borg number one
Legend
I think there are arguments for either Nadal or Sampras. It depends on what you want to prioritize in my opinion. As of now, I'd still place Sampras slightly ahead, but both are Tier 1 greats.
Is Nadal better than Sampras now?
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
sliceroni
Hall of Fame
I agree you cant compare eras. Nadals ultra heavy high spins would not be as effective on the speedy, low bouncing grass courts, hardcourts and fast carpet surfaces of the Sampras era. The other big factor was the balls were much lighter then as well which also kept the bounces lower and making it easier for offensive power players who hit the ball flat.
fatichar
Rookie
All this obsession with comparison is a futile exercise. It serves the journos only.
When the mix of courts changes, speed and bounce changes, strength of the field changes, how can we at all compare players of different eras. Heck, even comparison of those of the same eras is not always unanimous, lime Fed and Nadal.
Just imagine that Nadal and Federer played in different eras. Would anyone imagine that Nadal would win 70% of their matches?
If WTF was played always on clay, Pete would have ZERO titles and probably fewer YE #1 and weeks at No 1. And Nadal would have 7 or 8 such titles.
When the mix of courts changes, speed and bounce changes, strength of the field changes, how can we at all compare players of different eras. Heck, even comparison of those of the same eras is not always unanimous, lime Fed and Nadal.
Just imagine that Nadal and Federer played in different eras. Would anyone imagine that Nadal would win 70% of their matches?
If WTF was played always on clay, Pete would have ZERO titles and probably fewer YE #1 and weeks at No 1. And Nadal would have 7 or 8 such titles.
Clarky21
Banned
What a load of horse dung this post is. We could break down Nadal's career as well to see how much he has accomplished that Pete never did. Nadal, imo, has passed Pete even though he has one less slam.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
hopefully he won't.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
The short of it.. No.
The '90s were a harder era to be a dominant #1 in due to the surfaces being more diverse. Sampras has no excuse for being that bad on clay either way, but weeks at #1 is underrated by Nadal fans.
Well, Luke Rosol had a better H2H, but Ralph Nader will still end up as GOAT probably.
Well, Luke Rosol had a better H2H, but Ralph Nader will still end up as GOAT probably.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
You want to talk about joke draws, Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000 playing 1 seed: 12 Pat Rafter. His previous two matches were Voltchov and Gambill
And some of the guys he beat in slam finals had no business being there: Pioline, Martin, Moya in 97.
More guys won slams and made finals in that era simply because there was 1 top guy: Sampras, and a lot of inconsistent guys below him.
There is no asterisk next to any GS title, elevating it above any other GS.
M
monfed
Guest
No, he's good 180 weeks and 5 WTFs short,that's a chasm. :lol:
Actually Wimbledon is more valuable than the French Open. Due to financial difficulty in 2006, Borg chose to sell his Wimbledon trophies because he can get more in return.
crazyups
Professional
No number of WTFs can make up for never winning one of the slams.
M
monfed
Guest
RG was poor man's slam in the 90s. And Wim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RG in terms of prestige.
borg number one
Legend
TMF, he didn't ultimately sell any of his Wimbledon trophies TMF to anyone. That's another Borg myth, like the myth that he once tried to commit suicide. They were never sold. I do think that he thought about it. He's not really a "trophy chest" kind of guy (see the quote in my sig). Borg does not go out and give long interviews and push back on so many myths that surround him, so they tend to be perpetuated, but at least many of his fans can set the record straight. Of course Wimbledon titles are the biggest in terms of prestige, no question about that. It's a very big reason why Borg, Sampras, and Federer are revered in the Open Era. Having said that, the French Open is certainly not like the AO back in the 70's-80's. With the French Open, you have the best gauge of a player's ability on red clay, which is a very unique surface (like grass courts in that way). Tennis needs the French Open very much as well, though it's not as revered as Wimbledon of course.
See: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/jun/15/bjorn-borg-wimbledon-men
Last edited:
I don't think Sampras has ever been truly "revered". Of course he's been respected for what he achieved and breaking the slam record and all that, but you always got the impression that even while he was playing, his much less succesful main rival, Andre Agassi was more popular than him with much of the public and the media.
The press could barely wait to start declaring Federer the new GOAT, when he'd barely achieved anywhere near as much as Sampras, so there was a bit of disrespect going on. For all his domination of Wimbledon, his inability to win the French probably cost him a lot of prestige.
