What would Sampras's h2h against Nadal be?

[flying24]

That's a great example of false logic; it doesn't actually prove anything.

For instance, in 87, Chris Evert lost to the French runner up, Wimbledon winner, in 88 to the winner at the Australian and US Open and runner up at Wimbledon, and in 89 to the Wimbledon winner (didn't play AO or FO). Was she in her prime?

For three straight tournaments, the 73 US Open and 74 Wimbledon and US Open, Ken Rosewall lost to the tournament winner (Newcombe in 73 and Connors in 74); was Rosewall in his prime because he lost to the winner at three straight Slams?

In 1990, Lendl lost to the winner at Wimbledon and the US Open, in 91 to the Australian and US Open winner (skipped Paris, lost early at Wimbledon), and in 92 to the Australian and Wimbledon finalist and the US winner; was Lendl in his prime?

The huge difference is these players were in no way having their best results ever, they were still inferior results in everyway to in their primes years. In 2004 and 2005 Hewitt was more consistent in slams than he ever was, including while he was #1. In 2001 he lost a slumping unseeded Moya in the 3rd round of the Australian Open, Escude in the round of 16 of Wimbledon. In 2002 he lost to Alberto Martin in the 1st round of the Australian Open, and in 2003 while still ranked #1 to El Aynaoui in the round of 16 at the Australian Open. In 2004 and 2005 he lost in all 7 slams he played to the eventual winner, 5 of those 7 to Federer, 1 to Safin, and 1 to Gaudio on Hewitt's worst surface by far (note I didnt even bother mentioning his round of 16 loss Canas in 2002). His only round of 16 loss was to Federer due to starting a year with a low seeding/ranking after an injured plagued 2nd half of 2003, and his only quarterfinal losses were to Federer at Wimbledon 2004 (more bad draw luck and a carryover of the late 2003 situation) and Gaudio at the French Open.

Yes Hewitt was definitely in his prime in 2004 and 2005, in fact it was probably his best tennis ever, but the field was simply better than the transition era of the early 2000s with Federer, Roddick, Nalbandian, and others in their primes now and Nadal emerging, yet he still handled everyone except Federer for awhile.

 

[flying24]

Not to mention that Roddick mostly plays defense despite his monster serve. That's why it's laughable to suggest Roddick would be a worse matchup for a prime Sampras than Krajicek, though you wouldn't know that listening to the experts here. In fact Andy's serve isn't very conducive to frontal attacks, as his explosive service motion, with that exaggerated knee bend, prevents him from leaning forward a la Sampras and, yes, Krajicek. (Note that I'm not trotting out the cliched recovery-time rigmarole.) And Roddick's loopy approach shots only exacerbate his mediocre volleys, though he seems to have gotten marginally better at the net lately.

Yes I agree with all of that. Roddick would actually be a dream matchup for Sampras. A steady baselining retriever essentialy without great mobility, with an extremely powerful and reliable yet readable serve (still overall inferior to Pete's historic serve though) and mediocre volleys. At the 2002 U.S Open clearly neither player was in his prime, but Roddick was surely closer to his than Pete was, and Pete ripped Roddick a new one. Yeah young up and coming Roddick leads the head to head 2-1 vs a fading Pete, but their other two matches were less important venues, how they fared where it really mattered is where we get a truer idea. There is no comparision between Roddick and Krajicek. They play completely different games, aside from having extremely powerful serves.

 

[NonP]

Yes I agree with all of that. Roddick would actually be a dream matchup for Sampras. A steady baselining retriever essentialy without great mobility, with an extremely powerful and reliable yet readable serve (still overall inferior to Pete's historic serve though) and mediocre volleys. At the 2002 U.S Open clearly neither player was in his prime, but Roddick was surely closer to his than Pete was, and Pete ripped Roddick a new one. Yeah young up and coming Roddick leads the head to head 2-1 vs a fading Pete, but their other two matches were less important venues, how they fared where it really mattered is where we get a truer idea. There is no comparision between Roddick and Krajicek. They play completely different games, aside from having extremely powerful serves.

