Which loss is worse

Which loss was worse ?


  • Total voters
    80

SStrikerR

Hall of Fame
Even though Sampras was a great gc player, he was already having poor results that year and was almost retired. Nadal is in his prime.
 

tudwell

Legend
Nadal. Sampras was pretty much washed up at that point, barring a miracle run to the U.S. Open title later that year. Nadal seemed to be regaining ground after his relatively mediocre season last year, and then Rosol hit him like a ton of bricks.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
nadal's loss to rosol is in a league if it's own...
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Nadal's loss was the best ... oops... I mean worse
*red face*

Nadal was injured whereas I am not sure about Sampras. So Sampras perhaps. Or maybe Nadal.
 

rofl_copter3

Professional
The Sampras loss was worse, he had no business losing to that joker, at least Rosol overpowered Nadal and it didn't happen on clay...
 

Fugazi

Professional
The poll results amaze me... Of course Pete's loss was worse. While it's true that he was old at the time, he was still the king of grass. But more important: Rafa didn't play that bad in his loss, it's Rosol who stepped it up big time with amazing power tennis, being especially impressive in the 5th.
 

tennisplayer1993

Professional
sampras was 30 and probably slower. sampras wasn't that great in 2002 from what I remember. besides winning the us open he was losing on clay to the like of a pre-prime roddick and seemed slower than he was in his 20s. for him the 30s, took a toll on his game. his last great year was 2002.

nadal lost against an on fire rosol. pretty sure rosol would have beaten anyone that day
 

Ico

Hall of Fame
Nadal's because that match is a sign of the end. It's hard to believe he hasn't played since then.
 

Fugazi

Professional
2012 Rosol would have destroyed 2002 Bastl (actually he would have destroyed almost anyone on that day), so draw your own conclusions...
 

tennisplayer1993

Professional
Federer in straights over that rosol.
i really doubt that. i think rosol will at least take a set of federer. he was playing very well but his return of serve was pathetic. federer's serve is much more lethal than nadal's so i wouldn't say a straight set victory but an intense 4-setter.
 
i really doubt that. i think rosol will at least take a set of federer. he was playing very well but his return of serve was pathetic. federer's serve is much more lethal than nadal's so i wouldn't say a straight set victory but an intense 4-setter.
prime fed or current level fed in regards to the 4 setter with Rosol?
 

Cormorant

Professional
Federer faced his own Rosol when #152 Ilija Bozoljac put on a serving masterclass against him at Wimbledon in 2010. Despite the onslaught of aces and a bad back, Roger weathered the storm in four.

Nadal/Rosol was thrilling entertainment, easily qualifying as one of the matches of the season, whereas Pete's game was a series of damp squibs in that bloodless encounter with Bastl. Anyone looking for an interesting Sampras defeat would be better off seeing his USO contest with Yzaga in 1994, or his perplexing collapse against Corretja on grass in a 2002 Davis Cup match.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Nadal's loss was wayyyy worse. Pete was 31 at the time (And was on like a year and half losing streak or something) , and would retire in a few months.. Nadal is much younger this year and was a favorite to take the wimbledon title this year after winning the french
 

timnz

Legend
No Coincidence that Sampras lost Wimbledon in 2002

2002 was the first year of the dreaded slowdown. They had re-seeded the Wimbledon grass late in 2001 (After the 2001 years championships were over). 2002 represents new Wimbledon. It really wasn't the same tournament anymore. Remember how Henman commented that year that it was one of the slowest surfaces he had played on all year.

So even though Sampras had ruled Wimbledon it was a different Wimbledon from 2002 onwards. It was a medium court speed event rather than a fast court event and has remained as such ever since.

(Jolly if I was right about this you would expect the 2002 finalists to serve and volley a lot less .....ummmm oh .....no serve and volley points at all which was the case).
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
In the scheme of things they're about even. Nadal was injured (just going by his word, and he hasn't played since) and not 100% in his match, and his opponent was possessed by Jesus.
 

dangalak

Banned
Federer faced his own Rosol when #152 Ilija Bozoljac put on a serving masterclass against him at Wimbledon in 2010. Despite the onslaught of aces and a bad back, Roger weathered the storm in four.

Nadal/Rosol was thrilling entertainment, easily qualifying as one of the matches of the season, whereas Pete's game was a series of damp squibs in that bloodless encounter with Bastl. Anyone looking for an interesting Sampras defeat would be better off seeing his USO contest with Yzaga in 1994, or his perplexing collapse against Corretja on grass in a 2002 Davis Cup match.
Let's not forget Bennetau. What ballbashing. :shock:
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
2002 was the first year of the dreaded slowdown. They had re-seeded the Wimbledon grass late in 2001 (After the 2001 years championships were over). 2002 represents new Wimbledon. It really wasn't the same tournament anymore. Remember how Henman commented that year that it was one of the slowest surfaces he had played on all year.

So even though Sampras had ruled Wimbledon it was a different Wimbledon from 2002 onwards. It was a medium court speed event rather than a fast court event and has remained as such ever since.

