IF Nadal wins the USO, does he surpass Sampras on the ATG leaderboard?

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Before the RG Final this year, a similar question to this was posed just before Nadal was about to capture his 15th major title. To my surprise, many people still claimed then, that Nadal would still not be above Sampras on the ATG leader board due to his GS wins being too lopsided towards clay, however now that he has a chance to win another hard court slam, i'm wondering if those same people have changed their minds.

I honestly don't care if you haven't changed your opinion on this, however i'd be lying if I said it it didn't interest me. So right now i'm giving people the opportunity to express their views and explain their viewpoint. If you wish, you can format your response like this.

1. IF Nadal wins the USO, will he have surpassed Sampras on the ATG leaderboard? Why?

2. If No, what does he need to win, in order to do so?

Here is my answer.
1. Yes. Because to me, it doesn't matter what surface you win your slams on, so long as you win them. If a player were to win for example 11 WIMB, 1 RG, 2 AO, 2 UO. I would consider this player on par with someone who wins 4 AO, 4 FO, 4 WIMB, 4 UO. And i'll explain why. Every player has a certain style of play which they are unable to change. This gives them certain advantages and disadvantages depending on who they play and on what surface they play on, and depending on the surface, these advantages and disadvantages can be magnified. For example, players like Nadal and Wawrinka who both stand further behind the baseline than the average player and take more time to wind up their shots which will give them more power at the expense of needing extra time. Advantage = Power Disadvantage = Time needed to set up. This style of play works extremely well on clay, however at the expense of not working well on grass. So for Nadal this is why his GS wins are skewed towards clay. Now in order for him to win more GS on surfaces off of clay, this would require him to change his game to suit other surfaces more, however that would in turn make him less likely to win on clay. This is why I think balance in GS wins doesn't matter, because even if Nadal changes his style of play to win more on hard and grass, it'd be at the expense of winning on clay, so overall, that does not make him a better player.

Edit: I should mention that for me, Nadal had already gone ahead of Sampras after the conclusion of 2013, however this thread's target audience was intended to be mainly those who regard Sampras as better. I'm still yet to hear any sound reasoning from my intended target audience as to why they hold their viewpoint, but I encourage more people to come forward to state their opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:

deacsyoga

Banned
The vast majority and consensus already had him over Sampras after RG this year. So no, you cant do something that was already done.

However I would say those still in denial at that point would just become an outright mockery.

He'll still be behind Federer, Laver, Sampras, Djokovic, Lendl, Borg and Renshaw.
:D Lendl and Renshaw, that is some epic trolling of the 10th degree. As for Djokovic he had better come back super strong next year or he is permanently relegated to 3rd best of his era once again.

Agree. Lendl with 8 Grand Slams is much better than Nadal with 15/16.
Lend does not even belong above Connors IMO. And for those who heavily factor value peak play, dominance, and quality of competition, along with achievements and the rest, perhaps not McEnroe.
 

Devin

Semi-Pro
This will solidify it. 2 more slams definitely make up for Sampras' WTF titles and more weeks at #1. I can see Nadal being #1 for a while, so I think he will make up some ground there as well.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Nadal was ahead at 14. In the real world, not fantasyland(TTW), a Career Slam trumps anything. A Career Slam is and always has been the historical tiebreaker among players.

Today?

15 slams/7 finals > 14 slams/4 finals

30 Masters > 11 Masters

Career Golden Slam > no Career Slam

Dominating Fed > Dominating Agassi

Nadal is already ahead by a good margin and is still active. When Nadal retires, if Sampras is within 3 slams and 25 Masters, he'll be lucky.
 
Last edited:

deacsyoga

Banned
This will solidify it. 2 more slams definitely make up for Sampras' WTF titles and more weeks at #1. I can see Nadal being #1 for a while, so I think he will make up some ground there as well.
Yes and even bringing up Nadal's weak competition currently holds no ground given Sampras's competition for the #1 rank from 96-98, or anytime apart from Agassi in 95 if we are being real.

Sampras is honestly more highly regarded in the General section of this site than anywhere else here or elsewhere. On the Former Pro section most have him behind not only Djokovic, but even Borg. And most historians or major tennis magazines or ranking lists I see have had Sampras behind Borg since he had been retired atleast 8 years as well. And I agree with that, I personally have him 5th in the Open Era behind Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Borg, while I would have Nadal 2nd.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
Nadal is the second greatest tennis player of all time and the greatest clay player of all time. End of story. Only predominant US tennis fans rank Sampras above Rafa which is probably stilted nationalism.

Having watched tennis for 40 years without a significant horse in the race (Canadian, eh), I'd rank the following as the best tennis players I ever watched:
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Borg
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
5,tie) Djokovic
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Before the RG Final this year, a similar question to this was posed just before Nadal was about to capture his 15th major title. To my surprise, many people still claimed then, that Nadal would still not be above Sampras on the ATG leader board due to his GS wins being too lopsided towards clay, however now that he has a chance to win another hard court slam, i'm wondering if those same people have changed their minds.

