Who was more dominant? Rafa at French Open or Sampras at Wimbledon?

[Ombelibable]

He would have won post 30 if he had the longevity of today's .... Back in those people at 30+ looked fat and unfit ... heck even pros like David Nalbandian in their primes were fat .... today's era is different, post 2010s even old players are very fit and that is an era based thing. Sampras would have easily competed for another 5-6 years till 36-37 and would have been a contender too if he had fitness that like today and also if courts had remained fast enough like he liked. Also he never had the modern day big racquets with poly strings which were more forgiving on the body because it generates more power with less effort.... also Sampras lived in the USA, if he was a european then travelling would have been easier too..... basically the Big 3 had many advantages which Sampras never did.

As @NonP said above, even though the answer is Bull it is a lot closer than what people here think. Sampras is actually imo the other side of the coin that Nadal was, he was everything Nadal before Nadal but on fast courts. If the tour did not develop slow courts to take over from the serve and volleyers and gave 20 year careers to Sampras then it would be equivalent to Nadal playing 20 years in a baseline era with no slow court player to take him out.

Yeah he's losing to Federer at Wimbledon 2003 onwards despite hypothetical fitness. I don't see an early 20s Fed losing to a 30s Sampras especially since we saw what happen-ed in 2001.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

He would have won post 30 if he had the longevity of today's .... Back in those people at 30+ looked fat and unfit ... heck even pros like David Nalbandian in their primes were fat .... today's era is different, post 2010s even old players are very fit and that is an era based thing. Sampras would have easily competed for another 5-6 years till 36-37 and would have been a contender too if he had fitness that like today and also if courts had remained fast enough like he liked. Also he never had the modern day big racquets with poly strings which were more forgiving on the body because it generates more power with less effort.... also Sampras lived in the USA, if he was a european then travelling would have been easier too..... basically the Big 3 had many advantages which Sampras never did.

As @NonP said above, even though the answer is Bull it is a lot closer than what people here think. Sampras is actually imo the other side of the coin that Nadal was, he was everything Nadal before Nadal but on fast courts. If the tour did not develop slow courts to take over from the serve and volleyers and gave 20 year careers to Sampras then it would be equivalent to Nadal playing 20 years in a baseline era with no slow court player to take him out.

Big 3 would have never let him win. Clay is definitely off limits and hard is going to be very tough but he could win a few more Wimbledons perhaps.

 

[Razer]

Yeah he's losing to Federer at Wimbledon 2003 onwards despite hypothetical fitness. I don't see an early 20s Fed losing to a 30s Sampras especially since we saw what happen-ed in 2001.

Big 3 would have never let him win. Clay is definitely off limits and hard is going to be very tough but he could win a few more Wimbledons perhaps.

Federer is that same guy who lost to oldie Tim Henman in 2004 on fast indoor carpet, and you think Sampras cannot win over Federer if courts were never slowed down and wimbledon behaved like the 1990s? Federer is not a certainty to win against serve and volleyers in their conditions

If you make Clay to be very fast and behave like a faster court and unrecognizable from 2016 onwards, how many french opens would Nadal have won in his 30s? Is there any guarantee he would have won 10+ french opens ?

Wimbledon was slowed down massive and grass was relaid to end the dominance of Sampras, Ivansevic and the other big servers. In an era where Sampras is having Big 3 like Longevity and courts + racquets are same as 1990s, he wins double digits slams, he could upset Federer too, tim henman winning rotterdam in a severely declined state in Federer's peak is the testimony to that.

 

[Ombelibable]

If you make Clay to be very fast and behave like a faster court and unrecognizable from 2016 onwards, how many french opens would Nadal have won in his 30s? Is there any guarantee he would have won 10+ french opens ?

What you have described are basically the conditions at Madrid masters, which Nadal won in his 30s.
You ask for post 2016 and for Nadal to accumulate 10+ RG wins. He was already at 9, pre 2016. He just needs one title between 2016-2022 which he gets EASILY.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

TBF, 1996 Wimbledon Krajicek's level was truly great - better than that of any opponent that Nadal has ever faced at Roland Garros.
Neither Djokovic or Federer have ever played remotely that well on clay.
I think most of us on this forum can agree.

At the same time, Djokovic and Nadal would have won zero Wimbledon titles in the 90s.
Federer, maybe a couple.

Two very good posts I agree.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Federer is that same guy who lost to oldie Tim Henman in 2004 on fast indoor carpet, and you think Sampras cannot win over Federer if courts were never slowed down and wimbledon behaved like the 1990s? Federer is not a certainty to win against serve and volleyers in their conditions

And Alcaraz is that physical freak who couldn't beat Old Djokovic on the aggressive style AO courts. This happens all the time.

If you make Clay to be very fast and behave like a faster court and unrecognizable from 2016 onwards, how many french opens would Nadal have won in his 30s? Is there any guarantee he would have won 10+ french opens ?

If we made the courts of olden days slower... this "if" scenario goes both ways. And yes he definitely would have won 10+ because Nadal would have not specialized himself to playing on a super slow clay surface if it weren't actually slow.

Wimbledon was slowed down massive and grass was relaid to end the dominance of Sampras, Ivansevic and the other big servers. In an era where Sampras is having Big 3 like Longevity and courts + racquets are same as 1990s, he wins double digits slams, he could upset Federer too, tim henman winning rotterdam in a severely declined state in Federer's peak is the testimony to that.

This we have no proof of. The slowing down of courts favors physical freaks, which even though Sampras was one, he could not compare to Big 3 in this regard even in natural capacity.

 

[NonP]

Could it be that the grinders you refer to like Nadal and Djokovic were placed in an era where physiology was better understood and medicine was more advanced?

I'm not just talking recent years with the most up-to-date medicine, though. Mac flamed out early (his off-court woes notwithstanding), ditto Becker (best not to rehash HIS extracurriculars), Edberg's serve was no longer what it was after the early '90s, Rafter never came back from his "break," etc. (For fairness' sake I'm leaving out Pistol cuz his decline was more mental than physical.) While Rosewall clearly bested his more aggressive rival Laver in longevity, ditto Connors in the OE, Vilas was still playing RG (and later nothing but RG at that) into his late 30s, Lendl enjoyed a longer prime than his peers....

And y'all already know about the Big 3. Looks like all that scrambling at the net puts some serious pressure on the joints. But this is just a layman talking. I'd love to see an actual study on this.

He would have won post 30 if he had the longevity of today's .... Back in those people at 30+ looked fat and unfit ... heck even pros like David Nalbandian in their primes were fat .... today's era is different, post 2010s even old players are very fit and that is an era based thing. Sampras would have easily competed for another 5-6 years till 36-37 and would have been a contender too if he had fitness that like today and also if courts had remained fast enough like he liked. Also he never had the modern day big racquets with poly strings which were more forgiving on the body because it generates more power with less effort.... also Sampras lived in the USA, if he was a european then travelling would have been easier too..... basically the Big 3 had many advantages which Sampras never did.

As @NonP said above, even though the answer is Bull it is a lot closer than what people here think. Sampras is actually imo the other side of the coin that Nadal was, he was everything Nadal before Nadal but on fast courts. If the tour did not develop slow courts to take over from the serve and volleyers and gave 20 year careers to Sampras then it would be equivalent to Nadal playing 20 years in a baseline era with no slow court player to take him out.

If Pistol had no motivation issues (an admittedly big if) and played into the aughts he probably would've fared about as well as Fed did in his own 30s: enough of a threat, but falling short most of the time.

I'll just caution you and everyone against what might be called the football (or soccer) fallacy: this or that team would've won if not for that questionable call/play... except the rest of the match could well have turned out very differently based on this new hypothetical score/lineup/etc. Likewise having a still-hungry Pistol in the mix would've produced different results, which in turn would've led to different rankings, future results, and so on.

