Will Nadal's accomplishments be better than Sampras when he is done ? - Page 3

Clarky21 · 01-22-2013, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeri888

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

Lol, wut? That's ridiculous beyond measure.

Steve0904 · 01-22-2013, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeri888

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

Yes where is this logic? I'd love to see it. If I had to guess I'd say it's because Berdych has beaten Federer at Wimbledon and/or he's 2-0 in majors since Wimbledon 2010.

vive le beau jeu ! · 01-22-2013, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel

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

... even if it's hot ?

joeri888 · 01-22-2013, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Yes where is this logic? I'd love to see it. If I had to guess I'd say it's because Berdych has beaten Federer at Wimbledon and/or he's 2-0 in majors since Wimbledon 2010.

He's 2-0 in majors (1-0 in wimbledon aka the holy grail) and 4-3 overall. Since you cannot be better than someone if you have a losing record against them, Berdych has been better than Federer since 2010.

joeri888 · 01-22-2013, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Lol, wut? That's ridiculous beyond measure.

Clarky21 · 01-22-2013, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeri888

He's 2-0 in majors (1-0 in wimbledon aka the holy grail) and 4-3 overall. Since you cannot be better than someone if you have a losing record against them, Berdych has been better than Federer since 2010.

Maybe only when they play each other but that's it. Otherwise Berdych has not been better than Fed who is still winning masters and slams even at his age. Has Berdych even won a title lately?

joeri888 · 01-22-2013, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Maybe only when they play each other but that's it. Otherwise Berdych has not been better than Fed who is still winning masters and slams even at his age. Has Berdych even won a title lately?

I hope you are getting the sarcasm and actually agree that this argument against Federer's greatness is just (re)tardism.

Berdych won titles in Montpellier and Stockholm last year.

Clarky21 · 01-22-2013, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeri888

I hope you are getting the sarcasm and actually agree that this argument against Federer's greatness is just (re)tardism.

Berdych won titles in Montpellier and Stockholm last year.

I am now. Lol.

Not really much to brag about.

Steve0904 · 01-22-2013, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

... even if it's hot ?

Nice one no?!! At the "real" slam too.

Sentinel · 01-22-2013, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

... even if it's hot ?

It will be hot, since he's been doin a lot of fishin of late

SLD76 · 01-22-2013, 04:53 AM

not this again............................................. ..........

Quote:

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 ?

nikdom · 01-22-2013, 04:59 AM

Sampras is not done yet. He's still playing the senior tour and kicking some butt.

firepanda · 01-22-2013, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

LOL how does that logic work?

Nadal > Sampras because of career slam,

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

Borg did not play AO and reached the final of USO a lot. He also retired early. I suppose you could argue that longevity is all a part of greatness, but I still like to think what could have been. Also, he dominated at Wimbledon and RG, which are contrasting surfaces.

edmondsm · 01-22-2013, 11:31 PM

Sampras played in a time where there were truly two different kinds of players. S&V guys were utterly dominant on fast surfaces. Baseliners were the same on clay. The racquets and strings have made everyone into a baseline player. It was much harder to win the career slam back then.

It's not a coincidence that Agassi was the only guy to do it in 30+ years and then we had two guys do it in the span of two years.

helloworld · 01-22-2013, 11:33 PM

Nadal's current accomplishment is not even close to the level of Sampras as of now. Let's see for another 2-3 years if Nadal is still even playing.

Fiji · 01-23-2013, 05:19 AM

Nah. It's not even a discussion.

Nadal's accomplishments might be better than Borg's when he is done.

THE FIGHTER · 01-24-2013, 07:04 PM

a few more carpet titles should do the trick.

RAFA2005RG · 01-24-2013, 07:10 PM

Quote:

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 ?

Nothing Sampras/Federer/Laver ever did was as impressive as winning 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a Calendar Year. That one achievement alone trumps anything anyone has ever done in tennis. End of story.

THE FIGHTER · 01-24-2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Nothing Sampras/Federer/Laver ever did was as impressive as winning 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a Calendar Year. That one achievement alone trumps anything anyone has ever done in tennis. End of story.

agreed! i never thought of it like that, but thats a good point.

90's Clay · 01-24-2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Nothing Sampras/Federer/Laver ever did was as impressive as winning 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a Calendar Year. That one achievement alone trumps anything anyone has ever done in tennis. End of story.

I think being on top for 6 straight years a bit more impressive then winning 3 slams on 3 different surface in just one year.

Especially considering Grass isn't even fast grass anymore.
But whatever.

Thats amazing what Nadal did in 2010. But to be on top for over half a decade at#1 is out of this world

01-22-2013, 11:31 PM	#54
edmondsm Legend Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: In an in between place. Posts: 6,776	Sampras played in a time where there were truly two different kinds of players. S&V guys were utterly dominant on fast surfaces. Baseliners were the same on clay. The racquets and strings have made everyone into a baseline player. It was much harder to win the career slam back then. It's not a coincidence that Agassi was the only guy to do it in 30+ years and then we had two guys do it in the span of two years. __________________ Knock knock. Who's there? Knock knock. Who's there? Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode