Do you consider Nadal a Tier 1 great?

[veroniquem]

Then why Lendl, Agassi or Connors isn't allow to in the same tier great with Nadal?

Aren't they? To me, all those guys are in tier 1. (As well as Sampras, Borg and McEnroe of course).

 

[objectivity]

Great, name me the PED that yields its user 23 SFs in a row.

You're simply building a straw man rather than dealing with the issues raised.

i don't think ANY of them are taking any PED, do you get it?! omg. all i am saying is that for every supposedly "astonishing" feat of athleticism by Nadal you are attributing to PED, i can name one astonishing feat by Federer. yet federer is completely suspicion free by your standards. i am calling out this double standard. do you get it?!

 

[Smasher08]

how so? i am praising your powers of deduction!

If you want to be rude and sarcastic, go ahead. It will only get you reported.

 

[granddog29]

On a funnier note I notice some PED talk in this thread. Are some of you really so naive you dont realize 95% of elite athletes in all sports for the last 40 years atleast use massive PEDs. Only the stupid or very unlucky ones get caught however, or those who are so famous they decide to do a witchhunt on you to make an example of (Marion Jones).

Notice how in tennis only nobodies get caught though. They just want the doping guys like Dick Pound to go away so they sacrifice people nobody cares about to make it look like they are catching dopers. I bet everyone in the top 10 in both the WTA and ATP is using to some degree, but the only one who might ever get caught would be someone like Tipsarevic or Errani who nobody gives a twat about (and again only if they are stupid as someone smart would cover themselves well, drug testing is like taking candy from a baby as Victor Conte said).

 

[Smasher08]

i don't think ANY of them are taking any PED, do you get it?! omg. all i am saying is that for every supposedly "astonishing" feat of athleticism by Nadal you are attributing to PED, i can name one astonishing feat by Federer. yet federer is completely suspicion free by your standards. i am calling out this double standard. do you get it?!

Your persistent lack of civility is truly unfortunate. It only gets you reported. Do you get that?

Name these feats, and name the PED they are associated with.

 

[TMF]

Aren't they? To me, all those guys are in tier 1. (As well as Sampras, Borg and McEnroe of course).

No, most people have them in 2nd tier, including JMac.

 

[objectivity]

Your first paragraph is largely off point and mostly irrelevant. Your second is moralizing stemming from having built a straw man.

I have not said that X is using drugs. Kindly pay closer attention and get the facts straight. I have said that I strongly suspect that Nadal is using PEDs. More specifically, I suspect he may be using EPO at the very least. If true, I also suspect that he may be using others that facilitate recovery -- but to me, they're not nearly as obvious.

Nadal is primarily a retriever and grinder. His game has largely been predicated upon running down what would otherwise be winners and getting them back deep with topspin. His game is therefore dependent upon running and scrambling, the most physically taxing form of tennis. His game is therefore dependent upon endurance -- the reason he chronically stalls between points so that his muscles are completely replenished with oxygen. Yet almost miraculously he does not have an endurance athlete's build. He resembles -- more than any other player on the men's tour -- one of the power hitters in baseball during the 90s. And he shouldn't, because the taxing nature of his game should cause the catabolization of his muscles and render him as thin and gaunt as Djoker.

Furthermore I believe it safe to say that over the last five months or so he has not exhibited any signs of fatigue and does not appear to require any recovery time after marathon matches. I do not believe this to be possible without PED use. I also see no signs whatsoever of this "chronic condition" -- the one that caused him to miss 8 months -- flaring up at all. Given that he has gone deep in almost every single tournament he has played since March, this is very odd.

In fact, this should not be the case, at all. A physical drop off should be expected, especially after playing nearly every day for the past two weeks on the allegedly most harmful surface to his body. Instead, there has been no drop off in performance or any signs of fatigue. That would certainly be consistent with an athlete doping.

His beyond miraculous return makes it even more suspicious, in my view. Whenever any other top tennis player has taken more than six months off they have taken a full year to completely come back -- usually a combination of physical conditioning, technical rust, and a lack of "match fitness" or psychological reclimatization. This was the case with Muster, McEnroe, Delpo, etc. But not for Nads, apparently. Instead, Nadal was bagelling the #4 player in the world in his third tournament back -- just a few weeks after his return. I therefore do not believe he was injured to the extent he claimed, which leads me to wonder whether something else was occuring during his prolonged absence from tennis.