The truth of the matter is that we can only make educated guesses! On the other hand....

Two very good posts I agree.

Even I have to admit that's not a fair comparison cuz ANYONE would struggle in a different era with all of its best players intact, haha. If you replace Pistol with any of the Big 3 I'm sure he'd do just fine. And vice versa!

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Even I have to admit that's not a fair comparison cuz ANYONE would struggle in a different era with all of its best players intact, haha. If you replace Pistol with any of the Big 3 I'm sure he'd do just fine. And vice versa!

Sure, Pete and Fed at the same time, none of them wins 7 Wimbledons. But I cannot see Nadal ever winning Wimbledon in the 90s even without Pete. Djoko might get a few and Fed maybe 3-4 with Pete getting the same number roughly. Conditions were very different and far less dominance friendly. No other than @King_olaf_the_hairy made a very great posts in the Lendl vs Roddick on grass thread where he showed what kind of players Lendl had to face in early rounds due to 16 seeds.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I'll just caution you and everyone against what might be called the football (or soccer) fallacy: this or that team would've won if not for that questionable call/play... except the rest of the match could well have turned out very differently based on this new hypothetical score/lineup/etc.

That is of course an important point and some fallacy many here in TTW love to comitt (like for example all those talks about when someone in a Bo5 was up 2-0 or 2-1 in sets and still lost, he would have won in a Bo3, completely ignoring that knowing the format upfront would have produced very different dynamics). One exception to that rule though is when we are talking situations like 40-15. I mean if this point gets differently match is over lol. So if Fed, server as he is would have managed one good serve (winner or ace) he should/must have won those two matches vs Djoko. Anywho, he did not so blame on him.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

At the Slams, Pete and Krajicek were tied 1–1, and at the Masters level they were tied 3–3. One of Krajicek’s wins over Sampras, I believe, came in a Davis Cup match. I can’t recall the other win, but it likely wasn’t significant since it didn’t occur at the Grand Slam or Masters level.

In any case, Sampras achieved far more than Krajicek, so he could afford to have a losing record against him (and possibly against Wayne Ferreira as well?). Over his entire career, Krajicek reached just one Grand Slam final—and to his credit, he won it.

He was often seen as Sampras’s “boogeyman,” but not much more. He was never a consistent top-level threat.

I never said he is not the greater player he clearly is. But the positive H2H is legit. Kraj had an incredibly high peak level, his problems, partly affected by injuries was inconsistency. Against Pete however, he next to always brought his a-game. He was actually at one point up 6-2 in the rivalry and at USO 2000 he was leading 6-4, 6-6 with 6-2 in the breaker. He wins this he goes 7-2 in the H2H and 3-0 in Bo5 with 2-0 at slams. Kudos to Pete to save that but Kraj was always a boogeyman for him.

 

[NonP]

Sure, Pete and Fed at the same time, none of them wins 7 Wimbledons. But I cannot see Nadal ever winning Wimbledon in the 90s even without Pete. Djoko might get a few and Fed maybe 3-4 with Pete getting the same number roughly. Conditions were very different and far less dominance friendly. No other than @King_olaf_the_hairy made a very great posts in the Lendl vs Roddick on grass thread where he showed what kind of players Lendl had to face in early rounds due to 16 seeds.

Dunno, '08 Bull was holding serve at near servebot rates and just ultra-confident (no wonder that was the one year he didn't have any early-round scares) so I could see him eke out a Wimby in a relatively weak year like '98. I've said this before but his straight-set demolition of Muzz in the '08 SF is the best I've ever seen from him on grass.

And I believe Pistol himself has talked up Bull's chances at '90s Wimbledon on the basis that the Spaniard moved too well to be denied completely. Let me put it this way: I wouldn't be surprised to see Bull go Wimby-less in a previous era, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he managed to grab 1-2 either.

