What does Nadal have to do to surpass Sampras?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Eragon, Jul 17, 2013.

?

What does Nadal have to do?

  1. Win 1 more Slam

    6.6%
  2. Win 2 more Slams

    9.2%
  3. Win 2 more Slams and a WTF

    6.6%
  4. Win 2 more Slams and get more #1 weeks

    3.9%
  5. Win 2 more Slams, a WTF, and more #1 weeks

    10.5%
  6. Win 2 Slams with 1 being off-clay

    9.2%
  7. Win 2 Slams off-clay

    6.6%
  8. Win 3 Slams

    6.6%
  9. Win 3 Slams and a WTF

    2.6%
  10. Win 3 Slams, a WTF, and get more #1 weeks

    38.2%
  1. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Right now, I'm of the opinion that Sampras is rated higher than Nadal is, but that could soon change. I'm sure most would agree with me. So what exactly does Nadal have to do to match and surpass Sampras?
     
    #1
  2. Murrayfan31

    Murrayfan31 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,055
    Nadal can't do anything. He isn't even close.
     
    #2
  3. PrinceMoron

    PrinceMoron Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,219
    Which was your favourite Sampras match you watched live?
     
    #3
  4. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Well, he needs 3 more slams, 5 or more WTF, and about 300 weeks at #1 to surpass Sampras.
     
    #4
  5. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    That's not fair, because these are what Nadal already has over Sampras:

    1. A Career Slam
    2. 13 more Masters 1000 Titles

    Nadal need not match and surpass Sampras in every regard, the way Federer has, to go past him, because he already has two big advantages over him.
     
    #5
  6. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Sampras-Agassi US Open 2005
     
    #6
  7. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    I mean 1995. Can't we edit posts here?
     
    #7
  8. Murrayfan31

    Murrayfan31 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,055
    Sampras-Agassi Wimbledon 1999. lol
     
    #8
  9. 6-3 6-0

    6-3 6-0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,607
    Location:
    Fedal era
    RNadal has already surpassed PSampras by only a bit, this coming from a RFederer fan :)
     
    #9
  10. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Why do you think so? He's lacking 2 Slams, 5 WTFs, and 180 weeks at #1, compared to Sampras. Granted, he does have the Career Slam and 13 more Masters 1000 Titles but I think the former far outweigh the latter.
     
    #10
  11. DeShaun

    DeShaun Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,837
    Rafa's already very close IMO. He's very similar to Sampras in some key ways. Both men had an extreme power-oriented, yet arguably one dimensional, way of dominating opponents. Both routinely tamed a main rival whose game really didn't trouble either of them very much; so, both were on the right side of a key matchup as a matter of fact. And both were something of a surface specialist which goes back to the point about their being somewhat one dimensional. Rafa has the career slam which Pete lacks, but Pete has the slightly better titles distribution overall. However, fast in Pete's day supposedly meant "really fast" in today's terms. And nowadays, most everyone seems to agree that current surfaces are anything but fast, which evidently plays into one or two of Rafa's key strengths as a champion. So, it's hard to say, really; but I think they're nearly equal at this point. I also believe Rafa will win probably one, but maybe two more coup musketeers at RG which would put him right next to Sampras' slam count.
     
    #11
  12. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,545
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    agreed, and this obvious option is missing in the poll.
     
    #12
  13. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    While I see the point you're making, and agree with it, I think you're drawing analogies rather than comparing their sets of achievements. However, that's a great point you made about Sampras having the better distribution. That must count for something. Anyway, coming back to the comparison, if you think Nadal is already very close, wouldn't 2 more Slams (even if they were both at Roland Garros) put him decidedly above Sampras for you? Or would Nadal's Slam-distribution only allow you to put him at equal with Sampras then?
     
    #13
  14. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    This poll is for those who, like me, think Nadal hasn't surpassed Sampras yet but potentially can. I thought I made that clear in the OP.
     
    #14
  15. citybert

    citybert Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    991
    Win more non clay masters and grand slams than sampras's non grass. That wouldnsurely put him over. But highly unlikely nadal wins 3 -5 more Grand slams outside of RG.
     
    #15
  16. tipsa...don'tlikehim!

    tipsa...don'tlikehim! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    18,655
    tired of this separation clay / non clay,
    clay is a surface like any other, no ? ;)
     
    #16
  17. Cormorant

    Cormorant Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,222
    63% of Nadal's 57 titles are slams or masters trophies. In Sampras's case, it's a mere 39% from 64. Anyone who says they're not fit to be compared is being unjust towards the Spaniard, in my opinion.
     
    #17
  18. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Why would you disregard Sampras's 5 YECs? Each of those 5 Titles is worth more than every single Masters Title Nadal has.
     
    #18
  19. Cormorant

    Cormorant Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,222
    My mistake, the big tournament ratio for Pete is now a revised 47%.

    Nadal's record in big events remains just as consistent as the American's.
     