If Armstrong, Fuentes, the track star admissions, and Biogenesis have taught us anything, it's that if an athlete's performance seems too good to be true, it probably is. Had Nadal been on the tour fom June 2012 - March 2013 and shown gradual signs of improvement in his play over that time, that would be one thing. But to exit the sport for 3/4 of a year and show only small signs of rust while displaying beyond superhuman stamina and endurance when you reappear, I believe that should be regarded with suspicion by everyone since it seems too good to be true.

and your claims that nadal has not experienced drop-off in physical standards is clearly not true. which round did he exit at wimbledon may i ask you? come on. in fact, over the entire course of his career, he had constantly dropped in standards after september each season... because his body has just been so ravaged by the physicality of his play... i thought that is common knowledge?! and he keeps getting injured season after season...

i think it is impossible to convince you. forget it. you are entitled to your views. have a good night.

 

[Smasher08]

and your claims that nadal has not experienced drop-off in physical standards is clearly not true. which round did he exit at wimbledon may i ask you?

Almost the same as last year. Genuinely fits the profile of something wearing off.

 

[Smasher08]

i think it is impossible to convince you. forget it. you are entitled to your views. have a good night.

Where are the signs of "ravage" now? If ever there was a time they should appear, it surely would be while he was playing nearly every day for the past two weeks on the surface that allegedly has "ravaged" his body the most. After a spring where this "ravaging" style was used to go deep in virtually every tournament he played.

I also note that, when challenged to do so, you have failed to substantiate your claim of being able to cite circumstantial evidence for Federer that at least matches that of Nadal.

Should you change your mind, please share these "feats" with us. I would be very interested in examining them.

 

[Smasher08]

A few random articles for those who think it could never happen in tennis.

Both Floyd Landis and Thomas Frei gave evidence in the past that with current EPO testing, it’s possible to inject the substance late at night and, by drinking plenty of water, be fully clear of the danger of detection by the time the testers call the next morning.

You still hear some people in tennis say EPO is of little use to tennis players. How does that make you feel? So many people get off on saying, this is not going to be good for us. Marion Jones was using EPO. You can’t tell me that a player who is out there for five and a half hours couldn’t benefit from a little micro-dosing of EPO.

A key weakness in the WADA code involves the seven hour window every day during which athletes are assured they will not be tested for steroids, EPO or any other prohibited performance-enhancing drug (PED).

WADA requires that athletes make themselves available for testing between the hours of 6am and 11pm every day of the year.

This leaves a nighttime window for athletes to misbehave. Spain, the most popular destination for cyclists to train during the off-season, has even criminalized drug testing during this period due to privacy concerns.

WADA and Spain assume that any use of PEDs during this window will still remain detectable the following morning.

Cyclists know that this is not the case.

Hamilton explains how athletes have exploited this weakness in his book.

Read more:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13859/New-EPO-test-could-help-stamp-out-microdosing.aspx#ixzz2cO2fwVfX

http://www.thetennisspace.com/tennis-players-would-benefit-from-micro-dosing-epo/

http://thinksteroids.com/articles/tyler-hamiltons-guide-anabolic-steroids-epo-cycling/

 

[veroniquem]

No, most people have them in 2nd tier, including JMac.

Well I think that's completely ridiculous and I don't agree.

 

[kiki]

Fed fans and Nadalfans have one thing in common:
Their disrespectfulness of Laver...
Or is zealousy the right expression?

 

[adil1972]

what is meant by All American semifinal

 

[foetz]

it's a joke even considering nadal being put on the same level as borg, sampras, federer and alike. they should finally get serious about doping in tennis ... and by that i mean taking action against it instead of playing ideal world like they have done so far

 

[Bud]

it's a joke even considering nadal being put on the same level as borg, sampras, federer and alike. they should finally get serious about doping in tennis ... and by that i mean taking action against it instead of playing ideal world like they have done so far

Your post is a joke

 

[Day Tripper]

Your post is a joke

Ok the guy might not have articulated himself particularly well but his point stands. The fact remains that Nadal is the top male player most under suspicion for doping. History tend to repeat itself . If you look at the names that were bandied around in athletics, cycling and baseball for years as probable candidates for doping you will find that most if not all proved to be drug cheats.
Nadal is at the top of the list for tennis players under suspicion. Anyone who is in denial about this just needs to take a minute to hit google. If I had to bet my house on it at this point in time I would say he is doping.

