Federer actually beat Kuerten on clay in 2002 (in fact he bageled him) while Kuerten was the then reigning French Open champion. I've seen them all in action and I'm 100 % sure that Nadal would've beaten any clay courter in history except Borg, Federer is a top 10 clay courter of all time as well.
@89Pleasek True and Kuerten beat Federe in straights in 2004, coming off an injury while Fed was in his prime. He thumped Federer across the court outhitting him on FH and BH sides. To me, Kuerten at his best would beat any clay courter in history except maybe Borg, because he can hit aces and winners from the baseline off both wings. Nadal can't do that, neither can Federer. Watch the match and you'll see.
@cavaleer What I find is that a players total game is often overrated. Usually, they have that one shot that dominates and opens up for the rest. Kuerten had a backhand that enabled him to hit a heavy drive, and big looping angles. That allowed him to bully Federer into bad position and finish him off. A lot like how Nadal's forehand does.
@Polarcupcheck True about most players and very true about Nadal's FH to Fed's BH. If Fed had Kuerten's BH, he'd have 24 Slams- he'd blow Nadal off the court. Instead, Nadal banks on that ONE SHOT- FH to BH.Kuerten dominated Fed on both wings in that match. He crushed winners from the behind the baseline off the FH and BH sides, cross-court and down the line. The first point of the match told the story of the entire match. Fed simply couldn't handle the pace and depth of Kuerten's shots.
@cavaleer Right, Federer is a low ball expert in my opinion. He was the first guy I saw who really punished the low short balls, because of his whip like motion. If he had Guga's backhand, Nadal would be forced to finish more points, Kuerten's grip allowed better control of highballs, obviously.
I really miss Safin and Guga. The played with great style.
@Polarcupcheck Spot on about the differences and relative strengths and weaknesses of their BHs. I think Kuerten's FH motion caused that hip injury, because he used his hips so much more than his knees and legs. Plus adapting his clay court movement to hard courts. I think that stressed his joint too much.
@flyingjibberish well its hard to say, by statistics nadal clearly would defeat courier, brugera, muster, guga etc, but then again the racket technology has advanced a lot since the 90s so it wud be kind of premature to compare them. for example courier won 2 FO and reached another final by using the pro staff 85, nowdays no one uses such a small racket head to play on any of the other surfaces let alone clay
@nizzam1, regardless of racquet technology you can still compare them, Borg played like Nadal on Clay with his ancient wooden racquets. Borg and Nadal were/are considered near invincible on Clay, the same cannot be said of Courier or his opponents. By the logic of some of these comments, Sampras could beat Nadal at RG, just because Sampras got a win against a former champ in Courier. Even though Courier was well past his peak, and was never at Nadals level in any case.
I think Nadal would be happier to play vs Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster...you name it rather than facing Federer each year in the final. Nadal would kill them all even if they played in pairs vs him. He is so good on clay.
depends on what hard/grass courts you're talking about, if it's 2011 clay grass and clay hard then it wouldn't be one way traffic. 90's hard/grass Sampras would eat Nadal alive and so would Federer. Fed-Sampras in the 90's on a fast surface would be some match
I would still favor Pete on today's hard court, because he can hit a flat forehand better than anyone. And that would give Nadal a tough time.
as for as Fed-Sampras 1990s, the answer is pretty easy; Pete Sampras would win because he has the better serve. 1990s grass was all about serve; unless the return game was on a la Andre Agassi of 1992. Fed does not return as well as Andre.
the answer is pretty easy? yea sampras proved it at 2001 Wimbledon, he beat Federer pretty easily
no wait...
btw sampras forehand isnt better than federers, lets face reality, sampras played in the perfect times on surfaces that suited his game like no other. In today's clay era he wouldntve won much and surely wouldntve beaten the likes of prime nadal or prime djokovic on the clay-like hard courts or grass courts
Sampras could stay back, but also serve and volley. No one does that anymore. It is all baseline now, with no attacking. More styles of players years ago. Laver also could do it all. With all baseline clones now, don't forget the recent past.
