Which period was most similar to Nadal's RG dominance: Sampras or Federer@Wimbledon?

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

 

[RF20Lennon]

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

Fed won 5 straight plus never lost before QF's but Sampras like nadal won 4 in a row and then 3 so maybe Sampras??

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Fed won 5 straight plus never lost before QF's but Sampras like nadal won 4 in a row and then 3 so maybe Sampras??

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

 

[90's Clay]

Neither really. Nadal's French Open dominance overall is just NUTS. Hes only ever lost once there in his entire career.

However, Sampras' grass competition during the 90s was better then Nadal's clay competition in the 00s-10's, so that could be taken into account.

 

[ledwix]

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

You can't negate history...*facepalm*

I suppose you think Nadal 2014-2018 will show how good he *really* is at RG? If he doesn't win them all, that almost "negates" his first five.

 

[OHBH]

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

Exactly why I voted for Sampras. Though this comparison will likely not last long as Nadal's dominance on clay has yet to fade and we can expect another two RG titles in the next four years.

 

[tennis_pro]

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

Sampras in 1998-2002 had 3 wins and 2 losses before the quarters (one to a lucky loser), I guess that negates whatever he's done before.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

I agree Sampras' is far more convincing than Federer's, because Sampras faced grasscourt players.

 

[kishnabe]

Even as a *******.....I would have to say Sampras. 8 titles in 9 years for Sampras. Similiar to Nadal 7 titles in 8 years at RG.

Federer is 7 titles in 10 years. Still very very impressive.

Out of the three however Sampras is the most impresive....since there were more Grass Court threats.

Nadal is playing in a weak cc era and Federer in a weak Grass era. They would have still won the same ammount with stronger competition.....cause they are so damm good. Still it did not happen.....Sampras has a better dominance than Nadal.

 

[fed_rulz]

Even as a *******.....I would have to say Sampras. 8 titles in 9 years for Sampras. Similiar to Nadal 7 titles in 8 years at RG.

Federer is 7 titles in 10 years. Still very very impressive.

Out of the three however Sampras is the most impresive....since there were more Grass Court threats.

Nadal is playing in a weak cc era and Federer in a weak Grass era. They would have still won the same ammount with stronger competition.....cause they are so damm good. Still it did not happen.....Sampras has a better dominance than Nadal.

what?? Sampras and Federer have both won 7 titles in 10 yrs since they won their first Wimbledon. Federer has been to one more final than Pete, and overall has been more dominant in his victories (less sets, games lost).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Gotta give this one to Pete.

 

[Hood_Man]

I suppose it's Sampras since both he and Nadal have managed win streaks of 4 wins and 3 wins (Sampras 3 and 4, Nadal 4 and 3), and each man's 7th win was a record (Nadal for having 7 French Opens, and Sampras for 13 majors).

Neither of them achieved 7 consecutive finals or 40 consecutive wins

 

[kishnabe]

what?? Sampras and Federer have both won 7 titles in 10 yrs since they won their first Wimbledon. Federer has been to one more final than Pete, and overall has been more dominant in his victories (less sets, games lost).

I mean when he started winning Wimbledon.
Sampras

93-95, 96...thank you Kracijek. 97-01.

Nadal

05-08, 09 thank you Soderling, 10-12.

Federer

03-07, 08 Damm you Nadal, 09(why Roddick ), 10 Stupid Bird, 11 Great Tsonga win. 12..Redemption Fed.

 

[90's Clay]

Well Pete had to go against Becker, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Rafter among others to get his wimbledon titles..

Thats a star studded cast of talent right there.. While Fed goes up against baby Nadal, Roddick, Murray etc. Not quite the opposition that Pete had on grass.

Then you got Nadal on clay.. Who outside of Djoker and Fed (who are pretty good dirtballers but neither great. Both their weakest surface) didn't have much to contend with in terms of great clay competition.

 

[fed_rulz]

Well Pete had to go against Becker, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Rafter among others to get his wimbledon titles..

Thats a star studded cast of talent right there.. While Fed goes up against baby Nadal, Roddick, Murray etc. Not quite the opposition that Pete had on grass.

