Is Djokovic ALREADY greater than Sampras?

[Nadalgaenger]

I'm sure this will draw some livid reactions, and no this is not a pathetic trolling attempt.

I think there is a legitimate argument to be made based on dominance.

Here are the main reasons one can at least ARGUE the point:
1) Djokovic has had a streak of dominance and consistency on all surfaces far more impressive than anything Sampras produced.
2) Sampras competed against a field of very good players, but he won the majority of in an era in which only one great was around (Agassi), and I don't think many people here would consider Agassi on a par with Fedal.
3) Barring a cataclysmic injury or the improbable rise of a foe, Djokovic will win several more GS tournaments in the next two seasons.
4) Djokovic's record on clay is far, far greater than Sampras' and he would have won 2-3 FO titles by now had he not had to deal with the clay GOAT.
5) Djokovic's record at Master's 1000 and outside the slams is far more impressive than Sampras'
6) Djokovic's win percentage is far greater than Sampras's.
7) Djokovic's consistency at GS events is far greater than Sampras" What was Sampras' longest QF streak? Djokovic is the only person in the same stratosphere as Federer with regard to consecutive QF and SF at GS events.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

No.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The stuff I encourage...

..
..


..

But to be serious, most consider Nadal, Sampras and Borg to be in a similar sort of ballpark, so if one thinks Djokovic is greater than Sampras there's a good chance they also already believe he's at least as great or greater than Nadal and Borg also.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Sampras' most "dominant" season was probably 1994, in which he went 77-12 and won two GS titles and 3 Masters events.
Djokovic has produced four seasons already with a higher win percentage.

 

[mike danny]

So far Sampras has way more weeks at no.1 and more WTF titles. He is still ahead.

Djokovic this year can tie Sampras in WTF titles but he will need a lot of luck to catch him at weeks at no.1.

And as others have said, Masters tournaments weren't as important back in Sampras's time as they are now. Otherwise I am sure Sampras would have won more than 11.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I think your arguments are somewhat valid (though for the record I still see Sampras as "greater").

Sampras is an awkward cat to judge because his whole way of going about things just wasn't like Djokovic's at all. Of all the great champions, he's the one who treated the tour in the most top heavy fashion - only Slams matter kind of stuff. So he looks inconsistent and his average level was not as high as Djokovic's or most (nearly all) other ATGs, but he didn't try to be consistently brilliant but was instead just brilliant when it really mattered; and that brilliance leads many of us to believe he is in the running for being the best player of all time on grass and quicker hard courts.

Sampras' career win percentage was far less a result of "polarised conditions" and much more a result of his character and way of going about things.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

So far Sampras has way more weeks at no.1 and more WTF titles. He is still ahead.

Djokovic this year can tie Sampras in WTF titles but he will need a lot of luck to catch him at weeks at no.1.

And as others have said, Masters tournaments weren't as important back in Sampras's time as they are now. Otherwise I am sure Sampras would have won more than 11.

Best way to judge this is against Agassi, who won way less Slams and way more Masters. 8-17 v 14-11. Says a lot.

Or you could argue that enough of the Masters events were on conditions that didn't so obviously favour Sampras and that he was lucky that Wimbledon and the USO were so nippy.

I guess Sampras is the biggest overachiever in history then. . . . . . .. .....

 

[GabeT]

I don't think Nole is greater, but I do think Nole is a more complete player given his much better record in clay.

 

[SpinToWin]

There are arguments for many things in the world, that doesn't make them right though.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Great to point out ALREADY.
I think the fact that Djokovic is ALREADY even in discussion with Sampras is great.
Pete has a lot more weeks at number 1 spot and more Slams. Djokovic will go over the 200 weeks mark for sure, and it is safe to say I think he is not staying at 10 Slams. Winning FO would give him a huge argument in the comparisons with Sampras.
Because I never followed him, I was wondering... Was he THAT bad on clay so he never even reached an FO final?

 

[user]

No. He's not close either, but still reachable.

 

[mavsman149]

He's not as great yet. I would say his peak level is greater though and I do believe he will be greater overall by the end of his career.