Sampras never won on clay in a match which "counts" against the top players of that surface. Agassi was never beaten in Roland Garros. Bruguera and Courier were far from their best level. The only time Sampras reached the semis was an unusual year with plenty of sunshine (this match is like a hard court game, the court is so fast!). It is obvious that on clay, Federer is much much better, and deserve much more the title "best player ever". And I am a huge fan of sampras
@esterpin How many RG champions has Federer had to beat at RG??? ONLY INJURED CARLOS MOYA in 05. Otherwise he got PULVERIZED and HUMBLED by Guga (04) and Rafa (05,06,07,08). He must be grateful for Rafa falling apart before reaching final in 09. Thats the only reason he won, cos even Rafa far from his best would have beat him AGAIN like ALWAS.
Pete beat Muster, Bruguera, Courier on the top of their games. Its not that easy to win RG when you have to beat back to back RG champions.
How can anyone possibly say that Muster Bruguera and Courier were on the top of their games when Sampras beat them? Since Federer is Federer, he lost ONLY against the best players of the surface (Guga, but in the beginning of the domination of Federer and Nadal perhaps the best player ever on clay. Sampras lost against many others (Medvedev, Schaller, Norman.) Just ask Sampras if its level was comparable to Federer on clay he'll say right away: "Of course not". It is so obvious.
Robredo, Davydenko, Del Potro, Nalbandian, Moya, Gonzalez, Monfils, Soderling just to name a few . Federer would be more than happy to have them in his FO draw and NOT face Nadal each year.
Nadal would own the best clay court players 3-0 from Sampras' era even if he had to beat them in consecutive matches. He is that good.
@89Pleasek Nadal is very good on clay but with Courier's 85 pro staff he would have broken his wrist trying to put so much topspin, not to mention Borg's wooden table tennis racket
different equpiment requires different skills, Nadal would be still one of the best clay court players of all the times (if not the best) but it was really hard to control the ball with Courier's racket
Federer is playing a very similar racket. The sixone is almost as heavy and small like the classical Pro Staff which Federer player in his early years.
@89Pleasek no doubt nadal is one of the top 2 clay courters of all time, but courier, brugera, kuerten were also good i dont understadn how u can just dismis them just like that, federer is definately better on clay than sampras is but no one can say that federer wud have beaten courier, brugera or kuerten had he met them on clay
Sampras won the clay matches against the bests(Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov) during his career. Let Federer win a Roland Garros match against Nadal. Then we can consider thinking abt Federer as greatest of all time. For me Nadal is better than Federer.
Sampras wasn't ridiculous in any court, but I agree we can't call him the greatest of all time when he's not good enough on clay and there's some guys who are/were as great as him and are/were great in any surface ( i.e Roger Federer, Rod Laver)
haha, this looks like a gameplay on PC
RogerRocks070 7 months ago
Federer actually beat Kuerten on clay in 2002 (in fact he bageled him) while Kuerten was the then reigning French Open champion. I've seen them all in action and I'm 100 % sure that Nadal would've beaten any clay courter in history except Borg, Federer is a top 10 clay courter of all time as well.
89Pleasek 9 months ago
@89Pleasek True and Kuerten beat Federe in straights in 2004, coming off an injury while Fed was in his prime. He thumped Federer across the court outhitting him on FH and BH sides. To me, Kuerten at his best would beat any clay courter in history except maybe Borg, because he can hit aces and winners from the baseline off both wings. Nadal can't do that, neither can Federer. Watch the match and you'll see.
cavaleer 9 months ago
@cavaleer What I find is that a players total game is often overrated. Usually, they have that one shot that dominates and opens up for the rest. Kuerten had a backhand that enabled him to hit a heavy drive, and big looping angles. That allowed him to bully Federer into bad position and finish him off. A lot like how Nadal's forehand does.
Polarcupcheck 8 months ago
@Polarcupcheck True about most players and very true about Nadal's FH to Fed's BH. If Fed had Kuerten's BH, he'd have 24 Slams- he'd blow Nadal off the court. Instead, Nadal banks on that ONE SHOT- FH to BH.Kuerten dominated Fed on both wings in that match. He crushed winners from the behind the baseline off the FH and BH sides, cross-court and down the line. The first point of the match told the story of the entire match. Fed simply couldn't handle the pace and depth of Kuerten's shots.
cavaleer 8 months ago
@cavaleer Right, Federer is a low ball expert in my opinion. He was the first guy I saw who really punished the low short balls, because of his whip like motion. If he had Guga's backhand, Nadal would be forced to finish more points, Kuerten's grip allowed better control of highballs, obviously.
