Mens Tennis Forums banner

Pete Sampras vs Novak Djokovic on medium & fast hard

Debate/Discussion: Pete Sampras vs Novak Djokovic (Fast & medium HC)

7K views 84 replies 31 participants last post by  Andy Mugray 
#1 · (Edited)
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)

 
See less See more
#2 ·
Novak on medium, Sampras on fast.
Not rocket science.
Sampras may have bored me to tears as a player, but he was too good on fast surfaces.
His serve, (1st and 2nd), is arguably the single best shot in the history of men's tennis.
Agassi was on a par with Djoker with ROS, but still was not enough.
Novak on slow-medium, where his defensive skill set is at it's best.
 
#3 ·
Novak on medium, Sampras on fast.
Not rocket science.
Sampras may have bored me to tears as a player, but he was too good on fast surfaces.
His serve, (1st and 2nd), is arguably the single best shot in the history of men's tennis.
Agassi was on a par with Djoker with ROS, but still was not enough.
Novak on slow-medium, where his defensive skill set is at it's best.
 
#4 ·
We are talking about the same Djokovic who had a hard time with Roddick and the same one who struggles returning big servers like Anderson, Isner, Karlovic, Querrey?

The same Novak who at his peak has a hard time beating Wawrinka in slams? C'mon now Sampras was a player on a whole different league. Novak ounly outlasts Roger the last few years because Roger is quite old and in terms of tennis and he has had so many matches under his belt, quite worn down (same as Nadal these days). This Djokovic the greatest returner lost to Nadal twice in USO finals... Murray and Wawrinka. Hell even Nishikori beat him (no doubt he would win that slam if he did not lose that match... he would have smoked Cilic in the final).

If we look at his matchup vs Fed you can see how he tends to struggle at times when he does not get a nice rhythm going. Fed being one of the few players to beat him in the last few years where he has dominated. Sorry but as good as his return of serve is... Peak Sampras was far more than just a serve. You are looking at Sampras at the end of his career just like you keep looking at Roger at the end of his career and sit here pretending that Novak does not struggle against Fed. Even at his highest level in the USO 2011 he needed to save matchpoints to beat Roger.

2011 was Novak's absolute peak. He was demolishing Nadal who was still near his peak. 2015 may be his best year but he was not nearly as ruthless as 2011.
 
#6 · (Edited)
OP insists that this is not a trolling thread, but suggests that Djokovic would beat Sampras on fast hard in 4. This is beyond ridiculous.

To add to all arguments of @SaFed2005, let me just remind you that Djokovic is 5-7 against top-5 at USO. For comparison, Sampras in 9-4. Federer is 9-4 as well, BTW, with these 3 late career losses to Djokovic and a loss to Agassi back in 2001. The reason why Djokovic has even got to 7 USO finals with this kind of a record against top-5 is because in 4 of these SFs he met clowning Monfils, injured Cilic, and twice Ferrer; and these guys themselves got there by beating dead tired Pouille, injured Tsonga, Tipsarevich and Chela in QFs, respectively. The other 3 SFs he won were basically outlasting Swiss guys in gruelling 5-setters - not a match-up thing, rather the stamina.

Also, Sampras, who didn't care much about Masters in general, won 3 titles in Cincinatti...
 
#18 ·
Would you have anything of 'practical' meaning to bring to the table other than 'data' which suits your agenda?

'Sampras has more grandslams and more US Opens and he didn't care about masters 1000 titles, so let's not talk about those'.

You either want to use the statistics or you don't. Is 'he didn't care' enough of an argument? No. So don't use data, if you are going to cherry pick like a nostaglic 90s muppet with an overwelming level of cringeworthy bias.



Your argument using numbers is pathetic. Discount the masters 1000s because Sampras was 'supposedly' too lazy to try enough in them. The reality probably is that Sampras' game style was too taxing (And probably too dependent on intensity) for him to maintain a high enough standard with it consistently throughout the season. Exploding off the ground into your serve using your legs & then using all the forward momentum to then sprint & rush to the net each point is not practical if you want to win matches and tournaments throughout the duration of a season, consistently.

Any arguments which don't involve data that you've cherry picked? How about considering the match-up? Or would that leave you with no dice?
 
#9 · (Edited by Moderator)
exactly

OP in ruins

people always discount advanced technology, both equipment wise as well as body wise. science continually evolves better and better methods of training the human body, and nutrition and recovery advances as well. physically, players today are just in better shape than players 10 years ago, and players 10 years from now will be in better condition than Djokovic.

olympic records are broken every 4 years. times get faster not slower.
 
#8 ·
Comparisons like this one are unfair and ultimately pointless.
Sampras was as dominant on HC then, as Djoker is now. That's pretty much all we can say about it - and by that measure - they're pretty much equal.

