Apparently, Sampras still thinks he's the GOAT!!!

[pringles]

Originally Posted by kalyan4fedever

stupid sampras and his ego, Federer is true GOAT and he knows it, just because nadal has a leading h2h does not mean federer is not GOAT, he could not even win a single french open lol and he is greatest please !!!{if he said that ofcourse}

Why should Sampras have a better case for GOAThood when it was FEDERER who was willing to pay the price for losing to Nadal every year at the FO (by finally winning the title in 2009) while Sampras was just happy racking up Wimbledons and not caring about not only the FO but entire clay. Why should we diminish Federer for having a 0-5 record against Nadal at the FO (and thus making the total major h2h look weak) when it was Federer who was willing to take the risk! Sampras should just shut it - he had a great career and all but he's the past. Apart from the only questionable big record he has remaining (6 years ended no 1 in a row - but check some of the years he ended no 1 - f.e. 1996 or 1998 ) he has absolutely nothing on Federer and Nadal.

According to Sampras, Federer would have a better case for being the GOAT if he just said "screw the FO!" like Sampras. He would be sitting on 16 majors and not have a 10-18 h2h against Nadal but something like 8-8 or 9-9 instead (Nadal wouldn't probably get to him mentally on grass/hard courts like he did beating him 3-4 times on clay prior to their meetings on grass/hard!).

Federer was willing to take the risk and take the consequences like a man - unlike Sampras who didn't want to suffer on clay for that 1 FO title that would've lifted his status in the GOAT discussions. And believe me Sampras would get owned by Nadal in straight sets every single time they would play on clay, so he's no saint. If you put Sampras instead of Federer (at the same age) in the exact same matches that Fedal played in majors, Sampras out of 10 matches would already be down 0-5 from the FO alone and 0-15 in sets for the matter.

[Rock Strongo]

I don't like this GOAT talk. Everybody's looking at the game differently, and I definitely don't think people should compare players from different time periods because they were all different physically, mentally and technically. Why can't we all just agree that the ones in the GOAT category are all extremely good players and not bother comparing them to one another?

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by TMF

What about Sampras and Nadal, who's greater?

Overall? They're close. Sampras had 3 more slams, a bunch of WTF and a lot more weeks at #1 (logical since hard is the majority surface, clay the minority). Nadal has the golden career slam and a lot more master titles. He's also the #1 on clay, something that Sampras is not on any surface. So it's a toss and it depends on which criteria you value the most.

[pringles]

Originally Posted by NatF

He won 2 slams a year 4 times. He had 286 weeks as the world #1 and 6 YE #1's. He also won the YEC 5x to Nadal's 0. Plus he has 3 more slams...

Sampras > Nadal by a big margin at the moment.

Sampras didn't have to face a 5-7 year younger Djokovic, Nadal and Murray on every surface all the time. Instead he played Agassi who besides 9 months of great form in 1995 was almost a non-factor until 1999 when Sampras already was already sitting at 11-12 majors.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by pringles

Sampras didn't have to face a 5-7 year younger Djokovic, Nadal and Murray on every surface all the time. Instead he played Agassi who besides 9 months of great form in 1995 was almost a non-factor until 1999 when Sampras already was already sitting at 11-12 majors.

Yes but all Nadal's important stats are from clay. He's not a great champion on hardcourt and on grass he's got a fantastic record but he's not even in the league of Sampras. Sampras has more titles on 2 of the 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the clay court GOAT only. Sampras has him beat in every other category on every other surface.

[Vrad]

If Sampras made it to a single FO final, I'd have a little more respect for his argument.

Btw, he is 0-1 against his greatest rival.

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by NatF

Nadal doesn't have a better case for being the GOAT than Sampras. Let's not get carried away. When Nadal dominates the tour for several years at the very top then he can be compared to Sampras.

If Nadal exceeds Sampras's 14 GS record, he will have a strong case. If he does it by winning 1-2 non RG slams, then he is almost a slam dunk better than Pete.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Vrad

If Sampras made it to a single FO final, I'd have a little more respect for his argument.

Btw, he is 0-1 against his greatest rival.

Good point. It's not just that Sampras didn't win RG, he didn't even make a final (unlike McEnroe for instance).

