Pheasant
Legend
Petes' advantages: 5 more WTF, 77 more weeks at #1
Nadal's advantages: 5 more slam titles, career grand slam., 21 more titles, Olympic gold medal.
21 more career titles is a boatload. This to me cannot be overlooked. And look at the road blocks Nadal faced to win those grass court and hard court titles to complete the career grand slam. He had to play through all of Djoker'speak and half of Fed's peak.
Nadal's advantages: 5 more slam titles, career grand slam., 21 more titles, Olympic gold medal.
21 more career titles is a boatload. This to me cannot be overlooked. And look at the road blocks Nadal faced to win those grass court and hard court titles to complete the career grand slam. He had to play through all of Djoker'speak and half of Fed's peak.
RS
Bionic Poster
I have heard Nadal fans say Federer had it easier but they often leave Djokovic and past greats out. Toughest ever? Maybe your generalising as much as i am. Djokovic fans as well ? Sport made a thread about Wim 19 draw for Nadal being the hardest ever draw which was a bit much........
The bolded is not directly said out loud but the implication that Federer oppenents were nearly always better means Fed is at least close in regard at least among ATGs and far ahead of Djokdal.
NatF
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Yes machan, Djokovic should be in the mix too. All said and done, he looks like the one who'll leave Samrapas, Federer, Nadal ... all of them in the dust. Then we'll be looking back at this thread and look stupid
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
No, it's not like that. Start a poll if you don't believe me. There are many Federer fans who think Sampras is better than Nadal but not as good as Federer. I wonder how someone can say that when Nadal has slams on all surfaces and 5 more slams. But having said that, they insist Sampras can't be as good as Federer though
RS
Bionic Poster
I have only been reading here since 2017 and posting since 2018. You since 2012 so you know. From what i saw on Youtube before that or elsewhere it was always Federer faced weak players like Hewitt/Roddick etc etc while Nadal faced Fed/Djok. And Djokovic fans have said his era was hardest due to the ELO ratings or he faced Murray or Fedal in 11 of his 12 GS.....You've heard that have you?
And I don't know about nearly always? I think there's a few key examples that get brought up a lot but I don't know whether every slam draw is championed...
And the H2H thing was used non stop by Federer fans in 2017 when Nadal was 0-4 vs Federer. Djokovic fans spammed Fed with this too. Nadal fans of course 23-11.
I disagree with the few key examples that get brought up a lot but fair enough.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yes machan, Djokovic should be in the mix too. All said and done, he looks like the one who'll leave Samrapas, Federer, Nadal ... all of them in the dust. Then we'll be looking back at this thread and look stupid
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I would be surprised if Djokovic left Fedal in the dust, that would mean 22 or 23 slams? Big ask at this point. If he does then kudos, before the recent debacle I always preferred Djokovic to Nadal...
No, it's not like that. Start a poll if you don;t believe me. There are many Federer fans who think Sampras is better than Nadal but not as good as Federer. I wonder how someone can say that when Nadal has slams on all surfaces and 5 more slams. But having said that, they insist Sampras can't be as good as Federer though
The ones who value Sampras over Nadal normally have him right next to Federer as well tbh.
RS
Bionic Poster
Maybe. For what i see most fights about competition are Djokovic vs Fed or Murray vs Roddick on here. Nadal gets left out on here on lot. Youtube is different though strangely....
metsman
G.O.A.T.
As for competition I think it's clear that Fedovic on clay aren't any better than Sampras' grass competition. Sampras grass competition had more variety and natural grass courters, so he wins on that end honestly.
Apart from best surface, Nadal faced prime Djokerer 8 times (2 AO, 4 Wimby, 2 USO) and 2013 USO Djokovic was a hot mess. Sampras faced prime Agassi 4 times, prime Bruguera once, prime Edberg once, SafGOAT once. You can call Lendl borderline prime in 1990 too, certainly much tougher than 13 USOvic. And if we're counting 2013 USO Djokovic we could even count 92 USO Courier too.
So it's possible Nadal had the better top end competition, but it's not really too different so we shouldn't give him tons of bonus points for Djokovic and Federer. Again, Sampras had to face so many different types of players, while Nadal's is top heavy.
