Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by TMF, Mar 8, 2014.
Nadal has already passed Sampras. So let it be written.
Sampras edges Nadal because of #1 and YEC. No doubt Nadal will surpass him though, possibly this year.
Nadal would probably have 2 (maybe 3) majors missing if he played in the 90s. He probably wouldn't wouldn't have won anywhere but the French in the 90s. MAYBE an Australian Open title. But Rebound Ace is much different than today's AO surface
* 14 majors
* Career golden slam
* 27 MS titles in 40 finals
* 64 single titles in 92 finals
Nadal surpassed Sampras 4 years earlier.
Sampras. Nadal has 5 non-clay slams. Sampras controled Wimbledon and US Open and won his fair share of AOs too.
Same as Sampras, no advantage to either player.
Career slam is a key achievement Nadal has over Sampras.
The "golden" part is irrelevant, since the Olympics were meaningless for tennis players in Sampras' day. Or, if you want to include it, then we have to include things like the Grand Slam Cup for Sampras.
A minor advantage to Nadal, don't think that Masters count was important in Sampras' time either - it wasn't.
Equal number of titles, no advantage to either player.
Now consider that Sampras has 6 YE No 1's vs. Nadal's 3, and around 280 weeks at No 1 compared to 160. He also has 5 YEC's to Nadal's zero.
Sampras' longevity is also greater - he won slams from age 19 to 31, whereas Nadal has won them from 19 to 28.
He still hasn't surpassed him to this day.
The major count is equal. Nadal I think is the better player, though Sampras was clearly the more dominant player of his time. Make of that what you like.
Sampras in the 2000s would be missing at least 3 majors as well. As much as I like him. That method goes both ways. Still I think it's ridiculous to compare eras.
Oddly enough people still wanna give Pete the edge even though he is missing one of the 4 majors with a lone SF being his best result at RG.
How is Nadal the better player when he plays the exact same way in every freaking slam, barely ever coming to the net? Just moon to his opponent's BH for 99/100 shots = profit. Where is the variety?
Sampras serving down the line 80/100 of the time. where's the variety?
Btw, i think both players are superb players of incredible shot variety.
You don't hit 27 winners forehand winners by moonballing. Tell Murray and Djokovic that Nadal's forehand is a moonball and they'd punch you in the face.
Most top players, probably #1 (or #2), since Wimbledon and US open slowed their surface in 2003 and 2004,
will do career slam.
Sampras has better serve so,,,you figure it
Sampras could rally from the baseline as well as volley. Ralph can only do the former. When have you seen Nadal serve n volley? :lol:
IDK bout Murray and Djokovic but you sure would punch me in the face if you had the chance. :lol:
I wouldn't lay my a hands on a woman.
I like the sarcasm here
Probably just Sampras but Nadal will go past him with 1 more slam
I cant believe we are still discussing this.
Sampras sucked on clay. clay is 33% of Tennis season. Sampras needed French Open badly but never even gotten close to sniffing it.
At this point, with 14 titles for Nadal, it is ridiculous to think that somehow Sampras is better than Nadal in Overall tennis terms. Given that these two are great players, there will always be a couple of records where other player wouldnt have matched but overall Rafa Nadal by a wide FrenchOpen Margin.
Sux for you, Mirka is delicious! :lol:
Wholeheartedly agree with post #270.
Rafa has basically won all the majors, and atleast 3 of them more than once, same as Federer or Sampras. Although, I still feel that Federer has the better spread of titles (4A+1F+7W+5U) compared to (1A+9F+2W+2U) for Nadal , or (2A+0F+7W+5U) for Sampras.
Coming back to Sampras vs Nadal in terms of abilities, I think everything balanced out EXCEPT court coverage, inspite of Sampras being one of the fastest on court ever (IMO), Nadal is not only equal , but also has greater percentage of winnable shots while covering the court. So you will see the occasional unbelievable WOW cross court running shot from Sampras, Nadal makes them almost routinely, and especially wins CRUCIAL points .
So at 30-40 down, you can expect Nadal to chase that off court shot and hook it down the line for a winner, over 90% of the time. With others it could be a hit-or-miss.
[QUOTE=Although, I still feel that Federer has the better spread of titles (4A+1F+7W+5U) compared to (1A+9F+2W+2U) for Nadal , or (2A+0F+7W+5U) for Sampras.
Agree. The all-round BOSS is one who has won most on his 'NON-favourite' surface.
Fed ------- 10
Samp --- 7
Nadal ----- 5
Djok ------ 2
But then Sampras did not have to defeat 4 Hall-Of-Famers to win Slams in his peak years. So who knows?
Nah. That's stacking the odds against Nadal deliberately. There's no reason to set that as the criteria any more than say, winning on your least-favourite or most-favourite.
Slam distribution DOESN'T MATTER. The fact that there is only one slam out of four for clay-specialists or grass-specialists stacks the odds against them enough. If one player is so insanely dominant on one surface he wins 18 Wimbledons, I'll happily put him above Federer. He is just SO GOOD on that surface, he deserves it.
The one other factor is the career grand slam and the CYGS. These are extremely significant achievements in their own right, if not the most significant in our sport.
I loved watching pete.I think he gets a bad rap for not winning the french.I remember he had some type of anemia in his blood.Its a damn shame that tennis has killed serve and volley.Wish the courts where sped up.Do I think nadal is better then sampras? In certain areas he is
Sampras and Nadal are great in their own respective era, period.
