Comparing Sampras 1993-1997 to Djokovic 2011-2015

[user]

I've noticed a bit of a similarity in career trajectories of Sampras and Djokovic:

Sampras was 19 when he won his maiden Slam. After that win, he wasted almost 3 full years, and went 0 out of the next 10 Slams. But, during the '93-'97 period he won 9 of them. Didn't win RG.

Djokivic was 20,5 when he won his first Slam title. After that, he couldn't get it done in the next 11 Majors, was slamless for 3 years. But, during the 2011-2015 period he won 9. Didn't win RG.

Sampras: 9 Slams, 3 WTF, 5 YE #1, 39 titles
Djokovic: 9 Slams, 4 WTF, 4 YE #1, 41 titles

Djokovic was more consistent, but failed to cross the finish line more times - 6; Sampras only once. The big difference is, by the end of 1997 Sampras was 26, while Djokovic is 28 now.

After 1997, his "prime" was pretty much over, but, Sampras won 3 more Slams on his best surface, and a farewell Slam on his home turf. It took him 5 years.

Whose 5 year period was more impressive overall? Can Djokovic emulate what Sampras did late in his career and win 4 more?

 

[AngryBirds]

I've noticed a bit of a similarity in career trajectories of Sampras and Djokovic:

Sampras was 19 when he won his maiden Slam. After that win, he wasted almost 3 full years, and went 0 out of the next 10 Slams. But, during the '93-'97 period he won 9 of them. Didn't win RG.

Djokivic was 20,5 when he won his first Slam title. After that, he couldn't get it done in the next 11 Majors, was slamless for 3 years. But, during the 2011-2015 period he won 9. Didn't win RG.

Sampras: 9 Slams, 3 WTF, 5 YE #1, 39 titles
Djokovic: 9 Slams, 4 WTF, 4 YE #1, 41 titles

Djokovic was more consistent, but failed to cross the finish line more times - 6; Sampras only once. The big difference is, by the end of 1997 Sampras was 26, while Djokovic is 28 now.

After 1997, his "prime" was pretty much over, but, Sampras won 3 more Slams on his best surface, and a farewell Slam on his home turf. It took him 5 years.

Whose 5 year period was more impressive overall? Can Djokovic emulate what Sampras did late in his career and win 4 more?

This is a shocking similarity that many people have overlooked. We can expect Djokovic to win slams for 5 more years if he follows the exact same path as Sampras

 

[BeatlesFan]

We can expect Djokovic to win slams for 5 more years if he follows the exact same path as Sampras

Pete retired at 31. So how can your logic hold up?

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Sampras had a lot stronger competition in those years than Djoko has had.

Players like Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Bruguera, Muster, Ivanesevic etc. Even Kafelnikov and Enqvist (who both have a positive h2h against Fed if I remember correctly).

Djoko has had well... Past prime Fed, injured/out of form Nadal and headcase Murray...

 

[AngryBirds]

Pete retired at 31. So how can your logic hold up?

Pete continued to win slams until 2002. That's 5 years after 1997. If Djokovic's career follows this pattern, he should be able to win slam until 2020.

 

[Krish872007]

Sampras had a lot stronger competition in those years than Djoko has had.

Players like Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Bruguera, Muster, Ivanesevic etc. Even Kafelnikov and Enqvist (who both have a positive h2h against Fed if I remember correctly)

And Pete had a slew of injuries in the middle of his career. He withdrew from the '99 US Open because of some disk problem in his lower back. Pete also suffered from thalassemia, and even had episodes of sickness on court, just to compound his troubles apart from the strong competition.
This generation is PATHETIC, full of headcases like DimiTROLL and CLOWNini - I've NEVER seen so many retirements as in the last US Open either. Nole is an All-Time Great for sure, he'll probably overtake Pete at some point.

 

[user]

Sampras had a lot stronger competition in those years than Djoko has had.

Players like Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Bruguera, Muster, Ivanesevic etc. Even Kafelnikov and Enqvist (who both have a positive h2h against Fed if I remember correctly).

Djoko has had well... Past prime Fed, injured/out of form Nadal and headcase Murray...

Thanks for stopping by. Your thoughts on Djokovic's competition are well known, you don't have to repeat the same lines over and over again, it's boring at best. I was kind of hoping this won't turn into another weak era conversation.

 

[Krish872007]

But for the record (in all seriousness here!), I think Novak's seasons have been more consistent and impressive. If he stays strong and doesn't lose motivation he can defo look to add some more Slams in the next couple of years, and then give a final burst in 4-5 years time as well.

 

[Captain Grant]

Can Djokovic emulate what Sampras did late in his career and win 4 more?

Are you kidding me? 14 isn't an option. Djokovic either wins 18-19 or he better retires now if he isn't good enough to get to that number.

 

[Captain Grant]

All I can say on topic is that Djokovic is clearly the more exciting player.

 

[AngryBirds]

Are you kidding me? 14 isn't an option. Djokovic either wins 18-19 or he better retires now if he isn't good enough to get to that number.

Yep. 14 is no longer a record. Djokovic should be chasing 17 slams, not 14.

 

[user]

Are you kidding me? 14 isn't an option. Djokovic either wins 18-19 or he better retires now if he isn't good enough to get to that number.

Calm down, kid. One at the time.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Sampras had a lot stronger competition in those years than Djoko has had.

Players like Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Bruguera, Muster, Ivanesevic etc. Even Kafelnikov and Enqvist (who both have a positive h2h against Fed if I remember correctly).

Djoko has had well... Past prime Fed, injured/out of form Nadal and headcase Murray...

Do you ever get tired of arguing this?

Stop discounting the talent of the ATP tour! You can't assume that it is ever "easy" to be tennis pro, let alone one of the most dominant players ever. The real "weak" thing about the "weak era" argument is the very premise of the argument.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Thanks for stopping by. Your thoughts on Djokovic's competition are well known, you don't have to repeat the same lines over and over again, it's boring at best. I was kind of hoping this won't turn into another weak era conversation.

Well, it's an important point to make when comparing different eras. How fun is it to just compare hard coded stats without actually discussing their circumstances surrounding them?

 

[Fedalforever]

Sampras is GOAT and Novak is BOAT. @BeatlesFan will also agree.

 

[user]

Well, it's an important point to make when comparing different eras. How fun is it to just compare hard coded stats without actually discussing their circumstances surrounding them?

I can guarantee you that most people here are not amused by your weak era posts. It's just your opinion and you have stated the same thing like a million times before. No need to do it again now.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

I can guarantee you that most people here are not amused by your weak era posts. It's just your opinion and you have stated the same thing like a million times before. No need to do it again now.

Well I usually generate quite a few 'likes'. But regardless, if we should compare the two periods - which are, on paper, very similar. Then we have bring other factors into the picture. Factors that won't show up in the stats like their injuries, competition or maybe whatever changes ITF and technology made.