Yeah, not much in common between the two. There's a reason why Sampras in his book described Roddick's game as "straightforward." (I just added this to my previous post, before you responded.)

Anyway I actually like Roddick, and would love to see him win one more major.

 

[flying24]

Yeah, not much in common between the two. There's a reason why Sampras in his book described Roddick's game as "straightforward." (I just added this to my previous post, before you responded.)

Anyway I actually like Roddick, and would love to see him win one more major.

Roddick admited in his book while he was impressed with some aspects of Roddick that Roddick was the kind of player he would never be that worried about when he was playing well. Like you said straightforward was how he summed up Roddick and his game, and that is what Sampras loves.

I also would like to see Roddick get another major as he has worked his butt off to keep improving so many years after being #1, and he keeps getting knocked down by Federer, and has been passed by a group of younger players now over him in the rankings (Nadal has been solidly over him for 4 years now) and yet he keeps believing and fighting. You do have to admire him for that much.

 

[abmk]

The person (other than Federer) that would be the worst matchup for prime Sampras is Roddick -- bigger serve, better volleyer, and more mentally tough than Krajicek.

say what ??????????????

 

[NonP]

say what ??????????????

Ha ha. abmk, flying24 and I have already dissected that part.

BTW I did see your response on that Sampras-Federer thread a few weeks ago. Since I don't wanna revive an old thread I'll just say we didn't disagree much. We just differed by a matter of degrees.

 

[abmk]

Ha ha. abmk, flying24 and I have already dissected that part.

yeah, I saw that , still just expressed my surprise that someone could write such a thing

BTW I did see your response on that Sampras-Federer thread a few weeks ago. Since I don't wanna revive an old thread I'll just say we didn't disagree much. We just differed by a matter of degrees.

hmm, ok

 

[NamRanger]

Yes I agree with all of that. Roddick would actually be a dream matchup for Sampras. A steady baselining retriever essentialy without great mobility, with an extremely powerful and reliable yet readable serve (still overall inferior to Pete's historic serve though) and mediocre volleys. At the 2002 U.S Open clearly neither player was in his prime, but Roddick was surely closer to his than Pete was, and Pete ripped Roddick a new one. Yeah young up and coming Roddick leads the head to head 2-1 vs a fading Pete, but their other two matches were less important venues, how they fared where it really mattered is where we get a truer idea. There is no comparision between Roddick and Krajicek. They play completely different games, aside from having extremely powerful serves.

1. Roddick had a bruised foot that match against Pete. It's not exactly fair to say Pete ripped him a new one when the guy who already has average mobility has even more limited mobility.


2. Roddick from 2003-2004 could have beaten Pete, and most likely would not be a very fun match-up for Pete at all. Although he didn't back it up with a volley, he backed it up with a monster forehand.


3. Pete in 2001 was still a better player than Roddick. He was inches from beating Agassi in the 2001 AO SF that year before tearing a hip flexor.

 

[abmk]

Pete in 2001 was still a better player than Roddick. He was inches from beating Agassi in the 2001 AO SF that year before tearing a hip flexor.

uh, that was in 2000

 

[flying24]

1. Roddick had a bruised foot that match against Pete. It's not exactly fair to say Pete ripped him a new one when the guy who already has average mobility has even more limited mobility.

Fair enough. Really the match was a beatdown though, do you think Roddick having full mobility would have been enough to change the match a great deal that night.

2. Roddick from 2003-2004 could have beaten Pete, and most likely would not be a very fun match-up for Pete at all. Although he didn't back it up with a volley, he backed it up with a monster forehand.

Roddick in 2003-2004 in many ways hit his peak and yes he was great those couple years. Still he went 1-7 vs Federer, and had his serve broken a good number of times in those matches. I have a hard time seeing any Andy doing well vs prime Pete, this is prime Pete you are talking about right. Yes I agree 2003-2004 Roddick would probably handle 2002 Pete in even a slam event.