Then you got Nadal on clay.. Who outside of Djoker and Fed (who are pretty good dirtballers but neither great. Both their weakest surface) didn't have much to contend with in terms of great clay competition.

yet Pete came a cropper against baby Fed... now why would that be?

the way I look at it, Nadal defeated Federer (the GOAT) in 6 of his wins; Federer defeated Nadal in 2 of his wins (another GOAT candidate). whom did Sampras defeat in 7 of his wins? Borg? himself? Laver? Federer? no other GOAT candidate to speak of.

so in terms of "dominance", Federer's easily surpasses Pete, and is more similar to Nadal's (though Nadal's is at a higher level).

 

[MTF07]

LOL, Since when is Courier a great grass courter? He was pretty lousy on grass. Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are clearly superior grass players to Courier. Hewitt is more accomplished than Rafter on grass and Nadal is more accomplished on grass than anyone on that list minus Becker, who was past his prime when he played Pete.

 

[90's Clay]

LOL, Since when is Courier a great grass courter? He was pretty lousy on grass. Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are clearly superior grass players to Courier. Hewitt is more accomplished than Rafter on grass and Nadal is more accomplished on grass than anyone on that list minus Becker, who was past his prime when he played Pete.

Hes not a great grass courter.. But talent wise hes superior then 80-85 percent of the guys Fed beat to get his wimbledon titles regardless.

Thats questionable to say Roddick is better as well. How many wimbledon titles did Roddick win exactly? Roddick was better on hard courts than he was on grass.. As was Courier superior on other surfaces besides grass. But courier was clearly more talented then Roddick ever was. Not even close. Hewitt was FINISHED after 2005.. :neutral:

Hewitt got his wimbledon title during a completely CRAP 2002 wimbledon where a baby Nalbandian makes the finals. He is NOT superior to Rafter on grass who should have won 1-2 titles himself if not for Sampras or Goran completely zoning in in 2001

Even an old Becker is better then a freaking prime Roddick or Hewitt on grass. Please

And Nadal was a young buck when Fed beat him at wimbledon.. Not what he would later become there. Baby Nadal on grass better then Courier, Agassi, Goran, Rafter etc..? I dont think so. Maybe better then Courier.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

yet Pete came a cropper against baby Fed... now why would that be?

the way I look at it, Nadal defeated Federer (the GOAT) in 6 of his wins; Federer defeated Nadal in 2 of his wins (another GOAT candidate). whom did Sampras defeat in 7 of his wins? Borg? himself? Laver? Federer?

so in terms of "dominance", Federer's easily surpasses Pete, and is more similar to Nadal's (though Nadal's is at a higher level).

The only thing that match proves is that Federer and Sampras are in the same class on Grass. On another day, Sampras could've won. It was that close. But yeah, it does negate the weak-era argument Sampras fans bring up.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Hes not a great grass courter.. But talent wise hes superior then 80-85 percent of the guys Fed beat to get his wimbledon titles regardless.

Thats questionable to say Roddick is better as well. How many wimbledon titles did Roddick win exactly? Roddick was better on hard courts than he was on grass.. As was Courier superior on other surfaces besides grass. But courier was clearly more talented then Roddick ever was. Not even close. Hewitt was FINISHED after 2005.. :neutral:

Hewitt got his wimbledon title during a completely CRAP 2002 wimbledon where a baby Nalbandian makes the finals. He is NOT superior to Rafter on grass who should have won 1-2 titles himself if not for Sampras or Goran completely zoning in in 2001

Even an old Becker is better then a freaking prime Roddick or Hewitt on grass. Please

"Baby" Nalbandian was supremely talented.

 

[90's Clay]

The only thing that match proves is that Federer and Sampras are in the same class on Grass. On another day, Sampras could've won. It was that close. But yeah, it does negate the weak-era argument Sampras fans bring up.

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

Sampras was the defending champion and was ranked higher, meaning he had a better 12-month season than Federer did leading into Wimbledon 2001. Federer would lose in the 1st round the next year at Wimbledon. Sampras was 29, not 30. Federer was 19. Sampras was the favorite, Federer's win was considered an upset. You're just being dense. Probably on purpose.

