How has Nadal passed Sampras?

Has Nadal surpassed Sampras?

  • Yes

    Votes: 117 72.7%
  • No

    Votes: 31 19.3%
  • Too close to call

    Votes: 13 8.1%

  • Total voters
    161

Sport

Legend
Hilarious.

Nadal didn't win 33 MS when he won his 14 slams.

Olympic is irrelevant because it wasn't important in Sampras time many players don't even play there.

14=14. While Nadal has the career slam, but Sampras is famous for his 7 wimbledon, the most prestigious tennis tournament. Sorry, but the tie-breaker still put Sampras ahead of Nadal base on my previous post.
Nadal had 27 Masters 1000 in 2014 and Sampras 14. Nadal had the Masters 1000 record. Such a giant difference of Masters 1000 with Sampras, plus the Olympics (which Agassi won but Sampras didn't) compensate Sampras' advantage in WTF. 1 OG + 27 Masters 1000 = 5 WTF + 14 Masters 1000.

Crucially, Nadal's Career Grand Slam is more relevant than Sampras' advantage in weeks as #1. Sampras had to compete against Agassi, who is much worse than Federer and Djokovic.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Aliens want to invade Earth. Like in Space Jam, the future of humankind will be decided in a tennis match. The greatest alien tennis player will face the greatest human tennis player. Importantly, the match will be played in a Grand Slam court. We don't know if it will be played at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, the US Open or the Australian Open.

We only can choose between 24-year-old Sampras and 24-year-old Nadal. Who would you choose? Remember there is a 25% chance of the match being played on clay at Roland Garros.

Of course, the better player who would safe humankind would be Nadal. This "mental experiment" illustrates how relevant is the Career Grand Slam.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal had 27 Masters 1000 in 2014 and Sampras 14. Nadal had the Masters 1000 record. Such a giant difference of Masters 1000 with Sampras, plus the Olympics (which Agassi won but Sampras didn't) compensate Sampras' advantage in WTF. 1 OG + 27 Masters 1000 = 5 WTF + 14 Masters 1000.
Masters wasn't mandatory and Sampras wasn't focusing on these tournaments. Again, using Olympics, strawman much?
I can say Sampras won 15 tournaments on carpet, something that Nadal will never achieved. Big PLUS for Sampras !:D

Crucially, Nadal's Career Grand Slam is more relevant than Sampras' advantage in weeks as #1. Sampras had to compete against Agassi, who is much worse than Federer and Djokovic.
Subjective. I do believe career slam is huge, but tennis experts/historians rate ranking(weeks #1 and YE#1) high on their criteria when evaluation player's placement in ATG. Both achievements are important but to down-talk either one is biased. But that is expected from Nadal fan like you.


Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Aliens want to invade Earth. Like in Space Jam, the future of humankind will be decided in a tennis match. The greatest alien tennis player will face the greatest human tennis player. Importantly, the match will be played in a Grand Slam court. We don't know if it will be played at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, the US Open or the Australian Open.

We only can choose between 24-year-old Sampras and 24-year-old Nadal. Who would you choose? Remember there is a 25% chance of the match being played on clay at Roland Garros.

Of course, the better player who would safe humankind would be Nadal. This "mental experiment" illustrates how relevant is the Career Grand Slam.
Irrelevant to goat discussion, but I disagree anyway. Sampras is better than Nadal at 3 of the 4 slam venues, so the better choice is pick Sampras since there's only 25% chances of the match will be at RG.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Oh and btw another Nadal's fan trick: for years it's been about head to head. Since Djokovic took over him in that stat, it became "Slam head to head". Stats and how to divert them...
Otha lavadekabaal ... the Federer fans have been doing that as well. GOAT was whoever has the most slams but now that Nadal & Djokovic are breathing down his neck, GOAT is whoever has the most graceful style :-D
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Watching Sampras in full flow at his peak was one of the most exhilarating experiences! I wish he had played a few years longer. I really think he retired too soon and could have won a few more slams.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Masters wasn't mandatory and Sampras wasn't focusing on these tournaments. Again, using Olympics, strawman much?
I can say Sampras won 15 tournaments on carpet, something that Nadal will never achieved. Big PLUS for Sampras !:D


Subjective. I do believe career slam is huge, but tennis experts/historians rate ranking(weeks #1 and YE#1) high on their criteria when evaluation player's placement in ATG. Both achievements are important but to down-talk either one is biased. But that is expected from Nadal fan like you.



