Rafa is ahead of Pete on the ATG list

Deleted member 733170 · May 23, 2017

Not to take anything away from Sampras and his fans, but when analysing the achievements of Sampras, it it is disingenuous to declare that Sampras is ahead of Nadal due to more weeks at Number 1.

Sampras had less competition amongst all time greats and one of his greatest rivals went AWOL for a few years. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic all more or less played each other at the same time, so there is just not enough time available for all three of them to surpass 286 weeks at No 1. The same goes for that other slightly dubious award (at least in terms of importance at TTW University), the YE No 1.

More to the point the rankings, much like the fabled head to head data, are accrued statistics from the primary objective of winning tournaments. Nadal clearly has a larger trophy cabinet than Sampras and thus edges out Pete in the all time great lists.

Skeletroll · May 23, 2017

But if you look at Nadal's achievements off of clay vs Sampras' achievements off of clay you will see that Sampras is better

(just to make sure everyone gets it this is sarcasm)

tennisaddict · May 23, 2017

I thought you said weak era is a myth.

Poisoned Slice · May 23, 2017

Pete is better with the irons and has a more powerful drive.

NatF · May 23, 2017

Poisoned Slice said:
Pete is better with the irons and has a more powerful drive.

But Rafa catches the bigger fish no?

Gazelle · May 23, 2017

If OP wants to talk about competition...

Sampras had to compete with grass specialists to win Wimbledon. Nadal had a disturbing lack of clay specialists competing with him for RG, they all vanished or got injured when he arrived on scene. Federer/Djokovic had to take up the mantle of facing Nadal at RG, while they are HC or grass specialists (explains the inflated H2H's, but that's another story).

Sampras had it tougher.

thrust · May 23, 2017

Gazelle said:
If OP wants to talk about competition...

Sampras had to compete with grass specialists to win Wimbledon. Nadal had a disturbing lack of clay specialists competing with him for RG, they all vanished or got injured when he arrived on scene. Federer/Djokovic had to take up the mantle of facing Nadal at RG, while they are HC or grass specialists (explains the inflated H2H's, but that's another story).
IMO, they are about equal, though I would give the slight edge to Pete. Weeks and YE #1 ARE important stats and Pete leads Rafa in both. Pet's 5 WTF wins to Rafa's-0 is very significant. Pete is superior to Rafa on grass and hard courts, though Rafa is superior to Pete on these courts than Pete was on clay.
Sampras had it tougher.

Cup8489 · May 23, 2017

Fairly certain most of the top ten during nadals time would easily deal with the 90s clay specialists... And I think the top ten could hang with the legends of that era on hardcourts. Tennis has become so much more physical.. I just don't buy the tougher competition theory. Especially Cedric pioline

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

NatF · May 23, 2017

Gazelle said:
If OP wants to talk about competition...

Sampras had to compete with grass specialists to win Wimbledon. Nadal had a disturbing lack of clay specialists competing with him for RG, they all vanished or got injured when he arrived on scene. Federer/Djokovic had to take up the mantle of facing Nadal at RG, while they are HC or grass specialists (explains the inflated H2H's, but that's another story).

Sampras had it tougher.

Ah the myth of the grass specialists.

Can you name some? Off the top of my head there was Ivanisevic, post prime Becker, Henman and you could maybe add Philippoussis/Rafter/Krajicek to the list as well. Though Rafter saw his best success on HC despite being a S&V player. Great players of course but I don't see that as a particularly tougher field to navigate - more varied perhaps. Especially when you consider these players surfaced at different times. Becker if he had been at his best would have been a truly worthy foe but he was definitely no longer playing his best grass tennis when he met Pete at Wimbledon.

Goran played some great matches at Wimbledon versus Sampras, he's probably the most noteworthy specialist. I'd probably consider his 1995 and 1998 clashes with Sampras tougher than anything Fedovic did versus Nadal at the FO.

