PDA

View Full Version : Who is greater? Sampras or Nadal?


DjokovicForTheWin
12-17-2011, 10:28 AM
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty tight. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?

TMF
12-17-2011, 10:37 AM
It's a good discussion...I like to hear both Pete and Nadal fans' point of view and explain their reasons objectively.

Nathaniel_Near
12-17-2011, 10:38 AM
Both very great players, of course.

Pete has too much in his resume to lose this battle as things stand, such as 6 years at no.1 (consecutively) and also at least 5 YEC's to go along with his 14 majors, and he also holds the sole Open Era record at Wimbledon. By contrast, Nadal has equaled Borg at RG but doesn't stand alone, has significantly less Majors and hasn't a single YEC, but does have more Masters 1000 titles and the career Slam.

Nadal has still won significantly less overall titles in his career thus far, but I think his tennis is more or less in Sampras' league and that when all is said and done his career accomplishments will be more similarly impressive.

Just using my eyes, I get a sense of pedigree and specialness -- or whatever -- from both players, but find the aura to be more profound from Sampras, who I find to be a superior shot-maker and had a higher absolute peak tennis level with his big big game.

TMF
12-17-2011, 10:41 AM
nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal IS GREATer THAN SAMPRAS...

LOL...and you just requested another poster to be banned before starting to troll in here? Get a grip !

helloworld
12-17-2011, 10:43 AM
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty right. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?

When was this ever "well established"? In your tiny little brain? :lol:

tusharlovesrafa
12-17-2011, 10:44 AM
LOL...and you just requested another poster to be banned before starting to troll in here? Get a grip !

I never requested any one to get banned.It's too late here at night and I am very sleepy.

vive le beau jeu !
12-17-2011, 10:48 AM
pistol pete, of course.
the comparison is a bit insulting...

TMF
12-17-2011, 10:49 AM
When was this ever "well established"? In your tiny little brain? :lol:

This is not about Federer since we have a separate thread about him. Now please answer to the OP's question as to who's a greater player between Rafa and Pete. Be fair/balance in your arguements.

kiki
12-17-2011, 10:52 AM
When was this ever "well established"? In your tiny little brain? :lol:

I agree.It is his stablishing, worthy for what is worth

tusharlovesrafa
12-17-2011, 10:53 AM
pistol pete, of course.
the comparison is a bit insulting...

rafa pistos,of course
the compariosn is bit insulating.

helloworld
12-17-2011, 10:58 AM
rafa pistos,of course
the compariosn is bit insulating.

I hope the baby in the picture is you. It takes a baby to be capable of writing a post this bad. :neutral:

tusharlovesrafa
12-17-2011, 11:02 AM
Trolling apart,I think rafa is slightly ahead of pistol pete at this moment.RAFA has 4 less slams than pete but has an all important career slam,olympic medal and 19 MS titles which adds to his aura.
But pete spent more time as NO.1(to an extent it shows he played in a weeker era then now)..And has 5 YEC...And no RG title..
heck,too close to call,only in years to come(probably when rafa retires) we'll come to know who is better..

ledwix
12-17-2011, 11:09 AM
Sampras was actually #1 for six years. And I don't get this "that just means he played in a weak era" nonsense. It seems by that logic that the more years #1 you are, the less of an achievement it is, which makes no sense. So I'd give it to Sampras easily right now. The 14 slams makes up for the lack of a career slam in Nadal's case.

helloworld
12-17-2011, 11:11 AM
Trolling apart,I think rafa is slightly ahead of pistol pete at this moment.RAFA has 4 less slams than pete but has an all important career slam,olympic medal and 19 MS titles which adds to his aura.
But pete spent more time as NO.1(to an extent it shows he played in a weeker era then now)..And has 5 YEC...
heck too close to call,only in years to come we'll come to know who is better..

I don't think any pundits will agree with you on that. Apart from the 4 slams, Pete also has 5 Year-end Championship. Something that Nadal will have a hard time winning just 1. When it comes to comparing achievements, Grand Slam titles come first, if two players are tied, then the next most prestigious title will be used to judge who is better. In this case, the Year-end Championship will be used to judge if both players have the same number of slam count. As for now, Nadal doesn't even have nearly as many as 14, so your argument is very weak as of now.

mattennis
12-17-2011, 11:16 AM
They are from different eras, so difficult (or even meaningless) to try compare them.

Sampras was the best of his time during six straight years, something light-years above what Nadal has been in his era (up till now).

Nadal has won the four GS in an era in which this feat is infinitely easier than in any other era, but still is a great achievement.

Overall, Sampras achievements are greater but Nadal is still only 25 years old.

Achievement at 25 years and 6 months of age, were more balaced between them (and Roger) as we have seen in another thread.

helloworld
12-17-2011, 11:19 AM
They are from different eras, so difficult (or even meaningless) to try compare them.

Sampras was the best of his time during six straight years, something light-years above what Nadal has been in his era (up till now).

Nadal has won the four GS in an era in which this feat is infinitely easier than in any other era, but still is a great achievement.

Overall, Sampras achievements are greater but Nadal is still only 25 years old.

Achievement at 25 years and 6 months of age, were more balaced between them (and Roger) as we have seen in another thread.

Agreed. It's like comparing Roy Emerson's 12 slams to Laver's 11 slams... By this logic, Roy Emerson must be greater than Rod Laver. LOL. :confused:

fed_rulz
12-17-2011, 11:20 AM
Rafa, by some distance.

Sampras played in an era where
- clowns like washington and pioline contended for the wimbledon trophy,
- Rios was almost YE #1,
- his biggest "rival" was a meth-head and was absent for about 2 yrs in his prime
- 4 titles (1 major and 3 mms) was sufficient to snatch YE #1
- there was no surface GOAT candidate to contend with

In other words, it was a weak era.

