Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Eragon, Jul 17, 2013.
I was only counting Masters 1000 and up.
oh my bad sorry. i was just trying to be mustard
oh my bad sorry i was just trying to be mustard
The Masters 1000 titles are irrelevant to this discussion, IMO.
For starters, Nadal needs to win 2 more slams to pull even with Sampras in slam count. Until then, the discussion begins and ends with slam count.
Should he get to 14, then you can start debating the accomplishments. Does Nadal's career slam outweigh Pete's 6 #1 years and his weeks at No. 1? I don't know.
Nadal doesn't need anything to suprass Sampras for a very long time.
If I may, I'd like to know why you feel so.
So am I to understand that you would automatically rate Nadal over Sampras if he were to win 3 more Slams, regardless of everything else?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying he's already surpassed Sampras or that he's too far away?
Here's the issue with that.
I think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that the Masters series is more reflective of the overall makeup of tour events than the Majors + WTF.
Put another way, you could look at the lack of grass events not as understating Sampras' wins in Masters and below, but as overstating his wins in Majors + WTF, because Wimbledon is a bit of an anomaly.
Furthermore, let's take the 90s surfaces for a minute. A reasonable analysis will show that you that, when considering the majors + WTF, a full 60% (W, USO, WTF) were played on very fast surfaces. That is a far higher percentage of fast courts than on the entire tour calendar.
I suppose what I'm getting at, is that for a player like Sampras who had a wicked serve, his career was helped tremendously because the majors + WTF were more heavily weighted towards faster surfaces, and somewhat unnecessarily so IMO. So to complain about the lack of faster courts in Masters events (plus other tour events) is ignoring the fact that he was helped tremendously by fast courts being over-represented in the top 5 events. That's precisely why it's nice to take into account finals and semi-finals at majors and also wins in the Masters events when talking about resumes.
It's at least 3 years minus one-two months since it became clear after the victory at the US Open, on his nemesis surface. After that, I had no doubts, before it was just about that Open, but generally speaking, he didn't even need that 2010 prime year to convince.
different times back then. read this
btw he was wrong about the LA tourney, but not for the others - indianapolis, tokyo, memphis etc really did offer almost as much points as some (now established) masters, especially in the first half of the decade
for example - sampras in 1992 wins masters cincinnati, gets 373 points. wins indianapolis, gets 321 points. doesn't play canada masters. neither does world no.1 courier whom he beats in the final.
year before, in 1991, sampras loses cinci masters final to forget, gets 290 points. forget gets 356 points for the win. sampras then wins indianapolis and gets 339 points. doesn't play canada masters, neither does world no.1 boris becker whom he beats in the final
This is a good analysis. Masters Series tournaments were not as important in the 1990s as they are now, thus explaining Sampras' relatively low total.
They're also far behind many other metrics (slams, of course, but also wks as world No 1 and YEC's) in terms of how we should rank the greats.
Grand Slams and weeks at #1 are the only things that count in most people's eyes. So, Nadal passes Sampras when he gets either:
1. 15 slams
2. 14 slams and more weeks at #1 than Sampras.
So you're saying we can just wipe out his 2010 and he's still better than Sampras? Yeah because that sounds reasonable.
But the exact same can be said of Nadal. The general homogenization of all the surfaces has helped Nadal immensely as well IMO. Maybe even more so than Sampras. The main reason the tour is the way it is now is because HC's are easiest to maintain, and grass is hardest. I don't think it has anything to do with the MS being (or trying to be) reflective of the tour.
Well I think Nadals already surpassed sampras who was basically two first serves all the time and of course a great volley.....
Plus Nadal has the career slam whereas lets face it Sampras was God awful on clay.....
That's not much of an argument. Slam count is obviously the #1 factor. Weeks at #1 is the second most important factor, and WTF wins is probably #3. Nadal can pass Sampras with:
1. 15 slams. PERIOD. The career slam and olympic gold would be enough to make up for weeks at #1 and lack of WTF wins.
2. 14 slams, 2 WTFs, and another year at #1.