And this is only a comparison at slams, where Nadal has an edge on the surface anyways due to Pete at the French. Pete's case rests on multiple dominant surfaces, WTF, and greater surface variety.
Apart from best surface, Nadal faced prime Djokerer 8 times (2 AO, 4 Wimby, 2 USO) and 2013 USO Djokovic was a hot mess. Sampras faced prime Agassi 4 times, prime Bruguera once, prime Edberg once, SafGOAT once. You can call Lendl borderline prime in 1990 too, certainly much tougher than 13 USOvic. And if we're counting 2013 USO Djokovic we could even count 92 USO Courier too.
So it's possible Nadal had the better top end competition, but it's not really too different so we shouldn't give him tons of bonus points for Djokovic and Federer. Again, Sampras had to face so many different types of players, while Nadal's is top heavy.
And this is only a comparison at slams, where Nadal has an edge on the surface anyways due to Pete at the French. Pete's case rests on multiple dominant surfaces, WTF, and greater surface variety.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Lol embarrasing post.
RS
Bionic Poster
That was the year i was active on Youtube most.
RS
Bionic Poster
Not gonna too deep but depth/variety and facing a wide range of oppenents gets too much credit. Top heavyness is mostly what makes it stronger. If the big 3 o were not so good this era would see a lot more depth/variety as they say.
RS
Bionic Poster
I only use this place now when this whole thing is over will leave this for a while.
The last part does not apply generally i was talking career wise. Slam winners from USO 16 onwards got weaker but not the case for most of Nadal career.
Ballmachine87
Rookie
I was a die heart Sampras Fan in the 1990s, but Sampras has really become a bit overrated these days.
Sampras was an insane clutch performer, who was was at his best at the right moment in the big tournaments many many times.
However, his dominance wasn`t nearly on the same level than what the Big 3 have done.
Sampras had only very few dominant years where he won important tournaments throughout the whole year. He won a few of his Year end numbers ones with really unimpressingly low point numbers. He surely benifited of the 1990s competition where there were a lot of really good players but hardlly anyone was consistent. So many players were Jackle and Hyde back then.
Being great at some tournaments only to do really poor during the rest of the year.
In terms of iconic status I`d surely rank Pete ahead of Nadal. Pete was still part of the golden age of tennis which ended somewhere in the mid 1990s. The status of tennis was simply different to what it is now. Tennis players were larger than life icons back than. You simply don`t have that anymore.
However, in terms of success on the court, it`s hard to argue for Pete.
The one big hole is indeed Nada`s lack of Year End Titles. However, we can`t ignore that this tournament was played on Pete`s favourite surface year in and year out while it has never been played on Nadal`s favourite surface.
So all in all the numbers speak for Nadal. No doubt.
Sampras was an insane clutch performer, who was was at his best at the right moment in the big tournaments many many times.
However, his dominance wasn`t nearly on the same level than what the Big 3 have done.
Sampras had only very few dominant years where he won important tournaments throughout the whole year. He won a few of his Year end numbers ones with really unimpressingly low point numbers. He surely benifited of the 1990s competition where there were a lot of really good players but hardlly anyone was consistent. So many players were Jackle and Hyde back then.
Being great at some tournaments only to do really poor during the rest of the year.
In terms of iconic status I`d surely rank Pete ahead of Nadal. Pete was still part of the golden age of tennis which ended somewhere in the mid 1990s. The status of tennis was simply different to what it is now. Tennis players were larger than life icons back than. You simply don`t have that anymore.
However, in terms of success on the court, it`s hard to argue for Pete.
The one big hole is indeed Nada`s lack of Year End Titles. However, we can`t ignore that this tournament was played on Pete`s favourite surface year in and year out while it has never been played on Nadal`s favourite surface.
So all in all the numbers speak for Nadal. No doubt.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
There certainly wouldn't be more variety because everyone would still play the same. There wouldn't really be more depth either unless you only judge on numbers and think people like Murray, or in this next era whichever mug wins 5+ slams is an ATG.