Nadal for me. If he wins a 15th slam it will be more clear cut, but even now I would favor him slightly. Sampras has edges with his WTF titles and more time at #1, but Nadal has many more Masters, all the slams, multiple slams on every surface. Overall his career is just a little more impressive to me.
Some are comparing them by surface but the gap between the two on clay is such a chasm it is more than the gap on them on all other surfaces combined, and probably by a large margin. Anyway:
Nadal on clay >>> Sampras on grass
Sampras on hard courts > Nadal on grass/hard courts
Nadal on grass/hard courts >>>>>>> Sampras on clay
I also disagree with the poster who said Nadal has greater longevity. Yeah Sampras has won slams over 12 years, but the first and last ones were not indications of being a consistent threat or performer. After his 1990 U.S Open win he took another 2 years to even reach another slam semi, and another 3 years to win another slam. His 2002 U.S Open title ended a 25 month tournament drought, and he had been ranked outside the top 10 the whole final 2 years of his career. Nadal has been a huge force every year for 10 years, 2005-2014, really the best or 2nd best player in the world that whole time, and won atleast 1 slam and many tournaments every year. Sampras had only 8 years as a consistent top player of sorts, 93-2000 so I would put him behind Nadal in longevity. I would rank Nadal ahead of Sampras in all of longevity, consistency, and dominance (due to 2010 and scary level clay dominance for years) probably, another reason I pick him.
What about Sampras and Federer? Seems you have a different opinion when comparing those two.
The truth is because Nadal has the CGS and Sampras doesn't that is a big plus for Nadal and puts the argument favorably in Nadal's direction. If Nadal wins one more slam, it is game over for Sampras.
So was Henin, Seles, Agassi, or Nole, but not all of them are equally great.
Obviously, you have zero understanding of the era separation concept.
Nadal got more votes after he won the FO.
Before the final, the poll result was at 81 votes to 47 in favors of Sampras.
Now it's 96 to 84. Nadal is getting close.
Also many of those who voted for Sampras would probably have voted for Nadal had the poll been made just a couple days ago. Once Nadal wins another slam the vast majority of people would have him ahead.
Another Wimbledon will seal it for Nads
Another funny thing about the better on 2 out of 3 surfaces thing is someday in the future Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic could all contradict in that sense. Djokovic has to have a great career from here to make that happen, but it is very realistic.
Federer is obviously better than Nadal on 2 out of 3.
Nadal is probably always going to be better (career wise) than Djokovic on 2 out of 3.
Djokovic someday could be better than Federer on 2 out of 3. If he wins RG even once he probably will be considered better than Federer on clay. He is almost certain to end up with more Masters, he has won all the Masters, and he will probably end up with around the same number of French finals if he wins a French too. If he reaches 9 or 10 hard court slams, which he still could, he would be considered better than Federer on hard courts too, especialy as he would likely have more slam finals and more Masters.
So in the future we could have Nadal better than Djokovic on 2 of 3, Djokovic better than Federer on 2 of 3, and Federer better than Nadal on 2 of 3.
Everyone thinks Sampras would rollover Nadal at Wimbledon, but I'm not so sure about that. I would bet Nadal would get the better of Sampras even at Wimbledon because he is a mental beast. He would keep adjusting until he consistently defeated Sampras on any surface.
It depends when they played. 2000s grass Sampras would have a handful vs Nadal for sure, just as Federer always did (although I think Sampras would match up better vs Nadal than Federer, and is a slightly superior grass courter to Federer). 90s grass Sampras would obliterate Nadal probably, unless Nadal worked hard on various aspects of his game.
I say they are just about even now. They both have some significant arguments in their favor and have the same number of slams. I would tend to give Sampras the slight edge still because he had a greater degree of domination over the field than Nadal did and I value that as more important than what Nadal has over Sampras.
Even the grass in the 90s?
You insinuating that Nadal would have more Wimbledon than Sampras if he was playing in Sampras's era.
I think though that the current poll results (Sampras slightly ahead) still reflect reality at this moment in time.
You finally kick Rosewall outside of the top 5.
Surprise that BobbyOne hasn't respond to your post.
I even doubt that considering that the vast majority of votes have been for Nadal since the thread was bumped post Roland Garros.
I think Bobby is banned.
With respect to weeks at No. 1, it's interesting to me that people are putting Sampras ahead of Nadal because he has more weeks at #1. If you concede that Federer was better than Sampras, particularly during Federer's prime, then it's hard to penalize Nadal for being behind Federer, especially when you consider that Nadal was a clear #2 for many, many weeks.
Nadal, for sure no ?
Laver = Borg = Sampras = Federer = Nadal = Tier I Legends, i.e. Greatests Of All Time (imo).
Thank you very much.
Tilden, Rosewall and Gonzales are also Tier 1.
Nadal by a gnats todger. in 3 years I expect that lead to extend to a more significant todger.
5 WTF + 286 weeks #1 (no one cares about M1000 in that comparison) all that in a much stronger era with more competion, different surfaces and no ultra protection for the top 10 (e.g. only 16 seeds in Slams and M1000 instead of 32 from 2001)
TBH, I didn't like Sampras during his reign. Nor do I like Nadal now.
When the anti-doping agencies catch up to him, his career is over. Who would care if he wins 30 grand slams?
As of now, Nadal.
Separate names with a comma.