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. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    27,284
    Location:
    Weak era
    Not sure I'd say Fed was one of the favourites for 2004 FO title either to be honest.

    Sure, he was a contender by the virtue of being the best player in the world but as far as I remember Coria was being seen as a pretty heavy favourite for the title going in, after the draw was announced most people were predicting the winner of Coria-Moya QF to win the title.
     
  2. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,026
    Location:
    The Shire
    Yeah, perhaps not. Monfed is still a troll though. That's the most important thing :). The overriding point of it all. You didn't really think I read all that Ralph garbage did you? Just to find that I agreed with about 10% of all that if I'm lucky? Yeah thanks, but no thanks.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2013
  3. monfed

    monfed Guest

    You do realise you're responding to a LOLville dupe account,right? Took me a while to catch on, what can I say he's refining his methods, it's like the troll is evolving. :lol:
    Look at his registration date,July 2013 and he's already getting into heated debates about Ralph's place in history. There's been a flurry of activity from LOLville's dupe accounts on this site. Too many to name. :lol:
     
  4. monfed

    monfed Guest

    WTF?!? On what basis are you calling me a troll? You haven't refuted a single point I made in this thread and yet you lambast me for putting forth my argument? Do you even know what trolling means? What just coz I call Nadal as Ralph? That's trolling? :lol:
     
  5. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,026
    Location:
    The Shire
    I thought about that, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see something that's a red flag. If he continues on like this I don't see the problem. smoledman, kalyan4fedever, Sabratha, just to name a few are more obvious.
     
  6. Beast of Majorca

    Beast of Majorca New User

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    All he has to do is catch up to Sampras in slams. Not sure why everyone's looking for Nadal having to surpass Sampras in literally everything. He has way more masters titles and a career grand slam - as it is now, they're nearly even. A few more slams and Nadal will undoubtedly be the greater player.
     
  7. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    http://www.tennis-x.com/odds/oddsrfrenchopen04.php

    I have been following Tennis since the early 90s. Federer was seen as a strong contender, although admittedly not the top favorite.
     
  8. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,026
    Location:
    The Shire
    What can I say? Your reputation precedes you. You're at your best when you keep it short and sweet. Others are better the longer they go so I read them, and some are good at both, although admittedly I may be neither. :) I don't want to read long drawn out posts with you denigrating Nadal's achievements and his style of play (even though I don't like it either, I just respect how good he is), but I'll read short ones because they're more to the point.

    For example, I had to put abmk on ignore because he keeps arguing with The Order, even though I like abmk. I just couldn't stomach the long diatribes between the two about comparing levels of play which inevitably ended up in them spamming a bunch of good threads, but when I click view post and I see that it does not concern The Order at all, I'll read it no matter how long or short it is. Just some friendly information.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2013
  9. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Is this all you guys do? Accuse new posters of being trolls and dupe accounts just because you can't debate? Wow.
     
  10. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,680
    at least one more HC slam each (1 AO, 1 USO).

    he is great on clay and also good on grass but on hardcourt be is not even a top15 Player ever. he has to prove that his hardcourt titles are no fluke.

    if he wins those 2 titles (which I doubt) I will rank him above sampras.
     
  11. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,657
    Why does Nadal have to win 2 more hc slams to be better than Pete, who never won jack at RG or even made a final there? I think Nadal with his 2 hc slam titles, and 2 other finals, proves he is far less of a fluke on the surface than Pete's one lousy Rome title he couldn't back up. Some of you people will come up with all kinds of garbage just to be try and continually move the goal posts when it comes to Nadal.

    The fact is Nadal on hard courts is greater than Pete on clay. Stop saying Nadal has to win more on hard court to surpass him when Pete couldn't even make one lousy final at RG. Such nonsense from the people here as usual.
     
  12. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,743
    Clearly Fed was not the heavy favorite, but overall the tournament was open, with several players having a shot at the title, Federer being one among them.
    Retrospectively, when we know how the QF, SF and final went, it's not an utter non sense to say that Fed may have missed a chance here. Nalbandian, then Gaudio, then Coria is a tough task but not completely out of possibilities for him, given that he had already beaten everyone of them on clay (the contrary being untrue).