 

[objectivity]

Ok the guy might not have articulated himself particularly well but his point stands. The fact remains that Nadal is the top male player most under suspicion for doping. History tend to repeat itself . If you look at the names that were bandied around in athletics, cycling and baseball for years as probable candidates for doping you will find that most if not all proved to be drug cheats.
Nadal is at the top of the list for tennis players under suspicion. Anyone who is in denial about this just needs to take a minute to hit google. If I had to bet my house on it at this point in time I would say he is doping.

being "most suspicious" does not imply truth. i can postulate a set of reasons why nadal is the one under most suspicion. it has mostly to do with 1) his ability to challenge federer 2) his muscular physique and 3) he is spanish. is this profiling fair? it reminds me of a certain recent criminal case in florida.

 

[objectivity]

Where are the signs of "ravage" now? If ever there was a time they should appear, it surely would be while he was playing nearly every day for the past two weeks on the surface that allegedly has "ravaged" his body the most. After a spring where this "ravaging" style was used to go deep in virtually every tournament he played.

I also note that, when challenged to do so, you have failed to substantiate your claim of being able to cite circumstantial evidence for Federer that at least matches that of Nadal.

Should you change your mind, please share these "feats" with us. I would be very interested in examining them.

for example, federer between 2004-2007, reached EVERY single final at GS tournaments. that is in itself a PHENOMENAL feat of endurance and longevity. the powers of recovery required must be phenomenal too. nadal, the supposed doper, could manage only what, 4 in a row max? why does federer's feat not arouse any suspicion in you?

for the record, i don't think federer is doping.

 

[10is]

Nadal has made the final in 10 of the 11 tournaments that he has played in since he came from his "debilitating" knee injury last year.

Previously to tennis's "steroids era", defensive minded players played their best tennis before the age of 25. Usually by the age of 25, they were for all intense and purposes, washed up (Chang, Courier, Borg, Wilander). Nadal, on the other hand is playing the best tennis of his life, at 27 or 28 years of age.

To those who "explain away" Nadal's serve speed increase by "technique changes", remember, Nadal uses his non-dominant hand to serve (he is right handed, but uses his left hand to serve). Try throwing a ball with your non-dominant hand, and see how that comes out.

No other player has dramatically increased their serve speed, after becoming a pro that I know about. He typically served below 110 mph for his first few years, now it magically approaches 120 mph at the two grand slams that a fast serve helps the most (Wimbledon, US Open).

He has managed in the past to increase his serve speed throughout the tournament (in Wimbledon 2011, his serve speed in the 6th round was faster than in any of the first 5 rounds, and his serve speed in the seventh round was faster than it was in any of the first six rounds).

I strongly suspect that he is using "testosterone patches" in-competition on off-days at the grand slams (they only test positive for about 12 hours after use). Tennis only tests after the completion of the matches. Plenty of time for the player to dope, and not test positive. As well, I believe that he is using IGF1 well before competition. The two drugs would add a significant boost to a serve's speed.

Is There a Connection between Rafa and Lance?

 

[objectivity]

Nadal has made the final in 10 of the 11 tournaments that he has played in since he came from his "debilitating" knee injury last year.

Previously to tennis's "steroids era", defensive minded players played their best tennis before the age of 25. Usually by the age of 25, they were for all intense and purposes, washed up (Chang, Courier, Borg, Wilander). Nadal, on the other hand is playing the best tennis of his life, at 27 or 28 years of age.

To those who "explain away" Nadal's serve speed increase by "technique changes", remember, Nadal uses his non-dominant hand to serve (he is right handed, but uses his left hand to serve). Try throwing a ball with your non-dominant hand, and see how that comes out.