 

[NatF]

Great to point out ALREADY.
I think the fact that Djokovic is ALREADY even in discussion with Sampras is great.
Pete has a lot more weeks at number 1 spot and more Slams. Djokovic will go over the 200 weeks mark for sure, and it is safe to say I think he is not staying at 10 Slams. Winning FO would give him a huge argument in the comparisons with Sampras.
Because I never followed him, I was wondering... Was he THAT bad on clay so he never even reached an FO final?

Because one nutjob on a tennis forum starts a thread that doesn't make it a discussion

 

[xFedal]

Hmmm, even as a die hard fan, I have to say Pete is still ahead and greater, unfortunately for Pete is that Novak is on a mission, to tie Petes 5 WTF. Then he will proceed to win AO & RG after that I will consider Djokovic to be greater.

 

[BeatlesFan]

God... it never ends with some delusional Djoker fans.

NO... emphatically... Djoker isn't close to Sampras' greatness. To even suggest he's "greater" is absurdity incarnate. And please don't trot out Novak's Masters 1000 wins. Pete Sampras has 7 Wimbledons and 5 USO's. Let's not even bring up his 6 straight years of YE #1 and weeks at the top. End of story.

 

[RF-18]

No he is not. I don't like arguments such as wich opponents they played, ''weaker'' field etc. (there is no such thing imo)

Masters was a new thing in their time and it is hard to compare.

Sampras slam spread is legendary. 7 wimbledon titles and 5 USOs, djokovic has more to do in order to reach that performance. So far he matches at AO but he is not quite there with Sampras on the other slams.

Sampras also dominated the field in fashions Djoko has not reached yet (or any other player). Six straight year end number ones is hard to beat. He was the best player in the world for 6 straight seasons, listen to that. Sampras IMO is in Federers tier, if we consider dominance over the field but also slam spread, but fed of course has achieved a bit more than him.

Djokovic has alot left to do if he wants to catch Federer and Sampras. Nadal on the other hand is a much shorter bridge to cross, for obvious reasons. Nadal vs Djokovic is a much more legit discussion than this. Djokovic is not much close to Sampras atm. Your arguments are very weak.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Because one nutjob on a tennis forum starts a thread that doesn't make it a discussion

Well I think Djokovic has only Federer, Sampras, Nadal (and maybe Laver and Borg) ahead of him. Though Federer is still a bit far, others certainly are not. I myself don't think Djokovic is great as Sampras yet, but with this tempo, he could be as soon as 2016.
Novak left others behind, now he will be compared with remaining few others still ahead. What I meant was it is great that Djokovic is in discussion to catch Sampras, not in discussion about him being already great(er).

 

[Numero Uno]

yes sampras has 4 more slams and mora weeks at number 1 (although djokovic is catching up quickly) but sampras results at clay are miserable, for me clay is almost half of tennis and thats just tpo big hole in his career and i cant count him even in top5 goats...

 

[Alien]

It is a question of tropheys. Therefore, Nole is still playing and once he reached 14 Slams then the answer is yes. Not for the moment though.

As for level, it is clear Djokovic is in a superior level of tennis as 20 years have passed; he would destroy Pete except maybe on the fastest grass and probably even there...

 

[Nadalgaenger]

God... it never ends with some delusional Djoker fans.

NO... emphatically... Djoker isn't close to Sampras' greatness. To even suggest he's "greater" is absurdity incarnate. And please don't trot out Novak's Masters 1000 wins. Pete Sampras has 7 Wimbledons and 5 USO's. Let's not even bring up his 6 straight years of YE #1 and weeks at the top. End of story.

Then why couldn't he dominate the field more? Why couldn't he reach GS QF's and SF's as consistently? Let's face it, he was much less consistent, much more sporadic, and did not have to compete against the two greatest players in tennis history to win his slams.

Agassi would no doubt agree that Djokovic is greater than Sampras. He has already said that Fed/Nadal/Djoker are the three greatest players in history.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Basically this question is very similar to the question of whether Fed in 2007 was already greater than Sampras.