    It's a bit simplistic to only consider his clay achievements to assess his clay level, especially if his RG result is the only measure taken. He is considered a better clay courter by Monfed in 2006 than in 2005 only because he met Nadal one round later in 2006.

    Similarly, Nadal grass development is considered by many as completed only in 2008 when he was already playing at this same level in 2007, and not that far from it in 2006.
     
  13. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    27,284
    Location:
    Weak era
    Heh, nice find, I'm somewhat surprised to see Fed had better odds than Moya.

    Still, I think that was more due to Fed being seen as the rising star and the best player in the world than because he was considered to be a premium CC player, sort of expecting his overall game to transcend the surface.

    I'd say Fed was started being considered a strong CC player in 2005 when he tore through the draw on his way to a SF match-up with Nadal, many were at time predicting him to beat Nadal and win the title after.

    IIRC though McEnroe was hyping up Fed and predicting him to win the FO even in 2001-2003 days, one of the few times he predicted right.
     
  14. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,743
    Yes, the problem with Pete is not that he was unable to win the career slam. It was harder at this time with the bigger speed and bounce range from one surface to another, and most all-time great couldn't do it. The problem was that he was far, very far from it. A lot of fast courter like Edberg, Becker, Stich have a better resume than Sampras on the surfaces. And reaching more than one SF in the 90's clay field was not an impossible task, looking at the guys who could do it like Larsson, Dewulf, Rosset, Pioline.
     
  15. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    27,284
    Location:
    Weak era
    Oh sure, but it's more considered to be a missed opportunity in retrospect, at the time Fed wasn't considered to be a terrific CC player who just can't handle one player on that surface.

    Of course, 5 FO finals later, it's obvious Fed's an excellent CC player, it's just that Nadal is a monster on it.

    I agree, I think Fed found his feet on clay in 2005, he conquered the surface so to speak but couldn't find a solution for Nadal.

    Yeah, but Nadal was already reaching Wimbledon finals in 2006 and 2007 while prior to 2005 Fed was mostly losing early at the FO (his 2001 run aside) so not exactly the same comparison.
     
  16. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Federer wasn't seen as a better Claycourter, per se, than Coria or Moya but it wasn't lost on anyone that he was a Grand Slam calibre player who had the mental and the physical strength to get through 7 5-setters; more so than anyone in the draw. It was more for this reason that he was a favorite, IMO. Not to mention, his excellent record against all of the other competitors, even on clay.

    As for McEnroe, he hypes up everyone to win everything, so it's inevitable he calls every winner right :)
     
  17. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,743
    My main point is that the 2005 FO was open. Ferrero and Kuerten were injured, Costa wasn't in his best form, so it was pretty clear that someone would win it for the first time.

    A number one in the world who has already beaten every other good clay courters and won master 1000 has to be a strong candidate, whatever he does in the next year.
     
  18. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,026
    Location:
    The Shire
    Exactly. Federer was not a clear heavy favourite, but nobody else really was either. Therefore it was, especially in retrospect, a missed opportunity, although he did get his French in the end. Btw, I think you meant to say the 2004 FO. You have a typo there.
     
  19. manley0702

    manley0702 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    The reason Nadal has to pass Sampras in slams is simple:

    5 more WTFs + 184 more weeks ranked #1 > Career Slam + masters titles

    I don't see how this is arguable.
     
  20. FrontHeadlock

    FrontHeadlock Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    588
    If you rank Federer ahead of Sampras as an all-time great, why would Nadal be penalized for being #2 behind Federer? I don't think weeks at Number 1 is the issue for that very reason.

    I do agree that more majors + more WTFs is the issue, but I think so long as Nadal can equal or surpass Sampras in majors he will be ahead. The WTF is a great tournament but it heavily favors fast-court players, who already have an advantage by having two of the four majors on fast courts. Nadal's Masters record imo more than balances out Sampras' WTF wins.
     