Brazil's 1970 national soccer team - deemed best in history ever by many - would today lose to most of the Spain's premier league teams. Different time, different sport all together. Impossible comparison.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Can't stop laughing at this "Djokovic, Murray, Nishikori and their fantastic returns" thing that the OP regularly repeats in all threads. Peak serve > peak return. When a big server plays against a big returner, the under 3 shots rallies are always on the racquet of the first. That's the fact.

We can make an exact answer thanks to 2015 Federer (S&V'rer) who was the 50% version of peak Sampras and still had close matches until he got tired. The fact is, Djokovic hates to play against the guys who don't give him any rhytm. Great serving, consistent net approaches, short points are what Djokovic always struggles with. As you can see from the Federer-Djokovic rivalry in 2015, peak Novack had to wait for Rogie getting tired to beat him. It was always close in the first two sets. And now imagine what would have happened if Djokovic had played against Sampras who is undoubtedly the greatest S&V player.

The correct answer - Sampras in 3 on fast HC and in 5 on slow.
 
#16 · (Edited)
...

The correct answer - Sampras in 3 on fast HC and in 5 on slow.
Only if instead of 30-33 masters titles before his 30th birthday Djokovic won 40+ and Ex-goatpras stayed at 11 masters and his single RG SF to be as fresh as Stanimal for the other slams only.

The fact is we don't know how would they fare in other era, but looking at the young Djokovic' game at USO'07 & masters beforehand, there is a very good chance he would've become even better fast court player if he had been forced to model his game to counteract Sampras-like no.1 player on fast&medium surfaces instead of ballproof Nadal on slow&medium surfaces and 40 seconds allowed between points.
 
#12 ·
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.
You lost all credibility here. In his heyday Sampras was considered as a baseliner, often coming to the net to finish points - which was indeed quite often after first serve, since it was such a potent weapon. Only in his later years, when he couldn't compete from the baseline anymore, did he start to S&V systematically. Not unlike Federer.
That being said, he would probably get thumped on slow HC by Novak, 3-0 seems realistic. On fast HC though, I give him the edge. As good a returner as Novak is his track record against big serves is certainly not that outstanding.
 
#15 ·
So you truly can sit there and believe to tell me that Sampras would have beaten Novak with either staying back at the baseline or rushing to net, on a medium hard court?

Do you not think the evidence is not there for us all to see with Federer? Djokovic finds Federers' backhand in the point when they're in exchange from the baseline, whether it be at the US Open, Wimbledon, or any of the Masters 1000 series events. He gains court position advantage in the rally and has Federer moving side to side, scampering around court before losing the point.

Sampras took the ball very early. His backhand was a lot more offensive minded than Federers', as he was not as efficient with it from the baseline. His game from the back-of-the-court would not have been able to stay with Novak from the baseline. Even if the surface was fast, Pete would have no choice but to ruhs into the net at some point via some sort of approach or chip and charge.
 
#19 · (Edited)
I don't want to sound pro-Djokovic but whenever Djokovic wins a title, people come up with BS like 'The court must be playing slower'. In 2013 at the Australian Open the plexicushion was playing faster and that was validated by Fed in a post match conference. The moment Djokovic won it, all the faster HC talk was put to grave with confirmation bias taking over.
 
#28 ·
Who did Djokovic beat to win the 2013 Australian Open? Ferrer and then Andy Murray who had a days less rest and just been through a 5 setter against Federer.
 
#21 ·
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.

Djokvoic has never won Cincy and won Canada only 3 times in the last 8 years so that excuse already doeesn't hold much weight to it.
 
#22 ·
I thinks this would be pretty close on plexicushiong, while Sampras would absolutely crush Djokovic in the USO series.

Let say they would face 5 times in the AO final and 5 more in the USO final. Djokovic winning 3 out of 5 in the AO and losing all 5 in USO would be me guess. :cool:
 
#23 ·
And anybody talking about how Roddick beat Djokovic on fast hard court when the guy wasn't even old enough to drink alcohol is simply using anything they can for ammunition.
 
#26 ·
Isn't Djokovic something like 1-5 against Olderer on fast HC? :lol:

I started watching tennis in 2004 so I actually never saw Sampras in live action but I can't imagine peak Sampras being weaker from the baseline than Olderer and his serve and net game are most probably not any worse either. But I don't know if he had a decent slice (Fed obv. has one of the best) which is a very useful weapon against Djokovic (certainly on fast courts).

Sampras on fast HC and Djokovic on medium HC (plexicushion) seems like a reasonable choice.
 
#33 ·
The results of this poll makes you have to laugh. :haha:

It was only back in 2014 some delusional clueless posters were arguing with me saying Sampras would beat Murray on clay.

“Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.”
Immanuel Kant


Which validates how many hear have never held a racquet. > :nerd: <
 
#34 ·
Hilarious amount of excuses made for Sampras. One would think that a guy who is so obviously better (according to the haters) did not need excuses or belittleing of Novak's achievements to come out on top. Since Novak is dealt a double handicap for Sampras to shine it is quite obvious that he is in the least a very serious contender - no amount of dishonesty and perverted reasoning can cover up truth.

Dr Clutch is wasting his time trying to educate the toxic punks from this mental asylum called MTF. When someone willingly chooses to be tribal in communication and reasoning he/she is hopeless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClutchOn&Win
#36 ·
Masterfully put. :yeah:
 
#38 ·
Djokovic won only 6 big titles on fast hard courts - Deco Turf at Rogers Cup(4), Cincinnati(0) and US Open(2). RAFA has THE SAME number of titles on this type of HC. Just think about it. And you claim Djokovic would have beaten peak Sampras :haha:
 
#39 ·
Is this thread a joke??? Sampras is the greatest hardcourter the game has ever seen.

Djokovic would struggle to win points let alone matches on medium/fast HCs. He has a negative record against RAFA at USO and this is Sampras we are talking about. Sampras would most likely win 60% of the matches on slow HCs and he lost to Agassi mainly back in 90's at AO who is a superior baseliner than Djokovic.
 
#40 ·
These intergenerational things bug me a tad, as one can colour the argument anyway one chooses. Imo, at the heart of this one is the fact that medium and fast HC courts from the prime of their respective eras were different. Sampras would be fairly useless these days on anywhere other than what we now deem the fastest courts. Similarly Djokovic in Sampras era would likely have had his clock cleaned most places bar clay. The difference is far less to do with the courts, and more to do with the balls....the real balls of yore flew through on serve and were killable on volleys....now they are like fuzzy beachballs in comparison, lots of bounce and air resistance, giving Novak time to ply his defensive style.
 
#41 · (Edited)
I can't wait to compare Djokovic to some guy fifteen or twenty years from now who utilizes some nano-tech strings that give even more spin and placement. I'm sure the chemicals athletes use to treat their "diseases" will be awesome by then too.

It's seriously so pointless these trans-generational player comparisons. To be intellectually honest in these conversations you need to speculate what a player like Djokovic would look like if he grew up learning to play tennis in the 70's instead of the 90's. He wouldn't have been as fit as he is now, nor as flexible because the attention to conditioning wasn't as established then. The techniques physios use to prepare their athletes didn't exist at the time. Djokovic would have grown up a much more classic tennis player who would have been taught to serve and volley, finishing points quickly. He would never have been the same player he is now, playing professionally in the 90's. And the same can be said about Sampras if you apply similar reasoning in reverse.
 
#42 ·
 
#44 ·
Pete is not losing to Djokovic on a real fast court as in his time, and he will be in with a shot vs. Djokovic in anything but the slowest of hard courts
 
#45 ·
If you can walk me through how Pete would break Novak on a fast hard court, that would be great Johnny?

Novak's serve is hardly weak and his second serve is one of the best in the game. So now if the court is fast, surely Novak's serve becomes more difficult to return for Pete? How would Pete gain the upper hand in the point if he isn't able to get meaningful returns back into play? Ones which atleast neutralise Djokovic's and keep him at the baseline, rather than stepping inside the court and dictating?

Let's talk the mechanics. Pete would find it more difficult to break Novak th faster the court surface, as his return and game from the baseline was not great. Novak's return is the greatest ever, but say Sampras is serving well and given he is one of the best servers ever avoids getting broken, it's then a tiebreak.

So how can you be sure Sampras would win on a fast hard court with the movement and defensive quality Djokovic has and the lack of returning and defensive ability Sampras did, leaving him with no hope in breaking Djokovic's serve?
 
#47 ·
Dang I liked you, but your credibility is now gone. Sampras would destroy that pushing clown.

Djokovic is a great returner? No, he made that reputation by feasting of weak Wafa serves. He gets owned by big servers.

Sampras would rip that grinder to shreds on any surface but clay. Djokovic can't even handle Delpo's FH, you think he could deal with Sampras? :haha:
 
#51 ·
Dang I liked you, but your credibility is now gone. Sampras would destroy that pushing clown.
Translates to: 'I liked you until you inadvertently dissed my favourite player'.

Do NOT refer to yourself as 'objective'. You're a disgrace to all objective analysts and utterly, utterly bias in every sense.

An emotional bias is a distortion in cognition and decision making due to emotional factors. That is, a person will be usually inclined. to believe something that has a positive emotional effect, that gives a pleasant feeling, even if there is evidence to the contrary.

Yes. Anyone that:

- Doesn't bang aces/unreturnables.
- Is able to construct points.
- Has the option to defend and rally from the back with consistency

Is a pusher....

100000% Only on MTF.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top