Who was better on their worst surface? Nadal indoors vs. Sampras on clay? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who was better on their worst surface? Nadal indoors vs. Sampras on clay?

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 01:02 AM
Both are GOAT candidates with a massive weakness in their repertoire, they are both quite awful in their worst surfaces. All other GOAT candidates (Federer, Laver and Borg) are very complete on all surfaces.

Nadal has won 48 and lost 26 indoor, a 64.9% W/L por. Nadal's best indoor achievments is a final in master cup and a master series in Madrid, he got to another final were Nalbandian crushed him. Nadal got an amazing match against Murray in the YEC SF, also 2 victories against Djokovic in RR, an impressive one against Davydenko 2006 and also that final against Ljubicic were he came back from 0-2 down 2005.

Sampras got a RG SF and a master series in Rome and another 3 titles on clay. Sampras greatest victory on clay must have been Muster 91 in RG, or maybe a past peak Courier in 96 QF. My favorite is the one where he crushed Kafelnikov in straight sets in Moscow davis cup final on clay. Sampras was 92-58 on clay, W/L % of 61.3%, Sampras is older and thereby had time to make his clay record look worse, at Nadal's age I think he had a better W/L % than Nadal indoors.

Both had very easy draws to win their only master series shields (both without playing any top 10).

So, have your say.

romismak
11-23-2011, 01:22 AM
This is very interresting topic. Really Rafa vs Pete at their worst surfaces. Both are no match for another top guys at their worst surfaces. I must admit it is not their fault, their gamestyles simply donīt suits there, but still i think such great champions should have done better, Rafa still can.

PEte sucked on clay, because of movement- he didnīt know how to move on clay and because of game style - his serve, agressive game, great net game are not for clay.
Rafa also is clearly bad indoors, because he can play long rallies, canīt overpower, wear down opponents, because indoor conditions are great for big serve, big FH - quick tennis. Even that indoor courts are slow, still those conditions difference are too much for Rafa. I mean Rafa is the same, but another players are indoor better.
Rafa is probably best outdoor player ever. Has no problem with wind, sun, playing in hot midday. But indoors he is loosing those outdoor ,,advantages,, because he has no problems with them, so it goes to pure talent, big weapon, - so guys with serve, powergame, talented guys can play Rafa at even conditions.

I actually think it is very close, hard to tell who is better, RG SF is Peteīs maximum, Rafa played F at WTF, but it didnīt say much for me, from 5 matches in his - slam best season he lost against someone who he has match-up advantage and could have easily lost another 2 matches with both Andies last year in London. I think his F at WTF was same coincidence like Peteīs SF in Paris with very hot conditions- faster clay that year.

Egreen
11-23-2011, 01:45 AM
Sampras(Clay 3-2) because he won more clay titles than Nadal(Indoors 1–3) won indoors titles.

rocketassist
11-23-2011, 01:53 AM
Nadal's win over Ljubo was a good one, but Sampras' clay wins in his 1996 RG run (knocking out Bruguera as well) were arguably more impressive. Nadal's not really looked like winning another indoor title since, been beaten in finals by Murray, Federer and Nalbandian and semi finals by Djokovic, Clement and even Simon(!) he hasn't been good enough in the big matches indoors.

Pete's opponents in the Rome SF/F were not what you'd call clay gods, but Rome was quicker and favoured his game more. Corretja, Chesnokov and Gaudenzi weren't pushovers on clay either.

MaxPower
11-23-2011, 01:58 AM
Nadals career isn't over yet unless he pulls a Borg and retires at 26 so I give him the benefit of doubt.

In 2010 it looked like Nadal had indoor potential. The famous USO 2010 serve that then suddenly disappeared the following season. But when he had that serve he was a dangerous indoor player (on slow indoor courts) as he also proved in that years WTF.

But when he plays like he did yesterday he's just an indoor mug. Sampras might have been a clay mug but the difference between the surfaces was bigger then. It was harder to adapt. Nadal doesn't have that excuse. All the other top players of this era doesn't seem to suddenly start to suck indoors. If anything most players get more out of their serve and offensive shots indoors

emotion
11-23-2011, 02:15 AM
Nadal is NOT a GOAT candidate.

RagingLamb
11-23-2011, 05:13 AM
There's no indoor slam, so tough to compare Pete's RG run with anything Nadal's done.

But apparently Pete never really played on clay until he became a pro. Plus I assume that due to the greater differences between surfaces back then, he had to make a greater adjustment.

To me this gives Sampras a bigger advantage. But again, Nadal has no control over these factors.

It's a tough question to answer.

SetSampras
11-23-2011, 05:24 AM
If we want to just choose the Ultimate indoor title which is the YEC... Then its not difficult at all to choose: Nadal won some other indoor titles so that helps I believe but.

Sampras for sure. He won the Davis Cup on slow as molasses clay (almost single handidly beating the Russians) won Rome, and beat some big names at the French Open with a few QF appearances and a SF appearance.

If not for his Blood Condition ( something of which he had no control over either)and the death of his coach I have NO DOUBT he would have won the French as well.. Or if he played in a crap clay era too of course.. Unfortauntely, the 90s was some of best on clay when it came to depth.

And Sampras wasn't a clay mug ( in his prime).. No he wasn't the best but its not like he has fucking Roddick's resume on clay for god sakes. He has some big clay titles and beat just about all the best the 90s had to offer on clay (Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster etc)

jcempire
11-23-2011, 05:38 AM
of course Sampras on clay

Chase Visa
11-23-2011, 05:42 AM
Fairly certain Sampras would do some good things on modern clay, whereas Nadal would get flogged on old indoor hard/carpet.

GhostUnholy
11-23-2011, 05:55 AM
Sampras on clay and I don't really think it's all that close, just qualitatively. Records seem to indicate that it's closer than my eyes indicate though.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 11:11 AM
If we want to just choose the Ultimate indoor title which is the YEC... Then its not difficult at all to choose: Nadal won some other indoor titles so that helps I believe but.

Sampras for sure. He won the Davis Cup on slow as molasses clay (almost single handidly beating the Russians) won Rome, and beat some big names at the French Open with a few QF appearances and a SF appearance.

If not for his Blood Condition ( something of which he had no control over either)and the death of his coach I have NO DOUBT he would have won the French as well.. Or if he played in a crap clay era too of course.. Unfortauntely, the 90s was some of best on clay when it came to depth.

And Sampras wasn't a clay mug ( in his prime).. No he wasn't the best but its not like he has fucking Roddick's resume on clay for god sakes. He has some big clay titles and beat just about all the best the 90s had to offer on clay (Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster etc)

No, Sampras was very bad on clay. Blood condition or not his backhand was absolutely disgusting on clay and so was his movement, proper tactics was nonexistent. We all watched him play, some things are difficult to forget. In this clay era that you call crap era he would never win a set against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He never got to play the better part of the 90s when Guga came along and became a dominant force competing with Corretja, Moya and Ferrero. But I do agree he had the slightest chanse to win the 96 RG with better conditions, Kafelnikov was his bitch and old Stich is very beatable in a RG final.

Anyway, I think Sampras might just have been a little bit better than indoor Nadal on clay. Their achievments are almost identical.

But I do belive Nadal would get to a SF in a best of 5 indoor grand slam, he can beat anyone but the best and a couple of specialists (Davydenko, Nalbandian).

Sophocles
11-23-2011, 11:21 AM
Tough one. I guess Sampras's achievements are more impressive so far. To be clear, neither player at his best was an absolute "mug" on these surfaces: Pete was better than the vast majority of players on clay, & Nadal is better than the vast majority of players indoors; but by the standards of great players, they were woefully poor against decent opposition on their worst surfaces.

By the way, Nadal is not a GOAT candidate.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 11:26 AM
Tough one. I guess Sampras's achievements are more impressive so far. To be clear, neither player at his best was an absolute "mug" on these surfaces: Pete was better than the vast majority of players on clay, & Nadal is better than the vast majority of players indoors; but by the standards of great players, they were woefully poor against decent opposition on their worst surfaces.

By the way, Nadal is not a GOAT candidate.

Ofcourse neither is a mug on any surface, in fact their achievments on the surface is better than many with preference to play indoors/clay. Nadal's indoor achievments are as good as Soderling's and Sampras achieved as much as Mantilla on clay. Sampras just looked very bad on clay, his game was so handicapped by the clay and his movement and backhand was incredibly clumsy, Nadal looks more helpless indoor like he cant do much but to see bombs flying past him from the baseline.

Roddickominator
11-23-2011, 03:30 PM
Sampras was good on clay, just not nearly as good as everywhere else. Certainly better than Nadal indoors.

But anyone expecting a grass court S&V master like Sampras to be able to dominate all these surfaces in the 90's, when there were significant differences in the surfaces and court specialists creating a minefield in draws...well you're just not being realistic. On a good day Sampras was still able to beat some excellent clay court players at some big tournaments, and also lost to guys that had no business taking him down. There was more variance in the game in those days.

Either way i'd say that Sampras overall did quite well on a surface that he knows wasn't a legitimate surface for playing tennis. You need to grow up in the slums of poor south American or European countries to want to play a game in the mud.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 03:41 PM
But anyone expecting a grass court S&V master like Sampras to be able to dominate all these surfaces in the 90's, when there were significant differences in the surfaces and court specialists creating a minefield in draws...well you're just not being realistic. On a good day Sampras was still able to beat some excellent clay court players at some big tournaments, and also lost to guys that had no business taking him down. There was more variance in the game in those days.


How the hell would Sampras get anywhere on clay serve and volleying in this era? I mean serve and volley is dead and Sampras bad movement and backhand would be exposed by even clowns like Almagro, Monfils and Verdasco on clay. I dont want to even think what Nadal would do to him.

I am tired of listening about surfaces and eras, like Sampras played in the most difficult of clay eras and clay was ultraslow back then. He could win RG defeating Kafelnikov and old Stich, in this era he would have to beat Federer/Djokovic and Nadal to win RG. Odds would be even worse for him in this era.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-23-2011, 04:19 PM
i cannot picture in my lifetime that sampras will do better on clay than rafa doing on indoor courts:ignore: :ignore: :ignore:

Nadal indoor>>>Sampras clay

scarecrows
11-23-2011, 04:28 PM
i cannot picture in my lifetime that sampras will do better on clay than rafa doing on indoor courts:ignore: :ignore: :ignore:

Nadal indoor>>>Sampras clay

do you know what sampras has done indoors?

my guess is you dont

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 04:31 PM
do you know what sampras has done indoors?

my guess is you dont

He didnt say anything about what Sampras has done indoors.

scarecrows
11-23-2011, 04:33 PM
He didnt say anything about what Sampras has done indoors.

and i didnt say he did so what's your point?

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 04:36 PM
and i didnt say he did so what's your point?

What is your point talking about Sampras indoors in a thread comparing Nadal's achievments indoors to Sampras on clay?

Maybe you thought this was Nadal on clay vs Sampras indoors?