Borg was revered more because he was the first "rockstar" of the sport, and drew in huge crowds and fans. I think it helped that he dominated Wimby, but it also helped that he dominated the French.
borg number one
Legend
I agree with that octogon. Agassi was more of a "fan draw" in the media..but Sampras was his foil. Sampras was a classic "let your racquet do the talking" type of player. Maybe "revered" is the wrong term. Perhaps that term is more appropriate for Borg and Federer in particular during the Open Era. In many ways, they have been the two biggest stars tennis has had thus far in the Open Era. Pete Sampras was very respected by everyone, even if not as "liked". For many years, I rooted for Agassi, but man, I had a LOT of respect for Sampras and enjoyed watching his tennis, plain and simple. That serve. Ease of movement. The fluidity. The big match/big point mentality. Sampras is a Tier 1 great in my opinion and I do think he is forgotten a bit too easily these days. My central point is that winning Wimbledon titles tends to draw respect from fans and casual observers more so than winning other titles. If you had to choose one Wimbledon title to win all year, it's going to be Wimbledon. That brings us to Nadal. Adding at least another W title would do wonders for his reputation as one of the greatest tennis players ever.
Last edited:
I don't think Nadal needs another Wimbledon title to cement his reputation to be honest. He's already regarded as one of the greatest of all time, and many are starting to put him about Federer, while he's still 4 slams behind him. He's been to 5 finals and won it twice. I think adding to his hardcourt tally (as he did with the US Open) was much more important. Another Wimby title would be great, but if he got some more hardcourt slams instead on his way to the record, I don't think it'd make much of a difference to how he's percieved.
Nadal himself has enhanced the prestige of the French enormously, because of his ridiculous level of domination. Before him, it was being won by too many random claycourt specialists. There had not been a truly dominant champion for awhile (Gustavo Kuerten being the closest, and his domination of the French was nothing compared to Nadal). Randoms don't win the French any longer. I believe Nadal has helped put it up there with Wimby in prestige to an extent (helps that the last guy who dominated most before him was Borg, another legend).
Now the French is considered the single most difficult slam to win. Because of Nadal. Robin Soderling's career has basically been defined by being the only man to beat Nadal at the French Open.
borg number one
Legend
I hear you and agree especially with the bolded portion. Domination by a great champion of a major does tend to give it more prestige in some ways. There's a bit of that with the AO and Djokovic there, although perhaps if it was Nadal and/or Federer winning there lately, it would also help the tourney. Yet, just picture what would happen if Nadal keeps this up..and then bags the 2014 Wimbledon title. Imagine the headlines THEN. I completely agree that even if he does nothing more, he's one of the greatest ever. There's no doubt in my mind of that. He's a Tier 1 great in my opinion given what he did this year on top of his past accomplishments. He's a special player.
diggler
Hall of Fame
Agassi won a career slam. Does that put him above Sampras? Would a career slam be better than winning the other 3 slams 10 times?
Clarky21
Banned
More comparing the WTF to the slams. Not winning the year end exo is not the same as never winning one of the slams. Learn the difference.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Skill-wise, not really. I find his comeback quite shocking TBH for a guy who was so injured he had to take nearly a year off.
But that aside, he's been largely aided by conditions that have reduced tennis to a sport where only his style will be rewarded always. In that regard, I don't find him better than Pete. There's also the fact that I am biased towards aggressive tennis. I'll say they're about equal because of Pete's performances on clay.
Last edited:
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
That's right. And that's why Sampras didn't bother winning it even though he beat several French Open champions and former #1 players at Roland Garros.
Just to show that he could. ;-)
Sampras career winning percentage on clay: 70%. Not great, but certainly not quite the bum he's made out to be by the fanboy clueless brigade.
on-topic:
---"z-z-z-z-z"
Last edited:
granddog29
Banned
Stupid comparision. There is a big difference between an 8 slam winner with the Career Slam vs a 14 slam winner without the Career Slam, and a 13 slam winner with the Career Slam vs a 14 slam winner without the Career Slam. Plus Nadal at this point is the only man in history with 8 majors at his best slam (unlike both Federer and Sampras) and atleast 2 majors at a grass, clay, and hard court slam vs Federer who could win only 1 at a clay slam and Sampras who won 0.
I am a huge fan of both Sampras and Nadal but at this point Nadal is already better due to Sampras's clay ineptitude. When Nadal reaches 14 or 15 majors in the first half of next year it will be a blowout comparing the two.
Clarky21
Banned
No it doesn't.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
In total agreement.
Similar threads