3. Pete in 2001 was still a better player than Roddick. He was inches from beating Agassi in the 2001 AO SF that year before tearing a hip flexor.

Actually that match you refer to was in January 2000. Pete of 2001 was a long way off his 2000 level.

 

[NamRanger]

Fair enough. Really the match was a beatdown though, do you think Roddick having full mobility would have been enough to change the match a great deal that night.



Roddick in 2003-2004 in many ways hit his peak and yes he was great those couple years. Still he went 1-7 vs Federer, and had his serve broken a good number of times in those matches. I have a hard time seeing any Andy doing well vs prime Pete, this is prime Pete you are talking about right. Yes I agree 2003-2004 Roddick would probably handle 2002 Pete in even a slam event.



Actually that match you refer to was in January 2000. Pete of 2001 was a long way off his 2000 level.

Oh my bad, I have shady memory sometimes. I wouldn't say Roddick would have won, but you can't totally attribute a total beatdown to Pete when Roddick who is not well known for his mobility gets a handicap too.


I see prime Roddick doing very well against Pete. Pete in fact stated himself he HATED to play people who could defend their serves.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Oh my bad, I have shady memory sometimes. I wouldn't say Roddick would have won, but you can't totally attribute a total beatdown to Pete when Roddick who is not well known for his mobility gets a handicap too.


I see prime Roddick doing very well against Pete. Pete in fact stated himself he HATED to play people who could defend their serves.

Sampras found it tough against guys like Krajicek who comes in off his big serve with Roddick, Pete could just float the return back and use his superior movement and groundstrokes.

 

[NamRanger]

Sampras found it tough against guys like Krajicek who comes in off his big serve with Roddick, Pete could just float the return back and use his superior movement and groundstrokes.

Pete wouldn't get away with floating back returns. He's not consistent enough to put enough of them into play like Federer.

 

[lessthanjake]

Radar guns today measure differently than the 90s. Nice try.

Sampras did not serve as fast as Karlovic, buddy. Fact. I dont really know why you argue this when you can see it clearly just looking at the matches.

You keep forgetting that Sampras would never ever engage Nadal in a baseline rally though, especially on his serve where he knows he will win the majority of the points regardless of what Nadal does. It all boils down to whether or not Nadal can defend his own serve. Sampras will leave Nadal little room to expose his backhand. The only time Nadal gets to do that on his own serve, but that is to be expected.

"The only time Nadal gets to do that is on his own serve..." THATS HALF THE TIME, BUDDY!

Nadal would dominate Sampras from the baseline on his own serve. Nadal dominates Federer from the baseline, and Sampras has the same weakness but is WAY less good from the baseline as Federer is (not that Sampras is bad from the baseline, but Federer is way better). Nadal would crush Sampras from the baseline on his own serve. It would be quite hard for Sampras to break him.

Nadal's passing shots could easily get him some games on Sampras' serve. The matchup is clearly not bad for Nadal. This is especially true when you realize that the difference in styles aids Nadal. With Sampras serve and volleying, neither player would get much baseline rhythm. Lack of baseline rhythm hurts the player who plays riskier shots the most. That would be Sampras.

People also forget if you implemented Sampras into this era, all of his weapons will be bigger and better. Who's to say Sampras with a 90 square inch racquet and poly strings of today couldn't crack 140+? He was cracking 130 on old radar guns with a 16 oz racquet. Sampras in the old days could crack the ball over 90 mph on the ground, what's to say he couldn't crack it even harder with new technology?

He played in the early 2000s. Racket technology has not really changed much since then, lets be honest. And while he was not at his peak in the 2000s, he wasn't serving or hitting less hard. And he wasn't cracking 140+ back then, so I think it is a safe assumption that he wouldnt do it now.

My point about using Roddick and Murray is this. Roddick has a far inferior net game, and far inferior transition game, yet he was able to come to net and totally abuse arguably the 2nd best passer in the game. Yet you somehow think Sampras, who can back up his serve better, moves better, has a infinitely better net game and transition game, will be unable to expose Nadal's poor court positioning? Really?