No other player has dramatically increased their serve speed, after becoming a pro that I know about. He typically served below 110 mph for his first few years, now it magically approaches 120 mph at the two grand slams that a fast serve helps the most (Wimbledon, US Open).

He has managed in the past to increase his serve speed throughout the tournament (in Wimbledon 2011, his serve speed in the 6th round was faster than in any of the first 5 rounds, and his serve speed in the seventh round was faster than it was in any of the first six rounds).

I strongly suspect that he is using "testosterone patches" in-competition on off-days at the grand slams (they only test positive for about 12 hours after use). Tennis only tests after the completion of the matches. Plenty of time for the player to dope, and not test positive. As well, I believe that he is using IGF1 well before competition. The two drugs would add a significant boost to a serve's speed.

Is There a Connection between Rafa and Lance?

chang's serve speed increased throughout his career, as he improved and actively sought to increase his strength. even pete's serve improved. he did not use to average 110 mph on his second serve when he first started. but by late 90s he was bombing second serve aces regularly. players improve, techniques change. why is it so difficult to accept that? for goodness sake, federer's backhand now is much better than it was when he first started. he himself said it!

 

[kiki]

No tier 1 has just two wins at the game's premier event
Maybe he will in future but, right now, he is far from belonging therr

 

[10is]

chang's serve speed increased throughout his career, as he improved and actively sought to increase his strength.

Chang was identified as a pre-BALCO raid client of Victor Conte so is very likely a doper.

federer's backhand now is much better than it was when he first started. he himself said it!

Sampras was playing better at 28 years of age than he had been during his prime... he himself said it!

 

[Smasher08]

being "most suspicious" does not imply truth. i can postulate a set of reasons why nadal is the one under most suspicion. it has mostly to do with 1) his ability to challenge federer 2) his muscular physique and 3) he is spanish. is this profiling fair? it reminds me of a certain recent criminal case in florida.

Straw man. You would do well to read others' posts a little closer. And once again, you make a claim you fail to substantiate. That is poor practice.

 

[objectivity]

Straw man. You would do well to read others' posts a little closer. And once again, you make a claim you fail to substantiate. That is poor practice.

huh? what claim did i make?

 

[Smasher08]

for example, federer between 2004-2007, reached EVERY single final at GS tournaments. that is in itself a PHENOMENAL feat of endurance and longevity. the powers of recovery required must be phenomenal too. nadal, the supposed doper, could manage only what, 4 in a row max? why does federer's feat not arouse any suspicion in you?

for the record, i don't think federer is doping.

Once again, you've failed to name a drug which guarantees GS final results. Please do.

Correlating a result with PED use is a straw man you keep on employing. Either you do not understand the point being made, or else you knowingly cannot rebut it except through misrepresentation.

Federer's game depends on playing perfect timing first strike tennis. He does not, for the vast majority, play grinding points, and he on average probably takes the fewest steps per point in the men's tour. He also has a history of fading in 5 set matches, especially against grinders. If he is doing EPO, he has been doing a horrendous job of it and needs to take much, much more.

There is a class of drugs that would help facilitate his timing, however. That is stimulants. However, AFAIK these are among the easiest to test for.

 

[objectivity]

Correlating a result with PED use is a straw man you keep on employing. Either you do not understand the point being made, or else you knowingly cannot rebut it except through misrepresentation.

erm, you keep correlating nadal's results after his injury with PED use. how is that not a straw man argument then? but somehow mine is? pray tell. i am actually a trained PhD scientist and i had thought i knew how to structure hypothesis, theory and evidence. but apparently i don't.

 

[Smasher08]

being "most suspicious" does not imply truth.

Actually, a statement of suspicion does not equal a statement of fact regarding guilt.

Once you understand this, the quality and relevance of your posts will increase exponentially.

 

[Smasher08]

erm, you keep correlating nadal's results after his injury with PED use. how is that not a straw man argument then? but somehow mine is? pray tell. i am actually a trained PhD scientist and i had thought i knew how to structure hypothesis, theory and evidence. but apparently i don't.

Your fundamental error (nice statement of hubris there btw) is that you keep on imputing a causal argument when in fact you read a statement of correlation. Grounds for suspicion is not a statement of factual guilt.