I never said he is not the greater player he clearly is. But the positive H2H is legit. Kraj had an incredibly high peak level, his problems, partly affected by injuries was inconsistency. Against Pete however, he next to always brought his a-game. He was actually at one point up 6-2 in the rivalry and at USO 2000 he was leading 6-4, 6-6 with 6-2 in the breaker. He wins this he goes 7-2 in the H2H and 3-0 in Bo5 with 2-0 at slams. Kudos to Pete to save that but Kraj was always a boogeyman for him.

I still remember this seemingly endless history of Krajicek's injuries from @FiveO (who alas used to be one of our very best posters):

F

Post in thread 'Please tell me about R. Krajicek'

Oct 12, 2006

Oh, what might have been.

This guy had game and on any given day could beat anyone. As stated his own body betrayed him.....ALOT. To put it in perspective:

1989 turned pro

Jan 1992 reached AO SF gave walkover to Courier in the SF due to a shoulder injury

May 1993 reached RG SF

1994 missed first 3 months due to tendinitis in both knees

May 1996 reached RG QF

July 1996 won Wimbledon

Dec 1996 R knee surgery for torn meniscus

Aug 1997 USO QF

July 1998 Wimbledon SF losing...

• FiveO

 

[Zara]

I never said he is not the greater player he clearly is. But the positive H2H is legit. Kraj had an incredibly high peak level, his problems, partly affected by injuries was inconsistency. Against Pete however, he next to always brought his a-game. He was actually at one point up 6-2 in the rivalry and at USO 2000 he was leading 6-4, 6-6 with 6-2 in the breaker. He wins this he goes 7-2 in the H2H and 3-0 in Bo5 with 2-0 at slams. Kudos to Pete to save that but Kraj was always a boogeyman for him.

I frankly don’t understand these hypotheticals. They make no sense but satisfy some dire needs. In reality, their H2H is 6-4 in Kraijeck’s favour. Big whoop.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I frankly don’t understand these hypotheticals. They make no sense but satisfy some dire needs. In reality, their H2H is 6-4 in Kraijeck’s favour. Big whoop.

6-4 with three Bo5 matches and close encounters even when on the losing side is enough for me to consider the "boogeyman" notion legit. Way more relevant than if we look let's say to Fed vs Zed or Fed vs Thiem.

 

[Zara]

6-4 with three Bo5 matches and close encounters even when on the losing side is enough for me to consider the "boogeyman" notion legit. Way more relevant than if we look let's say to Fed vs Zed or Fed vs Thiem.

Okie.

 

[MichaelNadal]

This is like asking is White Castle or Krystal Burger better lol

 

[Zara]

I have no doubt that Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time, none. But to win 14 slams on a single surface during a single career requires in-depth analysis as otherwise; it comes off as too good to be true.

Winning 7–8, or even 10, is the maximum I could go for; anything beyond that would suggest multiple factors at play—especially a relatively weak field. Clear dominance usually coincides with a weaker field, particularly if it lasts too long.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal by a landslide.

 

[mike danny]

I have no doubt that Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time, none. But to win 14 slams on a single surface during a single career requires in-depth analysis as otherwise; it comes off as too good to be true.

Winning 7–8, or even 10, is the maximum I could go for; anything beyond that would suggest multiple factors at play—especially a relatively weak field. Clear dominance usually coincides with a weaker field, particularly if it lasts too long.

Doesn’t quite apply to Nadal though.

He did have a weak field in his 30’s, but the bulk of his winning was done before that

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[Zara]

Doesn’t quite apply to Nadal though.