Irrelevant to goat discussion, but I disagree anyway. Sampras is better than Nadal at 3 of the 4 slam venues, so the better choice is pick Sampras since there's only 25% chances of the match will be at RG.
Really? Howcome Nadal reached 5 AO finals so far, losing 3 finals to the 2 greatest ever AO players only, yet Sampras reached a measly 3 finals, and you claim Sampras is better there ?
Nadals much higher ratio of finals, and wins at RG also cancel out the fact that Sampras only has 1 more USO title, and has only reached 2 more Wimbledon finals.

Taking it all into consideration Nadal has the much better career, this is obvious.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Many posters on here see it that way.
Is it the case of recency bias or something else?

Total Slams:

Sampras- 14
Nadal- 15

Total Weeks as #1:

Sampras- 286
Nadal- 141

HUGE difference

Year End #1:

Sampras- 6
Nadal- 3

Time spent at #1 is, and will always be Rafa's shortcoming on his GOAT resume. He won't catch Sampras here.

AO:

Sampras- 2 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 1 win, 2 final

Advantage Sampras


RG:

Sampras- 1 SF
Nadal- 10 wins

Complete wash here, Sampras' lack of performance on clay is one of the only reasons Rafa even has a shot to come close to Pete's achievements.

Wimbledon:

Sampras- 7 wins
Nadal- 2 wins, 3 finals

5 additional championships for Pete at the most prestigious tennis event in the world.


USO:

Sampras- 5 wins, 3 finals
Nadal- 2 win, 1 final

Not even close here

Year End Masters:

Sampras- 5 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 0 wins, 1 final

Another destruction.

Masters 1000:

Sampras- 11 wins, 8 finals
Nadal- 30 wins, 45 finals

Rafa has this trump card, but how much is it worth?

OVERALL:

Bull is the clay GOAT with solid success on other surfaces.

Sampras beats him handily at 3/4 slams the YE#1 / Weeks at #1 and WTFs.
Yet another absurd analysis about how dumb clay is and how awesome Wimby is.

British hype is strong with this one.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
LOL seriously? Pete is a legend but the big three have all surpassed him at this point.

Nadal has more slams, Masters titles, Olympic golds, career grand slam, multiple slams on each surface, better win %, overall titles won, matches won, longevity, and imo prime Rafa was more dominant than prime Sampras, while also being better across all 3 surfaces.

Sampras has greater number one stats but that's because Nadal had to compete with Federer and Djokovic for his whole career, while Pete's biggest rival was Agassi who was in and out of the game until he was in his late 20's.
 

Fedalfan

Semi-Pro
Whoa! Love it.

Yes, Earth would definitely pick Nadal. Not just over 24-year old Sampras, but even 24-year old Federer or Djokovic.

Nadal had 27 Masters 1000 in 2014 and Sampras 14. Nadal had the Masters 1000 record. Such a giant difference of Masters 1000 with Sampras, plus the Olympics (which Agassi won but Sampras didn't) compensate Sampras' advantage in WTF. 1 OG + 27 Masters 1000 = 5 WTF + 14 Masters 1000.

Crucially, Nadal's Career Grand Slam is more relevant than Sampras' advantage in weeks as #1. Sampras had to compete against Agassi, who is much worse than Federer and Djokovic.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Aliens want to invade Earth. Like in Space Jam, the future of humankind will be decided in a tennis match. The greatest alien tennis player will face the greatest human tennis player. Importantly, the match will be played in a Grand Slam court. We don't know if it will be played at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, the US Open or the Australian Open.