    #19
  20. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    I think the better way to compare would be:

    Slams: 14-12
    YECs: 5-0
    Masters: 24-11

    So, currently, it's 2 Slams and 5 YECs versus 13 Masters Titles. Sampras has the definite edge but Nadal has time to catch up. 3 more Slams and I'd have to rate him over Sampras. 2 Slams and it becomes almost too close to call (as he's bound to add a few more Masters Titles).
     
    #20
  21. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,129
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Good thread OP. I'm going to go with the win 2 more slams with one being off clay option. I don't think he needs a WTF because comparatively Sampras never won RG, and a slam is bigger than the WTF anyway.

    If he could win a 3rd Wimbledon or a 2nd AO or USO and another RG I think he'd be past him considering the career GS and the boatload more MS wins. A few more weeks at #1 wouldn't go astray, but then again look at Sampras's main competition for the #1 ranking. Doped up on crystal meth half the time, and Sampras still never dominated the #1 ranking. A few times losing it in the middle of the year only to get it back and tack on a few YE #1's. A weak era if there ever was one.
     
    #21
  22. Magnetite

    Magnetite Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    907
    Biggest thing against Nadal is lack of weeks at #1. Federer proved he can topple Djokovic, but Nadal hasn't proven anything recently, other than he can still win on clay (and maybe hard courts from time to time).

    I don't think the WTF matter as much for Nadal, because it's a terrible surface for him, but he should still needs to grab at least one.
     
    #22
  23. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,129
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    You need 50 posts to be able to edit your own posts.
     
    #23
  24. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Yeah, you're right about the WTF. Not winning the FO is a vastly bigger hole than not winning the WTF. Not to mention, Nadal did manage to make a final there, which is more than can be said for Sampras at RG. Interestingly, both Sampras and Nadal have a single Masters Title on Clay and Indoor Hards, respectively.
     
    #24
  25. rh310

    rh310 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,122
    Location:
    NY USA
    3 more non-RG slams, and a couple hundred more weeks at #1
     
    #25
  26. moonballs

    moonballs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,286
    The career slam is definitely an important achievement. At this level the master 1000 aren't meaningful. Both of them have plenty of majors to compare.

    Nadal does not need to surpass Pete in every aspect. He needs three slams, which is easier compared with other options.
     
    #26
  27. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    He has to do quite a lot.

    2 more slams, despite him then matching Sampras' slam count, will not be enough, especially if they are both at the FO.

    Sampras has 6 YE #1 rankings, and over 280 wks as #1, compared to Nadal's 2 YE #1 rankings and 105 wks as #1.

    Sampras also won 5 YEC's, while Nadal has won 0.

    Sampras was also the dominant figure of his era, Nadal not.

    Matching Sampras in the slam count therefore - despite the advantage of having the Career Slam, which Sampras does not - is not enough to overtake Sampras.

    Thus I voted for the last option -3 more slams, at least 1 win at the YEC and more time at #1. I'm not sure it will happen.
     
    #27
  28. Chico

    Chico Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    This. 10anythings
     
    #28
  29. Aura

    Aura New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Toronto
    1) Win 3 Slams[to have more slams],
    2) 2 off clay[so his count isnt as padded with RG wins],
    3) get more #1 weeks

    For example, if he end with 16 slams, 1 aussie, 1 usopen, 2 wimby, and 12 RG, i would not consider him better than sampras.

    I am willing to say that a WTF win is not quite required, but weeks at #1 should definitely increase.
     
    #29
  30. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Masters 1000 are meaningful. They show consistency and durability. So are Sampras's 5 YECs, which are the biggest Titles after the Slams. I could understand disregarding Masters 500/250 titles but to disregard important titles like the YECs and Masters 1000s, where most, if not all, of the top players play is not fair to those who won it, IMO.
     
    #30
  31. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Oh. I guess Djokovic can't do anything to surpass Agassi, either.
     
    #31
  32. Chico

    Chico Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    Oh no, that is quite clear too. Djokovic needs 1 FO, 1 USO and 3 Masters.
     
    #32
  33. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Are you saying Nadal wouldn't surpass Sampras even with 3 more Slams, 1 WTF, and more weeks at #1?
     
    #33
  34. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,349
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    More slams + WTF + Weeks at #1, he needs more dominance to surpass Sampras.
     
    #34
  35. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    But wouldn't all of those give Nadal a spotless resume? Sampras's career is far from spotless, so why would Nadal's need to be spotless.

    Just playing Devil's Advocate here :)
     
    #35
  36. BHud

    BHud Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,297
    Right...I'm assuming you never saw Sampras play live in his prime....just watching some old videos?
     
    #36
  37. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,056
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Nadal's Career Grand Slam, Olympic Gold, great record against entire field, and WAY more Masters titles definitely helps balance out his lack of WTF titles, I'd say he just needs 2 more majors (preferably off of clay) to be considered on equal footing with the great Petros. Lack of RG title really hurts Pete to be honest. To surpass Roger will be much more difficult, almost impossible due to Fed's Career Grand Slam AND WTF titles.
     
