Can you be the better than someone if they are better than you at 3/4 slams?

[kandamrgam]

1. Why only the slams? Greatness is not only related to slam wins. Surface differences can vary as we've seen in the past few years as well. Who's greater in this case, Player A has 1 W 1 AO 1 FO, Player B has 5 W 5 AO?

2. But having 1 slam at each is not master of all. It's only 'good' on all. The player with 28 slams is going to be the master on 2 surfaces.

3. This is your opinion, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I've made my position clear I feel. I completely disagree .

1.

a. Because Slams are the ultimate test, and there you gotta prove your versatility.

b. In which case I need to inspect closer. But generally value CGS highly.

c. Player A. He holds a Slam on all surfaces.

2. You used the words "master" and "good". I used "genius" and "master". I think its just choice of words, I meant the same thing to differentiate.

3.

 

[NatF]

Did he beat Nadal to win it?

He couldn't overcome the greatest challenge that RG had to offer, Nadal has only lost once there to Soderling and that was a fluke.

Did you even watch that tournament? Federer wasn't playing great, his FH that just landed in against Haas was a fluke shot. Had that gone out, so would he.

So yeah, sorry to have to spell everything out to you, but winning an RG title during the Nadal era is a fluke, especially since he didn't beat Nadal to get it.

Doesn't mean he's a weak player on clay though, in any other era, he would have held multiple RG titles. But if you don't think he was lucky that Sod took Nadal out in 09 then you're delusional.

Gibberish.

Making 5 finals and winning 1 of them is not a fluke. Winning 7 BO5 matches is not a fluke. Obviously you can't see beyond your Nadal tinted glasses.

Would he of beaten Nadal in the final, I doubt it. But that doesn't make it a fluke. And sorry but calling Federer a fluke clay champion is complete garbage if you're also trying to say he's a very strong player on clay.

He was consistent, paid his dues and took his opportunity. Nothing flukey about it.

 

[britam25]

Did he beat Nadal to win it?

He couldn't overcome the greatest challenge that RG had to offer, Nadal has only lost once there to Soderling and that was a fluke.

<<I can hardly think of anything dumber than trying to actually give a player CREDIT for getting his *** kicked. Did Nadal not play in that tournament-you know, like Del Potro the year after he butchered Nadal 2, 2, and 2 in the US Open? No? He came, he saw, he got his *** kicked, nothing fluky about it, DEAL with it. Given the way Fed straight setted Soderling, I say he'd have beaten Nadal like a drum. I don't know that for sure, but neither do you, so stop trying to pretend as if you do.>>

Did you even watch that tournament? Federer wasn't playing great, his FH that just landed in against Haas was a fluke shot. Had that gone out, so would he.

<<If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. If tennis officials had any guts, Nadal would be a heavily fined and suspended, low slam total cheater..but they don't>>

So yeah, sorry to have to spell everything out to you, but winning an RG title during the Nadal era is a fluke, especially since he didn't beat Nadal to get it.

Doesn't mean he's a weak player on clay though, in any other era, he would have held multiple RG titles. But if you don't think he was lucky that Sod took Nadal out in 09 then you're delusional.

You should be looking into the mirror when you utter that last part.

 

[britam25]

Unbelievable, isn't it? I'm absolutely certain if you sat down 100 tennis officials and/or historians and asked them to rate the two, NOT ONE would rank Agassi higher.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Did he beat Nadal to win it?

He couldn't overcome the greatest challenge that RG had to offer, Nadal has only lost once there to Soderling and that was a fluke.

Did you even watch that tournament? Federer wasn't playing great, his FH that just landed in against Haas was a fluke shot. Had that gone out, so would he.

So yeah, sorry to have to spell everything out to you, but winning an RG title during the Nadal era is a fluke, especially since he didn't beat Nadal to get it.

Doesn't mean he's a weak player on clay though, in any other era, he would have held multiple RG titles. But if you don't think he was lucky that Sod took Nadal out in 09 then you're delusional.

I post on 3 different Tennis forums from time to time but this is by far the dumbest post I have come across. It's not even close.

Come back to me when Nadal actually manages to get through a full season son without strategically picking and choosing parts of the season to skip.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Did he beat Nadal to win it?

He couldn't overcome the greatest challenge that RG had to offer, Nadal has only lost once there to Soderling and that was a fluke.

Did you even watch that tournament? Federer wasn't playing great, his FH that just landed in against Haas was a fluke shot. Had that gone out, so would he.

So yeah, sorry to have to spell everything out to you, but winning an RG title during the Nadal era is a fluke, especially since he didn't beat Nadal to get it.

Doesn't mean he's a weak player on clay though, in any other era, he would have held multiple RG titles. But if you don't think he was lucky that Sod took Nadal out in 09 then you're delusional.

If only the 25 second serve were enforced strictly during Nadal's time he'd have had a much harder time winning slams. Start talking when Nadal defends a title outside of clay. I have faith he might just defend a 250 event sometime.

