Djokovic v. Sampras on the GOAT List

[RaulRamirez]

Okay, GOAT lists get updated constantly, especially as one of the Big 3 makes some news - as was the case today. I make them myself, but as regards active players, there will be time to sort this all out when they all retire.

Still, this is directed to those who would still rank Sampras over Djokovic. I'll preface by saying that Pete was undeniably great, and we all know that 14 is a higher number than 13. That and 6 year-end #1s to Novak's (current) 4.

That aside, it's not close:

Djokovic has 31 (and counting) M1000s to Pete's 11.
They both have 6 Tour Finals, so in Big Titles, Djokovic leads 49-32.
Winning percentage overall? Not close. Djok 82.4%, Pete 77.4%.
And almost inarguably, Djokovic has played in a tougher era.

As for the mythical GOAT, I can only possibly make a case for Laver, Fed, Rafa or Novak, and obviously, the latter 3 are still playing. I'll only say that it's really close between The Big 3 and Fed is 5 years older than Rafa and 6 years older than Novak.

 

[Sport]

You forgot to mention that Sampras also has more weeks as #1 than Djokovic (286 vs 223).

By the way, the number of Grand Slams is almost universally considered to be the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams. So Djokovic still needs to surpass Sampras, who has 14 GS and more weeks as #1. If Djokovic wins his 14th GS (which will happen), he will surpass Sampras. The Career Grand Slam would be a tie-breaker in Djokovic's favor.

Sampras is still over Djokovic.

Anyway, pointless debate since everybody can see that Djokovic will easily surpass Sampras' GS record before 2020-2021.

 

[Antonio Puente]

If Djoker gets to 14, he will have tiebreakers over Sampras, but he has to win one more.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Time to start making Djokovic vs Federer on goat list and Djokovic vs Nadal on goat list too.

 

[clout]

Djokovic passed him after winning Wimbledon imo. Sampras also never had much of a rival for all his number one years (besides Agassi in '95), while Novak had several years/weeks at number one taken away from him by Fedal (the two greatest players all time to many).

Djokovic also has him beat in pretty much all the important aspects of tennis too:

Versatility/Distribution: Djokovic > Sampras

Peak Domination over the field: Djokovic > Sampras

Overall Consistency: Djokovic > Sampras

Longevity: Tie for now but Djoker is likely to surpass him there too

 

[RaulRamirez]

You forgot to mention that Sampras also has more weeks as #1 than Djokovic (286 vs 223).

By the way, the number of Grand Slams is almost universally considered to be the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams. So Djokovic still needs to surpass Sampras, who has 14 GS and more weeks as #1. If Djokovic wins his 14th GS (which will happen), he will surpass Sampras. The Career Grand Slam would be a tie-breaker in Djokovic's favor.

Sampras is still over Djokovic.

Anyway, pointless debate since everybody can see that Djokovic will easily surpass Sampras' GS record before 2020-2021.

I expect Djoker to surpass Pete's 14, but nothing is guaranteed in life/sports. I disagree that the other stats, whether 1000s, winning percentage, weeks or years at #1, are simply tiebreakers.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat08]

Poll?

 

[Devilito]

By the way, the number of Grand Slams is almost universally considered to be the most relevant all-time great criterion.

One of the biggest misconceptions in tennis. Slam count was never a thing until Sampras happened upon the record by chance near the tail end of his career. Slam count hasn't been a thing pros have focused on from the start of their career until Fed's generation. These hyper records like Masters titles, Slam count, etc is a new metric for judging tennis players. If it were the case from the start of the open era, players wouldn't have skipped Slams and other tournaments on a consistent basis. When someone like Borg played tennis, yes Wimbledon was important, and the fact that he won multiple titles at Wimbledon was huge. But how many "slams" he had overall as a metric of how good he was, was never a thing. I could write an entire article explaining why that was the case. The prize money in tennis was low at the time, the prestige of tournaments fluctuated constantly and what we consider "slams" now, were hardly a big deal back then. Exhibition matches paid out more than winning Wimbledon. The only generation we can use slam count as a useful metric is when we compared Fed, Nadal, Novak, and potentially going forward if the tournament structure remains the same. There will be a time in the future when we have another shift and again comparing the records of players 30 years from now with moderns records will be apples/oranges.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Time to start making Djokovic vs Federer on goat list and Djokovic vs Nadal on goat list too.

Because of a Golden Masters?

If achieving a Golden Masters is so important, if, as according to some Djoker fans, it apparently trumps slams, multiple slams, then the following would have to be true: Nadal should work his whole schedule around winning Paris and Miami, even at the detriment of winning slams. Fed should work his whole schedule around winning Monte Carlo and Rome, even at the detriment of winning slams.

No player would do this, however. Why? Masters do not trump slams. No combination of Masters trumps slams.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I think Sampras could still be argued but Djoko would clearly have the tiebreak at 14 all

 

[travlerajm]

Everyone knows that number of Wimbledon titles is the tie-breaker.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Because of a Golden Masters?

