Mythical Matchups: Sampras vs. Federer vs. Nadal...

[Saarbrigga]

... prime vs. prime on the most important surfaces.

Let s say the would met during the 90´s, because the difference of the Grand Slam tournaments were the most at that time period.

AUS OPEN:
A medium rebound ace hardcourt. Slightly faster as this blue plastic today, but slower as the US Open.

FRENCH OPEN:
A very slow clay, today it s slightly faster there.

WIMBLEDON:
The fastest surface on the planet + the flattest bouncing of all. Paradise of the S&V players.

US OPEN:
A very fast hardcourt, even slightly faster as today, not much but slightly.


SAMPRAS VS. NADAL:
AO -> 50-50
FO -> Nadal 100-0
WI -> Sampras 100-0
UO -> Sampras 60-40

SAMPRAS VS. FEDERER:
AO -> Federer 60-40
FO -> Federer 90-10
WI -> Sampras 60-40 or 70-30
UO -> 50-50, maybe 51-49 Sampras

NADAL VS. FEDERER
AO -> 50-50
FO -> Nadal 90-10
WI -> Federer 90-10
UO -> Federer 60-40


Your thoughts (i konw some people don t like this, but in other sports like Boxing we re talking very much about such mystical matchups...and i have 1 hour free time at the moment ).

[Moralspain]

For me, and this is a personal perception, Sampras's style is quite similar to Federer's, so there you have my answer, Nadal vs Federer= Sampras vs Nadal, same result.
That being said i think Federer is slightly better than Sampras, Fed's mobility is better and that allowed him to get the Roland Garros, and also Madrid both tourneys on clay, while Sampras was simply allergic to clay courts.
That 100-0 to Sampras against Nadal at Wimbly is ridiculous, no matter how fast the court was back in the 90s, Rafa has shown the world that he's able to win anyone anywhere, US Open included, when most of you proclaimed that was impossible because US Open court was the faster on the circuit.
I would say 60-40 to Sampras at Wimbledon.
btw i have never considered Pete best player ever because of that, the best player has to win on all surfaces.

PS: I like these discussions

[NARCOSIS2009]

For me , And i know every sampras fan is gonna kill me here , but its worth saying, I think when federer playing as he was at one time where he lost like 2-3 times in one year (whichever year that was). At wimbledon if it was federer Vs sampras at both best federer would win, even on the faster grass in the 90's. Feds passing shots, and remarkable ability to flick the ball from anywhere especially against an s&v player (as we saw vs sampras in wimbledon when fed was very young and sampras aging), would create oppertunities like no other person, Nadal has very great passing shots, but doesnt have the finesse and quick flicks like fed does, Also federers serve back in whenever when he was incredibly great was unbreakable - I am not even a fed fan here btw, i speak purely on statistics and how he plays/played.

Fed Vs Samp Aussie Op - 70%-30%
Fed Vs Samp French Op - 80%-20%
Fed Vs Samp Wimbledon - 60%-40%
Fed Vs Samp Us Op - 65%-35%

Samp Vs Nadal Aussie Op - 50%-50%
Samp Vs Nadal French Op - 10%-90%
Samp Vs Nadal Wimbledon - 65%-35%
Samp Vs Nadal Us Op - 60%-40%

Nadal vs Fed Aussie Op - 40%-60%
Nadal Vs Fed French Op - 65%-35%
Nadal vs Fed Wimbledon - 35%-65%
Nadal vs Fed Us Op - 35%-65%

(Waits for hate )

[Coolhand Texas]

I actually like your hypothetical meetings.

[supinesmokey13]

For me, and this is a personal perception, Sampras's style is quite similar to Federer's, so there you have my answer, Nadal vs Federer= Sampras vs Nadal, same result.
That being said i think Federer is slightly better than Sampras, Fed's mobility is better and that allowed him to get the Roland Garros, and also Madrid both tourneys on clay, while Sampras was simply allergic to clay courts.
That 100-0 to Sampras against Nadal at Wimbly is ridiculous, no matter how fast the court was back in the 90s, Rafa has shown the world that he's able to win anyone anywhere, US Open included, when most of you proclaimed that was impossible because US Open court was the faster on the circuit.
I would say 60-40 to Sampras at Wimbledon.
btw i have never considered Pete best player ever because of that, the best player has to win on all surfaces.

PS: I like these discussions

if the grass played like it did in da 90's then sampras vs nadal = sampras vs agassi+lefty fh super topspin most people agree dat agassi is as of now the best service returner and yet he lost most if not all matches against sampras on grass the current grass is receptive to nadal's top spin thus allows him to win wimby the grass of the 90's grass was lower bouncing favoured flat hitter and serve and volley so 90-10 would be more accurate on grass as for the best player your rite he has to be good on all surfaces but nadal is not better than sampras until he inevitably wins five majors on more than one surface his slam record compared to sampras is lopsided in favour of clay when compare it to sampras and fed both have at least 5 majors on two different surfaces

[Saarbrigga]

Sampras was without a doubt the best/most effective grass court player ever.

Just watch the Wimbledon Final in 1999, when he demolished the best Agassi 6-3 6-4 7-5.

Nadal is very good on grass, but not better as the best Agassi, never! Sampras would bomb Rafa out of the field with his service and volley, the same he did with Andre back then.

Even prime Federer would lose against this Pistol Pete.

[NARCOSIS2009]

Sampras was without a doubt the best/most effective grass court player ever.

Just watch the Wimbledon Final in 1999, when he demolished the best Agassi 6-3 6-4 7-5.
Nadal is very good on grass, but not better as the best Agassi, never! Sampras would bomb Rafa out of the field with his service and volley, the same he did with Andre back then.

Even prime Federer would lose against this Pistol Pete.

With all do respect Agassi isn't Federer

[Saarbrigga]

I never said this!

I just said even prime Federer would agruably lose against prime Sampras on grass (of the 90´s).

Not in 3, but in 4 or 5 sets.