He did have a weak field in his 30’s, but the bulk of his winning was done before that

I can see this being a difficult proposition for both Federer and Djokovic fans, as it suggests they may not have been as strong on clay—or as pure clay-court players—as Rafael Nadal. In other words, they may have also benefited from a lack of clear competition.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Sure, Pete and Fed at the same time, none of them wins 7 Wimbledons. But I cannot see Nadal ever winning Wimbledon in the 90s even without Pete. Djoko might get a few and Fed maybe 3-4 with Pete getting the same number roughly. Conditions were very different and far less dominance friendly. No other than @King_olaf_the_hairy made a very great posts in the Lendl vs Roddick on grass thread where he showed what kind of players Lendl had to face in early rounds due to 16 seeds.

The post in question:

Post in thread 'Controversial, but serious question. Who was better on grass courts, Roddick, or Lendl?'

Dec 22, 2023

I wanted to comment on this thread way back when it was posted, so I'm very late to the party. Not sure I have too much to add.


My summary would be: Roddick did better, Lendl was better. (@jrepac, that one little word is why I disagree with this post of yours, based on OP's thread title.)

The former is easy. In terms of accomplishments, 3x Wimbledon finals > 2x Wimbledon finals, 3x consecutive Queens titles > 2x consecutive Queens titles, plus Roddick has more titles overall and a better career win percentage. Andy is ahead for sure by a small but significant...

• King_olaf_the_hairy

• 

And as I pointed out in another post:

I was looking at Sampras's 1996 Wimbledon run... It shows how players had it compared to today's 32-seed draws:​

• R1: Richey Reneberg (ranked #24)
• R2: Mark Phillippousis (ranked #33)
• R3: Karol Kucera (ranked #102, but would be top 10 within a couple of years)
• R4: Cedric Pioline (ranked #15)
• QF: Richard Krajicek (ranked #17)

Thomas Muster (ranked #2 but contentiously the seventh seed) dropped out just before the event began and everyone else below him was moved up a place. So that means of Pete's five matches only Kucera would have been unseeded in a current slam.​

I frankly don’t understand these hypotheticals. They make no sense but satisfy some dire needs. In reality, their H2H is 6-4 in Kraijeck’s favour. Big whoop.

As per yet another previous post of mine:

Sampras beat Krajicek in their first career meeting in March 1993. Richard then won all but one of their next seven matches in the following six years, all the way until August 1999 when Pete scored the first of two late victories to make the H2H 6–4 in the Dutchman's favour.[Source] So for the entirety of the time that Sampras was #1 and at the peak of his powers, he was repeatedly losing to Krajicek.​

 

[mike danny]

The post in question:

Post in thread 'Controversial, but serious question. Who was better on grass courts, Roddick, or Lendl?'

Dec 22, 2023

I wanted to comment on this thread way back when it was posted, so I'm very late to the party. Not sure I have too much to add.


My summary would be: Roddick did better, Lendl was better. (@jrepac, that one little word is why I disagree with this post of yours, based on OP's thread title.)

The former is easy. In terms of accomplishments, 3x Wimbledon finals > 2x Wimbledon finals, 3x consecutive Queens titles > 2x consecutive Queens titles, plus Roddick has more titles overall and a better career win percentage. Andy is ahead for sure by a small but significant...

• King_olaf_the_hairy

• 

And as I pointed out in another post:

I was looking at Sampras's 1996 Wimbledon run... It shows how players had it compared to today's 32-seed draws:​

• R1: Richey Reneberg (ranked #24)
• R2: Mark Phillippousis (ranked #33)
• R3: Karol Kucera (ranked #102, but would be top 10 within a couple of years)
• R4: Cedric Pioline (ranked #15)
• QF: Richard Krajicek (ranked #17)

Thomas Muster (ranked #2 but contentiously the seventh seed) dropped out just before the event began and everyone else below him was moved up a place. So that means of Pete's five matches only Kucera would have been unseeded in a current slam.​

As per yet another previous post of mine:

Sampras beat Krajicek in their first career meeting in March 1993. Richard then won all but one of their next seven matches in the following six years, all the way until August 1999 when Pete scored the first of two late victories to make the H2H 6–4 in the Dutchman's favour.[Source] So for the entirety of the time that Sampras was #1 and at the peak of his powers, he was repeatedly losing to Krajicek.​

In other words, Pete was fortunate than Krajicek wasn’t a better player.