Sure, Sampras has 5 more wimbys than Rafa, but Rafa has 6 more FOs than Sampras. But then, we're arguing specifics -- slam count is really not important (according to Petetards); h2h is a very crucial factor (again, according to Petetards, so Nadal wins hands down here; he has a winning h2h against everyone in the top 5 currently, and pwns another GOAT candidate). Sampras may have 5 WTFs, but Nadal has 8 more MS titles. On top of it, Rafa has a career slam.

IMO, Rafa has already surpassed Pete; if he manages to win at least YEC, it will be official.

tusharlovesrafa
12-17-2011, 11:23 AM
I don't think any pundits will agree with you on that. Apart from the 4 slams, Pete also has 5 Year-end Championship. Something that Nadal will have a hard time winning just 1. When it comes to comparing achievements, Grand Slam titles come first, if two players are tied, then the next most prestigious title will be used to judge who is better. In this case, the Year-end Championship will be used to judge if both players have the same number of slam count. As for now, Nadal doesn't even have nearly as many as 14, so your argument is very weak as of now.

Indirectly you mean to say,that atleast rafa should win 14 slams first inorder to be in a contention to be compared.I think you are correct here,but I think this discussion is pre-mature as we don't know how many slams rafa will end up with at the end of his career.
But rafa has an all important Career slam and olympic gold where as pete has none of it..Rafa has 19 MS titles where as pete has 11 or 12(don't remember exactly)..And rafa even has higher percentage of win/loss ratio as compared to pete..So these stats heavily favor rafa!!

helloworld
12-17-2011, 11:24 AM
Rafa, by some distance.

Sampras played in an era where
- clowns like washington and pioline contended for the wimbledon trophy,
- Rios was almost YE #1,
- his biggest "rival" was a meth-head and was absent for about 2 yrs in his prime
- 4 titles (1 major and 3 mms) was sufficient to snatch YE #1
- there was no surface GOAT candidate to contend with

In other words, it was a weak era.

Sure, Sampras has 5 more wimbys than Rafa, but Rafa has 6 more FOs than Sampras. But then, we're arguing specifics -- slam count is really not important (according to Petetards); h2h is a very crucial factor (again, according to Petetards, so Nadal wins hands down here; he has a winning h2h against everyone in the top 5 currently, and pwns another GOAT candidate). Sampras may have 5 WTFs, but Nadal has 8 more MS titles. On top of it, Rafa has a career slam.

IMO, Rafa has already surpassed Pete; if he manages to win at least YEC, it will be official.

Silly typical ******* post. ;)

TMF
12-17-2011, 11:28 AM
Agreed. It's like comparing Roy Emerson's 12 slams to Laver's 11 slams... By this logic, Roy Emerson must be greater than Rod Laver. LOL. :confused:

Slam titles is the most important criteria, but there are many other important criteria that Laver have over Emerson which put Laver ahead. Ask the old-timers(not kiki) for details.

fed_rulz
12-17-2011, 11:30 AM
They are from different eras, so difficult (or even meaningless) to try compare them.

Sampras was the best of his time during six straight years, something light-years above what Nadal has been in his era (up till now).

Nadal has won the four GS in an era in which this feat is infinitely easier than in any other era, but still is a great achievement.

Overall, Sampras achievements are greater but Nadal is still only 25 years old.

Achievement at 25 years and 6 months of age, were more balaced between them (and Roger) as we have seen in another thread.

complete BS. You're just making excuses for Sampras. All top guns in all eras were contenders for the career slam, barring Sampras: Lendl almost did in the 80s; Agassi actually completed it in the 90s. Federer and Nadal did it in the 2000s. Federer completed it after 4 attempts, so it was not easy for him. Nadal got one shot and he nailed it. So it's not like you didn't have all-surface players in other eras who had chances to do it, and surface polarization had nothing to do with them not accomplishing it.

The only odd man out is Sampras. He was not good enough to even have a sniff at the FO. That doesn't make the career slam infinitely tough in other eras; it just weakens Pete's case in the all-time discussions.

Semi-Pro
12-17-2011, 11:35 AM
Rafa because he had to face the GOAT for the majority of his major titles....and who did Sampras face....?:lol:oh right, that meth head.

Not to mention Rafa also has the Gold Olympics, MS and most important career slam.

fed_rulz
12-17-2011, 11:36 AM
Silly typical ******* post. ;)

well, i'm just playing by petetard rules. do you want to revise it?

it's funny that someone who vehemently opposes cross-era comparisons (especially in Fed vs Sampras), you seem to be never short of opinions in cases when Sampras has stronger case to come out on the winning side (i.e. Nadal vs Sampras)? Somehow, cross-era comparison b/n Sampras and Nadal is palatable to you...

mattennis
12-17-2011, 11:37 AM
For me, Lendl reaching (and losing) two Wimbledon finals playing serve and volley on first and second serves, against the best serve and volleyers of his time, is more valuable than Nadal or Federer winning the four GS (in an era where you only face the same game style everywhere and you do not need to change your game plan drastically to win in different Slams).

Agassi's four GS is again (for me) more valuable than Federer's or Nadal's four GS (for the same reasons).

But everyone has an opinion.

helloworld
12-17-2011, 11:37 AM
Slam titles is the most important criteria, but there are many other important criteria that Laver have over Emerson which put Laver ahead. Ask the old-timers(not kiki) for details.

The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)

Love all
12-17-2011, 11:40 AM
Though I voted for Sampras, but I must say Nadal is better of the two.

NadalAgassi
12-17-2011, 11:41 AM
Nadal is not even in Sampras's league at this point.

NadalAgassi
12-17-2011, 11:42 AM
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty right. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?

Yet you tried to argue Djokovic is better than Nadal, so I guess this means Djokovic > Sampras in your delusional mind even though neither has a FO final and one has 14 slams and the other 4. Your sheer stupidity becomes more comical all the time. :lol:

Cup8489
12-17-2011, 11:44 AM
rafa pistos,of course
the compariosn is bit insulating.