I think it's maybe about even overall.

tennis_pro · May 23, 2017

Sampras did not have it tougher than Nadal, is this a joke? His competition after 1993 apart from glimpses from Agassi was very weak compared to the times when the big 4 all mattered (2008-2012). Old Becker, Ivanisevic and Henman on fast grass are definitely not tougher competiton than Fed, Nadal, Djokovic on slow grass, don't get nostalgia fool you.

Not to mention that players now are a million times more consistent than they were in Pete's time.

Thundergod · May 23, 2017

Gazelle said:
If OP wants to talk about competition...

Sampras had to compete with grass specialists to win Wimbledon. Nadal had a disturbing lack of clay specialists competing with him for RG, they all vanished or got injured when he arrived on scene. Federer/Djokovic had to take up the mantle of facing Nadal at RG, while they are HC or grass specialists (explains the inflated H2H's, but that's another story).

Sampras had it tougher.

Fed and Djokovic are tougher than almost any surface specialist.

MichaelNadal · May 23, 2017

Let's also not forget that Nadal had higher point totals as a #2 than Pete did in some of his #1's

GOATERER would have been ahead of Pete too year round lol.

2HBH-DTL · May 23, 2017

Cup8489 said:
90s clay

where's 90s clay when you need him? he would be the savior of this thread!

Poisoned Slice · May 23, 2017

NatF said:
But Rafa catches the bigger fish no?

Impressive

His resume still lacks the all important video game(s)

160318201248-spc-open-court-pete-sampras-00040115-full-169.jpg

Poisoned Slice · May 23, 2017

I do think it is a question of timing once again. Roger and Rafa would've had their own game in the 90's. No doubt that Andy Murray would've had his own series.

NatF · May 23, 2017

MichaelNadal said:
Let's also not forget that Nadal had higher point totals as a #2 than Pete did in some of his #1's GOATERER would have been ahead of Pete too year round lol.

Well the point system did change at some point in the 90's moving into the early 00's

I would say 1998 was one of the absolute weakest #1 years ever, if not the weakest. All of Nadal's #2 years were better. The only other year which might qualify is 1996, but Pete did win 8 titles including the USO and the YEC - because of the lack of mandatory tournaments in those days it's not clear to me whether any of Rafa's best years at #2 are better.

Flash O'Groove · May 23, 2017

Wait don't forget Sampras was excellent on clay too he beat tchesnovok on clay too!

Tennisanity · May 23, 2017

Tough call, pretty even. Nadal's cheating certainly doesn't help his case. How many fewer slams would he have had he not taken all that extra time between points?

Backspin1183 · May 23, 2017

Top 6 all time for me personally is:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Novak Djokovic

Backspin1183 · May 23, 2017

Tennisanity said:
Touch call, pretty even. Nadal's cheating certainly doesn't help his case. How many fewer slams would he have had he not taken all that extra time between points?

Zero Slam. Taking extra time won him all the 14 Slams.

Backspin1183 · May 23, 2017

Flash O'Groove said:
Wait don't forget Sampras was excellent on clay too he beat tchesnovok on clay too!

Yeah that dude whose name I never heard of before was a beast on clay, yet Pete beat him fair and square.

ChaelAZ · May 23, 2017

Tennisanity said:
Touch call, pretty even. Nadal's cheating certainly doesn't help his case. How many fewer slams would he have had he not taken all that extra time between points?

All the same.

MichaelNadal · May 23, 2017

Tennisanity said:
Tough call, pretty even. Nadal's cheating certainly doesn't help his case. How many fewer slams would he have had he not taken all that extra time between points?

The same, you'd have just had more girlfriends.

metsman · May 23, 2017

Backspin1183 said:
Yeah that dude whose name I never heard of before was a beast on clay, yet Pete beat him fair and square.

if someone has never heard of chesnokov they are probably not qualified to talk about the 90's.