 

[mike danny]

I can see this being a difficult proposition for both Federer and Djokovic fans, as it suggests they may not have been as strong on clay—or as pure clay-court players—as Rafael Nadal. In other words, they may have also benefited from a lack of clear competition.

Hey, I’m not a Nadal fan and I would like to say that Nadal only won because of a weak clay field, but the guy was just way too good and he beat the best there was repeatedly.

He really is the closest to a flawless tennis player anywhere

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Hey, I’m not a Nadal fan and I would like to say that Nadal only won because of a weak clay field, but the guy was just way too good and he beat the best there was repeatedly.

He really is the closest to a flawless tennis player anywhere

I still think you are both right. 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2022 were more weaker draws, arguably also 2017 but he would have won that anyways. I also still think 10-11 FOs he would have won irrespective of the field but for an anomaly of 14 there must be some weaker years in as well.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Hey, I’m not a Nadal fan and I would like to say that Nadal only won because of a weak clay field, but the guy was just way too good and he beat the best there was repeatedly.

He really is the closest to a flawless tennis player anywhere

And he did it in epic and crispy kits.

 

[mike danny]

I still think you are both right. 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2022 were more weaker draws, arguably also 2017 but he would have won that anyways. I also still think 10-11 FOs he would have won irrespective of the field but for an anomaly of 14 there must be some weaker years in as well.

I agree with this. But since the bulk of his winning was done before those weaker years, to me it doesn’t matter.

Winning 9 RG titles against fellow GOAT candidates repeatedly puts Nadal in a tier of his own. Arguing about competition is pretty meaningless in this case since no one else has been this dominant against the very best for so long

 

[mike danny]

And he did it in epic and crispy kits.

Not a fan of the 2009 kit and funnily enough that’s when he didn’t win

 

[MichaelNadal]

Not a fan of the 2009 kit and funnily enough that’s when he didn’t win

His only good pink kit:

 

[mike danny]

His only good pink kit:

And I wouldn’t quite label it as pink. More of a red-ish nuance

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In other words, Pete was fortunate than Krajicek wasn’t a better player.

It is tough to say whether he would eventually have adjusted if Kraj had become a constant threat, but yes going by what we saw, he was a tough matchup for him.

 

[Zara]

Hey, I’m not a Nadal fan and I would like to say that Nadal only won because of a weak clay field, but the guy was just way too good and he beat the best there was repeatedly.

He really is the closest to a flawless tennis player anywhere

No matter how good he is, winning 14 majors on the same surface in a single career is ridiculously high. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t see either Federer or Djokovic as true clay-court specialists—more like Jim Courier than say, Guga. Even if Nadal had never existed, clay would likely still have been the least successful part of their resumes compared to the rest of their achievements. In other words, they would have had the most success on grass and hard courts, and the least on clay. More or less, all of them benefited from a weaker field. The sport was very top-heavy, so there were fewer surprises in the early rounds.

Anyway, on a separate topic, I’ve heard that true clay-court specialists rarely even made the third round at Wimbledon back in the 1990s.

 

[Zara]

In other words, Pete was fortunate than Krajicek wasn’t a better player.

Pete wasn’t just fortunate, because the reality was that Krajicek wasn’t the better player, and injuries are part of the game. If we start playing the what-if game then we will land nowhere concrete.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Dunno, '08 Bull was holding serve at near servebot rates and just ultra-confident (no wonder that was the one year he didn't have any early-round scares) so I could see him eke out a Wimby in a relatively weak year like '98. I've said this before but his straight-set demolition of Muzz in the '08 SF is the best I've ever seen from him on grass.