[smoledman]

Sampras is delusional as usual. He can't even hold a candle to Nadal, much less Fed! Fed won the FO and made 4 other finals in addition to winning 6 clay masters to just 1 for Sampras.

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by NatF

Yes but all Nadal's important stats are from clay. He's not a great champion on hardcourt and on grass he's got a fantastic record but he's not even in the league of Sampras. Sampras has more titles on 2 of the 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the clay court GOAT only. Sampras has him beat in every other category on every other surface.

However, in Nadal's favor, Sampras is almost 0 on clay. He has never even made it to the finals of RG. Nadal, OTOH has made multiple finals in all slams.

I think the Nadal vs Sampras argument will boil down to who has more GSs at the end. And Nadal is almost certainly clay GOAT.

[pringles]

Originally Posted by NatF

Yes but all Nadal's important stats are from clay. He's not a great champion on hardcourt and on grass he's got a fantastic record but he's not even in the league of Sampras. Sampras has more titles on 2 of the 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the clay court GOAT only. Sampras has him beat in every other category on every other surface.

This is true but one could also say that Nadal on his best surface is better than Sampras on his best one. Same with their worst surfaces.

The only reason Nadal doesn't have the "most weeks at no 1" record is because of Federer. Had there been no Federer, Nadal would be a constant no 1 for a comfortable 5-6 years in 2005-2010/2011 without any breaks for the matter. Instead he had to work his *** off in 2008/2009 just to stay there for 30-40 weeks. Who was there to challenge Sampras for the top spot, besides Agassi for brief 20 weeks in 1995? Moya, Rios or Kafelnikov? Sampras was sitting on the top spot winning 3-4 titles a year (1 major with no other finals) and being completely gone for 3 months in a year. Hell, if Agassi didn't have a brilliant 1999 Sampras would probably end the year at no 1 despite missing 2 majors. Can you imagine anyone ending the year no 1 these days missing 2 majors? Well Nadal has missed 1 (and he would have to miss another) but good luck with him ending the year at no 1. Since 2004 you have to GOAT for an entire year to end the year at no 1.

Sampras' competition is HIGHLY overrated - some even bring Kuerten, Corretja, Moya, Muster or Courier as some of his biggest rivals but not notice that they were great on clay mostly when Pete at the same time was too busy losing in the 1st rounds to some journeymen.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Vrad

If Nadal exceeds Sampras's 14 GS record, he will have a strong case. If he does it by winning 1-2 non RG slams, then he is almost a slam dunk better than Pete.

If gets to 14 GS by winning 3 more FO's Sampras will still be great IMO. Courtesy of him still being far superior on 2/3's of the tour + the weeks as number #1. To me that's one of Nadal's biggest drawbacks, he's only been #1 for a small period of time compared to other greats. Granted Federer and now Djokovic have been in his way but it's still a knock.

[smoledman]

Clay is arguably the 2nd most important surface in tennis.

Hard court GOAT - Fed, but not undisputed
Clay GOAT - Nadal undisputed
Grass GOAT - Fed/Sampras

[BrooklynNY]

“Everyone wants to name the one guy each generation has their guy,” Sampras said. “In the ’60s it was Laver. You had Borg (in the 1970s), Ivan (Lendl) and John (McEnroe) during the ’80s and myself and Andre in the ’90s. It’s hard to answer because each decade has their guy and I think now we have Rafa who has done everything in the game, won all the majors, won the Olympics and has a winning record against Roger. There’s no clear best player of all time. Each decade has their guy. Put Borg and Don Budge up there too.”

Regardless of Nadal’s final Grand Slam total, Sampras says the muscular Mallorcan has already earned his place as one of the top three greatest players of all time.

“Rafa’s definitely up there,” Sampras said. “You gotta put him in the top three or four and it’s not over yet. He’s in the middle of his career.”

[smoledman]

Sampras couldn't win a FO in the era of Muster.

[BrooklynNY]

Both Sampras and Nadal each have 7 slams at their best slam.

Pete has 7 others, Nadal has 4. Nadal isn't done yet.

But really, this is comparing apples with oranges.

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by NatF

If gets to 14 GS by winning 3 more FO's Sampras will still be great IMO. Courtesy of him still being far superior on 2/3's of the tour + the weeks as number #1. To me that's one of Nadal's biggest drawbacks, he's only been #1 for a small period of time compared to other greats. Granted Federer and now Djokovic have been in his way but it's still a knock.