    #37
  38. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,554
    Location:
    Weak era
    Well, the weight one gives to career slam is subjective, not to mention that Nadal reached multiple finals in every slam (2 at AO and USO, 5 at Wimbledon, 8 at FO) while Sampras only managed one slam FO SF in his whole career, we're not comparing Nadal to Borg or Lendl in that regard.

    One thing you didn't mention is the masters count, Nadal is leaps and bounds above Sampras there, 24 compared to 11, that has to factor in somewhat (especially given that you count YEC).

    Not saying I don't consider Sampras to be greater still but I don't think the gap is big at all.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013
    #38
  39. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Exactly what I think! By the way, Sampras has "just" 11 Masters 1000 Titles.
     
    #39
  40. Cormorant

    Cormorant Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,222
    [​IMG]
     
    #40
  41. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,554
    Location:
    Weak era
    It's not merely a lack of FO title that hurts Sampras from my point of view, it's his inability to be even a contender there, people dismiss slam finals/SFs here all the time (especially Sampras fans back when they were saying Fed's FO finals don't count for anything) but I think it shows versatility if you consistently go deep in your worst slam/surface even if you lose most of the time (or even all the time) to players who are more natural there.

    Borg and Lendl get huge props from me for contending at their weakest slams, USO and Wimbledon respectively even if they didn't win the ultimate prize in the end.
     
    #41
  42. Aura

    Aura New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Toronto
    Shouldn't the manner of the masters be of some count? It is no doubt that nadal is a beast of a player, but his strength is clay while pete's is grass.

    Nadal has 18/24 of his masters on clay, and there are no grass masters.

    Not trying to penalize nadal or anything, just giving it some perspective.
     
    #42
  43. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,554
    Location:
    Weak era
    My mistake, thanks for pointing it out.
     
    #43
  44. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    That's true, but you could also say Sampras has the advantage of there being two Hardcourt Slams, which happens to be Nadal's worst surface. Ultimately, the tour is what it is; it doesn't favor anybody. You just need to attune your game to suit the tour.
     
    #44
  45. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,554
    Location:
    Weak era
    That is a valid point, I have no doubt that Sampras (and Fed for that matter) would win more masters if there were a couple on his favourite surface-grass.

    That said, Sampras is a far better HC/carpet (he won Paris a few times when it was still played on carpet) player than Nadal and thus had more opportunities to add to his count there compared to CC masters for Nadal, also, considering that HC is the worst surface for Nadal overall, he's no slouch there with 6 masters titles (one of them coming on indoor HC even).
     
    #45
  46. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Yes, I'd have to agree with that. Sampras made one final in important Claycourt tournaments throughout his career. Just one. To put that into perspective, Federer made 19 so far.
     
    #46
  47. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    Nadal on 90s grass without poly wouldn't be a condtender at Wimbledon. He'd be just another Spanish dirtballer skipping the event entirely to avoid the hassle of a first round loss.

    The reason you can't compare eras is due to the difference in surfaces, mentality of players, importance of certain events, importance of certain stats that players chased etc. The only way you can compare players is to watch them play and form your own opinion. Trying to prove your point with numbers and facts is completely useless unless you're talking about a controlled environment with constant factors.
     
    #47
  48. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    One could say the same about Sampras on today's slow, grinding tour. There is no definitive way to say one is better than the other, but it's fun to debate and reasonable arguments can be made and conclusions can be drawn :)
     
    #48
  49. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,056
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    But Sampras is the only really great player not to have even made a FINAL at his worst major, its not as if other eras haven't had greats who were amazing at all the majors. Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, hell even Courier made finals at all majors. Sampras isn't the rule, he's the exception for great players. Pete's clay record hurts him a lot, as much as it pains you to say it. And to say Nadal would have been awful on 90's grass is pure conjecture, the guy moves wonderfully well on the surface (ok, last 2 years excepted but he DID make 5 finals in a row) and has great touch and feel, far beyond someone like Agassi. His slice serve is nasty on grass as well. Muster and Bruguera were getting almost/just as much spin as Nadal in the 90's, the importance of poly is overstated IMO. I get massive spin with a full bed of natural gut even today (hate the feel of poly).
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013
    #49
  50. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,220
    actually i think they are 20.

    hamburg 2002
    rome 2003
    hamburg 2004
    hamburg 2005
    monte carlo 2006
    rome 2006
    RG 2006
    monte carlo 2007
    hamburg 2007
    RG 2007
    monte carlo 2008
    hamburg 2008
    estoril 2008
    RG 2008
    madrid 2009
    RG 2009
    madrid 2010
    RG 2011
    madrid 2012
    rome 2013
     
    #50

Share This Page