If achieving a Golden Masters is so important, if, as according to some Djoker fans, it apparently trumps slams, multiple slams, then the following would have to be true: Nadal should work his whole schedule around winning Paris and Miami, even at the detriment of winning slams. Fed should work his whole schedule around winning Monte Carlo and Rome, even at the detriment of winning slams.

No player would do this, however. Why? Masters do not trump slams. No combination of Masters trumps slams.

Hi, I agree that the Golden Masters isn't the be all end all. However, your logic here is a bit flawed in an attempt to drag the point home. The same logic could be used to discredit (in my opinion overly so) H2H for example.

Just because there is a way a certain acheivement or metric could be acheived and not be meaningful, for example thru exploiting the schedule etc, does not discredit the overall meaning of the stat. Similarly with H2H, there are ways thru ducking an opponent or making it further, that one could have a better H2H but actually be doing worse. That doesn't mean that H2H is valueless overall.

 

[Druss]

Djokovic on par with Sampras atm, though is debatable either way. One more slam for Djoker and for me he’s above Pistol Pete.

 

[metsman]

Really getting impossible to compare the eras. Aside from the basic differences, which you can contextualize over, the complete lack of young players and increased longevity of older players have made a mockery of the record books and federer, nadal, djokovic have heavily profited.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Wow, is this something you guys still debate over in this forum??!

That's crazy if you think about it.

It was obvious since 2016 that Djokovic compared to Sampras has achieved better throughout his career.

 

[GabeT]

You forgot to mention that Sampras also has more weeks as #1 than Djokovic (286 vs 223).

By the way, the number of Grand Slams is almost universally considered to be the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams. So Djokovic still needs to surpass Sampras, who has 14 GS and more weeks as #1. If Djokovic wins his 14th GS (which will happen), he will surpass Sampras. The Career Grand Slam would be a tie-breaker in Djokovic's favor.

Sampras is still over Djokovic.

Anyway, pointless debate since everybody can see that Djokovic will easily surpass Sampras' GS record before 2020-2021.

No. No. No.

There is no “universally “ accepted way of ranking players

There is not a single tennis expert that ranks solely on Slam wins. Many, many of these lists have players with less slam wins ranked higher.

Slam count is a post Sampras invention

 

[GabeT]

One of the biggest misconceptions in tennis. Slam count was never a thing until Sampras happened upon the record by chance near the tail end of his career. Slam count hasn't been a thing pros have focused on from the start of their career until Fed's generation. These hyper records like Masters titles, Slam count, etc is a new metric for judging tennis players. If it were the case from the start of the open era, players wouldn't have skipped Slams and other tournaments on a consistent basis. When someone like Borg played tennis, yes Wimbledon was important, and the fact that he won multiple titles at Wimbledon was huge. But how many "slams" he had overall as a metric of how good he was, was never a thing. I could write an entire article explaining why that was the case by the prize money in tennis was low at the time and the prestige of tournaments fluctuated constantly and what we consider "slams" now, were hardly a big deal back then. Exhibition matches paid out more than winning Wimbledon at the time. The only generation were we can use slam count as a real metric is if when we compared Fed, Nadal, Novak, and potentially going forward if the tournament structure remains the same. There will be a time in the future when we have another shift and again comparing the records of players 30 years from now with moderns records will be apples/oranges.

Exactly

 

[Fabresque]

Djokovic is tied with Pete. Sampras has the slam count and weeks at #1, but that’s it. Novak has the higher winning percentage, more masters titles, more overall titles, he’s the complete package.

 

[veroniquem]

What has Sampras EVER done on clay? Oh yeah 1 Rome title.
The tennis GOAT cannot be a joke on one of the main surfaces. Come on now.
Djokovic can play on all surfaces and every format. That's superiority for you.

 

[GabeT]

Nole has been ahead of Sampras for years now.

 

[veroniquem]

Nole has been ahead of Sampras for years now.

Of course, Sampras never winning the French disqualified him from the get-go.
Mind you he could still have won the grass contest but best overall? Not a chance.

 

[Deon Sanders]

Im pretty confident Djoker will win the two more real tennis slams to catch Pete's 14

Djoker easily wins that tiebreak to sit at #2 behind Roger

 

[AlexanderTheGreat08]

What has Sampras EVER done on clay? Oh yeah 1 Rome title.
The tennis GOAT cannot be a joke on one of the main surfaces. Come on now.
Djokovic can play on all surfaces and every format. That's superiority for you.

Sampras has 1 more major and like 60 more weeks at No.1 with two more Year End No.1 , Djokovic needs to tie Sampras firts on the slam count and then he will be ahead imo

 

[AlexanderTheGreat08]

Im pretty confident Djoker will win the two more real tennis slams to catch Pete's 14

Djoker easily wins that tiebreak to sit at #2 behind Roger

 

[veroniquem]

Sampras has 1 more major

Who cares? He's never won one of the 4 majors. End of story right there. If we're talking overall, then no number of W titles can make up for 0 RG.
Overall GOAT has to show the numbers OVERALL.