Who is greater? Sampras or Nadal?

Who is greater?

  • Nadal

    Votes: 26 23.4%

  • Sampras

    Votes: 85 76.6%
  • Total voters
    111
DjokovicForTheWin

DjokovicForTheWin

Banned
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty tight. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It's a good discussion...I like to hear both Pete and Nadal fans' point of view and explain their reasons objectively.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Both very great players, of course.

Pete has too much in his resume to lose this battle as things stand, such as 6 years at no.1 (consecutively) and also at least 5 YEC's to go along with his 14 majors, and he also holds the sole Open Era record at Wimbledon. By contrast, Nadal has equaled Borg at RG but doesn't stand alone, has significantly less Majors and hasn't a single YEC, but does have more Masters 1000 titles and the career Slam.

Nadal has still won significantly less overall titles in his career thus far, but I think his tennis is more or less in Sampras' league and that when all is said and done his career accomplishments will be more similarly impressive.

Just using my eyes, I get a sense of pedigree and specialness -- or whatever -- from both players, but find the aura to be more profound from Sampras, who I find to be a superior shot-maker and had a higher absolute peak tennis level with his big big game.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
tusharlovesrafa said:
nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadalnadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal nadal IS GREATer THAN SAMPRAS...
Click to expand...

LOL...and you just requested another poster to be banned before starting to troll in here? Get a grip !
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
DjokovicForTheWin said:
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty right. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

When was this ever "well established"? In your tiny little brain? :lol:
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
helloworld said:
When was this ever "well established"? In your tiny little brain? :lol:
Click to expand...

This is not about Federer since we have a separate thread about him. Now please answer to the OP's question as to who's a greater player between Rafa and Pete. Be fair/balance in your arguements.
 
tusharlovesrafa

tusharlovesrafa

Hall of Fame
Trolling apart,I think rafa is slightly ahead of pistol pete at this moment.RAFA has 4 less slams than pete but has an all important career slam,olympic medal and 19 MS titles which adds to his aura.
But pete spent more time as NO.1(to an extent it shows he played in a weeker era then now)..And has 5 YEC...And no RG title..
heck,too close to call,only in years to come(probably when rafa retires) we'll come to know who is better..
 
Last edited:
L

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Sampras was actually #1 for six years. And I don't get this "that just means he played in a weak era" nonsense. It seems by that logic that the more years #1 you are, the less of an achievement it is, which makes no sense. So I'd give it to Sampras easily right now. The 14 slams makes up for the lack of a career slam in Nadal's case.
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
tusharlovesrafa said:
Trolling apart,I think rafa is slightly ahead of pistol pete at this moment.RAFA has 4 less slams than pete but has an all important career slam,olympic medal and 19 MS titles which adds to his aura.
But pete spent more time as NO.1(to an extent it shows he played in a weeker era then now)..And has 5 YEC...
heck too close to call,only in years to come we'll come to know who is better..
Click to expand...

I don't think any pundits will agree with you on that. Apart from the 4 slams, Pete also has 5 Year-end Championship. Something that Nadal will have a hard time winning just 1. When it comes to comparing achievements, Grand Slam titles come first, if two players are tied, then the next most prestigious title will be used to judge who is better. In this case, the Year-end Championship will be used to judge if both players have the same number of slam count. As for now, Nadal doesn't even have nearly as many as 14, so your argument is very weak as of now.
 
M

mattennis

Hall of Fame
They are from different eras, so difficult (or even meaningless) to try compare them.

Sampras was the best of his time during six straight years, something light-years above what Nadal has been in his era (up till now).

Nadal has won the four GS in an era in which this feat is infinitely easier than in any other era, but still is a great achievement.

Overall, Sampras achievements are greater but Nadal is still only 25 years old.

Achievement at 25 years and 6 months of age, were more balaced between them (and Roger) as we have seen in another thread.
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
mattennis said:
They are from different eras, so difficult (or even meaningless) to try compare them.

Sampras was the best of his time during six straight years, something light-years above what Nadal has been in his era (up till now).

Nadal has won the four GS in an era in which this feat is infinitely easier than in any other era, but still is a great achievement.

Overall, Sampras achievements are greater but Nadal is still only 25 years old.