I really miss Safin and Guga. The played with great style.
Polarcupcheck 8 months ago
@Polarcupcheck Spot on about the differences and relative strengths and weaknesses of their BHs. I think Kuerten's FH motion caused that hip injury, because he used his hips so much more than his knees and legs. Plus adapting his clay court movement to hard courts. I think that stressed his joint too much.
cavaleer 8 months ago
Funny how people here go on about how many FO champions Sampras had to face, when Nadal would have easily beaten the lot of then at RG...
flyingjibberish 1 year ago
@flyingjibberish well its hard to say, by statistics nadal clearly would defeat courier, brugera, muster, guga etc, but then again the racket technology has advanced a lot since the 90s so it wud be kind of premature to compare them. for example courier won 2 FO and reached another final by using the pro staff 85, nowdays no one uses such a small racket head to play on any of the other surfaces let alone clay
nizzam1 1 year ago
@nizzam1, regardless of racquet technology you can still compare them, Borg played like Nadal on Clay with his ancient wooden racquets. Borg and Nadal were/are considered near invincible on Clay, the same cannot be said of Courier or his opponents. By the logic of some of these comments, Sampras could beat Nadal at RG, just because Sampras got a win against a former champ in Courier. Even though Courier was well past his peak, and was never at Nadals level in any case.
flyingjibberish 1 year ago
I think Nadal would be happier to play vs Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster...you name it rather than facing Federer each year in the final. Nadal would kill them all even if they played in pairs vs him. He is so good on clay.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek hahahaha
cammpinno 1 year ago
@89Pleasek, which begs the question, who's better?
Nadal on the dirt or Federer on the grass?
APH1991 11 months ago
thats uncomparable, too many factors to consider
89Pleasek 11 months ago
And you think Sampras couldnt beat Rafa at RG??? Soderling could and Pete couldnt? Of cos he could!!! Nobodys invincible.
cammpinno 1 year ago
Sampras wouldnt take a set off Nadal even in his prime. Pete was half-dead when he finished a 5-set match, not only on clay.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Agreed!
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@89Pleasek
Sampras would beat Nadal rather easily on grass and hard court.
LDis1 5 months ago
depends on what hard/grass courts you're talking about, if it's 2011 clay grass and clay hard then it wouldn't be one way traffic. 90's hard/grass Sampras would eat Nadal alive and so would Federer. Fed-Sampras in the 90's on a fast surface would be some match
89Pleasek 5 months ago
@89Pleasek
I would still favor Pete on today's hard court, because he can hit a flat forehand better than anyone. And that would give Nadal a tough time.
as for as Fed-Sampras 1990s, the answer is pretty easy; Pete Sampras would win because he has the better serve. 1990s grass was all about serve; unless the return game was on a la Andre Agassi of 1992. Fed does not return as well as Andre.
LDis1 5 months ago
the answer is pretty easy? yea sampras proved it at 2001 Wimbledon, he beat Federer pretty easily
no wait...
btw sampras forehand isnt better than federers, lets face reality, sampras played in the perfect times on surfaces that suited his game like no other. In today's clay era he wouldntve won much and surely wouldntve beaten the likes of prime nadal or prime djokovic on the clay-like hard courts or grass courts
89Pleasek 5 months ago
@89Pleasek
Sampras 2001 wasn't the 1995 Sampras. Nor was Fed in 2001 was the 2005 Fed.
1995 Sampras vs 2005 Fed would be a very fun match on grass and HC.
Nadal also played in the right times in the slowest era; had he been in the fast era, he wouldn't have won as much.