 

[forehand fan]

There is no metric that would put Agassi above Sampras in terms of career accomplishments. 1 lucky FO does not a spring make.

Anyone who says a 2nd AO would negate the gulf in Slam wins across 3 of the 4 Slams is being blatantly dishonest. Had the shoe been on the other foot.. well why even go there, right?

I sympathize with Nadal the man, but I find it hard to sympathize with most of his followers. It's seems as though some of them are trying to will into existence a scenario where the history books are rewritten. An imaginary achievement like the Career Slam or Double Career Slam or the Clay Swing Slam, or whatever, is just that, imaginary. Why can't you just accept reality? Like the smear campaign against the WTF. Some people don't realize they are ****ting on tennis that way. Their idol is a tennis player and their stance demeans him. How can they be so blind?

it's true that sampras is better than nadal at 3/4 of the slams. but that is not measuring how much better.

 

[tennisfan87]

I post on 3 different Tennis forums from time to time but this is by far the dumbest post I have come across. It's not even close.

Come back to me when Nadal actually manages to get through a full season son without strategically picking and choosing parts of the season to skip.

Actually, you have perfectly described yourself :lol: What does this have to do with the topic at hand or his post? I mean, really Clutching at straws.

Start talking when Nadal defends a title outside of clay. I have faith he might just defend a 250 event sometime.

Djokovic has never defended a title outside hardcourt. Start talking when he defends something on clay or grass. And Roger has defended a title on clay only once in his career. Hardly any different, is it?

An imaginary achievement like the Career Slam or Double Career Slam or the Clay Swing Slam ...

So much fail in this post, beyond words. Are you serious? Imaginary achievements? I thought you were a serious poster. Then you will have to rewrite the history books yourself, I'm afraid. Those achievements are clearly mentioned and stated at Wikipedia as well and other internet sites, so it's only you who devalues them. You cannot be serious.

it's true that sampras is better than nadal at 3/4 of the slams. but that is not measuring how much better.

At the AO only by one title, doesn't say much, Rafa could equal him there.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Djokovic has defended titles indoors and outdoors. Has Nadal done it?

Lol@mentioning Roger. He's defended titles on grass, outdoor hard,indoor hard,clay and IIRC even on carpet(not sure about this though).Nadal has not dedended anything outside of clay. Slick and cunning attempt but you can be deliberately obtuse all you want...it doesn't change the facts. Now jog on and wait for Nadal to get back on top of 33.5 yr old Federer again in the rankings.

 

[jg153040]

I must admit I'm a bit of Sampras fanboy so when it comes to Nadal vs Sampras I'm a little sceptical about having Sampras behind Nadal because he leads Nadal at 3 slams(AO,W and USO) while trailing at the Chatrier (in case you are wondering I have Federer ahead of Nadal too primarily because of that very reason).

In hypotheticals:

Player A-Player B

AO : 2-5
FO : 10-1
W : 3-7
USO :1-3

In this case both player A and player B have 16 Grand Slams but one is clearly better at 3/4. That being the case, does A really have a solid case for being overall the better player?

That is not enough information. I would also check other things. Like consistency (weeks nr.1, year end nr.1, slam finals / semis, consecutive streaks) and longevity, how long you were on top or close to the top.

Also yes, greater surface variety is also important. 4 career slams will always be better than 8 W or 8 AO titles.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

That is not enough information. I would also check other things. Like consistency (weeks nr.1, year end nr.1, slam finals / semis, consecutive streaks) and longevity, how long you were on top or close to the top.

Also yes, greater surface variety is also important. 4 career slams will always be better than 8 W or 8 AO titles.

Assume everything else is equal.

 

[jg153040]

Assume everything else is equal.

I don't know. Hard to set them apart. Even if someone is better, the difference is almost non existent.

Both seem capable of playing everywhere. The gap between variety is not huge, it's tiny.

It's not like one guy has 8 W titles and the other one has two career slams.

They are virtually equals to me.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Nadal has a career slam, Sampras does not.

Since they both have 14 majors, the career slam is what gives Nadal the edge imo.

Nobody considers Agassi ahead of Connors and Lendl. Just saying.

 

[veroniquem]

Between Nadal and Sampras, Nadal has to go first because he's won 4 slams, Sampras only 3.
Between Nadal and Federer, Federer goes first anyway, so the point is moot.

 

[jg153040]

Between Nadal and Sampras, Nadal has to go first because he's won 4 slams, Sampras only 3.
Between Nadal and Federer, Federer goes first anyway, so the point is moot.

But Sampras has 5 WTF titles and 6 year end nr.1. And all those 286 weeks nr.1. That is very huge, even if we don't count WTF titles.

Being nr.1 twice as long, that has to count for something. That is 3 more years being nr.1.

 

[The_Order]

I post on 3 different Tennis forums from time to time but this is by far the dumbest post I have come across. It's not even close.