In 2007, Federer had not yet equalled Sampras in GS but had been much more dominant than Sampras ever was. It was a foregone conclusion that he would pass Pete and he did. I think most experts in 2007 thought that Federer would reach 20 or more GS. As recently as 2010 that seemed a likelihood.

I respect the argument that Sampras has to be considered "greater" based on his career achievements. But it is very hard to argue that he was ever even close to as dominant as Djokovic has been.

 

[timnz]

So far Sampras has way more weeks at no.1 and more WTF titles. He is still ahead.

Djokovic this year can tie Sampras in WTF titles but he will need a lot of luck to catch him at weeks at no.1.

And as others have said, Masters tournaments weren't as important back in Sampras's time as they are now. Otherwise I am sure Sampras would have won more than 11.

Are you saying that Sampras didn't try hard at Masters 1000's? If that is the case we shouldn't give him credit for not trying hard. If he did try hard, then why didn't he win more of them? Either way he won 11 (or a maximum of 15 equivalents - if you include early 90s Indianapolis and Philadelphia).

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

@Nadalgaenger

Djokovic has his points. Here are some questions for you...

Djokovic's career ends tomorrow. In your heart of hearts who is greater, Djokovic or Sampras?

Also, in your heart of hearts, where would Djokovic place among the Trifecta of this era?

Why?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Djokovic has had a stretch of reaching 14 straight GS SF's. The best Sampras could ever muster was 5!

 

[Nadalgaenger]

@Nadalgaenger

Djokovic has his points. Here are some questions for you...

Djokovic's career ends tomorrow. In your heart of hearts who is greater, Djokovic or Sampras?

Also, in your heart of hearts, where would Djokovic place among the Trifecta of this era?

Why?

If some cataclysmic event ended Djokovic's career today, we'd have to go with Sampras, but as with Borg, we could respect that a legitimate argument can be made for Djokovic being the greater player who suffered from an artificially short career.
The same would hold for Djokovic's position in this era. Then again, I believe that Fed and Nadal are the two greatest players ever, so that is no slight to Djokovic. I think Djokovic has a decent shot at surpassing Nadal if he can put together another year like this one and even a shot at surpassing Fed if he can put together two more years like this one. That will be very hard, however.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

God... it never ends with some delusional Djoker fans.

NO... emphatically... Djoker isn't close to Sampras' greatness. To even suggest he's "greater" is absurdity incarnate. And please don't trot out Novak's Masters 1000 wins. Pete Sampras has 7 Wimbledons and 5 USO's. Let's not even bring up his 6 straight years of YE #1 and weeks at the top. End of story.

Is it "absurdity incarnate" to argue that Borg was greater than Sampras? I think good arguments could be made for Borg as well. GS are a very important part of the resume, but not the only part. How many YE#1's would Sampras have had in this era, competing with Fedal?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Djokovic has had a stretch of reaching 14 straight GS SF's. The best Sampras could ever muster was 5!

Actually, he did not have more than 3 semis in a row.

 

[RF-18]

Then why couldn't he dominate the field more? Why couldn't he reach GS QF's and SF's as consistently? Let's face it, he was much less consistent, much more sporadic, and did not have to compete against the two greatest players in tennis history to win his slams.

Agassi would no doubt agree that Djokovic is greater than Sampras. He has already said that Fed/Nadal/Djoker are the three greatest players in history.

How do you judge dominance?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

No he is not. I don't like arguments such as wich opponents they played, ''weaker'' field etc. (there is no such thing imo)

Masters was a new thing in their time and it is hard to compare.

Sampras slam spread is legendary. 7 wimbledon titles and 5 USOs, djokovic has more to do in order to reach that performance. So far he matches at AO but he is not quite there with Sampras on the other slams.

Sampras also dominated the field in fashions Djoko has not reached yet (or any other player). Six straight year end number ones is hard to beat. He was the best player in the world for 6 straight seasons, listen to that. Sampras IMO is in Federers tier, if we consider dominance over the field but also slam spread, but fed of course has achieved a bit more than him.

Djokovic has alot left to do if he wants to catch Federer and Sampras. Nadal on the other hand is a much shorter bridge to cross, for obvious reasons. Nadal vs Djokovic is a much more legit discussion than this. Djokovic is not much close to Sampras atm. Your arguments are very weak.

The bias in your thinking is so obvious. So Djokovic has won 3 more AO than Sampras but instead of saying that he is is better than Sampras here you say he "matches."
When you say Sampras "dominated the field", then why did he never reach all four GS finals in a year and win 3/4? Why did he never put together a season comparable to Djokovic's 2011 or 2015?
Also, how is the Nadal vs. Djokovic question "much more legit"? Nadal is a greater player than Sampras because he won GS titles on all surfaces and won most of his players against Federer and Djokovic. Sampras beat up on ONE great player and two or three others in the twilight of their career but also faced off against the likes of Pioline, Chang, and Moya in GS finals.

 

[Red Rick]

I think Sampras is overrated, he only stood out in #slam wins (and YEC), and weeks and YE#1. Djokovic is so much more consistent, if he takes the French next year I'll rate him greater than Sampras.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't think Nole is greater, but I do think Nole is a more complete player given his much better record in clay.

Pretty much how I feel too.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Stats that favor Pete:
GS Titles:
Pete 14
Novak 10 (and rising)

WTF:
Pete 6
Novak 4 (and rising)

Year End #1
Pete 6
Djokovic 4

Dominance of one surface (grass)
Sampras>>>Novak

Intangibles argument:
Sampras was the dominant player of his era. Bar none.



Stats that favor Novak:
Masters 1000 titles
Novak 25
Pete 11

Career win percentage
Novak 82%
Sampras 77%

Consecutive GS SF:
Novak 14
Sampras 3

Consecutive GS QF
Novak 26
Pete 10

Dominant individual seasons:
Novak's 2011, 2015>>>Sampras 1994

Success on all surfaces:
Novak >>>>Sampras

Intangibles argument:
Novak competed in the Golden Era of tennis and won the lion's share of his slams against two players that were greater than or equal to Sampras and far greater than anyone Sampras had to play.


Conclusion:
Novak's resume is ARGUABLY greater already and likely his career totals will equal or surpass Sampras in most of the important areas. However, based on 10/22/15, we have to still conclude that Sampras has the greater overall resume because of his GS totals.

 

[RF-18]

The bias in your thinking is so obvious. So Djokovic has won 3 more AO than Sampras but instead of saying that he is is better than Sampras here you say he "matches."
When you say Sampras "dominated the field", then why did he never reach all four GS finals in a year and win 3/4? Why did he never put together a season comparable to Djokovic's 2011 or 2015?
Also, how is the Nadal vs. Djokovic question "much more legit"? Nadal is a greater player than Sampras because he won GS titles on all surfaces and won most of his players against Federer and Djokovic. Sampras beat up on ONE great player and two or three others in the twilight of their career but also faced off against the likes of Pioline, Chang, and Moya in GS finals.

I really have no bias, that is the last thing I'm here. The thing about ''matches'' you clearly got it wrong. I did not mean Sampras matches him at AO, what I meant was, sampras won 5+ slams at two grand slam events and in that department Djokovic matches him in terms of winning 5 titles at one GS event, but the thing is sampras has another slam where he won 7 titles. I think it was just a misunderstanding from your side.
But he did dominate the field. Six straight seasons of being the worlds best player and being at the top for 286 weeks, how can you possibly argue against that with Djokovics current numbers? Sampras also won Wimbledon between 93-2000 7 times out of 8 possible, in USO he was also the best during the 90s, he dominated the YECs. I'm sorry but there is no bias here I'm only stating facts.

Who they beat doesn't hold up, that is the worst argument someone can use. It is also unfair. Sampras played the best possible opposition that got presented to him in his time (and it was great opponents). How do you know how Sampras would of feared against D,F and N.

And Nadal is not greater than Sampras, stop that BS. He is not better in the GSs nor anywhere much else and your argument about who they beat is once again laughable.