Well, Nadal wins that battle for sure.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-23-2011, 04:41 PM
do you know what sampras has done indoors?

my guess is you dont

i didnt say indoors you idiot i know hes good on indoors who wouldnt with a serve like his:rolleyes: :confused:, i said i cant imagine sampras on clay being better than nadal on indoors, LEARN TO READ WILL YA:o

SetSampras
11-23-2011, 04:48 PM
No, Sampras was very bad on clay. Blood condition or not his backhand was absolutely disgusting on clay and so was his movement, proper tactics was nonexistent. We all watched him play, some things are difficult to forget. In this clay era that you call crap era he would never win a set against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He never got to play the better part of the 90s when Guga came along and became a dominant force competing with Corretja, Moya and Ferrero. But I do agree he had the slightest chanse to win the 96 RG with better conditions, Kafelnikov was his bitch and old Stich is very beatable in a RG final.

Anyway, I think Sampras might just have been a little bit better than indoor Nadal on clay. Their achievments are almost identical.

But I do belive Nadal would get to a SF in a best of 5 indoor grand slam, he can beat anyone but the best and a couple of specialists (Davydenko, Nalbandian).

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yet Sampras at one time or another beat just about EVERY clay good clay courter the 90s had to offer. He wins Davis Cup, wins Rome and gets pretty far in a few french Opens. Not bad for being, "Very bad" on clay.

You dont win the davis cup, win rome and reach QF and SF being shitty on clay.. Can't be done. He wasn't the best obviously, but he wasn't bad either

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 04:49 PM
I can see Nadal beating Sampras indoors but not Sampras beat Nadal on clay. I base this on the fact that Sampras lost against guys like Corretja, Chang, Moya and Kuerten in master cup. I have never seen Nadal lose to anyone who isnt great on clay.

SetSampras
11-23-2011, 04:50 PM
How the hell would Sampras get anywhere on clay serve and volleying in this era? I mean serve and volley is dead and Sampras bad movement and backhand would be exposed by even clowns like Almagro, Monfils and Verdasco on clay. I dont want to even think what Nadal would do to him.

I am tired of listening about surfaces and eras, like Sampras played in the most difficult of clay eras and clay was ultraslow back then. He could win RG defeating Kafelnikov and old Stich, in this era he would have to beat Federer/Djokovic and Nadal to win RG. Odds would be even worse for him in this era.

Volleying isn't dead because it doesn't work,.. Volleying is dead because guys can't play at the net and were's trained properly. But if you watch every now and then you still see some good net games employed. (Hell Monfils was troubling with Nole a few months back) with some solid net work. Ive seen it here indoors with Tsonga and Fed and Tsonga has trouble Fed the most thus far here. And many have said clay is actuallY FASTER now then it was in the 90s which is very plausible so that helps a big server, hard hitting attacker.


And please... Pete would tear Rafa a new one indoors just as Rafa would do to Pete on clay. Rafa is more or less Crap indoors. Pete was better on clay then Rafa is indoors. Rafa is EASILY the worst of the all time greats who ever ever played indoors and it isn't even close

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 04:57 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yet Sampras at one time or another beat just about EVERY clay good clay courter the 90s had to offer. He wins Davis Cup, wins Rome and gets pretty far in a few french Opens. Not bad for being, "Very bad" on clay

I dont remember him beating Kuerten on clay. Anyway there is a context to every victory he had against claycourters, Bruguera in 96 was coming back from injury and that year didnt get past 2nd round in any clay tournament before RG. In fact he ended the year ranked 78th in the world, lost to players like Krajicek, Ulihrach and Rosset on clay aswell.
Courier 96 was not really Courier 91-93. Muster 91 was not Muster 94-96 but I give you that, we still need to remind us that Muster lost to any serve and volleyer on clay including Ivanisevic, Rafter, Krajicek, Becker and Stich. Almost any serve and volleyer could defeat him.

Nadal's victory over Djokovic, Murray and Davydenko indoors is in my opinion slightly more impressive because they were all very much in their peak.

SetSampras
11-23-2011, 05:00 PM
I dont remember him beating Kuerten on clay. Anyway there is a context to every victory he had against claycourters, Bruguera in 96 was coming back from injury and that year didnt get past 2nd round in any clay tournament before RG. In fact he ended the year ranked 78th in the world, lost to players like Krajicek, Ulihrach and Rosset on clay aswell.
Courier 96 was not really Courier 91-93. Muster 91 was not Muster 94-96 but I give you that, we still need to remind us that Muster lost to any serve and volleyer on clay including Ivanisevic, Rafter, Krajicek, Becker and Stich. Almost any serve and volleyer could defeat him.

Nadal's victory over Djokovic, Murray and Davydenko indoors is in my opinion slightly more impressive because they were all very much in their peak.

The same Murray who got bitch slapped by Dirtball, slow surface Ferrer indoors? Djokovic is a slow court outdoor player today. He thrives more on extremely slow hardcourt surfaces like the AO. He isn't a a great faster surface indoor style player either. He should have easily lost to Chokedych if not for the chokeage. Nole thrives outdoors on slower surfaces, not indoors. He isn't on BEcker, Pete, Edberg etc.. level indoors.. Heck isn't even as good as Andre indoors

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 05:01 PM
Volleying isn't dead because it doesn't work,.. Volleying is dead because guys can't play at the net and were's trained properly. But if you watch every now and then you still see some good net games employed. (Hell Monfils was troubling with Nole a few months back) with some solid net work. Ive seen it here indoors with Tsonga and Fed and Tsonga has trouble Fed the most thus far here. And many have said clay is actuallY FASTER now then it was in the 90s which is very plausible so that helps a big server, hard hitting attacker.

Volleying is dead because raquets create so much topspin without much effort, Tsonga can go to the net against Federer because Federer is older and slower and cant hit passing shots like in his peak years.



And please... Pete would tear Rafa a new one indoors just as Rafa would do to Pete on clay. Rafa is more or less Crap indoors. Pete was better on clay then Rafa is indoors. Rafa is EASILY the worst of the all time greats who ever ever played indoors and it isn't even close

I dont know about that, Sampras lost to players worse than Rafa in important matches indoors like Corretja, Chang, Moya and Kuerten. Sampras was very, very good indoors but not invincible like Rafa on clay.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 05:04 PM
The same Murray who got bitch slapped by Dirtball, slow surface Ferrer indoors? Djokovic is a slow court outdoor player today. He thrives more on extremely slow hardcourt surfaces like the AO. He isn't a a great faster surface indoor style player either. He should have easily lost to Chokedych if not for the chokeage. Nole thrives outdoors on slower surfaces, not indoors. He isn't on BEcker, Pete, Edberg etc.. level indoors.. Heck isn't even as good as Andre indoors

Murray was injured and Ferrer is probably as good indoors as Corretja/Moya. One bad loss doesnt mean Murray sucks indoors just like Pete's bad losses doesnt mean he was a bad indoor player.

Djokovic is a great indoor player but not on class with Federer, Sampras and Becker obviously (maybe as good as Agassi, time will tell us if that is the case). Anyway, certanly Djokovic and Murray is as good indoors as let us say Courier was on clay.

Start da Game
11-23-2011, 05:06 PM
start da game defaults this thread......the thread is flawed for three reasons,

1. indoors is not a separate category, it is categorized under hardcourts......there was indoor carpet, indoor wood in the past and today there is indoor grass and indoor clay too......so shall we have comparisons for those too?

2. both players faulted a little in respective categories for reasons which they do not have any control over......

3. indoors has no slam where as clay does have a slam......

the thread is hereby suspended and all the meaningless posters can continue posting in it......

Amukinado
11-23-2011, 05:15 PM
Sampras was good on clay, just not nearly as good as everywhere else. Certainly better than Nadal indoors.

But anyone expecting a grass court S&V master like Sampras to be able to dominate all these surfaces in the 90's, when there were significant differences in the surfaces and court specialists creating a minefield in draws...well you're just not being realistic. On a good day Sampras was still able to beat some excellent clay court players at some big tournaments, and also lost to guys that had no business taking him down. There was more variance in the game in those days.

Either way i'd say that Sampras overall did quite well on a surface that he knows wasn't a legitimate surface for playing tennis. You need to grow up in the slums of poor south American or European countries to want to play a game in the mud.

You are, my friend, a fucking idiot.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 05:22 PM
Either way i'd say that Sampras overall did quite well on a surface that he knows wasn't a legitimate surface for playing tennis. You need to grow up in the slums of poor south American or European countries to want to play a game in the mud.

Funny, you think Borg, Wilander, Nadal, Vilas and Kuerten were born in the slums?

HKz
11-23-2011, 05:27 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yet Sampras at one time or another beat just about EVERY clay good clay courter the 90s had to offer. He wins Davis Cup, wins Rome and gets pretty far in a few french Opens. Not bad for being, "Very bad" on clay.

You dont win the davis cup, win rome and reach QF and SF being shitty on clay.. Can't be done. He wasn't the best obviously, but he wasn't bad either

Who cares, winning a match means nothing.

Either way, compared to many all-time greats, his record at Roland Garros is truthfully very poor. Connors made the semis 4 times, Becker made the semis 3 times, Lendl won it 3 times, McEnroe/Edberg made the final, Agassi made the final a couple times and won once, etc. Yet the one year Sampras made the semifinals was the year when Roland Garros was playing quite fast, and he still needed 5 sets to beat Bruguera, Martin ( :o ) and Courier which I thought he was quite fortunate to win. Either way though, all of it came unraveled after getting bageled by Kafelnikov.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-23-2011, 05:30 PM
start da game defaults this thread......the thread is flawed for three reasons,

1. indoors is not a separate category, it is categorized under hardcourts......there was indoor carpet, indoor wood in the past and today there is indoor grass and indoor clay too......so shall we have comparisons for those too?

2. both players faulted a little in respective categories for reasons which they do not have any control over......

3. indoors has no slam where as clay does have a slam......

the thread is hereby suspended and all the meaningless posters can continue posting in it......

i couldnt agree with you more, THIS!:worship:

SetSampras
11-23-2011, 05:32 PM
Who cares, winning a match means nothing.

Either way, compared to many all-time greats, his record at Roland Garros is truthfully very poor. Connors made the semis 4 times, Becker made the semis 3 times, Lendl won it 3 times, McEnroe/Edberg made the final, Agassi made the final a couple times and won once, etc. Yet the one year Sampras made the semifinals was the year when Roland Garros was playing quite fast, and he still needed 5 sets to beat Bruguera, Martin ( :o ) and Courier which I thought he was quite fortunate to win. Either way though, all of it came unraveled after getting bageled by Kafelnikov.

Courier, Bruguera, even Agassi could give anyone fits today on clay not named Nadal. Still Pete has the Davis Cup title on clay and Rome.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 05:38 PM
Courier, Bruguera, even Agassi could give anyone fits today on clay not named Nadal. Still Pete has the Davis Cup title on clay and Rome.

Bruguera 96 was ranked 78th in the world and barely could win a match anywhere, Bruguera 96 would not win a set against Federer or Djokovic and it is not really up to debate.

Courier past 95 had horrible results on clay, worse than Sampras himself. Barely got past 2nd round in any clay tournament.

Agassi would obviously not beat Djokovic or Federer on clay.