We only can choose between 24-year-old Sampras and 24-year-old Nadal. Who would you choose? Remember there is a 25% chance of the match being played on clay at Roland Garros.

Of course, the better player who would safe humankind would be Nadal. This "mental experiment" illustrates how relevant is the Career Grand Slam.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
LOL seriously? Pete is a legend but the big three have all surpassed him at this point.

Nadal has more slams, Masters titles, Olympic golds, career grand slam, multiple slams on each surface, better win %, overall titles won, matches won, longevity, and imo prime Rafa was more dominant than prime Sampras, while also being better across all 3 surfaces.

Sampras has greater number one stats but that's because Nadal had to compete with Federer and Djokovic for his whole career, while Pete's biggest rival was Agassi who was in and out of the game until he was in his late 20's.
Pretty sure Nadal had multiple years at #2 with more points than Pete did to take #1 in some years...
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Pretty sure Nadal had multiple years at #2 with more points than Pete did to take #1 in some years...
Yea I believe Rafa gained more points in 2005, 2007 and 2011 when he was number two than Pete did in 1996 and 1998 when he was number one. Rafa's number one seasons (particularly 2008, 2010, and 2013) were also all more dominant than any of Sampras' seasons.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Watching Sampras in full flow at his peak was one of the most exhilarating experiences! I wish he had played a few years longer. I really think he retired too soon and could have won a few more slams.
The only realistic chances would have been Australian Open 2003 and US Open 2003. Because otherwise he had to win RG or beat Federer at one of the other Slams. Both is next to impossible. Remember we don't talk about the Wimbledon 2001 Federer then anymore, but (starting in late 2003) about a quality Sampras never faced in his career.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
The only realistic chances would have been Australian Open 2003 and US Open 2003. Because otherwise he had to win RG or beat Federer at one of the other Slams. Both is next to impossible. Remember we don't talk about the Wimbledon 2001 Federer then anymore, but (starting in late 2003) about a quality Sampras never faced in his career.
Chris ... This is the same argument Nadal/Djokovic fans use to play down Federer's achievements prior to 2008. It's an argument that has no merit in either case, sorry!
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Chris ... This is the same argument Nadal/Djokovic fans use to play down Federer's achievements prior to 2008. It's an argument that has no merit in either case, sorry!
No, they talk as if the players Federer faced (like Baghdatis, Gonzalez etc.) shouldn’t have been in any Slam final.

I only said that Sampras never faced someone as great as peak Federer. This shouldn’t be surprising if Federer is the GOAT (which I believe he is). But even if you not believe that, surely you don’t think that Agassi (as Sampras’ best opponent) is as good as peak Federer?
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
No, they talk as if the players Federer faced (like Baghdatis, Gonzalez etc.) shouldn’t have been in any Slam final.

I only said that Sampras never faced someone as great as peak Federer. This shouldn’t be surprising if Federer is the GOAT (which I believe he is). But even if you not believe that, surely you don’t think that Agassi (as Sampras’ best opponent) is as good as peak Federer?
Otha, what kind of argument is that? By the same token, a Sampras fan may claim Nadal or Djokovic are not as good as prime Sampras. In fact, I'd agree with them because Sampras's grass game was of a much higher caliber than either Nadal or Djokovic and Federer repeatedly loses to Djokovic.

Such arguments are weak.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
No, they talk as if the players Federer faced (like Baghdatis, Gonzalez etc.) shouldn’t have been in any Slam final.