3. 13 slams, 5 WTFs, and a year and a half at #1.
None of these scenarios are horribly likely, but 15 slams is certainly doable if he can stay healthy.
As a Federer fan, you're only saying that so that people will think Fed played with someone moderately good
Nadal needs to start hitting single handed backhands.
Only 3 slams?
You once said he must win 34 slams in order to be in a conversation with Pete.
Year end WTF wins are important as they show a player can get to the end of a season, I think that's important too.
Rafa and Sampras have vastly different achievements, so it's very hard to compare. In some areas Sampras absolutely blows Nadal out of the water but in others Nadal is far and away better than Sampras. I think really the only way for Rafa to be clearly considered greater would be for him to win 3 more slams, passing Sampras in that count. And if that happens, I think he can solidly be considered greater.
15 slams ends the discussion. If Rafa ends with more slams then Pete, then the weeks at No. 1 and year-end #1's don't matter to me.
Tennis is all about the slams. Those are the only tournaments where all matches are 5-setters and where you get everyone's best shot.
Hahaha, yes I remember him saying that TMF.
So Helloworld, what made you change your mind ? :twisted:
What about the 6 consecutive YE#1 and the 286 weeks at #1? That shows dominance against every player for 6 straight years!
I actually don't even like Sampras. But as of now I think Sampras is ahead by a lot and it's not even close.
Sampras was THE BEST from his era. He was the GREATEST in his era.
Nobody in their right mind can say that about Nadal. Just because he has a great h2h does not make him the best from this ERA. He is far from it. H2H vs a player means squat if you were still being outperformed by the guy you DOMINATE almost your whole career followed by a different guy outperforming you shortly afterwards. Clearly it shows that you were unable to beat the rest of the field to get to the one guy who you are guaranteed victory against.
As of now Nadal is the greatest ever of his generation on CLAY. There is no question there. But that's where it stops. If I remember correctly he has never defended a title outside of clay.
To the OP:
Nadal has already surpassed Sampras. Here's why:
- Nadal beat the GOAT in 8/12 slam wins. Sampras did not remotely any one of Federer's caliber to contend with (Pete: weak era; Nadal: one of the strongest eras ever)
- the best of Pete's era had 14 slams. The best of the Nadal era has 17 slams (and active)
- 2nd best in Pete era ended up with 8 slams. 2nd best in Nadal's era has 12 slams (and active)
- Nadal has a much better h2h against his nearest rival than Pete did to his
- Nadal's winning % against his top rivals >> Pete's against his.
- Unlike Pete, Nadal excels on all surfaces. Much better that Pete on their respective weakest surfaces
- Nadal is the GOAT of at least one surface. Pete isn't a GOAT on any surface
- Nadal won multiple davis cups for his team; plus a Olympic gold medal. Pete has just one DC under his belt.
I don't put much stock into weeks @ #1 and YE #1 because that comes as a direct by-product of Sampras having no consistent rival. Nadal had Federer - enough said (Nadal also spent the highest # weeks at #2 than anyone in history)
Pete fanbois had no hesitation proclaiming Pete as superior to Fed despite a 3-slam deficiency with Federer, due to his superior h2h against his closest rival. Nadal is only 2 slams behind, and is better than Pete in his h2h with his nearest rival. What say you Pete worshippers :twisted:?
going AWOL during clay disagrees with you. Or Federer ending 300+ weeks at #1 despite an awful h2h record against his contemporary disagrees with you as well.
The only explanation for 6 consecutive YE #1 (and the 286 wks), given that his main rival was absent for a good chunk of Pete's "dominance" is that Pete was a lone ranger in a diluted field. Also factor in Pete sucking on clay. Not to mention Pete having to play mm tournaments to prevent Marcelo "no slam" Rios from ending 1998 as #1.
I am saying that would never happen. I.e. Nadal will never win WTF, go back to #1 and win 3 more slams.
Let's not forget that Sampras does have an FO semi and and Italian Open win to his credit.
That's not the point of contention here.
Well let's not forget that Nadal made the WTF final.
Two can play that game.
