Remove this Banner Ad

Speed up the courts. Please.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Fed can at least compete with those two from the back of the court, at least most of the time.

Nadal and Djokovic would eat the Sampras backhand for breakfast and ask for seconds.
 
bombermick said:
Nadal and Djokovic would eat the Sampras backhand for breakfast and ask for seconds.
Click to expand...


Even if that were true, it's irrelevant, as Sampras wouldn't bother rallying with those two guys.

What makes you think either of them would get near his serve, when the best returner in the history of the game routinely didnt?

You have to break a guy's serve before you can eat him for breakfast.
 
bombermick said:
If Nadal was so woeful against serve-volleyers then Fed would do it regulary. Nadal is Hewitt on steroids and loves a target. He would love for Federer, or anybody, to serve-volley.

So Sampras would beat Nadal, but Fed cannot? Sorry, but you're dreaming. Apart from the serve, Fed is easily the better and more complete player.

Sampras was and remains a legend. But, he wouldn't dominate in today's era.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't Federer serve volley...hmmmmm perhaps because it is not natural to him...and the fact that he does not have as much "stick" on his volleys. Sampras would beat Nadal on hard and grass he just would. Federer is a horrible matchup as his bachand is directly against Rafa's forehand!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Watch the Wimbledon 2001 match between Sampras and Fed. He doesn't serve-volley after every serve like Pete, but he came in a lot. His opposition and today's courts mean he no longer can, save for when he's already set up the point.
 
Slippery Pete said:
It's a really excellent point. No matter how "on" you are against Sampras, for 50% of the entire game it's completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. On today's slow grass Sampras would have no chance against Nadal. Nadal would stand 8m behind the baseline and would get a lot of Pete's serves back. Not only that but Pete would really struggle to volley his heavy top spin stuff.

Maybe if they were playing on the grass of the 90's then Sampras would have a chance.
 
Pete Sampras won the 94 Italian Open. The IO is not a slam, but it is widely regarded as the biggest clay court tournament outside of the FO. Also, whilst he never won the FO, Sampras did beat two FO champions at RG, in the one year, 1996 I think. *Whilst clay was not Sampras' best surface, he was not a complete dufus on it, he'd often make the second week at RG.
 
Dr Awkward said:
I disagree with this. On today's slow grass Sampras would have no chance against Nadal. Nadal would stand 8m behind the baseline and would get a lot of Pete's serves back. Not only that but Pete would really struggle to volley his heavy top spin stuff.

Maybe if they were playing on the grass of the 90's then Sampras would have a chance.
Click to expand...

You realise Sampras won Wimbledon 7 times right? If Nadal stood 8 metres behind the baseline, Sampras would drop shot it over the net with his serve so the ball is not up by the time Nadal runs to it. If this forces Nadal to stand in closer, Sampras would serve at his body. Wherever Nadal stands to receive, Sampras is going to dictate the play with his serve. Sampras could land the ball on a dime with his serve. And if they played on 90s grass, Sampras wouldn't just have a chance, he would clobber him. Let me put it into perspective for you, Sampras was more dominant at Wimbledon than Nadal has been at the FO to date. Nadal can consider himself fortunate that he gets to play Fed and Djok at W, because those players don't do to him what Sampras would have done to him at W in the 90s: unplayable serves, aces galore, all out attack, at the net to kill off the point, the type of game Nadal is just not used to playing against. Nadal would not get into any sort of rythm, he would be unsettled, he would be rattled and shaking his head in disbelief and frustration the same way he did against Tsonga that time at the AO. The *ball would stay low and skid off at the baseline, bounce unevenly, resulting in less time for Nadal to aim for a target. This of course wouldn't bother Sampras because he won't be standing at the baseline. Let's face it, the only time Nadal would come to the net is if Sampras drop shots or to shake Sampras' *hand.
 
^^^
This is pretty good viewing. During these matches, Sampras serve and volleyed relentlessly and also chipped and charged. Federer passed him a lot, and had the better of the baseline rallies, but he still couldn't get a racquet on a lot of Pete's serves. That and the fact that getting passed never deters Pete from continuing to attack. He knows that if he keeps getting in behind good approaches, eventually it will pay off. At worst, you force your opponent to come up with a clean winner. It would be no different with Nadal.

Yes they were exhibition matches, yes they were putting on a show and Federer was probably giving the old guy a shot at it, but it gives us a small insight into the way Pete would approach today's crop of players.