I agree, the comparison helped warm me up considerably.

fed_rulz
12-17-2011, 11:54 AM
For me, Lendl reaching (and losing) two Wimbledon finals playing serve and volley on first and second serves, against the best serve and volleyers of his time, is more valuable than Nadal or Federer winning the four GS (in an era where you only face the same game style everywhere and you do not need to change your game plan drastically to win in different Slams).

Agassi's four GS is again (for me) more valuable than Federer's or Nadal's four GS (for the same reasons).

But everyone has an opinion.

So you're telling me that Nadal plays the same on clay courts as he does at the USO and wimbledon?

How many times did Agassi S & V en route to his wimbledon title? what changes did he make to his game to win wimbledon and the FO?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-17-2011, 12:25 PM
Yet you tried to argue Djokovic is better than Nadal, so I guess this means Djokovic > Sampras in your delusional mind even though neither has a FO final and one has 14 slams and the other 4. Your sheer stupidity becomes more comical all the time. :lol:

I never argued Djoker achieved more than Nadal. I asked when it was possible that he will surpass Nadal.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-17-2011, 12:28 PM
When was this ever "well established"? In your tiny little brain? :lol:

You forgot to bold the sane and reasonable. There's the rub little one.

above bored
12-17-2011, 12:45 PM
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)
More weak era nonsense. Comparing Federer and Emerson is the funniest thing I ever heard. Did not realise Federer was competing against amateurs.

I suppose since Federer's accomplishments are so weak, due to his weak competition, we cannot take Nadal's accomplishments seriously due to the fact he was competing against the same competition and had to play Federer, who we have already established is not all that due to his pathetic competitors. By the same token Djokovic cannot be deemed to have accomplished a great deal by dominating Nadal, given the fact Nadal has made his name by beating weak competition, just as Federer did. Ad infinitum.

Of course it doesn't matter that these weak competitors happen to be the best players on the planet in a well established discipline.

billnepill
12-17-2011, 12:49 PM
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)

Sampras also won his slams pre-Nadal. Laver too :) By numbers only, (Laver and Sampras) may look good, but the truth is not as good as it looks :)

mattennis
12-17-2011, 12:50 PM
So you're telling me that Nadal plays the same on clay courts as he does at the USO and wimbledon?

How many times did Agassi S & V en route to his wimbledon title? what changes did he make to his game to win wimbledon and the FO?

Agassi had to return and pass in every point in every return game three consecutive great serve and volleyers (Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic) in a very fast and low-bouncing grass to win his Wimbledon'92 title.

It was drastically different to what he had to do to win his RolandGarros'99 title.

It is not the same to hit return winners off of a huge serve on a fast, slipery and low-bouncing grass, and passing some of the best net-players again and again, than to win RolandGarros agains baseliners. Totally different.

Nadal plays a bit different in RG than in WB or USO, but he (and everyone today) faces basically the one and unique baseline style game opponent everywhere.

If you think that Nadal has to do drastically different things to beat Murray, Soderling, Djokovic,...in RolandGarros than what he does to beat them in Wimbledon, then you really did not see how actually drastically different was in the 90s for one given player to play, say, Bruguera or Muster one day, and then the next day, say, Rafter or Edberg. That actually was a totally different game.

Look at Muster, he could be playing extremely well from the baseline against baseliners (as he usually did) and then had to play Edberg or Rafter the next day and he was doomed.

Muster would have loved to play in todays era.

hoodjem
12-17-2011, 12:58 PM
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. Erroneous premise.

I would say fifth best.

billnepill
12-17-2011, 12:59 PM
Erroneous premise.

I would say fifth best.

best or greatest?

kiki
12-17-2011, 01:03 PM
Silly typical ******* post. ;)

Sampras won 5 YEC...

fed_rulz
12-17-2011, 01:10 PM
Agassi had to return and pass in every point in every return game three consecutive great serve and volleyers (Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic) in a very fast and low-bouncing grass to win his Wimbledon'92 title.

It was drastically different to what he had to do to win his RolandGarros'99 title.

It is not the same to hit return winners off of a huge serve on a fast, slipery and low-bouncing grass, and passing some of the best net-players again and again, than to win RolandGarros agains baseliners. Totally different.

Nadal plays a bit different in RG than in WB or USO, but he (and everyone today) faces basically the one and unique baseline style game opponent everywhere.

If you think that Nadal has to do drastically different things to beat Murray, Soderling, Djokovic,...in RolandGarros than what he does to beat them in Wimbledon, then you really did not see how actually drastically different was in the 90s for one given player to play, say, Bruguera or Muster one day, and then the next day, say, Rafter or Edberg. That actually was a totally different game.

Look at Muster, he could be playing extremely well from the baseline against baseliners (as he usually did) and then had to play Edberg or Rafter the next day and he was doomed.

Muster would have loved to play in todays era.

a lot of hand-waving here. Agassi faced a different style of play at the FO vs wimbledon. but what did he do differently?

TMF
12-17-2011, 01:21 PM
Sampras won 5 YEC...

Oh good...you got this one correct.

Bravo !

TMF
12-17-2011, 01:28 PM
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)

And they know Roger beat Soderling, Novak, Del Potro, Murray, Ferrer, Gonzo, etc... to win his slams which they all gave Nadal a serious spanking at the slams.:)

BobFL
12-17-2011, 02:14 PM
Nadal was/is a major force on every surface. Sampras was irrelevant on clay.

Nadal_Power
12-17-2011, 02:25 PM
Nadal was/is a major force on every surface. Sampras was irrelevant on clay.

Is that telling you something about today's surfaces?

DeShaun
12-17-2011, 02:30 PM
This OP is not even a question in my mind.

Pete was a very large cat on court who softened every opponent with massive serving then moved in for the kill with wicked volleys and overheads.

Rafa was a defensive grinder whose balls off the ground had unprecedented spin and action making him very much unattackable.

Pete desired to end points authoritatively with his racquet.
Rafa aims most of his tactical guns at jamming you/your rhythm so that you will !@#$ up and he can have a short easy ball to force back on you, which is a slightly different (more conservative) mindset than Pete's.

