First of all if you don't want to partake in this thread, you don't have to, but I would request we keep this one free of weekend basement warrior trolling and try to dodge any accusations that I am trying to come across as some sort of genius just because I am choosing to look beyond the stats. (And rather in reality)
If you are a bore and like to stick to the 'we need to be 100% certain' rules and therefore hate hypertheticals, this thread isn't for you.
Q: Who do you believe would win in a match on a medium and fast hard court between Sampras from the 90s and Djokovic from 2011-2015? (Both their peaks) Your answer followed by your reason.
My view:
The mechanics of the match-up:
Only by looking at Djokovic's return can we tell it wouldn't have made pretty reading for Sampras IMO. He was a great fluid player that relied heavily off his serve. Heavily. And he would almost always come into serve & volley, even from second serves. When he was playing there was no-one out there that could return like Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray or even Kei Nishikori. Not that I believe either Andy Murray or Kei Nishikori would have beaten Sampras on a fast hard court. Definitely not Kei, anyway.
The point I'm getting at is Sampras' base for winning points. His winning repitition. His efficient strengths. They would have been immediately wiped out by Novak's base, winning repetition and efficient strength(s). Now that's a major factor. Djokovic's strength immediately cancelling out Sampras' strength, as the rally starts in the point. Anything else now becomes a sub-factor, but even when looking at these, we would have to consider how Sampras would have coped in return games against Djokovic. So you then have to look at the fact he wasn't a very good returner and his backhand was arguably as worse (If not worse) than Federers'. Djokovic's serve has improved, drastically since the introduction of Boris Becker and so either chipping and charging or flat out attacking his second serve would probably neither have proved advantageous either. How would he have been with Djokvoic from the baseline? Novak's movement and defence? Would he have been able to end the point within 5 shots? How would he cope when Djokovic had neutralised the rally and then wrestled over the upper edge in it and thrown Pete off into a backfoot, defensive position? How would Pete have defended? Was defence ever Pete's forte?
I get the feeling we often undervalue guys like Djokovic and Murray, but especially Djokovic and much of it comes down to the fact he shat on the Federer & Nadal party. Now these two have faded away, we're left finding reasons to believe he's somehow hacked his way to this sort of record on hard court.
Why looking at the US Open record of Djokovic's is not reliable:
Many on here seem to place an overwelming amount of importance on grand slam majors. The flaw with focusing on this is it's incredibly difficult for every player to time when they play their best tennis during the year. In my opinion Djokovic as being one of the most consistent guys that's ever competed, finds himself handicapped by the time he's reached the US Open and that's because he's been winning Masters 1000 title after Masters 1000 title on hard courts (And clay prior to that). Of course you can say no one cares about the Masters 1000 titles (Which is absolutely absurd and untrue for anyone objective and that isn't living in a fanboy fantasy world) but the fact of the matter is he gives his all in winning them and for many years has faced guys like Federer, Murray, Nadal, Nishikori and back in 2011 and 2012 Del Potro in the latter stages of them.
I like to look at variables so it's not an excuse when I mention the fact he lost a 5 set epic to Murray back in 2012 where the conditons were extremely windy, favouring the Scotsman and cutting up Djokovic's baseline rhythm. Then we have the 2013 final where in the third set at 1 set all he led Nadal by a break, had break points for a double and then at 4-4 missed 0-40. Nadal played probably the best match he'd ever played on a hard court, ever. That US Open and the Toronto Masters prior. Serving massive (For his standards) and attacking well. Yet still Novak was unfortunate not to go into the 4th set leading 2 sets to 1 against him. That 3rd set was pivotal and especially for Novak, after missing his chances couldn't recover emotionally. Was utterly demoralised and all the momentum + freedom to play (Given the advantage in the scoreline) was with Nadal.
Those are two US Opens which IMO he missed out on. I think it's a little bit of a simplistic argument therefore to argue the case based on grand slam numbers and if he really struggled with fast hard courts as much we think, he additionally wouldn't have/hold 3 Wimbledon titles. Or have beaten Federer in back to back Wimbledon finals. And in the 2014 final Federer was really on-song. Let's use deeper arguments than just stats which are deeply flawed. Talk to me about how Sampras would have beaten Djokovic on a fast hard court. If you are of the opinion Sampras winning base was serve and volley and Novak's is return, defence and having no weakness other than his overhead, then you should be agreeing that he would never touch Djokovic in a tennis match played on anything but an oldschool Wimbledon center court, where Novak's movement would be hindered from the lack of traction that comes from moving on the grass. (More slippery)
My verdict:
Djokovic in straight sets on medium hard and four sets on fast. (Wimbledon Sampras in four, due to the slippery nature of grass, I know it wasn't part of the question, but for clarity)
Flash-back reality of Novak on a medium pace hard court: (So you can have a visual of Sampras trying to hit through this in service games, or by using serve and volley)
If you are a bore and like to stick to the 'we need to be 100% certain' rules and therefore hate hypertheticals, this thread isn't for you.