 

[90's Clay]

It was considered an upset and people did expect Pete to win (but they also expected Pete to probably not win wimbledon that year either because of how bad he was playing). Even McEnroe commented I believe that Pete better pick up his play or he isn't winning wimbledon after he needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan. Pete played horrible at wimbledon after 2000. Bottom line.. His days were over.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

It was considered an upset and people did expect Pete to win (but they also expected Pete to probably not win wimbledon that year either because of how bad he was playing). Even McEnroe commented I believe that Pete better pick up his play or he isn't winning wimbledon after he needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan. Pete played horrible at wimbledon after 2000. Bottom line.. His days were over.

Sampras won Slams the year before and the year after. Federer was coming off of two 1st round defeats at the previous years' Wimbledons. And he would make it three 1st round defeats the next year, not winning his first Slam until the year after that. Yes, Sampras was far from his prime but Federer was farther still. No one can deny that. But like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

But like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras.

Don't worry, no informed tennis fan thinks Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Winning Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s required a far higher standard than the 2000s.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Don't worry, no informed tennis fan thinks Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Winning Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s required a far higher standard than the 2000s.

You do realize one could make the same argument against Nadal on Clay, right? And it's not like he beat Borg. Or even Kuerten.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

You do realize one could make the same argument against Nadal on Clay, right? And it's not like he beat Borg. Or even Kuerten.

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

Speculative post. Means nothing. You're just babbling now.

 

[MTF07]

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

lol Ferrer wouldn't have dominated clay at any point in tennis history.


What an incredibly stupid post.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

The neolithic age was most familiar. also the Jianwen Emperor age...

 

[Feather]

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

Neither Roger nor Pete has dominated Wimbledon the way Rafa did on clay. It's imposible. Rafa is born to rule clay. And he did that at RG. I don't think I will see anyone doing that well in a major in my life time. Rafa is a phenomenon on clay and that cannot be equalled by anyone anywhere

 

[ark_28]

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

Very well said!

 

[RF20Lennon]

You are wrong about that. Ferrer would have dominated the 90s claycourt scene. BTW, if Rafa was in the 90s he'd dominate clay even MORE. The 2000s are the fastest claycourt period in history. Clay has never been faster than it is right now. Remember 2011? Federer was considered a huge chance to beat Rafa because everybody pointed out how fast the clay was, faster than ever.

The clay wasn't faster the new babolat balls were lighter and faster please do your research!!!! They have not made clay courts faster by any means but then again ****s can never see things objectively so why bother. Btw if your beloved rafa played in the 70's like Borg and would have used a wooden racket and his topspin would not even kick up half as high and would probably injure his shoulder trying.

 

[tennisaddict]

6-1 6-3 6-0 (OP) achieved what he wanted by instigating a Sampras vs Fed war and trying to compare with Nadal's achievement.

For starters, Can the OP start making threads about Nadal's non-clay records ?

Nadal is clearly a one-surface GOAT. He does not belong to the elite when it comes to other surfaces or all surfaces.

He is same level as Wilander, Edberg , Djokovic as an all-surface player and does not deserve to be compared to the elite (Federer, Sampras).

 

[forzamilan90]

OP post is bait though, you basically state both Sampras and Nadal have won 7 out of 7, in 7 out of 8 years, but still ask the question whose is most similar? Under those criteria, clearly Sampras.

 

[tennis_pro]

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down

I guess that's just another reason why Fed>>>>Sampras, Fed would never be owned on a consistent basis by noobs like Sampras was in his later years.

 

[90's Clay]

I guess that's just another reason why Fed>>>>Sampras, Fed would never be owned on a consistent basis by noobs like Sampras was in his later years.

Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

Nadal's a noob? One could argue he's better than Sampras and that would make Sampras a super-noob, which would excuse his losses to noobs so you got there in the end :lol:

And when was the last time Federer lost before the QFs of a Slam? And how many times did Sampras lose to nobodies on Clay? He never even made 4 SFs in a row. Federer's made 23.