Attacking well seems to require more overall racquet skills than does playing defense at the highest levels. There is a place of importance for one's fitness and legs and footspeed in tennis, but these attributes are less value to me the spactator because if I want to watch to see who can run the longest without getting tired I would rather watch a 600 meter dash--but in tennis, I enjoy some degree of high level racquet skill. . .

. .why is Santoro such a crowd pleaser whereas many present-day observers, remembering even the great Bjorn Borg's style, describe it as having been a very boring (however, highly effective) style? It's because Santoro has greater racquet head control and this is tennis first and foremost not track and field. thanks

SLD76
12-17-2011, 02:33 PM
This OP is not even a question in my mind.

Pete was a very large cat on court who softened every opponent with massive serving then moved in for the kill with wicked volleys and overheads.

Rafa was a defensive grinder whose balls off the ground had unprecedented spin and action making him very much unattackable.

Pete earned his points on his racquet.
Rafa took his points off of the other guy's racquet.

Attacking well seems to require more overall racquet skills than does playing defense at the highest levels. There is a place of importance for one's fitness and legs and footspeed in tennis, but these attributes are less value to me the spactator because if I want to watch to see who can run the longest without getting tired I would rather watch a 600 meter dash--but in tennis, I enjoy some degree of high level racquet skill. . .think about it, why is Santoro such a crowd pleaser whereas even today, many observers think back on the great Bjorn Borg's style as being very boring however effective? It's because Santoro has greater racquet head control and this is tennis first and foremost not track and field. thanks

nice avatar.

10avatars

zagor
12-17-2011, 04:02 PM
Look at Muster, he could be playing extremely well from the baseline against baseliners (as he usually did) and then had to play Edberg or Rafter the next day and he was doomed.

Muster would have loved to play in todays era.

I have no idea how Nadal would adapt to 90s conditions however keep in mind that Muster was 0-4 against Edberg even on clay, do you see Nadal having a losing H2H(let alone so lopsided) against a net rusher(no matter how good) on clay? I don't.

Nadal's shotmaking, feel for the ball and passing shots are on another planet compared to Muster, I never got why people group Muster and Nadal all the time. To me Nadal is more like a left handed version of Bruguera if anything.

zagor
12-17-2011, 04:04 PM
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)

The tour was split in Emerson's days, he played against amateur field.

You're talking nonsense.

What's a Nadal era anyway? Middle of 2008 and 2nd half of 2010? He's been a slam winner and top 2 player since 2005.

zagor
12-17-2011, 04:10 PM
I don't think any pundits will agree with you on that. Apart from the 4 slams, Pete also has 5 Year-end Championship. Something that Nadal will have a hard time winning just 1. When it comes to comparing achievements, Grand Slam titles come first, if two players are tied, then the next most prestigious title will be used to judge who is better. In this case, the Year-end Championship will be used to judge if both players have the same number of slam count. As for now, Nadal doesn't even have nearly as many as 14, so your argument is very weak as of now.

Going by that logic Fed's clearly better than Sampras yet you disagree with that. If you determine a set of criteria for the player comparison then apply them to all players, not just when it suits you.

For most people the comparison between two all-time greats doesn't just come down to # of slam titles, there are plenty of other things to consider as well.

abmk
12-17-2011, 04:43 PM
Going by that logic Fed's clearly better than Sampras yet you disagree with that. If you determine a set of criteria for the player comparison then apply them to all players, not just when it suits you.

its just double standards. Not unexpected at all IMO :)

For most people the comparison between two all-time greats doesn't just come down to # of slam titles, there are plenty of other things to consider as well.

This ..... There are a lot of factors to consider when players are 'close' .... Some just don't want to go through the 'trouble' of all that and tend to wrongly simplify by using a single criteria , in this case - # of slam titles.

PSNELKE
12-17-2011, 04:48 PM
This is a silly question.
Itīs almost like comparing Nadal and Djokovic in terms of greatness.
Itīs not even close.

ttbrowne
12-17-2011, 05:16 PM
To me...Sampras.
I'll go along the lines that most sportswriters use....winning and winning stats. Sampras has got the big number in Slams. That's the edge for me.

pjonesy
12-17-2011, 05:20 PM
Nadal is willing to force balls into Fed's backhand(clearly strategic), runs everything down(when healthy), shows athletic effort and intensity in every point, hits more topspin than anybody ever has and is probably the best clay court player in history. Nadal can still add to his legacy, but he has already proven that he is one of the very best tennis players that has ever lived. Obviously, he shares a similar game style and strategy with players like Connors and/or Borg.

As other posters have noted, Sampras had a completely different MO on the court. Short, efficient, precise, athletic traditional attacking game, built around the greatest(at least the most dependable with phenomenal pace and control)serve of all time and a monster forehand. Sampras is closer to Federer as far as game style is concerned, but nobody really plays like Sampras in this day and age.

I think its interesting to compare Sampras and Nadal, but its hard to say who is better overall. As far as talent is concerned, they r dead even(IMO). Nadal is an athletic grinder who can run most balls down and overwhelms or wears down opponents with heavy topspin groundstrokes. Sampras was an attacking player who took more risks on fast surfaces that favored his powerful/precise serve and volley game. Within the context of their eras, they are both at the top of the list, considering what they do best on the tennis court.

beast of mallorca
12-17-2011, 05:21 PM
Discuss this when Rafa takes his retirement.

kishnabe
12-17-2011, 06:54 PM
Sampras.....but Nadal has the potential to be greater.

Nadal just needs 4 more slams and a WTF!

SoBad
12-17-2011, 07:22 PM
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty tight. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?

Both Sampras and Nadal are far greater than the overrated Federer, obviously, but it's too early to pick between those two greats. Nadal will end up with more slams, but some will argue that he also benefited from weak competition playing in an era of slam finalists like Baghdatis, Federrer, etc.