Tennisanity · May 23, 2017

MichaelNadal said:
The same, you'd have just had more girlfriends.

Don't get mad at me just because I didn't show any interest. Go chat up Djokovic2011, he's into you.

Deleted member 733170 · May 23, 2017

Backspin1183 said:
Top 6 all time for me personally is:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Novak Djokovic

I agree with the characters but I would order them as follows:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Borg
Laver

Unpopular choice with many, nevertheless, that's what I think.

MichaelNadal · May 23, 2017

Tennisanity said:
Don't get mad at me just because I didn't show any interest. Go chat up Djokovic2011, he's into you.

Flash O'Groove · May 23, 2017

metsman said:
if someone has never heard of chesnokov they are probably not qualified to talk about the 90's.

Wasn't he the guy who reached the SF at wimbledon ranked 5000 in the world?

Chadillac · May 23, 2017

Pete was the best player of his era, nadal wasnt.

The TUE's, dr fruentes and other questionable situations also puts a * on Nadals career.

Fedfan34 · May 23, 2017

Pete was #1 in his era, forget all time. Nadal has played second or even third fiddle for 3/4s of the season two non-consecutive years aside.

Fedfan34 · May 23, 2017

Flash O'Groove said:
Wasn't he the guy who reached the SF at wimbledon ranked 5000 in the world?

No

MichaelNadal · May 23, 2017

Fedfan34 said:
Pete was #1 in his era, forget all time. Nadal has played second or even third fiddle for 3/4s of the season two non-consecutive years aside.

Federer would have worked Pete out for world #1 too, don't worry boo

Backspin1183 · May 23, 2017

metsman said:
if someone has never heard of chesnokov they are probably not qualified to talk about the 90's.

Agreed. You wouldn't find me talking about the 90s. I started playing tennis in the 90's but just cause my parents were into it. Agassi was tge most popular tennis player then. I started watching tennis from 2004, but only Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Just some matches. Federer was so good and popular, had to see him. It was in 2005 when Rafael Nadal caught my attention and I started watching more tennis.

Backspin1183 · May 23, 2017

YetAnotherFedFan said:
I agree with the characters but I would order them as follows:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Borg
Laver

Unpopular choice with many, nevertheless, that's what I think.

Nadal vs Sampras position is debatable but I rate Borg and Laver very highly. Even when Nadal won 13 Slams, I had Borg above him. Laver won The Grand Slam twice! Nadal and Djokovic can be greater than Laver, but not right now. They still have to win more to be there imo.

Druss · May 23, 2017

metsman said:
if someone has never heard of chesnokov they are probably not qualified to talk about the 90's.

I'm not qualified then! I still think Nadal is ahead of Sampras though, and also had it tougher in terms of competition. Nadal's prime was sandwiched between Federer and Djokovic, where as Sampras only had post prime Becker and Agassi (94/95 and 99-01) as worthy opponents. In any case this debate will be muted once Nadal wins one more slam.
Btw... wth is Chesnojkov?

killerboi2 · May 23, 2017

Fed fan talking about competition when the guy had 4 straight years of garbage competition in homogenized surfaces to inflate his resume? Lmao.

metsman · May 23, 2017

Druss said:
I'm not qualified then! I still think Nadal is ahead of Sampras though, and also had it tougher in terms of competition. Nadal's prime was sandwiched between Federer and Djokovic, where as Sampras only had post prime Becker and Agassi (94/95 and 99-01) as worthy opponents. In any case this debate will be muted once Nadal wins one more slam.
Btw... wth is Chesnojkov?

he was a decent clay courter in the early 90's. Not a major player but still a guy who followed around that time would be familiar with. Like everyone knows who Robredo is, Chesnokov at his best was probably slightly better on clay.

KINGROGER · May 23, 2017

Pete's competition was mostly garbage that's why he got owned by Fed's pigeons Hewitt and Safin from 2000 onward.

