Is Sampras licking his lips at the thought of Djokovic being finished?

[octogon]

Good old Pistol Pete...the Goat who never was. The guy whose relentless chase for Grand Slams defined in the eyes of many the numerical slam count as the ultimate indicator of the best tennis player in history.

Only he got overtaken by two players in slam count less than two decades after his retirement. Sampras seems to have fully accepted that Federer and Nadal have overtaken him in the history of the game. For Pete, it was always about slams, and both have more slams than him. Sampras also seemed resigned to Djokovic at least equalling, if not overtaking his slam count. But no one saw Nole's epic decline coming. He may yet recover....people wrote Nadal off after all, and he came back.

But if Djokovic never comes back to win more slams, I wonder if Sampras will claim some sort of moral victory, considering many started putting Djokovic ahead of him historically. That he, not Djokovic is the 3rd greatest player of the open era. Yes, Djokovic is clearly the more complete player, having won slams on all surfaces (though I suppose Sampras could argue that surfaces in his era had less similarities, and weren't as homogonised). But to Sampras 14>12.

Quick Maths, bruv!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I'm not convinced that Djoker is done - I'm not prepared to write him off. He is too good.

 

[axlrose]

I don't think he cares, to be honest.

I think we care about it more than players themselves.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

Sampras has had his record already broken by Nadal and Federer.

He really shouldn’t care at this point if a third player breaks his record, especially a player who will definitely deserve it if he pulls it together and accomplishes it.

 

[Zhilady]

I think he kind of stopped caring after 2012, because that's when he lost all claims of being the best player of the Open Era. Before that, he made staunch efforts to shift the goalposts in his favor.

 

[reaper]

I'm sure Sampras has been crying himself to sleep for years at the prospect of losing the bronze medal position.

 

[duaneeo]

I suspect Sampras does care. Top-3 sounds so much better than Top-4.

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

Yes.




Although I think Djokovic is greater than Sampras.

 

[reaper]

I suspect Sampras does care. Top-3 sounds so much better than Top-4.

Assuming either Nadal or Federer get to 21 slams his record will have been broken by 50%...so his record turned out to be not much of a record at all. I doubt he'd give it a moment's thought.

 

[IowaGuy]

But to Sampras 14>12.

And Sampras had a stronger era, without all these NextGen flailing about. He had actual competition for his slams besides just having to beat Agassi

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Djoker should learn to S&v To extend his career.

 

[True Fanerer]

I think he was prepared for it like the rest of us. Now he could be cautiously giving it a second thought in his own mind maybe. I still consider him #3 ahead of Djokovic.

 

[duaneeo]

Assuming either Nadal or Federer get to 21 slams his record will have been broken by 50%...so his record turned out to be not much of a record at all.

Still top-3; bronze medal; 2nd runner-up.

 

[tennisaddict]

Pete was a monster on 2 out of 3 surfaces. Pete had 6 YE 1 and dominated his era . He has genuine claims for No 2 position .

 

[oldmanfan]

Still top-3; bronze medal; 2nd runner-up.

And 1st #14!
This is important. It leads to Fedr.

 

[octogon]

I think he kind of stopped caring after 2012, because that's when he lost all claims of being the best player of the Open Era. Before that, he made staunch efforts to shift the goalposts in his favor.

Nah...He was probably depressed when Federer took his record, but he knew it was coming for awhile. Everyone was expecting it. He was prepared for it. I don't think he expected Nadal at all to overtake his record, and that was probably the bigger gut punch. At least if it was just Federer ahead of him, Sampras could console himself that he could be considered the 2nd greatest player of the open era, which is still damned impressive.

Of course Pete still cares about his standing/legacy in the game, and he will until he dies. If he's not first, he'd rather be second than third. And if he's not second, he'd rather third than fourth.

Djokovic not overtaking or matching his slam count will be huge for Sampras.

 

[West Coast Ace]

I don't think he cares, to be honest.