Crazy man
12-17-2011, 07:24 PM
Nadal will end up with more slams

Where did you buy your crystal ball from??? I want one. :roll:

SoBad
12-17-2011, 07:27 PM
Where did you buy your crystal ball from??? I want one. :roll:

I donít appreciate your sarcasm one bit, you disingenuous newly registered poster. You know Rafa has the French locked up until retirement (thatís like 10 slams right there), plus Wimbledon half the time and some USO/AO here and there.

Crazy man
12-17-2011, 07:32 PM
I don’t appreciate your sarcasm one bit,


It wasn't sarcasm, You stated Nadal will surpass Federer's slam count. You must have a crystal ball, where did you buy it????? Did you make it???? What are the ingredience for a crystal ball???[/QUOTE]




you disingenuous newly registered poster.

Haha, what a lame comeback. Idiot.


You know Rafa has the French locked up until retirement (that’s like 10 slams right there),

I wouldn't know such things. I don't own a crystal ball.................

SoBad
12-17-2011, 07:44 PM
It wasn't sarcasm, You stated Nadal will surpass Federer's slam count. You must have a crystal ball, where did you buy it????? Did you make it???? What are the ingredience for a crystal ball???

Oh yes, the ingredience - I forgot about those for a moment. A "modicum of intelligence" is perhaps the elusive concept that you are desperately attempting to grasp as you go on raving about crystals and balls.


Haha, what a lame comeback. Idiot.

You are feeling anger and helplessness.


I wouldn't know such things. I don't own a crystal ball.................

You lack the modicum I mentioned earlier. It's no big deal.

Crazy man
12-17-2011, 07:56 PM
Oh yes, the ingredience - I forgot about those for a moment. A "modicum of intelligence" is perhaps the elusive concept that you are desperately attempting to grasp as you go on raving about crystals and balls.


Hmmm, nothing you possess. Maybe you don't have a crystal ball......




You are feeling anger and helplessness.

No I'm not.


It's no big deal.

So why did you mention it?

SoBad
12-17-2011, 08:01 PM
You are so in denial, you disingenuous newly registered poster.

adamX012
12-17-2011, 08:46 PM
OP, I couldn't vote because I love both players. Sorry.

merlinpinpin
12-17-2011, 10:50 PM
I don't think any pundits will agree with you on that. Apart from the 4 slams, Pete also has 5 Year-end Championship. Something that Nadal will have a hard time winning just 1. When it comes to comparing achievements, Grand Slam titles come first, if two players are tied, then the next most prestigious title will be used to judge who is better. In this case, the Year-end Championship will be used to judge if both players have the same number of slam count. As for now, Nadal doesn't even have nearly as many as 14, so your argument is very weak as of now.

Agreed. It's like comparing Roy Emerson's 12 slams to Laver's 11 slams... By this logic, Roy Emerson must be greater than Rod Laver. LOL. :confused:

Good thing you added the confused smiley, as *you* were the one who wrote that GS titles come first, ie that Emerson is greater than Laver. :confused:

Talk about undermining your own points... :lol:

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 07:32 AM
Wow Sampras leads by lot. I'm surprised.

helloworld
12-18-2011, 07:41 AM
Wow Sampras leads by lot. I'm surprised.

I'm surprised Nadal even gets 1 vote. Sampras is clearly the greater player at the moment. You really need to get out of your little mind if you still think Nadal is greater than Sampras as of now. :-|

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 07:42 AM
I'm surprised Nadal even gets 1 vote. Sampras is clearly the greater player at the moment. You really need to get out of your little mind if you still think Nadal is greater than Sampras as of now. :-|

Sampras is greater based on what?

helloworld
12-18-2011, 07:48 AM
Sampras is greater based on what?

And I thought I just told you to get out of your little cave...

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 07:51 AM
And I thought I just told you to get out of your little cave...

I see, so no answer, just your wet dreams. So noted.

Fate Archer
12-18-2011, 07:52 AM
OMG Sampras is leading the poll!!!

I guess we live in planet TT Sampras now. :)

helloworld
12-18-2011, 07:57 AM
OMG Sampras is leading the poll!!!

I guess we live in planet TT Sampras now. :)

Sampras is a retired player. He doesn't have current active fan base like Nadal or Federer who are still active and playing. The only reason that Sampras leads the poll by a large margin is because Sampras is clearly the greater player as of now.

NadalAgassi
12-18-2011, 10:01 AM
Well this thread and poll was a fail just like the OP. Even Nadal fans know he has a ways to go to be compared to Sampras.

Devilito
12-18-2011, 01:36 PM
Sampras is greater based on what?

he was a better tennis player. Need me to draw you a diagram?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 01:47 PM
he was a better tennis player. Need me to draw you a diagram?

Actually yes, please do. What is it based on?

Monsieur_DeLarge
12-18-2011, 01:50 PM
14 slams > 10
7 Wimbledons > 6 French Opens
64 ATP titles > 46
286 weeks @ #1 > 102
6 years as the best of his era > 2

Rafa has the career slam, but that's not enough for me to flip it in his favour given everything else. However, Nadal is still a work in progress; if he can win three or four more GS titles, including one or two at Roland Garros, then it'd be a much more legitimate comparison.


Regards,
MDL

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 01:54 PM
14 slams > 10
7 Wimbledons > 6 French Opens
64 ATP titles > 46
286 weeks @ #1 > 102
6 years as the best of his era > 2

Rafa has the career slam, but that's not enough for me to flip it in his favour given everything else. However, Nadal is still a work in progress; if he can win three or four more GS titles, including one or two at Roland Garros, then it'd be a much more legitimate comparison.


Regards,
MDL

Ok so we agree, that ultimately it's data that decides who is better, not the idiotic interpretations like player A is better than player B just because. Thus, no one can argue in any sane way that Sampras is better than Federer since essentially every stat proves the opposite.

