Sampras vs Courier RG QF 1996 (1/2)

Sampras defeats Courier in Roland Garros quarterfinal, 1996, 1° set

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• tennis
• Roland
• Garros
• French
• Open
• Pete
• Sampras
• Jim
• Courier

[LDis1]

@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.

[89Pleasek]

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

[LDis1]

@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.

[89Pleasek]

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

[LDis1]

@89Pleasek

Sampras would beat Nadal rather easily on grass and hard court.

[RogerRocks070]

haha, this looks like a gameplay on PC

[cavaleer]

@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.

[Polarcupcheck]

@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.

[cavaleer]

@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.

[Polarcupcheck]

@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.