Federer beat past peak Ferrero and Moya atleast 3 times, that is hardly a great achievment. So please stay with Muster 91 which atleast is a legitimate win against someone who that year was capable of winning clay tournaments.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 05:48 PM
I recommend you watch Sampras playing peak Bruguera 93:

_2WvQM6GH0I

Just take a look at Sampras backhand, movement and defense. Return of serve from the backhand always landing super short and that slice landing inside the serviceline. It is all very, very bad. Now imagine if it was Nadal on the other side of the net instead of Bruguera, what would he do to that backhand?

SetSampras
11-23-2011, 05:54 PM
I wasn't trying to allude Sampras beat PEAK Bruguera.. I was merely pointing out the fact how difficult Pete also had it into the 90s. Again Courier and Bruguera, Muster at his best would be a major pain in the ass for anyone on clay outside of Nadal probably.. Factor in Agassi, Medvedev, Kafelnikov and a few others hanging around, Clay was probably in a much healthier state back in the 90s then it has been since if you factor in depth and number of threats. Most guys can't play today on clay.. Alot of them just implement their hardcourt ball bashing ability to clay.. Thats not "true specialist clay court tennis." The last what I would call "great" clay specialist prior to Nadal that we had was Guga who's career went downhill with injuries

rocketassist
11-23-2011, 05:58 PM
Bruguera 96 was ranked 78th in the world and barely could win a match anywhere, Bruguera 96 would not win a set against Federer or Djokovic and it is not really up to debate.

Courier past 95 had horrible results on clay, worse than Sampras himself. Barely got past 2nd round in any clay tournament.

Agassi would obviously not beat Djokovic or Federer on clay.

Federer beat past peak Ferrero and Moya atleast 3 times, that is hardly a great achievment. So please stay with Muster 91 which atleast is a legitimate win against someone who that year was capable of winning clay tournaments.

I love how you decide that ranking reflects surface ability back then, so cause Bruguera's lower ranked means he's no longer good on clay. Strong clay courters weren't always at the top of the rankings because they sucked on faster courts.

Why do you think Djokovic is such an amazing clay courter? Don't insult the likes of Muster and Bruguera by putting him ahead of them.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 06:05 PM
I love how you decide that ranking reflects surface ability back then, so cause Bruguera's lower ranked means he's no longer good on clay. Strong clay courters weren't always at the top of the rankings because they sucked on faster courts.

Why do you think Djokovic is such an amazing clay courter? Don't insult the likes of Muster and Bruguera by putting him ahead of them.

No, it is not about ranking but clay results. Here is Brugeura's 96:


Hamburg:

R32 Francisco Roig 226 6-2, 7-5
R16 Jordi Burillo 46 6-2, 7-6(5)
Q Yevgeny Kafelnikov 7 2-6, 6-7(5)

Monte Carlo:

R64 Andrea Gaudenzi 22 W 6-2, 7-6(3)
R32 Felix Mantilla 84 L 5-7, 2-6

Barcelona:

R32 Filip Dewulf 46 6-4, 6-3
R16 Magnus Larsson 86 1-6, 7-5, 3-6

Rome:

R64 Richard Krajicek 25 4-6, 4-6

Roland Garros:

R128 Javier Sanchez 62 6-1, 7-5, 6-4
R64 Pete Sampras 1 3-6, 4-6, 7-6(2), 6-2, 3-6

Gstaad:

R32 Arnaud Boetsch 17 7-6(3), 6-1
R16 Emilio Sanchez 129 6-2, 6-3
Q Bohdan Ulihrach 40 4-6, 4-6

Stuttgart:

R64 Carl-Uwe Steeb 74 7-6(5), 6-4
R32 Alberto Berasategui 29 6-7(6), 6-4, 3-6


Bournemouth:

R32 Nuno Marques 121 6-1, 6-2
R16 Patrik Fredriksson 137 6-4, 6-3
Q Magnus Norman 120 5-7, 6-1, 5-7


Were Djokovic stands compared to Bruguera and Muster is very, very difficult to say.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 06:18 PM
I wasn't trying to allude Sampras beat PEAK Bruguera.. I was merely pointing out the fact how difficult Pete also had it into the 90s. Again Courier and Bruguera, Muster at his best would be a major pain in the ass for anyone on clay outside of Nadal probably.. Factor in Agassi, Medvedev, Kafelnikov and a few others hanging around, Clay was probably in a much healthier state back in the 90s then it has been since if you factor in depth and number of threats. Most guys can't play today on clay.. Alot of them just implement their hardcourt ball bashing ability to clay.. Thats not "true specialist clay court tennis." The last what I would call "great" clay specialist prior to Nadal that we had was Guga who's career went downhill with injuries

The discussion about which clay era is better can go on for eternity, I mean I could say beating Nadal or Borg on clay is as difficult as to beat Bruguera, Kuerten and Muster back to back and truth to be told you didnt have to win against any of them to win Roland Garros, look at Courier 91, Kafelnikov 96, Moya 98, Agassi 99.

Ofcourse it is very possible players like Djokovic and Federer are greater than Courier on clay. I mean they both have won more tournaments and master series on clay already and have much greater W/L % and they have beaten Nadal to win titles aswell. Djokovic might even win 2 RGs in the future and Federer has achieved overwhelmingly more in everything except that 1 extra RG title that is missing against Courier. Look at this: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Clay-Career-List.aspx

Federer, Djokovic up there with the same W/L 76-77% as Laver, Wilander and Muster while Jim Courier is down outside top 40 in W/L with 68.5% on clay.

Another thing is the fact that Sampras lost so many times to very bad players on clay, in RG he lost to Delgado and Schaller in his prime. He lost to Philippoussis, Champion and Norman (ranked 65th at the time). He only faced peak claycourters in good form in 93-94 against Bruguera and Courier.

Also, that win against Muster 91 came when Muster was ranked 57th in the world, I really belive Sampras greatest victory on clay was Kafelnikov in Moscow 95, he played a great match there.

rocketassist
11-23-2011, 08:24 PM
No, it is not about ranking but clay results. Here is Brugeura's 96:


Hamburg:

R32 Francisco Roig 226 6-2, 7-5
R16 Jordi Burillo 46 6-2, 7-6(5)
Q Yevgeny Kafelnikov 7 2-6, 6-7(5)

Monte Carlo:

R64 Andrea Gaudenzi 22 W 6-2, 7-6(3)
R32 Felix Mantilla 84 L 5-7, 2-6

Barcelona:

R32 Filip Dewulf 46 6-4, 6-3
R16 Magnus Larsson 86 1-6, 7-5, 3-6

Rome:

R64 Richard Krajicek 25 4-6, 4-6

Roland Garros:

R128 Javier Sanchez 62 6-1, 7-5, 6-4
R64 Pete Sampras 1 3-6, 4-6, 7-6(2), 6-2, 3-6

Gstaad:

R32 Arnaud Boetsch 17 7-6(3), 6-1
R16 Emilio Sanchez 129 6-2, 6-3
Q Bohdan Ulihrach 40 4-6, 4-6

Stuttgart:

R64 Carl-Uwe Steeb 74 7-6(5), 6-4
R32 Alberto Berasategui 29 6-7(6), 6-4, 3-6


Bournemouth:

R32 Nuno Marques 121 6-1, 6-2
R16 Patrik Fredriksson 137 6-4, 6-3
Q Magnus Norman 120 5-7, 6-1, 5-7


Were Djokovic stands compared to Bruguera and Muster is very, very difficult to say.

It really isn't. Those two guys were numero uno on clay at one point. Muster's 1995 season is only comparable to a couple of Nadal's clay seasons. Bruguera won two RGs and nearly a third.

Djokovic has no RGs. His record is similar to a Medvedev and not far off a Corretja. Let me guess, you think he's as good as Guga?

rocketassist
11-23-2011, 08:27 PM
I'd love to see this clay 'legend' Djokovic, plus the likes of Murray etc try and beat these slow clay fighters over 5 sets in the 90s and win RG. Those guys were warriors and could go 5 hours.

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 09:53 PM
It really isn't. Those two guys were numero uno on clay at one point. Muster's 1995 season is only comparable to a couple of Nadal's clay seasons. Bruguera won two RGs and nearly a third.

Djokovic has no RGs. His record is similar to a Medvedev and not far off a Corretja. Let me guess, you think he's as good as Guga?

This is going too much oftopic, but I dont think Djokovic has shown us all he got in his sleeve on clay yet. You cant speculate midway in someone's career if he will achieve what others have or not, but he got 3 master series titles, an awesome W/L %, 3 RG semifinals and some really great victories against Nadal. At his age he has achieved about as much as Lendl did at 24, much more than Muster at 24. I think he has the potential to win 1-2 RGs and be compared with some of those great claycourters. I think Djokovic clearly is better than Agassi and Courier on clay but at this moment is clearly behind Muster and Bruguera. Kuerten is very far ahead Djokovic.

I'd love to see this clay 'legend' Djokovic, plus the likes of Murray etc try and beat these slow clay fighters over 5 sets in the 90s and win RG. Those guys were warriors and could go 5 hours.

I think both Agassi and Courier gave Muster really good fights in RG, I think Djokovic is very comparable to these 2 only slightly better. Djokovic-Muster would be great matches, Djokovic-Bruguera probably would be very good aswell. Impossible to tell the outcome. Murray doesnt really belong to this discussion at all and is not a great claycourter.

Chase Visa
11-23-2011, 10:17 PM
Sampras was good on clay, just not nearly as good as everywhere else. Certainly better than Nadal indoors.

But anyone expecting a grass court S&V master like Sampras to be able to dominate all these surfaces in the 90's, when there were significant differences in the surfaces and court specialists creating a minefield in draws...well you're just not being realistic. On a good day Sampras was still able to beat some excellent clay court players at some big tournaments, and also lost to guys that had no business taking him down. There was more variance in the game in those days.

Either way i'd say that Sampras overall did quite well on a surface that he knows wasn't a legitimate surface for playing tennis. You need to grow up in the slums of poor south American or European countries to want to play a game in the mud.

Samjones's multi, surely?

viruzzz
11-24-2011, 05:42 AM
If we consider this:

1. indoors is not a separate category, it is categorized under hardcourts......there was indoor carpet, indoor wood in the past and today there is indoor grass and indoor clay too......so shall we have comparisons for those too?

This has no sense:

3. indoors has no slam where as clay does have a slam......


Why? Easy.
Because Wimbledon or Australian Open big matches could be easily an "indoor match", players with high ranking like Nadal would play under the roof, like they did this year in so many Wimbledon matches.
Just a little rain changes everything.


I think when we talk about "Indoor surface" we're talking about Indoor Hardcourt/Carpet. I know there's some Indoor clay tournament in the US, and it's pretty damn fast compared to other clay tournaments.
But the indoor facts just makes the game a little faster, even if the courts are slow. There are differences between any indoor court and an outdoor court.

I think we shall consider "Indoor" as a surface.

danieln1
11-24-2011, 03:10 PM
Comparing Sampras to Nadal is just :facepalm:

Shinoj
11-24-2011, 03:23 PM
In Fact i really think Sampras could do on Clay these days, this clay is more or like a Hard Court. Those 90s clay were pretty atrocious with one could change his shots in between after he moon balls on to the other courts.

And Nadull would have been brutally exposed for his lack of talent in the 90s Indoor courts. There would be no match really.. Could not have gotten past Sergeant Becker for a start and Sampras would lie next hammering him.