I still think at that point in time, at 37, Pete would still have beaten all but a handful of the top players.

[YOUTUBE]wd02CGKz58Q[/YOUTUBE]
 
Larry the Liquidator said:
Nadal can consider himself fortunate that he gets to play Fed and Djok at W, because those players don't do to him what Sampras would have done to him at W in the 90s: unplayable serves, aces galore, all out attack, at the net to kill off the point, the type of game Nadal is just not used to playing against.
Click to expand...

Nadal is not used to playing a serve volleyer because that gamestyle has been superseded. On today's slow grass it doesn't work, you have too much time to set up for the passing shot. The general progression of the raquets, the string, the balls, the slow courts, fitness of players, training of players...etc It has all contributed to a progression in the game which no longer allows for a serve volleyer. I would love to see a Sampras type player in the top 4 but it isn't possible at the moment.


Yeah Sampras was a great serve but he wasn't some unbeatable god. He was beaten by a young, pre-peak Federer at Wimbledon.
 
Dr Awkward said:
Nadal is not used to playing a serve volleyer because that gamestyle has been superseded. On today's slow grass it doesn't work, you have too much time to set up for the passing shot. The general progression of the raquets, the string, the balls, the slow courts, fitness of players, training of players...etc It has all contributed to a progression in the game which no longer allows for a serve volleyer. I would love to see a Sampras type player in the top 4 but it isn't possible at the moment.


Yeah Sampras was a great serve but he wasn't some unbeatable god. He was beaten by a young, pre-peak Federer at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Sampras certainly was not unbeatable. But he did one thing the big 3 of today cannot do, and that's dominate his era undisputedley. The big 3 today have this 3 way thing going on. Who is the GOAT? Federer because of 16? Because he's getting wiped by Nadal. Is it Nadal? Because he's getting wiped by Djok. Is it Djok? Because in the big matches he's getting beat by Fed, so there's dispute. With Sampras, he won the most slams and had the better of all his major rivals during his time, the double whammy, undisputed. Yea he lost matches here and there, but never consistenly to a major rival. All he could do was beat his rivals in his era, which he did, and at his best he was unstoppable. At that stage Fed and Nadal were unheard of, but if they played in Pete's era, I'm sure he would have attacked them as well because he thrived on rivalries unlike Fed with Nadal and unlike Nadal with Djok.

Sampras is such a champion, had he been born 12 years later and played today, he would still be a champion because he would have perfected his game to today's surfaces, equipment and opponents. In other words Sampras 2.0 would have been better than Sampras 1.0. As for the Sampras/Federer match, if Sampras knew then what he knows now, he would have approached it, and prepared for it, much better. At the time it was not a famous match, it was a tired over the hill champion with nothing to prove against a guy with some potential and alot of hunger that no one had really heard of. Federer knew all about Sampras but Sampras knew nothing of Federer, face it, none of us knew anything about him at that stage.

I'm a Sampras fan and a Nadal fan, maybe what makes me lean towards Sampras over Nadal is that I saw Sampras dominate more in his era than Nadal. But who really knows, still fun to speculate though.
 
Yes it is fun to speculate, Sampras no doubt has huge GOAT claims, maybe even better claims than Fed. But I just think if he was playing his career now with the same level of ability he had in the 90's he would stuggle to win a slam. That's not a slight on him at all, he dominated his era. It's more just a testament to the progression of tennis and the stupidly slow courts. But yeah that's just my opinion. :thumbsu:
 
Sampras for me is the goat..he dominated his era like no other.Will be interesting to see if Djokovic or Nadal can rise up to that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Again, we are trying to compare generations and legends which is useless.Would borg have beaten Sampras? would mcenroe have beaten Laver? would Connors have beaten Federer? its useless...they are different players under different conditions and had different technology. Todays racquet technology is amazing.Agassi said the other day, "thank god i belong to the last generation"...he was talking about the insane angles, Novak and Nadal generated at the USO and agassi was a master at that.

I like tennis as it is now.Sampras might as well be the GOAT, but watching him playing was as interesting as watching a paint draw.I fell asleep many times watching a Sampras Goran match.Yeah contrasting styles are fun to watch though, i agree.
 
Butcher32 said:
Again, we are trying to compare generations and legends which is useless.Would borg have beaten Sampras? would mcenroe have beaten Laver? would Connors have beaten Federer? its useless...they are different players under different conditions and had different technology. Todays racquet technology is amazing.Agassi said the other day, "thank god i belong to the last generation"...he was talking about the insane angles, Novak and Nadal generated at the USO and agassi was a master at that.