 

[Djokovic2011]

@Nadalgaenger: Interesting you say that "Sampras was the dominant player of his era. Bar none". But the same thing can be said about Djokovic since 2011 and their best five year periods are certainly comparable. Between 1993-97 Pete won 9 slams, 3 WTFs and 8 Masters 1000s(37 titles in total). Between 2011-15 Novak has won 9 slams, 3 WTFs(possibly soon 4) and 20 Masters 1000s(39 titles in total). Of course the thing in Pete's favour is that he finished each of those years as number 1 and had twice as many multi-slam seasons but one could argue that two 3 slam seasons is just as impressive if not more so and that Novak would've also had 5 consecutive YE#1 if not for a resurgent Nadal who it's pretty fair to say is greater than any player Pete had to play in his pomp.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

@Nadalgaenger: Interesting you say that "Sampras was the dominant player of his era. Bar none". But the same thing can be said about Djokovic since 2011 and their best five year periods are certainly comparable. Between 1993-97 Pete won 9 slams, 3 WTFs and 8 Masters 1000s(37 titles in total). Between 2011-15 Novak has won 9 slams, 3 WTFs(possibly soon 4) and 20 Masters 1000s(39 titles in total). Of course the thing in Pete's favour is that he finished each of those years as number 1 and had twice as many multi-slam seasons but one could argue that two 3 slam seasons is just as impressive if not more so and that Novak would've also had 5 consecutive YE#1 if not for a resurgent Nadal who it's pretty fair to say is greater than any player Pete had to play in his pomp.

The problem for Djokovic is 2012-2013. He lost way too many GS finals during that time that he probably should have won. USO 2012, FO (SF) 2013 and USO 2013 come to mind here. And yes I see your point about Nadal. Sampras never had to contend with anyone remotely as good as Nadal.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I really have no bias, that is the last thing I'm here. The thing about ''matches'' you clearly got it wrong. I did not mean Sampras matches him at AO, what I meant was, sampras won 5+ slams at two grand slam events and in that department Djokovic matches him in terms of winning 5 titles at one GS event, but the thing is sampras has another slam where he won 7 titles. I think it was just a misunderstanding from your side.
But he did dominate the field. Six straight seasons of being the worlds best player and being at the top for 286 weeks, how can you possibly argue against that with Djokovics current numbers? Sampras also won Wimbledon between 93-2000 7 times out of 8 possible, in USO he was also the best during the 90s, he dominated the YECs. I'm sorry but there is no bias here I'm only stating facts.

Who they beat doesn't hold up, that is the worst argument someone can use. It is also unfair. Sampras played the best possible opposition that got presented to him in his time (and it was great opponents). How do you know how Sampras would of feared against D,F and N.

And Nadal is not greater than Sampras, stop that BS. He is not better in the GSs nor anywhere much else and your argument about who they beat is once again laughable.

Wait, so you are not biased but you deem any comparison of Nadal and Sampras, let alone Djokovic and Sampras "laughable" even when Pete has some major chinks in his armor (pathetic record on clay, mediocre performance outside slams, lack of a 3/slam season, and inferior GS opponents)?

 

[uscwang]

Stats that favor Pete:
GS Titles:
Pete 14
Novak 10 (and rising)

WTF:
Pete 6
Novak 4 (and rising)

Year End #1
Pete 6
Djokovic 4

Dominance of one surface (grass)
Sampras>>>Novak

Intangibles argument:
Sampras was the dominant player of his era. Bar none.



Stats that favor Novak:
Masters 1000 titles
Novak 25
Pete 11

Career win percentage
Novak 82%
Sampras 77%

Consecutive GS SF:
Novak 14
Sampras 3

Consecutive GS QF
Novak 26
Pete 10

Dominant individual seasons:
Novak's 2011, 2015>>>Sampras 1994

Success on all surfaces:
Novak >>>>Sampras

Intangibles argument:
Novak competed in the Golden Era of tennis and won the lion's share of his slams against two players that were greater than or equal to Sampras and far greater than anyone Sampras had to play.