He does. And somewhat similarly, Nadal has a WTF Final and a Madrid Masters Win on Indoor Hards.
Let's analyse the numbers instead of spitting them out like they meant something:
Ralph has 24 MS titles but 18/24 are on clay which means 75% of his MS titles are on clay(his pet surface) and has 6 non-clay MS. Huge clay skew as you can see.
In contrast, Pete has 11 MS, but there are NO GRASS MS(his pet surface),advantage Ralph. If there were 3 Grass MS like there are on clay, Pete's MS titles would easily be in the 20s as he was ultimate on fast grass. He has 10 non-clay MS so he's infact 4 ahead of Ralph in the non-clay MS titles which the majority of the tour is made of.
Ralph has 102 weeks at #1 and only 2 YE1s while Pete has 283 weeks at #1 and 6 YE1(record). As you can see it's a chasm.
But since Ralph fans wanna dock Pete for not winning RG and give Ralph extra credit for his career slam ,then fine let's play that game,why not? Let's say Ralph's lack of time(weeks,YE1s) at #1 cancels out Pete's missing RG. Clearly I'm being more than generous here as I've clubbed both weeks and YE1s together to cancel out Pete's missing RG.(2 factors to 1, so you can't say I'm being unfair here,though Pete fans can say I'm being unfair to them!)
How does Ralph plan on plugging the gap of 5 WTFs? Let's take Ralph's SOG and say it equals 2 WTFs,heck ok take 3. That's still 2 less WTFs and I'm being overly generous here given the fact that :a) WTF>>>> YEC(in terms of points and even prestige since its been a part of tennis for 43 years) b) Noone gave a fig about the SOG during Pete's time,heck even RG was kinda poor man's slam in the 90s.
With all that out of the way, we're down to the slam count. Ralph has 12 while Pete has 14. However Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay(when there's only 1/4 slams on clay,massive clay skew) and a mere 4 non-clay slams.
Pete has 7/14 on grass but he's got 5 USOs(same as Fed,4 more than Ralph) and 2 AOs(more than Ralph's 1),that's 7 non-grass slams(3 more than Ralph's 4 non-clay slams). Clearly, Pete is better than Ralph at 3/4 slams and was dominant at 2/4 slams(Wimby+ USO) while Ralph is only dominant at 1 slam(RG) and not even tier 2 great on non-clay slams.
Another important point is that Pete was THE dominant force of the 90s, Ralph was always under the shadow of Fed, never really had his own era IMO.
Ralph would have to get atleast 2 WTFs, 3 more slams(atleast 2 of them should be non-clay,preferably all 3) and preferably more time at #1 and this is me being incredibly generous to Ralph's lack of weeks at #1,YE1s and his OVERLY clay skewed resume.
I see a lot of circular reasoning. For instance, the tour is what it is. It doesn't favor anybody. It's your duty as a player to attune yourself to it. But you do raise a few good points. Let's keep it simple.
It's effectively 2 Slams, 5 WTFs, and 184 weeks at #1 for Sampras versus a Career Slam, and 13 Masters Titles for Nadal.
For argument's sake, let's cancel out Sampras's 5 WTF titles with Nadal's 13 Masters titles and his Singles Olympic Gold.
That leaves 2 Slams and 184 #1 weeks versus a Career Slam.
If Nadal were to win 2 more Slams, it'd just be 184 weeks versus Career Slam. To me, it seems a reasonable exchange, considering Nadal was predominantly #2 to the greatest #1 of all time. Just like it's okay for Federer to have just one FO for having had to contend with the Greatest Claycourter Of All Time. So, IMO, Nadal slightly edges Sampras out if he were to win 3 more Slams.
PS- Not trying to sway you or suggest you're wrong. Just explaining my stance
I was never a Sampras fan but I think Nadal has a long way to go to get close to Pete - we are talking about a 7 time Wimbledon champion!! Not to mention 5 US Open's and 300 odd weeks at Number 1. He dominated his era something Nadal has not managed to do. Nadal will probably be considered by many to have surpassed Pete if he reaches 15 slams but for me Pete is the superior tennis player
You do realise Ralph has a mere 4 non-clay slams right when 3/4 slams are non-clay? This indicates Ralph didn't tune his game up to the tour which he should've given that the vast majority of tournaments are non-clay.