Achievement at 25 years and 6 months of age, were more balaced between them (and Roger) as we have seen in another thread.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's like comparing Roy Emerson's 12 slams to Laver's 11 slams... By this logic, Roy Emerson must be greater than Rod Laver. LOL. :confused:
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Rafa, by some distance.

Sampras played in an era where
- clowns like washington and pioline contended for the wimbledon trophy,
- Rios was almost YE #1,
- his biggest "rival" was a meth-head and was absent for about 2 yrs in his prime
- 4 titles (1 major and 3 mms) was sufficient to snatch YE #1
- there was no surface GOAT candidate to contend with

In other words, it was a weak era.

Sure, Sampras has 5 more wimbys than Rafa, but Rafa has 6 more FOs than Sampras. But then, we're arguing specifics -- slam count is really not important (according to Petetards); h2h is a very crucial factor (again, according to Petetards, so Nadal wins hands down here; he has a winning h2h against everyone in the top 5 currently, and pwns another GOAT candidate). Sampras may have 5 WTFs, but Nadal has 8 more MS titles. On top of it, Rafa has a career slam.

IMO, Rafa has already surpassed Pete; if he manages to win at least YEC, it will be official.
 
tusharlovesrafa

tusharlovesrafa

Hall of Fame
helloworld said:
I don't think any pundits will agree with you on that. Apart from the 4 slams, Pete also has 5 Year-end Championship. Something that Nadal will have a hard time winning just 1. When it comes to comparing achievements, Grand Slam titles come first, if two players are tied, then the next most prestigious title will be used to judge who is better. In this case, the Year-end Championship will be used to judge if both players have the same number of slam count. As for now, Nadal doesn't even have nearly as many as 14, so your argument is very weak as of now.
Click to expand...

Indirectly you mean to say,that atleast rafa should win 14 slams first inorder to be in a contention to be compared.I think you are correct here,but I think this discussion is pre-mature as we don't know how many slams rafa will end up with at the end of his career.
But rafa has an all important Career slam and olympic gold where as pete has none of it..Rafa has 19 MS titles where as pete has 11 or 12(don't remember exactly)..And rafa even has higher percentage of win/loss ratio as compared to pete..So these stats heavily favor rafa!!
 
Last edited:
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
fed_rulz said:
Rafa, by some distance.

Sampras played in an era where
- clowns like washington and pioline contended for the wimbledon trophy,
- Rios was almost YE #1,
- his biggest "rival" was a meth-head and was absent for about 2 yrs in his prime
- 4 titles (1 major and 3 mms) was sufficient to snatch YE #1
- there was no surface GOAT candidate to contend with

In other words, it was a weak era.

Sure, Sampras has 5 more wimbys than Rafa, but Rafa has 6 more FOs than Sampras. But then, we're arguing specifics -- slam count is really not important (according to Petetards); h2h is a very crucial factor (again, according to Petetards, so Nadal wins hands down here; he has a winning h2h against everyone in the top 5 currently, and pwns another GOAT candidate). Sampras may have 5 WTFs, but Nadal has 8 more MS titles. On top of it, Rafa has a career slam.

IMO, Rafa has already surpassed Pete; if he manages to win at least YEC, it will be official.
Click to expand...

Silly typical ******* post. ;)
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
helloworld said:
Agreed. It's like comparing Roy Emerson's 12 slams to Laver's 11 slams... By this logic, Roy Emerson must be greater than Rod Laver. LOL. :confused:
Click to expand...

Slam titles is the most important criteria, but there are many other important criteria that Laver have over Emerson which put Laver ahead. Ask the old-timers(not kiki) for details.
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
mattennis said:
They are from different eras, so difficult (or even meaningless) to try compare them.

Sampras was the best of his time during six straight years, something light-years above what Nadal has been in his era (up till now).

Nadal has won the four GS in an era in which this feat is infinitely easier than in any other era, but still is a great achievement.

Overall, Sampras achievements are greater but Nadal is still only 25 years old.

