For now, who is greater Djokovic or Sampras?
- Thread starter NGM
- Start date
6august
Hall of Fame
Yes, last time I checked.
Sure, 14 > 12 and nobody cares who lost.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Listen, everyone has their opinion. Mine comes from playing regional pro circuit (take from that what you will) and knowing many players on the ATP.
Finals are money and ranking, but when your career is done they're near worthless and no respecting pro likes to relive all the losses.
A 14-4 record is legendary for Sampras. Even before his elder years, Federer batted a 16-6 record which is close but still a notch below.
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
The thing is, a "finals record" is misleading. It doesn't take into account all the other losses that came before the finals. Sampras actually went 14-38 (14 slam wins, 38 slam losses)
Djokovic, meanwhile, is 12-36
As you can see, if we look at all the losses then Djokovic and Sampras are close, but Sampras is still superior. This is my point all along; you can't fault a player for losing in the finals.
You say that 14-4 is a good "batting record", but what kind of batting record only takes into account the MLB Playoffs, for example (equivalent of reaching a slam final)?
The true batting records for Sampras and Djokovic are 14-38 and 12-36, respectively. (closer to 14-43 though since Sampras skipped 5 slam tournies in his career)
Now suppose Djokovic goes on to win AO and RG next year, then he will match Sampras in total slams, but according to you he will be inferior because his finals percentage is lower? That makes no sense; you have to take all slam losses into account, not just finals.
Last edited:
BGod
G.O.A.T.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/05/sport/tennis/ivanisevic-wimbledon-rafter/
Read what Ivanisevic has to say about Finals.
Your point about MLB playoffs is terrible as most Hall of Famers are judged exactly by playoffs. Sandy Koufax ring a bell? Curt Schilling?
Looking at Slams won by amount entered is fair, knocking Sampras for skipping events? No they don't count. He didn't play them.
But Sampras viability on clay is well known. Djokovic being able to win on that surface makes him look worse as he had more viable chances than Pete.
But how do you get those numbers even? Sampras went 14 of 52 appearances while Novak is 12 of 48.
Read what Ivanisevic has to say about Finals.
Your point about MLB playoffs is terrible as most Hall of Famers are judged exactly by playoffs. Sandy Koufax ring a bell? Curt Schilling?
Looking at Slams won by amount entered is fair, knocking Sampras for skipping events? No they don't count. He didn't play them.
But Sampras viability on clay is well known. Djokovic being able to win on that surface makes him look worse as he had more viable chances than Pete.
But how do you get those numbers even? Sampras went 14 of 52 appearances while Novak is 12 of 48.
This isn't that difficult, but the Djokovic fans refuse to accept that Pete has more grand slams 14 - 12 and more weeks at number 1. Pretty simple.
TupeloDanger
Professional
To draw even with Fed, Sampras, etc all, Djokovic needs to get to about 20. But no more Aussies. The heavy skew in his existing resume toward that particular Slam is why he's generally not considered a peer of guys like Nadal and Lendl.
BlueB
Legend
TupaviDanger, you are just out of your mind as usual. Lendl is not Nole and Rafa's peer, but rather Agassi's and Connors'.
If Nole gets to 14, he'd have a definitive edge over Sampras and Nadal. You all haters know it too well and I don't need to explain why.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
What are you even attempting to argue at this point? You're linking me to a quote of Goran's where he says "nobody cares about second place", but your original argument included finals as part of a "batting record". So if nobody cares about finals, why are you including them in your batting record? Your argument is contradictory.
"Your point about MLB playoffs is terrible as most Hall of Famers are judged exactly by playoffs. Sandy Koufax ring a bell? Curt Schilling?"
You are missing the point. In tennis a loss in the first week is worse than a loss in the finals, but in the end they are all still losses. It doesn't make sense to criticize a player for losing in the finals and then claim another player has a better finals record, when the reality is that that other player lost WAY MORE OFTEN in the very first week of play.
"Looking at Slams won by amount entered is fair, knocking Sampras for skipping events? No they don't count. He didn't play them."
Except they kind of do. He was injured or he didn't care about winning Roland Garros (i.e. he had no chance of winning it and wanted to focus on Wimbledon). Here's the excuse he gave for not playing the AO in 1999:
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jan/03/sports/sp-60150
Seeing as how he was fatigued, he had no chance to win the tournament and therefore it should be reflected in his overall record
Same with the 1991 and 1992 AO's: https://tennisabides.com/2013/09/
>"Sampras missed the 1991 and 1992 Australian Opens due to injuries and skipped the 1999 event due to feeling burnt out."
"But Sampras viability on clay is well known. Djokovic being able to win on that surface makes him look worse as he had more viable chances than Pete."
You must be joking. So Sampras basically tanking the clay season every year which allowed him to come even more prepared to Wimbledon is somehow a much more impressive accomplishment than reaching the finals of RG and then winning Wimbledon? Which Djokovic did in 2014 and 2015?
"But how do you get those numbers even? Sampras went 14 of 52 appearances while Novak is 12 of 48.[/QUOTE]"
Err, I'm using the same system you were arguing for originally, i.e. 14 slam wins and 4 slam finals losses, except I'm including ALL slam losses, because that obviously makes more sense.
Last edited:
Completely agree - I can't understand the logic that it is a superior performance to lose before the final compared to making a final
You get credit for losing a Slam finals in the ranking points. Personally, I don't give credit for losing a Slam final, but that is just me.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Hate to say it but djok. Has all 4 grand slams, weeks #1, wtf, etc.
uscwang
Hall of Fame
I think the dude is a closet Stan fan.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
besides other results, Sampras no good on clay. Djoker won a clay court major. Sampras got passed by a few players like Fedalkovic.
Similar threads