Come back to me when Nadal actually manages to get through a full season son without strategically picking and choosing parts of the season to skip.

The only dumb people on here are those that think Federer wasn't lucky that Soderling took Nadal out in 2009.

Go watch his match with Haas. If you think that he meant for that FH to land where it did then there is no hope for you.

Federer failed on 5 occasions to beat Nadal at RG. Suck it up, don't be delusional thinking that 09 would've been any different to the other meetings.

 

[The_Order]

You should be looking into the mirror when you utter that last part.

Wow. That post of yours was the dumbest one in this thread. So because Fed beat Soderling in straight he would've beat Nadal like a drum.

:lol:

And then you try to cover it up with "I don't know that for sure", mate you don't know anything for sure...

 

[The_Order]

What aspect of winning each GS at least twice is imaginary? You can call it whatever you want but there is nothing imaginary or insignificant about it.

Double career slam is imaginary.

GOAT is not.

Intelligent Federer fan logic :lol:

 

[veroniquem]

But Sampras has 5 WTF titles and 6 year end nr.1. And all those 286 weeks nr.1. That is very huge, even if we don't count WTF titles.

Being nr.1 twice as long, that has to count for something. That is 3 more years being nr.1.

I would never, ever in a million years pick Sampras over Nadal. Yes, Sampras has 5 WTF but that's trumped by the fact that Nadal has more than twice as many masters as him + Olympic gold
All 4 slams is priceless. Sampras couldn't play on clay. Nadal can play on all surfaces. #1 is mighty fine but titles won is more important to me.
+ Nadal has record of consecutive seasons at winning slams and most titles at 1 slam. That about seals the deal for me.

 

[kandamrgam]

If only the 25 second serve were enforced strictly during Nadal's time he'd have had a much harder time winning slams. Start talking when Nadal defends a title outside of clay. I have faith he might just defend a 250 event sometime.

1. ATP knows their thing. It's up to them. The rules are for everyone. If they take action he will naturally serve it faster. If they dont, it means Nadal is doing fine. Sounds somewhat like "had there been more grass courts" kind of thing. ATP rules are ATP's, leave it to them. Its fair for everyone. It's not like they prevent Federer from taking 30 secs, but lets Nadal to do the same.

2. Few of the overrated stats: h2h, streaks, title defending. Imo h2h is more meaningful than title defending.

 

[okdude1992]

You use the word "better".
1bet·ter
adjective \ˈbe-tər\
: higher in quality
: more skillful

I think of Sampras as having a higher quality of serve & foot speed. I feel his ground strokes are underestimated. He's a bit more skillfull at net.

Their backhands are about equal. Sampras had a better slice.

Nadal has a higher quality forehand, better return of serve and superior cardio.

:shock: Sampras was explosive and all, but did you just claim he was quicker/faster than Nadal? That's insane. Borg and maybe a few others can claim to rival Nadal's footspeed. But no way Sampras is even close.

Sampras serve is leagues ahead of Nadal, and you might have underrated his forehand.

 

[okdude1992]

To OP, I'd take player B in your scenario for being more well rounded. But in reality, Sampras lacks the clay game and RG title. This hurts him in the comparison with Nadal. I'd say they are pretty even right now, but if Nadal can win one more non clay slam, he's clearly greater

 

[firepanda]

Yes, because Nadal is waaaaaay better than Sampras at one. (Astromonically better x1) > (marginally better x2 + quite a bit better x 1)

 

[britam25]

The only dumb people on here are those that think Federer wasn't lucky that Soderling took Nadal out in 2009.

Go watch his match with Haas. If you think that he meant for that FH to land where it did then there is no hope for you.

Federer failed on 5 occasions to beat Nadal at RG. Suck it up, don't be delusional thinking that 09 would've been any different to the other meetings.

You never disappoint with incredibly stupid observations: what, Nadal never mishit a shot that turned into a winner? What, lucky shots shouldn't count? Whatever point you're babbling about, I don't care if Federer "meant" to hit it into the next county, he won the point, and grousing about what could have happened is the refuge of a loser. You can spout on all you want about what would've happened, you don't know JACK, why don't you tell us what stocks will go up next week, Psychic Boy?

 

[britam25]

Wow. That post of yours was the dumbest one in this thread. So because Fed beat Soderling in straight he would've beat Nadal like a drum.

:lol:

And then you try to cover it up with "I don't know that for sure", mate you don't know anything for sure...

There ought to be a picture of you next to the word "obtuse" in the dictionary. I'm not covering ANYTHING up, if you're are unable to understand that you're portraying something as a done deed, when you have no way of knowing what would've happened, then you're even dumber than I thought you were-which is saying something.

 

[Russeljones]

People here operate under the assumption that Nadal would have won Wimbledon in Sampras's time. Not a chance. The fact that Pete could not win RG says a lot more about the depth of the two fields of specialists, than it does about his own shortcomings. I repeat, Nadal would not have won Wimbledon during Pete's time.