(Jolly if I was right about this you would expect the 2002 finalists to serve and volley a lot less .....ummmm oh .....no serve and volley points at all which was the case).
This is a smart point I feel many people ignore, or just are unaware.

Good Post.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Hard to say. Pete was way past his prime, and Nadal was not in anyway near the same way. Nadal was favored by alot of people to win Wimbledon this year too, which Pete really was not in 2002. However Rosol did play some incredible tennis to beat Nadal, probably will always be the match of his life. Bastl didnt do anything special to beat Pete, he played probably his normal level match and still won over a really sluggish and lethargic Pete Sampras. Wimbledon is also Sampras's home, the way Roland Garros is Nadal's. So overall a toss up.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
You know what's really worst? THe poll consisting of 2 checkboxes instead of radio-button control. That really pisses me off!
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
The overall result was worse for prime Nadal than washed-up Sampras, but Sampras's play was more embarrassing.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
You know what's really worst? THe poll consisting of 2 checkboxes instead of radio-button control. That really pisses me off!
If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.

At least this way, the guy who can choose can still do the way they want, as the results evidence.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
Voted for Nadal just because Nadal is in his prime.
Basically even.
That year was the end of an era at Wimbledon.
They slowed the court and put him on court 2.
Total humiliation loss.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.

At least this way, the guy who can choose can still do the way they want, as the results evidence.
It's a useless poll. The question is which loss is worse so it doesn't make sense to check both options.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Didn't expect that from you. It has nowhere been said nor was there any indication that Nadal was injured in that match.
I didn't see any indication either and I'm not making excuses for him as he was fit enough to play the match. All I'm saying is that with what we know now, his word is that he wasnt 100% and says he shouldn't have played. Nothing wrong with me saying that. A fully fit Nadal could have still lost that match the way Rosol played possessed.
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
Nadal because he will never win a slam again and it's the start of the end of his career. Sampras however still managed to win the USO right after that loss.
 

NDFM

Rookie
Tough as a nadal fan to say it but I guess its the rosol loss, I had high hopes for nadal at wimbledon this year but looking at his past history in the first week I had a feeling he could get upset after seeing how he was playing in halle (and the first few games in the match against bellucci although he pulled out of that) and that feeling came early in the match when he just about won the first set. However rosol played unbelievably i was shocked at what I was seeing he fully deserved the win.
 

cork_screw

Hall of Fame
Man, this thread is really ********. Who cares who loses to who. You have your good and bad days. And rosol had a good day, nadal had a so-so day. Get over it. You hang this over him like he played really bad and nadal played even worse. If rosol played fed the way he was hitting, he would have beaten him or even djokovic.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Which loss is worse ?

Please share your thoughts.
well, it depends what you mean with "worse".
the rosol one is better in the sense that it was a delight to see him denadalize the draw in the 2nd round, whereas i was really disappointed to see the great pete ousted so early in 2002...
 

90's Clay

Banned
Man, this thread is really ********. Who cares who loses to who. You have your good and bad days. And rosol had a good day, nadal had a so-so day. Get over it. You hang this over him like he played really bad and nadal played even worse. If rosol played fed the way he was hitting, he would have beaten him or even djokovic.
Thats very true as well.. Rasol was in Godmode at least for that match.. Nadal played well enough still in the match to probably beat any of the other top 3 guys really
 

pennc94

Professional
Loss to Rosol was not a bad loss at all. Rosol was on fire. Nadal could have had 4 healthy knees and he still would have lost. Give Rosol some credit.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
Thats very true as well.. Rasol was in Godmode at least for that match.. Nadal played well enough still in the match to probably beat any of the other top 3 guys really
Yeah, I'm sure Rosol would have beaten anyone. :roll: He played well and deserves credit but would have had a tougher time versus someone with a better serve and more offensive mind set.

I trust that even you wouldn't try and say the same thing about Bastl, or would you?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Thats very true as well.. Rasol was in Godmode at least for that match.. Nadal played well enough still in the match to probably beat any of the other top 3 guys really
Nadal served well but he wasn't on top form. Definately not good enough to beat Djokovic, Murray or Federer if they were on form that's for sure.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Yeah, I'm sure Rosol would have beaten anyone. :roll: He played well and deserves credit but would have had a tougher time versus someone with a better serve and more offensive mind set.

I trust that even you wouldn't try and say the same thing about Bastl, or would you?
:shock: Righht.. Like Nadal needs to be in offensive mindset mode to beat Freakin Federer. And didn't Fed need 5 sets to beat some bum at wimbledon? Benneateau or whatever the hell his name is?
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
:shock: Righht.. Like Nadal needs to be in offensive mindset mode to beat Freakin Federer. And didn't Fed need 5 sets to beat some bum at wimbledon? Benneateau or whatever the hell his name is?
Didn't you say that it is all about match ups in one of your other posts? :lol:

Some bum who is ranked much higher than Rosol? He also actually won the match (and the tournament), of course. :cool:

Fortunately, Kohlschreiber saved the rest of the tournament from The Rosol!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top