Achievement at 25 years and 6 months of age, were more balaced between them (and Roger) as we have seen in another thread.
Click to expand...

complete BS. You're just making excuses for Sampras. All top guns in all eras were contenders for the career slam, barring Sampras: Lendl almost did in the 80s; Agassi actually completed it in the 90s. Federer and Nadal did it in the 2000s. Federer completed it after 4 attempts, so it was not easy for him. Nadal got one shot and he nailed it. So it's not like you didn't have all-surface players in other eras who had chances to do it, and surface polarization had nothing to do with them not accomplishing it.

The only odd man out is Sampras. He was not good enough to even have a sniff at the FO. That doesn't make the career slam infinitely tough in other eras; it just weakens Pete's case in the all-time discussions.
 
Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame
Rafa because he had to face the GOAT for the majority of his major titles....and who did Sampras face....?:lol:eek:h right, that meth head.

Not to mention Rafa also has the Gold Olympics, MS and most important career slam.
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
helloworld said:
Silly typical ******* post. ;)
Click to expand...

well, i'm just playing by petetard rules. do you want to revise it?

it's funny that someone who vehemently opposes cross-era comparisons (especially in Fed vs Sampras), you seem to be never short of opinions in cases when Sampras has stronger case to come out on the winning side (i.e. Nadal vs Sampras)? Somehow, cross-era comparison b/n Sampras and Nadal is palatable to you...
 
M

mattennis

Hall of Fame
For me, Lendl reaching (and losing) two Wimbledon finals playing serve and volley on first and second serves, against the best serve and volleyers of his time, is more valuable than Nadal or Federer winning the four GS (in an era where you only face the same game style everywhere and you do not need to change your game plan drastically to win in different Slams).

Agassi's four GS is again (for me) more valuable than Federer's or Nadal's four GS (for the same reasons).

But everyone has an opinion.
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
TMF said:
Slam titles is the most important criteria, but there are many other important criteria that Laver have over Emerson which put Laver ahead. Ask the old-timers(not kiki) for details.
Click to expand...

The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
DjokovicForTheWin said:
I think it's well established to most sane and reasonable people that Federer is by far the best player in the history of tennis. This thread isn't about who is second best, but rather who is better between Sampras or Nadal?

Sampras leads in total slams, but Nadal has a career slam. So who is better? For me it's pretty right. Total slam count is very important, but Pete lacking the FO severely cripples his resume. In a very close race I would give a very slight edge to Nadal because of the career slam. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yet you tried to argue Djokovic is better than Nadal, so I guess this means Djokovic > Sampras in your delusional mind even though neither has a FO final and one has 14 slams and the other 4. Your sheer stupidity becomes more comical all the time. :lol:
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
mattennis said:
For me, Lendl reaching (and losing) two Wimbledon finals playing serve and volley on first and second serves, against the best serve and volleyers of his time, is more valuable than Nadal or Federer winning the four GS (in an era where you only face the same game style everywhere and you do not need to change your game plan drastically to win in different Slams).

Agassi's four GS is again (for me) more valuable than Federer's or Nadal's four GS (for the same reasons).

But everyone has an opinion.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that Nadal plays the same on clay courts as he does at the USO and wimbledon?

How many times did Agassi S & V en route to his wimbledon title? what changes did he make to his game to win wimbledon and the FO?
 
DjokovicForTheWin

DjokovicForTheWin

Banned
NadalAgassi said:
Yet you tried to argue Djokovic is better than Nadal, so I guess this means Djokovic > Sampras in your delusional mind even though neither has a FO final and one has 14 slams and the other 4. Your sheer stupidity becomes more comical all the time. :lol:
Click to expand...

I never argued Djoker achieved more than Nadal. I asked when it was possible that he will surpass Nadal.
 
A

above bored

Semi-Pro
helloworld said:
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)
Click to expand...
More weak era nonsense. Comparing Federer and Emerson is the funniest thing I ever heard. Did not realise Federer was competing against amateurs.

I suppose since Federer's accomplishments are so weak, due to his weak competition, we cannot take Nadal's accomplishments seriously due to the fact he was competing against the same competition and had to play Federer, who we have already established is not all that due to his pathetic competitors. By the same token Djokovic cannot be deemed to have accomplished a great deal by dominating Nadal, given the fact Nadal has made his name by beating weak competition, just as Federer did. Ad infinitum.

Of course it doesn't matter that these weak competitors happen to be the best players on the planet in a well established discipline.
 
billnepill

billnepill

Hall of Fame
helloworld said:
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)
Click to expand...