Conclusion:
Novak's resume is ARGUABLY greater already and likely his career totals will equal or surpass Sampras in most of the important areas. However, based on 10/22/15, we have to still conclude that Sampras has the greater overall resume because of his GS totals.

You are making some interesting arguments.
But I felt it might be good to use a title like "How does Novak's current achievement compare with Sampras'?"

 

[Djokovic2011]

The problem for Djokovic is 2012-2013. He lost way too many GS finals during that time that he probably should have won. USO 2012, FO (SF) 2013 and USO 2013 come to mind here. And yes I see your point about Nadal. Sampras never had to contend with anyone remotely as good as Nadal.

I understand what you're saying but does a player seem more dominant to you if he loses in the early rounds as Pete often did(especially at the French) or in the final to another all time great player?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I understand what you're saying but does a player seem more dominant to you if he loses in the early rounds as Pete often did(especially at the French) or in the final to another all time great player?

Good point. Honestly Sampras simply had it much easier than Djokovic. Djokovic has regularly had to face two transcendent greats. Sampras just beat lots of very good players, and he lost to these guys a lot outside of slams.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

What we would have to acknowledge is Sampras' clutch factor. He did not lose as many big matches.
Then again, Federer suffers from the same problem that Djokovic does in the clutch category.

 

[RF-18]

Wait, so you are not biased but you deem any comparison of Nadal and Sampras, let alone Djokovic and Sampras "laughable" even when Pete has some major chinks in his armor (pathetic record on clay, mediocre performance outside slams, lack of a 3/slam season, and inferior GS opponents)?

You were the one who said Nadal is greater than Sampras like it is obvious, I said he is not. I have plenty of arguments that speak in Petes favour but I'm not gonna discuss that in this thread as it is OT, if you want my thoughts PM me.

I said it is laughable that you bring competition in the discussion as part of an argument of who is greater. It doesn't work like that.

 

[uliks]

Novak needs 2 more dominant seasons to catch and maybe overtake Sampras...

 

[Backhand Smash]

Confirmed that people should pass an IQ/mental aptitude test before they are allowed to post a new thread.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Sampras' most "dominant" season was probably 1994, in which he went 77-12 and won two GS titles and 3 Masters events.
Djokovic has produced four seasons already with a higher win percentage.

Well Sampras had to compete with a number of slam winners. Djokovic has virtually no competition.

Sampras is in same tier as Borg and Federer.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Novak needs 2 more dominant seasons to catch and maybe overtake Sampras...

1 more will probably be enough, especially if it's anything like this one!

 

[Dave1982]

History will ultimately remember greatness by Slams won & on that basis Sampras is still ahead.

If by some time traveling, parallel universe phenomenon they were able to play each other at their peak...I think Djokovic would probably win more than he'd lose (obviously surface could be contributing factor), however greatness as mentioned above will be measured by achievements and not talent alone.

Whilst I don't want to take anything away from Djokovic's ability on the red dirt, there's little doubt Pistol would have stood a much better chance of bettering his lone SF appearance in Paris if he was competing today given the homogenization of surfaces.

 

[mattosgrant]

Not yet. Not enough slams. Needs atleast 13 if he wins a French Open.

 

[mattosgrant]

Whilst I don't want to take anything away from Djokovic's ability on the red dirt, there's little doubt Pistol would have stood a much better chance of bettering his lone SF appearance in Paris if he was competing today given the homogenization of surfaces.

While the clay field today isnt exactly super deep I think Sampras would likely have even worse results today on clay with the baseline oriented field. Also clay has not been sped up or anything today. If anything clay was also faster in the 90s than it is today, as they put more topping on the clay in the mid to late 90s (which helped Sampras reach his lone semi in 96).

I dont see Sampras being a real contender at Roland Garros today at all, just as he wasnt really then.

 

[tennis_pro]

4 Slams behind. You people are really crazy. The only way I could see this being debated with Djokovic having less Slams than Sampras would be Djokovic having 13 Slams (one of which the FO)

 

[Jaitock1991]

No. Absolutely NOT.