Your paradigm is wrong.

 

[objectivity]

Actually, a statement of suspicion does not equal a statement of fact regarding guilt.

Once you understand this, the quality and relevance of your posts will increase exponentially.

i know that. but i do not think that means one should spread what are essentially tales, in order to discredit a person. sure there is nothing technically "wrong" with doing that, first amendment and what not. but it is just something i find morally repulsive, something at odds with my moral code. it is also why i find racial profiling, and other forms of discrimination based on "feelings" rather than evidence, wholly repugnant. and why i find all these "creation scientists" and "intelligent design" advocators really repulsive.

 

[objectivity]

Your fundamental error (nice statement of hubris there btw) is that you keep on imputing a causal argument when in fact you read a statement of correlation. Grounds for suspicion is not a statement of factual guilt.

Your paradigm is wrong.

huh?! what causal argument have i made? i hadn't made any causality claims! all i have been pointing out is that YOUR arguments for nadal's suspected PED use, are probably just as valid for federer's suspected PED use. alright, forget it. need to get back to real world of test-tubes and paper writing. cheers.

 

[Smasher08]

i know that. but i do not think that means one should spread what are essentially tales, in order to discredit a person. sure there is nothing technically "wrong" with doing that, first amendment and what not. but it is just something i find morally repulsive, something at odds with my moral code. it is also why i find racial profiling, and other forms of discrimination based on "feelings" rather than evidence, wholly repugnant.

I'm not interested in your moralizing. Your equating reasonable grounds for suspicion with racial profiling is a both a hasty generalization and straw man. If I posted similar claims of suspicion regarding Armstrong or Landis or Ryan Braun before they admitted their use, your "moral reprehension" would have acted to shield these cheaters from public scrutiny and facilitate their dishonest practises.

If athletic feats fit the pattern of PED use, suspicion is reasonable. Especially in a post-Armstrong, post-Landis, post-Fuentes, post-BALCO, post-Biogenesis sporting world -- and in a sport where the testing systems are not nearly as stringent as they reasonably ought to be.

The only way to rebut reasonable suspicion is through increased vigilance -- namely more testing, more randomly, more often -- both in and out of competition. I would love, for example, to see tennis players tested immediately before a match and when they take bathroom breaks during it. Right now, my understanding is that testing tends to occur after a player loses -- at least in MS1000s. And that's unsatisfactory.

More suspicion is both reasonable and required in order to clean up all sports. And that necessarily entails voicing that suspicion.

 

[Smasher08]

huh?! what causal argument have i made? i hadn't made any causality claims!

When you have a moment, please google the word "impute".

 

[KillerServe]

Aren't they? To me, all those guys are in tier 1. (As well as Sampras, Borg and McEnroe of course).

That kinda implies you don't believe in the concept of GOAT.

 

[TMF]

Well I think that's completely ridiculous and I don't agree.

Well that's how you feel but many people disagree having them in tier 1. I don't think Agassi believe he's in Sampras level, and certainly not in Roger's level who has more than twice the number of slams. You have your own reason but to me that's bizarre since numbers are not comparable, not even close.

 

[TheTruth]

being "most suspicious" does not imply truth. i can postulate a set of reasons why nadal is the one under most suspicion. it has mostly to do with 1) his ability to challenge federer 2) his muscular physique and 3) he is spanish. is this profiling fair? it reminds me of a certain recent criminal case in florida.

And this one is the most important.

 

[veroniquem]

Well that's how you feel but many people disagree having them in tier 1. I don't think Agassi believe he's in Sampras level, and certainly not in Roger's level who has more than twice the number of slams. You have your own reason but to me that's bizarre since numbers are not comparable, not even close.

Agassi CANNOT be in a lower tier than Sampras. He's won more masters than Sampras and more different ones (7 out of the 9). He's won both WTF and Olympic Gold. And he's won all 4 slams when Sampras won only 3 out of the 4.
They achieved different things but they're both top level champions sorry.

 

[TheTruth]

what about best career win % in history? what about best career win % against top 10 players in history? What about a winning record against all the current like top 30+ in the tour? What about an utterly dominant record H2H vs the "GOAT"? these things surely tip the scale back then...