Roddick has a faster serve than Sampras, so you need to stand farther back. Nadal has better passing shots than Murray. That makes things completely different. The fact that you are trying to use a matchup between two players to show what would happen in a matchup between two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT players is ridiculous.

Btw, Nadal can and has effectively taken Karlovic's serves just outside of the baseline and Karlovic serves significantly faster than Sampras.

Also, Sampras has the better return game when it comes to matching up against Nadal. Federer simply puts the ball back into play, allowing Nadal to get into a rally. Sampras on a sitter ball would never allow that. He would simply crush it, miss or not, he doesn't care. For example, Murray has a better return against Nadal today, but Federer returns Roddick's serve better, thus why Federer beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and Murray didn't. Yet Federer struggles to break Nadal.

You are correct about style of return but you are missing one clear point. Nadal would slice to Sampras' backhand every time. Sampras would find it hard to effectively wallop returns from that.

 

[NamRanger]

Sampras did not serve as fast as Karlovic, buddy. Fact. I dont really know why you argue this when you can see it clearly just looking at the matches.



"The only time Nadal gets to do that is on his own serve..." THATS HALF THE TIME, BUDDY!

Nadal would dominate Sampras from the baseline on his own serve. Nadal dominates Federer from the baseline, and Sampras has the same weakness but is WAY less good from the baseline as Federer is (not that Sampras is bad from the baseline, but Federer is way better). Nadal would crush Sampras from the baseline on his own serve. It would be quite hard for Sampras to break him.

Nadal's passing shots could easily get him some games on Sampras' serve. The matchup is clearly not bad for Nadal. This is especially true when you realize that the difference in styles aids Nadal. With Sampras serve and volleying, neither player would get much baseline rhythm. Lack of baseline rhythm hurts the player who plays riskier shots the most. That would be Sampras.



He played in the early 2000s. Racket technology has not really changed much since then, lets be honest. And while he was not at his peak in the 2000s, he wasn't serving or hitting less hard. And he wasn't cracking 140+ back then, so I think it is a safe assumption that he wouldnt do it now.



Roddick has a faster serve than Sampras, so you need to stand farther back. Nadal has better passing shots than Murray. That makes things completely different. The fact that you are trying to use a matchup between two players to show what would happen in a matchup between two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT players is ridiculous.

Btw, Nadal can and has effectively taken Karlovic's serves just outside of the baseline and Karlovic serves significantly faster than Sampras.



You are correct about style of return but you are missing one clear point. Nadal would slice to Sampras' backhand every time. Sampras would find it hard to effectively wallop returns from that.

Forget it, if you can't see why Sampras would clearly have an advantage over Nadal on fast surfaces you don't play tennis. I'm sorry, you clearly have no knowledge about tennis whatsoever. I'm done talking with you.

 

[lessthanjake]

Forget it, if you can't see why Sampras would clearly have an advantage over Nadal on fast surfaces you don't play tennis. I'm sorry, you clearly have no knowledge about tennis whatsoever. I'm done talking with you.

I didn't say he wouldnt have an advantage on fast surfaces, buddy. He would because he is better the faster the surface and Nadal is the opposite. But I am talking about overall head to head. That means clay and slow hard courts too.

To me, I think Nadal would clearly have an advantage over Sampras if they played with the same distribution of matches on each surface as Federer and Nadal have.

Clay: 11 matches
Slow-Grass: 3 matches
Slow Hard Court: 4 matches
Indoor Hard Court: 2 matches


Nadal would win every clay match. On slow grass, I think Nadal would be able to pick off a win against Sampras too (fast grass probably not, but I think Federer would have won all 3 on fast grass against Nadal too). Sampras would win both matches indoors. I think it would go 2-2 on slow hard courts, but Sampras would need to win all 4 of them to have a better head to head than Federer.