It's heavily overstated the effect the big 3 had on each other anyways, especially Nadalovic. Djokovic didn't face best versions of Fed anywhere except a 1 off match at RG and a R16 at AO, didn't face peak Nadal on grass, and didn't face the best version at AO either. Nadal didn't face 15-16 peak Djokovic, any of Djokovic's top versions at AO, or peak Fed off grass. Federer at least pretty much faced every single top version of the other 2 at every major beside Nadal at USO.
Last edited:
E36BMWM3
Hall of Fame
Sorry but no clay court prowess ends this debate. Nadal has seen success in 4/4 surfaces while Sampras has seen success in 3/4. Done and done... next?!
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Trinity110
Rookie
And if all courts were slow, would Rafa have 23?
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Not really because Federer and Djokovic are both baseliners so Nadal would always have competition.
Subway Tennis
Legend
Sampras is still making the trolls angry 18 years after retiring.
"Rent free, baby"
"Rent free, baby"
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Don't be silly. Stick his racket in Federer or Djokovic's hands and neither could they. There's a reason players use custom equipment.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Rafa was born in other eras, Rafa could have been a great serve and volleyer.
Rafa has gifted hand for volleys.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Which one of these guys had to deal with peak Fed for first half of career and peak Nole for second half?
mental midget
Hall of Fame
agree with this, nadal is an all-time talent. as for pete, his clay resume definitely hurts his standing but in terms of talent, he's right there with the big 3. in fact i'd rate novak as the least talented of the 4 in terms of racket skills, but what he does, man he does really well.
unfortunate for pete his game was so very tuned to faster surfaces and lower strike zone. but back to talent, man, watch pete's breakout win at the uso when he was 19. absolutely outrageous performance at 19.
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
Hoping da Nadal gets 2 more FOs to tie Pete.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
- Polarised speed of the courts isn't an argument in favour of Sampras given that he only found success on fast conditions. You could say that homogenisation allowed Nadal to inflate his achievements off clay, but that argument only truly works if you ignore the fact that Sampras didn't have to deal with two of the greatest HC and grass players of all time in Federer and Djokovic.
- Gut is more effective on fast surfaces used in conjunction with heavy racquets and flat strokes. As much as racquet and string technology have advanced, the current "meta" is as much a reflection of modern day court conditions as it is the other way around. 90s/00s equipment are not necessarily a steep and direct downgrade when you take court conditions into account. Many players even now are using frames that were originally released 20 years ago.
how do you think Nadal would be doing in the:
- indoor carpet tournaments
- really fast surfaces in general
when bringing an argument that Fed, or Novak or Rafa are better players than someone from the past, we need to think of:
- how did the surfaces change
- how did other technology change
- how this impacted the game
- what about advance in knowledge about recovery, fitness, pre-season, injury prevention, etc.,
otherwise, we are comparing apples with bricks.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
This is the "apples to bricks" comparison you mentioned. You cannot just give Nadal of 2020 a Pro Staff 85 and throw him onto an indoor carpet tournament of the 90s, the same way you can't just give Edberg a Pure Drive strung up with RPM Blast and throw him onto Court Philippe Chatrier. These players would have developed very differently if they had grow up in another era.
So I cannot tell you how he would've fared at all, and any guesses however "educated" is conjecture at best.
The only objective thing you can compare is how they fare against the rest of the field, and even that has factors that need to be taken into account.
My point is that you cannot shut down an argument that claims Nadal is better than Sampras, purely on the basis that Sampras used gut, a PS85, and played on fast conditions. Both players are products of their era, and that is a characteristic that cannot be separated from their identities without an actual time machine.
To me, Sampras' problem on clay was his fitness level. (particularly for 3 out of 5 set clay slam).
Speculated to be due to his blood conditions.
He is a man of efficiency (therefore
), IMHO.He is the GOAT of first 30 years of ATP(70s-90s) with 6 straight YE#1,
still unbroken, along with Laver and Gonzalez with (unofficial) YE#1 records in pre-Open eras
Back to Nadal's volleys, first I have to say we do not have many good volleying talents among top players in current era.
It's power "baseline" eras last 15-20 years. what can I say? I see a lot of pros who just can't volley.