Not hard to win 7 wimbledons vs likes of Pioline and drunk becker LMAO.

imajica77 · May 23, 2017

NatF said:
Ah the myth of the grass specialists.

Can you name some? Off the top of my head there was Ivanisevic, post prime Becker, Henman and you could maybe add Philippoussis/Rafter/Krajicek to the list as well. Though Rafter saw his best success on HC despite being a S&V player. Great players of course but I don't see that as a particularly tougher field to navigate - more varied perhaps. Especially when you consider these players surfaced at different times. Becker if he had been at his best would have been a truly worthy foe but he was definitely no longer playing his best grass tennis when he met Pete at Wimbledon.

Goran played some great matches at Wimbledon versus Sampras, he's probably the most noteworthy specialist. I'd probably consider his 1995 and 1998 clashes with Sampras tougher than anything Fedovic did versus Nadal at the FO.

I think it's maybe about even overall.

Don't forget about Edberg also.

6-3 6-0 · May 23, 2017

Nadal vs Sampras debate is always a close one especially since they've won same number of slams. Sampras has a big edge in remaining #1 for a long time and end 6 seasons as #1 and ofcourse his 5 YECs while Nadal has won all slams (homogenization is grossly exaggerated) and has multiple slam finals in each one of them showing versatility. Nadal has won 30 masters while Sampras has won 11 while participating in over 90+ masters. Sampras had dominated 2 slams while Nadal has dominated one.

Since they're tied in slam counts (my personal most important factor) its a coin toss up for many I assume. To me, by virtue of winning the career slam, Nadal is a bit ahead atm. Sampras' 0 finals at RG has really hurt him IMO.

Moose Malloy · May 23, 2017

The comments about Chesnokov are cute. Interesting how posters here aren't shy about sharing their opinions about an era they seem to know very little about. I think he was quite a bit better than robredo or that dude who nadal beat in the Monte Carlo final that had like five names.

Chesnokov beat mats wilander(a 3 time French Open champion) twice at the French Open, both in straight sets. And wilander was defending champion both times.

And since so many weigh the masters series so highly - he won 2 of them. One of the few players to win 2 or more of them and not win a major. I believe these are the other ones - Rios, Tsonga, Coria, Medvedev, Nalbandian. corretja, Enqvist, Ferreira, Davydenko, Forget. Not a bad list I think.

Edited this post to make corrections to the masters series list.

NatF · May 23, 2017

imajica77 said:
Don't forget about Edberg also.

They never played on grass.

Rusty Shackleford · May 23, 2017

Gazelle said:
If OP wants to talk about competition...

Sampras had to compete with grass specialists to win Wimbledon. Nadal had a disturbing lack of clay specialists competing with him for RG, they all vanished or got injured when he arrived on scene. Federer/Djokovic had to take up the mantle of facing Nadal at RG, while they are HC or grass specialists (explains the inflated H2H's, but that's another story).

Sampras had it tougher.

Not really. Both Fed and Djokovic would have 5 RG titles a piece if not for Nadal, which would situate them amongst the ATG players in RG. It's just that Nadal was so much better than them, that he made them look mediocre (exaggerating a little bit here) by comparison.

Rusty Shackleford · May 23, 2017

Chadillac said:
Pete was the best player of his era, nadal wasnt.

The TUE's, dr fruentes and other questionable situations also puts a * on Nadals career.

Fed also has had TUEs. It is perfectly legal. What about Dr. Fuentes? Do you know anything nobody else does?

But if you go that route, think about the odds of any tennis player coming out of the blue after an extended injury and winning his first sam in 5 years. At age 35. Not very likely by "normal means"*

As a matter of fact, that is so out of the ordinary, that if it doesn't raise a few red flags then you are not being objective.

Rusty Shackleford · May 23, 2017

YetAnotherFedFan said:
Not to take anything away from Sampras and his fans, but when analysing the achievements of Sampras, it it is disingenuous to declare that Sampras is ahead of Nadal due to more weeks at Number 1.