These very meaningful accomplishments don't count in Bizarro World.

 

[veroniquem]

That kinda implies you don't believe in the concept of GOAT.

GOAT = 1 player.
Tier = a group of players or category
Completely different concept.

 

[NatF]

Agassi CANNOT be in a lower tier than Sampras. He's won more masters than Sampras and more different ones (7 out of the 9). He's won both WTF and Olympic Gold. And he's won all 4 slams when Sampras won only 3 out of the 4.
They achieved different things but they're both top level champions sorry.

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense...

Agassi is atleast a tier bellow Sampras, it's laughable the amount of stock you Rafa nuts are putting on masters these days. The difference in their masters count is the same as the difference in their slam counts! 6 slams >>>>>> 6 masters. He's also won the YEC many more times than Agassi. The Olympic gold had very little tennis prestige when Agassi won it, Sampras didn't even bother playing.

Sampras may only have 3/4 slams but he's won Wimbledon (the most prestigious slam) 7 times! He's also got far more weeks and year end #1's. He's well above Agassi.

 

[TheTruth]

That's comical. Have you ever seen him up close and personal, like in the player's lounge at the US Open lol? Or are you just going by what you observe on tv? He's not remotely built like a power hitter, he is actually pretty lean. Widescreen tv formats make players look distorted as well. You can also make just as good a case for PED use for Djokovic or Federer. At least Nadal's level of play and physicality has always remained constant, unlike Djokovic, who miraculously became superman in 2011. And when was the last time anyone ever saw Federer sweat or breathe hard? Either they are all getting help somehow and if so it's still a level playing field or none of them are.

dooknookem

That case for drugs is so flimsy seeing as how it ignores some very obvious signs of use in other players. You said it best, comical.

 

[kiki]

Bjorn Borg at 25 ( YEAR HE RETIRES)

6 RG
5 W
2 Masters
1 WCT

14 majors

NADAL at 27

8 RG
2 W
1 USO
1 AO
1 OG
13 Majors ( and the OG is a kindeness of myself towards him because it is not a professional tennis tournament)

Borg, 2 years YOUNGER than Nadal had already one more major.

Now, look at the players they both faced.look at the competitive levels and number of real challengers.

Can Nadal be in the same regard? I just don´t think so...

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

for example, federer between 2004-2007, reached EVERY single final at GS tournaments. that is in itself a PHENOMENAL feat of endurance and longevity. the powers of recovery required must be phenomenal too. nadal, the supposed doper, could manage only what, 4 in a row max? why does federer's feat not arouse any suspicion in you?

There's no reason for anyone to look at Federer's ao-called "consistency" at the majors and not raise as many eyebrows as they do about Nadal. However, if Federer is above suspicion with his alleged level of dominance, then this belief must extend to Nadal--if for no other reason that Nadal's critics always claim his records (overall) are inferior to Federer's, so acts of "wonder doping" must not be at work...
...unless some wish to further contradict their position by skipping over the alleged most dominant player to claim Nadal is the guilty party.

One cannot have it both ways.

being "most suspicious" does not imply truth. i can postulate a set of reasons why nadal is the one under most suspicion. it has mostly to do with 1) his ability to challenge federer 2) his muscular physique and 3) he is spanish. is this profiling fair? it reminds me of a certain recent criminal case in florida.

Bold statments carry much truth.

 

[TheTruth]

Bjorn Borg at 25 ( YEAR HE RETIRES)

6 RG
5 W
2 Masters
1 WCT

14 majors

NADAL at 27

8 RG
2 W
1 USO
1 AO
1 OG
13 Majors ( and the OG is a kindeness of myself towards him because it is not a professional tennis tournament)

Borg, 2 years YOUNGER than Nadal had already one more major.

Now, look at the players they both faced.look at the competitive levels and number of real challengers.

Can Nadal be in the same regard? I just don´t think so...

You left out:

26 Master's Shields
81 match win streak
Career Grand Slam
9 Years of winning a major
Dominant H2H against biggest rival (actually top 30).
Borg didn't win the AO or USO or he would have had the career grand slam too.
Olympics Gold

 

[mattennis]

Agassi CANNOT be in a lower tier than Sampras. He's won more masters than Sampras and more different ones (7 out of the 9). He's won both WTF and Olympic Gold. And he's won all 4 slams when Sampras won only 3 out of the 4.
They achieved different things but they're both top level champions sorry.