Agree. His legacy as one of the greats is secure. Once you’re not #1 it really doesn’t matter.

 

[travlerajm]

Pete was and still is the second best tennis player in the history of the universe. Nadal is better at spinning balls that bounce high on dirt, but Pete is better at tennis. 7 Wimbledon titles. 6 consecutive years #1 in toughest era ever. Nuff said.

 

[duaneeo]

Pete was a monster on 2 out of 3 surfaces. Pete had 6 YE 1 and dominated his era . He has genuine claims for No 2 position .

I disagree. Nadal has the CGS, made it to 5 more slam finals, and has made the final at least 4 times at all four slams. Nadal also has the 31 (and counting) Masters.

 

[octogon]

Agree. His legacy as one of the greats is secure. Once you’re not #1 it really doesn’t matter.

That's not true at all. Not all all-time greats are celebrated equally. I'd much rather have Bjorn Borgs legacy than Mats Wilander, even though both are greats.

 

[travlerajm]

I disagree. Nadal has the CGS, made it to 5 more slam finals, and has made the final at least 4 times at all four slams. Nadal also has the 31 (and counting) Masters.

But Nadal was not even the best active player for majority of his prime, first behind Fed, then behind Novak.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I wonder if Sampras will claim some sort of moral victory, considering many started putting Djokovic ahead of him historically.

I have never heard or read that any legitimate tennis broadcaster/analysis ever put Djokovic over Pete on any GOAT list. Sure, there was a brief flurry for that after Noval won the CGS, but it quickly died down. 14 slams trumps 12, even when Pete never bagged the FO.

 

[tennisaddict]

I disagree. Nadal has the CGS, made it to 5 more slam finals, and has made the final at least 4 times at all four slams. Nadal also has the 31 (and counting) Masters.

To each his own. Nadal's resume is heavily clay skewed and too imbalanced to my liking for an ATG.

 

[octogon]

But Nadal was not even the best active player for majority of his prime, first behind Fed, then behind Novak.

That's ridiculous. Nadal can't be penalised for being an early bloomer who was competitive with 2 GOAT candidates from overlapping generations at their very peaks. Nadal overthrew Federer at his peak (and I don't want to hear any nonsense about "Mono"), and very shortly after another GOAT candidate (Djokovic) starts peaking and Nadal has to fight him hard, yet still beats him often at slams, even though Djokovic was designed to beat him. Nadal basically did what Borg couldn't do against McEnroe, and weathered the storm

What Nadal did was incredible. He regularly beat two GOAT level players at their very peaks in slams. If anything, what Nadal did againt peak versions of Djokovic and Federer is an argument for him being GOAT, not an argument against.

 

[timnz]

Pete was a monster on 2 out of 3 surfaces. Pete had 6 YE 1 and dominated his era . He has genuine claims for No 2 position .

He is just too far behind in other criteria for me. Masters 1000's (or equivalents) Nadal is in a different universe than Pete. You may say that Sampras didn't prioritize them - but that is his problem - he certainly competed in a large number of them.

 

[Winners or Errors]

No, he's not.

Djoker could not have hung with Sampras on a fast court. Rafa could not have hung with Sampras on a fast court. Even Federer, at his peak, would have been a 50/50 shot against Sampras on a fast court. Yes, he was that good. I'm not even a Sampras fan and I'm willing to acknowledge that fact. He may very well be the fast court GOAT. He certainly has a hand on that imaginary trophy. Court homogenization has forever changed the question of slam count.

Doing what has been done since Wimbledon changed their grass and the U.S. open slowed their courts with racking up slam titles was possible at no earlier time. I hope for the heterogeneous court movement to gain some steam... and in some distant future people will wonder how it was possible to win all the slams of this era with so few adjustments by the champions from tournament to tournament. Then they will laugh and say... "homogeneous era, chuckle, that wasn't tennis." ;-)