SLD76
12-18-2011, 02:00 PM
Ok so we agree, that ultimately it's data that decides who is better, not the idiotic interpretations like player A is better than player B just because. Thus, no one can argue in any sane way that Sampras is better than Federer since essentially every stat proves the opposite.

well played Sir.

celoft
12-18-2011, 02:25 PM
Pete Sampras.

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 02:28 PM
Rafael Sampral.
Pete Nadras.

tennnnis
12-18-2011, 08:06 PM
Sampras is not really a complete player. He was not even close to win major clay title. I am not sure if he made any clay MS final. I think he never done it. Correct me if I am wrong.

I know he won a lot of grass and hard courts. But in his era one major + a couple of masters title is enough to be #1 for year end but not in recent era.

What if there is 2 clay grand slams and WTF is clay ? I think Nadal already has more GS and WTF titles.

Of course there are more hard court events so it is smarter to play better at hard court.

Conclusion :
Samprass is better if you measure it by winning more tournaments.-- best way we can think of.

but truth is nadal. Nadal is just better player. He can win more than Samprass if surface is evenly distributed. Of course H2H is favor to Nadal even on grass. I think Nadal would win more even if all tourney are on grass if they were in same era.

glazkovss
12-18-2011, 08:59 PM
Sampras is greater so far, but if Nadal is going to win 4 more majors and a tour finals, it can become close.
Career slam is a big achievement, but 6 years at no.1 and 5 YEC is not bad either. So, more majors = more greatness,
everything else is a tie-break. So far they don't need a tie-break, it is 14-10 in Pete's favour. Compare Laver to Emerson? More GS = more greatness. In this case Laver has 2, Budge has 1, everyone else has zero GS. So if you compare pre-open era, transition era players it is Laver > Budge > all. If you compare open era players none of them has GS (Laver is from transition era, Budge from pre-open), so it comes to majors count and we have Federer
> Sampras > Borg > Nadal... Borg is just one major ahead of Nadal so don't jump on him being greater overall, Rafa is gonna catch him soon and be greater by lesser factors (career slam, olympics ...)

glazkovss
12-18-2011, 09:05 PM
Ok so we agree, that ultimately it's data that decides who is better, not the idiotic interpretations like player A is better than player B just because. Thus, no one can argue in any sane way that Sampras is better than Federer since essentially every stat proves the opposite.

Not every stat (see weeks at no. 1, years ended at no. 1, Wimbledons won). But the most important stat is in favour of Roger (16 > 14), so in general you are right.

jokinla
12-18-2011, 09:58 PM
While Nadal has accomplished almost everything, Sampras still gets the nod, although he is retired, Nadal can still win more and surpass him, but he hasn't yet.

Clarky21
12-18-2011, 10:02 PM
Sampras by a mile. There really is no comparison.

tusharlovesrafa
12-18-2011, 10:20 PM
Sampras by a mile. There really is no comparison.

nadal will eventually be greater then sampras.This comparison is "BOGUS" as comparing a retired player to a currently playing player is dumb arse.

Mister P.
12-18-2011, 10:22 PM
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)

Do they know that Nadal win 90% of his slams in the pre-Djokovic era? :oops:

DeShaun
12-18-2011, 11:33 PM
Sampras is not really a complete player. He was not even close to win major clay title. I am not sure if he made any clay MS final. I think he never done it. Correct me if I am wrong.

I know he won a lot of grass and hard courts. But in his era one major + a couple of masters title is enough to be #1 for year end but not in recent era.

What if there is 2 clay grand slams and WTF is clay ? I think Nadal already has more GS and WTF titles.

Of course there are more hard court events so it is smarter to play better at hard court.

Conclusion :
Samprass is better if you measure it by winning more tournaments.-- best way we can think of.

but truth is nadal. Nadal is just better player. He can win more than Samprass if surface is evenly distributed. Of course H2H is favor to Nadal even on grass. I think Nadal would win more even if all tourney are on grass if they were in same era.

Few serve today like Sampras. Nobody today sees anything like his stuff, usually deep, always heavy and relatively speaking, very precise. Given the current state of Rafa's backhand, Pete would not have to probe Rafa's return very long before discovering and settling on the best means of exploiting this wing out wide, IMO.

helloworld
12-19-2011, 12:46 AM
but truth is nadal. Nadal is just better player. He can win more than Samprass if surface is evenly distributed. Of course H2H is favor to Nadal even on grass. I think Nadal would win more even if all tourney are on grass if they were in same era.

Nadal would win more than Pete on Grass?? What are you smoking? Have you even seen prime Sampras playing on grass? There's no way a poor returner like Nadal can hang with prime Sampras on Grass. You're totally clueless... :oops:

merlinpinpin
12-19-2011, 01:13 AM
Sampras is not really a complete player. He was not even close to win major clay title. I am not sure if he made any clay MS final. I think he never done it. Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes he did. He won Rome (beating Becker, who was anything but a claycourter, in the final, but fact is, he won one).

Conclusion :
Samprass is better if you measure it by winning more tournaments.-- best way we can think of.

but truth is nadal. Nadal is just better player. He can win more than Samprass if surface is evenly distributed. Of course H2H is favor to Nadal even on grass. I think Nadal would win more even if all tourney are on grass if they were in same era.

Can't agree with that. I still think that Sampras is the better player, even though clay is such a huge hole in his resume. Nadal could still overtake him, though. Time will tell.

However, I don't agree at all with the 'Nadal can win more if surface is evenly distributed' bit. Sampras didn't get most of his wins on grass, the way Nadal does with clay. And on quick grass, Sampras would have destroyed him. On the green clay they have now, Nadal would have his chances (especially at the end of the tournament, when it's more earth than grass), but still, you can't dismiss Sampras that easily. I'm pretty sure he would have had the edge even now.

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 03:58 AM
I find there is always a semantic issue with this type of thread.

SampraS is greater in terms of achievements, but some people might consider greater to more or less mean, 'who is better?'

It's too easy to judge things in RETROSPECT when the achievements have already been borne out in full. But there would be no harm in people believing right now that Nadal is indeed a greater(better) player than Sampras was, or quite equal, and all that remains is for the InevItabLe achievements to follow to prove what one feels they AlreadY Know/knew.