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 03:47 PM
In Fact i really think Sampras could do on Clay these days, this clay is more or like a Hard Court. Those 90s clay were pretty atrocious with one could change his shots in between after he moon balls on to the other courts.

And Nadull would have been brutally exposed for his lack of talent in the 90s Indoor courts. There would be no match really.. Could not have gotten past Sergeant Becker for a start and Sampras would lie next hammering him.

If you are right that clay is played on hardcourt in this era, you do know it means Nadal would be even better in the 90s clay?

About 90s indoor I agree there was a magical time until mid 90s when Becker, Sampras, Agassi and Edberg all were around but the late 90s had a YEC final between 2 clay specialists in Corretja-Moya, I think Nadal could take advantage of those weak late 90s years.

Shinoj
11-24-2011, 03:50 PM
If you are right that clay is played on hardcourt in this era, you do know it means Nadal would be even better in the 90s clay?

About 90s indoor I agree there was a magical time until mid 90s when Becker, Sampras, Agassi and Edberg all were around but the late 90s had a YEC final between 2 clay specialists in Corretja-Moya, I think Nadal could take advantage of those weak late 90s years.

It would be a good match between Sampras and Nadal on this Clay and Sampras would easily beat/ hammer/massacre, choose you word Nadal on indoors.

And for 90s Clay, WHo Cares :rocker2::rocker2::rocker2::rocker2::rocker2:

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-24-2011, 04:03 PM
sampras had a respectable clay career in an era of clay specialists

nadal is (AFAIK) the only ATG player who has a losing record on a surface (carpet)

nadal sucks indoors-

shame federer and nadal didnt play on this stuff more often- federer would never have lost

bjurra
11-24-2011, 04:08 PM
This thread is stupid. Indoors doesn't equal carpet. Rafa on a surface like Bercy is miles better than Sampras on clay. Rafa on carpet is still better, at least more consistent.

Sampras was wildly inconsistent on clay, anyone claiming he was a good clay courter is suffering from selective amnesia. Here are a few results from Masters and RG for you Sampras lovers:

1994:

Only played Rome and RG, very good results.

1995:

Fabrice SANTORO (FRA) 4-6 3-6

Gilbert Schaller 6-7(3) 6-4 7-6(4) 2-6 4-6

1996:

Only played RG, made SF after beating Martin, Draper and Courier in R3, R4 and QF.

1997:

Fabrice SANTORO (FRA) 1-6 1-6

Ramon DELGADO (PAR) 6-7(6) 3-6 4-6

1998:

Fernando MELIGENI (BRA) 3-6 1-6

Juan-Antonio MARIN (CRC) 6-7(5) 6-4 7-5 6-7(9) 6-4

1999:

Arnaud DI PASQUALE (FRA) 4-6 4-6

2000:

Alex CALATRAVA (ESP) 7-6(3) 3-6 4-6

Harel LEVY (ISR) 5-7 6-2 4-6

Galo BLANCO (ESP) 6-7(4) 3-6 2-6

Rafa just doesn't have these kind of losses in Masters events indoors.

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 04:40 PM
This thread is stupid. Indoors doesn't equal carpet. Rafa on a surface like Bercy is miles better than Sampras on clay. Rafa on carpet is still better, at least more consistent.

Sampras was wildly inconsistent on clay, anyone claiming he was a good clay courter is suffering from selective amnesia. Here are a few results from Masters and RG for you Sampras lovers:

1994:

Only played Rome and RG, very good results.

1995:

Fabrice SANTORO (FRA) 4-6 3-6

Gilbert Schaller 6-7(3) 6-4 7-6(4) 2-6 4-6

1996:

Only played RG, made SF after beating Martin, Draper and Courier in R3, R4 and QF.

1997:

Fabrice SANTORO (FRA) 1-6 1-6

Ramon DELGADO (PAR) 6-7(6) 3-6 4-6

1998:

Fernando MELIGENI (BRA) 3-6 1-6

Juan-Antonio MARIN (CRC) 6-7(5) 6-4 7-5 6-7(9) 6-4

1999:

Arnaud DI PASQUALE (FRA) 4-6 4-6

2000:

Alex CALATRAVA (ESP) 7-6(3) 3-6 4-6

Harel LEVY (ISR) 5-7 6-2 4-6

Galo BLANCO (ESP) 6-7(4) 3-6 2-6

Rafa just doesn't have these kind of losses in Masters events indoors.

Yeah, Sampras was probably worse when we actually look in to whom both beat and lost to in their respective worst surfaces instead of talking about "a golden era of specialists, super slow clay and blablabla". I doubt many of these people have seen the atrocity which was Sampras on clay.

These are Nadal's worst losses indoors masters/YEC since 2005:

Simon in Madrid 2008
F. Mayer in Shanghai 2011

Certanly better class of players than the ones Samrpas was losing to, all atleast in the top 20. Sampras lost a dozen times to players outside top 50 on clay.

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 04:49 PM
sampras had a respectable clay career in an era of clay specialists




Why dont you just cut and paste what others say, Sampras played in an era of clay specialists like if there is any substance to this argument. Sampras had to beat prime Muster and Bruguera back to back to win all clay titles, if he would only play in this era when you only have to beat Djokovic and Nadal to win titles on clay things would be alot better, right?

Truth is that the 90s almost always had a serve and volleyer in SF or F in clay tournaments and sometimes both finalists hadnt even played clay season in Europe, like Agassi vs Courier 91. Sometimes you had a player win RG playing 3 serve and volleyers in a row like Kafelnikov 96. Things like Becker playing Sampras in a clay master series final was also not strange at all, almost every serve and volleyer got to finals on clay master series including Rafter, Ivanisevic and Krajicek.

Sophocles
11-24-2011, 05:08 PM
Certanly better class of players than the ones Samrpas was losing to, all atleast in the top 20. Sampras lost a dozen times to players outside top 50 on clay.

This is true but bear in mind Sampras, like Becker, was a high-risk player. Anybody can beat a high-risk player having an off day, because the high-risk player will gift the match with errors. But to beat a defensive player having an off day, you still have to play some good aggressive ball yourself, particularly on clay.

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 05:14 PM
This is true but bear in mind Sampras, like Becker, was a high-risk player. Anybody can beat a high-risk player having an off day, because the high-risk player will gift the match with errors. But to beat a defensive player having an off day, you still have to play some good aggressive ball yourself, particularly on clay.

Ok, this is true. But also remember that clay is a surface that does ask high risk players to adapt and Sampras was completely unable to do that. Federer is a high risk player aswell but is incredibly consistent on clay while still beeing aggressive. If you look at how Sampras played on clay, on some areas like the backhand and return of serve he wasnt even as aggressive as Federer on clay. His backhand simply sucked on clay and was very short and his slice had no bite on clay. Becker I thought was better than Sampras on clay, Sampras only survived on clay because of his serve and mental strength.

Sophocles
11-24-2011, 05:28 PM
Ok, this is true. But also remember that clay is a surface that does ask high risk players to adapt and Sampras was completely unable to do that. Federer is a high risk player aswell but is incredibly consistent on clay while still beeing aggressive. If you look at how Sampras played on clay, on some areas like the backhand and return of serve he wasnt even as aggressive as Federer on clay. His backhand simply sucked on clay and was very short and his slice had no bite on clay. Becker I thought was better than Sampras on clay, Sampras only survived on clay because of his serve and mental strength.

Not denying that, but despite being prone to terrible losses on clay, the fact is Sampras still had enough good tournaments on the surface to have a better record than Nadal's indoors. If Sampras failed to adapt to clay, Nadal has also failed to adapt indoors. It doesn't matter against ordinary opposition, because he can out-defend defensive players and shit offensive players will still make too many mistakes, but against top-class aggressive players who make very few mistakes indoors he seems unable to adapt his game to seize the initiative himself. Nadal is more likely to beat shit players indoors, but also more likely to lose to very good ones. Sampras at least had a chance on clay if he was hot.

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 05:35 PM
Not denying that, but despite being prone to terrible losses on clay, the fact is Sampras still had enough good tournaments on the surface to have a better record than Nadal's indoors. If Sampras failed to adapt to clay, Nadal has also failed to adapt indoors. It doesn't matter against ordinary opposition, because he can out-defend defensive players and shit offensive players will still make too many mistakes, but against top-class aggressive players who make very few mistakes indoors he seems unable to adapt his game to seize the initiative himself. Nadal is more likely to beat shit players indoors, but also more likely to lose to very good ones. Sampras at least had a chance on clay if he was hot.

I dont completely agree with you there, Nadal today obviously is unable to do anything against good indoor players but Nadal is a player who at times works hard to adapt and 2010 he was bombing 130 mph serves and trying hard to play aggressive. I never saw that will to adapt from Sampras, it was always the same old crap on clay, I know he didnt work his ass for 7 hours every day during clay season to improve on his weaknesses, in fact he didnt take clay seriously at all and was casual about clay tournaments in Europe, he already had his mind in Wimbledon when hardcourt season ended.

Sophocles
11-24-2011, 05:55 PM
I dont completely agree with you there, Nadal today obviously is unable to do anything against good indoor players but Nadal is a player who at times works hard to adapt and 2010 he was bombing 130 mph serves and trying hard to play aggressive. I never saw that will to adapt from Sampras, it was always the same old crap on clay, I know he didnt work his ass for 7 hours every day during clay season to improve on his weaknesses, in fact he didnt take clay seriously at all and was casual about clay tournaments in Europe, he already had his mind in Wimbledon when hardcourt season ended.

True, but that boils down to this essential difference between the 2: Nadal is a worker, Sampras was a coaster - who was lucky to have enormous talent.

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 07:02 PM
I will show as good as I can why I think Nadal has a slight edge over Sampras on his worst surface. It very much boils down to 2 tournaments both had, the master series they won and Sampras 96 SF against Nadal's 2010 YEC final. I consider a YEC final very much comparable to a slam SF.

When we look at their master series victory, both had very easy draws:


R64 Aaron Krickstein (USA) 30 W 6-1, 7-6(2)
R32 Alex Corretja (ESP) 39 W 6-3, 3-6, 6-3
R16 Andrei Chesnokov (RUS) 33 W 7-6(8), 6-3
Q Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) 45 W 6-3, 7-5
S Slava Dosedel (CZE) 51 W 6-1, 6-2
W Boris Becker (GER) 13 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-2

Look at Corretja in Rd2 who was still a teenager, Gaudenzi and Chesnokov are reasonable opponents aswell. Becker ofcourse not the kind of player who would trouble Sampras on clay.

Nadal's easy draw 2005:

R32 Victor Hanescu (ROU) 42 W 7-6(5), 6-3
R16 Tommy Robredo (ESP) 17 W 6-2, 6-4
Q Radek Stepanek (CZE) 14 W 7-6(9), 6-4
S Robby Ginepri (USA) 21 W 7-5, 7-6(1)
W Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 12 W 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(3)

Ginepri, Robredo and Hanescu are very much jokes indoor. Stepanek is a good opponent and Ljubicic had his greatest year 2005 and is a good indoor player.

No top 10s in either master series, I think they are equal.