  21. 6-3 6-0

    6-3 6-0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Fedal era
    That's what I meant. RNadal had to deal with a RFederer, whereas PSampras didn't have a rival of RFederer's caliber. He would've surpassed PSampras' GS count, and had atleast 1 WTF title if RFederer didn't exist and obviously more weeks at No. 1.
     
  22. surfvland

    surfvland Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Win 15 Majors.
     
  23. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Everybody knows Sampras played in a weak era but it can't be proved. So we can only compare numbers, without resorting to circular reasoning.
     
  24. manley0702

    manley0702 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    I see your point, and I don't think Nadal has to pass Sampras in weeks at #1, but he has to get close. As it stands, Nadal has 102 weeks at #1, and Sampras has 286 weeks at #1. That is an enormous gap. Plus, Djokovic will likely pass Nadal in weeks at #1 this year so being in the Fed era isn't an excuse.

    WTF wins mean a little bit more than ATP 1000s so he has to at least get a couple.

    If Nadal gets 14 majors, 2 WTFs, and 150+ weeks at #1, he will equal Sampras. Otherwise, he needs 15.
     
  25. 6-3 6-0

    6-3 6-0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Fedal era
    Fine, but I stand my ground. I believe RNadal will only extend that lead that he already has over PSampras in future. He has about 2-3 years (or even more, depending on his health) to get more titles off clay.
     
  26. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    I agree. I think Nadal needs to win 3 more Slams (with at least 1 being off-clay) to edge out Sampras.
     
  27. 6-3 6-0

    6-3 6-0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Fedal era
    Seriously, is this RFederer's era? You can't be serious :shock:
     
  28. manley0702

    manley0702 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    So you're saying if Nadal ties Pete in majors and is far behind him in the next two most important categories, he will have passed him? If you want to pass somebody you need to either win the most important category (majors) or tie and be ahead in the other categories. It's pretty simple.
     
  29. FrontHeadlock

    FrontHeadlock Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    588
    Who says those are the next two most important categories?

    Besides, Nadal has 160 consecutive weeks at number 2 behind Federer. Without Fed that puts him close to Sampras. It's contextual. If you accept Fed > Sampras, then Nadal being ranked second behind Fed shouldn't affect your calculus too much.

    And again, I don't value WTF nearly as high as you do. It's an important tournament, but the fact that it's an indoor carpet/hard really gives a lot of favor to certain types of players, who already have an advantage by having 2/4 majors on fast surfaces.
     
  30. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    No surface gives an advantage to anybody. The tour is what it is, it favors nobody. And having 2/4 majors on fast surfaces isn't an advantage because the other 2/4 majors are on slow surfaces. The WTF is just the most important title for Indoor Hards, which is very different from Outdoor Hards. Nadal not winning the WTF is a big hole.

    I sort of agree with you about the ranking, though.
     
  31. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    9,008
    Nadal's problem is almost three quarters of his slams come on one surface and he was #1 in the world for a fraction of the time thats guys like Rog and Pete were.

    If he can manage to win some more non clay slams and get back to number one for a while his case would be a bit better
     
  32. FrontHeadlock

    FrontHeadlock Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    588
    See here's my issue with the surfaces. If you look at the profiles of champions and finalists at W and the US Open, they are very similar.

    Roger, to me is the best because he was so consistent and so good at all the majors.

    Sampras, on the other hand, greatly benefited from having 2/4 majors on fast surfaces. Why do you penalize Nadal for winning 67% of his majors on clay when you don't also penalize Sampras for winning 86% on fast surfaces. And before you complain that grass and hardcourt are different, look at how similar the results are at W/USO over the last 25 years.
     
  33. pjonesy

    pjonesy Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,098
    Will it matter if he only adds 2 more FO titles? Nadal has won all 4 Majors, but only dominates RG. If Nadal won another US Open and Wimbledon, would that give him the edge on Sampras? If Nadal won 2 more AO titles, I can't give him the edge.
     