Let's say tennis becomes a virtual sport. Someone gets to 60 Slams without leaving his bedroom. Would that person be greater than Federer? Unless you have an agenda, you can't say Pete missing one RG title outweighs a number of incredible achievements.

 

[Day Tripper]

The only dumb people on here are those that think Federer wasn't lucky that Soderling took Nadal out in 2009.

Go watch his match with Haas. If you think that he meant for that FH to land where it did then there is no hope for you.

Federer failed on 5 occasions to beat Nadal at RG. Suck it up, don't be delusional thinking that 09 would've been any different to the other meetings.

The same can be said for Nadal's second Wimbledon title.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Nadals two Wimbys were both flukes. Mono Fed and Berdych. Beating Soderling is on par to beating sick Federer and Berdych. Federer beat 7 time W Champ at Wimbledon when he was the defending champion. Whom did Nadal beat....how many great RG champions.

 

[punsalen]

Yes. By this logic Nadal couldn't be over Becker if he had another U.S Open title.

Anyway as far as playing level IMO Nadal > Sampras at the Australian Open. Nadal's competition there is light years tougher. Remember Agassi outside 95 wasn't even a semi contender at the Australian most years before 2000. Most years he didn't even play it in fact. Otherwise Sampras's competition there was pathetic. Nadal has to face Federer and Djokovic there, probably the 2 best ever there, and many other very dangerous slow hard court players. In Sampras's era he would easily win atleast 3 Australian Open titles and Sampras would have 1 or less (losing atleast 1 of his 2 to Nadal).

 

[punsalen]

Yes, because Nadal is waaaaaay better than Sampras at one. (Astromonically better x1) > (marginally better x2 + quite a bit better x 1)

Sampras is quite a bit better than Nadal at 2 (Wimbledon and U.S Open). Even so the gap between Nadal and Sampras at the French Open is still much more than the gap of the other 3 all combined. It is that huge. Another way to compare them though:

Nadal at Roland Garros >>> Sampras at Wimbledon
Sampras at U.S Open >>> Nadal at U.S Open
Sampras at Australian Open > Nadal in achievements < Nadal in playing level and <<<< in competition at the event
Nadal at Wimbledon or anywhere >>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras at Roland Garros

Nadal wins, particularly when it comes to just the slams.

 

[Djokovic2011]

^^^ Back so soon NadalAgassi? :lol: It's been less than a week since you were last banned from here! I realise you're hooked on TTW but you do know there are other tennis forums out there don't you? If only the mods knew how to detect your IP address....

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Nadal > Sampras. There isnt a whole lot to discuss. Sampras sucked on Clay (33% of season). WTF is ~week in a given year.

 

[forehand fan]

People here operate under the assumption that Nadal would have won Wimbledon in Sampras's time. Not a chance. The fact that Pete could not win RG says a lot more about the depth of the two fields of specialists, than it does about his own shortcomings. I repeat, Nadal would not have won Wimbledon during Pete's time.

Let's say tennis becomes a virtual sport. Someone gets to 60 Slams without leaving his bedroom. Would that person be greater than Federer? Unless you have an agenda, you can't say Pete missing one RG title outweighs a number of incredible achievements.

can you prove that nadal wouldn't have won a wimbledon in the 90's?

 

[punsalen]

I agree Nadal probably wouldn't win a Wimbledon in the 90s. The grass field was far tougher then, which is why Sampras > Federer on grass quite clearly, when both have 7 Wimbledon titles given the chasm between the quality of the grass field then and today. However Sampras would not win a RG title in any era ever, not just his own, or todays. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a delirous Sampras fanboy. So Nadal >> Sampras still in that sense.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

People here operate under the assumption that Nadal would have won Wimbledon in Sampras's time. Not a chance. The fact that Pete could not win RG says a lot more about the depth of the two fields of specialists, than it does about his own shortcomings. I repeat, Nadal would not have won Wimbledon during Pete's time.

Let's say tennis becomes a virtual sport. Someone gets to 60 Slams without leaving his bedroom. Would that person be greater than Federer? Unless you have an agenda, you can't say Pete missing one RG title outweighs a number of incredible achievements.

Actually No. but thats irrevelant anyways.

If Sampras is that great, he should have won Roland Garros , which is a Major. He didnt. Nadal,in some people eyes isnt that great , but won across all surfaces. Surfaces, technology, blah blah vary across generations but great players find a way to win across all surfaces. Sampras didnt--plain and simple. No doubt he is a great player but there are a few players who are actually better than him.

 

[Russeljones]

Actually No. but thats irrevelant anyways.

If Sampras is that great, he should have won Roland Garros , which is a Major. He didnt. Nadal,in some people eyes isnt that great , but won across all surfaces. Surfaces, technology, blah blah vary across generations but great players find a way to win across all surfaces. Sampras didnt--plain and simple. No doubt he is a great player but there are a few players who are actually better than him.