Cmon stop kidding, noone in their right mind unless you're a majorly biased fan of Ralph can say that multiple MS titles can cancel out even 1 WTF let alone multiple WTFs and I'll tell you why:
The top players use MS tourneys as tuneups to win Slams. Guys like Murray/Ralph/Novak/Fred don't set out to win MS titles. They wanna win the big ones like slams/WTFs and more recently OG and MS tournies give them a platform to build up form to win slams. Multiple MS titles is nice to have on your resume but they never have and never will be an end goal for a top player.Simply put, would Ralph rather win MC/Rome/whatever MS title than a WTF? Similarly Novak would happily give his MC title for a 3rd WTF. So sorry you can't cancel out WTFs with MS 1000,that's just absurd.
As far as OG goes, it's only recently become somewhat prestigious but it simply wasnt considered a great achievement back in the 90s and guys like Sampras didn't care about the OG,just like Borg didn't care about the AO back in his day. An OG is 750 in points compared to 1500 points for the WTF and arguably less prestigious than a WTF(which is 43 years old or more) while OG(since 1988 when Mecir won). So 1 OG = 1WTF(all things taken into account, but for the sake of generosity , 1 OG = 2WTF, no more!)
LMAO how convenient, Ralph was the top dog in 2010 so why didn't he extend his weeks at #1 post USO 2010 after winning 3 slams that year? Fed certainly wasn't around..but let me fill that for you : Ralph was taken down by a SECOND guy by the name of Novak Djokovic. Guess what? That points to his failure of extending his reign of weeks at #1!!
Nadal has a mere 4 Slams off-clay, yes. But Sampras has a grand total of 0 Slams on Clay, which makes up 30% of the tour.
Yes, the WTF is far more valuable than Masters 1000 events. A WTF is also more valuable than the Singles Olympic Gold. However, a Slam is far more important than a WTF, yes? That would mean Nadal needs just 1 more Slam (that is, 15 Slams to Sampras's 14) to make up for the 5 WTF. After all, no one in their right mind would trade a Slam for 5 WTF, right?
As for the ranking, Nadal spent most of his time at #2 behind Federer, not Djokovic, making Federer his biggest competition for the #1 spot. Just like how you'd say Nadal kept Federer from winning more FOs despite his losses to players like Kuerten, Djokovic, and Soderling. Have a look at the time Sampras and Nadal have spent in the top 2 spots and you'll see they're not too far off.
So, Nadal needs 15 Slams to go past Sampras, no?
OK but 30% is still a minority compared to HC on which Pete has 7 slams and Ralph has a grand total of 2(out of which one was USO 2010 :lol: ). You don't see HC specialists but you do find claycourt specialists(plenty of them in the 90s) and grass specialists(again plenty in the 90s).
If you take out their pet slams, Ralph has 4, Pete has 7. So Pete has more variety in his slam distribution and thus his slam count has more quality compared to Ralph.
BTW in my previous post I said that Ralph's lack of time at #1(weeks and YE#1) cancels out Pete's missing RG.
Fine, if 5 WTFs aren't good enough to trade a slam, OK. But if Ralph goes to 15 winning 3 more RGs then how can he be considered a greater player than Pete when Pete's won 7 non-grass/non-pet slams compared to Ralph's 4 non-clay/non-pet slam? I mean sure you could easily say that Ralph is miles ahead of Pete on clay but overall? I think deep down you know who the better player is.
Yes but by the time USO 2010 was over,Ralph was #1 in the world and yet he couldn't extend his #1 ranking in 2011 when he made 7 consecutive finals across 3 different surfaces(a personal record for him) when Fed wasn't around. So basically he's played second fiddle not only to Federer but also Djokovic whilst still in his prime. So your assertion of him being stopped by just one player namely Federer is false. Just to add, Ralph was playing unbelievable tennis in 2012 as well but got stopped at AO by Djoker and got Rosoled at Wimby and then went fishing for 8 months. Explain that.