LDis1 5 months ago
Sampras could stay back, but also serve and volley. No one does that anymore. It is all baseline now, with no attacking. More styles of players years ago. Laver also could do it all. With all baseline clones now, don't forget the recent past.
spjfrat 2 years ago
Sampras never won on clay in a match which "counts" against the top players of that surface. Agassi was never beaten in Roland Garros. Bruguera and Courier were far from their best level. The only time Sampras reached the semis was an unusual year with plenty of sunshine (this match is like a hard court game, the court is so fast!). It is obvious that on clay, Federer is much much better, and deserve much more the title "best player ever". And I am a huge fan of sampras
esterpin 2 years ago
Comment removed
cammpinno 1 year ago
@esterpin How many RG champions has Federer had to beat at RG??? ONLY INJURED CARLOS MOYA in 05. Otherwise he got PULVERIZED and HUMBLED by Guga (04) and Rafa (05,06,07,08). He must be grateful for Rafa falling apart before reaching final in 09. Thats the only reason he won, cos even Rafa far from his best would have beat him AGAIN like ALWAS.
Pete beat Muster, Bruguera, Courier on the top of their games. Its not that easy to win RG when you have to beat back to back RG champions.
cammpinno 1 year ago
@cammpinno
How can anyone possibly say that Muster Bruguera and Courier were on the top of their games when Sampras beat them? Since Federer is Federer, he lost ONLY against the best players of the surface (Guga, but in the beginning of the domination of Federer and Nadal perhaps the best player ever on clay. Sampras lost against many others (Medvedev, Schaller, Norman.) Just ask Sampras if its level was comparable to Federer on clay he'll say right away: "Of course not". It is so obvious.
esterpin 1 year ago
Comment removed
esterpin 1 year ago
Robredo, Davydenko, Del Potro, Nalbandian, Moya, Gonzalez, Monfils, Soderling just to name a few . Federer would be more than happy to have them in his FO draw and NOT face Nadal each year.
Nadal would own the best clay court players 3-0 from Sampras' era even if he had to beat them in consecutive matches. He is that good.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Nadal is very good on clay but with Courier's 85 pro staff he would have broken his wrist trying to put so much topspin, not to mention Borg's wooden table tennis racket
different equpiment requires different skills, Nadal would be still one of the best clay court players of all the times (if not the best) but it was really hard to control the ball with Courier's racket
andrewblastoff 1 year ago
agreed
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@andrewblastoff
Federer is playing a very similar racket. The sixone is almost as heavy and small like the classical Pro Staff which Federer player in his early years.
ulizinho 9 months ago
@89Pleasek Right on!
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@89Pleasek no doubt nadal is one of the top 2 clay courters of all time, but courier, brugera, kuerten were also good i dont understadn how u can just dismis them just like that, federer is definately better on clay than sampras is but no one can say that federer wud have beaten courier, brugera or kuerten had he met them on clay
nizzam1 9 months ago
Sampras won the clay matches against the bests(Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov) during his career. Let Federer win a Roland Garros match against Nadal. Then we can consider thinking abt Federer as greatest of all time. For me Nadal is better than Federer.
supers789 2 years ago
Sampras wasn't ridiculous in any court, but I agree we can't call him the greatest of all time when he's not good enough on clay and there's some guys who are/were as great as him and are/were great in any surface ( i.e Roger Federer, Rod Laver)
FellipeSNK 2 years ago
I wonder how a guy can look "ridiculous" on clay, and beat in the same tournament Bruguera and Courier, two guys who won 2 times the french open...
alexsoko 2 years ago 2
how can anyone say sampras is the best player of all time when his game only worked on fast surfaces?? he looks ridiculous on clay
vozas 2 years ago
I wouldn't say that in sampras time there were a lot of clay court specialists and a semi final isn't so bad.
But I am a great fan of roger federer
and is totally the best player ever.
peterpkr 2 years ago
Thanks so much for putting it up. I can swear NBC never broadcasted this in the states, but I could've just missed it. Merci quandmeme!
dzee127 2 years ago
Un match de légende!
alexsoko 2 years ago
Thanks for the vid.
Sampras looks miserable: the blazing sun and the slippy-slidey footwork are really bothering him.
Too bad he couldn't get it figured out during his career ...
Hypnos7 2 years ago
merci!
homeytheclown 2 years ago 2