Good point. Nadal does indeed have a huge disadvantage in the lack of #1 weeks. Considering that, I would say Nadal needs to reach 15GS with at least 1 non RG slam and rack up a few more #1 weeks to be considered greater than Sampras IMO.

[Mick3391]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

http://www.tennis-prose.com/bios/who...as-says-he-is/

Granted, this is not a quote from the horse's mouth, so it could be fabricated. OTOH, he has made such statements in the past, so I wouldn't put it past him to come up with such nonsense.

If he indeed still thinks that, someone needs to remind him that he was the one who came up with the "slams are what determine the GOAT" crap.. Sorry Pete, you're not in reckoning anymore.. My new year wish for 2013 is for Federer to erase more of your records, and for Nadal to surpass you sometime in the future.

Champions always secretly believe they are the best, you have to, it's part of the mental makeup.

Sampras in his prime said he believed he was "Unbeatable", this is necessary to be great. Without believieng that you may as well throw in the towel before the match.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Overall? They're close. Sampras had 3 more slams, a bunch of WTF and a lot more weeks at #1 (logical since hard is the majority surface, clay the minority). Nadal has the golden career slam and a lot more master titles. He's also the #1 on clay, something that Sampras is not on any surface. So it's a toss and it depends on which criteria you value the most.

Actually, you could argue that Nadal has surpassed Sampras, based on the criteria that Pete fans use to judge greatness.. my post from another thread:

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

In the Federer vs Sampras thread, we've seen plenty of dissing of stats and selective cherry picking (more like distorting) facts to make a case for Sampras overall.

Nadal trails Pete by 3 slams, the same # that Pete trails Federer by. So let's apply the "lessons" learned from that thread to Nadal vs Sampras, as the symmetry b/n the two cases seems perfectl:

1. Handling of nearest rival
- Pete fans claimed Sampras would overall edge out Federer because he handled his nearest rival better. Nadal has handled his nearest rival much better than Sampras did his (Winner: Nadal by a country mile here)

2. Match ups don't matter; only overall level of play does
- Since match-ups don't really matter, you can remove the Sampras serve vs Nadal standing way back out of the equation. Now to assess level of play: Nadal has a winning h2h against the other members of the top 4. And given that he has a massive lead against the arguably the GOAT, you could safely say that his level of play tops Federer (ergo Sampras). (Big advantage Nadal).

3. Better to lose early than losing in the finals
- Nadal has shown remarkable consistency in losing early at his weakest slam (USO) to avoid meeting "da man" Federer on that surface. However, Sampras has beaten plenty of RG champions at his weakest slam, which should be virtual finals -- not really doing a good job. (Winner - Nadal)

4. Better to lose to journeymen
- one word: Rosol.
Many Pete fans endorse the opinion that if someone like Soderling can do it, so can Pete. Pete was journeyman-level on clay, so it's pretty obvious that they consider Soderling to be a journeyman as well. Feel free to add the "mug" Soderling to the list.

(Winner - Nadal by a country mile).

5. Strong competition prevented Pete from achieving more
- if you've beaten the GOAT on all surfaces, you can pretty safely claim that any other competition is easy to surmount. Sampras never faced another GOAT candidate in his wins; Nadal did in 7/11 slam wins. (Winner: Nadal, and it's not even close)

6. Health condition
- Pete fans always cite Pete's anemia as one of the reasons that kept him from winning more. But Nadal's condition is worse. He has missed a few slams on account of his knees; AFAIK, Pete never a missed a slam due to his blood condition.
(Winner - Nadal)

7. Shot-by shot comparison:
Pete has the serve, volley, FH and speed. Nadal has his FH, defense, BH and incredible retrieving ability. And Nadal is the best volleyer of the current era (per McEnroe).
(Winner - Tied)

8. Other important titles:
Sampras edge in YEC, Nadal edges in MS titles
(Winner: Tied)

Overall Winner: Nadal, and it'll be a blood bath.

If I've left out anything, please feel free to add

[Phoenix1983]

Sampras is greater than Nadal at present, that's for sure.

In fact Nadal has yet to surpass Borg...