It seems you failed to understand the reason why maintain the missing RG is overrated in terms of the comparison between the two. Let me dumb down the language for you. Nadal got very lucky. By 2008 there were virtually no grass specialists left. The grass and soil beneath had been changed. On the flip side; In Pete's time, both surfaces had their separate 'schools of specialisation' with throngs playing their trade in one or the other. One or the other. The two were that different. I know it seems irrelevant to you, but in my view, the fact that Pete boasts a superior record at all 3 Slams that he DID win, along with the fact he did beat some legitimate great clay players, clears him of this imaginary transgression. If we then look at his world number one and Year End Championship stats, he really does pull away. As to your last sentence, it's a shame. That's all I can say.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

It seems you failed to understand the reason why maintain the missing RG is overrated in terms of the comparison between the two. Let me dumb down the language for you. Nadal got very lucky. By 2008 there were virtually no grass specialists left. The grass and soil beneath had been changed. On the flip side; In Pete's time, both surfaces had their separate 'schools of specialisation' with throngs playing their trade in one or the other. One or the other. The two were that different. I know it seems irrelevant to you, but in my view, the fact that Pete boasts a superior record at all 3 Slams that he DID win, along with the fact he did beat some legitimate great clay players, clears him of this imaginary transgression. If we then look at his world number one and Year End Championship stats, he really does pull away. As to your last sentence, it's a shame. That's all I can say.

Luck is irrevelant here. Fact of matter is Sampras didnt win against his competition on a significant surface SLAM across his entire career. Nadal did.

I dont buy the schools of specialization, court conditions, equipment, competition.They evolve and change all the time and It is outside of players control.Either one is good enough to win Or not. Sampras simply wasnt good enough. His record on clay (even outside of French open) isn't great either.

 

[kandamrgam]

It seems you failed to understand the reason why maintain the missing RG is overrated in terms of the comparison between the two. Let me dumb down the language for you. Nadal got very lucky. By 2008 there were virtually no grass specialists left. The grass and soil beneath had been changed. On the flip side; In Pete's time, both surfaces had their separate 'schools of specialisation' with throngs playing their trade in one or the other. One or the other. The two were that different. I know it seems irrelevant to you, but in my view, the fact that Pete boasts a superior record at all 3 Slams that he DID win, along with the fact he did beat some legitimate great clay players, clears him of this imaginary transgression. If we then look at his world number one and Year End Championship stats, he really does pull away. As to your last sentence, it's a shame. That's all I can say.

I can only :mrgreen: at the specialists before 2008. Henman and Roddick come to mind. How about Murray and Federer for Nadal? Ah na, that's crazy, no, after all grass changed.

 

[punsalen]

The majority of tennis fans and nearly all experts believe Nadal > Sampras already. As Nadal is likely not even done yet that gap will only continue to grow. The hot air blowed by some Sampras fans in this thread are just blowing against the winds of reality. Similar to the Serena haters who think she is still down at 4th all time behind Navratilova and Evert, and try everyday with retread arguments to convince themselves it is so. A cute fantasy world and all, but eventually someone has to burst the bubble.

What is cutest of all is a few of the Sampras fanboys who imply his failure to win RG was just his competition, when he went out to absolute nobodies or very early rounds in about 70% of his French Opens ever played, and when his only ever decent wins there were 1996. His other few runs to the quarters were beating guys ranked outside the top 100, then losing to the first decent opponent he faced. If there is argument someone suffered from competition it is Nadal in Australia vs Sampras in Australia. Nadal at the Australian Open peaking in the 90s would likely do even better than Sampras, and Sampras today would win 0 Australian Open titles most likely.

 

[NamRanger]

Did he beat Nadal to win it?

He couldn't overcome the greatest challenge that RG had to offer, Nadal has only lost once there to Soderling and that was a fluke.

Did you even watch that tournament? Federer wasn't playing great, his FH that just landed in against Haas was a fluke shot. Had that gone out, so would he.

So yeah, sorry to have to spell everything out to you, but winning an RG title during the Nadal era is a fluke, especially since he didn't beat Nadal to get it.

Doesn't mean he's a weak player on clay though, in any other era, he would have held multiple RG titles. But if you don't think he was lucky that Sod took Nadal out in 09 then you're delusional.

Are we seriously going to talk about 'luck' when Nadal has escaped much worse players than Haas by literally cheating?


There are lots of examples of Nadal getting extremely lucky or fortunate. He had no business being in the 2007 Wimbledon Final, as he should have lost to Youhzny who got injured midway through the match, and he had no business making the 2010 final as he escaped by literally cheating with multiple time violations that weren't being called.