Q: Who do you believe would win in a match on a medium and fast hard court between Sampras from the 90s and Djokovic from 2011-2015? (Both their peaks) Your answer followed by your reason.
My view:
The mechanics of the match-up:
Only by looking at Djokovic's return can we tell it wouldn't have made pretty reading for Sampras IMO. He was a great fluid player that relied heavily off his serve. Heavily. And he would almost always come into serve & volley, even from second serves. When he was playing there was no-one out there that could return like Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray or even Kei Nishikori. Not that I believe either Andy Murray or Kei Nishikori would have beaten Sampras on a fast hard court. Definitely not Kei, anyway.
The point I'm getting at is Sampras' base for winning points. His winning repitition. His efficient strengths. They would have been immediately wiped out by Novak's base, winning repetition and efficient strength(s). Now that's a major factor. Djokovic's strength immediately cancelling out Sampras' strength, as the rally starts in the point. Anything else now becomes a sub-factor, but even when looking at these, we would have to consider how Sampras would have coped in return games against Djokovic. So you then have to look at the fact he wasn't a very good returner and his backhand was arguably as worse (If not worse) than Federers'. Djokovic's serve has improved, drastically since the introduction of Boris Becker and so either chipping and charging or flat out attacking his second serve would probably neither have proved advantageous either. How would he have been with Djokvoic from the baseline? Novak's movement and defence? Would he have been able to end the point within 5 shots? How would he cope when Djokovic had neutralised the rally and then wrestled over the upper edge in it and thrown Pete off into a backfoot, defensive position? How would Pete have defended? Was defence ever Pete's forte?
I get the feeling we often undervalue guys like Djokovic and Murray, but especially Djokovic and much of it comes down to the fact he shat on the Federer & Nadal party. Now these two have faded away, we're left finding reasons to believe he's somehow hacked his way to this sort of record on hard court.
Why looking at the US Open record of Djokovic's is not reliable:
Many on here seem to place an overwelming amount of importance on grand slam majors. The flaw with focusing on this is it's incredibly difficult for every player to time when they play their best tennis during the year. In my opinion Djokovic as being one of the most consistent guys that's ever competed, finds himself handicapped by the time he's reached the US Open and that's because he's been winning Masters 1000 title after Masters 1000 title on hard courts (And clay prior to that). Of course you can say no one cares about the Masters 1000 titles (Which is absolutely absurd and untrue for anyone objective and that isn't living in a fanboy fantasy world) but the fact of the matter is he gives his all in winning them and for many years has faced guys like Federer, Murray, Nadal, Nishikori and back in 2011 and 2012 Del Potro in the latter stages of them.
I like to look at variables so it's not an excuse when I mention the fact he lost a 5 set epic to Murray back in 2012 where the conditons were extremely windy, favouring the Scotsman and cutting up Djokovic's baseline rhythm. Then we have the 2013 final where in the third set at 1 set all he led Nadal by a break, had break points for a double and then at 4-4 missed 0-40. Nadal played probably the best match he'd ever played on a hard court, ever. That US Open and the Toronto Masters prior. Serving massive (For his standards) and attacking well. Yet still Novak was unfortunate not to go into the 4th set leading 2 sets to 1 against him. That 3rd set was pivotal and especially for Novak, after missing his chances couldn't recover emotionally. Was utterly demoralised and all the momentum + freedom to play (Given the advantage in the scoreline) was with Nadal.
Those are two US Opens which IMO he missed out on. I think it's a little bit of a simplistic argument therefore to argue the case based on grand slam numbers and if he really struggled with fast hard courts as much we think, he additionally wouldn't have/hold 3 Wimbledon titles. Or have beaten Federer in back to back Wimbledon finals. And in the 2014 final Federer was really on-song. Let's use deeper arguments than just stats which are deeply flawed. Talk to me about how Sampras would have beaten Djokovic on a fast hard court. If you are of the opinion Sampras winning base was serve and volley and Novak's is return, defence and having no weakness other than his overhead, then you should be agreeing that he would never touch Djokovic in a tennis match played on anything but an oldschool Wimbledon center court, where Novak's movement would be hindered from the lack of traction that comes from moving on the grass. (More slippery)
My verdict:
Djokovic in straight sets on medium hard and four sets on fast. (Wimbledon Sampras in four, due to the slippery nature of grass, I know it wasn't part of the question, but for clarity)
Flash-back reality of Novak on a medium pace hard court: (So you can have a visual of Sampras trying to hit through this in service games, or by using serve and volley)