Will Nadal's accomplishments be better than Sampras when he is done ?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed didn't have to work nearly as hard as Nadal did. Fed isn't notorious for those grueling training sessions like Nadal is. Nadal had to almost re-evaluate and revamp his game to become a major threat outside of clay. Fed just also had just more raw talent then Nadal (and the gift of better health, Nadal came into pro tennis with foot problems). Nadal had to do ALOT more to be an all time great then Pete or Roger did who had more talent and raw ability on more then just one surface at a younger age.

you should quit talking about things you know little about...

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.co...erer-in-dubai/

[timnz]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

Sampras has YEC, more weeks at No 1 , 3 more majors.

But Nadal has the career slam, which is the "hallmark" of a true tennis great.

Sampras was never a contender for clay, while Nadal was a genuine favorite in 2009-2010 on all 4 surfaces and he proved that as well. Rafa had genuine chances to win multiple majors on all 4 slams. Even Federer was not that close in this regard.

Masters wins lesser said the better.Both have superior H2H amongst their peers.

Pete ended with 7 wimbledons. I would guess Rafa will cross that at FO. I would give at least 1 or 2 more majors to Nadal by the time he calls it time.

Even if he does not get to 14 majors and falls 1 or 2 short, I think he is the more "accomplished" player in terms of all round success.

Any thoughts ?

One must not forget that the career slam was made significantly easier since rhe massive slow down of Wimbledon grass a little over a decade ago.one would ha e to doubt Nadal getting further than the semis on 90's grass

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by timnz

One must not forget that the career slam was made significantly easier since rhe massive slow down of Wimbledon grass a little over a decade ago.one would ha e to doubt Nadal getting further than the semis on 90's grass

Yeah, because Malivai and Pioline are so much better than Nadal...

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Yeah, because Malivai and Pioline are so much better than Nadal...

But that's the thing, I would fancy Pioline against Nadal on 90s grass. Honestly how long you been watching tennis for? A fish out of water is the best analogy I can use when picturing Nadal on 90s grass.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Blocker

But that's the thing, I would fancy Pioline against Nadal on 90s grass. Honestly how long you been watching tennis for? A fish out of water is the best analogy I can use when picturing Nadal on 90s grass.

He's actually a tiger in the jungle because Wimbledon isn't water anymore. Wake up, grandpa, it's 2013.

[firepanda]

Roger is best. Nadal is ahead of Sampras certainly, by virtue of the career slam. I'd say Borg is ahead of both fractionally and Lendl, Connors and Agassi are close, though. I tend to ignore Rosewall, Laver, Tilden simply because it was a completely different game and level.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by firepanda

Roger is best. Nadal is ahead of Sampras certainly, by virtue of the career slam. I'd say Borg is ahead of both fractionally and Lendl, Connors and Agassi are close, though. I tend to ignore Rosewall, Laver, Tilden simply because it was a completely different game and level.

It not the career slam as much as Pete overall failure on clay. The career slam was impressive when you had truly different surfaces and surface specialist, but now that we will have three player in a row achieving the career slam, it shows that it is no longer an exceptional feat.

[Phoenix1983]

Nadal has yet to surpass Borg, let's worry about that before we talk about Sampras.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by timnz

One must not forget that the career slam was made significantly easier since rhe massive slow down of Wimbledon grass a little over a decade ago.one would ha e to doubt Nadal getting further than the semis on 90's grass

it's even insulting to compare the great pistol pete to the nadal.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

it's even insulting to compare the great pistol pete to the nadal.

LOL, you can NOT be serious.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by firepanda

Roger is best. Nadal is ahead of Sampras certainly, by virtue of the career slam. I'd say Borg is ahead of both fractionally

LOL how does that logic work?

Nadal > Sampras because of career slam,

but Borg > Nadal when he has no AO or USO?

[joeri888]

I don't know. I think that Sampras will always be the best of a era, while Nadal (despite not from the exact same generation) always has Federer in front of him. Nadal wasn't the absolute best for very long.

I think it'll be close, but Sampras will be better. 12 years between his first and last grandslam also makes him memorable.

However, to tennis historians, Nadal's clay records will always be looked at with amazement.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Wait til their careers are over then, before making your final judgement.

I was obviously talking about the present. Of course Nadal has not retired yet, so that could change.

[RF-17-GOAT]

Nononononono.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed didn't have to work nearly as hard as Nadal did. Fed isn't notorious for those grueling training sessions like Nadal is. Nadal had to almost re-evaluate and revamp his game to become a major threat outside of clay. Fed just also had just more raw talent then Nadal (and the gift of better health, Nadal came into pro tennis with foot problems). Nadal had to do ALOT more to be an all time great then Pete or Roger did who had more talent and raw ability on more then just one surface at a younger age.

I.... DON'T..... CARE! Nadal "deserves" nothing more than what he actually accomplishes.

[zagor]

Actually following the logic of die hard Petros fans, Nadal has already surpassed Sampras.

@Fed_rulz, where's that post of yours on the topic?

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by zagor

Actually following the logic of die hard Petros fans, Nadal has already surpassed Sampras.

@Fed_rulz, where's that post of yours on the topic?

Following Pete's diehard groupies logic, Berdych has been a better player than Federer since 2010.

[Warmaster]

Nadal has still got some work to do. Being #2 for the majority of his career doesn't help him either. He needs to win a few more majors before we can start discussing this imo.

[Sentinel]

Nadal is the best already, even if he hangs up his frying pan today.

[forzamilan90]

I think Borg's better than both of them