 

[tennisfan87]

It seems you failed to understand the reason why maintain the missing RG is overrated in terms of the comparison between the two. Let me dumb down the language for you. Nadal got very lucky. By 2008 there were virtually no grass specialists left. The grass and soil beneath had been changed. On the flip side; In Pete's time, both surfaces had their separate 'schools of specialisation' with throngs playing their trade in one or the other. One or the other. The two were that different. I know it seems irrelevant to you, but in my view, the fact that Pete boasts a superior record at all 3 Slams that he DID win, along with the fact he did beat some legitimate great clay players, clears him of this imaginary transgression. If we then look at his world number one and Year End Championship stats, he really does pull away. As to your last sentence, it's a shame. That's all I can say.

Seriously, this is your argument? :? And it's definitely not just some 'imaginary transgression' :lol:

90s or no 90s, fast or slow grass, grass specialists or no grass specialists, the fact is that Nadal would've certainly done better on grass and Wimbledon, even in the 90s, than Sampras did at RG.

For crying out loud, it's not just the fact that he never won RG, but never even reached a final there, only 1 semifinal during a span of 15 years!

Are you serious man? Look at his results:

A, 2nd, A, 2nd, QF, QF, QF, 1st, SF, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st

a bunch of losses in the first 3 rounds. Out of 13 participations, he reached the QF stage (2nd week) only 4 times. Nadal would've done better at Wimbledon for sure.

This only serves us to point out a serious incompetence on a surface. For all the slack Rafa receives for not winning the WTF and 'being bad indoors', it's a cupcake compared to Pete's results on clay. And the man has reached 2 finals (undefeated and only losing to Roger and Novak) and 2 SFs out of 6 participations.

And btw., if Nadal got lucky in regards to Wimbledon and lack of grass specialists, so did Roger. They played against the same competition and Roger won 2 Wimbledons over him. So what does that tell us about Federer, winning 2 of his Wimbledons and even losing one to a 'clay specialist'?

along with the fact he did beat some legitimate great clay players ...

So did Nadal :lol: or is Roger not a 'legitimate great grass player'? :? What about Roddick, Murray or Novak?

Superior record at all 3 slams ...

Only by a tiny margin at the AO (separated by only 1 title, Sampras 2, Nadal 1, 3 finals each, Rafa greater win/loss percentage). He could very well equal and even surpass him there by the end of his career.

And if I wanted to include a bunch of subjective factors (like you did above), I could've mentioned level of competition (Federer and Djokovic, 2 of the AO goats, certainly better than Todd Martin and Carlos Moya).

The clear 'superior record' is only at Wimbledon and US Open.

As shown above, there's no 'imaginary transgression' regarding Pete's abysmal RG and clay results. They're very real, my friend.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Seriously, this is your argument? :? And it's definitely not just some 'imaginary transgression' :lol:

90s or no 90s, fast or slow grass, grass specialists or no grass specialists, the fact is that Nadal would've certainly done better on grass and Wimbledon, even in the 90s, than Sampras did at RG.

For crying out loud, it's not just the fact that he never won RG, but never even reached a final there, only 1 semifinal during a span of 15 years!

Are you serious man? Look at his results:

A, 2nd, A, 2nd, QF, QF, QF, 1st, SF, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st

a bunch of losses in the first 3 rounds. Out of 13 participations, he reached the QF stage (2nd week) only 4 times. Nadal would've done better at Wimbledon for sure.

This only serves us to point out a serious incompetence on a surface. For all the slack Rafa receives for not winning the WTF and 'being bad indoors', it's a cupcake compared to Pete's results on clay. And the man has reached 2 finals (undefeated and only losing to Roger and Novak) and 2 SFs out of 6 participations.

And btw., if Nadal got lucky in regards to Wimbledon and lack of grass specialists, so did Roger. They played against the same competition and Roger won 2 Wimbledons over him. So what does that tell us about Federer, winning 2 of his Wimbledons and even losing one to a 'clay specialist'?



So did Nadal :lol: or is Roger not a 'legitimate great grass player'? :? What about Roddick, Murray or Novak?



Only by a tiny margin at the AO (separated by only 1 title, Sampras 2, Nadal 1, 3 finals each, Rafa greater win/loss percentage). He could very well equal and even surpass him there by the end of his career.

And if I wanted to include a bunch of subjective factors (like you did above), I could've mentioned level of competition (Federer and Djokovic, 2 of the AO goats, certainly better than Todd Martin and Carlos Moya).

The clear 'superior record' is only at Wimbledon and US Open.

As shown above, there's no 'imaginary transgression' regarding Pete's abysmal RG and clay results. They're very real, my friend.

I agree Pete had poor results on clay but he beat some mighty fine players on clay...heck the best players Pete beat on clay were better than the best players Nadal beat on clay. Nadal at Wimbledon has been pretty lucky...or at least was in his early years. He should never have made the 07 final. YOuzhny got injured and Nadal throughout that tournament was taking MTOs all over the place and there were so many blatant time violations...let's not go there. In 2008 he faced a sick Federer in the final who barely won 2 set tie breaks and pushed it to 5. Let's not even talk about his 2010 Wimbledon.