But look at Nadal 2010 YEC against Sampras 96 run in RG:

R128 Magnus Gustafsson (SWE) 34 W 6-1, 7-5, 7-6(5)
R64 Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 23 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(2), 2-6, 6-3
R32 Todd Martin (USA) 18 W 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2
R16 Scott Draper (AUS) 99 W 6-4, 7-5, 6-2
Q Jim Courier (USA) 8 W 6-7(4), 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
S Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 7 L 6-7(4), 0-6, 2-6

Sometimes big names just create an illusion, neither Bruguera or Courier was in any sense top 5 on clay 1996, I doubt Sampras would defeat Bruguera in any other year than that year when he was coming back from injury. On the other hand I do belive Sampras had it in him to beat Courier on clay in Courier's prime but that would be unlikely. I have personaly watched only his matches against Courier and Kafelnikov and neither match were of any good quality at all.

Now, Nadal 2010 YEC makes the differense in my opinion:


RR Andy Roddick (USA) 8 W 3-6, 7-6(5), 6-4
RR Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 7-5, 6-2
RR Tomas Berdych (CZE) 6 W 7-6(3), 6-1
S Andy Murray (GBR) 5 W 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-6(6)
F Roger Federer (SUI) 2 L 3-6, 6-3, 1-6

Murray and Djokovic should both count as topclass indoor players and that year Murray was probably nr2 indoors and Djokovic top 5. That SF against Murray was more special than any match Sampras ever played on clay, the way he destroyed other good indoor players like Berdych is also impressive and finaly he took a set from one of the indoor GOATS while Kafelnikov who hardly is even top 10 on clay during the 90s revealed all Sampras' old weaknesses on clay. If you watch the way Nadal was playing and serving in this tournamnt and then watch Sampras matches on clay 96, you will notice Nadal was a different beast from his usual self in this tournament while Sampras really was the same clueless and clumsy american on clay he always has been.

So, my argument is simple if you both look at the peak and the dip of both players in their worst surfaces Sampras looks worse in both cases.

bjurra
11-24-2011, 07:09 PM
Rafa has very few bad losses indoors, Sampras has loads of bad losses on clay. Simple as that.

Johnny Groove
11-24-2011, 07:09 PM
Nadal, even when slumping makes QF and SF at least of indoor events. Sampras could lose to any mug on any day on clay.

rocketassist
11-24-2011, 07:15 PM
Why dont you just cut and paste what others say, Sampras played in an era of clay specialists like if there is any substance to this argument. Sampras had to beat prime Muster and Bruguera back to back to win all clay titles, if he would only play in this era when you only have to beat Djokovic and Nadal to win titles on clay things would be alot better, right?

Truth is that the 90s almost always had a serve and volleyer in SF or F in clay tournaments and sometimes both finalists hadnt even played clay season in Europe, like Agassi vs Courier 91. Sometimes you had a player win RG playing 3 serve and volleyers in a row like Kafelnikov 96. Things like Becker playing Sampras in a clay master series final was also not strange at all, almost every serve and volleyer got to finals on clay master series including Rafter, Ivanisevic and Krajicek.

Sampras would find it easier to make the business end of it due to lack of decent clay players, though he wouldn't beat Federer or Nadal on any big clay event

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 07:24 PM
Sampras would find it easier to make the business end of it due to lack of decent clay players, though he wouldn't beat Federer or Nadal on any big clay event

More than 50% of those Sampras lost to on clay werent even decent clay players. Surely we have Schallers, Delgados and Blancos in this era aswell.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-24-2011, 07:30 PM
alot of people are counting losses AFTER 1996 against sampras

HOWEVER

nadal is only slipping now-- in the future he will have some seriously bad losses on all surfaces (and we all know this)

are y'all forgetting that nadal almost lost R1 RG against lurch who cant even play tennis

rocketassist
11-24-2011, 07:34 PM
More than 50% of those Sampras lost to on clay werent even decent clay players. Surely we have Schallers, Delgados and Blancos in this era aswell.

They were slow clay grinders to be fair, whereas today the clay's been sped up and doesn't favour those types of player unless you're a human freak (see #2 )

bjurra
11-24-2011, 08:36 PM
alot of people are counting losses AFTER 1996 against sampras

HOWEVER

nadal is only slipping now-- in the future he will have some seriously bad losses on all surfaces (and we all know this)

Rafa isn't slipping, he has had a very good season. He is a bit of a slump now but I am sure his 2012 season will be just as good.

Anyway, here are some young Sampras clay results for you:

1990:

Jonas B. SVENSSON (SWE) 0-6 1-6

1991:

Karel NOVACEK (CZE) 4-6 2-6

Fabrice SANTORO (FRA) 2-6 6-4 5-7

Thierry CHAMPION (FRA) 3-6 1-6 1-6

1992:

Carl-Uwe STEEB (GER) 3-6 4-6

Gabriel MARKUS (ARG) 1-6 6-2 6-7

1993:

Jacco ELTINGH (NED) 6-7 4-6

Goran IVANISEVIC (CRO) 6-7 2-6

sexybeast
11-24-2011, 10:00 PM
They were slow clay grinders to be fair, whereas today the clay's been sped up and doesn't favour those types of player unless you're a human freak (see #2 )

It wasnt really the case where Sampras only had problems with the slow clay grinders, I mean Agassi and Champion destroyed Sampras in Roland Garros in the early 90s, Santoro defeated him 3 times in early rounds in clay master series, even Ivanisevic straight setted Sampras in Rome and Philippousis defeated him in a Roland Garros epic when Sampras was in his late 20s.

Sampras really could lose to anyone in the world on clay and any kind of clay that is. Some people really need to go watch Sampras play on clay one more time, it was worse than I could remember when I watched him a decade later struggle against a pastpeak Courier in what is said to be his greatest match on clay.

spencercarlos
11-25-2011, 01:07 AM
If we want to just choose the Ultimate indoor title which is the YEC... Then its not difficult at all to choose: Nadal won some other indoor titles so that helps I believe but.

Sampras for sure. He won the Davis Cup on slow as molasses clay (almost single handidly beating the Russians) won Rome, and beat some big names at the French Open with a few QF appearances and a SF appearance.

If not for his Blood Condition ( something of which he had no control over either)and the death of his coach I have NO DOUBT he would have won the French as well.. Or if he played in a crap clay era too of course.. Unfortauntely, the 90s was some of best on clay when it came to depth.

And Sampras wasn't a clay mug ( in his prime).. No he wasn't the best but its not like he has fucking Roddick's resume on clay for god sakes. He has some big clay titles and beat just about all the best the 90s had to offer on clay (Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster etc)
For sure when you compare Samprasīs clay court result with Roddick for sure, he is a clay GOAT :lol:

Anyway Sampras was a huge MUG on clay, i canīt even start to name his losses on the dirt because i will be here all night. 1 Sf and 3 QF on the clay court slam in 13 attempts for someone whoīs suppossedly the greatest of all times is quite ridiculous. You can probably make excuses for a couple of those early 9 defeats, but not for all :lol:

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 01:11 AM
And Sampras wasn't a clay mug ( in his prime).. No he wasn't the best but its not like he has fucking Roddick's resume on clay for god sakes. He has some big clay titles and beat just about all the best the 90s had to offer on clay (Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster etc)

You can say the same for Nadal:

And Nadal wasnt an indoor mug (in his prime).. No he wasnt the best but its not like he has fucking Almagro's resume on indoor for god sakes. He has some big indoor titles and beat just about all the best the 00s had to offer indoor (Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko etc)

rocketassist
11-25-2011, 01:29 AM
You can say the same for Nadal:

And Nadal wasnt an indoor mug (in his prime).. No he wasnt the best but its not like he has fucking Almagro's resume on indoor for god sakes. He has some big indoor titles and beat just about all the best the 00s had to offer indoor (Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko etc)

Federer, Nalbandian, Henman, Safin, Enqvist, Soderling, J Novak, Grosjean, he didn't beat any of those and they're as good as if not better than the three players you mentioned.

spencercarlos
11-25-2011, 01:33 AM
It really isn't. Those two guys were numero uno on clay at one point. Muster's 1995 season is only comparable to a couple of Nadal's clay seasons. Bruguera won two RGs and nearly a third.

Djokovic has no RGs. His record is similar to a Medvedev and not far off a Corretja. Let me guess, you think he's as good as Guga?
Nearly a third? :lol: Bruguera was hugely spanked by the more talented Gustavo Kuerten. He had absolutely no chance to win.

spencercarlos
11-25-2011, 01:43 AM
Federer, Nalbandian, Henman, Safin, Enqvist, Soderling, J Novak, Grosjean, he didn't beat any of those and they're as good as if not better than the three players you mentioned.
Correct me if i am wrong..
Nadal never played Grosjean, Henman, Safin, Enqvist indoors, lost to Novak in 2004 being 17 year old seriosly are you counting this?

spencercarlos
11-25-2011, 01:46 AM
I wasn't trying to allude Sampras beat PEAK Bruguera.. I was merely pointing out the fact how difficult Pete also had it into the 90s. Again Courier and Bruguera, Muster at his best would be a major pain in the ass for anyone on clay outside of Nadal probably.. Factor in Agassi, Medvedev, Kafelnikov and a few others hanging around, Clay was probably in a much healthier state back in the 90s then it has been since if you factor in depth and number of threats. Most guys can't play today on clay.. Alot of them just implement their hardcourt ball bashing ability to clay.. Thats not "true specialist clay court tennis." The last what I would call "great" clay specialist prior to Nadal that we had was Guga who's career went downhill with injuries
If Federer had that kind of competition on his peak years he would have 4 French Opens by now at least :lol:

The tecnical difficulties that these players had were remarkable, probably Muster had the better clay court game and more impressive resume, because of his many titles. But Muster was not Nadal.. not nearly as imposing on clay..

DDrago2
11-25-2011, 01:51 AM
Raffa is a push-over on fast courts and Sampras was even worse on clay.
Unlike that, Federer is the king of fast courts and on slow courts he is still one of the best.

rocketassist
11-25-2011, 01:53 AM
If Federer had that kind of competition on his peak years he would have 4 French Opens by now at least :lol:

The tecnical difficulties that these players had were remarkable, probably Muster had the better clay court game and more impressive resume, because of his many titles. But Muster was not Nadal.. not nearly as imposing on clay..

How d'ya know?

Fed has always hated playing topspin grinders. He lost to a past-it Costa in 05 and got schooled in Rome by Felix Mantilla in 2003.

He would have hated to play the likes of Bruguera, Courier, Corretja and Muster on a regular basis, although if he serve volleyed he'd have done well against the latter.

spencercarlos
11-25-2011, 01:54 AM
And please... Pete would tear Rafa a new one indoors just as Rafa would do to Pete on clay. Rafa is more or less Crap indoors. Pete was better on clay then Rafa is indoors. Rafa is EASILY the worst of the all time greats who ever ever played indoors and it isn't even close
How Nadal can be the worst player Indoors among the all time greats. Then Sampras definetly is worse on clay, especially when you take their result in the biggest tournament that there is on each of their worst surface. RU + 2SF definetly tops 1 SF+ 3 QF.. and its not even close :rolleyes:

spencercarlos
11-25-2011, 01:57 AM
How d'ya know?