Sampras also won his slams pre-Nadal. Laver too :) By numbers only, (Laver and Sampras) may look good, but the truth is not as good as it looks :)
 
Last edited:
M

mattennis

Hall of Fame
fed_rulz said:
So you're telling me that Nadal plays the same on clay courts as he does at the USO and wimbledon?

How many times did Agassi S & V en route to his wimbledon title? what changes did he make to his game to win wimbledon and the FO?
Click to expand...

Agassi had to return and pass in every point in every return game three consecutive great serve and volleyers (Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic) in a very fast and low-bouncing grass to win his Wimbledon'92 title.

It was drastically different to what he had to do to win his RolandGarros'99 title.

It is not the same to hit return winners off of a huge serve on a fast, slipery and low-bouncing grass, and passing some of the best net-players again and again, than to win RolandGarros agains baseliners. Totally different.

Nadal plays a bit different in RG than in WB or USO, but he (and everyone today) faces basically the one and unique baseline style game opponent everywhere.

If you think that Nadal has to do drastically different things to beat Murray, Soderling, Djokovic,...in RolandGarros than what he does to beat them in Wimbledon, then you really did not see how actually drastically different was in the 90s for one given player to play, say, Bruguera or Muster one day, and then the next day, say, Rafter or Edberg. That actually was a totally different game.

Look at Muster, he could be playing extremely well from the baseline against baseliners (as he usually did) and then had to play Edberg or Rafter the next day and he was doomed.

Muster would have loved to play in todays era.
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
mattennis said:
Agassi had to return and pass in every point in every return game three consecutive great serve and volleyers (Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic) in a very fast and low-bouncing grass to win his Wimbledon'92 title.

It was drastically different to what he had to do to win his RolandGarros'99 title.

It is not the same to hit return winners off of a huge serve on a fast, slipery and low-bouncing grass, and passing some of the best net-players again and again, than to win RolandGarros agains baseliners. Totally different.

Nadal plays a bit different in RG than in WB or USO, but he (and everyone today) faces basically the one and unique baseline style game opponent everywhere.

If you think that Nadal has to do drastically different things to beat Murray, Soderling, Djokovic,...in RolandGarros than what he does to beat them in Wimbledon, then you really did not see how actually drastically different was in the 90s for one given player to play, say, Bruguera or Muster one day, and then the next day, say, Rafter or Edberg. That actually was a totally different game.

Look at Muster, he could be playing extremely well from the baseline against baseliners (as he usually did) and then had to play Edberg or Rafter the next day and he was doomed.

Muster would have loved to play in todays era.
Click to expand...

a lot of hand-waving here. Agassi faced a different style of play at the FO vs wimbledon. but what did he do differently?
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
helloworld said:
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)
Click to expand...

And they know Roger beat Soderling, Novak, Del Potro, Murray, Ferrer, Gonzo, etc... to win his slams which they all gave Nadal a serious spanking at the slams.:)
 
DeShaun

DeShaun

Banned
This OP is not even a question in my mind.

Pete was a very large cat on court who softened every opponent with massive serving then moved in for the kill with wicked volleys and overheads.

Rafa was a defensive grinder whose balls off the ground had unprecedented spin and action making him very much unattackable.

Pete desired to end points authoritatively with his racquet.
Rafa aims most of his tactical guns at jamming you/your rhythm so that you will !@#$ up and he can have a short easy ball to force back on you, which is a slightly different (more conservative) mindset than Pete's.

Attacking well seems to require more overall racquet skills than does playing defense at the highest levels. There is a place of importance for one's fitness and legs and footspeed in tennis, but these attributes are less value to me the spactator because if I want to watch to see who can run the longest without getting tired I would rather watch a 600 meter dash--but in tennis, I enjoy some degree of high level racquet skill. . .

. .why is Santoro such a crowd pleaser whereas many present-day observers, remembering even the great Bjorn Borg's style, describe it as having been a very boring (however, highly effective) style? It's because Santoro has greater racquet head control and this is tennis first and foremost not track and field. thanks
 
Last edited:
SLD76

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
DeShaun said:
This OP is not even a question in my mind.

Pete was a very large cat on court who softened every opponent with massive serving then moved in for the kill with wicked volleys and overheads.