And how desperate can you get? Being in danger of losing is NOT the same as losing. So Federer can't even win matches in 5 sets now without having to face ridicule? :lol:

 

[90's Clay]

Nadal's a noob? One could argue he's better than Sampras and that would make Sampras a super-noob, which would excuse his losses to noobs so you got there in the end :lol:

And when was the last time Federer lost before the QFs of a Slam? And how many times did Sampras lose to nobodies on Clay? He never even made 4 SFs in a row. Federer's made 23.

And how desperate can you get? Being in danger of losing is NOT the same as losing. So Federer can't even win matches in 5 sets now without having to face ridicule? :lol:

Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Somehow fed fans have got into this line of thinking that have has NEVER lost to a nobody now. ROFLMAO

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Sure they can. But it has happened very few times to Federer. And way more times to Sampras. Especially on "90's Clay" Admit it.

 

[90's Clay]

Sure they can. But it has happened very few times to Federer. And way more times to Sampras. Especially on "90's Clay" Admit it.

In his clay prime (outside of 95) Sampras would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament from 92-96 just about all those years.. Thats not bad really,

When he gave up after '96 after his coach died thats when he began to lose to nobodies at the French.


But uhhhh.. Are implying Fed is not going to lose to a "nobody" at a slam before he retires?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

In his clay prime (outside of 95) Sampras would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament from 92-96 just about all those years.. Thats not bad really,

When he gave up after '96 after his coach died thats when he began to lose to nobodies at the French.


But uhhhh.. Are implying Fed is not going to lose to a "nobody" at a slam before he retires?

That's no excuse. Sampras just wasn't good enough to sustain good play on Clay for more than a few years. He basically gave up on Clay because he knew it was a lost cause. And it's not like he faced any Clay GOATs either, like Federer did.

And I'm not claiming Federer won't lose to "nobodies". I'm only saying Federer will lose about half as many matches to "nobodies" as Sampras has in his career. So far, it has more than held true. And if Federer plays till he's 35, it again won't matter as much because Sampras only played till 31.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Nadal was a noob whipping on a peak Federer. Yes.. Sampras lost his fair share to nobodies (mostly at non slam events).. But lets not make it seem Fed has not lost to nobodies either.. Since thats simply not true. Hes also been in danger of losing to nobodies a handful of times (most notably at wimbledon over the past few years). It happens.. No one is perfect

Even nobodies can catch fire and have an "on day".

Somehow fed fans have got into this line of thinking that have has NEVER lost to a nobody now. ROFLMAO

Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob.

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

 

[90's Clay]

Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob.

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

Hold it here.. Prime Fed lost to NOOB Nadal on hard courts in 2004. Oh no but Nadal wasn't a noob back then. ROFL

 

[TheFifthSet]

Hold it here.. Prime Fed lost to NOOB Nadal on hard courts in 2004. Oh no but Nadal wasn't a noob back then. ROFL

So no straight answer. That's cool too.

"1 match is hardly a good sample size" - 90sclay

Peak Federer (2004-2007) was 4-0 vs Nadal at the biggest fast court events they played (2 Wimbledons and 2 masters cup semi's). That's not whipping the floor.

Try answering the question I posed in my first post of the thread.

 

[90's Clay]

So no straight answer. That's cool too.

No.. Im refuting you're statement for implying prime/peak Fed only lost to Nadal on clay or something.


I don't know how the Nadal/Sampras matchup on clay would go really. Clay in the 90s used to be as slow as monte Carlo. Since then, its actually faster now. Thus why Isner troubled Nadal in the first round at the French a few years ago and Soderling beat him. 90's clay, I don't give Pete much of a chance vs. Nadal. (Maybe a freak win). Faster clay like we have today, I think Pete could possibly take Nadal once or twice.

Its not like Fed did either at the french mind you so its a moot point.


But if Isner can take Nadal to 5 with big serving and hard hitting.. Soderling can take Nadal out with hard hitting.. I dont believe its out of the realm of possibility that Pete couldn't score a freak win over Nadal at the French.. Especially on faster clay.