Fed has always hated playing topspin grinders. He lost to a past-it Costa in 05 and got schooled in Rome by Felix Mantilla in 2003.

He would have hated to play the likes of Bruguera, Courier, Corretja and Muster on a regular basis, although if he serve volleyed he'd have done well against the latter.
Sure losing to Costa in 2004 and Mantilla in 2003 pretty much proves your point :lol:

Second Sampras was not even good enough on clay to get to play Courier, Bruguera, Corretja or Muster in a consistent basis... so i donīt really know what are you talking about.

Topspindoctor
11-25-2011, 02:01 AM
Sampras was a big mug on clay, he couldn't even make RG final, so the answer is obviously Nadal.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 02:22 AM
Federer, Nalbandian, Henman, Safin, Enqvist, Soderling, J Novak, Grosjean, he didn't beat any of those and they're as good as if not better than the three players you mentioned.

So what? Sampras didnt beat Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, Federer, Nadal on clay and they are all probably better than the ones listed. He didnt even beat peak Muster, Bruguera, Courier on clay, atleast Nadal beat Davydenko, Djokovic and Murray when they were all at their peak or very close.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 02:40 AM
How d'ya know?

Fed has always hated playing topspin grinders. He lost to a past-it Costa in 05 and got schooled in Rome by Felix Mantilla in 2003.

He would have hated to play the likes of Bruguera, Courier, Corretja and Muster on a regular basis, although if he serve volleyed he'd have done well against the latter.

Haha, Federer would have no problem against Muster as he knows how to approach the net and I have no idea why Courier's hardcourt game would be difficult for Federer.

Anyway, it was easier to win RG without playing any of the kind of players you are talking about in the 90s (watch 91, 96, 99) then to win in this era without playing Nadal.

Geez, people are talking about the 90s like you had to beat peak Muster, Bruguera and Kuerten back to back to win a slam. You didnt even need to play any of them most of the times, you could play Medvedev and Hrbaty to win RG, you could play Sampras and Stich, KAfelnikov and Chang, Agassi and Korda.

Do people really think Muster, Bruguera and Kuerten were always in RG SF standing there to stop Sampras from glory? Sampras only met any of these close to their prime twice in RG and a couple of times outside RG, Federer met Nadal 5 times in RG and another 7 times in master series.

If Bruguera, Courier, Kuerten, Muster, Agassi, Corretja, Costa and Medvedev have never been born Sampras would still never get to RG final. If Nadal hadnt been born god knows how many RGs Federer would have (5-6?).

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 03:34 AM
How Nadal can be the worst player Indoors among the all time greats. Then Sampras definetly is worse on clay, especially when you take their result in the biggest tournament that there is on each of their worst surface. RU + 2SF definetly tops 1 SF+ 3 QF.. and its not even close :rolleyes:

Because I factor in the Davis Cup on clay in '95 which is HUGE, and factor in a Rome title which isn't as big but still big.. Along with the wins over some great clay courters and deep runs.. To me thats better then ZERO WTF titles

desigundah
11-25-2011, 03:54 AM
Who cares? Nadal doesn't even play a handful of tournaments on indoor HC yearly. He'll play Paris and WTF and honestly thats about it. Theres barely any tournaments on indoor HC. Obviously, about 40% of the season is played on clay. The schedule isn't balanced evenly on all 4 surfaces, so it doesn't matter. Nadal is unbeatable on the second most previlent surface in the sport and thats enough for him to dominate the sport. Come back and discuss this when the ATP adds more indoor tournaments to the schedule.

spencercarlos
11-25-2011, 09:58 AM
Because I factor in the Davis Cup on clay in '95 which is HUGE, and factor in a Rome title which isn't as big but still big.. Along with the wins over some great clay courters and deep runs.. To me thats better then ZERO WTF titles
When you need a team competition event to try to defend your fave we know you are in deep trouble :lol:

Davis Cup 95 on clay, and there is no way to even control if you get to play a final of Davis Cup on any surface.

Now beating Kafelnikov (who was Samprasīs bitch do i need to explain? :lol ) and Chesnokov who was far from this best years by 1995 are hardly the best wins for Sampras on clay ever. :rolleyes:

That being said Nadal has played some Davis Cup ties Indoors, his record is 4-1 with wins over Kiefer, Stephanek.

Nadal has also great wins over players that can play Indoors and deep runs at the biggest event Indoor.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 11:40 AM
Now beating Kafelnikov (who was Samprasīs bitch do i need to explain? :lol ) and Chesnokov who was far from this best years by 1995 are hardly the best wins for Sampras on clay ever. :rolleyes:


You are right a couple of Davis Cup matches in the final hardly can be counted as much as a good run in Grand slam or even a master series final. Anyway, I would say Kafelnikov in moscow is Sampras' best win on clay ever. Specially if you watch the match, Sampras plays a very good match.

Sophocles
11-25-2011, 04:57 PM
I will show as good as I can why I think Nadal has a slight edge over Sampras on his worst surface. It very much boils down to 2 tournaments both had, the master series they won and Sampras 96 SF against Nadal's 2010 YEC final. I consider a YEC final very much comparable to a slam SF.

When we look at their master series victory, both had very easy draws:


R64 Aaron Krickstein (USA) 30 W 6-1, 7-6(2)
R32 Alex Corretja (ESP) 39 W 6-3, 3-6, 6-3
R16 Andrei Chesnokov (RUS) 33 W 7-6(8), 6-3
Q Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) 45 W 6-3, 7-5
S Slava Dosedel (CZE) 51 W 6-1, 6-2
W Boris Becker (GER) 13 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-2

Look at Corretja in Rd2 who was still a teenager, Gaudenzi and Chesnokov are reasonable opponents aswell. Becker ofcourse not the kind of player who would trouble Sampras on clay.

Nadal's easy draw 2005:

R32 Victor Hanescu (ROU) 42 W 7-6(5), 6-3
R16 Tommy Robredo (ESP) 17 W 6-2, 6-4
Q Radek Stepanek (CZE) 14 W 7-6(9), 6-4
S Robby Ginepri (USA) 21 W 7-5, 7-6(1)
W Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 12 W 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(3)

Ginepri, Robredo and Hanescu are very much jokes indoor. Stepanek is a good opponent and Ljubicic had his greatest year 2005 and is a good indoor player.

No top 10s in either master series, I think they are equal.

But look at Nadal 2010 YEC against Sampras 96 run in RG:

R128 Magnus Gustafsson (SWE) 34 W 6-1, 7-5, 7-6(5)
R64 Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 23 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(2), 2-6, 6-3
R32 Todd Martin (USA) 18 W 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2
R16 Scott Draper (AUS) 99 W 6-4, 7-5, 6-2
Q Jim Courier (USA) 8 W 6-7(4), 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
S Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 7 L 6-7(4), 0-6, 2-6

Sometimes big names just create an illusion, neither Bruguera or Courier was in any sense top 5 on clay 1996, I doubt Sampras would defeat Bruguera in any other year than that year when he was coming back from injury. On the other hand I do belive Sampras had it in him to beat Courier on clay in Courier's prime but that would be unlikely. I have personaly watched only his matches against Courier and Kafelnikov and neither match were of any good quality at all.

Now, Nadal 2010 YEC makes the differense in my opinion:


RR Andy Roddick (USA) 8 W 3-6, 7-6(5), 6-4
RR Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 7-5, 6-2
RR Tomas Berdych (CZE) 6 W 7-6(3), 6-1
S Andy Murray (GBR) 5 W 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-6(6)
F Roger Federer (SUI) 2 L 3-6, 6-3, 1-6

Murray and Djokovic should both count as topclass indoor players and that year Murray was probably nr2 indoors and Djokovic top 5. That SF against Murray was more special than any match Sampras ever played on clay, the way he destroyed other good indoor players like Berdych is also impressive and finaly he took a set from one of the indoor GOATS while Kafelnikov who hardly is even top 10 on clay during the 90s revealed all Sampras' old weaknesses on clay. If you watch the way Nadal was playing and serving in this tournamnt and then watch Sampras matches on clay 96, you will notice Nadal was a different beast from his usual self in this tournament while Sampras really was the same clueless and clumsy american on clay he always has been.

So, my argument is simple if you both look at the peak and the dip of both players in their worst surfaces Sampras looks worse in both cases.

You make a good case. Didn't Sampras though win a couple of other tournaments on clay? And didn't he have several wins over better clay-court players, such as Agassi? And win Davis Cup final on clay?

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 05:02 PM
You make a good case. Didn't Sampras though win a couple of other tournaments on clay? And didn't he have several wins over better clay-court players, such as Agassi? And win Davis Cup final on clay?

Ok, I have aknowledged his Davis Cup victory over Kafelnikov was pretty impressive. He did defeat Agassi on clay in Monte Carlo of all places 1998, but Agassi was then outside the top 20 and coming back from his time doing other things than tennis. Sampras did win Hong Kong and Atlanta on clay but I dont know much about these tournaments (what kind of clay was it? American clay like Houston?)

Sophocles
11-25-2011, 05:04 PM
One thing you CAN say, to put Sampras's clay abilities in perspective: Federer would have won multiple R.G.s in the 1990s; Sampras would have won ZERO R.G.s in the 2000s. And Nadal might have snatched a WTF at the end of the 1990s.

Sophocles
11-25-2011, 05:05 PM
Ok, I have aknowledged his Davis Cup victory over Kafelnikov was pretty impressive. He did defeat Agassi on clay in Monte Carlo of all places 1998, but Agassi was then outside the top 20 and coming back from his time doing other things than tennis. Sampras did win Hong Kong and Atlanta on clay but I dont know much about these tournaments (what kind of clay was it? American clay like Houston?)

Well yeah, probably was green clay.

Bottom line, I don't think there's much in it.

rocketassist
11-25-2011, 05:05 PM
One thing you CAN say, to put Sampras's clay abilities in perspective: Federer would have won multiple R.G.s in the 1990s; Sampras would have won ZERO R.G.s in the 2000s. And Nadal might have snatched a WTF at the end of the 1990s.

Moya would have beat him on a fast indoors.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 05:09 PM
Moya would have beat him on a fast indoors.

Moya would beat Nadal 2011 but not Nadal 2010, that is to say Nadal's timing would have to be good to peak at the YEC at the right time. He probably would be unlikely to win YEC, but he would atleast have a chanse. Sampras would not have a chanse on clay in any era, I think 1996 is one of the best oppurtunuties a guy like Sampras can get to win on his worst surface.

rocketassist
11-25-2011, 05:13 PM
Moya would beat Nadal 2011 but not Nadal 2010, that is to say Nadal's timing would have to be good to peak at the YEC at the right time. He probably would be unlikely to win YEC, but he would atleast have a chanse. Sampras would not have a chanse on clay in any era, I think 1996 is one of the best oppurtunuties a guy like Sampras can get to win on his worst surface.

Moya had a good record on faster surfaces against Nadal, in particular the off-forehand into Nadal's forehand wing did a lot of damage. He even took him to four hours in Chennai despite being way past his best.

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 05:15 PM
NO ONE has a chance in the "Nadal clay era" so that is moot.. Sampras would no doubt have a chance in the early 00s on clay. He lost to far better in his clay prime ( agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov) then the guy who even WON the French in the early 00s. ROFL. Costa? Gaudio etc? 92-96 Pete would have no chance winning the French at that time?