And I believe Pistol himself has talked up Bull's chances at '90s Wimbledon on the basis that the Spaniard moved too well to be denied completely. Let me put it this way: I wouldn't be surprised to see Bull go Wimby-less in a previous era, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he managed to grab 1-2 either.

Yeah I mean he can snag one Wimbledon if all goes right (likely not in the presence of both Pete and Fed though), but given his matches against Brown, his early round struggles, his bad record indoors I still have my problems. I know one should not read too much into a sample size of 2 and also those matches were not 2008 Dal, but I still think when I watch the Brown matches, that this serve and volley one-shot tennis is the worst style for Nadal as he always needs to find rhythm through some longer rallies to get into his passing shots. A guy like Pete with a GOAT serve, way better than Brown's, with even better volleys, way better ground game and playing do-or-die on the return would be the toughest match-up for Dal on a slick, fast grass court. I cannot really see him beating Pete even once tbh, even 2008 Dal would have to hope for an upset of Pete (maybe Fed could take care of Pete for him).

 

[djokovic the conqueror]

Sampras.

He had tougher competition on grass unlike Nadal who never played against true clay court specialists. I doubt Nadal would have a French Open title in the 90's.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Sampras.

He had tougher competition on grass unlike Nadal who never played against true clay court specialists. I doubt Nadal would have a French Open title in the 90's.

 

[NachoGPT]

I doubt Nadal would have a French Open title in the 90's.

lol

 

[Zara]

I doubt Nadal would have a French Open title in the 90's.

Not sure if you’re joking but he’d win at least 5—maximum 8. But no Wimbledon.

 

[NonP]

This is like asking is White Castle or Krystal Burger better lol

I haven't had in-house WC (I've tried some microwave sliders since then) since I left the Big Apple almost 30 years ago. And I've never even heard of Kyrstal. Is it good?

And as I pointed out in another post:

I was looking at Sampras's 1996 Wimbledon run... It shows how players had it compared to today's 32-seed draws:

• R1: Richey Reneberg (ranked #24)
• R2: Mark Phillippousis (ranked #33)
• R3: Karol Kucera (ranked #102, but would be top 10 within a couple of years)
• R4: Cedric Pioline (ranked #15)
• QF: Richard Krajicek (ranked #17)

Thomas Muster (ranked #2 but contentiously the seventh seed) dropped out just before the event began and everyone else below him was moved up a place. So that means of Pete's five matches only Kucera would have been unseeded in a current slam.

That's actually a pretty decent draw! Well, up to the QF where it turned into a nightmare LOL.

Speaking of which:

Yeah I mean he can snag one Wimbledon if all goes right (likely not in the presence of both Pete and Fed though), but given his matches against Brown, his early round struggles, his bad record indoors I still have my problems. I know one should not read too much into a sample size of 2 and also those matches were not 2008 Dal, but I still think when I watch the Brown matches, that this serve and volley one-shot tennis is the worst style for Nadal as he always needs to find rhythm through some longer rallies to get into his passing shots. A guy like Pete with a GOAT serve, way better than Brown's, with even better volleys, way better ground game and playing do-or-die on the return would be the toughest match-up for Dal on a slick, fast grass court. I cannot really see him beating Pete even once tbh, even 2008 Dal would have to hope for an upset of Pete (maybe Fed could take care of Pete for him).

Well, if Pete AND the rest of the Big 3 are in the same draw of course chances would be close to nonexistent for Bull. But I meant him replacing Pistol, haha.

Agreed on the matchup... but TBF it'd be a nightmare matchup for just about everyone else, LOL.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I haven't had in-house WC (I've tried some microwave sliders since then) since I left the Big Apple almost 30 years ago. And I've never even heard of Kyrstal. Is it good?


That's actually a pretty decent draw! Well, up to the QF where it turned into a nightmare LOL.

Speaking of which:


Well, if Pete AND the rest of the Big 3 are in the same draw of course chances would be close to nonexistent for Bull. But I meant him replacing Pistol, haha.