Rafa was a defensive grinder whose balls off the ground had unprecedented spin and action making him very much unattackable.

Pete earned his points on his racquet.
Rafa took his points off of the other guy's racquet.

Attacking well seems to require more overall racquet skills than does playing defense at the highest levels. There is a place of importance for one's fitness and legs and footspeed in tennis, but these attributes are less value to me the spactator because if I want to watch to see who can run the longest without getting tired I would rather watch a 600 meter dash--but in tennis, I enjoy some degree of high level racquet skill. . .think about it, why is Santoro such a crowd pleaser whereas even today, many observers think back on the great Bjorn Borg's style as being very boring however effective? It's because Santoro has greater racquet head control and this is tennis first and foremost not track and field. thanks
Click to expand...

nice avatar.

10avatars
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
mattennis said:
Look at Muster, he could be playing extremely well from the baseline against baseliners (as he usually did) and then had to play Edberg or Rafter the next day and he was doomed.

Muster would have loved to play in todays era.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how Nadal would adapt to 90s conditions however keep in mind that Muster was 0-4 against Edberg even on clay, do you see Nadal having a losing H2H(let alone so lopsided) against a net rusher(no matter how good) on clay? I don't.

Nadal's shotmaking, feel for the ball and passing shots are on another planet compared to Muster, I never got why people group Muster and Nadal all the time. To me Nadal is more like a left handed version of Bruguera if anything.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
helloworld said:
The reason that Laver was ahead of Emerson was only because Emerson won his 12 slams while the top pros were missing. Emerson practically defeated amatuer players to win most of his slams, while the top pro of his era were competing in the pro tour instead. Every "true" tennis players and fans know this. That's why Roy Emerson can never be greater than Rod Laver. People are not stupid. They know (Roger) won half of his slams in the pre-Nadal era. By numbers only, Fed and Emerson may look good, but the truth is it's not as good as it looks. :)
Click to expand...

The tour was split in Emerson's days, he played against amateur field.

You're talking nonsense.

What's a Nadal era anyway? Middle of 2008 and 2nd half of 2010? He's been a slam winner and top 2 player since 2005.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
helloworld said:
I don't think any pundits will agree with you on that. Apart from the 4 slams, Pete also has 5 Year-end Championship. Something that Nadal will have a hard time winning just 1. When it comes to comparing achievements, Grand Slam titles come first, if two players are tied, then the next most prestigious title will be used to judge who is better. In this case, the Year-end Championship will be used to judge if both players have the same number of slam count. As for now, Nadal doesn't even have nearly as many as 14, so your argument is very weak as of now.
Click to expand...

Going by that logic Fed's clearly better than Sampras yet you disagree with that. If you determine a set of criteria for the player comparison then apply them to all players, not just when it suits you.

For most people the comparison between two all-time greats doesn't just come down to # of slam titles, there are plenty of other things to consider as well.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
zagor said:
Going by that logic Fed's clearly better than Sampras yet you disagree with that. If you determine a set of criteria for the player comparison then apply them to all players, not just when it suits you.
Click to expand...

its just double standards. Not unexpected at all IMO :)

zagor said:
For most people the comparison between two all-time greats doesn't just come down to # of slam titles, there are plenty of other things to consider as well.
Click to expand...

This ..... There are a lot of factors to consider when players are 'close' .... Some just don't want to go through the 'trouble' of all that and tend to wrongly simplify by using a single criteria , in this case - # of slam titles.
 
PSNELKE

PSNELKE

Legend
This is a silly question.
It´s almost like comparing Nadal and Djokovic in terms of greatness.
It´s not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll
Who Is More Vesatile Player: Nadal or Sampras ?
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
TMF
T
B
Sampras v Nadal: the stats that matter
2 3 4
Replies
152
Views
9K
Madinolf
Madinolf
GasquetGOAT
Nadal Will Be Greater Than Sampras...
Replies
42
Views
2K
zagor
zagor
6-1 6-3 6-0
Is Nadal-Djokovic greater than Sampras-Agassi?
2
Replies
66
Views
10K
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
S
O
Djokovic is greater than Nadal or Sampras
Replies
5
Views
389
Neptune
Neptune
Top