It is entirely plausible that on faster courts in the 90s Nadal would not have wonk Wimbledon. Btw Sampras IS comfortably better at 3/4 slams. He is not even in the picture at RG, miles ahead of Nadal at USO and W NAND has twice as many slams as Nadal at AO.

 

[tennisfan87]

I agree Pete had poor results on clay but he beat some mighty fine players on clay...heck the best players Pete beat on clay were better than the best players Nadal beat on clay.

So what? Are we comparing their clay credentials now? My point is: Nadal is better on grass and hard, heck even indoors hard, than Sampras ever was on clay. In fact, Sampras did so poorly on clay that Nadal would've certainly done better on grass and hard in the 90s. And to do that, he doesn't even need to win the title at Wimbledon in that imaginary scenario. All that is enough, is posting better results than Pete did on clay. And I'm sure Rafa could've certainly done better at 90s Wimbledon than 2nd, 1st, 2nd etc. etc., only 4 times past the 1st week in 13 tries!.

Nadal at Wimbledon has been pretty lucky...or at least was in his early years. He should never have made the 07 final. YOuzhny got injured and Nadal throughout that tournament was taking MTOs all over the place and there were so many blatant time violations...let's not go there. In 2008 he faced a sick Federer in the final who barely won 2 set tie breaks and pushed it to 5. Let's not even talk about his 2010 Wimbledon.

All I see is a bunch of excuses from you regarding Rafa's Wimbledon results. Let me tell you this: When somebody reaches 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals (which btw. not even your boy Djokovic managed to do), there's nothing lucky about it.

When you defeat the 5 time consecutive Wimbledon champion (in his prime) who suffered his last loss on grass in 2002 and had something like a 65 match winning streak on grass, there's nothing lucky about it.

When you have a winning record on grass over you 2 major rivals, who are also among the top grass players of your era (Nadal - Djokovic 2 - 1, Nadal - Murray 3 - 0) and are trailing by only 1 win against the best grass player of your era and probably the grass goat (along with Pete) (Federer - Nadal 2 - 1), there's nothing lucky about it. He has proved himself against all competitors and major rivals (which btw. Djokovic hasn't done against Murray).

And yes, I agree with you there. Let's not go there. Otherwise, I might be inclined to use some 'subjective data' and 'excuses' like you did and say the following:

1. Djokovic was lucky in his Wimbledon run in the manner that he faced a past his prime, 33 year old Federer without a forehand and ground game to speak of. And even then, barely managed to defeat him. Imagine, if it were peak and prime Federer like in Rafa's case Oh, the thought.

2. If Nadal 'got lucky' at Wimbledon 2008 because he supposedly faced a 'sick Federer', what does that make Novak? Ultralucky :lol: Does my memory serve me correct, or is it that same 'sick mono Fed' that Novak faced in the 2008 AO SFs? You know, for his 1st slam?

3. And let's not even mention injuries as the reason for defeat. Afterall, you and fans of other players don't acknowledge any of Nadal's injuries and constantly accuse him of faking them, so why should I? If you take the court, you're fit to compete.

And btw., Novak's fanbase is at the top when it comes to making excuses for his numerous slam failures over the years. Remember about Pascal Maria, the net incident, Novak's 'sickness' in this years RG final?

It is entirely plausible that on faster courts in the 90s Nadal would not have wonk Wimbledon. Btw Sampras IS comfortably better at 3/4 slams. He is not even in the picture at RG, miles ahead of Nadal at USO and W NAND has twice as many slams as Nadal at AO.

And who's talking about Nadal winning Wimbledon in the 90s? I didn't say that, did I? I said that he would've certainly done better at Wimbledon in the 90s than Sampras ever did at RG. And that I'm sure of.

'Twice as many slams at AO'. It sure sounds better when you put it that way, doesn't it. No, it's only by 1 slam and that's it. Same number of finals, Nadal a greater win/loss percentage. With only 1 more title, Rafa passes him there Doesn't sound so convincing now, does it?

 

[Dire_Wolf]

So what? Are we comparing their clay credentials now? My point is: Nadal is better on grass and hard, heck even indoors hard, than Sampras ever was on clay. In fact, Sampras did so poorly on clay that Nadal would've certainly done better on grass and hard in the 90s. And to do that, he doesn't even need to win the title at Wimbledon in that imaginary scenario. All that is enough, is posting better results than Pete did on clay. And I'm sure Rafa could've certainly done better at 90s Wimbledon than 2nd, 1st, 2nd etc. etc., only 4 times past the 1st week in 13 tries!.



All I see is a bunch of excuses from you regarding Rafa's Wimbledon results. Let me tell you this: When somebody reaches 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals (which btw. not even your boy Djokovic managed to do), there's nothing lucky about it.

When you defeat the 5 time consecutive Wimbledon champion (in his prime) who suffered his last loss on grass in 2002 and had something like a 65 match winning streak on grass, there's nothing lucky about it.