This post is in no way INSPIRED by, Sentinel.

With best wishes,

MERCURY

Aneto
12-19-2011, 04:04 AM
Sampras was actually #1 for six years. And I don't get this "that just means he played in a weak era" nonsense. It seems by that logic that the more years #1 you are, the less of an achievement it is, which makes no sense. So I'd give it to Sampras easily right now. The 14 slams makes up for the lack of a career slam in Nadal's case.

If it is not for Federer(best in history) Nadal would be number 1 for six years in a row

DjokovicForTheWin
12-19-2011, 06:01 AM
I find there is always a semantic issue with this type of thread.

SampraS is greater in terms of achievements, but some people might consider greater to more or less mean, 'who is better?'

It's too easy to judge things in RETROSPECT when the achievements have already been borne out in full. But there would be no harm in people believing right now that Nadal is indeed a greater(better) player than Sampras was, or quite equal, and all that remains is for the InevItabLe achievements to follow to prove what one feels they AlreadY Know/knew.

This post is in no way INSPIRED by, Sentinel.

With best wishes,

MERCURY

I suppose the point of this thread was to show that 'better' must equal 'achievement', else you are pulling stuff out of your asss.

eg. Becker is better than Donald Young because he just is...his serve, footwork and volleys were just magically better to the idiotic eye because I say so. He played in Sampras' time and we can't have Sampras play in a weak era. "Oh, did you ever WATCH Becker play??? If you did it's obvious Becker was better". That kind of lunacy.

Devilito
12-19-2011, 08:47 AM
I suppose the point of this thread was to show that 'better' must equal 'achievement', else you are pulling stuff out of your asss.


If you watch a handful of the best matches Becker has played and a handful of the best matches Donald Young has played and you canít tell who the better player is without knowing results / ranking / tournament wins and other stats, you just donít have a good eye for tennis.

jaggy
12-19-2011, 08:48 AM
I think Nadals dominance on clay makes him the greater.

fed_rulz
12-19-2011, 08:53 AM
Nadal would win more than Pete on Grass?? What are you smoking? Have you even seen prime Sampras playing on grass? There's no way a poor returner like Nadal can hang with prime Sampras on Grass. You're totally clueless... :oops:

more Petetard (hilarious) stupidity. Nadal has been ranked in the top 5 of ALL service return stats for the past few years.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-19-2011, 08:55 AM
If you watch a handful of the best matches Becker has played and a handful of the best matches Donald Young has played and you canít tell who the better player is without knowing results / ranking / tournament wins and other stats, you just donít have a good eye for tennis.

You are biased by knowing that Becker is a 6 time champion. If you watched Becker before his first Wimbledon victory at 17, you wouldn't say any of it. You'd be pulling stuff out of your asss.

helloworld
12-19-2011, 08:59 AM
more Petetard (hilarious) stupidity. Nadal has been ranked in the top 5 of ALL service return stats for the past few years.

You don't play tennis much do you? Nadal is ahead in both serve and return stats because of his baseline game. He can afford to hit poor return or serve 80 mph, and still win the point with his sheer speed and tanacity. It has nothing to do with his serve and his return. Nadal's serve and return simply sucks, period. :mad:

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 09:57 AM
I suppose the point of this thread was to show that 'better' must equal 'achievement', else you are pulling stuff out of your asss.

eg. Becker is better than Donald Young because he just is...his serve, footwork and volleys were just magically better to the idiotic eye because I say so. He played in Sampras' time and we can't have Sampras play in a weak era. "Oh, did you ever WATCH Becker play??? If you did it's obvious Becker was better". That kind of lunacy.

Exactly. I don't need to further elaborate too much, as you got the point. If people believe Nadal is as good or better then they are expecting Nadal to more or less equal Sampras' achievements and are just waiting for what they feel is an inevitable proof to come. Much like you are waiting for what you feel is an inevitable proof for Djokovic being better/greater or whatever, than Nadal.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-19-2011, 10:02 AM
Exactly. I don't need to further elaborate too much, as you got the point. If people believe Nadal is as good or better then they are expecting Nadal to more or less equal Sampras' achievements and are just waiting for what they feel is an inevitable proof to come. Much like you are waiting for what you feel is an inevitable proof for Djokovic being better/greater or whatever, than Nadal.

Yup exactly. I'm certainly not saying Djokovic is better than Nadal now. But he will be I think.

dudeski
12-19-2011, 10:12 AM
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty tight. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?

I would have to say Nadal.

Mostly because I want to annoy stupid Fed hating Sampras fans who only like Nadal because he stopped Federer from breaking all Sampras records sooner than he would have otherwise. *cough* The Natural *cough*

Great thread!
Down with Fed hating *********s/***********s alliance!

dudeski
12-19-2011, 10:16 AM
Ok so we agree, that ultimately it's data that decides who is better, not the idiotic interpretations like player A is better than player B just because. Thus, no one can argue in any sane way that Sampras is better than Federer since essentially every stat proves the opposite.

I love this thread!

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 10:40 AM
Yup exactly. I'm certainly not saying Djokovic is better than Nadal now. But he will be I think.

Maybe you didn't get it or we have a different angle on the meaning of words. We can both agree that Djokovic's tennis level was higher than say Nadal's 2010 and probably also 2008, Nadal's best years, right?

So, Djokovic might possibly already be better than Nadal ever was but isn't yet greater in the grand scheme of things because his pure accomplishments haven't yet caught up with Nadal's.


I think we are agreeing here but using slightly different words to say the same things, cheers.

timnz
12-19-2011, 10:43 AM
14 slams > 10
7 Wimbledons > 6 French Opens
64 ATP titles > 46
286 weeks @ #1 > 102
6 years as the best of his era > 2

Rafa has the career slam, but that's not enough for me to flip it in his favour given everything else. However, Nadal is still a work in progress; if he can win three or four more GS titles, including one or two at Roland Garros, then it'd be a much more legitimate comparison.


