would've pistol-whipped that CRAPOLA field.
 

topher

Hall of Fame
If Sampras gets to match point he puts the match away. Nuff said.
I agree with that, if he gets there he puts it away. The way OP posed it though, Sampras at age 30, was a shadow of his younger self, unlike Fed who was just a bit faded.

But is this a Sampras that benefited from modern sports science and more motivation to become a fitter version of himself at age 30?

Hard to say how that would work out, didn’t Pete have a genetic Greek heritage defect that hurt his stamina? Not sure if modern sports science can fully rectify that.
 

Sunny014

Legend
I have a PETE would win just as many Slams as the Big 3 did (or more) if he was born in 1985 theory, but I fear the forum is not ready for it.
Please post in detail in a separate post.
I did it for Fed in 1987 scenario but that was hurriedly done.

You can post year by year detail of events as how it would turn out, I and @Third Serve would be interested in reading that, perhaps @mike danny too.
 

Sunny014

Legend
I agree with that, if he gets there he puts it away. The way OP posed it though, Sampras at age 30, was a shadow of his younger self, unlike Fed who was just a bit faded.

But is this a Sampras that benefited from modern sports science and more motivation to become a fitter version of himself at age 30?

Hard to say how that would work out, didn’t Pete have a genetic Greek heritage defect that hurt his stamina? Not sure if modern sports science can fully rectify that.
1981 born means he will be able to partially use benefits of modern day nutrition + medicine science, not much.

People born 1985 and above utilized it fully.

From Fed's gen only Fed and Lopez could play till 40, others all faded away..
 

Sunny014

Legend
Neither. Sampras retired at 31, so I don't a 38 y/o would've done anything significant, even at Wimby.

And at USO he would've been 30, the courts were slowed down, and he was up against the 2nd best player of all time at his physical peak.


Actually, scratch that. PETE would've pistol-whipped that CRAPOLA field.

How can you be so sure that Pete would whoop the crapola field ?
Did Pete have a double handed backhand?

Pure scripted ace and championship victory for Pete. And you can take that to the bank.
Maybe Pete's game from 90s is so serve oriented that we expect nothing to go wrong when he is serving in 2011 or in 2019... ?
 

PerilousPear

Semi-Pro
How can you be so sure that Pete would whoop the crapola field ?
Did Pete have a double handed backhand?



Maybe Pete's game from 90s is so serve oriented that we expect nothing to go wrong when he is serving in 2011 or in 2019... ?
No, because you cannot hit a pretty double-handed backhand. PETE knew what people wanted, so he stick to his guns.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I agree with that, if he gets there he puts it away. The way OP posed it though, Sampras at age 30, was a shadow of his younger self, unlike Fed who was just a bit faded.

But is this a Sampras that benefited from modern sports science and more motivation to become a fitter version of himself at age 30?

Hard to say how that would work out, didn’t Pete have a genetic Greek heritage defect that hurt his stamina? Not sure if modern sports science can fully rectify that.
This roughly lines up with 2001 Pete for the first match so depending on the round he's good enough to potentially beat Djokovic, if he conserves energy in the early rounds it's a very close match.

As a half Greek I can inform you that there's no such thing as a genetic Greek defect :p
 

ibbi

Legend
30 year old Sampras was a shadow of his former self, but if he's in a position where he's serving for the match (ignoring the fact that he never made a final anywhere outside of the US, so likely isn't going to make the Wimbledon final to begin with) I'd like his chances of finishing it more than Roger's, because his serve is better. The counter to that is that the surfaces of the 21st century are not particularly conducive to his game, but if he's in the position you're putting him in he's obviously good enough to get to that point so all other considerations can go out the window.:-D
 

Sephiroth

Hall of Fame
Federer was the better player but Sampras was a more, stone cold, killer

if he was in that position he would've finished it, I don't see 40-15's happening with him
 
Top