Agreed on the matchup... but TBF it'd be a nightmare matchup for just about everyone else, LOL.

Krystal is good.

Fresh White Castle is twice as good though.

 

[aldeayeah]

No matter how good he is, winning 14 majors on the same surface in a single career is ridiculously high. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t see either Federer or Djokovic as true clay-court specialists—more like Jim Courier than say, Guga. Even if Nadal had never existed, clay would likely still have been the least successful part of their resumes compared to the rest of their achievements. In other words, they would have had the most success on grass and hard courts, and the least on clay. More or less, all of them benefited from a weaker field. The sport was very top-heavy, so there were fewer surprises in the early rounds.

Anyway, on a separate topic, I’ve heard that true clay-court specialists rarely even made the third round at Wimbledon back in the 1990s.

Maybe Federer, but Djokovic is a clay natural. We've just been deceived by his mid-career explosiveness decline and renewed focus on serve.

2008, 2009 before RG, 2011-2012, 2014-16 Djokovic was an all-time tier clay player IMO.
And even in older age he's had clay ATG performances such as RG 2021 or OG 2024.

 

[Ombelibable]

A pic and a gif speak a thousand words

 

[Ombelibable]

Krystal is good.

Fresh White Castle is twice as good though.

Are you saying that 7 at Wimbledon is good, but 14 at RG is twice as good?

 

[MichaelNadal]

A pic and a gif speak a thousand words

I think that’s why I like using them so much lol

Are you saying that 7 at Wimbledon is good, but 14 at RG is twice as good?

Well if we go by numbers…..

 

[Zara]

Maybe Federer, but Djokovic is a clay natural. We've just been deceived by his mid-career explosiveness decline and renewed focus on serve.

2008, 2009 before RG, 2011-2012, 2014-16 Djokovic was an all-time tier clay player IMO.
And even in older age he's had clay ATG performances such as RG 2021 or OG 2024.

Novak strikes me as your modern day Agassi on clay—not a true clay specialist like Guga.

 

[aldeayeah]

Novak strikes me as your modern day Agassi on clay—not a true clay specialist like Guga.

Novak has vastly better mobility and defense, and grew up on clay. They're not even in the same ballpark.

I wouldn't say Guga was a true clay specialist BTW. Just a big power+spin player like say Thiem (not a perfect comparison, I know)

 

[Zara]

Novak has vastly better mobility and defense, and grew up on clay. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Novak is not a true clay courter. If he was one, he would have achieved much more with or without Nadal.

 

[ErnestoVillanuevaCagliate]

Equal. Pete retired very early and was a dominant force in the most important slam.

 

[aldeayeah]

Novak is not a true clay courter. If he was one, he would have achieved much more with or without Nadal.

I mean, without Nadal he probably has a Borg career on clay (spread over many more years, of course)

If Novak isn't a true clay courter, almost nobody is.

 

[Zara]

I mean, without Nadal he probably has a Borg career on clay (spread over many more years, of course)

If Novak isn't a true clay courter, almost nobody is.

Don’t agree and we don’t know if he’d have a Borg like career. It’s just a projection. Novak isn’t a true clay courter. It’s a surface where he achieved the least. Can’t continue with this anymore.

 

[Zara]

Also, we cannot transport Novak back to the 80s when everything was significantly different and expect the same results or better. It makes no sense to me.

By definition, dirtballers are players whose games are uniquely suited for slow, high-bouncing, and slippery nature of red clay. They generally excel on clay but may struggle to replicate the same form on faster surfaces.

Therefore, the purest clay court players in tennis history are: Nadal, Borg, Muster, Kuerten, Vilas, Bruguera, Costa and Ferrero.

From the current crops of players, we have Rudd, Charlie and Tsitsipas.

While some players, like Federer and Djokovic, have had considerable success on clay, they are considered all-surface masters rather than ‘pure’ specialists.