Hogwash

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 05:22 PM
NO ONE has a chance in the "Nadal clay era" so that is moot.. Sampras would no doubt have a chance in the early 00s on clay. He lost to far better in his clay prime ( agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov) then the guy who even WON the French in the early 00s. ROFL. Costa? Gaudio etc? 92-96 Pete would have no chance winning the French at that time?

Hogwash

I personally think Costa and is ahead of Kafelnikov and not far from Courier on clay, Costa had a magnificent run 2002 while Kafelnikov's and Courier's RGs were easy. Look at Costa's magnificent draw (some players are obviously past peak or just teenagers):

R128 Richard Gasquet (FRA) 294 W 3-6, 6-0, 6-4, 6-3
R64 Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 79 W 7-5, 7-6(4), 6-2
R32 Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) 69 W 7-6(2), 6-1, 7-5
R16 Gustavo Kuerten (BRA) 7 W 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
Q Guillermo Canas (ARG) 17 W 7-5, 3-6, 6-7(3), 6-4, 6-0
S Alex Corretja (ESP) 20 W 6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
W Juan Carlos Ferrero (ESP) 11 W 6-1, 6-0, 4-6, 6-3

There is no way Sampras would get through this draw, Gaudio's 2004 while fortunate was also not an easy draw. I will go as far to say I can see Sampras beat Coria in RG final, but then again I can see almost anyone beat Coria in a slam final.

rocketassist
11-25-2011, 05:24 PM
Costa's draw was a minefield. Great champion.

Andresito
11-25-2011, 06:32 PM
Now, Sampras on clay.

If age changes Nadal style (to less topspin, more power on serves, short points), maybe he will be better on indoor's.

jenkins.ray11
02-08-2012, 01:12 PM
Clay isn't the best surface for a tennis court (http://www.plexipave.com/tennis/plexipave.html) for either of them. I think it would depend on a lot of other factors.

JurajCrane
02-08-2012, 03:45 PM
Nadal would kill Sampras on clay, while indoors it could be a close match, so it clearly says who is better. :)

samanosuke
02-08-2012, 05:28 PM
Nadal on indoor carpet or Sampras on clay ? Would pick Sampras on clay to run for my money
nadal on indoor HC or Sampras on clay ? Would pick Nadal to run for my money

samanosuke
02-08-2012, 05:29 PM
Nadal would kill Sampras on clay, while indoors it could be a close match, so it clearly says who is better. :)

you can not be serious

Johnny Groove
05-21-2012, 04:03 PM
2 GOAT candidates on their worst surfaces. Who overcame these obstacles the best in their respective careers?

Nadal Indoors W-L and stats:

52-29 (64.2%)

Notable Results:

1 Masters Title
1 Masters Cup Final
1 Masters F
2 Masters Cup SF
2 Masters SF
3 Masters QF
1 500 SF
2 250 SF

Sampras on clay W-L and stats:

90-54 (62.5%)

1 Masters Title
1 Roland Garros SF
3 Roland Garros QF :eek:
1995 Davis Cup final, heroic performance away in Russia, albeit post Cold War
2 Masters SF
1 Masters QF
2 250 titles
2 250 F
2 250 SF

Pretty close, I reckon.

Ash86
05-21-2012, 04:13 PM
Not comparable - Nadal plays practically 1 indoor event a year (sometimes 2 with Paris...) and the main one happens to be one where he has to play top 8 players from the start (and it's at the end of the season). There is no slam on indoors and in Nadal's era it hasn't had the same importance as in the past.

When Sampras played on the other hand you still had very prestigious clay tournaments like MC, Rome, Hamburg etc. as well as obviously one of the 4 slams. If indoors was as relevant on the tour right now and Nadal had been awful on it then there would be more of a blemish against him -- as it is however he has not had the incentive to focus on improving on indoor - the focus has been on the slams and hardcourts more generally.

So, given the varying status of indoor and clay on tour and the small sample size of Nadal's matches on it, I don't think their success or lack thereof is comparable. If anything, with very little time overall in his career on indoor he's won a Masters on it and made another final (Paris) as well as made the final of the top indoor event, only losing to the greatest indoor player of Nadal's generation (and even that wasn't a straight sets loss....).

Relative to his other surfaces Nadal is poor on indoors but the situation isn't dire - look at that Murray 2010 WTF match - he can play well on it and I'm sure if there was a slam on indoor his winning % on the surface would be higher....

Certinfy
05-21-2012, 04:14 PM
I would have to go with Nadal.

luie
05-21-2012, 04:16 PM
Sampras over came his weakest surface/conditions best but it's close. I give Sampras the edge because he has a blood disorder that affected his stamina , vital for clay.

Action Jackson
05-21-2012, 04:24 PM
Nadal hasn't played on fast indoor surfaces or hardly on carpet, so can't really compare.

iriraz
05-21-2012, 04:30 PM
Just like the others pointed out,it`s impossible to compare.Sampras played a lot more on clay and had plenty of losses to journeymen while Nadal only competed the last couple of years at the WTF against the top players.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-21-2012, 04:38 PM
nadal has a losing record on fast indoor carpet right

sampras was a good clay courter in a legendary era of clay courters

Johnny Groove
05-21-2012, 05:12 PM
nadal has a losing record on fast indoor carpet right

sampras was a good clay courter in a legendary era of clay courters

Nadal was 2-6 in his brief indoors carpet career, however the matches all took place in 03-04. Even in 03, Nadal took a big serving Lopez in Madrid to a 3rd set TB, a win over Stepanek indoors away in the Czech Republic, and a win over Karlovic indoor carpet in Milan 04.

I think if carpet was still around, Nadal would be about as good as his indoor record is as it is now.

Sampras played in a tough clay era, true, but he had plenty of losses to much muggier players than he.

Clay Death
05-21-2012, 05:14 PM
i think AJ has answered this question.

time to move on.

Johnny Groove
05-21-2012, 05:25 PM
In terms of ranking points, Nadal's top 13 results vs. Sampras' top 15 results, referenced in the first post.

Nadal- 5380
Sampras- 4960

Very close, very close. I say, overall, Nadal is slightly ahead.

Looner
05-21-2012, 05:34 PM
Yeah, right. Because RN hasn't played on an indoor hard court instead of carpet. This thread should be canned.

rocketassist
05-21-2012, 05:53 PM
We'd have been able to answer this more if he and Fed hadn't got carpet killed off.

BauerAlmeida
05-21-2012, 06:01 PM
Mmmmm, Nadal I think.

peribsen
05-21-2012, 06:03 PM
Not comparable - Nadal plays practically 1 indoor event a year (sometimes 2 with Paris...) and the main one happens to be one where he has to play top 8 players from the start (and it's at the end of the season). There is no slam on indoors and in Nadal's era it hasn't had the same importance as in the past.

When Sampras played on the other hand you still had very prestigious clay tournaments like MC, Rome, Hamburg etc. as well as obviously one of the 4 slams. If indoors was as relevant on the tour right now and Nadal had been awful on it then there would be more of a blemish against him -- as it is however he has not had the incentive to focus on improving on indoor - the focus has been on the slams and hardcourts more generally.

So, given the varying status of indoor and clay on tour and the small sample size of Nadal's matches on it, I don't think their success or lack thereof is comparable. If anything, with very little time overall in his career on indoor he's won a Masters on it and made another final (Paris) as well as made the final of the top indoor event, only losing to the greatest indoor player of Nadal's generation (and even that wasn't a straight sets loss....).

Relative to his other surfaces Nadal is poor on indoors but the situation isn't dire - look at that Murray 2010 WTF match - he can play well on it and I'm sure if there was a slam on indoor his winning % on the surface would be higher....

This, well said!!

Naudio Spanlatine
05-21-2012, 06:20 PM
How is indoor hardcourts relevant in the slams? Too be honest this is not a good thread to do comparison.

TigerTim
05-21-2012, 06:35 PM
Nadal hasn't played on fast indoor surfaces or hardly on carpet, so can't really compare.

This.

Mountaindewslave
05-21-2012, 06:35 PM
Nadal definitely and to be fair its tough to compare the two when there were way more opportunities for Sampras to play in clay tournaments than Nadal indoor. you have a whole season dedicated to one surface and not the other.

not only that BUT clay is a surface which has a GS and deserves a lot of attention, indoor less so.

all that being said, Nadal has better results, he had the WTF final which is equivalent to Roland Garros final and still might win a WTF title, something that was out of the question for Sampras throughout his career

sexybeast
05-21-2012, 07:20 PM
WTF was pretty fast in 2010, I dont think Nadal would ever lose to players ranked outside top 100 even in his peak on any surface. Nadal-Murray in WTF SF 2010 beats anything I have ever seen from Sampras on any kind of claycourt.

PS: I have already started a thread like this one where I went more into depth in my arguments:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=193187&highlight=

Mountaindewslave
05-21-2012, 07:54 PM
WTF was pretty fast in 2010, I dont think Nadal would ever lose to players ranked outside top 100 even in his peak on any surface. Nadal-Murray in WTF SF 2010 beats anything I have ever seen from Sampras on any kind of claycourt.

PS: I have already started a thread like this one where I went more into depth in my arguments:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=193187&highlight=

exactly, Rafael Nadal beat a pretty darn good indoor court player in an amazing match to make WTF final, I don't recall that many extraordinary examples of Sampras winning big matches on clay against clay specialists but maybe there are some

sexybeast
05-21-2012, 08:01 PM
exactly, Rafael Nadal beat a pretty darn good indoor court player in an amazing match to make WTF final, I don't recall that many extraordinary examples of Sampras winning big matches on clay against clay specialists but maybe there are some

There never were any extraordinary matches from Sampras on clay, he beat a way past it Courier 1996 in a match that was pretty bad quality. Bruguera 1996 was coming back from injury in a year when he ended outside top 50. I havent seen Sampras-Muster in 1991 I must say, that match might have been good quality or not but Muster wasnt all that great anyway in 1991 and ranked outside top 20.

The best match from Sampras I have ever seen was against Kafelnikov in the davis cup 1995 in Moscow, it wasnt a good match from Kafelnikov but Samrpas was really playing great in that match, but it doesnt beat Murray-Nadal in the 2010 WTF where both were playing great tennis.

duong
05-22-2012, 08:39 PM
Nadal hasn't played on fast indoor surfaces or hardly on carpet, so can't really compare.

This : there's no comparison between the carpet where Borg then Lendl then Sampras used to play and modern indoors surfaces then the stats presented are not relevant at all.


WTF was pretty fast in 2010,

:haha:

Topspindoctor
05-23-2012, 01:27 AM
Sampras was one of the worst clay courters I have ever seen. So Nadal obviously.

fast_clay
05-23-2012, 01:41 AM
sampras didn't embrace the dead slow clay of the 90's, but he did not dodge it either...

nadal not only systemically made quick and carpet courts an endangered species - he forced them into extinction...

therein lay the answers you seek...

/endthread

rocketassist
05-23-2012, 01:42 AM
WTF was pretty fast in 2010, I dont think Nadal would ever lose to players ranked outside top 100 even in his peak on any surface. Nadal-Murray in WTF SF 2010 beats anything I have ever seen from Sampras on any kind of claycourt.