Sampras had less competition amongst all time greats and one of his greatest rivals went AWOL for a few years. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic all more or less played each other at the same time, so there is just not enough time available for all three of them to surpass 286 weeks at No 1. The same goes for that other slightly dubious award (at least in terms of importance at TTW University), the YE No 1.

More to the point the rankings, much like the fabled head to head data, are accrued statistics from the primary objective of winning tournaments. Nadal clearly has a larger trophy cabinet than Sampras and thus edges out Pete in the all time great lists.

The point you make (Weeks at #1 and YE #1 being overappreciated) is spot on. As you say, those are a product of earning the real prize (actual trophies).

Rafa24 · May 23, 2017

Gazelle said:
If OP wants to talk about competition...

Sampras had to compete with grass specialists to win Wimbledon. Nadal had a disturbing lack of clay specialists competing with him for RG, they all vanished or got injured when he arrived on scene. Federer/Djokovic had to take up the mantle of facing Nadal at RG, while they are HC or grass specialists (explains the inflated H2H's, but that's another story).

Sampras had it tougher.

LOL Fed would have arguably have went down as one of the greatest clay courters ever if it weren't for Rafa. He would have 5 FOs if not for Rafa And Djokovic is a beast on clay as well. Djoker would likely have 4 FOs if not for Rafa. The problem is Rafas win percentage on clay is higher than any other player on any other surface in the history of tennis.

As far as inflated H2H comparisons..... Rafa still holds a 8-5 lead on outdoor hardcourts. Fed has a 2-1 edge on grass and 5-1 on indoor hard. Only 3 grass meetings were wimbledon finals. Rafa was 20 for the first one and lost. Second one was 21 and took Roger to 5 sets. 3rd one at age 22 he won. Feds grass court "advantage" is a bit misleading since Rafa wasn't even in his prime yet even when he beat fed at age 22 and fed was full on prime in all 3 matches. Slam finals H2H? Rafa has a 6-3 advantage. 4-0 Clay, 1-2 Grass, 1-1 Hard. Only one of those 3 to win the channel slam...... And he's done it twice. But yet he is "just a clay courter". ha!

Artist · May 23, 2017

It's about even, but I would ive a slight edge towards Sampras cuz he was clearly the number 1 of his era. If djokovic could win one more slam I would probably put him ahead of both Sampras and Nadal (if he stays at 14 that is)

NatF · May 24, 2017

Moose Malloy said:
The comments about Chesnokov are cute. Interesting how posters here aren't shy about sharing their opinions about an era they seem to know very little about. I think he was quite a bit better than robredo or that dude who nadal beat in the Monte Carlo final that had like five names.

Chesnokov beat mats wilander(a 3 time French Open champion) twice at the French Open, both in straight sets. And wilander was defending champion both times.

And since so many weigh the masters series so highly - he won 2 of them. One of the few players to win 2 or more of them and not win a major. I believe these are the other ones - Rios, Tsonga, Coria, Medvedev, Nalbandian. corretja, Enqvist, Forget. Not a bad list I think.

Also Davydenko.

Chadillac · May 24, 2017

Rusty Shackleford said:
Fed also has had TUEs.

I cant respond to anything past your false premise.

I simply say, nope

spirit95 · May 24, 2017

Sampras dominated his era, winning twice as many slams as his nearest rival. Nadal is at best tied for second in his own era.

How can Nadal possiby be greater than Sampras when he wasn't even the greatest amongst his own contemporaries?

Rafa is ahead of Pete on the ATG list

Who's ahead in the ATG List?

Nadal

Sampras

Deleted member 733170

Guest

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

2HBH-DTL

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Deleted member 733170

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Chadillac

Guest

Fedfan34

Guest

Fedfan34

Guest

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

6-3 6-0

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Chadillac

Guest

Professional

Similar threads