Fed lost to Guga in 2004 when Fed wasn't really a factor on clay. The guys to beat on clay that year were Coria ,Nalbandian,Moya,Hewitt and to some extent Guga.
He lost to Djokovic in 2012 and Soderling in 2010 when he was past his prime, should we account for post-prime losses? Boy you'd need a lot of explaining to do for Ralph on his losses on HC and grass in 05,06,07 and 08(for HC).
Top 2 doesn't count, #1 does because you're fighting for the best accolades.
I guess Ralph being in the top two grass courter in Fed's era should make him somewhat comparable to Fed using your logic. But no, Fed has 7 Wimbys,while Ralph has 2 just like Pete has 283 weeks at #1 and Ralph has 102, just like Ralph has 8 RGs while Fed has 1.
15>14 but quantity!= quality. You can't pad up your slam count with a bazillion clay slams and be better than guys like Sampras,Borg,Federer.
I sense some passive aggression. Just for the record, Federer is my favorite player. I like Nadal and Sampras equally well. So I don't need to "explain" anything for Nadal, no more than you'd have to explain Bastl. I am simply supporting my stance. With that out of the way...
Talking of skew, Sampras has 50% of his Slams on a surface that comprises 10% of the tour. He's no Federer, either. Nadal has 66.7% on a surface that comprises 30% of the tour. I don't think Sampras is all that more well-rounded than Nadal is. Sampras never made the final of the biggest event played on his worst surface. Nadal has, at WTF 2010, a mere 1 set away from being a Champion. But if you want to persist with the Slam distribution, I am absolutely sure Nadal won't be winning 3 more FOs. If he goes on to win 3 more Slams, atleast 1 will be off-clay.
Federer was always a good Claycourter; he just took time to find the consistency. He was beating Kuerten, Coria, and all the best Claycourters in the world even before FO 2004. He did come into that tournament as one of the big favorites, having just dismantled Coria at Hamburg. The reason he lost to Kuerten is that Kuerten rolled back the years and Federer began to feel the pressure; it happens.
Coming to the ranking, it comes down to this. Do an extra Slam and a Career Grand Slam outweigh 184 weeks at #1 (if Nadal wins 3 more Slams)? IMO, they do. If they don't for you, I can respect that.
Edit: I forgot to mention the WTF. You know, I'm beginning to see your side of the argument, too. 5 WTFs is HUGE and, to me, is definitely worth atleast a Slam. But then, you're completely disregarding the Masters titles.
At this time, Fed had already won 2 clay masters 1000, including Hamburg in 2004 against Guillermo Coria. He also defeated Gonzales, Hewitt and Moya to reach the final.
He didn't play well enough to beat Kuerten that day, but I think that his overall level on clay was good enough in 2004 to consider this RG a lost opportunity for him. Had he beaten Kuerten, Nalbandian, Gaudio and Coria were manageable for him. Not easy at all, but manageable (on clay, Fed is 2-0 against Coria, 3-1 against Nalbandian, 2-0 against Gaudio, 3-0 against Moya).
Federer fans don't fight so hard to make Ralph's case, fans of Ralph like yourself sure do go out of their way to glorify Ralph's limited accolades. :lol:
Both clay and grass have 1 slam. Ralph has won 8 of his pet slams while Pete has won 7. They're both ultra dominant on their favourite surface, I think we've covered this haven't we?
I'm talking about their non-pet slam which you're being evasive about. Pete has won 7 of those, while Ralph has a meagre 4. Pete dominated 2 surfaces(USO+Wimby),Ralph dominated 1. No matter how you slice it,this is how it stands and the numbers prove it. These are facts,not a figment of my own imagination.
Now you're just trolling. Again I already covered this when I said Ralph's absence of time at #1 cancels out Pete's missing RG. I've ALREADY acknowledged that Pete doesnt have RG and Ralph has a very poor record of #1 for a supposed great. I've even granted Ralph leeway for his YE#1s which I needn't do.
To summarise, Ralph has his career slam, Pete has his time at #1, they cancel each other out for argument sake. Why are you going on about this ad nauseum?
This is wild speculation, as it stands Pete is 2x more versatile than Ralph as he has dominated 2 surfaces compared to Ralph's 1.
Fed was never the favourite at RG 2004. Sorry that is just utter BS. Coria was the player to beat at RG.Sure Fed had a one-off win against Coria at Hamburg(which btw doesnt play anything like RG just like Madrid),doesn't make him the favourite.
So by your logic, 1 extra slam outscores weeks at #1,YE#1 and 5 WTFs. More than likely Ralph overtakes Pete by winning 3 more RGs. LMAO ok whatever helps you sleep at night.
ORLY!?! I'm shocked! :lol:
Ralph is a dirtballer through n through who got lucky in an era of slowed down surfaces. 8/12 slams on clay don't lie.
Don't care what anyone says, Fed simply wasn't the favourite at RG 2004,sorry that is BS.
Hamburg plays nothing like RG, he did bagel Guga there and has actually bagelled Ralph there too, that doesn't prove that he was the guy to beat at RG. It's like saying winning Madrid makes you the RG favourite which is complete BS.
Coria was an absolute beast on clay and he would've kicked Fed's butt had they met in the final.
Fed was clearly still developing his clay game in 2004 and his clay game picked up in 2005 and was at its peak in 2006(Rome 06 is Fed's clay peak). This is a universally accepted time frame of Fed's clay game.
Stop being a little girl throwing "troll" accusations just because you can't debate. YOU cancelled the Career Slam and the weeks, I didn't. And you seem to have started watching Tennis yesterday. Federer was one of the favorites going in. Anybody who was watching Tennis back then can attest to that. You're too ignorant to debate with. Just because I like Federer doesn't mean I can't debate for Nadal. You seem like a Nadal-hater more than anything.
Right,yet here you are getting personal when I was being generous to your idol's case for argument's sake. *sigh*
I did for argument's sake. Ralph can't plug his huge chasm of a hole in his stay at #1 for a supposed all time great just like Pete can't fill his chasm of a missing RG trophy. You're just too defensive of Ralph's weak resume to debate with any semblance of conviction.
Fed wasn't a favourite at RG 2004. The guy lost in R1 of RG 2003 for crying out loud. How does he go from losing in R1 to become a co-favourite the very next year when clay is his worst surface? He'd have done well if he had made the QF/SF of RG 2004 which he didn't,instead was sent packing in straights by Kuerten. The same Kuerten who he'd bagelled at Hamburg before(*inserted idiotic Hamburg win here*)
Whatever you say,Nadal fanboi! :lol:
I just noticed your signature. You are a troll, a hater, and ignorant, considering you didn't know Federer was one of the favorites for RG 2004.
Just noticed huh? The sig was the same 4 posts above you,Fed hater. :lol: :lol:
So Federer loses in R1 of RG 03 to some nobody named Luis Horna(Luis who?) and then becomes co-favourite on his WORST surface the very next year at RG 04? Typical weak Ralph fan logic. :lol:
Don't mind him. I notice you've had to find that out the hard way (i.e for yourself), but sometimes that's the best way.
Atleast RNadal is a contender for every tournament he plays in (till now), whereas PSampras was almost a nobody in a clay tournament. Granted, he won Rome, but RNadal has far more HC title (his weakest surface, plus 2 slams on it) than PSampras has on clay, although in their second best surface PSampras did better than RNadal (7 slams on HC to RNadal's 2 slams on grass). And on their dominant surface, RNadal outweighs PSampras by quite a bit. His records on clay are just ridiculous, even at 27.
So, overall, I think RNadal > PSampras.
He had to face RFederer & NDjokovic in most of the title matches (including slams) whereas PSampras mostly faced AAgassi. RFederer + NDjokovic >>>>> AAgassi.
Again, this is an opinion. You're free to disagree
Yep. I still don't understand why a Federer fan can't defend Nadal. It's like he's a religious zealot LOL
Separate names with a comma.