PS: I have already started a thread like this one where I went more into depth in my arguments:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=193187&highlight=

WTF hasn't been fast since it came to London. Slow but quite low bouncing.

Shanghai TMC was waaaaaaaaaaay faster

sexybeast
05-23-2012, 01:54 AM
You guys need to go watch Sampras on clay once again just to refresh your memory, I rewatched Sampras-Bruguera in 93 and it was scary how bad Sampras' backhand and movement was on clay.

I have stuck in my memory a match between Sampras-Philippoussis in RG that went to 5 sets, matches like these time can not wash away.

Nadal can not look like such a clown indoors, he can at worst just be overpowered and at best produce good matches (like Davydenko-Nadal Shanghai 2006, Federer-Nadal 2006, 2010, Nadal-Murray 2010, Nadal-Ljubicic 2005).

fast_clay
05-23-2012, 01:59 AM
You guys need to go watch Sampras on clay once again just to refresh your memory, I rewatched Sampras-Bruguera in 93 and it was scary how bad Sampras' backhand and movement was on clay.

I have stuck in my memory a match between Sampras-Philippoussis in RG that went to 5 sets, matches like these time can not wash away.

Nadal can not look like such a clown indoors, he can at worst just be overpowered and at best produce good matches (like Davydenko-Nadal Shanghai 2006, Federer-Nadal 2006, 2010, Nadal-Murray 2010, Nadal-Ljubicic 2005).

i agree...

but to force a surface and therefore a style of play into extinction... simply because you know they disarm you of your strengths... that is something else entirely... sampras did not actively destroy the face of the tour to suit his own game...

duchuy89
05-23-2012, 03:44 AM
Nadal indoors.

stewietennis
05-23-2012, 04:01 AM
Firstly, indoors isn't technically a surface.

Secondly, Nadal isn't a GOAT candidate but he's an all time great with the likes of Borg and Lendl – one tier below.

Anyway, Nadal can be outplayed and overpowered indoors but Sampras just looks awkward and basically plays bad on clay. The answer is Nadal because of his better results.

duong
05-23-2012, 08:48 AM
Nadal can not look like such a clown indoors, he can at worst just be overpowered and at best produce good matches (like Davydenko-Nadal Shanghai 2006, Federer-Nadal 2006, 2010, Nadal-Murray 2010, Nadal-Ljubicic 2005).

Have you seen Nadal play on the quick carpets from the past ?

I haven't. Don't know what kind of a player it would be but he might possibly look as Sampras did on clay as you said. Imagine Nadal against Becker in Hannover ?

duarte_a
05-23-2012, 10:03 AM
Nadal is NOT a GOAT candidate.

Enough said.

Sophocles
05-23-2012, 11:38 AM
Sampras didn't play that much on clay either.

Sampras winning a Davis Cup final away on clay >>> anything Nadal has done indoors.

stewietennis
05-23-2012, 11:56 PM
I haven't. Don't know what kind of a player it would be but he might possibly look as Sampras did on clay as you said. Imagine Nadal against Becker in Hannover ?

Fast carpet against current players like Federer, Tsonga, Berdych or even Roddick would end up pretty bad for Rafa. Against Becker though, Rafa will likely put up a fight because Boris doesn't have any experience playing against anyone with superior defence and heavy topspin.

Slice Winner
05-24-2012, 12:11 AM
Would be a funny matchup to watch.
Nadal would **** Sampras' BH with his topspin FHs, but Sampras would serve Nadal off the court.

Sampras had some decent wins on clay - he wasn't a total disaster.
KVJzJ5xavRY

Nadal would do well on any court, but the faster the court is, the more chance an attacking player can beat him.

Topspindoctor
05-24-2012, 01:17 AM
Nadal is NOT a GOAT candidate.

When his career is over, he will be.

reery
05-24-2012, 03:20 AM
Sampras on clay.

Can Nadal win a DC final on indoors HC?

Sampras won the DC final on clay.

paseo
05-24-2012, 03:24 AM
It's been etched to my brain by SetSampras that Sampras won Rome, one of the biggest clay court events after RG. What did Nadal win indoors that can equal it?

Topspindoctor
05-24-2012, 03:30 AM
It's been etched to my brain by SetSampras that Sampras won Rome, one of the biggest clay court events after RG. What did Nadal win indoors that can equal it?

Madrid?

Don't forget that Nadal also won every slam, Clownpras doesn't even have ONE RG final.

Pathetic for an all time great to be honest.

fast_clay
05-24-2012, 03:39 AM
Madrid?


:lol:

very funny... although i am nearly certain it was not intentional

Johnny Groove
05-24-2012, 03:42 AM
:lol:

very funny... although i am nearly certain it was not intentional

Come now, that Madrid 2005 was quick and Ljubo was great that year.

reery
05-24-2012, 03:44 AM
Rome is much more prestigious than Madrid. Rome is a very old tournament with tons of history and tradition. Madrid has like a decade of existence.

Tilden won Rome in 1930.

Clay Death
05-24-2012, 03:46 AM
i have no use for the madrid masters. lot of players dont like it either.

Freak3yman84
05-24-2012, 03:53 AM
W L % Titles
Nadal- 52 29 .642 1
Sampras-90 54 .625 3
More titles, more wins, more matches, barely a lower % I think Sampras on clay>Nadal on indoor

Topspindoctor
05-24-2012, 04:05 AM
If we want to just choose the Ultimate indoor title which is the YEC... Then its not difficult at all to choose: Nadal won some other indoor titles so that helps I believe but.

Sampras for sure. He won the Davis Cup on slow as molasses clay (almost single handidly beating the Russians) won Rome, and beat some big names at the French Open with a few QF appearances and a SF appearance.

If not for his Blood Condition ( something of which he had no control over either)and the death of his coach I have NO DOUBT he would have won the French as well.. Or if he played in a crap clay era too of course.. Unfortauntely, the 90s was some of best on clay when it came to depth.

And Sampras wasn't a clay mug ( in his prime).. No he wasn't the best but its not like he has fucking Roddick's resume on clay for god sakes. He has some big clay titles and beat just about all the best the 90s had to offer on clay (Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster etc)

Top class ACC material right there...

paseo
05-24-2012, 04:11 AM
Madrid?

Don't forget that Nadal also won every slam, Clownpras doesn't even have ONE RG final.

Pathetic for an all time great to be honest.

Rome is much more prestigious than Madrid. Rome is a very old tournament with tons of history and tradition. Madrid has like a decade of existence.

Tilden won Rome in 1930.

A masters 1000 is a masters 1000, though. Wimbledon is more prestigious than AO, but we count them all the same. Of course there are preferences, but still.

Clay Death
05-24-2012, 05:35 AM
sampras did win a very prestigious italian open once.

overall i would still consider sampy a single trick pony.

he did not really have the movement required for red clay.

@Sweet Cleopatra
05-24-2012, 07:17 AM
I voted for Rafa in Ping Pong tennis which no one cares about. Indoor hard courts are stupid and ugly.

duong
05-24-2012, 08:32 AM
Fast carpet against current players like Federer, Tsonga, Berdych or even Roddick would end up pretty bad for Rafa. Against Becker though, Rafa will likely put up a fight because Boris doesn't have any experience playing against anyone with superior defence and heavy topspin.

Becker took Muster to 5 sets and had match points in Monte-Carlo final :shrug:

Seriously, on an indoor fast court, I can't see how Nadal could have handled Becker :shrug:

The one with whom Becker struggled most was Agassi, who was not a player who used spin but rather embarrassed his little bit slow footwork.

cutesteve22
05-24-2012, 09:30 AM
Sampras was totally mug on clay

Sapeod
05-25-2012, 07:53 PM
I voted for Rafa in Ping Pong tennis which no one cares about. Indoor hard courts are stupid and ugly.
Obviously you hate it because Nadal doesn't win as many titles indoors :awww:

JennyS
07-11-2012, 09:23 PM
Nadal winning only one indoor title is baffling considering they only play on hardcourts. I could understand him struggling on indoor carpet, but on indoor hard?

How can a player who has a Career Slam, four outdoor hardcourt Masters titles, and the Olympics have only ONE title under a roof? Nadal's level of play never dips when he plays on an indoor clay court for Davis Cup. So why should an indoor hardcourt be THAT much different than an outdoor one?

ahadabans
07-11-2012, 10:00 PM
Nadal is a terrible indoor player. Sampras was bad on clay, but not that bad.

Julián Santiago
07-11-2012, 10:36 PM
They are tied. But Nadal is first in my opinion.

1 TMS, 1 MC final, 2 MC semifinals. (Against the 8 best players of the year)

Sampras has 1 TMS, 1 Grand Slam semifinal (he defeated Bruguera and Courier)

If Sampras played more seriously on caly, he will be the first, without doubt.

And if we have carpet surface again, Nadal will we worst player in that surface

We really need more speed, more indoors, and the returno of the old glory, the carpet

:worship:

Honestly
07-11-2012, 10:45 PM
It's a coinflip. Nothing in it.

venky91
07-11-2012, 11:04 PM
Clay courts are stupid and ugly.

Honestly
07-11-2012, 11:21 PM
Clay courts are stupid and ugly.

Affirmative.

Next.

Roy Emerson
07-11-2012, 11:52 PM
They are pretty even.

Ariadne
07-12-2012, 01:35 AM
Considering Nadal has 2 Semis and Final at the TMCs, and was only stopped from advancing by Federer on all 3 occassions (especially in 2006/2007 when was playing quite well) I would have to tentatively consider Nadal better indoors vs Sampras on clay. While Sampras did win 3 titles on clay, two of his titles were sub-par events (1993 Kitzbuhel & 1998 Atlanta) while his sole Masters Series on clay in Rome in 1994 came about by beating the likes of: Krieckstein, Corretja, Chesnokov, Gaudenzi, Dossadel and Becker. The erratic and whimsical Corretja being the only "quality" opponent.

And yes, although he won the Davis cup in 1995 against a mentally weak Kafelnikov and beat the likes of Courier;Brugera;Costa;Agassi; and Corretja over the course of his career, he lost a LOT more to sub par opposition, most of whom can be regarded as journeyman and weren't altogether proficient on the surface themselves. 3 Quarterfinals (1992,1993,1994) and a lone semifinal in 1996 (widely regarded as the fastest French Open ever) makes Sampras's shortcomings on clay over-shadow Nadal's by a significant margin IMO, especially in light of the length of the clay season in comparision to the indoor "season".

Julián Santiago
07-12-2012, 03:51 AM
Clay courts are stupid and ugly.

Yes, that`s why Federer always like to play on it and to win Montecarlo, Rome, Roland Garros. If you want a real competitive and compelte player, this have to win on clay. It`s necessary, there are good tournaments there. Rome, Montecarlo, barcelona, Madrid. :rocker2:

You can`t said that only because Nadal wins oo something like that. Clay is necessary, and really good. You americans should take more seriously the clay. Nadal is not the only kind of player born on clay, think in people like Ferrero, or now Nicolas Almagro, they are not pushers

The problem is not clay, is the homogeneization of the surfaces, the lower speed and the prohibition of the carpet.