In fact, I consider Rafa's volleying reflex is the best among top players, who can really
use volley as secure weapon on clutch points with high pressure.
(Thiem: "I think the last time Rafa failed his volley was about 5 years ago".
)
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
You would have Murray/Hewitt/Roddick in finals then guys like Tsonga/Ancic/Ranoic/Karlovic/Anderson/Isner it would certainly have a lot more variety of styles than currently. Maybe still lesser than the 1990s but you would have quite a few different slam winners.
Federer best versions and peaks are just heavily selective to favour him usually. Djokovic and Nadal faced lots of strong versions of Federer and each other is all the matters reallu. They have all had a big effect on each other imo even though recent Djokdal meetings are overstated i agree the rivalry went down after RG 2014 save for Wim 18.
1stVolley
Professional
So, you want to compare a S&V player using a small head racquet for most of his career with a superior baseline player using a powerful 100 sq. in. racquet. And, in addition, Sampras had a genetic disease which became more manifest later in his career and compromised his endurance. Assuming, for example, that they had both won the same number of slams (which isn't true obviously), we could fairly ask whether it was an example of greater tennis skill to do it with Sampras' technique and equipment or Nadal's. I don't think we can objectively answer that question, so all we've got are our opinions.
Even worse is the attempt to create an "all time" great list which spans even greater eras than that between Sampras and Nadal. How do you fairly compare Tilden with Federer? I don't believe it can be done. They play arguably different sports.
Trinity110
Rookie
That is an excellent point
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
The Clay Boy won this battle.. But PETE shall win the war!
RaulRamirez
Legend
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Ancic would have made 1 slam final and he's the only guy on that list who actually has a varied playing style. Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Tsonga are all baseline dominant. As is Berdych, Ferrer, whoever else would have gotten the extra slams. Not sure why you're bringing up Raonic/Karlovic/Anderson/Isner, doesn't exactly help your case to talk about them and they're all 1 dimensional anyways.
there's nothing selective about 3 straight years from 22-25. Borg, Pete, Lendl also all had their peak play come mostly over 3 consecutive years. That's normal, maybe Djokodal have skewed your perception which makes you want to call 2011 or 2009 peak Fed or something.
Selective is part of 2007, part of 2008, part of 2009, only the slams/WTF in 2010, clay 2012, HC 2013. Or 2011 until USO, 2015, half of 2016. Despite that selectively, Fed managed to meet them every time.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
RS
Bionic Poster
Never said 2011 or 2009 was a peak Federer at all. I was talking generally about the big 3 being competition not who faced the best versions of each other. And you do you know form is judged based on indivdual matches as well. Was not talking about who faced the toughest versions of the 3 but was getting the impression you undersold Djokdal as competition for each other.
Murray/Hewitt are like counterpunchers. While Del Potro/Berdych/Tsonga/Safin are bombers and the 2 and 4th solid of both wings. Then the servecentric players and servebots Karlovic/Isner and Roddick who is a agressive basliner but is quite serve reliant. Not all basliene centric are the same but still. Without the big 3 you are seeing a wider variety of finals and variety in today game is underlooked imo.
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras was stronger mentally. I would say he is stronger mentally than all of the current player: Fedalvoiv included.
Sampras arguably also had greater competition. A much bigger variety of players across different eras and accomplished surface specialists.
That being said, Nadal has just accomplished more. Period. The Spaniard has also lasted longer and is still NOT done.
So while it breaks my heart to say this, Nadal is the greater player.
Ultimately though what matters more is how we feel. Sampras - the humble champion and the king of swing - will remain in the hearts of his fans as the best. Always.
Pistol Pete Forever!!
Sampras arguably also had greater competition. A much bigger variety of players across different eras and accomplished surface specialists.
That being said, Nadal has just accomplished more. Period. The Spaniard has also lasted longer and is still NOT done.
So while it breaks my heart to say this, Nadal is the greater player.
Ultimately though what matters more is how we feel. Sampras - the humble champion and the king of swing - will remain in the hearts of his fans as the best. Always.
Pistol Pete Forever!!
Similar threads
- Deleted member 748597
- General Pro Player Discussion