I am sorry but the difference is massive. In their era Masters-Series were not important (I explained about 10 times that there were many cases in which a player won a NON-Masters-Series tournament and got MORE points than six or seven of the Masters-Series winners of that year; today THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE because now there is a huge difference in points between a M-1000 and an ATP-500 and now there aren't BONUS points awarded by the ranking of the players you beat in the tournament; it was completely different in past decades in this regard).

Olympics games were NOT important during the 90s, you just have to look at the draw in the 1996 Olympics games (only TWO top-10 players, and only five top-20 players overall; you'll never see such a WEAK draw in a M-1000 tournament, heck not even many ATP-500 tournaments).

The important things in that decade (just like in previous decades) were:

1) and 2) (in any order) : nº of GS AND nº of Year-End-Nº1
3) WTF

And the difference is massive:

Sampras: 14 GS / Agassi: 8 GS
Sampras: 6 Year-End-Nº1 / Agassi: 1 Year-End-Nº1
Sampras: 5 WTF / Agassi: 1 WTF


When will people stop evaluating past players under current glasses?

 

[veroniquem]

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense...

Agassi is atleast a tier bellow Sampras, it's laughable the amount of stock you Rafa nuts are putting on masters these days. The difference in their masters count is the same as the difference in their slam counts! 6 slams >>>>>> 6 masters. He's also won the YEC many more times than Agassi. The Olympic gold had very little tennis prestige when Agassi won it, Sampras didn't even bother playing.

Sampras may only have 3/4 slams but he's won Wimbledon (the most prestigious slam) 7 times! He's also got far more weeks and year end #1's. He's well above Agassi.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree there. Not because of the # of masters. 11 masters + 5 WTF or 17 masters + 1 WTF, the difference is not extreme. But I do give a lot of weight to winning the 4 slams. That is a major weakness in Sampras's resume no matter how you want to spin it (especially since both Nadal and Fed have slams in the double digits AND all 4 slams AND many more masters. ). Basically, you either have a minimum flexibility to put players with different strengths and impressive for different reasons in the same tier (Sampras, Nadal, Fed, Connors, etc) They don't have IDENTICAL records but they all have strong points. (My choice) or you pick extreme rigidity in your criteria (your attitude apparently) and then you can't even put Sampras in the same tier as Fed and Nadal, which is- excuse me- but pretty dumb unless you shrink acceptable criteria to # of weeks at #1 exclusively which is equally dumb, excuse me again.

 

[NatF]

They are 1000 point titles, doofus... or half a GS. Count for us how many current players have won MS1000 tournaments .. and the number.

In the last 10 years, Nadal (26), Federer (21), Djokovic(14) and Murray(12) have won 73 of 90 Masters/MS1000 titles

And the WTF's is potentially 1500 points, do you rank it as a major and almost equal to a slam?

The Olympic gold is worth 750 points, you probably put alot of emphasis on that though being the Rafa turd that you are. I don't think any player would switch a grand slam for 3 masters. The points are irrelevent, top guys aim to peak at the slams first and foremost.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree there. Not because of the # of masters. 11 masters + 5 WTF or 17 masters + 1 WTF, the difference is not extreme. But I do give a lot of weight to winning the 4 slams. That is a major weakness in Sampras's resume no matter how you want to spin it (especially since both Nadal and Fed have slams in the double digits AND all 4 slams AND many more masters. ). Basically, you either have a minimum flexibility to put players with different strengths and impressive for different reasons in the same tier (Sampras, Nadal, Fed, Connors, etc) They don't have IDENTICAL records but they all have strong points. (My choice) or you pick extreme rigidity in your criteria (your attitude apparently) and then you can't even put Sampras in the same tier as Fed and Nadal, which is- excuse me- but pretty dumb unless you shrink acceptable criteria to # of weeks at #1 exclusively which is equally dumb, excuse me again.

What's dumb is making a post about Agassi >= Sampras then talking about Nadal who is himself on a higher tier than Agassi...