I honestly don't care if you haven't changed your opinion on this, however i'd be lying if I said it it didn't interest me. So right now i'm giving people the opportunity to express their views and explain their viewpoint. If you wish, you can format your response like this.

1. IF Nadal wins the USO, will he have surpassed Sampras on the ATG leaderboard? Why?

2. If No, what does he need to win, in order to do so?

Here is my answer.
1. Yes. Because to me, it doesn't matter what surface you win your slams on, so long as you win them. If a player were to win for example 11 WIMB, 1 RG, 2 AO, 2 UO. I would consider this player on par with someone who wins 4 AO, 4 FO, 4 WIMB, 4 UO. And i'll explain why. Every player has a certain style of play which they are unable to change. This gives them certain advantages and disadvantages depending on who they play and on what surface they play on, and depending on the surface, these advantages and disadvantages can be magnified. For example, players like Nadal and Wawrinka who both stand further behind the baseline than the average player and take more time to wind up their shots which will give them more power at the expense of needing extra time. Advantage = Power Disadvantage = Time needed to set up. This style of play works extremely well on clay, however at the expense of not working well on grass. So for Nadal this is why his GS wins are skewed towards clay. Now in order for him to win more GS on surfaces off of clay, this would require him to change his game to suit other surfaces more, however that would in turn make him less likely to win on clay. This is why I think balance in GS wins doesn't matter, because even if Nadal changes his style of play to win more on hard and grass, it'd be at the expense of winning on clay, so overall, that does not make him a better player.
I would say it would be a draw !!!!
IF he wins Aussie then for sure
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is the second greatest tennis player of all time and the greatest clay player of all time. End of story. Only predominant US tennis fans rank Sampras above Rafa which is probably stilted nationalism.

Having watched tennis for 40 years without a significant horse in the race (Canadian, eh), I'd rank the following as the best tennis players I ever watched:
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Borg
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
5,tie) Djokovic
Totally wrong !!!
Federer
Sampras
NADAL
Djoker
Borg
 

octogon

Professional
Is this a troll thread?

Nadal is already way ahead of Sampras, and realistically, Nadal at worst is no. 3 on the all-time/Open era list. Only Federer and Laver have a claim to be over Nadal. Sampras may even be passed by Djokovic.
 
Is this a troll thread?

Nadal is already way ahead of Sampras, and realistically, Nadal at worst is no. 3 on the all-time/Open era list. Only Federer and Laver have a claim to be over Nadal. Sampras may even be passed by Djokovic.
Yes this is the 21st troll thread created by Rafa haters and deniers.
 

deacsyoga

Banned
Is this a troll thread?

Nadal is already way ahead of Sampras, and realistically, Nadal at worst is no. 3 on the all-time/Open era list. Only Federer and Laver have a claim to be over Nadal. Sampras may even be passed by Djokovic.
Many already have Djokovic over Sampras actually. If Djokovic makes any kind of a comeback, it is very likely to be cemented however.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Sampras was number one for 6 straight years
Let's compare Sampras during those 6 straight years of YE#1s from 1993-1998 to Nadal during his 6 peak years from 2008-2013.


Nadal: 10 slams - 5 RG, 5 slams outside RG
Sampras: 10 slams - 5 Wimbledons, 5 slams outside Wimbledon.

Nadal: 3 slam finals
Sampras: 1 slam final

Nadal: Won all four slams, a Career Slam during those 6 years
Sampras: No Career Slam during those 6 years or during any other time period.

Nadal: 17 Masters
Sampras: 8 Masters

Nadal: 1 gold medal
Sampras: 3 WTFs

Nadal: 37 titles
Sampras: 43 titles



Nadal was arguably more dominant during those 6 years from 2008-2013 than Sampras was during his 6 straight YE#1s, especially when you consider Nadal did it against two other tier 1 greats. The only thing Sampras really has over Nadal would be total titles, but they are mostly of the smaller variety.

By themselves, weeks at #1 are meaningless. You still have to look at the numbers behind the weeks. Not all weeks at #1 are equal, plain and simple. Sampras has one of the highest percentages of weeks at #1 while holding only one slam while Nadal is tied for second least.
 

timnz

Legend
Nadal was ahead at 14. In the real world, not fantasyland(TTW), a Career Slam trumps anything. A Career Slam is and always has been the historical tiebreaker among players.

Today?

15 slams/7 finals > 14 slams/4 finals

30 Masters > 19 Masters

Career Golden Slam > no Career Slam

Dominating Fed > Dominating Agassi

Nadal is already ahead by a good margin and is still active. When Nadal retires, if Sampras is within 3 slams and 15 Masters, he'll be lucky.
Sampras 19 Masters?
 

