Mens Tennis Forums banner

How many slams for Sampras if he was born in 1986/1987?

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
justice for all
Joined
·
16,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Imagine Pete Sampras was born around 1986/1987 (so exactly Nadal/ Djokovic/ Murray generation).

Imagine he had the same access to modern technology, training, nutrition, recovery, etc.

How many grand slams would Pete win? Far fewer, many more or about the same number?

And why do you think so? Do you think he would develop a completely different style of play?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
it all depends on whether the surfaces and racket evolution happened the same way, if it did we would have to have had a very different style of pistol pete because s&v certainly wouldnt have worked, given his innate talent id say he could've won a few slams but its impossible to say with the big three around and the game so very different in the 2000s as compared with the 90s
 
  • Like
Reactions: paca and guitarra

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
With these modern courts Pistol would have only 4 Wimbys to his name and that's it.
 

·
|
Joined
·
15,331 Posts
Sampras was more athletic than most guys today, he'd have no problem being a baseliner.
Actually he spent a lot of his career on the baseline.
Its not like he was coming in constantly like Rafter or Edberg.
He rushed the net a lot in certain matches but often he'd play most points from the baseline.
He beat Agassi from the baseline regularly on hardcourt, and not just with the forehand, his backhand was very potent when on fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
Sampras was more athletic than most guys today, he'd have no problem being a baseliner.
Actually he spent a lot of his career on the baseline.
Its not like he was coming in constantly like Rafter or Edberg.
He rushed the net a lot in certain matches but often he'd play most points from the baseline.
He beat Agassi from the baseline regularly on hardcourt, and not just with the forehand, his backhand was very potent when on fire.
Modern tennis has mastered baseline game and modern courts beyond anything Pistol did in the 90's.

Picture what Fed has gone through vs Rafa-Nole - and multiply it by IDK 5 ?

Pistol is nowhere near Fed from the baseline.

EDIT: likewise If courts were like the 90's and Sampras has this present field he'd smoked them alive , 20 something slams
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Imagine Pete Sampras was born around 1986/1987 (so exactly Nadal/ Djokovic/ Murray generation).

Imagine he had the same access to modern technology, training, nutrition, recovery, etc.

How many grand slams would Pete win? Far fewer, many more or about the same number?

And why do you think so? Do you think he would develop a completely different style of play?
So you are asking the question, are Agassi / Becker / Courier better than Federer / Djokovic / Nadal?

LMAO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,854 Posts
I love Pete, but given the modern courts and racket technology he's definitely not sniffing 14. At the same time, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray probably wouldn't have done as well if they'd been born in 1971.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
He would dominate Wimbledon from about 2009/2010, ending up with 5 or so W titles.

On hard courts there would be slimmer pickings.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
16,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
So you are asking the question, are Agassi / Becker / Courier better than Federer / Djokovic / Nadal?

LMAO
You've extrapolated it too much. My question was only about Sampras. Every player is unique and could potentially adapt differently to different conditions. We also cannot be entirely sure how would Nadal/ Djokovic/ Federer adapt to the 90-s era. It's not a given they'd dominate as much as they do now.

But either way - thank you for your input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
We also cannot be entirely sure how would Nadal/ Djokovic/ Federer adapt to the 90-s era. It's not a given they'd dominate as much as they do now.
Who said anything about that? That was not in your original post.
You've extrapolated it too much. My question was only about Sampras. Every player is unique and could potentially adapt differently to different conditions. But either way - thank you for your input.
I am not extrapolating at all, I am just being pragmatic :) Sampras won most of his slams against Agassi, Becker and Courier, and the question is, would he do better against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, arguably the 3 greatest players of all time...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,816 Posts
Only the 61st thread on this subject.... Pete would have won the H2H v Nadal off clay, won or broken even with Djokovic off clay, and even got a few victories against GOAT. Peak Pistol Pete was as dangerous on a fast surface as anyone who's ever played this sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,518 Posts
Who would he most compare to from the players of that (86/87) generation and younger? Tough to say directly as he may have been taught slightly different mechanics/style growing up in a different era and with different equipment. But his build, size, movement... Something innate that would probably at least remain unchanged are his exceptional touch, solid movement and court vision/anticipation/ability to read rallies, and the serve would probably remain about the same, if not even better with a bigger racquet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,892 Posts
I love Pete, but given the modern courts and racket technology he's definitely not sniffing 14. At the same time, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray probably wouldn't have done as well if they'd been born in 1971.
Sampras was really a fast court player, which is completely missing (Shanghai + Cincinnati are the only remaining examples and USO' new 2020 court) from the Tour now.
He would have been there a hard matchup for all Nadal/Djokovic/Murray, for Fed not so much... though if he would have been born that much later, he could have been better on slower courts too, though obviously not on Nadal's or Djokovic's level.

It's hard to know. Players adapt and invest on what makes sense. By then, it made sense to practice and improve the net game more, just like now, kids only want to practice baseline.

Pete Sampras would be a completely different player if he was born a few years later. We can never know
Could be a completely different player, however that much praised adaptability is really rare in players. Federer and Djokovic springs to mind if you have to name some recent examples... whether Sampras possessed that same ability is very much doubtful. I would guess, rather not. Not in the way he would be able to reproduce his success 2 decades later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
0.

Murray, and to a lesser extent Djokovic, eat servebots like him for breakfast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,987 Posts
Maybe if nobody dominates Wimbledon like Pete in 90s they wouldn't slow it down so much who knows
This is a very interesting remark. Most users assumed that grass would have been slowed down anyway but maybe it wouldn't have taken place without Wimby dominator in the 90s. Overall I think Pete would have won less slams due to strong Big3 competition and (possibly) slower grass but still I would give him about 10 slams (in case of faster grass could have been a couple more). Obviously Big3 would have less slams as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SetPointDown
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top