I can see someone placing Nadal around Sampras, possibly even above him, but Agassi is certainly bellow him. That's not being inflexible it's simply a fact. By the highest metrics used to evaluate players Sampras is way ahead of Agassi. Like it or not masters isn't one of those categories. Especially considering the current format is new and many tournaments in the Sampras era had close to the same number of points anyway.

If Agassi and Sampras had close resume's otherwise then I might put more stock in having the career slam. But they don't. Sampras was far more dominant and had the greater peak. How Sampras stacks up to Nadal/Federer has no baring on how he compares to Agassi. They're completely seperate. Consider that Sampras and Agassi are from the same era. There's no difficulty in comparing their accomplishments. Agassi won 3 slams during Pete's peak years. Let's not overrate him.

As for Nadal; I appreciate that he has 26 masters. That's an enormous number, and it certainly boosts his resume. But as for how he compares to Sampras I'd need to know how many near masters equivalents Sampras won etc...Otherwise we're ignoring fundamental facets of his era, capiche?

Nadal will in all likelyhood surpass Sampras within the next year or at max 2 IMO and has already in the eyes of many. But Agassi who I was originally responding about is nowhere near either.

 

[Smasher08]

When will people stop evaluating past players under current glasses?

You're asking the Nadochist fantasists to implicitly admit that their own criteria for extolling Nads and slighting Fed is myopic, tendentious, and specious.

Never gonna happen.

 

[kiki]

You left out:

26 Master's Shields
81 match win streak
Career Grand Slam
9 Years of winning a major
Dominant H2H against biggest rival (actually top 30).
Borg didn't win the AO or USO or he would have had the career grand slam too.
Olympics Gold

Olimpics is a minor and Borg couldn' t play it anyway
Borg was faaar better on grass ( real grass) and was far better indoors
In fact Borg HC record is sooo much better than Nadal on carpet
The only thing is Nadal better RG record but it is not that much and Borg did not play in 77 and he most likely would win it
Borg never played Australia since it was a second string event
So what is the deal with TMS? There were equivalents in Borg time, in fact the only new are Key Biscaine and Bercy
In Borg era the equivalents are Vegas and Tokyo or Stoxkholm that no longer exist and he won them several times
Right now Borg is just in another league
Plus he played the toughest era as opposed to Nadal weak era and At 25 his record is better than Nadal at 27 / or at least equal if Nadal wins the UAO

 

[granddog29]

I liked Agassi somewhat back in the day, and wasnt that big a Sampras fan back in his day, but on no planet is he anywhere near Sampras. There is no question in anyones mind Sampras was the best player of that era by a country mile. Agassi arguably didnt even have a single year he was truly the best player, even 1999 many would say Sampras was still best since he owned Agassi so thoroughly and since his U.S Open is marred a bit by Sampras's late WD when given his form that summer he was a complete lock. 1999 is the only year you could even argue though while Sampras was the Worlds best player for 6 straight years. That alone puts them in different time zones completely. Along with Sampras having about double the slams, never losing to Agassi at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, having a more far more consistent and stable career, being a far more dominant player.

Agassi has the Career Slam over Sampras and nothing else. Sampras is way above Agassi in about 20 other ways.

 

[Smasher08]

You left out:
26 Master's Shields
81 match win streak

Sorry, but these are largely bogus accomplishments. First, the "streak" isn't a true consecutive streak. No one has ever won 44 matches consecutively, let alone 80+. All it really illustrates is that Nads is a surface specialist since it was compiled during years where he was YE#2.

Second, Master's Shields totals is an overhyped and historically irrelevant accomplishment since these didn't actually exist until 2000.

That's the main reason that the guy who won more tournaments than anyone else, Jimmy Connors, isn't even in the top 5, and the top two shield holders are currently active players.

Pre-2000, the top players turned up to tournaments based upon one thing: appearance payola. That's why events like the Sybase Open and Volvo International featured top players in the 80s and 90s. Cash was king.

They're also inordinately skewed in favour of slow court players: Clay has 3 events, grass has none, and there's only one indoor event.

Winning a bunch of these is no small deal, but it's a second tier accomplishment which pales in comparison to slams.