I like tennis as it is now.Sampras might as well be the GOAT, but watching him playing was as interesting as watching a paint draw.I fell asleep many times watching a Sampras Goran match.Yeah contrasting styles are fun to watch though, i agree.
Click to expand...


My affection for Fed is in part the fact that he was the anti Pete. Where Pete was one dimensionally catatonic to watch Fed was graceful and inventive.

Pete was a great player but man was he a cure for insomnia.
 
gaelictiogar said:
My affection for Fed is in part the fact that he was the anti Pete. Where Pete was one dimensionally catatonic to watch Fed was graceful and inventive.

Pete was a great player but man was he a cure for insomnia.
Click to expand...


I loved watching Sampras. I don't understand why people equate shorter points with boring tennis. Sampras was a model of efficiency, especially the way he use to cruise through the first week of Grand Slams. It was a quick, clean, efficient kill.

Watching Federer and Nadal dismantle an opponent with a thousand cuts is far less interesting to me.

I defy anyone to say this isn't the greatest shot in tennis history.


[YOUTUBE]3QFYkO1mQsM[/YOUTUBE]
 
Unlike GOAT claims, it's hard to argue with who is more interesting to watch, because it's a preference thing. If you find something boring you find something boring. Who is going to argue with you? For me, I never really thought about whether Sampras was boring or not. Because I was a fan, and because I often put money on him, I just wanted him to win. To me it didn't matter whether he was interesting or not, I just wanted the win.
 
Slippery Pete said:
I loved watching Sampras. I don't understand why people equate shorter points with boring tennis. Sampras was a model of efficiency, especially the way he use to cruise through the first week of Grand Slams. It was a quick, clean, efficient kill.

Watching Federer and Nadal dismantle an opponent with a thousand cuts is far less interesting to me.

I defy anyone to say this isn't the greatest shot in tennis history.


[YOUTUBE]3QFYkO1mQsM[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

Good stuff.
 
Slippery Pete said:
On the contrary, I would say anybody who thinks last night, and the Djokovic-Murray semi-final - were good spectacles, is not a tennis purist, or only started watching the sport in about 2004.

Epic and incredible, yes. A ball striking extravaganza - yes. A display of supremely mentally and physically tough athletes? Absolutely.

A great spectacle? You've got to be kidding me.

Groundstrokes and serves that should be clean winners - or at least a set up for an easy put away volley - coming back over the net for 6 hours: that's not the spirit of hardcourt tennis. Not in my book.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this.

Nothing more to be said, really. I don't mind seeing the odd grindfest that tests mechanical stroke production and stamina, but not on every single surface. There's more to tennis than that.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Fed between 2005-08ish was fairly dominant. and those who claim pete was superior because he was more dominant for a longer period of time is a shallow claim imo. We have never seen the likes of fed, nadal and djokovic in one single time. each year tennis is taken to a new spectacle with their intensity.

I do agree with the 5 set epics and how good they truly are. It is great to see a slug out once or twice in a grand slam. But to see so many doesn't make the tournament any better, it just shows that modern day surfaces are more giving to the slug fests.
 
The article completely misses the point. Yes, what constitutes good/enjoyable tennis is in the eye of the beholder. But the beauty of the game is that it had different arenas that provided different types of tennis to appeal to different people. It's supposed to be a smogasboard.

Don't get me wrong, I am fine with a tennis landscape that provides an arena to showcase matches like Nadal/Djokovic. But it shouldn't be at the expense of every other facet of the game.

It's making a sport that used to be almost unique in its varied playing conditions into one that's completely one-dimensional. Tennis is supposed to be about more than athleticism and mechanical shot production.
 
^

Completely agree with above

In my opinion i don't mind the occasional slugfest but if i wanted to see individuals test their physical endurance week in week out i would watch marathon running, but i think tennis should be about the mental side much if not more than the physical side. Getting that edge over your opponent, or simply bringing shots in that have your opponent bamboozled rather than slugging it out till both of you are almost dead
 
I love watching the big 4, but it's got to the stage where skill is beaten by fitness, both physical and mental. We'll never see players like Rios and Korda, brilliant shot-makers, but who weren't rally merchants.

Federer is demonstrably more gifted than the other 3, but the scrambling abilities of the others, combined with slower courts mean he remains beatable. Tennis may never have been better, but there's much less variety.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Speed up the courts. Please.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top