  34. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    9,008


    We can use that argument for a lot of players. Nadal (along with Murray and Nole) are fortunate for the homogenized slow conditions of the modern era because without it how much do they accomplish? Should they be penalized then if we are going to penalize Sampras for playing on two surfaces which were fast? Imagine if Sampras got to play fast 90s USO-Wimbledon conditions all calendar season? (like Murray, Nole, and Nadal get today with slow surfaces all year round) Imagine what his achievements would have been? The same with Roger.

    Going by just surface alone, Nadal's resume is just so extremely one sided in compared to other guys. When over half your slams come on clay (along with not a ton of time at #1) its tough to put that players name in the hat with guys like Laver, Sampras, Pancho, Federer. Of course, Nadal's career is not over
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2013
  35. manley0702

    manley0702 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    So what you're saying is even if there were no Federer, Nadal would still be behind Sampras in weeks at #1? That completely kills your argument that the Fed era hindered Nadal's stats.

    WTF is clearly the 5th most important tournament of the year. Your argument that indoor carpet/hard favors certain players is nonsensical because I could just as easily dismiss Nadal's FO titles because clay "favors certain types of players". Furthermore, Sampras was a grass specialist. It's not as if HC was his favorite surface.
     
  36. FrontHeadlock

    FrontHeadlock Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    588
    And I think Sampras' resume is just as one sided. Go ahead and compare the results of W and USO for the last 25 years and see for yourself. Yes they are different surfaces, but they strongly, strongly correlate with each other.

    I'm not trying to penalize Sampras. I just think he's in a very similar boat as Nadal, with the difference being that Sampras never sniffed a FO title.
     
  37. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    9,008


    Over half of Fed's slams (Actualy 12 of his 17) came on a grass and faster hardcourt surface in the 00's-present (Except vs. a much WEAKER grass field than Pete's).. Should we penalize him too?
     
  38. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    86% of Sampras's Slams are on faster surfaces. 70% of Federer's Slams are on faster surfaces. Big difference.

    And LOL, weaker field? Sampras played a freaking QUALIFIER on one of his Wimbledon runs in the semifinals :shock:
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2013
  39. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7,236
    agree here there are 2 surfaces after all. clay is just one. you cannot penalize sampras for dominating 2 surfaces. it is BS
     
  40. 6-3 6-0

    6-3 6-0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Fedal era
    RFederer also won RG plus made 4 additional finals (total 5) and has 6 masters on clay, plus numerous finals in Masters clay tournaments.
     
  41. FrontHeadlock

    FrontHeadlock Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    588
    Once again, go compare the champions/finalists of W and USO over the past 25 years. They are different surfaces but they are very, very similar in results.
     
  42. manley0702

    manley0702 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    The argument still is not valid. Dominating on 2/3 surfaces is not even comparable to dominating on 1/3 surfaces. Of Pete's 14 slams, only half came at his best tournament. Of Nadal's 12 slams, 67% are on his best surface. It's really not comparable.
     
  43. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    9,008
    Yes.. Weaker.

    Goran, Becker, Agassi, Rafter,>>>>>Nadal,Nole,Murray, Roddick on grass
     
  44. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,253
    Fix it for you.
     
  45. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    9,008
    ROFLMAO.. Yea right. Hell, Goran and Becker alone would mop the floors with those Pushers
     
  46. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    No, no.

    Nadal, Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Djokovic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Headcase Ivanisevic, Grandfather Becker, Methhead Agassi, Just-2-finals-and-never-won-Wimbledon-Rafter

    Sorry.
     
  47. Readers

    Readers Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    848
    Also Olympic gold.
     
  48. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,253
    Anyone can say the opposite so you biased opinion holds no water.
     
  49. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    I think the Olympic Gold is largely irrelevant. It didn't mean much before 2008. And even now, it's more a symbol of personal/patriotic achievement than a Tennis Accomplishment. It only gives you 750 points for a reason.
     
  50. FrontHeadlock

    FrontHeadlock Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    588
    K

    10characters.
     

Share This Page