When you have a winning record on grass over you 2 major rivals, who are also among the top grass players of your era (Nadal - Djokovic 2 - 1, Nadal - Murray 3 - 0) and are trailing by only 1 win against the best grass player of your era and probably the grass goat (along with Pete) (Federer - Nadal 2 - 1), there's nothing lucky about it. He has proved himself against all competitors and major rivals (which btw. Djokovic hasn't done against Murray).

And yes, I agree with you there. Let's not go there. Otherwise, I might be inclined to use some 'subjective data' and 'excuses' like you did and say the following:

1. Djokovic was lucky in his Wimbledon run in the manner that he faced a past his prime, 33 year old Federer without a forehand and ground game to speak of. And even then, barely managed to defeat him. Imagine, if it were peak and prime Federer like in Rafa's case Oh, the thought.

2. If Nadal 'got lucky' at Wimbledon 2008 because he supposedly faced a 'sick Federer', what does that make Novak? Ultralucky :lol: Does my memory serve me correct, or is it that same 'sick mono Fed' that Novak faced in the 2008 AO SFs? You know, for his 1st slam?

3. And let's not even mention injuries as the reason for defeat. Afterall, you and fans of other players don't acknowledge any of Nadal's injuries and constantly accuse him of faking them, so why should I? If you take the court, you're fit to compete.

And btw., Novak's fanbase is at the top when it comes to making excuses for his numerous slam failures over the years. Remember about Pascal Maria, the net incident, Novak's 'sickness' in this years RG final?



And who's talking about Nadal winning Wimbledon in the 90s? I didn't say that, did I? I said that he would've certainly done better at Wimbledon in the 90s than Sampras ever did at RG. And that I'm sure of.

'Twice as many slams at AO'. It sure sounds better when you put it that way, doesn't it. No, it's only by 1 slam and that's it. Same number of finals, Nadal a greater win/loss percentage. With only 1 more title, Rafa passes him there Doesn't sound so convincing now, does it?

Djokovic had a little luck with his first slam...agree. What next? I am not as defensive as Nadal fans. It is what it is. At that stage in his career he wouldn't have beaten a prime fully fit Federer in a slam...and neither would have Nadal outside of RG.

You can spin it however you want. The fact is the competition during Sampras' time was legit good. Nadal had who exactly? Was second to Federer for a few years and now is second to Djokovic. Sampras put Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Mustard, Courier, Edberg etc to the sword and won his slams.

He is better than Nadal on 2/3 surfaces and 3/4 slams. Indisputable fact. Whether that is enough to offset a CGS in a homogenized era with slow courts, high bouncing balls and crap competition is for you to decide.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Djokovic had a little luck with his first slam...agree. What next? I am not as defensive as Nadal fans. It is what it is. At that stage in his career he wouldn't have beaten a prime fully fit Federer in a slam...and neither would have Nadal outside of RG.

You can spin it however you want. The fact is the competition during Sampras' time was legit good. Nadal had who exactly? Was second to Federer for a few years and now is second to Djokovic. Sampras put Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Mustard, Courier, Edberg etc to the sword and won his slams.

He is better than Nadal on 2/3 surfaces and 3/4 slams. Indisputable fact. Whether that is enough to offset a CGS in a homogenized era with slow courts, high bouncing balls and crap competition is for you to decide.

Sure. These Djokers/Rogers/Murray's/etc are not legit competition as compared to an Agassi/Rafter/Kafelnikov's/etc. when Nadal won his slams against them, he forgot to put them to sword.

 

[edmondsm]

Yeah one can be better, but the one with more slams is greater

So, a hypothetical:

Player A has 5 Wimbledon titles, but has never made the 2nd week of any other slam.

Player B has won all 4 slams once.

Player A is better than player B?

 

[Gary Duane]

So, a hypothetical:

Player A has 5 Wimbledon titles, but has never made the 2nd week of any other slam.

Player B has won all 4 slams once.

Player A is better than player B?

These hypotheticals are getting pretty extreme.

 

[edmondsm]

Luck is irrevelant here. Fact of matter is Sampras didnt win against his competition on a significant surface SLAM across his entire career. Nadal did.

I dont buy the schools of specialization, court conditions, equipment, competition.They evolve and change all the time and It is outside of players control.Either one is good enough to win Or not. Sampras simply wasnt good enough. His record on clay (even outside of French open) isn't great either.

You are only partly right. Sure, the game has always been evolving, and the players can't control it. That doesn't change the fact that Sampras played in an extremely stratified era of tennis. Do you think it's an accident that guys like Muster and Bruguera could barely win a round at Wimbledon?

 

[adil1972]

17 >>>>> 14

but not for long unfortunately

 

[Noleberic123]

^^^ Back so soon NadalAgassi? :lol: It's been less than a week since you were last banned from here! I realise you're hooked on TTW but you do know there are other tennis forums out there don't you? If only the mods knew how to detect your IP address....

okay seriously, who is this NadalAgassi bloke?