I only said that Sampras never faced someone as great as peak Federer. This shouldn’t be surprising if Federer is the GOAT (which I believe he is). But even if you not believe that, surely you don’t think that Agassi (as Sampras’ best opponent) is as good as peak Federer?
That's something you'll need to discuss with them. I've said numerous times that I don't buy these weak era arguments. You cannot choose your opponents.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Otha, what kind of argument is that? By the same token, a Sampras fan may claim Nadal or Djokovic are not as good as prime Sampras. In fact, I'd agree with them because Sampras's grass game was of a much higher caliber than either Nadal or Djokovic and Federer repeatedly loses to Djokovic.

Such arguments are weak.
It isn’t a weak argument that someone with 20 Slams is a much better player than someone with 8 Slams.

Also if Federer is GOAT and Sampras didn’t play against peak Federer, then of course Sampras never faced someone as good in his career.

Edit: I agree with your other post about weak eras. But then it's even more about numbers, so Federer's 20 of course is much more impressive than Agassi's 8 Slams.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
It isn’t a weak argument that someone with 20 Slams is a much better player than someone with 8 Slams.

Also if Federer is GOAT and Sampras didn’t play against peak Federer, then of course Sampras never faced someone as good in his career.

Edit: I agree with your other post about weak eras. But then it's even more about numbers, so Federer's 20 of course is much more impressive than Agassi's 8 Slams.
I understand your point but it's flawed. Federer is certainly better than Agassi but is he better than Sampras? I can't be too sure. Using your logic, I'd have to conclude that Emerson is a greater player than Laver.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
I understand your point but it's flawed. Federer is certainly better than Agassi but is he better than Sampras? I can't be too sure. Using your logic, I'd have to conclude that Emerson is a greater player than Laver.
Emerson is another story. He won all of his 12 Slams when Professionals like Laver and Rosewall weren’t allowed to compete there.

Also what I said (that Sampras never facedsomeone as tough as peak Federer) doesn’t necessary have to mean that Sampras himself isn’t as good. I think that peak Sampras could have won a Slam match against Federer here and there.

But remember the Sampras who won the 2002 US Open was only good at that tournament and before he didn’t win a single ATP event (even down to 250 level) in 34 tries. He was literally done after Wimbledon 2000, and the 2002 US Open was his last hurrah.

And there is no way that THIS Sampras would trouble Federer from 2004 on.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Emerson is another story. He won all of his 12 Slams when Professionals like Laver and Rosewall weren’t allowed to compete there.

Also what I said (that Sampras never facedsomeone as tough as peak Federer) doesn’t necessary have to mean that Sampras himself isn’t as good. I think that peak Sampras could have won a Slam match against Federer here and there.

But remember the Sampras who won the 2002 US Open was only good at that tournament and before he didn’t win a single ATP event (even down to 250 level) in 34 tries. He was literally done after Wimbledon 2000, and the 2002 US Open was his last hurrah.

And there is no way that THIS Sampras would trouble Federer from 2004 on.
Great post and agreed mostly except for one minor clarification, peak Sampras could have won a Slam match against Federer here and there ... on these slowed down courts

On the old courts, I think it would be Federer beating Sampras ... here and there :)
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Great post and agreed mostly except for one minor clarification, peak Sampras could have won a Slam match against Federer here and there ... on these slowed down courts

On the old courts, I think it would be Federer beating Sampras ... here and there :)
I would say then it depends on the racquets (which are more important than the surface change). With modern strings and racquets I think Federer would win even on 90s courts. With older racquets and the chance to play serve&volley Sampras would be at least 50/50 or even better.

I fear with poly strings even Rafa and Djokovic could beat Sampras on any surface. I would like to see Sampras winning this hypothetical matchup though.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
I would say then it depends on the racquets (which are more important than the surface change). With modern strings and racquets I think Federer would win even on 90s courts. With older racquets and the chance to play serve&volley Sampras would be at least 50/50 or even better.

I fear with poly strings even Rafa and Djokovic could beat Sampras on any surface. I would like to see Sampras winning this hypothetical matchup though.
Yes, too many possibilities. Overall, no complaints. I loved watching Sampras play and now I enjoy watching the top 3.
 
Top