Pete beat Courier, Muster, and Bruguera at the French on SLOW clay.. He won Rome, he won Davis Cup on SLOW clay. Hes beaten Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. Lets not make it seem like Pete has done NOTHING on clay and has beaten no one.. A peak Sampras with his old coach before he died and where Pete was playing his best clay game , on a faster clay vs. Nadal. who knows..

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Yes yes, Nadal was definitely a noob.

Let me ask you a question. If Sampras and Nadal played 14 matches on clay with 5 o them being at Roland Garros, how many do you think Sampras would win? Straightforward question so feel free to give a straight answer. Don't say you don't know or can't speculate. OBVIOUSLY you don't know, nobody does. But you do a lot of speculating so it's not out of your purview. So, pray tell, how many do you think he'd win? I ask because Nadal never "whipped on peak Federer" except for on his worst surface, a surface he was better on than Sampras. So, what do you say?

Allow me to hazard a guess... Zero?

 

[TheFifthSet]

No.. Im refuting you're statement for implying prime/peak Fed only lost to Nadal on clay or something.


I don't know how the Nadal/Sampras matchup on clay would go really. Clay in the 90s used to be as slow as monte Carlo. Since then, its actually faster now. Thus why Isner troubled Nadal in the first round at the French a few years ago and Soderling beat him. 90's clay, I don't give Pete much of a chance vs. Nadal. (Maybe a freak win). Faster clay like we have today, I think Pete could possibly take Nadal once or twice.

Its not like Fed did either mind you so its a moot point.


But if Isner can take Nadal to 5.. Soderling can take Nadal.. I dont believe its out of the realm of possibility that Pete couldn't score a freak win over Nadal at the French.. Especially on faster clay.

Pete beat Courier, Muster, and Bruguera at the French.. He won Rome, he won Davis Cup on clay. Hes beaten Agassi and Kafelnikov on clay. Lets not make it seem like Pete has done NOTHING on clay and has beaten no one..

That's really all I wanted to know. So, lets say you think Nadal goes 13-1 (the one win is generous) versus Sampras on clay and 5-0 and RG. That's half the matches Federer and Nadal played, and half the matches they played at majors. Then the other matches they play on hardcourt and grass. There's just no way Sampras would have a positive head-to-head versus Nadal given the circumstances that Federer had. Unless you think Nadal would go 1-13 versus Sampras on the other surfaces :lol:

A peak Sampras with his old coach before he died and where Pete was playing his best clay game , on a faster clay vs. Nadal. who knows..

Again lets be real. He wouldn't have better results versus Nadal than Federer or Djokovic, both of whom are better claycourters. Sampras won 3 clay titles in his career, one on green clay. To bring his coach into this is ridiculous. So the absence of his coach is the reason the guy went 5-6 Roland Garros after '96? All the evidence points to Pete just not having what it took on clay.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Allow me to hazard a guess... Zero?

Presumably. 1 win in a best of 3 would be pretty darn generous for Sampras.

 

[90's Clay]

Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.


And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)


Pete sure as hell wouldn't be getting taken out by Nadal time and time again on ALL surfaces like Fed did.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.


And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)


Pete sure as hell wouldn't be getting taken out by Nadal time and time again on ALL surfaces like Fed did.

I've seen some cray-cray "what-if" stuff posted here but this one takes the cake. So because Sampras's coach passed away, Sampras is somehow made out to be a better claycourter than he actually is?

But you're right about one thing. Sampras would have a positive head-to-head against Nadal. Because he'd be getting knocked out in the 1st and 2nd rounds of Claycourt tournaments (only because his Coach passed away, mind you :lol and he'd never last long enough to meet Nadal in the Semifinals and Finals. And he'd have a rather healthy lead over Nadal on Grass and Hardcourts because Nadal's coach, Uncle Tony, unlike Sampras's coach, won't have passed away so soon allowing Nadal to progress past the 1st and 2nd rounds on Grass and Hards. So Sampras would end up with a nice, positive head-to-head over Nadal. And voila! He's better than Federer!