MugOpponent

Hall of Fame
Nadal was ahead at 14. In the real world, not fantasyland(TTW), a Career Slam trumps anything. A Career Slam is and always has been the historical tiebreaker among players.

Today?

15 slams/7 finals > 14 slams/4 finals

30 Masters > 11 Masters

Career Golden Slam > no Career Slam

Dominating Fed > Dominating Agassi

Nadal is already ahead by a good margin and is still active.
When Nadal retires, if Sampras is within 3 slams and 25 Masters, he'll be lucky.
Nadal is definitely ahead of Sampras for all the reasons you mention here. One other thing that needs to be noted about Nadal's place in history is that the French Open is the toughest slam to dominate so for him to do what he's done is even more impressive when that's taken into account. I don't even see how it's that debatable especially if Nadal wins this US Open and a couple more FOs and maybe an Aussie. As mentioned I regard Djokovic as higher than Sampras as well but that will be more concrete if/when Novak comes back and wins a few more slams.
 
Is this a troll thread?

Nadal is already way ahead of Sampras, and realistically, Nadal at worst is no. 3 on the all-time/Open era list. Only Federer and Laver have a claim to be over Nadal. Sampras may even be passed by Djokovic.
Agree that Nadal ranks only behind Federer and Laver.

Winning a 16th slam and ending YE No 1 for a 4th time (if these things happen) will bring him mightily close to Laver, IMHO.
 

deacsyoga

Banned
Nadal is definitely ahead of Sampras for all the reasons you mention here. One other thing that needs to be noted about Nadal's place in history is that the French Open is the toughest slam to dominate so for him to do what he's done is even more impressive when that's taken into account. I don't even see how it's that debatable especially if Nadal wins this US Open and a couple more FOs and maybe an Aussie. As mentioned I regard Djokovic as higher than Sampras as well but that will be more concrete if/when Novak comes back and wins a few more slams.
Who do you have higher between Borg and Sampras. Personally I have Borg just marginally over Sampras and about equal to Djokovic currently.
 

deacsyoga

Banned
Yes but barely
1.Federer
2.Laver
3.Borg
4.Djokovic
5.Nadal
6.Sampras
ROTFL, Borg barely has a decent case to be over Nadal NOW, he wouldnt really have any with Nadal at 16 slams. Even the Australian Open hypothetical does not make Borg a likely 16 slam winner at all, that would mean he woud have had to win there 5 times which is a stretch at best (with everyone playing). And while I know the rankings were controversial then, he has even less time at #1 than Nadal. Nadal has far surpassed him as the clay GOAT, and has managed to win U.S Opens on hard courts and Wimbledons on grass, while Borg failed to win a U.S Open even with it on clay a few years.

Djokovic over Nadal after this year if Nadal wins the U.S Open (or heck even if he doesnt) is also a large stretch at best.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
The vast majority and consensus already had him over Sampras after RG this year. So no, you cant do something that was already done.

However I would say those still in denial at that point would just become an outright mockery.



:D Lendl and Renshaw, that is some epic trolling of the 10th degree. As for Djokovic he had better come back super strong next year or he is permanently relegated to 3rd best of his era once again.



Lend does not even belong above Connors IMO. And for those who heavily factor value peak play, dominance, and quality of competition, along with achievements and the rest, perhaps not McEnroe.
Yes, I still had Sampras over him but it was very close. I accept I'm in the minority. I do tend to value time at 1, YEC etc...things a more traditional number 1 would have.

BUT, I do think people take that too far to discredit Nadal as well. If he wins the USO, you cannot deny it anymore though. It's a done deal, forget criticizing the draw or whatever. He's 2nd best to Federer in Open Era.

And yes Djokovic better come back strong if he wants to be back in the mix as not "only" the clear 3rd best of his generation. Perhaps seeing the succcess Federer and Nadal have had this year while in their 30s, while frustratingly moving the goalposts further away, will also inspire him that there is more history to write.
 

ultradr

Legend
In my list,
Gonzalez and Laver in pre-open era
And Sampras in open era.


I have not seen anyone better yet last 15 years or so (modern baseline era on homogeneous surfaces)

The 1st notable last 15 years: the undisputed clay Goat with probably immortal record of LA decima, Nadal.

2nd notable will be Novak slam.

The 3rd would be the most successful and most widely popular player in history: Roger Federer.
 
Open Era:

1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic/Sampras (tie that Novak will break next year most likely with more slams)
5. Borg (should be higher but retired too young)

Nuf sed.
 

BGod

Legend
Level of competition is in my opinion lower to begin with bit to answer your question he'll still be 0<5 for WTF and no longer in Bo5 either. Plus the weeks at #1 being almost half of Pete.

What he needs? Another non-clay Slam and 2 WTFs. Then he's ahead in my books. And I mean more than a 3rd USO.
 
Top