Regards,
MDL

To this you can add:

5 year end championships > 0

Strobe Lights
12-19-2011, 10:49 AM
Sampras takes it for me.

He is the greatest ever Wimbledon champion and top tier at the US Open and YEC. He has outperformed Nadal in Australia also. His lack of success on clay is not enough to take him beneath Rafa. In the Open era, Rafa is the greatest ever clay courter and Pistol Pete the greatest fast court player.

However, I do regard Borg, with 3 less Majors and no titles at AO and USO, as greater than Sampras due to his amazing ability on courts of all speeds. His dominance at both the FO (slow) and W (fast) show this, plus his great record on carpet. We all know the situation with the AO back, so Borg's weakest Major was really the USO with 4 finals reached, which compares very favourably with Pete's FO attempts.

celoft
12-19-2011, 10:54 AM
It's not even a discussion.

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 03:22 PM
Sampras takes it for me.

He is the greatest ever Wimbledon champion and top tier at the US Open and YEC. He has outperformed Nadal in Australia also. His lack of success on clay is not enough to take him beneath Rafa. In the Open era, Rafa is the greatest ever clay courter and Pistol Pete the greatest fast court player.

However, I do regard Borg, with 3 less Majors and no titles at AO and USO, as greater than Sampras due to his amazing ability on courts of all speeds. His dominance at both the FO (slow) and W (fast) show this, plus his great record on carpet. We all know the situation with the AO back, so Borg's weakest Major was really the USO with 4 finals reached, which compares very favourably with Pete's FO attempts.

Good post, interesting argument.

Joseph L. Barrow
12-19-2011, 03:29 PM
Let us also keep in mind that Sampras won five year-end championships, while Nadal has never won one. Nadal may be able to surpass Sampras eventually, but certainly not yet, I think.

oneness
12-19-2011, 08:25 PM
Let us also keep in mind that Sampras won five year-end championships, while Nadal has never won one. Nadal may be able to surpass Sampras eventually, but certainly not yet, I think.

I am not here to argue about whether Nadal is greater or less than Sampras. I frankly don't care.
But about the year end championships, how many do you think Sampras would have won, if they were on his weakest surface ie. clay.
Just some food for thought.

Apun94
12-19-2011, 10:09 PM
THANK GOD someone said exactly what i was thinking. The simple fact is that Sampras's era was WEAK. His biggest competitor was Agassi, who was inconsistent as hell( no offence to agassi, but he was inconsistent). sampras was a great player, but srsly nadal is way better

Apun94
12-19-2011, 10:16 PM
First of all, i dont think two players of different eras shud be compared with each other. But if i have to chose, it wud have to be nadal. rafa is just 4 gs behind samprs, which i think he will overcome, possibly in the next 3yrs. Plus nadal is an all round player, sth that sampras really wasnt. sampras sucked at FO, reached 1 semi in about 15 yrs! Sampras's era was WEAK. His main rival, agassi, was inconsistent as hell. the only reason why nadal hasnt been no1 for a long time is becuz of roger.(who we all know is GOAT). RAfa's game is more suitable to all surfaces whereas sampras just cant play on clay becuz he can only serve and volley, his groundstrokes cant even be compared with rafa's

helloworld
12-19-2011, 10:25 PM
First of all, i dont think two players of different eras shud be compared with each other. But if i have to chose, it wud have to be nadal. rafa is just 4 gs behind samprs, which i think he will overcome, possibly in the next 3yrs. Plus nadal is an all round player, sth that sampras really wasnt. sampras sucked at FO, reached 1 semi in about 15 yrs! Sampras's era was WEAK. His main rival, agassi, was inconsistent as hell. the only reason why nadal hasnt been no1 for a long time is becuz of roger.(who we all know is GOAT). RAfa's game is more suitable to all surfaces whereas sampras just cant play on clay becuz he can only serve and volley, his groundstrokes cant even be compared with rafa's

Wow, a troll with 8 posts. That's something new on this board. NOT!! :mad:

merlinpinpin
12-19-2011, 10:27 PM
I am not here to argue about whether Nadal is greater or less than Sampras. I frankly don't care.
But about the year end championships, how many do you think Sampras would have won, if they were on his weakest surface ie. clay.
Just some food for thought.

Sure, but this is basically the same as asking: "How many French Opens would Nadal have won if they were played on carpet indoors?"

Lawn Tennis
12-19-2011, 11:40 PM
Pete by a mile. But if Nadal can collect 4 more slams, not impossible for a player of Rafa's caliber, he will have a slight edge.

celoft
12-20-2011, 04:09 AM
Even when Nadal is retired, Sampras will still be considered greater. Can't see Nadal with more than 12 slams. Not a chance in hell.

ark_28
12-20-2011, 04:12 AM
It has to be Pete, Nadal is great at what he does, the best clay courter of all time and an amazing base liner.

But Pete was number 1 in the world 6 years running and only Roger has more majors, Nadal has the chance to catch Pete and even possibly Roger but at this point Pete has achieved more and is the greater player.

Tennis has changed now, far more baseline rallies, on a fast grass court Pete would be licking his chops to get into the net v the likes of Rafa or Novak.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 06:19 AM
It has to be Pete, Nadal is great at what he does, the best clay courter of all time and an amazing base liner.

But Pete was number 1 in the world 6 years running and only Roger has more majors, Nadal has the chance to catch Pete and even possibly Roger but at this point Pete has achieved more and is the greater player.

Tennis has changed now, far more baseline rallies, on a fast grass court Pete would be licking his chops to get into the net v the likes of Rafa or Novak.

I dunno man, don't Rosewall and Laver have 23 and 19 Major titles? Not all called 'Grand Slam' Titles but.. major titles.

Or, 25 for Rosewall who won the WCT finals twice (over Laver).

Some of these victories occurred when they were both participating in different tours and yes, that is a point to consider.